So if it was believers only baptism from Matt 28 it wouldn’t cause a controversy when people started giving the sign to their infant children by the third century? That’s what I’m pointing out. You’d think a sacrament change would cause quite the uproar.
Not if it was from the very beginning! If the OC is about shadows & NC is about realities (can't put old wine in new wineskins), then wouldn't the shadow of faith be replaced by the reality of faith, which is what circumcision pointed to? Dt30:6, Rm2:28-29; 3:30, Ga6:15, Col2:11https://twitter.com/XpCoulson/status/1060201821787119617 …
-
-
-
Why did Popery (the influence of one man over many local congregations) not cause an uproar when it was instituted? Maybe they didn't think of sacraments the way we think they did? Granted, you have a point about change. But when changes occurred, why accept some & not others?
-
N.B. I consider myself very open to the possibility of infant baptism, just not fully convinced. Re: Popery Is it possible that when men began to influence many congregations, they said, like some do today: they made a mistake back then, we think we're doing it correctly now?
-
Also, it seems from my readings that baptism had become, by some point in history, a means of a nationalistic/tribal identification: to deny baptism was tantamount to excommunication from a nation/tribe rather than from God's people.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.