There is one main argument against paedobaptism (infant baptism). And that is this: You don't have to do it. Nothing in Scripture mandates it, and there's not one example of it. Everyone must repent and be baptized. No one must baptize their children who have yet to repent.
-
-
Honest question: If the scriptural basis for infant baptism is found in the “household baptism” passages, then what would preclude an unbelieving spouse from being baptized? I don’t intend this to be a “gotcha” question; I’ve never looked into it. But it does seem inconsistent?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
The infant won't reject it because he/she can't. This brings us right back to the presuppositions in ones view of the covenants to make a Biblical case/defense. These are the "deeper" issues I mentioned earlier. What does the Covenant Promise really provide?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Yes. It's not sealed unless faith is the result. But then I ask this. Who is the child's Covenant head until they make a credible profession of faith? Is it Adam or Christ? If it could be Adam, then why baptize them? Romans 8:9 tells us who are His.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Yes. So the infant who grows and proves to hate the Gospel was never really saved, baptism never really did anything, and proves to be what Hebrews calls an apostate. Again, I would argue that are presupps that flip the book or Hebrews on it's head...
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thing is, Abraham is not Moses. And if we're told to limit Baptism to those who 'repent and believe', why baptize those that can not properly exercise their cognitive faculties? From the text only: go! ;)
-
When studying P&R Covenant Theology (before studying Baptist CT), I used to think if the New is really just the Old renewed, they dont even do that consistently.
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.