Answering a Query regarding Infant baptism


This is my comment at :

I was previously a Presbyterian and Reformed Christian (for 27 years) . My simple advice-don’t go there-infant baptism and Covenant Theology. It will cloud your thoughts and ruin your understanding of the Law and the Gospel.

As for circumcision as the complete parallel of baptism-this is not so. There is also continuity/discontinuity issues there. The NT equivalent of circumcision is “circumcision without hands” or regeneration.

And yes-paedobatist when asked about baptism regarding adults-will sound like baptist-check Heidelberg and Shorter Catechism. Then they flipflop in their theology when it comes to their children. The promise theology is derived Acts 2. But I am sorry-there is no promise there for infants-only for children who was part of the mob that crucified their Messiah. That promise theology is eisegesis. They did not make a contextual interpretation of that passage. And it includes also those who are far off-and we don’t baptize them all-only those “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” and “verse 41 So those who received his word were baptized”. If only I read this wholly-I had been spared of the troubles of 2o+ years.

BTW, Federal Vision and Reconstructionist problems stems from this “Infant baptism and Covenant theology”. They may disavow any knowledge or associations- but they cannot deny the pedigree.


One response to “Answering a Query regarding Infant baptism

  1. Hi, cool post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for sharing. I will probably be coming back to your blog. Keep up the good posts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s