Credo-baptism?

Discussion in 'Questions?' started by Rexlion, Jan 27, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    The part of your statement that I take issue with is this.
    PROVIDED this statement does not in your estimation include those of us that take God's immutable promises made to certain Old Testament members of mankind, concerning their children's children loving the Lord, seriously, and therefore are not numbered among those who you may think have "not been listening very well to God", what you say may be correct.

    Only if your recent posts, displaying a somewhat incomplete understanding of the way God's promises, and the way God's grace extends, through His elect, through God's Covenant keeping capacity, (which is infinitely infallible, and not in any way comparable to any human capacity to keep covenants), are not trying to claim that infant baptism is un-Biblical, can you claim to be "listening very well to God", yourself.
    .
     
    Invictus likes this.
  2. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I never said or tried to imply that.

    Yes, it's entirely possible to be this, and it's not nonsense. Look around at all the non-denominational congregations. Look at the house churches in China, unaffiliated with and often isolated from denominational influences.

    Only those for whom the shoe fits. Since you seem to have donned it, go ahead and wear it.

    That would indeed by ridiculous, if that were what I wrote or meant. But it isn't. However, blind adherence to denominational standards, decrees, etc. in the face of contrary scriptural teaching is a symptom of spiritual illness.

    Nor is it an uninformed, blindfolded adherence to human clergy or their pronouncements; if it were, there would be no Anglican Church, no Lutheran Church, etc. We'd all still be RC.

    No insults? It is alleged that what I've done is create my own private religion, a one-member sect, and "faith" doesn't describe my beliefs.

    And here we have the true motive: drive me off, hope I go away. I have a better idea. You are now definitely on my IGNORE list!
     
  3. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    You should know as well as anyone that complete agreement among a billion Christians is never going to happen, this side of glory. But anyway, you're playing directly into my own contention by quoting this passage. My contention is, we should not grant any earthly leadership more credence than that which we grant to God Almighty and to His revelation (the written word of God and the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit). As Bp. Julian Dobbs pointed out in a sermon at our parish a while back, any time there is division among the Body of Christ it is a symptom that one or more of the parties to that division has not properly discerned the will and leading of God. Notice that he did not say, a party has failed to listen to some clergy or to some hierarchical order in the earthly church. No, our failing is always one of not following the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

    My counterpart has taken me to task. My alleged error? Failing to adhere to the decrees of the earthly organization known as Anglicanism. He is mistaken; he accuses me of a mote in my eye while failing to see the plank in his own, for he has claimed adherence to Anglicanism to be of primary import. It is the same error some Corinthians made in adhering primarily to Paul's teaching or to Apollos' teaching rather than looking first to God.

    Let me say this: when I joined this forum several years ago, I knew that there were a handful of issues where my understanding differed from that of the Anglican world, and I anticipated that joining here would help me grow in knowledge and sort through those issues. It has done that. At first I mostly sat back and absorbed. Then I began asking probing questions and explaining the view I then held on these issues, hoping to evoke reasonings from the word of God that would clarify things for me and help me adjust any misconceptions I'd held. I changed my views in some areas. In other areas, though, the reasoning put forth did not convincingly move me away from the understanding I held of the Bible's teaching.

    Frankly, enough time has passed and enough arguments have been made. If a legitimate case could be made from the Bible that it teaches infant baptism, that case would have been made by one or more of the members here. The fact is clear: neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught it. Rather, it appears to me that the early church began to practice infant baptism, in fairly widespread fashion, probably during the Second Century (well removed from the Apostolic era, which most informs and defines our true teaching). History suggests that they appear to have been motivated by some factor external to the Christian faith; some say it was the pestilence around 160 A.D. that killed many young children, while a few others suggest that the pagan baptismal practices prevalent in the world then (and long before then) could have been an influence. Whatever the motivation, it appears that the church fathers subsequently searched the scriptures and cobbled together a disparate grouping of verses and concepts in an attempt to justify what they already were practicing.

    I cannot betray my conscience and force myself to accept something that, in all earnestness, I believe is in error. Nor do I think very highly of being more-or-less browbeaten by someone who says my beliefs are not of the Christian faith and that I cannot be classified as an Anglican if I hold any belief that differs from "official" Anglican doctrine.

    Well, so be it. I am not Anglican. There, does that make everyone happier? :p The reason I previously wrote "Anglican" under "Religion" on my profile is because an Anglican bishop laid hands on me and received me as a member, the local Anglican parish considers me a member, and I attend there regularly. But from now on I will be careful to think of myself as an "outsider" and a "non-denominational Christian."
     
  4. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I remember the fad of non-churchgoers saying, "I don't have a religion, I have a relationship with God." I suspect that has largely been supplanted by the even lazier trope of "spiritual, not religious."
     
    Invictus and bwallac2335 like this.
  5. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    There's no need to be like that about all this. None of us "Anglicans" can know everything about God's ways. It's just that you seem to think you know more than the Anglican communion does about infant babtism, i.e. that God does not keep promises he made in the Old Testament, but we Anglicans are supposed to, that's why we baptise infants. We can all be wrong about things. It doesn't negate our status as Anglicans, it just calls into question our knowledge of the Anglican faith. If ignorance were a bar to membership, there would be a lot fewer members. :laugh:
    .
     
    Invictus likes this.
  6. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Not agreeing with everything about Anglicanism is almost, dare I say it, a prerequisite for being Anglican. I am clearly at odds over some things, however, I am clear about it, and I don't defend my position on these things at length, because there is no need, no purpose, and no advantage to the proclamation of the Gospel on these issues, however, there is both purpose and advantage in holding things together in the bonds of unity and a firm understanding of John 17. That possibly explains why I don't have an Anglican Badge on my Avatar, and I use the word œcumenical.
     
    Invictus, Rexlion and Tiffy like this.
  7. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    That's not actually what's happened here though is it. What's actually happened is you have failed to understand why infant Baptism is perfectly legitimate within the reformed tradition, (except among groups influenced by Anabaptist theology), which was largely rejected by the majority of Reformed Catholicism. Unless one is Coptic or Greek or Russian Orthodox, that's where our understandings of God's ways regarding the election of sinners mostly come from. Your failure to understand may be influenced by at least two factors. (1) You are set in your own ways of thinking, which cause you to read certain passages of scripture to confirm and strengthen your prevailing mindset on the issue. In which case no ammount of explanation or scriptural quoting is likely to convince you. (2) It is possible that we have been unable to explain properly the way God keeps covenant with the believing parents of children and God's sovereign right as the Almighty to claim them for his own by calling them and giving them in service to The Son, Jesus Christ. (I think you will know what passages of the words of Jesus Christ in John's Gospel I refer to as I point this out). John 3:35-36, John 6:44-45. (3) the fact that we have been unable to explain to your satisfaction is no indication that the practice is actually non-biblical. It can also be attributed to either your own a priori conceptions and lack of knowledge of God's secret, or our lack of teaching ability or both.
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Invictus likes this.
  8. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    It's also worth pointing out that not all Protestants see sola Scriptura as requiring the 'regulative principle' (though even the majority of the Churches that endorse the regulative principle practice infant baptism and affirm it confessionally). Anglicanism and Lutheranism historically instead endorsed the 'normative principle', which holds that whatever is not prohibited by Scripture is allowed for worship, provided it promotes good order. I suspect a lot of American Christians instinctively but inaccurately think that sola Scriptura just is the regulative principle. As Anglicans, we do not care, nor do we have to prove, that infant baptism was explicitly taught in the Scriptures. Obviously it was not. We only need to show that the practice is consistent with the message of the Gospel and the practice of the historic, undivided Church, and of course, it is.
     
    Tiffy likes this.
  9. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Quite so! It's not only that which is specifically taught in the scriptures that is right in God's eyes, but also that which may be logically deduced from what is recorded in the Bible, which is also trustworthily God's truth. Though they may be available to everyone, God has not revealed to everyone all the secrets of his purposes or methods of redemption.
    .
     
  10. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    @Rexlion : As a well respected Anglican member here you really should make an effort to understand the theological and scriptural reasoning behind what the Anglican Church, along with most other Reformed and non-reformed Christian traditions actually DO and therefore WHY they do it. It is not good enough to say no one has been able to explain it to you so therefore it is merely 'wishful thinking' or 'un-biblical nonsense'. There are profoundly Biblical and traditional reasons for baptising the infants of believers, even of only one believing parent. The fact that those reasons are based upon a consideration of a number of facts revealed to us in various places in the Old and New Testament, rather than a direct New Testament edict, does not make it invalid or inapporopriate.

    Although you personally seem unable to accept the fact that God has his own way of doing things regarding the salvaton of mankind, and does not consult you, I or scripture regarding the rules by which HE must abide, in no way stops GOD from including whoever HE WANTS into HIS elect. Scripture makes it very clear that God has taken upon HIMSELF the obligation, through The Covenant, to regenerate the children of the regenerated to posterity, if necessary, and if possible, within the realms of human God given autonomy. (He is unsurpassed at finding and bringing back 'lost' sheep to wherever they have wandered from, and does NOT have to first ask their permission.). If you have missed this scriptural fact it is merely because you have not searched dilligently enough yet. The infants of believers belong to God already. They, among the human race, are ALREADY, 'HOLY TO THE LORD", even before baptism.
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Invictus likes this.
  11. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    As someone who has read the best reasoning from the OT which allegedly supports infant baptism, you should be able to cogently convey that info in the space of a forum post wherein you quote the pertinent scriptures and show how they support your position. But you have admitted that this is not possible because, as you say, all you have to go on are "a series of considerations" rather than clear and convincing scriptural precepts.

    In that post, you wrote: "The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect. Rom.4:16-18; Gal.3:8-14. This covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the "new covenant" of the present dispensation, Rom.4:13-18; Gal.3:15-18; Heb.6:13-18."

    Those two alleged precepts are faulty and based on incorrect understanding of the Abrahamic Circumcision Covenant. That covenant's promises were made in response to Abraham's faith, it is true. But the immediate promises were temporal and physical: God would give Abraham many natural descendants to whom He would give a large swath of land. Abraham was not promised that his children, grandchildren, etc. would go to heaven or receive eternal life; even though we now can look back and see that Abraham, man of faith, will be with the Lord and us for eternity, that is not what the Circumcision Covenant was about.

    Here are the numerous promises made by God to Abraham:

    Gen 12:1-3 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

    Gen 13:14-17 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee.​

    Notice how God keeps promising land and numerous descendants?

    Gen 15:1-21 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not. And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away. And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him. And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.​

    In Genesis 15, we see a promise that could be taken in a spiritual context: "I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." This promise predates the circumcision requirement, though. God "cuts the covenant" Himself (unilaterally) in a ceremony. And Abraham's focus (as well as the promises God articulates) still remain centered on promises of land and descendants.

    Gen 17:1-14 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.​

    Here, finally, we have the actual Circumcision Covenant. God promises land, and He promises to 'be there' for the descendants ("I will be their God.") Note the absolute and everlasting requirement, though: to come under this covenant, the descendant must be circumcised. So we know that, essentially, this covenant is a physical one: it is based on temporal, physical blessings and it is dependent upon participation in a physical alteration of the body. (Compare this to the New Covenant, which involves a spiritual alteration of the believer's "inner being".)

    Just because the NT labels us as spiritual "children of Abraham" does not imply anything about baptism. If anything at all, it might be used as an argument (a faulty one) that we all should be physically circumcised! (Of course, other passages clearly say otherwise.) We are "descendants" of Abraham only in the spiritual sense that we have come to grace in the same way as Abraham did (through faith) and by the redemptive act of One who deigned to humble Himself to be born of Abraham's lineage via Mary.

    Your post cites Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 as supporting authority. Those particular verses do not speak to baptism at all, let alone provide suppor for paedobaptism. The implication of Rom. 4:16-18 is not that infants should be baptized, but rather that the Jews and Gentiles are spiritually united through Christ when any person of either category comes to faith in Christ. Gal. 3:8-14 tells us nothing about baptism, but it teaches that Abraham's faithfulness set into motion a series of events that inexorably (by God's power and plans) led to the coming of Christ and the opportunity He gives to all men to receive "the promise of the Spirit" and all the blessings of faith.

    Does Romans 4 say that the promise comes by baptism? No! The promise comes by grace through faith. Do Heb. 6 or Gal. 3 say anything about baptism? No! They liken Abraham to a spiritual 'father' of all who would come to God through faith. But we don't follow the rule of circumcision. Why? Because (and here is the crux of the matter) the Circumcision Covenant, though it was given to Abraham for spiritual reason (his faith), was not a promise that all would benefit spiritually; rather, it was a promise of temporal blessings. Go back and re-read Genesis if you don't believe me. In other words, the Circumcision Covenant was given to Abraham by grace through faith, but that covenant was not a "covenant of grace": it was not a promise to provide saving grace to all of Abraham's descendants. Think about it. Are we (baptized Christians) promised land or offspring? No. The New Covenant is one of spiritual blessings: God indwells us and guides us, and He promises to take us home to Him when we pass from this mortal life. Were the Israelites promised the indwelling of God or eternal life? No, they were promised things on earth. Therefore these are two very different covenants: one rooted in this life, the other rooted in the next. Although some (such as Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) had faith, were specially endued from on high with the Spirit, and have passed into eternal life with God, this was not the thrust of the Circumcision Covenant, and they were the exceptions among the Covenant group (the circumcised).

    The two initial precepts alleged as reasons for paedobaptism were: "The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant," and "This covenant is still in force and is essentially the same as the "new covenant" of the present dispensation." Because the entire line of reasoning for infant baptism hinges upon both of those stated precepts being correct, and because both of them spring from erroneous interpretations of scripture, the entire covenantalism justification falls down and fails.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
  12. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Well, since it is so very clear, you should be able to succinctly quote the scriptures which say this. Saying that I've not searched diligently enough is a cop-out excuse, if you can't present them yourself. I've been on this forum for over 4 years and have read through the Bible twice (plus many parts have been re-read dozens if not hundreds of times), and I have yet to see these very clear scriptures that you mention. Maybe my eye exam is overdue? :p
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
  13. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The Abrahamic Covenant established that children and infants can enter into a divine covenant. Baptism is the appointed means by which people enter the assembly of the New Covenant. Neither premise is in dispute, and these are the only two premises needed to establish the conclusion that the baptism of infants is a permissible practice. That should be concise enough.

    Appeals to “conscience” have nothing to do with Christianity, and there is nothing superior or infallible about conscience. “Let your conscience be your guide” is the secular ‘Gospel according to Jiminy Cricket’. If our inner judgment were adequate or sufficient, we wouldn’t need laws. Proper Christian practice in moral and doctrinal matters is to obey one’s bishop, not one’s “conscience.”
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Tiffy likes this.
  14. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Myopia might be induced by a sense of always being right. :wicked: What you need is insight, not just eyesight. :laugh:

    Having said that I feel sure we could dig some of them up for you, though I'm beginning to doubt, with your sense of complete assurance in Baptist theological reasoning, you will find any of them convincing. It is a secret God wants kept, for his own good reasons. It does God's purposes no harm for you to go on believing the way you do. There are plenty of children born outside the Covenant and alienated from the promises who need to hear and respond to the call of God through the Gospel being preached to them. Baptise them and go on thinking that's the only class of people God's interested in including in His elect. It does no harm unless you actively militate against one of God's methods of increasing His Sovereignty in the world through his covenanted people.
    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
    Invictus likes this.
  15. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I think the Holy Spirit outranks the Bishop when it comes to whose the boss of Christians. Leaders should have our respect and obediance, but not to the degree of offending the Holy Spirit within us. Judas could have made Bishop if he hadn't got sussed and then topped himself. :laugh:
    .
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    The conscience isn’t the Holy Spirit. The Church is the medium through which the Spirit “guides into all truth.”
     
  17. Admin

    Admin Administrator Staff Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    727
    Likes Received:
    273
    You guys took over a newbie’s thread, so this whole discussion had to be moved out. Please exercise stewardship over the threads, keeping them clean and on-point. Also, no need to cast aspersions against Anglicanism in the heat of the moment. Better to take a pause, go for a walk, do something in real-life rather than getting angry over virtual discussions.
     
  18. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Copping out again, eh? :p You can't show what you don't have. :dunno:

    Well, I actually found the best verse that covers how God sees the young children of Christians. Here it is:
    1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

    This scripture tells us that the infants and young children of a born-again, regenerate parent are seen (until they are old enough to have faith or to reject faith for themselves) by God as holy. The Greek word is "hagios" which, the Concordance says, means "sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated)".

    Oh, dear. Now I've gone and tampered with the doctrine of "original sin", too. Better get out the:torch: burning stake! :laugh:

    Like I have said before, I can appreciate the value of a ceremony, for the sake of a child's family, that welcomes that child into the 'church visible'. However, I think a "baby dedication" would be better suited than a baptism, so as not to associate or conflate baptism with an actual conveyance of saving grace (especially in light of the current baptism liturgy's language) and so as to keep pure the Biblical concept of baptism as an outward sign of one's inner faith and voluntary identification with Christ.

    I think we should follow Jesus' example:
    Mar 10:13-16 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
    Jesus shows us several things in this action. One: He did not baptize the children or say they should be baptized. Two: He reveals to us that young children are innocent in spirit, "for of such is the kingdom of God." Three: Jesus encourages all of us to have a childlike faith and trust in Him. Four: He presents an example of placing hands upon a young child and saying a prayer of blessing, a simple act which we would do well to duplicate in imitation of our Lord. :yes:
     
  19. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I've never been Baptist before. Should I try it? :D
     
  20. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    Since you would only be satisfied with something like "Thou must henceforth sprinkle thy little ones with water in MY name, My Son's name and the name of My Spirit, or else I'll have nothing to do with them, says The LORD," I'll give up searching for that one. In fact I wouldn't even bother to start. I guess even Google couldn't find anything like it, so your dissatisfaction with the Bible's lack of clinching verses giving either a command to or permission to, baptise the infants of covenant keeping believers will remain just as acute.

    The point I would like to make here is that it is St Paul writing this inspired statement. Clearly he had REASON to believe this to be true. I believe that St. Paul is reasoning that it is the covenant that God has with the faithful elect parent that causes God to regard his or her infant as "HOLY". Notice that Paul does not suggest any other infant of non-covenant covered parents might be "Holy". In fact he suggests they remain 'unclean', as far as God is concerned, like the rest of unregenerate mankind.

    Your "tampering" with original sin, has not damaged it in any way at all. :torch::laugh:. Without the Covenant, (the primary condition of which is faith and trust in Christ and a pledge to allow oneself to be sanctified by God throughout a lifetime), there is no escape from original sin and the polution which renders all human beings 'unclean'. Interestingly enough it is now baptism which scripture tells us, sybolically washes that polution away, rendering us 'clean' and therefore Holy to God, though it is actually the circumcision of the heart which is performed by God,'without hands', that actually makes us "CLEAN".
    Has it ever occurred to you that those children were born under the covenant made by God with their parents, grand parents and great grandparents. All the boys were circumcised, all the girls were redeeemed in ways required by The Law. If anything I would value the laying on of hands by Jesus of Nazareth HIMSELF of far greater value than the sprinkling or even total dunking of baptism. Jesus never baptised anyone at all with water, but the laying on of hands became symbolic of the baptising with the Holy Spirit. Which we may equate with the circumcision of 'The Heart'.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.