View Single Post
  #19  
Old 12-29-2011, 07:18 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizion View Post
I think you're onto something here Chris

Baptism is making a covenant with God. Without it, there is no covenant with God. Therefore, un-baptized children haven't been "flagged" yet ... but that isn't there fault, and this is why I believe it is legitimate to "stand up for" the child as an intersceder. Got to keep in context of its historical use if we are to stay in the realm of proper hermeneutic. this is a modern day definition of baptism. e cannot infer our personal understanding onto scripture. We must read it as the original readers would have. That being said it was an act that occured after a public profession of faith. So back to the fact am infant cannot make such a profession

Right, but that doesn't mean there weren't kids either. The word "entire" is a very, VERY big word and it could absolutley have encompassed a wide berth of ages inside thos family. Actually in the greek it is not household is a pretty generic term. But either way we cannot create a doctrine based on inference we must have a direct command. Anything else is merely Dogma

Well, you're right that no verse indicating infant baptism exists, but its exactly why I defer to the covenant of circumsicion on the child's behalf. We have no context to show discontinuity, therefore we assume that continuity can be carried over. Circumcision was an OT covenant and was more about health as was the diterary laws. In fact the 8th day when they were to be circumcised even has significance. Science tells us that is the day the blood clots right and is the safest. We must be careful to compare OT ritual with NT beliefs. This is what the Judizers did and Paul and Peter made clears was not the case any longer.

If God so loved the world and Jesus commanded us to baptize "all nations" and to "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" AND the Bible does not specifically exclude infants being baptized then where is the evidence to suggest its not right? Also, back to Paul ... remember he was talking about 5 households being baptized, not 1, FIVE. Its a lot to assume - and especially back then before birth control existed that none of these 5 households had children among them. ..Chilren are nt infants. I confessed Christ at 4 years old. An infant cannot even talk. The bible is clear baptism is for believers.
Sorry I am not computer savy enough to block the quotes like you brother. My reply is in red above.
Reply With Quote