Baptism positions in the Reformed forum

[cygnusx1]

Consider the idea that Baptism is the replacement for Circumcision which is the main arguement of holders of a belief in infant Baptism , now , Israel was circumcised and all male children as a sign and seal of "the people of God" ........... yet when we examine the OT , we discover that not only were Israel circumcised (all males) but they were also baptised too , in the red sea!


Thus using circumcision as a forerunner to baptism just does not convince me and many other sincere christians.

Not that I am expecting anyone to change their opinions on this issue , I know few will ever change .

God Bless you all , and God Bless your obedience one way or the other!

 

[ScottishJohn]

Consider the idea that Baptism is the replacement for Circumcision which is the main arguement of holders of a belief in infant Baptism , now , Israel was circumcised and all male children as a sign and seal of "the people of God" ........... yet when we examine the OT , we discover that not only were Israel circumcised (all males) but they were also baptised too , in the red sea!


Thus using circumcision as a forerunner to baptism just does not convince me and many other sincere christians.

Not that I am expecting anyone to change their opinions on this issue , I know few will ever change .

God Bless you all , and God Bless your obedience one way or the other!

I have often heard the story of the Jailer (Acts 16:29-34) and also Lydia earlier in the chapter (Acts 16:13-15), also possibly Acts 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, used as an example of how Christian Baptism was applied in the early church, and why many support infant baptism, the idea of it involving the whole household. Does anyone have any comments on this view?

 

[cygnusx1]

I have often heard the story of the Jailer (Acts 16:29-34) and also Lydia earlier in the chapter (Acts 16:13-15), also possibly Acts 18:8 and 1 Corinthians 1:16, used as an example of how Christian Baptism was applied in the early church, and why many support infant baptism, the idea of it involving the whole household. Does anyone have any comments on this view?

It is merely assumed that there were babies in those families ............... any arguement from silence is weak at best in my understanding.

Like the arguement that the Rich Young Ruler must have been Elect .............................. because "Jesus loved him"

 

[ScottishJohn]

It is merely assumed that there were babies in those families ............... any arguement from silence is weak at best in my understanding.

Like the arguement that the Rich Young Ruler must have been Elect .............................. because "Jesus loved him"

I don't assume there were any babies in the families, just that IF any arrived after the initial conversion that they like the rest of the family before them would have been baptised. Incidently the term Household is used too, which would include servants and/or slaves.

I wonder why they mention the fact that the whole household were baptised in these situations? Is it not significant?