Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Our understanding of baptism is that it is a sign of God's covenant with us. We do not see baptism as an outward expression of an inward faith, but instead as the exchange of covenant vows: We are baptized in water (our end of the covenant vow) and God baptizes us in the Holy Spirit (his end of the covenant vow). And the covenant we are a part of is the covenant God made with Abraham that through Jesus -- a physical descendant of Abraham -- all who are spiritual descendants of Abraham would be counted righteous.
So since we understand baptism as a sign of the covenant, and we also know that circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, you may be able to see why it's common for the Reformed to baptize their infants as a sign of the covenant, just as Jews circumcised their male children as a sign of the covenant.
There shold be one "It is okay to baptize the children of believers because of their covenatal relation to their parents"
If I can summarize this, your point seems to be that in some way circumcision is equivalent to baptism--since both were signs of the covenant. As such, since infants were circumcised, believing parents ought to likewise baptize their infants.
I'd like you to either affirm this or correct my misunderstanding before...uhm...I get my Baptist guns loaded!
I'd push this just a little bit more specifically They're both signs of faith in particular, though I also consider them both signs of the covenant.If I can summarize this, your point seems to be that in some way circumcision is equivalent to baptism--since both were signs of the covenant. As such, since infants were circumcised, believing parents ought to likewise baptize their infants.
I'd like you to either affirm this or correct my misunderstanding before...uhm...I get my Baptist guns loaded!
Just kidding, though I'm sure you'll appreciate that I might have some reasons to disagree.
He does the same with circumcision.On the flip side of this, Paul uses the symbol of baptism to convey some pretty important theological points pertinent only to the believer: he is washed, he is raised, he professes his faith, he shares the new life with Christ, probably a few other items too.
I don't see it as that obvious. Circumcision already is a purification rite, a separating of the flesh, which is what Paul stresses in Romans 8.Obviously, circumcision is incapable of pictorially conveying these things. Even when Paul contrasts circumcision to baptism in Colossians, he's obviously forcing circumcision into an interpretive matrix determined by baptism (stripping away of flesh = washing away sin).
Hm, the equivalent of what? They're both purification rites. They're both signs of faith. What more correspondence do I need, again?Consequently, we can't say that the two are exactly the equivalent.
That's the thought of a Baptist, yes.I think, moreover, the determining question for baptism for the earliest Christians was whether or not the person was a believer who makes his good confession before many witnesses, who signifies his death, burial, and resurrection with Christ in the watery grave, who depicts his forgiveness and washing away of sins while the living waters flow over him.
As you know, the Spirit wasn't always poured out on people before baptism. And the infant's inclusion among the people of God is a given. The child of every believer is set apart to God.Not to mention the outpouring of the Spirit on him and his inclusion into the people of God.
And so do infant baptists. But there's baptism for the minor children of believers as well.By the way, I suppose that the Didache (about 70 A.D.) also teaches believers' baptism.
And so do infant baptists. But there's baptism for the minor children of believers as well.
If you've read the Didache baptism by sprinkling is a concession to the lack of flowing water, just as baptizing in salt water is a concession to the lack of fresh water.
This is in reference to the Biblical precedent of Rom 6:1-4 ...Baptism as depicting death, burial, and resurrection is in fact a pretty good visual representation, plus there is biblical precedent for seeing it as such.
I don't see a reason to clamp down on it as excluding nor completely preferred. It's not necessary.1. I don't deny that baptism is also a metaphor for purification. But it doesn't throw out the metaphor of death/burial/resurrection which is at the core of baptism as a metaphor in Rom 6.
Nor are there any theological reasons behind the burial ritual of ... the burial image in water.2. I don't see how extra-biblical rituals of washing and anointing a corpse relates to Union with Christ, or that there is any theological reasons behind such burial rituals.
Why not?3. If baptism depicts either purificaton or union with Jesus' death/burial/resurrection, why is it applied to infants who have not been purified by the Spirit or united with Christ in his death/burial/resurrection? At most, it can only reflect the parents' faith, but it sure shouldn't depict the unbelieving infant's spiritual purification or nw birth!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?