Questions on Baptism

[Jon_]

Does it really matter if dispensationalism is a "hermeneutic" or a "theology"? I don't think this has anything to do with my questions in the OP.

Diane

Well, you asked how Dispensationalism affects infant baptism. I did get off track by discussing the theological aspects of Dispensationalism instead of the relevant topic, though.

It is simply this. Dispensationalism teaches that baptism is for the church and has not relation (no meaningful relation, anyway) to circumcision, which is our primary basis in Covenant Theology for the baptism of infants.

Circumcision was performed on covenant children (children born to two believers) in the Old Testament and it was symbolic of the sacrament of baptism to come. When baptism was instituted, we looked not only to the New Testament writings regarding the administration of it, but also to the original type of baptism, which was circumcision. We see that while circumcision was originally only for people of the covenant, it was liberally administered to the children of two covenant people according to God's promise that his covenant is with his people and their children.

The Dispensationalist rejects that the sacrament of circumcision should at all be used as the basis for the determining of the administration of the sacrament of baptism. Here we see one of a multitude of Dispensational renderings of Scripture resulting in theological determinations.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Circumcision was performed on covenant children (children born to two believers) in the Old Testament and it was symbolic of the sacrament of baptism to come.

Actually it was only performed on boys, which leads me to a question. If circumcision is an OT type of baptism then why not only baptise boys in infancy in NT times?


Diane

 

[Jon_]

Actually it was only performed on boys, which leads me to a question. If circumcision is an OT type of baptism then why not only baptise boys in infancy in NT times?


Diane

Circumcision was only symbolic. We might also pose the question, If circumcision was the sign of the covenant, then why were women excluded from the covenant? The answer is simple: they were not. Circumcision was nothing more than a symbolic (and typical) sacrament designed to be a constand reminder to the Jews of their covenant with God. As men are the biblical heads of home and church, it makes sense that they should bear the seal of the covenant as a constant reminder of their duties as shepherds, husbands, and fathers.

The outward act is utterly inconsequential to the inward act. Circumcision was no more necessary for the salvation of a Jew than baptism is for the Christian. Both are only outward signs and confirmations of faith and promise.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[AndOne]

Actually it was only performed on boys, which leads me to a question. If circumcision is an OT type of baptism then why not only baptise boys in infancy in NT times?


Diane

Hi Diane -

I would respond to this by saying that actually baptism is an NT type of circumcission. It is representative of the new life in Christ which now includes all peoples who accept him - i.e. Gentiles, Jews, Men, Women, etc.