a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Bruce quoted the following section from the article on Shepherd and Kline:
I was wondering if someone would be so kind to answer a question this touches on for me (& I should probably confess that I do not read the baptism thread arguments: I stopped doing so several years ago because the argumentative nature of the discussions seemed to obscure rather than aid my ability to clearly understand the ideas). If this has been covered, I wonder if someone could point me to the place where it has been (or, perhaps repeat the answer for me?). I am not wanting to argue a position but to better understand the paedobaptist position, so I'd prefer if only paedobaptists comment.
Without appealing to arguments from silence if possible (they seem to go both ways), how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised? This seems -- it is -- a change in the administration of the covenant sign away from being representative in nature and being more individual. I don't see how it can be argued that paedobaptism does not have a representational element because the standing of the parents is the basis for whose babies get baptised. How can we assume that the commands that applied to circumcision apply to baptism, and import them from the old covenant when the administration, and the nature, of the new covenant sign is already so vastly different by the inclusion of women?
Thanks in advance.
And this is why Paul insists that there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. Before Christ, only the free Jewish male can inherit the promises. Gentiles, slaves, and women only inherit the promises through their free, Jewish males. But Jesus Christ IS the free Jewish male, he is the last Adam, the true Israel, and he has included ALL of his people in his inheritance, regardless of gender, race or class.
I was wondering if someone would be so kind to answer a question this touches on for me (& I should probably confess that I do not read the baptism thread arguments: I stopped doing so several years ago because the argumentative nature of the discussions seemed to obscure rather than aid my ability to clearly understand the ideas). If this has been covered, I wonder if someone could point me to the place where it has been (or, perhaps repeat the answer for me?). I am not wanting to argue a position but to better understand the paedobaptist position, so I'd prefer if only paedobaptists comment.
Without appealing to arguments from silence if possible (they seem to go both ways), how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised? This seems -- it is -- a change in the administration of the covenant sign away from being representative in nature and being more individual. I don't see how it can be argued that paedobaptism does not have a representational element because the standing of the parents is the basis for whose babies get baptised. How can we assume that the commands that applied to circumcision apply to baptism, and import them from the old covenant when the administration, and the nature, of the new covenant sign is already so vastly different by the inclusion of women?
Thanks in advance.