Infant baptism & John the Baptist (paedos only)

Status
Not open for further replies.

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
All my paedobaptistic buddies, please give me a hand:

I am writing a paper on baptism, and am looking for some input. I already have some ideas, but would like to add a little more exegetical force to my arguments.

What do you believe regarding John's baptism?

1) Did he baptize infants? If so, why do you think so? If not, then how does John's baptism fit into the grand baptismal scheme?

2) Was John's baptism the same as Christ's baptism? Acts 19 seems to mitigate against this. Thus, does it even matter whether John baptized infants? Or, if those baptized into Christ didn't have to be re-baptized, then how do you explain Acts 19?


Please don't think that I'm completely ignorant of the arguments for/against my questions above. I just want to hear some strong paedobaptistic arguments, regardless of what corner they are from. I want to consider various arguments.

Also, I would greatly appreciate any resources you can suggest for this particular topic. Online resources would be great. Other resources would be very good too.

Thank you!



By the way, I'm sure some credos will want to debate some of the arguments presented on this thread. Excellent! I love debate! Please just open up another thread to do it. I'm using this particular thread for research purposes, and I don't want it to get bogged down in debate.

Again, thank you!

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 

Poimen

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
1) John's baptism was a baptism of repentance so it seems unlikely that it includes children (are they converted?). Does every instance of baptism have to include children (eg. the baptism/washing of priests in the OT?)?

2) I believe that John's baptism was different than the later one Jesus instituted in Matthew 28:19 since there the divine name is invoked. Covenant baptism is based on covenant membership and may not always be exactly similar to other types of washings.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
I believe Johns baptism was the same; covenantal. The Jews, as well as John were covenantally minded; families always functioned as a unit. If the federal heads were submitting to the baptism, then the whole family followed suit.

Who is to say that if God regenerates even the infant, that the infant could not be in a state of repentance? God renews the heart, the heart is then in a state of repentance; it would have to be, else the elect infant whom perishes, perishes for lack of repentance, and we know that that is not the case.



[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I believe Johns baptism was the same; covenantal. The Jews, as well as John were covenantally minded; families always functioned as a unit. If the federal heads were submitting to the baptism, then the whole family followed suit.

I tend to agree. . . . do you happen to know any good resources, online or otherwise, that argue this point in greater detail regarding John's baptism?

Also, what do you make of Acts 19? Were those guys rebaptized? If so, then how are the 2 baptisms the same? But if not, then why not?
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
I think Acts 19 is not a description of rebaptism, but rather is pointing to the fact that they needed to be regenerate, even though they had already been baptized. Baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top