Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.

Bill,

I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?

So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.

You are correct that this is an argument from silence, and thus inconclusive, however it is not exactly the same as the example you gave. Circumcision and whether or not it should be continued is a huge topic in the New Testament. More pages are dedicated to this controversy than to virtually any other issue. It just seems to reason, if paedobaptist theology is correct, that this would have been brought up as a resolution to this issue. Again, clearly this is not conclusive, but it is a legitimate question.

This could have been discussed, yet left out of scripture for a reason.

Very true.
 
The answer is simply that it wouldn't have solved the problem. Baptism does not replace or continue circumcision as a ceremonial. It serves the same function as a sign to the senses and seal to faith and in initiating disciples into the visible Church. However, circumcision as a ceremonial is abrogated along with the rest of the ceremonials. The view that the General Assembly in Jerusalem was countering was the view that Gentiles must become Jews and observe the law of Moses to be saved, even though they had already received the Spirit and been solemnly admitted to Christ's church by baptism. This presented two points that needed to be made to the Judaizers:

1. That the ceremonial law of Moses is abrogated, its typical function having been fulfilled in history.
2. That one was never saved by keeping the law in the first place, but by faith.

Pointing out that baptism serves the same basic function and holds the same spiritual meaning as circumcision (which the Apostles did in fact do elsewhere) would not have solved the problems which the GA needed to address.
 
Austin, you may have just given the most sound bit of reasoning yet on the thread. Congratulations, and thank you.

:applause:
 
I'm not prejudicing the discussion. It's fine to discuss these topics, even heatedly to disagree on the PuritanBoard. I appreciate the fact that this thread is a model of civility.

I am, however going to close the thread shortly, in the interest of topical fidelity--the original post having been answered, the author evidently pleased even of answers to his follow-up issues/questions.

Please feel free to carry on in a new (or old) thread, on the rabbit-trails from this one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top