Thanks. Nobody seems to want to understand baptism in terms of authority – both its source (Christ, not men) and the authority that it confers (to witness). To maintain this tradition, circumcision has to be misrepresented, and baptism has to be misrepresented. As I wrote, we can argue all millennium about how far the continuity should go, but because we’ve let loose the biblical definitions and explanations of these things, that “spectrum” just becomes the opinions of men. The terms of the debate have to be redefined. Might not look helpful but some basic Covenantal logic would see through the cloud of ink.

This article is not helpful for dialogue. Both sides of the baptism debate want to see continuity AND discontinuity between the Old and New Covenant. Sure, paedobaptists tend to see a little more continuity, but it’s all on a spectrum. Would an FV paedobaptist agree that they are just ripping things out of the Old Covenant unrefined by pentecost?

Chris

Thanks for commenting.

Certainly, but the logic is sound. What is the source of the authority for paedobaptism? If it’s not “father Abraham,” and it’s not a personal relationship with Christ (as described in the New Testament, beginning with repentance), then all that’s left is “the will of man” (John 1:13).

I’m not picking on anybody. I’m just following the logic trail. I actually think this practice would be more logical if you want to hold onto those “household” verses as proof of paedobaptism.

Cheers,
Mike