Comments on: My Firstborn Son

By: David

David — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:22:04 +0000

Mike,
I agree that there is a real danger that lurks there. Sadly many are relying on their baptism for salvation. Lacking in knowledge and no interest in spiritual things, they depend on a meaningless ritual for their eternal destiny.

I know web design is a hard way to make a living lol

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:51:19 +0000

Thanks David
That was certainly a fair concern, and it remains today. But if we understand that all children are already under the New Covenant, no such misuse of baptism is necessary.
Yes, baptism replaced circumcision, but it did so by making it redundant. If the New Covenant is about the conversion of the individual and the circumcision of his or her heart, then one’s origin (whether a Jew cultivated under the Law or a “wild” Gentile) becomes irrelevant. The fruit of the Spirit is what matters. In Creation terms, the New Covenant is not about forming but filling: the second half of the matrix.
I have also written about the misuse of Passover in support of paedocommunion:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/11/11/offering-your-members/
If I could afford it, I’d fly you over.

By: David

David — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:40:44 +0000

Hi Mike,

I know you write a lot about paedobaptism, and I understand your concern. I am not as strongly against it as I once was. One of the things that strikes you when reading material from the Reformation period is how prevalent infant mortality was (even Calvin’s children), and so it is easy to understand why these parents wanted their children baptized as soon as possible. Most of them would not live beyond infancy. I think it was more a comfort to the parents than anything else.

But here is my question for you; do you agree though that baptism replaces circumcision?

The Lord instituted two ordinances; the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Obviously the Lord’s Supper grew out of and replaces Passover, and it follows (at least in my thinking) that Baptism replaces circumcision. And as you pointed out circumcision could only be applied to males, but baptism is for the whole race (as Paul says now there is neither male or female in Christ).

I really appreciate your blog and your books. I wish I could come to your conference this spring but alas it is to far and too expensive

-David

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:45:13 +0000

Someone took offense at my last paragraph. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m a systems guy. If my auto mechanic tells me I’ve put fuel in the water tank, or my doctor tells me to stop smoking, I’m not going to take offense.

Is the Gospel about wombs or tombs? If it’s about tombs, and not fertility, then the Gospel is misrepresented in paedobaptism, even if it’s clear in your preaching.