http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2015/04/11/because-of-transgressions/ Theology you can eat and drink Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:01:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2015/04/11/because-of-transgressions/comment-page-1/#comment-51784 Tue, 14 Apr 2015 01:11:08 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=15309#comment-51784 Thanks Travis.
It’s very clear that God works through representation – images and representatives – and foremost in His own Son. The infants were not excluded from all the consequences of their parents’ failures any more than the infants of Adam and Eve were exempt from the consequences in the Garden. And my argument is that baptism is clearly only for representatives. Israel was only baptised when ready to “enter the ministry” at Sinai, and within Israel, only those who represented Yahweh as priests were washed in the Laver. On baptism being exclusively confessional, see my new post “Justified in His Sight” http://bit.ly/1DbEhZ2.
The sign isn’t imbalanced at all. It is about witnesses, as you say: first the men at the Lord’s Supper and then the women at the grave. Not an infant in sight.

]]> http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2015/04/11/because-of-transgressions/comment-page-1/#comment-51783 Mon, 13 Apr 2015 23:09:56 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=15309#comment-51783 Mike,
1. Arguing that infants were excluded from the vows at Sinai is like arguing that the Ethiopian eunuch proves believers’ baptism. It’s a non sequitor. Baptists make the sign imbalanced by arguing it is exclusively confessional. It is that, but it is also ordinational and monergistic: baptism is first and foremost what God says about the recipient and that is, “Go and discipline the nations.” All the baptized are priests for the life of the world.

]]>