Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: frogjerk

Yes, the “promise” is to you “and to your children.” But the actual physical act of baptism is for the repentant person.

Again, you provide no evidence that infant baptism is a *biblically*-advocated practice, other than to point out how some Christ-followers have practiced it.

Circumcision is a sign of God’s covenant with humanity. Baptism is a sign of repentance — death to ourselves and new life in Christ. There’s a difference, of course, between the two.

As an aside, you should note that St. Paul wasn’t all gung-ho on circumcision. Some were looking to it in a legalistic way, and so Paul in exasperation told them they should just go ahead an emasculate themselves if they want to prove their super-spirituality. Reminds us how gritty the early Christians were ...


66 posted on 02/02/2010 9:20:32 AM PST by Theo (May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: Theo
Whole households were baptized by the Apostles themselves and then their successors. That is biblical. To argue that there wasn't an infant among these large family groups is disingenuous.

Baptism is more than a sign as it is a sacrament, as it conveys the grace it symbolizes. Baptism's effect is the remission of original and actual sin. All have original sin save the Lord and His Mother. Actual sin is committed by those who have reached the age of reason and beyond.

But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."2

As an aside, you should note that St. Paul wasn’t all gung-ho on circumcision. Some were looking to it in a legalistic way, and so Paul in exasperation told them they should just go ahead an emasculate themselves if they want to prove their super-spirituality. Reminds us how gritty the early Christians were .

Timothy was circumcised by St. Paul and there is no note of him doing it reluctantly. Secondly, my note of circumcision is in comparison to Baptism. The Old Covenant required circumcision for inclusion in God's people, the Jews, infants included. The New Covenant requires Baptism for inclusion into God's kingdom, all Jews and Gentiles, everyone, infants included.

67 posted on 02/02/2010 9:58:47 AM PST by frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson