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

To: aruanan, Scorpio, fortheDeclaration
Let's just cut to the chase: the practice of infant baptism came from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the church had displaced Israel as the people of G-d. As male babies were brought into the covenant via circumcision, so infant baptism was used as the means to bring the newborn into the Church.

This presumes that Infant Baptism was not practiced until the rise of Papal Supremacy.

As (Messianic Jewish) Presbyter Steve Schlissel points out, this is not the case. In fact, Schlissel argues that if the children had been included in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, a specific commandment demanding their exclusion from the Sign of the Covenant would have been expected by the Jewish Church, if the children were now to be excluded from the Sign of the Covenant.

Yet no such command of exclusion exists in the New Testament.

The Covenant is Visible and One.
46 posted on 10/06/2001 4:26:23 PM PDT by Uriel1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: Uriel1975
Who the heck is Steve Schlissel? His allusion to Acts 2:38-39 had nothing to do with 'infant baptism' it had to do with the prophecy made in Joel 2:28-29 and cited in Acts 2:17!

This was Peter thinking the 2nd advent was going to happen and the Kingdom be set up (Acts.3:20) which would have happened had not the Jews rejected the offer of the Kingdom a second time (Acts 7)

Where is infant baptism in any of this?

How do you Reform guys make this stuff up? (Mk.7:9)

108 posted on 10/07/2001 10:56:05 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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