This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

14836 Responseshttp://reformedandreforming.org/2010/01/27/an-apologia-of-infant-baptism-what-does-circumcision-and-baptism-mean/An+Apologia+of+Infant+Baptism%3A++What+Does+Circumcision+and+Baptism+Mean%3F2010-01-27+15%3A48%3A05Jesse to “An Apologia of Infant Baptism: What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean?”

1. 
   ScottL
   on Jan 27th, 2010
   @ 11:00 am: 

   Hey Jesse. I still have your continuationist paper to read. I might be able to get to it next week.

   I should send you a paper I put together on water baptism and the case for ‘credo-baptism’.

2. 
   Jesse
   on Jan 27th, 2010
   @ 2:30 pm: 

   @ Scott:

   Oh my, I almost “spammed” your comment (ha ha).

   Yea, check-out what I wrote, let me know what you want to think. You can hit me up with your heretical view on baptism anytime. I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist! LOL.

   Cheers, Jesse

3. 
   Random Reading « Reformed and Reforming
   on Feb 1st, 2010
   @ 7:44 am: 

   [...] I just recently compared Circumcision and Baptism this article from R. Scott Clark obviously jumped out at [...]

4. 
   An Apologia of Infant Baptism: The Argument from Silence « Reformed and Reforming
   on Feb 2nd, 2010
   @ 9:44 pm: 

   [...] infants were indeed included in the administration of baptism due to the unity of the covenants and the similarities of circumcision and baptism.  When we consider that Jewish parents would have applied the covenant sign of circumcision upon [...]

5. 
   David W Perry
   on May 3rd, 2010
   @ 11:26 am: 

   John the Baptist’s baptism of repentance was aimed at those responsible for their actions. John and the crowds around him would have found the idea that infants and young children should undergo a baptism of repentance simply absurd.

   John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus was crucified and Stephen was stoned. Could the first Christian congregations really have thrust baptism upon babies and young children? With the threat of persecution hanging over them they would surely have kept them out of the firing line, hopefully bringing them up to seek baptism when mature enough to accept the implications of confessing Christ in a hostile world.

   Acts 8.12 (mass baptism of Samaritans) tells us explicitly that “men and women were baptised” – no mention of babes or children and Acts 9 records that Saul went to Damascus to arrest “both men and women”. This shows that the notion that “household” baptisms must have included babies is a baseless assumption.

   The attempt to equate baptism with circumcision – thus implying baptism’s suitability for babies – is ill-founded. The first Christians were already circumcised Jews. John the Baptist baptised circumcised Jews. The direct link between John’s baptism and that of the infant Church cannot be overemphasised. John the Baptist shows no interest in circumcision. The word never crosses Jesus’ lips except as part of an argument over the Sabbath in John 7.22. St Paul says bluntly “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avail anything but a new creature”. To say that baptism was the Christian version of Jewish circumcision is as absurd as saying “football is the new cricket.”

6. 
   Jesse
   on May 3rd, 2010
   @ 2:17 pm: 

   @ David:

   Thanks for stopping by and replying. Your thoughts are appreciated.

   You bring up some interesting points but failed to address the points mentioned above in the post. In the meantime, I have a few comments:

   You said, John and the crowds around him would have found the idea that infants and young children should undergo a baptism of repentance simply absurd.

   Actually, it would be the other way around. I’ve said elsewhere, When we consider that Jewish parents would have applied the covenant sign of circumcision upon their infant children for thousands of years, we can likely presume that they would have administered baptism in the same way.

   Later you said,

   John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus was crucified and Stephen was stoned. Could the first Christian congregations really have thrust baptism upon babies and young children?

   Interesting observation, but I don’t have the foggiest idea what this has to do with forming a Biblical position?

   In regards to your thoughts on Acts 8, I’ve addressed that elsewhere so I encourage you to go to that link. Some food for thought, many passages, such as Acts 16.15; 16.33; 18.8; (cf. Acts 11.14) and 1 Cor. 1.16 provides ample evidence that suggests infants were included in the baptism of entire households. Moreover, we see from Acts 16.30-34 that ,

   The account of the baptism of the Philippians jailer’s household is particularly instructive because of the precise description supplied by Luke, the writer of Acts. Luke says that all of the jailer’s household was baptized (v. 33), but then he uses a singular verb to describe who rejoiced and believed in God that night (v. 34). The jailer himself believed (singular verb) and his whole house was baptized. Sadly, this important distinction in the account is not reflected in some of our modern translations

   Finally, Pauls words are out of context and are mentioned in relationship to our rightstanding (i.e. righteousness) before God, not the practice of circumcision itself.

   From what you briefly shared above I would have to contend that your concluding argument – that the practice of infant baptism is ill-founded – well, ill-found. Like I said earlier, you didn’t address the points mentioned above and made a leap of faith in saying that the correlation is absurd.

   Oh, on a final note, since the topic of baptism is an non-essential matter in regards to someone’s salvation and considering that we are purportedly brothers in Christ, your tone is not one of love and/or mutual respect. Just thought you should know.

   Cheers, Jesse