| Paedobaptism - buffoonery, or dogma? |
If you're a follower of theology, you will likely have an opinion regarding whether it is appropriate to baptize unregenerate, unbelieving, and otherwise unwilling candidates. I speak, of course, about the practice of infant baptism.
In a nutshell, paedobaptists believe that baptism is to the new covenant what circumcision was to the old - that is that God enters into a covenant with any unwilling, and unknowing infant who has the misfortune of being immersed by their well meaning, but theologically driven parents or guardians. I doubt many paedobaptists would present infant baptism in this way - but while I play with their position for humour's sake, I do not stray from the conclusions their theological construct is built upon.
Circumcision, as we know, was a covenant sign between God and Abraham. In Abraham's case, circumcision was physical - the separation of himself from his flesh. In the New Covenant, the separation between the man and the flesh is spiritual. Paedobaptists err in this one simple way - they fail to comprehend that the covenant sign in the New Testament isn't water baptism - it is spiritual baptism - identification with Christ.
I know I am a partaker in the New Covenant - not because someone dunked me, or because I even dunked myself - I am a partaker because I have been baptized (spiritually) into the body of Christ by Christ Himself. My water baptism, although a public demonstration of the internal spiritual identification - nevertheless primarily remains an act of obedience to the will of Christ. |
posted by Daniel @
3:49 PM
 
|
|
|
- 
- 
- 
