[Uriel1975]

Infant baptism is a silly superstition, unrecorded until the fifth century.

Complete pish-posh. Refuted amply above.

Those who engage in it are those who doubt God's justice and mercy if a child should die as an infant. I have no such problem and do not doubt God, whatever He intends for those who die before they reach an age of responsibility.

Infant Baptism is not properly administered on grounds of fear of death, but rather upon grounds of hope of life. While the Lord is pleased to call away some infants from life at an early age, this is not the Covenantal basis for the administration of Baptism to infant children of believers – for the vast majority of Calvinists have always taken it upon faith that the Lord is pleased to irresistibly apply His grace to all those whom He calls away from life in infancy, whether baptized or not.

Rather, the Baptism of the children of believers is grounded upon the expectation that they will live, not die, and grow in Faith as children of the Covenant.

Moreover, the practice of baby sprinklin' prevents adults in Roman churches and in others from being baptized as believers, the only examples of baptism in the New Testament.

Assumes the conclusion: that only “believer’s Baptism” is valid.

Amply refuted above.

The bible teaches that we are of one faith and one baptism. The New Testament demonstrates only the baptism of adults. Therefore, the one baptism of Jesus' disciples is the only valid one possible and refers to believers only.

Again, merely assumes the anabaptistic conclusion.

But in fact, the One Baptism of Christians is COVENANTAL Baptism.

And this Promise is to us -- and to our Children.

The church wasn't born at Pentecost. It was Bar Mitzvah'd. No small matter, this. The church had a long, albeit dotted, history by the time the Spirit in Christ's fullness fell, and a glorious, albeit difficult, future. By Pentecost, the church, because of its history, its providentially-ordained organization and the Holy Spirit's promised guidance, was well-prepared to fulfill its function in the world.

The Belgic Confession, in Article XXVII, states, "We believe and profess one catholic or universal Church...This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof..." It has not, however, always had the same form. In the Garden of Eden God identified and separated the church (then consisting of two) using the essential elements, Word and Sacrament, Promise and Token, which would be present throughout the church's history, in some form or another. Our first parents were created to understand themselves and all things else in terms of a word. They had received the defining Word of God; they had heard the anti-word of the serpent. Choosing the devil's definitions, they had broken covenant with their Creator and entered into league with the destroyer, becoming co-pretenders with him to the throne.

God was not about to forsake His purposes, or to quickly formulate a "Plan B." He graciously and forcefully took back Adam and Eve-He redeemed them-by placing hostility between them and their new master (the Antithesis), by promising in their hearing the incarnation of the conquering, suffering Messiah (the Protevangelium, first proclamation of the Gospel), and by clothing them with God-provided coverings (the "Sacrament"), indicating in the clearest terms that their fig leaves (their instinctive effort at self-atonement/covering) were wholly inadequate and unacceptable. It is God who saves. Calvinism did not originate in Geneva; it is found in Eden. God's people, the covenant line, would henceforth be the people redeemed by Him to live, once again, in terms of His Word. -- Steve Schlissel, Messianic Jewish Presbyter, Messiah’s Congregation, NYC.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

[AlguyA]

Bump for future reading.

[arimus]

Great material. Excellent points.
Jesus loves the little children...oops...we mean their heathen until a works orientated decision can be pulled from them.
Covenant is a powerful word. Often overlooked.
Thanks for the resources.

[winslow]

Thanks for the posts I've been wanting more info on this subject for some time

[RnMomof7]

Boy you were not kidding it is LONG..

I have completed the primary reading..but have things to do..when I get back I will read the rest of your argument...I have a few things from the first article I have general agreement with and some things I do not...

Thanks for your work

terry

[Jerry_M]

Boy, this is certainly a "no win" situation.

On the one hand, I find myself at variance with a brother-in-Christ (you), while on the other I find myself on the same side of this issue with a wolf in sheep's clothing (GWB).

Yes, I am a Baptist, yes I believe in the practice of "believer's baptism" by immersion administered only to those who have already professed faith in Christ. However, the fact that a "fellow" Baptist would bring this up and use it as a tool for divisive schism is troubling. What is interesting is the fact that you see very little Baptist condemnation of paedobaptists. This is primarily due to the fact that Baptists do not see baptism as essential to salvation, but view it as a symbolic remembrance of what has already occured in the believer's life. To try to use this issue as a stumbling block between Christians is an abomination.

You will excuse me if I choose not to participate in this discussion.