Please post your stuff on it. I need help. It became evident years ago that the more passionately I believe in something, the less able I am to articulate it well. So far I have consulted Calvin, WCF, and Scripture.
Believe it or not, I still need help. I'm not that eloquent and I'm having a hard time figuring out the essential parts of the argument since my whole walk with Christ has been from a covenantal perspective. Recently, I've attempted to argue for paedo-communion. I'm so deep into covenant theology that I can't understand why this mode of thinking is lost on some people.
Oh, and I'll be posting something on here in the next couple of weeks about Paedo-baptism. That's why I'm asking for help. I don't want to make a poor showing.
*UPDATE*
What I would specifically like to address is the efficacy of an infant baptism when it is done by an ordained minister in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit. Should they re-baptized when they make a confession? Are there concrete examples in Scripture that make it plain that a baptized infant does not need to be re-baptized?
Here is a good place to start.
Lol.
Amir and I got into a really big discussion on this one night. It was horrible and left me feeling like crying.
I'm guessing you were a baptized infant...as was I =p
When I asked my father about it, the only support he could offer about it being biblical was that when the man of a household made the decision to be baptized, he was committing to raising his family in Christ as well (loosely, Ephesians and the role of fathers as spiritual leaders). So, his entire household was baptized from the beginning - from wife to children to household servants...every member of the household was baptized based on the father's decision to become a Christian.
Amir and I have also been in discussion about this. However, I wasn't a baptized infant.
I was getting ready for work this morning and I was thinking about this and it dawned on me -
Do you remember the story about Moses' son as he was travelling back to Egypt? One night, the Angel of Death came upon his son and Zipporah circumcised the boy to save his life. Do you remember why Moses' son was going to die because Moses failed to circumcise him? I remember it having to do with being outside God's covenant. You probably already knew this, as you have a more mature understanding of infant baptism and the covenental relationship with God than I do, but I had no idea.
Its strange that before Moses could be in a complete covenant with God, his offspring had to be under the same covenant - regardless of their choice. Is this a correct understanding of this?
An example I thought of that is relevant to today that illustrates it well was this:
My grandmother and her 2 sisters had a piece of land given to them by their father. The sisters forfeited their rights to the property, selling their shares to my grandmother and signing a contract. For the last 45 years, my grandmother and her family have cared for and lived on that land. Recently, she died, as did one of the sisters.
The land, by right of inheritance, was left to my mother and her 4 sisters. As the daughters of a person who was in contract with another, they are now the ones in contract with another. They have the choice at any time to forfeit their rights in that contract, but they were put into the contract by no choice of their own.
Similarly, as the daughter of a man who chose to enter a covenantal relationship with God, through no choice of my own, I entered that relationship with God. As a sign of that covenant, I was baptized. However, as I get older and the time comes for me to be the responsible party in that covenant, I still have the choice to break covenant. I know that by Jewish law, breaking a covenant requires some heavy punishment or fine, right? Well, because I was raised in a home where I was taught about God's love and grace and knowingly rejected that covenant, then I am going to be punished greater than any one who had no idea about who God was or his love and grace who never entered a covenantal relationship with God.
Is this a correct understanding?
And concerning this:
Are there concrete examples in Scripture that make it plain that a baptized infant does not need to be re-baptized?
Assuming that circumcision was the Old Testament version of the New Testament Baptism, I would definitly say "NO"...as you can only be circumcised once...
I'm spamming you, and I apologize, but I keep coming up with new things on this...
Where in scripture does it say that baptism is a part of salvation or the salvation process? I know that by example, when men first became Christians, they were immediately baptized. But that's because they were not in any covenantal relationship to begin with (or they were in the Old Covenant). Nowhere in scripture do you have an example of a man who was a 2nd generation Christian. They are all first generation. And all the first generation had their children baptized...had their entire households baptized. But there is no "son of John" who steps forward later in life to declare that he is indeed a christian and chooses to be re-baptized.
Its a covenant - a contract. You can opt to remove yourself from the contract or covenant at any point, but you can't ever re-enter it. Right?
Christina - thanks for the spam! :)
I wouldn't say that can't ever re-enter a covenant, but I see your point. People do believe, transgress, fall away, and return.
However, I do hear what you're saying.