 The New Testament sign of the believer is undoubtedly the sign of baptism. But what exactly does this look like? Some have said that the Old Testament, 8th-day circumcision is what controls our understanding of baptism and would therefore see it as something that is done with babies as a sign of the New Covenant. They would argue that since circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, so infant baptism — which seems to be the best possible transition from Old Covenant times to New Covenant Times (New Testament times) — would be the best possible transition from circumcision to baptism.
However, is this a good deduction to make with regards to the church’s current obligation to signify salvation through baptism (Matt. 28:19)? Is the church’s present-day practice of baptism mainly a vestige of a period in salvific history that, historically speaking, was symbolised by males only? That could hardly be the case in light of New Testament examples of believers, whether male or female, who were baptised after coming to faith in the Lord Jesus. The argument between infant baptism (paedobaptism) and believer’s baptism by immersion (credobaptism) therefore mainly centres around this issue that involves its definition in New Testament times. If we define it in terms of a rehashed, reshuffled, or changed 8th-day circumcision, then it could perhaps make sense that babies should be baptised. But if it can be proven that it became the New Covenant sign of the believer, which is really a sign in its own right, then one could make a strong case for believer’s baptism. Read the full article here
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |