Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksanderpolo  Quote:
Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist Not transferred federal headship faith; faith on the part of the one receiving the sign. | Bill, I really don't know who are you reacting against. Can you state what you think Paedobaptist believe before you raise your objection? For example, do you think that when we use the language of "sign and seal", we imply that we do not need to embrace it by faith, that the "sign and seal" function equally in those who believe and those who don't? This might help clearing up some confusion, I think. |
You're missing my point. Baptism, like circumcision, is/was to be received by faith. I think I understand the paedo position rather well. An infant is baptized into the covenant community (visible church) and under the headship of his earthly father. The long-standing Baptist problem with that view is that baptism is not on the basis of the faith of the one receiving the sign whereas circumcision was. The Presbyterian would answer that N.T. baptism is covenantal and, therefore, does not require individual faith. I give Bruce my compliments in carefully explaining that paedo covenantal baptism does not impart regeneration or justification. Those are both on the basis of faith.
If I was a Presbyterian, I would say that Baptists come to the same place as Presbyterians in the area of soteriology but via a more painful road, by dismissing paedo covenantal baptism. My rejection of paedo baptism is not on the basis of misunderstanding. It is based on a material disagreement of a number of component issues. But in the end we do have a meeting of the minds regarding soteriology, and that is a comfort.