The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

toddpedlar · #9 (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackleton

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The quotation in Hodge is not Hodge's actual view. He is propounding how someone might think about the church in a way that excludes infants. If you read the headers for the propositions that follow, you will see that this is true.

I know, I read what follows. It was his lead in to the topic of baptism as circumcision and saying that this was why babies were baptized and not to save them.

The problem is that both sides seem to have some really good arguments. Maybe there is a way to blend the two.

Not sure how you'd blend the two.. either you baptize infants or you don't...

Quote:

A lot of good people who would agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace part ways over this one issue. But it kind of goes back to ones belief of what was happening in the OT and how much of a difference there is between the OT and NT. Believers only baptizers seem to see a clear line of demarcation between the old and the new, whereas covenant baptizers see only one covenant of grace that goes from Genesis through Revelation. The new fulfills the old but it is often labeled as "replacement theology." I think fulfillment theology would be better.

"replacement theology" is a title never used by covenant theologians, though. It's a term of derision slapped on covenant theology by dispensationalists and others who disagree with its tenets. "Covenant theology" is just fine as a name.