greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, as usual we will just have to agree to disagree won't we Matthew? We just don't see eye to eye concerning the differences of the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Baptized into Moses is not the same as Baptism into Christ.
There are, of course, continuities and discontinuities between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. However, is the status of children part of the continuity or part of the discontinuity? Matthew's point relates more specifically to the fact that here is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants. Would Paul have phrased himself this way if he didn't mean for us to infer a parallel case to us? Especially since he actually explicitly draws a typological connection between the Moses case and us in verse 6. Is the baptism into Moses not part of the typological connection to us? If not, why not?