Baptist vs Presbyterian perspectives on "household&quot

Status
Not open for further replies.

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
Would not ones slaves and servants be considered part of the household as well? What about the mean old mother in law living in the extra room? How about a derelict that one took in and has lived closely to the family for a good number of years?

I still don't know much on infant vs. non infant baptism thing. In a nutshell, does infant baptism teach a type of baptismal regeneration? Would God consider my child unclean if I did not have them baptized? Isn't the only reason God would consider any one clean is because of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit? Maybe I have the whole thing wrong, and usually do. Maybe someone can point me to some information that cuts to the chase and gives me the bottom line on this issue. PM's are encouraged as I wouldn't like this to turn into a battle over the issue.

Aslo for you fellow Baptist out there. The other night my youngest son told me that he prays that Jesus will live in his heart and always be with him. (I am divoreced, I go to a reformed Batist church, my ex takes them to a dispie church) . My oldest has told me this of himself a year or so back. Both my children know the Sovereignty of God better than most adults. Now I was wondering, if my children asked, should they be Baptized?

I am not going to pressure them or egg them on. If they ask I will want to make sure they know exactly what it entails and what it means to do so.



[Edited on 2-25-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:7143b3c231][i:7143b3c231]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:7143b3c231]
Its too bad one of the NT writers didn't just come right out and say "When you baptize those converts, don't forget to baptize their children too"... Oh, well, it forces us to dig into the scriptures. [/quote:7143b3c231]

Pardon me Bob, but that lovely comment deserves a hearty :thumbdown::thumbdown:

:mad: I hear this very sentiment from 7th Day Adventists when they say "it's too bad the NT writers didn't just come right out and say that there is no change to the seventh day Sabbath." They, as you seem to do, go to the Old Testament to justify your presuppositions. When will we be consistent with Sola Scriptura!?
When the Old Testament becomes our interpreter of Apostolic scripture, we are in trouble. Try the reverse hermeneutic (New interprets Old) and you would not feel the empty longing for a proof text in the New Testament about infant baptism.
Soli Deo Gloria.
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
[quote:d3ac43d971]
Again, if we used your hermeneutic, we would have to conclude that no children were at the Titusian epistle households. Alll the ingreediants are there. Titus is proof that "believing type" language is used even when referring to infants/children, thus I need not be scratched by the other household verses as well. Therefore, we are back at the original dilema. I have thousands of years of corporate noun usage in the Bible on my side, and what was on your side, i.e., "It says they beleived" has now been shown to be doubted-upon good grounds.
[/quote:d3ac43d971]

Solid.

The ESV's rendering and Luke's meticulous dsegination of "suv in one instance and "de" in the other between Lydia and the jailor make it exegetically impossible to say that both instacnes have the same interntions behind it.

the ESV's translation for the jailor is more suited from Luke's meticulous historical accuracy and his varied use of the Greek words in differentiation to Lydia's account.

Jeremias' rebuttal again Aland is quite helpful here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top