Give me one positive command to baptize infants please

[44jason]

Randy, thanks.
Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.

You said:

Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.

Give me one, please. Thanks.

{ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.

You said:

Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.

Give me one, please. Thanks.

Suuuuuure. I'll bite. It's fun.
(although, as you surely would agree, basing a doctrine or practice on a single verse is well-nigh impossible, and where it is done, is often wrong--like taking 1 Cor. 15:29 for justification of certain modern cultic baptismal practice.)

Gen. 17:10 is in the imperative mood.

Now, perhaps you will indulge my request: "can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize" upon profession only?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.

You said:

Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.

Give me one, please. Thanks.

1) Can we have one Scripture verse that commands non-prophets, non-apostles, or non-miracle workers to properly administer baptism? Why does he think it's proper for him to administer baptism, then?

2) Can we have one verse that commands women to take the Lord supper?

3) And, the women in Jason's church (and many other baptists) don't wear head-covers, but he doesn't let the command to wear them stand in his way. Responses to this argument are not so easy to be demonstarted for either side. Minds like R.C. Sproul believe that women are commanded to wear head covers. Thus we see that both sides interpret explicit commands according to prior theological conviction. (And, when I saw him last Sunday he didn't kiss me, but he's "commanded to."

Besides that,

4) There is not one command in the Bible that says we are to baptize professing believers alone.

5) And, for my positive command, we are to make disciples of all the nations by baptizing and teaching them. I, just like Abraham and the Ephesian fathers before me, aim to disicple my children from birth.

6) And, if I had a "command" to baptize infants, why would that convincve the baptist? Maybe the apostle was just saying to baptize "infants in the faith?" Why couldn't I spiritualize those texts like the Baptist seems to do with so many others? So, I don't even think a command to baptize infants would convince baptists, given other arguments they make, that is.

Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Acts 8:14Now when(V) the apostles at Jerusalem heard that(W) Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15who came down and prayed for them(X) that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16for(Y) he had not yet(Z) fallen on any of them, but(AA) they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then(AB) they laid their hands on them and(AC) they received the Holy Spirit.

So, these apostles knew that philip had baptized these samaritans (after all, that's the main reason they commissioned him!). But, according to Jason and Gene (and men like Schreiner in "Believer's Baptism") to ask "were you baptized with water or the spirit?" would get the response "what do you mean, there's a difference?" But, Acts 8 teaches that this was not the case. Indeed, why did the Apostles need to go to Philip? They knew these men had been baptized, so didn't they just automatically believe that they were converted (i.e., had the spirit?)

Oh, and the above argument of mine is backed up by Baptist Ben Witherington III in his book Troubled Waters, so it's not just a paedo point.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I should also point out the ambiguity involved in asking for a "command." Can a "command" be drawn by inference, or does it need to be explicitly stated? The latter can't be upheld, and the former is what we paedos have been saying we have - whether we've convinced anyone is another matter all together. But, make no mistake, given a proper and logically coherent view of "commands," us paedos believe that Scripture "commands" us to baptize our children.

Malone states,

“This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.”

Therefore since “the sacraments” which “baptism” is one of is part of “instituted worship” then we must have a “command” telling us to baptize infants. There are a couple things to say in response:

How should we understand scriptural “commands?” Malone seems to suggest that Scripture can only “command” something if it is “explicitly stated” in Scripture. Thus he argues, “Infants are included only by ‘good and necessary consequence,’ a normative addition which is never commanded in the Bible. The practice of baptizing babies violates the regulative principle.” Now, it is important to remember that Malone says Presbyterians have an internal inconsistency with what theor confession states and what they practice by way of infant baptism. Unfortunately for his argument, the confession nowhere uses the words “explicit” or “express” when talking about the regulative principle in XXI. I. Also we should balk at the idea that a “command” cannot be something gained by inference. Does Fred Malone believe that Scripture commands him to repent? His name is nowhere stated in Scripture, and so he makes an inference from “God commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), by adding the extra-biblical premise, “Fred Malone is a man,” and thus concluding that “Scripture commands Fred Malone to repent.” Therefore a “command” need not be “explicitly” or “expressly” stated to function as a biblical command. Reformed paedobaptist believe that they have been commanded to baptize their children, and thus are not in any obvious violation of the regulative principle. Of course if this inference is wrong, then the paedobaptist has introduced non-biblical elements into worship. But isn’t this the very debate? Thus the argument from the regulative principle must first prove that infant baptism cannot be found (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. But if this argument is accomplished, the added argument from the regulative principle seems a bit superfluous.

Fred Malone frequently argues that he is on better theological grounds because he (thinks) he has explicit commands telling him to baptize believers alone while paedobaptist simply have “possibly erroneous inferences.” He says that inferences are okay, as long as they don’t contradict express commands. But this is assuming he’s proven his case. Obviously I don’t think the Bible “expressly” commands that “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”

But, there is another assumption he makes when he implies that we cannot be mistaken about “express commands” while we can be mistaken in our “deductions.” In response to the above, Reformed Baptist Dr. Michael Sudduth comments:

“Reason (broadly speaking) and inference in particular is utilized even at the level of arriving at the meaning expressed by the sentences written in Scripture. Hence, the distinction between "proclaimed by God" and "derived by us" is not a real distinction in epistemic fact, except for those instances when God directly communicates truth to us. But the existence of Scripture implies that this is not the norm. Divine truth is revealed to us mediately through Scripture. Hence, even though what God proclaims is not derived by us, our knowledge of what God proclaims is derived by us in most cases. This explains why solid Christians so frequently disagree about what Scripture says.

[…]

If you begin with the premise that divine revelation is objectively given in Scripture you then have to explain how subjects can know or access the objective truth. (This is just a special case of the broader epistemological problem of realism). Put otherwise, one must come to grips with the subjective conditions of accessing the objective and how this affects how the objective is perceived. The operation of reason is one of those conditions whereby we access the "objective." So when cutting down the tree of reason, we should probably consider what good fruit we are sacrificing.”

 

[Wannabee]

Now, perhaps you will indulge my request: "can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize" upon profession only?

This really isn't doing the question justice. Remove "only" and you have a basis to start the discussion. Does Scripture command that believers be baptized? That's the place to start.

1) Does Scripture command the baptism of believers? Verses?
2) Does Scripture command the baptism of anyone else? Verses?

This avoids the loaded question.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No Joe. I don't mind you or Tom there chiming in. But please don't go telling me how to frame my questions, 'kay? I didn't challenge the question asked of me, so I thought it was fair to ask my own question.

And anyway, the "only" is exactly the baptist's position, so a) it's not "loaded", and b) your turning the question into a restatement of Jason's original question to me is pointless. Your #1 there is something that's not in dispute, so it's an uninteresting question. That's why I didn't ask THAT question. And #2 is just Jason's question to me in the first place. So, since I answered it already, you might have interacted with the answer I gave.

So what have you done other than tell me you don't like the way I asked my question? If I tell you green cars park in MY driveway! you can tell me that red cars park there too, and if I argue with you and point to a green car sitting there, so what? How does that affect your argument that red cars park there too?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

There is no such verse commanding the baptism of infants. Paul M. mentions this in his intro to the debate I believe. But there is no direct command to baptise only professing believers also. I have never found the verse that says that. I have found verses that say Repent, believe, and be Baptised. And it seems that every person baptised in the New Testament displayed this feature as far as I understand. It seems the recipients to baptism in the New Testament were all cognizant as to display this the qualifications of Repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And as far as i understand this was the way it was for the first few hundred years of Church History. I read about this in a book called Baptism in the Early Church which was done by paedo baptist theologians.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw are not "paedo baptist theologians." They are credo baptists who live and work in South Africa, and are members in a paedo-baptist Reformed denomination of that part of the world.

Randy, it wouldn't be fair to call you a paedobaptist believer, just because you once were a (convinced credo-) member of a PCA church, and say that your stuff proves how open-minded some paedos can be.

 

[MW]

Paedobaptists believe in baptising believers only -- it is just that in the case of infants the wee believers can't speak for themselves, so their parents do it on their behalf. This idea, therefore, of believers only baptism, does not exclude the baptising of infants.

 

[Wannabee]

No Joe. I don't mind you or Tom there chiming in. But please don't go telling me how to frame my questions, 'kay? I didn't challenge the question asked of me, so I thought it was fair to ask my own question.

And anyway, the "only" is exactly the baptist's position, so a) it's not "loaded", and b) your turning the question into a restatement of Jason's original question to me is pointless. Your #1 there is something that's not in dispute, so it's an uninteresting question. That's why I didn't ask THAT question. And #2 is just Jason's question to me in the first place. So, since I answered it already, you might have interacted with the answer I gave.

So what have you done other than tell me you don't like the way I asked my question? If I tell you green cars park in MY driveway! you can tell me that red cars park there too, and if I argue with you and point to a green car sitting there, so what? How does that affect your argument that red cars park there too?

C'mon Bruce. this isn't entirely correct. I don't even have a red car.

Apparently I have upset you (as illustrated by the bold and italics in your comments). Please give me a chance to explain. There was more to this than simply reiterating what was already presented. #1 was supposed to be "uninteresting." My point was clarity, which you helped point out. We all agree that believers are to be baptized. We all agree that it's biblical. This simply helps clarify the discussion.
And there is a certain nuance that is missed in the way you line it up. Baptists simply claim the above, that we are to baptize believers. We follow this teaching because Scripture clearly teaches it. This is where we are still in agreement.
You added "only" though. That's not quite the right focus. Bear with me here. The point is that we are obedient to baptize believers. You are too. But we are not at liberty to do anything more because Scripture does not say to. You turn it into a negative command. The point is, there is no positive command. So, we don't need the word "only." We simply stop where Scripture stops. Scripture says no more so we need not either.
Now, for those who say I'm nit-picking, fine. But this nuance, though somewhat minor, is very important. It's along the lines of the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice. The label has some accuracy, but there is a subtleness to it that is a bit misleading. It also attempts to put the burden of proof on those who really have nothing to prove.

If my green car is parked in a spot marked for green cars then we both agree that I've parked appropriately. But if you argue that red cars can be parked there too I simply would disagree because the sign says that green cars park here. You could go on and tell me that I need to prove that the sign does not say that "only" green cars can park here. Obviously I can't. That's not what the sign says. But the burden of proof is still not mine. I can still park my green care here. But until you can prove that your red car can park there you are in error. By the way, I don't have a green car either.

As for interacting with your "proof," I can't really because I see this understanding of Gen 17:10 to be eisegetical. You know as well as I do that we can't accept circumcision to be equal with baptism. You've tried to prove it, but it just doesn't line up. And I know you think it does and that I won't change your mind. In the final analysis of our difference here the Baptist position on baptism is clear in that no one here will argue against believers' baptism. Thus, again, the burden of proof lies on those who claim that infants are to be baptized. You have admitted that no verse says that, but that it requires systematic study. I would submit that church history and tradition must also be included in the hermeneutic process that comes to this conclusion. In regard to that, Randy has an excellent point. I have this book too (Baptism in the Early Church by Stander and Louw).

Respectfully,
Your brother,

Added later - I didn't see that the book had already been interacted with. I didn't know the guys were credo either. Interesting! It sure takes some of the fun out of it.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Joe (brother),
I did try to emphasize, but I tried not to SHOUT!

A "simple" question asked by Jason, a "simple" answer given by me. Neither he nor I are fooled by the "simplicity" of either. I expect him to come back with a bit of "rejoinder to my answer, but I don't want the conversation to all be about making me answer questions. So, I have one of my own for him. My "answer" requires some explanation. So will any answer he offers.

You refer to my "proof"--and I don't think you are talking about my "car" illustration, which I came up with to demonstrate that proposal A, unless it precludes proposal B (i.e. A OR B), doesn't say anything about proposal B. This is simply "talk about logic." Where is this "proof" you speak of, and what does it concern? I don't recall offering any, nor any arguments. I just answered a simple question with a simple answer.

Telling me I have a burden is fine, something I never denied having.
Telling me you don't have a burden? nothing to prove? that its all mine? I don't think so. And I'm not alone.

Be that as it may, you know as well as I that people do things for "reasons". There are "reasons" for baptizing believers infants. If you just say, "you have no biblical reasons" after you have been given "biblical reasons", instead of refuting the reasons given, that is not effective and convincing; it is merely dismissive. If there is substance to what you are dismissing, you are going to lose people's interest.

So, of course you have your own burden, the burden created once I or anyone suggested that there might be another category of persons who ought to be baptized that were not all part of the first identification. This is not a "prove the negative" question in the least. It is "disprove what has been claimed." You don't have some open-ended battle to fight with a fog-man. There is one proposition being offered against your "only" position, and once you deal with it, then you are back to your sole proposition: baptism is for believers. That's when you can drop the "only".

You're telling me "there is no sign saying you can put your red car there. There's only the sign we agree on that says green cars are OK." No, I say: "there's this sign here that says I can park my red car, and I am parking it, it doesn't matter to me that you can't read it." See, in my illustration, I said that the claim about green cars didn't say anything about red cars, so making a big deal about the green rights says nothing about the red rights--not until you stick an "ONLY" in there.

And I think, except for that part about church history {early, late, whenever; its about interpreting the evidence in front of us; like creationist and evolutionist, the raw data is indeterminative of anything} that I agree with your basic closing comment: I don't have a nice, neat, single "verse" for my position. Where is your verse? We each have exegetical arguments. The bit about eisegesis, and pitting systematics against exegesis is something out of the liberal playbook; you can do better than those assertions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You added "only" though. That's not quite the right focus. Bear with me here. The point is that we are obedient to baptize believers. You are too. But we are not at liberty to do anything more because Scripture does not say to. You turn it into a negative command. The point is, there is no positive command. So, we don't need the word "only." We simply stop where Scripture stops. Scripture says no more so we need not either.

This begs the question Joe. Scripture commands the baptism of disciples - clearly. We believe the Scriptures clearly teach that children are disciples. Ergo, we baptize children. If you say, well children aren't disciples then it's not just a matter of finding a negative command at that point.

As for interacting with your "proof," I can't really because I see this understanding of Gen 17:10 to be eisegetical.

Well, of course, you're dispensationalist.

The fascinating thing is how often Abraham is said to have believed the Gospel and that our continuity is in the fulfillment made to him. Somehow he doesn't participate in the substance of what we're apart of in your eyes but yet he's the reason the Judaizers are told to get lost in Galatians 3 and he's our present example for justification by faith in Romans 4. Our baptism into Christ (union with Him) is referred to as a "circumcision made without hands".

But, wait, that's all exegetical.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

Exactly.

As I noted before. Here is the continuity throughout the CoG.

1. Those saved from all human history were united to Christ in His death and resurrection. These are also called the Elect.

2. The Elect in the OC were saved the same way - union with Christ. They had an administration of the CoG in which they were commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. A entire Covenant structure was set up by God as a means for the conversion of His Elect. Parents were aided by God in the conversion of the Elect.

3. The Elect in the NC are saved the same way - union with Christ. We are in an administration of the CoG in which we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. An entire Covenant structure is intact (and improved) as a means for the conversion of His Elect. Parents are still aided by God in the conversion of the Elect.

If all of point 3 is not true, then I would like to hear why credo-Baptists don't consider every passage dealing with children in the Proverbs and in the Pentateuch to be ceremonial and abolished.

Key truth: The ADMINISTRATION of the CoG in how God has used means to convert His elect has changed but the SUBSTANCE of salvation is fixed throughout history. Once people get that into their bloodstream then all the grandiose talk of the "better" NC as signifying only the Elect is a moot point. God has never saved any but the Elect. Administration is about MEANS.

 

[44jason]

Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
Thanks, brother.

 

[44jason]

Matthew 28 teaches baptism of disciples within the nations.
Acts only records baptisms of those who had professed faith in Christ. Yes some were false professions like Simon, but all were professions none the less. Even if children are assumed to be baptized when whole households are baptized, there is no credible exegetical reason to assume that those were not believing children.
Romans 6 refers to the fact that those who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God, set free from the bondage of the old self. That can only refer to believers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
Thanks, brother.

Is this really the summation of your hermaneutical principle? I'm asking seriously because I want to make sure of this before a reductio ad absurdum is applied upon this principle.

Seriously, brother, I'm trying to be charitable so please confirm that every major doctrine in the Sciptures is established by a single verse commanding it in the New Testament.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Matthew 28 teaches baptism of disciples within the nations.
Acts only records baptisms of those who had professed faith in Christ. Yes some were false professions like Simon, but all were professions none the less. Even if children are assumed to be baptized when whole households are baptized, there is no credible exegetical reason to assume that those were not believing children.

Second question: is it your contention that the full didactic expression of a doctrine is to be found by the examples that are found in the historical narratives? Again, I need to make sure I understand if this is your consistent hermaneutical grid that you are using to interpret the entire Scriptures.

Romans 6 refers to the fact that those who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God, set free from the bondage of the old self. That can only refer to believers.

fully brother. This entire Chapter (and Romans 5-8 around it) can only be true of those united to Christ.

 

[44jason]

In Acts 10:57-48, Peter asked an important question, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who had received the Holy Spirit?" The obvious answer was no. But what if Peter had asked, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have not received the Holy Spirit?"?

Why not the unbelieving spouse of 1 Cor. 7? Maybe we should baptize them since the unbelieving spouse hasn't denied Christ or rejected their spouse's faith -- they just haven't made a profession yet.

 

[44jason]

Bruce, still waiting. Use either the OT or NT, narrative or whatever else you wish.

 

[44jason]

Galatians 3:27 says that if you have been baptized into Christ then you have put on Christ. That can only be true of regenerate people. The assumption is being made by Paul that you are regenerate based on you profession of faith. But neither the Biblical writers nor paedo's assume that the infant is regenerate.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In Acts 10:57-48, Peter asked an important question, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who had received the Holy Spirit?" The obvious answer was no. But what if Peter had asked, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have not received the Holy Spirit?"?

I think this would be problematic as an example wouldn't you agree? Are you arguing that we must see a supernatural gifting of prophesy upon the regenerated before we baptize them? I also think you need to note the context of why this is significant to a Jewish community starting to learn that there is no Jew nor Greek. The commonality of Spirit is meant to tear away the veil separating the clean people from the unclean people.

Why not the unbelieving spouse of 1 Cor. 7? Maybe we should baptize them since the unbelieving spouse hasn't denied Christ or rejected their spouse's faith -- they just haven't made a profession yet.

As Diego Montoya (you know the guy who had his father killed by the 6 fingered man in the Princess Bride) would say: this word you are using, it does not mean what you think it does.

Are you saying that there is such a thing as an unbelieving spouse that believes in Christ?

 

[44jason]

New Covenant baptism is not the same as circumcision.
If you go there, you are opening yourself up to loads of inconsistencies that have been documented already.

 

[44jason]

Rich you ask

Are you saying that there is such a thing as an unbelieving spouse that believes in Christ?

No. But since the unbelieving spouse in that passage is part of the covenant culture of his/her believing spouse then why would you not baptize the unbelieving spouse -- since you would have no problem baptizing their unbelieving child?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
Thanks, brother.

You must not have looked carefully enough.

But while you're looking again, you could maybe find time to give me your text? I'd like something to study...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Galatians 3:27 says that if you have been baptized into Christ then you have put on Christ. That can only be true of regenerate people. The assumption is being made by Paul that you are regenerate based on you profession of faith. But neither the Biblical writers nor paedo's assume that the infant is regenerate.

This confuses the substance with the administration. If you are arguing that every man physically baptized is, by definition, one who is united to Christ (i.e. put on Christ) then you are arguing for really a perfect understanding of the man baptized. Even you acknowledge the administration is not a one for one correlation.

The assumption by Paul is not that people are regenerate based on profesison. The assumption is that those who have been regenerated bear fruit (to include profession).

The Biblical writers do not assume that a man is regenerate who professes either. Simon the sorceror and Judas Iscariot are two prime examples. Those "...who went out from us..." (however many they were) are further examples.

 

[44jason]

And by the way, it is in that very same passage that Paul confirms that the circumcision of Gen. 17 is meaningless in the New Covenant. So you must find a new verse to support your paedobaptism.

 

[MW]

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

New Covenant baptism is not the same as circumcision.
If you go there, you are opening yourself up to loads of inconsistencies that have been documented already.

I'm having trouble keeping up with these one-liners. Which circumcision? Is not New Covenant baptism called the circumcision made without hands?

Bruce you ask

Are you saying that there is such a thing as an unbelieving spouse that believes in Christ?

No. But since the unbelieving spouse in that passage is part of the covenant culture of his/her believing spouse then why would you not baptize the unbelieving spouse -- since you would have no problem baptizing their unbelieving child?

Actually, I asked that. I also answered that in another thread and so did Bruce. Spouses are not commanded to teach and train their unbelieving spouses. They are, in contrast, commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And by the way, it is in that very same passage that Paul confirms that the circumcision of Gen. 17 is meaningless in the New Covenant. So you must find a new verse to support your paedobaptism.

He does no such thing. Please read my response to Welty on this point. To accuse Abraham of circumcising Isaac for the same reason the Judaizers wanted to circumcise the Christians at Galatia misses the weight of Paul's rebuke:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/09/14/00.43.29

 

[44jason]

Rich, Simon was assumed to be regenerate based upon his confession, thus he was baptized. Then they found out they had made a mistake. This neither caused the church to stop baptizing professors for fear of further mistakes. Nor did it cause the church to just baptize everyone that associated with them. In fact, Peter said that Simon was had no part in the Covenant community even though he was baptized!!! Hmmm. I thought baptism gave you entrance into the covenant community so that you could be brought to faith.