twogunfighter
Puritan Board Freshman
Many of you know that I have been trying to figure out if infant baptism is required or just authorized by scripture. I am certain that Acts 2:39 shows that the covenant promises are to the children of beleivers and I have been for some time. I have just been struggling with the idea of requiring baptism as infants rather than some time later down the line. I have been reading Witsius in an attempt to understand why the requirement. It seems that Witsius thinks the following:
A: Children are included in the covenant promise and as such are presumed to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 7:14, Matt 19:14 etc
B: Those that have received the Holy Spirit cannot be denied baptism of water. Acts 10:47, Acts 11:16-18
C: Therefore infants cannot lawfully be denied water baptism by their adult Christian parents.
On the face of it I am convinced, but I would like to submit his argument to the board for hole poking. Also those that are scholars may want to correct my understanding if I don't understand Witsius' argument correctly.
Thanks
Chuck
A: Children are included in the covenant promise and as such are presumed to receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 7:14, Matt 19:14 etc
B: Those that have received the Holy Spirit cannot be denied baptism of water. Acts 10:47, Acts 11:16-18
C: Therefore infants cannot lawfully be denied water baptism by their adult Christian parents.
On the face of it I am convinced, but I would like to submit his argument to the board for hole poking. Also those that are scholars may want to correct my understanding if I don't understand Witsius' argument correctly.
Thanks
Chuck