steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I've heard it argued by paedobaptists that credobaptists deny the covenant sign to their children, thereby causing them to miss out on this deeply meaningful sign and the blessings that ensue.
However, this must argument cuts both ways. Consider that paedobaptism, rightly done, would seemingly result in generations upon generation of Christians having never experienced a baptism upon their profession of faith. During the time of the early church, when the entire empire was Christian, the only instances of believers baptism would have taken place by foreign and pagan converts from abroad.
Could not a credobaptist rightly charge a paedobaptist of denying the meaningful sign of believer's baptism to so many Christians? In an ideal world, where families remained in tightly knit, tradition-maintaining units, and the gospel was faithfully preached in churches, could paedobaptism make credobaptism obsolete?
However, this must argument cuts both ways. Consider that paedobaptism, rightly done, would seemingly result in generations upon generation of Christians having never experienced a baptism upon their profession of faith. During the time of the early church, when the entire empire was Christian, the only instances of believers baptism would have taken place by foreign and pagan converts from abroad.
Could not a credobaptist rightly charge a paedobaptist of denying the meaningful sign of believer's baptism to so many Christians? In an ideal world, where families remained in tightly knit, tradition-maintaining units, and the gospel was faithfully preached in churches, could paedobaptism make credobaptism obsolete?