Baptism of infants?

Noticing that a new edition of the Clarion had arrived, I skimmed through it this afternoon after arriving home from school. Looking through the article "Celebrating and Conserving the Treasure" by J.J.D. Baas (in typical Canadian Reformed fashion the article is translated from Dutch).

Anyways, while looking through the article I decided to take a look at all the proof texts given for infant baptism, and they are as follows:

  • Genesis 17:7 - I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you.
  • Matthew 28:19 - Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
  • Acts 2:39 - For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.
  • 1 Corinthians 7:4 - The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife.

Anyways, starting with the first of these texts, I think that we can all agree that the first did apply on a lineage basis in the Old Testament (and to slaves, etc. too). At the same time, it's a little unclear how and to what extent circumcision in the New Testament is replaced by baptism. The sign referenced in Genesis 17 is of circumcision, not baptism.

Secondly, Matthew 28 does not directly reference children. You could even fashion an argument that the definition of disciple excludes infants in this context, as it makes reference to baptizing disciples.

Acts 2:39 considered alone sounds like it might lend something to the argument, but things become a little less clear to me upon adding in the preceding verse:

Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Is the promise referred to in Acts 2:39 that of receiving the Holy Spirit upon repentance (what the previous verse references), to the children of Theophilus - to whom the letter was written, to the physical children of Israel, or in reference to infants of all believers? If we are to take the final of these options, then how do you fit the "all who are far off" referenced in 2:39 into your argument?

I'm also wondering how best to incorporate the following text into the general argument:

Don’t think to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father,’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. - Matthew 3:9

I was also thinking of the model of being grafted onto Christ, as described in Romans 11, but I'm not totally sure that this would include infants either. To extend this agricultural analogy further, consider the following statement about growing apples:

The difficulty is that an apple tree grown from an apple seed will not produce a tree (or fruit) like the one the apple(seed) came from. For example, a seed from a McIntosh apple will not grow into a McIntosh tree ... To make all of the apple trees in their orchards be of known varieties, apple growers use one of two processes - budding and grafting.

In the agricultural model it's not enough simply to graft a tree and then use its seeds to produce similar children. Instead, each successive generation must be individually grafted.

One scripture quote that I recall from reading The Science of God was Numbers 32:11 which the author, Gerhard Schroeder, saw as something perhaps conceptually similar to the age of majority in Canadian society (the age of majority simply extends responsibility for acts, so perhaps a better analogy would be for those offenders below the age of 12 or so that get off scot-free).

At the moment, I can't say that I find sufficient scriptural justification for a belief in infant baptism nor adult baptism, but at the same time I can't really say the opposite either.

(All scripture quotations come from the World English Bible to avoid copyright issues with the NIV)

What's the best way for Dave to sell stuff this fall?

Pester family and friends
43% (3 votes)
Garage sale (not the best time of year for one though)
14% (1 vote)
An ad in the Buy & Sell
14% (1 vote)
Ebay
14% (1 vote)
A store like Cash Converters
14% (1 vote)
Other
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 7

Eastward, ho!

Just a reminder to everyone that we're moving tomorrow, so we'll be going offline as of tonight, and might not be back up for a couple of weeks, depending on how busy Shaw is. As well, the home phone is not going to be up and running until tomorrow at the absolute earliest, probably not until Monday or Tuesday, so you'll have to call my cell if you want to get in touch with us. Take care, y'all

Whither photos.rotundus.com?

If my bank account is to be entering a higher level of lockdown, I'm wondering if it's worth it for me to keep photos.rotundus.com online.

The current webhosting service that I'm using is about $40US/year for 800 megs of space, 10 gigs of transfer, and up to 10 gigs transfer (at a reputable webhost). At the moment, the photos galleries are gobbling up valuable disk space, but without them I can probably cut hosting costs in half or more (perhaps going back to discount-hosting.com).

I wouldn't be getting rid of the photo gallery were I to do this, but rather just moving it onto the LAN here (with access via SSH), and perhaps keeping a few of the most recent photos online.

Anyways, I just wondering if anyone finds the photo galleries to be of use, or if it's basically a personal collection of little interest to any of you.

On another web-related note, 1 & 1 is apparently now including WHOIS privacy features in it's $5.99US/year domain registrations. I renewed with NameCheap.com earlier this year, but the added feature may be enough to convince me to switch.

Pages

Subscribe to Rotundus.com RSS