Infant Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter fgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fgj

Guest
In defending and explaining infant baptism I always like to use Circumcision of male infants in the old testament as being replaced by baptism in the new testament.Now every time i use this passage it always follows up with the question made to me.How about female infants?How did they enter into the old covenant?This is a question I cant answer and need your help.Thanks
 
My understanding is that they didn’t. Women and girls were covered by their fathers first then their husbands. But I don’t know where to point you to prove that.

M
 
Remember that circumcision was but a shadow of the good things to come, not the complete picture.

The fact that females entered the old covenant through their fathers makes the case for infant baptism all the stronger. If the faith of fathers was imputed to the daughters, then all the stronger the case that faith of parents is imputed to infants in the perfected entrance to the new covenant.
 
My understanding is that they didn’t. Women and girls were covered by their fathers first then their husbands. But I don’t know where to point you to prove that.

M
When the people fed with the loaves and fishes are counted, women and children are not included in the count.
During the time of the early church, all household members were expected to worship the same god(s) as the head of household. Therefore, when the head of the family is baptized, his own household is likewise baptized.
I like to use the analogy of inoculations. Young children are immunized to protect them from physical disease. Young children are likewise protected from spiritual harm through the power of the Holy Spirit received through Baptism.
Every denomination teaches that we are reborn, that we become children of God, adopted sons and daughter of the Father, through the Sacrament of Baptism. Why wait? As Jesus said, “Let the children come to me.” Let the children become a part of the family of Christ, of His community (the Church) while they are still young and before sin has a chance to enter his/her life. Unlike Catholics who accept the reality of original sin, not all denominations accept this dogma or that this stain, this tendency to sin inherent within each of us, is wiped out through Baptism.
While it is true that the infant cannot yet speak for himself or herself in order to give consent and confess faith in our Lord, how many other real life decisions are made on behalf of the child? What reason would keep a parent willing to protect his/her child’s physical health from likewise protecting his/her child’s spiritual health other than disbelief in the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism?
Anabaptists do see water Baptism as a mere symbol of the transformation that has already taken place in their lives, as a public statement of that change.
 
In defending and explaining infant baptism I always like to use Circumcision of male infants in the old testament as being replaced by baptism in the new testament.Now every time i use this passage it always follows up with the question made to me.How about female infants?How did they enter into the old covenant?This is a question I cant answer and need your help.Thanks
I tell people if they read God command to Abraham in Gen 17: 9-14, you will see that He only called for males to be circumcised. Men were the ones that carried that household and carried God’s covenant. If women are part of the household of men who kept God’s covenant, they will be saved as well. Therefore, a male is not only getting circumcise for himself; he is getting circumcise for everyone in his family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top