Covenant theology?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

Reformedjason

Guest
#1
I study reformed theology and I see that many of my brothers are in to covenant theology. I can understand most of it and pretty much agree on most. I just don't understand infant baptism. Why do it? It was not done in the bible. Why not do believers baptism?
 
O

OwenHeidenreich

Guest
#2
do we honestly know God, or love, by studying theology?
 

starfield

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2009
3,393
58
48
#4
The scripture supports Credobaptism.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#6
I don't think infant baptism would be any more effective for salvation than circumcision was.

Baptism, of course, signifies circumcision of the heart, and is the entry point into the new covenant, just as circumcision of the flesh was to the old covenant.

I'm assuming that the logic behind infant baptism is that it brings a baby into the new covenant, just as circumcision of an 8-day old baby brought him into the old covenant.

Circumcision, though, didn't guarantee obedience, and without obedience there was no salvation. The same applies to the new covenant.

So basically, I think it's a vain exercise, however well intended.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#7
I study reformed theology and I see that many of my brothers are in to covenant theology. I can understand most of it and pretty much agree on most. I just don't understand infant baptism. Why do it? It was not done in the bible. Why not do believers baptism?
how old does one have to be, in order to be considered a believer?

notice it says here the children were brought TO HIM.

Matthew 19:14
13 Then were there brought to him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed there

paidion: a young child
Original Word: παιδίον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: paidion
Phonetic Spelling: (pahee-dee'-on)
Short Definition: a little child, an infant
Definition: a little child, an infant, little one.

3813 paidíon – properly, a child under training; the diminutive form of 3816 /país ("child"). 3813 /paidíon ("a little child in training") implies a younger child (perhaps seven years old or younger). Some scholars apply 3816 (país) to a son or daughter up to 20 years old (the age of "complete adulthood" in Scripture).


i wonder why in this episode Jesus is not recorded as saying something like:


Then were there brought to him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. And he said, That's right, the little children can not come to me, and should be forbidden from doing so, for even though of such is the kingdom of heaven, they must be adults to be saved (or baptised). So He sent them away, and departed there.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#8
Calvin's formulation of baptism was a compromise between Zwingli and Luther....the same for his Lord's Supper.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#9
I don't think infant baptism would be any more effective for salvation than circumcision was.

Baptism, of course, signifies circumcision of the heart, and is the entry point into the new covenant, just as circumcision of the flesh was to the old covenant.

I'm assuming that the logic behind infant baptism is that it brings a baby into the new covenant, just as circumcision of an 8-day old baby brought him into the old covenant.

Circumcision, though, didn't guarantee obedience, and without obedience there was no salvation. The same applies to the new covenant.

So basically, I think it's a vain exercise, however well intended.
any more than it may be a vain exercise for adults?
if God is not working in baptism, what difference does it make?
if it's symbolic or a public expression of something (an adult's profession or the church family's commitment to raise the child in the scriptures (see 2 Timothy))...i don't see it being a vain exercise. or perhaps it is.