[Luke]

OK, I'm starting to get annoyed with this thread. Peeps, please stop asking why we believe in infant baptism (as if we haven't already stated it something like 20 times in this thread alone), and stop giving this "no evidence" crap, as if we haven't established that there is at least a case for it. (Bryan, you in particular should know better...)

I understand that there are people who disagree with the paedobaptist conclusions, and honestly, I'm okay with that. I can see how someone who is attempting to reform their minds to Scripture can come to a baptistic conclusion, although I personally disagree with that conclusion. But those of that mindset (again I will point to WooTang) aren't going around as if the paedobaptists are a bunch of morons who trust their tradition over Scripture.

[Chico]

Luke,

was that somewhat directed at me? i'm sorry if i came across like that. i actually thought i was asking some pretty good questions. i never said that i disagreed with infant baptism or even asked you why you believed in it. i was just trying to discuss what it represented. sorry if i was one of those people.

chris

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Luke, earlier it had been so B/R filled I was trying to get just the reformed view and why. I want to know why you can say the meaning of Baptism changed, why you think the church would = Jews in covenants, etc. They are important issues that havent been addressed.

[WooTang]

Originally posted by Luke
I understand that there are people who disagree with the paedobaptist conclusions, and honestly, I'm okay with that. I can see how someone who is attempting to reform their minds to Scripture can come to a baptistic conclusion, although I personally disagree with that conclusion. But those of that mindset (again I will point to WooTang) aren't going around as if the paedobaptists are a bunch of morons who trust their tradition over Scripture.

I hate to admit this, but I agree with Luke. (just kidding) While both Luke and I come to different conclusions about the role of baptism in the New Testament covenant as related to circumcision in the Old Testament covenant, the bottom line is that it must be based the conclusions that you draw from inconclusive text. I understand from where Luke draws his conclusions, and, according to his last post, Luke understands from where I draw my conclusions. There is no scripture that states whether or not infant baptism is necessary, however, paedobaptists interpret Gen. 17 to say that there is. I understand that; however, I personally do not agree. That's just the way it is. There is no 100% compelling, convincing evidence in Scripture to tip the scales in either direction. Honestly, I wish there were. And if it pointed to Infant Baptism, I would immediately become a paedobaptist. But it just simply doesn't. *This is not an invitation for any of you to quote me a bunch of scripture! *

This thread could go on forever, but we would never come any closer to a concensus or better understanding than where we are now.

Again, I think that Infant Baptism is a nonessential doctrine. That's not to say it isn't worth debating, but it's only worth causing lines of separation between denominations, not divisions among believers (i.e. Presbyterians calling Baptists morons, etc. and vice versa!)

[Luke]

It was directed at anyone who
- asked a question that had already been answered twice or more
- continued saying that there was no Scriptural support or implication for paedobaptism at all
- continued to strawman every paedobaptist

If that's you, then you know it.

I would be more than happy to discuss and explain the merits of paedobaptism, and I have done it in other threads. But I think this thread has reached the end of its usefulness...we are getting nowhere. If one would like me (or the other Presbyterians and Episcopaleans here) to answer questions about infant baptism, first dig up and read some old threads about it (when search is re-enabled), and then, if you still have questions, post a new thread and I would be happy to answer them--if you are willing to actually listen instead of repeating yourselves like broken records, which is what this thread comprised.

I would hope by now that I've earned a reputation as one who tries to be reformed according to Scripture in everything I say here. I'm not afraid to address this topic, I just am not going to address it over and over again to the same objections every single time in the same thread because some people refuse to listen the first time (or second, or third...).

For further reading, I would also reccomend reading about the ongoing debate between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. For baptism-specific reading, John Piper has several excellent articles on the subject in favor of the baptistic position. I have a couple articles for paedobaptism I could distribute--one by Greg Bahnsen and one by Ken Gentry, although I would reccomend to you the book Children of the Promise by Randy Booth, a former Reformed Baptist--who does an excellent job of addressing the position fairly and lovingly--even those who do not end up agreeing with him will agree that it is a truly excellent book. In fairness, I would love to reccomend a good print book for believer's baptism, but I have never seen one (and I've looked, believe me. I work for LifeWay (Southern Baptist bookstore) and we carry NO good books on the subject---the one book I found basically said that the Catholic church practices infant baptism, so there...). If anyone would like to forward a reccomendation, feel free.

I am going to close this thread. If there is need to start another, anyone may feel free to do so.