Hi, guys!
A question in regards to infant baptism: This question isn't to ponder any potential link between baptism and jewish circumcision, but obviously, it will indirectly head that way. The main question will deal with the argument that we use for believer's baptism.
I see belief and repentance as preceding the purpose of baptism; the idea is clearly written and put forth that the intent of baptism is a sealing of repentance and confession unto the remission of sins. Since all of the passages dealing with baptism point to the forgiveness of sins and so forth--which clearly links it to repentance and confession-we have our standard argument to reject the practice of infant immersion. But, when we look back to the scenario with Abraham and circumcision, might our argument become a little less convincing?
Paul teaches that physical circumcision for Abraham was just a sign of the faith that he had previously---it would just be an evidence or emblem of the righteousness, obedience and faith that he previously had within. So, if we applied our believer's baptism argument to that scenario, would we say something like this, "see, circumcision is only for adults who are old enough to express belief, because we clearly read from scripture that circumcision is just a sign of the faith that Abraham already had. If we circumcise babies, then we are going against the very meaning of circumcision; which is a sign of the faith that was previously held."
Is it possible that we have fallen into a logical fallacy by pushing that same scheme onto baptism? We might say, "see, baptism has to be after repentance, because it is clearly for remission of sins and in conjunction with calling upon God with our knowledge of the gospel."
Could it be, that just because we have those clear references of repentance and baptism in scripture, that we have gone too far---as we might do with Abraham and circumcision, if we didn't know the whole story---and only apply it to those old enough to express faith?
Just to clarify: at this point, I totally accept and believe in repentance and baptism-which is safe since it is 100% scriptural-I only ask this question to ponder the model that we have laid upon believer's baptism, and how that argument might weaken if we apply that same interpretational ideal that we do to Abraham and circumcision. In a sense, circumcision had one meaning for Abraham (a sign of previous faith) and a different meaning for infants (a connection to the covenant)----even though we have clear teaching of repentance and baptism for believers, could it not have a different meaning for infants and some type of connection to the covenant?
God bless you all for the help,
Brent
