Noah’s Flood and the Red Sea Crossing: two types of baptisms
So if “believer baptizers” are right–if people who have received infant baptism have not received biblical baptism at all–then there have been hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Christian believers who have never obeyed the Lord’s command to be baptized in his Name, believers such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, J. Gresham Machen, J. I. Packer, John Stott, R. C. Sproul, etc.
In my conversations with Baptists and other credobaptists (believers’ only baptizers), they always argue based on some really bad presuppositions.
Over-realized eschatology has no place in the argument against infant baptism using the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34.
J. C. Ryle writes that if Jesus wasn’t circumcised on the eighth day, he would be “regarded by all Jews as nothing better than an uncircumcised Gentile and an apostate from the faith of the fathers.”
Why is this “excursus” inserted in the story of the appointment of Moses as the leader of God’s covenant people? Is there anything to learn from this incident?
Not until the 1520s did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant Baptism. Under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence was denied until the “age of accountability.”
The promise of forgiveness and renewal by the Spirit is spoken specifically to the children of Peter’s listeners. But the point is: In expanding his community of grace to the Gentiles, God will not expel the children.
“It is so full of misunderstandings and theological bloopers that one does not know where to begin … I don’t, however, expect a Lutheran pastor to reject this teaching or to misunderstand it in such a spectacular way. In what sense, I wonder, can he still consider himself a Lutheran?” ~ Gene Veith, on Dan Denzell’s un-Lutheran views