The following was lifted from a blog quoting Doug Wilson:
"The question for our baptistic brethren is this. Are you prepared to maintain that an infant brought to your congregation (formally and covenantally excluded) is in the same position as an infant brought to a believing synagogue in Jerusalem in AD 52? Not only would the believing synagogue not exclude such an infant, I believe that they would have difficulty even comprehending the concept of excluding the infants. And if there was such a generation-long uproar over the inclusion of the Gentiles, what would the commotion have been if the apostles really were teaching the Jews that not only must you start admitting the Gentile adults, but you must start excluding your own children? I have trouble believing that this would not have caused the Mother of all Theological Controversies. But there is not a word about such a controversy in the New Testament".
2 comments:
Are you kidding? Try considering how an infant en utero, in a gentile woman, married to a gentile man who converts to Judaism. According to the mitvah ceremony from the 1st century, that woman is baptized because her husband believed, and her infant has no further need of baptism because it went into the waters with its mom. Did you catch all of that? I am shocked at how the argument for covenant baptism ignores the milieu (yes, I said, 'milieu'.) of baptism in the first century.
Funky,
Man, our thinking is a little creepy. I emailed that Wilson article to a friend (his brother in law works with you), and I said, "Pay attention to the last paragraph."
Dru, I think you meant to say millennium and not milieu. Anyway, at least God wasn't present en utero. ;)
kdny
Post a Comment