One of the larger themes of the Bible Centred Youth Worker Conference was the role of youth workers and parents, which was interesting because you never really think about it that much yet it's such a prominent role in the Bible. The idea is that in the Bible the family is seen as the natural unit of life and the parents are seen as the people responsible for their children. Obvious I know but clearly understated. Interestingly a lot of this seemed to tie in with the covenant theology that has baptism understood as paedobaptism (that's infant baptism for the record), though I think, and this is just a thought, that I disagree. Isn't baptism a sign of death and rebirth (cf Romans 6:1-14) and therefore salvation, not of entering into a covenant relationship as paedobaptists would have it? I don't know the answers, but at least I've written about it.
I'd be reluctant to say it's not a requirement. That's not the language that the bible uses to talk of it really. Everyone gets baptised who believes and it's always assumed that it does happen.
I would have to say that Baptism looks like a work to me and would then pose the question: faith not works? I love this open and honest discussion. Not trying to be mean!
It's not required for salvation, but then neither is, for example, not murdering people. God wants us to do both.
Good point, I do think that it’s our first act of obedience. I was baptized and I encourage all of my students to do so as well. But back to the main point. Does infant baptism imply the salvation of a soul? Then conformation reinforces that? I really think that baptism was intended to be for believers as a symbol of what has happened in their lives.
If baptism looks like a work, I know it's been said before - but one can pose the other question; "faith without works?" Baptism = evidence of repentance?
It's interesting - John the baptiser's catchphrase was "repent", or turn - but baptism then seemed to follow soon after. Mark calls it a "baptism of repentance*", and links the two closely, but a lot of people don't think about baptism until they've been a Christian a while and are 'sure' of it. I know I certainly didn't, but could this be a bad thing (well, not bad - but "could be done better")..?
* "...repentance for the forgiveness of sins"
"Does infant baptism imply the salvation of a soul?"
It shouldn't do. Properly understood it says you are part of the covenant, not part of the elect.
I think it doesn't imply salvation, but it implies repentance. Unless we've changed the meaning of baptism, that is.
Circumcision was the most obvious sign of the covenant in the OT, though, right?
Is that okay, to change the meaning of baptism, and use it then as a more socially acceptable alternative to circumcision..?
Do you fit under the new covenant with God without salvation? or are you refering to the covenant of relationship with the church and family?
I'm probably being too broad in my understanding of the covenant. Maybe I need to read more about it before I comment, sure, I'll do that. That'd be wise.
I probably ought to do the same. I won't, but I probably ought to... Meh.
Awwh, look. I in a half-assed way introduced Seth to Mark and it prompted a discussion. It's so cute.
Study is great. I wll do the same thing but of course I am a baptist so we talk about this alot.
I like the link between parents being responsible for their Children and the Bibles emphasis on the family unit in the Bible...
Does that then have implications for us today, seeing as societies view of family today is so different?
Is it that paedobaptism is only understood when put in the context of family responsibility, without it, is it obsolete?
Hmm... Sounding good to me...
This is a website by Mark Walley. If you want to find out more or get in touch, that'd be nice.
Getting around this website can be a tad confusing. If you're looking to explore the better stuff of what I've written then this navigation should help you. If you're after a specific post then searching or looking through the archives chronologically may help.
This site tries its best to be accessible for everyone. Atom, and RSS feeds are available. All content licensed through a creative commons licence. I may have stolen ideas off you when you weren't looking, but it was almost certainly an accident. As with all claims of originality and ownership Psalm 24 v1 applies.
Seth
Agreed. The baptisms of the church of Acts were of new converts. Not their children. God intended it (by my own opinion) to be an act of obedience not a requirement.