Subscribe
Notify of
guest
18 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steven Ward
10 years ago

Much appreciated.

Mike Bull
10 years ago

Doug has blogged the same thing previously, and it boils down to treating baptism as souped-up circumcision – that is, a hereditary obligation to a legal code (http://bit.ly/1GVj9Jj). This is more obvious in Doug’s version of FV because he rightly stands for personal regeneration before corporate regeneration. But that just means he has to make more of a case for why paedobaptism isn’t redundant. That leaves a supposed entry into “Covenant membership” but such a demarcation only existed in the divide between Jew and Gentile. It never existed before Abraham, which is why the entire world was judged in the… Read more »

Jim
Jim
9 years ago
Reply to  Mike Bull

Totally agree! I have never understood infant baptism and can find no scriptural basis for it.