Therefore we do not impose the shadow upon the reality by baptizing infants when the NT clearly states that baptism is reserved for disciples (Acts 2:41 etc). Baptism is NOT the seal of the New Covenant; the Holy Spirit is (Eph 1:13; 2Cor 1:22). If we baptize infants, we are performing a law work upon them, something we do, which we hope will make them in some way right with God. Well, it won't. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone.
And you
prove individuals are disciples how? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/spin.gif" alt="" /> You prove that this change in covenant relationship happened where in Scripture?
Acts 2:41 does
not do it!
You said, “If we baptize infants, we are performing a law work upon them.” You are still not understanding what
covenant and its respective relationship(s) really mean. Paedo’s do not impose a shadow upon reality (
a reality that cannot be proved, by a mere profession), rather they simply see
the reality of a “covenant” relationship (taught in OC and no-where abolished in the NC—it is a new “covenant”), where there are both lost and saved in
the covenant, which shall be separated out at the last day (i.e. there are covenant breakers in the NC as well - Heb 6; 10). Baptism is not a work of the law, but an obedience of faith to the covenant that God has established! Believers not baptizing their infants are covenant breakers, not walking by faith, understanding their heritage, and recognizing the covenant relationship God
even has with (elect and non-elect) children.
Does it really matter? Is it important whether we baptize infants or not? Well, if all paedo-baptists were like Pilgrim, who is quite clear that baptism has no effect upon the infant, then I would not keep keeping on about it. It's just a little confusion about the covenants. It is when we get to the realm of 'Presumptive Regeneration' that the matter gets serious. I append an article which appear in a Christian mag recently:-
And where may I ask have I supported 'Presumptive Regeneration'? Have I (and others) not done the exact opposite
here? Have not those here that have supported such error been reproved?
Now, you append a magazine article. Pope Steve are you now speaking to us ex-cathedrally from England with a magazine story and placing its authority on par with holy Scripture? A story from a magazine does not make the reality of what the Scripture teaches any different. It is quit
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/rofl7.gif)
that you take one illustration and make it the teaching of the whole paedo system. Maybe we should call your apologetic
Presumptive Presbyterianism. An apologetic defense that credo is correct because Presumptive Regeneration is wrong is
not a good argument. You still have to contend with those of us who embrace CT. Please prove your case from Scripture and not emotional and ex-cathedral appeals to your audience.
The other errors of your post have been dealt with elsewhere.
