My friend RV is studying the scriptural basis of infant baptism. The correlation between baptism and circumcision is often used to illustrate why infant baptism is the proper mode within certain circles of reformed faith and replaces the sign and seal of the covenant that circumcision stood for in the Abrahamic Covenant. My concern is when folks get confused and speak of baptismal sufficiency or baptismal justification. Scholars might think that I’m a simpleton in my understanding here. Yet, I think I have a solid illustration that pretty much dispels the gray matter. In the OT, servants and other pagans who lived within the covenant community with the Israelites were also circumcised in order to be received into the covenant community and to enjoy the benefits of the community. Yet, their circumcision certainly did not provide salvation, regeneration or sufficiency for entrance into Heaven. My point is that the covenant community is not necessarily the kingdom of God. Being baptized into the church is not salvatory – Romans 9:13 “Just as it is written: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” -- a hard teaching for a mother or father to be sure. But let’s not take the Gospel for granted and presume upon God. The means of grace provided through the church do not replace the work of Christ on the cross.
If you don't agree, I'm open to your comments. I know that there are others that see something else in all of this, so I'm throwing this out just to see if anyone 1- reads this blog and 2- has a different take that I should understand. Have a great evening!
On a lighter note...
Why Eskimos should sprinkle (HT: RevFun)