----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Scanlan" <jscanlan@...>
> [Jeff comments]
> Jim, I am just wondering why they cling so tenaciously to so tenaciously
> to the infant baptism position when as you say there is no mandate for
> it. I am just wondering whether to reject that position would mean that
> they would have to reject pretty much *all* of their distinctive
> covenant theology.

 1. Most *good* Presbyterians believe that to reject infant baptism is to
reject covenant theology.  But the truth is... infant baptism NEEDS covenant
theology.  Covenant theology DOES NOT NEED infant baptism.
Presbyterians DO believe that the silence of scripture mandates infant
baptism.  The fact that no infants are baptized, explicitly OR IMPLICITLY,
in the record of scripture is NOT a deterrent to their insistence of a
mandate in the text.  Their understanding of the old covenant's emphasis on
the relationship between family and covenant is fundamental to understanding
*where* they get a mandate.... having close continuity between the old
covenant and new covenant implies there must continue a close relationship
between family and covenant.

Unfortunately, if the Klineans were consistent in their understanding of the
intrusion of the Christ event and His New covenant and what that means to
shadow and fulfillment, they would understand that the New Covenant
continues the emphasis on the relationship between family and covenant in
The New Covenant Family, the Church, as a fulfillment of the Old Covenant
family.  The close continuity is in *family*.  The discontinuity is in what
the *family* looks like.  The *children* of the Old Covenant had a sign
given to them that they were *in* the Old Covenant: circumcision.  The
*children* of the New Covenant do indeed (IMHO) have a sign given to them
that they are *in* the New Covenant: baptism.  The HUGE difference is that
the *children* of the New Covenant are identified in John 1:12 and elsewhere
(also called "heirs", "joint-heirs", etc).  The close continuity between
covenants is in *children*.  The discontinuity is in what those *children*
look like.

 2. Historically, the question has been framed thusly: Are Baptists
Reformed?
 3. When I'm asked whether I affirm covenant theology, the answer always
depends on who's asking and why they're asking.    :-)


Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH