I am a thoroughly convinced credo-baptist (believer’s baptism) and I’m almost as convinced that infant baptism does more harm than good when applied indiscriminately (as seems to be the case in the UK), as I indicated yesterday.
Today then I’m going to call on the services of well respected Bible scholar Craig Blomberg to help make the case for being baptised.
“Although theologians continue to discuss what might be implied by household baptisms in the New Testament and to what extent parallels between circumcision as the initiatory rite in the old covenant and baptism as the counterpart in the new might justify infant baptism, it remains undeniable that the only unambiguous examples of people being baptized in the New Testament are of those who are old enough to believe. And a passage like Romans 6:4 makes sense only when immersion is assumed. Just as people are laid out “six feet under,” the baptizand lays down under the water, but then like Christ rises again to symbolize his or her new spiritual life. And the Great Commission commands this be done to all disciples (Matt. 28:19).”
“But I do want to insist that, if not normative, believers’ baptism by immersion as soon as feasible after conversion was the normal practice of the New Testament church and it should be ours also.”
“With or without words, baptismal immersion testifies to our identification with the crucified and risen Christ. With words, with the appropriate “pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21), produced by already existing saving faith, baptism includes a promise to follow Jesus all the days of our lives.”
Read the whole thing here (HT: Justin Taylor)