R. Scott Clark's Inconsistent Hermeneutic

R. Scott Clark employs a non-typological interpretation of Old Testament restoration prophecies in order to defend the practice of infant baptism. The error of this interpretation is demonstrated by other paedobaptists explaining the correct typological interpretation.

0:00 Heidelcast excerpt
6:13 Glory Cloud excerpt
16:38 Back-and-forth between Heidelcast & Glory Cloud

For more, see:

Amillennialism’s Two-Edged Sword

Kline’s Two-Level Fulfillment 184 Years Before Kingdom Prologue

Sources:

[austincapps]

Wonderful. If only paedobaptism consistently applied its anti-dispensational hermeneutic on the abrahamic land promise to the abrahamic seed promise

[phillipgriffiths]

R. Scott Clark totally misrepresents to 1689 Baptist position.

[ReederBeekeeping]

That was presented excellently. I love the back and forth at the end to emphasize the contradiction.

[tomtemple]

A sincere look at Scripture has made it very hard to brush aside the references to households and families being baptized. It is hard to believe that the Philippian jailer's family, and even more so Lydia's household (since she was likely wealthy and had servants and their families as well as her own in her household) was comprised only of adults - and even harder to believe that the detail-oriented Luke would have mentioned that whole households were baptised without clarifying that that did not include any infants, when it would be a natural assumption that they would. It is also hard to brush aside, both Scripturally and historically, the fact that there is no evidence that I could find (please let me know if you have found some!) to even remotely indicate that the early church questioned infant baptism - and I don't for a second believe that Jewish parents whose children were previously marked as members of the Covenant did not regularly raise the question of why their children suddenly could not receive the mark of the Covenant when they began to follow Christ. It would look to them as if this new Covenant were excluding their children for no reason. Surely the Apostles would have had to explain credobaptism to Jewish parents often enough that there would be some record of this being an issue.

once someone can find a verse that says children are excluded from the covenant community, than infant baptism is still biblical, it's not just an empty sign/outward profession of faith