Baptism positions in the Reformed forum

[EnglishPuritan]

What is yours and why?

 

[cygnusx1]

What is yours and why?

Believers Baptism .
why?
Because I have never been convinced of Baptising infants.

I have read books by both sides and I believe that baptism and Communion are for the repentant.

 

[Foundthelight]

Believers Baptism .
why?
Because I have never been convinced of Baptising infants.

I have read books by both sides and I believe that baptism and Communion are for the repentant.

What he said. That is also my position.

 

[EnglishPuritan]

I hold to paedobaptism and I do not see a method laid down for the form of baptism in the Bible. I link paedobaptism to the Covenant of Grace &c..

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I voted "Paedobaptism & any of the above " I don't think mode is all that important. In the Didache it is clear that all three modes were accepted VERY early (first century) in the Church and I see nothing in Scripture to contradict that.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[reformedfan]

pedobaptism & sprinkling only; cuzza circumcision = baptism & the only instance of God using immersion in the Bible was the flood.

 

[JJB]

paedo + any (altho, i don't particularly care for seeing infants immersed).

Almost voted "other" because not all are baptized as infants, and so must participate in credobaptism.

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

I wonder how many paedobaptism and immersion responses we will get. Is that ever done to an infant?

 

[edie19]

Credobaptism - and while I believe immersion to be correct, am not going to get too upset about sprinkling or pouring.

Grew up Presbyterian Church USA - was baptized as an infant. Never thought twice about it. When I took my confirmation classes we had two kids in my class who were baptized at the same time as they were confirmed. As we studied the Bible - "repent and be baptized" kept jumping out at me, but at that point knew nothing about believer baptism.

When my children were toddlers and elementary school age we were attending a UCC (long story - and God got me out of there). I argued long and hard with my family (husband - who was raised Catholic, didn't practice any faith at the time - but had the whole limbo/purgatory thing in his head)(parents - the Presbyterians who practiced infant baptism)(mother-in-law - same as my husband), but still didn't really have enough knowledge to argue my point - it was just a "gut feeling". So, my children were baptized at ages 6 1/2 and 2 1/2 years. I never felt quite right doing it - but was tired of arguing and felt at least they'd remember it (which they do).

When I found the Reformed Baptists - wow, it was like coming home. What I instinctively (for lack of a better word) felt to be right was verified by the doctrine of my church and the LBC. As a believer, I followed God's instruction to repent and be baptized and was baptized (by immersion) 3 years ago.

As an aside - I would never tell someone baptized as an infant that their baptism wasn't good enough or didn't count. Neither would I discourage them if they chose to be baptized as a believer sometime later in their life.

 

[Defcon]

I am for believer's baptism. I was baptized as an infant in the methodist church - or what they called christening. I was then baptized when I became a member of the church when I was in Jr. High, even though I was saved a few years earlier . This baptism was through sprinkling. I started attending a Baptist church when I started dating my future wife. The church was adamant about immersion so I went through that as well. I never did feel as though I needed to be immersed since I had been baptized earlier. Oh well....

 

[StAnselm]

Almost voted "other" because not all are baptized as infants, and so must participate in credobaptism.

I guess that's a given, so "credobaptism" means that baptism must be on profession of faith. (It's a much better phrase than "adult baptism"...)

I wonder how many paedobaptism and immersion responses we will get. Is that ever done to an infant?

The Orthodox do, of course, but I also know of an independent community church that baptises infants by immersion.

So... I'm guessing from this that one doesn't have to be Paedobaptist to post on SR.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I voted paedobaptist, any method. Even when I was a credobaptist, I wasn't militant about immersion-only, and thought that sprinking and pouring were perfectly acceptable, and in fact I didn't really think the argument for immersion was terribly compelling. At any rate, I imagine that if there isn't a law against immersing babies, there will be as soon as the militant tolerationists see such a ceremony. "How barbaric!"

 

[jazzbird]

I am still working this out. Being that I come from a Baptist background, believers baptism made perfect sense to me, and I didn't even understand infant baptism. My impression was that those who did so believed that it saved the child. I have attended a Presbyterian church for two years now and I understand the "why" of infant baptism and it makes sense in the context of covenant theology.

My husband and I haven't had children yet, and I feel we will need to do some more study of this issue before we decide what we feel is best. I don't believe this is a right/wrong issue. I see solid scriptural support for both positions.

Does anyone have good book recommendations on the subject - perhaps books that compare and contrast both?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I said Paedobaptism - any because I believe the baptism is the important thing, not the method.

One reason I support paedo baptism (although I respect the rights of other to make their own interpretations) comes from the reaction of Paul and Silas's jailer:

Acts 16
31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I chose Paedobaptism & any of the above. I grew up as an "Baptist" and in the last 20 years, I was attending an Anabaptist church. My wife and I are considering a new home church which is connected to Presbyterian Church in America. I am learning the "Presbyterian" or "Reformed" way now.

 

[reformedfan]

Does anyone have good book recommendations on the subject - perhaps books that compare and contrast both?

Jay Adams, Methods & Modes of Baptism, is a lil pamphlet written by Jay Adams the fasmous dude, who comes from an immersionist Baptist background that now writes in support of sprinkling. This lil thing i don't think qualifies as a book, it jam packs much excellent discussion & exegesis into a lil' pamphlet.

i don't recall if it covers infant vs. believers, though.

 

[Antman_05]

Credobaptism & full immersion only

thats the understanding i came to when reading about bapitism in the Bible so thats what i feel is right. Mind you i wouldn't say only.

 

[HiredGoon]

I was raised credobaptist with immersion being the prefered mode. Now I believe paedobaptism of any mode is the most scriptural and historical position.

 

[Imblessed]

I was raised Quaker, no baptism at all, so I've been confused about this issue for the longest time!! LOL

I voted undecided because while at the moment I am credobaptist--immersion, I have finally come to understand the thinking behind the paedobaptism and see it as very valid--from a covenantal viewpoint.

I will probably stay with credobaptism myself, but I don't have a problem with paedobaptism anymore, now that I understand why it's done(at least from a reformed position--I don't agree with the Catholic reasoning behind it at all...)

As far as immersion goes, I think that's most supported by scripture, but wouldn't think that a person should get re-baptized if they had been poured or sprinkled before....

 

[Erinwilcox]

I am for believer's baptism by immersion. The Bible says to believe and be baptized. One more thing, if baptism=circumcision, then why baptize the girls? And don't say that it is because we are in the new covenant.

BTW I am not trying to be offensive. I really am curious. Besides, I count you PCA, OPC, etc. people good brethren and I wouldn't want to offend on this minor issue when we agree on so much.