Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. Although I would clarify by adding that it should not be called baptism at all, at least not biblical baptism for the remission of sins. People are just getting babies wet, they are not baptizing them.
Here's something that probably should have been said long ago. That sniggering description of a Christian baptism, whether or not the speaker approves of the exact administration of it, and although this seems to be a very popular joke among members of a certain POV...
Albion, I have grown to appreciate and respect your contributions to every discussion when our paths have crossed, whether we were in agreement or not. So I don't take this observation about how my comment landed with you lightly.
But does using that particular turn of phrase actually impress upon any traditional Christian what you want to get across? I am certain that what you said in the very next sentence does the job!
I actually borrowed that turn of phrase from a couple I know who described their own experience in those terms. They were both pre-teens and had grown up being taught that baptism for the remission of sins is a requirement for salvation. Both were “baptized” at age 12. But in retrospect one said that the real reason she did it was because her friend was doing it, and she wanted to go along for the ride so to speak. The other said his reasoning was similar, that he thought a girl at church was cute and he thought she would like it if he were “baptized”. So by the time they were married and in their early 20s, they realized through an in depth study that neither of them had understood what they were supposedly doing at age 12, it was not done in faith, not for the remission of sins for which they were penitent. So both of them have said before, “I wasn’t baptized at age 12, I just got wet!” So then, with faith and repentance and an understanding of what they were doing, they were baptized into Christ for the first and only time. This is why I say there is no such thing as “re-baptism”, or infant baptism, or whatever else. It’s either scriptural NT baptism or it is not.
Right. As I said, it is a favorite in certain Protestant circles. That's why I commented on it, not because one lone person such as yourself chose to describe a baptism that way. I must have read it here on CF a dozen times in only the past several weeks.
This kind of thing poses special problems since we may conclude that those young people absolutely pranked the church and mocked the sacrament.
I tend to use a "strict" definition of the term because I believe it to be one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented concepts in Christendom. I'll stay with your (American) football analogy, although I do it with some hesitation because people like to poke holes in analogies that weren't meant to be exact representations of the concept at hand to begin with. Nevertheless...
In my experience perceived contradictions come from two primary sources. 1) lack of knowledge about what scripture actually says, and 2) refusal to allow scriptures to say what they actually say. Agreed 100% on the fact that Jesus is not the author of confusion.
