Baptist pools

tulipbee said:

Yeah right.

Click to expand...

“It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now.” – Warfield

Warfield admits there is no scriptural example.

Warfield admits there is no scriptural command.

Warfield admits the argument is made from silence.

Warfield admits infant baptism is an appeal to historic practice.

Warfield admits infant baptismis an inference and not made from exegetical evidence.

Yours in the Lord,
jm

tulipbee said:

Did you know that there is a general baptist and a particular Baptist? Both believes in salvation differently and each enters into baptism with a totally different beliefs.

Click to expand...

This is very true. Particular/Calvinist/Reformed Baptists baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ due to a different understanding of the divine covenants revealed in scripture. I’m not sure why Arminians baptize, it seems to be grounded in the idea of human autonomy and libertarian freewill.

tulipbee said:

Don't know who Warfield is but I was part of an household

Click to expand...

That is an argument from silence.

B.B. Warfield was a Presbyterian theologian who taught theology at Princeton when it was still a christian college. No Presbyterian can actually show from the Scriptures that infant baptism or sprinkling is Biblical. It comes from the idea of necessary consequence in the WCF. They infer it but can never actually prove it.

Moreover the word baptize was coined by the KJV translators who were all pedo-baptists( infant baptizers). Instead of translating the word baptize from the Greek they transliterated it, which means that they took the letters of the Greek word and made it an English word. The word means to dip, plunge or immerse.

Also the idea of sprinkling does not in any way carry the idea that Paul makes very clear about baptism in Rom. 6. How many folks do you know who were buried by throwing a little dirt on the faces? Baptism pictures being buried with Christ and rising again unto the newness of life. I don't think a shower or a little water splashed pictures the grave do you?

Now it must also be understood that there is no regeneration or grace imparted in the act of baptism. Of course that is another Presbyterian view ( not baptismal regeneration but grace being imparted) which is why they call it a sacrament. They think that grace is imparted in some way by the act. But the truth is it is symbolic just as the Lord's Supper is. It pictures a spiritual truth by a physical act but does not make those who come to either baptism or the Lord's supper saved.

The sad fact is that infant baptism and sacraments are a holdover from the RCC that was never shed during the Reformation.

Added to make clear: It is true that Presbyterian infant baptism comes from their view of Covenant Theology. They, as I said earlier, infer it from their faulty view that baptism replaces circumcision. But it is a controversial subject even among them as to whether one who was baptized as an infant and, according to them a part of the covenant, who later rejects faith and Christ is or ever was actually a part of the covenant. That is a question that they simply cannot answer. Also they debate as to whether children, having been baptized, can partake of Communion. So you see that infant baptism is fraught with difficulties that are unanswerable.

~STAFF EDIT~
Those who baptize infants are doing so based on a hyper understanding of the covenants, they important ideas from the Mosaic covenant of works. The practice is based on a faulty understanding of children in the theocratic Kingdom of Israel's Law based covenant. This covenant performed the outward sign of the covenant on all, believers, unbelievers, slaves, servants, etc. Anyone that lived where the Mosaic Law ruled were circumcised. The same cannot be said of baptism. If you believe in infant baptism you are doing so based on Law....

I'm the black sheep of the baptist family who sneaks out at night and has adulterated himself with Lutheran teachings. It's a love affair I have to keep under wraps to keep my Baptist family from disowning me. Baptism is such a strange lady. To Baptist she is just a figment of your imagination and marry themselves to a prayer of magic words. While others embrace baptism as a servant of God at the gate of salvation.

~STAFF EDIT~
Where do you get infants are elect? Do you reject original sin?

I'm not sure why my post was edited...maybe another predictive spelling error. harharhar

JM said:

I'm not sure why my post was edited...maybe another predictive spelling error. harharhar

Click to expand...

Probably to take out the comment of Tulipbee where she was debating.