I'm back. 
I'd taken a couple of weeks off, details in another thread, but I'm glad to see this discussion still going, and not in a disputing manner.
I speak as one who is heavily influenced by Calvinists. I was taught that baptism is done by immersion, on believers, and that babies aren't old enough to make that decision. I myself had to wait until I was 15 before my parents would allow me to be baptized, something I had wanted since the age of about six. Until I was 15, they didn't think I was "old enough to understand what it was all about." To which I reply as politely as possible, "garbage."
Now, one of my biggest core beliefs is that you should never, no NEVER accept what you've been taught just because you've been taught it. You're better off proving it to yourself. Be like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures for themselves to see whether what they were being taught was actually true. I believe heavily in our own independent study, and what our personal walks with the Lord show us.
My search of the Scriptures shows that immersion is the Biblical method of baptism, as evidenced by John the Baptist's needing to set up office "in" the Jordan River. If he were sprinkling everybody, he'd have needed little more than a bucket of water. Same thing with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. They went down into a body of water, whereas by sprinkling they would not have needed to go into the water physically.
BUT.....
It is only symbolic, after all. I have done a dissertation on articles of faith in which I thought a certain church I grew up with was rather silly for spending an entire Sunday School class on whether to take communion from one big cup, or from a lot of little cups. They came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter, which it doesn't, but I couldn't believe they spent the whole class talking about something so puny. I'm beginning to wonder whether the method of baptism, sprinkling or immersion, isn't another "communion cups" question.
As for the age at which baptism is done, I haven't wavered much there. I believe that baptism is a decision made by believers for remission of sins, and that a baby isn't old enough to have sinned yet, let alone desire remission of it. But I do think that as soon as a small child says he or she believes and wants to be baptized, it should be allowed even if that child is only three or four years old. "Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them."
Now, please understand I'm only showing my own viewpoints, based on my own study. There is room in the Body of Christ for opposing views, and I'm glad to see that this thread has not downgraded to a "we're right and you're wrong" fight--the attitude that caused me to take a couple of weeks off in the first place.
Blessings and peace on all.
I'd taken a couple of weeks off, details in another thread, but I'm glad to see this discussion still going, and not in a disputing manner. I speak as one who is heavily influenced by Calvinists. I was taught that baptism is done by immersion, on believers, and that babies aren't old enough to make that decision. I myself had to wait until I was 15 before my parents would allow me to be baptized, something I had wanted since the age of about six. Until I was 15, they didn't think I was "old enough to understand what it was all about." To which I reply as politely as possible, "garbage."
Now, one of my biggest core beliefs is that you should never, no NEVER accept what you've been taught just because you've been taught it. You're better off proving it to yourself. Be like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures for themselves to see whether what they were being taught was actually true. I believe heavily in our own independent study, and what our personal walks with the Lord show us.
My search of the Scriptures shows that immersion is the Biblical method of baptism, as evidenced by John the Baptist's needing to set up office "in" the Jordan River. If he were sprinkling everybody, he'd have needed little more than a bucket of water. Same thing with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. They went down into a body of water, whereas by sprinkling they would not have needed to go into the water physically.
BUT.....
It is only symbolic, after all. I have done a dissertation on articles of faith in which I thought a certain church I grew up with was rather silly for spending an entire Sunday School class on whether to take communion from one big cup, or from a lot of little cups. They came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter, which it doesn't, but I couldn't believe they spent the whole class talking about something so puny. I'm beginning to wonder whether the method of baptism, sprinkling or immersion, isn't another "communion cups" question.
As for the age at which baptism is done, I haven't wavered much there. I believe that baptism is a decision made by believers for remission of sins, and that a baby isn't old enough to have sinned yet, let alone desire remission of it. But I do think that as soon as a small child says he or she believes and wants to be baptized, it should be allowed even if that child is only three or four years old. "Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them."
Now, please understand I'm only showing my own viewpoints, based on my own study. There is room in the Body of Christ for opposing views, and I'm glad to see that this thread has not downgraded to a "we're right and you're wrong" fight--the attitude that caused me to take a couple of weeks off in the first place.
Blessings and peace on all.
Upvote
0
