I'm just posting because I am slightly concerned at the attitude expressed by a few posters, in reply to others posting here. I know it is the wish of the moderators that no debates take place inside the Congregational sections of CF, and I can understand why; it is nice to have a forum where one can fellowship with other believers without their doctrine and practises being harshly criticised by non-believers or members from other denominations. However, I think that this post was, in its very nature, was bound to attract attention (as it has done), and I do feel sorry for those in this forum who have posted their own opinions, which they are then unable to defend under fear of administrative action.
As such, I would ask that posters here be hospitable towards those with other views, and try not to revert to unnecessary flaming or personal attacks. I know that "believer's baptism" is a very important tenet of Baptist doctrine, and there is no doubting that it is Biblical. But other denominations
do practise infant baptism to those born to baptised parents; they quote both Biblical and historical reasons for doing so, and though you may disagree, I humbly ask that members refrain from making posts which misrepresent these people. Yes, members of the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, and Orthodox churches, amongst others, do practise the baptism of infants, but they certainly do
not (as one poster claimed) believe that one is automatically "saved" because of their baptism. The Bible makes it clear that is repentance of our sins and faith in Christ which lead to our salvation, not the act of baptism of itself, and I do know of not one denomination that denies this fact!
Secondly, I would remind posters here that there is more than one interpretation of the Bible, and that infant baptism truly is
anti-Biblical, as some here would suggest, is far from a closed issue. Certainly, the verses believed to suggest infant baptism may be vague, and there are alternative interpretations. But there is nothing specific in the Bible which would suggest that infants are any less receptive to the power of God than us "adults". Condoners of infant baptism would in fact suggest the contrary is true, often referring to the Gospel of Mark, where a group of parents send their small children to have Christ touch them, to be blessed. Christ's apostles rebuke the parents, perceiving the children, in their youth, to be ignorant and unworthy to be blessed by Jesus; but Christ in turn rebukesthe apostles, saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not". Whilst indeed, this verse too (like all in the Bible) is open to interpretation, the subject of infant baptism is far from as clear-cut as some posters here imply.
As such, I think any honest and open discussion of this topic should take place in an open forum, if indeed posters who reject infant baptism wish to debate posts made by those who support the practise. I know that this is a Baptist forum, and you have the right to post what you wish. But I do find it a bit unfair making rebuttals of others' posts, when they are unable to reply - especially if the rebuttal in question misrepresented the actual beliefs of the poster (which has happened in this thread
).
God bless you all; may He guide you in your journey with Him.
Peace,
Nick
I agree and I think many others do too, but we need a place where we can be amongst those whom do understand where we come from. What we believe and why. Nothing will be solved all the time by "other" denominations correcting ours in our own place to fellowship and discuss. An open forum is nice and there are many threads, however this is our forum, for us to discuss amongst our own. Hopefully it will not become a breeding ground of opinion and false accusations. 
