Infant Baptism, why do you reject it?

[KEPLER]

Hmmmm.........I did ask awhile ago(asked my husband) why some people baptize their babies. He told me it brought them more comfort..........which I understand being a mom myself. But I found more comfort in that my children were sanctified first.......then when they come of age they have a choice as to whether or not they love Jesus.
Understanding who Jesus is and chosing to follow himand then to be baptised. But you know what.....if someone wants to baptize their baby............then rebaptize later when they understand.........I see no problem.

It's alot better then no baptism at all like some preach.

Maybe someone can explain being sanctified by the parents ..........maybe I just don't understand.

Love
Tam

Search back in this thread, Tamara. There's an explanation back there somewhere.

K

 

[MikeMcK]

yeah, cause every Protestant church wont make the same claim.

Rather than just dismissing the question, why don't you answer it?

Or are you unable to account for the fact that the Baptist Distinctives are taught in scripture?

 

[jckstraw72]

Or are you unable to account for the fact that the Baptist Distinctives are taught in scripture?

theyre in the Baptist understanding of scripture, sure.
and every Christian group will tell you the exact same thing about their distinctives. crazy how that works.

 

[MikeMcK]

theyre in the Baptist understanding of scripture, sure.

And, again, rather than just dismissing them, why not examine them in light of scripture and show me where we're wrong?

If you're really right, like you say you are, then I would think it would be easy for you to answer this very simple question.

and every Christian group will tell you the exact same thing about their distinctives. crazy how that works.

Actually, every Christian group does not have these disctinctives.

 

[jckstraw72]

And, again, rather than just dismissing them, why not examine them in light of scripture and show me where we're wrong?

all i said was you cant say youre not Protestant bc you claim your distincitves are in scriptures. EVERY Protestant will claim the same. you are a Protestant.

Actually, every Christian group does not have these disctinctives.

that is stupendous. but since i didnt say they did, that was unneeded

 

[KEPLER]

KEPLER,

You have given me a great response; now, let me see if I can respond to you. (I would have done so yesterday, but for some reason, I couldn't log on to CF; don't know if anyone else was having the same problem. Anyway, better late than never I suppose.)

First let me say that you are right to point out the wording of Eph. 2:8-9 "by grace, through faith." Didn't mean to use awkward wording to discuss faith.

The Eastern Orthodox immerse their infants. They have always immersed their infants (three times, in fact!) .So, how does your argument work against them?

Obviously this would be irrelevant to EO. However, it would not be irrelevant to the many that do practice immersion. There's not a good blanket statement to make that is going to cover all the differences between the different groups who practice infant baptism. Bottom line is that if they don't practice effusion, but immersion, then they wouldn't apply. But there are groups, such as Rom Cath, who do not practice immersion of infants or of anyone for that matter. Those are the groups to whom I refer. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify that.

Mark, it seemed to me (perhaps I misread) that you were constructing the following logical argument:

Premise: Proper NT baptism is supposed to be by immersion
Premise: People who baptize infants do so by effusion.
Conclusion: Infant baptism is incorrect.
​

I proved the syllogism incorrect by pointing out the Eastern Orthodox do indeed baptize their infants by immersion.

Your "histoircal" argument is incorrect. In Mark 7 and Luke 11, the word "baptizo" is rendered "wash". The key thing in Mark 7 is not the pharisees, but the pots, pans and the table. Do you really think they picked up a table and immersed it in the kitchen sink (or wash tub, whatever!)??? That's how the KJV translators solved the problem. When it referred to people, they used "baptize"; when it referred to inanimate objects, the used "wash". They were wrong to do so.

The passages in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 are both referring to the washing of hands before a meal. This reference is still keeping in the definition of "baptizo" meaning to "immerse." The verb "baptizo" doesn't specify in and of its definition as to whether it must be used with respect to a person or to an inanimate object. The act of immersing one's hands would have obviously been part of the washing of hands. I'm not quite sure what your connection is to what I was saying about the word "baptizo" itself.

“Baptize” in Mark 7:4 also applies to the noun “tables.” (KJV says tables, while better translations say dining couches. NIV omits the word entirely (based on the fact that ONE manuscript omits the word, even though all the others include it), which IMHO shows their bias). And my question is, do you really think they picked up the table (or chairs), dunked it in the sink, and immersed it?

No, of course not. So, in Scripture itself, we have at least ONE place where “baptize” most assuredly does NOT mean “immerse”. (There's also Acts 22:16, where Paul uses baptism and wash as synonyms.)

My point was that "baptize" was not even an English word until the translation of the English Bible. In its original context of the Greek language, its meanings were "to dip, dunk, or immerse." The word does not connote what the purpose of the dipping, dunking, or immersing is. It only refers to the act itself. So anything accomplished by dipping, dunking, or immersing could be functions of this word in its original language setting. And so it could and was used to refer to acts of bathing or washing utensils. But, I would think we can all see the difference in context between those types of uses and baptism are two different contexts. Because the word was used in these two passages to refer to dipping, dunking, or immersing for the purpose of washing or cleansing, it is erroneous to assume therefore that all references to dipping, dunking, and immersing are for the purpose of washing and cleansing.

The problem here is that “baptize” in Greek does NOT always refer to complete immersion. Greeks in the time of Christ, for example, had a ceremony for “blessing” a newly built boat. In this ceremony, either wine or water was poured over the bow of the boat, the boat was given a name, and then the boat was launched. This ceremony is called the “baptism of boats”, and as I’m sure you’ve surmised, it’s a tradition that exists to this day. Surely, the boat was not immersed during this ceremony. Boats, after all, are not supposed to be immersed: that’s kind of a bad thing!

My response to your point here is that you are reading too much into the definition of a Greek verb that was brought over into English specifically in 1511 with the KJV. (Incidentally, don't forget that these practices were not in the keeping of Jesus and His disciples, but the Pharisees, so these practices of ceremonial washing are not being taught for our imitation.)

You’re the one who brought up etymology; that’s all I’m discussing here.

Neither Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics believe in "once saved, always saved," so your crtique really doesn't apply.

I am not even speaking to the issue of the security of the believer; rather, I am speaking of original sin. I'm not sure what your point is here. In fact, I was reading my post several times to make sure, but I don't see anything in it that even has anything to do with the doctrine of the security of the believer. That's a different topic altogether. (BTW, I don't know if this is the case or not, but in case it is, let me just say this now. I'm sure that you looked at my profile to see that I am a Baptist by denomination; and I'm sure you have some view about Baptist that are "stereotypical," for lack of a better word. Please don't let your views of the Baptist denomination color your comments to me. I am not speaking to you as a Baptist, but as a Biblical theologian and linguist. If this is not the case, then forgive my comment, and I'll continue.)

Admittedly, this part of the conversation gets much more subtle…let me again quote what you originally wrote:

Next, we must consider the motive of the baptism. Those who practice infant baptism do so because they think it removes the original sin of the infant so that if it should die in infancy, it will go to Heaven. That's a rather interesting view, because if our original sin could be removed by baptism, then there would be no sins committed later in life; afterall, that is why we are sinners, or committers of sin, we have original sin, or a predisposition to sin from birth - however you wish to word this. David tells in Ps 51 that from the womb, he was conceived in iniquity. Also, if we didn't bear the sin of Adam, we also wouldn't bear the consequences of his sin, which is death. But last time I checked, everyone is still dying.

Your assertion seems to be constructed thus:

Premise: Baptism is said to wash away original sin in an infant
Premise: We see evidence of sin later on in the infant’s life
Conclusion: Baptism did not wash away original sin, and was thus not effective.
​

I thought that you were therefore implying that in a true baptism, we would indeed see a life free from sin. So, yes, I suppose I was inferring from what you wrote a bit of “holiness” theology (a la Wesley). If I was mistaken, I apologize.

If, OTOH, I read you correctly…The washing away of original sin in no way implies that that person will never again commit sin. Even Christians sin (see Romans 7). In this life, there is no escape. Sin is a condition which results in sinful actions. Even if (after Baptism) we never again committed a sin, we would still be sinners. And (furthermore), we can indeed unbelieve our way out of salvation. (EO and RC would take it a step farther and say something about mortal sin which could keep us out of heaven, but Lutherans generally don’t take it that far…) SO, yes, there is a connection with OSAS…but none of this may be what you were implying. ???

Presbyteraisn who baptize infants do believe in OSAS (although they define it differently (and better!) than the Baptists). BUt in their theology, infant baptism is rooted in inclusion in the New Covenant, in which case, your crtique does not apply to them either (although for differenet reasons).

​

First, Presbyterians baptize babies as a form of dedication to the Lord. It has no salvific import at all. I have family who are Presbyterian by denomination and can say that from experience in talking with them and their minister. And again, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of the security of the believer anyway, so, again, I don't understand the significance of that comment. The doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of the security of the believer are two different biblical doctrines.

As a former Presbyterian, I can say that this is flat incorrect. Yes, Presbyterians may not say “baptism saves” as the EO, RC, and Lutheran Churches do, but infant baptism is most decidedly not “dedication”. It is a real means of Grace, which brings the child into the New Covenant. It is an “outward sign of an inward reality”. It is most certainly neither a mere formality, nor a mere ordinance.

As for original sin and security of the believer…. No, in my view, they are not separate. Your distinction stems from the way that denominations from the Reformed traditions “do” theology.

Theology (from a Lutheran and RC (and EO, I think) is not so much “systematic” as it is “organic”. For example, one cannot properly speak about baptism if one does not understand the Incarnation. Baptism CANNOT be separated from the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Our example of how the Holy Spirit works through the waters of baptism is God in a manger. We cannot (with our weak understanding) fully comprehend it…but we CAN trust in it. The Holy Spirit is just as present in our baptism as God was in the Ark or in the manger.

All theology starts with the Incarnation.

[FONT=&quot] I can only conclude Mark, that you do not understand the doctrine of Baptism as the EO, RC, Lutherans Presbyterians define it. (For that matter, I would further say that you also don't understand baptism as the Scriptures define it...)[/FONT]

First, let me say that I'd be careful with such strong comments as that; many would perceive that as disrespectful or rude (the last part of it, that is).

Aww, c’mon…I used a “winky”…. Oh, alright, fair enough. I apologize.

EO: Dr. Jewell, EO theologian, in Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, says, "... one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin, so that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised without such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a foregone conclusion."

Even if Oblio had not said this guy is not reflecting true EO doctrine, I still would have known it was incorrect. The EO do not speak of a “guilt of eternal sin”….that’s not their vocabulary. ‘Nuff said.

RC: Catholic Encyclopedia, Section on Baptism, Part XII: Effects of Baptism:
1. The Remission of All Sin, Original and Actual
(There are 4 others, but the first is the one relevant to our conversation.)

Fair enough. I’ll let Borealis or someone comment, but it seems accurate, AFAIK.

Lutherans: Wayne Weissenbuehler (Lutheran Minister/Theologian in Colo.) in an article "Infant Baptism": "We believe that in baptism God adopts us into Jesus Christ as his child for time and eternity through the word, water and Spirit. It incorporates us into Christ's body the church. So begins the life of faith. Certainly there is no evidence that Jesus wants to exclude infants from this."

That’s fair as far as it goes. We would also add all the other things that people like Paul add:
In our Baptisms, God:
1) forgives our sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)
2) washes us clean (Eph 5:25-6; Titus 3:5)
3) buries us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4)
4) clears our conscience (1 Pet 3:21; Heb 10:22-3)
5) gives us the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-7; 1 Cor 6:11)

I'd like to think I have a little bit of knowledge regarding the stance other churches have taken on Baptism, esp. infant baptism.

Yes, a little bit.

[FONT=&quot] GNOSTICISM ALERT!!!![/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am sorry my friend, but this division between "water baptism" and the "baptism of the Spirit" is an entirely gnostic division. At it's root, this intepretation is DENYING that God can or does work through physical means. In other words, in separating the Spirit from the Water, you also deny the God worked through a serpent on a stick, a burning bush, a bog box with a couple of graven images on it, a pillar of cloud, lamb's blood on a lintel, a baby in a manger... [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

OOPS! That last one’s a biggie![/FONT]

I have said nothing that even hints of gnosticism. God can work through whatever means He chooses, and in His Word, He has revealed the means through which He chooses to work with salvation and baptism. There are most certainly two primary ways in which "baptism" is used in the NT. We already know the literal ones, but its the other one we get hung up on. Please allow me to give you a bible study:

a. Jesus Himself is described in John 1:33 as "the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."
b. 1 Cor. 12:13 tells us that we are all baptized into one body and made to drink of one Spirit.

This is the other type of baptism I was referring to. Yes, Scripture uses the allegory of water many times to refer to the Holy Spirit, but again, what has this to do with whether babies should be baptized. I don't separate the washing of the Holy Spirit from salvation. But I do separate it from the ordinance of baptism that takes place in a literal body of water as an outward picture of an inward change. A literal body of water is not needed for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as seen in Acts 8:15-17;10:44; and v.47 shows the separateness of these two acts. There are other verses that could be quoted, but I think you get the point.

In Church history, there has always been thought of only ONE baptism. This “separation” of the Holy Spirit from the water is rooted in rationalism (how can a metaphysical thing work through a physical thing?). It is a particular kind of rationalism rooted in Platonic thought, and which was expressed in Biblical times as “spirit good, matter bad”.

There is One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism. It is baptism “by water with the word”, through which the Holy Spirit operates. It's not an accident that Paul starts this thought at the beginning of Ephesians 4 and finishes it at the end of Ephesians 5 with the statement about Christ loving the Church, "washing her by water with the Word."

The imagery Paul actually uses is something more like, "preparing her for death by water with the Word" in which case, Eph 5 (which is undeniably speaking of water baptism) corresponds directly to Romans 6.

[FONT=&quot] And lastly, Acts 10 is the governing Scripture on this issue: Yes, God is capable of imparting the Holy Spirit outside the use of water, but Peter thought it was very strange, and immediately set about getting water to baptize the new believers. (And, FWIW, this takes care of the "thief on the cross" exclusion as well).[/FONT]

You failed to deal with this passage. If it is to be considered “normal” for the Spirit to work part form the Water, why does Peter go into such a frenzy looking for water to baptize them? Peter has already learned his lesson that God will include gentiles because it is His good pleasure to include gentiles. So, Peter is not operating under any false assumptions here.

Peter thinks it’s weird.

If you will read the remainder of this paragraph, you will see that Peter is talking about the Day of the Lord, and in that context, he is reminding the readers of how the earth was once destroyed in the days of Noah, and will once again be destroyed in the end. My point is that you have removed the context of this passage and made it to mean something it was never intended to mean.

No I didn’t. Let’s look at the whole passage.

Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

Peter is warning his readers about certain "scoffers". What kind of scoffers?

The kinds follow their own evil desires.
The kinds who DENY that this world, and all there is in it, belongs to God.

These are the two of the three primary elements of Gnosticism. They follow another kind of "knowledge" (the third element), which says, "Material things are of no conaequence, so whatever we do with these (fleshly, material) bodies is of no importance. We can sleep with all the harlots we want, for the flesh is nothing." And furthermore, "God does not care about physical things like this world...and here's the proof! Where is he? Where is this God who is going to make all things new??!! If he cares so much about our physical beings, why are our fathers bodies rotting in their graves? Phht! As if he even cared!"

Those are the scoffers: they are Gnostics. And what does Peter say against them?

"Au contraire! They forget that God used physical means in the creating of this world they so despise!" C.S. Lewis summed this line from Peter up very succinctly when he said: "God likes material things. After all, He created them."

Peter's WHOLE POINT (against the Gnsotics) is that "God used real physical things in the creation of this world, and He's going to use them again in the destruction and recreation of this world!!!"

He closes it up in verses 17 & 18 saying, "that's the "knowledge" (gnosis) you're supposed to have!"

[FONT=&quot] Strawman argument. Neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, nor Lutheran, nor Presbyterian theology "decides" what happens to an unbaptized infant. They are entirely in the hands of God. In essence, (speaking for the Lutherans) we would agree with you 100% on this, so it must not be an argument against infant baptism...?[/FONT]

With exception of Presbyterians and Lutherans, I would encourage you to check out the articles of belief from the RC and EO churches and you will see that their outlook for an infant who dies without first being baptized, (which is the only way into the Church, according to their theology), is not very good at all.

Far be it from me to put words in their mouths; perhaps Oblio and Borealis can contribute something to this…?

FINAL THOUGHT: WRT this "two baptisms" nonsense...it is up to you to prove that "baptism" doesn't mean "baptism". The Christian Church has, for two thousand years, understood Romans 6, Gal 3, Titus 3, Eph 5, 1 Peter 3, etc., to be speaking of water baptism, through which the Holy Spirit operates. It is YOUR burden to prove that this is incorrect. You are FORBIDDEN from assuming the consequent in order to prove your point. IOW, you can't use this kind of reasoning:

If all those verses are talking about water baptism, then that would mean that baptism actually does something. But since my theology tells me that baptism doesn't do anything, that can't be what those verses mean.
​

In logic, that's called petitio principii, or begging the question. In hermeneutics, it's called eisegesis.

Pax Christi tibi,

Kepler

 

[MikeMcK]

all i said was you cant say youre not Protestant bc you claim your distincitves are in scriptures.

And I've already explained why this is not true.

that is stupendous. but since i didnt say they did, that was unneeded

Actually, by saying that they would claim the same thing, you did say that.

 

[Melethiel]

Actually, by saying that they would claim the same thing, you did say that.

I believe what he was saying is that each Protestant denomination would claim that their own distinctives (different and sometimes contradictory to the Baptist ones) are fully supported in Scripture, not that every denomination claims the Baptist distinctives.

 

[KEPLER]

I believe what he was saying is that each Protestant denomination would claim that their own distinctives (different and sometimes contradictory to the Baptist ones) are fully supported in Scripture, not that every denomination claims the Baptist distinctives.

Hush, Child! And stop using Logic on that Baptist! You're liable to hurt him...

 

[MikeMcK]

Hush, Child! And stop using Logic on that Baptist! You're liable to hurt him...

The problem is, since I never said otherwise, it's not logical. It's just another example of her not reading my posts before she responds and why she is on my ignore list.

 

[jckstraw72]

Actually, by saying that they would claim the same thing, you did say that.

acutally i said they all claim that THEIR distinctives are in scripture, i never said they lay claim to YOUR distinctives.

And I've already explained why this is not true.

and yet your explanation fell short. you cant call yourself a non-Protestant on the basis of saying the exact same thing as every other Protestant group concerning your respective distinctives.

 

[Oblio]

Far be it from me to put words in their mouths; perhaps Oblio and Borealis can contribute something to this…?

FINAL THOUGHT: ... The Christian Church has, for two thousand years, understood Romans 6, Gal 3, Titus 3, Eph 5, 1 Peter 3, etc., to be speaking of water baptism, through which the Holy Spirit operates.

[/contribution]

 

[mark75]

KEPLER,

OK, maybe we should make sure we are understanding one another. I entered into this conversation because I noticed that no one seemed to be contributing anything from the standpoint of a minister/professor. My doctoral work is in ancient languages, OT and NT History, and Biblical Theology. Please don't interpret that as being boastful because I don't want it to come across like that. My point is simply that I felt I could add something to the discussion from these points of view.

If I understood the OP correctly, the question has been asked for reasons of those who do not hold to infant baptism. I've been teaching and ministering for 28 years and know why I don't hold to infant baptism. My intent was to present linguistic/etymological, historical, and theological reasons why I don't hold to infant baptism. My area is not in philosophy, so I am not big on syllogisms, although I recognize that we must use them to some extent in having these kinds of discussions.

Mark, it seemed to me (perhaps I misread) that you were constructing the following logical argument:

Premise: Proper NT baptism is supposed to be by immersion
Premise: People who baptize infants do so by effusion.
Conclusion: Infant baptism is incorrect.
​

I proved the syllogism incorrect by pointing out the Eastern Orthodox do indeed baptize their infants by immersion.

No, this wasn't my intent. Granted, I don't disagree with that statement, but it wasn't the main point I was getting at.

“Baptize” in Mark 7:4 also applies to the noun “tables.” (KJV says tables, while better translations say dining couches. NIV omits the word entirely (based on the fact that ONE manuscript omits the word, even though all the others include it), which IMHO shows their bias). And my question is, do you really think they picked up the table (or chairs), dunked it in the sink, and immersed it?

First, let me point out a couple of language problems: the word "klin

 

[MikeMcK]

acutally i said they all claim that THEIR distinctives are in scripture, i never said they lay claim to YOUR distinctives.

And I did not say that you did.

and yet your explanation fell short.

No, the explanation doesn't fall short.

If Protestants came out of the Reformation and we existed before the Reformation, then we are not Protestants. I'm sorry that such simply logic confuses you.

you cant call yourself a non-Protestant on the basis of saying the exact same thing as every other Protestant group concerning your respective distinctives.

And I have already explained why your claim doesn't hold water.

 

[KEPLER]

Mark?

You still there?

I think we got disconnected...

Kepler

 

[mark75]

KEPLER,

Let me clarify my position so that there is no misunderstanding me. I entered this conversation because I wanted to provide some material from a different perspective. I have been teaching and pasturing for 28 yrs and my doctoral areas are in ancient languages, OT/NT history, and biblical theology. I don’t mean that to be boastful, so pls don’t take it that way. I only felt that I could contribute to the conversation by dealing with the OP from those points of view.

Mark, it seemed to me (perhaps I misread) that you were constructing the following logical argument:
Premise: Proper NT baptism is supposed to be by immersion
Premise: People who baptize infants do so by effusion.
Conclusion: Infant baptism is incorrect.
I proved the syllogism incorrect by pointing out the Eastern Orthodox do indeed baptize their infants by immersion.

No, this was not my intent. I wanted to give info from a linguistic/etymological, historical, and theological point of view as to why I do not hold to infant baptism, which is what I understood the OP to be asking. I don’t disagree that baptism by another form than immersion is not in keeping with the definition of the word, but that was not my main point.

And my question is, do you really think they picked up the table (or chairs), dunked it in the sink, and immersed it?

No, of course not. So, in Scripture itself, we have at least ONE place where “baptize” most assuredly does NOT mean “immerse”.

No, I don’t deny that there aren’t times when “baptizo” is referring to the act of washing, but that doesn’t take away from its primary meaning which is still to immerse or dip. As in most ancient words, there is usually more than one possible meaning, and the context of the passage must dictate which meaning we choose. Therefore, if I am going to take one of the lesser used meanings of a word, I need a reason in the context to warrant doing so. In these to passages, that reason is obvious.

However, passages like 1 Pet. 3:21 tell us that it is not the physical application of water to the skin that washes away sin, and so in those contexts, we aren’t talking about literal washing.

Boats, after all, are not supposed to be immersed: that’s kind of a bad thing!

I appreciate the enlightenment. I’ve often wondered about that.

I don’t disagree that those are valid interpretations of the language, but what I was merely pointing out is that the context is what guides in those situations.

Let me get to my point, so that we don’t go back and forth over these issues:

What is the purpose of infant baptism if it has no salvific effect on the infant?

In an adult, I can say that the baptism is simply an outward testimony of an inward decision; but we can’t say that with an infant. And so, if not for salvation, then for what?

Maybe this is the easiest way to approach the topic.

Oh, and God Bless J

Mark

 

[jckstraw72]

If Protestants came out of the Reformation and we existed before the Reformation, then we are not Protestants. I'm sorry that such simply logic confuses you.

so there were Baptist Churches before 1517? How very interesting.

And I have already explained why your claim doesn't hold water.

no, youve just repeated that your distinctives are found in scripture--which is a distinctly Protestant method of argument.

 

[MikeMcK]

so there were Baptist Churches before 1517? How very interesting.

Like I said, we see examples of the Baptist Distinctives being taught all throughout the NT.

no, youve just repeated that your distinctives are found in scripture

And you've done nothing to show that they're not.

which is a distinctly Protestant method of argument.

Not really. Baptists are well known for appealing to scripture.

 

[jckstraw72]

Like I said, we see examples of the Baptist Distinctives being taught all throughout the NT.

yes, in the Baptist understanding of scripture the Baptist Distinctives are there. SAME WITH EVERY PROTESTANT CHURCH.

Not really. Baptists are well known for appealing to scripture.

like I said--a very Protestant method. Anyone can play Bible wars all day long, but it gets nowhere bc it comes down to how you understand the Bible youre appealing to. You can claim all day long that the Baptist faith is in the Bible, and as long as my understanding of the Bible is informed by Apostolic Tradition rather than Sola Scriptura we are going to disagree. Its as simple as that, and thats how it goes for EVERY PROTESTANT CHURCH.

They ALL claim that their distinctives are in the Bible. Again, you are showing yourself to be a Protestant.

 

[TexasSky]

Why do some groups hold to the historical Christian teaching of infant Baptism while others do not?

The Catholic Church has always held to this important teaching as have groups like Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists but for some reason other groups reject it.

If you reject it, on what grounds do you reject it (especially considering other groups accept it)?

I don't see any scriptural support for it at all.

The bible shows that Christ was Baptised when He started His ministry. He was clearly a man at the time.

The Bible states that you must believe on Christ to be saved. An infant doesn't have the capacity to believe or not.

The Bible states that we should teach and then Baptise. "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20 ASV). How can you teach an infant?

I agree with dedicating a child to God, however - my understanding is that with infant baptism, there is no additional baptism.

I believe that a Christian follows the example Christ set and is baptized following acceptance of Christ into their life as Lord and Savior. Infant baptism skips this ordance because it is a) not a choice of the infant b) not at all connected with the individual's (infant's) desire to follow Christ.