PaladinValer
Traditional Orthodox Anglican
- Apr 7, 2004
- 23,587
- 1,245
- 43
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
I disagree.
This is entirely too much polyester for any man to wear.
I am really torn on infant baptism vs. believer's baptism...After a long and difficult study, I came to the conclusion that based on history, the scriptures, and an understanding of Jewish theology (the Apostles were Jews remember!), it's completely possible that either side is correct....
I know a lot of people claim that their position is right and the others are wrong, but honestly, I just don't see how anyone who studies the issue fairly can come to an honest conclusion on either side.
With that in mind then, I have come to the conclusion that I would lean slightly on the side of infant baptism based on the argument that infants are within the new covenant (remember that Peter promised that the new promise was for "you and your children" in Acts 2:39 and remember that Paul called the children of at least one believing parent "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14) and that for Jews in the Old Testament, infants were given the sign of the covenant despite not being able to profess faith in what the covenant sign stood for.
HOWEVER, because I think it's almost impossible to be sure, the only way to KNOW one has had a valid baptism is to have a Believer's baptism. In other words, if infant baptism people are wrong, then their baptisms are invalid. If credobaptists are wrong, their baptisms are completely valid, just a little bit late. So for that reason, I am thinking of becoming a Baptist. (there are other Baptist distinctions I like as well by the way, but there are also things I disagree with them about, which is true for all denominations)
Thoughts? Is this position completely ridiculous? I honestly don't know where to go from here.
my thoughts are that this is another moot arguement ... is infant Baptism wrong ... how can it be ... it's for the Lord ... it might be misunderstood and misguided in it's importance ... dedicating the child to the Lord would be a better scenario ... but wrong, no ... there was no ill intent or desire to go against the Lord ... it was done in love ...
That's a good point that is rarely discussed. If infant baptism is "wrong," it is wrong only to the extent that it is ineffective. And then, after a person is baptized as a child, he has to actually become a Christian at some time later in life, virtually in the same way that a Baptist would say his own children must do in order to be saved.
yes ... and hmmm ... i'm reminded of this verse ...
Mark 16:16 ... He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
he that believeth not ...
not: he that is baptized not ...
John 4:18 ... He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Romans 5:8 ... But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Acts 2:38 ... Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost.
John 12:48 ... He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
these are the verses i think most fit what i want to say ...
salvation is from the Lord ... not from baptism ... bptism is NOT required for salvation ...
however, to truly experience the Holy Spirit ... i do believe Baptism is a requirement ... it brings the spirit of Elijah ... imo ... i speak from personal experience on this one ... and offer you the verse in Acts to show it and to show how salvation and baptism are TWO things ... not one and the same ...
Other than for the Elijah part, which I cannot comment on, I agree with you and think that most Christians do also.
The "baptism is necessary for salvation" charge is mainly a red herring. While there are some people who take that literally, they are relatively few. Yet we hear that allegation from devotees of "Believers' baptism" all the time, whenever they want to denigrate those churches that practice infant baptism. The churches that do, however, normally think of it in the way you have described and definitely not as something that saves in and of itself or unfailingly must be accomplished or else there can be no salvation!
Lol, I appreciate your confidence! Just think about this though...Were the Apostles and virtually everyone in the early Christian movement Jews? If they were, how would this belief fit into a Jewish understanding of God in the 1st century?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?