Sometimes hard to get explained just what happens to babies water baptized in those churches, as some see them now saved, others saved potentially!
Any here hold to Covenant Theology then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
Ah, I see. So, it's a matter of them adding to the word of God, which is a practice that I reject. It's one thing to see it as a warm fuzzie for the families, friends and religionists who are involved, but quite another to actually teach that doing such is on par with circumcision under the old covenant of Law.
Nope. Those infant baptisms are meaningless in relation to the word of God.
MM
So only the infant boys get baptized?
To some extent yes, but their leanings away from the authority of God's Word would indicate their 'extent' is more than 'some'.
Not to me brother. It is easy to explain..........IT is a false teaching and non-Biblical.
Unfortunity that is always the problem. You never hear a cult "Take away" from the Scriptures. They always ADD their agenda and then work to make a Scripture fit their theology.
Kind of like Mormons and Muslims.
Mormon women are not saved merely by the grace of God, but through childbearing and their authority-holding husband.
That would be acceptable IF.....we still lived under the Old Covenant!
That is why the Preacher has to MOW the grass and pull weeds!
They would not see it as adding, but as keeping the continuity between the Covenants , as they would see the new as basically expanding and enlarging out the Old to now include saved gentiles !
Nope, all infants of saved parents, as they would the children as being under the promised NC thru the parents!
That is also why some of them see all children of saved parents are saved if died as infants or small children
I agree with you,but Catholics and Lutherans take it to the point of being actual heresy, as they have baptismal regeneration happening, as babies are saved and have now the Spirit in them via the water baptism, and reformed do not see it quite that way!
So true, see lds, Jw sda Rome etc!
Hmm. And they do that in good conscience, considering that neither Christ, nor the apostles, nor the prophets of old ever passed on to the Church the authority to contrive parallels such as that from silence? How, then, are they any different from any other cult that establishes, from silence, their peculiar doctrines?
As I had said before, if they do such on an emotional basis for families and religionists, that's fine, but when they teach it as biblical doctrine, and base it upon no other authority than the silence of the scriptures on the matter, then how are they any different from the mormons and jw's in practice?
Just some questions that come to mind.
MM
Then infant baptism would be a very inaccurate anti-type of circumcision as only the males were circumcised in the O.T., whereas all are baptized in their churches.
Uh oh. That's a gear stripper observation, but I'm sure there are a slew of defenses for the contrived doctrine of infant baptism. I'm a little surprised that Walter Martin didn't include that doctrinal drift/contrivation in his Kingdom of the Cults listing. It has all the auspices of paganism as its earmark.
I mean, let's say that there is a cult group that has evolved a doctrine of observing, oh, 40 days of mourning for some bibilical figure (let's just call it Lint), with only one known practice of that type existing only in deepest paganism, which would be Tamuz, and the 40 days of mourning his mother established in the Baal worship religion. Although the Bible makes no mention of such an observance for either Israel or the Church, some cultists still continue the practice it, even though it is absolutely known to have originated in paganism. It's the difference between actual, biblical doctrine and emotionalism. Teaching it as biblical doctrine is the absolute earmark of a cult that marks that group as pagans.
1 Corinthians 5:6 Your glorying [is] not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Just some musings...
MM
Some Methodists do. And of course the RCC.
If it is pagan, it is truly amazing how quickly the early church went down that path. Looking it up it appeared to be in operation around 180-200AD.
I agree, but they would tend to see it in that light!