Think that it was due to the reformers seeking to attack Catholic denying Pauline Justification and holding to Sacramental salvation, but they showed have reformed that infant water baptism view, but they did eliminate the regeneration thru it aspect of Rome!
Any here hold to Covenant Theology then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
Well, Paul did warn of heresy creeping in among the local churches even during his times!
The rejection of truth was alive and well in the time of the apostles:
3 John 1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
Nothing new under the sun, as it is written.
MM
Today, many anaBaptists types 'dedicate' their children to the Lord. I suppose that would be similar to a Presbyterian/Methodist type of infant baptism.
Perhaps, but would still say that we can honor the birth and resurrection of the Lord jesus, even during those Holidays!
Even all the names of the days came from pagan!
We do a dedication ceremony for the children, but its more as if we are commissioning the parents to agree to raise up their children in the fear of the Lord!
Actually, Anabaptists historically didn't believe in infant baptism. That's one of many things that marked them as detractors from the Romish system of doctrines from which they fled. They were more akin to Puritans, holding to a number of puritanical beliefs.
MM
Children dedication not same as water baptism, as many Baptist churches will do them, and will never do infant baptism!
Right, they were persecuted by the paedobaptists for baptizing a second time (hence ‘ana’), just like today’s ana baptist types, who dedicate their children but get baptized as believers. The difference between now and then was back then many were coming out of the Romish system where nearly everyone was baptized as an infant, so to undergo a believers baptism meant a second baptism.
The problem with the numbers is that infant baptism is meaningless. It's just an emotional thing for adults, like an adult fantasy...
So, when an adult who had been sprinkled as an infant gets baptized (immersed), that's the first one...IF they are doing it in accordance with biblical directives.
MM
From what I understand the early church chose those days in hopes of luring pagans into Christianity. Still, if we are talking paganism in child baptism I thought I would mention it. Perhaps child baptism is an indication that the parents are believers and the child is " covered" in case it dies? Just a thought.
I think they drew their cues from such 'household' passages as...
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
(Act 16:33)
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
(1Co 1:16)
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 receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
(Act 2:38-39)
And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
(Act 16:15)
I'll leave it at that, saying I believe they have some 'nebulous' support as far as Scripture goes.
Last edited:
Yes, those are their go to passages, but the clear NT examples still are believers baoptism
The problem with their use of those verses is that they are assuming into the text that it also included infant baptism. That simply is not in the text. It is by the wildest and most broad of interpretations to think the early Church practiced such. These same people would never allow a JW or a Mormon to get away with such broad and wild interpretations, and yet they will turn right around and think to use that same broadness to try and defend infant baptism?
My question to them is, how does any infant express their faith in Christ in order to legitimize the outward obedience to baptism? We can see the leap-frog jumps they're making over many other passages that speak of this topic. Then we have some out there who think that baptism is a mechanism, to salvation, which also is not true. We can see in scripture that baptism is unto repentance and unto death. Also of note:
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
It's interesting how some will overlook the key points made in the verses they use, injecting all manner of things that aren't in the text or context, and create doctrines that find no support in the texts within the confines of the most broadness of credible interpretations.
That's like the soldier who experienced an enemy bullet ripping through his leg, going to see the drunken medic at the forward hospital, and told, "No, you've been stabbed...."
MM
Catholics hold that God works thru the water Baptizing to save the baby, while Lutherans would hold that He grants them saving faith in the rite of baptism!The problem with their use of those verses is that they are assuming into the text that it also included infant baptism. That simply is not in the text. It is by the wildest and most broad of interpretations to think the early Church practiced such. These same people would never allow a JW or a Mormon to get away with such broad and wild interpretations, and yet they will turn right around and think to use that same broadness to try and defend infant baptism?
My question to them is, how does any infant express their faith in Christ in order to legitimize the outward obedience to baptism? We can see the leap-frog jumps they're making over many other passages that speak of this topic. Then we have some out there who think that baptism is a mechanism, to salvation, which also is not true. We can see in scripture that baptism is unto repentance and unto death. Also of note:
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
It's interesting how some will overlook the key points made in the verses they use, injecting all manner of things that aren't in the text or context, and create doctrines that find no support in the texts within the confines of the most broadness of credible interpretations.
That's like the soldier who experienced an enemy bullet ripping through his leg, going to see the drunken medic at the forward hospital, and told, "No, you've been stabbed...."
MM
Nope,
Actually Lutherans hold it is not the rite that saves, but the words spoken in and through the waters of baptism.
Words? Save? That's like practicing magic, isn't it, pretending that there's some magical formula of incantation to salvation? Really? I would hope that you're not rightfully representing what they believe, because that sounds so outlandish and pagan...
MM