[loftyheights]

txzman,
You wrote, "don't tout infant baptism as a crux of faith." Are you saying that those who tout infant baptism as a crux of faith are wrong and are scismatic, so to speak? I'm saying that those who deny infant baptism (and baptism in general as the way to be saved) are not to be considered Christian but scismatic. We can't both be right. If you are right then the Christian Church was wrong for about 1,600 years.

[hoyaloya]

Boy, this thread seems like a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons discussing what should be the brightest and most uplifting message out there . . . eternal salvation.

I don't believe in infant baptism. I guess loftyheights thinks I'm not good enough to be considered a "christian." Funny, I always thought it was the evangelical protestants who were accused of being anti-catholic, anti-this, anti-that. I've never thought that your stance on infant baptism was determinative as to whether you believed in Jesus as the savior.

I guess we'll do the heavy (but uplifting) task of bringing the message to those who don't know anything about Him . . . while loftyheights sits on a lofty perch telling us we're not doing it right. That sounds eerily reminiscent of John Kerry's Iraq policy. Maybe you two have more in common than just infant baptism dogma.

Do we have to schism? Can't we just get along and focus on the goal?

[XR7]

I'm saying that those who deny infant baptism (and baptism in general as the way to be saved)...

So, how was that thief on the cross able to make it into Paradise?
Or are you suggesting that Mormons would someday be vicariously baptised on his behalf, Jesus knew that would happen in the future, and so he let the guy in that day?

[fortheDeclaration]

txzman, You wrote, "don't tout infant baptism as a crux of faith." Are you saying that those who tout infant baptism as a crux of faith are wrong and are scismatic, so to speak? I'm saying that those who deny infant baptism (and baptism in general as the way to be saved) are not to be considered Christian but scismatic. We can't both be right. If you are right then the Christian Church was wrong for about 1,600 years.

That would mean that the first 400 years they got it right.

[antisocial]

Was the thief on the cross next to Jesus baptised? I believe he was saved.

[txzman]

Friend - note I said 'infant' Baptism. Baptists and most Protestants do not accept infant Baptism as an acceptance/admission of faith.

[N3WBI3]

Are you saying that those who tout infant baptism as a crux of faith are wrong and are scismatic, so to speak? I'm saying that those who deny infant baptism (and baptism in general as the way to be saved) are not to be considered Christian but scismatic.

Where in the bible is infant baptism addressed?

[A2J]

If you are right then the Christian Church was wrong for about 1,600 years.

Uh, more like 1,800 years. Ever since Augustine, Ignatius, et al, started tinkering with it through the introduction of heavy-handed control structures.

This cancer has crippled both Catholic and Protestant churches.