I understand how materialistic your faith is, but if your interpretation is correct (which I don't believe it is) the folks claiming infant baptism imparts Grace are in deep trouble. All examples of baptism in Scripture involve adults after they have believed. Trying to claim your historic lineage somehow gives you special powers just doesn't fly with those who actually read Scripture.
I believe there are several ways to interpret this verse.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God.
I think the most straight forward is Jesus is talking about physical birth and spiritual birth. Another very reasonable understanding is Jesus was using the phrase "born of water" as a symbol for the word of God.
If you notice in Mark 16:16 it is not the lack of baptism that condemns.
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
What else is new? We prefer to follow the interpretatkion believed by the Church all along, when the Church put together the canon.
There is evidence of baptizing whole families and second century grave markers indicate infants who died with words "servent of the Lord."
John 3:5...Jesus is talking about physical birth and spiritual birth.
The Church always treated that as water baptism and sacramental seal of the HS (chrismation) as one Baptism.
Another very reasonable understanding is Jesus was using the phrase "born of water" as a symbol for the word of God
Oh, please...
If you notice in Mark 16:16 it is not the lack of baptism that condemns. Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved
Being baptized is necesssry part of the salvational formula. If you are baptized and you don't believe, you cannot be saved through baptism alone. But infants cannot believe; they can be patized however.
Baptized children are washed of their sin. They are sinless until the age of reason. If they do not believe after the age of reason, their baptism is no longer sufficient.
***I understand how materialistic your faith is, but if your interpretation is correct (which I don’t believe it is) the folks claiming infant baptism imparts Grace are in deep trouble.***
Our faith is about us and eternal salvation through Jesus Christ. Infant Baptism imparting Grace to the child is wrong how? Entire households being baptized does not exclude the children.
Matt 28:
19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
What was Jesus talking about here? If baptism isn’t required, why does He send the Apostles out to baptize all?
I fear that this illustrates a mindset that separates us. We take the Bible as a whole - merely because something is mentioned here and not there does not mean that we can eliminate it from our theology using only the second verses.
If Scripture says that this is required and elsewhere it says that that is required, we understand that they both are required. We are not allowed to pick and choose.
I'm sure it's the handicap of my up-bringing, but I sure never heard THAT one before. Are there any other instances in Scripture where Scripture and being "born of water" are in that kind of metaphorical relationship?