To: Blogger
How Old Is Your Church? #1, there is NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE for infant Baptism - period. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Saying and his house is going beyond what Scripture actually says. Inadmissible because that isnt evidence, that is eisegesis.
Looking at household baptisms and saying either that, "of course, that didn't include infants", or "that meaons they all got saved" goes beyond what the text says.
#2, Baptism is not a prerequisite for Salvation. It is a picture of what Christ did for you and a testimony of your faith in Him to the world AFTER you are saved. Davids baby immediately went to heaven which is where all babies go. No need for theological nuancing. Just go with what Scripture says and you are fine.
It's a symbolic judgment ordeal. Look at what OT events are referred to by the NT as baptisms.
115 posted on
06/27/2009 12:09:06 PM PDT by
Lee N. Field
(2)How many things are necessary for thee to know,..? the first, how great my sins and miseries are;)
To: Lee N. Field
Looking at household baptisms and saying either that, "of course, that didn't include infants", or "that meaons they all got saved" goes beyond what the text says.
Not the same thing. Paedo-Baptists hold that it affirmatively included infants. There is NO example whatsoever in Scripture of an infant being baptized. Non paedo-baptists hold to the belief that it includes believers only. Acts 8 shows that the Ethiopian could be baptized only if he believed. Belief and baptism ALWAYS go hand in hand - at least in Scripture.
Baptism being symbolic I have no problem with. I do believe it is a symbol, showing the world what Christ did for us and identifying ourselves publically with Him. He was judged for our sins. When we are baptized by immersion, we show the death, burial, and resurrection symbolically to the world. But it is a picture.
223 posted on
06/27/2009 4:05:52 PM PDT by
Blogger
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson