However, historically there have been widespread differences of opinion among men equally committed to accepting the Bible as our God-given, inspired, and infallible rule of faith and practice. This is true within Protestantism. Evangelical Protestants reject the Romish notion of baptismal regeneration, but they differ among themselves as to the proper mode and subjects of baptism. Historically, the Reformed churches along with the Lutheran, Episcopal, Congregational, and Methodist churches have accepted that pouring, sprinkling, and dipping are all valid modes of baptism. They have also believed that baptism should be administered to believers and to their children because their children are included in God’s covenant with His people. The proper sign and seal of the covenantis baptism, which should therefore be administered to the children of the covenant.
Over against this view, Baptists and Anabaptists have argued that baptism must follow a personal profession of faith. It cannot legitimately be administered to children who have made no such personal profession. The New Testament nowhere commands or mentions the baptism of children. The only baptism it knows is believer’s baptism.
On the mode of baptism, Baptists insist that only immersion is acceptable because, they say, the verb baptizo means “to dip,” and the symbolism of Romans 6 (death, burial, and resurrection) demands immersion. Interestingly, the early Anabaptists of the Reformation period baptized believers by pouring.
However, historically there have been widespread differences of opinion among men equally committed to accepting the Bible as our God-given, inspired, and infallible rule of faith and practice
Before you ask I agree.
Another source ping! Lest anyone think these ideas are yours.
“However, historically there have been widespread differences of opinion among men equally committed to accepting the Bible as our God-given, inspired,...”
http://www.freepres.org/sep_details.asp?sep_baptism
I was dipped.