Baptist

[12volt_man]

jimmy:

I have five letters for you, T U L I P. I can show the falseness of the L and U with John 3;16 along with several others. Irresistable grace is also proved false by this verse. T and P are all that remain. Three false doctrines.

Jimmy, “TULIP” is an acrostic Calvinists (specifically “Five Point Calvinists”) use to codify their views.

As I’ve explained to you before, we’re not Calvinists.

 

[Eden]

I don’t see how Bible Christians like Baptists explain this rejection of infant baptism when it is clearly biblical:

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

 

[JimG]

12volt_man:

In addition, a letter that one has been baptised in a recognized Christian church, in accordance with the Biblical example is sufficient.

Thanks for this information. In the Catholic Church, a letter or certificate from another Christian denomination affirming that the person has been baptized according to the Trinitarian formula is also sufficient.

 

[Mickey]

12volt_man:

One cannot be baptised as a baby because a baby has not made a conscious decision to follow Christ.

So why baptise a baby when it doesn’t know yet what is happening? Why not wait for the baby to grow and believe in Christ and ask for baptism? If we were to follow this line of reasoning, we wouldn’t inoculate the baby against diphtheria until he grows up and asks for it! But we know better. Baptising infants before they know what is going on is an expression of God’s great love for us. It shows that God loves us and accepts us before we can ever know and love Him. It shows that we are wanted and loved by God from the very moment of our birth. Nothing shows the nature of God’s grace more than infant baptism.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by 12volt_man
But, no we do not recognize infant baptism.

So what is the cut off age for when one is no longer considered an infant and eligable for your baptism?
Also, what happens, according to your religion, to the people who die and are not baptized?

 

[12volt_man]

swnunley:

If, according to Baptist beliefs that baptism has no sacramental value, meaning it does not wash away Original Sin, and is merely an outward profession of one’s faith, why would someone who was baptized in another faith have to be baptized again?

Because the Biblical model of church membership is that one first make a public profession of faith in Christ through believers’ baptism.

 

[Eden]

12volt_man:

Because the Biblical model of church membership is that one first make a public profession of faith in Christ through believers’ baptism.

But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Where does Jesus require a profession of faith here?

 

[12volt_man]

catsrus:

So what is the cut off age for when one is no longer considered an infant and eligable for your baptism?

Typically, we consider someone no longer an infant when they reach toddler age.

Anyone who is old enough to understand what it means to repent of your sins and accept Christ can be baptised. Ideally, baptism should start around twelve or thirteen or older.

Also, what happens, according to your religion, to the people who die and are not baptized?

Depeneds. If they’re reconciled to God through Christ, then they go to Heaven. If not, they go to Hell.

 

[Lillith]

I have a question for my Baptist brothers…now that I have a few congregated in one thread

My SIL is Missionary Baptist…and therefor believes that Baptism is purely symbolic.

We were in discussion about Baptism and she explained proudly that everyone who enters her Church is re-Baptised. She went on to say that they had even Baptised one person twice in one day because during the total immersion ceremony his knee had popped up out of the water…

My confusion is if Baptism is purely symbolic why all the Legalism?

I didn’t ask or dig with her for fear of offending…but can anyone explain this?

 

[12volt_man]

Eden:

But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Where does Jesus require a profession of faith here?

Jesus isn’t talking about baptism or church membership here.

 

[Eden]

12volt_man:

Jesus isn’t talking about baptism or church membership here.

Really?

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

Christ Calls All to Baptism

**Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14). **

**More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16). **

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek**, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word *brepha *means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious ****decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them? **

 

[12volt_man]

Lillith:

I have a question for my Baptist brothers…now that I have a few congregated in one thread

My SIL is Missionary Baptist…and therefor believes that Baptism is purely symbolic.

We were in discussion about Baptism and she explained proudly that everyone who enters her Church is re-Baptised. She went on to say that they had even Baptised one person twice in one day because during the total immersion ceremony his knee had popped up out of the water…

My confusion is if Baptism is purely symbolic why all the Legalism?

I didn’t ask or dig with her for fear of offending…but can anyone explain this?

That is odd. I’ve been asked to minister in many Missionary Baptist churches and I’ve never heard of such a thing.

That would be considered an exception in even the most conservative Baptist churches.

I don’t know why they would do that.

 

[12volt_man]

Eden:

Really?

Yes, Really. This passage has nothing to do with baptism or church membership.

 

[Della]

12volt_man:

Why do we need to be? Why can’t we form associations for the purpose of cooperative missions and common governing bodies?

Because of what Paul wrote here:

Eph.4
[1] I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
[2] with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
[3] eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Notice Paul’s emphasis of the word one. There aren’t two or three or dozens of faiths, bodies, spirits in Christ there is only one.

 

[MrS]

12volt_man:

Why do we need to be? Why can’t we form associations for the purpose of cooperative missions and common governing bodies?

how about cuz Jesus set the program, not us… “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…”

 

[Eden]

12volt_man:

Yes, Really. This passage has nothing to do with baptism or church membership.

To what does it refer? What does Jesus mean when he says **“for to such belongs the kingdom of God”? **Notice He does not say “for to such belongs the kindgom of God when they grow up and profess their faith in me”.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by 12volt_man
Typically, we consider someone no longer an infant when they reach toddler age.

A toddler 2 or 3 years old???

originally posted by 12volt_man
Depeneds. If they’re reconciled to God through Christ, then they go to Heaven. If not, they go to Hell.

So, according to this “reasoning”, a 2 year old who is not “reconciled to God” through his/her own understanding, is condemned to Hell???.

 

[12volt_man]

Della:

Because of what Paul wrote here:

Eph.4
[1] I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
[2] with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
[3] eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
[4] There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Notice Paul’s emphasis of the word one. There aren’t two or three or dozens of faiths, bodies, spirits in Christ there is only one.

That doesn’t answer the question. If we’re united in Christ, if we believe that we are united in one Lord, one faith and one baptism, then why can’t we form groups to promote oversight and accountability and cooperative missions programs?

 

[12volt_man]

catsrus:

A toddler 2 or 3 years old???

Something like that.

So, according to this “reasoning”, a 2 year old who is not “reconciled to God” through his/her own understanding, is condemned to Hell???.

There is a doctrine know as the “age of accountability” that teaches that children (and, by logical extension the mentally handicapped) who cannot understand the moral consequences of their actions are not judged by the same standards as adults.

While this isn’t taught explicitly in scripture, it is strongly implied.

 

[12volt_man]

Eden:

To what does it refer? What does Jesus mean when he says **“for to such belongs the kingdom of God”? **Notice He does not say “for to such belongs the kindgom of God when they grow up and profess their faith in me”.

You’re right, but that still is not baptism or church membership.