Baptism Rome vs Protestant

[Christforums]

as that would be saved by Grace alone received thru faith alone

That's what the author conveyed through the sacrament of baptism (grace) while not contradicting sola fide. I'll yield back from this thread, I can tell when anything said doesn't become fruitful, that is, when people dig their heels in and become argumentative no matter what is said for the sake of argument. What this comes down to is whether only the similarities of baptismal regeneration are comprehended or the distinctions and differences. Baptist generally speaking only see infants baptized and declare paedo baptism. On the topic of Baptism, the Protestant view including that of Lutherans is best understood through the lens of Covenant theology. The "what and why" and not necessarily "how," in which many either confer the works of the baptizer and the baptized or monergism. To the say the least, at least some here now see under the generalization of paedo baptism difference in theology are behind baptizing infants.

And likewise, on the topic of Baptism I am one to suggest Reformed recognized it was correct to baptize infants through the theological lens of Covenant theology, but not for the same reason the RCC does. In other words the act was correct but for all intents and purposes was wrong.

 

[JesusFan]

That's what the author conveyed through the sacrament of baptism (grace) while not contradicting sola fide. I'll yield back from this thread, I can tell when anything said doesn't become fruitful, that is, when people dig their heels in and become argumentative no matter what is said for the sake of argument. What this comes down to is whether only the similarities of baptismal regeneration are comprehended or the distinctions and differences. Baptist generally speaking only see infants baptized and declare paedo baptism. On the topic of Baptism, the Protestant view including that of Lutherans is best understood through the lens of Covenant theology. The "what and why" and not necessarily "how," in which many either confer the works of the baptizer and the baptized or monergism. To the say the least, at least some here now see under the generalization of paedo baptism difference in theology are behind baptizing infants.

And likewise, on the topic of Baptism I am one to suggest Reformed recognized it was correct to baptize infants through the theological lens of Covenant theology, but not for the same reason the RCC does. In other words the act was correct but for all intents and purposes was wrong.

What is confusing to we Baptist in how others view the works of Water Baptism is when we read things such as its the "entry way/door" into the Kingdom, and when some state that it conveys some sort of spiritual benefit/blessing to those babes that partake of it.

 

[Christforums]

What is confusing to we Baptist in how others view the works of Water Baptism is when we read things such as its the "entry way/door" into the Kingdom, and when some state that it conveys some sort of spiritual benefit/blessing to those babes that partake of it.

If you're speaking on behalf of Baptist, then I won't address the lack of theological understanding. If you took time to address your own statement as if by somebody else, I'm sure you'd come up with a response, hopefully from Scripture.