• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Changing doctrine:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
The Orthodox Church does that. So far, no drownings.
When my children were first year infants, I would bring them to the pool and dunk them. They all have a natural reflex to stop breathing under water. No big deal with dunking.
The issue comes in how one would define covenant people and how these people are identified. There is a biblical argument for children being a part of the covenant, even before having faith. Is it set in a regulative principle? No. But, there is a normative principle that allows for infant baptism.
As a baptist, I follow the regulative principle and thus do not promote infant baptism.
However, to play a bit of a devil's advocate, many baptist churches have infant dedication services. There is no regulative principle for this being done. Instead, it is inferred through a few select verses. Infant baptism is also inferred by a few select verses.
What does the water do to babies, other then make them wetter though? is that their entry into the Kingdom?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Don’t know any other SBC church to baptize infants. That’s sort of a big thing in baptists circles.

I do think Martin Luther had a really good argument for infant baptism (though I don’t agree)

Since salvation is of God Holy Spirit, perhaps babies can communicate (spiritually) with God Holy Spirit in a way He understands but we do not.

That gives me some reassurance for my belief all infants that die go to heaven.

peace to you
can babies get to heaven if not water baptized then?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I would privately counsel this confused brother, but NEVER allow him near the pulpit again. If he is so twisted into false teaching, why would a church council allow him the authority to teach this error to the body?

The area churches might ask for a time of prayer/instruction with this weak "board" that has decided to no longer defend the faith.

Or change the church name to the "Depends Church" since it seems they are no longer Baptist and probably need those undergarments.
Next will be lining up to have good old charismatic revival meetings!
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Found this on a FB page:

Well this should be interesting, an SBC pastor in my area met with his church council to let them know he has come to the conviction that they should start baptizing babies. For them to do this, would require a change in their Constitution and bylaws. The council has agreed to allow him to preach a series on why he has come to this conviction. At the end, they will either ask for his resignation or change the constitution.
Do any of you know of any SBC that does baby baptisms? (This is not like a dedication service)


So what would be your answer:
Well, if they baptize babies they would not be a Baptist church, so no.
 

Reformed

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
By the sound of it the Church Council seems willing to hear him out. If I had a pastor that served my Church for a long time I'd be willing to let him state his beliefs in a sermon, so long as he's not preaching blasphemy. And while I don't agree with infant baptism, I don't think it's anywhere near blasphemy. I probably wouldn't want a sermon "series" though.

If the Church already leans reformed it's only a small leap from Reformed Baptist to baptizing babies. That's one of the reasons Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians get along so well. Even Non-Reformed Baptists get along pretty good with Presbyterians usually.

Infant baptism may not be a damnable heresy, but it is still a serious error. False teaching should never be given an audience.

Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians "get along so well" because of their covenantal nature and the doctrines of grace. There is still a vast gulf between our understanding of New Covenant membership and baptism.
 

Eternally Grateful

Active Member
I would ask what the baptism is for.

a dedication ceremony for the parents. (I did this with my kids in a church in texas on the navy base)

or for baptismal regeneration as in the roman types of churches
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
My niece was to be baptized in Presbyterian church. Family invited (we declined) since invitation specified this act would make her a child of God and assure her a place in heaven. THIS is the problem with infant so-called baptism - it is linked with salvation in MOST (98%) protestant/catholic churches. Even the few confused real Gospel-preaching churches that sprinkle babies have members/families who still think is salvific.

The same cannot be said of immersion of believers. While a few (5%) say such immersion IS part of salvation, 95% refute that and make it clear there is no saving merit in getting dunked. To sprinkle unbelieving babies as Orthodox Presbyterian as a covenant sign and not saving confuses everyone, include the person sprinkled when they grow older. I call it a "gateway error" to damning works salvation that most so-called Christians believe.
 

Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Infant baptism may not be a damnable heresy, but it is still a serious error. False teaching should never be given an audience.

Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians "get along so well" because of their covenantal nature and the doctrines of grace. There is still a vast gulf between our understanding of New Covenant membership and baptism.

I don't think it's false teaching anymore than Free Will Baptists thinking you can lose your salvation is false teaching.

It's a secondary, doctrinal disagreement. In my area the community used to rotate through Churches with secondary disagreements 1 to 2 centuries ago because there weren't enough people nor preachers.

The Missionary Baptist Church would have service 1 Sunday and everyone would go.
The Methodists would have the next Sunday.
The Presbyterians would have the one after that.
The Regular/Primitive Baptist would have the last Sunday.

It's a secondary doctrinal disagreement to me, not a primary issue and certainly not false teaching. Obviously the board holds their preacher in high esteem and his character is of such worth that they feel he deserves the opportunity to defend his position. That is honorable.
 

atpollard

Well-Known Member
Obviously the board holds their preacher in high esteem and his character is of such worth that they feel he deserves the opportunity to defend his position. That is honorable.
I agree with the assessment of the board, but I question the venue they chose to work this out. They are speaking of potentially abandoning Credobaptism, they are exposing the entire body to extended divisive teaching, and (whichever way the final vote goes) they are inviting a church split at the conclusion.

I question what sort of "shepherding" they are doing over this flock.
Fortunately for them, I am not their master, so they do not answer to me (I am just the peanut gallery) ... but they may be called to answer to Him.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Infant baptism may not be a damnable heresy, but it is still a serious error. False teaching should never be given an audience.

Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians "get along so well" because of their covenantal nature and the doctrines of grace. There is still a vast gulf between our understanding of New Covenant membership and baptism.
We still really do disagree with them on issue of water baptism and in how new was the New Covenant?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
My niece was to be baptized in Presbyterian church. Family invited (we declined) since invitation specified this act would make her a child of God and assure her a place in heaven. THIS is the problem with infant so-called baptism - it is linked with salvation in MOST (98%) protestant/catholic churches. Even the few confused real Gospel-preaching churches that sprinkle babies have members/families who still think is salvific.

The same cannot be said of immersion of believers. While a few (5%) say such immersion IS part of salvation, 95% refute that and make it clear there is no saving merit in getting dunked. To sprinkle unbelieving babies as Orthodox Presbyterian as a covenant sign and not saving confuses everyone, include the person sprinkled when they grow older. I call it a "gateway error" to damning works salvation that most so-called Christians believe.
Think that Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans would see water baptism as the "entry into the Kingdom", and non Baptists reformed are confusing, as on e hand rightly agree saved by grace alone thru faith alone, and yet then turn around and make it see children are under the NC when water baptized!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's false teaching anymore than Free Will Baptists thinking you can lose your salvation is false teaching.

It's a secondary, doctrinal disagreement. In my area the community used to rotate through Churches with secondary disagreements 1 to 2 centuries ago because there weren't enough people nor preachers.

The Missionary Baptist Church would have service 1 Sunday and everyone would go.
The Methodists would have the next Sunday.
The Presbyterians would have the one after that.
The Regular/Primitive Baptist would have the last Sunday.

It's a secondary doctrinal disagreement to me, not a primary issue and certainly not false teaching. Obviously the board holds their preacher in high esteem and his character is of such worth that they feel he deserves the opportunity to defend his position. That is honorable.
Water Baptism indeed is a non salvation doctrine, but the baptist pastor should still do believes baptism if he wants to stay as a Baptist!
 
Top