There are though differences between Catholics/Lutherans, and Reformed, who all practice infant baptisms. they do not see what is happening in the same exact light!
-
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!
what if someone who received infant baptism joins a Baptist church?
- Thread starter The Angel of the South
- Start date
Baptism has no saving effect, it is a sign -
of our welcome into the family of God - born of water; John 3
or the baptism of the Holy Spirit giving us new life - born of the Spirit; John 3
of union with Jesus in his death & resurrection; Romans 6
of our recognition of our sinfulness & repentance & need of cleansing from sin by the sprinkled blood of Jesus; Acts 2
a sign of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus, as circumcision was a Covenant sign given to Abraham for his descendants; Heb. 9 & 12
a sign of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus, as the Exodus 24 sprinkling with blood was a sign of the Old Covenant; Heb. 9
a sign of the intention of parents to bring their children up in the training and instruction of the Lord, and to instruct them in the significance of their baptism. Eph. 6
As baptists, we would insist that baptism requires repentance & saving faith, therefore at an age of understanding, and also immersion in the name of Father, Son & Holy Spirit. or the baptism of the Holy Spirit giving us new life - born of the Spirit; John 3
of union with Jesus in his death & resurrection; Romans 6
of our recognition of our sinfulness & repentance & need of cleansing from sin by the sprinkled blood of Jesus; Acts 2
a sign of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus, as circumcision was a Covenant sign given to Abraham for his descendants; Heb. 9 & 12
a sign of the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus, as the Exodus 24 sprinkling with blood was a sign of the Old Covenant; Heb. 9
a sign of the intention of parents to bring their children up in the training and instruction of the Lord, and to instruct them in the significance of their baptism. Eph. 6
BUT
We know that the weight of Gospel history is the practice of infant baptism, & vast numbers of faithful believers & Gospel preachers were baptised as infants, usually by sprinkling. They lived as baptised believers as we seek to.
When faithful Christians baptised in infancy seek membership in a baptist church, they should be encouraged to accept baptism as believers, but if they can present a coherent Scriptural defense of paedobaptism as indicated above, they should be welcomed without what should be considered re-baptism.
We welcome them, but if they desire to be members, need to be rightly Baptized now.
I was concerned mainly that some picture say Presbyterians as accepting the Baptism same way Catholic sans Lutherans do!
Covenanter said:
Sprinkling an infant does not welcome them into the family of God.
Sprinkling an infant does not create a union with Jesus and his death and resurrection.
Infants can't even recognize what is happening at the baptism, never mind recognizing they have repented. And I don't see the concept of sprinkling with the blood of Jesus, for any purpose, in scripture.
That's really stretching the analogy.
Another stretch.
No one was baptized in the Bible as a promise by parents to raise them up in the training of the Lord.
Reformed who are not Baptists would see the new Covenant as the fullness/completion of the Old One, hence infant baptism, but we see it as a anew Covenant, hence believers baptism.
PLEEEEZ look up & consider the Scriptures cited.
1. My grandfather was a Lutheran pastor
2. I was sprinkled as an infant.
3. I was raised a Lutheran until I was born again when I was 13 years old.
4. Whereupon I was baptized for real.
5. My children attended a conservative Lutheran grade & middle school. I had to unlearn them of their instruction in baptism.
I probably know more about paedobaptism then you do, at least the Lutheran stance on it. The scriptures you've cited are barely tangentially related to Biblical baptism.
Do they agree with Catholics on Infant baptismal regeneration then?
The same can be said of a Baby dedication
I am NOT defending infant baptism - I think it is a serious error,
BUT
there are plenty of paedobaptist Christians who defend their practice from Scripture
OR
have simply accepted it without questioning.
My position - my farewell sermon - on the evils on the Reformers continuing infant baptism can be read here.
We have a couple in our church who has been coming for a number of years, in fact longer than I have been here, that has the wife who was raised SBC and her husband who was raised Methodist. They are faithful tithers and are engaged in the church but are not members because he was sprinkled. They accept this and continue to come. His position is one church says one thing the other says another how am I to know what is right. Lately they have been attending our new members class and I have covered Baptism in there as well as in my preaching. It looks like he is nearing ready to get Biblically Baptized. We will then let then join the church.
Why do you say that?
That website and Strong's do not say that Bible baptism includes pouring or sprinkling. And no reputable scholar, Baptist or non-Baptist, will claim that the Greek means anything but "immerse." I just finished reading the classic by Hiscox, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, and he lists many Presbyterian and other scholars who agree that baptizo only means "immerse."
Not Baptist churches that want to remain strictly Baptist. Piper's church and any other Baptist church that accepts sprinkling or pouring only diminishes their Baptist roots, since one of the Baptist distinctives is the ordinances, including baptism by immersion.
Indubitably!
Good post. For 13 centuries the main mode of baptism was immersion. Pouring didn't come about until the 3rd century, and then only for people about to die, and then it was quite rare.
I do regard them as fellow brethren in Christ, just sincerely misunderstanding the bible on that issue!
Why
Do they also need to die on the cross, just like Jesus?They need to be baptized just like Jesus was... Brother Glen
https://www.google.com/search?q=jes...AUICigB&biw=1024&bih=734#imgrc=jb2yE6IfiE4U_M:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Some of the greatest disciples did ... Peter and Andrew ... but aparently being beheaded (like Paul) or stabbed with a spear or burned alive are also acceptable substitutes.
Hope this helps.
Time to look at Buddhism.Some of the greatest disciples did ... Peter and Andrew ... but aparently being beheaded (like Paul) or stabbed with a spear or burned alive are also acceptable substitutes.
Hope this helps.
No, but they never had a biblical baptism done before!