It is not wicked for infants/children to hear the gospel and be baptized (Mark 16:15, 16). It is wicked when Baptist parents and pastors despise God's command to baptize (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38,39). However, elect children of Baptist families who die in infancy are regenerated and brought to faith through the ministry of the Word (Rom. 10:17).
Does your conscience not bother you even a little when you use the word "wicked" to describe those who do not hold to paedobaptism? I'm wondering in all fairness if you would allow the reverse; i.e., those who believe that infants are regenerated in baptism and/or to teach children that they are loved of God, their sins are remitted and they are united to Christ by virtue of their baptism and/or because they are "covenant children", can be likewise considered "wicked" by those who do not hold to those views? Just curious! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />
Oh, just in case you are wondering... I hold to paedobaptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
1. I did not call Baptists wicked. I said, by withholding baptism, they were acting, according to webster's definition, "in a manner contrary to divine law." And, since you hold to paedobaptism, you must agree with me and probably for exactly the same reason. Right? 2. Anyone who holds to a view contrary to scripture, after being admonished, is acting "in a manner contrary to divine law."
Sorry, but I cannot agree that withholding baptism from infants should be judged according to a Webster's Dictionary's definition of "wicked". That is far too strong a term, IMHO. I do believe that infant's should be baptized. But I do not believe that it is so closely connected to salvation that it is necessary for one to do so or wicked if it isn't done.
Within the membership of this Board there are believers on both sides of the baptism issue. A very small minority on both sides are extremely critical of the other. It is my concerted opinion that although the doctrine of baptism is important to understand and practice rightly, there is no place for believers to castigate those who differ in a manner which I would consider judgmental and even Pharisaical. My views on this matter have been made public myriad times here and elsewhere. So, I see no need repeat them once again.
Not using "wickedness" to describe sin does not make it smell any better.
Every false doctrine is an attack on scripture. And every attack on scripture is an attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone: "Hath God said"? Gen. 3:1. Believers are called to judge doctrine and to flee from those who teach falsely (John 10:5, Rom. 16:17).
speratus said: Not using "wickedness" to describe sin does not make it smell any better.
Every false doctrine is an attack on scripture. And every attack on scripture is an attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone: "Hath God said"? Gen. 3:1. Believers are called to judge doctrine and to flee from those who teach falsely (John 10:5, Rom. 16:17).
It may be a sin to neglect the baptism of one's infant children, but again, whether or not one is justified in calling this neglect "wickedness", I am not convinced. If ALL sin is wickedness, then so is walking against the light when someone crosses the street. Not tithing in a church that believes that it is a N.T. practice would be "wickedness". etc... The problem here is that these issues are not universally recognized and/or believed and thus what is "sin" to one is virtue to another. There is no universally recognized Creed or Confession to which all of Christendom has accepted that teaches infant baptism. It is your personal belief that infant baptism is a biblical doctrine, to which I agree. But the Scriptures do not teach that if one isn't baptised they cannot be saved. It is Sola FIDE not Solas FIDE/Baptizo that saves a soul.
Once again I say, that those who put far too much importance upon baptism are also precariously close to being guilty of synergism. This is true for BOTH Baptists and Paedobaptists. It's rank enough to have to listen to the "TR" (Truly Reformed) groups but it makes me physically ill when I see how Baptist and Paedobaptist extremists attack each other and divide in battle over even peripheral things. It has happened here and may God have mercy on those that were involved. THAT sir, IMHO, can be rightly called "wickedness".
The casting of stones over the doctrine of Baptism will NOT be tolerated here again. Discussions on baptism are surely welcome. Disagreements over baptism is expected. But again, I will [color:"red"]NOT[/color] allow flaming, ad hominem slurs, judging of one's soul, etc. to be launched by anyone toward another brother/sister on this matter of baptism. Thus, be forewarned.... if you in good conscience truly believe that the neglecting of baptizing infants is a "wicked act" which if a person does not repent of will lead to their damnation, then you had better decide now if you want to make your personal convictions on this issue publicly known.
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
Westminster Confession of Faith, Baptism
Do modern Calvinists still believe this? If so, how can they have any fellowship with those who deny that baptism is a efficacious means of grace?
BTW, the WCF article is in agreement with the Lutheran Book of Concord.
The problem here is that these issues are not universally recognized and/or believed and thus what is "sin" to one is virtue to another.
I can list several other issues not "universally recognized". Who decides what is "universal" because certainly one position is in grave error denying the command of scripture.
Quote
There is no universally recognized Creed or Confession to which all of Christendom has accepted that teaches infant baptism.
Could I get a list of all "universally recognized" creeds and confessions?
Quote
It is your personal belief that infant baptism is a biblical doctrine, to which I agree.
Well, and historical truths. Either scripture teaches it, or it does not, neither being a mere "opinion".
Quote
But the Scriptures do not teach that if one isn't baptised they cannot be saved. It is Sola FIDE not Solas FIDE/Baptizo that saves a soul.
Where and when was it decided that only soteriology mattered to truth? Or when it was the sole doctrine necessary to be held as a Christian?
Quote
Once again I say, that those who put far too much importance upon baptism are also precariously close to being guilty of synergism.
Indeed. However, I would posit that those who created the division are guilty of so much more than over-defending. Simply stated, the baptist schism is exactly that.
Unprofitable opinions are forgiven and corrected as long as the foundation is not overthrown (justification by faith alone in Christ alone). However, I am puzzled why Calvinists do not mark those who cause divisions on an article that relates to the use of an efficacious means of grace (justification).
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
Westminster Confession of Faith, Baptism
Do modern Calvinists still believe this? If so, how can they have any fellowship with those who deny that baptism is a efficacious means of grace?
BTW, the WCF article is in agreement with the Lutheran Book of Concord.
Speratus: First you haven't proven the Baptists deny baptism as an efficacious means of grace.
Second: Your reasoning regarding the wickedness of baptists is still flawed. Do not Lutherans when they have catechumins that are not infants and not baptized baptize them after they have completed their studies and joined the Church? Why do they not baptize them first and then continue with their instruction? Are they not just as "wicked as the Baptists?
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)