« Countdown for The 1845 Conference underway | Main | Georgia Baptist Association--'not principally held and preached among us that God damns infants' »

Sep 13, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Norm Miller

Given our Lord's heart for and words about the children with whom he interacted, it becomes exceedingly difficult to believe that His opinion or heart would be any less of them in their infancy.
Thank you, Peter, for this series of historical Baptist reminders about the spiritual condition of infants.

Mary

Peter, heads up, Debbie Kaufman is over at Wartburg Watch declaring that you and SBC Today have declared the age of accountability is 12. (eye roll)

gary

Maybe the Infant Baptism debate has been approached from the wrong direction. Instead of starting with our disagreements, let's start with what Baptists/evangelicals and orthodox Christians AGREE upon: All persons who believe and have faith in Christ as their Savior should follow his command and be baptized as soon as possible. Agreed?

So the next question is: Can an infant believe and have faith?

Evangelical and Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ: If I can prove to you from Scripture that infants not only can but DO believe and have faith, would you accept infant baptism as Scriptural?

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/09/the-bible-says-that-infants-can-have.html

peter lumpkins

Gary,

With all due respect, the texts in the link *do not prove* infants possess saving faith. They don't even necessarily "imply" it as the paper begins to argue.

Nor does your proposal that we begin where we agree assist. Sorry. If you desire to believe newborn babies *can* believe in the sense of saving belief, that's your business but I'm uninterested in such a fruitless discussion here.

Thanks...

Scott Shaver

"www.lutherwasnotbornagain" implies an axe to grind with evangelicism. Website confirms it.

Gary, my 6th great grandfather (father's side) was a German Lutheran immigrant who got off a ship in Pennsylvania in the early 1700's. He married another German immigrant (an Anabaptist). On the day they married, she joined the Lutheran Church but subsequent generations of our family who were Christians all gravitated toward the anabaptist understanding of "Believer's" baptism by immersion.

At least that's the way I like to bias the interpretation of our family history. It's in my DNA.

Consequently, I'm with Peter and see no point in entertaining a pre radical reformation rationale for going back to where Luther stopped.

Some of us literally have "skin in the game" on this one.

The comments to this entry are closed.