tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post6188014618949262636..comments2024-02-13T08:45:20.455-05:00Comments on The Schooley Files: Faith Validates Baptism: A Note on Wayne Grudem's Change of MindKeith Edwin Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06328169815024415532noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-52628723574522420392008-04-10T03:57:00.000-04:002008-04-10T03:57:00.000-04:00Baptism is a public confesion of faith it does not...Baptism is a public confesion of faith it does not mean you are saved. It is to show true Christians that you beleive the same thing. Baptism mean "to dip in the death" so that we are covered with the death of Christ, which still does not mean we are saved. Baptism b sprinkling in not Baptism at all. It is only a symbolic act. It is just as silly as saying 'I "accept" Jesus Christ and His sacrafice'. You all need to read Fatal Flaw by James R. White to learn true Biblical Christanity, so you all can defend against the enmy and the unbleiver alike.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-31466999159264191042006-12-21T07:39:00.000-05:002006-12-21T07:39:00.000-05:00Stephen--
I think both you and Bob are correct ab...Stephen--<br /><br />I think both you and Bob are correct about communion. Of course, the caveat that you suggested, "if those children profess their faith in Christ," is another good reason for baptism also to be delayed until that time.<br /><br />My own conviction regarding the relationship between baptism and communion is that people should not take communion until after they have been baptized, and once they have been baptized, communion should not be withheld from them. In credobaptist circles it is sometimes the case that young people are taking communion for some time before choosing to be baptized, by which practice the initiatory aspect of baptism gets lost. I personally did not allow my children to take communion until I felt they had made a credible profession of faith and were baptized.<br /><br />Now, we have another sort of problem. My younger children, who are baptized, do not participate in communion because they are downstairs in a children's church service. We've taken communion as a family after the service, but it's not the same.<br /><br />I like how your church handles baptism. If I were in a church that allowed infant baptism at all, that's the way I'd like to see it handled.Keith Schooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-51675385063658814662006-12-21T05:20:00.000-05:002006-12-21T05:20:00.000-05:00Keith, good post - and I agree wholeheartedly. As ...Keith, good post - and I agree wholeheartedly. As a believer in believer's baptism, I nevertheless am embarrassed by those who suggest that believers in infant baptism are somehow less faithful to scripture, or that they have simply not read their bibles. I may not agree with the covenant theology (because the new covenant is entered through faith, not birth), but I respect that others have thought about the issue and disagreed with me.<br /><br />However, as Bob has suggested - there is a link to communion here. Communion is a feast for all believers. If we have baptised children as infants, and if those children profess their faith in Christ, then on what grounds would we forbid them from taking communion?<br /><br />I happen to attend an Anglican church (despite my rather un-anglican theology) which has a full sized baptistry, and "re-enacts" baptisms for adults who have come to faith, and which does not forbid children from communion if they have professed faith in Christ.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16586274666377103722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-447025999346793132006-12-20T13:31:00.000-05:002006-12-20T13:31:00.000-05:00You're right, the "first act of obedience" becomes...You're right, the "first act of obedience" becomes moot in that kind of situation. Like I said, I wouldn't be legalistic about it but I probably would gently encourage re-baptism. I'll freely admit, however, that it's a point of personal principle rather than theology at that point.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16914401032087512202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-14559299325484029522006-12-19T15:09:00.000-05:002006-12-19T15:09:00.000-05:00Thread? It's barely a stub at this point! Hijack a...Thread? It's barely a stub at this point! Hijack away; I'd be happy for the interaction.<br /><br />I also think that baptism is a "vital first act of obedience." But let's say someone is baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church. Later on, say around age 20, they come to a genuine saving faith. They stay Presby for another ten years, develop differing doctrinal convictions, and end up, oh, let's say, AG or SBC. (One must cater to one's audience....) So at this point, ten years into a genuine Christian experience, my question is, how strongly should we "encourage" re-baptism? In what sense is this a "first act of obedience" anymore? <br /><br />(Of course, all this is moot if we just wait to get baptized until it's legit in the first place.)Keith Schooleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-75932363916389115402006-12-19T11:45:00.000-05:002006-12-19T11:45:00.000-05:00Good post. As you know, I'm strongly "credo" mysel...Good post. As you know, I'm strongly "credo" myself. While I could (and would) definitely be charitable with someone who "relies" on an infant baptism, I always encourage re-baptism. I've always felt that baptism, while symbolic, is a vital first act of obedience. If we can't be obedient in such a small thing, how can we expect to live a life of obedience. I'm not going to be legalistic about it at this point, but it's not a small issue for me.<br /><br />The issue that I am pondering these days is the relationship between baptism and communion, but I won't hijack this thread. :-)Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16914401032087512202noreply@blogger.com