From the Pew: R. Scott Clark Responds - Baptism: A Third View (Part 10)
VERY interesting post by Steve Scott that takes to task two well-known teachers in the church who have in turn called paedobaptism a sin on one hand and declared all churches that don't baptize infants to be false churches on the other. I have posted on both original articles earlier but I think Steve hits a more gracious and appropriate tone in his response to one of the individuals named.
I have long believed that baptism is an issue that requires some division. As I have tried to change my thinking on this, I am starting to think that baptism is not an official function that can only be carried out in the context of a duly appointed officer of the local church institution in an appropriate ceremony. That would necessitate division, because the local institution must declare one way or the other their baptismal stance. I don't see much support for that in the Bible. I still don't see a shred of real evidence in the Bible to support infant baptism but I also don't see a shred of evidence that Christians should divide or worse yet be divisive on this issue.
Still thinking this through...
5 comments:
Did I tell you I'm a paedobaptist now?
*ducks to avoid impending rotten tomatoes*
No rotten veggies. I am curious what would cause you to make that switch.
See, I would know this stuff if you blogged more often. I am jus' sayin'.
Here are some good arguments (I believe)for infant baptism. Some of the comments are mine, but there are some good ones as well.
http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2009/06/infant-baptism-nows-your-chance-to.html
Errr. Tomatoes are, of course, fruit.
I won't let it stop me checking out your blog, though. ;-)
Yes, tomatoes are fruit, but that doesn't stop the government from allowing ketchup as a vegetable. :)
Post a Comment