Subject: Why would someone get rebaptised? |
Bible Note: You wrote: "Now since you started with the word assume, lets assume that since they were all baptized, in the verses in Acts, they must have all believed." And, of course, this is the assumption made by those who hold to believer's baptism alone. Since these passages do not refer to whether there was belief on the part of all who received baptism of not, we simply have to assume one or the other, based on other texts which address baptism. You have very adequately given the argument for believer's-only baptism. I hope that even though you disagree with those who hold to infant baptism that you now realize that it is not as simple as it seems to dismiss them as "putting tradition over Scripture." You wrote: "I Corinthians 7:12-14 points emphasis to word Holy, which as you correctly stated means set apart; Jesus himself tells us how this is done. John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." The antecedent of "them" in John 17:17 is the eleven disciples who did not betray Him. Start at John 17:6 and work your way down to see who is being referred to up until this point. Nothing in Jesus' high priestly prayer refers to unbelievers. You wrote: "It is not true today in the U.S.A. but in most of the Middle East today, according to missionaries that I have talked to, believing in Jesus Christ is one thing but confessing him by the act of baptism is like signing a death warrant. The new believers are being baptized and as a result many they say, and not a few have been killed as a result, even by family members." This doesn't support one side or the other. Those who baptize infants say that adult converts who have never been baptized need to be baptized. I would presume that most Muslims in the Middle East were not baptized as infants. You wrote: "The whole key here is exposure to God word through the believing spouse. i.e. exposure to the Word of God through instruction form the believer. Where do you see in the context of 1 Corinthians 7 that it is instruction from the believer which sets family members apart? Since John 17:17 wasn't spoken in reference to non-believers, how do you make that claim with absolute ceratinty? You wrote: "Put the shoe on the other foot what if both parents are unbelievers, now what happens to the children are the clean or unclean?" Unclean, which is why Protestants don't baptize the children of two unbelieving parents. "It is the action of God's Word that does the cleaning." Well, the way you state this is very close to the Protestant paedobaptist view. According to that view, it is indeed the Word, working together the visible and tanglible ("sensible") element of water, is indeed what sets the covenant child apart. The water is simply water and represents nothing apart from the Word, just like in the Lord's Supper we have the bread and the cup which have no special significance apart from the Word. Together, however, the water and the Word have very special significance, and like you said, "points to" the Living Word (Reformed folk use exactly this terminology. I do hold that in a very real way that there is spiritual benefit to the recipient of baptism. Whether one believes in infant baptism or not, I do not think it is reasonable to conclude biblically that baptism amounts to nothing more than a "bare sign." I want to thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me. I think it is very good for believers to dig deep into the Word of God to wrestle with these issues. This is definitely an issue I have wrestled with myself! There are such wonderful examples of godly, biblically-grounded people who hold to either view that one really cannot help but respect those among them with whom you disagree. --Joe |