As a former Paedobaptist (and an ardent one, too) I believe it was right for me to get baptized - in obedience to the Scriptural command. It took a lot of convincing, though.
The Anabaptists (and that term was used as a convenient label to wrongly lump together all those who were opposed to the RC Church and the Magisterial Reformers) rejected the label of being Re-baptizers. There only is one baptism!
There is no 'one' Paedobaptist view (this is often overlooked), and brethren on both sides of the ecclesiastical fence (let it be kept - but low enough to shake hands) need to remember with Luther that their conscience is bound to the Word of God.
The issue is sensitive and mutual verbal abuse ought to be avoided.
Baptist Churches - if consistent and faithful to Scripture - cannot have an unbaptized membership. Why is it wrong to disobey Christ's command? What is objectionable to following the pattern of the New testament Church?
Paedobapists, if they complain about being excluded (and who does the excluding one may ask?), may be respectfully reminded that men like C H Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones would not be admitted to the ministry.
I think that disagreement will remain – but let it be in love. In NT times there never was an argument over infant baptism; notice however the issue of 're-baptism' in Acts 19!
I think that as heirs of the Reformation we may – indeed we must - stand together against a common enemy.
Incidentally, I am glad about Calvin's Paedobaptist position – it's stopped me from putting him on a pedestal.
The Anabaptists (and that term was used as a convenient label to wrongly lump together all those who were opposed to the RC Church and the Magisterial Reformers) rejected the label of being Re-baptizers. There only is one baptism!
There is no 'one' Paedobaptist view (this is often overlooked), and brethren on both sides of the ecclesiastical fence (let it be kept - but low enough to shake hands) need to remember with Luther that their conscience is bound to the Word of God.
The issue is sensitive and mutual verbal abuse ought to be avoided.
Baptist Churches - if consistent and faithful to Scripture - cannot have an unbaptized membership. Why is it wrong to disobey Christ's command? What is objectionable to following the pattern of the New testament Church?
Paedobapists, if they complain about being excluded (and who does the excluding one may ask?), may be respectfully reminded that men like C H Spurgeon or Lloyd-Jones would not be admitted to the ministry.
I think that disagreement will remain – but let it be in love. In NT times there never was an argument over infant baptism; notice however the issue of 're-baptism' in Acts 19!
I think that as heirs of the Reformation we may – indeed we must - stand together against a common enemy.
Incidentally, I am glad about Calvin's Paedobaptist position – it's stopped me from putting him on a pedestal.
