There is one main argument against paedobaptism (infant baptism). And that is this: You don't have to do it. Nothing in Scripture mandates it, and there's not one example of it. Everyone must repent and be baptized. No one must baptize their children who have yet to repent.
-
-
Just a friendly reminder there is more to this passage. Before, and after.pic.twitter.com/DTxRwTnUK1
-
"Be baptized" and the promise "for your children" is book-ended by "repent" and "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself."
-
Which is why I call Credobaptism reductionistic - we have no problem accommodating the obvious fact that adult converts need to repent and believe. We just don't end it there and cut infants and the mentally handicapped out of the Covenant.
-
Which is also a reductionistic argument.
-
Oh look the baptism argument is started again. Just once could we argue about Communion?
-
Paedocommunion.
-
I was actually trying for Zwingli vs non-zwingli and leave the kids out of it. But nooooo
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Every household mentioned had a profession of faith prior to immersion as well
-
lol Where, brother?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In order to be circumcised one had to be born. Seems like the same requirement would be true spiritually.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do infants receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.