Featured Baptists = Protestants?

Sure sounds like wiggling to me. Infant baptism is part of baptismal regeneration; i.e. salvation by works; a false gospel; worthy of anathema. All of this a falling away from The Truth--apostasy.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Thanks for explaining. That makes much more sense.

 

False. Many who practise infant baptism do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

As I said before, it is an anti-scriptural man-made doctrine. But it does not warrant the curse of Gal. 1:8,9. You need to look at the larger picture of one's doctrinal convictions. Some Baptists are not the only residents of Heaven. There are many Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans etc. who have passed away and are now in the presence of the Lord. They have looked upon Christ alone as the only refuge and Savior from their sins. BJ does not have the authority to anathematize people who don't line up in all particulars with his brand of Christianity.

You need to study more.

 

Baptism and regeneration are mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with church membership. One could be baptized by every church listed in the yellow pages and still wind up in hell. A church is joined by making application. The prerequisites for membership are scriptural salvation and scriptural baptism.

Re: John Ch. 3, Nicodemus was a member of the Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem, even a master. Jesus told him he must be born again. Nicodemus had not a clue.

If infant baptism is not related to baptismal regeneration, what is the point of baptizing infants? Multitudes have perished refusing to baptize their infants. Infant baptism is a Protestant Reformation apostasy which originated with their mother. Reformed apostasy is still apostasy reformed. The ecumenists can water this down at length, it is still apostasy: falling away from Truth.

For sure, we all need more study.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Rippon, are you in China?

 

Why the nonsense BJ?

That's where proponents get somewhat fuzzy in their thinking.

Infant baptism is a departure from solid biblical evidence. It is a not a departure from the Faith once delivered (Jude 3). You need to exercise discernment. Many Fathers of the Faith held to the error of infant baptism. They are still my heroes despite their flaws.

Indeed I am. I've been here since 8/2013 (4 months in 2011).

 

Polluting the Gospel is not departing from The Faith once(for all) delivered to the Saints.? Salvation by grace through faith, not of works is the crux of The Faith. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. This is not a trivial infraction based on private interpretation. Ephesians 2:8-10 does not allow such things. Man has nothing to do with salvation--"we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them."

There is nothing minor about infractions to the Good News.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Would see the dividing issue here is IF those churches practice Infant Baptism and see it as conveying thru the :sacrament" itself saving grace towards the one receiving it...

Church of Rome fails that test, Lutheryns give confocting stances on that, as do some presby/reformed!

 

Sacramentalism is the issue. Baptism has redemptive properties or it does not. It cannot be all of the above.

To teach that baptism has redemptive power is heretical.

This sacrament issue goes back to the first century when some holy fathers proclaimed that one must be circumcised to be saved. The only similarity between circumcision and baptism is that they are both signs of covenants. Neither has redemptive power.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James