Monday, February 26, 2007

Thanks J.Gray and Mikey T.

Both of you have offered great insight into this raging debate. I have always been against pedobaptism because scripture does not sufficiently back it up (IMO). I know presbyterians, and other denominations use a verse or 2 in scrpture to offer thier case for pedobaptism. I have talked to other members of our congregation about the issue, and some don't have a problem with it, while others do have a problem with it........but think sprinkling is OK, or immersion. They see baptism being for the believer, but that the way it is administered (immersion or sprinkling) makes no difference. They started making some pretty strong arguments for both, and I think the main reason is what if someone is on thier deathbed, who becomes a believer, and wishes for baptism. Obviously they can't be immersed. They gave other situations like that, and I tend to see their point. Melissa and I have elected to have our children, when they become believers, be immersed, but the pastor said it can't be a churchwide baptism since they don't want to confuse thier other congreagational members. I told him I understand, and we both respect each other's opinions in the matter. He said that he would, as long as his presbytery continues to allow it, baptize both ways (both immersion and sprinkling). He did inform me, however, that if I was ever to be nominated as an elder, I would be unable to be one if I didn't hold to pedobaptism. I told him that was fine, lol. More thoughts on the issue if you guys so choose to offer them up. I am definitley looking into both books that J.Gray and Mikey T. reccommended, and of course studying the scriptures in these matters. I am not sold on pedobaptism, but I am not sure yet about administering baptism. Does it really make a difference if we sprinkle the believer or dunk them under water? Isn't it all about the act of obedience and the circumcision of the heart, as Mikey T. so eloquently said in a comment? You guys are all awesome and encouraging, and I am glad I have this outlet to discussw the "deeper things of Christ" with you fine gentleman. Oh year Mikey, I am just now studying up on the Federal Vision thing. I will get back to you on that.

1 comment:

drock said...

The guy on the cross didn't have to be baptized, and he still was going to be with Jesus in paradise. So I think that THIS exception should be taken as a rule. We don't even have to be baptized to be please Christ; the thief on the cross didn't. Think of baptism as more of a suggestion that can be followed if you feel like it.
Also, baptism is not even a real english word; it is just a transliteration of the greek word for IMMERSION. Translators didnt want to put "immersion" because then they would not be able to sell their bibles to all denominations. So really, the only reason we even have the word "baptism" in our language is economics (and wimps for translators).
My two cents.