- Jul 7, 2009
- Reaction score
- the South, thanks be to God
FountainPen said:Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?Marc1152 said:Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.FountainPen said:He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.
Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.
If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.
Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?
And if they never should have started in the first place, that means that Christians for 1500 or so years were getting a foundational belief and paractice wrong, with no records and no controversy, until the Anabaptists discovered the truth.
How likely is that?