"The decision lies with man whether he will cooperate with God. It followed that infant baptism was not sound. As free human decision is required for regeneration, and regeneration is necessary for baptism…well, an infant has no such capacity for a free human decision."
----------------------------
This is true. An infant is only concerned with two things: a full belly and a human touch. Nevertheless, there may be some rationale for infant baptism which has nothing to do with free choice--it is a symbol that the infant has been brought into a covenantal relationship, a la Gary North, with God and the Christians around him. This implies that the protection promised by God to His people is extended to the infant as well, in the general sense, that is, as it is not guaranteed that even God's "infants" will live long and prosperous lives.
The problem I have with infant baptism is not so much with the act itself as it is with the mindset of those who participate, either knowingly or unknowingly. There seems to be the sense among many that those who have been baptized early do not need to be baptized later as if the umbrella of "covenantal protection" will suffice to see them through to the Promised Land. This is a cavalier attitude and it probably keeps many from admission of sin, regeneration, and thorough examination of self which leads to godliness.
Infant baptism MAY serve to satisfy and calm the inner fears of the parents, but can cause more trouble than it is worth for those who have been subjected to it, especially if they put their faith in the symbolic action rather than the Word of God. With respect to this, it can be seen as quite similar to the act of male circumcision which is widely practiced, even among admitted non-believers.
I don't find myself completely agreeing or disagreeing with either side in this one. I do think taking the Bible as the sole objective standard as correct, Sola Scriptura. I actually don't think Reformers followed that Sola as much as they are reputed to do. I also think they missed the bus on baptism. I think the Anabaptists were correct on this issue, though the reasoning they had which you wrote about in this article seems off the mark by quite a bit. I don't think baptism hinges on "decision for God". But it should occur after one declares faith in Jesus not before. That is clearly Biblical.
The murder on both sides to both sides is ridiculously abominable. I just don't know how Christians can do that to one another. Even if they differed on key concepts, that is never justification for killing when you read the Bible. Never.
We also see the radicals confused on the relationship between Spirit and Bible again, pitting one against the other. This was a very unstable period. I glad I didn't live then, and it concerns me for what will happen with all the Christian Nationalist talk. Some of them want to implement Sabbath laws and throw people in jail (or worse) if they don't abide by them. Call me a biblicist. True. But Colossians 2:16-17 should end all discussion of forced Sabbath observance.
"The decision lies with man whether he will cooperate with God. It followed that infant baptism was not sound. As free human decision is required for regeneration, and regeneration is necessary for baptism…well, an infant has no such capacity for a free human decision."
----------------------------
This is true. An infant is only concerned with two things: a full belly and a human touch. Nevertheless, there may be some rationale for infant baptism which has nothing to do with free choice--it is a symbol that the infant has been brought into a covenantal relationship, a la Gary North, with God and the Christians around him. This implies that the protection promised by God to His people is extended to the infant as well, in the general sense, that is, as it is not guaranteed that even God's "infants" will live long and prosperous lives.
The problem I have with infant baptism is not so much with the act itself as it is with the mindset of those who participate, either knowingly or unknowingly. There seems to be the sense among many that those who have been baptized early do not need to be baptized later as if the umbrella of "covenantal protection" will suffice to see them through to the Promised Land. This is a cavalier attitude and it probably keeps many from admission of sin, regeneration, and thorough examination of self which leads to godliness.
Infant baptism MAY serve to satisfy and calm the inner fears of the parents, but can cause more trouble than it is worth for those who have been subjected to it, especially if they put their faith in the symbolic action rather than the Word of God. With respect to this, it can be seen as quite similar to the act of male circumcision which is widely practiced, even among admitted non-believers.
I don't find myself completely agreeing or disagreeing with either side in this one. I do think taking the Bible as the sole objective standard as correct, Sola Scriptura. I actually don't think Reformers followed that Sola as much as they are reputed to do. I also think they missed the bus on baptism. I think the Anabaptists were correct on this issue, though the reasoning they had which you wrote about in this article seems off the mark by quite a bit. I don't think baptism hinges on "decision for God". But it should occur after one declares faith in Jesus not before. That is clearly Biblical.
The murder on both sides to both sides is ridiculously abominable. I just don't know how Christians can do that to one another. Even if they differed on key concepts, that is never justification for killing when you read the Bible. Never.
We also see the radicals confused on the relationship between Spirit and Bible again, pitting one against the other. This was a very unstable period. I glad I didn't live then, and it concerns me for what will happen with all the Christian Nationalist talk. Some of them want to implement Sabbath laws and throw people in jail (or worse) if they don't abide by them. Call me a biblicist. True. But Colossians 2:16-17 should end all discussion of forced Sabbath observance.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
https://libertarianchristians.com/author/rhesabrowning/