The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is Baptism equivalent to making a vow?

This has nothing to do with wanting to baptize infants and thus working backward to find justification for doing so! I have already stated that one can and must come to a proper understanding of the MEANING of baptism BEFORE one can then apply it, for example, who are the proper recipients. Further, the MEANING of baptism cannot change regardless of who the recipients are, whether believer or unbeliever. This is one of the major areas that credo-Baptists struggle with when challenged because their definition (meaning) of Baptism is incorrect, i.e., it is too narrow a definition and/or it is totally wrong.

Personally, I am NOT going to get into another fruitless debate with a credo-Baptist. If someone else wants to get involved here good, but I've been around this block far too many times already and it is simply a waste of time. There is ample literature in books and online that defend the historic practice of paedobaptism from Scripture. My own study brought me to a position of paedobaptism without the error of "presumptive regeneration". Some of my closest friends are credo-baptists and we have much in common and find no reason to part over our differences. But they in turn do not hold to the strict and most common view of credo-baptism either, e.g., they do not insist that immersion is the only proper mode; aspersion or effusion are equally valid.

For novelty's sake, why not ponder what William McIntyre has written here: The Token of the Covenant. Surely, you haven't read ALL the articles in the section linked to already, have you?

Over and out!