Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 123:
Line 123: + + Line 163:
Line 165: + +
new subhead Sixteenth century - added quote from Alexander Hislop ''The Two Babylons'', with link to http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/sect41.htm
[[Baptist]] churches adopted the same Anabaptist views of both the invalidity of infant baptism as a [[Paganism|pagan]] [[heresy]] and the absolute need for confessional credobaptism of youths and adults as true believers. Many other Protestant and independent churches also profess their opposition to the doctrine of infant baptism as diabolical and satanic; while others among them, Protestant and Independent, accept infant baptism as being supported by the Bible because the scriptures do not explicitly condemn the baptism of infants and young children, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Presbyterians, Methodists, (some) Nazarenes, and the Moravian Church. Compare the [[Mennonite]]s.
[[Baptist]] churches adopted the same Anabaptist views of both the invalidity of infant baptism as a [[Paganism|pagan]] [[heresy]] and the absolute need for confessional credobaptism of youths and adults as true believers. Many other Protestant and independent churches also profess their opposition to the doctrine of infant baptism as diabolical and satanic; while others among them, Protestant and Independent, accept infant baptism as being supported by the Bible because the scriptures do not explicitly condemn the baptism of infants and young children, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Reformed denominations, Presbyterians, Methodists, (some) Nazarenes, and the Moravian Church. Compare the [[Mennonite]]s.
=== Nineteenth century ===
The doctrinal stand of the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] (SBC) is strongly opposed to Catholicism. In 1852, Robert Boyt C. Howell wrote a paper he delivered to the Southern Baptist Publication Society "The Evils of Infant Baptism" in which he set forth in nineteen chapters the following arguments against infant baptism: <ref>[http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm The Evils of Infant Baptism, By Robert Boyt C. Howell, Charleston, SC: Southern Baptist Publication Society 1852.] </ref>
The doctrinal stand of the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] (SBC) is strongly opposed to Catholicism. In 1852, Robert Boyt C. Howell wrote a paper he delivered to the Southern Baptist Publication Society "The Evils of Infant Baptism" in which he set forth in nineteen chapters the following arguments against infant baptism: <ref>[http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm The Evils of Infant Baptism, By Robert Boyt C. Howell, Charleston, SC: Southern Baptist Publication Society 1852.] </ref>
:[http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismchapter19.htm CHAPTER 19<br>Infant baptism is an evil because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world]
:[http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismchapter19.htm CHAPTER 19<br>Infant baptism is an evil because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world]
The [[Presbyterian]] Rev. Alexander Hislop, in '''''[[''The Two Babylons'']]''''' states in Chapter IV, Doctrine and Discipline, Section I, Baptismal Regeneration:{{cquote|Now, in both respects this doctrine is absolutely anti-Scriptural; in both it is purely Pagan. It is anti-Scriptural, for the Lord Jesus Christ has expressly declared that infants, without the slightest respect to baptism or any external ordinance whatever, are capable of admission into all the glory of the heavenly world: "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist, while yet in his mother's womb was so filled with joy at the advent of the Saviour, that, as soon as Mary's salutation sounded in the ears of his own mother, the unborn babe "leaped in the womb for joy." Had that child died at the birth, what could have excluded it from "the inheritance of the saints in light" for which it was so certainly "made meet"? Yet the Roman Catholic Bishop Hay, in defiance of very principle of God's Word, does not hesitate to pen the following: "Question: What becomes of young children who die without baptism? Answer: If a young child were put to death for the sake of Christ, this would be to it the baptism of blood, and carry it to heaven; but except in this case, as such infants are incapable of having the desire of baptism, with the other necessary dispositions, if they are not actually baptised with water, THEY CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN." As this doctrine never came from the Bible, whence came it? It came from heathenism.<ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/babylon/sect41.htm The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop. Chapter IV. Doctrine and Discipline, Section I, Baptismal Regeneration (biblebelievers.com)]</ref>}}
==Faith and works==
==Faith and works==