5 Comments

    1. Just Sayin'

      Or else Zwingli was right and you are wrong.

      Reply

  1. And yet no proponent of infant baptism can find evidence prior to CE 300 of its practice in Christianity, much less widespread usage. This compounds the problem of the lack of any NT attribution or command of the action. In fact, as baptism is referenced in the NT it is only for believers, following their conversion and always by immersion.

    The recovery of legitimate baptism by our Anabaptist predecessors was so important. :)

    Reply

    1. i like how zwingli baptized the anabaptists.

      if we argue for longevity of doctrine, we may have to give up so much more – including canon; but, beyond that, the history of infant baptism is sorta based on interpretation. I mean, unless children were excluded from whole households.

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!