To answer Lily's questions:
1. Some churches do not allow children under certain ages to be baptized because they want to make sure they understand salvation and are truly saved before they allow them to be baptized. It's a way for them, right or wrong, to ensure the sincerity of the child, and that he/she is not just doing it because their parent's said so.

2. I was baptized because I felt a need to obey God's command to be baptized.

Now on to Number's post:
1. Thanks for the discussion on covenant theology. And you're right, the Reformed tradition is really harsh, but that does not give us an excuss to be harsh on them. "They" have as much to teach "us" as "we" have to teach "them."

2. I disagree that those verses imply baptism. They simple imply that Jesus was at least standing in the Jordan river and when He stepped out, God proclaimed Him His son. As I said, I've heard evidence that the Jordan River wouldn't have been deep enough for emersion, so they would walk into the river and John would pour water over their heads. My point is that the method does not matter as much as the motivation. I prefer dunking. I love the symbolism behind it, but I'm not going to say that a person who was sprinkled or poured on didn't really get baptized. We can't turn principles into law. We have to look at the motivation and not the method. I'd consider the baptism of someone who was sincere but was sprinkled more genuine than the baptism of someone who was immersed but did it "just because."

Thanks for bringing up that verse, Renee. It should have been brought up long ago. It was the first verse that came to my mind too, but for some reason I was too lazy to quote it.

Number,

1. I just think it's a little, um, I can't put this any nicer, arrogant to think that we can't learn from a certain denomination. I don't mean "arrogant" in a harsh way, just in a "we are totally missing out on something wonderful because of our own oppinions and pride" sort of way. And trust me, I have the same criticism towards Reformers. They are even harsher when it comes to ignoring other tradtions. I'm just saying, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The Reformers get a lot wrong, but so does every other denominiation on this planet. We could really be missing out on something great if we ignore everything they have to say. I agree. Their systematic theology isn't always bibilcal and it often times leads to a very harsh, legalistic, superficial "form of godliness," but that doesn't give us the excuss to disregard everything they have to say. I believe that there is something to learn from just about every denomination, and it's my responsibility to line their teachings up with scripture. I don't want to miss out on another facet to this beautiful gem just because I disagree with the majority of a denomination's doctrine. I disagree with the majority of the doctrine of the Catholic church, but I'll be the first to admit that I have learned more about discipline and service from a Catholic than I ever did growing up in the protestant tradition.

2. I'm just saying, does the scripture actually say that Jesus was dunked? No. You're implying that from the passage. When something is not stated clearly and only implied, I'm not willing to dogmatically create a whole doctrine off of it. I think there are other places to go to defend immersion, but I don't think it's a strong enough argument to say that any other form of baptism (sprinkling, pouring, etc.) is not actually baptism. We need to think about the motivation and not so much the form.

Example: the baptist church believes in immersion (as do I), so, in order to become a member of a baptist church, you must get baptized by immersion. They do not accept any other form. Now, I can understand a church asking those who were baptized as infants to be re-baptized because I think there is a stronger position against that as a true form of baptism, but refusing to accept sprinkling or pouring as a form of baptism just results in a bunch of people getting re-biptized because they have to, which is not at all correct motivation. Their baptism testimonies end up becoming "I was saved when I was 10 and got sprinkled, but in order to join this church I've got to be dunked, so here I am!"

Once again, I totally agree with 99% of what you're saying; I just won't take such a dogmatic stand on the dunking issue.

In answer to Lily's questions, was baptized by my dad when I was a baby. Yes, my family is extremely reformed in almost all of their beliefs. Not all, but pretty close. I'm glad that I've been able to read everyone's posts thus far. Though, I think some of the things said about Reformed theology are a little harsh (I, too, am for most of it.) and am actually slightly offended. I'm going to keep reading what you guys have to say because I'm pretty interested about what "the other side" has to say. Hmm...I find it interesting just how different Baptists and Presbyterians are on a lot of things.

Not to jump in here where I do not belong, but let me say that we need to do all of our 'learning' from Scripture. Religion is man-made and I think we forget that alot. That being said, if a group holds to a certain belief concerning the pillars of the faith and it is invalid and unBiblical then it is BEST to disregard their teachings altogether. One bright spot doesn't make it good. Our beliefs need to come from Scripture alone. That is our only truth.

I've said it before, that if it is Biblical, then {enter name of person/religious group} isn't the first to think of it. It is our responsibility as Christians to search the Scripture ourselves.

I will also note that Christ was harsh when He dealt with people. He was also gentle. There is always a mixture of grace and truth. There is a time to draw the line and shoot the tresspassers and there are times we need to gently nudge those who are walking too close to the edge.

I also want to draw attention to the reason this forum was created, so we could edify, encourage and serve. Understand that we all do not come from the same backgrounds and attacking an individual's opinion is not necessary, unless they are in defiance of Biblical standards. In that case, you need to confront them (grace and truth). Make sure that these type of topics do not turn into heated arguments and disagreements over trivial matters. There are times in life when we have no choice but to agree to disagree and to praise God that He made the body of believers with different gifts and personalities.

Why was I baptised?

Well, to be honest, I don't fully remember. I was baptised in 2002, so I would have been around 13 years old, but I can't remember exactly. For the most part, I can recall knowing that it was "what I should do" because Christ commanded it, NOT because it's was the "Christian" thing to do at that stage...

Why a class when a child reaches a certain age?

Well, I can't really answer that, because I've never been in a church that does that. My church had a baptism service last year, when about 6 or 7 children were baptised. There was a class leading up to it, but it was open to those who wanted to do it, not done because they were "at the right age".
I know that Lutheran's do "confirmation classes" when children who were baptised as infants are in about grade 6... for them, it is the sign, well, the confirming, of the original baptism

Honestly, I don't really know enough about any of this to interject my opinion. If you read "Bending a rule..." or something like that, I mention that I just wanted to read other people's opinions. I know what my parents believe and I THINK I know what I believe, but I haven't really done enough of my own research and I'm not very firm in my view on baptism.

Just wanted to interject really quickly - it wasn't my intent for any of my comments about Reformed Theology to be taken personally. However, I still believe that Reformed theology is very dangerous, hence my comments. There are theological ideas which believers can evaluate and from which they can learn; however, it is my opinion that Reformed theology is a unique case and an exception; largely because it so systematic.

As I mentioned before, Calvinism / Covenant / Reformed theology moves from premise to conclusion systematically. What makes it so insidious is the fact that once an individual accepts the major premises and the mode of thinking, it is very difficult to not accept certain conclusions. This kind of theology forces its adherents to accept positions to which they never would have agreed before; thus, the idea that an individual can be a "two-point" or "three-point" Calvinist indefinitely is often illusory. We often like to think that we can "pick and choose" which aspects of varying theologies we want to believe; but this is extremely difficult to do with Reformed theology.

You're gonna have to give a LOT more proof and many more examples to support such a claim. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, it's just not fair to the reformed tradition for you to say such things when it could really influence someone here on the forum.

So I guess you don't believe in election, predestination, or any of the other points. You know, Calvin wasn't all bad. Just like Luther or Arminius weren't all bad. Just different perspectives.

Oh, and when it comes to how you view systematic theology, Calvin's not the only one who uses systematic theology. Theologians on the "other side" have their own systematic theology too.

Really, I've got my problems with Calvinism, but I also have problems with every other denomination out there. No one's perfect. And quite honestly, Calvinism is a whole lot less dangerous than a lot of what the modern day church has fallen for.

First off, understand that my comments were a general warning, so chill. You don't always have to defend your position. Relax. What I said was for the sake of those reading. I am a moderator on this forum and as such felt I needed to interject there.

Every last one of us is entitled to our opinion. Debate is not about bashing the other person's opinion but about building a case for your own opinion. If you spend more time bashing someone else, you are a politician, not a debater.

To answer you directly though:

Quote:

You're gonna have to give a LOT more proof and many more examples to support such a claim. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, it's just not fair to the reformed tradition for you to say such things when it could really influence someone here on the forum.

No, he doesn't actually. He is not answering to you. He is expressing his opinion. For you to come at him with this kind of attitude does nothing but stir up embers.

I would also say that eternal security and once saved always saved ARE issues to cause disunity. The fact that you don't think so is your opinion. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to sit here splitting hairs with you. If you don't agree, that's up to you. It makes no matter to me. I'm not here to convert. I believe that they are crucial to the Christian faith and that all other pieces of doctrine will branch out of this mentality. Those issues affect grace and I will die for the cause of grace.

I will also say for the good of the forum, that we follow Christ. I don't care what Calvin said, or Luther, or whomever... if it's in the Bible, then God said it first. To tag a name on your beliefs is to limit them. And settling for the lesser of evils is never the way to go. Stand on truth. Fight for it. Die for it. If a man lies, he is a liar, even if he tells the truth afterward. That's why we must stand on God's word because man will at some point always be wrong.

I still think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, but whatever....

I just think that the above sort of attitude has caused more harm than good to Christianity, the attitude about division and not striving for unity. It's one thing to stand on your convictions. It's another to attack someone's perspective without giving a fair argument. That's all I'm asking for. A fair argument. Someone can state an opinion, but opinions can be very hurtful and misleading. We have to be careful with opinions. I'm just asking people to be a little more respectful of other traditions. We have people from lots of different perspectives on this forum, and we shouldn't say things that are going to offend. Speak truth in love; don't attack a position without even giving decent reasoning for your attack. That's not fair to anyone, let alone those who take that position.