tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2414621700597216883..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: John the Baptist and infant baptismRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-929285882315023462009-04-22T16:15:00.000-04:002009-04-22T16:15:00.000-04:00Steve, the Lutherans have to cobble together this ...Steve, the Lutherans have to cobble together this sort of doctrine of infant faith in order to relieve tension between their doctrine of baptismal regeneration and their doctrine of justification by faith alone. Good on them for trying to reconcile their system to the latter belief.<br /><br />I'd rather just toss out the baptismal regeneration superstition and eliminate the problem altogether. The Reformed have (generally) come to a better solution - we baptize infants on the basis of their membership in the visible church, full stop. No need to project faith or presumed regeneration onto infants, nor imagine that baptism regenerates.David Gadboishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18375984671877016361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19222756592408789682009-04-22T15:03:00.000-04:002009-04-22T15:03:00.000-04:00Couldn't one claim, though, that John the Baptist ...Couldn't one claim, though, that John the Baptist was a special case?<br /><br />Either way, it looks like Luke 1:15 is not a good proof text for Paedobaptism.Mike Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06944727980772754938noreply@blogger.com