Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I picked the second option for a couple of reasons.
1) Anyone can put the words "Father,Son, and Holy Spirit" together and mean whatever they want.
2) So therefore there must be a Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity behind the words.
This poll has in view those who hold to infant baptism and the question of whether an infant so baptized would later need to be re-baptized.
What, Scripturally, is required for a "valid" Christian baptism?
The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?
If for some weird reason someone who proclaims traditional Trinitarian doctrine is a member of the Mormon religion and has their infant baptized - using the appropriate formula - would that baptism be valid?
If the parents don't believe and have no intention of raising the infant in the faith but go ahead and have li'l Trey baptized solely to please the grandparents, does that make for a valid baptism?
I can think of so many permutations and combinations, it makes my head spin.
This poll has in view those who hold to infant baptism and the question of whether an infant so baptized would later need to be re-baptized.
What, Scripturally, is required for a "valid" Christian baptism?
The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?
I agree with the conclusions Scott cited.
I believe it requires a Trinitarian pronouncement and biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Gospel.
If a sect does not have the gospel, then they cannot, by definition, do Christian anything, including baptism. The adjective is simply not true in their case.
I agree with the conclusions Scott cited.
I believe it requires a Trinitarian prouncement and biblical doctrines of the Trinity and the Gospel.
If a sect does not have the gospel, then they cannot, by definition, do Christian anything, including baptism. The adjective is simply not true in their case.
It seems reasonable that the church be held to increasingly higher standards of belief as those beliefs become more well-defined and understood--so that there is no longer an excuse for anything less than firm trinitarian doctrine after Nicea, and anything less than sola fide after the Reformation
So I guess that would mean that anyone baptized outside of a Reformed/Lutheran church must be rebaptized?
If I've understood correctly, accepting RC/EO baptisms as valid is a fairly new phenomenon so far as Presbyterianism/Reformed goes.It would be the parents and the denomination, if Presbyterian, or the particular church, if Baptist or non-denominational.The parents? The minister performing the baptism? The official documents of the denomination?
Both Presbyterian's and Baptist require a credible profession of faith before anyone can be Baptized so either the parents, on behalf of the child, or an adult would need to profess their faith and hopefully that would include a belief in the Trinity. The denomination or the particular church, for Baptists, would also have to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Gryphonette
If I've understood correctly, accepting RC/EO baptisms as valid is a fairly new phenomenon so far as Presbyterianism/Reformed goes.
If I've understood correctly, accepting RC/EO baptisms as valid is a fairly new phenomenon so far as Presbyterianism/Reformed goes.
If this is true, then no wonder the RCC/EOC have gained credibility as legitimate Christian denominations, whose members should be counted as believers.