1. This goes to the question of the efficacy of Baptism over and against the believer’s ordinance/good work theory: A major hangup in modernity is the idea that God does not like to work efficacy into signs/symbols, as there exists a secret wall of separation between language, science, and spiritual matters. For instance, “Babylon’s Dread” (BD) has used the term “believer’s baptism,” as a distinction from paedobaptism (as if entry into the Church is uniformly about age). Yet, we can’t HELP but utilize symbols per our language capacity to talk about real spiritual activity (even while we reject others for doing the same thing). For instance, I have no doubt BD would have no problem saying “Jesus lives in my heart” or ask “Have you accepted Jesus into your heart?” What does this mean? Does He REALLY live IN your heart? If I opened your heart up, would I find a literal Jesus living there? How does Jesus GET in your heart anyway? Many often sacramentalize modern expressions of Arminianist traditions without even realizing it. In the heart example, we clearly have a symbol working out a spiritual benefit (as Baptism and Communion are clearly explained in scripture). Surely Jesus living in your heart isn’t a good work that you do?…is it?

2. The nature of man and the definition of belief: OK, not quite unique, but still important. When you fall asleep, do you cease to believe in God? If you are a life-long believer, and you fall ill to a terrible disease that takes away memory or alters your personality dramatically, are you in danger of hell-fire? If Billy Graham says he can’t remember a time when he wasn’t a Christian, since he grew up in the faith to know Jesus and believing the gospel (no doubt “from infancy” like Timothy), does that mean he has an unexamined faith? Similarly, if you were to be married to someone whom you weren’t sure you loved, but grew to love over time within marriage, would you have to divorce and be remarried to make it genuine? All these questions point directly to the scripturally clear teaching that sinners require unilateral grace from a loving God, and that he can work both through the intellect and apart from it, both from within a Christian family, and without it. To discriminate based on age, intelligence, ethnicity, gender, health or any other fabricated differential (all are one in Christ…who said that?) is to limit the very work of God in our midst.

Considering that baptism replaces circumcision (performed on the 8th day);

and considering that baptism is referred to as “rebirth” (did any of us have a conscious effort, mental or physical, in our first birth?);

and considering that Christ mandates that ALL nations be baptized (not “all nations over the imaginary age of accountability”, or “all nations who have the mental capacity to choose Jesus”);

how can baptism NOT be intended for infants?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Paul must have not have known as much as the Lutherans about baptism.

But they are more palatable now than when I came to know Christ and blamed these doctrines for hindering me from knowing him.

At least you are clear. For I am thankful. And yet unpersuaded still so I remain a steadfast believer baptizer. And yes the whole matter resides over the issue of regeneration and faith. Peace to you.