Another discussion got me thinking about this a bit, and it's making increasingly less sense to me.
As far as I recall, proponents of believer's (i.o.w., adult) baptism believe that baptism is not efficacious for salvation, because that would be salvation by works; it's done because Jesus commanded disciples to be baptized, but it's not a sacrament. On the other hand, you have to have undergone it to become a member of the church. Why? It seems to me that it unnecessarily excludes children from church membership and, since it's not relevant in the context of salvation, a simple affirmation of concurrence with the congregation's beliefs would be sufficient.
As far as I recall, proponents of believer's (i.o.w., adult) baptism believe that baptism is not efficacious for salvation, because that would be salvation by works; it's done because Jesus commanded disciples to be baptized, but it's not a sacrament. On the other hand, you have to have undergone it to become a member of the church. Why? It seems to me that it unnecessarily excludes children from church membership and, since it's not relevant in the context of salvation, a simple affirmation of concurrence with the congregation's beliefs would be sufficient.
Comment