But is it that the act of baptism does all of that?
Or is it that since they baptized so close to conversion, that they could say these types of things about baptism, because for them conversion and baptism were basically the same thing due to doing them so close together?
This is a major part of Lutheranism my "discernment" just won't let me accept.
I've really tried to get my mind around an act of water hitting the skin, causing regeneration.
Or is it that since they baptized so close to conversion, that they could say these types of things about baptism, because for them conversion and baptism were basically the same thing due to doing them so close together?
This is a major part of Lutheranism my "discernment" just won't let me accept.
I've really tried to get my mind around an act of water hitting the skin, causing regeneration.
I think we try way to hard to explain one as being something distinct from the other,whereas they saw it as part of and not so distinct from the other.
And again it's not the water itself,if we leave out faith and the Holy Spirit working it's nothing,if it's just the water all your doing is getting wet. If all one is doing is getting wet what's the point? And again why would Paul go through all the things he did about the rituals being done away and then Jesus Himself setting something up that is only just another ritual? HUHHH????? Does that make any sense? Isn't that a contradiction?
I have met far too many Christian's who were baptized very young or as infants whose faith is very very strong,one of my pastors grew up in Germany during WWII and was baptized as an infant,(He has been through far more then most in here) can I ever say that God did not do a work through his baptism? His faith is rooted and grounded. There is no question what so ever he believes and he is a living breathing example of the love of Christ.