In your opinion is there a different gospel than "salvation by grace through faith"?
The reason I ask is because for those who deny infant baptism must have a different gospel for infants to have salvation.
[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]
The "answer" is yet another Anabaptist invention (not to derail this discussion to that!):
"God doesn't hold those under the age of we-won't-say ACCOUNTABLE." They don't deny that those under that mysterious, never-disclosed age "sin" (well, some do) but exclusively for those under the 'wont-tell-you' age, God lays aside His justice and just winks. Thus, the wages of sin is death doesn't apply to those under the won't-tell-you-what age. No salvation is needed. Now SOME (usually not the Anabaptist) will say the faith of their PARENTS (especially mother) saves them vicariously but again, that's not an Anabaptist/Baptist dogma, "God winks at sin for those under the won't-tell-y0u-which age so they don't need no forgiveness, salvation, Jesus."
The Anabaptists invented all this stuff NOT because of some Scripture they claim every Christian for over 1500 years never notice (or just badly interpreted) BUT because they were radical synergists, and they made Baptism "jibe" with that (in order to be correct). The whole idea that God could bless someone who had done nothing and slept through the whole thing was
offensive to them, laughable to them,HAD to be heresy - and Baptism needed to be viewed very differently. To them, God does NOTHING without the recipient taking the first step and in that sense earning or bringing about God's response.... so the point was made (it's kinda logical, assuming radical synergism): "How can one under the age of we-won't-tell-you DO the x,y,z that is required before God will do something for them?" They ask, "How can one DO the x,y,z that is needed to start things if that one is too "young" to DO that (however young "too young" is, we won't say)?" AND "How can they be cooperating with God if they sleep through the whole thing, for heaven's sake!?" Synergists MUST have the recipient take the first step.... MUST have the recipient cooperating in the process. It's the whole point of synergism, the recipient DOING, God just responding to what they first DO and continue to DO. Sincerely, Lamm, this is going right over your head because you are a monergist.
The Anabaptists not only were raging synergists but also held to a very odd rubric (one they rejected and repudiated but insisted on anyway), namely, "We cannot do anything unless it is illustrated as done that way in the Bible, and are forbidden to do anything that is not so illustrated in the Bible." They used this against ANYTHING that Catholics or Lutherans or Anglicans did that seemed monergistic to them or just "too Catholic." "Where was THAT done in the Bible?" Where do you see people crossing themselves in the Bible? You don't, so it is forbidden and wrong and sinful and to be forbidden!!!" They had a long, long list of things that they dogmatically prohibited because "it's never seen in the Bible." They made a huge point about "Children baptized" too, asking ENDLESSLY, "Where do you see children baptized in the Bible?" YOU DON'T - so it's wrong, forbidden, prohibited, "Catholic." SO much of the Anabaptist obsession with getting rid of Catholic practices flows from this premise. And, as I'm sure you noticed, so much of modern Baptist apologetics on this does, as well. Of course, the premise is absurd. And they never abide by it - not even just with baptism. I've posted a few times to show the illogic, the silliness of this whole rubric and shown that NO Baptist actually believes this or does this. They are basing the argument on something they themselves hold is false and invalid (and never employ themselves).
Lamm.... to the raging synergist, this reinvention of Baptism makes a certain sense. Thus their constant mantra: "How can those under the age of we-won't-tell-you DO _________?" (fill in the blank with whatever, the assumption of synergism is the same). And with the absurd, laughable rubric they themselves repudiate and never use, there is a certain point,too. Thus their constant, endless, mind-numbing, "Where in the Bible do you EVER see an American Baptist being baptized? HUH? Answer the question!!!! It's YOU DON'T! So it's forbidden, it's prohibited, it's against Scripture!" Sound familiar? Gets mind-numbing.
Friend, in my latest thread to share this historic view, I begin with the monergism point and reject the synergistic one. And I address the silliness of founding a whole apologetic on a principle Baptists repudiate as wrong and never use. Remember too, some of us have dedicated a lot of time to conveying the historic view - and it's ALWAYS entirely ignored; those with the reconstruction tradition always evade/ignore it. Consider that. It's a falsehood to say "the historic folks won't discuss this, don't give Scripture" it's that they avoid it.
Does that help, Lamm?
- Josiah
.
