Talk:Believer's baptism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived debate[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Proposal  : Believers baptism → Believer's baptism
Rationale :   Better grammar, more commonly used term, including throughout the article. The only obstruction is a minor edit to target redirect page.
Proposer : BigBlueFish 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion[edit]

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

  • Support per nom. David Kernow 11:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - why the singular possessive? Would believers' baptism be more logical? Stringops 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - believer's baptism is used more often than believers and believers' combined according to a quick google search. The term, however presented, is somewhat informal; maybe credobaptism as a title might be better. With the singular posessive, I take it to mean that it is the baptism of a believer; hence it is their baptism. I think either could work - but with no apostrophe it means nothing at all. BigBlueFish 13:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Technical change to the above archive[edit]

The archived debate did not give a true record, as the proposal did not show the original page name because of the way it was constructed, and hence made no sense. I have examined the history and modified the archive for the sole purpose of giving a true record. John Campbell (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New section[edit]

"i feel that belivers baptism is someones choice " people should not be pushed into anything they dont wanna do! anyone agree?!?!?!?

In response to Wesley's concern of "resurrected by God". Was it not the Nicene Creed that determined the nature of God (The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are ONE BEING), mans own interpretation? If we were to use logic, our own interpretation, God and Jesus, the Father and the Son, are two separate beings. To read it any other way is simply relying on the interpretation of Man. James 1:37 says: "If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God". Certainly if we really wanted to know the nature of God, we could ask him through prayer, and find out for ourselves. --Eric

Are you suggesting that the bishops at the First Nicene Council didn't pray and ask God? Or that if I were to pray and ask God, and receive a different answer, that that would somehow NOT be my interpretation? The doctrine of the Trinity is not only consistent with what Jesus Christ and the first apostles taught, it is what countless Christians have also confirmed by their experience in prayer, both corporately and separately. To depart from this tradition would be to elevate myself higher than the apostles and saints and presume that God had spoken more clearly to me, and that all the church for the last 2000 years has been in error. That somehow seems a bit arrogant. Also, individuals running around, praying individually and arriving at their own interpretations has led to tremendous fragmentation in the church, to the tune of tens of thousands of protestant denominations all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. But now I've strayed rather far from the topic of improving the Believers Baptism article. Sorry Larry! --Wesley
Didn't the First Nicene Council decide the wording of a creedal statement about the nature of God, not the nature of God Himself? MaynardClark (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

--- I think there is some confusion this page between Age of Accountability and age of consent. Many children have reached the age where they realize the serious nature of christian belief, and thus are accountable for their actions, but are still a part of their family. Age of consent usually is associated with matters other than baptism, but when consent is a part of baptism, it is very common that the consent of the parents is required for baptism as well as the desire and understanding of the child.

I agree with Ben, this point is definitely confused in this article. The article for Baptist seems to have it right. Could we just copy the relevant paragraph over here?

i agree with the both of you. jesus and god are two separte things. however the christian faith believe that the holy tinity are all one thing user nay

This is tangential to the point of the article, but when you say that Jesus was "resurrected by God", you're implying that Jesus was not himself God, but was as much in need of being resurrected as was Lazarus, for example. Is that what you really mean to say? --Wesley

That may be your interpretation of the phrase, but the implication is only there in your understanding. The phrase 'resurrected by God' is a rephrasing of a direct quote from the Bible:

Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
1Cor 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
1Pet 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God
Hmm, that does look like a direct rephrasing. It just struck me funny in the other context somehow. --Wesley

many Protestant churches => a number of Protestant churches, see talk page[edit]

I have changed "and many Protestant churches baptize infant children of believers" to "and a number of Protestant churches baptize infant children of believers" When we look at the Protestants, we find that quite a big number of them practice Believers Baptism. The rise of Pentecostal churches within the last decades has changed the statistics. By now the majority of Protestants were baptized as believers. This might not be the case in Europe, but especially in the developing countries. Stating that "many" Protestant churces practise infant baptism suggests that those who practise Believers baptism are a minority. That would be a very Europe-centered view, and suggests something that is no longer the case. Heiko Evermann 21:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Age of accountability[edit]

Believer's Baptism can only be administered to someone over the age of accountability or reason, which is usually 8-12, depending on the individual church, and sometimes on the individual themselves.

Is it true that there are actually churches which set a specific age for this? In my experience almost everyone would say that depends on the individual. Jdavidb 20:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware setting an age is not so common as to be held by any entire denomination. If someone can name a specific group that holds this... otherwise, it is probably too specific in its application to really belong in this article. An article on the concept of age of accountability might be another matter. Jonadab, 2006 Sep 02

Some also hold that individuals are not held eternally accountable by God for their sins until they reach a state of moral and rational accountability.

I altered the wording to some. Formerly it seemed to imply all, which is plainly wrong. At least three fellowships of the Schwarzenau Brethren, if not all of them, do not hold this doctrine (although a few individual Pastors within the fellowships might teach it), and I have my doubts about its universality among other Anabaptist groups.

I also marked the statement as needing a citation, not because I think a citation is needed to the effect that such a doctrine exists at all, but because I think the association between the doctrine of Age of Accountability and that of Believer's Baptism needs to be more firmly established if the statement is to remain in this article. A statement as to which particular groups hold both doctrines would be a good start toward that. I have always thought of Age of Accountability as largely a Protestant doctrine and Believer's Baptism as primarily an Anabaptist one (although a handful of Protestant groups have adopted it, notably the Baptists), so if there is a connection between the two doctrines it ought to be better documented. Otherwise the sentence about age of accountability does not belong in this article. -- Jonadab, 2006 Sep 02

Support for other "modes"[edit]

The article contains the sentence "Yet all three modes have Scriptural support." I fail to see how that is not POV. Some churches believe the Scripture teaches only immersion; other churches believe the Scripture teaches the possibility of using any of these methods. In this sentence the article takes a side in the debate, which is not appropriate. Moreover, it directly contradicts or minimizes the previous sentence which talks about those churches that "prefer" immersion. In fact, the very word "prefer" in that sentence is a misrepresentation, since to those who believe only in immersion, it is not at all a matter of "preference."

Finally, the sentence says "all three modes," but there has clearly been some editing, because there are only two modes mentioned up to that point. Jdavidb 04:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your critique, though I also agree with the fact that all 3 modes are Scriptural. Go ahead and make an edit! KHM03 10:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
What are some Bible verses that support baptism other than by immersion? El Cubano 00:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be an interesting argument to see. I was under the impression that most groups practicing non-immersion simply considered the distinction unimportant, arguing that it is the act that matters and not the details of the method; I was not aware that anyone (especially anyone who disagrees with infant christening and holds to baptism only of believers) actually argued that βαπτιζω refers to a method other than dipping. I would have considered that a straw man. --Jonadab
This article in Wikipedia is mainly concerned with the subject of baptism, rather than the mode of baptism. Mode would be best treated in a separate article. In theory at least, it might be possible to practice believer's baptism, yet stick to the mode of sprinkling rather than immersion. There are some groups like this. DFH 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Theological Objections[edit]

I would like to see some more in depth discussion in this area of theological objections. It seems to me to be very slanted to the objectors and no scriptural support is given to the objections.

The first objection seems to be contradictory to the necessity of baptism at all and is somewhat fatalistic. Knowing that this must be someone's objection, I think it should be stated perhaps more intellectually. It also presupposes that baptism is essential for salvation which is not a prevalent view in the baptist and anabaptist community. The same things hold true for the second objection. This also shows a presupposition that baptism is essential for salvation.

The third objection needs clarification. In the New Testament there are many evidences of family members who were not saved while others were. Timothy is a good example in that his mother was "saved" yet there is no mention of his father having the same relationship with God through Christ. James, the "half-brother" of Jesus is another example. I would like some clarification on how this third position treats those "baptised" family members who turn away from their faith and then potentially turn back.

The fourth Objection is very problematic since the act of baptism is looked at through the prism of a work and not a response to God's grace. I would contend that the majority of those who practice believer's baptism do not view it as a work, but rather as an act of obedience. I guess my problem is in the term "usually". Markepp 07:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Mark

I think all these points could be easily balanced by addressing the adherents' reasoning in the main body, which were pretty thinly represented here. I've tried to do that by adding some theological reasoning that goes beyond the mere mechanics. Others please help., 04 Aug 2006

article title and photo caption[edit]

Shouldn't the title of this artice be Believer's Baptism? --Amazon10x 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to make the whole of "believer's baptism" stand out a little better as well as to acknowledge the fundamental differences maintained by the churches of Christ who are not denominational, Roman Catholic or Protestant. I changed the word "pastor" to "minister" under the picture as "pastor" has a biblical meaning (generally elder) for which there are biblical qualifications. Many if not most of todays "pastors" are not able to qualify to so call themselves "pastors." Sky 15:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
'Minister' and 'Pastor' are in practice both courtesy titles. I don't think it is our place here to discuss the biblical qualifications to be so called, and we should rely on the styling adopted in the photo details. Unfortunately there is no information provided. John Campbell (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Sin[edit]

The article states:

"Believer's baptism is more prevalent in Christian traditions which maintain that there is a state of innocency from birth to the age of accountability (if the believer, due to mental or emotional disability, is not likely to gain the ability to judge the morality of his or her actions, this state of innocency persists for life). Credobaptism is less prevalent in traditions which maintain that the corruption of original sin is present at birth and is sufficient guilt in the eyes of God to cause the child to be damned, should it die before baptism."

This statement assumes that a belief in "original sin" means a belief that an unbaptised person is damned, and that baptism is considered necessary for salvation - but while some on each side believe this, some certainly don't. Many people (myself included) who believe in believers' baptism (not as a necessity for salvation) also believe in original sin. In fact, as far as I was aware, most do. Of course, this creates problems. If everyone is born a sinner, but can only be saved by believing in Jesus, what about those who are too young to do so? Many would say, "we don't know, but God will do what is right," with the assumption that sending babies to hell would not come under the heading of "right"! Anyway, don't catholics, who certainly believe in baptism for salvation, believe that unbaptised babies go to limbo, instead of being "damned"?

Not sure how to edit this, but I have added in limbo. KMcA 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

'Good Conscience Toward God'[edit]

I would suggest adding the following verse:

"... Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." --I Peter 3:21.

Also, I fixed a few punctuation errors, incuding a missing parentheses ")" at the end on " (See Independent Christian Churches."

--Creton4 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the older translations phrase this as the "interrogation of a good conscience". DFH 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Include LDS here?[edit]

As I understand it, LDS also believe in baptism only after age of accountability. (WP:OR - I am not myself an LDS but I have family who converted.) Should they be included here, or alternatively, if they don't fall under the category, should some explanation be given? I have no stake in the matter, just raising the question. --Davecampbell 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Theological Objections (2)[edit]

Did anyone else not have a clue what this guy is talking about?

"One standard theological argument leveled against believer's baptism is that it makes the efficacy of the sacrament dependent upon the understanding of the baptisand; that is, it depends upon what the baptisand knows. This runs counter to the Calvinistic belief that God saves whomever he wills, regardless of any worthiness or knowledge on the part of the saved. It also runs contrary to the concept of free will and the notion of choice."

Sounds messed up to me. Totally wrong.

In my experience, the one to be baptized in a believer's baptism because he then knows Christ. Doing so does not actually save him; it merely goes in accordance with the scripture somewhere in the bible that says go and be baptized, once you are saved. It symbolizes your relation with Christ. During the time period that the Romans ruled Judea, being baptized was merely showing your strong commitment to anything, Jesus used it to symbolize a strong commitment to him.

And for the last sentence I quoted: God DOES save whoever he wants, which is everyone, but only if they accept him.

Just my little kick at it.

The Editor 2 22:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence I have added that begins "Reformed Baptist theologians ...." is based on my reading of the book by Fred Malone. DFH 15:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The first part of the sentence is indeed a standard argument by sacramentalists (although not one I personally agree with): "One standard theological argument leveled against believer's baptism is that it makes the efficacy of the sacrament dependent upon the understanding of the baptisand; that is, it depends upon what the baptisand knows." The rest of the sentence appears to be the editor's own argument and so I would call it WP:OR -- what's more it seems to miss the sacramental/sacerdotal point. Obviously what we need to do here is set out the objections and the responses, not agree or disagree with them; however the whole section seems confused and confusing. John Campbell (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Credobaptism: Premise #5[edit]

Premise #5 states:

"Whole household" baptism interpretations do not consider the context that many households were multi-family in the 1st century.[1]

What point is being made here? This premise neither advances an argument for credobaptism nor refutes arguments for paedobaptism. Why should "multi-family" baptism be thought to exclude paedobaptism or to suggest credobaptism?

In Holiness[edit]

"In Holiness, many Baptist, and some other churches..." Is Holiness a denomination? If so, fine, I've just never heard of it, if not, what does this phrase mean?--Thelonghop 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Holiness" is not a single denomination but a family of churches and groups, with some similarities to but predating Pentecostalism. See WCC web page

Number of Adherents[edit]

I question the 80% paedobaptist/20% credobaptist figure. Pentecostals are nearly always credobaptists, and some figures I've read have estimated the number of Pentecostals at over 400 million. Most credobaptists belong to independent congregations, so getting an accurate number is difficult. There is also the problem that churches only count baptized members as adherents - this means that paedobaptist churches count their children, but credobaptists do not. This puts the number of Baptists, for example, around 40 million worldwide. But when you count Baptist children, you get a number above 100 million. If the same ratio holds true for Pentecostals and various evangelical denominations and non-denominational churches, there are nearly a billion people associated with credobaptist churches, making the ratio of credobaptists to paedobaptists something like 45% to 55%.--ManicBrit 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


I moved the paragraph about the prevalence of the practice to a lower spot in the article, and gave it its own heading. I did this to improve the article's readability. The original sentence was added by an Eastern Catholic who has openly stated his hostility to non-Catholic traditions, and was placed high in the article as an apparent attempt to disparage those who practice believer's baptism. Later revisions made the paragraph choppy, and started the article with a discussion of the practice's prevalence and the way church membership statistics are calculated rather than a discussion of the practice and its theology. Therefore, I tightened up the word and moved it to its new location. --ManicBrit (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Apostolics?[edit]

...other groups such as Apostolics do hold baptism to have salvation value.

The name Apostolic is used by several groups. One European group practises infant baptism. The Pentecostal church of this name that came out of the Welsh Revival practises believer's baptism, but does not consider it necessary to salvation. The term "Apostolics" here was linked (via a redirect) to an article on the Apostolic Brethren, a 12th or 13th century sect—unlikely to be the one that the editor was thinking of. Copey 2 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NNPOV debates[edit]

The believers baptism advocates have the same problem that i do . Its hard to be neutrial . I do not think i would delite the articles written by believers baptism advocates, when they came against infant baptism though . And if they were not gramaticaly correct and i knew how to correct them i would . And then I would simply do my best to disprove them .

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 
The problem is that you are a new user with just a URL. Those with more "cred" behind there names and a real username sometimes get away with stuff you can't because you haven't regestered. My own personal suggestion is to register, get a username, and then stick to editing some strictly Lutheran articles for a while until you have a sufficient history, which will give you more credibility. It might even make them respect your points of view (which are mine, too) in a credible manner. Instead of editing stuff that is prone to edit wars (during which they'll often deleate your stuff even if it is well cited), carve a niche for yourself where they won't bother you. For example, you could pick names of early orthodox Lutherans from List_of_Protestant_Reformers and add stuff you've copied from this book to their articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is about...[edit]

This article is about believer's baptism. The term is the one used generally. It is grammatically correct in that it the baptism that belongs to a believer. A quick Google search shows 12,700 for "believer baptism" -believer's (believer baptism) and 152,000 for "believer's baptism". The former term is the one in use. It is therefore correct based on usage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is about BELIEVER BAPTISM, not a particular believer's baptism. Would we call the corresponding practice "infant's baptism"? No, the related article and subject are not about any particular infant's baptism, but about infant baptism. I believe in and practice believer baptism. Both terms are in use, as your Google search showed. One term is grammatically correct, while the other is mistaken but more common. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a mirror of society, but a collection of reliable knowledge. As such, this article should be titled "believer baptism", not "believer's baptism".    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No. It's about believer's baptism. The term is possessive. The corresponding term is infant baptism because that's the term used by that group. The article should be believer's baptism, and has been call this for more than eight years. From what I can see, you have been the first editor to be concerned about this. I have, to date, only heard one person use the term believer baptism, and you're that person. I've been around both terms for close to 25 years. Perhaps some other editors would like to weigh in. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do no not universalize your own experience, and please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a societal memoir. I have heard the term "believer's baptism" my whole life too. I have also heard the term "irregardless" much more than not, regardless of the fact that it is stupid. Moreover, most people over correct in using the pronoun "I", and use it inappropriately as the object of a sentence, as in "John helped Jim and I." No one has mentioned this issue prior because most are either unaware that it is poor English, or (as I up to this point) thought it too trivial an issue. However, when you think about it, it makes those of us that practice credobaptism sound dumb, and a bit backward. "Believer baptism" is just as accessible a term, and happens to be grammatically correct. I too would welcome more voices. Is this an encyclopedia, or a societal mirror?    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither. It's Wikipedia. Your examples are incomplete, and irrelevant. The term will simply confuse and as such should not be used. That is my point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The examples are not irrelevant because it is a grammatical issue. On the confusion issue, I think you would be right if we were to replace the term with "credobaptism", a term that I like and is accurate (but only used in scholarly works), but the term "believer baptism" is so close to the more familiar term "believer's baptism" that it could hardly be confused by anyone. Seriously.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, just for the record, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (or is supposed to be).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
One point further. Will you go about redacting the more than seventy articles on Wikipedia that use the term and the thirty or so that use a variant? I only found one that uses your term. You must realize that those article all use that term independently of each other. One editor didn't create them all. They all agree that believer's baptism is the correct term. The variants use the terms believers' baptism and believers baptism more frequently than yours. Also, back to Google. Searching for believer baptism (no quotes) returns this article first, and then Baptist which uses the term believer's baptism. In fact, ninety-seven of the first 100 use the term believer's baptism, and one that uses your term has actually removed the term completely from the article. The term may be grammatically incorrect, but the grammatically correct term is used so infrequently that it's virtually unknown. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy to make the effort.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
: I don't like your method of indenting. I never said that believer's baptism was grammatically correct, I merely said that it was more common and as such should be the term used. As for redacting, don't be foolish. You will run into the same problem on every one of those articles as you are here. Explain how you're right because you have some rules of grammar on your side while they will argue that they have common usage on their side. Will you then go about and correct every conversation on the topic? When will you stop your efforts at correcting what doesn't need to be corrected? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't do what's right, just do what we've always done. Hmmm.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case, right would be wrong. It's not the case where a few people incorrectly use the term "you and I" or talk of "unthawing" meat. It's more along the lines of "pre-heating" an oven, where such an incorrect term has become so common, that it has become correct usage. No matter what you say, it is the common usage. If you want to add a section on what you think the correct usage should be, feel free. But any change is ludicrous and filled with hubris: "I know that almost every person on the planet who speaks English and refers to this uses this term, but here's why you're wrong and a handful of us are really right". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I never said "believer baptism" was more common than "believer's baptism". I took your 10:1 stats at face value. My only concern is that it sounds dumb. We credobaptists already get thought dumb by paedobaptists (though they are truly biblically in error), why add more fuel to the fire by sounding dumb in using poor English? It is not hubris to not want to sound dumb.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Never meant to imply that you said it. Believer's baptism is the grammatically incorrect term, but it is the one in common usage. Te reason why is it a baptism that belongs to an individual believer. It's not done to them: they own it. It's their death and resurrection. The infant has no say in the baptism done to them. Again, that's not a value judgment on my part. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the grammatical concession. It is correct that the relationship that the baptism represents is one that involves choice on both sides, and that an infant cannot express such a choice, but the point of baptism is not choices made, the point is to express the covenantal union between Christ and his Church in the particular member of the church being recognized as a member of the New Covenant. Paedobaptists can also point to fine theological points, like the fact that the baptismal recipient is clearly being given a gracious gift that cannot possibly have been bought by merit in the recipient, but again the point is the expression of the covenantal union. The covenantal union is the point of the act. I can no more own my baptism than I can own my birth. It is just who I am. Yes, it's mine, but I didn't initiate the union, God did. The point is not what I, the believer, did.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, nice examples... "unthawing" and "pre-heating".  :-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Believer's baptism is both more commonly used and grammatically correct. I do not think it should be changed to "Believer baptism". Difu Wu (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right in that it is more common, but you're wrong in that it is grammatically incorrect for an article title.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Believer's baptism" is grammatically correct, while "believer baptism" is probably not. The possessive should be used, to denote baptism belonging to the believer. The use of "believer's baptism" has the established usage, while there is no evidence to suggest that "believer baptism" is anything more than someone's original research or a neologism, inappropriate for an encyclopaedic entry. Thanks. Difu Wu (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
On the grammatical point alone (because that's all that should matter in an encyclopedia), if you were serious then you should be advocating for the use of the term "infant's baptism" because it is "baptism belonging to the infant". But you are not, because your argument is really resting solely on frequency of usage. You do not have the grammatical point on your side. Ask an English teacher.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
"Infant's baptism" is grammatically correct, but "infant baptism" is more commonly used. Grammar is not all that should matter in an encyclopedia, but established usage should decide. An encyclopedia is not the place for original research or neologism. Therefore, I would not advocate for the use of "infant's baptism", which though grammatically correct, is not the established usage. On the other hand, "believer baptism" is neither grammatically correct, nor the established usage, hence it should not be used. Difu Wu (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude, really? You do know how to go all in. I'll give you that.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Updates[edit]

Sorry for the comment in the reverts. It's not that they comments were off-topic so much as they were unsourced and carrying on a debate within the article. The information is quite interesting and should probably be presented in a more encyclopedic way, with appropriate references, to avoid accusations of POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for External Link[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,

I would like to request to have a page of my website linked in this section. In my opinion my website offers the following benefits:

- Because I have studied baptism over the last 30 years, the material on the website is very well researched. - The book Believer's Baptism is an important book on the topic, currently at the forefront of the debate between believer's baptism and infant baptism; this site includes a paper responding to that book. - A regular schedule of emails are being sent throughout the next year to over 1,000 Baptist seminary professors, over 1,000 paedobaptist pastors and a growing number of websites for critique and input. - This website is professional in format and is easily navigated. - This website has been analyzed for search engine optimization and it continues to improve consistently.

The page to be linked is:

If you have any questions on this you can reach me at

Thank You,

Herb Kraker (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as it meets WP:EL, it should be OK here. The site seems a little disorganized though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow-Up on Request for Link to Dialogos Studies[edit]

How does one follow up? I haven't used a format like this before. I would like to ask Walter Goerlitz a question. Herb Kraker (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Every user has a talk page. Every article has a talk page as well. You would only usually leave a message for an editor or user on their talk page if it applies only to them. You would only comment on a talk page to discuss something about the article. Talk pages should not be forums for the article though. It sounds like you should probably ask your question here rather than on the my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I missed the "edit" function previously. Do I understand your response above that having the above statement is what you are recommending? There is the section on the main page that lists links supporting or opposing the view; it seems like a link to Dialogos would be more appropriate there. Herb —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I misinterpreted Dialogos as a typographical error of dialog', or dialogue. You're referring to, which is pretty close to being a self-published site according to WP:V. It is definitely a public forum and probably isn't a good source. However, if the forums point to a reliable source (book, article published in a peer-review magazine, etc.) then the original information is valid. You may also want to see WP:ELNO. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. Concerning your statement, "However, if the forums point to a reliable source (book, article published in a peer-review magazine, etc.) then the original information is valid." - perhaps my original statement was not clear. This site deals for one with the book "Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ" which was published by B&H Academic. It was co-authored by ten Baptist professors. That is why I said initially that it is a leading book on this topic at this time. Therefore it would seem that this site meets Wikipedia's requirements. In addition to this, Monergism has referred to the Dialogos Studies pages on baptism as having "extensive resources on the topic." You can see their comment at: This is my first time of working with Wikipedia - I hope I understand it correctly! Thanks - Herb (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way - it's not that often one sees the identity indicated by the umlaut continued into English speaking endeavors. That's good. Unsere Familie kam aus Grafschaft Bentheim. (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Connection between circumcision and baptism?[edit]

The article stated that defenders of believer's baptism say there is no New Testament statement that links the Mosaic law practice of circumcision with the Christian practice of baptism. This is incorrect, as defenders of infant baptism cite Colossians 2:11-13 as such a statement. Of course, like all Bible verses, this is subject to interpretation, and I tried to word my change to reflect that this verse is cited by infant baptism defenders, not that it is an undeniably clear statement linking the two. The note for the citation provided is after "have claimed" to reflect that the purpose of the citation is to prove that this claim has been made, not to show that the claim is true. --Ginkgo100talk 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The term credobaptism is an ugly neologism, a hybrid of a Latin word with a Greek word, and adds neither clarity nor accuracy to the article. In light of the fact that most Christians who reject paedobaptism also reject creeds, there is an air of mockery about it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

image in article is broken or not found[edit] -- (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


The article looks like it's a mess. I suggest some sort of outline like this (but argue with me):

It seems to me that the crux of the matter is none other than Covenant Theology, which says that baptism is the church's analog of circumcision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washi (talkcontribs) 18:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)



Position statement defining believer's baptism. Defer all defense to a Defense section.

Move the Restoration Movement's baptism elsewhere, since the two are not the same; for example, a defense of believer's baptism is by definition counter to the Restoration Movement's baptism, and vice versa. So we're stuck with two separate positions, and two separate sections in defense of those positions. I.E. two articles. At the same time, the biblical references to baptism quoted in the RM paragraph are excellent material for the Defense section.


Perhaps a topic for each point to defend. Ideally a proper defense would by its nature make plain the strengths and weaknesses of the position, which could then be summarized.


1. how believer's baptism matches the purposes of baptism as used in the NT

2. evidence of believer's baptism in the NT

3. evidence of believer's baptism in the early church

I wonder. This sort of implies that the NT is held as the source of authority on the regulae fide, doesn't it? Is that worth mentioning at all?

Washi (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Significance of Jerusalem council in Acts 15[edit]

A counterargument for the Col 2:11-13 argument is given as, "Advocates of believer’s baptism counter that the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 was called to clarify circumcision long after the practice of baptism was established." However, for that counterargument to have significance, wouldn't it have to refer to the "practice of infant baptism"? --Ed Brey (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Believer's baptism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)