Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1915-02-04
REPLY TO JUNGLE TOM"

Editor News:
We are not surprised at S'Uncle
Tom 81 going off half cooked, for we
we'll knew that infant baptism wasn't
taught in all the Bible by precept, ex-
ample nor allusion. neither by Christ,
His APOSTLES or anyone else in apostolic
age. and as s'Uncle Tom couldn't
prove IL TO be of divine origin he
therefore tried to dodge the subject by
writing an irrelatiye article on child
training. Child training Is one thing
and infant baptism is another. Pa
rental biblical bringing up of children
Is a scriuturaI and Indispensable duty
TO ones offspring to teach them to re-
member their Creator in the days of
youth. while infant baptism is no sort
or mart Of that scriptural training, for
IL ia ONLY a man-made command, not
sanctioned by Christ mol the apostles
We didn't write on child training, as
we were not dealing with that subject
in our former article, but on reasons
WIN infants should not be baptized.
When we say infants, we mean those
in babyhood who are not capable OF
repeptance and faith. All persons who
are able to repent and believe the gos-
mel and do, st. Mark 1915. may be
baptized if they believe with All tne
heart as directed by st, Phlllp IN
Acts S:37. The very fact that an In,
FAINT can't repent and believe with an
the heart. itself proves incontestaply
aud forever settles the question toat
an infant isn't scriptulal SUBJECT TOT
Gods believers baptism, which is the
only recognized Bible baptism for all
His people Moreover, as they nave
MT ability to meet the previous re-
auirements for baptism, it also shows
God doesn require it of them TOT
where there is no ability, there can De
no accountability, therefore the com
mand to be baptized is applicable only
to those who are able to repent and be-
lieve the gospel of Christ, The doc
trine of infant baptism must fall be-
fore these facts, as it is purely or hn-
man origin and was introduced with
out command of Christ, or sanction
of His apostles.
We referred to Bro. Kings neglect
to receive gospel baptism to show that
the very tendency of infant baptism IS
to abolish plain command OF Christ
to be baptized when one repents and
believes the gospel Who is so blind
as the one who can't see that II all
we're baptized in infancy and after
wards taught and led to falsely believe
their baby baptism valid, that the
baptism of our Lord would be under
mined and abolished Your idea, I'm
Gle. if carried out, would place a man
made command above Christ's plain,
specific command, thereby making the
Word of God of no effect through that
tradition. How can it be of God since
it tends to set aside the command OF
Christi
Don't tell me that it is of divine or
igin. for I know better. 1t appears
like a solemn mockery, for parents and
sponsors to become sureties for the in
FAINT about to receive the so-called bap-
tsm. and declare for them that they
believe in Code holy word, and the
articles of the christian faith, as con-
tanned in the apostles creed; that they
will renounce the vain pomp of the
world. the devil and all his works,
with all covetous and sinful desires OF
the flesh. Il requires the officiating
ministerto declare what is false in the
name of the triune God. He declares
What is false when he says: Il baptize
thee" since he GRANTEES" or sprink-
les. and doesn't really baptize at all.
Still more. and if possible, more reck-
lessly. when he asserts that in this
act the infant sis regenerated and
grated into the body of Ctlist's
church." and also when in prayer he
thanks God, ''that it hath pleased
Thee to regenerate this infant, with
thy Holy Spirit; to receive him for
thine own child by adoption; and to
incorporate him into Thy holy
church" This is solemnly declared
when no such thing is done, and when
the minister who says it and all who
hear it said, know that no such thing
is done, unless, indeed, they do, in
their hearts, believe in baptismal re-
generation. But the infant isn't re-
generated, nor adopted of God, nor in
corporated into the church of Christ
by this act. The service falsifies the
facts, but. and perhaps worst of all,
infant baptism teaches still, to GER
tain extent, baptismal regeneration,
of which false and dangerous dogma
this rite was born 1t is more than a
felse statement, it is perLicious and
destructive error to teach, or allow the
notion that few drops of water on
the face with any form Of words. no
matter what, can make that infant re-
generate, a child of God by adoption,
and a member of Christ's church. Ii
the child when grown believes all this
and why may he not believe 1t, IL
solemnly taught by parents and minis
terrible believes himself a child OF
God anil an heir of heaven, sealed and
sanctified by the spirit, and in the
narrow way of life. while blind to the
fact that he is still unregenerate, in
the gall of bitterness, child of sin,
and heir of wrath, and in the broad
road to death Such perversions, such
blind leadiLgs of the blind, are too Sc
rious and too spd to be countenanced
by christian men or Observation-Disclosures.
We believe as strongly in parental
child training as any man, and know
they should be trained up, as the Bible
SAYS, Gin the way they should go. and
we are certain they should not go any
other way than the way God has or
dained. The children that are to re-.
ceive the training mentioned in the
Bible are those competent of receiving
and retaining parental Bible instruct
ion by pious parents, for Paul says:
"And, We fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath; but bring them up
l Ao. I'D nd