Baptism question..

...I don't believe the Holy Ghost will do any work until you've professed Faith in Jesus.

Not an unreasonable view. But again, I don't know. So one must profess faith all on one's own before the Holy Ghost gets involved? Because what you're really saying is that the Holy Ghost is unable to be involved at all for that initial conversion experience; that one's initial profession of faith must be done independently of the Holy Ghost. Is that reasonable?

I think there are some who would say that the Holy Ghost IS involved in bringing first-timers to the Lord.

Is there any Scriptural basis for your view? The more I think about, the more it seems that you're placing a limit on what the Holy Ghost can do. I'm just wondering if those limitations are based on Scripture. I haven't heard that before, actually, but that doesn't really count for much.
 
Thanks for the post.

This passage says that to be saved, you much confess with your mouth, as well as believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord and has been raised from the dead. I doubt, although I don't claim to 'know', that a baby can do this.

I could see how others might use this very example as a reason FOR infant baptism. Since infants cannot do either thing then we should at least baptize them to at least satisfy that "requirement" for admission to heaven. (requirement according to some, not to others)

But this may be why the concept of limbo (was it limbo?) was created - as a holding place for infants who were too young to profess with their mouth or believe with their heart.
 
Yeah, I agree.

I did look up limbo, and it has (or had) to do with unbaptized infants. That's where they go (or went).
 
So there was this dude named John. He was a weirdo. He lived in the desert and ate locusts and junk. Strangely, they didn't call him John the locust-eater.

He started preaching about the coming of the Messiah. And those that HEARD his message and believed it would then be dunked into the water. This was such a novel concept that the people called him John the dipper.... or as we call him today.. John the Baptist.

There is no account of a baby being baptized by John's message. People HEARD and got dipped/dunked/immersed once they received his message. People were then re-dipped once they received Christ's message. (acts 18)

All through Acts the order was similar. People HEARD and then BELIEVED... and then quickly thereafter got baptized. That is consistent with Romans 10 quoted above.

Also, how would one reconcile 1 Peter 3:21??

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Anastasis,

You and I will just both have to agree to disagree. You are cold & I am hot. I am east & you are west. I'm Calvin & you are Arminius. We just won't agree. However, let me speak to some of your comments which may benefit others.

You made a comment to the effect... no one taught or believed such things for 1600 years. I disagree with this on many levels.
A) - It would behoove mother-church to not allow literature to spread that would be contrary to its views. For example - when it conquered the so-called schisms it would not leave their literature around for others to be influenced by them. There is documentation of Mother church not even wanting Bibles to read at times of its History.... surely it would confiscate biblical interpretations that were contrary to its traditions. Just because we can't find copies or documentation of such interpretations, doesn't mean they weren't there or widely accepted
B). Mother Church has a history of anathametizing or worse- conquering those who disagree with it. It would behoove the anabaptists or any other group who disagrees with the RCC to do so quietly. They aren't exactly going to shout to the mountaintops their disagreements lest they lose their heads. Of course, the swell of dissent rose so high in the 16th century that groups finally came out of their shells somewhat.
C)Clearly the first century church believed in it.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Acts 18 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

He was already baptized and yet... the message was explained MORE ADEQUATELY. The message mattered, my friend. WHAT they believed mattered. At the beginning of Acts 19: a group was rebaptized. Why is that necessary?? Because their beliefs changed. If beliefs were never in question there would be no need to be baptized again... the symbol of it all would be enough, right?

Finally, as to the 'whole household' thing. Would that include pets? Obviously pets aren't baptized. But they are part of the household. Could it mean that those that COULD believe did? For example with the Jailer in Acts 16... he just had a miracle happen to him... could he not go home excited and tell his family of the miracle and they also become believers that day??
 
Jesus!
biggrin.gif


Look, I'll most likely just be a "C and E" guy also, I don't go to church and actually think most churches are a sham with the new, ritzy, social 10,000+ member non-denominational churches popping up everywhere that are more a social networking place than a house of worship; but that's a whole different thread.
wink.gif


Like an earlier poster said the simple reason is to cleanse his sins and welcome him into the church. I just want to have my infant son baptized in a Lutheran church as I was for those same general beliefs.
 
Good discussion.

As for "limbo"...we need to look to the Jewish tradition of the age of accountability. I believe it was 8. Since all of Christianity started with Jews, perhaps this sheds some light on children and their accountability to God.
 
This is a good article on why the household baptisms are a weak argument for infant baptisms. It also goes on to share other reasons for believer's baptism.

Great article to add to the discussion that lines up with what I believe is the Biblical pattern.
The Link
 
I was baptized as an adult in the Methodist church, and my two kids were baptized as infants. All baptisms recognized.

Here is part of the stance and the link to the church's page:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
That articles weak dude, and the reasoning is specious. Here is the argument for their interpretation of the reference to "household" or "house" as not applying to children:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Anyone who has a hard and fast position (infant or belivers) about baptism is in for a big suprise when they meet Jesus.
 
Another compelling reason to get baptized as an adult is the example of Jesus. He was baptized as an adult.

WWJD? Get baptized as an adult. That's what he DID.

I definitely don't believe that an infant who is baptized is condemned or going to hell or anything like that. But I would hope that an adult wouldn't be trusting in a baptism at any age for their salvation.

Just because I am firm and convinced that believer's baptism is biblical, in no way means that i believe those who disagree are condemned. I do believe however, that those who don't get baptized as a believer are missing one of the main reasons why baptism was established. To identify ONESELF to a message/cause. Kinda hard to do that as an infant and be held accountable to that cause.

I repeat Galatians 3:25-27

25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.
26 For you are all children[a] of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.

Definitely seems to say that faith in Christ relates to Baptism.

Colossians 2:12

12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

BECAUSE YOU TRUSTED. Again. hard for an infant to do. I'm certainly not excluding children either. But to fully understand I'd think they'd have to be over 3 years of age.
 
I am a lawyer. I see folks parse regulations, rules, and bureaucratic ******** on a daily basis. It is pretty pathetic when it is done in the legal arena.

It is BEYOND pathetic when done in the theological arena. Pharisees, anyone? Heck, shades of the foolishness of Life of Brian:

"Let us like him, hold up one shoe and let the other one be upon our foot, for this is his sign that all who follow him shall do likewise!"

"No, no, no, the shoe is a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance!"

I will freely admit that I am no expert in theology. I never met Jesus, and don't really know the guy on a face-to-face basis. But I can comfortably guarantee this -- Jesus, and God, are not arbitrary and draconian bureaucrats.

"Oh, I see here that you were baptized as an infant. Yeah, see . . . that doesn't comply with Regulation 234.503(c)(2)(D)(iii), which is the applicable regulation pursuant to Chapter 22.3, Subpart F., the Code of God and Stuff. You really blew it."

If I choose to follow God and Christ, I choose to follow them. Whether or not I got wet at any point in the process is either symbolic or pointless bureaucratic nonsense. I'm gonna go for symbolic, in hope that God is not a heavenly bureaucrat.
 
Thanks Brisket,

I can see how the semantics of the issue can turn you off. Let me just say that when a few friends of mine (one grew up Lutheran & one Baptist) had their first baby, this was no trivial matter. They looked through the literature of both churches and studied the Bible and came to the conclusion that they would wait on baptizing their son. Much to the chagrin of some of the folks, whom I guess believe their son is hell-bound (or maybe limbo?) if he should die before he gets baptized.

Also, Brisket... I agree with you that it is just a symbol. I just find it silly to have a symbol that would be done as an infant. To me, this would be tantamount to giving a newborn his wedding ring. And then when he gets married have a confirmation ceremony. Why not wait until he actually IS dedicated to the person he will be devoted to for the rest of his life?? The symbolism of the ring won't have the same meaning to him if it were placed on him when he wasn't conscience of it. Christianity is a personal matter. It is not about heritage.

Even when it came to the jews... who are Jewish by birth... Paul said they could NOT count on their heritage...

ROM2:28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Similarly, I believe that baptism doesn't make one a Christian.. but I do believe its something a believer does.

Furthermore, Brisket. In some circles Baptism is salvific. It is not just a symbol... but it actually saves! I reject this view... but certainly you can see what its not merely pedantic when salvation is in view.

...And Pied2 - I think you are misreading me. I would in no way say that Baptism is a requirement for salvation... that would be 'law' in a sense. I'm just saying that Biblically, baptism is a natural next step AFTER someone puts their trust in Christ for their salvation. There are several examples of those who were/are saved and who never got baptized. The thief on the cross is one instance. Also, the words of Paul are awfully confusing if baptism saves. The apostle Paul’s mission was “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” and he was confident that “it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:17,21). Those words are awfully strange if baptism is part of salvation.

I'm just arguing that Baptism should be in its rightful place... an important symbolism of faith for believers.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
OrangeChipper,

I’ll do you one better. My wife is a Roman Catholic. I was raised in a Reformed Protestant Church tradition. The issue of how we would “work this out,” both between us and our (future) children, was the BIGGEST issue for us before we got married. That was the hardest and most gut-wrenchingly painful thing I’ve ever had to go through. But I think I learned more about God, myself, and my wife than I ever had before going through it. And now that is’ over, I wouldn’t give up the blessing of wisdom God imparted to me through that experience for anything.

I won’t bore you with more of my own personal details, but the one point I learned better than any other was that they there is more than one way to “skin a cat”. The minuet you KNOW that you’ve got it all figured out is the minuet that God reminds you just how stupid, silly, and petty we all really are.
 
I feel I should clarify some things. Because there are really two separate things going on here.

1) The mode/method of baptism. This is where I have small disagreements amongst my brothers and sisters in Christ. I certainly could be wrong. But I still have my convictions that if that's the way Christ and first century believers did it... then that is how I want it to be done for my family and others. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I disparage others who do things differently. In this category would be sprinkling... age ranges... dunk vs dip vs immerse, etc.

2) Where I have big disagreements is with the salvation aspect. And in my experience MOST - not all - but most who have their children baptized think it has some sort of salvific effect. This is where I will passionately disagree.

Paul wrote the entire book of Galatians to combat those who added ONE thing other than faith in Christ to the gospel. The only thing those people added was circumcision. Paul then says
Gal5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

So I have minor disagreements concerning mode. A little bigger disagreements on age and other factors because I do belief faith is a huge part of baptism... But I vehemently disagree with those that belief salvation can come just from going through a symbolic washing. (especially when its an infant)

1 Tim 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 
Chipper, I think the real issue here is how you approach soteriology. I think that too many approach personal salvation as a finite temporal event. The roots of this I believe are in the flawed theology of Augustine and Anselm and other Western theologicans with their limited approach to understanding atonement. A common example of this flawed approach to understanding salvation is the common evangelical question "when were you saved?".

See, another understanding, and I believe the understanding of Paul and the Apostles, and clearly the understanding of those that followed them, is that salvation is a process, a process of "putting on Christ", of becoming literally "god-like", deified. Not by nature, or in essence, but by grace. Baptism is a mystical part of that process, as are the other christian mysteries. In fact, everything we do is a part of that process. Prayer is a part of that process, fasting is part of that process, meditation is a part of that process, practicing agape towards our fellow man is a part of that process, being stewards of the environment is part of that process. Everything we do is part of, and the process of, salvation. So at least from my POV, claiming that baptism is not salvitic completely misses the point. Everything is soteriological and everything is in a process of theosis.
 
Anastasis, like I said before... you and I are coming from such differing viewpoints and different assumptions that having a discussion is almost pointless. I disagree with just about every sentence you write.
smile.gif
What can I say??
smile.gif


Jesus didn't make it all that complicated...

John 6:28-29
28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."


I believe I am perfected once and for all. Just as those during the passover who put the blood of the lamb on their doorposts... They may have had some doubts or cussed or not been perfect within the home... but if the blood was on the doorpost, they were safe... no worries about their firstborn.

Jesus saved me ONCE & FOR ALL. but yes, daily I am being sanctified and made more and more holy like him.
Hebrews 10:10-14
10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest(JESUS) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Verse 14 is key. I am perfect and at the same time being made holy. It's not that I am ACTUALLY perfect. But God who was my substitute on the cross accepts me as Perfect while I'm being made holy.

2 COR 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

So is it a process??? Yes & no. I am perfected ONCE but daily I will grow and walk in that holiness thanks to God's working in & through me..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top