jasoncran
Member
she is influence like most western protestants by the reformers.
the idea of perservance of the saints ring a bell?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
she is influence like most western protestants by the reformers.
the idea of perservance of the saints ring a bell?
A
Alabaster
Guest
Ask any vibrant believer---they will say the same thinmg.
Jesus Christ changes us from hell-bound to heaven-bound in the moment we first believe by faith. There is no teaching that it is a multiple stage progression. That is your institution at work again. We pass from death to life instantly!
Jesus says in John 5:24 NLT
24 “I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.
A
Alabaster
Guest
Speak for yourself, Jason--not for me, thank you.
I am influenced by Jesus and the word of God.
jasoncran
Member
you believe this correct?
eternal security, correct
that if one comes to the lord truly that one will cant be lost?
yes, i know what you believe.
calvin saw that in the bible and coined that word.
all that thou gavest me i havent lost.
hmm support that idea?
me thinks
you dont find the word rapture or the trinity in the bible, but the arguments for them are there.
surely you see that along with the idea of the doctrine of the holy ghost baptism
eternal security, correct
that if one comes to the lord truly that one will cant be lost?
yes, i know what you believe.
calvin saw that in the bible and coined that word.
all that thou gavest me i havent lost.
hmm support that idea?
me thinks
you dont find the word rapture or the trinity in the bible, but the arguments for them are there.
surely you see that along with the idea of the doctrine of the holy ghost baptism
Scotth1960
Member
Dear Alabaster, This is true, because it is the word of God. It is also true from Romans, We should not then ask, "Shall we sin?" Not at all. Christ says: "Go and sin no more". Of course, in life, one may occasionally sin, or maybe sometimes it seems one may be sinning a lot. I know I have sinned a lot. But Christ does want us to live new lives, and that is now, from now on, "Resist the devil, and he will flee you", is what Scripture teaches. We are passed into life, provided we cooperate with God's grace. We shouldn't presume too much from a one time "coming to Christ". We must come to Christ in each new moment. We must be sanctified, not merely think "we're saved". A person needs to always be aware of God in all times. God will often convict a new believer of sins. Or a veteran believer too. In Erie Scott
westtexas
Member
Hello Joe, I'm not disputing anyone's theological reasons, for or against, infant baptism. I have no desire for such a debate. My point was that A-Christian stated as fact that the early church practiced infant baptism and I believe this statement to be a half-truth. I believe adherants to believers baptism can quote ECF's also. That was my sole point.
In regard to my references,
www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html
Justin Martyr--First Apology "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach is true, and undertake to confirm their lives to our doctrine, are instructed to fast and pray, and entreat from God the remission of their past sins, we fasting and praying with them. They are then conducted by us to a place where there is water..." Chapter LXI-Christian Baptism
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm
Tertullian "On Baptism"
Chapter 18--Of the persons to whom, and the time when, Baptism is to be administered
As I said, I have no desire to debate infant baptism. I believe both these early writings teach believers baptism.
Edited to add: PM me if you disagree and I'll stay out of this thread. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
God bless, Ray
Last edited by a moderator:
francisdesales
Member
Ray,
I was agreeing with your statement - I just wasn't sure about the citations on Tertullian and Justin. I am not so sure your citations tell us that anything about infant baptism, as certainly, adults were still being baptized as the norm in the 2nd century. Frankly, it is not important, since we agree infant baptism was not yet "universal" during the 2nd century. I believe this practice was geographically intermittent, perhaps a local practice at first administered by a couple of the Apostles, perhaps not every one of them. But this is my historical opinion.
Regards
Tailgunner
Member
Sorry to sidetrack the discussion on baptism, but Jason, I'm not sure what you mean by saying Calvin saw that in the Bible and coined that word. What are you referring to, specifically? Which word?
Bob Carabbio
Member
Should Babies Be Baptized?
Nope - there's no Biblical reason to Baptize a Baby whatsoever.
The reasoning is essentially superstitions in nature. People have a "visceral need" to "do something religious" about a baby.
In some religious paradigms there's a superstitious fear that the Baby will go into hell-fire if it's not baptized - even though there's not a HINT of any biblical support for that superstition, and no reason to believe that baptizing the Baby will have any effect whatsoever on it's eternal fate.
The paedobaptismal ritual does bring the extended family together in church of course, and is an occasion to play "Dress up" and take photos, so maybe not a TOTAL waste of time otherwise.
Performing the "ritual" doesn't really HURT anything, of course - I was baptized in 1942 at St. Peter and Paul's in Boston like any normal Italian "Catholic" baby would be, primarily in order to keep "peace" in the Carabbio family.
And when I got saved 20 years later, and really DID become a Christian/ "child of God" - I got my "Believer's Baptism" in a Baptist Church in Pasadena, TX.
My Wife (Who was A Catholic) was Baptized as a Believer in White Island Pond in October in Plymouth, MA. but since the baptism was performed by an Assembly of God minister, she can't join a Baptist Church without being baptized again by a Baptist minister. Go Figure.
NONE of our 5 Kids were baptized until After they believed, including the one that died 4 hours out (Angeline). The cemetery was somewhat upset that we weren't going to bother with any "religious activity" about the burial. But there was no need. Angeline was/is with Father, and in a short time, I'll see her - as she really is.
The tradition in the Assemblies of God is an infant "Dedication" before the congregation where the parents are charged to bring up the child in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord".
Nope - there's no Biblical reason to Baptize a Baby whatsoever.
The reasoning is essentially superstitions in nature. People have a "visceral need" to "do something religious" about a baby.
In some religious paradigms there's a superstitious fear that the Baby will go into hell-fire if it's not baptized - even though there's not a HINT of any biblical support for that superstition, and no reason to believe that baptizing the Baby will have any effect whatsoever on it's eternal fate.
The paedobaptismal ritual does bring the extended family together in church of course, and is an occasion to play "Dress up" and take photos, so maybe not a TOTAL waste of time otherwise.
Performing the "ritual" doesn't really HURT anything, of course - I was baptized in 1942 at St. Peter and Paul's in Boston like any normal Italian "Catholic" baby would be, primarily in order to keep "peace" in the Carabbio family.
And when I got saved 20 years later, and really DID become a Christian/ "child of God" - I got my "Believer's Baptism" in a Baptist Church in Pasadena, TX.
My Wife (Who was A Catholic) was Baptized as a Believer in White Island Pond in October in Plymouth, MA. but since the baptism was performed by an Assembly of God minister, she can't join a Baptist Church without being baptized again by a Baptist minister. Go Figure.
NONE of our 5 Kids were baptized until After they believed, including the one that died 4 hours out (Angeline). The cemetery was somewhat upset that we weren't going to bother with any "religious activity" about the burial. But there was no need. Angeline was/is with Father, and in a short time, I'll see her - as she really is.
The tradition in the Assemblies of God is an infant "Dedication" before the congregation where the parents are charged to bring up the child in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord".
Drew
Member
This assertion is question-begging, given that, I would suggest, the following statement is not correct:
I see no successful argument against infant baptism anywhere in this thread. Please stick around and consider arguments I hope to put forward about this whole issue.
I suggest that this is not Biblical - baptism is not purely symbolic.
I will make the relevant arguments shortly.
Drew
Member
If we honour what Paul actually writes - that is, take him seriously, there is simply no way to accept the "salvation is a one-time" event.
Again, this is about what should be obvious - actually taking Paul seriously. Here is one of many statements that definitively rule out the position that salvation is a one-time event that occurs at a certain point in a person's life.
for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
The context is indisputable - Paul is describing a future judgement at which all human beings will appear (please read Romans 2 if you are not already familar with the overall passage in which the above statement is made).
And I trust I need make the argument that while justification and salvation do not mean exactly the same thing, it is nevertheless true that justification entails salvation - if justification is future, at least in a sense, the same is true of salvation.
We need to step back from our traditions and deal with the texts. The texts of the Scriptures are what matters, not the texts of the reformers (despite their many positive contributions).
Scotth1960
Member
Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?
Dear friends, Rejecting infant baptism doesn't solve which denomination one will be baptized in. The Baptists and Assemblies of God reject each other's baptisms. Go figure. There is doctrinal chaos and disunity against the prayers of our Lord Jesus in John 17. This is grievous to the All-Holy Spirit, Who wants "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians), one Body (one Church: Mat. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15).
In Erie Scott Harrington
Dear friends, Rejecting infant baptism doesn't solve which denomination one will be baptized in. The Baptists and Assemblies of God reject each other's baptisms. Go figure. There is doctrinal chaos and disunity against the prayers of our Lord Jesus in John 17. This is grievous to the All-Holy Spirit, Who wants "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians), one Body (one Church: Mat. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15).
In Erie Scott Harrington
A
Alabaster
Guest
Baptism has nothing to do with church membership or affiliation...nor should it.
Drew
Member
Following is an argument that is directly relevant to the matter at issue. I suggest this argument demonstrates that it is simply unBiblical to see baptism as an event which "symbolizes" or "signifies" our past repentance. To the extent that this argument succeeds, it overturns one of the primary objections to infant baptism, namely the notion that one needs to understand and repent prior to baptism. Here is the argument:
The "repent and only then be baptized" position cannot be squared with the teaching of Paul in Romans. In Romans 6, he asserts that baptism enacts a death - the death of the old nature, a nature that needs to be put to death so that the new life can take its place:
We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life
For Jesus, the sequence was death on the cross and then resurrection to new life. Paul clearly has us dying in the act of baptism. Now to the extent that we understand repentence to be constitutive of the new life, it makes absolutely no sense to promote a model whereby we undertake the restorative journey of repentance and then enact our own death through baptism. That would have us putting our repentant "new nature" to death!
If we are following Paul's line of thinking, we understand the act of baptism as our sharing in Jesus' death (as we go down into the water) and emerging, like Christ, out the other side (as we are raised up out of the water). It is only after we have put the old self to death can we begin the process of repentance:
The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.
Now to drive the point home yet again. We know Paul likens baptism to our death. Who is dying? The old Adamic nature, of course! What does Paul say about the old Adamic nature? That is cannot submit to God. That is, it cannot repent.
Unless and until you have put the Adamic identity to death in baptism, you simply do not have capability to repent.
Another way to understand the incoherence of the “repent and only then be baptised” position is to think of the “new creation” model that Paul gives us – if any man is “in Christ”, he is a new creation. So assuming that we all agree that repentance is part of the expression of that new creation, it hardly makes sense to undertake repentance and then have that new creation be put to death - Paul is quite clear that baptism enacts our death.
Now, of course, this is not a positive argument for infant baptism - it merely shows that one need not, in fact one cannot, be baptized in order to symbolize a past act of repentance. And this belief that baptism symbolizes a "change of life" is one of the primary pillars on which rests the belief that infant baptism is not scriptural.
The "repent and only then be baptized" position cannot be squared with the teaching of Paul in Romans. In Romans 6, he asserts that baptism enacts a death - the death of the old nature, a nature that needs to be put to death so that the new life can take its place:
We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life
For Jesus, the sequence was death on the cross and then resurrection to new life. Paul clearly has us dying in the act of baptism. Now to the extent that we understand repentence to be constitutive of the new life, it makes absolutely no sense to promote a model whereby we undertake the restorative journey of repentance and then enact our own death through baptism. That would have us putting our repentant "new nature" to death!
If we are following Paul's line of thinking, we understand the act of baptism as our sharing in Jesus' death (as we go down into the water) and emerging, like Christ, out the other side (as we are raised up out of the water). It is only after we have put the old self to death can we begin the process of repentance:
The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.
Now to drive the point home yet again. We know Paul likens baptism to our death. Who is dying? The old Adamic nature, of course! What does Paul say about the old Adamic nature? That is cannot submit to God. That is, it cannot repent.
Unless and until you have put the Adamic identity to death in baptism, you simply do not have capability to repent.
Another way to understand the incoherence of the “repent and only then be baptised” position is to think of the “new creation” model that Paul gives us – if any man is “in Christ”, he is a new creation. So assuming that we all agree that repentance is part of the expression of that new creation, it hardly makes sense to undertake repentance and then have that new creation be put to death - Paul is quite clear that baptism enacts our death.
Now, of course, this is not a positive argument for infant baptism - it merely shows that one need not, in fact one cannot, be baptized in order to symbolize a past act of repentance. And this belief that baptism symbolizes a "change of life" is one of the primary pillars on which rests the belief that infant baptism is not scriptural.
Last edited by a moderator:
Drew
Member
Hello StoveBolts: I trust you can see how the argument in my preceding post is relevant to your question to me. An infant does not need to "repent" before it can be baptized. In fact, it appears that Paul sees baptism as enacting a "death". We should not simply assume that we - that is, the parents and / or the church community - cannot take it upon ourselves to act on the child's behalf and have him/her baptised. Remember - we live in a culture which insists on "individuality", so it might indeed seem odd that a child can have his "old nature" put to death by the actions of others. Well, that is not the Biblical culture - on the Biblical model, we are much more "connected" to each other than post-enlightenment western culture acknowledges.
Bob Carabbio
Member
Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?
The Baptists and Assemblies of God reject each other's baptisms.
Correction:
The Assemblies of God have no problems with other Denominational Baptisms, but the Baptists tend to only accept their own.
And, of course rejecting Paedobaptism is being true to the Bible, and rejecting the baseless "Traditions of Men".
The Baptists and Assemblies of God reject each other's baptisms.
Correction:
The Assemblies of God have no problems with other Denominational Baptisms, but the Baptists tend to only accept their own.
And, of course rejecting Paedobaptism is being true to the Bible, and rejecting the baseless "Traditions of Men".
Bob Carabbio
Member
Arguments from silence.
"We all need to remember that we need to support our positions Biblically, not merely "declare" them."
O.K. - then produce ONE Scripture that even directly addresses the issue of Infant baptism. And since you can't, then why should we even lift a FINGER to try to produce a scripture refuting it.
An argument from silence is an argument from silence, and all the Paedobaptists have done is toss out some unrelated scriptures, and "DECLARED" that they support - what they don't even address.
"We all need to remember that we need to support our positions Biblically, not merely "declare" them."
O.K. - then produce ONE Scripture that even directly addresses the issue of Infant baptism. And since you can't, then why should we even lift a FINGER to try to produce a scripture refuting it.
An argument from silence is an argument from silence, and all the Paedobaptists have done is toss out some unrelated scriptures, and "DECLARED" that they support - what they don't even address.
Drew
Member
Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?
Are you able to make relevant Biblical case against infant baptism? - I suspect you will not succeed, but, please, go ahead and make the relevant arguments.
Drew
Member
Re: Arguments from silence.
I am not saying that the case for infant baptism is particularly strong, but that is not the point. I never asserted that there was a strong Biblical case for infant baptism. If I had, then your challenge would be relevant.
But the issue is the OP - the "arguments" against infant baptism.
I trust you understand that the burden of proof is on Alabaster here - he claims that infant baptism is non-Biblical. One can show that he is mistaken without being required to make a positive case in favour of infant baptism.
Nice try. You need to remember how this thread started. Alabaster - who does not believe in infant baptism - made a number of arguments. Many of them have been shown to be incorrect.
I am not saying that the case for infant baptism is particularly strong, but that is not the point. I never asserted that there was a strong Biblical case for infant baptism. If I had, then your challenge would be relevant.
But the issue is the OP - the "arguments" against infant baptism.
I trust you understand that the burden of proof is on Alabaster here - he claims that infant baptism is non-Biblical. One can show that he is mistaken without being required to make a positive case in favour of infant baptism.
Bob Carabbio
Member
Re: Should Babies Be Baptized?
Are you able to make relevant Biblical case against infant baptism?
Of course -
Since Paedobaptism is never indicated, nor even HINTED at in the Bible, and since ALL the baptisms presented in the Bible are of ADULTS who consciously BELIEVE either at the level of salvation after the crucifixion, or at John's level of repentance before only - then there is NO BASIS for paedobaptism - period. It's nothing but a "religious superstition" based on nothing.
And since there's no reason whatsoever to believe in it to begin with based on the Word of God, then the Biblical refutation is complete.
Simple as that.
Are you able to make relevant Biblical case against infant baptism?
Of course -
Since Paedobaptism is never indicated, nor even HINTED at in the Bible, and since ALL the baptisms presented in the Bible are of ADULTS who consciously BELIEVE either at the level of salvation after the crucifixion, or at John's level of repentance before only - then there is NO BASIS for paedobaptism - period. It's nothing but a "religious superstition" based on nothing.
And since there's no reason whatsoever to believe in it to begin with based on the Word of God, then the Biblical refutation is complete.
Simple as that.