Dear Francisdesales,
Thank you for taking the time to share with me some of these quotes. You addressed me directly, and I want to respond.
Scripture says that John the Baptist, who Mark said preached a baptism of repentance, taught that one should repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. He was preparing the way for Jesus, and teaching that if men would repent then God would forgive their sins, through baptism in water, a turning away from evil and living in good conscience toward God. This was a shadow of things coming, because Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Noah was sealed into the Ark and brought to salvation through the waters, as a type of baptism. Israel was baptized unto Moses through the cloud and the sea and brought to salvation. These were shadows of things to come for God's chosen. I believe that it is so connected that we can not even split repent and be baptized, because now this washing is more than the water, but it is also a supernatural baptism into Jesus Christ, into the church, and a death to sin and disobedience. This is the very reason why we should not treat it lightly by baptizing those who have not repented, those who have not put away disobedience. We also should not use it simply as a symbolic keeping of a child, or as a rite that brings salvation apart from true repentance...this seems superstitious to me. Baptism is too important to be used for anything other than what it was meant according to Scripture, and even according to these early Christian writers you have quoted.
I would like to address your quotes. First, I want to make clear that I believe we can glean God's Truth from many places, and I believe there is much Truth in the writings of these men, but they are not Scripture.
Hermas is not one of my favorites, but I would like to point out that he stresses repentance, and baptism, for the remission of sins. In fact, the whole book is about repentance. Repentance comes first, and there is not remission without it...even for those who are baptized by the church. The church should not be baptizing the unbeliever, or the unrepentant. Hermas does not say it is something we can do for infants to ensure their salvation. He stresses walking in obedience to the commands of God. He himself failed to bring his children up in the fear of the Lord, and failed to discipline them, and it is very evident that he was being offered a chance to repent (of his own backsliding acts), and for them to repent.
Barnabas never separates the cross from the water. He mentions Moses further down and speaks about how he had to make the sign of the cross in order for Israel to win the battle...both the cross and the water. Jesus is the living water, and He baptizes with the Holy Spirit, which produces fruits...So, we are washed clean from our sins through repentance, and through the blood and water that flowed from the cross, through baptism into Jesus Christ alone, and we, like Jesus, become the vessels of the Holy Spirit. This is a highly spiritual thing, and only for the believer. It is not just the sprinkling, or immersing, of water alone, that saves, but rather the living water of God. He never endorses infant baptism in the writing you mentioned, nor does he separate baptism from the cross, but actually points out that our baptism is in Jesus Christ only because of the cross.
Justin Martyr says that with praying and fasting do we gain the remission of our sins. He quotes Isaiah, and says for us to was our sin, and put away the evil doing of our souls...(sounds like Paul's thought about pointing our conscience toward God)...Then the Lord is the one who will make us clean. The water is not separate from putting away the evil doing. Justin goes on to say that this washing is illumination, or understanding, that those who believe, and repent, are then baptized because they understand that the water is the washing away of sin...the putting off disobedience. It is only a rite of Christians, of believers, of the repentant, only then can we be free from sin truly. It is not baptism alone, as it would have to be for the infant.
Tertulian, who was answering those who did not believe in baptism, never says it is for those who have not repented. He says that Christ is the only one who did not need to repent. Believe it or not, I actually really like Tertulian. I think he makes great points about baptism and water, but I think repentance is something he did not take out of the formula.
To clarify, my post was not denying the need for baptism of the believer. In fact, I was trying to stress that repentance must come with baptism, and that it is too important to casually be used for other purposes, and that a believer must go on in obedience...sanctifying God in their hearts. I believe in baptism wholeheartedly, and put great weight on the ritual (when it is genuine), but it is the baptism of infants that I oppose...those who do not repent. It is empty for them. I say that to refute the underscored part of what you quote by Tertulian, which seemed to indicate that you thought I was teaching that we should not be baptized...I would ask you to read my post again in light of the op. Baptism is only for those who believe, and repent, and are willing to walk forward in obedience...freely being able to because of the cross, and because they have the hope of the resurrection.
It is not my intention to debate, because I believe that God turns hearts on such things, but I do think this topic is important and wanted to share my thoughts orginally, and now more specifically. The Catholics are not the only denomination who believe in infant baptism, and they are not the first to come to my mind really. There was a time when I would have agreed with free's posts, but not after studying the topic more closely. Baptism is so important, and we should not use it improperly...like opening it to unbelievers...and we should not use it sentimentally, or superstitiously, like the keeping of a child. Dedicating our children is doing the work I mentioned in my first post, and praying. Forgive my intensity, and please do not interpret it as being argumentative. I feel passionately about it, as I am sure we all do.
I understand we disagree, but I ask you to consider my last two points seriously in light of Scripture, and with the knowledge that my post is only written in love. The Lord bless you today.
