Sprinkling and infant baptism, is that really baptism

[Jude3b]

When you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized?

[dynomite]

When you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized?


Yup.

[Mujibur]

"Yup"

I think Jude wanted a more thorough answer than that. Got any scripture to back that up?

[supervixen]

Hello, new here, please be patient :lol:
This is a great topic-
Christ was not baptized with a "sprinkling of water" He was baptized by immerion by John the Baptist right, so how many of you consider being baptized with the "sprinkling of water" a true, baptismal ritual?

[supervixen]

meant "immersion" not immerion, sorry about that:tongue:

[Mujibur]

Good point, Supervixen. Christ was also baptized by a conscious choice, as were all other baptisms mentioned in the bible, which adds another question to answer for infant baptism.

[jgsauer]

As an infant, at the best it is a "baby dedication". I know some demonations see baptism as a necessity to salvation, so there is incentive to baptize as quickly as possible. I believe baptism is important but not a requirement.

I was "baptized" as an infant, but as an adult made the choice to be baptized (immersion). One needs to be old enough to know what he or she is choosing before deciding to get baptized.

Jim

[supervixen]

This here is just my belief, but WHAT was the purpose of Christ needing to be baptized? He was perfect wasnt He? The process of Baptism in many religions culture is considered a rite, a remission of sins, lots of different things I wont get into, BUT if Christ were perfect why the need for Him to be baptized? He had no sins to be forgiven of.

Because Baptism is a key, a requirement, a step in getting to the Kingdom of God, hence even Christ would have to have that done, to have that key, to ultimately be allowed into the Kindgom and God and dwell in His presence. No one is the exception to that, every soul needs that "ordinance" to further them into Gods presence. Again, just my belief :)

[supervixen]

PS- I agree that you should be adult enough to DECIDE and CHOOSE to be baptized. I think as a human we need a working conscious of that ordinance and what it represents and how that affects our mortal journey. I was babptized as a baby either. It was later in my life.

Happy B-Day to the web :)

[supervixen]

Oh my word, I am off today- I was NOT baptized as a baby- Thanks for your patience ;)

[Mujibur]

Because Baptism is a key, a requirement, a step in getting to the Kingdom of God, hence even Christ would have to have that done, to have that key, to ultimately be allowed into the Kindgom and God and dwell in His presence. No one is the exception to that, every soul needs that "ordinance" to further them into Gods presence. Again, just my belief :)

If that were true, how do you explain the thief on the cross? Baptism is an indication to the world that someone is following Christ, but is not listed as a requirement to getting into heaven. However, I agree that every christian is called to be baptized. Being a follower of Christ and not wanting to get baptized would be the same as refusing to show the world that you are a Christian and would be living a life of faith without works as James describes. The baptism should be done when the person is ready though.

[Pilgrim]

Folks who were baptized as infants were infact "really" baptized. Baptism is not about what we do rather it is about what God does and God gets it right the first time.

Seriously, how far do you want to take your little analogy? Is it enough to be submerged? How about making it so you have to be submerged in a river? In Israel? The Jordan in fact? By a Prophet? Wearing sandles?...etc....etc...etc...

As for Christ needing it to enter heaven? Think that through. Who is Christ? Christ is God, co existant and co-equal. Where did Christ come from in the incarnation if not from heaven in the first place?

Baptism is the outward sign of an inner reality and is not a requirment for salvation. Baptism is not so much the sign of salvation, it is the sign of the covenant community. After all, salvation happends because of what Christ does, not what we do. (Let me point out, as well, the thief on the cross.) If you want a deeper understanding of the nature of baptism check out what Paul says as he compares it to circumcision especially in Colossians 2:11,12.

The covenant community in Isreal included the children and the covenant community now includes the children. This point is made clear through out scripture. What the reformed understanding of baptism does is take it to its roots and to its intended audiences requiring all new converts to be baptized and baptizing infants of believers because they, like the children who were circumsized in Isreal, are a part of God's covenant.

We baptize children knowing that before we are even able to respond God has a call on us. We baptize adult converts because we realize that having been called by God we must respond in obedience. And we never baptize because we think that baptism some how imparts saving grace.

[Pilgrim]

bump

[Timothy]

Concerning immersion, sprinkling, pouring, immersion in "living" water, immersion in the River Jordan, wearing sandals, etc. and age at baptism:
I would think that your intention in baptism is way more important than the form. Who can know what an infants intentions are? Why baptize someone who has no idea of what's going on? If you say "because it is God's action", then why not get a fire hose, bless the water main, and baptize your entire city? Wouldn't you be doing them an eternal favor?

[Dave]

When you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized?

yup.

circumcision was the entrance into the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17:11). This same Abrahamic covenant applies to us also (Gal 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Gen 17:7 , Deut 29:10-12, perhaps even Matt19:14). It is expected of jewish parents who have their sons circumcized that they will be raised in the faith. Baptism replaces circumcision (Col 2:11-13). Additionally, it is expected of all parents who baptize their children to raise them in the faith.

Thus infant baptism is wholly Biblical. And, might I add; wholly historical.

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"
Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41
note: Polycarp was 96 years old at the time he said this.

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family."
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition,21(c. A.D. 215), in AT,33

"herefore children are also baptized."
Origen,Homily on Luke,XIV(A.D. 233),in JER, 65

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too."
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244),in JER,65

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."
Origen, Homily on Leviticus,8:3(post A.D. 244),in JUR,I:208

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354

"It shows no crease when infants put it on, it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration."
Optatus of Mileve,Against Parmenium,5:10(A.D. 365),in JER, 94

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?"
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:17(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:365

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitaited."
Gregory Nazianzen,Oration on Holy Baptism,40:28(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,7:370

"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins."
Chrysostom John,Ad Neophytos,(A.D. 388),in LCF,169

" 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity."
Ambrose,Abraham,2,11:79(A.D. 387),in JUR,2:169

"And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized."
Augustine,On Baptism against the Donatist,4:24:31(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:461

"While the son is a child and thinks as a child and until he comes to years of discretion to choose between the two roads to which the letter of Pythagoras points, his parents are responsible for his actions whether these be good or bad. But perhaps you imagine that, if they are not baptized, the children of Christians are liable for their own sins; and that no guilt attaches to parents who withhold from baptism those who by reason of their tender age can offer no objection to it. The truth is that, as baptism ensures the salvation of the child, this in turn brings advantage to the parents. Whether you would offer your child or not lay within your choice, but now that you have offered her, you neglect her at your peril."br> Jerome,To Laeta,Epistle 107:6(A.D. 403),in NPNF2,VI:191

"Now, seeing that they admit the necessity of baptizing infants,--finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,--they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left."
Augustine,On forgiveness of sin, and baptism,39<26>(A.D. 412),in NPNF1,V:30

"The blessed Cyprian, indeed, said, in order to correct those who thought that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, that it was not the body but the soul which behoved to be saved from perdition -- in which statement he was not inventing any new doctrine, but preserving the firmly established faith of the Church; and he, along with some of his colleagues in the episcopal office, held that a child may be properly baptized immediately after its birth"
Augustine,Epistle 166:8:23(A.D. 412),in NPNF1,I:531

" 'C. Tell me, pray, and rid me of all doubts, why little children are baptized.?
A. That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism."
Jerome,Against the Pelagians,3:18(A.D. 415),in NPNF2,VI:482

"Likewise, whosoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that sacrament shall be made alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration, and condemns the universal Church,in which it is the practice to lose no time and run in haste to administer baptism to infant children, because it is believed, as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ."
Augustine,Epistle 167,7,21(A.D. 415),in NPNF1,I:530

"Canon 2. Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized....let him be anathema."
Council of Carthage,Canon 2,(A.D. 418),in Denzinger 101

"Concerning the Donatists it seemed good that we should hold counsel with our brethren and fellow priests Siricius and Simplician concerning those infants alone who are baptized by Donatists: lest what they did not do of their own will, when they should be converted to the Church of God with a salutary determination, the error of their parents might prevent their promotion to the ministry of the holy altar."
African Code, Canon 47/51(A.D. 419), in NPNF2,XIV:463

"Believest thou this?...when a newborn child is brought forward to receive the anointing of initiation, or rather of consumation through holy baptism."
Cyril of Alexandria,Commentary on John,7(A.D. 428),in JER,95

"QUESTION XIX. Concerning those who after being baptized in infancy were captured by the Gentiles, and lived with them after the manner of the Gentiles, when they come back to Roman territory as still young men, if they seek communion, what shall be done?
REPLY. If they have only lived with Gentiles and eaten sacrificial food, they can be purged by fasting and laying on of hands, in order that for the future abstaining from things offered to idols, they may be partakers of Christ's mysteries. But if they have either worshipped idols or been polluted with manslaughter or fornication, they must not be admitted to communion, except by public penance."
Pope Leo the Great,To Rusticus,Epistle 167(A.D. 459),in NPNF2,XII:112

"But with respect to trine immersion in baptism, no truer answer can be given than what you have yourself felt to be right; namely that, where there is one faith, a diversity of usage does no harm to holy Church. Now we, in immersing thrice, signify the sacraments of the three days' sepulture; so that, when the infant is a third time lifted out of the water, the resurrection after a space of three days may be expressed."
Gregory the Great,To Leander,Epistle 43(A.D. 591),in NPNF2,XII:88

Peace,
Dave

[One Bad Pig]

Folks who were baptized as infants were infact "really" baptized. Baptism is not about what we do rather it is about what God does and God gets it right the first time.
...
Baptism is the outward sign of an inner reality and is not a requirment for salvation.

Baptism is the outward sign of an inner reality, and is not required, per se, for salvation. However, converts are commanded to be baptized. Converts who have not yet been baptized, IMO, have an impaired relationship with God; this in no way affects their salvation, however.

On the other hand, I disagree that infant baptism (of whatever flavor) is anything more than a child dedication (which in itself is really only binding on the parents; the child will have to decide for him/herself, at some point, whether or not to follow Christ). There is no "inner reality" demonstrated in infant baptism; the child has not yet made a choice, and the ritual is hence spiritually useless.



Baptism is not so much the sign of salvation, it is the sign of the covenant community.

Yes; it is a public affirmation of a private decision to join the new covenant community.



After all, salvation happends because of what Christ does, not what we do.

Technically, savation happens because of our acceptance of what Christ has done.


The covenant community in Isreal included the children and the covenant community now includes the children. This point is made clear through out scripture. What the reformed understanding of baptism does is take it to its roots and to its intended audiences requiring all new converts to be baptized and baptizing infants of believers because they, like the children who were circumsized in Isreal, are a part of God's covenant.

I disagree. A fundamental difference between the old covenant and the new is how the covenant community is entered. In the old covenant, the covenant was entered (with very few exceptions, which could not fully enter the covenant anyway) through birth. In the new covenant, however, the covenant is entered through a conscious, private decision to accept what Christ has done on the cross and to follow Him. If infants (baptized or otherwise) are part of the covenant, what happens to those who never personally accept Christ? Do they somehow get "kicked out" at the ever-nebulous "age of accountability"?



We baptize children knowing that before we are even able to respond God has a call on us.

God has a call on everyone. Does that mean we should forcibly baptize everyone? :egad:



We baptize adult converts because we realize that having been called by God we must respond in obedience. And we never baptize because we think that baptism some how imparts saving grace.

Agreed. :thumb:


OBP

[dynomite]

Baptism is the outward sign of an inner reality, and is not required, per se, for salvation. However, converts are commanded to be baptized. Converts who have not yet been baptized, IMO, have an impaired relationship with God; this in no way affects their salvation, however.

On the other hand, I disagree that infant baptism (of whatever flavor) is anything more than a child dedication (which in itself is really only binding on the parents; the child will have to decide for him/herself, at some point, whether or not to follow Christ). There is no "inner reality" demonstrated in infant baptism; the child has not yet made a choice, and the ritual is hence spiritually useless.

First, don't compare baptism with "dedication". One is Biblical the other is not. Second, infant baptism is not "dedication". God is involved with Baptism, but gives no commandment for dedication. Personally, I believe that "infant dedications" are a baptist invention, because they don't know what to do with their children. They are saying, "We have this little one from our seed, one that God has ordained praise, but we don't know what to do with it. I mean, I am going to tell them that God loves them, I am going to teach them how to pray, but I am saying they are outside the covenant, so what should I do with them. I know, I will dedicate them to something."

The fallacy of choice is preeminent in baptist theology. For example, from the beginning God has desired a circumcised heart, which the circumcision of flesh demonstrated under the Old Covenant and pointed to an inward reality. Yet, according to this line of thinking circumcision was meaningless b/c not done upon the choice of the child. Infant baptism is predicated on the fact that God's promise from the beginning has been with His people and their children, so their children receive the sign and seal of the covenant.




Yes; it is a public affirmation of a private decision to join the new covenant community.

It isn't simply a public affirmation. The Scriptures speak much more stongly about what occurs in baptism-see Romans 6; 1 Peter 3:18+, and all every occurence of baptism in Acts.




Technically, savation happens because of our acceptance of what Christ has done.

Technically, we we can speak of being saved from all eternity. Technically, we can say, "I was saved, I am being saved and I will be saved."




I disagree. A fundamental difference between the old covenant and the new is how the covenant community is entered. In the old covenant, the covenant was entered (with very few exceptions, which could not fully enter the covenant anyway) through birth. In the new covenant, however, the covenant is entered through a conscious, private decision to accept what Christ has done on the cross and to follow Him. If infants (baptized or otherwise) are part of the covenant, what happens to those who never personally accept Christ? Do they somehow get "kicked out" at the ever-nebulous "age of accountability"?

First, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that Jesus came preaching another Gospel than the one delivered to Abraham. It is merely an assertion to say the Old is this way, but the New is this way. This also presents a rather myopic view of the O.C. What we see occuring in the O.C. is "adult converts" receiving circumcision upon admission into the covenant. However, once they are in the covenant the promises are for them and their children. If non-Jews entering the Covenant was very rare, then it was due to a failure on Israel's part and not the covenant. What we see in the New Testament is the fact that a New Covenant has come, so the predominate feature is outsiders coming in, but that doesn't answer what happens with their children. The issue is if the same Gospel preached to Abraham is applicable in the New Covenant.

As a side, the same thing happens to those that never "personally accept Christ" that happens to those that were baptized as adults, but never "personally accepted Christ". I would recommend Kline's "By Oath Consigned". He shows that baptism will serve as a sign of judgment against the individuals that received baptism, but rejected it. Think of it as a husband that is unfaithful to his covenant promises to his wife. His ring serves as a sign and seal against him.




God has a call on everyone. Does that mean we should forcibly baptize everyone? :egad:

Nope. When they are outside the covenant we proclaim repentance and faith to them. We don't believe in ex opere operato.


dynomite

[dynomite]

Hello, new here, please be patient :lol:
This is a great topic-
Christ was not baptized with a "sprinkling of water" He was baptized by immerion by John the Baptist right, so how many of you consider being baptized with the "sprinkling of water" a true, baptismal ritual?


Where does it say "immersion"? Jesus' baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness", and is more probable a ceremonial washing or pouring.

[One Bad Pig]

First, don't compare baptism with "dedication". One is Biblical the other is not.

I quite agree.



Second, infant baptism is not "dedication".

Infant baptism doesn't do anything for the infant, though, because it isn't done with the consent of the infant.



God is involved with Baptism, but gives no commandment for dedication. Personally, I believe that "infant dedications" are a baptist invention, because they don't know what to do with their children. They are saying, "We have this little one from our seed, one that God has ordained praise, but we don't know what to do with it. I mean, I am going to tell them that God loves them, I am going to teach them how to pray, but I am saying they are outside the covenant, so what should I do with them. I know, I will dedicate them to something."

Is it so wrong? It is a public display of acknowledging responsibility before God, and enjoins the church body to assist in showing the child the Way.



The fallacy of choice is preeminent in baptist theology. For example, from the beginning God has desired a circumcised heart, which the circumcision of flesh demonstrated under the Old Covenant and pointed to an inward reality. Yet, according to this line of thinking circumcision was meaningless b/c not done upon the choice of the child. Infant baptism is predicated on the fact that God's promise from the beginning has been with His people and their children, so their children receive the sign and seal of the covenant.

However, the circumcision of the flesh was meaningless without the inward reality (1 Cor 7:19). Infant baptism is just as meaningless, for there is no inward reality.



It isn't simply a public affirmation. The Scriptures speak much more stongly about what occurs in baptism-see Romans 6; 1 Peter 3:18+, and all every occurence of baptism in Acts.

Baptism is an action. Actions don't save anybody; faith alone does (Eph. 2:8-9). However, since faith w/o works is dead (James 2:14ff), it would be a matter of semantics if it weren't for people who believe but have no opportunity for baptism before they die (like the thief on the cross). Peter even says that the act of baptism itself doesn't do anything (1 Peter 3:20). Since infant baptism is just an act with no corresponding inward choice, it's meaningless.



Technically, we we can speak of being saved from all eternity. Technically, we can say, "I was saved, I am being saved and I will be saved."

Sure, because God is outside time. That is why you cannot lose your salvation. To God, once you're saved, you always have been and always will be.



First, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that Jesus came preaching another Gospel than the one delivered to Abraham. It is merely an assertion to say the Old is this way, but the New is this way. This also presents a rather myopic view of the O.C. What we see occuring in the O.C. is "adult converts" receiving circumcision upon admission into the covenant. However, once they are in the covenant the promises are for them and their children.


The Old (Mosaic) Covenant had a caveat; God promised to follow it as long as Israel kept up their end. Will we be in heaven with all the people under the O.C.? Will we see false prophets in heaven? In the O.C. as well as the N.C., God was interested not in outward appearance, but the heart. What's changed? Consider that all under the N.C. are considered descendants of Abraham.



If non-Jews entering the Covenant was very rare, then it was due to a failure on Israel's part and not the covenant. What we see in the New Testament is the fact that a New Covenant has come, so the predominate feature is outsiders coming in, but that doesn't answer what happens with their children. The issue is if the same Gospel preached to Abraham is applicable in the New Covenant.

I'm not disputing that. Children stand or fall on their own. Granted, they are most likely to follow in their parents' footsteps.



As a side, the same thing happens to those that never "personally accept Christ" that happens to those that were baptized as adults, but never "personally accepted Christ". I would recommend Kline's "By Oath Consigned". He shows that baptism will serve as a sign of judgment against the individuals that received baptism, but rejected it. Think of it as a husband that is unfaithful to his covenant promises to his wife. His ring serves as a sign and seal against him.

Okay. I can agree with that.



Nope. When they are outside the covenant we proclaim repentance and faith to them. We don't believe in ex opere operato.

Could you please translate that last phrase for those of us who are ignorant of Latin? I agree with you, I think.

[dynomite]

Hello One Bad Pig,


I quite agree.

Good. We are off to a good start.




Infant baptism doesn't do anything for the infant, though, because it isn't done with the consent of the infant.

Oh no, a quick turn for the worse. O.k., I don't know if I am the one to develop this and, to be completely honest, I realize I am currently in the minority within the Church, but I don't believe historically. With that said, I will try to address this briefly. Keep in mind that most who hold to infant baptism hold to a form of covenantal unity, which includes the fact that a promise is for the "individual" and their children. There is also a corporate aspect to this covenant, which is often ignored by many in the Church, including those professing covenantal unity. Anyway, at the end of Romans 2 Paul says, "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." This is usually a more popular understanding for most people, so we kind of leave it at that and think that the signs and seals of the covenant don't matter in any substantive way, they are at best an issue of obedience. I believe this is more influenced by a form of Platonism and Rationalism that the Scriptures, i.e. the physical isn't the real, but there is an ideal/form that is. Immediately after saying this, however, Paul says, "Then wat advantage has the Jew? Or what ist he value of circumcision? Much in every way." So, even Paul says there is much benefit in circumcision. He goes on to express that they were entrusted with the oracles of God, etc. So, seeing covenantal unity at this point I would say there is great benefit to the child in baptism. For starters, I believe it is God giving that child His seal and promise. From there we raise our children in a manner expressing God's love towards them and raising them in the presence of YHWH in fear and admonition of the Lord. This is far superior than not being raised by the Lord or just waiting to the age of accountability. There is much more in this area that can be said, but my point is simply to say Scripturally there is great benefit IN the signs and seals of the covenant.




Is it so wrong? It is a public display of acknowledging responsibility before God, and enjoins the church body to assist in showing the child the Way.

No, it isn't wrong, but it isn't Biblical. Again, I see it as a way for people to try to understand the place of their children without an understanding of covenantal sucession and the place of their children in the Church. The Jews, and early Church, I believe, had a great understanding of their children that was far beyond just hoping to show them the way--see Dt. 6. and think of the prophets vision of boys and girls playing in the streets, etc. I don't think it is wrong, but it is just a way to poke the baptist that wants to claim our infant baptism isn't biblical, so I want them to demonstrate the Scripture practice of dedication.




However, the circumcision of the flesh was meaningless without the inward reality (1 Cor 7:19). Infant baptism is just as meaningless, for there is no inward reality.

Yes and no. If the only way one is thinking is getting into heaven, then maybe the answer is yes. However, why do you think Paul appeals to the Romans baptism to say how they are united to Christ? Why does Peter speak of baptism now saving them. Also, I believe, if we can begin to see God's side involved in the act, then we can better grasp assurance. If a person within your church is struggling with salvation I think it is quite insufficient to keep telling them to invite Jesus into their heart, etc. However, we can appeal to their baptism and begin to say, "This is what God says in your baptism. You are marked out for Him. He says you are united with Christ. That you have been circumcised, etc." The same can be said for the Lord's Supper. When we eat of the bread and drink of the cup, then we can tangibly participate in the Gospel, recognize that God can't destroy us, because his body was broken and his blood was shed.




Baptism is an action. Actions don't save anybody; faith alone does (Eph. 2:8-9). However, since faith w/o works is dead (James 2:14ff), it would be a matter of semantics if it weren't for people who believe but have no opportunity for baptism before they die (like the thief on the cross). Peter even says that the act of baptism itself doesn't do anything (1 Peter 3:20). Since infant baptism is just an act with no corresponding inward choice, it's meaningless.

Hmm. in the first you say, "Actions don't save anybody", but you then end with "corresponding inward choice". Are you saying "choice" is not an action? Yes, faith alone saves, but I don't see baptism in any way as a work, and this is the difficult part to explain to mainstream evangelicalism. When a man and woman marry and exchange rings, do they see this as a work? No, the nature of the covenant is to exchange vows and signs and seals of the covenant. So it is with God and His Bride, the Church. Yes, someone can be saved without baptism, but this isn't normative. What should be ordinary is to admonish someone to repent and be baptized. Not "invite Jesus into your heart", "sign a card", but be baptized. Even the Nicene Creed speaks of one baptism for the foregiveness of sins.




Sure, because God is outside time. That is why you cannot lose your salvation. To God, once you're saved, you always have been and always will be.

Agree and disagree. This isn't a discussion on perseverance, so I won't say too much. Paul tells the Colossians, "present you holy and blameless, if you continue in the faith..." I believe in perseverance of the saints, so we must persevere to the end. To simply state, "Well, the truly saved will, etc." I don't believe does justice to many Scriptures, but that is beyond discussion.




The Old (Mosaic) Covenant had a caveat; God promised to follow it as long as Israel kept up their end. Will we be in heaven with all the people under the O.C.? Will we see false prophets in heaven? In the O.C. as well as the N.C., God was interested not in outward appearance, but the heart. What's changed? Consider that all under the N.C. are considered descendants of Abraham.

See my comment above, so there is a caveat so to speak in the New as well (Hb. 6, etc.). No, not everyone from the OC is there. Your comment that "in the OC as well as the NC, God is interested not in outward appearance, but the heart" is of utmost importance to grasp. Many think the Old was about outward, but the New is inward.

Well, how do WE identify those in the N.C.? I say baptism. Will every single individual that is baptized enter glory? No. So, there is the objective element in both the Old and New Covenants that we have to acknowledge, which is manifest through the signs and seals of the covenant.




I'm not disputing that. Children stand or fall on their own. Granted, they are most likely to follow in their parents' footsteps.

Again, yes and no. God tells His people that he will love those to a thousand generations to those who love him, but will curse to the third and forth to those that hate him. Now, this isn't a hard and fast formula, but it demonstrates that there is a corporate element that is ignored by the overwhelming majority of "pro democracy" Americans and, unfortunately, Christians. We effect deeply our children.



Could you please translate that last phrase for those of us who are ignorant of Latin? I agree with you, I think.

It means "from the work already done" or "from the work performed". It is a Catholic doctrine that allows us to think that grace is automatically conferred via baptism.

dynomite

[Pilgrim]

Well said Dynomite. Your explanation of the covenental / communal nature of baptism is very well expressed.

I might add a distinction that is based on the reformed idea of what worship is. All to often in worship people place the human as the subject and object of that worship when in fact it is God who should hold that role. The sacraments as a part of worship should aid us in understanding that reality. Baptism should point to God's action, not ours and if baptism is understood soley as a marker of our choice then God is left out of the equation.

Also in regards to the assertion that baptism does nothing for the infant I would have to say that it does, in the same way circumcision did for the Isrealite, secure for the child a place in the covenant community and it secures for the child the promises of the faith community as they raise and nurture it until the day the child can make his or her own promise.

And really, the argument that you should not participate in a sacrament as a child because you don't understand what is going on fails on the grounds that there is no mortal who totally understands everything that happens in baptism or the Lord's supper. There is a mystery involved in those sacraments that we never totally grasp. That being the case the logical conclusion of the argument is that no one would ever participate in the sacraments becaue no one ever fully realizes what is happening.
Really, this is not a question of "either/or" (and I don't know why it should be except that the human creature is insecure and not only needs to know it is right but feels better if it can say, "you are wrong" as well) it is a question of "both/and."

[One Bad Pig]

Infant baptism doesn't do anything for the infant, though, because it isn't done with the consent of the infant.
O.k., I don't know if I am the one to develop this and, to be completely honest, I realize I am currently in the minority within the Church, but I don't believe historically. Keep in mind that most who hold to infant baptism hold to a form of covenantal unity, which includes the fact that a promise is for the "individual" and their children.

That's understandable.



There is also a corporate aspect to this covenant, which is often ignored by many in the Church, including those professing covenantal unity. Anyway, at the end of Romans 2 Paul says, "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." This is usually a more popular understanding for most people, so we kind of leave it at that and think that the signs and seals of the covenant don't matter in any substantive way, they are at best an issue of obedience. I believe this is more influenced by a form of Platonism and Rationalism that the Scriptures, i.e. the physical isn't the real, but there is an ideal/form that is.

I must be in the minority, too. :smile: The signs and seals of the covenant are very important. They are not salvific, but obedience to God is critical if one wants to progress beyond the "babe in Christ" stage.



Immediately after saying this, however, Paul says, "Then wat advantage has the Jew? Or what ist he value of circumcision? Much in every way." So, even Paul says there is much benefit in circumcision. He goes on to express that they were entrusted with the oracles of God, etc. So, seeing covenantal unity at this point I would say there is great benefit to the child in baptism. For starters, I believe it is God giving that child His seal and promise. From there we raise our children in a manner expressing God's love towards them and raising them in the presence of YHWH in fear and admonition of the Lord. This is far superior than not being raised by the Lord or just waiting to the age of accountability. There is much more in this area that can be said, but my point is simply to say Scripturally there is great benefit IN the signs and seals of the covenant.

I agree with everything here, except that I don't see covenantal unity including those who have not personally accepted Christ as Saviour (including infants, obviously), and I don't see that infant baptism, in and of itself, helps the child any. What helps the child enormously is being raised in a church-going family.



No, [baby dedication] isn't wrong, but it isn't Biblical. Again, I see it as a way for people to try to understand the place of their children without an understanding of covenantal sucession and the place of their children in the Church. The Jews, and early Church, I believe, had a great understanding of their children that was far beyond just hoping to show them the way--see Dt. 6. and think of the prophets vision of boys and girls playing in the streets, etc. I don't think it is wrong, but it is just a way to poke the baptist that wants to claim our infant baptism isn't biblical, so I want them to demonstrate the Scripture practice of dedication.

As I look at Dt. 6, I still see the unequivocal caveat that the Israelites must obey in order to reap the benefits. I never claimed that dedication was scriptural. I see it as spiritually equivalent to infant baptism. Neither one is a bad thing, but OTOH neither one is effacious for salvation.


However, the circumcision of the flesh was meaningless without the inward reality (1 Cor 7:19). Infant baptism is just as meaningless, for there is no inward reality.
Yes and no. If the only way one is thinking is getting into heaven, then maybe the answer is yes.

I really tried to parse this, but got nowhere. Can you clarify?



However, why do you think Paul appeals to the Romans baptism to say how they are united to Christ? Why does Peter speak of baptism now saving them.

Peter also says that it is not the act, but the inward attitude. Since you agree that salvation can occur without baptism (though I agree that those who are saved are typically baptized), it follows that baptism is not strictly necessary for salvation. In the ANE (or in any collectivist society, for that matter), one's community was everything. Christianity was a radical break from one's community, and was hence not undertaken lightly. Baptism was a public announcement of that break, and would not typically have been done without a true conversion. Those who were unwilling to undergo baptism were not likely true converts, because in Christ the community is of less importance than His will.



Also, I believe, if we can begin to see God's side involved in the act, then we can better grasp assurance. If a person within your church is struggling with salvation I think it is quite insufficient to keep telling them to invite Jesus into their heart, etc. However, we can appeal to their baptism and begin to say, "This is what God says in your baptism. You are marked out for Him. He says you are united with Christ. That you have been circumcised, etc." The same can be said for the Lord's Supper. When we eat of the bread and drink of the cup, then we can tangibly participate in the Gospel, recognize that God can't destroy us, because his body was broken and his blood was shed.

I would never encourage anyone who was unsure of their salvation to undergo baptism or partake of the Lord's Supper. As you agree, falsely doing either one of these will bring condemnation in the Judgement. I would tell someone struggling with their salvation to submit themselves to God's will daily. If they can do that, it is evidence that they are saved. Telling them to keep inviting Jesus into their heart is stupid, and will never resolve anything. Everyone, AFAICT, goes through periods of doubt.



Hmm. in the first you say, "Actions don't save anybody", but you then end with "corresponding inward choice". Are you saying "choice" is not an action?

Indeed. :smile: It is a decision. Decisions are internal; actions(works) are external.


Yes, faith alone saves, but I don't see baptism in any way as a work, and this is the difficult part to explain to mainstream evangelicalism. When a man and woman marry and exchange rings, do they see this as a work? No, the nature of the covenant is to exchange vows and signs and seals of the covenant. So it is with God and His Bride, the Church.

Baptism is an act, and as such can be done falsely. Marriage is an act, and is all too often temporary these days. Friends of mine who just got married considered themselves married in God's eyes once they had pledged to each other in the betrothal (though they did not consummate the marriage until after the ceremony). The rings are just an outward symbol, and aren't required in an of themselves for marriage to occur (neither are the vows, really).



Yes, someone can be saved without baptism, but this isn't normative. What should be ordinary is to admonish someone to repent and be baptized. Not "invite Jesus into your heart", "sign a card", but be baptized.

Agreed.



Even the Nicene Creed speaks of one baptism for the foregiveness of sins.

Baptists do not follow any creeds, recognizing them as inventions of man and therefore fallible.


See my comment above, so there is a caveat so to speak in the New as well (Hb. 6, etc.).

However, compare 1 Cor. 3:11-15.



No, not everyone from the OC is there. Your comment that "in the OC as well as the NC, God is interested not in outward appearance, but the heart" is of utmost importance to grasp. Many think the Old was about outward, but the New is inward.

Good! I was hoping you'd agree with me here. Understanding the OT is fundamental to understanding the NT, IMO. Many people don't grasp that, and have weak faith as a result.



Well, how do WE identify those in the N.C.? I say baptism. Will every single individual that is baptized enter glory? No. So, there is the objective element in both the Old and New Covenants that we have to acknowledge, which is manifest through the signs and seals of the covenant.

Baptism is one of the best indicators, but as you say, it's not proof positive of someone's salvation. There is no absolute proof.



Again, yes and no. God tells His people that he will love those to a thousand generations to those who love him, but will curse to the third and forth to those that hate him. Now, this isn't a hard and fast formula, but it demonstrates that there is a corporate element that is ignored by the overwhelming majority of "pro democracy" Americans and, unfortunately, Christians. We effect deeply our children.

Absolutely. However, being the child of Christians is not synonymous with being a Christian.



It means "from the work already done" or "from the work performed". It is a Catholic doctrine that allows us to think that grace is automatically conferred via baptism.

Okay, then I agree with you in disagreeing with it. :thumb:

OBP

[One Bad Pig]

I might add a distinction that is based on the reformed idea of what worship is. All to often in worship people place the human as the subject and object of that worship when in fact it is God who should hold that role.

:thumb:


The sacraments as a part of worship should aid us in understanding that reality.

True.


Baptism should point to God's action, not ours

Yes, but

and if baptism is understood soley as a marker of our choice then God is left out of the equation.
does not follow. It is still a symbolic act identifying us with Christ.


Also in regards to the assertion that baptism does nothing for the infant I would have to say that it does, in the same way circumcision did for the Isrealite, secure for the child a place in the covenant community and it secures for the child the promises of the faith community as they raise and nurture it until the day the child can make his or her own promise.

However, my pastor fields numerous calls from non-churchgoers who want their infant baptized ("Baptist church...must mean they baptize people."). Are you saying that if they get their infant baptized somewhere that this helps the baby somehow?


And really, the argument that you should not participate in a sacrament as a child because you don't understand what is going on fails on the grounds that there is no mortal who totally understands everything that happens in baptism or the Lord's supper. There is a mystery involved in those sacraments that we never totally grasp. That being the case the logical conclusion of the argument is that no one would ever participate in the sacraments becaue no one ever fully realizes what is happening.

True, but one can at least grasp that the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's death on the cross for our redemption. Until that is understood and the child has accepted Jesus as their Saviour then they should not partake.


Really, this is not a question of "either/or" (and I don't know why it should be except that the human creature is insecure and not only needs to know it is right but feels better if it can say, "you are wrong" as well) it is a question of "both/and."

If I feel someone is taking a wrong position, I will call them on it. I will also be open to what they have to say. If they can convince me scripturally that they are right, I will change my viewpoint accordingly. Security has nothing to do with it. :teeth:

[nomad]

it depends a lot on what you think baptism is, and will vary a lot between east and west, or perhaps more between liturgical and non-liturgical.

modern churches tend to take a more 'scientific' you could call it view of sacraments... i.e. 'communion is just bread and wine'... 'baptism is just dunking in water'... both of these, what you do is more important that the 'stuff' behind it. i could call this a 'gnostic' view :) but i won't go that far. basically, it's what's going on in your mind that does it.

historically, churches have taken a more 'mystical' you could call it view of sacraments - communion was really the body and blood of Jesus. baptism is really God doing 'something' to you. how it works, or what actually it does, is not clear. but it is believed that some sort of grace is imparted. some people will complain that salvation is the only grace... but then most of these are charismatics, so that's internally inconsistent.

for those who believe the scientific view, i think it's consistent to not believe in infant baptism or even perhaps to believe you should be baptized at all. for the mystical view (which i personally hold), then i think believing in infant baptism is consistent there as well. we've had long threads on that before, about the nature of baptism, which is really where this thread should be argued, not about infant baptism per se, because whether you believe in infant baptism or not rightfully falls out of that more foundational belief. but hopefully this helps people understand why some baptize their children at young ages. we really believe we are giving our children the opportunity to receive something from God... God working with our decision as parent. and historically this has been the case since the early days of the church. i know some will complain that tradition has included a lot of crap in it (mostly in criticisms of the RCC), but i have discovered that most of the stranger things that people complain about the most were instituted in relatively recent dates, and the farther back you go, the purer the church was. and baptism goes very very far back.


on another side note, someone asked about sprinkling, and that hasn't been addressed. well, the early church appears to have taken a very pragmatic approach to baptism. here is an extract from the didache on baptismal presciptions:


Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed" all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19) in running water.

(2) But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm.

(3) But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."


as you can see, they weren't legalistic about it. they knew it wasn't the water that was important, but obedience to God. and they don't seem to be adherents to the normative rule of worship either - they improvised when necessary. i like this view.

[One Bad Pig]

it depends a lot on what you think baptism is, and will vary a lot between east and west, or perhaps more between liturgical and non-liturgical.

That seems to be a good rule of thumb.



modern churches tend to take a more 'scientific' you could call it view of sacraments... i.e. 'communion is just bread and wine'... 'baptism is just dunking in water'... both of these, what you do is more important that the 'stuff' behind it. i could call this a 'gnostic' view :) but i won't go that far. basically, it's what's going on in your mind that does it.

:hrm: I'm not sure if I quite get at what you're trying to say. Personally, I think that what's going on in your mind is the 'stuff' behind the elements/dunking that validates or invalidates the propriety of going through the motions, and is more important than the act itself. However, the act itself is important, as well, and should not be ignored.



historically, churches have taken a more 'mystical' you could call it view of sacraments - communion was really the body and blood of Jesus. baptism is really God doing 'something' to you. how it works, or what actually it does, is not clear. but it is believed that some sort of grace is imparted.

While I disagree that communion is really the body and blood of Jesus, I do believe that communion and baptism are special moments for the believer, and do impart something, just not grace unto salvation.

Although I am much more comfortable in non-liturgical settings, my beliefs seem to fall somewhere in between the two views you present here.



i know some will complain that tradition has included a lot of crap in it (mostly in criticisms of the RCC), but i have discovered that most of the stranger things that people complain about the most were instituted in relatively recent dates, and the farther back you go, the purer the church was. and baptism goes very very far back.

I have no problem with tradition per se, just tradition that seems to go against scripture (which is mostly post-Constantine (AFAICT), and baptism itself goes back before the ministry of Jesus).



on another side note, someone asked about sprinkling, and that hasn't been addressed. well, the early church appears to have taken a very pragmatic approach to baptism. here is an extract from the didache on baptismal presciptions:
Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed" all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19) in running water.

(2) But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm.

(3) But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

as you can see, they weren't legalistic about it. they knew it wasn't the water that was important, but obedience to God. and they don't seem to be adherents to the normative rule of worship either - they improvised when necessary. i like this view.

I do too! :thumb: I think it's good to follow as closely as possible what was done at the institution of each sacrament, though; baptism via immersion, and wine and unleavened bread for communion. They seem to heighten the experience somehow.

[Mujibur]

"Well, how do WE identify those in the N.C.? I say baptism."

I agree, but if an infant is baptized and never develops a relationship with Jesus, what purpose has the baptism served? On the other hand, if baptism is done once the person is old enough to make the conscious choice and understands its meaning, then they are identifying themselves with the N.C. While dedication does not ensure anything for the infant, it is a public declaration by the parents that they are committing themselves to raising this child in a God-loving home, they will teach the child about Jesus and they are calling on the support from the rest of the church to help in this. No child can be dedicated in my church by parents who have not agreed to raising the child in a Godly home. Same for baptism - if you don't confess your faith personally, you can't be baptized. As discussed already, this helps ensure that non-believers do not make themselves accountable to God for an action that they did not understand the significance of.

I don't see this same safeguard with infant baptism though, unless the church will only baptize the infant if the parents have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Let me give an example. Friends of mine had a baby and they had her baptized at the catholic church that the grandparents go to. The parents go to church maybe twice a year tops (Christmas and Easter) and apart from that have absolutely nothing to do with it and don't hold any beliefs in God. So the baby is now baptized but does not go to church, and is not going to be taught anything about God (at least not positive) unless the parents radically change.

On the other hand, my wife and I just had a son and had him dedicated at our church. We told the congregation that we were committed to teaching him that Jesus loves him and died for him and to demonstrate God's love for him everyday. Our congregation also committed to helping us raise him in a way that will help him to come to know God. Then when he is old enough and chooses to follow Christ on his own (we pray), he can be baptized and tell the congregation that he has accepted Christ as his personal saviour and he wants to be baptized to demonstrate this to everyone and show that he identifies himself with the New Covenant.

Now, based on your statement, dynomite, about identifying members of the N.C by their baptism, wouldn't the second case be a more appropriate way of achieving this? I am not saying that someone who is baptized as an infant cannot have the same sense of being a part of the body of believers as someone who chooses to be baptized, just that a conscious decision on the part of the person being baptized is a better way of distinguishing the genuine believers from those just going through the motions.

"Also in regards to the assertion that baptism does nothing for the infant I would have to say that it does, in the same way circumcision did for the Isrealite, secure for the child a place in the covenant community and it secures for the child the promises of the faith community as they raise and nurture it until the day the child can make his or her own promise."

How would this apply in the example I gave above where the parents do not know God at all and just baptized the infant because the catholic grandparents wanted them to?

[nomad]

:hrm: I'm not sure if I quite get at what you're trying to say. Personally, I think that what's going on in your mind is the 'stuff' behind the elements/dunking that validates or invalidates the propriety of going through the motions, and is more important than the act itself. However, the act itself is important, as well, and should not be ignored.


so, why is the act important? you can say, 'i don't know', and i'd accept that, but if you think it is, you should have a reason for it. for example, if communion is 'just' about remembering jesus' death, well i can do that without the sacraments. and in fact there are some who do go to this extreme, who would even suggest you DON'T get baptized, and that since baptism was 'just' a public confession, just do the public confession and skip the baptism part altogether. i find this at least consistent: if it's the 'mind' part that is all you need, then they just do the 'mind' part and abandon the trappings of tradition. i don't see you saying that, just that is a position i have seen. and like i said, while i don't agree with it, at least it appears internally consistent.

but... when you were saved, was what was going on in your mind 'all there was'? i would say, and i think most would say, 'no'. but you could argue god doesn't do anything 'to' you at that point. but what about spiritual gifts? if you pray for someone to be healed, is it just the prayer that's important (as i have actually heard some claim!), or is it the act of healing that God does that is important? i think the person healed would appreciate what God is doing in this instance... and we pray so that God can/will move. what about the giving of the holy spirit? is praying in tongues just a 'mind' thing? no, clearly we do something, and God gives us grace. we also pray for faith, etc. in those cases, we can apply science to it: i prayed for X, and X did/didn't occur. these our mind can wrap around fairly easily, and we know exactly what 'grace' we are looking for when we fast, or pray, or whatever actions we take.

many of these same people, however, will complain that baptism isn't in the same class, because i can't explain to them what the grace exactly is. but this seems inconsistent. baptism could be all about the mental things that happen when you do it... but i see no reason to assume so, when there are plenty of other instances in which God does actually move, and however you describe it, it is something He gives us separate from salvation.


While I disagree that communion is really the body and blood of Jesus, I do believe that communion and baptism are special moments for the believer, and do impart something, just not grace unto salvation.


i don't know anyone who necessarily claims that. i know some views that could interpreted that way, but they shouldn't be, as they aren't what you are describing. anyways, i would ask, because i am curious and if you can answer it, it might help me: what exactly do they impart to the believer? i have pondered this question, and not finding a good answer led me to the historical mystical view.

we seem to be on the same page regarding a proper view of tradition, so i'll just say i agree :)

[One Bad Pig]

so, why is the act important? you can say, 'i don't know', and i'd accept that, but if you think it is, you should have a reason for it. for example, if communion is 'just' about remembering jesus' death, well i can do that without the sacraments. and in fact there are some who do go to this extreme, who would even suggest you DON'T get baptized, and that since baptism was 'just' a public confession, just do the public confession and skip the baptism part altogether. i find this at least consistent: if it's the 'mind' part that is all you need, then they just do the 'mind' part and abandon the trappings of tradition. i don't see you saying that, just that is a position i have seen. and like i said, while i don't agree with it, at least it appears internally consistent.

The act of baptism is important because the Bible says "Repent, and be baptized!". At the same time, the act itself means nothing without the mindset behind it. The act of communion is important because it "shows the Lord's death until He comes", though once again, if done without the right mindset, the act brings judgement. The acts deepen the experience for us, and for me at least, they are a spiritual act of worship.



in those cases, we can apply science to it: i prayed for X, and X did/didn't occur. these our mind can wrap around fairly easily, and we know exactly what 'grace' we are looking for when we fast, or pray, or whatever actions we take.

(Just replying to what I disagree with, here.) I don't think that science can be properly applied to prayer. The results of prayer cannot always be seen (what we may think is a 'no' could be a 'wait', for example). There's already a good thread on prayer, so I don't think we need to get into that here.



i don't know anyone who necessarily claims that. i know some views that could interpreted that way, but they shouldn't be, as they aren't what you are describing. anyways, i would ask, because i am curious and if you can answer it, it might help me: what exactly do they impart to the believer? i have pondered this question, and not finding a good answer led me to the historical mystical view.

I think that, for you, the word 'grace' covers more territory that I am accustomed to, and that caused some initial confusion. I understand, now, more where you're coming from.

Baptism (by immersion, anyway), IMHO, imparts a deeper identity with Christ, as we are "buried with him in death, raised to walk in newness of life". A simple public confession is nowhere near the same level of experience.

Communion, IMHO, enjoins us to recall once more the extent of God's sacrifice for us. Each time, I am utterly indebted to the One who allowed His body to be broken and His blood to be spilt for the unrighteous man I know myself to be. Although I do not believe that the bread and grape juice are transubstantiated, the act is still an incredibly moving one to me.

[dynomite]

I must be in the minority, too. :smile: The signs and seals of the covenant are very important. They are not salvific, but obedience to God is critical if one wants to progress beyond the "babe in Christ" stage.

Then what are their significance? In what way are they a means of grace that enables an individual to progress beyond infancy or this the same for any act of obedience? If it is merely obedience, than it is saying that God is not doing anything in baptism. As we see on Pentecost, Jesus is active in baptism. I think of it along the lines of "preaching". It goes way beyond a man just being obedient and saying a few things from the Scriptures. It most certainly isn't less than obedience, but much greater.

I agree with everything here, except that I don't see covenantal unity including those who have not personally accepted Christ as Saviour (including infants, obviously), and I don't see that infant baptism, in and of itself, helps the child any. What helps the child enormously is being raised in a church-going family.

Why do you think Paul asks the question, what then is the significance of circumcision, and answers, "much in every way"? I think it is because we have eradicated categories that were common to the Hebrew mind. Remember, this is right on the heals of "circumcision of the heart" is what matters to God.


As I look at Dt. 6, I still see the unequivocal caveat that the Israelites must obey in order to reap the benefits. I never claimed that dedication was scriptural. I see it as spiritually equivalent to infant baptism. Neither one is a bad thing, but OTOH neither one is effacious for salvation.

Yes, the N.C. saints have the caveat of not continuing in the faith--see Col. 1:23 for starter, being presented holy and blameless is contingent upon continuing in the faith. Perseverance isn't optional. I believe this is by grace alone, but it is still part and parcel of the N.C. teachings. To me, to say nothing happens in baptism is like saying nothing happens in preaching. Baptism and the Lord's Supper is the Gospel in symbol. The Gospel in water. The Gospel in bread and wine. It is the administration of grace. The preaching isn't effectual in and of itself either, but we would never minimize its nature to just obedience.

Paul doesn't appeal to the Romans altar call for their identification with Christ, but their baptism. He appeals to the Colossians baptism to say they have been circumcised and raised with Christ. "All who have been baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ...(Gal. 3)", "baptism now saves you...(1 Peter 3)", etc. Peter on the day of Pentecost says, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins".



I really tried to parse this, but got nowhere. Can you clarify?

Well, I wouldn't say it is meaningless if it brings about accountability to God. I don't believe the only thing that is important is getting into heaven.


Peter also says that it is not the act, but the inward attitude. Since you agree that salvation can occur without baptism (though I agree that those who are saved are typically baptized), it follows that baptism is not strictly necessary for salvation. In the ANE (or in any collectivist society, for that matter), one's community was everything. Christianity was a radical break from one's community, and was hence not undertaken lightly. Baptism was a public announcement of that break, and would not typically have been done without a true conversion. Those who were unwilling to undergo baptism were not likely true converts, because in Christ the community is of less importance than His will.

Well, I don't believe Peter is taking back with one hand what he just gave us with the other. I believe he is making a much stronger connection between the pledge of a good conscience and baptism, then we want him to make, especially if you consider the fact of Noah's "salvation" through the waters of the flood. Yes, baptism is far more than the removal of dirt from the body. In fact, it is tightly knit with a "pledge of a good conscience". Do you think Noah and the gang would've said the waters meant nothing and was merely an act of obedience?

Baptism is more than communal transfer, but, again, it isn't less. As Paul tells the Colossians that he transferred us from the domain of darkness into the light of his Kingdom. There is, however, the God part of the covenant and his involvement with baptism. This is what many ignore. I think the early Church saw greater significance in baptism than merely the transfer; although, the transfer should ordinarily be seen as occuring at this time. That's why we say, "Repent and be baptized" or "Be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."


I would never encourage anyone who was unsure of their salvation to undergo baptism or partake of the Lord's Supper. As you agree, falsely doing either one of these will bring condemnation in the Judgement. I would tell someone struggling with their salvation to submit themselves to God's will daily. If they can do that, it is evidence that they are saved. Telling them to keep inviting Jesus into their heart is stupid, and will never resolve anything. Everyone, AFAICT, goes through periods of doubt.

I'm sure you meet many that are baptized that wrestle at one season or another with their salvation, freedom from sin, etc. I think we should appeal to their baptism, saying something like Paul says to the Romans in chapter 6 of his letter. "Do you not know what happened in your baptism?" So, there is obviously pastoral discretion, but I would encourage a struggling saint to eat and drink the Gospel for assurance. I believe these to be a means of the Spirit of grace, so they aren't left to endless introspection to see if they are assured or doing the will of God. "Eat this bread; drink this wine. Be assured that Christ was broken for you. I know your sins are many, but his broken body has made you white as snow. You were buried and raised with him in baptism. Be assured."



Indeed. :smile: It is a decision. Decisions are internal; actions(works) are external.

Not to be petty, but a decision is an act of the will.


Baptism is an act, and as such can be done falsely. Marriage is an act, and is all too often temporary these days. Friends of mine who just got married considered themselves married in God's eyes once they had pledged to each other in the betrothal (though they did not consummate the marriage until after the ceremony). The rings are just an outward symbol, and aren't required in an of themselves for marriage to occur (neither are the vows, really).

O.k., here is where there may be a gulf. NO BAPTISM IS DONE FALSLEY! Let me explain. No covenant is done falsely. It may be done haphazardly, but it isn't false. The person entering still has obligations and consequences for breaking the covenant. The nature of the covenant defines the sanctions.

Well, marriage is an analogy for our culture, but it too is unfortunatey dying and autonomy governs the day with everybody defining marriage themselves. I think the idea of rejecting the signs and seals is more a testimony to our worldview rather than that of the Bibles and God's covenants. In every covenant he gives signs and seals. Why? Not just to give us another thing to be obedient to. True spirituality includes that which is tangible and physical, and not just "the heart".


Baptists do not follow any creeds, recognizing them as inventions of man and therefore fallible.

All a creed is is an "I believe", so everyone has one. The matter is if they are sound or not.

Absolutely. However, being the child of Christians is not synonymous with being a Christian.

It depends on your definition of a Christian. Unfortunately most just think of some invisible people that get to go to heaven. I would consider all who are baptized in the name of the Triune God to be God's covenant people, thus "christians". This isn't to say they are all saved, because some will apostisize.


Nomads brings up a couple good points with respect to worldview issues.

Dynomite

[Mujibur]

I would consider all who are baptized in the name of the Triune God to be God's covenant people, thus "christians". This isn't to say they are all saved, because some will apostisize.Dynomite

What about those who were baptized as infants but never held any belief in God? They were put in a covenant with the responsibilities that go with it that they never had a choice in. How does that match with free will?

[Pilgrim]

What about those who were baptized as infants but never held any belief in God? They were put in a covenant with the responsibilities that go with it that they never had a choice in. How does that match with free will?
It is exactly like infants who were circumcised into Isreal in the O.T. One never get's to choose community at such ages and that really has little bearing on free will.

[dynomite]

I agree, but if an infant is baptized and never develops a relationship with Jesus, what purpose has the baptism served? On the other hand, if baptism is done once the person is old enough to make the conscious choice and understands its meaning, then they are identifying themselves with the N.C. While dedication does not ensure anything for the infant, it is a public declaration by the parents that they are committing themselves to raising this child in a God-loving home, they will teach the child about Jesus and they are calling on the support from the rest of the church to help in this. No child can be dedicated in my church by parents who have not agreed to raising the child in a Godly home. Same for baptism - if you don't confess your faith personally, you can't be baptized. As discussed already, this helps ensure that non-believers do not make themselves accountable to God for an action that they did not understand the significance of.

Well, this is a discussion of Church discipline and not strictly baptism per se. I again appeal to Paul's statement that ask, "Then what benefit is circumcision? MUCH..." Well, we are already commanded by God to raise our children in fear and admonition of the Lord, so we don't need a dedication service to for this. This is a slight shift in thinking, so let me know if this makes sense: We don't try to raise our neighbors in fear and admonition of the Lord, but we do our children. I agree that we seek to evangelize our non-believing neighbors, but we don't have dedication services for this. For example, if a new neighbor moves in and they are buddhists, does your church have "dedication" which states that you will seek to love them and teach them about Christ, and the community comes together to agree? No. We already understand the nature of the Great Commission, so we don't need a special dedication. We may, however, need a reminder through the exposition of the Word, but that is different.

No, I would not baptize the children of non-believing parents. If, however, I adopted some children, then I would baptize them.

I don't see this same safeguard with infant baptism though, unless the church will only baptize the infant if the parents have a personal relationship with Jesus.

Abuse is not an argument against use. Promiscuous baptism should not be encourage. Part of what I am saying is that baptized parents should be seen as having a relationship with Jesus Christ, so their children should receive the sign. Now, the parents may be unfaithful to the covenant, but that raises other issues, and this is where pastoral discretion comes in.

Let me give an example. Friends of mine had a baby and they had her baptized at the catholic church that the grandparents go to. The parents go to church maybe twice a year tops (Christmas and Easter) and apart from that have absolutely nothing to do with it and don't hold any beliefs in God. So the baby is now baptized but does not go to church, and is not going to be taught anything about God (at least not positive) unless the parents radically change.

Well, I would explain this to them. Have they been baptized? If so, I would explain what was done in their baptism, and this doesn't give them a "free pass". Now they are seen as adulterers to the covenant, and just as an adulterating spouse is divorced, God will divorce them. Appeal to their baptism. Let them know what happened, and how they are being unfaithful to their covenant vows.


On the other hand, my wife and I just had a son and had him dedicated at our church. We told the congregation that we were committed to teaching him that Jesus loves him and died for him and to demonstrate God's love for him everyday. Our congregation also committed to helping us raise him in a way that will help him to come to know God. Then when he is old enough and chooses to follow Christ on his own (we pray), he can be baptized and tell the congregation that he has accepted Christ as his personal saviour and he wants to be baptized to demonstrate this to everyone and show that he identifies himself with the New Covenant.

Your child is a member of the covenant community, so don't say no to the blessings of the covenant. You should watch "The Prince of Egypt" and realize that God will not destroy your children like the Egyptians, because he is faithful to a thousand generations. If your son watches this and he gets scared b/c the firstborn are destroyed, then you can explain to him God's promises to his people and he is included.

Now, based on your statement, dynomite, about identifying members of the N.C by their baptism, wouldn't the second case be a more appropriate way of achieving this? I am not saying that someone who is baptized as an infant cannot have the same sense of being a part of the body of believers as someone who chooses to be baptized, just that a conscious decision on the part of the person being baptized is a better way of distinguishing the genuine believers from those just going through the motions.

No, both cases are appropriate, but the nature of dealing with the two are different. From the first of your childs day not a single day should go by where he doens't know God and God's people, the Church. He should at all times feel a part of it and not some second class citizen until he is older. The love of the community should be evident from the beginning of his days, so he always knows God's love for him.

"Also in regards to the assertion that baptism does nothing for the infant I would have to say that it does, in the same way circumcision did for the Isrealite, secure for the child a place in the covenant community and it secures for the child the promises of the faith community as they raise and nurture it until the day the child can make his or her own promise."

How would this apply in the example I gave above where the parents do not know God at all and just baptized the infant because the catholic grandparents wanted them to?

It shows them to be unfaithful to the covenant, but it doesn't negate responsibility. As stated above, I would appeal to this baptism and their covenantal obligations. I would also develop something along the lines Dt. 27 and Mt. 25. I would let them know the consequences of violating God's covenant. This obviously is done in humility and not just to blast someone, but there are two sides to the covenant--promise and responsibility.

Dynomite

[dynomite]

What about those who were baptized as infants but never held any belief in God? They were put in a covenant with the responsibilities that go with it that they never had a choice in. How does that match with free will?

Well, I would venture to say that they supressed the truth of God, and so they are still fully accountable. Actually, this answer is wholly inadequate, b/c that question is quite vast.

It's about as free-will as being an American, German, etc. Pilgrim, I believe it was, answered this appropriately. I have no problem with speaking about free-will, but this isn't my overarching hermeneutic. Rather, God's covenantal dealings with man and how that relates to me, my family, my church, my community, work, etc., is my overarching hermeneutic. The fact that God promises love to a thousand generations is great encouragement.

[One Bad Pig]

Then what are their significance? In what way are they a means of grace that enables an individual to progress beyond infancy or this the same for any act of obedience? If it is merely obedience, than it is saying that God is not doing anything in baptism. As we see on Pentecost, Jesus is active in baptism. I think of it along the lines of "preaching". It goes way beyond a man just being obedient and saying a few things from the Scriptures. It most certainly isn't less than obedience, but much greater.

We are commanded to be baptized, pretty much synonymously with repentance. To disobey that command is like ignoring the admonition to settle disputes with your brother before presenting gifts to God; nothing we do is truly effective until we obey. It is certainly more than just obedience; it helps us to identify more strongly with Christ as we publicly confess our allegiance to Him. It's more than just public confession, though, in that the symbolism makes the meaning that much deeper.



Why do you think Paul asks the question, what then is the significance of circumcision, and answers, "much in every way"? I think it is because we have eradicated categories that were common to the Hebrew mind. Remember, this is right on the heals of "circumcision of the heart" is what matters to God.

Circumcision was a physical reminder of God's covenant with Israel. It was also the parents' reminder to bring up their children in the ways of the Lord.



To me, to say nothing happens in baptism is like saying nothing happens in preaching.

IMHO, nothing happens unless the baptism is consentual. Infants have no say in the matter, so IMO it is just an empty ritual as far as the baby is concerned. Baptism of unrepentant people brings judgement, whereas baptism of the convert brings a closer identity with Christ.



Baptism and the Lord's Supper is the Gospel in symbol. The Gospel in water. The Gospel in bread and wine. It is the administration of grace. The preaching isn't effectual in and of itself either, but we would never minimize its nature to just obedience.

Agreed.



Paul doesn't appeal to the Romans altar call for their identification with Christ, but their baptism. He appeals to the Colossians baptism to say they have been circumcised and raised with Christ. "All who have been baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ...(Gal. 3)", "baptism now saves you...(1 Peter 3)", etc. Peter on the day of Pentecost says, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins".

Baptism is not required for salvation, but it is so important that it is virtually synonymous with it.



Well, I wouldn't say it is meaningless if it brings about accountability to God. I don't believe the only thing that is important is getting into heaven.

However, infant baptism doesn't hold the infant accountable to God, so it is meaningless for the infant. No, getting to heaven isn't even a proper goal, IMHO; it's just a really nice benefit. The important things really haven't changed from the OT; to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as much as yourself.



Well, I don't believe Peter is taking back with one hand what he just gave us with the other. I believe he is making a much stronger connection between the pledge of a good conscience and baptism, then we want him to make, especially if you consider the fact of Noah's "salvation" through the waters of the flood. Yes, baptism is far more than the removal of dirt from the body. In fact, it is tightly knit with a "pledge of a good conscience". Do you think Noah and the gang would've said the waters meant nothing and was merely an act of obedience?

No, of course not. Baptism is much more than just obedience. However, it is not required for salvation.



Baptism is more than communal transfer, but, again, it isn't less.

No need to be redundantly reduntant. :lol: :poke:



As Paul tells the Colossians that he transferred us from the domain of darkness into the light of his Kingdom. There is, however, the God part of the covenant and his involvement with baptism. This is what many ignore. I think the early Church saw greater significance in baptism than merely the transfer; although, the transfer should ordinarily be seen as occuring at this time. That's why we say, "Repent and be baptized" or "Be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

I never meant to imply that God plays no part in baptism. Baptism is more than the transfer, but it brings it to light.


I'm sure you meet many that are baptized that wrestle at one season or another with their salvation, freedom from sin, etc. I think we should appeal to their baptism, saying something like Paul says to the Romans in chapter 6 of his letter. "Do you not know what happened in your baptism?" So, there is obviously pastoral discretion, but I would encourage a struggling saint to eat and drink the Gospel for assurance. I believe these to be a means of the Spirit of grace, so they aren't left to endless introspection to see if they are assured or doing the will of God. "Eat this bread; drink this wine. Be assured that Christ was broken for you. I know your sins are many, but his broken body has made you white as snow. You were buried and raised with him in baptism. Be assured."

Yes, I've seen baptized Christians struggle, and for them, it can be quite comforting to remind them of their baptism; and with discretion, it can be good for them to partake of communion, as well. Thanks for helping me to see that.



Not to be petty, but a decision is an act of the will.

True, but a decision is internal, and as such I do not consider it work.



O.k., here is where there may be a gulf. NO BAPTISM IS DONE FALSLEY! Let me explain. No covenant is done falsely. It may be done haphazardly, but it isn't false. The person entering still has obligations and consequences for breaking the covenant. The nature of the covenant defines the sanctions.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Hitler made several false covenants, as the Czechs, Russians, etc., discovered. Someone who has not accepted Jesus, but who consents to baptism anyway, is held responsible for attempting to enter the covenant falsely at the Judgement. IMO, God simply does not ratify a covenant entered falsely.



Well, marriage is an analogy for our culture, but it too is unfortunatey dying and autonomy governs the day with everybody defining marriage themselves. I think the idea of rejecting the signs and seals is more a testimony to our worldview rather than that of the Bibles and God's covenants. In every covenant he gives signs and seals. Why? Not just to give us another thing to be obedient to. True spirituality includes that which is tangible and physical, and not just "the heart".

True.


All a creed is is an "I believe", so everyone has one. The matter is if they are sound or not.

Enh. I don't know that I've ever sat down and written out my stance on issues like that. A creed is static, and I find my position on some things to have changed over time (on eternal security and eschatology, in particular). It is important that whatever I believe is in accordance with God's Word (i.e., sound).



It depends on your definition of a Christian. Unfortunately most just think of some invisible people that get to go to heaven. I would consider all who are baptized in the name of the Triune God to be God's covenant people, thus "christians". This isn't to say they are all saved, because some will apostisize.


I consider a Christian to be someone who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (and who are thereby saved). A fallen Christian is still a Christian, IMHO. Though I firmly believe in the Trinity, I don't necessarily consider that belief to be required for salvation.



Nomads brings up a couple good points with respect to worldview issues.


Yes, he does!

[dynomite]

We are commanded to be baptized, pretty much synonymously with repentance. To disobey that command is like ignoring the admonition to settle disputes with your brother before presenting gifts to God; nothing we do is truly effective until we obey. It is certainly more than just obedience; it helps us to identify more strongly with Christ as we publicly confess our allegiance to Him. It's more than just public confession, though, in that the symbolism makes the meaning that much deeper.

I plan on making this my last post, but sometimes I just can't resist. The are much more involved than simply baptizing children. As Nomad pointed out, there are worldview issues involved and that is a lot of unwrapping. It's not just that it does something to our psyche, i.e. "deeper meaning", etc., but it is an act of God. Baptism isn't about our act, but it is about God's declaration. This is one point where we are totally missing each other. You kind of acknowledge it, but then take it back in the next breathe.




Circumcision was a physical reminder of God's covenant with Israel. It was also the parents' reminder to bring up their children in the ways of the Lord.

Yes and no. It was much more.


IMHO, nothing happens unless the baptism is consentual. Infants have no say in the matter, so IMO it is just an empty ritual as far as the baby is concerned. Baptism of unrepentant people brings judgement, whereas baptism of the convert brings a closer identity with Christ.

This is one of the worldview issues. The idea that it has to be consentual doesn't align with God's covenant. Adam's sin imputed to us isn't conditioned upon our consent. There is a far greater corporate unity than Americans acknolwedge, but I don't believe the Hebrews (and the covenant) would have.

Even though you want it to have meaning, your worldview PRACTICALLY denies it at every turn, i.e. you are taking back with your left what you gave with your right..

Baptism is not required for salvation, but it is so important that it is virtually synonymous with it.

More worldview issues, because I think this rents asunder what the Lord never does.

However, infant baptism doesn't hold the infant accountable to God, so it is meaningless for the infant. No, getting to heaven isn't even a proper goal, IMHO; it's just a really nice benefit. The important things really haven't changed from the OT; to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as much as yourself.

Within your worldview, why would circumcision hold the infant accountable? You said it was a covenant sign with God, but if that infant didn't consent, why would he have entered the covenant? No Jew would've ever thought it to be meaningless, even if they were unfaithful to the sign and seal.


No, of course not. Baptism is much more than just obedience. However, it is not required for salvation.

Again, rent asunder what God has joined together. How can Peter say, "Baptism which now saves"? He isn't taking back a mistaken statement when he clarifies the pledge of a good conscience; besides, that would destroy the analogy with Noah. THEY WERE SAVED THROUGH WATER. This goes back to the worldview issue, and the unfortunate influence of the enlightenment. Yes, there are some that dabbled with it before, but few. The lasting effects of the enlightenment is one dirge I long to sing.

I never meant to imply that God plays no part in baptism. Baptism is more than the transfer, but it brings it to light.

Every statement you have made seems to revolve around our consent. It is either our proclamation (i.e. baptism is practically meaningless) or it is God's proclamation ("ex opere"), or the covenant can brought to the fore and the promise and responsiblity can be seen. Only the covenant can bring this about. The minute the covenant is acknowledge, which you seem to at points, all of the staple objections revolving around "our choice" vanishes, because the covenant isn't about that. From the very beginning (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) God has dealt covenantally and the children are a part without any consideration of "consent". However, suddenly after several thousand years of history, Jesus and the Apostles changes it all and make it about "consent". It's not about the Gentiles being brought in to the covenant of promise, but the individual and his choice.

Yes, I've seen baptized Christians struggle, and for them, it can be quite comforting to remind them of their baptism; and with discretion, it can be good for them to partake of communion, as well. Thanks for helping me to see that.

Not only remind them of their baptism, but declare what happened in it. Really think through what Paul is saying about baptism in Romans 6. When you are tempted to wander away recall your baptism, then say, "If this is true of me, then I should do x, y, and z instead. God clothed me with Christ in baptism, etc." Many evangelicals are embarrassed by this, so they have invented 'spirit baptism' to be read into the text.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Hitler made several false covenants, as the Czechs, Russians, etc., discovered. Someone who has not accepted Jesus, but who consents to baptism anyway, is held responsible for attempting to enter the covenant falsely at the Judgement. IMO, God simply does not ratify a covenant entered falsely.

Don't have a solid grasp on WWII history, but how were the covenants false? I would gather that Hitler lied and failed to fulfill his obligations at the expense of the Czechs and Russians. Clearly God is not a Hitler, so his covenants are binding and he fulfills his promises.

Enh. I don't know that I've ever sat down and written out my stance on issues like that. A creed is static, and I find my position on some things to have changed over time (on eternal security and eschatology, in particular). It is important that whatever I believe is in accordance with God's Word (i.e., sound).

Have you maintained over a period of time "Jesus is Lord"--an early confession of the Church.


I consider a Christian to be someone who has accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (and who are thereby saved). A fallen Christian is still a Christian, IMHO. Though I firmly believe in the Trinity, I don't necessarily consider that belief to be required for salvation.

From the nature of the discussion you can never identify who a Christian is, b/c it is internal. One of the general points of my posts is that Christians are all those that are objectively identified through baptism with Christ and his body. It is like identifying an American or German. Yes, we can come back and say that not all of Israel is Israel and not all "Christians are Christian", but we don't live in the invisible. Just as the prophets were covenant enforcers and recalled God's work with Israel, so we recall God's work to the baptized. God has given us baptism, which is far more than my act of obedience or some pschological phenomenon, it is God's promise to his people, the Gospel in water. I realize this is foreign sound in many ears, because we are evangelicals, so we think it is about God's "direct" work of the Spirit on the heart without any mediation. The Spirit comes to us in water. The Spirit comes to us in wine and bread. So much so that Christ can say, "This is my body."

P.S. As a Presbyterian, I would recommend B.B. Warfield's "God's Plan of Salvation" on how not to think about these issues.

dynomite

[Mujibur]

Well, I would venture to say that they supressed the truth of God, and so they are still fully accountable. Actually, this answer is wholly inadequate, b/c that question is quite vast.

I was assuming in my question that the infant was baptized by non-believing parents like in my example of my friends' daughter, so the suppression of the truth of God would be the fault of her family, who should not have had her baptized in the process since it did not mean anything to them. It was just a thing to do to make the grandparents happy, which I don't think that the church should have agreed to do.

[nomad]

I was assuming in my question that the infant was baptized by non-believing parents like in my example of my friends' daughter, so the suppression of the truth of God would be the fault of her family, who should not have had her baptized in the process since it did not mean anything to them. It was just a thing to do to make the grandparents happy, which I don't think that the church should have agreed to do.

and this again goes back to the basic assumption of what baptism is.

let's say my kid doesn't want to eat her vegetables. she thinks she doesn't need them, and she certainly doesn't like them. however, she does so out of respect for me (most of the time ;) but even though she doesn't believe that she needs them, she still gets the nourishment and benefits of eating them. the reason she does it, doesn't affect whether it is actually good or not for her.

in a similar vein, if baptism is mostly mental, then yeah, they aren't getting any benefit. but if baptism is a real act of God upon you, like a healing or something, then it can have a benefit all the time, and people with this view would tell you that yes, the child will benefit anyways. perhaps even in this environment the child's conscience will be stronger, and they will more easily averted from things that would bring their natural destruction. or using the above example, can a non-christian be healed? i think so, and God's grace may extend to them. they may or may not become christians, but in either case they are still better off than they were - they are healed. perhaps that is helpful. there is one early christian writer (Cyprian i think) around whose time people, hearing of the relationship with circumcision, would baptize on the 8th day. cyprian urged them not to wait even that long because of the benefit of baptism. if you hold this view of baptism, then it is hard to see why anyone would NOT want to give that to their child. but if you don't see baptism this way, then it would be hard to understand why anyone would think it good.

otherwise thanks... i've been watching the discussion, it is interesting.

[Mujibur]

Thanks, Nomad. Yeah, that seems in line with the position of my wife's Anglican church. I am from a Mennonite church so we have a very different view on Baptism, which is obviously an important subject to anabaptists because they were willing to be tortured and martyred for it. Good to hear what the other view on the matter is.

My question then would be how is the benefit of being baptized as an infant different from the prayers that are said over the child when they are dedicated? When my son was dedicated, family and friends surrounded us, and they along with the pastor spoke prayers over my son asking God to protect him, bless him, draw him to God, and help us to raise him in a way that pleased God. I agree with your analogy of the healing for non-Christians. But what is the difference in the benefit to the non-believing child between being baptized and being prayed over by the church? Do the prayers have less of an effect?

[One Bad Pig]

I plan on making this my last post, but sometimes I just can't resist. The are much more involved than simply baptizing children. As Nomad pointed out, there are worldview issues involved and that is a lot of unwrapping. It's not just that it does something to our psyche, i.e. "deeper meaning", etc., but it is an act of God. Baptism isn't about our act, but it is about God's declaration. This is one point where we are totally missing each other. You kind of acknowledge it, but then take it back in the next breathe.

Okay. I won't ask any more questions. :smile: The reason you are confused, I think, is because I view baptism as a dual act of God and the baptizee.



This is one of the worldview issues. The idea that it has to be consentual doesn't align with God's covenant. Adam's sin imputed to us isn't conditioned upon our consent.

The Bible doesn't say "Thy parents shall believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved", but "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved". The New Covenant is a personal decision; as such, entrance into it through salvation must be done via a personal decision, and baptism must be consented to personally.



Even though you want it to have meaning, your worldview PRACTICALLY denies it at every turn, i.e. you are taking back with your left what you gave with your right..
:rant:Just because I currently go to a Baptist church (grew up independant, attended C&MA in college), and my worldview aligns in many ways with Baptist teaching, doesn't mean that my worldview is entirely Baptist in nature. In fact, as I browse and post here, the exposure and dialogue continually adjusts my worldview slightly (either toward or away from the positions espoused). I am ever seeking to align my worldview with that of the Bible. Will I ever get there completely? Probably not; I'll be increasing in Biblical understanding until the day I die, Lord willing. If I think something has a certain meaning, in my worldview, it does!

Now back to your regularly scheduled post...



Within your worldview, why would circumcision hold the infant accountable?

It wouldn't.



You said it was a covenant sign with God, but if that infant didn't consent, why would he have entered the covenant? No Jew would've ever thought it to be meaningless, even if they were unfaithful to the sign and seal.
Infant circumcision was a sign that the parents were in the O.C. It was expected that the children brought up in the covenant would stick with it; and in a collectivist society, that was a pretty good bet. The Mosaic penalty for rebellious children was death of the child. The penalty for leaving the covenant was death (or at least expulsion, but AFAICT "cut off" is a euphemism for "killed"). Not that these laws were well enforced....



Every statement you have made seems to revolve around our consent. It is either our proclamation (i.e. baptism is practically meaningless) or it is God's proclamation ("ex opere"), or the covenant can brought to the fore and the promise and responsiblity can be seen.
No. It's our proclamation and it is loaded with meaning.



Only the covenant can bring this about. The minute the covenant is acknowledge, which you seem to at points, all of the staple objections revolving around "our choice" vanishes, because the covenant isn't about that. From the very beginning (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, etc.) God has dealt covenantally and the children are a part without any consideration of "consent". However, suddenly after several thousand years of history, Jesus and the Apostles changes it all and make it about "consent". It's not about the Gentiles being brought in to the covenant of promise, but the individual and his choice.
The Old Covenant, however, was not salvific; it points to the New Covenant, which is.



Not only remind them of their baptism, but declare what happened in it. Really think through what Paul is saying about baptism in Romans 6.
Okay. :hrm: I really don't think that Romans 6:17-19 applies too well to an infant.



When you are tempted to wander away recall your baptism, then say, "If this is true of me, then I should do x, y, and z instead. God clothed me with Christ in baptism, etc." Many evangelicals are embarrassed by this, so they have invented 'spirit baptism' to be read into the text.
I'm not.



Don't have a solid grasp on WWII history, but how were the covenants false? I would gather that Hitler lied and failed to fulfill his obligations at the expense of the Czechs and Russians. Clearly God is not a Hitler, so his covenants are binding and he fulfills his promises.
The covenants were false because (at least) one side had no intention of abiding by them. In baptism, God knows what the other covenanter is thinking; if the covenanter has no intention of abiding by it, then God never enters into a covenant with them. If one of the covenanters doesn't know that a covenant is being established, he/she can have no intentions either way.



Have you maintained over a period of time "Jesus is Lord"--an early confession of the Church.
Probably only since I got out of the Navy (~6 years ago); prior to that I was more or less going through the motions, because it was expected. I may have said it, but I don't recall how sincere I was; I really fell away for the 6 years I was in the Navy. I didn't do anything really bad, but I was not part of a fellowship of believers.



From the nature of the discussion you can never identify who a Christian is, b/c it is internal. One of the general points of my posts is that Christians are all those that are objectively identified through baptism with Christ and his body. It is like identifying an American or German. Yes, we can come back and say that not all of Israel is Israel and not all "Christians are Christian", but we don't live in the invisible.
I would say, rather, that not all who call themselves Christian are Christians; it's not anything like identifying an American or German, because that identity can be conclusively known (perhaps barring deliberate obfuscation).



Just as the prophets were covenant enforcers and recalled God's work with Israel, so we recall God's work to the baptized.
As I see it, pastors recall God's work to those who attend church; those who don't attend church aren't listening, and not all who attend church have been baptized.



God has given us baptism, which is far more than my act of obedience or some pschological phenomenon, it is God's promise to his people, the Gospel in water
Baptism is symbolic of God's promise to his people, and is all of these things.



realize this is foreign sound in many ears, because we are evangelicals, so we think it is about God's "direct" work of the Spirit on the heart without any mediation. The Spirit comes to us in water. The Spirit comes to us in wine and bread. So much so that Christ can say, "This is my body."
I see baptism as symbolic of Christ's death and resurrection, as communion is symbolic of Christ's death and our redemption. The Spirit resides in us when we accept Jesus as Lord, and so is already there when we undergo baptism and take communion.



P.S. As a Presbyterian, I would recommend B.B. Warfield's "God's Plan of Salvation" on how not to think about these issues.

My mother and father grew up Presbyterian (not evangelical though). In my aunt's town, there are two Presbyterian churches; one evangelical, the other liberal. My aunt goes to the liberal one, but they look similar on the outside and are similarly situated near the town square. On Christmas Eve, I was to meet her family at church. Not being too familiar with it, I went to the wrong one. It was really a nice service; there was an aura of authenticity to it that my aunt's church seems to lack. I really appreciate you taking the time to reply to my posts. I look forward to interacting with you in the future.

In Christ,

OBP

[supervixen]

Hello-

Someone asked yesterday regarding Christ's baptism being by "immersion" and asked where in the Bible it states that-

I dont know the exact reference (Matt or Mark 1:10) it states after Christ is baptized that "He came up out of the water and He went straightaway into the open heavens...."

Anywho, I took that to mean that He was not sprinkled with water, but was baptized by immersion.

[One Bad Pig]

Hello-

Someone asked yesterday regarding Christ's baptism being by "immersion" and asked where in the Bible it states that-

I dont know the exact reference (Matt or Mark 1:10) it states after Christ is baptized that "He came up out of the water and He went straightaway into the open heavens...."

Uh, close, but not quite...Mattew 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John to be baptized by him in the Jordan River. 14 But John tried to prevent him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and yet you come to me?" 15 So Jesus replied to him, "Let it happen now, for it is right for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then John yielded to him. 16 After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight." (NET (http://www.bible.org))


Anywho, I took that to mean that He was not sprinkled with water, but was baptized by immersion.

That seems to be implied, yes.

OBP

[nomad]

Thanks, Nomad. Yeah, that seems in line with the position of my wife's Anglican church. I am from a Mennonite church so we have a very different view on Baptism, which is obviously an important subject to anabaptists because they were willing to be tortured and martyred for it. Good to hear what the other view on the matter is.


so is mennonite related to the anabaptists? i don't know too much about either of them. have to look into it :)


My question then would be how is the benefit of being baptized as an infant different from the prayers that are said over the child when they are dedicated? When my son was dedicated, family and friends surrounded us, and they along with the pastor spoke prayers over my son asking God to protect him, bless him, draw him to God, and help us to raise him in a way that pleased God. I agree with your analogy of the healing for non-Christians. But what is the difference in the benefit to the non-believing child between being baptized and being prayed over by the church? Do the prayers have less of an effect?

this is actually a more basic question than you know. it affects our beliefs on the relationships between the physical, the mental, and the spiritual. it is hard to hold a balanced view in these; it is very easy to slide towards a surfeit of affection for one part of this.

so more basically: can a physical act be also spiritual? and can something physical actually confer spiritual blessings? my short survey says 'yes'. i look to two examples: matthew 17:21 and acts 19:12.

matthew 17:21 is a disputed passage, so you may or may not accept it. but it is a verse where Jesus declares that certain demons only come out by 'prayer and fasting'. it is the fasting that interests me. clearly the disciples would have tried prayer, and they could not drive it out. what is it about the physical aspects of fasting that ascribe power to the one who practices it? (something i need some improvement on btw)

acts 19:12 says that cloths or aprons that came from paul, would be taken to others who were sick, and touching it will heal them. the catholics have longed believed in blessed and cursed objects, and the belief is pretty much universally ridiculed by most other churches. and yet, here we have an example of a blessed object right here in scripture! i don't know how it worked, but clearly God has chosen to work in a natural manner in some cases.

there's also a passage 1 peter 4:1-2, where peter claims that those who have suffered in the flesh (i think there's an implied 'for Christ' in there) are free from sin. why should such a physical act have a spiritual result? or why should he even imply one, if he did not believe it and would not understand the concept?

if you really want to, you can interpret these in a fully mental context. but i think it would be a mistake. and to do so impugns the incarnation imho. god cares about ALL of us, body, soul, and spirit, and the battle is waged in all three. jesus cared enough about the physical that he spent a great deal of time healing people, and came in the flesh and died in the flesh, a physical act with great spiritual significance.

so, back to your original question: what is the difference? the answer is: i don't know. i've never read anywhere (yet, i haven't read too much of it yet, just summaries and quotes, i highly recommend the 'dictionary of early christian beliefs' by david bercot, and it's not that expensive), even among the people who declare the benefits of baptism of infants, or even baptism in general, what benefit exactly it gives. but they seemed to agree there was one.

anecdotally, my daughter is now 6 and my son is 1. we were AG at the time and dedicated my daughter; we had my son baptized recently. i can see a difference. it's not proof though, because there are many other things that could be the reason: they are different kids. i probably have a different attitude towards discipline now (learning from the first one). and he has a big sister to look up to. but my daughter still has some problems with self-control, whereas my son actually listens really well for his age.. already sometimes i will tell him 'no' and he will stop what he's doing. he'll also throw a tantrum but he listens :) not all the time of course, he's only 1.

anyways enough. if you are worried your child might have missed out on something, well i'd pray about it. even if i am right, i don't know what they are missing out on. and i was baptized at age twelve - and the benefit doesn't change with age. they can always get baptized when they want to later and get the benefit then, if there is another one. i should point out that while it appears to have been widespread, it wasn't universal. there's at least one ECF that advises waiting. for them, it wasn't because it was mental, but because it held such import - it was not to be taken lightly. so this debate appears to have appeared even in early times, at least in the first 400 or so. teaching them to love God may just be enough. so i don't want to scare anyone :) otoh, there are spiritual things that aren't mental. faith may come by hearing, but faith is different from being convinced imho. and the times are getting rougher. i want to give my kids whatever i can. now if i could just talk my daughter into being baptized *grr* :)

[joelkaki]

I disagree. A fundamental difference between the old covenant and the new is how the covenant community is entered. In the old covenant, the covenant was entered (with very few exceptions, which could not fully enter the covenant anyway) through birth. In the new covenant, however, the covenant is entered through a conscious, private decision to accept what Christ has done on the cross and to follow Him. If infants (baptized or otherwise) are part of the covenant, what happens to those who never personally accept Christ? Do they somehow get "kicked out" at the ever-nebulous "age of accountability"?


What you fail to realize is that in the Reformed view, there is a definite distinction between being a covenant member and being elect. Romans 11:17-24, John 15, and all the passages exhorting the church to hold fast to the faith seem to indicate this.

Someone keeps bringing up the objection, "What does it do for the child?" My question is, "What does it do for the adult that it doesn't do for the child?" Baptism is not supposed to give us some existential experience. It is a sign and seal of God's promise, which is the gospel. In other words, we have the spoken word. But God has also given us visible signs of that gospel, of the spoken word. We have baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is a sign of regeneration, cleansing, of union with Christ, of the righteousness of Christ. But it does not say that the one being baptized necessarily has those things. It is a visible sign saying that God promises through his covenant the blessings signified when the conditions of the covenant are met, namely, faith. So what it does for the infant and the adult is this: We can point back to their baptism saying, "Christ has promised you all the blessings of redemption in Him, and it is your responsibility to continually respond in faith to those promises." There is a flipside, though. Baptism does signify God's covenant blessings, but it also signifies his covenant curses, which will be given to the one who rejects the conditions of the covenant. As the child grows, you point back to his baptism, not to say, "Look, you are saved because you were baptized," but to say, "Look, God promises you salvation in your baptism if you remain in His covenant."
Now, for a word about myself. What I just presented is the Reformed, Covenantal view of baptism. So much misunderstanding of the view exists that I wanted to clear it up a bit. I myself am not sure whether I affirm this view yet. I have many sympathies with it, but I am not totally convinced.

Hello-

Someone asked yesterday regarding Christ's baptism being by "immersion" and asked where in the Bible it states that-

I dont know the exact reference (Matt or Mark 1:10) it states after Christ is baptized that "He came up out of the water and He went straightaway into the open heavens...."

Anywho, I took that to mean that He was not sprinkled with water, but was baptized by immersion.

That language does not indicate that Jesus was immersed. The same language is used in Acts 8 with the Ethiopian eunuch, and yet there it uses it to refer to Philip and the eunuch. They both went down into the water, and both came up out of the water. That phrase would then prove too much, because then it would mean that Philip, the baptizer, was baptized as well. Jesus may certainly have walked down a little ways into the water, and then come up from that (walking) on to the shore, being sprinkled by John as they stood there. And actually, it seems more likely to me that Jesus was sprinkled. It says he had to fulfill all righteousness. It seems that could refer to the fact that He had to keep the law perfectly, and not only that, he had to keep the law concerning the priests. The priests were to be cleansed by sprinkling in the OT.

Joel

[nomad]

The act of baptism is important because the Bible says "Repent, and be baptized!". At the same time, the act itself means nothing without the mindset behind it. The act of communion is important because it "shows the Lord's death until He comes", though once again, if done without the right mindset, the act brings judgement. The acts deepen the experience for us, and for me at least, they are a spiritual act of worship.


maybe. maybe not. i don't know enough to say for sure right now. but i look back at the israelites. they were given lots of ceremonial washing rituals that i'm sure they didn't understand. however, in the middle ages they learned what they were for, and i have heard that application of these cleansings rituals, especially the ones that specify running, not standing water, were partially responsible for turning the tide of the black plague. god gave those rules to the israelites for a reason, though the reason was probably not clear at the time. we know enough now we think to understand why, and properly apply them not as universals but as specifics in our modern times. do we also understand baptism and communion? i am not convinced. then again, i currently hold some form of consubstantiation :)



(Just replying to what I disagree with, here.) I don't think that science can be properly applied to prayer. The results of prayer cannot always be seen (what we may think is a 'no' could be a 'wait', for example). There's already a good thread on prayer, so I don't think we need to get into that here.


that wasn't really my point (this is why i really replied here - the above is being hashed out all over this thread and my reply is really unnecessary :). if I pray for someone to be healed, i can know whether my prayer is successful, because they are either healed or not. and if it's not, then we go back to the bible and find out why etc. however, with baptism, even if we think it confers some gift, we don't know what so we can't point to the baptized and say 'look, this did happen to them because of baptism, and therefore you should be too'. now i know there is a lot of discussion about prayer - but at least with a prayer you have some sense of what 'success criteria' would be. with a baptism you don't even have that, i think.


I think that, for you, the word 'grace' covers more territory that I am accustomed to, and that caused some initial confusion. I understand, now, more where you're coming from.


when i use 'grace of God', i usually mean it as some good action from God towards man. some people confine its meaning to merely salvation or some other specific meaning, but if you just look at 'saved by grace' you can see that salvation is not equal to grace, but merely a part of it.


Baptism (by immersion, anyway), IMHO, imparts a deeper identity with Christ, as we are "buried with him in death, raised to walk in newness of life". A simple public confession is nowhere near the same level of experience.

Communion, IMHO, enjoins us to recall once more the extent of God's sacrifice for us. Each time, I am utterly indebted to the One who allowed His body to be broken and His blood to be spilt for the unrighteous man I know myself to be. Although I do not believe that the bread and grape juice are transubstantiated, the act is still an incredibly moving one to me.

thanks.

[Mujibur]

so is mennonite related to the anabaptists? i don't know too much about either of them. have to look into it :)

Yes. Here's a quick history according to anabaptists.org:
"More than four centuries ago in Zurich, Switzerland, a new fellowship of Christian believers was formed. The Roman Catholic Church had become unspeakably corrupt. Martin Luther had separated himself from it but had continued the practice of infant baptism. Ulrich Zwingli also had separated from Romanism, but continued to grant to the political rulers the right to decide the policies and practices of the church.
The new fellowship, led by Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz, was formed to give men and women the opportunity to follow the Lord Jesus Christ according to the whole Word of God, the Bible. The group, hunted and persecuted at first, was mockingly called "Anabaptist" because of their rejection of infant baptism and the practice of believers' baptism. Later they were called "Mennonite" because of the spiritual leadership of Menno Simmons, who left the Catholic priesthood to follow Christ.

Many Mennonites, because of the fierce intensity of persecution, migrated to Russia. When their religious freedom was threatened there, they joined others in North America who had come from Germany, Switzerland and Holland. In the United States and Canada, Mennonites now number well over 300,000. Many also reside in Africa, Asia, South America and Europe."
http://www.anabaptists.org/history/what.html

so more basically: can a physical act be also spiritual? and can something physical actually confer spiritual blessings?

I also would answer yes to the first question. Communion is an excellent example of this. It ceases to be merely eating bread and drinking wine/grape juice/whatever liquid and becomes a spiritual act of reverance to God and remembrance of the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross.
I also agree that a physical act can confer spiritual blessing. However, I also think that spiritual acts such as communion and baptism hold the person accountable before God for the partaking of them, as has been discussed in the rest of the thread. So is that not a reason for waiting until the person understands the importance of the act before they are involved in it? Communion is not for those who do not accept the sacrifice of Jesus. Should not the same be held for baptism?

IMO, baptizing an infant who does not belong to a Christian home would bring more blessings to the child than if they hadn't so I agree with you on that. It is like the parents are bringing the child to God's attention, so in honour of that, He will be involved in that child's life because they gave Him permission, in a sense. That is a benefit. How much less involvement God would have if the parents had not done anything, I don't know. God does not force His will on anybody but He also never abandons them. However, there is the issue of accountability before God for being baptized as I mentioned earlier that must be weighed in this.

anyways enough. if you are worried your child might have missed out on something, well i'd pray about it.

No, I am not worried about it at all. The Mennonite view of baptism is one of their faith statements that I hold most strongly to, so I do not worry that my son has missed out on anything. The reason that I am wondering about the other point of view though is for the family I mentioned earlier and for other non-Christian, Catholic-only-by-tradition friends. A non-Christian couple that my wife knows is dealing with this issue as the mother wants to baptize their child because it is tradition and it is the thing that you do, but the father does not think it would be right since they don't believe in God.

[Mujibur]

Someone keeps bringing up the objection, "What does it do for the child?" My question is, "What does it do for the adult that it doesn't do for the child?" Baptism is not supposed to give us some existential experience. It is a sign and seal of God's promise, which is the gospel. In other words, we have the spoken word. But God has also given us visible signs of that gospel, of the spoken word. We have baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is a sign of regeneration, cleansing, of union with Christ, of the righteousness of Christ. But it does not say that the one being baptized necessarily has those things. It is a visible sign saying that God promises through his covenant the blessings signified when the conditions of the covenant are met, namely, faith. So what it does for the infant and the adult is this: We can point back to their baptism saying, "Christ has promised you all the blessings of redemption in Him, and it is your responsibility to continually respond in faith to those promises." There is a flipside, though. Baptism does signify God's covenant blessings, but it also signifies his covenant curses, which will be given to the one who rejects the conditions of the covenant. As the child grows, you point back to his baptism, not to say, "Look, you are saved because you were baptized," but to say, "Look, God promises you salvation in your baptism if you remain in His covenant."
...What I just presented is the Reformed, Covenantal view of baptism.

That pretty much sums up the anabaptist/mennonite view of baptism as well.

[dynomite]

Okay. I won't ask any more questions. :smile: The reason you are confused, I think, is because I view baptism as a dual act of God and the baptizee.

O.k., I tried to stay away, but I'm reneging on that.

No, I understand your position, but I don't think your position can appropriately account for it being a dual act.


The Bible doesn't say "Thy parents shall believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved", but "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved". The New Covenant is a personal decision; as such, entrance into it through salvation must be done via a personal decision, and baptism must be consented to personally.

This is the underlying assumption that you cannot prove unless you assume discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, i.e. making them distinct and different. Developing the New Covenant out of the Old, because that is where the New finds it roots, demonstrate that the Old and New are different covenants. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but the differences deal with fulfillment rather than abrogation.

Paul states, "Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit...This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

Note first that Paul says the Gentiles were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel AND strangers of the COVENANTS OF PROMISE. BUT..." Now, are you telling me that as a Gentile I am or I am not brought near in Christ? If I am brought near, then what elements of the Covenants of promise does not pertain to me? If I am not brought near, then we will have another discussion. Also consider that in Romans 11 Paul argues that Gentiles were one time separate from Israel, but we have been engrafted in. Now, if we have been engrafted into Israel, what was theirs that is not ours, the Gentiles?

Are the promises to Abraham mine? What about the promises in the Mosaic Covenant? What promises in the Old Covenant are not mine?

The error you make with the constant reference to "Repent and believe", etc., is that no one is disagreeing with this message in an evangelistic setting, which the whole New Testament is due the nature of the change in the Covenant. Now, if ALL Scripture is God breathed and is adequate for teaching and training in righteousness, etc., and the Apostles are teaching the Churches that all the Old Testament promises are the Gentiles, then it isn't necessary to explicitly state the inclusion of infants in the covenant, because the history of Israel shows that they are. I believe "repent and believe" was the basic message to outsiders in the Old Covenant, albeit centered on YHWH, the Lord their God that brought Israel out of Egypt, but the issue pertains to the nature of the covenant, the promises involved, and if there is any change that occurs to a person and their household once they are IN the covenant. You keep speaking to those that are on the outside, but I am saying my CHILDREN are already in. Simply restating "Repent and believe" texts, which are evangelistic, isn't proving much. If you had an example of a family telling their children this and showing that they are outside, then you may have a case.


:rant:Just because I currently go to a Baptist church (grew up independant, attended C&MA in college), and my worldview aligns in many ways with Baptist teaching, doesn't mean that my worldview is entirely Baptist in nature. In fact, as I browse and post here, the exposure and dialogue continually adjusts my worldview slightly (either toward or away from the positions espoused). I am ever seeking to align my worldview with that of the Bible. Will I ever get there completely? Probably not; I'll be increasing in Biblical understanding until the day I die, Lord willing. If I think something has a certain meaning, in my worldview, it does!

The baptist name is centered on your view of baptism, which is thoroughly baptistic and Zwinglian in nature.


It wouldn't.

Are circumcised children in the covenant? Does the covenant include accountability? Are circumcised children accountable?

Infant circumcision was a sign that the parents were in the O.C. It was expected that the children brought up in the covenant would stick with it; and in a collectivist society, that was a pretty good bet. The Mosaic penalty for rebellious children was death of the child. The penalty for leaving the covenant was death (or at least expulsion, but AFAICT "cut off" is a euphemism for "killed"). Not that these laws were well enforced....

No, it meant the children were too. On your understanding, when does a Jew that was circumcised at birth enter the covenant? Is there a point where they can get their foreskin back if they want out? If the children weren't a part of the covenant why are the explicitly included in the Law of the Covanant, the Ten Commandments? Were the children accountable to this law? On what grounds?

I don't know what AFAICT means.



No. It's our proclamation and it is loaded with meaning.

Well, what meaning is it loaded with from God's view? What is God doing in baptism?

The Old Covenant, however, was not salvific; it points to the New Covenant, which is.

Here is one of your errors related to the others. It is the same covenant. The promise found in Genesis 3:15 is unfolding throughout the Old Testament and finds its fulfillment in the New. If you plant a tree in the back there is a steady relation between the seed and the full-grown tree. The promises found in the Old Testament find their "Amen" in Christ. It isn't two different plans of redemption, but one steady plan from beginning to end. The Scriptures are not broken.

If the O.C. wasn't salvific, what was it? Would the Israelites deny they were saved from Egypt? Was their deliverance not real?


Okay. :hrm: I really don't think that Romans 6:17-19 applies too well to an infant.

First, why not? What explicitly in the text tells you this doesn't apply to children? I didn't ask why you don't want what Paul says to happen to them, but I'm asking why the text says it doesn't apply to them. I'm not making my case for infant baptism in this text, but point contextually was to show that there is union with Christ that occurs in baptism. Paul's language is explicit, and to many embarassing, because of how boldly he speaks about baptism. Memorize this chapter and quote in slightly different words, so the members of your church won't recognize it right away. The next time you are discussing baptism say, "Well, I believe when I was baptized I died to sin, etc." and see what their response is.



I'm not.

Try aforementioned experiment, then ask what you really believe about baptism.

The covenants were false because (at least) one side had no intention of abiding by them. In baptism, God knows what the other covenanter is thinking; if the covenanter has no intention of abiding by it, then God never enters into a covenant with them. If one of the covenanters doesn't know that a covenant is being established, he/she can have no intentions either way.

This is where I disagree, and why entering the covenant brings about greater accountability before God. They aren't left off the hook, b/c they lied. They drink greater judgment upon themselves.

You say, "If one of the covenanters doesn't know that a covenant is being established, he/she can have no intentions either way." Do you believe in original sin? The language of Paul in Romans 5 is clearly covenantal, and he speaks about us dying in Adam. How do yo view this? Did Adam's transgression bring death to all of humanity? Is this covenantal in nature?

Also, you understanding of covenant is wholly inadequate biblically. First, we see Adam's relation to all of humanity. Second, we see Noah and his children involved in covenant (the children were included due to Noah), even though Ham, I believe it was, showed himself corrupt. Scripturally demonstrate that the nature of the covenant is as you say. My argument is from every covenant established leading into the New Covenant. I think you are watching the last couple of minutes of the final Lord of the Rings and don't think the preceding story line has any relevance.


I would say, rather, that not all who call themselves Christian are Christians; it's not anything like identifying an American or German, because that identity can be conclusively known (perhaps barring deliberate obfuscation).

I'm arguing for an aspect of objectivity in our discussion. I confess that we can't see peoples hearts, but we objectively participate in the Church and we count people as our brothers and sisters. On the final day we may find ou that many of them were unbelievers, but we still objectively speak of them as believers. For example, you may say that your cousin is a believer and lives in Anytown, U.S.A. One day you come across a person from that town and you get into a wonderful discussion about Jesus, etc. You tell that person to give your cousin a call, b/c they are a Christian. Well, on the final day we learn that your cousin is a goat, but all along you spoke as if they were a Christian. There is an objective element to that identification, i.e. creedal confession (Jesus is Lord) and baptism. If you don't want to accept this example it would lead to utter nonsense in everyday discussion and interaction with people, i.e. I wonder if they are really saved.

As I see it, pastors recall God's work to those who attend church; those who don't attend church aren't listening, and not all who attend church have been baptized.

Well, simply I see it as two-fold. You don't think a pastor should evangelize outside of the church? But directly to this discussion is the relation of the children attending church and what pastors should do. I believe a faithful pastor will declare from the pulpit that the children of believers are holy and should therefore receive all the benefits of the covenant.

Baptism is symbolic of God's promise to his people, and is all of these things.

What are the promises? Where are the promises? How do we know the promise?

I see baptism as symbolic of Christ's death and resurrection, as communion is symbolic of Christ's death and our redemption. The Spirit resides in us when we accept Jesus as Lord, and so is already there when we undergo baptism and take communion.

If that's how you see baptism, I ask, what is God's part in baptism? There is a difference between the Spirit indwelling us and when the Word of God is preached or we participate in speciall graces of God. Do you agree or disagree? Just as a husband and wife are married at all times the relationship is greatly heightened in sexual union.

Grace and Peace,

dynomite

[One Bad Pig]

What you fail to realize is that in the Reformed view, there is a definite distinction between being a covenant member and being elect. Romans 11:17-24, John 15, and all the passages exhorting the church to hold fast to the faith seem to indicate this.
Okay. I just don't see how baptism makes someone a part of the covenant. If you want to say that the New Covenant is open to the descendants of those it was made to (like the Old Covenant(s)), I would reply that Jesus' death on the cross established the covenant with everybody; He died for the sins of all humanity. I just now came to this understanding, so please bear with me as I explore it.



Someone keeps bringing up the objection, "What does it do for the child?" My question is, "What does it do for the adult that it doesn't do for the child?" Baptism is not supposed to give us some existential experience. It is a sign and seal of God's promise, which is the gospel. In other words, we have the spoken word. But God has also given us visible signs of that gospel, of the spoken word. We have baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is a sign of regeneration, cleansing, of union with Christ, of the righteousness of Christ. But it does not say that the one being baptized necessarily has those things.
I dunno. For the convert, it's a bold first step in Christ. I certainly experienced something when I was baptized. I concede that one can be baptized without salvation, but I disagree with it.



It is a visible sign saying that God promises through his covenant the blessings signified when the conditions of the covenant are met, namely, faith. So what it does for the infant and the adult is this: We can point back to their baptism saying, "Christ has promised you all the blessings of redemption in Him, and it is your responsibility to continually respond in faith to those promises." There is a flipside, though. Baptism does signify God's covenant blessings, but it also signifies his covenant curses, which will be given to the one who rejects the conditions of the covenant. As the child grows, you point back to his baptism, not to say, "Look, you are saved because you were baptized," but to say, "Look, God promises you salvation in your baptism if you remain in His covenant."
Now, for a word about myself. What I just presented is the Reformed, Covenantal view of baptism. So much misunderstanding of the view exists that I wanted to clear it up a bit. I myself am not sure whether I affirm this view yet. I have many sympathies with it, but I am not totally convinced.

Okay. Thanks for being honest. :smile: I think part of my objection to this is that I now hold to "once saved, always saved". Also, "God promises you salvation in your baptism if you remain in His covenant" is inconsistent with the position, as I see it. If you are baptized (according to this view), you are part of the covenant whether you like it or not; complying with the covenant then you part of the elect.



That language does not indicate that Jesus was immersed.
However, the word literally means "immersion" or "dipping".



The priests were to be cleansed by sprinkling in the OT.
However, they were sprinkled with oil and/or blood. Being dipped in either would be...odd.

[One Bad Pig]

O.k., I tried to stay away, but I'm reneging on that.
Now I've done it. :smile: Seriously, your replies are welcome.



No, I understand your position, but I don't think your position can appropriately account for it being a dual act.
How so? From my position, it looks like you're arguing either/or, and I'm trying to argue from a position somewhere in-between.


The Bible doesn't say "Thy parents shall believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved", but "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved". The New Covenant is a personal decision; as such, entrance into it through salvation must be done via a personal decision, and baptism must be consented to personally.
This is the underlying assumption that you cannot prove unless you assume discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, i.e. making them distinct and different. Developing the New Covenant out of the Old, because that is where the New finds it roots, demonstrate that the Old and New are different covenants. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but the differences deal with fulfillment rather than abrogation.
Okay, I'll modify my statement slightly, based on a new understanding I've just reached. The New Covenant was established once for all, not just those who are baptized. Becoming one of the elect through salvation must be done via a personal decision; baptism is commanded of the elect, and is also a personal decision. :hrm: This new viewpoint is almost a paradigm shift; :smile: it seems to render much of the rest of your post moot.



The baptist name is centered on your view of baptism, which is thoroughly baptistic and Zwinglian in nature.
I'm a baptist by fellowship (I almost typed papist by accident :egad:), but it is not my understanding that Baptists view baptism as merely a public confession.



Are circumcised children in the covenant? Does the covenant include accountability? Are circumcised children accountable?
:yes:



No, it meant the children were too. On your understanding, when does a Jew that was circumcised at birth enter the covenant?
Technically, at birth (eight days before circumcision). Circumcision was just symbolic of the covenant. Daughters were part of the covenant, too!



I don't know what AFAICT means.
As far as I can tell.



Well, what meaning is it loaded with from God's view? What is God doing in baptism?
I don't rightly know. I personally felt washed clean inside and out (like at salvation) and drawn closer to God.



If the O.C. wasn't salvific, what was it? Would the Israelites deny they were saved from Egypt? Was their deliverance not real?
Yes, but the law (O.C.) could not save from sin (Rom. 7).



First, why not? What explicitly in the text tells you this doesn't apply to children? I didn't ask why you don't want what Paul says to happen to them, but I'm asking why the text says it doesn't apply to them.
Romans 6:17 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves to sin, you obeyed from the heart that pattern of teaching you were entrusted to, 18 and having been freed from sin, you became enslaved to righteousness. 19 (I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh.) For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.NET (http://www.bible.org/)

How can an infant obey from the heart? How can they present their members as slaves to righteousness?



The next time you are discussing baptism say, "Well, I believe when I was baptized I died to sin, etc." and see what their response is.
What's the tense of the underlying Gk.? If it is in the perfect tense, "I was dead/am dying/will be dead to sin", Then I am quite comfortable with that. If it is not, then I have some pondering to do.



They aren't left off the hook, b/c they lied. They drink greater judgment upon themselves.
Indeed they do. Falsely being baptized or taking communion is nothing to be taken lightly.



Also, you understanding of covenant is wholly inadequate biblically. Is it any better now?



I'm arguing for an aspect of objectivity in our discussion. I confess that we can't see peoples hearts, but we objectively participate in the Church and we count people as our brothers and sisters. On the final day we may find ou that many of them were unbelievers, but we still objectively speak of them as believers. There is an objective element to that identification, i.e. creedal confession (Jesus is Lord) and baptism.
Okay. I just think that the former is more important than the latter in determining how to speak of someone. I wouldn't identify anyone who was baptized as an infant but never confessed Jesus as Lord as a Christian.



You don't think a pastor should evangelize outside of the church? I believe a faithful pastor will declare from the pulpit that the children of believers are holy and should therefore receive all the benefits of the covenant.
Of course a pastor may evangelize outside of the church. I'll have to disagree with the second sentence quoted here, though. Children should not be baptized or take communion until they confess Jesus as Lord. Even then, they should not take communion until they understand the consequences of doing it with an improper attidude.



What are the promises? Where are the promises? How do we know the promise?
"promise"="covenant"



If that's how you see baptism, I ask, what is God's part in baptism? There is a difference between the Spirit indwelling us and when the Word of God is preached or we participate in speciall graces of God. Do you agree or disagree? Just as a husband and wife are married at all times the relationship is greatly heightened in sexual union.
Good analogy! Just as salvation is akin to the marriage ceremony, baptism is akin to the consummation.

OBP

[dynomite]

Okay, I'll modify my statement slightly, based on a new understanding I've just reached. The New Covenant was established once for all, not just those who are baptized. Becoming one of the elect through salvation must be done via a personal decision; baptism is commanded of the elect, and is also a personal decision. :hrm: This new viewpoint is almost a paradigm shift; :smile: it seems to render much of the rest of your post moot.

I won't let you get away with this by fiat. Answer some of my questions, especially I want you to deal exegetically from Ephesians 2 and Romans 11. Until this is done you have done nothing except a sleight of hand trick and act like the issue has disappeared. Your response reminds me of the militaries "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", i.e. if I ignore the issue it will go away. I would appreciate an interaction with the verses I explicitly mentioned, how they relate to your position and how they make mine moot. Declaring a paradigm shift does nothing for me except demonstrate the old one was dead. This is what I asked:

"This is the underlying assumption that you cannot prove unless you assume discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, i.e. making them distinct and different. Developing the New Covenant out of the Old, because that is where the New finds it roots, demonstrate that the Old and New are different covenants. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but the differences deal with fulfillment rather than abrogation.

Paul states, "Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit...This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

Note first that Paul says the Gentiles were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel AND strangers of the COVENANTS OF PROMISE. BUT..." Now, are you telling me that as a Gentile I am or I am not brought near in Christ? If I am brought near, then what elements of the Covenants of promise does not pertain to me? If I am not brought near, then we will have another discussion. Also consider that in Romans 11 Paul argues that Gentiles were one time separate from Israel, but we have been engrafted in. Now, if we have been engrafted into Israel, what was theirs that is not ours, the Gentiles?

Are the promises to Abraham mine? What about the promises in the Mosaic Covenant? What promises in the Old Covenant are not mine?"

Again, I want exegetical work done on this section of Scripture. For the discussion to gain any ground it isn't enough to simply declare by fiat a new paradigm, a waving of "the rest is moot", throwing out a couple new questions. I want you to demonstrate your position exegetically. I especially want a defense of the covenant being established with ALL, and how baptism ISN'T a sign of the covenant. Because if the covenant is established with all, then all receive the sign. I won't allow you to arbitrarily declare a distinction between an established covenant and election, b/c the Scriptures know nothing of this. Also, I won't allow you to come in the final scene of the play and separate it from the rest.

Dynomite










.

[Timothy]

:popcorn:

[joelkaki]

Okay. I just don't see how baptism makes someone a part of the covenant. If you want to say that the New Covenant is open to the descendants of those it was made to (like the Old Covenant(s)), I would reply that Jesus' death on the cross established the covenant with everybody; He died for the sins of all humanity. I just now came to this understanding, so please bear with me as I explore it.

I don't believe that Jesus died for the sins of every single human being. I believe he died for the elect. Those in the covenant are the outward, visible body that we see, and we would think that they are elect, until they prove themselves to be otherwise.
Baptism does not make someone part of the covenant. They receive it because they are part of the covenant. Baptism is the sign of the covenant. Romans 11:17-24 makes clear that even we Gentiles in the present age can be cut off from the covenant for unbelief. Therefore, it is plain to see that one can be a covenant member and yet not be elect.



I dunno. For the convert, it's a bold first step in Christ. I certainly experienced something when I was baptized. I concede that one can be baptized without salvation, but I disagree with it.

But that is just it, I don't think baptism is about the existential experience.
Let me put it this way. One problem that many people have with infant baptism is that it is done before the child had faith, and therefore cannot be baptism. But then an adult who makes a profession of faith, and then gets baptized, and then later becomes apostate would not really have been baptized either. Baptism would then become completelly subjective, and then we would never know who was REALLY baptized, because if someone was merely professing, then they weren't really baptized. This shows the problem that Baptists try to equate Baptism/covenant membership with salvation. Baptism cannot be such a subjective thing. It is objective. It says something about God, not about the one being baptized. It says that God is righteous, and faithful to fulfill His promises, and that all the blessings of the covenant from God will flow to the one who keeps the conditions of the covenant--faith.



Okay. Thanks for being honest. :smile: I think part of my objection to this is that I now hold to "once saved, always saved". Also, "God promises you salvation in your baptism if you remain in His covenant" is inconsistent with the position, as I see it. If you are baptized (according to this view), you are part of the covenant whether you like it or not; complying with the covenant then you part of the elect.

I hold to the Perserverance of the Saints as well. I don't believe that one who is truly saved can lose his salvation. That is not inconsistent with the Reformed view, because the covenant is not the same as being elect. One can be grafted into the olive tree because you have professed faith in Christ, and therefore you are in the covenant, and yet later be cut off from the covenant because their was not heart belief. Covenant membership is not the same as election.
Baptism, in the Reformed view, says something about God. It says that God's righteousness can be had by faith. OBJECTIVE. Not that the one who is baptized has that. It is a simple illustration of the gospel truths of salvation, much the same as is the Lord's Supper.


However, the word literally means "immersion" or "dipping".

I disagree. If it is used in Scripture to refer to that which is not immersion or dipping, then it is obvious that it does not only mean that. It can refer to that, but it has a much broader meaning.


However, they were sprinkled with oil and/or blood. Being dipped in either would be...odd.

I agree. And that clearly demonstrates that baptizw does not exclusively refer to immersion. Especially when in Hebrews 9:10 baptismois is used to refer to sprinkling.


Joel

[Jude3b]

Dear Dave (defender of the faith):

Where are the Bible verses to back up your long Roman Catholic history lesson? There are none, because Infant Baptism is not taught in the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Infant Baptism is a man-made tradition. What make this practice especially disturbing is that the Bible does not record a single occurrence of an infant being baptized. On the contrary, every mention of baptism involves people old enough to hear and receive the gospel.

Paul's warning fits well on the Roman doctrine of Infant Baptism: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8).

Sincerely, Jude 3b

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, I'll modify my statement slightly, based on a new understanding I've just reached. The New Covenant was established once for all, not just those who are baptized. Becoming one of the elect through salvation must be done via a personal decision; baptism is commanded of the elect, and is also a personal decision. This new viewpoint is almost a paradigm shift; it seems to render much of the rest of your post moot.
I won't let you get away with this by fiat. Answer some of my questions, especially I want you to deal exegetically from Ephesians 2 and Romans 11. Until this is done you have done nothing except a sleight of hand trick and act like the issue has disappeared. Your response reminds me of the militaries "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", i.e. if I ignore the issue it will go away. I would appreciate an interaction with the verses I explicitly mentioned, how they relate to your position and how they make mine moot. Declaring a paradigm shift does nothing for me except demonstrate the old one was dead.


Fair enough. I realized that the position I was taking assumed a discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. Much of your post questioned that discontinuity. Since I now agree that the discontinuity isn't there, I saw no need to interact with those questions intended to show me that.



"[The New Covenant being a personal decision] is the underlying assumption that you cannot prove unless you assume discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants, i.e. making them distinct and different. Developing the New Covenant out of the Old, because that is where the New finds it roots, demonstrate that the Old and New are different covenants. I'm not saying there aren't differences, but the differences deal with fulfillment rather than abrogation.
Okay. Do you sacrifice animals? Do you follow the Mosaic dietary laws? Why or why not?

Main Entry: ab·ro·gate
Pronunciation: 'a-br&-"gAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing
Etymology: Latin abrogatus, past participle of abrogare, from ab- + rogare to ask, propose a law -- more at RIGHT
1 : to abolish by authoritative action : ANNUL
2 : to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities>
synonym see NULLIFY



[Eph. 2:11-22,3:6]
Note first that Paul says the Gentiles were alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel AND strangers of the COVENANTS OF PROMISE. BUT..." Now, are you telling me that as a Gentile I am or I am not brought near in Christ? If I am brought near, then what elements of the Covenants of promise does not pertain to me? If I am not brought near, then we will have another discussion.
You are brought near -- by Christ's death on the cross (veiled reference in v. 14, explicit in v. 16); this is the crux of my new understanding. The old covenants promised Christ. If you accept Christ, you reap all the benefits that this entails -- eternal life in the new heaven, constant companionship in this life. If you don't accept Christ, you go through life empty inside, and suffer eternal death. A baby can't make that decision. Anyone can accept Christ as Lord, regardless if they were baptized as an infant or not. I don't think that infant baptism is wrong; I just don't consider it to be effectual.



Also consider that in Romans 11 Paul argues that Gentiles were one time separate from Israel, but we have been engrafted in. Now, if we have been engrafted into Israel, what was theirs that is not ours, the Gentiles?
Nothing!



Are the promises to Abraham mine? What about the promises in the Mosaic Covenant? What promises in the Old Covenant are not mine?"
Yes! Yes! None!



Again, I want exegetical work done on this section of Scripture. For the discussion to gain any ground it isn't enough to simply declare by fiat a new paradigm, a waving of "the rest is moot", throwing out a couple new questions. I want you to demonstrate your position exegetically. I especially want a defense of the covenant being established with ALL, and how baptism ISN'T a sign of the covenant.
:hrm: This'll take a while.

Matthew 13:18-23 -- The good news is given to all who hear it

Matthew 16:24If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.

Not "anyone who is baptized"; not "take up his cross and be baptized", but anyone.

Mark 10:14-15: no hint of baptism there.

Luke 8:21 -- Christ's family is those who "hear [His] Word and do it".

John 3:17 expresses a desire that everyone would be saved; v. 19, the Light has come for all the world, not just those who accept it.

John 11:25-26 -- Jesus is interested in belief, not baptism.

Acts 10:28 -- no man should be called unholy or unclean; all men can be saved.

Romans 1, beginning in v. 4 -- "Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ." God desires that all would come to repentance.

Romans 2:13 -- a distinction is made between those who hear the law and those who do it.

1 Cor. 9:22 -- Paul strives to win all people to Christ, not just those who are baptized.


Because if the covenant is established with all, then all receive the sign.
What was the sign of the Adamic covenant? of the Mosaic? of the Davidic? What sign did the Jewish females receive?

We were given the Holy Spirit as a pledge (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5)


I won't allow you to arbitrarily declare a distinction between an established covenant and election, b/c the Scriptures know nothing of this.
Are all those who are baptized saved? You indicated here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=404045&postcount=17) that you don't believe so. If baptism is a covenantal sign, and does not guarantee election, then there is a distinction!

What did Jesus have to say about baptism? "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). We see from this that disciples should be baptized. What is a disciple? "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple". Kinda tough for infants to do.


Also, I won't allow you to come in the final scene of the play and separate it from the rest.
I don't see that I'm doing that any longer.

Sorry if this seems a little disjointed. I don't know the Bible half as well as I should like, and consequently had to spend an inordinate amount of time reading.

OBP

[dynomite]

Dear Dave (defender of the faith):

Where are the Bible verses to back up your long Roman Catholic history lesson? There are none, because Infant Baptism is not taught in the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Infant Baptism is a man-made tradition. What make this practice especially disturbing is that the Bible does not record a single occurrence of an infant being baptized. On the contrary, every mention of baptism involves people old enough to hear and receive the gospel.

Paul's warning fits well on the Roman doctrine of Infant Baptism: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8).

Sincerely, Jude 3b

Jude3b,
Obviously your posts were simply meant to take swipes at the Roman Catholic Church. I am a protestant, so I have many issues with the Roman Church, but I stand strongly with the Reformers that sought to "REFORM" the CHURCH and not RESTORE the Church.

Show me where the Scriptures reject infant baptism? To simply say, "See these instances of baptism occur when people are old enough" is simply begging the question. You have to understand that there was a change in the covenant, which nullified circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. With this accomplished obviously individuals were being brought in, which will be manifestly done through credo-baptism. The question arises is if there is a fundamental change between beleivers and their children under the Old Covenant and under the New Covenant? I think the answer is "no". Now, if you are a "proof-text" baptist, then you won't be satisfied with the answer. However, you shouldn't be satisfied with your own. Both sides are DEDUCING their reasons from Scriptures and are not appealing to an explicit statement. The issue is a question of hermeneutics, which you demonstrate to be pretty poor, because Colossians 2:8 has nothing to infant baptism. As Hank Hanagraaf would say, "A text without a context is a pretext." This is all you have.

Dynomite

P.S. One Bad Pig, I have to head off to work, so I will respond later.

[Jude3b]

Dear Dynomite: You sound like you know and belive your Bible. You can probably answer your own question very easily. When you read your Bible, what do you find are the requirements for salvation. One verse to read is Acts 16:30 & 31. Belive first, get baptised.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[One Bad Pig]

I don't believe that Jesus died for the sins of every single human being. I believe he died for the elect.
John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..."; this is repeated in v. 17; Christ was sent "that the world might be saved through Him". Jesus died for the sins of all, but his death is only effectual for those who believe (the elect).



Those in the covenant are the outward, visible body that we see, and we would think that they are elect, until they prove themselves to be otherwise.
I believe that all who are living are part of the covenant. The Adamic covenant is with all who are living. The Noahic covenant is with all who are living, and is symbolized by the rainbow. The Abrahamic covenant is with those spiritually descended from Isaac (Romans 9:6-8), although all physical male descendants were marked by circumcision. The Mosaic covenant was with the Israelites, whether or not they conformed to it. Similarly, the New Covenant is with all the world, whether or not they conform to it.



Baptism does not make someone part of the covenant.
No, it does not.



They receive it because they are part of the covenant. Baptism is the sign of the covenant.
:no: Baptism is properly the identification of oneself with the elect, whether one is or no.



Romans 11:17-24 makes clear that even we Gentiles in the present age can be cut off from the covenant for unbelief. Therefore, it is plain to see that one can be a covenant member and yet not be elect.
I agree with this, just not how you got here.



But that is just it, I don't think baptism is about the existential experience.
Let me put it this way. One problem that many people have with infant baptism is that it is done before the child had faith, and therefore cannot be baptism. But then an adult who makes a profession of faith, and then gets baptized, and then later becomes apostate would not really have been baptized either.
Actually, I agree that the process undertaken in each case is baptism; I just believe that they are improper.



Baptism would then become completelly subjective, and then we would never know who was REALLY baptized, because if someone was merely professing, then they weren't really baptized. This shows the problem that Baptists try to equate Baptism/covenant membership with salvation. Baptism cannot be such a subjective thing. It is objective. It says something about God, not about the one being baptized. It says that God is righteous, and faithful to fulfill His promises, and that all the blessings of the covenant from God will flow to the one who keeps the conditions of the covenant--faith.

:hrm: It's not baptism that's important; it's the confession of Christ as Lord and Saviour that is important. Baptism does say that "God is righteous, and faithful to fulfill His promises, and that all the blessings of the covenant from God will flow to the one who keeps the conditions of the covenant--faith." I agree with that. However, it is also properly used to show who identifies with the elect (calls themselves Christian).



I hold to the Perserverance of the Saints as well. I don't believe that one who is truly saved can lose his salvation. That is not inconsistent with the Reformed view, because the covenant is not the same as being elect. One can be grafted into the olive tree because you have professed faith in Christ, and therefore you are in the covenant, and yet later be cut off from the covenant because their was not heart belief. Covenant membership is not the same as election.
Once again, I agree with your end result, but not how you got there. I do not believe that those who falsely profess faith are ever grafted in. I believe that those who once held fast but have fallen away (are cut off) will be saved, but as through fire (1 Cor 3:11-15), and do not experience the blessings of this life that are the reward of those who hold fast to the faith.


Baptism, in the Reformed view, says something about God. It says that God's righteousness can be had by faith. OBJECTIVE. Not that the one who is baptized has that. It is a simple illustration of the gospel truths of salvation, much the same as is the Lord's Supper.
:thumb: That's a statement I can fully agree with!



If [baptizw] is used in Scripture to refer to that which is not immersion or dipping, then it is obvious that it does not only mean that. It can refer to that, but it has a much broader meaning... And [the sprinkling of blood and oil for ritual purification of the high priest] clearly demonstrates that baptizw does not exclusively refer to immersion. Especially when in Hebrews 9:10 baptismois is used to refer to sprinkling.

I was prepared to agree with you, until I looked up Hebrews 9:10. I don't see how it refers to sprinkling. In specific cases, the Law specifies sprinkling of various fluids; otherwise, the Law specifies "washing", which would've been typically done via immersion. When Naaman is told to wash in the Jordan River, he dips (immerses) himself. The reference in Heb. 9:10 is a very general one, but I don't necessarily see sprinkling included in it.

[dynomite]

Dear Dynomite: You sound like you know and belive your Bible. You can probably answer your own question very easily. When you read your Bible, what do you find are the requirements for salvation. One verse to read is Acts 16:30 & 31. Belive first, get baptised.
Sincerely, Jude 3b


Jude3b,

This is simply begging the question. First, he is clearly outside the covenant to begin with. Also note that it is an evangelistic context and not speaking to members of the covenant, so this immediately changes the situation. Second, I think you thought you were setting a trap, but I see it as a lob. Here is the text: "Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." Notice that his HOUSEHOLD is included. I will allow you to pick up a concordance and look up all the references in Scripture, especially start with Abraham. Now, I'm not arguing for a concordance exposition of Scripture, but, even as One Bad Pig pointed out, the ANE was much more communally oriented and weren't dowsed in rugged individualism. Consider that Paul says children are holy on account of a believing parent. He says that they are HOLY. Yea, yea, I know, they have to make a choice.

Again, all the baptist can do is point to evangelistic settings, which the covenanter will agree with the basic message in these contexts. The issues arises when it comes to members of the covenant and their children and what it looks like to disciple the nations.

So, I beg of the prooftext baptists to provide an actual prooftext, i.e. an instance where children of believing parents aren't considered part of the covenant. The whole story line is that of covenants, which includes the representative and their children, yet they want to argue something was radically altered in this understanding with the coming of Jesus. I submit that this is an assertion and not proven...As the Church proper has always allowed, I will gladly see an argument that is properly deduced from Scripture, which I believe mine is.

Dynomite

[dynomite]

Fair enough. I realized that the position I was taking assumed a discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. Much of your post questioned that discontinuity. Since I now agree that the discontinuity isn't there, I saw no need to interact with those questions intended to show me that.

O.k., Paul says, "remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise...."

Now, if I am brought near to the commonwealth of Israel, the covenants of promise, engrafted into Israel, I ask, what was theirs that is not mine? You answered "none". So, why aren't children included, just as they were in ALL previous covenants?

Psalm 103:17, "But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to eversasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember his commandments."

Isaiah 59:21, "And as for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the Lord: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the Lord, "from now and forever".

Dt. 29:14-15, 29, 30:6, "It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today...the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law...And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." WHAT A PROMISE!!!!!

Genesis 17:9-14, "And God said to Abraham, 'As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a signn of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male thorughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foresking shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."


I can produce more if you would like, but these show what the covenants of promise entailed. It included the children. So I ask, what promises to Israel are not mine? You said, "None." I now ask, are the promises to my children included? If you answer "yes", then why wouldn't they receive the signs and seals of the covenant? If the answer is "no", then are you changing your paradigm again to account for their exclusion?


Okay. Do you sacrifice animals? Do you follow the Mosaic dietary laws? Why or why not?

Main Entry: ab·ro·gate
Pronunciation: 'a-br&-"gAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -gat·ed; -gat·ing
Etymology: Latin abrogatus, past participle of abrogare, from ab- + rogare to ask, propose a law -- more at RIGHT
1 : to abolish by authoritative action : ANNUL
2 : to treat as nonexistent <abrogating their responsibilities>
synonym see NULLIFY

Mt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So, I do not keep animal sacrifices, because Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world. Hebrews is a wonderful exposition of how the shadows find their FULFILLMENT in Christ. Note: It isn't an abrogation, but a fulfillment. Jesus declared all foods clean and much more.



You are brought near -- by Christ's death on the cross (veiled reference in v. 14, explicit in v. 16); this is the crux of my new understanding. The old covenants promised Christ. If you accept Christ, you reap all the benefits that this entails -- eternal life in the new heaven, constant companionship in this life. If you don't accept Christ, you go through life empty inside, and suffer eternal death. A baby can't make that decision. Anyone can accept Christ as Lord, regardless if they were baptized as an infant or not. I don't think that infant baptism is wrong; I just don't consider it to be effectual.

If I accept Christ do I reap the benefits of the promises to my children? If not, why not? The baptism of my children isn't contingent upon them, but the PROMISES of the COVENANT! This is the way it has always been. I don't necessarily have a good democratic American answer, but my children are in the Covenant due to the promises of God. They don't need to be converted. I realize that last sentence is controversial for many, but what do they need to be converted from? Now, if you begin to argue that they have sinned, I am going to ask on what grounds they have sinned? Is sin not a decision? Why are they suddenly making a decision to sin when the baptist keeps arguing they can't decide for Jesus? If you bring in the covenantal union they have with Adam, I ask, Have they "accepted Adam"? Then why do children of the covenant of promise need to accept the one they are already in?




Nothing!

Agreed!


Yes! Yes! None!

Looking at some of the quotes above from the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant, why don't they apply to me then? Why are my children excluded?


:hrm: This'll take a while.

Matthew 13:18-23 -- The good news is given to all who hear it

Matthew 16:24If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.

Not "anyone who is baptized"; not "take up his cross and be baptized", but [b]anyone.

Mark 10:14-15: no hint of baptism there.

Luke 8:21 -- Christ's family is those who "hear [His] Word and do it".

John 3:17 expresses a desire that everyone would be saved; v. 19, the Light has come for all the world, not just those who accept it.

John 11:25-26 -- Jesus is interested in belief, not baptism.

Acts 10:28 -- no man should be called unholy or unclean; all men can be saved.

Romans 1, beginning in v. 4 -- "Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ." God desires that all would come to repentance.

Romans 2:13 -- a distinction is made between those who hear the law and those who do it.

1 Cor. 9:22 -- Paul strives to win all people to Christ, not just those who are baptized.

Don't hear me arguing that we don't preach the Gospel to every creature under heaven, b/c I am not. I am zealous for bringing the Gospel to the lost (I am a "full-time" evangelist as an open-air preacher on college campuses). I desire everyone to come to repentance. My basic take is that the promises listed above that are about me and my children are still COVENANTALLY MINE. Jesus didn't come and get rid of these, especially note the Isaiah promise.


What was the sign of the Adamic covenant? of the Mosaic? of the Davidic? What sign did the Jewish females receive?

I mentioned there are changes that occured in the New Covenant, which, if anything, is more expansive. Note Paul's "in Christ there is neither male nor female..." and consider the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers ("We can all approach the holy of holies..."), which limited under the O.C. So, this doesn't pose a threat to my position.

We were given the Holy Spirit as a pledge (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5)

See Isaiah 58. I believe God is faithful to that promise.


Are all those who are baptized saved? You indicated here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=404045&postcount=17) that you don't believe so. If baptism is a covenantal sign, and does not guarantee election, then there is a distinction!

Here is where I am truly hoping you make a paradigm shift. Jesus says, "many will say to me on that day...", the parable of the sower with some springing up for a season, Paul telling the Colossians in 1:22, "If they continue...", also read Romans 9-11. There is an OBJECTIVE element to this discussion. You look around your church and say they are believers (I know you go home and say, "I don't know about so and so", but generally speaking). You say your pastor is a believer, the choir director, the ushers, tithe collectors, etc. We may find out on the Day of Judgment that they were not believers. However, as far as WE can tell, they were believers. So, no, not every single individual that is baptized is saved, and, yes, there is a distinction between members of the covenant and those that are elect. This is the only way to properly speak of apostacy. The Church is a covenant community, and think of an apostate member like the American Taliban. For all objective purposes he is an American, but he demonstrated that he isn't truly an American. The analogy isn't perfect, but it captures the heart. If I knew someone looking for a church in D.C., then I would tell them about you and your church. I may find out yrs. later or DoJ, that you aren't really a believer, but I must go by your profession.

What did Jesus have to say about baptism? "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). We see from this that disciples should be baptized. What is a disciple? "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple". Kinda tough for infants to do.

Because of God's promise I view my children as disciples! They will follow me as I am following Christ. Again, if you want to bring sin into this situation and say the children haven't picked up their cross, then you run into the same "decisional dilemma" I offered above. Or you can offer some unbiblical "neutral" theory, then we will take another approach.

In the end, the promise is still for me and my children, and as I put this together I realized how grand God's promises for my children are. Meditate on those verses, then look at your children. THOSE VERSE ARE FOR YOU AND THEM! Don't neglect so great a gift.

I don't see that I'm doing that any longer.

Well, can you at least see my position and see why I think you are? Do you see how I see the story line unfolding, which included the covenant member and their children.

Sorry if this seems a little disjointed. I don't know the Bible half as well as I should like, and consequently had to spend an inordinate amount of time reading.

OBP

No problem. We can all use a better grasp on the Scriptures. I seriously apologize if any of my "tone" seems agressive. I hope I exemplify Christ in every way, because He is Lord and teaches that every careless word will be brought into judgment.

Grace and Peace,

Dynomite

[One Bad Pig]

Dynomite,

I don't think you quite understand the stance I'm advocating. I think that the New Covenant includes everyone, just as the Mosaic Covenant included all Israelites, regardless of their heart condition. Everyone -- you, your children, the frat rat laughing as he walks by, the drug dealer in the 'hood -- are drawn near enough to Christ that confession on their part that Jesus is Lord gets them into heaven; "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

If you answer "yes", then why wouldn't they receive the signs and seals of the covenant?
I ask again, what were the signs and seals of the Adamic covenant? Abrahamic covenant (for the females)? The Davidic Covenant? The Mosaic Covenant?

Must a covenant have signs and seals?

I agree that, just as communion is symbolic of the Lord's atoning sacrifice on the cross, baptism is symbolic of His burial and resurrection. However, I believe that both are properly limited to professing believers.



Mt. 5:17-18, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."



:doh: "fulfill" can mean "bring to an end" :doh: Sometimes the dictionary helps. :argh: Sometimes I forget I don't know everything. :duh:



If I accept Christ do I reap the benefits of the promises to my children? If not, why not?
The benefits of the promises are not contingent on you.



The baptism of my children isn't contingent upon them, but the PROMISES of the COVENANT! This is the way it has always been. I don't necessarily have a good democratic American answer, but my children are in the Covenant due to the promises of God. They don't need to be converted. I realize that last sentence is controversial for many, but what do they need to be converted from? Now, if you begin to argue that they have sinned, I am going to ask on what grounds they have sinned? Is sin not a decision? Why are they suddenly making a decision to sin when the baptist keeps arguing they can't decide for Jesus?
Sin is inherited from Adam. As soon as a child is conceived, it has sin. THAT's why they need Jesus. ALL have sinned and come short of God's gory. I don't see any exemption clauses there.



If you bring in the covenantal union they have with Adam, I ask, Have they "accepted Adam"? Then why do children of the covenant of promise need to accept the one they are already in?
They don't need to accept the covenant. They DO need to confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.



Don't hear me arguing that we don't preach the Gospel to every creature under heaven, b/c I am not. I am zealous for bringing the Gospel to the lost (I am a "full-time" evangelist as an open-air preacher on college campuses). I desire everyone to come to repentance.
I admire your courage. I must admit, though, that my experience at Penn State with open-air preachers was not all that positive (no reflection on you). There was an Orthodox preacher who was pretty much there all day M-F. You could tell that he loved the students, but he spent at least half his time railing against protestants and catholics. There was also a fire-and-brimstone cult that came around once a year for a week. I don't think that they ever accomplished much more than alienation.



Here is where I am truly hoping you make a paradigm shift. Jesus says, "many will say to me on that day...", the parable of the sower with some springing up for a season, Paul telling the Colossians in 1:22, "If they continue...", also read Romans 9-11. There is an OBJECTIVE element to this discussion. You look around your church and say they are believers (I know you go home and say, "I don't know about them", but generally speaking). You say your pastor is a believer, the choir director, the ushers, tithe collectors, etc. We may find out on the Day of Judgment that they were not believers. However, as far as WE can tell, they were believers. So, no, not every single individual that is baptized is saved, and, yes, there is a distinction between members of the covenant and those that are elect. This is the only way to properly speak of apostacy. The Church is a covenant community, and think of an apostate member like the American Taliban. For all objective purposes he is an American, but he demonstrated that he isn't truly an American. The analogy isn't perfect, but it captures the heart. If I knew someone looking for a church in D.C., then I would tell them about you and your church. I may find out yrs. later or DoJ, that you aren't really a believer, but I must go by your profession.
Well, I can agree with the above, although I don't think the analogy quite works, and we define "covenant members" differently. I don't think the analogy works, because the American Taliban wasn't pretending to be on America's side. An apostate is going to at least pretend to be Christian, and may even think he/she is a Christian (and would be one of those who cry "Lord, Lord..." at the DoJ).



Because of God's promise I view my children as disciples! They will follow me as I am following Christ. Again, if you want to bring sin into this situation and say the children haven't picked up their cross, then you run into the same "decisional dilemma" I offered above. Or you can offer some unbiblical "neutral" theory, then we will take another approach.
I hope your children do follow Christ. At the same time, I've known some pretty bad pastor's kids; and teens are leaving the church (in general) in droves. The last thing I want to do is postulate anything unbiblical.



In the end, the promise is still for me and my children, and as I put this together I realized how grand God's promises for my children are. Meditate on those verses, then look at your children. THOSE VERSE ARE FOR YOU AND THEM! Don't neglect so great a gift.
:frown: I don't have a wife, much less children. If I did, I would raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.



Well, can you at least see my position and see why I think you are? Do you see how I see the story line unfolding, which included the covenant member and their children.
Yes, but I'm afraid you still don't see my position correctly. I hope this post cleared that up.



No problem. We can all use a Bible grasp on the Scriptures. I seriously apologize if any of my "tone" seems agressive. I hope I exemplify Christ in every way, because He is Lord and teaches that every careless word will be brought into judgment.

No, I don't think so; It's just frustrating when I can tell from the get-go that you don't understand my position. I don't think any of us exemplify Christ in every way; the old sin nature keeps rearing its ugly head in all of us. I do not make any theological statements carelessly, being fully aware of judgement. I can only argue things from my best understanding of them, and am willing to scrutinize my stance on any issue and change it, if I am shown compelling reasons to do so.

In Christ,

OBP

[Jude3b]

Young children are protected and would go to heaven because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. When a child reaches the age of reason, accountability and their sin become willful - they need to make a decision and receive Christ as their personal Savior. Upon hearing and believing the gospel, they will want to obey the command to be baptised.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Rusty T]

When a child reaches the age of reason, accountability and their sin become willful
Not to purposefully fall into a trap here, but when is the age of accountability? How do we know when someone reaches it? What do we do for our children up to that point?

[dynomite]

Young children are protected and would go to heaven because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. When a child reaches the age of reason, accountability and their sin become willful - they need to make a decision and receive Christ as their personal Savior. Upon hearing and believing the gospel, they will want to obey the command to be baptised.
Sincerely, Jude 3b


Jude3b,

You can't get away with just asserting that. Give a little exegetical reasoning behind such an assertion, especially the point where they are protected and going to heave, because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. What comes first: willful sin or the need for Jesus?

Dynomite

[dynomite]

Dynomite,

I don't think you quite understand the stance I'm advocating. I think that the New Covenant includes everyone, just as the Mosaic Covenant included all Israelites, regardless of their heart condition. Everyone -- you, your children, the frat rat laughing as he walks by, the drug dealer in the 'hood -- are drawn near enough to Christ that confession on their part that Jesus is Lord gets them into heaven; "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".

I grasp your position, I think, and I believe it is a bald assertion. Demonstrate Scripturally that "everyone" is drawn near in Christ. I suggest it cannot.


I ask again, what were the signs and seals of the Adamic covenant? Abrahamic covenant (for the females)? The Davidic Covenant? The Mosaic Covenant?

Well, there is a debate about whether or not there is an Adamic Covenant. If there is, I see the tree of the life as the sacramental sign and seal of life. The daughters were under their father's sign, which is part of the change with the coming of Christ. The Davidic was an expansion of the Mosaic. The Mosaic was part of the Abrahamic, so the signs were the same. Even if you wanted to argue that there was no sign for certain covenants, I don't believe this gets one anywhere. You would need to prove that the New Covenant is made without signs and seals, and still show how it relates to the Abrahamic.

Must a covenant have signs and seals?

I guess I would need an example of where they are not, especially a redemptive covenant.


I agree that, just as communion is symbolic of the Lord's atoning sacrifice on the cross, baptism is symbolic of His burial and resurrection. However, I believe that both are properly limited to professing believers.

I believe this is just an assertion. This is the point that we are debating. Who receives the signs and seals of the covenant? You assert that everyone is a part of the covenant, and I am arguing that it is much more narrow and includes the believer and their children.


The benefits of the promises are not contingent on you.

I know, they are contingent upon God. However, the Lord teaches that he loves to a thousand generations those that fear and love him, but curses to the third and fourth those that hate him. Has God changed?

Sin is inherited from Adam. As soon as a child is conceived, it has sin. THAT's why they need Jesus. ALL have sinned and come short of God's gory. I don't see any exemption clauses there.

I agree, and he is your problem. Your whole system is dependent upon some notion of decision, yet you are willing to let it break down here. I am arguing that the child of the covenant has a sin nature, as do all New Covenant members, but still receives the sign and seal.



They don't need to accept the covenant. They DO need to confess Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

The Scriptures make no distinction here.



I admire your courage. I must admit, though, that my experience at Penn State with open-air preachers was not all that positive (no reflection on you). There was an Orthodox preacher who was pretty much there all day M-F. You could tell that he loved the students, but he spent at least half his time railing against protestants and catholics. There was also a fire-and-brimstone cult that came around once a year for a week. I don't think that they ever accomplished much more than alienation.

Yes, I love Brother Gary Cattel. I met him my second week ever preaching when I was at Penn State in 2000. We went round and round over dinner with the Protestant-Orthodox issue. He made me realize how ignorant I was of the Church and that it didn't start with a German monk in the 16th century. He really influenced me in many ways, but I am still Presbyterian.

I wonder if the second guy you mentioned was Mike Worienicki (sp)? He and his family roll up on campus with banners and just say everyone is going to hell for being in college and part of the world systerm, etc. Quite strange. Or if it was the Smock family, Brother Jed? I am actually well acquainted with the Smock family and they are amazingly normal. Jed is very funny, etc.

I don't know where I fit on the continuum of campus preachers, but I am somewhat of an anomoly, I guess. First, I am Presbyterian. Two, I am a Calvinist. Three, I'm not a moral perfectionist. And I don't drop "WHORE" or "WHOREMONGERERRRRRRRRRRR!" on anyone.

Well, I can agree with the above, although I don't think the analogy quite works, and we define "covenant members" differently. I don't think the analogy works, because the American Taliban wasn't pretending to be on America's side. An apostate is going to at least pretend to be Christian, and may even think he/she is a Christian (and would be one of those who cry "Lord, Lord..." at the DoJ).

Well, "covenenant member" is part of the debate. First, you want everyone to be a covenant member, and I argue that the covenants we are currently debating have signs and seals, but you don't want everyone to have those signs and seals. The nature of apostacy is a rejection of Christ, a la Hebrews 6. So, the American Taliban was objectively an American, but he rejected it. The hypocrite blends in with us.

I hope your children do follow Christ. At the same time, I've known some pretty bad pastor's kids; and teens are leaving the church (in general) in droves. The last thing I want to do is postulate anything unbiblical.

Yes, I believe there are many issues involved here. Not the least of which is lack of faithfulness on the parents.



:frown: I don't have a wife, much less children. If I did, I would raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I know you would, but I would argue that you don't have any indicative reason to.

Now, once again to make this discussion go any further you need to interact with Ephesians 2 and the various Old Testament verses I quoted respecting us and our children. If these are part of the covenant of promise and the commonwealth of Israel, then I want to know why they aren't mine. To assert that the covenant is made with everyone and there is no sign of this covenant won't due.

I seek to interact with all of your statements, and I don't think you adequately dealt with my previous post and the questions involved there, especially as the promises in the Old Covenants relates to the New Covenant and me and my children. I won't allow you to make assertions without Scriptural support (I will gladly accept an argument deduced from Scriptures...I am not a prooftext baptist).

Dynomite

[Jude3b]

Dear Tizzidale and Dynomite: The age of Accountability is not produced by chronological age. It is produced by the combination of awareness, decision, and actions that create guilt.
This does not happen at any certain age say 5, 7, 9, etc. - it happens when a child aquires and feels guilt because they have made a conscious choice to rebell against God and felt guilt for his or her evil decision.
Prior to this they are "innocent" in that they have not committed "willful" sin. That is because "Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God!" They are therefore "under the blood" of Christ or covered by the perfect work of Christ on the cross. This is very reassuring to know, especially when it comes to all the children that are being aborted today. Amen.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[dynomite]

Dear Tizzidale and Dynomite: The age of Accountability is not produced by chronological age. It is produced by the combination of awareness, decision, and actions that create guilt.
This does not happen at any certain age say 5, 7, 9, etc. - it happens when a child aquires and feels guilt because they have made a conscious choice to rebell against God and felt guilt for his or her evil decision.
Prior to this they are "innocent" in that they have not committed "willful" sin. That is because "Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God!" They are therefore "under the blood" of Christ or covered by the perfect work of Christ on the cross. This is very reassuring to know, especially when it comes to all the children that are being aborted today. Amen.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

Jude,

This is just pure speculation. There is nothing in Scripture that suggests that any of this is true, especially the part of being under Christ's blood. Also, I see that you slipped in there a questionable definition of sin: "WILLFULL trangsgression of a KNOWN law of God!" Now, I agree that it is willful, but I suspect this might be getting close to rejecting original sin on your part. Correct me if I am wrong. The "known" is thrown in there as well for a similar reason. This isn't the thread for a debate along these lines, but this was just an observation. If you respond to this, I will definitely let it be the last. However, if you do, please, as I previously asked, give us some Scriptures to back the position. Bald arguments aren't helpful.

You seem to go on the offensive against Roman Catholicism and infant baptism with, "The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Infant Baptism is a man-made tradition. What make this practice especially disturbing is that the Bible does not record a single occurrence of an infant being baptized." Can it be that you are now advocating "man-made tradition"? I think what makes your argument especially disturbing is that the Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't teach what you are saying.

Thanks, Dynomite

[Rusty T]

^^^^ ditto

[Jude3b]

Dear Dynomite: Christ made atonement for original sin. God condemns to Hell only those who have personally and consciously transgressed. (Proof texts - Romans 5:12, Romans 2:15, John 3:36, Acts 16:31, Matthew 18:14, Matthew 19:14) These verses give convincing proof that little children are under God's special protection until they reach the age of accountability.
Christ made atonement for original sin, and since infants have no conscious awareness of sin, He acts directly in behalf of those who die in infancy and redeems them. This atonement is remedial even for children of the Old Testament, for David was consoled, after mourning the loss of his infant son, by the knowledge that he would "go to him" (II Samuel 12:23). Where did the child's soul go? Certainly not to the Roman Catholic invention of "Limbo," the imaginary edge of Hell for all "unbaptized infants." David undoubtedly believed his child would go to Heaven where he knew he himself would go one day.
Question on the definition of sin: I John 3:4- "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." James 4:17- "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Sin is therefore the wilful transgression of a known law of God. Sin is also the rejection of the only Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ! When a religious person puts a religion and its false tradtions above the all sufficient Savior and His Word, that also is sin. That sin is so grievous as to send a person to Hell for all eternity.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

The Catholic Church has changed its opinoins on Limbo. You spouted alot of scripture again. I'd look it all up see how you misrepresented it again but I'm tired.

[Jude3b]

THE CHUCH OF ROME HAS CHANGED IS DOCTRINE OF LIMBO
I did not know that Twilly, I'll take your word on that. When did they change it?
It is amazing to me that God does not change and His Word does not change and Rome has said that it does not change its doctrines. Yet, Romanism is constantly changing.
Anyway, It is wonderful to be able to read the Bible and know that I can depend on it and the God who gave it to us.
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Jude3b]

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12).

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why does Roman Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized?

[Pilgrim]

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12).

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why does Roman Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized?
The Roman Catholics are not the only Christians who baptize infants. The Presbyterians and the Lutherans and the Episcopals, and whole bunch more do as well. of course I would not expect you to be so gracious as to read the whole of scripture where baotism is concerned and understand that they are good Christians who have a different interpretation than you do. Christians who take Paul's explination of the relationship of circumsicion and baotism into account in terms of a theology of covenant.

[Twilly Spree]

Jeez, the brothers talked about Limbo and why they changed. I'll look it up later for those who are interested.

[Amazing Rando]

The Roman Catholics are not the only Christians who baptize infants. The Presbyterians and the Lutherans and the Episcopals, and whole bunch more do as well. of course I would not expect you to be so gracious as to read the whole of scripture where baotism is concerned and understand that they are good Christians who have a different interpretation than you do. Christians who take Paul's explination of the relationship of circumsicion and baotism into account in terms of a theology of covenant.

Don't forget the Methodists! :rofl:

Baptism is a ritual, albeit a very powerful and symbolic ritual. But that's all it is. It's an outward sign of what's going on on the inside as Christ baptizes us with the Holy Spirit. Of course, there are some Christians who believe we should not be baptized at all. But that's just Mid-Acts Dispensationalism for ya! :lolo:

[Jude3b]

2 Peter 1:20, the Scripture is not for private interpretation. We are not supposed to add to it or take away from it. No infants are baptized in scripture.

[dynomite]

2 Peter 1:20, the Scripture is not for private interpretation. We are not supposed to add to it or take away from it. No infants are baptized in scripture.


Hey Jude (Doing my best Beatles),

Where do the Scriptures tell us not to? Are you going beyond what is written by not allowing us?

Of course not. Jude3b's private interpretation is never wrong.

[Jude3b]

Hey Jude (Doing my best Beatles),

Where do the Scriptures tell us not to? Are you going beyond what is written by not allowing us?

Of course not. Jude3b's private interpretation is never wrong.

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)

[dynomite]

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)


It's time for the ol' "Put up or Shut Up!" Challenge. Provide direct evidence where the Scriptures say that you are not to baptize infants and where we, paedo-baptists, are violating God's commandment. If you cannot, just admit that you are your own pope, privately interpreting Scripture, transgressing the commandment of God by your tradition, and a divisive man. Until you do this, and I know you won't, you are a pope, and one of the most tyrranical at that.

[Twilly Spree]

Limbo stuffs in case you were interested:

Does the Catholic Church still believe in limbo, a place for unbaptized babies to go if they die without baptism?


The Catholic Church never "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally means "fringe." This came about because God has not chosen to reveal what happens to deceased unbaptized infants. We know that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (John 3:5) because God revealed this. We also know that something called "baptism of desire" is possible. Since unbaptized infants seem incapable of any "desire" or act of their will, theologians have speculated throughout the ages about their destiny in this context St. Augustine thought that it would be an offense against God's justice to suppose. He would allow such creatures to suffer any pain, but that rather God places such infants in a state of "natural," but not supernatural happiness for eternity. This he called "limbo." Other theologians say that God's "universal salvific will" (1 Timothy 2:4) includes unbaptized people who do not have the use of reason when they die and that they enjoy supernatural happiness by some means we do not now know. Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in limbo. What happens to unbaptized people who do not have the use of reason and who die in that state is an open question. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1261.

Reprinted from September 17, 1999

Source: http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/limbo/

Catechism 1261:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


There ya go, just incase anyone was curious

[Jude3b]

Limbo stuffs in case you were interested:

Does the Catholic Church still believe in limbo, a place for unbaptized babies to go if they die without baptism?


The Catholic Church never "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally means "fringe." This came about because God has not chosen to reveal what happens to deceased unbaptized infants. We know that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (John 3:5) because God revealed this. We also know that something called "baptism of desire" is possible. Since unbaptized infants seem incapable of any "desire" or act of their will, theologians have speculated throughout the ages about their destiny in this context St. Augustine thought that it would be an offense against God's justice to suppose. He would allow such creatures to suffer any pain, but that rather God places such infants in a state of "natural," but not supernatural happiness for eternity. This he called "limbo." Other theologians say that God's "universal salvific will" (1 Timothy 2:4) includes unbaptized people who do not have the use of reason when they die and that they enjoy supernatural happiness by some means we do not now know. Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in limbo. What happens to unbaptized people who do not have the use of reason and who die in that state is an open question. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1261.

Reprinted from September 17, 1999

Source: http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/limbo/

Catechism 1261:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


There ya go, just incase anyone was curious

[Jude3b]

"... The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth." (The Roman Catholic Catechism page 319, #1250)

Rome here is claiming that infant Baptism makes a child, a child of God.

Obviously, newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins. Therefore, they are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.

[dynomite]

"... The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth." (The Roman Catholic Catechism page 319, #1250)

Rome here is claiming that infant Baptism makes a child, a child of God.

Obviously, newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins. Therefore, they are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.


That is a argument by deduction and no more proves your case, which is predicated on a faulty premise, than the paedo-baptist. Jesus says, "Anyone who does not believe God's wrath abides upon them," so going back to the age of accountability, that you never touched, do infants perish? Remember, you said they can't believe. Are you going to invent some tradition about an age of accountability? Your arguments are tired Jude, give them a rest.

[Twilly Spree]

Jude, is there a reason you just reposted my comments, with no comments of your own? Just curious.

[Jude3b]

Jude, is there a reason you just reposted my comments, with no comments of your own? Just curious.

I was just accidental, I hit the botton twice.

[Jude3b]

Romanism loves to bring people into bondage to their religion. Why not start when they are but an infant? Hence, infant baptism...!

God's Word is explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptised. Only those who have believe "On" Jesus for their salvation are qualified for baptism.

[Jude3b]

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why does Roman Catholicism demand that newborn infants be baptized?