Sprinkling and infant baptism, is that really baptism [Archive]

Dave

January 26th 2004, 08:55 PM

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

January 26th 2004, 10:03 PM

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

January 26th 2004, 10:51 PM

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

January 26th 2004, 11:08 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 12:12 AM

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

January 27th 2004, 01:15 AM

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

January 27th 2004, 11:47 AM

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

January 27th 2004, 12:36 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 12:56 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 01:27 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 02:06 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 02:38 PM

"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

January 27th 2004, 02:44 PM

: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

January 27th 2004, 03:31 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 03:49 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 03:58 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 04:07 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 04:15 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 04:18 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 06:32 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 07:20 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 07:27 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 07:56 PM

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

January 27th 2004, 08:07 PM

One Bad Pig

January 27th 2004, 11:42 PM

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

January 28th 2004, 12:27 PM

One Bad Pig

January 28th 2004, 12:49 PM

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

January 28th 2004, 02:06 PM

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 th