Re-baptizing

[Amazing Rando]

As of Sunday, I'm going to be an official Anabaptist in that I am both joining an Anabaptist church (MC USA) and I'm actually being rebaptized. They made it clear to me that being baptized again was not a condition for membership in the church, but it was something I chose to do to identify myself fully with the Anabaptist Christian tradition, community, and ethos.

Also, I've been feeling kind of slighted for missing out on the baptismal experience when I first came to faith a few years ago (since I'd already been baptized as a baby). :wink:

Any questions? I'll let ya'll know how it goes. :teeth:

[Spiritus Naturae]

I think that's great, Rando! :thumb: I, too, was 're-baptized' as an adult. My first baptism was just blind routine and had no significance I felt. I think I was 9 or 10 going to a baptist church and had no real understanding of what my baptism even was.

Later in life, my dad baptized me out in the country, in a pastor friends swimming pool when I was 24 and I knew then the importance and deep significance of what I was doing. Unfortunately, I found myself backslidden and as the Proverb states found myself, "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." But that's another thread altogether.

I now find myself back on "the narrow path" by God's Amazing Grace and compassion. Amen.

Jonathan :candle:

[Jawa Man]

God bless ya, sonny boy!

[spiritmech]

Cool Rando. I was baptized in the apartment complex pool by my roommate when I was 22? I think. I'm not sure if the RCC will make me get re-baptized or not yet.
SM

[George Murphy]

Sorry folks but I can't join in your celebrations. Baptism is God's work because it is the Word of God that makes it effective. To be re-baptized deliberately is to make it into a merely human work. & thinking that one has to be rebaptized because of a supposed need for an appropriate level of understanding or degree of emotional experience puts one in essentially the same position as the Judaizers Paul was contending against in Galatians about circumcision.

(I realize that Rando says he isn't required by the church he's joining to be rebaptized. All the more reason not to do it!)

I was baptized when I was 6 weeks old. Needless to say, I remember nothing about it. & that doesn't matter because it is God's promise, not my level of awareness, that's important. In Genesis 15 God makes his covenant with Abram after "a deep sleep fell upon Abram" (v.12).

Shalom,
George

[furay]

I agree that age should have nothing to do with baptism. Are baptisms of the extreme mentally challenged invalid, because the person being baptised lacked full comprehension? Baptism is a sacrament, a divine mystery, to put an age restriction on it is limiting God's grace.

[Maxentius]

Sorry folks but I can't join in your celebrations. Baptism is God's work because it is the Word of God that makes it effective. To be re-baptized deliberately is to make it into a merely human work. & thinking that one has to be rebaptized because of a supposed need for an appropriate level of understanding or degree of emotional experience puts one in essentially the same position as the Judaizers Paul was contending against in Galatians about circumcision.

(I realize that Rando says he isn't required by the church he's joining to be rebaptized. All the more reason not to do it!)

I was baptized when I was 6 weeks old. Needless to say, I remember nothing about it. & that doesn't matter because it is God's promise, not my level of awareness, that's important. In Genesis 15 God makes his covenant with Abram after "a deep sleep fell upon Abram" (v.12).

Shalom,
George


I agree 100%. This is the major divide between Lutheran and Anabaptist Reformed branches of Protestantism (Calvinists and Anglicans baptize infants too). In effect, for Anabaptist Reformed Baptism is something we do, while for Lutherans, and I would add the RCC and Orthodox, it is something God does to us through the Word. And when we add to that the common Western heritage from St. Augustine, the Anabaptists are separate from the historic Church.

This does not mean I think you are not Christian Amazin'! It does go to show that theological precepts do affect what we do.

[Cyrus of Persia]

As of Sunday, I'm going to be an official Anabaptist in that I am both joining an Anabaptist church (MC USA) and I'm actually being rebaptized. They made it clear to me that being baptized again was not a condition for membership in the church, but it was something I chose to do to identify myself fully with the Anabaptist Christian tradition, community, and ethos.

So it was your idea to be re-baptized and they would not force you to be re-baptized if you would not want it?

I belong to unity, where are baptists, evangelical christians and some (old) pentecostals. I don't know how baptist churches deal with that, but at least in local evangelical christian tradition they suggest you to be baptized (again), but if you sincerely believe that your baptism in childhood counts, then they don't force you to be re-baptized.

[Amazing Rando]

:teeth: I knew this thread would be provocative!


I think that's great, Rando! :thumb: I, too, was 're-baptized' as an adult. My first baptism was just blind routine and had no significance I felt. I think I was 9 or 10 going to a baptist church and had no real understanding of what my baptism even was.

Later in life, my dad baptized me out in the country, in a pastor friends swimming pool when I was 24 and I knew then the importance and deep significance of what I was doing. Unfortunately, I found myself backslidden and as the Proverb states found myself, "Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." But that's another thread altogether.

I now find myself back on "the narrow path" by God's Amazing Grace and compassion. Amen.

Jonathan :candle:

That's cool Jon! I'm 24 myself right now, but it's really only been the last four years or so that I've really humbled myself enough to let God into my life. I can identify with your wanting to be baptized in that manner!


Cool Rando. I was baptized in the apartment complex pool by my roommate when I was 22? I think. I'm not sure if the RCC will make me get re-baptized or not yet.
SM

Dang, that's the strangest baptism story I've ever heard! I don't know if the RCC's Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RICA) necessitates baptism if you were already baptized in a trinitarian way.

I have heard of one Catholic scholar who, based upon his study of the early church, has been urging that the RCC make the RICA the normative practice of baptism within the church. I'll have to look up the guy's name- right now it escapes me.


Sorry folks but I can't join in your celebrations. Baptism is God's work because it is the Word of God that makes it effective. To be re-baptized deliberately is to make it into a merely human work. & thinking that one has to be rebaptized because of a supposed need for an appropriate level of understanding or degree of emotional experience puts one in essentially the same position as the Judaizers Paul was contending against in Galatians about circumcision.

Aww, had to be the spoiler in the party, George? :tongue: :wink:

I've had my saving faith for a relatively brief period of time, and I definitely did not have it when I was an infant. That's not to doubt God's work in my life prior to my faith, but to affirm the fact that I was oblivious, hostile, and very ungrateful to God for the work he had done in my life prior to a short time ago. For me, baptism follows faith- it's a public sign of God's grace in my life and a testimony of my willingness to follow in his footsteps. (And this is coming from one who was raised United Methodist where they do baptize infants!)


I agree 100%. This is the major divide between Lutheran and Anabaptist Reformed branches of Protestantism (Calvinists and Anglicans baptize infants too). In effect, for Anabaptist Reformed Baptism is something we do, while for Lutherans, and I would add the RCC and Orthodox, it is something God does to us through the Word. And when we add to that the common Western heritage from St. Augustine, the Anabaptists are separate from the historic Church.

This does not mean I think you are not Christian Amazin'! It does go to show that theological precepts do affect what we do.

Absolutely, or as my Christian history professors say, "Our theology informs our worship, and our worship informs our theology." I'm convinced that there's a mutual give and take there.

But what exactly do you mean by "Reformed Anabaptists?" Do you mean "reformed" in the Calvinist/Zwinglian sense? If so, I know very very few Calvinist Anabaptists (Solly's the only one!). :wink:


So it was your idea to be re-baptized and they would not force you to be re-baptized if you would not want it?

Exactly- while the more extreme Anabaptists have traditionally insisted that new members of their churches be rebaptized, most (including my church) would never make rebaptism a prerequisite for membership. It's something I'm choosing as a sign of what God's done for me and as my way of identifying fully with their community of faith.

[Maxentius]

But what exactly do you mean by "Reformed Anabaptists?" Do you mean "reformed" in the Calvinist/Zwinglian sense? If so, I know very very few Calvinist Anabaptists (Solly's the only one!). :wink:

For Lutherans, the term "Reformed" can apply to any Western Christian who is not Lutheran or Roman Catholic. I just wanted to narrow it down a bit. I could probably have just said "Anabaptist" though.

BTW, Calvinist Baptists are not that rare.

[Amazing Rando]

For Lutherans, the term "Reformed" can apply to any Western Christian who is not Lutheran or Roman Catholic. I just wanted to narrow it down a bit. I could probably have just said "Anabaptist" though.

BTW, Calvinist Baptists are not that rare.

For sure! Plenty of em. But A Calvinist Anabaptist? Those are rare birds indeed! Baptism's not the only thing distinctive about the Anabaptists as I've encountered them. In fact, "believers baptism" is probably one of a very few things that your average Mennonite would have in common with your average Southern Baptist!

[Alien]

I've had my saving faith for a relatively brief period of time, and I definitely did not have it when I was an infant. That's not to doubt God's work in my life prior to my faith, but to affirm the fact that I was oblivious, hostile, and very ungrateful to God for the work he had done in my life prior to a short time ago. For me, baptism follows faith- it's a public sign of God's grace in my life and a testimony of my willingness to follow in his footsteps. (And this is coming from one who was raised United Methodist where they do baptize infants!)

I hope your baptism goes well, Rando. I was baptised (United Methodist!) around a year ago ... though I had been baptised as a baby (in the Congregational church I believe, my parents weren't particularly religious, it was just socially expected I think). Anyway, it didn't "take" the first time, I went on from reluctant Sunday School attender (as a teenager, mainly so I could attend the church youth club!) to agnostic to convinced atheist! :teeth:

My thinking was similar to yours ... I wanted to "mark" my new-found faith in a public way. In the event, it turned out to be a most remarkably emotional experience, and I felt that God was pleased with me for doing it.

As an aside, could you write a paragraph on Anabaptists and what they believe? I see the word used a lot and nobody ever defines it!

Thanks.

[Amazing Rando]

I hope your baptism goes well, Rando. I was baptised (United Methodist!) around a year ago ... though I had been baptised as a baby (in the Congregational church I believe, my parents weren't particularly religious, it was just socially expected I think). Anyway, it didn't "take" the first time, I went on from reluctant Sunday School attender (as a teenager, mainly so I could attend the church youth club!) to agnostic to convinced atheist! :teeth:

My thinking was similar to yours ... I wanted to "mark" my new-found faith in a public way. In the event, it turned out to be a most remarkably emotional experience, and I felt that God was pleased with me for doing it.

As an aside, could you write a paragraph on Anabaptists and what they believe? I see the word used a lot and nobody ever defines it!

Thanks.

Hey Alien, thanks for sharing! :smile: Here's a brief history of Anabaptist Christianity as I've been learning it the past few weeks in class.

The "Ana" in "Anabaptist" means "Re-" or "again." "Anabaptist" was originally a perjorative term used by the movement's enemies because of their insistance on rebaptizing people who had already been baptized as babies in the Catholic Church.

It all began back in 1525 in Zurich, Switzerland. This was 8 years after Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenburg. Ulrich Zwingli was the name of the priest in the city of Zurich, and he espoused a reformation that was sort of a hybrid between those of Martin Luther and John Calvin. Anyway, in 1525, several members of his congregation in Zurich approached him to express their concerns with the way he was carrying out his reform. Zwingli was going through the civic magistrates (the secular authorities) to institute reform in his church regarding eliminating the sacrificial nature of the Mass, among other things. These church members were concerned about using the civil authorities to enact ecclesiastical reform. Zwingli disagreed with them and refused to assent to their reservations.

Lacking any other recourse, or so they thought, they baptized each other in the fountain in the public square in Zurich, and that was how the movement began. They were persecuted and killed for their beliefs by both Protestant and Catholic alike for the first 200 years or so of their existance.

Essentially, what Anabaptists believe can be summed up in three concepts- Christian discipleship, the centrality of the church in their lives, and an ethic of peace. The emphasis on Christian discipleship is based on taking the teaching of Jesus in the gospels very seriously, including his "hard sayings." Thus for example, in compliance with Matt 5:38-48, most Anabaptists are pacifists, refusing to participate or assent to warfare. They draw on the example of the strong pacifism and peace ethic of the Early Church Fathers for examples.

Another emphasis of Anabaptism is an emphasis on the church as a voluntary community of believers. No one should be forced to be a Christian. This is one of the reasons they don't baptize infants- if baptism is the rite of initiation into the Christian church, they don't want to force their children to be a part of it. For this reason also, they're strong advocates of keeping church and state separate- though not in the way the ACLU bends over backwards to do! :rofl: For example, they view one of the low points in Christian history as when Constantine and his successors made Christianity the official religion, and later the mandatory religion, of the Roman Empire. This fusing of church and state into one entity was, in the Anabaptist view, a cancer on the church that existed for more than a millenium and resulted in things like the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

The early Anabaptist tradition survives in a number of church bodies today, such as the Church of the Brethren and the Mennonite Church USA (which I'm joining). Anyway, that's probably more than you wanted to know so I'll shut up now :shy:, but I'd be glad to answer any follow up questions you might have.

[George Murphy]

I've had my saving faith for a relatively brief period of time, and I definitely did not have it when I was an infant. That's not to doubt God's work in my life prior to my faith, but to affirm the fact that I was oblivious, hostile, and very ungrateful to God for the work he had done in my life prior to a short time ago. For me, baptism follows faith- it's a public sign of God's grace in my life and a testimony of my willingness to follow in his footsteps. (And this is coming from one who was raised United Methodist where they do baptize infants!)Naturally I can't get inside your experience. But it's important to remember that:
(a) Contrary to what's often said, infants can have the most important element of faith, trust - as anyone knows who's seen the way they can very quickly start trusting their parents. The problem here is the tendency to over-intellectualize faith.
(b) God brings about saving faith (I Cor.12:3), & since re-birth is associated with baptism (Jn.3:5, Titus 3:5) then it seems that baptism can be the way in which God begins faith. (I say "can be the way" because of course people can come to faith before baptism by hearing or reading the Word. In this case baptism is indeed an affirmation of faith but is still God's work of creating & sustaining faith. That is not something that's done just once for a person but goes on throughout life.)

Shalom,
George

[Jude3b]

Sorry folks but I can't join in your celebrations. Baptism is God's work because it is the Word of God that makes it effective. To be re-baptized deliberately is to make it into a merely human work. & thinking that one has to be rebaptized because of a supposed need for an appropriate level of understanding or degree of emotional experience puts one in essentially the same position as the Judaizers Paul was contending against in Galatians about circumcision.

(I realize that Rando says he isn't required by the church he's joining to be rebaptized. All the more reason not to do it!)

I was baptized when I was 6 weeks old. Needless to say, I remember nothing about it. & that doesn't matter because it is God's promise, not my level of awareness, that's important. In Genesis 15 God makes his covenant with Abram after "a deep sleep fell upon Abram" (v.12).

Shalom,
George

Your only dreaming George if you think your 6 week old sprinkling or pouring with water - was Baptism. You were just a baby and somebody was practicing a man made doctrine on you to no avail.

Thee is not a single occurance of an infant being baptized in the Bible!

Throughout the Bible, baptism always followed salvation. The Ethiopian eunuch who was led to salvation by Philip was an adult when he was baptized:
"...they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38).

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, BELIEVED, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

George its a beautiful thing when someone is saved, born-again the Bible way and in obedience and in faith is baptized. When you get saved - you will want to get Baptized also. For when one is truly saved - they are willing to obey the Word of God and the teachings of the Master!

[Constantine]

Well I'm glad me and George get to be on the same side in here.


Your only dreaming George if you think your 6 week old sprinkling or pouring with water - was Baptism. You were just a baby and somebody was practicing a man made doctrine on you to no avail.

Thee is not a single occurance of an infant being baptized in the Bible!

Well lets go to Acts chapter 2.


Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."
(Acts 2:38-39)


Well it certainly seems Peter is telling them that baptism is for their children. Also as George said Salvation is not reliant upon a concious decision or you being aware of it.


People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these
(Luke 18:15-16)


The kingdom of God and Salvation are not limited to adults but given freely to Children. But there are clear indications that children were Baptised. So I present these two examples:


After she and her household had been baptized, she offered us an invitation, "If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my home," and she prevailed on us.
(Acts 16:15)


Does not a household include children and indeed probably infants? Second example same argument:


I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.
(1 Corinthians 1:16)


Certainly if children younger than the age of reason were not to be Baptized then the Bible would have been implicit about it. Instead we hear of clear indications that children were indeed Baptized.

Furthermore in Col. 2:11-12 we read that Paul teaches that baptism has replaced circumcision. Normally circumcision was done on infants and rarely on adults because there were few converts to Judiasm. If Paul ment to exclude infants from Baptism he certainly would not have used circumcision as a parallel to baptism.

See I told you us Catholics really do read the Bible!
:yes:

[George Murphy]

Your only dreaming George if you think your 6 week old sprinkling or pouring with water - was Baptism. You were just a baby and somebody was practicing a man made doctrine on you to no avail.

Thee is not a single occurance of an infant being baptized in the Bible!

Throughout the Bible, baptism always followed salvation. The Ethiopian eunuch who was led to salvation by Philip was an adult when he was baptized:
"...they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38).

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, BELIEVED, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

George its a beautiful thing when someone is saved, born-again the Bible way and in obedience and in faith is baptized. When you get saved - you will want to get Baptized also. For when one is truly saved - they are willing to obey the Word of God and the teachings of the Master!I see that after getting routed on this topic in another thread you decided to give it a 2d try. Lotsa luck!

That there are no references that might include infant baptism in the NT is at least debatable. I note that Constantine has already given significant passages. Jesus' command to baptize "all nations" - not "the adults of all nations" - is also important. The references to the baptisms of "households" (Acts 16:15 & 34, I Cor.1:16) are again without any exceptions.

Don't bother straining yourself to argue that these don't "prove" infant baptism. If you will read carefully what I said above, you'll see that I don't make that claim. OTOH your notion that infant baptism isn't "really" baptism has no biblical support either.

It's not surprising that in the missionary situation with Acts & the Epistles deal, most of the baptisms - & especially those that were notable - would have been of adults. But this in no way rules out the validity of infant baptism. Nowhere is that restriction made in the Bible.

But the most fundamental consideration - & the one you dodged in our earlier exchange & will probably try to dodge now - has to do with what baptism is. If it is merely a human work of the person baptized then of course that person must be able to do the work, & infants may be precluded. But then it also doesn't make any real difference whether or not a person is baptized, and all the claims that infants aren't "really" baptized are pointless: Who cares? But if baptism is fundamentally God's work - because it is God's promise that makes it effective - then considerations about human ability don't come into play.

Ultimately the question is this: Does God save you, or do you have to make some contribution of your own to salvation - e.g., by accepting Jesus adequately or by having the right kind of born again experience? If the latter - well, are you sure you did it right? Did you really accept Jesus 100%? Was it a real born again experience? I don't have to ask those questions. My salvation (& yours too if you realized it) depends on the objective reality of the death & resurrection of Christ & the objective fact of God's joining me to that reality in baptism. Of course we're called to accept that in faith & our faith is always imperfect. But the validity of God's work isn't affected by our inadequacies.

Another point: In criticizing infant baptism you apparently have in view the idea that baptism is a magical one-time act which then ensures salvation regardless of what the person believes or does. Of course that's wrong - cf. I Cor.10:1-5 e.g. Baptism (as a work of the Spirit) generates & calls for a response of faith. & it is significant for the person's whole life - cf. Rom.6.
OTOH, the idea that you (& others) express of being "saved" or having a born-again experience is subject to exactly the same dangers that you suggest for baptism - the idea that you have that "saved" experience once in your life & then you're all set. I am not saying that that's a necessary consequence of such belief but it does happen, & probably about as often as people think they have eternal fire insurance if they were baptized.

Shalom,
George

[Amazing Rando]

Naturally I can't get inside your experience. But it's important to remember that:
(a) Contrary to what's often said, infants can have the most important element of faith, trust - as anyone knows who's seen the way they can very quickly start trusting their parents. The problem here is the tendency to over-intellectualize faith.

That's a valid point. Infants do have trust, which is probably much closer to the biblical definition of pistis than is mere intellectual assent.


(b) God brings about saving faith (I Cor.12:3), & since re-birth is associated with baptism (Jn.3:5, Titus 3:5) then it seems that baptism can be the way in which God begins faith. (I say "can be the way" because of course people can come to faith before baptism by hearing or reading the Word. In this case baptism is indeed an affirmation of faith but is still God's work of creating & sustaining faith. That is not something that's done just once for a person but goes on throughout life.)

Shalom,
George

I can understand your point of view, George. :yes: I grew up in the United Methodist church, and even back then, nobody clearly explained to me why we were baptizing these babies.

The biggest objection I've got is that infant baptism seems to trivialize the sacrament. I say this because of the enormous number of people out there who have been baptized as an infant yet are wandering around with absolutely zero faith in God. These nominal Christians (we all know them- I was one for a very long time!) are making a mockery of their baptism, in my view. When nearly everyone in the West is baptized at only a few weeks of age, yet most of them live their lives and die as if their baptism was entirely meaningless and inconsequential, whose fault is that? :nsm: I can't answer that.

That's why the "believers' baptism" model seems so much more viable to me. No one should be forced to undergo a sacrament- to do so trivializes the sacrament and rejects the free-will God's given us to accept or reject his grace.

I realize the biblical witness is ambigous and can (and has!) been debated ad nauseum, but for me, it's the icing on the cake.

[Alien]

Hey Alien, thanks for sharing! :smile: Here's a brief history of Anabaptist Christianity as I've been learning it the past few weeks in class.

[...]

Thank you. That's interesting.


They were persecuted and killed for their beliefs by both Protestant and Catholic alike for the first 200 years or so of their existance.

What a surprise! :sad:

Hmmm, I like the sound of them .... I may look into them if Methodism ever palls! :smile:


Anyway, that's probably more than you wanted to know so I'll shut up now :shy:, but I'd be glad to answer any follow up questions you might have.

Not at all, that's exactly the level I requested. I don't think I have any further questions at the moment. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

[Amazing Rando]

What a surprise! :sad:

Hmmm, I like the sound of them .... I may look into them if Methodism ever palls! :smile:

Just remember- this was in the context of the 16th and 17th century Europe in the wake of the Reformation. There were rival Catholic and Protestant armies killing each other on the pretext of religion, though of course it probably had more to do with nationalism than with religion.


Not at all, that's exactly the level I requested. I don't think I have any further questions at the moment. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Sure!

[George Murphy]

The biggest objection I've got is that infant baptism seems to trivialize the sacrament. I say this because of the enormous number of people out there who have been baptized as an infant yet are wandering around with absolutely zero faith in God. These nominal Christians (we all know them- I was one for a very long time!) are making a mockery of their baptism, in my view. When nearly everyone in the West is baptized at only a few weeks of age, yet most of them live their lives and die as if their baptism was entirely meaningless and inconsequential, whose fault is that? :nsm: I can't answer that.

That's why the "believers' baptism" model seems so much more viable to me. No one should be forced to undergo a sacrament- to do so trivializes the sacrament and rejects the free-will God's given us to accept or reject his grace.2 questions should be distinguished:

1) Is the baptism of infants valid baptism? I.e., can infants be baptized?

2) If the answer to question 1 is "Yes" then should infants be baptized in a given situation.

One can answer "Yes" to 1 but "No" to 2. It's one thing to say that infants shouldn't be baptized for the reasons you suggest. It's another matter to deny the validity of those who are so baptized & insist that they be re-baptized later. Question 1 poses the issue that is genuinely church dividing. It has to do with a theological understanding of what baptism is. The answer to 2 is really a pastoral matter.

I can think of situations in which I would not baptize an infant - e.g., if it was clear that the parents had no intention of bringing the child up in the Christian faith, so that what was begun in baptism would not be nurtured. But again, that would not be saying that such a child who was baptized would have to be rebaptized if he/she came to faith later. It's a matter of returning to the grace God gives in baptism - something all Christians are called to every day.

& there is a positive argument for infant baptism: How else will the forgiveness of sin promised in the gospel reach them? If we pursue this very far we will probably come to a basic difference on the question of original sin.

Shalom,
George

[Maxentius]

Hello George,



& there is a positive argument for infant baptism: How else will the forgiveness of sin promised in the gospel reach them? If we pursue this very far we will probably come to a basic difference on the question of original sin.


I think this is the crux (pun intended) of the issue. If infants are "innocent" then there is no positive reason to baptize them before they "understand" what they are doing. Now by "innocent" I have in mind what I learned about Orthodoxy on another list and I think there are some rather obvious parallels with modern Evangelicalism. Basically, infants are innocent because they have not committed actual sins, though they still suffer from the disability inherited from Adam, which is why they die even though they have no actual sins. So they are in need of a cure but they will not be damned as they did not actually sin. This means one must per force postulate something like an "age of accountability", because one can only really sin if one wills to do a actual sin. (Orthodox baptize infants not for sin, but to put them on the path to Theosis, at least that was my understanding). Modern Evangelicals usually say that Christ will cover infant sins because they do not know what they are doing, which is the same reason given for not baptizing infants--one must know what one is doing to expierience e.g. Baptism or it i snot reeally valid.

Contrast this with the Lutheran (and I think the authentic Western theological Tradition) view that sin is not just a disability or an inclination, but arises out of a will that is actively opposed to God. So that what ever we will to do we sin because we will to oppose God. A corrolary to this is that we cannot wil ourselves into obedience and unity with God--so an outside force or power must do this for us. This outside force is the Word, applied along with water in Holy Baptism. This is why we place so much importance on an infant being baptized, how else could he receive new life and faith? What we know is irrelavent, God must change us through his creative, omnipotent Word or we will be lost. Typically this happens during Baptism.

[George Murphy]

If infants are "innocent" then there is no positive reason to baptize them before they "understand" what they are doing. Now by "innocent" I have in mind what I learned about Orthodoxy on another list and I think there are some rather obvious parallels with modern Evangelicalism. Basically, infants are innocent because they have not committed actual sins, though they still suffer from the disability inherited from Adam, which is why they die even though they have no actual sins. So they are in need of a cure but they will not be damned as they did not actually sin. This means one must per force postulate something like an "age of accountability", because one can only really sin if one wills to do a actual sin. (Orthodox baptize infants not for sin, but to put them on the path to Theosis, at least that was my understanding). Modern Evangelicals usually say that Christ will cover infant sins because they do not know what they are doing, which is the same reason given for not baptizing infants--one must know what one is doing to expierience e.g. Baptism or it i snot reeally valid.

Contrast this with the Lutheran (and I think the authentic Western theological Tradition) view that sin is not just a disability or an inclination, but arises out of a will that is actively opposed to God. So that what ever we will to do we sin because we will to oppose God. A corrolary to this is that we cannot wil ourselves into obedience and unity with God--so an outside force or power must do this for us. This outside force is the Word, applied along with water in Holy Baptism. This is why we place so much importance on an infant being baptized, how else could he receive new life and faith? What we know is irrelavent, God must change us through his creative, omnipotent Word or we will be lost. Typically this happens during Baptism.I think the western views of original righteousness & original sin neeed some
rethinking especially in view of evolution, & that EO ideas can be helpful in doing this. In particular, the belief that humanity originated in an essentially perfect "state of integrity" doesn't seem very plausible, & the picture one gets in, e.g., Irenaeus, is more useful.

But this doesn't change the reality that all human beings are in fact born in a condition of separation from God. The bottom line is "original sin as originated," regardless of how we understand the historical beginnings of the condition ("original sin as originating"). It was either Tillich or R. Niehbuhr who said, "Before sin is an act, it is a state." & for infants baptism is the way God has provided to address that condition.

In the Nicene Creed we confess "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." It seems to me that it would be quite artificial to say that it's for one thing in infants & another in adults.

Shalom,
George

[Jude3b]

I see that after getting routed on this topic in another thread you decided to give it a 2d try. Lotsa luck!

That there are no references that might include infant baptism in the NT is at least debatable. I note that Constantine has already given significant passages. Jesus' command to baptize "all nations" - not "the adults of all nations" - is also important. The references to the baptisms of "households" (Acts 16:15 & 34, I Cor.1:16) are again without any exceptions.

Don't bother straining yourself to argue that these don't "prove" infant baptism. If you will read carefully what I said above, you'll see that I don't make that claim. OTOH your notion that infant baptism isn't "really" baptism has no biblical support either.

It's not surprising that in the missionary situation with Acts & the Epistles deal, most of the baptisms - & especially those that were notable - would have been of adults. But this in no way rules out the validity of infant baptism. Nowhere is that restriction made in the Bible.

But the most fundamental consideration - & the one you dodged in our earlier exchange & will probably try to dodge now - has to do with what baptism is. If it is merely a human work of the person baptized then of course that person must be able to do the work, & infants may be precluded. But then it also doesn't make any real difference whether or not a person is baptized, and all the claims that infants aren't "really" baptized are pointless: Who cares? But if baptism is fundamentally God's work - because it is God's promise that makes it effective - then considerations about human ability don't come into play.

Ultimately the question is this: Does God save you, or do you have to make some contribution of your own to salvation - e.g., by accepting Jesus adequately or by having the right kind of born again experience? If the latter - well, are you sure you did it right? Did you really accept Jesus 100%? Was it a real born again experience? I don't have to ask those questions. My salvation (& yours too if you realized it) depends on the objective reality of the death & resurrection of Christ & the objective fact of God's joining me to that reality in baptism. Of course we're called to accept that in faith & our faith is always imperfect. But the validity of God's work isn't affected by our inadequacies.

Another point: In criticizing infant baptism you apparently have in view the idea that baptism is a magical one-time act which then ensures salvation regardless of what the person believes or does. Of course that's wrong - cf. I Cor.10:1-5 e.g. Baptism (as a work of the Spirit) generates & calls for a response of faith. & it is significant for the person's whole life - cf. Rom.6.
OTOH, the idea that you (& others) express of being "saved" or having a born-again experience is subject to exactly the same dangers that you suggest for baptism - the idea that you have that "saved" experience once in your life & then you're all set. I am not saying that that's a necessary consequence of such belief but it does happen, & probably about as often as people think they have eternal fire insurance if they were baptized.

Shalom,
George

Go ahead George and add to the Word of God if you so choose, but that won't help get you saved anymore than your sprinkling did as a 6 week old baby!

I believe the Word of God and not Religionists.

So let us look at the Bible, ok?

Take for example John's message. After John the Baptist's message to "repent," they were:

"....baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matthew 3:6).

Obviously, newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins. Neither could you when you were 6 weeks old. Therefore, infants are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized:

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12).

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why do you and other Religionists demand that newborn infants be baptized? Is it to bring people into bondage to your denomination from shortly after the time of their birth? Or is it simply since you are trapped in Religion and have been subjected to the false doctrine of infant baptism yourself that you must attempt to defend it? You'll have to settle this question in your own heart.

George, when you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized, or did you merely have some water sprinkled on you? It all depends on which side you will believe in - the Word of God or your traditions of men and your religion. Please keep in mind the words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day:

"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9)

[Jawa Man]

Thanks for your comments, Lutheran chums... I especially liked what was said about God being the one doing the work. I had never viewed baptism that way, and it seems 100% more holy from that perspective.

[George Murphy]

Go ahead George and add to the Word of God if you so choose, but that won't help get you saved anymore than your sprinkling did as a 6 week old baby!

I believe the Word of God and not Religionists.

So let us look at the Bible, ok?

Take for example John's message. After John the Baptist's message to "repent," they were:

"....baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matthew 3:6).

Obviously, newborn infants cannot repent, believe or confess their sins. Neither could you when you were 6 weeks old. Therefore, infants are never qualified to be scripturally baptized.

When Philip preached to the people of Samaria, men and women were baptized, but no infants were baptized:

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12).

If God's Word is so explicit that only those old enough to hear and receive God's Word should be baptized, then why do you and other Religionists demand that newborn infants be baptized? Is it to bring people into bondage to your denomination from shortly after the time of their birth? Or is it simply since you are trapped in Religion and have been subjected to the false doctrine of infant baptism yourself that you must attempt to defend it? You'll have to settle this question in your own heart.

George, when you were baptized as an infant, were you really baptized, or did you merely have some water sprinkled on you? It all depends on which side you will believe in - the Word of God or your traditions of men and your religion. Please keep in mind the words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day:

"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9)As usual, you completely fail even to try to deal with the arguments presented from scripture. You chant "Word of God" but when scripture passages that disagree with your position are cited you either ignore them or start trying to rationalize them. (Those who wonder what "rationalization" I'm talking about may refer to post #76 in the "Mary's Command for Catholics" thread in this forum in which Jude attempted to deconstruct John 3:5 and Titus 3:5.) Your ideas in this matter are not formed by scripture but by a priori notions about how God should act.

Shalom,
George

[Jude3b]

As usual, you completely fail even to try to deal with the arguments presented from scripture. You chant "Word of God" but when scripture passages that disagree with your position are cited you either ignore them or start trying to rationalize them. (Those who wonder what "rationalization" I'm talking about may refer to post #76 in the "Mary's Command for Catholics" thread in this forum in which Jude attempted to deconstruct John 3:5 and Titus 3:5.) Your ideas in this matter are not formed by scripture but by a priori notions about how God should act.

Shalom,
George

Whatever George. Men add to the Word of God to their own destruction!

I've given you the Word of God on the subject. You want to add baptism of infants to it and pretend that is a valid baptism and that without one verse of scripture to support such a false doctrine. God have mercy!

As for me and my house, we will follow the Word of God:

", leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from DEAD WORKS and of faith toward God. OF THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMS, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

It is time for all of us, especially the Religionists among us, to read and obey the Word of God - be willing to obey it, Repent, get saved and Live for Christ!

[George Murphy]

Whatever George. Men add to the Word of God to their own destruction!Exactly - like your distorting additions to John 3:5 & Titus 3:5 that I just referred to. OTOH the biblical texts that you've cited only show that adults were baptized, which everyone knows. They don't come close to showing that infants weren't baptized, let alone that infants can't be baptized.

"Whatever" is not usually considered a very good argument.

Shalom,
George

[Maxentius]

Jude,

Let's see if your hermeneutic hold up, OK?



I've given you the Word of God on the subject. You want to add baptism of infants to it and pretend that is a valid baptism and that without one verse of scripture to support such a false doctrine. God have mercy!

If we are limited to what examples we have in Scripture, e.g. if infants are not specifically mentioned then we should not baptize them, on what basis do women receive communion? Please supply explicit proof text from the Word of God, I need direct examples of women receiving communion.

And please do not assume women are present in any biblical passage unless it says so, because that would be adding to the Word of God, which you claim you do not do.


", leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from DEAD WORKS and of faith toward God. OF THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMS, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

It is time for all of us, especially the Religionists among us, to read and obey the Word of God - be willing to obey it, Repent, get saved and Live for Christ!

Be careful Jude, Baptism is not a dead work, it is the work of God. You are dangerously close to blashpeming the Holy Ghost. And in your hermeneutic you exhibit above you also say that the resurrection is a dead work, as is eternal judgement. Is that where yo ureally want to go?

BTW, if you don't supply your proof of feminine communion, will you tell your pastor to stop communing women because to do so is to add to the Word of God?

[Jude3b]

Jude,

Let's see if your hermeneutic hold up, OK?



If we are limited to what examples we have in Scripture, e.g. if infants are not specifically mentioned then we should not baptize them, on what basis do women receive communion? Please supply explicit proof text from the Word of God, I need direct examples of women receiving communion.

And please do not assume women are present in any biblical passage unless it says so, because that would be adding to the Word of God, which you claim you do not do.



Be careful Jude, Baptism is not a dead work, it is the work of God. You are dangerously close to blashpeming the Holy Ghost. And in your hermeneutic you exhibit above you also say that the resurrection is a dead work, as is eternal judgement. Is that where yo ureally want to go?

BTW, if you don't supply your proof of feminine communion, will you tell your pastor to stop communing women because to do so is to add to the Word of God?

Dear Maxentius and fellow TWEBers:


"Beware lest any many spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after THE TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8).

The Bible does not record a single occurance of an infant being baptized. On the contrary, EVERY MENTION OF BAPTISM INVOLVES PEOPLE OLD ENOUGH TO HEAR AND RECEIVE THE GOSPEL.

Jesus was an adult when he was baptized:

"...Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water..." (Matthew 3:16).

Throughout the Bible, baptism ALWAYS followed salvation. The Ethiopian eunuch who was led to salvation by Philip was an ADULT when he was baptized: "...they went down both INTO THE WATER, bot Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38).

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12).

GOD'S WORD IS EXPLICIT THAT ONLY THOSE OLD ENOUGH TO HEAR AND RECEIVE GOD'S WORD SHOULD BE BAPTIZED.

It seems to me that a whole bunch of Religionists here on TWEB need to believe on Christ, get born again, as Peter preached:

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (I Peter 1:23). Trusting God's Word, believing ON Jesus and that he paid the price for all sin, once and for all: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;" (I Cor. 15:3).

Receive the promise of God - to all those that believe on Christ: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 10:17).

You see my dear fellow TWEBers, we are not saved by sacraments, infant baptism or any other religious work, but rather by Christ who loves us and gave Himself for us.

Please Do not demote the Lord and rob Him of the honor and glory that He alone deserves, by declaring that you can help pay for part of your salvation by dead sacramental religious works such as infant baptism. Amen.


AND TO YOU MAXENTIUS:

Do you have something against women? Don't you know that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither MALE NOR FEMALE; FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28).

Of course Women can take communion with men or even without men.

[George Murphy]

AND TO YOU MAXENTIUS:

Do you have something against women? Don't you know that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither MALE NOR FEMALE; FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28).

Of course Women can take communion with men or even without men.
You have completely missed the pointed of Maxentius' argument, which is constructed in precise parallel to yours. (The attempt to make it sound as if he has something against women is ludicrous.) This - & the whole way you have tried to argue here - shows that your claims are not based on scripture at all. Instead you have 1st decided upon a positio, that infants can't be baptized, and then have tried to use the Bible to support your views - & rather ineptly at that.

Shalom,
George

[Maxentius]

Dear Maxentius and fellow TWEBers:


"" (Col. 2:8).

The Bible does not record a single occurance of an infant being baptized. On the contrary, EVERY MENTION OF BAPTISM INVOLVES PEOPLE OLD ENOUGH TO HEAR AND RECEIVE THE GOSPEL.

OK, so therefore baptism is limited to adults who "know" something because of a lack of clear examples in Scripture. So why the different approach to Communion regarding women? Convenience? Perhaps a clear example from Scripture?


Do you have something against women?

Nope, I married one. Do you have something against babies? :hehe:


Of course Women can take communion with men or even without men.

Chapter and verse please of the explicit example of any woman receiving communion "with men or even without men" or you are adding to God's Word. No assumptions. Sauce for the goose (Baptism) is sauce for the gander (Communion). At least if you apply your stated hermeneutic consistently. Remember your quote from above? "Beware lest any many spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after THE TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." According to you, without explicit Scriptural warrant, we cannot administer Baptism to infants, but we can administer Communion, yet you supply no Scripture to justify your conclusion. That leaves you with nothing but the "teachings of men", AKA Tradition!

And as George Murphy said, you completely missed the point of my question. It should be simple for you to justify communing women because everything you believe is clearly tought in Scripture right? All I await is your Scriptural example, and no "traditions" allowed, right?

Can you answer the question? A better hermeneutic would be to stop using your argument from silence: What Scripture does not explicitly command is forbidden.

[Jude3b]

OK, so therefore baptism is limited to adults who "know" something because of a lack of clear examples in Scripture. So why the different approach to Communion regarding women? Convenience? Perhaps a clear example from Scripture?



Nope, I married one. Do you have something against babies? :hehe:



Chapter and verse please of the explicit example of any woman receiving communion "with men or even without men" or you are adding to God's Word. No assumptions. Sauce for the goose (Baptism) is sauce for the gander (Communion). At least if you apply your stated hermeneutic consistently. Remember your quote from above? "Beware lest any many spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after THE TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." According to you, without explicit Scriptural warrant, we cannot administer Baptism to infants, but we can administer Communion, yet you supply no Scripture to justify your conclusion. That leaves you with nothing but the "teachings of men", AKA Tradition!

And as George Murphy said, you completely missed the point of my question. It should be simple for you to justify communing women because everything you believe is clearly tought in Scripture right? All I await is your Scriptural example, and no "traditions" allowed, right?

Can you answer the question? A better hermeneutic would be to stop using your argument from silence: What Scripture does not explicitly command is forbidden.

JESUS SAID: "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! Woe to you,... Blind Pharisees, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish,..." (Matt. 22:24, 26a)

A BELIEVER'S BAPTISM

The last commission of Christ, as given by Mark, is: "And he said unto them, God ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark 16:15, 16).

This scripture clearly limits the subjects of baptism to those who are capable of hearing and believing the gospel; and this standard was invariably maintained by the apostles in their ministry.

The entire practise of giving a so-called baptism to young children originated in an apostate church and is positive HERESY. It is NOWHERE TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE, either by a single text or by a single example. Nor is infant baptism found in any other book OUTSIDE of the Bible until the close of the second century, and then it was introduced as a result of two other errors that were being taught:
1) That infants are totally depraved and therefore guilty and lost.
2) That baptism itself regenerates from sin.
These two false doctrines believed, the baptism of infants naturally followed, as the only means of removing their depravity and preventing their going to hell in case of death.

There is no valid reason, either in the Bible or outside of it, for the observance of infant (so-called) baptism.

No good can possibly come to infants by this senseless rite; on the contrary an incalculable amount of harm results. One writer urges infant baptism in order that the children "should never be allowed to believe that they were naturally aliens from the household of faith." This is the huge harm and deception that comes through so-called infant baptism; for at this very moment there are millions who were sprinkled or poured on in infancy who now believe that they have always been children of God, though they have NEVER been "born again," and are on THE ROAD TO HELL. I was one of those, having been so-called infant baptised as a young Roman Catholic infant. It wasn't though until I was 27 years old, that I was born-again the Bible way, when I repented and received Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. After I believed, I was happy to be baptised - because that is what the Word of God tells us to do!

When people grow up in sin believing that they are Christians because of a so-called baptism in infancy, it is almost impossible to convince them that they are not Christians at all; yet they must understand this truth before they can ever be definitely converted to God.

I assert without hesitation, in the fear of God, that it is my firm conviction that no other false doctrine ever introduced under the name of Christianity has been the means of sending such a great number of people to HELL as this one delusion - infant baptism.

The doctrine of my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ is that "except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

"HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED." AMEN AND AMEN!

[George Murphy]

I assert without hesitation, in the fear of God, that it is my firm conviction that no other false doctrine ever introduced under the name of Christianity has been the means of sending such a great number of people to HELL as this one delusion - infant baptism.Yes, we know that you assert it. What you have utterly failed to show is that scripture asserts it. It is pitiful to see how your hatred has so clouded your thinking that you are unable to undertand that the fact that scripture doesn't explicitly mention the baptism of infants is in no way equivalent to a prohibition of such baptism. In spite of all your appeals to "the Word of God," your claims finally come down to just your bare assertion.


The doctrine of my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ is that "except a man be born again he can not see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).Did your Lord and Savior explain this 2 verses further on by saying "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit"?


"HE THAT BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED." AMEN AND AMEN!Have you still not grasped the fact that the baptism is not something to be separated from faith?


Shalom,
George

[Jude3b]

Yes, we know that you assert it. What you have utterly failed to show is that scripture asserts it. It is pitiful to see how your hatred has so clouded your thinking that you are unable to undertand that the fact that scripture doesn't explicitly mention the baptism of infants is in no way equivalent to a prohibition of such baptism. In spite of all your appeals to "the Word of God," your claims finally come down to just your bare assertion.

Did your Lord and Savior explain this 2 verses further on by saying "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit"?

Have you still not grasped the fact that the baptism is not something to be separated from faith?


Shalom,
George

THE NEW BIRTH IS NOT INFANT BAPTISM!

I wish it were in my power to arouse you George and the millions who are sleeping under the delusion that they were really baptized when they were babes and are therefore Christians. Unless such become awakened, "BELIEVE" THE GOSPEL and are saved thereby, and then are "baptized both men and women" (Acts 8:12), they will all be lost forever.

"Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5). WATER refers to physical birth. The Hebrews used terms such as "water" and "drop" in describing natural birth, and such an explanation fits the context. SPIRIT refers to the spiritual birth brought about by the renewing and transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water (natural birth) and the Spirit (spiritual birth - or born from above - the new birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God!

Fellow TWEBers trusting in the sacramental religious work of infant baptism for salvation just doesn't cut it. Realize you have to "Believe On the Lord Jesus Christ!" "BELIEVE and be Baptised!" to be saved! (See Eph. 2: 8 & 9 please) Amen.

[George Murphy]

THE NEW BIRTH IS NOT INFANT BAPTISM!

I wish it were in my power to arouse you George and the millions who are sleeping under the delusion that they were really baptized when they were babes and are therefore Christians. Unless such become awakened, "BELIEVE" THE GOSPEL and are saved thereby, and then are "baptized both men and women" (Acts 8:12), they will all be lost forever.

"Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5). WATER refers to physical birth. The Hebrews used terms such as "water" and "drop" in describing natural birth, and such an explanation fits the context. SPIRIT refers to the spiritual birth brought about by the renewing and transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water (natural birth) and the Spirit (spiritual birth - or born from above - the new birth), he cannot enter the kingdom of God!

Fellow TWEBers trusting in the sacramental religious work of infant baptism for salvation just doesn't cut it. Realize you have to "Believe On the Lord Jesus Christ!" "BELIEVE and be Baptised!" to be saved! (See Eph. 2: 8 & 9 please) Amen.I wish it were in my power to get you to discuss this intelligently instead of just ranting. You are fighting the merest straw man in the notion that infant baptism is supposed to be a guarantee of salvation having no connection with faith in Christ.

Shalom,
George

[Maxentius]

Jude,

In the first place, please refrain from calling infant baptism the work of the devil. You are dangerously close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is especially true because your stated hermeneutic is wrong, and proof of this is your failure to answer the question regarding Communion and women.

You have utterly failed to answer the question, and the question is rather straight forward. If it is true that we should not baptize infants if Scripture does not give explicit examples of that practice, the same would be true of communing women because there are no explicit examples of that either. This question you refuse to answer because it shows your assumption re: infants to be nothing more than that--your assumption--and not something based on Scripture at all. Face it, there is no passage in Scripture that explicitly states that women commune yet your church communes women because you rightly infer that women were present. But you want to say that because there are no explicit examples of infant Baptism that such a practice is forbidden. There is a great, great incongruity between your approach to Baptism on the one hand and Communion on the other. But instead of admitting this you just go and try and change the subject.

Despite your protests to the contrary you do not follow "Scripture Alone" because you believe women should be communed even though that is not found in Scripture, your stated hermeneutic being that if Scripture does not give examples a practice is forbidden. Also, if it is true that you infer women are present at Communion then we are free to infer infants were present when whole housholds were baptized, sauce for the isagogical goose is sauce for the hermeneutical gander. But I sense you don't want to discuss that.

I will not engage you in any further discussion of Baptism until you answer the simple question as to why your church would commune women if there is no explicit example for that practice in Scripture, given what you have said here about communing infants. Other examples you provide for your doctrine of Baptism are beside the point. I ask why you do not use the same approach regarding Communion. In other words, you are cought in a blatant contradiction.

So, chapter and verse for female communion please.

[George Murphy]

I will not engage you in any further discussion of Baptism until you answer the simple question as to why your church would commune women if there is no explicit example for that practice in Scripture, given what you have said here about communing infants. Other examples you provide for your doctrine of Baptism are beside the point. I ask why you do not use the same approach regarding Communion. In other words, you are cought in a blatant contradiction.

So, chapter and verse for female communion please.I second the motion. There are a number of other challenges to his position that Jude has dodged but this one brings into the open most clearly his failure to do what he claims - i.e., base his view about baptism on scripture alone. Until he at least makes an attempt to deal with it there's no point in continuing the discussion.

Shalom,
George

[Amazing Rando]

:hi: Well, just thought I'd report back in to ya folks. :smile: Sorry for bailing on the discussion, but I don't have internet access from home and haven't been at school since Thursday.

I went through with it- baptism, during worship on Sunday. The pastor asked me if I wanted to share with the church some parts of my journey, so I told them a bit about coming to faith 5 years ago, and having discerned the call to the pastorate about one year ago, and my some of the ups and downs I'd had in learning to love God. I summed it up by saying, "This then, is my public declaration that there is no other Lord than Jesus Christ, and I am ready to follow wherever he would have me go."

Then I was asked several questions, including

-if I believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
-if I renounced evil, sin, and the ways of this world,
-if I was prepared to give and receive counsel and admonitions from the church,

and a few more.

Then I kneeled facing the congregation and the pastor poured the water of baptism on my head three times, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Following that, just about everyone in the church ran up to hug me. It was really cool! Afterward, the pastor gave me the mug I was baptized with as a way to remember the day- they'd had it made especially for me that day. The experience was a true blessing for me, and the the Lord was most definitely there that day.

Before the baptism, it was made clear that this in no way meant that my former (infant) baptism was "invalid" or anything. It just meant that I was finally ready to make a public declaration of my faith in Jesus Christ, and that I was ready to enter into complete fellowship with the body of believers.

So that's how it went.

[George Murphy]

:hi: Well, just thought I'd report back in to ya folks. :smile: Sorry for bailing on the discussion, but I don't have internet access from home and haven't been at school since Thursday.

I went through with it- baptism, during worship on Sunday. The pastor asked me if I wanted to share with the church some parts of my journey, so I told them a bit about coming to faith 5 years ago, and having discerned the call to the pastorate about one year ago, and my some of the ups and downs I'd had in learning to love God. I summed it up by saying, "This then, is my public declaration that there is no other Lord than Jesus Christ, and I am ready to follow wherever he would have me go."

Then I was asked several questions, including

-if I believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
-if I renounced evil, sin, and the ways of this world,
-if I was prepared to give and receive counsel and admonitions from the church,

and a few more.

Then I kneeled facing the congregation and the pastor poured the water of baptism on my head three times, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Following that, just about everyone in the church ran up to hug me. It was really cool! Afterward, the pastor gave me the mug I was baptized with as a way to remember the day- they'd had it made especially for me that day. The experience was a true blessing for me, and the the Lord was most definitely there that day.

Before the baptism, it was made clear that this in no way meant that my former (infant) baptism was "invalid" or anything. It just meant that I was finally ready to make a public declaration of my faith in Jesus Christ, and that I was ready to enter into complete fellowship with the body of believers.

So that's how it went.I appreciate the way in which you've discussed this matter. Even when we do have important differences we can deal with them in a civil manner.

Shalom,
George

[Amazing Rando]

I appreciate the way in which you've discussed this matter. Even when we do have important differences we can deal with them in a civil manner.

Shalom,
George

Absolutely. Baptism is (to me at least) a peripheral issue, and nothing to divide over.

[George Murphy]

Absolutely. Baptism is (to me at least) a peripheral issue, and nothing to divide over.I didn't say that. Baptism is important & some differences over it can be genuinely church-dividing. The refusal of one group of Christians to recognize the baptisms of another, e.g., is by definition church dividing. But even in such cases (& a fortiori less significant ones) we can still try be charitable in discussing our differences.

Shalom,
George

[Jude3b]

I wish it were in my power to get you to discuss this intelligently instead of just ranting. You are fighting the merest straw man in the notion that infant baptism is supposed to be a guarantee of salvation having no connection with faith in Christ.

Shalom,
George

George, quoting scripture is not ranting. Jesus did it, Paul did it, Peter did it. I am a Bible believing Christian and the Word of God is my final authority.

Your denial and unwillingness to submit to scripture is really your problem George. I didn't write the Bible. God did!

[Jude3b]

Jude,

In the first place, please refrain from calling infant baptism the work of the devil. You are dangerously close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is especially true because your stated hermeneutic is wrong, and proof of this is your failure to answer the question regarding Communion and women.

You have utterly failed to answer the question, and the question is rather straight forward. If it is true that we should not baptize infants if Scripture does not give explicit examples of that practice, the same would be true of communing women because there are no explicit examples of that either. This question you refuse to answer because it shows your assumption re: infants to be nothing more than that--your assumption--and not something based on Scripture at all. Face it, there is no passage in Scripture that explicitly states that women commune yet your church communes women because you rightly infer that women were present. But you want to say that because there are no explicit examples of infant Baptism that such a practice is forbidden. There is a great, great incongruity between your approach to Baptism on the one hand and Communion on the other. But instead of admitting this you just go and try and change the subject.

Despite your protests to the contrary you do not follow "Scripture Alone" because you believe women should be communed even though that is not found in Scripture, your stated hermeneutic being that if Scripture does not give examples a practice is forbidden. Also, if it is true that you infer women are present at Communion then we are free to infer infants were present when whole housholds were baptized, sauce for the isagogical goose is sauce for the hermeneutical gander. But I sense you don't want to discuss that.

I will not engage you in any further discussion of Baptism until you answer the simple question as to why your church would commune women if there is no explicit example for that practice in Scripture, given what you have said here about communing infants. Other examples you provide for your doctrine of Baptism are beside the point. I ask why you do not use the same approach regarding Communion. In other words, you are cought in a blatant contradiction.

So, chapter and verse for female communion please.

Frankly my dear Maxentius, I could care less if you debate with me or not. You don't impress me with your attempt to support an "Unbilical" false doctrine and tradition of men, known as so-called INFANT BAPTISM.

Your question about communion is a foolish question and an attempt to defend your false doctrine of INFANT BAPTISM.

The Word of God already told you that "...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28b) - so you have no scriptural authority to discriminate against women in the communion service.

[Jude3b]

I second the motion. There are a number of other challenges to his position that Jude has dodged but this one brings into the open most clearly his failure to do what he claims - i.e., base his view about baptism on scripture alone. Until he at least makes an attempt to deal with it there's no point in continuing the discussion.

Shalom,
George

GEORGE and MAXENTIUS YOU NEED TO BELIEVE AND BE BAPTISED!!

In order to fulfil the Word of God and secure a valid baptism you must observe the following:

1) Maxentius and George, You must know and hear the gospel (Mark 16:15)

2) You both must repent and believe the gospel, the doing of which will effect your salvation (Acts 3:19; 16:31; 2:38).

3) You both must find a minister of God that is ready to baptize you (Acts 8:36, 37).

4) George and/or Maxentius, The minister of God and you must go together to a place where there is "much water" (John 3:23).

5) Then George and Maxentius you and the minster of God must go "down both into the water" (Acts 8:38), thus following the example of Christ in his baptism (Matt. 3:16).

6) Maxentius and George, Then you must be "buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism."

7) George and Maxentius, Both the minster of God and you can then "come up out of the water" (Acts 8:39).

8) Lastly George and/or Maxentius, having obeyed the Word of God and following the Lord, you can go "on your way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39).

George, Maxentius and other TWEBers, have you met the Bible conditions and been baptized in this way? If not, you have not been baptized at all; for nothing short of this constitutes a valid baptism.

[Jude3b]

:hi: Well, just thought I'd report back in to ya folks. :smile: Sorry for bailing on the discussion, but I don't have internet access from home and haven't been at school since Thursday.

I went through with it- baptism, during worship on Sunday. The pastor asked me if I wanted to share with the church some parts of my journey, so I told them a bit about coming to faith 5 years ago, and having discerned the call to the pastorate about one year ago, and my some of the ups and downs I'd had in learning to love God. I summed it up by saying, "This then, is my public declaration that there is no other Lord than Jesus Christ, and I am ready to follow wherever he would have me go."

Then I was asked several questions, including

-if I believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
-if I renounced evil, sin, and the ways of this world,
-if I was prepared to give and receive counsel and admonitions from the church,

and a few more.

Then I kneeled facing the congregation and the pastor poured the water of baptism on my head three times, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Following that, just about everyone in the church ran up to hug me. It was really cool! Afterward, the pastor gave me the mug I was baptized with as a way to remember the day- they'd had it made especially for me that day. The experience was a true blessing for me, and the the Lord was most definitely there that day.

Before the baptism, it was made clear that this in no way meant that my former (infant) baptism was "invalid" or anything. It just meant that I was finally ready to make a public declaration of my faith in Jesus Christ, and that I was ready to enter into complete fellowship with the body of believers.

So that's how it went.

Wow! I am thrilled that you are stepping out and obviously have developed a deeper interest in spiritual things. Praise God for that.

But my dear Amazing Rando, what kind of a liberal church are you attending that "pours" a little water on you and calls it baptism? What kind of liberal group do you hang around with that would lead you to believe that Infant so-called baptism is valid? Valid for what? What did your infant baptism accomplish for you?

[Maxentius]

Frankly my dear Maxentius, I could care less if you debate with me or not. You don't impress me with your attempt to support an "Unbilical" false doctrine and tradition of men, known as so-called INFANT BAPTISM.

Well you did attempt to answer the question this time, so we can continue.

I disagree with your characteization infant Baptism. And your mere assertion of your private interpretation, based on your hermemeutic that if infants are not specifically mentioned we may not infer they were present, while maintaining that women should be communed even though Scripture is "silent" in exactly the same way just goes to show that you do not stick to the principle of Sola Scriptura but rather cherry pick depending on what you have already decided.


Your question about communion is a foolish question and an attempt to defend your false doctrine of INFANT BAPTISM.

Nope, it is a question that shows that you do not follow your own interprative framework, and plainly so. You cannot provide a Scripture passage to back up your "unbiblical" doctrine of communing women, given your stated principles of interpretation. Instead you want to assert your position over and over.


The Word of God already told you that "...there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28b) - so you have no scriptural authority to discriminate against women in the communion service.

It must be difficult for you to kick against the goads.

Sorry, but that does not specifically say that women should commune. You are inferring, which is not the Word of God but your inference, according to how you "interpret" the Bible as regarding Holy Baptism. Jude, you are still cought in a blatant contradiction and flailing around and supplying a "proof" text that does not even address Communion directly does not ameliorate the blatant contradictions in your approach. The fact you have to use a passage that does not even address the question shows this clearly. After all, God could have put anything he wanted in there plainly, couldn't he? The problem is your hermeneutic and the limits you push it to in one case but not the other.

If you are free to infer woman receive Communion, we are free to infer that infants are present in the "all nations" of the Great Commission and in the households that were baptized. What you are asserting is "Inference is OK for me but not for thee"; and there is the contradiction.

[George Murphy]

GEORGE and MAXENTIUS YOU NEED TO BELIEVE AND BE BAPTISED!!

In order to fulfil the Word of God and secure a valid baptism you must observe the following:

1) Maxentius and George, You must know and hear the gospel (Mark 16:15)

2) You both must repent and believe the gospel, the doing of which will effect your salvation (Acts 3:19; 16:31; 2:38).

3) You both must find a minister of God that is ready to baptize you (Acts 8:36, 37).

4) George and/or Maxentius, The minister of God and you must go together to a place where there is "much water" (John 3:23).

5) Then George and Maxentius you and the minster of God must go "down both into the water" (Acts 8:38), thus following the example of Christ in his baptism (Matt. 3:16).

6) Maxentius and George, Then you must be "buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism."

7) George and Maxentius, Both the minster of God and you can then "come up out of the water" (Acts 8:39).

8) Lastly George and/or Maxentius, having obeyed the Word of God and following the Lord, you can go "on your way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39).

George, Maxentius and other TWEBers, have you met the Bible conditions and been baptized in this way? If not, you have not been baptized at all; for nothing short of this constitutes a valid baptism.In other words, Jude reduces the gospel to checking off the items on a list of rules.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

GEORGE and MAXENTIUS YOU NEED TO BELIEVE AND BE BAPTISED!!

In order to fulfil the Word of God and secure a valid baptism you must observe the following:

1) Maxentius and George, You must know and hear the gospel (Mark 16:15)

2) You both must repent and believe the gospel, the doing of which will effect your salvation (Acts 3:19; 16:31; 2:38).

3) You both must find a minister of God that is ready to baptize you (Acts 8:36, 37).

4) George and/or Maxentius, The minister of God and you must go together to a place where there is "much water" (John 3:23).

5) Then George and Maxentius you and the minster of God must go "down both into the water" (Acts 8:38), thus following the example of Christ in his baptism (Matt. 3:16).

6) Maxentius and George, Then you must be "buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism."

7) George and Maxentius, Both the minster of God and you can then "come up out of the water" (Acts 8:39).

8) Lastly George and/or Maxentius, having obeyed the Word of God and following the Lord, you can go "on your way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39).

George, Maxentius and other TWEBers, have you met the Bible conditions and been baptized in this way? If not, you have not been baptized at all; for nothing short of this constitutes a valid baptism.I said that I wouldn't engage Jude further if he wouldn't engage Maxentius' pertinent question, & of course Jude dodged that. But I think the list of rules that Jude has given here deserves a comment, because this is what he's reduced the "gospel" to: Checking off the items on a list of regulations. With all of his harangues against the RCC he doesn't seem to realize that he's constructed a version of Christianity that is more legalistic than any of the works righteousness that the 16th century Reformers confronted.

At this point I think the best way to deal with Jude is to avoid any more fruitless exchanges with him & keep him in prayer.

Shalom,
George

[Amazing Rando]

:smile: I'm outta here. You guys have fun!

[Jude3b]

Well you did attempt to answer the question this time, so we can continue.

I disagree with your characteization infant Baptism. And your mere assertion of your private interpretation, based on your hermemeutic that if infants are not specifically mentioned we may not infer they were present, while maintaining that women should be communed even though Scripture is "silent" in exactly the same way just goes to show that you do not stick to the principle of Sola Scriptura but rather cherry pick depending on what you have already decided.



Nope, it is a question that shows that you do not follow your own interprative framework, and plainly so. You cannot provide a Scripture passage to back up your "unbiblical" doctrine of communing women, given your stated principles of interpretation. Instead you want to assert your position over and over.



It must be difficult for you to kick against the goads.

Sorry, but that does not specifically say that women should commune. You are inferring, which is not the Word of God but your inference, according to how you "interpret" the Bible as regarding Holy Baptism. Jude, you are still cought in a blatant contradiction and flailing around and supplying a "proof" text that does not even address Communion directly does not ameliorate the blatant contradictions in your approach. The fact you have to use a passage that does not even address the question shows this clearly. After all, God could have put anything he wanted in there plainly, couldn't he? The problem is your hermeneutic and the limits you push it to in one case but not the other.

If you are free to infer woman receive Communion, we are free to infer that infants are present in the "all nations" of the Great Commission and in the households that were baptized. What you are asserting is "Inference is OK for me but not for thee"; and there is the contradiction.

In case you forgot - you were the one who brought up Communion, which has nothing to do with the subject of Re-baptizing.

Was that your attempt to sidestep the actual thread and dazzle someone with fancy footwork - rather than give us a Biblical basis for or reason for baptizing infants, or for that matter anyone who is not yet a believer? Or is it because there is no Bible basis for baptizing infants and those who do not yet believe?