Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Believer's Baptism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    At the risk of being the broken record..... again, I'm far more concerned with "if you were to die right now, do you know for sure...."

    I don't believe Baptism is necessary for Salvation, so I always try to resolve that first issue (Salvation) first. Generally, I have found that people who have their "Salvation" settled don't have any problem following that up with Believer's Baptism.
    I held since before joining Tweb that "is baptism required for salvation" is asking the wrong question; the relevant question is "if you're saved, why wouldn't you be baptized?"
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
    sigpic
    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      My view is that

      1. You are obeying Christ who said to do it.
      This is a general argument for baptism, IMO.
      2. You are proclaiming your allegiance to Christ, to your fellow Christians and to the world. If is a form of confessing Christ as your Lord and Savior
      This is a post hoc Protestant reason for baptism, formulated because the Catholic rationale was rejected and they needed one beyond "Jesus said so."
      3. It symbolizes dying and being reborn.
      Yes.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        I was reading your post again.

        So what do you mean by sacrament? I believe baptism is a holy ceremony. I don't think it saves you but it is holy and sacred.
        A sacrament is something effected by the grace of God. Baptists in particular reject the term, calling baptism and the Lord's Supper "ordinances" because they were "ordained" by Christ. I agree that baptism does not save, as I believe that salvation is a process, not a point event. In accord with scripture and the Nicene Creed, I believe in "one baptism for the remission of sins."
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          I held since before joining Tweb that "is baptism required for salvation" is asking the wrong question; the relevant question is "if you're saved, why wouldn't you be baptized?"
          yesh
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            I know an 8-year old who remembers being baptized at 1. It's not something I usually ask. IIRC George Blaisdell knew people who recalled being baptized as infants.
            Yeah, I'm aware of false memory syndrome.








            Am I gonna regret not using sarcasm tags?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • How many children have been told "you couldn't possibly remember that; you were too young"? It might be that on occasion, one person or another remembers.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                @ Chrawnus
                How does 1 Peter 3:20-21 read in Swedish? (picking up at "eight souls were saved")

                Google translate gives (stop laughing)
                "eight souls were saved through the water that now saves you"
                as
                "åtta själar räddades genom vattnet som nu sparar dig"
                It didn't fail completely. The only thing I'd change is instead of sparar, which does mean save, but in the sense of saving money rather than saving a life, I'd use frälser instead which, while it does have pretty significant theological undertones, is more in line with what the word really means. Räddar (of which räddades is a form) which could also be used, doesn't have the same theological implications, and could also be used, but in that case it would more imply being saved from physical danger, rather than spiritual danger.

                So if you believe that the word saves refers to being rescued from physical danger, or just being rescued in general, I would use räddar, though it would look a bit awkward to use the same word, even if they're in different forms, so close to each other in the same sentence. If you believe it's talking about being saved from damnation, or being saved in a spiritual sense, I'd use frälser instead.



                If we consult an actual Swedish translation of the Koine, the version I use most commonly, Svenska Folkbibeln 1998 (there's a 1998 and a 2015 edition, but I mostly use the older one) renders it as:

                Scripture Verse: 1 Peter 3:20c-e SFB 98

                I den blev några få, åtta personer, frälsta genom vatten.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Roughly translated to English it would read as:

                "In it[referring to the ark that was mentioned previously in the verse] a few, (that is) eight persons, were saved through water."

                The implication being that saved through water does not refer to the reader, but to the eight persons in the ark. Though it does go on to say:

                Scripture Verse: 1 Peter 3:21a SFB 98

                Efter denna förebild frälser dopet nu också er.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Which roughly translated to English would mean something like: "According to this model/example/pattern, baptism now also saves you."

                Comment


                • It seems that Swedish can't deal with the Koine Greek grammar directly in this passage - but better than English grammar can. However, the Swedish translators have done a VERY good job of preserving the meaning.

                  I think the Swedish words are in the right places below: they're related to the English words (near as I can tell). The English words translate the Koine Greek.

                  8 saved Koine Eng Swed.jpg

                  After that comes an explanation of how baptism actually achieves “save.” Hint: it isn’t by cleaning the skin.


                  Is “er” accusative?

                  “that” from “o” top line, 6th word: reflexive pronoun, nominative, singular – which is to say “the aforementioned water.”
                  Could (if slightly indirectly) “förebild” be translated as paradigm?
                  “anti-typal” adjective, nominative (pour plaster into a mould – the mould is the type, the plaster shape that comes out is the antitype.)
                  “baptism” noun, nominative
                  that (standing for “water”) + anti-typal + baptism form a single compound noun (and grammatical subject)
                  Last edited by tabibito; 05-26-2019, 02:07 AM.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    I respect Dr. Keener, but what he's saying here regarding similarities between Jewish ritual baths and early Christian baptism simply does not stand up to closer examination (see Dr. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries). From what I recall, it is rather unclear that Jews even practiced initiatory baptism of proselytes at the time; if they did, it is speculation at best to opine why they did so, and in any case it was self-administered and temporary (as it was certainly not the only ritual bath performed by Jews at the time).
                    Does Dr. Ferguson address what he said in his earlier (2003) book, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd. Ed.? Around page 546 and following, if I'm understanding him, he considers it likely (but uncertain) that proselyte baptism was practiced. It was definitely immersion. It was indeed "self-administered," so to speak, but in contrast to some other ritual purification washings, it required the presence of witnesses who would instruct the proselyte in Judaism. He makes no mention of it being "temporary," and notes that children born to parents who had already been baptized did not themselves need to be baptized.

                    This discussion got me curious, so I briefly checked a few other resources.

                    My Keener citations came from the 1993 edition of his commentary, because that one is available in electronic form (in my case, as a module for "The Word"), facilitating easy copy-and-paste.

                    He presented and defended both the Mark 1 and John 3 passages in some depth in The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts (1997) and even more extensively the John 1 and 3 passages in The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2003).

                    Ben Witherington III -- In his 1995 commentary, John's Wisdom -- a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, he dismisses rather casually the idea that in John 3:5, "water" and "spirit" are used interchangeably. (He implies that this claimed interchangeability is based solely on slim grammatical grounds.) However, he also finds that the "water" in v. 5 has nothing to do with water baptism.

                    In his 2001 commentary, The Gospel of Mark -- a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, he dismisses the relevance of Jewish proselyte baptism w.r.t. John the Baptizer. One point catches my eye: He notes, as does Ferguson, that such baptism was "self-administered." However, while Ferguson notes that such proselyte baptism required witness and instructors, BWIII does not mention this, and considers the fact that candidates sought out John to officiate to be a strike against the idea that his was related to proselyte baptism.

                    Gary Burge, in his 1987 Johannine pneumatology The Anointed Community, sees various Jewish purification rituals, proselyte baptism, and John's baptism as the background for the Nicodemus dialogue. He does not (AFAICT) directly link John's baptism to Jewish proselyte baptism. He does (if I'm understanding him) argue that in 3:5, "water" and "spirit" are tightly linked, and that the context emphasizes the Spirit such that the physical water becomes secondary and even dispensable.

                    In his 2009 book, The New Testament in Antiquity, he discusses ritual baths, proselyte baptism, and John's baptism, and notes, without taking an obvious position, that scholarly opinion is divided as to whether proselyte baptism was extant early enough for John to have adapted it.
                    Last edited by NorrinRadd; 05-26-2019, 05:08 AM.
                    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                    Beige Federalist.

                    Nationalist Christian.

                    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                    Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                    Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                    Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                    Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                    Justice for Matthew Perna!

                    Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      Another discussion got me thinking about this a bit, and it's making increasingly less sense to me.

                      As far as I recall, proponents of believer's (i.o.w., adult) baptism believe that baptism is not efficacious for salvation, because that would be salvation by works; it's done because Jesus commanded disciples to be baptized, but it's not a sacrament. On the other hand, you have to have undergone it to become a member of the church. Why? It seems to me that it unnecessarily excludes children from church membership and, since it's not relevant in the context of salvation, a simple affirmation of concurrence with the congregation's beliefs would be sufficient.
                      The advantage BB has over IB is that:

                      1. Adult baptism is the only kind with clear NT support - the defence of IB that argues from the mention of the Philippian gaoler’s “household” in Acts 16, is based on an inference from reason, and posits infants in his household for whose existence there is no evidence; the argument is an exercise in wishful thinking;

                      2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. The result for the life and witness of the Church is, that the Church’s membership includes hordes of baptised unbelievers. This degrades the Church, and makes her evangelising mission a bad joke, because those who have no faith in Christ cannot bear witness to Him. Purely nominal members of the Church should be treated as the heathens they are in fact. There are many “good pagans” - that they are good in many ways, does not make them Christians. “Good pagan” adults who have been baptised as infants, and have given up the Faith they were baptised in, are not Christians in the NT sense, so they cannot accurately be called Christians in any sense worth discussing.

                      3. What then to do with the children ? Instead of baptising them, dedicate them to God. Baptism is a sacrament, and to give the sacraments to people who will still be unbelievers after receiving the sacraments, is to profane the sacraments. Dedicating one’s children to God avoids this profanation. If they choose to reject their dedicated state, that is on their own heads; if they choose to live for Christ, they can become catechumens and later be baptised. This would at least lessen the number of baptised apostates and infidels, even though apostasy and infidelity within the Church would not end.
                      Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 05-27-2019, 10:08 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                        The advantage BB has over IB is that:

                        1. Adult baptism is the only kind with clear NT support - the defence of IB that argues from the mention of the Philippian gaoler’s “household” in Acts 16, is based on an inference from reason, and posits infants in his household for whose existence there is no evidence; the argument is an exercise in wishful thinking;

                        2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. The result for the life and witness of the Church is, that the Church’s membership includes hordes of baptised unbelievers. This degrades the Church, and makes her evangelising mission a bad joke, because those who have no faith in Christ cannot bear witness to Him. Purely nominal members of the Church should be treated as the heathens they are in fact. There are many “good pagans” - that they are good in many ways, does not make them Christians. “Good pagan” adults who have been baptised as infants, and have given up the Faith were baptised in, are not Christians in the NT sense, so they cannot accurately be called Christians in any sense worth discussing.

                        3. What then to do with the children ? Instead of baptising them, dedicate them to God. Baptism is a sacrament, and to give the sacraments to people who will still be unbelievers after receiving the sacraments, is to profane the sacraments. Dedicating one’s children to God avoids this profanation.
                        I'm kind of in agreement with those sentiments. You can drag an unrepentant sinner into the water, but that won't make him baptised.

                        There's a body of evidence that the person has to at least know enough to make a plea to God involved with baptism.
                        The idea that the brigand on the cross who repented had never been baptised ignores much of the cultural background of the time, nothing more than speculation supports the assertion. If, for example, he had been a Zionist ... almost no chance that he would not have been baptised. Both assertions are equally speculative.

                        The necessity for the baptisee to be an adult though, might be just a little beyond what can logically be inferred from scripture. Twelve year olds? On my part - no hesitation. Seven year olds? I wouldn't necessarily be averse.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                          2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. ...
                          I've run into, a lot, a person who makes the claim "Well, I was baptized, so I'm good". They're referring to their infant baptism which appears to have lured them into a false sense of security that they are thereby saved.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I've run into, a lot, a person who makes the claim "Well, I was baptized, so I'm good". They're referring to their infant baptism which appears to have lured them into a false sense of security that they are thereby saved.
                            Then there are those baptised later in life who feel that they now have carte blanche to do whatever they want because they're guaranteed of going to heaven.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
                              The advantage BB has over IB is that:

                              1. Adult baptism is the only kind with clear NT support - the defence of IB that argues from the mention of the Philippian gaoler’s “household” in Acts 16, is based on an inference from reason, and posits infants in his household for whose existence there is no evidence; the argument is an exercise in wishful thinking;

                              2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. The result for the life and witness of the Church is, that the Church’s membership includes hordes of baptised unbelievers. This degrades the Church, and makes her evangelising mission a bad joke, because those who have no faith in Christ cannot bear witness to Him. Purely nominal members of the Church should be treated as the heathens they are in fact. There are many “good pagans” - that they are good in many ways, does not make them Christians. “Good pagan” adults who have been baptised as infants, and have given up the Faith they were baptised in, are not Christians in the NT sense, so they cannot accurately be called Christians in any sense worth discussing.

                              3. What then to do with the children ? Instead of baptising them, dedicate them to God. Baptism is a sacrament, and to give the sacraments to people who will still be unbelievers after receiving the sacraments, is to profane the sacraments. Dedicating one’s children to God avoids this profanation. If they choose to reject their dedicated state, that is on their own heads; if they choose to live for Christ, they can become catechumens and later be baptised. This would at least lessen the number of baptised apostates and infidels, even though apostasy and infidelity within the Church would not end.
                              Infant baptism could also be justified back when mortality rates for young children were exceptionally high.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Infant baptism could also be justified back when mortality rates for young children were exceptionally high.
                                That story has been used to justify infant baptism, but the reality is it was simply implemented as a way to enforce Christianity as the State Religion of Rome under and after Constantine.

                                Then there are those baptised later in life who feel that they now have carte blanche to do whatever they want because they're guaranteed of going to heaven.
                                And of course, the old-wives tales about how there is no requirement to stop sinning, and how it is impossible to stop sinning anyway, only reinforce that attitude.
                                Last edited by tabibito; 05-27-2019, 02:05 PM.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X