Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox (true and correct when contrasted with Liberal theology) Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism. Those who would challenge the peace and harmony that we enjoy here as fellow believers are directed to another website.
Sign in to follow this  
LeapOfFaith89

Should Babies' Be Baptized?

Recommended Posts

Hey brother William. To answer your question, I didn't until just a moment ago when I looked it up lol. The way in which I am similar to an Anabaptist is that I think when a person makes the decision to follow Jesus themselves they should be baptized- the similarities stop there. I was raised in a Presbyterian church and most of my beliefs reflect that of a Christian in the denomination of Presbyterianism. At the same time, I feel that being baptized in a manner that is most similar to how people in the Bible were baptized is ideal. I was baptized again as a response in faith and obedience to my Savior. Even though I decided to be baptized, it wasn't out of fear of my salvation as many might assume. I also think it is important to mention that I am not ignorant of the fact that water is just water; It is by fire and the Holy spirit in which we are really baptized.

 

I think there is no disagreement as to what is expected from us Adults, and whether that entails baptizing our children.

 

Now Scripture says as well as the Nicene Creed:

 

Ephesians 4:4-6

  • 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.6

Nicene Creed:

  • We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

While I am not scolding you, brother, especially because I was rebaptized too, though I can say that I immediately regretted it afterwards. The moment the pastor at my then church announced that he was contacted by other congregants after I was introduced as being baptized as an infant, I knew then and there that my rebaptism communicated doubt rather than faith to those watching who were infant baptized. This is why there was such a hatred by Catholics and Protestants alike towards Ana-baptists.

 

Just something to think about.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, acknowledged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was raised in a Presbyterian church and most of my beliefs reflect that of a Christian in the denomination of Presbyterianism.

 

G'morning,

 

May I ask which Presbyterian church you were raised in? For example, I belong to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

 

I see that you're not sure yet of any denomination, and I was just curious about your history.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

G'morning,

 

May I ask which Presbyterian church you were raised in? For example, I belong to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

 

I see that you're not sure yet of any denomination, and I was just curious about your history.

 

God bless,

William

 

Sure.

 

The PCUSA church I practically grew up in is congruent with link: inhttps://www.opc.org/beliefs.html as well. When I was in confirmation, we referred to the Holy Bible and what I believe was the Westminster Catechism. We were also given book https://openlibrary.org/works/OL544651W/The_knowledge_of_the_holy- a very good read by the way. The reason I say I am not of one denomination I suppose is because first and foremost I am a born-again Christian. I guess it seems lofty, but I like the ideal of 1 Corinthians 1:10, to the point I just call myself a Christian not a "Catholic," "Baptist," Seventh-Day-Adventist" etc. And yes, this means I do not currently have a church home, even though I attend a few regularly. I mean, if I could have stayed at my old church, I most certainly would have; there is a nostalgic peace of Christ when the congregation sings the doxology together.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure.

 

The PCUSA church I practically grew up in is congruent with link: inhttps://www.opc.org/beliefs.html as well. When I was in confirmation, we referred to the Holy Bible and what I believe was the Westminster Catechism. We were also given book https://openlibrary.org/works/OL544651W/The_knowledge_of_the_holy- a very good read by the way. The reason I say I am not of one denomination I suppose is because first and foremost I am a born-again Christian. I guess it seems lofty, but I like the ideal of 1 Corinthians 1:10, to the point I just call myself a Christian not a "Catholic," "Baptist," Seventh-Day-Adventist" etc. And yes, this means I do not currently have a church home, even though I attend a few regularly. I mean, if I could have stayed at my old church, I most certainly would have; there is a nostalgic peace of Christ when the congregation sings the doxology together.

 

There are many who would not equate the PCUSA with the OPC because the former has gone so far to the left in terms of views on homosexuals, women in church leadership and plenty of other things. Some may even go so far as to suggest the PCUSA is apostate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are many who would not equate the PCUSA with the OPC because the former has gone so far to the left in terms of views on homosexuals, women in church leadership and plenty of other things. Some may even go so far as to suggest the PCUSA is apostate.

 

Yes, you are correct; I meant to put an almost between "is" and "congruent." This above statement actually gives me another opportunity to better explain what I was trying to communicate about myself earlier. For example, I disagree regarding the stance of homosexuality in the church and beliefs of Biblical inerrancy (Original manuscripts) held by churches claiming to be PCUSA.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, you are correct; I meant to put an almost between "is" and "congruent." This above statement actually gives me another opportunity to better explain what I was trying to communicate about myself earlier. For example, I disagree regarding the stance of homosexuality in the church and beliefs of Biblical inerrancy (Original manuscripts) held by churches claiming to be PCUSA.

 

Then you may feel more at home in either a PCA or OCP church, depending on if either denomination have churches in your area.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey brother William. To answer your question, I didn't until just a moment ago when I looked it up lol. The way in which I am similar to an Anabaptist is that I think when a person makes the decision to follow Jesus themselves they should be baptized- the similarities stop there. I was raised in a Presbyterian church and most of my beliefs reflect that of a Christian in the denomination of Presbyterianism. At the same time, I feel that being baptized in a manner that is most similar to how people in the Bible were baptized is ideal. I was baptized again as a response in faith and obedience to my Savior. Even though I decided to be baptized, it wasn't out of fear of my salvation as many might assume. I also think it is important to mention that I am not ignorant of the fact that water is just water; It is by fire and the Holy spirit in which we are really baptized.

 

We believe that baptism is God's work, not ours. Thus never fails and is always valid. It's power is in the Word, which is where we are told the Spirit works.

 

If you agreed to that, would you now have any regrets about having yourself re-baptized? Just curious.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

We believe that baptism is God's work, not ours. Thus never fails and is always valid. It's power is in the Word, which is where we are told the Spirit works.

 

If you agreed to that, would you now have any regrets about having yourself re-baptized? Just curious.

 

Yes, all power and glory are his. As I had said previously, I did not choose to be baptized as an adult because I questioned the validity of my infant baptism. Rather, I chose to be baptized after hearing of those baptized in the Bible. I was convinced (not brainwashed) that as an adult it would be a gesture of obedience (not necessity) to consciously make the decision to baptized. I suppose at the time, I wasn't really considering that the people baptized in the Bible were the first generation of Christians and therefore couldn't of been baptized as infants. looking back, no, I do not regret being baptized as an adult-although I can see the redundancy. God bless

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's funny what you come across when you aren't looking for it ... From a discussion on monergism:

 

 

 

Well, I found it ironic ... :)

God Bless All,

Arthur

 

You think you found entrance to the Body of Christ through water Baptism?

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's funny what you come across when you aren't looking for it ... From a discussion on monergism:

 

 

 

Well, I found it ironic ... :)

God Bless All,

Arthur

 

You think you found entrance to the Body of Christ through water Baptism?

 

 

God bless.

By "the Body of Christ" are you meaning the Visible Church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What? I think you're confusing me with someone else. I totally accept that this laver is a washing of regeneration. It is baptism. The Holy Spirit is the one doing the washing. I've been pretty consistent on this but the thread is too old for me to bother going back and reading. No offense but it's a bit of a spent cartridge.

 

I think it's all been said- we could go over it all again but why bother? We could cite the ECF as confirmation of our point, but why bother? Move on.

 

The reason for going over it again would be...if you still think men are saved through water baptism, then you are in need of further study. Here's a place to start:

 

 

Acts 11:12-18

King James Version (KJV)

 

12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

 

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

 

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

 

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

 

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

 

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

 

18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

 

 

When men came to be baptized by John, they did not receive repentance, but professed they had repented. Hence John demands of the Pharisees and Sadducees that they bring forth fruit meet for repentance, or in other words...prove it.

 

So too, when men are baptized in the Name of Christ, they do not receive salvation, but profess they already have. That is something a man cannot do for another man:

 

 

John 1:11-13

King James Version (KJV)

 

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

 

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

 

They are born of God through faith in Christ. The will of the flesh doesn't do it, meaning one cannot determine for himself he will be saved and thus born of God. The will of man cannot do it, meaning one can determine for another man he will be saved. "Of blood" means heritage will not do it.

 

Only God can enlighten the mind to the truth of the Gospel, that is in fact the very ministry of the Comforter in this Age. It is not man's will, but his response to the Gospel in faith by which he can be born of God, and thus be a child of God.

 

 

God bless.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By "the Body of Christ" are you meaning the Visible Church?

 

No. I mean only those who are actually the Body of Christ. Those who have been Eternally Redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

 

The visible Church is, in my view, not really much different than Israel when Christ came. Christ taught a many/few ratio, and I see no reason why that would not apply today.

 

As I mentioned, John demanded proof of the Sadducees and Pharisees that they had repented, the implication being their fruit evidenced the opposite. He said go and bring forth fruit (evidence) worthy for repentance.

 

Is there any less standard held by Christians? And isn't the standard that which is taught in God's Word? And if the standard is what is taught in the Word of God, shouldn't we be held accountable for...getting it right?

 

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think there is no disagreement as to what is expected from us Adults, and whether that entails baptizing our children.

 

Now Scripture says as well as the Nicene Creed:

 

Ephesians 4:4-6

  • 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.6

Nicene Creed:

  • We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

While I am not scolding you, brother, especially because I was rebaptized too, though I can say that I immediately regretted it afterwards. The moment the pastor at my then church announced that he was contacted by other congregants after I was introduced as being baptized as an infant, I knew then and there that my rebaptism communicated doubt rather than faith to those watching who were infant baptized. This is why there was such a hatred by Catholics and Protestants alike towards Ana-baptists.

 

Just something to think about.

 

God bless,

William

 

There is indeed one baptism relevant to salvation:

 

 

Acts 1:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

 

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

 

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

 

 

Peter defines the Baptism with the Holy Ghost (in Acts 11, see above) as the moent of salvation. THis is also seen in the fact that the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and they of his household:

 

 

Acts 10:39-48

King James Version (KJV)

 

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

 

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

 

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

 

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

 

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

 

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

 

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

 

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

 

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

 

 

The believed the "Word" by which they were saved, and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, not the gifts.

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. I mean only those who are actually the Body of Christ. Those who have been Eternally Redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

 

The visible Church is, in my view, not really much different than Israel when Christ came. Christ taught a many/few ratio, and I see no reason why that would not apply today.

 

As I mentioned, John demanded proof of the Sadducees and Pharisees that they had repented, the implication being their fruit evidenced the opposite. He said go and bring forth fruit (evidence) worthy for repentance.

 

Is there any less standard held by Christians? And isn't the standard that which is taught in God's Word? And if the standard is what is taught in the Word of God, shouldn't we be held accountable for...getting it right?

 

God bless.

 

I had to ask as Reformed differentiate between the Visible and Invisible Church. While they are one Church, they represent two different aspects.

 

I see now that your responses are more directed toward the Lutherans which like Catholics adhere to Baptismal Regeneration. Obviously, your question goes beyond "initiation". And while I think your question can become overly complicated, I think it touches upon the point of whether the Atonement or Propitiation was applied to all the Elect throughout history? This includes Old Testament saints which lived before the incarnated Christ's life death and resurrection. My point is that the timing of the application of Christ's atonement/propitiation may be later than the outward symbolic representation is administered. However, I do not want to overly complicate matter further as Lutherans and Reformed differ in our reasons for baptizing.

 

I think the only way to really enjoy the fruit of this discussion is to acknowledge the differing views of Baptism. The Baptist definition of Baptism is not the same as the Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed. While from a superficial observation, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed can be seen baptizing infants they are for different reasons. Just like Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed baptize adult converts but for very different reasons than Baptists.

 

I'll remove myself from this old thread, but I wouldn't mind getting an education from the Lutheran perspective of Baptismal Regeneration. I took some time in the past to research it and could definitely "see" it from the Lutheran perspective. Not suggesting that I agree with it, though I agree with them that Baptism is a Sacrament and I lean away from the Baptist understanding of baptism being an Ordinance.

 

Enjoy, and glad to see you here, old friend. Make yourself at home.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that logic leads to some here on this board, that were rebaptized because they knew not the depth of what they knew before.

 

Usually people are re-baptized, not because they have a deeper understanding, but they come into obedience to the Gospel of Christ. That means those who were baptized when they were babies realize that they must of their own self profess Christ.

 

So yes, if one grew up in a religion where they were baptized as children yet have never given their hearts to Christ in faith...they should certainly make public profession of Christ.

 

But again, so I am not misunderstood, that does not impact their salvation. Christ is the Baptizer, and He baptizes with the Holy Ghost when He saves men and women. Being baptized in His Name identifies that person with Christ, just as we see in Acts 19 where those who (were) identified with John the Baptist became obedient to John's preaching, that they should believe on Christ.

 

 

Don't take showers people, just be re-baptized day in and day out.

 

A false argument: no-one among Baptists teach multiple baptisms apart from a baptism in which they publicly identify themselves with Christ and a body of believers.

 

 

Forget about Ephesians 4:5. (Oh, and this is sarcasm also).

 

 

Ephesians 4

King James Version (KJV)

 

 

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

 

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

 

How does one become part of the One Body?

 

 

 

Galatians 3:26-28

King James Version (KJV)

 

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

 

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

 

That's the Body, and one cannot be water baptized into that Body, they must be Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

 

 

Every time you consider yourself an idiot in the past, just rebaptize to affirm you know now what you didn't know then.

 

You caricaturize the position of the AnaBaptists.

 

And the fact remains, they were correct in teaching that a man and woman must for themselves turn to Christ. The Church cannot convey salvation to other men, they can only be used as instruments in the process.

 

 

How can you go and make disciples and baptize them to mean not go and baptize those that are disciples?

 

No-one does that either, so another false argument. While the One Baptism is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and the One Baptizer is Christ, we are to faithfully water baptize men in the Name of Christ, and in the Name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, just as Paul did with John's Disciples in Acts 19.

 

We must be identified with Christ, not a denomination.

 

 

While I let you figure that out,

 

Nothing to figure out.

 

 

personally, this is why I reject the Baptist view, as @RevT stated, the plain text is disregarded for the corrupt doctrine of Anabaptist.

 

Actually it is not. You will not find a credible Baptist teacher saying we can ignore water baptism. The problem arises when men impose a salvific quality to something that is merely symbolic.

 

The sad truth is that like the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to John to be baptized, it is likely that false conversions and baptisms lead one simply to a pathway of religious effort. It is after water baptism that one can show evidence that they are in fact in Christ.

 

Paul makes a similar statement to John's demand of evidence:

 

 

2 Corinthians 13:5

King James Version (KJV)

 

5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

 

 

 

 

For 2000 @#%#$ years, no one has done it right but the Anabaptist!

 

Are you using foul language?

 

 

And if you didn't know, that's more sarcasm.

 

Sorry, but I can only appreciate sarcasm when it is either humorous or makes a point.

 

I do not view cursing and false arguments as sarcasm, but confusion.

 

;)

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I had to ask as Reformed differentiate between the Visible and Invisible Church. While they are one Church, they represent two different aspects.

 

I take a simple approach: there is but One Body of Christ, and they can be found in a number of denominations. They are in Christ, not because they embrace the doctrine of their denomination, but because they have responded to the Gospel of Christ, which was ministered to them by the Holy Ghost. When they yielded to the truth they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, or in other words, baptized into Christ, immersed in Eternal Union with God through the eternal indwelling of God, which is the guarantee of our salvation.

 

 

 

I see now that your responses are more directed toward the Lutherans which like Catholics adhere to Baptismal Regeneration.

 

 

They are directed at anyone that replaces the One Baptism of Christ whereby He immerses men into eternal union with Himself...with water baptisms.

 

 

Obviously, your question goes beyond "initiation".

 

It's like the old saying, "One is not kind of pregnant."

 

One either has the Spirit of God, or they do not belong to God. Any teaching that implies transference of the Spirit of God through human means is heresy.

 

 

And while I think your question can become overly complicated, I think it touches upon the point of whether the Atonement or Propitiation was applied to all the Elect throughout history?

 

Not really sure what question it is you are referring to.

 

However, I can comment on the statement you make, and say...no, the Atonement was not applied to all of the Elect throughout history.

 

That is evident enough in Hebrews, where we see the Old Testament Saint died in faith...not having received the promises, and not being made perfect, which is to say, not made complete in regards to remission of sins:

 

 

Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

 

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

 

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

 

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

 

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 

 

The "perfection" here, completion, is in regards to remission of sins. Animal sacrifice could not take away sin, or its penalty.

 

But...

 

 

Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

 

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

 

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

 

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

 

Now remember the promises that the Old Testament Saint did not receive before death?

 

 

 

Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

 

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

 

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

 

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

 

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

 

There is no more offering of sacrifice for those made perfect, complete in Christ Jesus.

 

This is simply the promise of God to the Old Testament Saint, as well as to us.

 

 

 

This includes Old Testament saints which lived before the incarnated Christ's life death and resurrection. My point is that the timing of the application of Christ's atonement/propitiation may be later than the outward symbolic representation is administered. However, I do not want to overly complicate matter further as Lutherans and Reformed differ in our reasons for baptizing.

 

 

No, it isn't:

 

 

Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

 

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

 

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

 

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

 

We see a similar statement in Romans 3:

 

 

Romans 3:24-26

King James Version (KJV)

 

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

 

The Old Testament Saint died in faith, not having received the promises which were (and are) bestowed through New Covenant relationship with God through Christ. They were not made perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins.

 

If we try to impose that erroneously into the Old Testament Economies, we imply that the sacrifice of animals had a equable quality to the Offering of Christ, which the Writer of Hebrews makes clear was and is not not the case.

 

 

Continued...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the only way to really enjoy the fruit of this discussion is to acknowledge the differing views of Baptism.

 

I agree: acknowledge them, find what is erroneous and discard, find what is truth and embrace.

 

But what I do not recommend is "agreeing to disagree." Can we leave our brothers and sisters in darkness?

 

 

The Baptist definition of Baptism is not the same as the Catholic, Lutheran, or Reformed.

 

John was a Baptist, Paul was a Baptist, Christ is The Baptist...so I am a Baptist too.

 

;)

 

 

While from a superficial observation, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed can be seen baptizing infants they are for different reasons.

 

And I quote:

 

 

Hebrews 6:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

 

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

 

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 

 

We are forbidden to engage in ritual baptisms which are not specific to identification in Christ by those who have first been taught of Christ:

 

 

 

Matthew 28:18-20

King James Version (KJV)

 

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

 

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

 

Only Disciples of Christ should be baptized.

 

 

 

Just like Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed baptize adult converts but for very different reasons than Baptists.

 

I'll stick with water baptism being a public profession of Christ which symbolically shows the death, burial, and resurrection of the individual.

 

And that only those professing faith in Christ should be baptized.

 

I don't have a problem with parents making a vow to raise up their children in the Lord, but, the day will come when that child must either receive or reject Christ for themselves.

 

 

 

I'll remove myself from this old thread, but I wouldn't mind getting an education from the Lutheran perspective of Baptismal Regeneration. I took some time in the past to research it and could definitely "see" it from the Lutheran perspective. Not suggesting that I agree with it, though I agree with them that Baptism is a Sacrament and I lean away from the Baptist understanding of baptism being an Ordinance.

 

And did you feel that way before you decided to embrace Reformed Theology?

 

Nevertheless, my only advice is to stick with what Scripture has to teach about it.

 

 

Enjoy, and glad to see you here, old friend. Make yourself at home.

 

God bless,

William

 

I doubt very seriously that my being here would result in anything different than it has in the past. I came here to share something with you, which I will do through a PM.

 

I have enjoyed addressing a few posts, though.

 

 

God bless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that logic leads to some here on this board, that were rebaptized because they knew not the depth of what they knew before.

 

Usually people are re-baptized, not because they have a deeper understanding, but they come into obedience to the Gospel of Christ. That means those who were baptized when they were babies realize that they must of their own self profess Christ.

 

So yes, if one grew up in a religion where they were baptized as children yet have never given their hearts to Christ in faith...they should certainly make public profession of Christ.

 

But again, so I am not misunderstood, that does not impact their salvation. Christ is the Baptizer, and He baptizes with the Holy Ghost when He saves men and women. Being baptized in His Name identifies that person with Christ, just as we see in Acts 19 where those who (were) identified with John the Baptist became obedient to John's preaching, that they should believe on Christ.

 

 

Don't take showers people, just be re-baptized day in and day out.

 

A false argument: no-one among Baptists teach multiple baptisms apart from a baptism in which they publicly identify themselves with Christ and a body of believers.

 

 

Forget about Ephesians 4:5. (Oh, and this is sarcasm also).

 

 

Ephesians 4

King James Version (KJV)

 

 

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

 

5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

 

How does one become part of the One Body?

 

 

 

Galatians 3:26-28

King James Version (KJV)

 

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

 

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

 

That's the Body, and one cannot be water baptized into that Body, they must be Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

 

 

Every time you consider yourself an idiot in the past, just rebaptize to affirm you know now what you didn't know then.

 

You caricaturize the position of the AnaBaptists.

 

And the fact remains, they were correct in teaching that a man and woman must for themselves turn to Christ. The Church cannot convey salvation to other men, they can only be used as instruments in the process.

 

 

How can you go and make disciples and baptize them to mean not go and baptize those that are disciples?

 

No-one does that either, so another false argument. While the One Baptism is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and the One Baptizer is Christ, we are to faithfully water baptize men in the Name of Christ, and in the Name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, just as Paul did with John's Disciples in Acts 19.

 

We must be identified with Christ, not a denomination.

 

 

While I let you figure that out,

 

Nothing to figure out.

 

 

personally, this is why I reject the Baptist view, as @RevT stated, the plain text is disregarded for the corrupt doctrine of Anabaptist.

 

Actually it is not. You will not find a credible Baptist teacher saying we can ignore water baptism. The problem arises when men impose a salvific quality to something that is merely symbolic.

 

The sad truth is that like the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to John to be baptized, it is likely that false conversions and baptisms lead one simply to a pathway of religious effort. It is after water baptism that one can show evidence that they are in fact in Christ.

 

Paul makes a similar statement to John's demand of evidence:

 

 

2 Corinthians 13:5

King James Version (KJV)

 

5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

 

 

 

 

For 2000 @#%#$ years, no one has done it right but the Anabaptist!

 

Are you using foul language?

 

 

And if you didn't know, that's more sarcasm.

 

Sorry, but I can only appreciate sarcasm when it is either humorous or makes a point.

 

I do not view cursing and false arguments as sarcasm, but confusion.

 

;)

 

 

God bless.

Sorry, but I can only appreciate sarcasm when it is either humorous or makes a point.

 

I do not view cursing and false arguments as sarcasm, but confusion.

 

You realize I didn't curse, but you're insinuating what you believe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I had to ask as Reformed differentiate between the Visible and Invisible Church. While they are one Church, they represent two different aspects.

 

I take a simple approach: there is but One Body of Christ, and they can be found in a number of denominations. They are in Christ, not because they embrace the doctrine of their denomination, but because they have responded to the Gospel of Christ, which was ministered to them by the Holy Ghost. When they yielded to the truth they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, or in other words, baptized into Christ, immersed in Eternal Union with God through the eternal indwelling of God, which is the guarantee of our salvation.

 

 

 

I see now that your responses are more directed toward the Lutherans which like Catholics adhere to Baptismal Regeneration.

 

 

They are directed at anyone that replaces the One Baptism of Christ whereby He immerses men into eternal union with Himself...with water baptisms.

 

 

Obviously, your question goes beyond "initiation".

 

It's like the old saying, "One is not kind of pregnant."

 

One either has the Spirit of God, or they do not belong to God. Any teaching that implies transference of the Spirit of God through human means is heresy.

 

 

And while I think your question can become overly complicated, I think it touches upon the point of whether the Atonement or Propitiation was applied to all the Elect throughout history?

 

Not really sure what question it is you are referring to.

 

However, I can comment on the statement you make, and say...no, the Atonement was not applied to all of the Elect throughout history.

 

That is evident enough in Hebrews, where we see the Old Testament Saint died in faith...not having received the promises, and not being made perfect, which is to say, not made complete in regards to remission of sins:

 

 

Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

 

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

 

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

 

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

 

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

 

 

The "perfection" here, completion, is in regards to remission of sins. Animal sacrifice could not take away sin, or its penalty.

 

But...

 

 

Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

 

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

 

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

 

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

 

Now remember the promises that the Old Testament Saint did not receive before death?

 

 

 

Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

 

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

 

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

 

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

 

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

 

There is no more offering of sacrifice for those made perfect, complete in Christ Jesus.

 

This is simply the promise of God to the Old Testament Saint, as well as to us.

 

 

 

This includes Old Testament saints which lived before the incarnated Christ's life death and resurrection. My point is that the timing of the application of Christ's atonement/propitiation may be later than the outward symbolic representation is administered. However, I do not want to overly complicate matter further as Lutherans and Reformed differ in our reasons for baptizing.

 

 

No, it isn't:

 

 

Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

 

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

 

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

 

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

 

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

 

We see a similar statement in Romans 3:

 

 

Romans 3:24-26

King James Version (KJV)

 

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

 

The Old Testament Saint died in faith, not having received the promises which were (and are) bestowed through New Covenant relationship with God through Christ. They were not made perfect/complete in regards to remission of sins.

 

If we try to impose that erroneously into the Old Testament Economies, we imply that the sacrifice of animals had a equable quality to the Offering of Christ, which the Writer of Hebrews makes clear was and is not not the case.

 

 

Continued...

I acknowledge your "simple approach" which conveys what you believe, but I prefer the historical Nicene Creed which conveys what the catholic church really believes. God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I acknowledge your "simple approach" which conveys what you believe, but I prefer the historical Nicene Creed which conveys what the catholic church really believes. God bless.

 

Well I could not find a PM system so come by the forum sometime, had something I wanted to share with you.

 

I now return your forum to its regularly scheduled program.

 

;)

 

 

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I acknowledge your "simple approach" which conveys what you believe, but I prefer the historical Nicene Creed which conveys what the catholic church really believes. God bless.

 

Well I could not find a PM system so come by the forum sometime, had something I wanted to share with you.

 

I now return your forum to its regularly scheduled program.

 

;)

 

 

God bless.

Lemme send you a PM. You should receive a notification in the upper right corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News