The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

You have posted no Scripture that instructs parents to have their babies baptized. Jewish BOY babies were circumcised, were girl babies lost? The red herring in this argument is the assumption that Jesus gathering the innocent little children to Him and instructing everyone that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven they had to "become as one of these", in NO way supports your contention that Jesus said to baptize children. Were men and women who followed Jesus baptized? Yes, because Scripture says they were, but NOWHERE is there a mention of babies or little kids getting baptized.

I really have no desire to continue rehashing the same arguments that I already know will not change anyone's mind. The only thing I'll leave you with is this:

I have a brother who, as we all were, was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as a baby. But this man calls himself an atheist today and he is so far away from living a holy life than anyone I know. His baptism DID NOT SAVE him. Had he died as a baby, before knowing right from wrong, he would be in heaven REGARDLESS of whether or not he was baptized. Without a personal exercise of faith in Christ, baptism is pointless. The ordinance of water baptism DOES NOT SAVE anyone if they have not made a personal profession of faith. In fact, the very act of water baptism was an outward identification with Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Sprinkling water three times on the head is not even how water baptism was done in the early church. It was a total body immersion into the water to symbolize being buried with Christ and then being raised out of the water as symbolic of His resurrection and a commitment to walk henceforth in newness of life - a total change of life. There is NO way a baby can understand this and a parent cannot do this for a baby and have it recognized by God as the person the baby grows into being a saved person. Not without faith!

In Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, it says this about Colossians 2:12

Buried with him in baptism,.... The apostle goes on to observe how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them, in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin in circumcision; but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation: Christ having died for their sins, was laid in the grave, where he continued for a while, and then rose again; and as they were crucified with him, they were also buried with him, as their head and representative; and all their sins too, which he left behind him in the grave, signified by his grave clothes there; and baptism being performed by immersion, when the person baptized is covered with water, and as it were buried in it, is a very significant emblem of all this; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and very fitly holds him forth to the view of faith in the state of the dead, in the grave, and points out the place where the Lord lay; and it is also a representation of our burial with him, as being dead to sin, to the law, and to the world, by him. This shows now, that baptism was performed by dipping, or covering the whole body in water, for no other form of administration of baptism, as sprinkling, or pouring water on the face, can represent a burial, or be called one; and this is what many learned interpreters own, and observe on this place:
wherein also ye are risen with him; Christ is risen from the dead as the head and representative of his people, and they are risen with him; and their baptism is also an emblem of his and their resurrection, being administered by immersion, in which way only this can be signified; for as the going down into the water, and being under it, represents Christ's descending into the state of the dead, and his continuance in it, so the immersion, or coming up out of the water, represents his rising from the dead, and that of his people in him, in order to walk in newness of life; for the apostle's meaning is, that in baptism saints are risen with Christ, as well as in it buried with him: and this through the faith of the operation of God; that is, it is through faith that saints see themselves buried and risen with Christ, to which the ordinance of baptism is greatly assisting, where there is true faith; for otherwise, without faith, this ordinance will be of no use to any such end and purpose; and it is not any faith that will avail, but that which is of God's operation; faith is not naturally in men, all men have it not; and those that have it, have it not of themselves, it is the gift of God; it is what be works in them, and by his power performs:

who hath raised him from the dead; this is a periphrasis of God the Father, to whom the resurrection of Christ from the dead is generally ascribed; though not to the exclusion of Christ, and of the Spirit, who were also concerned; and is here added, partly to show in what respect faith, which is God's work, has him for its object, as having raised Christ from the dead, who was delivered for offences, but is risen again through the power of God for justification, and whoever with his heart believes this shall be saved; and partly to show, that the same power is exerted in working true faith in the heart, as was put forth in raising Christ from the dead.

I dislike getting caught up in endless discussions that only rehash the same arguments over an over again. I really don't see this as someone "misrepresenting" what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on the subject - it's been more than made clear. I just do NOT agree with it, nor do many others, and I have no fear at all about saying why I disagree with what the Roman Catholic Church teaches nor about the history of what early Christians believed and how what they believed was changed over the years. It is far more important to stress the truth of the Gospel of the grace of God that saves us through faith in Christ. It is that faith that saves and not the works we do afterward. We may never agree this side of heaven about some of the doctrines your church teaches but of all of them, the doctrine of justification by faith and not works is the one I want most to spend my time on. This is because ONLY this is what makes the difference between who is saved and who is lost.

Gill’s exposition of the entire bible?

one need read no further than his phrase “ baptism in water is a LIVELY REPRESENTATION” ( my emphasis )

representation? LOL! compare this to the Scriptures, do they ever say baptism is a “representation” NO!

now, read my prior posting to see how faithful the Church Fathers were to the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins (Col. 2:13)

Your analysis of this passage is wrong. Paul is indeed saying here that baptism is the new circumcision, one done by the Spirit which those who were physically, literally circumcised by the hand of a human did not have, as they were still dead in their sins without baptism.

And in your quote from Romans, read the entire chapter. Paul is saying that the Jews thought they were better than others because of their circumcision, but they were not. Paul is not comparing circumcision to baptism in this passage, he is comparing Jews to Gentiles.

****Y’all can go ahead and believe that - and I fully understand that you sorta HAVE to seeing that’s what your Catholic religion commands of you - but I choose to stick with what the word of God says.*****

Yea, nice little dig, and of course, there is no condemnation meant and it is of little consequence.

I can understand why one would not want to get caught up with endless exposition of the fallacy of their views, and the fact that they have used NO Scripture to refute infant baptism, but only Scripture which are unspecific as to the reservation of baptism for adults.

As for having to believe in infant baptism because the Church commands it, well, as you claim, I have chosen to follow the Word of God as given to His Apostles and which comes to me through His Church.

I have chosen to accept Jesus and therefore accept ALL that His Church holds and teaches. If I have done so at any command, is it the command of Jesus.

****It DID exist back then as a way to identify with a specific group**** Scripture for that? What was the specific group?

Additional answer that you requested. From http://tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html:

The Semitic Totality Concept

Behind much of the thought in the Bible lies a "peculiarly Semitic" idea of a "unitive notion of human personality." [Dahl, Resurrection of the Body, 59] This notion combined aspects of the human person that we, in modern times, often speak of as separate entities: Nausea is thought of as a condition of the soul and not the stomach (Num. 21:5); companionship is said to be refreshing to the bowels (Philemon 7); and the fear of God is health to the navel (Prov. 3:8).

This line of thinking can be traced through the Old Testament and into the New Testament (in particular, the concept of the "body of Christ") and rabbinic literature.

Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that "a man's thoughts form one totality, with their results in action, so that 'thoughts' that result in no action are 'vain'." [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, "by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being."

Thus, Paul regards being an un-bodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Cor. 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces "all that a man is and ever shall be."

Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial and ethical effects. Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. "Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered -- the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity." [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Some would claim that the phrase "born of water" clearly refers to water baptism. While many see here an allusion to baptism that Christian readers would recognize, there is a serious problem with seeing a reference to baptism that cannot be controverted, and that is that Nicodemus would not have the slightest idea that Jesus was referring to it. How could Nicodemus understand a reference to "an as yet nonexistent sacrament"?

The correct interpretation of this verse is found in light of the intimate connection of water, spirit and cleansing in Judaism. As Beasley-Murray observes, "The conjunction of water and Spirit in eschatological hope is deeply rooted in the Jewish consciousness." This motif is found in Ezekiel 36:25-27:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Similar sentiments are found elsewhere in Jewish literature. Here is another passage from the Qumran material (1QS 4:19-21):

He will cleanse him of all wicked deeds by means of a holy spirit; like purifying waters He will sprinkle upon him the spirit of truth.

While John's readers would undoubtedly recognize the baptismal "freight" the word water carried with it in this context, it is improper to read this passage as though the freight had been loaded before the train got to the station. At the core of John 3:5 is the metaphorical use of water in Judaism as a symbol of interior cleansing -- not a declaration that baptism is required to enter the Kingdom of God. [See, for these points, commentaries of John by Brown (141-2), Morris (193), Beasley-Murray (49) and Borhcert (111, 173)]

Acts 2:37-8 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

A key here is the word "for" (eis) - a word that can mean for or because of. If eis is taken to mean "for" then it is taken to mean that baptism is essential to salvation; if it means "because of", then it is not. However, "into" is the closest approximation of eis in this verse, so that here Peter is telling the crowd to be "baptized into the remission of sins."

Read in light of the Semitic Totality Concept, it indicates that believers will practice this behavior to validate their commitment to Christ. Baptism is just one part of that behavior that is inextricably linked to repentance and salvation.

Does the lack of the behavior mean one is not saved? No, but one does have to ask why anyone would not produce the validating behavior. Do they understand the command? Are they hydrophobic? Why would they refuse baptism if they knew that Christ had commanded it? Can we picture someone hearing the preaching of Peter and saying, "Peter, that's good news, I'll repent as you say, but I'm definitely not being baptized, even though I know it was commanded by the one I now call Lord."

Baptism, like any validating behavior, is "essential to salvation" only in the sense that if you don't want to go through with it, and there is no barrier to understanding, then it is clear that you do not possess salvation. Thought and action are expected, under the Semitic Totality paradigm, to correspond. The conversion and the baptism are regarded as one process, not because the latter is required for salvation, but because it is expected in light of salvation.

Hence, it is off the mark to make much out of Peter commanded the baptism, and thereby conclude that baptism is a "necessity" rather than an inevitable result. A command is often needed simply because the person being commanded has no idea what they should do next (as would have been the case with the Pentecost converts), having no knowledge of what the process is. And, and it could hardly be phrased in any less demanding language.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Some argue that this verse teaches that Paul's sins would be washed away following his baptism, and thus indicates the necessity of baptism. But, under the Semitic Totality concept, this is simply not the case.

Moreover, if one wants to read this verse as a chronology, rather than as a totality expression as we would read it, one wonders why calling on the name of Jesus is done last. It is more in line with the anthropological data to read Paul's quote of Ananias as a summary of a total commitment process which involved confession, obedience, regeneration and the "calling on the name of the Lord" as the "overarching term" in the passage. [For points in Acts, see commentaries by Polhill (461) and Kistemaker (790)]

Gal. 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Although some indeed have taken the "for" here to "indicate that the status of divine son-ship is contingent upon the ritual of water baptism" it is difficult to find this point in a letter in which Paul spends so much time trying to show the Galatians that they do not need to be circumcised. If baptism had replaced circumcision as an initiatory rite, then why does Paul not simply point to baptism over and over again? (Note that Paul in vv. 3:2-3 asks if they received the Spirit -- not if they were baptized)

As Longenecker writes:

...Paul is not simply replacing one external rite (circumcision) by another external rite (baptism). If that were so, i.e., if he viewed baptism as a supplement to faith in much that the same way that the Judaizers viewed circumcision as a supplement to faith, he could have simply settled the dispute at Galatia by saying that Christian baptism now replaces circumcision.

In both pagan and Jewish contexts, the idea of "clothing" oneself hearkens back to specific ideas. In pagan contexts, after a ceremonial washing, one would often don the distinctive garb of the god being worshipped in order to identify with the god's persona. In a secular context, one which Paul's readers would recognize, a Roman youth, upon coming of age, would remove a childhood garment and don one suited for adults.

In the Bible, the idea of clothing oneself with an attribute is found in several places (2 Chr. 6:41; Job 29:14; Rom. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:8; Eph. 6:11-17). What is represented is an inward decision, and thus those who are "clothed with Christ" have made the inward decision for which baptism is the corresponding action. One no more obtains a position in Christ via baptism than a Roman child could have become an adult by donning an adult's clothing. [See Galatians commentaries by George (276) and Longenecker (156)]

In light of this passage, we also see that once the Semitic Totality concept is understood, other passages become more clear in their meaning as well. Romans 6:3-4 ("Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life") and 1 Corinthians 12:13 ("For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink") show not that baptism is the point at which we connect with the cross, and are saved, but that it is the inevitable expression of one who has indeed connected with the cross.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost...

Some argue that "washing" means baptism, but it is better understood as a figurative term for the regeneration process of cleansing from sin (in line with the Jewish allegory of water noted above). The word Paul uses for "regeneration" (paliggenesia) has connotations associated with renovation, resurrection and new life. And, the word behind "renewal" (anakainosis) is used elsewhere in the New Testament in connection with the renewing, cleansing work of the Holy Spirit (for similar imagery, see: Romans 6:4, 1 Cor. 6:11 and Eph. 5:26). The two words are "practically synonyms and thus express a unity", and the fact that a single preposition governs the entire phrase indicates that the "washing of regeneration" and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" are the same event.

Beyond this, there is no evidence that "washing" (loutron) was ever used of Christian baptism in the New Testament. It is used elsewhere only in Ephesians 5:26, where it must also be assumed to mean baptism. [See Pastorals commentaries by Quinn (195, 224), Fee (157), and Towner (256)]

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

We have noted that the Semitic Totality concept radically affects our understanding of verses concerning the interrelation of faith, works and particularly of baptism. Is there any evidence that the early Jewish apostles as Christians had difficulty in communicating this difference in anthropological view to their Gentile converts?

I believe that there is, and that this passage serves as an example of how they coped with the problem. But, we need to first look at a parallel from corresponding Biblical and secular sources.

And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. (Mark 1:4)

From this verse there emerges a puzzle, for while Mark says that John preached "a baptism of repentance," we find what appears to be the opposite proclaimed of John's baptism in the following passage from Josephus, who said that John called for his converts:

...to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and purity towards God, and so doing to join in baptism. In his view this was a necessary preliminary if baptism was to be pleasing to God. They must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already cleansed by right behavior.

Critics of the Bible often assume that either Mark or Josephus are in error, but I believe that Peter and Josephus are actually explaining to their Gentile readers -- those who do not think within the paradigm of Semitic Totality -- what the role of baptism is, in Gentile terms, as opposed to Semitic terms.

The phrase, "the filth of the flesh," does not mean to say that baptism is not for washing -- who would think that it was? Why should Peter have made such a banal point? There must be more to this advisory, and Michaels is right to say that it is either "a rhetorical way of accenting baptism's profound significance (i.e., not merely a physical cleansing but a decisive transaction with God), or as a corrective to an actual, specific, misunderstanding."

I believe, in fact, that the solution also lies in understanding why there appears to be a contradiction between Mark and Josephus: Peter is correcting a Gentile misapprehension of baptism in terms of the Semitic Totality concept.

The word "flesh," as well as the phrase "flesh and blood," has a Semitic connotation signifying the frail human nature. It is a word/phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body. Dahl comments on the use of the word "flesh" alone in another context [Resurrection, 121]:

The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness...

"Flesh" (sarx) is often used in the New Testament as a synecdoche for human weakness, and we find this elsewhere in 1 Peter:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. (1 Peter 1:24) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit... (1 Peter 3:18)

Note that the emphasis here is on the weakness of the human body of Christ, which was perishable, in contrast with the resurrection body (cf. 4:1-2). Then there is the word "filth" (rhupos). It appears in the New Testament only here in 1 Peter, and while it can mean "dirt," it also means depravity, and it has that meaning in the place where the related word "filthiness" (rhuparia) is found in the New Testament:

Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (James 1:21)

Thus, the "filth of the flesh" to which Peter refers is moral uncleanness, and he is saying (just as Josephus does) that baptism is not for the cleansing of moral defilement. "...Peter's point is not that such cleaning is an unimportant or unnecessary thing, only that baptism is not it". Rather, as Michaels says of Josephus, "the inward moral cleansing...is presupposed by the act of water baptism."

What, then, is baptism? It does not wash away the "filth" (sins) of the "flesh" (human weakness). Rather, it is "the pledge of a good conscience toward God," (not "for" as the NASB reads) a conscience knowing its duty to be baptized according to the command of Christ, that good conscience having been achieved by the moral cleansing that has already taken place through the forgiveness of sins. [See Michaels' 1 Peter commentary, 213-16]

****NO way supports your contention that Jesus said to baptize children.*****

Let us get this clear. It is not my contention we are discussing, as it has been the practice of the Church to baptize infants and you have offered no proof otherwise.

Rather, it is your contention that Jesus told the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey all that I command and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, oh, except for infants and children up to the age of......Whatever.

Jvette, compare your attitude in following Jesus’s prayer to the Father that all His followers be one, followed by Paul’s exhortations that there be no divisions and we all have unity in the faith to the one that says I KNOW BEST and my final authority is ME!!

LOL, that’s a whole lot of words there, none of which are a quote from Scripture that says that John’s baptism was a way to identify with a specific group and to refute and explain away Jesus’ words.

I waded through the whole thing, unfortunately, learning nothing but what someone else believes and torturing Scripture to try to affirm that belief.

And also unfortunately, I can’t get back the time I wasted to do so.

who are we to believe about baptism, this contorted “pretzel” like essay that tries to explain that the words in the Bible don’t mean what they say or the clear teaching of Scripture, confirmed by all the Church Fathers and 2,000 years of historical, orthodox Christian doctrine?

not even a close call!

Yea, nice little dig, and of course, there is no condemnation meant and it is of little consequence.

It wasn't meant as a “dig” but stating the obvious reasons why we get so much grief whenever ANY doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is disputed. As has been posted many times, Catholics have no choice but to give full assent to whatever the “Church” states is the truth. On a religion forum such as this, it doesn't hold much water to use it as the proof for any argument. Why even come on the thread if all that is offered is a “that's what we believe” statement when it should be understood at least after all this time that that's not good enough for non-Catholics? It is almost humorous that, for a few on here, saying “that's what the Church teaches” is thrown out there as if it's supposed to halt all discussion and everyone is supposed to walk away as if that settles it. It doesn't settle it and, just as in the early church, we have just as much right to be Christians but disagree on issues that are not clearly stated in Scripture and we can agree to disagree just as many of the ECFs did way back then. We can disagree without being disagreeable, right?

I am grateful to be a part of the one Lord, one faith, one baptism, it is the grace of God.

I cannot command others, only live as I am called and hope that Christ’s lights shines for all to see.

Prayer overs many things, even willful and obstinate refusal to accept His Church.

I am always encouraged by those who have come home, even the most hard hearted toward His Church.

You have been great here, but sometimes it is time to shake the dust from one’s feet and walk away.

That is what I am doing. Going to bed and then work at a very early time.

Peace be with you.

“that my friend, is fruitage.”

As is the history of immorality, murder of so-called “heretics”, and false teachings.
Fruitage, yes, but of a rotten tree.

Catholics do have a choice, they could choose to be a non Catholic Christian of undeclared or unknown denomination or beliefs.

When one implies that one is mindless or unable to form an opinion, that is a dig.

As for me and my household, hmmmmm.....there’s that word again, we will follow the Lord.

Pardon my slight changing of the words there.

For the most part, I don’t think you are disagreeable or rude and I have enjoyed the conversation.

Blessings to you and yours, always.

Good night.

Prayer **overcomes** many things.

Sigh, too pooped to proofread.

Night all.

Making the thread "about" yourself is the same as making the thread "about" another Freeper. In both cases, the thread is directed away from the issues into ad hominems and often results in flame wars.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

Right. All that stuff I remember from the time I was a practicing Catholic with no axe to grind against the church couldn’t possibly be true.

Sure.

Isn’t it interesting that when there’s different denominations amongst Protestants (generally concerning doctrinal matters that are not even considered significant in regards to salvation) its bad because the different denominations are evidence that Protestantism is not unified.

And when there’s different *rites* amongst Catholics (generally concerning doctrinal differences that are determined to be critical to salvation according to the CCC or popes) it’s not even an issue because it displays the unity of Catholicism in that all the rites are in communion with each other.

Go figure.......

“Right. All that stuff I remember from the time I was a practicing Catholic with no axe to grind against the church couldn’t possibly be true.”

Just tell yourself you don't remember and everything will be copacetic.

I can’t.

I’m not into deceiving myself any more.

Just tell yourself you don't remember and everything will be copacetic.

You are getting slee-py

When we count to three you will fall fast asleep and forget all.

Two-and three-quarters...

Zzzzzz

Dang it! he always does that! I gotta' quit hiring this on-line hypnotist...

That’s what this thread has done to me. I leave and come back and the posts are exactly the same.....ZZZZZZZZ

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery