Posted on 10/05/2001 11:02:13 PM PDT by Uriel1975
It's a lot like raising a child to speak a certain language or have certain cultural values or even citizenship. A baby is given citizenship in a country but later can change that by choosing another country.
I completely agree.
As I said in another post (above), I generally don't get into this fight, as my own Orthodox Presbyterian teaching elder is pleased to, several times a year, leave his flock under the care of a Reformed Baptist pastor when he is travelling. And, as this pastor is a duly-ordained presbyter of the church of Jesus Christ (albeit one with a slightly different view of sacramental practice), the congregation treats him with all the respect and consideration which is rightly due an Elder. We even feed him 'n stuff.
I generally do not address the matter unless Presbyterian sacamental practice is termed a "silly superstition". In that instance, I respond.
However, Jerry, I'm going to use your post as an opportunity to make a few points:
I think that any believer who wants to argue theology has to decide which battles he is going to fight. There is a reason why the_doc, for example, believes in a great measure of ecumenical unity among people of Reformed Faith, whether anabaptistic or presbyterian in sacramental practice. The Gospel of Salvation itself -- the monergistic doctrine that God Alone saves -- is under attack outside of Reformed circles. Is there such a danger to Salvationist Gospel itself within the Reformed Camp? No, there is not.
Consider baptistic sacramental practice:
But both the Orthodox Presbyterian and the Refromed Baptist would agree as to the symbolic character of their own Baptisms, and each would deny any regenerative efficacy in the act itself. So their differences over ecclesiological practice ought to be subordinated to their common ground over Salvationist doctrine, as salvationist doctrine (heresies against which are spiritually fatal) is by far the more critical ground under attack in the modern, all-too-apostate Church.
The same goes for modest expressions of "charismaticism".
But if one merely maintains the possibility of gaining illumination from private "visions" or dreams, and holds a strictly orthodox and Biblical doctrine of Salvation, and acknowledges that any illumination of understanding ought be tested against the bar of unchanging Scripture, he's hardly a "charismatic" at all, at least in the modern sense. At best, he's a "continuationist" or Non-Cessationist -- and while most Reformed Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians today are cessationists, there have been several important saints in Baptist and Presbyterian history who have allowed for the "continuing" (post-apostolic) validity of private visions and illuminating dreams. One was the greatest of Baptist preachers, Charles Spurgeon. Another was the founder of the Presbyterian denomination, John Knox.
IMHO, to rebuke a duly-ordained Elder for suggesting that these subjects are not proper grounds for theological warfare....
....is simply fractious.
I just want to say that the Church of Jesus Christ,being made of men ,somtimes have honest disagreements.
I come to this with a natural bias toward a believers baptism. Uriel I do see the reformed position.
One of the notes hit me...It observed that although Ishmael was not an "elect" child he was circumcised as a mark of his family...and that does cause one to think of the fact that many very evil non elect Jews wore the mark of a covenant Jew. But I also note that inspite of the fact that Ishmael was not an elect Jew and a part of the covenant between God and Abraham..God honored the "mark" of the family relationship and made a promise to Hagar for her son,based on his being of Abrahams seed,and Abrahams neglect of his paternal role..
But I do have to look at the fact that Israel had a specific covenant with God..and the church ,through the blood of Christ has a "New" one.So I have a difficult time transfering the Old Covenant to the New one.
I do not believe that the time of baptism,or indeed even being baptised is a salvation issue,but I think it is really important to understand the foundation of the sacramental practice of other faiths..
The RC Church sees baptism as necessary for salvation..they see the "work" of the sacrament as removing sin.That is something I can not accept
But if a brother sees the baptism of his child as a mark of the covenant he has with Christ,I do not have a problem with it. I can celebrate it as I did with my Catholic grandchildren as a dedication,a promise..and a mark of the covenant.But with that goes a prayer to my God that the child will one day repent and be baptised..
I do want to observe GW that the point is well taken that no one ,except God knows the truth of the repentance and salvation of an adult being baptised..that in fact we take that on faith as much as an infant baptism..
Thanks to both of you..Uriel you need to quit your day job...and teach full time,you have a gift :>) Thanks for the Baptist perspective GW..guess I still lean in that direction..but I do now understand the reform position..
This presumes that Infant Baptism was not practiced until the rise of Papal Supremacy.
As (Messianic Jewish) Presbyter Steve Schlissel points out, this is not the case. In fact, Schlissel argues that if the children had been included in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, a specific commandment demanding their exclusion from the Sign of the Covenant would have been expected by the Jewish Church, if the children were now to be excluded from the Sign of the Covenant.
Yet no such command of exclusion exists in the New Testament.
Furthermore, he will see in Peter's Pentecost sermon the confirmation of his presupposition of continuity: "Repent and be baptized...The promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)." The household baptisms hold no problem for him, whether there are infants or not. (See Acts 10:48 (cf.11:14); 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) Mr. Continuity will understand that if, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church. So again, silence is what Mr. Continuous expects and finds.
(LOL!!) People keep telling me this.
Actually, this essay would have been up a lot sooner yesterday, except that I had to visit a branch office out of town yesterday afternoon... darn day job....
What utter garbage.
No Catholic or Orthodox believes anything remotely like this. If you would stop believing what your Protestant teachers say about us, and actually READ what Catholics and Orthodox believe IN THEIR OWN WORDS, you would do yourselves an immense service.
Fact: It is Catholic dogma that Christ is the priest in every Sacrament. The ordained minister is there as his visible representative, but it is Christ the High Priest who sanctifies through the human priest, and the form and matter of the sacrament.
Fact: It is Catholic dogma that it is God's grace -- the Divine Life of the Trinity -- which regenerates, not "infant baptism itself".
Fact: It is Catholic dogma that God is perfectly free to act outside the sacraments. He is free to declare anyone, anywhere, regenerated and justified at his sovereign pleasure.
Fact: Scripture directly calls baptism "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3:5) and says that all who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal 3:27). If that doesn't mean that baptism regenerates, not "by itself," but as an invocation, by the Church of Christ, of the mercy of God upon the baptizand, I don't know what it means.
You guys must think Catholics are absolutely stupid and Biblically illiterate as well, to seriously post garbage like this. Au contraire, mon frere!
The apostolic church baptized infants. The Christian Church baptized infants until Zwingli's followers decided to submit God's Word to their thick-headed human reason. The Anabaptists (re-baptizers) decided that children cannot believe. However, Jesus said, "Unless you believe as a child..." How can adults believe as children do if children do not believe. Thus they are at war with the Lord on this one. Also, infants joined in praising Christ at His royal entry into Jerusalem. How can they praise without faith?
The power of Holy Baptism is the Word of God. The Word grants faith to the child. Many throw this gift away, but God gives this gift of faith only through the Word.
AHHHHHH HAAAAAA..thanks for the insite..
I find this of interest as most Charasmatic churches would tend to be free will and synergistic in belief system.
I would be interested in the Charismatic history of Knox and Spurgeon..is there a site ?
Uriel, I have some questions in private I've been preparing. I'll shoot them too you when I have some time.
If you don't want to, I suppose I can... but I thought I'd offer you the opportunity to go at it.
http://thystrongword.0catch.com/chap08visibleword2.htm.
Just wondering..
With water? No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.