Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Luke 1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
Probably because it is a sacrament.
No one is regenerated at baptism. That's an RCC error. Instead, Baptism is a sign and seal that this child of God, at a time of God's choosing, will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit within him, will repent of his sins and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, as God promised.
WCF: The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
Context, Claud. "The grace promised is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost...according to the counsel of God's own will in His appointed time."
This grace is not conferred at Baptism, but is promised at Baptism. The awareness of God's grace is made known to the child of God at a time of God's choosing, "in His appointed time."
"Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God, according to the capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time." -- John Calvin - Syn. Gosp. II:390
It's no small distinction between the RCC and the Reformed.
Baptism is a recognition of a birthright issued by God from before the foundation of the world, a declaration that God is the true father of that child.
That birthright is not given at the moment of baptism; it is confirmed and made public at baptism, having been given by God from before the foundation of the world -- a sign and seal of His grace.
Hence we have the RCC saying "hurry up and baptise your child or else something bad might happen..." while the reformed have no such fear.
The salvation of infants is included in he promise in which God decares to believers that he will be a God to them and to their seed...Their salvation, therefore, has not its commencement in baptism, but being already founded on the word, is sealed by baptism" -- John Calvin (Antidote to Council of Trent.) "The offspring of believers is born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb...are included in the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they admitted into the church by baptism on any other ground than that they belonged to the body of Christ before they were born...
WHAT!.. with ZERO hands layed on him and NOT being spinkled with holy water?..
(hands to face).. moan.. faint..
For reference, I am a conservative LCMS Lutheran, so I have a view of Sacramental theology much closer to the RCC and EO than the Anabaptists.
First of all, when the author states that “The Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist until 318 AD”, he is both wrong and right. The organizational structure that we see today did not exist. For one thing, there were few (but there were some) dedicated church buildings. Many were in houses, catacombs, or even in some Jewish synagogues.
But most of them were catholic (little c), in that they believed in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, had a high view of the sacraments (as I will mention later), and were very interested in preserving and retaining the writings of the Bible and of other Christian theologians.
There was no Pope as we have come to understand it. Yes there was a bishop in Rome who was in St. Peter’s historical see, and yes in the west he was often looked to solve thorny theological debates, but the idea of unlimited and unified power in the Pope’s hands didn’t come until later. When exactly depends on if you ask an Eastern Orthodox or a Roman Catholic.
As to the Sacraments. What we know (from contemporary writings and other evidence) is that the Big two, Baptism and Holy Communion, were held in very high reverence. Much higher than is often the case today. They were NOT viewed as just signs or symbols. To say that goes against every piece of evidence we have. They believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in Communion (though the specifics of the definition was not hammered out in the West until about 1000 years later), and in that Baptism really forgave sins. The later is evidenced by the fact that many converts held off baptism till right before death because they were afraid of sinning afterwords. And some early Church Fathers said that any sins after baptism were impossible to have forgiven.
But at the same time, there was a lot of infant baptism after the first generation of Christians. There is evidence of this throughout the early Church, just as there is evidence of those who held out till the approach of death. Things didn’t really stabilize until much later, and at that point Baptism was primarily done to infants. Again, the evidence is there.
Ok, now on to the Early Church Fathers. Now, the ECF’s were not a monolithic group. An old teacher of mine once said that if you gave him 15 minutes and his CD ROM’s of the ECF’s, he could find them justifying just about everything. Some were very much against music of any kind, some were for liturgical musical instruments. Some were very disapproving of martial relations (some even hinted that it could be a mortal sin), others were very positive about that (the two extremes waxed and waned though the ages). When you look at the Christological controversies, well some of the early ECF would have been hammered pretty hard if they had been around at Chalcedon. Of course the terminology introduced at that council was not often used at the times of say Cyril of Alexandria.
Even with all that variance, some of which is often very embarrassing (for a hoot read what Augustine and Jerome said to each other), there were certain core beliefs that shine through. And those were the beliefs that have been defined as catholic (lower case c), because they were found pretty much every where.
Now I expect this thread to continue on for a few hundred more posts, but just wanted to throw my $.05 before it got to long.
Your welcome Marysecretary (((Hugs)))
Freedom of Religion for thee but not for me...
Any other nasty little parts of the Bill of Rights you want to get rid of...
lol, looks like
I believe you are making a gross misrepresentation of what Mary posted. Were she refering to Islam, you would be 100% correct. However, nothing prohibits one from trying to get another to join their beliefs. There is nothing coersive about what Mary wrote. The other person ALWAYS has the right to say thank you and walk away. Seems like you, OTOH, seek to have all religious discourse shut down - Freedom from religion for thee and no freedom of religion for me :)
Well, the pope was pretty much at the mercy of the emperor, and Rome had been roughed up by Lutheran mercenaries employed by the emperor.
Well I have to say Dr. Eckleburg, that this is the first time we would disagree. There are many an offspring of believers that were anything but holy and it does go against election. Let alone original sin. I must be misunderstanding something. I do believe that God is a third party in the conception of a child and that good souls can born good souls, yet it is not always the case, and vice versa
Where you see virtue in Mary’s post...
I find it condesending and offensive.
First Amendment includes freedom of religion as well.
Trying to convert someone is rarely accomplished by starting out with insults.
"I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost...to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested." -- John Calvin
And later Benjamin B. Warfield wrote concerning those who die in infancy...
"Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world."
God gives and God takes away. But we will all be together again one day.
And so too are you entitled. However, there was nothing condesending and offensive in Mary’s post and nothing that would deny one’s freedom of religion. Coversion is a CHOICE and I say again, there was nothing Mary’s post to indicate that there was anything else. There is nothing in Mary’s belief system (at least that I’ve seen) which mandates she forcefully makes you join her faith. If that were the case, then you’d have grounds to gripe. However that isn’t the case, so you seem to have some other theological axe to grind. In the same manner, one could consider that you are guilty of the same offense you are charging Mary (and probably myself) with, trying to force acceptance of your view. Doesn’t work that way here :)
The more reformed I get, however, the more I believe everything is determined by His will and purpose. And it is God who gives us our children. I don't believe He does that carelessly, but with perfect intent and result.
Are some baptized children of true believers reprobates?
I don't know. All we have is His promise to us and to our children. And if the promise to us is sure and true, then so is His promise to our children...one way or another.
Here's the great site, A Puritan's Mind, and its author, Dr. Matthew McMahon, who was a Baptist pastor who came to believe in the truth of infant baptism a decade ago...
I think it's well worth the read.
“Because we care about them and want to rescue them from error that could cost them their salvation.”
Reverse is equally true. I think your salvation is in question...
That's the center of the argument. If Baptism imparts Grace then it is a salvational issue.
Are some baptized children of true believers reprobates?
We just don't know, but as an example what about Charles Manson. Was he baptized as an infant? It's probably a pretty good bet he's going to hell.
Scripture teaches that John was filled with Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb. A rather exclusive club, it would seem.
My own children were baptized as youngsters and not infants because my husband and I hadn't found a church until then.
But their baptism was not predicated on their consent to become part of God's family, but on the recognition by us and our congregation of the gift of membership into God's family which God bestows on His own from before the foundation of the world.
It's kind of like the growing awareness of predestination. At first we say we're on our own. Then gradually we give God some credit and keep most of it for ourselves. Little by little we become aware that it is ALL of God according to His plan for His creation. And the totality of that awareness is life-changing and amazingly comforting.
So, too, IMO is the understanding that our baptism is something we do in time which illustrates and affirms what God has already done for us from before time by the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Thank you very, very much, you just freed up at least one hour of my time.
After reading your post, I can dispense with the rest of this thread.
RD
AMEN!
O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee; But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight. Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips. The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons. I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." -- Psalm 16:1-11"Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust.
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.