Posted on 10/25/2010 9:27:38 AM PDT by GonzoII
I would also add that the Lord required of him (Cornelius) Baptism:
Acts 10: What is it, Lord?....call hither one Simon, who is surnamed Peter: 6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side. He will tell thee what thou must do.
47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
You are quoting church positions, I’m quoting from scriptures.
I believe that I and I alone am responsible for my sins. Your church injects a third party (clergy) into this relationship, where a third party assumes a role not defined in the Bible. If the clergy may forgive sins, without a person’s acknowledgment or remorse, then wouldn’t the right thing to do be to forgive every sinner’s sins after they die? Wouldn’t that make the point of living a Christ-like life pointless?
I humbly submit that we are all born blameless, and we each earn the sins that will damn us. My sins are my fault, not the compounded sins of my father. Through prayer, self-discipline and repentance I may plea for forgiveness.
At the end of the day, as long as the child goes to Heaven, does it really matter what mechanisms are involved?
Leaving aside the question of Eternal Security, the answer is no, they were not saved. Peter saw the necessity for Baptism, and also saw that it should not be delayed.
Literal meaning no eisesgesis, no interpretation just what does it sttraight out says.
And I am still wating on the verse from you that Jesus specifically says that you can not under an circumstance baptize children.
With out that you have no arguement.
Sorry, you’re wrong. The gift of tongues is a Holy Spirit manifestation. The Holy Spirit only enters the ‘washed in the blood of the lamb’ spirit, to effect the human soul, which then manifests with the body doing something ‘new’.
Cornelius was a practicing Jewish convert and his whole household, too. We know what Jesus said is the work God requires, but Cornelius did not know this yet, for how can they know unless the Gospel of God’s Grace in Christ be preached to them. So, when Conelius was instructed to send for one Simon Peter, the instruction was to hear the Gospel preached. Peter went the extra step to have immediate baptism because this is an outward sign of trusting in God’s Grace in the Crucified and rien Savior. Red the passage in Acts carefully. Do not read into the passage that which is not there. Then apply what you know Jesus said is the work God requires to be saved. How could Cornelius believe on Jesus, as a practicing Jewsih convert, if he had not received the good news of the Gospel of Grace? Cornelius was praticing obedience to the Law, and Simon Peter brought the Good News of the Grace of God in Christ. Upon hearing this Truth, Cornelius was immediately saved, thus Peter knew his instructions from Jesus, for his responsibility, was to get these saved people baptised immediately. But the baptism held no magic to save, since these were already saved when they heard and believed, as Jesus said is the work God requires.
Christ Himself gave His apostles the authority to forgive or retain men’s sins. This is in the Bible. See John 20:20 and following.
And of course you can docuemtnt that this has been an accepted teaching for roughly 2000 years..
Because with out proof this just an opinion.
And where is the part about sprinkling water on a baby?
And how old was Jesus when He was Baptized?
Indeed I am brother, through which I am on solid footing:
1 Tim 3:15 "that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
"Your church injects a third party (clergy) into this relationship, where a third party assumes a role not defined in the Bible."
No, Christ did that, and it's in the Bible and clearly defined:
Jn 20: 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
Mt 28: 19 Going therefore, teach ye 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
"At the end of the day, as long as the child goes to Heaven, does it really matter what mechanisms are involved?"
Yes, because they are mechanisms established by Christ.
Actually, Jesus probably had His first Jewish baptism at a very early age, according to the Jewish baptismal traditions. But you likely already knew that. We have a couple of posters trying to play gotcha, and I didn’t want that to happen to you.
Jesus didn’t say “Don’t” do an endless list of things. He didn’t say “Don’t spit in church” - yet we don’t do that, do we?
Let’s approach this a little differently.
If repentance of a sin requires an understanding of the sin, remorse for committing the sin, and a promise to try to abstain from committing the sin again - and we both agree that a baby is incapable of doing any of the above, then isn’t granting a Baptism on this person, making a mockery of the Baptismal sacrament?
If Baptizing a child who is sinless, who neither understands nor is capable of committing a sin, understanding remorse or confession, isn’t making a mockery of the sacrament of Baptism - then passing the Sacriment to the homosexual activists who were dressed up as Priests and Nuns shouldn’t have been a mockery either, right?
In one case, you are extending a sacriment to one who does not understand it - in the other one, you are extending it to someone who wishes to mock it. By doing so, are you not belittling the sacriment?
Good points ... something to digest before I get home.
Thanks!!
Okay.
FReegards.
I did know that, the ceremonial bathing was/is? very important in the Jewish faith.
I keep wondering exactly what sins has the newborn comitted that they need Baptism for?
And what of those babies murdered in the womb? Are they hell-bound because they never got sprinkled with a little water?
Inquiring minds.....
Are you telling me that this was not baptism of/in/from the Holy Spirit? I have nothing further to post to you since I will not play gotcha on your twisted terms.
God has given parents the authority, right, and responsibility to speak in their child’s name. This principle is illustrated in John 9, when the Pharisees questioned the parents of the man born blind.
The money quote is verse 23: “Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.”
This shows the common understanding that prior to the man’s coming of age, the parents would answer in his name. But since their child was a grown man, he was responsible for himself, and his own answers.
Of course it does.
1 Peter 3:
20Which 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.
21The 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:
Notice the “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. It’s the resurrection of Jesus that saves us, not the baptism. The figure (outward symbol) is Baptism. It is not what saves us, nor is it any part of what saves us. The word of God will save and destroy just as the water both saved Noah and destroyed all others on earth. Again, the water in Noah’s time was symbolic of the word of God.
Every human being since Adam has inherited the spiritual nature from Adam ... a spirit void of LIFE which is the Life of God in the power and person of the Holy Spirit. The sin nature reamins with you so long as you live in the veil which brought you forth, your body. All spirits are outside of the time which rules the body—except the body Jesus has since His resurrection. If one has a dead spirit, a spirit without life in it, and the life of sin is activated at some point when conscious choice is made, then what is ‘impelling’ the human spirit is a spirit of disobedience, and this is condemned as unrighteous so it cannot come into God’s Holy Presence. BUT, if you make the choice to believe His life is what you need in your human spirit, you have chosen LIFE in the human spirt as oppsed to death ruling the human spirit [’for since Adam fell death has reigned in the human spirit’].
A child who has not made a conscious choice has not activated the human spirit, so neother death nor life reigns in that spirit. Of such, God teaches throughout the Bible that the innocent are precious in His sight, so I would without hesitation say the alive unborn will be benefactors of His Redemption from Adam’s race should they die before making a conscious choice in disobedience.
My position is in the Bible. Please see GonzoII’s post #61.
Why would Peter Baptize these people if it wasn’t necessary? He never put on the Believers anything that wasn’t necessary. Case in point: the question of circumscision for gentile converts to Christianity.
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.