On Infant Baptism and the Complete Gratuity of Salvation

It is a simple historical fact that the Church has always baptized infants. Even our earliest documents speak of the practice. For example the Apostolic Tradition written about 215 A.D. has this to say:

The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. (Apostolic Tradition # 21)

Scripture too confirms that infants should be baptized if you do the math. For example

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:15-17 NIV)

So the Kingdom of God belongs to the little Children (in Greek brephe indicating little Children still held in the arms, babes). And yet elsewhere Jesus also reminds that it is necessary to be baptized in order to enter the Kingdom of God:

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5 NIV)

If the Kingdom of God belongs to little children and we are taught that we cannot inherit it without baptism then it follows that Baptizing infants is necessary and that to fail to do so is a hindering of the little children which Jesus forbade his apostles to do.

So both Tradition and Scripture affirm the practice of baptizing infants. Strange then that some among the Protestants (not all) should criticize us for this practice. Even stranger that the Baptists are usually be the ones to do so. You’d think with a name like “Baptist” they’d be more into baptism. (Truth be told, most of the other Protestant denominations do baptize infants). It is primarily Baptists and some Evangelicals who refuse the practice.

Part of the reason for this is that they seem to water down (pardon the pun) the fuller meaning of baptism, no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se. Rather they seem to see it more as a symbol of faith already received when they said the sinners prayer and accepted Christ as their savior. No time here to argue the full logic of their position and why it falls short of a biblical and Traditional understanding of Baptism.

But, for those of us who do continue the ancient and biblical practice of baptizing infants, the practice says some very wonderful things about the gratuity of salvation and the goodness of God. Consider these points:

1. The baptism of infants is a powerful testimony to the absolute gratuity (gift) of salvation. Infants have achieved nothing, have not worked, have not done anything to “merit” salvation. The Catechism puts it this way: The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. (CCC # 1250) The Church is clear, salvation cannot be earned or merited, and infant baptism teaches that most clearly. Salvation is pure gift.

How strange and ironic that some of the very denominations which claim that Catholics teach salvation by works (we do not) also refuse to baptize infants. They claim that a certain age of maturity is required so that the person understands what they are doing. But this sounds like achievement. That the child must meet some requirement seems like a work, or the attainment of some meritorious status wherein one is now old enough to “qualify” for baptism and salvation. “Qualifications….Achievement (of age)….Requirements….it all sounds like what they accuse us of: namely works and merit.

To be clear then, the Catholic understanding of the gratuity of salvation is far more radical than many non-Catholics understand. We baptize infants who are not capable of meriting, attaining or earning.

2. The Baptism of infants also powerfully attests to the fact that the beauty of holiness and righteousness is available to everyone regardless of age. To be baptized means to be washed. Washed of what? Original Sin. At first this seems like a downer, “Are you saying my baby has sin?” Yep. All of us inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. We are born into a state of alienation from God that is caused by sin. The Scriptures are clear: [S]in entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (Rom 5:12). So even infants are in need of the saving touch of God.

Now why would we wish to delay this salvation and resulting holiness for 7 to 12 years? The Catechism says this, Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by Original Sin, children also have need of new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and be brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God….The Church and parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth. (CCC # 1250).

St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage in the 3rd Century was asked if it was OK to wait to the 8th day to baptize since baptism had replaced circumcision. He responded with a strong no: But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day We [the bishops] all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. (Epist# 58).

So then, here is the beauty, that infants are summoned to receive the precious gift of holiness and righteousness and that they are summoned to a right relationship with God by having their sin purged and holiness infused. Infants are called to this dignity and should not be denied it. With this done, some of the holiest and most innocent days of our lives may well be our first years. Then as the will begins to manifest and reason begins to dawn the grace of holiness gives us extra strength to fight against the sinful world that looms.

3. The Baptism of Infants also attests to the fact that faith is gift for every stage of development- To be baptized is to receive the gift of faith. It is baptism that gives the true faith. Even with adults, true faith does not come until baptism. Prior to that there is a kind of prevenient faith, but it is not the Theological Virtue of Faith.

Now faith is not only an intellectual assent to revealed doctrine. It is that but it is more. To have faith is also be be in a righteous and trusting relationship with God. An infant relates to his parents long before he speaks or his rational mind is fully formed. He trusts his parents and depends on them. It is the same with God. The infant trusts and depends of God and is in a right relationship with God. With his parents, this relationship of trust leads the infant to begin to speak and understand as he grows. Here too it is the same with God. As his mind awakens the infant’s faith grows. It will continue to grow until the day he dies (hopefully) as an old man.

That faith accompanies us through every stage of our life and develops as we do is essential to its nature. An infant needs faith no less than an old man. An infant benefits from faith no less than a teenager or an adult.

To argue as some Protestants do that you have to be a certain age before faith can exist, hardly seems to respect the progressive nature of faith which is able to bless EVERY stage of our human journey.

I have some very vivid memories of my experience of God prior to seven years of age and I will say that God was very powerfully present to me in my early years, in many ways even more so than now, when my mind sometimes “gets in the way.”

Another post too long. Forgive me dear reader. But please spread the word. Too many Catholics are waiting months, even years to have their children baptized. Precious time is lost by this laxity.

Infant Baptism speaks powerfully of the love that God has for everyone he has created and of his desire to have everyone in a right and saving relationship with Him. Surely baptism alone isn’t enough. The child must be raised in the faith. It is the nature of faith that it grows by hearing and seeing. Children must have faith given at baptism but that faith must be explained and unwrapped like a precious gift for them. Don’t delay. Get started early and teach your child the faith they have received every day.

Eph 2:8-10
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

[9] Not of works: as of our own growth, or from ourselves; but as from the grace of God.

~ ~ ~

boatbums,

From my heart, you must come home to Catholicism. You could know every verse in Scripture but if you misinterpret it, what does it matter?

God did not give every person the authority to interpret
Scripture. Protestants believe this heresy and the whole
world sees the fruit, error and division.

You can’t isolate verses or give your “private judgment.”

The above, from the Douay-Rheims and footnote to follow.

Everything is by God’s grace, it’s true AND any showy false works will not save you. Darn Luther, Protestants believing his Sola Fide reject “works” so end up misinterpreting the “works” verses.

God bless you,

You have no authority to interpret Scripture.

“I have no choice but to do so. Without interpretation, scripture is meaningless.

And it frankly is not that hard. Yes, real belief is invariably followed by a changed life. That is because of the indwelling Holy Spirit. But we are justified by faith - by believing the promise of God.”

~ ~ ~

You mention two heresies. You will accept them probably up until the Great Warning. God will show you and you won’t
believe them anymore...I pray. The Great Warning could
happen in 2013? God only knows...

The fruits of “Private Judgment”, everyone can interpret Scripture, are error and division. You’re all inconsistent in your interpretation of your lone authority, the Bible. If that isn’t true...

Explain all the splits in Protestantism by the thousands since 1517, one every week. God the Holy Spirit is not confused, telling one person one meaning of a verse and the next another meaning.

The Church canonized Scripture so isn’t it logical, God
would also give her the gift to interpret Scripture?

The second heresy, we are not justified by faith alone,
belief alone. The only place ‘faith alone’ is written
in Scripture is James 2:24. Read it, it says we are
not saved by faith alone. Good thing, they stopped Luther from throwing out the Book of James.

Search, type in Catholic Apologetics first if you have a question on a verse. Many of the tough verses in the Bible, the Douay-Rheims have a footnote, there’s your correct interpretation.

http://www.drbo.org/

“You will accept them probably up until the Great Warning. God will show you and you won’t
believe them anymore...I pray. The Great Warning could
happen in 2013? God only knows...”

I’ll take my chances, covered by the Blood of the Lamb. Others can plead their rituals and rites if they want. For scripture says,

“14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.”

It is the shame of the Catholic Church that it sought for hundreds of years to prevent Christians from reading scripture. It is the shame of the Catholic Church that it fought to keep scripture out of the hands of Christians.

For as Peter wrote,

“12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

To repeat: “19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

The Catholic Church can claim Peter as the first Pope, but it ignored Peter and hid scripture for hundreds of years - because it feared what would happen when men saw the difference between what their priests taught and what God had proclaimed.

From my heart, you must come home to Catholicism. You could know every verse in Scripture but if you misinterpret it, what does it matter? God did not give every person the authority to interpret Scripture. Protestants believe this heresy and the whole world sees the fruit, error and division. You can’t isolate verses or give your “private judgment.”

And from my heart I CANNOT nor would I want to "come home" to the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot because I KNOW that Scripture tells me quite clearly that I CAN know I have eternal life and that my deeds are not what saves me. I have assurance of my salvation because the Holy Spirit has confirmed in my heart that I have heard the truth from Scripture. By going back to the RCC, I would have to give up this assurance because it teaches no person CAN know they are saved and won't know until they die and face judgment. But this is NOT what Scripture says and is why I have no desire to "come home". I already AM home and I AM part of the Body of Christ because I have received Him as Savior. I don't "reject" good works that God has prepared for us to do, but I see them in their true context - not as a means to merit the gift of eternal life.

The "heresy" here is in presuming that God does not reward those who diligently seek Him - something He DID promise to do. The heresy is in denying that God wants us to have the assurance of our salvation which He offers to us as a gift through His grace and which we receive by faith alone. The heresy is perverting the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and making salvation dependent upon the works done in the flesh and calling it "cooperating with God's grace". The heresy is in calling everyone who disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church a heretic and presuming Scripture is not perspicuous or plain to the understanding especially because of clarity. Irenaeus said:

"A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in acquaintance with them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall plainly under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures....the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all" - Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:27:1-2)

“let’s see:

Acts 2
Acts 8
Acts 10
Acts 16
Acts 18
Acts 22”

2 - Nope. Do you really think the Apostles baptized each other on Pentecost? And there is no indication the ones who followed by believing received the Holy Spirit at baptism instead of before.

8 - Nope.

There is no indication in chapter 8 of water baptism resulting in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and it is specifically rejected in one passage.

“14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”

10 - Nope. Cornelius receives the Holy Spirit, and THEN was baptized with water.

“Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized...”

16 - Nope. There is no indication of when any of those who converted in that chapter received the Holy Spirit. There IS this:

“30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household...And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.”

That would make Paul & Silas liars in your theology!

18 - I’ll assume you are NOT refering to this:

“8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

That would hardly support baptism as the means of receiving forgiveness and life.

So which passage are you referring to?

22 - I assume you refer to this again:

“12 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’”

But that refers back to what happened in Acts 9:

“17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; 19 and taking food, he was strengthened.”

Please note that regaining sight and filling with the Holy Spirit are linked, and Saul regained his sight before he was baptized.

So no.

You cannot give a scripture reference and hope not to have anyone READ the reference. It doesn’t do any good to make up references...

let’s see:

Acts 2:38 Peter says to be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit - a future event.

Acts 8: the eunuch was not baptized until done so by Philip.

Acts 10: Cornelius was not baptized by the Holy Spirit, that is why Peter commanded they be baptized.

Acts 22: Acts 9 does not say Paul was baptized by the Holy Spirit when he regained his sight. Acts 22 specifically states he had his sight, but was still dead in his sins as he was told ( after receiving his sight ) to rise , be baptized and wash away his sins calling on his name.

Acts 16 - LOL, far from making Paul and Silas liars, what they said matches up perfectly with Christian teaching since if you believe in Jesus Christ, you will want to have your sins remitted, receive the Holy Spirit and be in Christ, ALL OF WHICH HAPPENS IN BAPTISM.

Acts 18, i was referring to the verse you posted. It does not say they were baptized twice, ONLY ONCE.

in fact, NO ONE IN THE NT IS SAID TO BE BAPTIZED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THEN AFTERWARDS, WATER BAPTIZED. CAN YOU FIND ANYONE, JUST ONE?

“Acts 2:38 Peter says to be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit - a future event.”

In Acts 2, Peter promises the Holy Spirit to all who repent and believe the promise of God. But in Acts 2, the Apostles had been baptized (probably) long before Pentecost.

“be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”

As I have pointed out to you before, that can be interpreted 2 ways:

1 - be baptized to receive forgiveness, or

2 - be baptized in response to your forgiveness.

The Greek allows either possibility. I interpret it #2 because that makes it agree with 500 verses on belief and faith. You interpret it #1 because that agrees with the Catholic Church.

Also:

“Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en twi onomati Ihsou Xristou).”

http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=002&verse=038

It says ‘Y’all repent (and individuals be baptized [either to cause or in recognition of forgiveness]) and y’all will receive the Holy Spirit - now and future generations.

That also agrees with Peter in Acts 10 saying, “43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

“Acts 8: the eunuch was not baptized until done so by Philip”

True. But this says nothing about when the eunuch received the Holy Spirit, although the fact that he WANTED to be baptized indicates some influence of the Holy Spirit, at a minimum.

“Acts 10: Cornelius was not baptized by the Holy Spirit, that is why Peter commanded they be baptized.”

False. You are grossly incorrect in spite of the obviousness of the truth.

“44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

“Acts 9 does not say Paul was baptized by the Holy Spirit when he regained his sight. Acts 22 specifically states he had his sight, but was still dead in his sins as he was told ( after receiving his sight ) to rise , be baptized and wash away his sins calling on his name.”

Acts 22 & 9. Acts 9 says, ““ Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.”

Sorry, it DOES link sight and filling.

Acts 22: It is possible to take this as a sequential list, with water baptism washing away sin, but that would conflict with everything else Paul says in Acts and his epistles. It is also possible to consider it simultaneous acts: do these things. That interpretation agrees with all the rest of what Paul says in Acts and his epistles.

One can interpret scripture by reading Catholic theology and imposing it on the text, or allowing 500 verses on believing and faith to interpret the 2-3 that mention water baptism.

“far from making Paul and Silas liars, what they said matches up perfectly with Christian teaching since if you believe in Jesus Christ, you will want to have your sins remitted, receive the Holy Spirit and be in Christ, ALL OF WHICH HAPPENS IN BAPTISM.”

Except Paul never says that. He says, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.” and

“13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” and

“4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” and

“13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.” and

“14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”

If baptism gains us forgiveness, then it is mighty odd that Paul preached the Gospel, converting much of the heathen world, and yet did not baptize anyone (almost) - and was GLAD that he didn’t baptize!

Acts 2:38
Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

38 and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

there is only one way to understand Peter, the way everyone who read it understood it meant to be baptized for the remission of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit. this was the faith and practice the Universal Church recieved from the Apostles and no one disputed it until the 16th century. also, please note Peter only mentions one baptism. he does not say to believe and the Holy Spirit will baptize you ( that’s the first baptism ) and then after that be water baptized as a first act of obedience ( that would be baptism number two ) NO, HE JUST SAYS “BE BAPTIZED”.

Acts 8 - the eunuch wished to be baptized because Philip preached the same message to him, that Peter preached in Acts 2. be baptized for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit. AGAIN, WE ONLY FIND ONE BAPTISM MENTIONED, NOT TWO.

Acts 10 - please read this carefully. Peter was accompanied on the trip to Cornelius’s house by other BELIEVERS ( if they were believers, they had already been baptized and received the Holy Spirit ) now watch what v44 says “while Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on ALL who heard the word”
do you see what it says, the Holy Spirit fell on ALL ( believer and Gentile alike ) who heard the word. THE HOLY SPIRIT DID NOT BAPTIZE EVERYONE, SINCE THE BELIEVERS WERE ALREADY BAPTIZED. well, what was the gift the Holy Spirit gave? v46 tells us, it was the gift of tongues.
the Holy Spirit was showing Peter salvation was for the Gentiles, just as much as it was for the Jews. “receiving the Holy Spirit just as we had “ refers to the gift of tongues. it does not say the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles when they believed. it also doesn’t say the Holy Spirit baptized the Gentiles, if they were baptized already, Peter would not have commanded they be baptized again.

Acts 22 “ sorry it does link sight and filling” yes it does, we agree. however, IT DOES NOT SAY PAUL WAS BAPTIZED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN HE REGAINED HIS SIGHT.
Acts 22 is very clear, Paul regained his sight, but HE WAS STILL DEAD IN HIS SINS. 22:13 “ brother Saul, receive your sight” so after v13 Paul HAS HIS SIGHT, YET HE IS STILL DEAD IN HIS SINS SINCE ANANIAS GOES ON TO TELL HIM IN V16, “AND NOW WHY DO YOU WAIT? RISE AND BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, CALLING ON HIS NAME.
the baptism and remission of sins occurred seperate and after receving his sight. Ananias accomplished what the Lord wanted him to do, have Paul regain his sight and receive the Holy Spirit.

by the way, did Paul regain his sight by the power of Ananias or by the power of the Holy Spirit? did Paul wash away his sins by the power of Ananias or by the Holy Spirit working thru Ananias? the answer is obvious, both instances were by the power of the Holy Spirit given to Ananias. this is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 12:13 “ for by one Spirit, we were all baptized into one body....”

i completely disagree with your thinking that the passages that teach baptismal regeneration conflict with over 500 other passages which discuss believing and faith. THIS IS A FALSE CHOICE, IT IS NOT AN EITHER OR PROPOSITION. ALL THE SCRIPTURES HARMONIZE VERY WELL TOGETHER IN THE HISTORICAL, ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING OF BAPTISM.

finally, you miss the point over Paul saying he baptized none of the Corinthians other than Crispus and Gaius. the point he was making was that by everyone else being baptized by someone other than Paul, the chances for dissension was diminished. clearly, Paul baptized, and all he Corinthian Christians WERE BAPTIZED. he is only stating he baptized two CORINTHIANS, we know he baptized many more than that across the known world and we know that all the heathens he converted WERE BAPTIZED.

i do want to commend you for the respectful way you are approaching this dialogue and i hope you feel the same way about me. i find your attitude to be rare on this site, and i think it speaks very well of you.

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.