Posted on 02/24/2013 11:55:01 AM PST by daniel1212
Which is apparently the point of the agreement. Conservative Protestant denominations aren't the ones using heterodox baptismal formulas, etc., so there would never be any question that Catholics would consider their baptisms valid.
Where did I say anything about belonging to 'a church'? And not interested in what you call 'humbleness'; it's not about you, it's All about JESUS/The Word.
If one is accepted by GOD and his son Jesus, to enter into Heaven, one will see family, friends, acquaintances, and yes, strangers, of ALL faiths, side by side in eternity.
Wrong twice. One accepts JESUS as their Savior to enter Heaven. And there is no 'ALL faiths' - there is ONLY ONE FAITH, that is the Faith of God.
There isn't any as I already told you. And don't use God's Word to 'try' to prove a - lie/infant baptism is truth.
You clearly are all confused on Scripture and IT'S meaning. Seems you, also, don't even have a grasp on the difference between an infant vs. a child.
So you believe GOD'S Word Is The FINAL AUTHORITY and reject all RCC/man made teachings?
It must have taken them by surprise.
It will get them to think.
It is one of the reasons why when each Lent ends, Catholics renew the promises made at their baptism.
So liberal Prots and RC formally sanctions each other baptism. Fitting as the results seem to be much the same.
The CRNA states that all congregations in the Christian Reformed Church in North America may allow women to serve in the office of minister, elder, deacon, or ministry associate.
It states homosexualism (that is, explicit homosexual practice), however, is incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Scripture, but that homosexuals should be opportunities to serve within the offices and the life of the congregation should be afforded to them as to heterosexual Christians. http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/homosexuality
Same here, glory be to God.
“God’s word” says the *church* is the pillar and ground of the truth. Look it up.
I think there certainly were in the past.
More than one pope and church father stated with great bravado that anyone outside the Catholic church could not even have salvation.
As the Mormons have done also, they have changed their set in stone beliefs to fit in with the coming one world religion.
Liberal Prots
LOL!
Do you really know all the Baptisms that are accepted? Not just these recent ones.
The word, liberal, here is an oxymoron when referring to all these churches.
And where are you getting the idea that the Catholic Church is liberal?
It is the one and only church that through the ages as stood against:
abortion
euthanasia
contraception
homosexuality
embronic stem cell research
Many non - Catholic Churches endorse some of those practices. I’m not talking about individuals here, but the beliefs of the churches.
has stood against:
That's God's Church where Jesus is the head and based on HIS WORD ALONE. Jesus is The Way, The Truth, the Life. Jesus is The Word/The Truth.
God's Word is the FINAL authority to those who are HIS Church/His Body, and JESUS is The Head.
Man-made teachings from 'religions' have NOTHING to do with God's Church. Look up counterfeit.
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
The Old and the New Covenant are distinguishable because they are different. The question one must ask at any point is, what has been kept the same, and what has been made different? That question can only be resolved by looking to the authority of He who created both covenants. Does God say the New Covenant is entered into by physical birth, or spiritual? By physical removal of physical uncleanness, or spiritual? During the transition between covenants, from the ministry of Christ to the ministry of the disciples, was anyone who already had circumcision also required to be baptized? If so, why, if they in fact are identical events?
They are not identical. Paul makes the distinction nicely here:
Col 2:11 “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: [12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”
Our sins are buried in Christ by His act on our behalf, but we are “risen with Him through faith,” and though God also grants us that faith, it is really ours, and it is here embedded by Paul in the heart of the New Covenant meaning of Christian Baptism, of which circumcision was merely a foreshadowing. God did not merely take the same exact thing and make it “wider.” He took the shadow and brought it into full light of reality.
Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature. Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.
This usage presumes Baptism itself to be the active cause of cleansing and salvation. It presumes the physical act is coequal to and as necessary as the spiritual reality for which it is a sign. But this is not proven by the passages used here, merely assumed to be so based on the self-claimed authority of Rome. The passages themselves simply prove the necessity of redemption, because we are sinners from birth, and on this we can both agree. These passages tell us why we need to be saved. They do not answer the question of how.
Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
The passage in question does not extoll children for their youth, but for their simplicity of faith, and it is this quality of faith, humble, complete, direct, and unencumbered by the doubt of more “sophisticated” minds, that Jesus finds praiseworthy. But this is no endorsement of applying a physical ritual to a child unable to give consent to, let alone have faith in, the Son of God.
Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
And indeed there is no limit as to age, a physical factor. Yet the limitation of Scripture is that entrance to the New Covenant is through faith:
Eph 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God”
But if we allow something other than faith to be the portal to the Kingdom, where is the Scriptural warrant for such a contraption? Even the unborn can have spiritual experiences. John leap in the womb at the hearing of Mary’s salutation. While we may not be able to know with certainty the spiritual condition of the youngest children, we do know God has set the threshold as having faith, that without faith it is impossible to please God, that faith is why a particular person should receive Christian Baptism. God can save whomever He wishes, be they babies leaping in the womb or thieves on a cross, but it is not up to us to tamper with the meaning of the signs he has given us. Every single New Covenant baptism is accompanied by faith.
Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.
This is the same faulty logic as above. Age is not a limitation. Faith is.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
I agree with the writer’s premise that one can be baptized yet not be saved. The following of a physical ritual will do nothing if not accompanied by the faith it is designed to represent. What the writer says next simply doesn’t follow. That there can be false baptisms only proves that there can be false believers. Everyone knows this, but it doesn’t tell us what baptism means. Only that it is not a magical rite, and has no ability, as a ritual, to do anything. It is the heart that matters.
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Bad logic. First, the English word “infant” is more restrictive than the Greek words typically used for child. We do not know the age of the children in this passage, or how close any of them were or were not to the age of reason. A doctrine of any authority in the Church cannot be built on the vapor of supposition. Besides, any child at any age might receive favor from God, which is what grace is. But baptism is a sign of something. It is a testimony of faith in the Son of God. That testimony cannot be given until it is known to be true, lest we convert the sign of God’s grace into a false message.
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Here your writer is very creative (in a bad way) with the Greek. “Metanoesate” is in the first aorist (ingressive) active imperative (see AT Robertson). It is not a conditional “If.” It’s a shout of “Repent!” to the crowd listening to Peter. It is given to the crowd as a whole, but then directions are given that each individual in the crowd needs to be baptized. “hekastos” is simply a way to say “each and every one,” and “humon” (better spelling) simply means “of you.” It does great violence to extend a generic genitive into some extraordinary meaning concerning families.
Consider a noncontroversial example in English. “Listen up everyone, each and every one of you needs to apply for your own mortgage.” See the imperative at the beginning, directed to the collective, then broken down to specifically state the need of each individual to do something in response. And in English, the “of you” is just the genitive, a way of attaching a pronoun to the “each,” to make it clear who is being addressed.
Therefore, there is no textual basis for the insertion of families as subsets, let alone extending that to an imaginary requirement to baptize newborns.
Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.
“Those far off” in no way is a reference to physically distant members of the families in the crowd. The Jews were considered close to God, the inheritors of the law and the covenants, and it was the heathen that were the “far off” ones. So what we have here is an early indication that the Gospel was intended for the Gentiles, indeed, for whomever the Lord should call.
Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.
Again, the writer draws an unjustified conclusion. “Teknon” may refer to an infant, or it may refer to an older child. Context is the determining factor, because “teknon,” in its most basic meaning, is simply “offspring.” I am nearly a senior citizen, yet I am a “teknon,” an offspring of my parents. Peter here is in effect saying to the crowd that the promise is to them and to their posterity, as well as to all those “afar off,” which likely includes the Jewish diaspora, as well as the Gentiles.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.
The writer here assumes facts not in evidence. There is no statement that the household of Cornelius actually had newborns in it. As we know from other passages, all examples of baptism where the subject was a consenting participant involve a profession of faith, and there simply are no examples of non-consenting individuals being baptized. We should not force a contradictory sense onto the Scripture.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children. Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.
Here your writer takes flight into sheer fantasy. Lydia’s household was a specific group of people. A particular “Oikos” may have newborns, or it may not. The matter is not determined from the word by itself, but from the context as well. This amounts to an argument from silence. But the failure to specifically exclude infants proves nothing. If I say, “see here, a family has just walked into the room,” can you tell me the makeup of that family? Are there two three-year olds? Twins? Is the father present? Is the mother present? Are the children teenagers? Are the parents seniors and the children middle aged adults? You cannot tell from the word “family,” just as you cannot tell from the word “oikos.”
Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).
Here the writer raises a straw man. The passage in question does not set forth a rule on baptism for adults, but rather sets forth the rule for salvation, and frames it much as any Baptist preacher might present it. Salvation for the jailor was only a matter of confession of faith in Jesus, and baptism was performed in consequence to this event, a testimony of faith, an outward sign marking an internal transformation. Arguing from silence, our writer insinuates that the lack of a stated rule for newborns is implicit permission to violate the meaning of baptism by applying it to those who do not yet have a testimony of faith in Christ.
Furthermore, the writer here asserts a uniform history for infant baptism of fully 2000 years and that cannot be proven from the available evidence. To the best of my knowledge, there is no first century “evidence” apart from the very weak inference of household baptisms in the NT, and other similarly weak inferential arguments. Beyond that, the Didache (circa 100 AD) points to baptizing those who can fast, certainly not newborns, and after that not much until the late second or early third century. This is a critical gap in the record.
Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.
The jailor’s household may have included children, but it may also be that none of them were newborns. In any event, as stated before, while the age of a person is not important to baptism, the giving of an honest testimony of faith is indeed a limitation, and even our writer admits this limitation, at least with respect to adults.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.
Lost souls need salvation, the thing baptism represents. If they needed a full proper baptism, then Jesus misled the thief on the cross, and that of course is impossible, for God does not lie. If a child dies before they can profess faith, God knows the secrets of all hearts, and salvation will come to all those God see fit to give it. Again, John lept in the womb. But it is not our place to presume upon God’s good graces and make up stories about our children that we wish were true, but do not know to be true. When a child of any age has faith, they have a testimony of faith, and may be baptized.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom. 1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.
Another strawman argument. Children are not excluded from the New Covenant. But baptism has its meaning as a testimony of faith, and without that testimony the ritual has no meaning. That is a key difference between the Old and New Covenants. Children could be included without their consent because the covenant with Abraham did not require the children to have personal faith in order to receive circumcision. The promise to Abraham was of a blessing to come, and his offspring, whether faithful or not, would be the conduit through whom the Seed, Christ, would come. Once that reality came to pass in Jesus, the shadow, with all its limitations, could be set aside.
Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.
There is no discernable argument here. The writer presumes baptism is the means to sainthood, but this argues that the thief on the cross was not a saint. But he doubtless was, because “saint” simply means “set apart,” and all who believe in him are set apart from the world, whether they have been ritually washed or not. The specific argument that baptism must have happened to newborns is undiscoverable from this text, especially since the children in Eph. 6:1 are old enough that Paul may remind them of their duties to obey their parents, hardly something a newborn can do.
Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.
Yes, we agree, infants, even newborns, are all born under sin and need salvation. This is repetition of the same ineffective argument. God know we all have need of his salvation, and he will give it to whomever he sees fit. That does not entitle us to misuse the signs he has given us for our ministry of the Gospel. Christians do not practice the “magic” of pagans, who also felt the need to purge their newborns of evil through various rituals. Our religion is governed by the Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus, and our baptism can only have the meaning given to it by Christ and His apostles. If we go beyond what he has spoken to us, we introduce “strange fire” to the worship of the Holy God, and that usually does not end well.
2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.
This inference of need implies that the ritual is needed, whereas Christ always directed us away from ritual to the substance behind it. When the Samaritan woman asks him about where to worship, he redirects her to think not of where God is worshipped, but to ask, is he worshipped in spirit and in truth. What every child, every adult needs is the same, forgiveness for sin and a faith that endures. That is the true meat of any human soul, and Jesus himself is that Bread from Heaven who alone can meet that need. It is not our place to misuse the sign of baptism, simply because we think it will help, when we have no Scriptural warrant for baptizing apart from a testimony of faith. Remember Uzzah, who thought he was doing a good think by touching the ark to keep it from falling. And yet he died for his disobedience to a clear command. He did not have faith that God could handle the falling ark. We may see a need for our children to be made right with God, but we cannot presume to “help God out” by doing what he did not command.
Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.
There is nothing in the two passages cited to suggest they didn’t all have faith. It was a group effort. The paralytic man might just well have ignored Jesus and all those stories that people were being miraculously healed. But he did not. He cooperated. Jesus saw “their” faith. That’s what the text says. Jesus also said faith as small as a mustard seed would be enough to do amazing things. Just giving a cup of cold water to a believer can be enough to save a lost soul. God is extremely generous in his accounting of a person’s faith, as long as it is real. And nothing is more real than agreeing with your buddies you’ll risk major public humiliation just to give this miracle-working Jesus a try.
It’s like when you pray for someone. God does listen to you, and does give help to the one you pray for. But God is not like the genie in the bottle scenario, where you have to ask just right or everything goes wrong. He loves you, he loves the one you’re praying for. His kind of help is full service, full of compassion. He heals the whole person. Without faith it is impossible to please God. If the paralytic was forgiven, he had faith.
Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.
Same argument. See above. Salvation does not come apart from faith. The faith of another may draw you close to the Kingdom, but only your own faith will get you through that narrow gate at the entrance. Remember the strange story of the ten lepers? Jesus healed ten, but only one turned back to praise God, and only to this one did Jesus say, “Your faith has made you whole.”
Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.
Same argument. See above. And we also know that exorcism is not the end of the struggle with evil for some. Remember what Jesus said about the evil spirit who, ejected from his host, wanders in desert places, until he comes back to his host, and finding him empty, takes up residence again, only with a few more of his unsavory friends, so the condition of the host is worse than at the beginning. In other words, exorcism is not salvation. Something holy must be there to displace the evil, saving faith in Jesus, and the power of God’s own Holy Spirit, else a soul will relapse to greater evil than before.
1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.
This passage reads in full:
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. [13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
This passage proves too much. This is about the legitimacy of a spiritually mixed marriage, not salvation. Note, in addition to the children, he says “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.” Does this mean the husband is personally saved because the wife believes? He is an unbeliever. He rejects Jesus as the Son of God. Perhaps he worships at the local Apollo lodge, or is into Dianna of the Ephesians, etc. Is he saved? Forgiven? Born again? Or is Paul merely saying he is not “unclean” for purposes of the marriage, i.e., the believing wife can continue with him in the normal role of faithful spouse? That seems the much more likely meaning, and would therefore be of like meaning regarding the children.
Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.
The Passover was a sign given by God of the redemption coming in Messiah Jesus. Like many other things in the Old Covenant, the shadows were just representations of redemptive realities that would only be fully revealed in the New Covenant.
For example, in Old Covenant Israel, the firstborn belongs to God, but only by an accident of physical birth. But in the New Covenant, we find Christ Himself called the Firstborn of creation, not in the sense of being literally born first, but in the sense of preeminence, first in authority, power, and glory. Yet this Firstborn died for our sins. The death angel passes over us because of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Even the placement of the blood, on the top and sides of the door, resembles where the blood would be found on the cross of Jesus.
But why were the parents given the duty of presenting the sacrifice of the lamb? The firstborn, whether in Egypt or among the Israelites, could be a child of any age, and perhaps well able to offer the sacrifice on their own behalf. But no fallen man or woman can save themselves. Thus, to keep faith with the spiritual truth of the coming New Covenant, only the parent could offer the Passover sacrifice for their firstborn child, because by analogy, only God the Father could offer up his Son for us on the cross.
Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.
No doubt parents can help or hinder the formation of faith in their children, but there is nothing in the above passage to suggest that the spiritual salvation of the children in any way depended on them being circumcised. The punishment doled out by God was not a lost eternity for the uncircumcised but the physical punishment of a disobedient nation. They had a job to do in God’s plan to redeem the world and if God had looked the other way on parental disobedience God’s plan would not have come to pass, as the line to Messiah would be lost as the people of Israel would have blended back into the paganism from which they were rescued.
Furthermore, Paul makes it clear that physical circumcision or lack of it has absolutely no relevance to personal salvation. It never has. What matters is faith:
Gal 5:6 “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
Peace,
SR
Wrong. You dispute the Word of God. Very odd.
.............
Sorry nurses, I point out the Holy Bible no where instructs, commands, or shows infants being baptized. Zip. Baptizing infants is, at best an argument from silence. I don’t find those silent arguments persuasive. Perhaps you do.
SR, you do a needed, but burdensome task. It was needed and you did it well.
I am rejecting your false teaching. Again.
Please do! It is quicker for you than to provide a cogent argument fo a practice thatnever appears in Scripture. It will save you time and thought. It is a great “fast food” approach to conserving your mental energy.
Indeed. False teachers are to be ignored. That you reject God’s Word and His Church is your privilege - mine is to reject your false teachings.
Learn the difference between infants and children before you go off showing how much you don’t know about Scripture.
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.