Posted on 06/29/2012 4:31:04 PM PDT by NYer
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.
Baptismal regeneration: I tend to apply the same rule here that I apply to Calvinism. There are roughly 500 verses in the New Testament alone that discuss the role of believing and faith. There are about 20 involving predestination. I prefer to interpret the 20 in the light of the 500.
With baptismal regeneration, I prefer to interpret the one verse (Acts 2) in light of the 500. I also think scripture is very clear on the importance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and how THAT is what makes us a Christian.
It is also extremely clear that baptism FOLLOWS belief. It does not create belief.
There is no scriptural account of an infant being baptized. There is no account in scripture of anyone being baptized without belief preceding it - unless the belief and baptism were false.
The one verse you have says:
“37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “ Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
That verse, by itself alone, can mean you are baptized in order to receive forgiveness of your sins, or it can mean you are baptized in response to your forgiveness from sin. See here: http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=002&verse=038
The advantage to interpreting it the latter way is that then the 500 verses on faith and belief make sense. If someone interprets it to mean baptism causes the forgiveness of sins, it turns the 500 verses upside down and renders them meaningless.
It is also an error to link baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit, since the two are NOT linked in Acts.
“14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent 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 upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.” - Acts 8
In this case, the baptism of the Holy Spirit – which is God’s prerogative – occurred later, probably because this was the first time the Gospel was preached outside of Israel (to Samaria). In Acts 10 we saw the Gentiles were baptized in the Holy Spirit BEFORE baptism.
Remembering it, Peter told the Apostles: “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ “
In Acts 16 we find:
“29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They said, “ Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.”
Notice they did not say “Believe and be baptized”, but they also did not withhold baptism for months of training either. Please remember that being saved can refer to either justification (saved from the effect of your sin) or sanctification (being saved from the wicked world, as Peter discussed in Acts 2 and in 1 Peter 3).
“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.” - Acts 18
Believed - “together with his entire household”. “Believed and were baptized”, not ‘baptized to belief’.
You have often cited this verse: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’”
But lists are not always given as ‘Do A, then B, then C, and D will result’. My daughter was still lazing in bed, and I told her to get her room clean! Get out of bed and do some work! That didn’t mean she should clean her room from her bed and THEN get up. I meant she should do all those things.
This is one of the problems when we try to turn scripture into a systematic theology text. Textbooks are written logically, while God’s goal in scripture is to reveal Himself.
In 1 Cor 1 we read: “14-17 It makes me thankful that I didn’t actually baptise any of you (except Crispus and Gaius), or perhaps someone would be saying I did it in my own name. (Oh yes, I did baptise Stephanas’ family, but I can’t remember anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to see how many I could baptise, but to proclaim the Gospel. And I have not done this by the persuasiveness of clever words, for I have no desire to rob the cross of its power. 18 The preaching of the cross is, I know, nonsense to those who are involved in this dying world, but to us who are being saved from that death it is nothing less than the power of God.”
Notice Paul was sent to proclaim the Gospel, not to see how many he could baptize.
We also read: “10 1-7 For I should like to remind you, my brothers, that our ancestors all had the experience of being guided by the cloud in the desert and of crossing the sea dry-shod. They were all, so to speak, “baptised” into Moses by these experiences. They all shared the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink (for they drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ). Yet in spite of all these wonderful experiences many of them failed to please God, and left their bones in the desert. Now in these events our ancestors stand as examples to us, warning us not to crave after evil things as they did. Nor are you to worship false gods as they did. The scripture says—‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.’”
Baptism by water doesn’t make you a believer. It does not reconcile you with God. Not unless you believe and repent. Then God pours out his Holy Spirit, typically when we believe, but sometimes later – although God knows who His own are and will bring them through completely in His time. It is the Holy Spirit who is our seal and promise, not a baptismal certificate.
Scripture says (Ephesians 1) “And you too trusted him, when you heard the message of truth, the Gospel of your salvation. And after you gave your confidence to him you were, so to speak, stamped with the promised Holy Spirit as a guarantee of purchase, until the day when God completes the redemption of what he has paid for as his own; and that will again be to the praise of his glory.”
Please note this IS an explicit timeline. “AFTER you gave your confidence to him you were, so to speak, stamped with the promised Holy Spirit as a guarantee of purchase...”
And in Romans 8:
“9-11 But you are not carnal but spiritual if the Spirit of God finds a home within you. You cannot, indeed, be a Christian at all unless you have something of his Spirit in you. Now if Christ does live within you his presence means that your sinful nature is dead, but your spirit becomes alive because of the righteousness he brings with him. I said that our nature is “dead” in the presence of Christ, and so it is, because of its sin. Nevertheless once the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives within you he will, by that same Spirit, bring to your whole being new strength and vitality.”
The Scriptures are merely blended together as if : (i) Every salvation is the same salvation ; (ii) There were no differences between the Jew, the Gentile, and the Church of God ; (iii) Every time the word "baptism" is used, it is talking about water baptism, when it certainly is not (There are at the very least SEVEN baptisms) referred to in the New Testament.).
And then there is the baptist Clinton. However, while we can separate from such and join other particular churches within the body of Christ, the problem with the liberal RCs which are the majority (in contrast with evangelicals), is that they are treated by Rome as members in life and in death, and the more conservative are stuck with them. Thus many conservative Catholics feel compelled to do separate in schism, such as the SSPX and sedevacantists. Whose criticism can be seen as quite warranted. (www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html)
RC apologist Robert Sungenis states: Yes, “fundamentalism” [in Bible interpretation] certainly has its problems but they are minor compared to the outright heresies coming from the liberals and modernists in most of Catholic biblical scholarship today. (www.catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/53-scripture/181-is-the-bible-true-or-not)
Some join the Orthodox, and which contend,
In the Roman Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession itself resides in the person of the Pope, who is Christ’s Vicar on earth...
Thus, when Roman Catholic traditionalists separate from Rome over issues of traditional practice, they obviously separate themselves from the very source of Roman Catholic authenticity. One can persuasively argue that since, unlike Orthodox, they do not attribute primacy to Holy Tradition, Roman Catholic traditionalists have no foundation on which to justify their schism from the Mother Church of Rome, especially when such separation is forbidden by the Pope himself, the very criterion of authenticity. From the “Question and Answer” section of Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX, No. 4, p. 15. Originally titled “Traditionalist Catholics.” www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/rome_orth.aspx)
It is Catholics who were recently complained about doing so, and that would be true here if it was graphics, and simply the typical promotion of Roman Catholicism, rather than warranted substantiation in responding to multiple issues.
“there are two baptisms, water baptism and Spirit baptism”
~ ~ ~
Here is infant baptism:
Acts 2:38-39
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is to you, and to your CHILDREN, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
daniel, you speak of “spirit baptism”, are you talking about the not very old (should be a hint) Protestant term “Born Again?”
Jesus explains “Born Again” to Nicodemus, water is the physical sign, it is required. Where is the “water” in the Protestant “Born Again?”
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[5] UNLESS A MAN BE BORN AGAIN: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.
Read further...What did Jesus do, He went out and baptized.
[22] After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized
Infant baptism can only be assumed from Scripture, not confirmed by it.
Works don’t obtain the forgiveness of sn.
Forgiveness is a gift freely given in ALL cases.
If it were dependent on works, then it wouldn’t be forgiveness but earned and Christ would not have needed to die.
“Infant baptism can only be assumed from Scripture, not confirmed by it.”
~ ~ ~
Acts 2:38-39
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is to you, and to your CHILDREN, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
“EVERY ONE OF YOU” is explicit.
“CHILDREN”, another confirmation by Peter, infants are included in a person’s children.
“Read further...What did Jesus do, He went out and baptized.”
Read still further...his disciples baptized with water. Jesus did not. John 4:1 - “Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)...”
It also takes twisting that would make the Chief Justice proud to say that Acts 2:39 is a reference to infant baptism!
Born again:
“3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Jesus gave the explanation in his next sentence. Born of water is not a reference to water baptism, but breaking water - physical birth. And “That which is born of the flesh is flesh”. To enter heaven, you need a second birth, because “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.
When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, Nic tried to make it a second physical birth, and Jesus rebuked him. You need TWO births - physical and spiritual. The first is of the flesh, the second is of the spirit.
Works don’t obtain the forgiveness of sn.
Forgiveness is a gift freely given in ALL cases.
If it were dependent on works, then it wouldn’t be forgiveness but earned and Christ would not have needed to die.
~ ~ ~
not all non-Catholic Christians....
“Protestants who do refuse infant baptism also water down the fuller meaning of baptism, no longer seeing it as washing away sins and conferring righteousness per se, but more as a symbol of faith that they claim to have already received when they said the “sinners prayer” and accepted Christ as their savior.
But what a tragic loss for them, since baptism and particularly the baptism of infants, says some very wonderful things about the complete 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, themselves, 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 to me. 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.”
Apologist, Msg Charles Pope
“5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
Jesus gave the explanation in his next sentence. Born of water is not a reference to water baptism, but breaking water - physical birth.”
~ ~ ~
The question, again. Where is the “water” in the new Protestant teaching of “Born Again”, the altar call?
Jesus’ term “Born Again” means water baptism.
Amnionic fluid is not used in Baptism. John baptized Our Lord with water, not “breaking water.”
Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd
implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, “You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit.” A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where “water” (Greek: hudor) referred to “amniotic fluid” (VIII:314–333).
Here we pretty much agree (should I get the smelling salts?)
I will try to tighten up the definitions a little. Forgiveness is a little too broad for me. We (you and I) are are capable of forgiving and being forgiven, but only Christ is capable of absolving us of our sins and that is what He died for.
Peace be with you.
“You need TWO births - physical and spiritual. The first is of the flesh, the second is of the spirit.”
~ ~ ~
The KJV says “and of the Spirit” The Douay-Rheims, taken from the orignal says “and the Holy Ghost”
Being “born again” describe EFFECTS of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being “born of water and the Spirit.” In Greek, this phrase is, literally, “born of water and Spirit,” indicating ONE birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than “born of water and of the Spirit,” as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.
In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace. Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
“Jesus’ term “Born Again” means water baptism.”
Not likely.
Nic tried to make it about physical birth, but Jesus rejected that. There is no doubt about what the first birth is, but the second birth must be spiritual. Notice what Nic said:
“Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” The man questioning Jesus brought up the womb.
Jesus then brings up two births:
“5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”
There is the birth of the flesh, and the birth of the Spirit. Born AGAIN. In the Spirit.
Lest anyone screw it up, Jesus goes on: “8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
You must be born of the spirit.
That Jesus does NOT mean the water of baptism giving a spiritual birth is obvious from all of what follows:
“9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
As Moses lifted up...”8 And the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and everyone who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.”
Notice there was no washing involved - just looking. And the passage that follows in John 3 talks about belief, not water baptism.
You could search a thousand uses of the word water in English, and not find it refer to amniotic fluid - yet we all know what happens when ‘the water breaks’.
Baptismal regeneration turns 500 verses on belief and faith upside down, and imposes a belief in magic as its substitute. That is what too much of Catholicism does, turning belief in God into a set of magical rituals performed by a magician - the priest that is never mentioned in the New Testament. It strips God of his sovereignty, and turns him into a celestial genie. Rub the bottle, say the right words, and He must obey.
“2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
7 Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”
You can sprinkle an infant. You can drown an infant. But you cannot make an infant believe, nor can you make your child believe as the infant grows.
I’m a baptist, and I believe in the importance of water baptism. But it does not cause the dead to come to life. If it did, then the Inquisition could have simply baptized the rebels, and they would have been compelled to become Catholics. Or they could have followed John 6, and forced the Lord’s Supper on them, and with it eternal life:
“Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
But no one receives the seal of the Holy Spirit by magic. No ritual will save. You must believe the promise of God, and repent. Then and only then will water baptism save you, as Peter said it would - save you out of the wicked world. Sanctification. Not justification.
It's not possible to understand the Scriptures and at the same time ignore the idioms of the language but insisting the plural “you” must include the children and infants of those Peter spoke to is doing just that.
Baptism is essentially no different than heart assent, as both are a God-wrought response, moving and enabling man to do what he could not and would not normally do. God draws, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opens hearts, (Acts 6:14) and grants repentance (Acts 11:18) and gives faith. (Eph. 2:8)
But it is not by any moral merit of the response of faith that justification is appropriated, but by faith out of a heart that has no merit, as God “justifieth the unGodly.” (Rm. 4:5) Although which faith will effect practical Godliness if it is salvific.
The objection to paedobaptism is not contrary to sola fide, but consistent with it, as it recognizes that God given faith appropriates justification, but that infants are incapable of believing.
And while infants are affected by Adam’s sin and thus die and are sinners by nature, yet eternal damnation is based upon what one had done, (Rv. 20:11-15) how he has acted out his sinful nature, not based upon having a sinful nature which he was not accountable for. Although some disagree.
Ezek. 18:30 is invoked by some as teaching that infants are sinners because they die. However, even Rome does not hold that such are culpable of sin, but that “original sin” it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” — a state and not an act — and involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part. (CCC 404,5)
And Ezek. 18:30 as seen by the context, refers to life or death based upon what the individual did, versus the iniquity of his parents. And “die” or “live” is spiritual, (cf. Rm. 8:13) else “life” could not be promised to those who are faithful.
“Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “ (Ezekiel 18:19-20)
“For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. “ (Romans 8:13)
Lets try that again without that bit of html code that slipped in.
“But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is to you, and to your CHILDREN, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.”
As the official RC Bible (for America) says, Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized,* every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.”
You are deriving more from Acts 2:38,39 than it supplies, for besides there being no command to do acts of penance in addition to baptism in order to receive the promise (and which was received by believers before baptism in Acts 10), what it refers to is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which in context here is received through repentance and faith as expressed in baptism.
In no place is a promise given of the Holy Spirit apart from repentant faith, while acts which correspond to repentance are what results from repentance, as “metanoeo” refers first to a change of heart/mind, resulting in a change in action.
Thus, while faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin, and while souls do obey some light they have received prior to conversion, yet in preaching the gospel to souls convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment (Jn. 16:9), as in Acts 2, the call was not to do a series of works in order to receive the Holy Spirit, but to believe with a faith that is expressed.
Thus Paul preached, “But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. “ (Acts 26:20) As for Jn. 3:5, see my comments on Acts 10 as relates to that. If Jn. 3:5 refers to baptism, then it cannot be an absolute literal imperative necessity in order to be born again.
You Catholics seem to think by copying and pasting large volumes of words, that it gives your argument legitimacy. At the very least, no one reads it because it’s too long.
In Gn. 1:20 waters do bring forth abundantly creatures that hath life, but it is the parallel btwn what Nicodemus asked for and which the Lord affirms that best corresponds to the two kinds of birth.
Nic refers to being born of his mother’s womb, and only then does the Lord refer to being born of water and of the Spirit, and that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (Jn. 3:4-6)
Bu as said, Jn. 3:5 must be understood as a literal imperative, and if it refers to baptism, then it is contradicted by souls who were manifestly born again prior to baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 1:1-18; 15:7-9)
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.