Ask A Baptist Pastor

[mrclm]

Could you please provide the Scriptural cite the forbids infant baptism?
When whole families are baptized in Scripture–would you cite the part of the passage that says “except their infant children” or “and lo no families had infant children”

Baptism symbolizes the graces of repentance and forgiveness (Acts 2:38), and personal identification with Christ (Rom 6:3-8). Baptism is appropriately administered only to those who give a believable profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Some would contend that there are multiple modes of baptism, I would disagree. The Greek word baptizo means to plunge, dip, immerse something in water. People were baptized by John in the river Jordan (Mark 1:5) and Jesus came up out of the water (Mk 1:10). When Philip had shared the gospel with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36) clearly neither of them thought that sprinkling or pouring water from a drinking container was adequate. The both went down into the water (Acts 8:38-39) and not just near the water. Further, there is deep symbolism of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection through baptism by immersion (Rm 6:3-4; Col 2:12). Therefore I fully believe the primary mode of baptism is a believers baptism upon confession of faith. And early on the Roman Catholic Church practiced this much more than it does today, and the Orthodox still practice it more frequently in many regions.

My view on baptism is that baptism is important,** but it does not confer salvation** - was the thief on the cross next to Christ baptized? Devoted Christians have found themselves in both the infant and confessing baptism camps, and they were clearly all Christians, and were all reading the same Bible. I personally don’t lose a lot of sleep over the mode of baptism, though I do much prefer a believer’s baptism based on the clear teachings of Scripture rather than the chance that some infants MAY have been in those households being baptized.

I think we are to honor Christ and follow in his example. In my studies I found it more clear in the examples cited in Scripture that the primary mode of baptism is a confessional baptism, but that there is room for infant baptism (examples of whole households being baptized within Scripture). I think this is a subject worthy of study, but not one worth causing division within the body of believers.

 

[Ceil-1]

They enjoy needling us b/c we don’t ignore their posts.

If people ignored their posts, as they do mine, they would eventually get bored and stop.

 

[Byzman]

Way back in the thread you answered “NO” to the following question:

“Do you believe your denomination is the One True Church of Jesus Christ?”

I can’t take anymore of this. Time for a jog around the lake.
You offer minimal support for the doctrines of your denomination from the early Church. You believe in baptizing believers and casually accept that Presbyterians baptize babies.

Since you do not believe your denomination is the One True Church you have no business converting people to YOUR version of Christianity.

Protestantism is fickle. 30K+denominations and counting.

Sounds like relativism to me. If you are part of that denomination and dont believe it to be true, yet you still are part of it, that is just saying it is only relative to you. See the contradiction in all of this.

 

[Byzman]

Baptism symbolizes the graces of repentance and forgiveness (Acts 2:38), and personal identification with Christ (Rom 6:3-8). Baptism is appropriately administered only to those who give a believable profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Some would contend that there are multiple modes of baptism, I would disagree. The Greek word baptizo means to plunge, dip, immerse something in water. People were baptized by John in the river Jordan (Mark 1:5) and Jesus came up out of the water (Mk 1:10). When Philip had shared the gospel with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36) clearly neither of them thought that sprinkling or pouring water from a drinking container was adequate. The both went down into the water (Acts 8:38-39) and not just near the water. Further, there is deep symbolism of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection through baptism by immersion (Rm 6:3-4; Col 2:12). Therefore I fully believe the primary mode of baptism is a believers baptism upon confession of faith. And early on the Roman Catholic Church practiced this much more than it does today, and the Orthodox still practice it more frequently in many regions.

My view on baptism is that baptism is important,** but it does not confer salvation** - was the thief on the cross next to Christ baptized? Devoted Christians have found themselves in both the infant and confessing baptism camps, and they were clearly all Christians, and were all reading the same Bible. I personally don’t lose a lot of sleep over the mode of baptism, though I do much prefer a believer’s baptism based on the clear teachings of Scripture rather than the chance that some infants MAY have been in those households being baptized.

I think we are to honor Christ and follow in his example. In my studies I found it more clear in the examples cited in Scripture that the primary mode of baptism is a confessional baptism, but that there is room for infant baptism (examples of whole households being baptized within Scripture). I think this is a subject worthy of study, but not one worth causing division within the body of believers.

As a Catholic, we would say that Baptism is necessary for Salvation. But for those who have no chance at Baptism, such as people who never heard the Gospel or look at the unborn who have been aborted, for instance, they too can be saved by God’s Grace. The Church calls this Baptism of Desire, that they would desire it knowing it be necessary.

 

[reformissionary]

Sounds like relativism to me. If you are part of that denomination and dont believe it to be true, yet you still are part of it, that is just saying it is only relative to you. See the contradiction in all of this.

Do I think my denomination, generally speaking, is preaching the truth? Of course I do. In that sense it’s true. Do I think it to be the ONE true church. No. You can’t see that HUGE distinction?

 

[Byzman]

Do I think my denomination, generally speaking, is preaching the truth? Of course I do. In that sense it’s true. Do I think it to be the ONE true church. No. You can’t see that HUGE distinction?

I see the distinction, but in order for what you say to be true, you must acknowlegde that there is more than ONE true church, and that it is okay to join other churches. But, according to scripture there is only One.

 

[Faith1960]

Instead of coming right out to tell us you are longing for the truth, you attack us, but I am quite sure that you are hungry. It has to be this or you would just be trying to convert us to the Baptist faith according to Steve.

Okay, I had to laugh at that one, lol.

 

[mrclm]

No - she’s in Heaven. She does not experience the passage of time in the same way that we do. She is outside of time, and can enter into the time line at any point she chooses to.

So Mary can control time? Really? You’re going to go with that?

Mary is in Heaven. By comparison to God, certainly she is limited.

By comparison to us, she is extremely advanced, and extremely powerful. That’s what it means, to have reached human perfection in Heaven.

She has access to all the knowledge that humankind has ever or will ever produce. She can look at the Last Judgement with her own eyes and see who is being damned, and who is being saved. She sees every moment of time, from the Big Bang to the Last Day. She sees every place that has ever existed or will ever exist.

She’s in Heaven. She has perfect freedom to do absolutely anything she wants to do. She is not bound, blindfolded, and gagged. She is not impotent to act.

What kind of a Heaven would it be for us to look forward to, if it were not true that we will have perfect freedom, or that we will have the run of the whole Universe, with all of its time and space?

I guess when I read the book of Revelation I missed the part of the group of Saints and Mary standing in the corner redirecting prayer rather than focusing their worship on the One who sits on the throne. Is that part in those other 7 books the Protestants don’t get?

I’ve read the Pseudo-Apocrypha and Apocrypha and New Testament Apocrypha books as well. I see them as useful, but not divinely inspired. I’d much rather read Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress for what it’s worth.

Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. But that doesn’t make them bad books, just not Scripture.

 

[mrclm]

As a Catholic, we would say that Baptism is necessary for Salvation. But for those who have no chance at Baptism, such as people who never heard the Gospel or look at the unborn who have been aborted, for instance, they too can be saved by God’s Grace. The Church calls this Baptism of Desire, that they would desire it knowing it be necessary.

Does Jesus ever say desire is enough? Few (if any) really WANT to go to hell, so just wanting to avoid that at some level, or the idea that if I would’ve been exposed but wasn’t is enough to get me a Baptism of Desire and therefore salvation? That’s not what Christ preached. I’ll stick to His teaching.

 

[Byzman]

Does Jesus ever say desire is enough? Few (if any) really WANT to go to hell, so just wanting to avoid that at some level, or the idea that if I would’ve been exposed but wasn’t is enough to get me a Baptism of Desire and therefore salvation? That’s not what Christ preached. I’ll stick to His teaching.

All the Old Testament righteous were saved and they were not Baptized with water. Christ did say unless you born of spirit and water, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. I’ll stick to His teachings also.

 

[reformissionary]

I see the distinction, but in order for what you say to be true, you must acknowlegde that there is more than ONE true church, and that it is okay to join other churches. But, according to scripture there is only One.

No I don’t. Look, and I say this to everyone, this is really important. Many Catholics misunderstand this. I get why, but let me help explain it.

The Gospel is what saves us and it’s the centerpoint of all we believe. So our understanding of the true Church is drawn with different boundaries than the Catholic Church draws. Catholicism fudges on this, by the way. We are the one true Church but Protestants are basically in too without the sacraments, etc. You can say it’s one true Church, but it sounds wishy-washy. The Gospel is the thing that draws lines.

So the one true Church universal is the one with the Gospel, which will ultimately look diverse and across denominational lines to those teaching, preaching, living the Gospel.

 

[Saintlucy]

What are you talking about? How is that even on the topic I was talking about?

I don’t know how this came about. I had already posted. However, I have to say that you are one of the rudest people I have ever come across. How dare you talk to me like that?

 

[mrclm]

I see the distinction, but in order for what you say to be true, you must acknowlegde that there is more than ONE true church, and that it is okay to join other churches. But, according to scripture there is only One.

I think there are other great churches outside my denomination. In fact, I am honestly more likely to refer someone to a church NOT in my denomination in other cities/regions of the world. Even in my own small community there are churches I have personally recommended, and I will continue to do so. I’d bet Steve has done the same. There are some great churches near him not of his tradition, I’ve been to a few of them, and I know he’s friends with some of their leaders. I’m not hung up on a denomination, what I pursue is others - and other churches - who are passionate about Christ. Which is why, even though I strongly disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on some points, I would never doubt there are many great Christians within the RCC.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So Mary can control time? Really? You’re going to go with that?

I guess when I read the book of Revelation I missed the part of the group of Saints and Mary standing in the corner redirecting prayer rather than focusing their worship on the One who sits on the throne. Is that part in those other 7 books the Protestants don’t get?

I’ve read the Pseudo-Apocrypha and Apocrypha and New Testament Apocrypha books as well. I see them as useful, but not divinely inspired. I’d much rather read Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress for what it’s worth.

Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. But that doesn’t make them bad books, just not Scripture.

How do you know that part and parcel of the worship of Almighty God, in Heaven, is NOT going to be the saints --and us when we get there–doing things for others?

Do you think that God is some kind of selfish dictator? That He created us not to love Him and others, but just to kind of ‘zone’ out and that all we do in heaven is say, "hosanna’?

How is THAT praising God? I thought that our ‘many words’ in prayer were all pagan anyway. But in heaven all we do is say, “hosanna”? Maybe raise our hands once in a while or get ‘slain in the Spirit?’ That’s it?

But what if praising God is by ‘doing’ for God?

Now anything we do here on earth we do through God’s grace (if we are going good), or we do ‘against’ Him if we sin. Right?

So, if you’re in heaven, you’re obviously in His grace, right? Furthermore, you are UNITED TO HIM. You ‘see’ what He sees, you 'hear", what He hears, and you are “doing” what He does. If not, you are ‘apart’ from Him, aren’t you? Where is the Scripture that says we are apart from Jesus?

So if Jesus is sending you grace from heaven, He is sending it ‘through’ all who are united with Him. He doesn’t keep things separate from those who are as much ‘the Body’ as He is --how could He?

Catholics know this. We know that any grace that is sent through Mary or Saint Paul or St. Joseph etc. has as its origin Christ. We know that He delights to honor His chosen saints too. Did He not tell us in Scripture that we would do 'greater miracles than He?" Did you think that was limited only to what we do on earth?

 

[Byzman]

No I don’t. Look, and I say this to everyone, this is really important. Many Catholics misunderstand this. I get why, but let me help explain it.

The Gospel is what saves us and it’s the centerpoint of all we believe. So our understanding of the true Church is drawn with different boundaries than the Catholic Church draws. Catholicism fudges on this, by the way. We are the one true Church but Protestants are basically in too without the sacraments, etc. You can say it’s one true Church, but it sounds wishy-washy. The Gospel is the thing that draws lines.

So the one true Church universal is the one with the Gospel, which will ultimately look diverse and across denominational lines to those teaching, preaching, living the Gospel.

No, this is your idea of an “invisble church.” Christ established a visible Church.

 

[mrclm]

All the Old Testament righteous were saved and they were not Baptized with water. Christ did say unless you born of spirit and water, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. I’ll stick to His teachings also.

The came in under a different system though (of course still through God’s grace). Thankfully Christ came as the ultimate and final sacrifice, dieing just that one time upon the cross.

 

[mrclm]

I see confusion between Heaven and New Heaven and New Earth.

 

[jmcrae]

This is where I think the Catholic church misses the point. Succession is NOT by pointing to the right Pope. Succession is pointing to the right Gospel. The right interpretation of Scripture. Jesus said Peter is the Rock NOT because Jesus wanted him to pass the baton of infallibility, but because his confession of Jesus was truth/Gospel and that would define succession.

So, Jesus said to Peter, “Whatsoever thou bindest on earth is bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou loosest on earth is loosed in Heaven, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail over thee,” because …

It sure seems to me that Jesus was guaranteeing Peter’s infallibility.

We need no Pope. We have Christ and through His chosen witnesses, His Scripture.

And more than 3,000 different interpretations of it to choose from.

We need no priest. We have a great High Priest who intercedes for us and we are a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). We need no sacrament, we know and remember his once and forever sacrifice. We need no re-presentation of His sacrifice. WE are the re-presentation of His sacrifice, for if the world hated him, they will hate us.

Very pretty - but absolutely unbiblical. Jesus commanded the Apostles. “Do this in memory of Me,” “Baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whatsoever sins ye retain are retained; whatsoever sins ye forgive are forgiven.” These are the Sacraments, and Jesus commands us to make use of them.

 

[reformissionary]

No, this is your idea of an “invisble church.” Christ established a visible Church.

Please explain to me how your church is more visible than mine.

 

[Byzman]

I think there are other great churches outside my denomination. In fact, I am honestly more likely to refer someone to a church NOT in my denomination in other cities/regions of the world. Even in my own small community there are churches I have personally recommended, and I will continue to do so. I’d bet Steve has done the same. There are some great churches near him not of his tradition, I’ve been to a few of them, and I know he’s friends with some of their leaders. I’m not hung up on a denomination, what I pursue is others - and other churches - who are passionate about Christ. Which is why, even though I strongly disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on some points, I would never doubt there are many great Christians within the RCC.

This is why Catholics can only go to a Catholic Church, otherwise it gives the opinion that different denominations are just as good as yours. Again this is relativism at it finest, when one can just go to any other church when he so chooses.