"Be ye baptized, for the remission of your sins"

[TriuneUnity]

Exactly. The idea that water Baptism is not the means by which God saves us, adds us to his church, forgives us of our sins, and gives us the indwelling Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) is an idea totally unknown in Christian history until very recently.

I’ve found that there are several misconceptions people have who hold to the non-regenerate view of Baptism:

That an exception to the rule negates the rule (FALSE).
That the phrase “faith alone” is found in scripture (FALSE).
That Baptism is a work one does (FALSE).

I agree with your analysis. In the case of faith alone…the assumption is not that we are saved by faith alone, but that we are saved by faith alone that is not mediated through a means. In Baptism, we are justified by faith alone, but the means of giving us that faith is the Spirit in Baptism. They divorce faith alone from the sacraments.

 

[ckempston]

I agree with your analysis. In the case of faith alone…the assumption is not that we are saved by faith alone, but that we are saved by faith alone that is not mediated through a means. In Baptism, we are justified by faith alone, but the means of giving us that faith is the Spirit in Baptism. They divorce faith alone from the sacraments.

I can live with that explanation. Faith is required, from first to last. Dunking yourself in the water, in and of itself, has no power.

 

[guanophore]

I am asking what happens if a non-believer is baptized and then becomes a believer later.

Well, I understand that, but it is not possible to have a valid baptism without a profession of faith. If the profession of faith is not genuine, then the sacrament is not either. This is what happened to a number of people during the Crusades and the Inquisitions. They were baptized to avoid other worse consequences, not because they were believers. They were following a form of godliness, without the power thereof.

The original sacrament did not save him because he didn’t believe. When he believes he is saved but is not baptised again. What has saved him unless at that point he has experience circumcision of the heart or spiritual baptism?

As I said, a valid baptism requires a profession of faith. If that is not present then the baptism is not valid.

What happens if someone in Saudi Arabia believes and because Christianity cannot be publically practiced there he can’t find someone to baptize him? Is he saved?

Don’ t you think that is between him and God?

Don;t you know that Christians have been getting baptized in secret since the beginning of Christendom?

The Catechism limits the Baptism of Desire to catechumens.

This is a falsehood.

And about Baptism of Desire, is it not true they are really saved because they were regenerated before baptism? What would that be but baptism by the Spirit?

God is not limited to the sacraments. The sacraments are given to men as a gift, and transmit the grace they also signify. They are the normative means that God uses to release graces to the faithful.

 

[guanophore]

I do not say that we should ignore baptism. We should baptize our children. We should be baptized, not because the water baptism save but to obey Jesus.

Jesus joined the HS to the waters of baptism when He entered them. There is only ONE BAPTISM. It is not the “water” that saves, but the HS. The seal of the HS is not separated from the water of baptism.

Again I ask how the Old Testament saints were saved without baptism? Has God added an additional requirement to the faith required of them?

Members of the new covenant are not required to keep the Mosaic law. The faith that saves has not changed. How that faith is expressed has changed.

 

[guanophore]

Again I ask has the unchangeable God changed? Did Old Testament figures such as Abraham, Ruth and David require only faith while we require faith and baptism? Even if something more was required under the Old Testament, would that not be recognizing a form of dispensationalism where the requirements for salvation differ from period to period?

You are “adding” where there is nothing to add. Those who came to faith were baptized. Baptism was the means by which people were considered “added to the church”. It would be more accurate to say baptized in faith. You are making separation where it does not exist. Why is it so important for you to be anti-sacramental? What would happen if you found out sacraments were valid?

 

[reteeks21]

I have read that book as well; it is extremely well written, but without fully critiquing it, it relies on the same faulty Baptist logic of the sacrament being a work we do, as opposed to being a monergistic work of the Spirit.

I think that is a fabulous critique within itself. Many of us Protestants DO believe baptism is an act of God, that it does for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

 

[SyCarl]

You are “adding” where there is nothing to add. Those who came to faith were baptized. Baptism was the means by which people were considered “added to the church”. It would be more accurate to say baptized in faith. You are making separation where it does not exist. Why is it so important for you to be anti-sacramental? What would happen if you found out sacraments were valid?

I am not anti-sacramental. I believe in the sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist. I believe that they are signs and seals of the promised spirtual realities. By baptism we are made part of the visible church. We accept and claim the promise made that our sins are forgiven. However the actual forgiveness of those sins is not tied to the moment of baptism. If a catechumen is considered saved if he dies before receiving the sacrament, should the date of his salvation be changed to that of the sacrament. For example, if a person becomes a catechumen on April 17 2008 and dies on April 18, 2008, he is considered to have recieved the baptism of desire. If he survives to be baptized during Easter 2009, why would he not be considered to have been cleansed at the earlier date since he would have been if he had died? And what of those who die believing at with the intention of becoming a catechumen?
Similarly if an unbeliever is baptized during Easter 2008 but doesn’t believe for two years, is he considered to be saved when he was baptized or actually believed? And if he never believes is he ever saved because of his baptism?

To take baptismal regeneration to its logical conclusion we must agree with Augustine that all unbaptized infants are damned. I am afraid I have difficulty with a God who would send a child to hell because of its parent’s failure to act. Over the ages this has been a concern and lead to such concepts of the limbo of infants. Now the Catholic Church says it can only hope that unbaptized infants are saved. Is that not really the same as hoping that baptism is not required?

I do not pretend to know everything and what happens to infants who die before they have faith. I do not know what happens to them. I believe that baptism of desire should be viewed as the norm rather than the exception. That is my attempt to understand God’s plan which is beyond our understanding. I do believe that the Church’s view has too many exceptions, or hoped for exclusions, to be the rule. ie Baptism of blood, baptism of desire, baptism of the non-believing, unbaptized infants.

I have presented my reasoning against regeneration and forgiveness being tied to the moment of the sacrament. That being said I was baptized as a baby and would have any children of my own baptized and simply trust God.

 

[ckempston]

I am not anti-sacramental. I believe in the sacraments of baptism and of the Eucharist. I believe that they are signs and seals of the promised spirtual realities. By baptism we are made part of the visible church. We accept and claim the promise made that our sins are forgiven. However the actual forgiveness of those sins is not tied to the moment of baptism. If a catechumen is considered saved if he dies before receiving the sacrament, should the date of his salvation be changed to that of the sacrament. For example, if a person becomes a catechumen on April 17 2008 and dies on April 18, 2008, he is considered to have recieved the baptism of desire. If he survives to be baptized during Easter 2009, why would he not be considered to have been cleansed at the earlier date since he would have been if he had died? And what of those who die believing at with the intention of becoming a catechumen?
Similarly if an unbeliever is baptized during Easter 2008 but doesn’t believe for two years, is he considered to be saved when he was baptized or actually believed? And if he never believes is he ever saved because of his baptism?

To take baptismal regeneration to its logical conclusion we must agree with Augustine that all unbaptized infants are damned. I am afraid I have difficulty with a God who would send a child to hell because of its parent’s failure to act. Over the ages this has been a concern and lead to such concepts of the limbo of infants. Now the Catholic Church says it can only hope that unbaptized infants are saved. Is that not really the same as hoping that baptism is not required?

I do not pretend to know everything and what happens to infants who die before they have faith. I do not know what happens to them. I believe that baptism of desire should be viewed as the norm rather than the exception. That is my attempt to understand God’s plan which is beyond our understanding. I do believe that the Church’s view has too many exceptions, or hoped for exclusions, to be the rule. ie Baptism of blood, baptism of desire, baptism of the non-believing, unbaptized infants.

I have presented my reasoning against regeneration and forgiveness being tied to the moment of the sacrament. That being said I was baptized as a baby and would have any children of my own baptized and simply trust God.

No, that is totally wrong. Exceptions DO NOT negate the rule. Period. End of story.

Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment

Yet several men in the OT did not die. Enoch, Elijah, possibly Moses. Does this negate the rule that it has been appointed to men to die once? Nope.

You have been thoroughly rebutted with every scripture provided here on Baptism. You have rejected them for your own non-biblical understanding of regeneration.

I bet you think the “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of”. Is that your view? Quick question for you, if so: Must one repent to be regenerated?

 

[reteeks21]

Well of course-- he was an adult convert!
Even today, if you, as an adult, were never baptized and join the Catholic Church, you have to believe!

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and 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. For** the promise is to you and to your children** and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.

Universal Baptism

At any rate, this thread is not for debating Universal/Believer’s Baptism, it’s for debating Symbolic/Regenerative Baptism.

Let’s keep it on subject.

I think one of the reasons protestants may have an issue with baptism is when it is performed on infants. The verse above that you have quoted regarding “children” is one that I know from personal experience causes much debate. Many protestans I know do NOT discount Peter’s words, but they believe that his statement of the promise being for children also does not include infants.

This is a subject I am very interested in, and I would be more and more convinced of infant baptism if you could show us how it applies to infants. That may also go a long way towards helping protestants in general understand the practice.

 

[ckempston]

I think one of the reasons protestants may have an issue with baptism is when it is performed on infants. The verse above that you have quoted regarding “children” is one that I know from personal experience causes much debate. Many protestans I know do NOT discount Peter’s words, but they believe that his statement of the promise being for children also does not include infants.

This is a subject I am very interested in, and I would be more and more convinced of infant baptism if you could show us how it applies to infants. That may also go a long way towards helping protestants in general understand the practice.

I was just reading Tertullian on Baptism, and he seems to have been against infant Baptism unless I am reading something totally incorrectly.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I was just reading Tertullian on Baptism, and he seems to have been against infant Baptism unless I am reading something totally incorrectly.

You have to take Tertullian in context on those quotes. He did not deny that infants can be baptized.

He felt that infants should not be baptized because it would be better to delay the baptism to maximize the number of sins forgiven (it isnt suprising to me at all that Tertullian became a heretic LOL).

However, when Baptists try to use him to deny infant baptism they end up shooting themselves in the foot because the ONLY reason Tertullian was against it was because it was regenerative! In the end he disagreed with infant baptism, but did not reject it as a practice which had been ongoing since the apostolic period.

 

[ckempston]

You have to take Tertullian in context on those quotes. He did not deny that infants can be baptized.

He felt that infants should not be baptized because it would be better to delay the baptism to maximize the number of sins forgiven (it isnt suprising to me at all that Tertullian became a heretic LOL).

However, when Baptists try to use him to deny infant baptism they end up shooting themselves in the foot because the ONLY reason Tertullian was against it was because it was regenerative! In the end he disagreed with infant baptism, but did not reject it as a practice which had been ongoing since the apostolic period.

yes, I didn’t see where he was totally against it, which would seem to suggest that it was held as valid very early in the church. I didn’t realize that was his motive, which makes sense. And I was aware that he later was a heretic, which would cause me to use caution when following his reasoning.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

allischambers says: We are not saved by baptism.

The Word of God says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us**…" 1 Peter 3:21, KJV

Who’s right: allischambers or St. Peter?

St. Peter, first Holy Father

 

[SyCarl]

This is a falsehood.

I apologize as I appear to have made a mistake. I read paragraph 1259 without considering that paragraph 1260 could also deal with baptism of desire. I did not consider a supposed desire to be the same as an actual desire. I think you can tell from previous exchanges we have had that I don’t make what I know are false statements.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

However paragraph 1260 just emphasizes my point that in reality it is faith resulting in spiritual baptism is the key rather than the moment of water baptism. What exceptions do we see to the rule that water baptism saves. First we have those who are saved without water baptism.

1. Those who experience the baptism of blood.
2. Catechumens who die before baptism…
3. Everyone who doesn’t know the necessity of baptism.

Add to that the hope that unbaptized infants can be saved without baptism.

Then there are those who are not saved by water baptism.

1. Those who don’t have faith when they recieve water baptism.

What is common to those who are saved without water baptism? Faith, or in the case of number 3 implied faith.

What is common to those who are not saved? A lack of faith.

When are baptized unbelievers saved? When they do have faith.

Baptized adults who are saved have both faith and water baptism.

What is common to all the above cases of who are saved? Faith, with or without water baptism.

The only ones who are saved without faith are infants who the Church hopes are saved even if they aren’t baptized.

 

[SyCarl]

No, that is totally wrong. Exceptions DO NOT negate the rule. Period. End of story.

Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment

Yet several men in the OT did not die. Enoch, Elijah, possibly Moses. Does this negate the rule that it has been appointed to men to die once? Nope.

You have been thoroughly rebutted with every scripture provided here on Baptism. You have rejected them for your own non-biblical understanding of regeneration.

I bet you think the “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of”. Is that your view? Quick question for you, if so: Must one repent to be regenerated?

While exceptions may not negate the rule, if there are enough exceptions the rule becomes somewhat meaningless.

Nobody has refuted why each Gospel writer distinguishes between baptism in water and baptism with the Spirit.

Nobody has rebutted that Paul, who makes a connection between inward circumcision and baptism, distinguisehes between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision and why the same distinction should not apply to baptism.

Nobody has rebutted how Old Testament saints were saved by faith without water baptism, while we require both faith and water baptism, remembering that physical circumcision was not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament.

With respect to your question, Yes regeneration requires repentance as part of the true saving faith.

 

[ckempston]

While exceptions may not negate the rule, if there are enough exceptions the rule becomes somewhat meaningless.

So, God’s word is meaningless?

Nobody has refuted why each Gospel writer distinguishes between baptism in water and baptism with the Spirit.

Except for two instances, the two are one. The Apostles were baptized with the Spirit at Pentecost, as were the first Gentiles. According to Peter, water baptism, and baptism in which you receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, occur at the same time.

Nobody has rebutted that Paul, who makes a connection between inward circumcision and baptism, distinguisehes between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision and why the same distinction should not apply to baptism.

Baptism is where the spiritual circumcision occurs “without hands” by God himself in the waters; maybe to learn about baptism we should listen to the scriptures about baptism. You can’t reject a clear passage because some mental gymnastic interpretation of an obscure passage can be used to support your theory. When you end up with a contradiction, one of your interpretations is incorrect.

Nobody has rebutted how Old Testament saints were saved by faith without water baptism, while we require both faith and water baptism, remembering that physical circumcision was not necessary for salvation under the Old Testament.

You’re comparing apples and oranges again, and yes, this was refuted.

With respect to your question, Yes regeneration requires repentance as part of the true saving faith.

Then it also requires baptism. Peter said, “Repent and be Baptized for the forgiveness of your sins…” Whatever applies to repentance, also applies to Baptism. This is necessitated by the conjunction “and” and the preposition “for.” Both are necessary for regeneration.

 

[guanophore]

I can live with that explanation. Faith is required, from first to last. Dunking yourself in the water, in and of itself, has no power.

Either that, or we are re-sanctified every time we get into the city pool!

 

[guanophore]

I think that is a fabulous critique within itself. Many of us Protestants DO believe baptism is an act of God, that it does for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Really? I did not realize that. Which Protestants are those? How do you know they are “many”?

But it is something in which one must actively and willfully participate, which does require “work” on the part of a person, don’t you think?

 

[guanophore]

We accept and claim the promise made that our sins are forgiven. However the actual forgiveness of those sins is not tied to the moment of baptism. If a catechumen is considered saved if he dies before receiving the sacrament, should the date of his salvation be changed to that of the sacrament.

Since heaven is outside the timeline, how is this relevant?

For example, if a person becomes a catechumen on April 17 2008 and dies on April 18, 2008, he is considered to have recieved the baptism of desire. If he survives to be baptized during Easter 2009, why would he not be considered to have been cleansed at the earlier date since he would have been if he had died?

It seems to that is up to God.

And what of those who die believing at with the intention of becoming a catechumen?

Don’t you think that is up to God as well?

Similarly if an unbeliever is baptized during Easter 2008 but doesn’t believe for two years, is he considered to be saved when he was baptized or actually believed?

I think that is up to God as well. A person who comes to the baptismal font unaccompanied by a professed faith should not be baptized at all. If such a person misrepresents himself, then I suppose he has profaned the sacrament.

And if he never believes is he ever saved because of his baptism?

I do not understand this question.

To take baptismal regeneration to its logical conclusion we must agree with Augustine that all unbaptized infants are damned.

This is the Apostolic Teaching.

I am afraid I have difficulty with a God who would send a child to hell because of its parent’s failure to act.

This is not the case. We are all damned because we are born into original sin. It has to do with our first parents, Adam and Eve, and it is not a failure to act, but a wrong act (sin) that caused this.

Over the ages this has been a concern and lead to such concepts of the limbo of infants. Now the Catholic Church says it can only hope that unbaptized infants are saved. Is that not really the same as hoping that baptism is not required?

I believe it is. I, too, do not think that God condemns people due to the inaction of others.

I do not pretend to know everything and what happens to infants who die before they have faith. I do not know what happens to them. I believe that baptism of desire should be viewed as the norm rather than the exception.

When were you appointed an Apostle?

That is my attempt to understand God’s plan which is beyond our understanding. I do believe that the Church’s view has too many exceptions, or hoped for exclusions, to be the rule. ie Baptism of blood, baptism of desire, baptism of the non-believing, unbaptized infants.

Well, all I can say is that Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize their disciples. They did so, and as they did, people were added to the Church. Having a normative means refers to what happens “most” of the time. If “exceptions” make you uncomfortable, perhaps you are intolerant of ambiguity.

I have presented my reasoning against regeneration and forgiveness being tied to the moment of the sacrament. That being said I was baptized as a baby and would have any children of my own baptized and simply trust God.

I think we can agree that God can regenerate and forgive at any time and any place. He gave baptism to the Church as the normative means by which this would happen.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Either that, or we are re-sanctified every time we get into the city pool!

I knew the YMCA was a secret enclave of Anabaptists.

Those crummy policemen and construction worker disguises were no match for my investigatory acumen!