Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[PLeeD]

I would have to disagree with the assessment that PLeeD’s post sums up the Protestant view of baptism and salvation.

I would disagree with me too if my attempt was to “sum up the Protestant view of baptism and salvation”

What I summed up was the reasoning for not practicing infant baptism. My summation was the same as your longer version, specifically that an infant is not capable of repentance, and so baptism is no more effective in that case than if an adult was baptized against his will.

All of your bible quotes are to the point. I agree with what you wrote, up to the point of this:

Lastly I disagree with PLeeD’s assertion that people can benefit from grace acting outside faith Eph. 2:8.

If that was what I had asserted, I would again disagree with myself.

I was referring specifically to cases such as the Centurion’s servant, where the grace for healing came through the faith of someone other than the one who was healed. I liken this to intercessory prayer. In this case, grace is not acting outside faith. Grace is acting through the faith of those other than the one on which the grace is bestowed.

And so, there is no doubt in my mind that healing in mind, body, and spirit can come to the unbeliever through the faith and prayer of believers. I don’t think you would say anything different?

In closing, while the CoC has a definite doctrine of salvation, no one is turned away from our worship and no one affirming that they are a Christian is denied communion.

Same for AoG. I’m not aware of any significant differences in belief or practice between CoC and AoG.

 

[NotWorthy]

I was referring specifically to cases such as the Centurion’s servant, where the grace for healing came through the faith of someone other than the one who was healed. I liken this to intercessory prayer. In this case, grace is not acting outside faith. Grace is acting through the faith of those other than the one on which the grace is bestowed.

And so, there is no doubt in my mind that healing in mind, body, and spirit can come to the unbeliever through the faith and prayer of believers. I don’t think you would say anything different?

This sounds peculiarly like the Grace that is bestowed on someone during infant baptism…

 

[Bussi]

I wasn’t sure which of several posts to quote I so won’t quote any. I haven’t figured out how to do multiple quotes.

If you look at the Baptismal ritual, you will find that there are a series of questions that the parents are asked to respond to one of which is: Priest: *“What do you ask for?” * Parents: “Faith”

When we are baptized we receive the the gift of faith not by our own volition because we have not reached the age of seven years according to the teaching of the CC. However, our parents, who have total responsibility for us answer for us. In so doing, they are promising before God to nurture that gift of faith. It is an awesome responsibility in that parents promise to act in our best interest w. r. t. our salvation until we are capable of recognizing/accepting our Sacrament of Baptism when we make the choice to be confirmed and become a full member of the CC.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
The above statement is completely false. It is implicit,not explicit. Not every doctrine is explicitly taught in Scripture: Trinity. However, immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it means washing up. Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.”

Since you made the assertion, then the burden is on you to show where the word or its derivitive is not in the form of immersion, such as in washing of hands, which in that day would have been using a pot of water or some other water source such as a stream or river or man-made pool. Good luck because you will not find it because Scripture is not only true it is consistently so. If you read Scripture and can’t see the God-head or Trrinitarian nature of God, then be afraid.

On the contrary,the burden is on you to show where immersion is the ONLY method allowable. Apparently you do not understand doctrinal development. Not everything is explicit in scripture.

 

[stevekehl]

On the contrary,the burden is on you to show where immersion is the ONLY method allowable. Apparently you do not understand doctrinal development. Not everything is explicit in scripture.

Scripture is often less than explicit, that is why we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.
The account of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew and mark both say He came straightway out of the water. The only way to do this to to have someone hold and lean you backward while the body is kept straight (I suppose it could be done forward as well but would be awkward), or go into water above your head and be pushed under then bob up (also awkward).
Matt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

In Acts we read about Philip and the Ethiopian Euuich.Act 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Col 2:12 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.

 

[pablope]

Scripture is often less than explicit, that is why we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Col 2:12 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.

This is another interesting concept from our protestant brethen…can you humbly demonstrate how scripture can interpret scripture?

Does scripture have a voice to talk to you?

 

[Tiberius1701]

Scripture is often less than explicit, that is why we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.
The account of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew and mark both say He came straightway out of the water. The only way to do this to to have someone hold and lean you backward while the body is kept straight (I suppose it could be done forward as well but would be awkward), or go into water above your head and be pushed under then bob up (also awkward). …

Maybe in your mind. He came “straightway out” could also mean that He was standing in the water while John sprinkled his head (which, as someone pointed out earlier, is how a first century Christian drawing in the catacombs shows it) and He quickly stepped back out of the Jordan. The same could easily be true of the Acts 8 passage.

I’m not saying that it is; I’m not saying that it even matters. I’m just pointing out that the mere fact that you can’t (or won’t) imagine in any other way that the words of Scripture might be interpretted, doesn’t mean that the Scriptures (or reality, for that matter) are limitted to your fallible, unimaginative interpretation.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Col 2:12 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.

As for these passages, they, again, don’t need to mean that anyone be lowered completely into the water. In fact, they don’t need to mean anything about the manner of baptizing people since they’re both explaining the spiritual efficacy of baptism, not the physical manner of administering it - and even if they were to be talking about the manner, it’s just as ambiguous (moreso, really) as the passages that describe actual, physical baptisms.

And, again, we don’t deny that immersion is valid, just that it’s not the only valid manner. Just like immersion is a perfectly plausible way to immagine either Jesus’ or the Ethiopian’s baptism… but so is standing knee-deep and sprinkling over the head. The text never says that either of them lowered their heads into or lifted their heads out of the water, so we simply don’t know for sure… no matter how much you wish we did.

 

[NotWorthy]

Scripture is often less than explicit, that is why we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.
The account of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew and mark both say He came straightway out of the water. The only way to do this to to have someone hold and lean you backward while the body is kept straight (I suppose it could be done forward as well but would be awkward), or go into water above your head and be pushed under then bob up (also awkward).

When I was young, I used to play in the ditch, especially after a rainstorm, when the water was 6 or 7 inches deep. When my mom would catch me, she would yell, “John, get up out of that ditch right this minute!”. Coming up out of the water does not always mean one was submerged.

 

[PLeeD]

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism

into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Col 2:12 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.
pablope;7880667:

This is another interesting concept from our protestant brethen…can you humbly demonstrate how scripture can interpret scripture?

I’d say it is fairly explicit, and doesn’t require any interpretation.

The words “Buried in baptism” are used, and compared to death. The metaphor compares baptism to burial in a grave, i.e. submerged beneath the earth. What doubt is there that the intent of that baptism is to be fully submerged beneath the water?

I ‘humbly’ submit that the case for full submersion during baptism is much more explicit in scripture than the case for infant baptism, which was the original topic.

 

[Tiberius1701]

I’d say it is fairly explicit, and doesn’t require any interpretation.

The words “Buried in baptism” are used, and compared to death. The metaphor compares baptism to burial in a grave, i.e. submerged beneath the earth. What doubt is there that the intent of that baptism is to be fully submerged beneath the water?

I ‘humbly’ submit that the case for full submersion during baptism is much more explicit in scripture than the case for infant baptism, which was the original topic.

Considering the fact that the Catholic Church has always used the idea of being “buried with Christ” in baptism, from when St. Paul, the Catholic Apostle to the Gentiles spoke and wrote of it, to today when the Bishops and Priests of the very same Catholic Church talk about it, speaking even of sprinkling baptisms, I’d say that, again, you’re just exercising your very own fallible, private, wishful interpretation. As I said yesterday, Paul is explain about the spiritual reality of baptism and saying nothing about the physical/litugical rubrics for performing it.

 

[pablope]

I’d say it is fairly explicit, and doesn’t require any interpretation.

The words “Buried in baptism” are used, and compared to death. The metaphor compares baptism to burial in a grave, i.e. submerged beneath the earth. What doubt is there that the intent of that baptism is to be fully submerged beneath the water?

I ‘humbly’ submit that the case for full submersion during baptism is much more explicit in scripture than the case for infant baptism, which was the original topic.

Again, from my original question, please explain or elaborate:

Originally Posted by pablope View Post
This is another interesting concept from our protestant brethen…can you humbly demonstrate how scripture can interpret scripture?

Did the Scripture tell you full submersion? Or is it how you want to interpret it? Is the phrase “buried in baptism” referring to water baptism? Or a different kind of baptism? Or is it how you want it to mean to support your have been told?

 

[PJM]

=pablope;7880667]This is another interesting concept from our protestant brethen…can you humbly demonstrate how scripture can interpret scripture?

Does scripture have a voice to talk to you?

Jesus forgive me for SMILING at this Wisdom of YOURS

God Bless.
Pat

 

[DrPiano]

I’d say it is fairly explicit, and doesn’t require any interpretation.

The words “Buried in baptism” are used, and compared to death. The metaphor compares baptism to burial in a grave, i.e. submerged beneath the earth. What doubt is there that the intent of that baptism is to be fully submerged beneath the water?

I ‘humbly’ submit that the case for full submersion during baptism is much more explicit in scripture than the case for infant baptism, which was the original topic.

Actually being buried doesn’t necessitate being underground. Jesus and Lazarus were both buried in tombs carved into caves…

And, as Tiberius said, Paul is referring to the metaphysical thing that happens (ie we die with Christ) not the specific way one goes about it (immersion vs pouring vs sprinkling).

That being said, is immersion a more complete sign? I would say so (as does the Church by the way, which has been advocating for fonts that would allow this with adults) - in a way analagous to the way that receiving under both species is a more complete sign. But, as with the Eucharist, it is still a fully valid sacrament when immersion is not used. The only required form is that it be done “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and the only required matter is water.

 

[Tiberius1701]

Jesus forgive me for SMILING at this Wisdom of YOURS

God Bless.
Pat

:: Pat, I don’t think Jesus minds at all when we smile at the wisdom of those who, like us, share in His image and likeness.

 

[Nicea325]

Scripture is often less than explicit, that is why we must let Scripture interpret Scripture.
The account of Jesus’ baptism in Matthew and mark both say He came straightway out of the water. The only way to do this to to have someone hold and lean you backward while the body is kept straight (I suppose it could be done forward as well but would be awkward), or go into water above your head and be pushed under then bob up (also awkward).
Matt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

In Acts we read about Philip and the Ethiopian Euuich.Act 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Col 2:12 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.

Scripture interprets scripture? Really where does scripture teach scripture interpretating itself? Finally, no where do the above verses teach full immersion is the ONLY acceptable method.

 

[ctkrcia]

Not to derail the topic, but I have a question that is indeed germane to the issue of baptism. Some posters hold the position that the Bible explicitly states full immersion is necessary. If not explicit, it is so obviously implicit that it may as well be explicit. They also hold that “scripture interprets scripture”, which is a bit confusing to those of us who have never used that concept / precept.

Therefore, it appears their position is that the Bible is the ultimate authority to which we must appeal on these matters.

My question? Where does the Bible get this authority? If I were staking their eternal salvation on a book, I would certainly want to know everything about this book! Where did it come from? When were its contents decided? Who made that decision? What makes them right or authoritative? If God is alive and continues His work today, why is it that nothing can be added to the book?

This seems to be key in the discussion, as there are Catholics who appeal to sources in addition to the Bible (tradition, writings of the early church fathers, etc.). Once this matter is settled, perhaps we can make progress on this issue.

 

[PJM]

=Tiberius1701;7883319]:: Pat, I don’t think Jesus minds at all when we smile at the wisdom of those who, like us, share in His image and likeness.

God Bless you my friend!

Pat

 

[Nicea325]

Not to derail the topic, but I have a question that is indeed germane to the issue of baptism. Some posters hold the position that the Bible explicitly states full immersion is necessary. If not explicit, it is so obviously implicit that it may as well be explicit. They also hold that “scripture interprets scripture”, which is a bit confusing to those of us who have never used that concept / precept.

Therefore, it appears their position is that the Bible is the ultimate authority to which we must appeal on these matters.

My question? Where does the Bible get this authority? If I were staking their eternal salvation on a book, I would certainly want to know everything about this book! Where did it come from? When were its contents decided? Who made that decision? What makes them right or authoritative? If God is alive and continues His work today, why is it that nothing can be added to the book?

This seems to be key in the discussion, as there are Catholics who appeal to sources in addition to the Bible (tradition, writings of the early church fathers, etc.). Once this matter is settled, perhaps we can make progress on this issue.

And that is the whole issue between Catholics/Orthodoxs and Bible-Only Christians. No where does the Bible teach or declare it is the FINAL authority. The Bible indeed contains the Word of God,but it is not exhaustive where it claims everything God ever said or did is binded to written words alone. Finally, the Bible was canonized and compiled by the church,thus an external source (The Church) determined which books should make a one volume book called the Bible. The Bible did not decide all by itself. Scripture is very clear Jesus founded His Church which He promised the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not leave the Bible behind and teach a Bible-Only faith.

 

[ctkrcia]

And that is the whole between Catholics/Orthodoxs and Bible-Only Christians. No where does the Bible teach or declare it is the FINAL authority. The Bible indeed contains the Word of God,but it is not exhaustive where it claims everything God ever said or did is binded to written words alone. Finally, the Bible was canonized and compiled by the church,thus an external source (The Church) determined which books should make a one volume book called the Bible. The Bible did not decide all by itself. Scripture is very clear Jesus founded His Church which He promised the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not leave the Bible behind and teach a Bbile-Only faith.

 

[stevekehl]

Scripture interprets scripture? Really where does scripture teach scripture interpretating itself? Finally, no where do the above verses teach full immersion is the ONLY acceptable method.

Where does it teach that only a few blessed individuals can understand Scripture? Also, can you find an account of someone being sprinkled or poured upon with water for baptism.