Help with defending infant baptism

[pocohombre]

This seems like a strange request, especially since “proving” spiritual experiences is inherently difficult, as they are not subject to the scientific method.

I was responding to post 120 that wanted proof (that only a believer -one who accepts the Christ- is baptized)

I think we would agree that there is nothing a human being can do, of themselves, to present a clean conscience to God. The only way this can be done is if the HS cleanses the heart of the person, so that we can be “good” in HIs sight.

Yes,apparently this can be done before baptism,though baptism later can be referred to as symbolizing what happens inwardly, previous to baptism. Also, the early church immediately baptized,so the “timing” is about the same,leading to error for some that baptism comes first or is the actuator. The early church had no believing catechumens. If they were believing,they were baptized.

 

[pocohombre]

No, he was not “wrong”. The written law was expected to be followed, especially for Messianic Jews. The fact that some of the revelation of God is not written does not negate the part that is.

Don’t think he was writing to Messianic Jews but gentiles. I believe he was referring to the four gospels and possibly the epistles that he knew of. I believe the commandments are NT,Christ’s commanments,not OT. To me he implies that if it is important,universal it is “written”.

I think you are wrong about this, Poco. All the Churches founded by Apostles embrace this teaching of Jesus.
John 3:18-19
18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Jesus taught that every human soul enters the world under condemnation. That means everyone is headed for hell.

Don’t think the CC teaches infants who die unbaptized go to hell, which is what you say scripture says.

It may not help you, Poco, since you are disbelieving in His words, but it sure helps the children! The apostles taught that there is no fuller way to “come to Him” than through baptism, where we are made one with Him.

Don’t think they taught in" no fuller way than baptism".Don’t let the charismatics here that.

But it also says he took infants, and blessed them.

and they were probably unbaptized.

 

[guanophore]

Does disobedience =right standing with God ?

Not sure what point you are trying to make with this question. I think we would all agree that those who are in right standing with God are obedient to Him.

John 15:10-11
10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.

Obedience and unity with Christ are joined together.

Where is free will ? Does free will excercise=no will excercise ?

Only if you are a Calvanist.

For some baptism is done to them (but someone else-godparent excercises free will) and for others-consenting individuals-they choose to get it “done”.

Yes, baptism, like circumcision, brings the infant into the covenant of God based upon the faith of the parents/community. In the OT, the circumcised were expected to be raised in the faith, obedient to the covenant. In the NT, those seeking baptism take vows to raise the child in the faith.

Just as in the OT a person could turn their back on the faith into which they were circumcised, so in the NT a person can turn their back on the faith into which they were baptized.

I thought there difference was that augustine thought god predestined those who should be saved but Calvin went further and said therefore god must have predestined those lost to be lost.

Yes.

But Augustine also believed what the Scriptures state - that baptism saves.

I meant baptismal traditions,such as “thrice immersing”,renouncing the devil, drinking milk and honey after baptism, not bathing for a week after baptism .

There are human traditions, and Apostolic traditions. The Apostolic ones are part of the Word of God that is infallibly preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

The form (specific words and actions) of baptism are part of what was handed down to us from the Apostles, and by commandment, have been preserved.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

The human traditions are not considered part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. Some of those human/cultural traditions are downright superstitious.

 

[guanophore]

The physical circumcision is of no avail, unless there is a spiritual circumcision.The two are different.The physical was a sign,effectual for making a nation, separating from heathen etc, as baptism to us differentiates us form the world, a sign for being a christian,part of a church, but it does not “regenerate”'per say, as circumcision did not either.

It is true that circumcision did not regenerate, and that it was a sign, both for those in the community, and those out. I would also agree that the physical is of no avail without the Spiritual.

However, baptism is not an outward sign like circumcision. The only permanent marks made by it are spiritual, and cannot be seen by the world. It does, as you say, make us Christian (born again) and part of the Church, but that is because of the spiritual events that take place mystically through the water. We are born again from above by water and Spirit, and we die to ourselves(the flesh) and are raised with Him in resurrected power.

1 Cor 6:11
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Baptism washes away all sins, both personal and original, and justifies us before God.

Then baptism does not save ones soul,is not regenerational.

This is certainly the position of those who have departed from the One Faith taught by the Apostles.

Acts 22:13-16
‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!’ In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; 15 for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you delay? **Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’ **

There is a lot of scripture that has to be twisted or ignored to defend such a position.

Rev 7:13-14
“Who are these, robed in white, and where have they come from?” 14 I said to him, “Sir, you are the one that knows.” Then he said to me, "These are they who have come out of the great ordeal; **they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. **

From the beginning of the Church, the neophytes were dressed in white robes, a symbol of the fact that they were washed in baptism by the Holy Spirit, presented with a clean conscience toward God, His blood having washed away their sins.

Perhaps you agree that it is still important, that is a sign is important.

Yes signs are important. God made us physical beings, and He transmits grace to us through the physical. He healed by putting mud on the eyes, and used handkerchiefs as a means of grace. He uses water “through” which the Spirit circumcises the heart.

to the circumcision of the heart that occurred on the Damascus road." I count all things to be loss compared to the surpasssing value of knowing Christ...and count them rubbish" vs 8

Yes. But he still got up and got baptized, washing away his sins.

And he taught that baptism regenerates:

Titus 3:4-8
4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, **through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. **6 This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The real question is, why are you departing from what was believed by all Christians until the time of the Reformation, when some few chose to rework the One Faith according to their own ideas?

 The vanity is not in baptizing infants, as from our Jewish heritage possibly, but in calling them regenerated, which they were not per OT typology.

I agree, the prophetic words about the regenerative nature of baptism were not clear to those in the OT. They did not become clear until some time after the Church was born. Paul’s writings on the regenerative nature of baptism were at least 20 years after Jesus rose. I am not even sure the Church “got it” right away.

But it is not a vanity to believe what Jesus taught, even though it was not previously understood.

Mark 16:16-17
16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

 

[guanophore]

We both agree on this, faith saves and hearing by the Word.

Yes, but we have a different understanding about the nature of man. The Apostles did not believe/teach total depravity. That was an invention of Calving 1500 years later. The Apostles taught that man is born with an innate desire to seek and to serve God. In hearing the Word, grace quickens the heart. One who responds to this quickening can then be baptized and saved. One who disobeys will not.

Acts 2:40-41
40 And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.

The infant may be sanctified in a religious rite, but that does not mean regeneration.

Well then what does it mean? How can one be sanctified unless the Holy Spirit has washed them? It is preposterous to say that anything of human origin can "sanctify’ the soul before God, or that there is any human rite or tradition by which we can possibly present a clear conscience before God. We are washed by the Holy Spirit, or we are not sanctified.

It is like Paul urging the believing spouse to remain with an unbelieving spouse, for in that union, the unbelieving partner is "sanctified’ (and the children are holy) in hope towards salvation.1 Cor.7:14…

I can see a similarity, but that is because in marriage “the two have become one”. God does not see them as two separate souls, but joined, and one.

The Gk used in I Cor 7:14 is hagiazo (hag-ee-ad’-zo); to make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate. This is the same as vessels used in the temple. They are holy because they are set aside for a certain devotional use. There is no intrinsic holiness (their nature has not changed).

But in baptism Paul uses the term dikaioo (dik-ah-yo’-o); to render (i.e. show or regard as) just or innocent( I Cor. 6:11). This is part of Paul’s forensic language that he applies to those who have been placed in right relationship with God by the cleansing of their sins.

 

[guanophore]

 It still shows what is most important-preaching ,converting and that faith saves,not the baptism,

Preaching is important.

Rom 10:14-15

14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?

Those who respond in faith to the preaching can be converted, and those who convert are baptized. The Apostles never separated baptism from conversion, so we don’t either. Technically, faith does not save either, but grace, through faith.

though baptism is an expression of that already quickened faith, (by hearing and hearing by the Word/Gospel).

I think we are in agreement that the Holy Spirit is at work in the soul, quickening the person to faith. Hearing the gospel enables faith to be exercised. I also agree that baptism is an expression of that already quickened faith.

That is what makes me think baptism is not regenerational .

The fact that God can regenerate without baptism does not invalidate that he saves through it.

Same with the first sermon by Peter. I believe they(3000) were knocked off their horse like Paul, born again, then baptized.How else can you explain that they "gladly"received the word,the gospel and then were baptized.

They were quickened to faith. Acts 2:37-38 "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?”

But, contrary to what Calvin believed, one need not be “born again” to be cut to the heart. He taught this because he erroneously believed in total depravity.

I know Peter’s words seem to have an order with baptism in the middle( and that conversion and baptism were almost immediate in earliest church,making or talking of them as one in the same)

Yes. The Apostles never separated them. That is why, when God poured out His Spirit on the house of Cornelius, Peter could not withhold water, because the two were inseparably combined from the time that Jesus joined them.

but it seems to me that it says it was the last thing they did (baptism).

In terms of preaching, then baptizing, I agree. Baptism is a commitment, and it was not given until the commitment was made. As the Church grew, the examination for commitment became longer, and instruction was required (catechism).

Again, I just don’t recall anyone receiving the word of God gladly without being born again.

There are many examples of this. Many walked away from Jesus. They followed him enthusiastically first, then fell away. Like the seeds in the parable, sprouted, then withered.

It is like I was blind but now I see (the Kingdom) and hence will be baptized gladly. Don't see where anyone gets baptized to "see'' or be "glad'

I can see your point, but again, you are starting from an erroneous foundation (total depravity).

That they were glad to me represents a changed nature, not just an outlet for conviction.

You reach that conclusion because you have been taught that the human nature cannot be glad and see without being “born again”.

I will admit possibly to error of "adult baptism" only if you possibly will admit to the error that infant baptism was regenerational, or that it was understood to be "different' than as with adults.

I was not referring to adult baptism as an error. Of course that is no error. Adults have always been required to be believers, and make a profession of faith before receiving the sacrament. The error of “believers baptism” is that ALL valid baptisms must occur in this way.

I am not at liberty to abandon the One Faith that was passed down to us from the Apostles. They baptized infants on the command of Christ. They taught that baptism is regenerative.

That is, it was like circumcision in OT but awaiting the circumcision of the heart, true regeneration and not assuming it has already happened…

Circumcision was a type and a sign of what was to come.

Ezek 36:25-28
5 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

In the NT, we are saved through the bath of regeneration, during which our hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit, we are born again, buried with Christ, joined to Him in His death, and united to Him in His life. All these are spiritual events that occur mystically in baptism.

Rom 6:5-6

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

The slavery to sin is severed, and the Holy Spirit enters the soul, and dwells within.

 

[pocohombre]

In the NT, we are saved through the bath of regeneration, during which our hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit, we are born again, buried with Christ, joined to Him in His death, and united to Him in His life. All these are spiritual events that occur mystically in baptism

.Jesus said you must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven,that is not just be there when you die, but “see it” now thru faith,even understand it. This usually does not happen at water baptism,but before.The error of this is what must be overcome and is heightened when we say infants mystically are changed also. That has been many protestants experience.If you want to say justified ,maybe ,but not born again .Regeneration is first.Maybe you are still saved by baptism as in obedience ,just like being “saved” is lifelong 'to you ,that you must endure to the end etc.But the beginning is like the wind, and not attached necessarily to a rite, not even necessarily to a sinners prayer etc.

 

[peace2u2]

Also, the early church immediately baptized,so the “timing” is about the same,leading to error for some that baptism comes first or is the actuator. The early church had no believing catechumens. If they were believing,they were baptized.

Our relationship with God is a process which begins in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Sacrament of Confirmation completes Baptism:
Just curious how do Protestants explain Acts 8:14-17?
I have provided the NIV and the NAB:

Acts 8:14-17
New International Version (NIV)
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit

Acts 8:14-17
New American Bible (NAB)
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; **they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit. **

Do these verses imply that they had been baptized but a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit still needed to complete the initiation?

 

[pocohombre]

Our relationship with God is a process which begins in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Sacrament of Confirmation completes Baptism:
Just curious how do Protestants explain Acts 8:14-17?
I have provided the NIV and the NAB:

Acts 8:14-17
New International Version (NIV)
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit

Acts 8:14-17
New American Bible (NAB)
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, 16 for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; **they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit. **

Do these verses imply that they had been baptized but a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit still needed to complete the initiation?

Why don’t I like the term “initiation” ? Would you agree there seems to be two baptisms? Does Paul somewhere say I spoke to you on “baptisms”? What do “charismatics” say? Is there an indwelling and then is there a gifting? Indeed Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Ghost. Can they be one in the same ? If so, why the need for confirmation? Seems like Peter said repent, be baptized (in water?) and receive the gift ( H.S.baptism?) of the Holy Ghost. Did Peter seperate the two,did one follow the other immediately ? Are we trying to pin the tail on the "wind’ of a donkey (as jesus says rebirth is like )?

 

[ahs]

.Jesus said you must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven,that is not just be there when you die, but “see it” now thru faith,even understand it. This usually does not happen at water baptism,but before.

Jesus said, unless one is Baptized, he could not “enter” the Kingdom. I’m not seeing anywhere in Scripture that we have to understand Heaven while we are here on earth, nor any passage that says we will understand Heaven through our Faith. In fact, Scripture tells us the opposite…that eye has not seen, not ear heard, not has it entered into the thoughts of man what is in store for us in Heaven. Water Baptism doesn’t make us “understand” anything…but as Scripture plainly tells us, Baptism “saves” us, and through Baptism we are made members of Christ. That’s what the Bible says.

The error of this is what must be overcome and is heightened when we say infants mystically are changed also. That has been many protestants experience.If you want to say justified ,maybe ,but not born again .

The problem with this statement is that you are ultimately saying that Scripture is in error…because Scripture says clearly the very things you are attributing as “error”. (Pertinent passages provided a multitude of times in this very thread.)

 

[peace2u2]

Would you agree there seems to be two baptisms? Does Paul somewhere say I spoke to you on “baptisms”? What do “charismatics” say? Is there an indwelling and then is there a gifting? Indeed Jesus will baptize you in the Holy Ghost. Can they be one in the same ? **If so, why the need for confirmation? **Seems like Peter said repent, be baptized (in water?) and receive the gift ( H.S.baptism?) of the Holy Ghost. Did Peter seperate the two,did one follow the other immediately ? Are we trying to pin the tail on the "wind’ of a donkey (as jesus says rebirth is like )?

No there is one baptism
Ephesians 4:5:
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Like I said, our relationship with God is a process.
The Sacrament of Baptism is the beginning of this process - new life in Christ Jesus.
The Sacrament of Confirmation strengthens us to be His witnesses. And,
The Sacrament of Eucharist nourishes us with the Body and Blood of Jesus and transforms our hearts.

I don’t know what you mean "Are we trying to pin the tail on the “wind’ of a donkey (as Jesus says rebirth is like )?”

Have you ever tried to read the CCC ? for better understanding of the Catholic faith?
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm

The toolbar is on the left or just type in baptism for a better understanding.

 

[peace2u2]

Ephesians 4:5:
one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Baptism - We come to know the Father and we become the adopted children of God.
Eucharist - We come to know the Son Jesus and His Body and Blood nourishes us.
Confirmation - We come to know the Holy Spirit and we learn to pray as we ought and learn to defend this one faith.

 

[pocohombre]

]Jesus said, unless one is Baptized, he could not “enter” the Kingdom.

Actually Jesus said you can not see the kingdom unless you are born again. You are assuming born of water is the same as born in the spirit.They are not the same, as Jesus states them seperately and distinct, as flesh and spirit (next verse)

I’m not seeing anywhere in Scripture that we have to understand Heaven while we are here on earth, nor any passage that says we will understand Heaven through our Faith

So you are no different than Nicodemus, who being a rabbi/teacher of the one true religion at the time, did not know properly about the kingdom but thought he knew ?

In fact, Scripture tells us the opposite…that eye has not seen, not ear heard, not has it entered into the thoughts of man what is in store for us in Heaven.

Yet we still “see”, as Paul states(though thru a glass darkly) Of course we do not have perfect vision yet, but please don’t put aside for the sake of argument the vision we have ,the mind we have (Christ’s),the newness of life, with new spiritual “vision”, that Nicodemus did not have. We still are born into a kingdom are we not? We still have a lamp unto our feet ?

Water Baptism doesn’t make us “understand” anything.

Precisely what I have been saying so how can one insist it makes you born again,old understanding to new understanding,especially in an infant ?.

.but as Scripture plainly tells us, Baptism “saves” us, and through Baptism we are made members of Christ. That’s what the Bible says.

Agreed but how? Scripture talks of first repenting believing, even being a new disciple, then baptism.So when I see baptism in scripture, I do not separate it from from what precedes(faith/new birth). I do not see it as a singular “saving “event. If it is effectual at all ,it is because of this-Romans10:8-11-” The Word is in your heart and your mouth,the word of faith, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart …you shall be saved for with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation,whoever believes in him shall not be ashamed.” Is not baptism that joyful pronounciation of faith in Christ and His works? Notice we are righteous with faith,we are clothed (not ashamed) with faith.Our confession seals our salvation.But I can not say by itself baptism or any confession saves you .That is why we say it is an outward sign of an inward reality.The sign is important.I have known many strong Christians who have confessed him, way before any water baptism. So confession is not limited to “baptism” per say, at least not with this scripture. So if you want to be quick or generalize and say baptism saves you, ok ,but it is best to include all the other scriptures. The few who do not baptize are one extreme, as I view infant baptism the other extreme end. But as you state, baptism gives one no understanding.

 

[ahs]

Why are you equating “understanding” with “salvation”?

And are you saying that in professing that “saving faith” that Christians suddenly gain understanding of the Kingdom? Scripture tells us that learning and faith come through what is HEARD, not what is professed out of our own mouth. In other words, we have to LEARN things to understand them…and you trying to equate that with a moment of salvation is unbiblical.

 

[Darryl_B]

Is not baptism that joyful pronounciation of faith in Christ and His works? .

Pocohombre, ignoring the Holy Spirit aspect as that is a side issue, your only argument against infant baptism is that baptism is a public declaration of faith in Christ. This is not found in the Bible. Never is baptism described as a public declaration of faith.

he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. The saying is sure. Titus 3:5-8

God is doing something here in the act of baptism. Regeneration. What you probably term “born again”. This is not just being born again in the sense of a disposition, mood, feeling, it is restoring something that has been lost. Hence Regeneration Rerewal. The restoration of something that was lost by Adam. That which is lost is sanctifying grace, which left us in a state of original sin.

This is all God. Not us or our faith. That is the joyful mystery of baptism, not public declaration, but restoration by mercy.

Since you possibly reject this concept about baptism, you are in fact left in a position where you have to make it something it never was, and never described as in the Bible, just a public declaration of faith, and therefore since it is that you must deny infant baptism as a logical conclusion.

 

[ahs]

Why are you equating “understanding” with “salvation”?

And are you saying that in professing that “saving faith” that Christians suddenly gain understanding of the Kingdom? Scripture tells us that learning and faith come through what is HEARD, not what is professed out of our own mouth. In other words, we have to LEARN things to understand them…and you trying to equate that with a moment of salvation is unbiblical.

But then here’s another good point…what are the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Wisdom and understanding are among them…so we can gain understanding certainly be receiving the Holy Spirit. Does Scripture tell us that we can receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism? You bet it does! In fact, it says EXACTLY that…verbatim (Ez 36:25-27, Acts 2:38) And does Baptism save us? You bet it does…and Scripture says EXACTLY that…verbatim (1Pet 3:20-21).

So, it appears I was wrong. Baptism CAN give us understanding…yet I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where it says we will immediately and automatically understand all things, including the Kingdom…but whatever. Scripture could not be more clear. Baptism confers on us the Holy Spirit (Ez 36:25-27), gives us the gifts of that same Spirit (Acts 2:38), and is not just for us, but for our children (Acts 2:39), and makes us members of Christ (Gal 3:27), and saves us (1Pet 3:20-21).

I guess I don’t see the need to understand how exactly it works. I just take God’s Word for it…because God said so. Is there a reason you don’t believe God’s Word in those passages that have been provided?

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10944243:

Why are you equating “understanding” with “salvation”?

And are you saying that in professing that “saving faith” that Christians suddenly gain understanding of the Kingdom? Scripture tells us that learning and faith come through what is HEARD, not what is professed out of our own mouth. In other words, we have to LEARN things to understand them…and you trying to equate that with a moment of salvation is unbiblical.

My first reaction is are you kidding ?Do I have to spell out everything in book detail ? You tell me what Paul means in that scripture ? Does he not go on to say in the following verses of how wonderful are the feet that bring good news, to preach, so that others hear, so that they can believe. Romans 10:14-15.Of course in other scriptures he also says what faith is, how we receive it etc etc .You know that was part of my point that baptism infers many things, not just "sprinkling or immersing with the right words pronounced…I am equating understanding with being born again What did Saul suddenly understand on the road to Damascus ? Are you saying salvation can happen with no understanding?

 

[pocohombre]

Pocohombre, ignoring the Holy Spirit aspect as that is a side issue, your only argument against infant baptism is that baptism is a public declaration of faith in Christ. This is not found in the Bible. Never is baptism described as a public declaration of faith.

 

[pocohombre]

But then here’s another good point…what are the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Wisdom and understanding are among them…so we can gain understanding certainly be receiving the Holy Spirit. Does Scripture tell us that we can receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism? You bet it does! In fact, it says EXACTLY that…verbatim (Ez 36:25-27, Acts 2:38) And does Baptism save us? You bet it does…and Scripture says EXACTLY that…verbatim (1Pet 3:20-21).

So, it appears I was wrong. Baptism CAN give us understanding…yet I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where it says we will immediately and automatically understand all things, including the Kingdom…but whatever. Scripture could not be more clear. Baptism confers on us the Holy Spirit (Ez 36:25-27), gives us the gifts of that same Spirit (Acts 2:38), and is not just for us, but for our children (Acts 2:39), and makes us members of Christ (Gal 3:27), and saves us (1Pet 3:20-21).

I guess I don’t see the need to understand how exactly it works. I just take God’s Word for it…because God said so. Is there a reason you don’t believe God’s Word in those passages that have been provided?

I appreciate your reconsiderations. It does seem you are saying exactly how it works, despite it being shown that it can work more broadly than you state. I have given my considerations of said scriptures and do not isolate them from other scriptures.For sure it s not supportive of infant baptism being regenerating per my understanding.

 

[Darryl_B]

Darryl B;10944641:

Is not baptism non-private ? Were not circumcisions,and baptisms public,if not communal within the synagogue/church? Was there not a proclamation of something,of a covenant,of a name(s) above all other names. As far as the HS, yes that must happen, an indwelling and a gifting.Does baptism in of itself give you either ? Perhaps,but not always as perhaps with the apostles and with Cornelius. Not sure but CC says something of regeneration at baptism and HS gifting at confirmation. What about Catholic charismatics? That is another topic, baptism in the HS. I have stated baptism was thought of as for remission of sins, but that the giving of the HS is separate.

It may be Paul is speaking of baptism, but I think not, at least not as effectual rite but maybe symbolic, of what God has done and did and does for us regenerating and filling us with a new heart and spirit,and His Holy Spirit. Actually His blood was shed and washes us,and His spirit is living water,but indeed baptism is water symbolizing this for me.But as i stated it ,most people are already born again before baptism,even in the book of Acts.Yes regeneration equals being born again,being made new, in all things, having a new heart, changed nature.It is more than washing away of sins. What do you think of ahs statement that regeneration ,or baptism does not equal getting understanding. ,…Again in Titus, it seems obvious it is not narrowly baptism he refers to because he specifically states the spirit is conferred by mercy without any works of righteousness. As you state, all God. Remember also, his audience was mostly people who were baptized as adults But even faith is all of God, for faith is His gift to us by more than mercy, but even by grace
.Yes,I reject the idea that mercy doesn’t happen until you are baptized.Acts shows it happening before water baptism.

Pocohombre, circumcision and baptism were not required to be public communal affairs. Acts 8:36. There was only Philip and the eunuch. So therefore they were never intended to be public proclamations. (Unless Philip went and rented a crowd, maybe that hinders).

Most people are not “born again” before baptism, and there is only one instance where the HS was imparted prior to baptism because God was making a specific point. You cannot be born again without baptism in water as John 3:5-8 and Titus 3:5-8 both state (Yes it is interesting the chapter and verse coincidence).

And sorry I do not subscribe to Calvinist ideas that faith is impossible, that I am a rag doll, and the only way I can get faith is from God. Hebrews 11 is a record against Calvin.

But infant baptism is actually the topic. While you might reject infant baptism, as I said, it is because you don’t understand what it is in the same way that the Catholic Church understands it and therefore are required to reject infant baptism by logical conclusion.