M
mcq72
Guest
Many see this as a generational sign, as in your children, the next generation, and your children’s children etc, and to all that are afar off, into the future. He was not speaking of infants.
Last edited:
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Why would Peter not allow the sign to indeed show, symbolize, to “anyone”, that these people were already “circumcised” in their heart, born again ?
Just like we do today somewhat. How could you deny baptismal waters to one who believes, is born again, for that is what really matters. That is the only time we should baptize anyone.
M
MT1926
Guest
Actually they ALL don’t teach this anymore.
Yes it is the very important question that we have before us. I think it’s interesting that for the first 1500 years of the Church all Christians believed Baptism “communicates” the Spirit. Then the reformation came and all of the sudden all Christians STILL believed it communicates the Spirit. The time goes by and a few Protestants started to believe it only communicates the Spirit in Adults. Then some more only believed it celebrates the Spirit. Then some say it’s just a sign to others and has nothing to do with the Spirit. Then some believe it isn’t even necessary to perform anymore.
Interesting trend don’t you think?
This sounds a lot like the servant who took the Masters talent and hid it in the ground, for fear of what the master would do to him if he mishandled the talent. Baptism is a great gift given to us from God. Do we really want to bury it in the ground by making it nothing more than a sign?
I Totally agree with what you write here. Although I’m pretty sure you meant sign and not part. A part would be a piece, object or activity (of God’s plan for our salvation) that when combined with other parts would make up His entire plan for our salvation.
God Bless
M
MT1926
Guest
This doesn’t answer my question either.
Sorry about that but I’m not a mind reader, maybe you could quote the verses. All you said was…
The 3000 is in acts 2. All I read is what Peter told the to do. Where does it specifically tell us the people changed repented and believed? And what’s the point of you asking “after”. I never made the claim that someone who hears the gospel message doesn’t have to repent and believe.
Where is this in Acts 2?
Verse please?
If you mean regenerated the text doesn’t say.
Don’t know you never quote verses of scripture?
I have no clue what you are getting at. I clearly stated Peter said “repent and be baptized”. Both/and not either/or. Where did I say this doesn’t mean born again?
Dude you are reading extra words into what I type just like you read extra words into scripture.
God Bless
M
MT1926
Guest
Seriously? Who are these many? People most likely had infants right there in their arms while Peter was preaching and we are to believe they understood Peter to mean their future adult grandchildren and not the infants that were right there with them. I sure hope these “many” didn’t strain their backs trying to make that stretch.
When he later says for you and your household was this a generational sign also?
Sorry not seeing how this question answers my question. To be honest I don’t even know how this question relates to the verse?
Wow just wow. Did you even read what I wrote? You know I’m sorry this will sound harsh but you are really starting to show me a lot of disrespect here. I took the time to give a detailed response on the interpretation of Acts 10. Outright said this is teaching us about what St. Peter is suppose to do about Gentiles and doesn’t directly apply to us. You give no interpretation showing how this isn’t about gentiles, ignore everything I wrote, and respond with “Just like we do today”.
You’re suppose to be the Sola Scriptura guy how about we discuss what the verses actually say instead of someone’s opinions of how this word means “generational” or how this “somewhat applies to today” .
God Bless
M
mcq72
Guest
Well it doesn’t say they were at baptism either. Receiving the the “gift” of the Holy Spirit is not regeneration .
M
MT1926
Guest
Well you totally lost me now.
Like I keep having to remind you, I am not able to read your mind to help me figure out what your one liners mean. You don’t site any verses which means it is near impossible for me to find a context and try to understand what you meant by the word transformed. So I guessed you meant regeneration.
Now you are saying it doesn’t say they were at baptism either, when Acts 2 clearly mentions baptism twice. Are we still discussing Acts 2 or did you switch to a different chapter of scripture without telling me?
Instead of me guessing yet another obscure one liner wrong again, let’s try something different.
What do you mean by this statement?
What do you mean by the word “gift”.
And why do you believe this statement is true?
Thanks,
God Bless
M
mcq72
Guest
Quickly…you posted acts two had two actions, repent and be baptized…i infer that born again, regeneration came at “repent”…you replied it is not in text to which I replied it is not in text for “baptism” either.
Last edited:
M
MT1926
Guest
I think this is the issue. I see this as one action not two. No matter how many ways I try to explain this to you I am astonished that you still see this as two actions occurring at completely different times. For some reason you are so grounded in what you were taught that you ignore plain English…
I’m just using plain logical English here. Repent and Baptism are two equal action verbs, within the same type, connected by the word AND. Peter is indicating to us that when these actions come together, at the same time, this is what happens… for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
If you want to only see the word repent here that is your prerogative, however you have to have known, ever since the 1st grade, that that is not how our English language works.
Take and Eat every one of you and you shall receive a stomach full of nourishment.
Would you also argue here that the stomach full of nourishment came at the moment of “TAKE”?
God Bless
M
minux
Guest
Yes, Vatican II established hierarchies of Truth. Our Saviour and the Bible is the absolute. If you believe in those, then you believe in the Infallibility of the Church. Everything else is subordinate truths that may be situational, not dogmatic.
G
Glenn
Guest
The reformers did not consider themselves to be innovators. Their concern was to recapture the doctrine and practice of the early Church, by cutting away what they perceived as corruptions that had crept into the Church over time. Much scholarly opinion regarding baptism in the early Church appears to be that (1) baptism was by immersion, that (2) there was normally a lengthy process that catechumens underwent, which was indicative of believers baptism, and that (3) baptism of infants was the exception rather than the rule.
Here’s one article…
Infant Baptism or Full Immersion
M
mcq72
Guest
[quoqte=“MT1926, post:665, topic:532094”]
38 And Peter said to them, “ Repent, and be baptized (do these 2 things)
[/quote]
Ok, i was making my point based on your latter post…2 things, repent and be baptized.
Again, repentance, changing your unbelief to belief, precedes the baptism, as per Acts text. The change, being born of the Spirit, occurs before any baptism.
Last edited:
M
MT1926
Guest
Yes two things connected by the word AND. I don’t know any better way of explaining the meaning of the word AND so that you can understand this.
Dangit mcq72 I’m a doctor not an English teacher.
I’m thinking we have different definition of the word repent.
From my understanding to repent means to feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin.
This isn’t a one time event in someone’s life. This is an ongoing action up until the day that we die.
See that is the difference between sound theology and theology that has to jump around the word AND.
I have absolutely no problem agreeing that the repentance comes first. I would agree one would have to repent, turn away from sin, in order to even desire to be Baptized. But this doesn’t change anything in Catholic theology because that person would still be repenting at the moment of their Baptism. So it fits perfectly into the Acts text when Peter tells us to Repent AND be Baptized.
I just gotta ask again since you continue to ignore basic English. What did your 1st grade teacher teach you about the meaning of the word AND? Because if she said it means THEN I gotta say she gave you the wrong definition.
God Bless
M
MT1926
Guest
That was kind of my point here. If their concern was to do what the early Church did why did they still believe in Baptismal regeneration?
I guess that would depend on which scholars you choose to agree with.
I read the article you posted, I liked how he points out that two things are clear…
Really? Did you notice he didn’t reference a single Church Father or early document to back up his assertion.
How is this so clear to him when he even references an earlier document, the Didache, that says it wasn’t immersion only?
Did you actually read what Tertullian wrote?
Sure Tertullian advised against it. But not because infants shouldn’t or couldn’t be Baptized. This he understood and even agreed with. He even points out in his writing that the child can be Baptized based on the promises of their sponsors. That’s Catholic teaching the parents and the godparents make the promises for the child.
If you keep reading the reason he was against infant Baptism was because he believed if the child grew up and fell away the sponsor would be responsible, because they failed to fulfill their promise. The words he uses is “that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger.” It seems to me that He believed Baptism was so “weighty import” as he said that we should actually fear being baptized. He sights a verse Lay not hands easily on any ; share not other men’s sins. Seems to me he believed the sponsor was responsible for the sins of the baptized.
Tertullian wasn’t the only Church Father at this time
Irenaus - …who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. ( Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
Hippolytus - “Baptize first the children,…let their parents or other relatives speak for them” ( The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen - baptism is given for the remission of sins… baptism is given even to infants. ( Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
This comment really got me scratching my head…
I honestly can’t see how he can say these words and still be against infant baptism.
Maybe if he actually read the Church Fathers who spoke about infant Baptism he wouldn’t make this grave error.
It seems to me this article was poorly researched.
God Bless
G
Glenn
Guest
I did an intense study of the Church Fathers myself–e.g., Jurgens and others. So I’m sure the article’s author has as well. He is a professor of Church History at Harvard. I said “much scholarly opinion” because I did not want to risk overstating the case, but there is a plethora of scholarly work on the subject that leans in the same direction as this author, and it is not simply from Protestants. And of course, it does depend on who we choose to agree with. That’s a given.
As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure who is right on this issue. But I think I can say this much: it isn’t cut and dry. And its not as if the Church practiced one thing for 1500 years, and suddenly, the Reformers changed everything. Practices within the Church have always changed over time, and discerning how and why is not always a simple task. Some of the evidence is textual, and some of it is archeological. (Shifts in scholarly opinions between the 19th and 20th centuries is partially due to recent archeological discoveries.) And these debates are not just limited to our current day. Many of the very same debates, with similar rationales for each side, were also in play in the primitive Church.
G
Glenn
Guest
Not true. Luther believed in baptismal regeneration. Calvin believed that infants should be baptized, but he did not believe that baptism causes one to be regenerated. Zwingli taught believers baptism. The English reformers did not believe in baptismal regeneration.
This article is simply an introduction to unit 5 of a Church History course. I’m sure that in the course he will back up his claims.
M
MT1926
Guest
I’m sure he has. But neither of these facts tells us we should blindly accept what he has to say. Like I already asked did you read Tertullian on Baptism for yourself?
Well just keep reading Tertullian which he did use as a reference. Tertullian doesn’t agree with him either. Read chapter 2 for yourself Tertullian says…
Simplicity without pomp or preparation sure doesn’t sound like the “process” he’s claiming it to be. Not saying it was never a long process, just saying it doesn’t appear to be the “Normal” way. And certainly not the the Apostolic tradition. The Apostles where Baptizing people by the thousands do we honestly believe the Apostles set a tradition that waited until Easter Sunday?
I’m more than willing to read other writings of the Fathers that agree with the author. Just post a link.
Exactly. Doesn’t this fact make you question the reliability of Sola Scriptura? They all used Bible alone to form their doctrine on something so simple as Baptism and they all believe they were correct because that is what Jesus taught us in the Bible.
You said you are not sure who is right on the issue. For me, anyway, if I come across a group of guys arguing among themselves, incapable of coming to any agreement on how something should be done. And the only thing they do agree on is that Fred’s way is wrong way, that kind of gives me the sneaky suspicion that Fred is the only one who knows what he is talking about.
That’s just my experience of a lifetime of volunteer work in group settings. I tend to go talk to Fred because he is the only one who will give me a straight answer.
God Bless
M
mcq72
Guest
Well I agree that everyone who is baptized believes, has changed, has been born again.
E
edwest
Guest
G
Glenn
Guest
There is an enormous amount of agreement between orthodox Protestants. Because we don’t agree on some things does not mean we cannot come to “any” agreement. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus! We do not despair when our interpretations are imperfect. These are holy mysteries, and because we are still in the flesh, we don’t get everything right – even if we believe in an infallible Church.
Protestants do not insist that we agree on every doctrinal point in order to be in the kingdom. We agree upon what we consider to be the essentials. Luther and Calvin had serious debates on many issues, but they regarded one another as brothers in Christ.
I have heard all of the arguments on both sides, and continuing to rehearse them is not going to change my opinion at this point. My interest in this particular debate what not to change your perspective, but simply to elucidate the perspectives of the other side. For me, it is not an issue of which side is most reasonable or has the best empirical evidence. God has to work on my heart. As I continue to seek his face, grow, and pray, I believe he will continue to draw me closer to his truth, and he will clear up some of the matters of which I am presently unsure.
God bless.
- Status