B
- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
dronald.
Here is St. Gregory of Nazienzen in the 300’s A.D. talking about receiving the Holy Spirit via extraordinary means.
St. Gregory talking about Cornelius (and his household or “oikos”):
“Cornelius and his companions (receive the Holy Spirit) before Baptism, to others after Baptism”.
This does not mean NO “others” can POSSIBLY receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism. The Church has never taught that exclusively.
But it does mean we KNOW people ordinarily (“to others”) receive the Holy Spirit “after Baptism” (technically upon Baptism).
We also know we have no authority to try to “fiddle around” with Apostolic instruction (including EVEN Popes don’t have that authority—see CCC 86 and 88).
The Pope in an official capacity is even prevented from “fiddling around” with Apostolic teaching for the benefit of the faithful (not because he is so charming or scholarly or anything else although a given Pope MAY be scholarly and charming). This protection is rendered when the Pope teaches in an official capacity (not news conferences, coffee table talks, off the cuff remarks, etc, etc.).
For example we cannot substitute man-made sinners prayers or anything other teaching as a substitute for Baptism. I was just explaining this to a Catholic on another thread (here and here).
St. Peter, an inspired Apostle, DID have this authority of the Holy Spirit in this way (that’s why Ananias and his wife Sapphira when lying to St. Peter were told they are lying not to St. Peter, but to the Holy Spirit . . . just before they dropped dead for doing so—Acts 5:1-11).
I would also point out two things here.
Here is some more on the Infant Baptism subject from Canon Law aspects of Baptism (I said I would try to do the home work on this so here is some “home work” that I did for you).
Canon Law 867
**Can. 868 **
.
Can. 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless diligent enquiry establishes that it has already been baptized.
Can. 871 Aborted fetuses, if they are alive, are to be baptized, in so far as this is possible.
And lastly here is an excerpt from the Baptismal Liturgy in the Latin Rite.
BAPTISMAL LITURGY The celebrant speaks to the parents in these or similar words:
You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God’s commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
Parents: We do.
More of this Baptismal Liturgy including the Prayer of Exorcism can be seen here.
Now you are going to read the above post and wonder . . . . .
This has to do with overt impediments to grace being lived out. Maybe I can explain this tomorrow. Maybe you don’t have that question?
In the next few days, I’ll also try to post a different perspective on why infants must be Baptized (from the Bible).
Here is St. Gregory of Nazienzen in the 300’s A.D. talking about receiving the Holy Spirit via extraordinary means.
St. Gregory talking about Cornelius (and his household or “oikos”):
“Cornelius and his companions (receive the Holy Spirit) before Baptism, to others after Baptism”.
This does not mean NO “others” can POSSIBLY receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism. The Church has never taught that exclusively.
But it does mean we KNOW people ordinarily (“to others”) receive the Holy Spirit “after Baptism” (technically upon Baptism).
We also know we have no authority to try to “fiddle around” with Apostolic instruction (including EVEN Popes don’t have that authority—see CCC 86 and 88).
The Pope in an official capacity is even prevented from “fiddling around” with Apostolic teaching for the benefit of the faithful (not because he is so charming or scholarly or anything else although a given Pope MAY be scholarly and charming). This protection is rendered when the Pope teaches in an official capacity (not news conferences, coffee table talks, off the cuff remarks, etc, etc.).
For example we cannot substitute man-made sinners prayers or anything other teaching as a substitute for Baptism. I was just explaining this to a Catholic on another thread (here and here).
St. Peter, an inspired Apostle, DID have this authority of the Holy Spirit in this way (that’s why Ananias and his wife Sapphira when lying to St. Peter were told they are lying not to St. Peter, but to the Holy Spirit . . . just before they dropped dead for doing so—Acts 5:1-11).
I would also point out two things here.
- It sounds as though Cornelius (and his household) were immediately Baptized anyway (Acts 10:47). Even in this extraordinary circumstance.
- The event of very first Gentiles coming into Christianity, into the Church, was a pretty big deal. St. Peter himself was called upon to do this directly from Heaven and with witnesses of “the circumcised” party (Acts 10:45) as two or three witnesses to give testimony (as they almost certainly would have had to eventually do with the Pharisees back in Jerusalem).
Here is some more on the Infant Baptism subject from Canon Law aspects of Baptism (I said I would try to do the home work on this so here is some “home work” that I did for you).
Canon Law 867
§1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.
§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay.
§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay.
**Can. 868 **
§1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a wellfounded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this
2° that there be a wellfounded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this
§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it.
Can. 870 An abandoned infant or a foundling is to be baptized unless diligent enquiry establishes that it has already been baptized.
Can. 871 Aborted fetuses, if they are alive, are to be baptized, in so far as this is possible.
And lastly here is an excerpt from the Baptismal Liturgy in the Latin Rite.
BAPTISMAL LITURGY The celebrant speaks to the parents in these or similar words:
You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God’s commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
Parents: We do.
More of this Baptismal Liturgy including the Prayer of Exorcism can be seen here.
Now you are going to read the above post and wonder . . . . .
“If Baptism is so important, why don’t you Catholics just Baptize the little tike anyway?”
This has to do with overt impediments to grace being lived out. Maybe I can explain this tomorrow. Maybe you don’t have that question?
In the next few days, I’ll also try to post a different perspective on why infants must be Baptized (from the Bible).
L
lilymc
Guest
Infant baptism is not biblical.
In fact, I think it is a very dangerous teaching. Not for the baby, but for the baby who grows up and becomes an adult, and assumes they’re saved simply based on that sprinkling of water as a baby. Yes, I know I’m in a Catholic forum here. I guess that’s one of the reasons I signed up, because of false doctrines such as infant baptism, which unfortunately many people have bought into.
In fact, I think it is a very dangerous teaching. Not for the baby, but for the baby who grows up and becomes an adult, and assumes they’re saved simply based on that sprinkling of water as a baby. Yes, I know I’m in a Catholic forum here. I guess that’s one of the reasons I signed up, because of false doctrines such as infant baptism, which unfortunately many people have bought into.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Hello, Lily. Welcome to the Forums. Thank you for coming to share the Gospel with us.
I understand where you’re coming from because I listen to Baptist radio on occasion and I am surrounded by Baptists everywhere I go. One meme goes something along the lines of how church membership, receiving baptism etc. won’t save you. Only Jesus will save you. A fine sentiment, but it is not a good portrayal of Catholic teaching (if any kind of teaching) because Catholics don’t believe that baptism guarantees salvation. If anything, it would apply to Calvinism which teaches that baptism guarantees salvation for the elect, but they don’t teach that they can know that they are among the elect solely on the basis of receiving baptism anyway.
I understand where you’re coming from because I listen to Baptist radio on occasion and I am surrounded by Baptists everywhere I go. One meme goes something along the lines of how church membership, receiving baptism etc. won’t save you. Only Jesus will save you. A fine sentiment, but it is not a good portrayal of Catholic teaching (if any kind of teaching) because Catholics don’t believe that baptism guarantees salvation. If anything, it would apply to Calvinism which teaches that baptism guarantees salvation for the elect, but they don’t teach that they can know that they are among the elect solely on the basis of receiving baptism anyway.
L
lilymc
Guest
Thanks for the welcome. Well, I know Catholics who believe that if you were baptized as a baby, you’re saved. I come from a Catholic background myself, and I have tons of relatives who are Catholic, ranging from devout to nominal.
Are you claiming that infant baptism is not about the removal of original sin? From reading Catholic websites, I have heard that’s the point of it. In other words, they may not call it ‘getting saved’ but they think it does something - remove sins, right?
It doesn’t. It is just a ritual, and one that is not biblical. And as I said - even if, as you said, the Catholic church does NOT teach that it saves, there are still many Catholics who believe that. That’s why I said it is a dangerous teaching.
Are you claiming that infant baptism is not about the removal of original sin? From reading Catholic websites, I have heard that’s the point of it. In other words, they may not call it ‘getting saved’ but they think it does something - remove sins, right?
It doesn’t. It is just a ritual, and one that is not biblical. And as I said - even if, as you said, the Catholic church does NOT teach that it saves, there are still many Catholics who believe that. That’s why I said it is a dangerous teaching.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
It is possible that there are Catholics who mistakenly believe that, but it is also possible you have misunderstood them. First, Catholic teaching is that baptism removes all sin, original and actual. This is not just Catholic teaching. It is also the traditional Protestant teaching. Here are some quotations from definitive Reformed and Lutheran confessions.
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised [including the remission of sins; see 28.1] is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time. (Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6)
What does Baptism give or profit?
Answer: It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. (Luther’s Small Catechism 4.5-6)
It is also the traditional Protestant understanding that baptism is to be administered to the infants of believers.
Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (WCF 28.4)
Of Baptism they [the Lutherans] teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. (Augsburg Confession 9.1-3)
This is consonant with the teaching of St. Peter (the first pope!).
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)
One reason for your misconception about Catholic teaching is you’re assuming that you mean the same thing when you say “getting saved” as Catholics (or others) mean when they speak about salvation. Salvation is contingent on perseverance. Lutherans and Catholics agree that it is necessary to persevere in faith to the end and admit that it is possible to fall away from grace. Calvinists do not believe a true Christian can fall away, but they say that all those truly regenerate will exhibit final perseverance (even if it is not visible to outside observers). The belief that it is impossible to fall away from grace after conversion no matter what is often referred to (pejoratively) as “once saved, always saved” (OSAS). You seem to be laboring under the misconception that Catholics believe in OSAS when in fact neither Catholics nor most Protestants believe this.
Now you said baptism is just a ritual. If it is just an empty ritual, why did Christ institute it (Matthew 28:19)? What is its significance to you?
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised [including the remission of sins; see 28.1] is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time. (Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6)
What does Baptism give or profit?
Answer: It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. (Luther’s Small Catechism 4.5-6)
It is also the traditional Protestant understanding that baptism is to be administered to the infants of believers.
Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (WCF 28.4)
Of Baptism they [the Lutherans] teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism. (Augsburg Confession 9.1-3)
This is consonant with the teaching of St. Peter (the first pope!).
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)
One reason for your misconception about Catholic teaching is you’re assuming that you mean the same thing when you say “getting saved” as Catholics (or others) mean when they speak about salvation. Salvation is contingent on perseverance. Lutherans and Catholics agree that it is necessary to persevere in faith to the end and admit that it is possible to fall away from grace. Calvinists do not believe a true Christian can fall away, but they say that all those truly regenerate will exhibit final perseverance (even if it is not visible to outside observers). The belief that it is impossible to fall away from grace after conversion no matter what is often referred to (pejoratively) as “once saved, always saved” (OSAS). You seem to be laboring under the misconception that Catholics believe in OSAS when in fact neither Catholics nor most Protestants believe this.
Now you said baptism is just a ritual. If it is just an empty ritual, why did Christ institute it (Matthew 28:19)? What is its significance to you?
P
Porknpie
Guest
Lily,
Welcome.
How do you answer the logic below?
A) all households were baptized ( from the bible )
B) infants are members of households ( statement of fact )
C) therefore infants were baptized
The early Church baptized infants. The apostles baptized infants. Where there was debate was whether to baptized on the day of birth, the second day or the eight day in keeping with circumcision. To read the bible and believe differently is to misinterpret scripture.
Here just a few quotes from the early Church. Per Origens words below, should we follow the apostles who were taught by Christ or a new doctrine of delaying baptism to the age of reason, born out of the reformation 1,500 years later?
PnP
M
MJCamp
Guest
Excellent post. Thanks
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As you are probably aware, there is not a single verse of scripture which says anything remotely like, “Thou shall not baptize infants.” If an explicit prohibition existed, then there would be no argument, would there? However, long before the Old and New Testaments were compiled into a single book, Christians were discussing and writing about infant baptism, and many of their letters survive to this day.
These writings are especially valuable for non-Catholics because many of them date from the period PRIOR to the Edict of Milan in AD 313 when Constantine legalized Christianity. Why is this significant? Because it means that even before the Catholic Church was allegedly created by Constantine, true Christians were baptizing their infants within a few days of their birth. Thus, infant baptism is not an invention of the “Whore of Babylon.”
Now, let’s take a look at what these early Christians had to say:
Hippolytus (170-236 AD)
“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Carthage (254 AD)
“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”
Cyprian
“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
**Ambrose **
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])
Gregory of Nazianzen
“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Necessity of Water Baptism Proved from Scripture
The New Testament writers indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation in the following verses of scripture.
Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Note that two things are necessary: 1) belief and 2) baptism.
Acts 2:37-39
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Note that two things are necessary: 1) repentance and 2) baptism.
Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Note that baptism – not faith – is prescribed for the cleansing of sins.
Titus 3:4-7
4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
Note that the author states that “He saved us through the washing of rebirth” – an obvious reference to baptism.
1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
“Baptism…now saves you”.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Born Again Through Baptism
By Stephen Ray (Former Baptist Convert to Catholicism)
blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=238
- The first creation came from the earth which was covered with WATER and the SPIRIT hovered over the waters and from the water emerged land and man and God’s first creation (Gen 1:1-2).
- A new humanity was started with Noah through WATER and SPIRIT. The ark went through the water and a dove (representing the Spirit) hovered overhead with an olive branch. Peter said this represents baptism which “now saves us” (1 Peter 3:18-21).
- The nation of Israel was created through the WATER of the Red Sea (baptism) with the cloud and fire of the Holy SPIRIT overhead — my oh my, again we have water and Spirit (Ex 14).
- Ezekiel then describes what the New Covenant will look like and he said we will be sprinkled with clean WATER and his SPIRIT will be placed in us (Ez 36:25). Born again, I suspect.
- Then Jesus, right before saying you must be born of “water and the Spirit” had just gone down into the WATER of the Jordan and the SPIRIT came down and landed on his head. Again, water and the Spirit (Mt 3:16; Jn 1:29).
- Jesus teaches Nicodemus that he must be born again, or from above which is accomplished through “WATER and the SPIRIT.“
- When Jesus finished these words what was the first thing he did? He went down and baptized people in the Jordan with his disciples (Jn 4:1-2).
- At the first Holy Ghost Gospel Revival meeting Peter stood up at Pentecost and said, “Repent, and be baptized (WATER) 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“ (Acts 2:38).
- Peter also says “Baptism now saves you“ (1 Pet 3:18), and Paul is told “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16), and Paul writes that we are saved “by the washing of regeneration (WATER) and renewal in the Holy SPIRIT“ (Titus 3:5).
St. Augustine said, “Who is so wicked as to want to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven by prohibiting their being baptized and born again in Christ?”
When someone asks me “Have you been born again?“ I simply answer “Absolutely, but I’ve been born again the Bible Way!“
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Many people believe that baptism is merely a symbolic act that one performs before the community of believers as an outward sign of an inward decision to accept Christ as one’s “personal Lord and Savior”. Is this view biblical or does God view baptism differently? Let’s see what the Bible has to say.
Baptism Commanded by Jesus
John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”
Some argue that in this verse, “born of water” refers to the placenta fluid of physical birth. However, there is no scriptural basis for this interpretation. Instead, as the references from Ezekiel and the New Testament passages make clear, the “water” connected with the Holy Spirit is the water of the sacrament of baptism – not that of physical birth. Jesus’ words, understood properly, tell us that unless one is “born of baptism and the Spirit” he cannot enter the kingdom of God. This point is underscored by the fact that Jesus and the disciples went out to baptize immediately following this verse.
Matthew 28:19
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
In this passage containing the very last instructions Jesus gave His disciples, we see how important baptism was to Him. He did not say, “Go and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to accept me as their personal Lord and Savior and baptizing them as an outward symbol of this inward acceptance…”
Baptism Saves
Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Romans 6:3-4
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Titus 3:5
He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit
“orn again”? Renewal by the Holy Spirit? Isn’t that regeneration?
1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Baptism Washes Away Sin
Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
At Pentecost, Peter told the crowd to “be baptized…for the forgiveness of…sins.” After that, “you will receive…the Holy Spirit”. Once again, we see the elements of Water and Spirit…just as Ezekiel prophesied. Note too, that this promise is for “you and your children” – a clear endorsement of infant baptism.
Acts 22:16
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.
Baptism Makes Us Part of the Body of Christ
1 Corinthians 12:13
13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Galatians 3:26-27
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Colossians 2:11-12
11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
Baptism is Related to Impartation of the Holy Spirit
Ezekiel 36:25-27
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
In this Old Testament passage, the prophet clearly speaks of the sacrament of baptism that was to come. Notice the elements: water is sprinkled, the person is actually made clean (not merely imputed to be or called clean), and they receive a new spirit along with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Ezekiel makes a connection between washing in Water and the receipt of the Spirit of God.
However, sometimes when the Old Testament is referenced, people will say, “Well, we follow the New Testament.” in an attempt to dismiss an Old Testament passage. They need to remember the following words from the New Testament:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
From these passages, we can see that baptism is commanded by Jesus, that baptism saves us, that baptism washes away sin, that baptism makes us part of the body of Christ, and that water baptism is connected very closely with the receipt of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, baptism can hardly be viewed as a merely symbolic act.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The real danger is actually the different and deficient gospel message that is put forth by n-Cs who have been misled into rejecting the sacraments and oppose scripturally sound beliefs and practices that have been in the Christian faith for as long as it has existed. I suggest that you carefully read the following two blog articles of mine.
You confuse the difference between Assurance of Salvation and conversion. Most n-Cs wrongly see salvation as a one-time event, which is not what the New Testament teaches.
It’s not just the Catholic Church that teaches that Baptism washes away sins and saves us, but the New Testament itself, What did Anani’as tell Paul in Acts 22:16: "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name." and then Peter twice plainly states that Baptism is sacramental and does indeed remove both original and actual sins.
***Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, "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.
1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ***
Also, and most important, Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ makes it plain in the following mandates to His Church.
***Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."***
So Baptism is sacramental and necessary for salvation, in spite of those errant n-Cs who teach the new wind of doctrines of men otherwise. Look at James 3:1 about that.
You might also check out these blog articles of mine and then reconsider your current beliefs and come home to the Catholic faith.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Welcome lilymc to Catholic Answers Forums.
Glad you are joining in this rich discussion.
Glad you are joining in this rich discussion.
L
lilymc
Guest
A lot of people replied to me. I’m going to try to reply to all of them - at least the main points brought up - tonight, hopefully. (I’ve got a lot of stuff on my to do list, but this is an important topic so I do want to continue with it.) Thanks!
C
Cathoholic
Guest
lilymc. St. Paul in Colossians 2, says that we are to put on the circumcision of Christ, put on Baptism (We will look at this specifically shortly).
To see what the “circumcision of Christ” means we need to know what “circumcision” meant.
Circumcision was more than surgical procedure but also a new birth into the Old Covenant, and infants were welcome, as we will see.
Baptism is a new birth too. It is an entrance ramp to the Christian life.
We would both affirm that to be saved means we (who now have this opportunity), we who now are alive in the New Testament era, MUST be in the New Covenant.
And the New Covenant is not a bonding to a mere “agreement” but to a person . . . . Jesus Christ (True God and True man).
We must be in Jesus Christ to be saved. As a matter of fact, an Anabaptist (Evangelical Free Church) Minister friend of mine once (properly) quipped: “Moses and Abraham were saved by Jesus.”
And if we are IN CHRIST we are a . . . . what? . . . .
A “New Creation”!
2nd CORINTHIANS 5:17 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.
GALATIANS 6:15 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
But is “circumcision” done away completely or are we spiritually circumcised in Christ?
We are spiritually speaking, circumcised in Christ. This being in Christ is the fulfillment of circumcision.
COLOSSIANS 2:11 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ
(more on Colossians later)
But HOW did we get into Christ? First let’s look at some background of circumcision.
Moses who himself was saved by the Spirit of God and the water of the Nile River as an infant (implicit water and the Spirit imagery) . . . . now as an adult Moses tells the people in Deuteronomy (10:16) something very interesting.
Moses tells them something to do (that you and I know they on their own accord CANNOT DO). It is almost a prophecy in and of itself.
What does Moses tell them? Moses tells them to “circumcise . . . your heart”.
DEUTERONOMY 10:16 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Now let’s move forward to the New Covenant era and the book of Acts and St. Peter’s preaching at Pentecost. Notice what Acts 2:37 doesn’t say:
NOT ACTS 2:37 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the foreskin . . . .
What really happened in Acts chapter 2?
ACTS 2:37 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” . . . .
Then St. Peter proceeded to tell them to be Baptized and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and the promise was for them AND for their children (could this be a fulfillment of circumcision? We will have to wait until we look at Colossians 2 to find out).
And remember how God in a sense covenanted His whole creation from the very beginning?
Yes. Water and the Spirit imagery. The Holy Spirit hovering over the water (Hint: Water and Spirit imagery again. Where have we heard that before? Jesus to Nicodemus: You must be born of “Water and the Spirit”—John 3:5).
GENESIS 1:1-2 1 IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
Keep this all in the back of your mind as we look forward.
We know in the New Covenant we see in Jesus and ALL that he does, a fulfillment of the Old Covenant, not a retrogression.
And this fulfillment is GREATER not LESSER than the mere foreshadowings or prefigurements.
Hebrews 10:1 talks about this concerning the Temple sacrifices as a shadow and Jesus as the fulfillment (but the concept is applicable to ALL of Jesus’ work).
HEBREWS 10:1a 1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities . . .
So Jesus and His New Covenant work is GREATER (infinitely so) than the mere lesser Old Covenant shadows, foreshadows, or prefigurements. Right?
Now in the Old Covenant HOW were the people (specifically the males) placed into the Old Covenant?
Circumcision.
And now, how do people get brought into the New Covenant?
By putting on the “circumcision of Christ” as St. Paul mentions.
But what is putting on the “circumcision of Christ”?
Is it “accepting Jesus into our hearts as personal Lord and Savior”? Is THAT how we put on the “circumcision of Christ”?
Before we answer that, let’s look at the Old Covenant prefigurement of circumcision to see if we can get any New Covenant fulfillment insights.
To see what the “circumcision of Christ” means we need to know what “circumcision” meant.
Circumcision was more than surgical procedure but also a new birth into the Old Covenant, and infants were welcome, as we will see.
Baptism is a new birth too. It is an entrance ramp to the Christian life.
We would both affirm that to be saved means we (who now have this opportunity), we who now are alive in the New Testament era, MUST be in the New Covenant.
And the New Covenant is not a bonding to a mere “agreement” but to a person . . . . Jesus Christ (True God and True man).
We must be in Jesus Christ to be saved. As a matter of fact, an Anabaptist (Evangelical Free Church) Minister friend of mine once (properly) quipped: “Moses and Abraham were saved by Jesus.”
And if we are IN CHRIST we are a . . . . what? . . . .
A “New Creation”!
2nd CORINTHIANS 5:17 17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.
GALATIANS 6:15 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
But is “circumcision” done away completely or are we spiritually circumcised in Christ?
We are spiritually speaking, circumcised in Christ. This being in Christ is the fulfillment of circumcision.
COLOSSIANS 2:11 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ
(more on Colossians later)
But HOW did we get into Christ? First let’s look at some background of circumcision.
Moses who himself was saved by the Spirit of God and the water of the Nile River as an infant (implicit water and the Spirit imagery) . . . . now as an adult Moses tells the people in Deuteronomy (10:16) something very interesting.
Moses tells them something to do (that you and I know they on their own accord CANNOT DO). It is almost a prophecy in and of itself.
What does Moses tell them? Moses tells them to “circumcise . . . your heart”.
DEUTERONOMY 10:16 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Now let’s move forward to the New Covenant era and the book of Acts and St. Peter’s preaching at Pentecost. Notice what Acts 2:37 doesn’t say:
NOT ACTS 2:37 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the foreskin . . . .
What really happened in Acts chapter 2?
ACTS 2:37 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” . . . .
Then St. Peter proceeded to tell them to be Baptized and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and the promise was for them AND for their children (could this be a fulfillment of circumcision? We will have to wait until we look at Colossians 2 to find out).
And remember how God in a sense covenanted His whole creation from the very beginning?
Yes. Water and the Spirit imagery. The Holy Spirit hovering over the water (Hint: Water and Spirit imagery again. Where have we heard that before? Jesus to Nicodemus: You must be born of “Water and the Spirit”—John 3:5).
GENESIS 1:1-2 1 IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
Keep this all in the back of your mind as we look forward.
We know in the New Covenant we see in Jesus and ALL that he does, a fulfillment of the Old Covenant, not a retrogression.
And this fulfillment is GREATER not LESSER than the mere foreshadowings or prefigurements.
Hebrews 10:1 talks about this concerning the Temple sacrifices as a shadow and Jesus as the fulfillment (but the concept is applicable to ALL of Jesus’ work).
HEBREWS 10:1a 1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities . . .
So Jesus and His New Covenant work is GREATER (infinitely so) than the mere lesser Old Covenant shadows, foreshadows, or prefigurements. Right?
Now in the Old Covenant HOW were the people (specifically the males) placed into the Old Covenant?
Circumcision.
And now, how do people get brought into the New Covenant?
By putting on the “circumcision of Christ” as St. Paul mentions.
But what is putting on the “circumcision of Christ”?
Is it “accepting Jesus into our hearts as personal Lord and Savior”? Is THAT how we put on the “circumcision of Christ”?
Before we answer that, let’s look at the Old Covenant prefigurement of circumcision to see if we can get any New Covenant fulfillment insights.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
OK. So how were the people placed into the Old Covenant?
Fortunately we don’t have to guess. Moses tells us when he wrote Genesis (see John 5:46 - consistent with Jewish tradition that Moses DID author at least some Scripture).
GENESIS 17:9-14 9 And God said to Abraham, As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
OK. That’s interesting. Yahweh tells the people through Moses: “This is my Covenant”, every male among you shall be circumcised. And if they DON’T obey this command, they have “broken my covenant” as God says.
But WHEN should they be circumcised?
Yes Abraham and his adult servants were all adults, but when is the prescribed time for circumcision? When they were eight days old (Gen. 17:12).
And the parents not only COULD speak on behalf of their children, but they were REQUIRED to do so!
The parents were not to wait until their babies could grow old enough to decide for themselves then have a spirit-filled personal relationship with Yahweh and choose circumcision for themselves.
The parents had God-given legitimate authority regarding covenanting their children to God.
And they were expected to exercise that authority in obedience and conformity with God’s commandment— incidentally a commandment that was passed down to Moses from Abraham through . . . . WHAT? . . . . . Scripture?
No! Abraham didn’t write Scripture as far as we know.
This was passed down to Moses through oral Tradition from Abraham (until Moses himself eventually wrote it down long after Abraham and subsequently it was passed on through oral and written Tradition—see 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 to see an authoritative oral Tradition still exists).
Through authoritative oral tradition! And this was so authoritative, that when Moses blew off or neglected this commandment, God sought to KILL HIM! And it was only because of a pagan Midianite woman who he was married to (Zipporah) that MOSES was saved (Moses was saved by his wife in effect but also through his infant son’s circumcision—see Exodus 4:24-26).
Moses apparently picked up this non-Israelite tradition of no-circumcision-for-your-children until maybe he is old enough to make a personal decision for himself.
Zipporah fortunately had picked up enough of Israelite Tradition to intervene and make the decision on behalf not only of Moses, but on behalf of their infant son too.
So in the Old Covenant God was compassionate, gracious, and kind enough to allow little tiny 8-day old infants to be in a Covenantal relationship with Him!
Now as we move from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (as Dr. Scott Hahn likes to ask) . . . .
In the beginnings of the New Covenant we see many of the Jews upset over what issue? Circumcision.
Even the Apostles thought the circumcision issue was enough of an enigma or riddle to call a Council meeting over the issue (see Acts 15). You can understand why if you go back and re-read Genesis 17:9-14. This is a big deal.
We see lots and lots of fighting from the Judaizers against the new Jewish Christians in the New Testament about the issue of circumcision.
We even see some infighting even from within in the New Testament Christian community about the issue of circumcision (that’s WHY the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem was called—to settle this issue).
St. Paul devoted a significant portion of his letters to the issue of Old Covenant circumcision not being necessary to be covenanted to God now.
But what do we see absolute silence on? No issue at all anywhere?
About INFANTS being covenanted to God that’s what is NOT an issue.
No issue at all!
Why is this not an issue?
If there were a change from the Old Covenant you would expect a firestorm. After all, the infant males were already included in God’s Covenant!
An Anabaptist might object at this point and say: “Well infants are already covenanted to God automatically.”
It certainly wasn’t “automatic” in the Old Covenant.
And this is taught NOWHERE in Scripture or Tradition in the New Covenant either.
The Anabaptist might say: “Jesus says let the little children come to me for such belongs the Kingdom of God.”
But then notice ALSO these infants can be HINDERED by adults from encountering Christ (Matthew 19:14).
Fortunately we don’t have to guess. Moses tells us when he wrote Genesis (see John 5:46 - consistent with Jewish tradition that Moses DID author at least some Scripture).
GENESIS 17:9-14 9 And God said to Abraham, As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
OK. That’s interesting. Yahweh tells the people through Moses: “This is my Covenant”, every male among you shall be circumcised. And if they DON’T obey this command, they have “broken my covenant” as God says.
But WHEN should they be circumcised?
Yes Abraham and his adult servants were all adults, but when is the prescribed time for circumcision? When they were eight days old (Gen. 17:12).
And the parents not only COULD speak on behalf of their children, but they were REQUIRED to do so!
The parents were not to wait until their babies could grow old enough to decide for themselves then have a spirit-filled personal relationship with Yahweh and choose circumcision for themselves.
The parents had God-given legitimate authority regarding covenanting their children to God.
And they were expected to exercise that authority in obedience and conformity with God’s commandment— incidentally a commandment that was passed down to Moses from Abraham through . . . . WHAT? . . . . . Scripture?
No! Abraham didn’t write Scripture as far as we know.
This was passed down to Moses through oral Tradition from Abraham (until Moses himself eventually wrote it down long after Abraham and subsequently it was passed on through oral and written Tradition—see 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 to see an authoritative oral Tradition still exists).
Through authoritative oral tradition! And this was so authoritative, that when Moses blew off or neglected this commandment, God sought to KILL HIM! And it was only because of a pagan Midianite woman who he was married to (Zipporah) that MOSES was saved (Moses was saved by his wife in effect but also through his infant son’s circumcision—see Exodus 4:24-26).
Moses apparently picked up this non-Israelite tradition of no-circumcision-for-your-children until maybe he is old enough to make a personal decision for himself.
Zipporah fortunately had picked up enough of Israelite Tradition to intervene and make the decision on behalf not only of Moses, but on behalf of their infant son too.
So in the Old Covenant God was compassionate, gracious, and kind enough to allow little tiny 8-day old infants to be in a Covenantal relationship with Him!
Now as we move from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant (as Dr. Scott Hahn likes to ask) . . . .
- Do we move from the great blessings and graces of the Old Covenant where infants were welcome into a covenant relationship with God. To even GREATER blessings and graces of Jesus’ New Covenant and now ALL infants and adults are welcome to a covenant relationship with God? All are welcome to a covenant relationship with God thanks to the work of Jesus Christ?
- Move from the great blessings and graces of the Old Covenant where infants WERE WELCOME into a covenant relationship with God, to LESSER, ungenerous, and stingier allowances in His New Covenant?
In the beginnings of the New Covenant we see many of the Jews upset over what issue? Circumcision.
Even the Apostles thought the circumcision issue was enough of an enigma or riddle to call a Council meeting over the issue (see Acts 15). You can understand why if you go back and re-read Genesis 17:9-14. This is a big deal.
We see lots and lots of fighting from the Judaizers against the new Jewish Christians in the New Testament about the issue of circumcision.
We even see some infighting even from within in the New Testament Christian community about the issue of circumcision (that’s WHY the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem was called—to settle this issue).
St. Paul devoted a significant portion of his letters to the issue of Old Covenant circumcision not being necessary to be covenanted to God now.
But what do we see absolute silence on? No issue at all anywhere?
About INFANTS being covenanted to God that’s what is NOT an issue.
No issue at all!
Why is this not an issue?
If there were a change from the Old Covenant you would expect a firestorm. After all, the infant males were already included in God’s Covenant!
An Anabaptist might object at this point and say: “Well infants are already covenanted to God automatically.”
It certainly wasn’t “automatic” in the Old Covenant.
And this is taught NOWHERE in Scripture or Tradition in the New Covenant either.
The Anabaptist might say: “Jesus says let the little children come to me for such belongs the Kingdom of God.”
But then notice ALSO these infants can be HINDERED by adults from encountering Christ (Matthew 19:14).
C
Cathoholic
Guest
If this Covenanting by God were done already, the adults could NOT “hinder” the infants from coming to Jesus.
But infants are NOT born “already covenanted to God”.
They ARE born with Original Sin and it’s effects, “the wages of sin is death” and even infants can die just like adults can die (because of the effects of sin on humanity).
We are ALL born “children of” . . . what?
“Children who by our very nature are already born in a Covenant relationship to God”?? **No! **
This is a tradition of men that nullifies the commandments of God.
We are all born “children of wrath” by our very nature!”
In Bible school we were all taught to memorize Ephesians 2:8-9 and use it a lot. But we were not told by these same men to memorize Ephesians 2:3.
EPHESIANS 2:3 3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
What (at least in my case) some of these Bible teachers would have us think . . .
NOT EPHESIANS (Phantom Verse) 2:3b and so we were by nature, children born in a covenanted relationship with God until we got older. Then we fell out. Then we accepted Jesus into our hearts and got back in.
NOT EPHESIANS (Phantom Verse) 2:3b and so we were by nature, adults of wrath, like the rest of adults.
But here is what the Bible REALLY teaches.
EPHESIANS 2:3b and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Are infants part of “the rest of mankind”? Yes.
So when St. Paul tells us to put on (notice we are not born with but “put” it “on”) the circumcision of Christ, we are careful not to invent a scenario where . . . .
He suggested we wait until the child is a mere 8 DAYS old before baptizing him/her because after all, we waited 8 days in the Old Covenant era. So why not apply this to the New?
(Because the graces and blessings are GREATER with the work of Jesus. That’s WHY we don’t wait eight whole days Fidus)
But what was the reaction in the early Church to this new-fangled 8-day waiting period proposition?
The reaction was, “Forget about it Fidus! That would be a tradition of men.”
Even St. Augustine was still talking about this inappropriate proposal of Fidus’ 150 years later! That’s how many shock waves this 8-day wait idea of Fidus’ caused. Other’s earlier and I have talked about the specifics earlier (here is one post).
COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
We were put off from the body of flesh by putting on the circumcision of Christ. Through faith in “the WORKING of God”.
OK. But how does God carry out this “working” of His in us?
By accepting Jesus into your hearts or by Baptism?
Baptism. That’s WHY John 4:1-2 talks of Jesus Baptizing (God is doing the “work”) and then states specifically it was ONLY Jesus’ disciples who did the actual Baptizing.
HOW can Jesus Baptize if He doesn’t Baptize?
Because Jesus DOES Baptize. Because this is the “working of God” through the person Baptizing.
The “working of God” was not an altar call (which is an “alter” call when compared to the Bible).
(NOT) COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 (Phantom Verse) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him by accepting Jesus into your hearts as personal Lord and Savior . . . .
An “altar call” is NOT putting on the “circumcision of Christ”. This is:
COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Our infants need this grace.
Are we willing to have faith in the “working of God”?
Are we willing to have faith in the working of God through the very Baptism that He commanded us to carry out?
Are we willing to believe Jesus’ command to Baptize that He and His Apostles told us multiple times (and NEVER a command to “accept Jesus into your hearts accompanied by a mere emotional experience”)?
Or are we going to insist upon something we deem greater?
What if Jesus had commanded us to do some great thing (on behalf of ourselves or our children), would you not have done it?
Please read 2nd Kings 5:1-14 and then go back and ask yourself this question again.
Baptism (the circumcision of Christ) Covenants us to God and is a remedy for original sin for infants and original and committed sin for adults who have never been baptized – but we can only have it once. Then we must persevere in grace as this is just the beginning or a new BIRTH to that new life in Christ. If we don’t persevere we can have recourse to Confession and then again persevere in grace.
But infants are NOT born “already covenanted to God”.
They ARE born with Original Sin and it’s effects, “the wages of sin is death” and even infants can die just like adults can die (because of the effects of sin on humanity).
We are ALL born “children of” . . . what?
“Children who by our very nature are already born in a Covenant relationship to God”?? **No! **
This is a tradition of men that nullifies the commandments of God.
We are all born “children of wrath” by our very nature!”
In Bible school we were all taught to memorize Ephesians 2:8-9 and use it a lot. But we were not told by these same men to memorize Ephesians 2:3.
EPHESIANS 2:3 3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
What (at least in my case) some of these Bible teachers would have us think . . .
NOT EPHESIANS (Phantom Verse) 2:3b and so we were by nature, children born in a covenanted relationship with God until we got older. Then we fell out. Then we accepted Jesus into our hearts and got back in.
NOT EPHESIANS (Phantom Verse) 2:3b and so we were by nature, adults of wrath, like the rest of adults.
But here is what the Bible REALLY teaches.
EPHESIANS 2:3b and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Are infants part of “the rest of mankind”? Yes.
So when St. Paul tells us to put on (notice we are not born with but “put” it “on”) the circumcision of Christ, we are careful not to invent a scenario where . . . .
- Infants are not welcome into a Covenant relationship . . . OR . . .
- Have automatically “put on” the circumcision of Christ.
He suggested we wait until the child is a mere 8 DAYS old before baptizing him/her because after all, we waited 8 days in the Old Covenant era. So why not apply this to the New?
(Because the graces and blessings are GREATER with the work of Jesus. That’s WHY we don’t wait eight whole days Fidus)
But what was the reaction in the early Church to this new-fangled 8-day waiting period proposition?
The reaction was, “Forget about it Fidus! That would be a tradition of men.”
Even St. Augustine was still talking about this inappropriate proposal of Fidus’ 150 years later! That’s how many shock waves this 8-day wait idea of Fidus’ caused. Other’s earlier and I have talked about the specifics earlier (here is one post).
COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
We were put off from the body of flesh by putting on the circumcision of Christ. Through faith in “the WORKING of God”.
OK. But how does God carry out this “working” of His in us?
By accepting Jesus into your hearts or by Baptism?
Baptism. That’s WHY John 4:1-2 talks of Jesus Baptizing (God is doing the “work”) and then states specifically it was ONLY Jesus’ disciples who did the actual Baptizing.
HOW can Jesus Baptize if He doesn’t Baptize?
Because Jesus DOES Baptize. Because this is the “working of God” through the person Baptizing.
The “working of God” was not an altar call (which is an “alter” call when compared to the Bible).
(NOT) COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 (Phantom Verse) 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him by accepting Jesus into your hearts as personal Lord and Savior . . . .
An “altar call” is NOT putting on the “circumcision of Christ”. This is:
COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Our infants need this grace.
Are we willing to have faith in the “working of God”?
Are we willing to have faith in the working of God through the very Baptism that He commanded us to carry out?
Are we willing to believe Jesus’ command to Baptize that He and His Apostles told us multiple times (and NEVER a command to “accept Jesus into your hearts accompanied by a mere emotional experience”)?
Or are we going to insist upon something we deem greater?
What if Jesus had commanded us to do some great thing (on behalf of ourselves or our children), would you not have done it?
Please read 2nd Kings 5:1-14 and then go back and ask yourself this question again.
Baptism (the circumcision of Christ) Covenants us to God and is a remedy for original sin for infants and original and committed sin for adults who have never been baptized – but we can only have it once. Then we must persevere in grace as this is just the beginning or a new BIRTH to that new life in Christ. If we don’t persevere we can have recourse to Confession and then again persevere in grace.
L
lilymc
Guest
I have a few points in response to all that.
- You’ve managed to employ two logical fallacies already, and we’re just getting started. Argumentum ad populum, or the Bandwagon Approach. “Look - all these churches are doing it, so it’s gotta be true!” Sorry, but that doesn’t prove much. By the way, I think it’s interesting that the churches that still do infant baptism are pretty much all the very traditional, religious or “churchy” churches. Why is that not surprising?
Traditions are not always biblical, or right. The obsession with tradition (rather than truth) is one of the reasons why I didn’t choose to return to Catholicism, when I first became a believer. I come from a Catholic background, and went through all of it… first communion, confirmation, etc.
I wasn’t a believer back then though, I just went through the motions, because my mom took me to church. Many years later, when I finally did become a believer - when God opened my eyes and I saw the truth of the Gospel for the first time, that was a huge turning point in my life. I could’ve gone back to the Catholic church at that time, but one of the reasons I didn’t was this focus on TRADITION, religion, rather than what is actually true and biblical.
- Show me what the bible says. It may hold weight for you guys, but for me, the Catechism, or the “Lutheran confession” or what some deacon thinks doesn’t matter. The things that matter to me are what the bible says, what my God-given intuition tells me, and of course, what God says. One doesn’t need to go to a priest for that. You can read the bible, pray, seek God…There’s no need to go to a priest or dusty old church book.
OK, now we’re getting to what the bible says. Let’s take a look at it.
Peter is talking to the people about not just baptism, but salvation in general. In the second sentence, he is talking about the “promise” - that is the important point in that sentence when the word children was used. He is speaking to the Jews and talking about a bigger picture (than how you are interpreting this scripture) He is talking about salvation for those Jews as well as future generations when he says the "promise is unto you, your children [generation after generation] and all that are afar off [including the Gentiles, which goes along with http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:16&version=NASB”]Romans 1:16]
Again, the pertinent point in that passage - when bringing up children and those who are far off - is the promise he is speaking of. What promise? The promise that God will pour out His spirit, which goes all the way back to the Old Testament, in the book of Joel:
And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
Joel 2:28-32
One more time - the point of the verse you posted is the promise of salvation to future generations, NOT infant baptism.
This is why it’s so important to keep in mind the bigger picture when studying the bible, because it can be easy to pluck out a certain word and interpret in a narrow, too-literal way, especially when one wants to uphold a particular church doctrine.
(continued on next post…)
L
lilymc
Guest
this is the second half of my post. please look at the previous page for the first half.
Immersion is commanded of every believer as a picture, as an object lesson, as a symbol, as a visual analogy of a spiritual reality. It is the way that God designed to publicly declare the truth of personal salvation. What does it symbolize when a person is immersed, submerged? Clearly unmistakably throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is a picture of the union of a believer in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is clear from Romans 6, Galatians 2, Galatians 3, Colossians 2. - John MacArthurYes, Jesus did institute it, but for people who have truly converted, not babies. Infant baptism is found nowhere in the bible.
Jesus taught us how to be baptized when He himself got baptized. He was an adult, not baby when He got baptized.
A baby obviously doesn’t have the maturity and awareness to understand what is going on. Baptism is supposed to be an obedient act that is an outward expression of an inner change in our mind and heart that has already taken place. A baby can’t do that, obviously.
There is much more to be said about this, but I’ll stop here for now.
Speaking of all of this, I got water baptized as an adult, a few years after I became a Christian. If you would like to see my baptism (which took place in Kona Hawaii) please watch this short video. The baptism part is near the beginning (around 18 seconds in) so you don’t have to watch the whole thing if you don’t want to:
youtube.com/watch?v=r4Ntiq6MrlE
(I was going to embed it, but I don’t see a way to embed YouTube vids here)
I wanted to edit part of my previous post… But there’s a time limit, so it woudn’t let me. So I’ll just post here what I was going to add to it:
Yes, Jesus did institute it, but for people who have truly converted. Conversion involves a conscious decision to repent, believe, turn away from one’s old life and put one’s faith in Jesus. A baby obviously doesn’t have the maturity and awareness to make that decision and understand what is going on. Infant baptism is found nowhere in the bible.
You’re getting into a different topic now. One that I also disagree with…but it would take too long to get into the topic of salvation, in depth, right now. I disagree that salvation is a continual thing. Salvation is instant. What is continual and a long process is sanctification, and spiritual growth and maturity.
No, I did not say that baptism was an empty ritual. I was talking ONLY about infant baptism when I said it’s nothing but a ritual. Of course I believe in baptism - not that it is what saves us, but it is an outward expression of an inner change that has taken place. Here’s a quote:
Immersion is commanded of every believer as a picture, as an object lesson, as a symbol, as a visual analogy of a spiritual reality. It is the way that God designed to publicly declare the truth of personal salvation. What does it symbolize when a person is immersed, submerged? Clearly unmistakably throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is a picture of the union of a believer in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is clear from Romans 6, Galatians 2, Galatians 3, Colossians 2. - John MacArthurYes, Jesus did institute it, but for people who have truly converted, not babies. Infant baptism is found nowhere in the bible.
Jesus taught us how to be baptized when He himself got baptized. He was an adult, not baby when He got baptized.
A baby obviously doesn’t have the maturity and awareness to understand what is going on. Baptism is supposed to be an obedient act that is an outward expression of an inner change in our mind and heart that has already taken place. A baby can’t do that, obviously.
There is much more to be said about this, but I’ll stop here for now.
Speaking of all of this, I got water baptized as an adult, a few years after I became a Christian. If you would like to see my baptism (which took place in Kona Hawaii) please watch this short video. The baptism part is near the beginning (around 18 seconds in) so you don’t have to watch the whole thing if you don’t want to:
youtube.com/watch?v=r4Ntiq6MrlE
(I was going to embed it, but I don’t see a way to embed YouTube vids here)
I wanted to edit part of my previous post… But there’s a time limit, so it woudn’t let me. So I’ll just post here what I was going to add to it:
Yes, Jesus did institute it, but for people who have truly converted. Conversion involves a conscious decision to repent, believe, turn away from one’s old life and put one’s faith in Jesus. A baby obviously doesn’t have the maturity and awareness to make that decision and understand what is going on. Infant baptism is found nowhere in the bible.
- Status