Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[NotWorthy]

me: Can we really extend that to the salvation of a soul? Can my faith really save my child’s soul?

Until your child can fend for his own soul, YES!!!

Was the paralytic an infant? How do you know Jesus didn’t see the faith of all of them, including the paralytic? "When He saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ " The paralytic, for all we know, had his own faith. He could have objected to being lowered down through the roof, but instead he consented to his friends doing that, believing with them that if he could get to Jesus, he might be healed. I think you might be reading into the passage too much.

I think the underlined point shows where YOU are reading more into it than it tells us. Look at the words of Luke again, **** "When He saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’" Luke, links the forgiveness to THEIR FAITH - plural. Not simply the paralytic’s faith.
**

Furthermore, you still didn’t answer my questions. Again, can we really extend that to the salvation of a soul? Can my faith really save my child’s soul?

**Until your child can fend for his own soul, YES!!!

**Sure, He saves MY soul when He washes ME of MY sins. But can my faith deliver someone else from hell if that other person does not repent and believe the Gospel? **

**No, it cannot. When that person reaches the age where they understand the nature of sin, they can remain in a state of salvation, or they can turn to sin. My prayers can aid them, but they can’t save them.

Does my faith cancel out the other person’s need to repent and believe on their own?

**No, it cannot. Once that person is of an age to repent and believe on their own, then my faith can only petition God to continue to grace them.

So, what are you saying? If the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, that alone** would save both him and his entire household, regardless of whether anyone else believed??? Do you really think it means that? Is that your interpretation? (The rest deleted to to stay within 5000 character limit)

I think the problem lies in the fact that Catholics teach that one can lose their Salvation. As I stated, by baptizing my children, my faith could save them. But once they are old enough to accept Christ and become His Disciple, their Salvation is in their’s and the Lord’s Hands, not mine. In the jailers household, those that were old enough to believe were baptized and on their own (salvationally speaking). Those that weren’t old enough would have been baptized and under their parents “salvation rood” until they were old enough to accept or reject the Gospel of Christ.

**

Wrong. Read John 1:11-13, which don’t even mention baptism.

**Of course I read John 1:11-13, and that’s part of where we get this very teaching.

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.

We are born “of God” when we are born anew through “Water and Spirit” - Baptism.

 

[Phil12123]

Until your child can fend for his own soul, YES!!!

Why would he need my faith if he doesn’t need to fend for himself yet? If he is not of an age of reason, etc. when he would be accountable for sin, why does he need anything from me or anyone else, as far as his standing before God? Would God send him to hell, if he were to die, when he is not acountable for sin? After all, you say, “But once they are old enough to accept Christ and become His Disciple, their Salvation is in their’s and the Lord’s Hands, not mine.” So why is their salvation not JUST in the Lord’s Hands before that. Are His hands not enough, that yours are needed? That shows lack of trust in HIS Hands. You have to do something not commanded in Scripture to cover for an apparent insufficiency in HIS Hands.

I think the underlined point shows where YOU are reading more into it than it tells us. Look at the words of Luke again, ** “When He saw their faith**, He said to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’” Luke, links the forgiveness to THEIR FAITH - plural. Not simply the paralytic’s faith.

**Yes, of course, plural, THEIR FAITH, including the faith of the paralytic, not just the friends’ faith. What you were saying before is that the friends had the faith for the paralytic and Jesus said, Your sins be forgiven, to the paralytic based solely on the friends’ faith. I was saying, the paralytic also had faith and that could be why his sins were forgiven. **

As I stated, by baptizing my children, my faith could save them. But once they are old enough to accept Christ and become His Disciple, their Salvation is in their’s and the Lord’s Hands, not mine. In the jailers household, those that were old enough to believe were baptized and on their own (salvationally speaking). Those that weren’t old enough would have been baptized and under their parents “salvation rood” until they were old enough to accept or reject the Gospel of Christ.

**NONE of that is scriptural. It is ALL the invention of men. Where do you see that anywhere in scripture? It is all based on false assumptions, not biblical truth. **

Of course I read John 1:11-13, and that’s part of where we get this very teaching.

But to those who did accept him

**Baptizing babies is “a man’s decision” on behalf of a baby, not a matter of the baby on its own being “born of God” when the child “did accept him” and did “believe in his name.” That verse cannot apply to a baby by its very terms.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

Why would he need my faith if he doesn’t need to fend for himself yet? If he is not of an age of reason, etc. when he would be accountable for sin, why does he need anything from me or anyone else, as far as his standing before God? Would God send him to hell, if he were to die, when he is not acountable for sin? After all, you say, “But once they are old enough to accept Christ and become His Disciple, their Salvation is in their’s and the Lord’s Hands, not mine.” So why is their salvation not JUST in the Lord’s Hands before that. Are His hands not enough, that yours are needed? That shows lack of trust in HIS Hands. You have to do something not commanded in Scripture to cover for an apparent insufficiency in HIS Hands.You have to study up on the Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin. As Paul talks about in Romans chapter 5

. Also Psalm 51 talks of original sin.

BTW, the Catholic Church does not teach that un-baptized babies go to hell.

Yes, of course, plural, THEIR FAITH, including the faith of the paralytic, not just the friends’ faith. What you were saying before is that the friends had the faith for the paralytic and Jesus said, Your sins be forgiven, to the paralytic based solely on the friends’ faith. I was saying, the paralytic also had faith and that could be why his sins were forgiven.

But it doesn’t say anything about the paralytic’s faith. The only faith shown in the scene is the friends of the paralytic. To gather any more out of that is biblical conjecture, and we all know how you condemn biblical conjecture.
**

NONE of that is scriptural. It is ALL the invention of men. Where do you see that anywhere in scripture? It is all based on false assumptions, not biblical truth.

**If it’s Scriptural or not, I’m not sure. It’s not contradictory to any Scripture that I know of. If it’s given to us by the Catholic Church, then I trust that it was driven by the Holy Spirit. Where does Scripture tell us that the Church can’t bind and loose?
**

Baptizing babies is “a man’s decision” on behalf of a baby, not a matter of the baby on its own being “born of God” when the child “did accept him” and did “believe in his name.” That verse cannot apply to a baby by its very terms.

**

Sorry, Phil, I respectfully disagree. When babies are baptized, they become Children of the Covenant.

 

[Phil12123]

It is not just disciples that need to be connected to the community of faith, but also children who are raised in that context. Disciple does is not synonymous with believer. Disciple means learner, student. Judas was a disciple, but not a believer. If we are to be baptizing disciples, then we need to be baptizing all who are submitting themselves to being learners, students of the teaching of Jesus, and that includes not just adults who have professed faith, but children who are growing in it.

The purpose of being a disciple is to grow to be like Jesus oneself. Adult believers are no farther along this path than the chidlren we must become like to enter the kingdom of heaven. If we are only to baptize those who have come to true faith, maybe we should wait until we see this required childlikeness in people before we baptize adults.

On the other points, I won’t ask you to repeat yourself by repeating what others have said. I see where you are coming from in that Jesus’ had his disciples baptizing in John and there is no mention that they baptized babies or even children even though we see that he blessed them in Matthew. But it is an argument from silence, and I just don’t find it conclusive, and less so than that Jesus did invite children to come to him and not be kept away.

**I think we can agree that when Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the Gospel, if the hearer believed the message, repented of sins, and received or accepted Christ as Savior, those hearers became “believers.” Mark says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (16:16). So, even if you add baptism to equal “saved,” the overall idea is clear— declare the Good News to the lost to get them saved. Since Mark 16 is more or less a parallel passage to Matt. 28, would it not be a fair statement to say that the preaching of the Gospel was the main instrument by which they would “make disciples of all nations”? If so, perhaps the “disciples” in Matt. 28 is used as another way of saying “he who believes” in Mark 16. Both passages then add baptism, to the “disciples” in Matt. 28, and to the “he who believes” in Mark 16.

It seems that the word “disciple,” in the more general sense and in perhaps the less committed sense, might be simply a learner or student following a leader or teacher. There were many of those and Judas may have been one of them. Some such disciples left the teacher and walked no more with Him. But Jesus had another sense that He attached to the word “disciple” and it was a fully committed sense so that if you don’t do A, B, C, you cannot be my disciple. Total commitment might be characteristic of that type of disciple, and I would submit to you that that was the type of disciple that Jesus wanted the Eleven to go and make, of all nations.

In either case, whether “disciples” or “he who believes,” there is no thought of infants. Infants are just not ready for that. They cannot hear the message or respond to it yet. So why are we making them do that, through the proxy of their parents? Are parents anywhere commanded or encouraged to do that? The children are already “connected” to the community by virtue of being children of believing parents. But we cannot truly connect them to the faith of that community until they have it themselves. Certainly the parents would teach them from a young age all that they have the capacity to receive, but why not leave it at that? Do what we can do as parents and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit, Who in God’s own timing will woo the child to the Savior. It seems like we don’t want to allow that process to occur, probably from some perceived fear that their little souls are in danger without man performing some ritual that God did not command. We are impatient and fearful, almost wanting to play the role of the Holy Spirit and do things in our own timing.**

 

[Phil12123]

BTW, the Catholic Church does not teach that un-baptized babies go to hell.

**OK, then what’s the problem? Why baptize them? At least not until they believe the Gospel on their own and become believers or disciples. Then we would just be obeying Christ’s instructions. Obedience is better than sacrifice .

But it doesn’t say anything about the paralytic’s faith. The only faith shown in the scene is the friends of the paralytic. To gather any more out of that is biblical conjecture, and we all know how you condemn biblical conjecture.

Well, it doesn’t say the paralytic is a mute. You think if HE didn’t have the faith that Jesus would heal him, he wouldn’t be screaming to his friends, “What are you doing? Going down through the roof? You’re going to get us all killed!!!” It doesn’t take much imagination or conjecture to figure that out.**

 

[NotWorthy]

**OK, then what’s the problem? Why baptize them? At least not until they believe the Gospel on their own and become believers or disciples. Then we would just be obeying Christ’s instructions. Obedience is better than sacrifice *.*****Because the Church doesn’t know what happens to the un-baptized. But the Church does know what happens to the Baptized infants who die before the come of age.

Rituals are not just rituals when they are instructed to us by Christ. You seem to be implying that Catholic Rituals are empty rituals. I hope I’m wrong in this assumption.**

Well, it doesn’t say the paralytic is a mute

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**I think we can agree that when Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the Gospel, if the hearer believed the message, repented of sins, and received or accepted Christ as Savior, those hearers became “believers.” Mark says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (16:16). So, even if you add baptism to equal “saved,” the overall idea is clear— declare the Good News to the lost to get them saved. Since Mark 16 is more or less a parallel passage to Matt. 28, would it not be a fair statement to say that the preaching of the Gospel was the main instrument by which they would “make disciples of all nations”? If so, perhaps the “disciples” in Matt. 28 is used as another way of saying “he who believes” in Mark 16. Both passages then add baptism, to the “disciples” in Matt. 28, and to the “he who believes” in Mark 16.

It seems that the word “disciple,” in the more general sense and in perhaps the less committed sense, might be simply a learner or student following a leader or teacher. There were many of those and Judas may have been one of them. Some such disciples left the teacher and walked no more with Him. But Jesus had another sense that He attached to the word “disciple” and it was a fully committed sense so that if you don’t do A, B, C, you cannot be my disciple. Total commitment might be characteristic of that type of disciple, and I would submit to you that that was the type of disciple that Jesus wanted the Eleven to go and make, of all nations.

In either case, whether “disciples” or “he who believes,” there is no thought of infants. Infants are just not ready for that. They cannot hear the message or respond to it yet. So why are we making them do that, through the proxy of their parents? Are parents anywhere commanded or encouraged to do that? The children are already “connected” to the community by virtue of being children of believing parents. But we cannot truly connect them to the faith of that community until they have it themselves. Certainly the parents would teach them from a young age all that they have the capacity to receive, but why not leave it at that? Do what we can do as parents and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit, Who in God’s own timing will woo the child to the Savior. It seems like we don’t want to allow that process to occur, probably from some perceived fear that their little souls are in danger without man performing some ritual that God did not command. We are impatient and fearful, almost wanting to play the role of the Holy Spirit and do things in our** own timing.

Phil, while I believe that it is appropriate to baptize children, please don’t mix me in with those who believe in baptismal regeneration. I am not a sacramentalist. I agree that disciples should be 100% committed, but not all are. Indeed, Jesus tells his disciples that he expects it of them, but he also recognizes that he doesn’t have it yet, and they are already his disciples. So, one can be a disciples, then be called to make a decision and after that choose to follow or walk away. Do I get why it is that way? No. But I do get that this is the way it actually is. You may wish it to be different, that all people become believers and then become disciples. And I may wish that all who said they were disciples were true believers. But those are our wishes. That doesn’t describe the way it is now, or the way it was in Jesus’ day.

That is why I see Jesus saying to go and do three things: make disciples, baptize, and teach. We are to do all of these things with every person that we possibly can. But I don’t see that it says to do it in any particular order. And I don’t see that is specifies doing it at any given age.

As far as the confession of faith goes that is part of baptism. Even in adult believer’s baptism, it isn’t about the faiht of the baptized person, it is a statement of faith of the Church that we believe God has accepted this individual and will claim him/her for one of God’s own. The Church proclaims that the same God is active in this adult believer’s life as is active in the young infant’s life, and will act to preserve both of them by his grace.

Think it through from your own position. If the adult believer is saved by faith, then baptism isn’t actually necessary. What is necessary is faith, not sacrament. So why get baptized? Because it is a profession of one’s belonging to the body of Christ. It is a testiment to the power of God to save. And infant baptism is exactly the same thing.

 

[Phil12123]

Because the Church doesn’t know what happens to the un-baptized. But the Church does know what happens to the Baptized infants who die before the come of age.

You previously said, “BTW, the Catholic Church does not teach that un-baptized babies go to hell.” Well, how many places are there? Scripture only speaks of heaven and hell. No purgatory and no limbo. So if they don’t go to hell, that only leaves heaven. And if they are not accountable for sin, there is nothing to keep them out of heaven. So they go to heaven whether they are baptized or not. So, why baptize them since Jesus never commanded it?

Rituals are not just rituals when they are instructed to us by Christ. You seem to be implying that Catholic Rituals are empty rituals. I hope I’m wrong in this assumption.

Catholic and Protestant rituals are ALL empty if Christ did not command it. And He did not command that infants be baptized. So you can draw your own conclusion.

 

[NotWorthy]

**You previously said, “BTW, the Catholic Church does not teach that un-baptized babies go to hell.” Well, how many places are there? Scripture only speaks of heaven and hell. No purgatory and no limbo. **

So where is Abraham’s Bosom?I know it’s off point, but I had to ask. What’s also off-topic is this incorrect statement about no Purgatory in Scripture. It’s there Phil, for all eyes to see and ears to hear.

**Back to your point. If you read my post again, you’ll see what I said:
**

Originally Posted by NotWorthy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
BTW, the Catholic Church does not teach that un-baptized babies go to hell.

*I didn’t say “the Church teaches that unbaptized babies don’t go to hell”. I simply meant the Church has no teaching on what happens to un-baptized babies.

If this is how you interpret my words, how am I to trust your interpretations of Scripture?
*

**

So if they don’t go to hell, that only leaves heaven. And if they are not accountable for sin, there is nothing to keep them out of heaven. So they go to heaven whether they are baptized or not. So, why baptize them since Jesus never commanded it?

**Because of Original Sin, Phil. I ask you, why deny Baptism to them if Jesus never commanded it?

**

Catholic and Protestant rituals are ALL empty if Christ did not command it.

Where does Scripture say this? What if Christ gave authority to bind and loose? Who are you to reject that authority that Christ passed on? When was the last time you went to “Christ commanded Communion”? When was the last time you went to “Christ authorized Confession”?

And He did not

command that infants be baptized. So you can draw your own conclusion.**Is Scripture “God Breathed”? Were the Apostles subject to divine Revelation? If the Early Church in Acts and throughout the rest of the 1st century baptized infants, then I’m going to trust them.

 

[Phil12123]

That is why I see Jesus saying to go and do three things: make disciples, baptize, and teach. We are to do all of these things with every person that we possibly can. But I don’t see that it says to do it in any particular order. And I don’t see that is specifies doing it at any given age.

**If we are not to do it in the order you have given (make disciples, baptize, and teach), do you think it proper to baptize nondisciples and just hope that they someday become disciples? What if they never do? What would be the purpose of that baptism, since when it was done, it was not be “a profession of one’s belonging to the body of Christ,” as you say it should be (below).

As for the age factor, I would agree that Christ’s instructions do not specify an age. Wouldn’t it simply be any age when a person can be made a disciple or believer? There may be middle-aged adults who are not mentally capable, and there may be very young children who are, so there could hardly be an age that could be specified.**

Think it through from your own position. If the adult believer is saved by faith, then baptism isn’t actually necessary. What is necessary is faith, not sacrament. So why get baptized? Because it is a profession of one’s belonging to the body of Christ. It is a testament to the power of God to save. And infant baptism is exactly the same thing.

I agree with all you say until the last sentence. How can infant baptism be exactly the same? How is it “a profession of one’s belonging to the body of Christ”? The infant isn’t professing anything.

 

[NotWorthy]

**
As for the age factor, I would agree that Christ’s instructions do not specify an age. **

**Wow, you’ve come a long way in 15 pages, Phil!!!

Wouldn’t it simply be any age when a person can be made a disciple or believer? There may be middle-aged adults who are not mentally capable, and there may be very young children who are, so there could hardly be an age that could be specified.

Are these people excluded from Christ’s command, “Unless one is born anew by Spirit and Water” ?**

Phil, if you look at Baptism as our initiation into the New Covenant, where we are cleansed of our sins (and our Original Sin), just as the Israelites were initiated into the Old Covenant with Circumcision, then it makes perfect sense for Baptism to be done as early as it is.

 

[Phil12123]

me: As for the age factor, I would agree that Christ’s instructions do not specify an age.

Wow, you’ve come a long way in 15 pages, Phil!!!

Really? Apparently you have been misconstruing what I’ve been saying for at least 4 pages, because back on page 11, I made it clear that age was not the key issue, it was whether they were “disciples” before they could be baptized. Check it out:
"NotWorthy:

I’m sorry, but nowhere in your post does it say only those old enough.

What? “only those old enough”? Where did that come from? Are those the words of Christ? NO!! They are not my words either! Why are you fighting the words of Christ so fervently? Do His words offend you? The issue is not age, whether just born or 100 years old. The issue is “make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM… teaching THEM…” Is that really so hard to believe and obey? The issue is not age, it’s conversion. If a one-day old infant can be a disciple (Matt.) or a believer (Mark), then it can be baptized. But we both know, the eleven/twelve did not go out and convert any infants, so none were baptized.

Next, you quote me here, and ask your question below it:

Wouldn’t it simply be any age when a person can be made a disciple or believer? There may be middle-aged adults who are not mentally capable, and there may be very young children who are, so there could hardly be an age that could be specified.

Are these people excluded from Christ’s command, “Unless one is born anew by Spirit and Water”?

**First, let’s quote Christ accurately: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Secondly, let’s assume for purposes of your question, that being “born of water” refers to the physical birth, and being “born of…the Spirit” refers to the spiritual birth or being “born…of God” (John 1:13).

Thirdly, a person is born of God, according to John 1:12-13, when he/she receives or accepts Christ, believing in His name. That passage does not say anything about baptism. But if a person does in fact receive or accept Christ, believing in His name, he thereby becomes a believer/disciple and, according to Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19-20, he should then be baptized and taught to observe all things He commanded the Eleven (like going out and making more disciples and baptizing and teaching them, etc.)

Finally, if I understand your question, you are asking, Are the middle-aged adults who are not mentally capable of becoming believers or disciples excluded from the requirement of being born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of God?

My answer is that they were, of course, born of water when they were born of the flesh, but being born of the Spirit occurs when they are born of God and if they cannot do what John 1:12 says (receive or accept Christ, believing in His name), then they are in the same category as infants and other very young children who are likewise incapable of hearing the Gospel message, repenting of sin, and believing in (receiving or accepting) Christ. So, yes, they would be, as infants are, exceptions to the requirement of John 3:5. Just as infants are not accountable for sin until they reach the age of reason, so, too, adults who are mentally incapable of believing would not be accountable for sin they have no knowledge of. If they did have such knowledge, then they would have to repent and believe the Gospel to be saved and enter the kingdom of God.

(to be continued)
**

 

[Phil12123]

(continued from previous post)

Phil, if you look at Baptism as our initiation into the New Covenant, where we are cleansed of our sins (and our Original Sin), just as the Israelites were initiated into the Old Covenant with Circumcision, then it makes perfect sense for Baptism to be done as early as it is.

**If I accepted your premise with all its elaboration, I would agree with your conclusion, but I don’t because neither is scriptural. No one is cleansed of sins, whether actual or original, by baptismal water. That water is only a picture of the cleansing of sins done by the Blood of Christ. Only His Blood cleanses sins. Otherwise, we could just baptize everyone and His blood would have nothing to do with it. So when and how does His blood cleanse your sin or mine? When we receive/accept Christ and put our faith in His Blood atonement at Calvary as full payment for all our sins. Then and only then does that payment for sins become His payment for OUR sins. At that instant, our sins are washed away and we stand before God righteous or right in His sight. THEN we are baptized (1) to show the picture of the cleansing by His Blood that has already occurred, (2) to identify with His death to sin, burial, and resurrection to new life that was given to us when we received LIFE (i.e., received Christ), and (3) to identify us with the other believers and our mutual faith community.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**First, let’s quote Christ accurately: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”**Fair enough, but I don’t think my paraphrasing lost any of the meaning of the sentence.

Secondly, let’s assume for purposes of your question, that being “born of water” refers to the physical birth, and being “born of…the Spirit” refers to the spiritual birth or being “born…of God” (John 1:13).

**

But if a person does in fact receive or accept Christ, believing in His name, he thereby becomes a believer/disciple and, according to Christ’s instructions in Matt. 28:19-20, he should then be baptized and taught to observe all things He commanded the Eleven (like going out and making more disciples and baptizing and teaching them, etc.)

Sorry, this has still be unresolved. I intend to follow those that were a little bit closer to our Lord Jesus Christ and His teachings then you and me.

**

 

[NotWorthy]

(continued from previous post)

**If I accepted your premise with all its elaboration, I would agree with your conclusion, but I don’t because neither is scriptural. No one is cleansed of sins, whether actual or original, by baptismal water. That water is only a picture of the cleansing of sins done by the Blood of Christ. Only His Blood cleanses sins. Otherwise, we could just baptize everyone and His blood would have nothing to do with it. So when and how does His blood cleanse your sin or mine? When we receive/accept Christ and put our faith in His Blood atonement at Calvary as full payment for all our sins. Then and only then does that payment for sins become His payment for OUR sins. At that instant, our sins are washed away and we stand before God righteous or right in His sight. THEN we are baptized (1) to show the picture of the cleansing by His Blood that has already occurred, (2) to identify with His death to sin, burial, and resurrection to new life that was given to us when we received LIFE (i.e., received Christ), and (3) to identify us with the other believers and our mutual faith community.
**

Then, in your clinging to Matthew 28, you reject all the other teachings of Scripture that tell us that Baptism now saves us. I thought Peter’s Epistle stated that rather clearly. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (and it’s allusions to Ezekiel) clearly show us that Baptism washes away our sins.

I’m sorry, Phil, but I still think I’ll never pass the “Phil12123 School of Biblical Interpretation 101”.

 

[Phil12123]

Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (and it’s allusions to Ezekiel) clearly show us that Baptism washes away our sins.

Before I respond more fully to your thoughts, what “allusions to Ezekiel” are you referrring to? Also, does Peter on Pentecost say Baptism “washes away our sins”?

 

[NotWorthy]

Before I respond more fully to your thoughts, what “allusions to Ezekiel” are you referrring to? Also, does Peter on Pentecost say Baptism “washes away our sins”?

Well, let’s look at what Peter says:

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and a) be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ b) for the forgiveness of your sins; and c) you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

Now, let’s look at how Ezekiel prophesied Baptism in the New Covenant (chapter 36:

a) I will sprinkle clean water upon you b) to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and c) place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.

Peter is definately fulfilling Ezekiel’s prophecy, here at the Pentecost, where the New Covenant Church is born. In both passages:
a) Baptism - notice Ezekiel clearly denotes “sprinkling of water”.
b) Baptism is what cleanses us of our sins - Now, granted, an adult has to be in the right frame of spirit (belief, repentance, and all that), but Baptism is the ritual that actually initiates the cleansing of our sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit.
c) We receive the Holy Spirit at this time.

 

[Phil12123]

First, let’s look at Ezekiel and see if Peter is fulfilling any of it:

Ezekiel 36:
16. Moreover the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
17. "Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own ways and deeds; to Me their way was like the uncleanness of a woman in her customary impurity.
18. "Therefore I poured out My fury on them for the blood they had shed on the land, and for their idols with which they had defiled it.
19. "So I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed throughout the countries; I judged them according to their ways and their deeds.
20. "When they came to the nations, wherever they went, they profaned My holy name when they said of them, These are the people of the Lord, and yet they have gone out of His land.' 21. "But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations wherever they went. 22. "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: "I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went.
23. "And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,’’ says the Lord God, "when I am hallowed in you before their eyes.
24. "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.
25. "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26. "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
28. "Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.
29. "I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you.
30. "And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations.
31. "Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations.
32. "Not for your sake do I do this,’’ says the Lord God, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel!’’
33. `Thus says the Lord God: "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt.
34. "The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by.

**You have a mindset that anytime you see the word “water” or “sprinkling” you immediately connect it with water baptism. You do that with John 3:5 and you’re doing it with Ezek. 36:25.

Tell me if after reading the full context of the verses that you have lifted out, you can still conclude that Acts 2:38 is any fulfillment of it. The time frame for the fulfillment of verses 25-27 is clearly given and it is NOT Pentecost! I have underlined the word “Then” several times and the time frame is shown to be when God returns the Jews that He dispersed into countries all over the world, back to the land He promised, “into your own land.” THEN, they will dwell in that “land I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I shall be your God.” THEN He will cleanse them, etc. Not at Pentecost, not even yet today in 2007. It has not happened yet. The return of Jews from many countries into that land has certainly occurred to a great extent, but they are all still secular Jews, not cleansed and not having a new heart or Spirit and not having God as their God.**

 

[NotWorthy]

Phil, you amaze me. Do you not see the New Israel, the New Covenant Church, in this text you cited?

Verses 16-22 talk of the Exile of Israel.

Verses 24 ** 24. "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land **talks of the birth of the New Israel. It begins at Pentecost in Acts 2:5 - Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem.

Then it talks of Baptism - C’mon Phil, even you’ve got to admit there are some striking similarities between Ezekiel’s and Peter’s Words. I call them “God-incidences”.

Verse 28 - "Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; - What is the New Covenant Church? The New Israel. This is the true promised land promised to Abraham.
**
29. *"I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. ***** Sounds like some of the teachings of Jesus to me. How many times does Jesus talk of a yield of 10-fold, 20-fold, 100-fold with the harvest?

---

31 - "Then** you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good; and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities and your abominations**. - Blessed our those who mourn - Matt. 5:4. What do we mourn, Phil? We mourn our sinful natures. Isaiah put it best, ***“Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

---

1. `Thus says the Lord God: *"On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will also enable you to dwell in the cities, and the ruins shall be rebuilt.
2. "The desolate land shall be tilled instead of lying desolate in the sight of all who pass by.
   It sounds like Ezekiel is talking about the New Israel - The Church.

---

***Phil, thanks for allowing me to show just how fully Peter shows that Ezekiel’s prophecy is being fulfilled. Although the New Israel is partially fulfilled here on earth, It is fully fulfilled in the Heavenly Kingdom.
**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**If we are not to do it in the order you have given (make disciples, baptize, and teach), do you think it proper to baptize nondisciples and just hope that they someday become disciples? What if they never do? What would be the purpose of that baptism, since when it was done, it was not be “a profession of one’s belonging to the body of Christ,” as you say it should be (below).

As for the age factor, I would agree that Christ’s instructions do not specify an age. Wouldn’t it simply be any age when a person can be made a disciple or believer? There may be middle-aged adults who are not mentally capable, and there may be very young children who are, so there could hardly be an age that could be specified.**

I agree with all you say until the last sentence. How can infant baptism be exactly the same? How is it “a profession of one’s belonging to the body of Christ”? The infant isn’t professing anything.

I think one problem that may keep you from hearing all I am saying is that I do not believe that once someone is saved that they cannot backslide. Thus a person who as an adult commits his life to Christ and comes to me seeking to be baptized is not by virtue of that profession of faith and baptism thereby guarnateed to be saved. What we in the church do is proclaim that God is active in his life and that if he himself remains faithful (matures as a faithful disciple) that he can be assured that God is faithful and will take him/her to God’s self.

Thus, if a child is baptized, once again the church proclaims that God is faithful and has already acted to save this child (at Calvary). The child need only to continue in the faith into which he/she is baptized, i.e. in the teaching Christ commanded us to perform. The child who does this (matures as a faithful disciple) can rest assured that God will take him/her to God’s self.

Now, what if the adult backslides or the child never matures in his/her faith? Well, God’s promises are nonetheless true, but we most continue to grow in them. Hearing the 4 spiritual laws, reciting the sinners, and prayer, and getting baptized does not a disciple make. It is part of the process of identifying one’s self with the discipleship community. When does one become a baseball player, when you first join little lieague but have never picked up a bat before? Or when one has learned to play the game and loves to do so? When does one become a disciple? When one enters the ranks of those who are seeking to grow in their level of discipleship, or when one shows the behaviors of discipleship? I think the answer is both, but they two different understandings of what it means to be a disciple, and most certainly two different levels of discipleship. But if one is doing all one can to faithfully live as a disciple whether infant, child or adult, then that ultimately is what it really means to be a disciple.

You said,

As for the age factor, I would agree that Christ’s instructions do not specify an age. Wouldn’t it simply be any age when a person can be made a disciple or believer?

And I remember that Jesus recommended that we have childlike faith. So, I think that this undeveloped faith so characteristic of childlike trusting may be all that is needed, and I believe even an infant possesses that. It then is our responsibility, the church community, to be faithful in helping him/her mature as a disciple.