So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[PRmerger]

He’s not talking about water baptism.

What other type of baptism is he talking about that saves you?

(Please note how water is referenced when he says: “not the removal of dirt”. That is something that is done by…water, yes?)

I never said they were excluded from the preaching. My point is that it is hard to “receive” something that you can’t even understand.

That’s begging the question, ltwin.

Infants indeed receive a lot of things without understanding. They receive immunizations. They receive love. They receive…baptism.

When Acts 16:34 states that the Philippian jailer “rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God” are infants included in those who rejoiced?

No. Infants can’t rejoice. But they can receive things.

If the plain meaning of Scripture is that every time “household” and “baptism” are mentioned in the same sentence it signifies that infants were also baptized, then it must also be true when Scripture says that households rejoiced

Sure. And to the degree that each individual in the household is capable of [fill in the blank with the particular verb], they are included.

The question is: why can’t infants receive baptism, based on their parents’ wishes?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve already addressed this.

I am sorry–I am unclear about your position as when a toddler who is in heaven became regenerated? Could you please reiterate? Thanks.

No. Please refer to what I’ve already written several times on this thread:

It is simply the logical conclusion that is being drawn by your position.

If you believe that someone can get to heaven when he’s 5 years old and he is not a Christian (your words) then…

 

[PRmerger]

And what is it that a consenting individual does at water baptism ? most baptisms I have been to the person confesses a saving faith in Christ. Before they go under. I have not attended a Catholic baptism so do they confess anything,or have to believe anything ? i am talking about children of age or adults. Would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut on Catholic sacrament ritual wording .

Children of age or adults who are baptized in the Catholic Church make a profession of faith.

Then, they are claimed by Christ and an indelible mark is placed on their soul.

And the universe is changed forever.

Magnificent!

 

[PRmerger]

Albert Mohler and Daniel L. Aken explain it like this:

First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed “in the body.”[2 Corinthians 5:10] That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes.
​

This is very Catholic.

Perhaps these authors were unfamiliar with Catholic teaching on this? For it seems that they are implying that there are some religions (Catholicism ??) that teaches that we are judged on our Original Sin?

(If they aren’t referencing (a misconstrued) Catholicism, whatever could they mean by saying we are not judged on the basis of original sin?)​

 

[PRmerger]

The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who “have no knowledge of good or evil” because of their age. These “little ones” would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.

These “little ones”, I presume, were part of the covenant, yes? Made so by…their parents’ actions. They were circumcized as babies, yes? (Males, of course. )

 

[ltwin]

This statement is the crux. Right here. It also defines the term “saving faith.” Because saving faith is otherwise a very nebulous term. What is saving faith? It is faith that leads to obedience, of course. Without saving faith there is no salvation.

Saving faith, in theologian Wayne Grudem’s words, is “trust in Jesus Christ as a living person for forgiveness of sins and for eternal life with God.” Saving faith is distinguished from simple belief in that it is possible to believe that something is true without there being any personal commitment or dependence involved. Saving faith is seen in John 1:12 which says, “To all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.” John speaks not simply of believing Jesus but of receiving him like we would receive a guest in our homes.

In Matthew 11:28-30, Christ says “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me . . .” In this verse, we have the idea of coming to Christ to ask for acceptance, rest, and instruction. This is not merely intellectual belief but personal trust in a living savior. This is saving faith.

Going hand in hand with saving faith is repentance, which is, in Grudem’s words, “heartfelt sorrow for sin, a renouncing of it, and a sincere commitment to forsake it and walk in obedience to Christ.” As Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.” Faith and repentance are inseparable.

While conversion consists of initial faith and repentance,faith and repentance persist in the Christian life. There can be no genuine Christianity where saving faith and true repentance are absent.

Good enough, but the above quote contains a strange statement: “Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is necessary for obedience”! But how can we be saved without obedience? And if we are not baptized we have not obeyed! Therefore, without baptism there is no salvation! Jesus has commanded baptism simply because that is the way He has made it. It is not an arbitrary command.

We certainly must obey Christ. If we love him, we will keep his commandments, summed up as loving God first and second loving our neighbors as ourselves. But our salvation is not predicated on our perfection and ability to do everything right. That is why we are saved by grace through faith.

Unbaptized Christians should be rare. Besides Quakers, the Salvation Army and some other groups, I know of no Christian groups who willfully forego water baptism. Evangelical churches generally baptize new converts. Some do so with more urgency than others, but they do baptize.

Sure, one who has “saving faith” and has the intention of being baptized but dies beforehand, that will be counted to him as righteousness, but if one says he does not need to be baptized, that means his faith is not saving faith because he is not obeying Jesus, but is listening to something else.

So, someone who has obeyed Jesus by being baptized, yet does not believe that baptism itself saved him does not have saving faith according to you despite the fact that he has been baptized? Doesn’t that negate your belief that baptism saves?

“Means of grace” is in quotes. From where does the quote come? Scripture? Nope.

The term “means of grace” is fairly commonplace theological jargon. I placed it in quotes because it is not a term that I normally use to describe baptism, yet it’s fairly accurate in that baptism is a means by which the believer receives grace (God’s unmerited favor).

And how does baptism bring spiritual benefits to believers? Does scripture tell us about those?

First, Jesus commanded baptism. Blessing is always accompanies obedience. Baptism is a public act of confession of Jesus as savior. How could such an act not result in the favor and blessing of God?

Second, water baptism is a sign of death and resurrection in Christ (Romans 6:2-5; Colossians 2:12). In baptism, through the work of the Holy Spirit, our faith is increased as is the realization of our death to the power of sin in our lives and our awareness of the power of our new life in Christ. Baptism is literally the funeral for the old man. There is an extraordinary blessing for the believer in knowing that the sins, baggage and bondage of his old life are buried forever when he rises with Christ through faith in baptism.

Third, water baptism is an outward symbol of the inward spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. Therefore, we would expect the Holy Spirit to be actively at work during baptism giving believers greater awareness of the inward work that baptism represents.

Colossians 2:12 states: “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.” The phrase “through faith” makes it clear that it is not the act of baptism itself that accomplishes this result, but it also indicates that where genuine faith accompanies baptism the Holy Spirit is really at work in the life of the believer.

Continued in next post

 

[ltwin]

Continued from previous post

Why does one need God’s favor and blessing since one is already saved? What more is there? All this strikes me as ad hoc statements to try to explain baptism in a non-scriptural manner…

This is an odd statement. The entire Christian life is only made possible by grace. As Paul said, “But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:9).

The Scriptures also clearly speak of growing in grace. Paul describes believers beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled faces and “being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

We are told to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Furthermore, we are instructed to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Besides baptism, means of grace include teaching the Word, the Lord’s Supper, prayer for one another, worship, church discipline, giving, spiritual gifts, Christian fellowship, evangelism, and personal ministry to individuals.

You’re right, we don’t know. I suppose, since the child is impure, we have to teach the child right away it is sinful, so it can ask for forgiveness. Yes?

Proverbs 22:6 says to train a child up in the way he should go and when older he will not depart from it.

 

[ltwin]

What other type of baptism is he talking about that saves you?

(Please note how water is referenced when he says: “not the removal of dirt”. That is something that is done by…water, yes?)

I’ll just refer to what I wrote in post #14, so as not to sound like a broken record.

That’s begging the question, ltwin.

Infants indeed receive a lot of things without understanding. They receive immunizations. They receive love. They receive…baptism.

No. Infants can’t rejoice. But they can receive things.

Sure. And to the degree that each individual in the household is capable of [fill in the blank with the particular verb], they are included.

All I’m saying is that it’s a stretch to think that the household argument is some kind of smoking gun. To say that infants must be included in baptism because the word “household” is used and that no other interpretation is logical only makes sense if you’ve already decided that the Apostles must have thought infant baptism made sense. It’s just a fact that to a Protestant who believes in believers baptism, the word “household” is not a strong case on which to argue for the New Testament origins of infant baptism.

The question is: why can’t infants receive baptism, based on their parents’ wishes?

Well, they can. That’s not the important question to me. The important questions from my perspective are what does baptism mean and was infant baptism practiced in New Testament times?

I am sorry–I am unclear about your position as when a toddler who is in heaven became regenerated? Could you please reiterate? Thanks.

It is simply the logical conclusion that is being drawn by your position.

If you believe that someone can get to heaven when he’s 5 years old and he is not a Christian (your words) then…

I don’t think we’re on same page. I believe that persons who die in infancy can be saved even though they never lived long enough to hear the gospel preached, to understand it and respond to it by placing their trust in Jesus Christ. They are saved by the grace of God and not because of any decision their parents made to baptize or not to baptize them. I would not considered such persons to be “non Christians” in heaven. Rather they are born again, washed in the blood.

When or how exactly this regeneration would take place, I can’t say. Yet, Scripture does indicate that it is possible for children to be born again even in the womb.

These “little ones”, I presume, were part of the covenant, yes? Made so by…their parents’ actions. They were circumcized as babies, yes? (Males, of course. )

Yes, but it’s not really relevant. The children were not saved because they were circumcised but because they lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

One of the false aspects about the notion of accepting Christ as our “personal Lord and Savior” is it implies that we have the last word in regards to our salvation.

Two things did not happen at Calvary. One, or free will was not taken away from us, and two, we were not given the last word.

Now, Christ is Lord, and He will be the decider. He will sort out and separate the goats from the sheep.

The way I interpret the notion of “Personal Lord and Savior” is it implies we are free to interpret scripture for ourselves. Meaning, we can take from scripture what we want and that is God speaking to us in a personal way.

Well, if that is not the case, then how do we come to grips with the notion that there are over 30,000 different interpretations with so many denominations? Is that really the intention? I do not think so.

Of course it is great to have a personal relationship and we find that through our brothers and sisters that are members of the ONE BODY. That is the way I see it.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRmerger
No one is arguing either that infants were being preached to, so it’s curious for you to mention that.

Itwin:
And yet that is how the “households” ended up being baptized.

Yes…adults. And why? Because they were the first converts, no cradle Christians existed. Again your position automatically assumes young children and infants were excluded. That is pure conjecture for you to believe it was the ONLY acceptable method. No where does the NT teach baptism is strictly without a shred of doubt for those only capable of using reason or having faith to believe.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Nope! Because in order for your position to hold more validity, as stated, once again, early church writings outside the NT would mention it as the “norm” for baptism. Do you possess writings outside the NT supporting your position as the ONLY standard? And again, it is not assuming every time a NT writer mentions households infants were NOT included. Your position is basically affirming it as a fact that infants were excluded. And I’ll say it again:

Do you have sources outside the NT stating infants and young children were NOT part of the household?

Do you have sources showing a young child being baptized ONLY after he believed?

Itwin:
I don’t need sources that say infants were not part of Jewish households because that is not what I’m arguing. No one is arguing that infants were not part of households. What I am arguing is that given the context of the passages in question, it is a safe assumption that infants were not being preached to or baptized.

Again, you are presenting it as an indisputable fact infants and young children were excluded. What evidence do you have to even suggest such a belief?

The passages are evangelistic in tone. They are accounts of households being preached to and then responding with conversion. Infants would be part of the household, but they would not be the ones being preached to and converted.

And how do you know? Where is your evidence to even believe they were not being preached to? You are trying to make something a fact without any concrete evidence. One more time, if your position is the only method, I find it so odd it goes totally unmentioned,scripturally and historically.

It would be like saying, “My family votes Republican.” If I say that, it could mean that 2 year olds in my family vote for Republican political candidates, but I most likely am not referring to babies voting in elections because no 2 year old is politically active. In the same way, infants are not capable of understanding the gospel, responding in faith and making the conscious decision to be baptized and take on the commitments inherent in baptism.

Bad comparison, this is not politics. It is more like:

I am not giving my child a bath because he or she has no clue what it does and it is purpose.

So tell me, do you believe babies should not be given a bath until they “believe” why we must take a shower?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And like I said, you got an example anywhere where a young child was baptized ONLY after he or she believed?

Itwin:
Well, I certainly don’t have an example in Scripture where a child was baptized when they were too young to believe. Later on, at least one prominent Christian figure, Tertullian, was not in favor of infant baptism. That is an indication that not every early Christian was unanimous on the issue.

To “young” to believe? And I asked you before, what exactly is the age in order to believe? The fact that you turned the table absolutely confirms you have no evidence, not even implicitly. No where is your position even hinted historically as the only acceptable standard. There is much more weight with the Catholic/Orthodox position because the simple term of “household” is all that is needed to believe that young children and infants were in a probabilities baptized and NOT excluded. Your position holds: They could not be baptized until they first believed.

And if that were the case, I do believe somewhere in Scripture it would have been clear, if your position is the only acceptable method. Sadly, no where is stated a young child was baptized only AFTER he or she believed.

As for Tertullian? Tertullian was not Protestant and he was one man,not the voice of the entire church. And yet Tertullian still adhered to the will of the church and unlike reformers who adhere to their own opinions and agendas.

 

[ltwin]

Yes…adults. And why? Because they were the first converts, no cradle Christians existed. Again your position automatically assumes young children and infants were excluded. That is pure conjecture for you to believe it was the ONLY acceptable method. No where does the NT teach baptism is strictly without a shred of doubt for those only capable of using reason or having faith to believe.

All throughout Scripture baptism is connected to repentance and faith. Scriptural baptism is always accompanied by repentance and faith. So, yes, the New Testament makes the ability to repent and have faith crucial to baptism.

Again, you are presenting it as an indisputable fact infants and young children were excluded. What evidence do you have to even suggest such a belief?

It is based on what Scripture says about baptism, that repentance and faith are crucial elements to it. It is based on the fact that no where is infant baptism mentioned, and the fact that while many Christians claim “household” refers to infant baptism that is not conclusive one way or another.

And how do you know? Where is your evidence to even believe they were not being preached to? You are trying to make something a fact without any concrete evidence. One more time, if your position is the only method, I find it so odd it goes totally unmentioned,scripturally and historically.

Bad comparison, this is not politics. It is more like:

I am not giving my child a bath because he or she has no clue what it does and it is purpose.

It’s not a bad comparison. You’re making a comparison about baptism. I’m making a comparison about the way “household” applies to infants.

So tell me, do you believe babies should not be given a bath until they “believe” why we must take a shower?

No. I believe people should not be baptized until, according to Scripture, they repent and have faith.

To “young” to believe? And I asked you before, what exactly is the age in order to believe? The fact that you turned the table absolutely confirms you have no evidence, not even implicitly. No where is your position even hinted historically as the only acceptable standard. There is much more weight with the Catholic/Orthodox position because the simple term of “household” is all that is needed to believe that young children and infants were in a probabilities baptized and NOT excluded. Your position holds: They could not be baptized until they first believed.

And if that were the case, I do believe somewhere in Scripture it would have been clear, if your position is the only acceptable method. Sadly, no where is stated a young child was baptized only AFTER he or she believed.

And nowhere in Scripture is it stated that infants were baptized. Everything in Scripture points to believer’s baptism. Interpreting “household” to mean infants were baptized is not a strong enough basis on which to ignore those points.

As for Tertullian? Tertullian was not Protestant

And??? Does someone have to be Protestant to be right? Why didn’t you just tell me that earlier.

 

[benhur]

Children of age or adults who are baptized in the Catholic Church make a profession of faith.

Then, they are claimed by Christ and an indelible mark is placed on their soul.

And the universe is changed forever.

Magnificent!

Thank you .Protestants do the same profession of faith before baptism

 

[benhur]

In another post you said we are all born impure in sin. Therefore even a baby is impure, and hence cannot meet the pure God. That is a dilemma we confront if we believe God is all good and just.

Yeah maybe i was not succint .We are born separated form God. We are not born spiritually alive. But as pointed out by others god knows how to judge babies who have not committed sins yet .They are not punished for what Adam did

You ask, do you get baptized and then believe in the One and receive eternal life? I’m not sure what is meant. I have said before, we believe, and then because we believe we repent, which means leaving our sinful past behind; but because our sinful past remains on us no matter what we do ourselves, we have to have it removed by Jesus, which He does by His commandment of baptism.

Disagree. Our great sin is unbelief. That is what we repent of . Baptism does not do that but seals that(faith/repentance, with profession. … The 3000 at pentecost repented not of corporal sins but of unbelief, even crucifying the One whom the Father sent…Again can you believe before you are born again ? You say you are not born again until water baptized yet you agree one has faith in Jesus before baptism .That doesn’t make sense. You are saying the fleshly man can believe . Then why regenerate ? You already believe and have eternal life accordingly ?
You are saying you can call Jesus Lord with out the Spirit.

 

[PRmerger]

The children were not saved because they were circumcised but because they lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

Actually, Scripture isn’t clear on that, either. (Go figure. Another example of Scripture being unclear, and fallible individuals being left to argue what it means. If only there were a way to be sure what God intended…Oh wait! In the Catholic model, there is!)

What I read it as saying is that they were saved because they were circumcised (and part of the covenant) AND lacked the knowledge of good and evil.

 

[sallybutler]

Acts 16:14 One of them was Lydia from Thyatira, a merchant of expensive purple cloth, who worshipped God. As she listened to us, the Lord opened her heart, and she accepted what Paul was saying. 15 She was baptized along with other members of her household, and she asked us to be her guests.

Note that nothing is said about the others hearing what she heard. So were they baptized without hearing about Jesus, having faith, and receiving salvation?

Also, later in the chapter, the jailer’s household did not rejoice until AFTER they were baptized.

Baptism is the beginning of the journey, not the end.

 

[benhur]

Scripture says repent and be baptized.

Scripture says many things. It says be perfect. Are we ? Yes repent and be baptized. What does that mean ? I repented and was baptized. But I tell you I was born again, regenerated, justified BEFORE my water baptism.

Then, because you have faith you realize you are impure in sin, and Jesus will remove or wash away these sins by baptism. Scripture is clear on this.

Yes, Pope Stephen in 3rd century said baptism was for washing but not for receiving the Spirit/regeneration of the spirit. That is why today most churches, even yours, receive or validate other baptisms (again done in the name of the father …) even though they disagree with pope’s logic for she now teaches that baptism is regenerative. My experience is that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, that faith, a gift, in the Blood of Calvary cleanses one, justifies one, puts ones name in the book of life having eternal life. Paul states that with confession of this ,with the mouth, our salvation is sealed, which is what baptism does. Baptism validates repentance, blood washing by or symbolized by water washing.

“We are regenerated first by faith.” Not exactly. It is because we have faith that we want to be regenerated by the way Jesus has commanded, baptism. Why baptism? I don’t know, you have to ask Jesus.

Nowhere in scripture does it say one who believes and is not baptized does not have eternal life. No where does it say one who is not baptized does not have eternal life. One who does not believe does not have life. Again i believe in baptism, as an ordinance of the Lord. We just disagree on why.

Of course, if we are run over by a chariot or captured and thrown to the lions on our way to baptism, God will take that into account. Just like Cornelius and Abraham, God can count it as righteousness.

Cornelius was not run over, but no one has explained or even acknowledged that he was just like the apostles in spirituality/giftings before baptism,even without it.

Can a dead spirit gladly receive the word of the The Lord? I guess so, or how else could any spirit receive the word of The Lord? All spirits are dead aren’t they? For, all have sinned!

Well, think a bit without rushing . That is like saying a baby is born quite painlessly and peacefully. NOT !!! The key word is ‘‘gladly" . The flesh is not glad about anything in the gospel. I am not talking about "conviction’’ which is the most or closest the Spirit gets to our flesh.That is from the “outside”, but to say Jesus is Lord can only be done by the Spirit of God on the inside, in a regenerated person. The bible say He quickens our spirit (our dead spirit). Quicken, to make alive so as to receive, form the Lord, lest any man boast in himself. …The Pentecost 3000 now gladly followed Christ and were baptized . What happened, for just weeks ago they crucified Him. No, with Peter’s preaching they went straight from Holy Conviction to Holy Belief via regeneration and gladly were baptized.

Cornelius? Jesus can send the Holy Spirit as He wills.

Agreed which is why I don’t like to confine, to put in a box, this wind of new life simply to a "rite’’ of water baptism.

Enmity between fleshly man and God? I suppose so, that is why God wants us all to be washed clean.

Yes and how ? That is why we need a new man, to be born again by God himself so that we can now love Him and have peace declared between us.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll just refer to what I wrote in post #14, so as not to sound like a broken record.

Thank you for the link.
I see that you did talk about 1 Peter 3:21 in post #14, but you did not answer my question there.

What type of baptism is Peter talking about again, if not water baptism? And how is this baptism that you think he’s referencing done in contrast to water, which cleans dirt from the body?

 

[PRmerger]

Cornelius was not run over, but no one has explained or even acknowledged that he was just like the apostles in spirituality/giftings before baptism,even without it.

What you are proposing, it seems, regarding Cornelius, is that he was regenerated BEFORE he actually heard the gospel

I am astonished at this claim, benhur.

That means that there are a whole bunch of Muslims, Zoroastors, Buddhists, etc who are regenerated without ever hearing a word of the gospel according to you.

 

[PRmerger]

Agreed which is why I don’t like to confine, to put in a box, this wind of new life simply to a "rite’’ of water baptism.

I am curious. Would you accept this kind of thinking from your daughter*, if one substituted “marriage” for “baptism”?

That is, if she said she didn’t like confining and putting her relationship to her boyfriend in a box, and that there was a “wind of new life” without acceding to a “rite” of marriage?

She just wants to live with her boyfriend, as if they were married, without the “rite” of marriage.

Would you be ok with that?

• (let’s just say you have a daughter who’s of marrying age)