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

[Porknpie]

I haven’t dodged you. I answered your question, and then explained why believers baptism is important and why infant baptism falls short of what is described in Scripture.

You want me to agree that there is no Scripture that forbids infant baptism. I acknowledged that. But that does not mean that infant baptism is what is intended in Scripture. We have to look at how baptism is described in the New Testament. It’s always accompanied by faith and repentance.

The New Testament is a Catholic Book. What one needs to do is look and read how baptism was described by The Church and read the bible in light of the apostolic faith guarded and protected by The Church. Scripture itself says to hold fast to what has been taught both by what is written and spoken.

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

As Origen points out, as others do as well, The Church was baptizing infants, long before it determined what was scripture.

:yup:

 

[mackbrislawn]

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

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.

I’m not sure which part you disagree with, except all of it, even though I don’t know what there is to disagree with. A lot of it is due to differences in fundamental assumptions; you are drawing conclusions from my statements I find really odd.

Anyway, I suppose a great sin is unbelief, but to repent of only unbelief I have never heard of before–this is a new one. It seems strange to me that one can repent of unbelief in something that one didn’t even know of to begin with Once one hears of Jesus and then disbelieves, that is one thing, but if one hears of Jesus and then believes, what is there to repent of except ones own sins (because all have sinned, even the Jews). That is what one repents of.

I suppose you disagree with baptism saving us and being an appeal for a clear conscience, but we already know of that disagreement since it is the point of the discussion.

Of course you can believe before you are born again. Believing isn’t what causes you to be born again, or from above. Baptism is what does that, and you get baptized because you believe and repent. If you don’t believe, of course one won’t get baptized. This makes a lot of sense. We believe in Jesus, have faith in Him because of the resurrection, and because we have faith we repent and obey Him and have our sins washed away in baptism, just like General Naaman had his leprous skin cleansed and made anew.

Can fleshly man believe? What kind of a question is that? Of course fleshly man can believe; after all, what other kind of man is there before belief? Why regenerate? Well, it is to cease being fleshly and to have eternal life. With baptism we are regenerated and become children of God. Does scripture say it is a seal of our profession of belief?

No, I’m not saying we can call Jesus Lord without the Spirit. Why do you ask?

But a question about infants…since they are not born spiritually alive and if they die in infancy, God must somehow regenerate them even without faith, since God doesn’t punish them for what Adam did?

 

[mackbrislawn]

benhur;12030736]
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.

Good for you, and the Mormons have a burning in their bosom as well. This above statement is good, however, in revealing how you think.
But, here is the question, what if you failed to be baptized? You would have been disobeying, would your justification then been valid?

Yes, Pope Stephen in 3rd century said baptism was for washing but not for receiving the Spirit/regeneration of the spirit.

That may have been his opinion, but not the Church’s. Even popes can have private opinions.

That is why today most churches, even yours, receive or validate other baptisms (again done in the name of the father …)

If the convert has already been baptized, he/she is not baptized again. If there is doubt, a conditional baptism would be performed…

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.

True, and baptism is the means, the way that the Blood of Cavalry is applied. It is not faith itself that does it, but faith that is acted upon in obedience to Jesus’ commands.

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.

Of course Paul was speaking to those already baptized, already saved. But if one denied, or failed to confess Jesus like many cowards did, salvation was not assured.
And the statement that baptism validates repentance, or is a symbol is not taken from scripture, but is derivative of certain theological opinions.

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.

Actually, scripture does say that. “If one believes and is baptized he will be saved, but the one that disbelieves will be condemned.”
Sure, baptism is an ordnance of the Lord. But the question is, why is it an ordnance of the Lord?

Cornelius was not run over,

No, Cornelius was not run over. And you’re right, if you believe, but get run over on the way to baptism, God, I am sure, will not hold it against you.

but no one has explained or even acknowledged that he was just like the apostles in spirituality/giftings before baptism,even without it.

Yes, for Cornelius and anyone, they can receive spiritual/giftings before baptism. Did someone say they couldn’t?

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 SWellpirit 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.
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. 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]

Do I follow the above bolded statement? It seems to say God picks an unregenerated person, regenerates him (apparently without his knowledge), and then makes it so he can say Jesus is Lord?

The underlined above…does scripture explain it that way? Or is that opinion?

I understand why you don’t like to confine, put in a box the wind of new life to simply a rite of water baptism. Now I begin to understand your misunderstanding. No, God isn’t confined to water baptism! We don’t mean to imply that, and it is unfortunate that has been the misunderstanding. You see, water baptism is simply the normative way God has set it up, as explained in scripture. This way, one doesn’t have to make up non-scriptural explanations of what baptism is…a confession, a seal, a symbol and so on.

 

[dronald]

The New Testament is a Catholic Book. What one needs to do is look and read how baptism was described by The Church and read the bible in light of the apostolic faith guarded and protected by The Church. Scripture itself says to hold fast to what has been taught both by what is written and spoken.

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

As Origen points out, as others do as well, The Church was baptizing infants, long before it determined what was scripture.

:yup:

Origen eh? About fifty years before that we have Tertullian make the same claim that what he received was passed down; and also relates this to Baptism:

The Chaplet Chapter 3
If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it.* For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down?** Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent.** To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism**. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel.
*

And of course his beliefs on Baptism are as follows:

***But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. Give to every one who begs you, has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully…
…. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; ****principally, however, in the case of little children. **For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.
Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.
*
And he ends with a very firm:

If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay

That may have been his opinion, but not the Church’s. Even popes can have private opinions.

That Pope should have paid better attention in Pope school.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That Pope should have paid better attention in Pope school.

Should/ve all right. I wonder what the context was.

 

[mackbrislawn]

lt

[QUOwin;12029024
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.

When I asked about “saving faith” I thought you might quote a bible verse that said, “Saving faith is…” but I guess not so the term “saving faith” is not in the bible, hence it is a man-made term.

But I agree with this definition, especially the parts in bold. I think they are key. “Saving faith,” to use the term, is a faith that is acted upon. It is a faith that does something. For instance, the paralytic’s friends acted upon their faith; they did something about it, namely going to the work of carrying him, digging through the roof and lowering him down. Also the woman that was bleeding, her faith told her that if only she could touch the hem of Jesus’ garment, she would be healed. So, she went to the work of doing so, and was healed by the power of Jesus. Jesus told her, “Your faith has saved you.” Of course Jesus meant in a manner of speaking, because it was the power of Jesus that healed her, not her faith itself. But she had what may be called “saving faith” because her faith was strong enough for her to overcome the obstacles in fulfilling her faith.

It is also a faith that confesses, even when under persecution or threat of being thrown to the lions, because “He who confesses with his mouth will be saved.”

However, in another sense there is no such thing as “saving faith” because as we all know, it is not faith that saves, it is Jesus who saves.

 

[mackbrislawn]

ltwin;12029024
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.

“We certainly must obey Christ.” That is a strong statement but apparently there is no consequence if we ignore some of Christ’s commands, such as the Quakers, et al, who deliberately disobey Christ. Hence, it must be concluded that we mustn’t obey Christ after all.

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?

We must not be on the same page here because I don’t make sense of the question, that is, it is a non sequitor.

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).

I thought you placed “means of grace” in quotes because it was a quotation from the Bible, and you would then cite the verse where “means of grace” was defined.
However, I certainly agree that baptism is a means by with the believer receives grace, God’s unmerited favor, because baptism is definitely unmerited by us all. We can do nothing ourselves to gain the graces we receive in baptism.

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?

Baptism is all of that, true enough. Although I disagree that we are baptized just to be obeying. I know that if one denies that “baptism save you now,” that another, non-biblical explanation for baptism needs to be generated…

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.

Again, baptism is all that. I especially agree that baptism is literally the funeral for the old man.

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.

This statement is not even wrong. Although the words “symbol” and “represent” might be misleading.

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.

It is through faith that we submit to baptism. Baptism is itself the appeal to God and God accomplishes the result because of our appeal. We know our appeal is secure because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[mackbrislawn]

ltwin;12029025

This is an odd statement.

You’re darned right it is an odd statement. It is my attempt to understand another, different, theology. I assume it is yours but maybe not, anyway, the way I understand it, once you are saved, you are saved. Assuming that, what else is there? You are going to heaven no matter what, so of what value are further graces? Do further graces get you into a better spot in heaven?

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.

Let me explain. To me, the OSAS doctrine seems to nullify the need to grow in grace. The bible, however, tells us to grow in grace, but why should we bother, if we are already locked into the track to heaven?

 

[Nicea325]

I haven’t dodged you. I answered your question, and then explained why believers baptism is important and why infant baptism falls short of what is described in Scripture.

You want me to agree that there is no Scripture that forbids infant baptism. I acknowledged that. But that does not mean that infant baptism is what is intended in Scripture. We have to look at how baptism is described in the New Testament. It’s always accompanied by faith and repentance.

We’re never told not to baptize infants in Scripture. But we’re also never told that baptism can be separate from faith and repentance either. We are told the opposite. There must be faith and repentance.

So according to you, God is not capable of reading the minds and hearts of parents wishing baptism for their child? God cannot know if two parents have faith and repentance? Your position places obstacles for countless of people who will never meet your requirements. Again, no where does the NT explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method…no where! You cannot state is the only acceptable method because no where is it even declared.

And I have told you historical writings outside the NT clearly mention infant baptism. Hence, according to you it is invalid and means nothing-right? In other words, those who mentioned infant baptism were wrong?

 

[ltwin]

lt
When I asked about “saving faith” I thought you might quote a bible verse that said, “Saving faith is…” but I guess not so the term “saving faith” is not in the bible, hence it is a man-made term.

Saving faith is simply faith that saves. There are those who know God but do not obey him (Romans 1:32; James 2:19).

But I agree with this definition, especially the parts in bold. I think they are key. “Saving faith,” to use the term, is a faith that is acted upon. It is a faith that does something. For instance, the paralytic’s friends acted upon their faith; they did something about it, namely going to the work of carrying him, digging through the roof and lowering him down. Also the woman that was bleeding, her faith told her that if only she could touch the hem of Jesus’ garment, she would be healed. So, she went to the work of doing so, and was healed by the power of Jesus. Jesus told her, “Your faith has saved you.” Of course Jesus meant in a manner of speaking, because it was the power of Jesus that healed her, not her faith itself. But she had what may be called “saving faith” because her faith was strong enough for her to overcome the obstacles in fulfilling her faith.

Yes, but all faith comes from God. It’s not something we can achieve apart from the Holy Spirit and Word of God. Active faith, saving faith, faith in action, is merely God working in us, so that man can boast in himself.

It is also a faith that confesses, even when under persecution or threat of being thrown to the lions, because “He who confesses with his mouth will be saved.”

However, in another sense there is no such thing as “saving faith” because as we all know, it is not faith that saves, it is Jesus who saves.

I think you’re missing the point. “Saving faith” is simply a useful term to distinguish what the Bible really means by faith and mere belief or lighthearted confession of Jesus Christ. Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord will enter heaven. There must true faith, saving faith.

“We certainly must obey Christ.” That is a strong statement but apparently there is no consequence if we ignore some of Christ’s commands, such as the Quakers, et al, who deliberately disobey Christ. Hence, it must be concluded that we mustn’t obey Christ after all.

I didn’t say it was right that Quakers, etc. do not obey Christ. I simply noted that most Protestants who are the subject of this thread (i.e. “born again Christians”) DO baptize those who declare that they have been born again, so the accusation that people are disobeying Christ by not being baptized really has nothing to do with the theology under discussion here.

We must not be on the same page here because I don’t make sense of the question, that is, it is a non sequitor.

You wrote in post, “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.”

Since born-again Christians do not teach that Christians should remain unbaptized, I can only assume that you are suggesting that born-again Christians are being disobedient to Christ’s command even though they teach that we need to be baptized because Christ commanded it.

I thought you placed “means of grace” in quotes because it was a quotation from the Bible, and you would then cite the verse where “means of grace” was defined."

Why would you think that? Is there a rule that we can only quote Scripture?

Baptism is all of that, true enough. Although I disagree that we are baptized just to be obeying. I know that if one denies that “baptism save you now,” that another, non-biblical explanation for baptism needs to be generated.

Baptism does save, but not the baptism in water. It is baptism into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit that saves us. Union with Christ by faith.

This statement is not even wrong. Although the words “symbol” and “represent” might be misleading.

I don’t think so. I think this is a nuance that Catholics often miss. When Protestants say that sacraments/ordinances are symbolic, we do not mean that they are merely symbolic. The Holy Spirit can be at work within the life of a believer during water baptism even though baptism does not literally wash away sins. It is wrong for anyone to say that there is no spiritual benefit at all to baptism. Where there is genuine faith on the part of the person being baptized, then the Holy Spirit is at work.

I am Pentecostal, and it is not unusual for people in my tradition to be visibly affected with joy, praise, shouts, and tears when they are baptized. This is simply an external and emotional response to the Holy Spirit’s blessing and work. This makes perfect sense to us, because water baptism is instituted by Christ himself and the Holy Spirit is present to supply whatever the believer needs in Christ.

It is through faith that we submit to baptism.

So, faith precedes baptism or does baptism give us faith? And how is this true of infants, who do not submit to baptism personally?

Baptism is itself the appeal to God and God accomplishes the result because of our appeal. We know our appeal is secure because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But what if someone is being baptized without the intention of appealing to God for a good conscience?

 

[ltwin]

You’re darned right it is an odd statement. It is my attempt to understand another, different, theology. I assume it is yours but maybe not, anyway, the way I understand it, once you are saved, you are saved. Assuming that, what else is there? You are going to heaven no matter what, so of what value are further graces? Do further graces get you into a better spot in heaven?

This thread is about the general evangelical belief that salvation comes by responding to the Holy Spirit’s calling through the proclamation of the Word of God with saving faith and repentance that leads to verbal confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior (i.e. conversion).

Not everyone who adheres to the above understanding of conversion believes that initial conversion alone guarantees you a place in heaven. You are only assured salvation to the extent that you persevere in faith and repentance.

Even though salvation is not assured by initial conversion alone (there is the possibility of backsliding and losing one’s faith), it is Scriptural to say that those who have repented of their sins are “saved.”

Let me explain. To me, the OSAS doctrine seems to nullify the need to grow in grace. The bible, however, tells us to grow in grace, but why should we bother, if we are already locked into the track to heaven?

To me, once saved, always saved is unbiblical.

 

[ltwin]

So according to you, God is not capable of reading the minds and hearts of parents wishing baptism for their child? God cannot know if two parents have faith and repentance? Your position places obstacles for countless of people who will never meet your requirements. Again, no where does the NT explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method…no where! You cannot state is the only acceptable method because no where is it even declared.

Baptism has nothing to do with the wishes and desires of the parents. It’s not a decision that parent’s can make. Parent’s can’t give faith to their children. Parent’s cannot make their children repent. Parents cannot die to sin on behalf of their children. Parents cannot rise with Christ through faith on behalf of their children. Parents cannot confess with their mouths and believe in their hearts that Christ is Lord and that he rose from the dead for their children. Salvation is not about what our parents can do for us, but what Christ has done.

The mercy and grace that God bestows on infants has everything to do with Christ and his merit. It is not contingent upon the actions of the parents.

And I have told you historical writings outside the NT clearly mention infant baptism. Hence, according to you it is invalid and means nothing-right? In other words, those who mentioned infant baptism were wrong?

Wrong theologically, yes.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So according to you, God is not capable of reading the minds and hearts of parents wishing baptism for their child? God cannot know if two parents have faith and repentance? Your position places obstacles for countless of people who will never meet your requirements. Again, no where does the NT explicitly state your position is the ONLY acceptable method…no where! You cannot state is the only acceptable method because no where is it even declared.

Itwin:

Baptism has nothing to do with the wishes and desires of the parents. It’s not a decision that parent’s can make. Parent’s can’t give faith to their children.

Do you feel the same about an education Itwin? Should we allow children to “decide” on their own, when they are ready to receive an education? So according to your position, parents do not have any say in matters of education for a child. Again, your position creates serious obstacles. So if a parent has a 9 year old who is seriously challenged mentally, he or she cannot desire baptism for the child? You mean God will reject it because the child is not capable of having faith? Your position assumes what God will accept or not accept.

Parent’s cannot make their children repent.

And you cannot expect everyone to adhere or meet your position as the only acceptable method. You have yet to answer me: Is your position the only acceptable method? Where is it stated Itwin?

Parents cannot die to sin on behalf of their children. Parents cannot rise with Christ through faith on behalf of their children. Parents cannot confess with their mouths and believe in their hearts that Christ is Lord and that he rose from the dead for their children. Salvation is not about what our parents can do for us, but what Christ has done.

Ahhh…no is saying salvation comes through parents. But I believe you are in grave error,because as stated you put forks in the road.

The mercy and grace that God bestows on infants has everything to do with Christ and his merit. It is not contingent upon the actions of the parents.

So then what gives you indisputable evidence baptism for a child will be void or rejected by God? Why? Because it is ONLY valid according to your position? Again, where is it stated your position is only acceptabe to God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And I have told you historical writings outside the NT clearly mention infant baptism. Hence, according to you it is invalid and means nothing-right? In other words, those who mentioned infant baptism were wrong?

Wrong theologically, yes.

I beg to differ. The fact you belong to one denomination out of thousands and with different teachings of baptism, I conclude your method is NOT the only valid method…theologically.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

PRmerger:

This, too, is contradicted by Scripture.

The inspired writer, St. Peter, tells us that “baptism saves you now” 1 Peter 3:21

He’s not talking about water baptism.

I haven’t finished reading through the thread yet, so if this has already been addressed then I apologize, but I had to comment on this.

Let’s look at what St. Peter says in this passage:

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

(1 Peter 3:18-22)

How can you say that St. Peter is not talking about water baptism when he expressly connects “baptism, which saves you now” to the story of Noah’s ark, in which eight people “were saved through water”? He explicitly states that this event, where eight people “were saved through water” prefigured baptism. If he is not talking about water baptism as you claim, he sure picked the most misleading and confusing way possible to “not talk about water baptism” by referencing an event in which people were saved through water–actual water that flooded the earth for 40 days, not water in the sense of a spiritual metaphor.

 

[benhur]

Source for this, please?

He made the ruling of allowing other baptisms (of other christian churches or lapsed ones etc.). don’t remember source except it was a jesuit historian.

 

[ltwin]

Do you feel the same about an education Itwin? Should we allow children to “decide” on their own, when they are ready to receive an education? So according to your position, parents do not have any say in matters of education for a child.

Of course parents have a say in the education of their child. They can enroll them in school as early as possible. They can provide a stable home life and an environment conducive to learning and human growth. They can study with them, make sure they are doing their homework, and keep in contact with their teachers in order to make sure their children are doing well in school.

What they can’t do is make them learn. They can’t take the spelling test for their child. The child has to learn.

Likewise, parents can commit to raise their children in the fear of the Lord. They can start by being committed to Christ themselves, providing role models for their children. They can create a home that is centered on Christian principles and surround themselves with family and friends who model Christian life. They can be faithful members of the church, providing their children with all the tools and blessings of the fellowship of the church. They can teach them how to pray, encourage them early to know the Word, and who Jesus is. They can do all these things. Proactively providing them with a knowledge of God and showing them what it means to trust in the Lord.

Again, your position creates serious obstacles. So if a parent has a 9 year old who is seriously challenged mentally, he or she cannot desire baptism for the child? You mean God will reject it because the child is not capable of having faith? Your position assumes what God will accept or not accept.

No. My position is that God does not “accept us” on the basis of whether our parents decide they want us to be Christian or not. God accepts us freely out of love, whether our parents are Christians or not. My position is not that baptized infants are rejected. Neither is my position that unbaptized infants are rejected. My position is that infant baptism has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of how God relates to infants and those in similar situations (such as the severely mentally challenged).

And you cannot expect everyone to adhere or meet your position as the only acceptable method. You have yet to answer me: Is your position the only acceptable method? Where is it stated Itwin?

I’m not expecting anyone to do anything. You don’t answer to me. I am explaining why for many Christians infant baptism is not Scriptural baptism.

Ahhh…no is saying salvation comes through parents. But I believe you are in grave error,because as stated you put forks in the road.

Well, it seems that it’s the logical conclusion. By a decision to baptize their children, parents are enabling God to remove original sin and save the souls of infants.

If I’m being unfair to the Catholic position, that’s not my intention. That is simply the impression I gather from the discussion.

So then what gives you indisputable evidence baptism for a child will be void or rejected by God? Why? Because it is ONLY valid according to your position? Again, where is it stated your position is only acceptabe to God?

It’s not about rejection by God. Water baptism is not the measure by which infants are accepted by God. Infants have no control over whether they are baptized or not. It has no effect on them whatsoever.

I beg to differ. The fact you belong to one denomination out of thousands and with different teachings of baptism, I conclude your method is NOT the only valid method…theologically.

And thus we come to an impasse.

 

[Nicea325]

Of course parents have a say in the education of their child. They can enroll them in school as early as possible. They can provide a stable home life and an environment conducive to learning and human growth. They can study with them, make sure they are doing their homework, and keep in contact with their teachers in order to make sure their children are doing well in school.

What they can’t do is make them learn. They can’t take the spelling test for their child. The child has to learn.

Likewise, parents can commit to raise their children in the fear of the Lord. They can start by being committed to Christ themselves, providing role models for their children. They can create a home that is centered on Christian principles and surround themselves with family and friends who model Christian life. They can be faithful members of the church, providing their children with all the tools and blessings of the fellowship of the church. They can teach them how to pray, encourage them early to know the Word, and who Jesus is. They can do all these things. Proactively providing them with a knowledge of God and showing them what it means to trust in the Lord.

No. My position is that God does not “accept us” on the basis of whether our parents decide they want us to be Christian or not. God accepts us freely out of love, whether our parents are Christians or not. My position is not that baptized infants are rejected. Neither is my position that unbaptized infants are rejected. My position is that infant baptism has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of how God relates to infants and those in similar situations (such as the severely mentally challenged).

I’m not expecting anyone to do anything. You don’t answer to me. I am explaining why for many Christians infant baptism is not Scriptural baptism.

Well, it seems that it’s the logical conclusion. By a decision to baptize their children, parents are enabling God to remove original sin and save the souls of infants.

If I’m being unfair to the Catholic position, that’s not my intention. That is simply the impression I gather from the discussion.

It’s not about rejection by God. Water baptism is not the measure by which infants are accepted by God. Infants have no control over whether they are baptized or not. It has no effect on them whatsoever.

And thus we come to an impasse.

One more time, kindly show me where your position is the ONLY acceptable method for baptism from the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

He made the ruling of allowing other baptisms (of other christian churches or lapsed ones etc.). don’t remember source except it was a jesuit historian.

Unless you can provide your source for your claim, I am going to ask that you retract that statement that Pope Stephen said “baptism was for washing but not for receiving the Spirit/regeneration of the spirit.”

 

[PRmerger]

I haven’t finished reading through the thread yet, so if this has already been addressed then I apologize,

It was not addressed.

but I had to comment on this.

Let’s look at what St. Peter says in this passage:

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

(1 Peter 3:18-22)

How can you say that St. Peter is not talking about water baptism when he expressly connects “baptism, which saves you now” to the story of Noah’s ark, in which eight people “were saved through water”? He explicitly states that this event, where eight people “were saved through water” prefigured baptism. If he is not talking about water baptism as you claim, he sure picked the most misleading and confusing way possible to “not talk about water baptism” by referencing an event in which people were saved through water–actual water that flooded the earth for 40 days, not water in the sense of a spiritual metaphor.

Indeed.

If it’s not water baptism, it certainly is talking about a type of baptism that uses a substance that can remove dirt, as well as something that Noah’s ark floated in.

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism has nothing to do with the wishes and desires of the parents.

This is in direct contrast to the entire body of Scripture, which has numerous examples of the wishes and desires of parents/siblings/the Church community/friends effecting some sort of salvation/covenant/healing/positive outcome on another.

It’s not a decision that parent’s can make.

This is in direct contrast to our life experience. Parents make life and death decisions in all areas of their child’s life. Why should a decision regarding the child’s eternal life be any different?

Parent’s can’t give faith to their children. Parent’s cannot make their children repent.

This is very Catholic!

Parents cannot die to sin on behalf of their children. Parents cannot rise with Christ through faith on behalf of their children. Parents cannot confess with their mouths and believe in their hearts that Christ is Lord and that he rose from the dead for their children.

I don’t know about all of the above.

I haven’t read a single verse in Scripture that says any of the above.

In fact, I do know that Scripture does state that we can save others, so I don’t see why any of the above would be true.

Salvation is not about what our parents can do for us, but what Christ has done.

Well, the good old Catholic both/and is at work here.

Christ did it. And when our parents join their sufferings to His Atoning Death, well, miracles happen.

The mercy and grace that God bestows on infants has everything to do with Christ and his merit

Amen!

It is not contingent upon the actions of the parents.

This simply flies in the face of reality.

Just like if a parent doesn’t vaccinate his son against polio, he’s not going to be immunized against that virus.

The baby’s immunity and physical health is contingent upon the actions of the parents.

That’s how everything is in life. Why would spiritual life be any different?