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

[PRmerger]

As I’ve said before, it is the baptism into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, which occurs when we have faith and repent of our sins, appealing to God for a clean conscience.

That doesn’t explain how it’s NOT water baptism.

How does the baptism you’re referring to address the fact that it doesn’t wash dirt from the skin, and how it doesn’t reference water from Noah’s ark?

The above explanation you’ve given makes no sense when it is attached to “not as a removal of dirt from the body”. That sounds suspiciously like a reference to…

water.

As does " when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water" which also sounds suspiciously like a reference to…

water.

Especially since it even goes so far as to actually mention…

water.

So I am astonished that anyone could read the above and not think of…

water.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s saying that the sponsor may come to see the little child for whom they stood for develop an evil disposition.

Meaning…what, exactly?

 

[PRmerger]

to me they are the same: conversion= born again= regenerated= born of of the spirit as opposed top born of the flesh=to be “righteous”=justified=perfect. These are all synonyms for being in the one of only two camps in this life. Either you are son of the serpent or son of adam and eve, carriers of the first promise(as per genesis, “her (eve) seed and your (serpent) seed”.) Just as there will be two camps in the afterlife :those united and one with God and those eternally separated from God.

So when was Cornelius regenerated?

 

[benhur]

Perhaps if you could answer the question in a sentence or two:

What type of baptism is it that St. Peter is talking about if it’s NOT water baptism?

If he does speak of water baptism, it still does not change my view of the symbolism of it or that it is a confession of faith, not for faith or for saving . The 8 were not literally saved by water though the earth was cleansed. They were saved by the Ark. Just as we are saved by the Lord and specifically Peter says by His resurrection. If water was a symbol for Noah so it is for us in water baptism, though the water is very real. Some say the saving is more of a vindication as noah was vindicated by water indeed coming like never before, just as he preached for over 100 years with much ridicule. So Christ was much ridiculed but was saved, vindicated by His resurrection, and so to are we vindicated from persecution by our ultimate resurrection. Apparently he was addressing a church that was being persecuted, and were very much a minority. As noah surely built the ark, making it impossible to be a closet believer, making him put his money where his heart and mouth were, so is water baptism a public confession of an internal faith. It literally was putting their neck on the line for Christians to publicly proclaim Christ, with water baptism. But again the baptism represents the appeal to God for a good conscience and I will not say this only happens with a rite. I would say usually before the rite the appeal is made, and the rite is a fruit or evidence of the previous appeal.

 

[benhur]

So when was Cornelius regenerated?

I don’t know. Scripture does not say. His story begins however, with him already regenerated. I think he loved Jehovah and aided the Jews it says. He actually represents the catholic position that God is not a respecter of persons, and that anyone who fears God with the light he has is accepted, be it a Roman amongst Jews or a pygmy in australia or an navajo before white man came or the one who has never heard of the gospel yet have a proper spirit toward God. The proof is that when the gospel does come, they gladly receive it.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s saying that the sponsor may come to see the little child for whom they stood for develop an evil disposition.

BOTH sponsor and infant.

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?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know. Scripture does not say. His story begins however, with him already regenerated. I think he loved Jehovah and aided the Jews it says. He actually represents the catholic position that God is not a respecter of persons, and that anyone who fears God with the light he has is accepted, be it a Roman amongst Jews or a pygmy in australia or an navajo before white man came or the one who has never heard of the gospel yet have a proper spirit toward God. The proof is that when the gospel does come, they gladly receive it.

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

per your definition of regeneration, abraham and moses were not regenerated and maybe all ot saints except som epriests who may have been water baptism before ordination

Were they not part of the OT, regenerated through the covenant with God?

 

[Porknpie]

Okie dokie.

Sorry I’ve been traveling and a bit out of touch. Randy Carson posted this below several years ago on a thread covering the same topic of Tertullian and his reason for delaying the baptism of infants (consistent with PR and my favorite Jesuit).

I think you are on to something…the Church practiced infant baptism from the very beginning. If this were not the case, Tertullian would not have had cause to write as he did. The very fact that he is expressing concerns suggests that infant baptism was practiced and because of the efficacious nature of baptism, he believes it should be postponed. He was wrong on the latter, of course, but his argument’s existence proves the case that the early Church did not baptize adults only.

Around the same time, Hippolytus wrote:

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

Also, and quite interesting, the painting of St John baptizing Jesus in the Catacombs of Callixtus shows Jesus standing in shallow water with St John pouring water on him. Later artwork depicts the same although this painting is from around 250ad or earlier. This is consistent with the Catholic belief that all three baptismal forms are acceptable: sprinkling, pouring and immersion…and when Jesus “came out of the water”, he was not necessarily immersed.

PnP

 

[dronald]

BOTH sponsor and infant.

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?

Yes, but again there’s nothing saying that if they sin once they are damned forever. You’re reading something that’s not there.

Rather Tertullian is commenting that someone may be Baptized as an infant and grow up evil which would be an awful thing. For example; Hitler. Was Hitler a Catholic? Of course not.

 

[dronald]

Sorry I’ve been traveling and a bit out of touch. Randy Carson posted this below several years ago on a thread covering the same topic of Tertullian and his reason for delaying the baptism of infants (consistent with PR and my favorite Jesuit).

Also, and quite interesting, the painting of St John baptizing Jesus in the Catacombs of Callixtus shows Jesus standing in shallow water with St John pouring water on him. Later artwork depicts the same although this painting is from around 250ad or earlier. This is consistent with the Catholic belief that all three baptismal forms are acceptable: sprinkling, pouring and immersion…and when Jesus “came out of the water”, he was not necessarily immersed.

PnP

I think the argument that the earliest evidence we have of a Theologian being pro/con of infant Baptism saying it shouldn’t be practice helps the Catholic case is silly. I could easily say that any father who wrote in favour of infant Baptism only wrote so because so many Church’s weren’t practicing such. Does that sound like a good argument to you?

And then Catholics will also argue that because of the silence on the issue for 100 years that it was never brought into question because it was always infants being baptized. So here we have a bit of hypocrisy.

Silence = never an issue
Denial of Baptism = the practice must have been common

As for your quote; Hippolytus goes into detail about Baptism here and how one ought to wait and be examined for three years:

17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years. 2Yet if someone is earnest and
perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is judged, but the conduct.

2If any catechumens are apprehended because of the Name of the Lord, let them not be
double-hearted because of martyrdom. If they may suffer violence and be executed with
their sins not removed, they will be justified, for they have received baptism in their own
blood.
20 When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined,
whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether they honored the widows,
whether they visited the sick, and whether they have done every good work… 2If those who
bring them forward bear witness for them that they have done so, then let them hear the Gospel.
…5Let those who are to be baptized be instructed that they bathe and wash on the fifth day
of the week. 6If a woman is in the manner of women, let her be set aparta and receive
baptism another day….
…7Those who are to receive baptism shall fast on the Preparation of the Sabbath

So again, we have a three year waiting period before Baptism; which works well with Saint Gregory.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but again there’s nothing saying that if they sin once they are damned forever. You’re reading something that’s not there.

Rather Tertullian is commenting that someone may be Baptized as an infant and grow up evil which would be an awful thing. For example; Hitler. Was Hitler a Catholic? Of course not.

Sure.

He opposed infant baptism for the wrong reason.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the argument that the earliest evidence we have of a Theologian being pro/con of infant Baptism saying it shouldn’t be practice helps the Catholic case is silly. I could easily say that any father who wrote in favour of infant Baptism only wrote so because so many Church’s weren’t practicing such. Does that sound like a good argument to you?

It would still be an argument stating that it was indeed a practice.

Let’s say that 2000 years from now some theologians are wondering what the practices were of the Church in 2014. If they found some writings that talked about, say, the advocacy baptism of aliens…what would you assume?

 

[Porknpie]

I think the argument that the earliest evidence we have of a Theologian being pro/con of infant Baptism saying it shouldn’t be practice helps the Catholic case is silly. I could easily say that any father who wrote in favour of infant Baptism only wrote so because so many Church’s weren’t practicing such. Does that sound like a good argument to you?

If the question we are answering is: did the early Church practice infant baptism, then yes, it would be a good argument as the discussion itself would be evidence that infant baptism was in place.

And then Catholics will also argue that because of the silence on the issue for 100 years that it was never brought into question because it was always infants being baptized. So here we have a bit of hypocrisy.

I’m not aware of a 100 year gap in time where baptism of infants wasn’t explicitly mentioned or implied? What 100 year period are you referring to?

As for your quote; Hippolytus goes into detail about Baptism here and how one ought to wait and be examined for three years:

17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years. 2Yet if someone is earnest and
perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is judged, but the conduct.

2If any catechumens are apprehended because of the Name of the Lord, let them not be
double-hearted because of martyrdom. If they may suffer violence and be executed with
their sins not removed, they will be justified, for they have received baptism in their own
blood.
20 When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined,
whether they have lived honorably while catechumens, whether they honored the widows,
whether they visited the sick, and whether they have done every good work… 2If those who
bring them forward bear witness for them that they have done so, then let them hear the Gospel.
…5Let those who are to be baptized be instructed that they bathe and wash on the fifth day
of the week. 6If a woman is in the manner of women, let her be set aparta and receive
baptism another day….
…7Those who are to receive baptism shall fast on the Preparation of the Sabbath

So again, we have a three year waiting period before Baptism; which works well with Saint Gregory.

Today, adults must go through RCIA for 8 months prior to getting baptized on Holy Saturday. During these 8 months, they are attending Mass - without receiving the Eucharist - and getting catechized. Good article here on Catechumen history (Catholic Encyclopedia). Referenced in the article, there have been times where this full entry period into The Church was longer. The Church at times appeared to be very careful in letting pagan converts in…

I encourage you to read more about St Gregory the Great. He was pretty awesome and was of course a strong believer in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

PnP

 

[dronald]

Sure.

He opposed infant baptism for the wrong reason.

QED.

Well yeah… Everyone opposes infant baptism for the wrong reasons. hahah

 

[PRmerger]

Well yeah… Everyone opposes infant baptism for the wrong reasons. hahah

Haha.

Except even you and I would agree that Tertullian’s theology is wrong on why infant baptism ought to be delayed and that it does not reflect correct Catholic theology.

 

[benhur]

Were they not part of the OT, regenerated through the covenant with God?

Yes that is what I have posted but thought you posted the opposite , not sure.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes that is what I have posted but thought you posted the opposite , not sure.

I don’t believe I have posted that Moses and Abraham were not part of the OT covenant.

 

[benhur]

Well yeah… Everyone opposes infant baptism for the wrong reasons. hahah

Part of the opposition is the effect it may have on the infant growing up. Infant baptism wouldn’t be so bad if it is given as a symbol versus an effectual spiritual birth. Now you have an adult thinking he has been born again at infancy when in fact he has not .That is the danger of effectual infant baptism teaching. Many compare it to OT circumcisiion, and I agree that it is somewhat sanctifying for the child (much like a disbelieving spouse is sanctified remaining with a believing spouse as per Paul). That still may not mean the child is spiritually alive and may the be part of the reasoning of a bar mitzvah, where the child decides for himself at age of 13.(maybe a little like confirmation though that still assumes rebirth at infancy baptism). Regardless it still may be Jewish tradition and law to be eventually self responsible for new birth. That is why I think Jesus stressed to Nicodemus that despite circumcision and bar mitzvah rites, one still needed to be born of the spirit. Jesus apparently did not tie born again to these rites That is the rites were no magic wand of effectualness (automatic rebirth) as proposed by some for NT rites.
So I guess when speaking of infant baptism we must define why and what it really means. Does it rob an adult conversion of a public baptism ? Yes, but then if it is only symbolic, one can always confess what one usually does at baptism, faith in Christ, at any time after being born again, without the rite . I suppose they could still have a good conscience towards the baptism command by referring to their infant baptism, though my experience has been that most do it gladly over again…I believe any early church infant baptisms were rare, maybe had regional acceptance but not universal, and was done for sanctifying but not for justifying, like a “dedication” to the Lord( per the Pual/spouse idea)…Sorry, haven’t read all your stuff but hopefully you object to any false assurance derived from effectual infant baptism practice.

 

[benhur]

I don’t believe I have posted that Moses and Abraham were not part of the OT covenant.

No, I thought you posted they were not regenerated. Maybe you meant they were not regenerated via NT covenant but by earlier applicable covenants(what 3 or 4 of them ?) but don’t mean to post (speak) for you. Hopefully we are close to agreement and we’ll earn a smiley face.