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

[benhur]

The early Church practiced the same way the Eastern Catholic and other Eastern Churches practice to this day - namely: baptism, chrismation/confirmation, and Eucharist all at once for all new initiates, including infants. This rite of penance thru a blessing from the bishop is basically absolution.

How early is early ? First century ? Fifth century ? What kind of baptism, regenerational or for dedication ? From another thread “whole households” I found that Marcarius bishop of memphis said 1st generation did not infant baptize and pope Siricius decreed if child/infant is dedicated he must be baptized before puberty. Was the water sanctified, excorcised first with prayer before baptism as cyprian states ? Was oil excorcised oil used as another writing states ?How about thrice immersed, disown the devil before baptism, drink milk and honey after baptism, don’t bath for a week after baptism, put off baptism till late in life ? These are traditions from the past, perhaps localized as tertullian suggests and have zero scriptural foundation, but a type of tradition.

 

[benhur]

In Baptism, the vow is taken for them as if they had taken it, themselves. In Confirmation, they take the vows again, to reaffirm that they agree with their Godparents’ actions on their behalf.

Thank you. Is there any scriptural basis from NT where one cam be baptized for another or is it mostly tradition ?

 

[Telstar]

Thank you. Is there any scriptural basis from NT where one cam be baptized for another or is it mostly tradition ?

That mostly comes from Tradition, but there have been hints of it posted previously, like the phrase “along with their household” when describing someone being baptized in the Gospels. But, Origen and others have confirmed that it was practiced by the Apostles, thus it was never stopped, even after a few theologians argued against it (like Tertullian). Even those that argued against it never questioned whether infant baptisms were valid or not.

 

[benhur]

When I read your post, your reference to ‘confirmation’ caught my eye, so I felt obliged to respond.
Below is the definition of Baptism from the New Advent, which will address the concerns regarding the indwelling of the Holy Ghost:
The definition of Baptism clearly shows the actions performed by God on the soul that is Baptized. Can you say for sure that God would absolutely refuse to apply those gifts to the soul of a child that has been freely offered to Him, by his faithful Christian parents? I don’t think so.
Confirmation is another Sacrament that can be traced back to the Gospels.

Thank you again. Still confusing a bit. I do agree that there is an indwelling of the Spirit for believers and a Holy Spirit baptism, that is His Gift for indeed Jesus will/does baptize with the Holy Ghost not with water. But as to water baptism being effectual, or giving new birth I disagree. Circumcision in OT did much resemble baptism, but even with bar mitzvah (like confirmation) , they were outward rites representative of an inward happening. But the rite itself could be in vain , else why did Jesus have to tell a rabbi steeped in tradition, you must be born again…But I’ve been circumcised and bar mitzvahed and keep all the laws and am a son of Abraham etc etc…you must be born again. I tell you as sure as St. Peter said none of those things availed ( even if given by faithful caring parents), surely our traditions can also be in vain. I don’t care if you been baptized and confirmed, said the sinners prayer , profess Christ as Lord, you must be born again. The wind goes where it listeth. Don’t get me wrong, after rebirth I love baptism, by water and by the Holy Ghost. I love the place of birth, be it at an altar or a closet or on a street corner. And I love the words of the new born, abba Father, thank you Lord, my Lord and Saviour.

 

[SyroMalankara]

How early is early ? First century ? Fifth century ? What kind of baptism, regenerational or for dedication ? From another thread “whole households” I found that Marcarius bishop of memphis said 1st generation did not infant baptize and pope Siricius decreed if child/infant is dedicated he must be baptized before puberty. Was the water sanctified, excorcised first with prayer before baptism as cyprian states ? Was oil excorcised oil used as another writing states ?How about thrice immersed, disown the devil before baptism, drink milk and honey after baptism, don’t bath for a week after baptism, put off baptism till late in life ? These are traditions from the past, perhaps localized as tertullian suggests and have zero scriptural foundation, but a type of tradition.

Not sure what your question means - each local Church has varying Rituals for the form of baptism, but all agreed on it’s purpose. Until fairly recently (in ecclesial years) infant were baptized, confirmed, and given Eucharist immediately; this is the current practice in all the Eastern Churches.

 

[benhur]

That mostly comes from Tradition, but there have been hints of it posted previously, like the phrase “along with their household” when describing someone being baptized in the Gospels. But, Origen and others have confirmed that it was practiced by the Apostles, thus it was never stopped, even after a few theologians argued against it (like Tertullian). Even those that argued against it never questioned whether infant baptisms were valid or not.

Thanks but there were a lot of traditions that we both agree were "strained’, so why not this one ? “Households” in scripture is qualified by those that believed or heard the word for the most part. I accept your hint but only as a weak one. We have enough light on the subject without expanding into the darker fringes, which effectual infant baptism is. Did Peter baptize infants ? Don’t know. If so, was it as a dedication, a sanctification ? Don’t know. Just because Jesus let the little ones sit on his lap were they now justified ? Why did St. Augustine’s mother pray unceasingly with tears for the salvation/conversion of her baptized, confirmed son (was he infant baptized and confirmed?)

 

[benhur]

Not sure what your question means - each local Church has varying Rituals for the form of baptism, but all agreed on it’s purpose. Until fairly recently (in ecclesial years) infant were baptized, confirmed, and given Eucharist immediately; this is the current practice in all the Eastern Churches.

Well when was confirmation even eucharist for infants started ? And was baptism for infants a universal understanding ? Did some consider it regenerational, for justification and did some think it for sanctification, till the child could be justified "on his own’’ ? Why did Pope Siricius say if an infant is "consecrated’’ he must be baptized before puberty ? Consecrating to me is like dedicating, without any inference of justification (for how has an infant sinned).

 

[PRmerger]

Not apples to oranges. I did not say do away with the rite. Do you think they are not in love or committed or brought together by God only after they tied the knot ? Does the ceremony make all that happen or do we have a ceremony because those things are already believed, not making the deal but sealing it ? Indeed the ceremony is a must because they already are committed, and in love, and paired by the Lord.

Then you are not opposed to your daughter living together with her man?

benhur: would you mind addressing the above question?

 

[Telstar]

Thank you again. Still confusing a bit. I do agree that there is an indwelling of the Spirit for believers and a Holy Spirit baptism, that is His Gift for indeed Jesus will/does baptize with the Holy Ghost not with water. But as to water baptism being effectual, or giving new birth I disagree. Circumcision in OT did much resemble baptism, but even with bar mitzvah (like confirmation) , they were outward rites representative of an inward happening. But the rite itself could be in vain , else why did Jesus have to tell a rabbi steeped in tradition, you must be born again…But I’ve been circumcised and bar mitzvahed and keep all the laws and am a son of Abraham etc etc…you must be born again.

Why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be ‘born again’? Because Jesus came to fulfill the Old Covenant (God’s Promise to the Jews of a Savior) and create the New Covenant (the Law of Christ for the salvation of whole world). The Old Law was no longer necessary to the Jews, nor was it effectual for their salvation, after Jesus died on the cross. Therefore, Nicodemus and all other Jews had to comply with the Law of Christ to be saved. Plain and simple. Otherwise, why were any Jews baptized by John?

I tell you as sure as St. Peter said none of those things availed ( even if given by faithful caring parents), surely our traditions can also be in vain. I don’t care if you been baptized and confirmed, said the sinners prayer , profess Christ as Lord, you must be born again. The wind goes where it listeth. Don’t get me wrong, after rebirth I love baptism, by water and by the Holy Ghost. I love the place of birth, be it at an altar or a closet or on a street corner. And I love the words of the new born, abba Father, thank you Lord, my Lord and Saviour.

Contrary to your opinion, Baptism is how we are ‘born again’. Our rebirth in Baptism is what makes us adopted children of God. It seems to me that you only see Baptism as a symbolic gesture (at best), that is only done because Jesus commanded it. You don’t believe that it has any actual effect on the soul. Is that accurate? Or, am I misinterpreting what you’re saying?

 

[Telstar]

Thanks but there were a lot of traditions that we both agree were "strained’, so why not this one ? “Households” in scripture is qualified by those that believed or heard the word for the most part. I accept your hint but only as a weak one. We have enough light on the subject without expanding into the darker fringes, which effectual infant baptism is. Did Peter baptize infants? Don’t know. If so, was it as a dedication, a sanctification ? Don’t know.

You can certainly choose not to believe that the Apostles baptized babies, but it’s very clear that the practice was, in fact, directly passed down from them. Catholics never see Baptism as just symbolic. It’s a Sacrament (like the Holy Eucharist), that has profound spiritual meaning and produces real actions on the soul, so it was never just some kind of ‘dedication’.

Just because Jesus let the little ones sit on his lap were they now justified? Why did St. Augustine’s mother pray unceasingly with tears for the salvation/conversion of her baptized, confirmed son (was he infant baptized and confirmed?)

Were those children Baptized after they sat on Jesus’ lap? I think it’s very likely. Would He say no to them being adopted as children of God, through baptism? I sincerely doubt it.

Why did St. Monica pray for the conversion of St. Augustine? Because he was living a sinful life and refused to become a member of the Church through Baptism. His early life was a total mess. His father was a pagan, who wasn’t converted and baptized until very near his own death. Augustine was surrounded by paganism and heresies for a long time, of course his mother had to constantly pray for him!

 

[benhur]

benhur: would you mind addressing the above question?

Of course I think that goes against true agape love, true commitment. Why would you think I think otherwise?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I think that goes against true agape love, true commitment. Why would you think I think otherwise?

Because, to be consistent with your belief that we don’t need to do any sort of rite which “confines” and “puts in a box” what their relationship is.

If your daughter is already committed in her mind and heart, she can tell you, “Why do I need to get married? It’s just putting my relationship in a box”.

 

[benhur]

Why did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be ‘born again’? Because Jesus came to fulfill the Old Covenant (God’s Promise to the Jews of a Savior) and create the New Covenant (the Law of Christ for the salvation of whole world). The Old Law was no longer necessary to the Jews, nor was it effectual for their salvation, after Jesus died on the cross. Therefore, Nicodemus and all other Jews had to comply with the Law of Christ to be saved. Plain and simple. Otherwise, why were any Jews baptized by John?

Your thoughts are well paved with good blocks but leading to a wrong ending. Of course there is and old and new covenant, and Christ fullfilled the 3,4 OT covenants. But as even others have noted, the new did not begin until some say the Supper or Calvary or Pentecost. It certainly had not begun when the Lord spoke to Nicodemus. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus as a leader, that he (Nicodemus) was to know the idea of being born in the spirit, and not just in the flesh. He was to know about regeneration, being born again because it was an OT reality. Do you really think no one in the OT was born in the spirit ? Were they all spiritually dead ? Jesus was not being prophetic, and if He was he would not take the attitude towards Nicodemus as if he was to know this new idea. Read it again and see this is something Nicodemus should have known, as an OT leader. John did not baptismaly regenerate people. His baptism was one of preparing, of purification, much like how we prepare with advent and lent for the big event(s). That is why in John 3 they discussed the baptisms as “purifications”, not for new spiritual life but for a focused, sober, ready, expectant spirit.

Contrary to your opinion, Baptism is how we are ‘born again’. Our rebirth in Baptism is what makes us adopted children of God. It seems to me that you only see Baptism as a symbolic gesture (at best), that is only done because Jesus commanded it. You don’t believe that it has any actual effect on the soul. Is that accurate? Or, am I misinterpreting what you’re saying?

There is a difference between making and sealing a covenant. It is like we are first made (born again) to seal (confess, live out) the deal . We are not made only after the sealing. It is at least symbolic, but not a gesture, and not only “mere” as some suggest. Remember, that whatever early folks believed, baptism could put them out to ridicule, and persecution even death. So gesture or mere symbol fail the truth of it. I do not believe it has regeneration effectualness because the new birth has already happened as evidenced by faith in Christ . Sorry, the old man (unregenerated) is at enmity with God and is incapable of saving faith. Nobody gets baptized unless they believe first. We baptize then to seal the deal, for if we confess with our mouth the heart of faith is expressed. Confess Him before man, and He will confess you to the Father . I think that is why people who quickened by the spirit, were regenerated by the word, almost immediately were also water baptized. The two almost became synonomous because of proximity of occurrence, and not technical theology. Not like later times when people believed and waited, were catechumined for a long time. If you didn’t fully believe you were not baptized. So I don’t mind some saying it is a type of initiation rite, but the main thing is the conversion, the repentance from not believing and the expressing of one’s faith in deed and action. In fact again, I would not baptize anyone if they did not show those signs already that God has initiated, jumpstarted, regenerated
them already. “Who could refuse them water ?”

 

[benhur]

Because, to be consistent with your belief that we don’t need to do any sort of rite which “confines” and “puts in a box” what their relationship is.

If your daughter is already committed in her mind and heart, she can tell you, “Why do I need to get married? It’s just putting my relationship in a box”.

You would be right if I did not believe in the rites at all. Again, it is what you think they mean or do that makes them boxy.

 

[PRmerger]

You would be right if I did not believe in the rites at all. Again, it is what you think they mean or do that makes them boxy.

What you mean is that they are merely formalities of a reality that exists before any rite ever is administered.

Thus, your daughter could tell you that she doesn’t need any formality to marry her lover. The reality is that she is fully committed to her lover and she doesn’t need to formalize anything.

That would be what she could say, to be consistent with your belief that nothing really changes during the rites.

 

[PRmerger]

That would be what she could say, to be consistent with your belief that nothing really changes during the rites.

Incidentally, Catholicism proclaims that* the universe is changed forever* at the moment of our baptism. An indelible mark is placed on our soul. What existed 10 seconds prior exists no more. We are a new creation!

Similarly, at the moment the sacrament of marriage is confected, the universe is changed forever. The two become one. What existed 10 seconds prior exists no more. 2 souls are changed forever into one.

This occurs, also, at the ordination of a priest. The universe is changed forever! What existed 10 seconds prior exists no more. He is a priest forever!

How magnificent is that!!

And I love how the Church is nothing, if not consistent.

 

[PRmerger]

I do not believe it has regeneration effectualness because the new birth has already happened as evidenced by faith in Christ .

Except that Cornelius puts a wrench in the above dogma.

He had not heard of Christ prior to being pleasing to God.

And, remember, this story is in Acts of the Apostles, and thus it occurred after the New Covenant was in place.

Sorry, the old man (unregenerated) is at enmity with God and is incapable of saving faith.

Again, Cornelius puts a wrench in this man-made tradition you have professed.

Unless you can tell us when Cornelius was regenerated? And how it could have happened before he heard the Good News? (Remember, the New Covenant is already in place).

 

[Telstar]

Your thoughts are well paved with good blocks but leading to a wrong ending.

Thanks, but I would have to say the same thing about your conclusions, as well.

Of course there is and old and new covenant, and Christ fullfilled the 3,4 OT covenants. But as even others have noted, the new did not begin until some say the Supper or Calvary or Pentecost. It certainly had not begun when the Lord spoke to Nicodemus. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus as a leader, that he (Nicodemus) was to know the idea of being born in the spirit, and not just in the flesh. He was to know about regeneration, being born again because it was an OT reality. Do you really think no one in the OT was born in the spirit ? Were they all spiritually dead ? Jesus was not being prophetic, and if He was he would not take the attitude towards Nicodemus as if he was to know this new idea. Read it again and see this is something Nicodemus should have known, as an OT leader.

I said the New Covenant began after Jesus died on the cross, but it technically began at the Last Supper. My point was that the Old Covenant was being fulfilled by Him, so the Old Law would no longer be valid for the salvation of the Jews. Nicodemus was a Jew, so his heart had to be converted and follow Jesus if he wanted to be saved. His circumcision and following of Jewish law could no longer save him. I never said he didn’t know anything about the Old Law. But, he didn’t fully understand that Jesus was the true Messiah at the time. He was confused, that’s why was sincerely asking Jesus what He meant. Notice that Jesus made the comment about, “men loved darkness rather than the light”. Nicodemus first came to Jesus at night, because he was afraid to be seen by the other Jews, talking with Jesus. He was seriously considering what Jesus was teaching.

John did not baptismaly regenerate people. His baptism was one of preparing, of purification, much like how we prepare with advent and lent for the big event(s). That is why in John 3 they discussed the baptisms as “purifications”, not for new spiritual life but for a focused, sober, ready, expectant spirit.

So, you don’t think those who were baptized by John became reborn in Christ (Christian/adopted sons of God)? John was the one who prepared the way for Jesus by baptizing. But, his baptisms were certainly effectual to impart spiritual grace from God, as well as to wash away the stains of sin from their souls. If there was no real spiritual action on the soul, why would he do it? The pouring of water was the outward sign (not symbol) of an actual spiritual action in the soul of the person being baptized. Baptism is a ‘purification’ because it washes away the stains of sin from the soul, but, it also does much more than that. It’s nothing like the preparations made during lent or advent. Because, Baptism is a true Sacrament, while those other things you mentioned are only forms of focused prayer, to prepare our souls for the Great Feasts of Easter and Christmas.

There is a difference between making and sealing a covenant. It is like we are first made (born again) to seal (confess, live out) the deal . We are not made only after the sealing. It is at least symbolic, but not a gesture, and not only “mere” as some suggest.

I would say that, first comes conversion of our heart towards God, which leads us to have faith in Him. We are then Baptized to wash away our sins and confirm (seal) our commitment to Him, then He recognizes us as His lawfully adopted child by that action. There’s a great deal of spiritual action happening at the very moment we are Baptized. It’s far from being a mere symbol of what has already taken place, but the true action that actually ‘seals the deal’.

Remember, that whatever early folks believed, baptism could put them out to ridicule, and persecution even death. So gesture or mere symbol fail the truth of it.

Have you ever read anything about the earliest Martyrs of the Church? I don’t think the possibility of suffering ridicule or persecution were much of a factor if they truly believed in Jesus.

I do not believe it has regeneration effectualness because the new birth has already happened as evidenced by faith in Christ . Sorry, the old man (unregenerated) is at enmity with God and is incapable of saving faith. Nobody gets baptized unless they believe first. We baptize then to seal the deal, for if we confess with our mouth the heart of faith is expressed. Confess Him before man, and He will confess you to the Father. I think that is why people who quickened by the spirit, were regenerated by the word, almost immediately were also water baptized. The two almost became synonomous because of proximity of occurrence, and not technical theology. Not like later times when people believed and waited, were catechumined for a long time. If you didn’t fully believe you were not baptized. So I don’t mind some saying it is a type of initiation rite, but the main thing is the conversion, the repentance from not believing and the expressing of one’s faith in deed and action. In fact again, I would not baptize anyone if they did not show those signs already that God has initiated, jumpstarted, regenerated them already. “Who could refuse them water ?”

Faith in Jesus might be the first sign of our conversion of heart, but that still doesn’t make us sons and daughters of God until we make a full commitment to Him, and are reborn of the Spirit, through Baptism.

 

[benhur]

Except that Cornelius puts a wrench in the above dogma.

He had not heard of Christ prior to being pleasing to God.

And, remember, this story is in Acts of the Apostles, and thus it occurred after the New Covenant was in place.

No, he is the evidence of my dogma. He had faith in Jesus Christ before he was water baptized. yes that is NT and my dogma was NT. We have discussed OT and yes faith in Christ the messiah was part of Judaism, the biggest part. OT just didn’t know the details, like his specific name Jesus, if i am not mistaken. So you can quote my OT dogma and say it is wrong cause of NT and vice versa. But what I state(d) was, “I do not believe it (NT water baptism) has regeneration effectualness because the new birth has already happened as evidenced by faith in Christ”. Cornelius is evidence that water baptism does not have to be regenerational.

Unless you can tell us when Cornelius was regenerated?

We already went over this. The bible doesn’t say. It only says he sure acted that way (feared and loved God and His people). Was he that way before Jesus appeared on the scene ? Had he even heard of the gospel before his vision ?

And how it could have happened before he heard the Good News?

Again, regeneration is an OT and NT happening. Being born of the spirit is not NT only. I understand your teaching that regeneration today is associated with water baptism. So what does CC say say about OT saints ? Were they dead in spirit? Were they born in the spirit ? What was the difference between a true Jew and a true Gentile? Anything ? Is it that people are inherently good and by there own nature are one with God, in their flesh ? OT people were spiritually alive but just dirty with sin ? Can OT flesh have saving faith apart from the revived spirit within …Not sure what CC teaches.

 

[benhur]

What you mean is that they are merely formalities of a reality that exists before any rite ever is administered.

Thus, your daughter could tell you that she doesn’t need any formality to marry her lover. The reality is that she is fully committed to her lover and she doesn’t need to formalize anything.

That would be what she could say, to be consistent with your belief that nothing really changes during the rites.

No. I see regeneration, being born of the spirit, born again, made a new creation as the main thing, the pivot point. I see you as saying baptism in water is the main thing, the pivot point. You keep trying to shift my center by saying I am against against rites. That is ok to prompt discussion but it is comparable to me saying you think everything happens, begins at water baptism with regeneration. Like you are totally blind and now you see, you did not believe but now you do after baptism, or like the marriage rite, you did not love but now you do, you were not committed but now you are after the wedding. Now I know you would not say that. We probably both agree that something has already happened before the rite. Hopefully you love and are committed to your betrothed before the wedding. Hopefully you love Christ before the baptism. See, I call that before stuff conversion, regeneration while you do not. You leave it all very… conditional, this regeneration thing. …P.S. arranged weddings do not fit my scenario.