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

[ltwin]

Ltwin,

I think something your missing is how baptism and confirmation go hand in hand.

OK. How does this tie into assurance of salvation?

I will try to give you a comparison.

Evangelicals generally “dedicate” their kids. But this does nothing for the child directly. Yet you do it. Later the children can “receive Christ and be baptized as a sign of that”

Yes. Child dedication is really more about the parent rather than the child. The parents are committing (and the congregation is committing to aid and support them) to raise their child in the fear of the Lord so that when the child grows up, he/she will not depart from what was taught by the parents and the church and, most importantly, that he/she will come to trust in the Lord.

So, the dedication actually is a vow before God on the part of the parents and the congregation to have an active interest in the spiritual health of that child. Both parties take on a serious responsibility. Yet, child dedication is also about blessing the child and praying that God would protect and guide the child.

Catholics baptize their kids. Later the children confirm their baptism in confirmation by professing and publicly proclaiming their faith.

Do you see the similarities?

Sure. It’s not exactly the same, but I do believe both have similar aims.

If you believe baptism is a simple symbol why should you care that it is given to a child?

I don’t believe it is a “simple symbol.” I believe it is an outward sign of an inner work of God’s grace.

How does it differ than the blessing and prayer and commitment of a child dedication?

Really on the surface, strip away the theology and look at it plain for a moment.

Well, I think I’ve said before on this thread (maybe it was another one) that I don’t believe infant baptism does harm to a child. In my mind, infant baptism is baby dedication. It really is more about the faith and intentions of the parents than it is about the faith of the child.

There can be harm if a person grows up with an improper understanding of what occurred in their infant baptism. I can see how this might lead to false assurance. I think that can be problematic.

But I don’t think the actual practice of infant baptism is evil or harmful. The Church of the Nazarene allows infant baptism if the parents want it. They are thoroughly evangelical.

 

[ltwin]

True, baptism is an outward sign of an inner work of grace. But, here is the question, how can baptism be an outward sign if it is not what gives us that grace?

If I have heard the gospel and the Holy Spirit has convinced me that I am a sinner who needs forgiveness which can only be attained by the blood of Christ and I repent of my sins, then God’s grace is at work in me. Baptism after the fact does not create that prior work of grace.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If I have heard the gospel and the Holy Spirit has convinced me that I am a sinner who needs forgiveness which can only be attained by the blood of Christ and I repent of my sins, then God’s grace is at work in me. Baptism after the fact does not create that prior work of grace.

You may be in error thinking we believe all grace comes from baptism that’s simply not true.

We have no problem saying God works in you and gives you many graces that lead you to baptism where you receive a special Grace.

 

[ltwin]

You may be in error thinking we believe all grace comes from baptism that’s simply not true.

I don’t think that. I do think that you guys think that the “special Grace” that is received in Baptism is somehow necessary to be saved. I don’t believe that. I believe that we are given “special Grace” before we are baptized or in other cases after we’re baptized and that this grace is symbolized by baptism.

We have no problem saying God works in you and gives you many graces that lead you to baptism where you receive a special Grace.

Understood.

 

[mackbrislawn]

If I have heard the gospel and the Holy Spirit has convinced me that I am a sinner who needs forgiveness which can only be attained by the blood of Christ and I repent of my sins, then God’s grace is at work in me. Baptism after the fact does not create that prior work of grace.

I guess I don’t follow your logic. The way you say it, you already have the grace, and there is no outward sign of that. Okay, the Holy Spirit has convinced you that God’s grace is at work in you. But, what is the outward sign of that? None at all. Only an inward sign of what you feel.

So, the question still remains, how can baptism be an outward sign of an inner work of grace if baptism does not cause that grace?

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t believe that. I believe that we are given “special Grace” before we are baptized or in other cases after we’re baptized and that this grace is symbolized by baptism.
.

Of course we can be given special grace before baptism, and after baptism. But even if we don’t get baptized, we still have that grace. So, how can baptism be a symbol of it? Maybe you mean we get baptized to acknowledge that grace? But then baptism is not a symbol, but simply our own acknowledgement of that grace. Baptism after the fact is disconnected from that prior grace.

Another thing, to say the baptism symbolizes grace is not biblical. The bible never describes baptism that way. Only man’s tradition does.

 

[ltwin]

I guess I don’t follow your logic. The way you say it, you already have the grace, and there is no outward sign of that.

OK. Let me explain it by use of an illustration. There is a gas station with an “open sign” in the window. I walk up to the door and it’s locked. I look through the window and the lights are off and doesn’t seem like anyone is there. I look around and see no cars in the parking lot. Obviously, despite what the sign says, the station is closed.

Down the street I stop at another gas station. At this one, there is no sign in the door that reads “open.” But I see that the lights are on, and a woman is standing at the cash register with people inside buying stuff and the parking lot and pumps are filled with cars. Even though there is no sign in the door, the reality of openness is there. I ask the lady at the register why isn’t there an open sign in the door and she looks at the door and says “Oh, we’ve recently gone through major renovations. We’re getting a new sign tomorrow.”

The first station is a person who has been baptized but does not have faith in Christ and has not repented of their sins. They have a sign, but it does not reflect reality. The second station is like a person who has faith in Christ and has repented of their sins but has not yet been baptized. They don’t have the sign yet, but when they get the sign it will reflect reality.

Okay, the Holy Spirit has convinced you that God’s grace is at work in you. But, what is the outward sign of that? None at all. Only an inward sign of what you feel.

It is not based on feeling. It is based on faith in Christ and repentance. I may be baptized seconds later or a day later or maybe a month later. It doesn’t matter how much time has elapsed between conversion and baptism. The fact is that I was born again and later received the sign of this work of grace in baptism.

So, the question still remains, how can baptism be an outward sign of an inner work of grace if baptism does not cause that grace?

Because a sign don’t necessarily equate to reality. Circumcision was a sign as well, but Paul had no trouble understanding that the physical did not always reflect the spiritual. He also recognized that there were uncircumcised people who were spiritually circumcised because they kept the Law.

 

[Jon_S_1]

OK. Let me explain it by use of an illustration. There is a gas station with an “open sign” in the window. I walk up to the door and it’s locked. I look through the window and the lights are off and doesn’t seem like anyone is there. I look around and see no cars in the parking lot. Obviously, despite what the sign says, the station is closed.

Down the street I stop at another gas station. At this one, there is no sign in the door that reads “open.” But I see that the lights are on, and a woman is standing at the cash register with people inside buying stuff and the parking lot and pumps are filled with cars. Even though there is no sign in the door, the reality of openness is there. I ask the lady at the register why isn’t there an open sign in the door and she looks at the door and says “Oh, we’ve recently gone through major renovations. We’re getting a new sign tomorrow.”

The first station is a person who has been baptized but does not have faith in Christ and has not repented of their sins. They have a sign, but it does not reflect reality. The second station is like a person who has faith in Christ and has repented of their sins but has not yet been baptized. They don’t have the sign yet, but when they get the sign it will reflect reality.

It is not based on feeling. It is based on faith in Christ and repentance. I may be baptized seconds later or a day later or maybe a month later. It doesn’t matter how much time has elapsed between conversion and baptism. The fact is that I was born again and later received the sign of this work of grace in baptism.

Because a sign don’t necessarily equate to reality. Circumcision was a sign as well, but Paul had no trouble understanding that the physical did not always reflect the spiritual. He also recognized that there were uncircumcised people who were spiritually circumcised because they kept the Law.

Your example is good but really equates baptism to nothing. Worthless.

For it does nothing but show a reality that already exists.

Frankly I would say by your example, baptism is no more important than putting a WWJD bracelet on or a fish sticker on your bumper.

If that’s all baptism is…I say toss it in the garbage can of time.

 

[ltwin]

Your example is good but really equates baptism to nothing. Worthless.

For it does nothing but show a reality that already exists.

Frankly I would say by your example, baptism is no more important than putting a WWJD bracelet on or a fish sticker on your bumper.

If that’s all baptism is…I say toss it in the garbage can of time.

It’s not garbage. It’s important, it just isn’t the starting point for life in Christ. It does not cause grace or faith in us but is a response to the grace of God.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It’s not garbage. It’s important, it just isn’t the starting point for life in Christ. It does not cause grace or faith in us but is a response to the grace of God.

Why is it important?

From your apologia it sounds like it is completely unimportant.

Specifically how is it different than, giving a testimony, writing a Christian blog, putting a sticker on your car, or any other sign that you have faith?

 

[ltwin]

Why is it important?

From your apologia it sounds like it is completely unimportant.

No. My illustration does not dump on baptism’s importance. I’m sorry if you think that. It’s simply the truth that baptism is a sign of an inner work of grace, not the cause of that work. It’s still important.

Specifically how is it different than, giving a testimony, writing a Christian blog, putting a sticker on your car, or any other sign that you have faith?

It’s different because Jesus makes this a part of becoming his disciple. He commanded the apostles to teach and baptize in all nations. We are told that baptism is a burial of the old man and rising with Christ through faith. In baptism, we properly bury the old, sinful nature and dedicate ourselves to God, making a pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Just as the Hebrews applied the blood of the lamb on their door posts on the first passover, the blood of Christ is applied to our lives and death and judgment pass over us. Yet even though God led the Hebrews out of Egypt, the army of Pharaoh pursued them. The enemy was drowned in the Red Sea even while the Hebrews walked through the sea to freedom. Likewise, baptism is for freedom from the power of the enemy that still wants to drag us back into Egypt.

 

[Porknpie]

It’s not garbage. It’s important, it just isn’t the starting point for life in Christ.

Itwin, here’s a couple of Early Church Fathers who would disagree with you as examples only. I take great comfort in understanding the Christian faith both through the written Word of God and the Tradition handed down from the apostles. The two go hand in hand and do not conflict with each other. I do not read of the evangelical view of baptism when reading the early writings of The Church. What I read is consistent with the word of scripture : we receive grace and are regenerated through baptism. Baptism saves.

"The Word recognizes three Births for us; namely, the natural birth, that of Baptism, and that of the Resurrection…” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, I (A.D. 388).

“We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9:9 (A.D. 359).

It does not cause grace or faith in us but is a response to the grace of God.

Another ECF, St Basil would disagree

“And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism.” Basil, On the Spirit, 10:26 (A.D. 375).

 

[PRmerger]

Of course we have it. We are given assurance by the Spirit, by the Word, and by the love of Christ that motivates us to good works.

Yes, this is what is called “moral assurance” of our salvation.

But it is not assurance in the way you have posited.

Just because people can deceive themselves does not mean that authentic assurance does not exist.

Well, if you mean a general moral assurance that God will save us, then, yes.

But, as you acknowledge, one can think he’s a true believer when he’s actually a faux believer.

That means no one can be assured of his own personal salvation.

Scripture in more than one place tells us to watch and pray lest we ourselves fall.

Yep. Exactly. An individual cannot be assured of his salvation. At least, not until he actually is, well, saved, and enjoying the Beatific Vision.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No. My illustration does not dump on baptism’s importance. I’m sorry if you think that. It’s simply the truth that baptism is a sign of an inner work of grace, not the cause of that work. It’s still important.

It’s different because Jesus makes this a part of becoming his disciple. He commanded the apostles to teach and baptize in all nations. We are told that baptism is a burial of the old man and rising with Christ through faith. In baptism, we properly bury the old, sinful nature and dedicate ourselves to God, making a pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Just as the Hebrews applied the blood of the lamb on their door posts on the first passover, the blood of Christ is applied to our lives and death and judgment pass over us. Yet even though God led the Hebrews out of Egypt, the army of Pharaoh pursued them. The enemy was drowned in the Red Sea even while the Hebrews walked through the sea to freedom. Likewise, baptism is for freedom from the power of the enemy that still wants to drag us back into Egypt.

So then, like only those Israelites who placed the blood on their doors were saved, so too, only those who are baptized are saved.

That sounds very Catholic

 

[stewstew03]

So then, like only those Israelites who placed the blood on their doors were saved, so too, only those who are baptized are saved.

That sounds very Catholic

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes. I am of Paul and you …

I am of Christ, NOT of Luther, or Wesley, etc.

No ebb and flow to your story. Come on, think OT. The reform was definitely new. But not like reinventing the wheel, but rediscovering it. The pendelum had swung back to conservatism so to speak. That is why many say they are “catholic” , an older catholic,closer to the "baseline’’ or center point .

If that were the case, then the Early Church Fathers would have been protestants in their writings and deeds. They were not. They were thoroughly Catholic. There’s the rub.

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, this is what is called “moral assurance” of our salvation.

But it is not assurance in the way you have posited.That means no one can be assured of his own personal salvation.

Yep. Exactly. An individual cannot be assured of his salvation. At least, not until he actually is, well, saved, and enjoying the Beatific Vision.

This is reflected in the writings of St. Paul who says that he has hopeful confidence, not false assurance of his salvation. He had moral assurance.

PnP

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I don’t believe any of us are qualified to truly determine between wheat and weeds.

And this includes judging OURSELVES. Maybe even primarily, since we can so easily “justify” our own sins.

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.
4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.

I don’t need assurance that PRmerger is saved. That is between you and God. I do want assurance that I am saved.

If St. Paul couldn’t have this “assurance of salvation”, how much less should you & I?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So then, like only those Israelites who placed the blood on their doors were saved, so too, only those who are baptized are saved.

That sounds very Catholic

YEP!

AND they had to also eat the flesh of the Lamb!
Oh, no! The dreaded Catholic Both/And!!!

 

[PRmerger]

So then, like only those Israelites who placed the blood on their doors were saved, so too, only those who are baptized are saved.

That sounds very Catholic

Aha! :bowdown2::clapping: