The Baptist Church and it's policy on baptism

[Cruxis117]

The passage you cite in John was not referring to water baptism…Jesus was contrasting a phylical birth with a spiritual birth…“How can a man enter again into his mother’s womb…”…“Unless a man is born of water(physical birth from mother’s womb) and spirit…”

You may not understand the passage in that manner…but many do…as do I.

Are you really saying that the blood and amniotic fluid which comes from a woman during her pregnancy is what Jesus was referring to? No, that’s silly. This is why:
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, read what the text says: Unless a man be born again (stating the condition they must be in) of (consisting of, which would linguistically mean that the person will now place the next term or terms that will substantiate the condition that was mentioned previously, for example, a fire must have the factors of oxygen, fuel, and a spark) water and Spirit. (This shows us that the requirements of being born again must involve water and spirit at the same time. If it was as you said, then saying water would be redundant. The Holy Spirit would have mentioned the Spirit in the first place, rather than cause confusion.)

Ultimately, a person must be born again (this is the second birth) of water and spirit. That is the requirement.

 

[jlhargus]

The passage you cite in John was not referring to water baptism…Jesus was contrasting a phylical birth with a spiritual birth…"**How can a man enter again into his mother’s womb…"…"**Unless a man is born of water(physical birth from mother’s womb) and spirit…"

You may not understand the passage in that manner…but many do…as do I.

JL: A man does not ENTER his mother’s womb again nor even the first time by water. I would say a very small minority of Protestants hold that teaching.

 

[Publisher]

JL: A man does not ENTER his mother’s womb again nor even the first time by water. I would say a very small minority of Protestants hold that teaching.

Perhaps…but for most of those Protestants outside a liturgical fellowship neither would they embrace any “sacramental” significance to it…I come from a faith tradition which does not practice water baptism…for reasons not necessarily to be discussed in this thread…even among some Anabaptists, this verse is understood in this way.

 

[david_ruiz]

JL Original post: Quote:"REPENT and be baptized, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost "

JL:

One must believe in order to repent. Hear the Word, believe, repent, be baptized for remission of sins, receive the Holy Spirit. Could you point out in my above original quote where I excluded REPENT? It’s the first word in my above quote in caps.

 

[david_ruiz]

Are you really saying that the blood and amniotic fluid which comes from a woman during her pregnancy is what Jesus was referring to? No, that’s silly. This is why:
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Now, read what the text says: Unless a man be born again (stating the condition they must be in) of (consisting of, which would linguistically mean that the person will now place the next term or terms that will substantiate the condition that was mentioned previously, for example, a fire must have the factors of oxygen, fuel, and a spark) water and Spirit. (This shows us that the requirements of being born again must involve water and spirit at the same time. If it was as you said, then saying water would be redundant. The Holy Spirit would have mentioned the Spirit in the first place, rather than cause confusion.)

Ultimately, a person must be born again (this is the second birth) of water and spirit. That is the requirement.

Yes. Obvious things certainly did need to be explained to Nicodemus, a spiritual leader who did not understand the basics of spiritual life and regeneration.(that is silly and required a “silly” response). Actually this Is done quite often when teaching someone .You reiterate what the student has right , then go on to the “new” material . It is a way of reaffirming to the student his basics with which to build on .He is being nice ,reassuring , yet prodding Nicodemus to another basic truth.It really could have been a natural conversation .If it’s silly ,just look at some of the stuff we say to make our point.Do we need to interpret scripture so stiffly ? Again that is my and others opinion on this matter.I understand I am not in a majority at all.

 

[Cruxis117]

Yes. Obvious things certainly did need to be explained to Nicodemus, a spiritual leader who did not understand the basics of spiritual life and regeneration.(that is silly and required a “silly” response). Actually this Is done quite often when teaching someone .You reiterate what the student has right , then go on to the “new” material . It is a way of reaffirming to the student his basics with which to build on .He is being nice ,reassuring , yet prodding Nicodemus to another basic truth.It really could have been a natural conversation .If it’s silly ,just look at some of the stuff we say to make our point.Do we need to interpret scripture so stiffly ? Again that is my and others opinion on this matter.I understand I am not in a majority at all.

I’m not quite sure what you’re even talking about, in all honesty and charity. Rather than interpreting Scripture stiffly, we should interpret it correctly. I’m not sure what your post, however, has to do with regards to mine.

 

[david_ruiz]

I’m not quite sure what you’re even talking about, in all honesty and charity. Rather than interpreting Scripture stiffly, we should interpret it correctly. I’m not sure what your post, however, has to do with regards to mine.

Sorry you are right -grabbed my quote from another topic but dealt with being born of water and of the spirit.I was of the opinion that born of water is obvious to mean amniotic , for Nicodemus brought it up first . Jesus says yes you must first be born ,then be born of the spirit .They are separate events .Hence what is born of the flesh is flesh . What is born of the spirit is spirit. I could see why some think it water baptism ,especially if they think it is effectual (that you need it for regeneration). He does say if you believe and are baptized you shall be saved ,but He also says if you believe and confess you shall be saved, an finally, if you call out to him you shall be saved …Regardless, baptism was not regenerational according to Catholic view until after Pentecost . Why wouldn’t He tell Nicodemus what he could do NOW to be "born -again ? Born -again is old and new testament.(I believe “regeneration” was more used in old testament)-and the Holy Spirit operated differently .Nevertheless .old testament saints had a regenerated spirit and were "illuminated’. All Jews were circumcised , barmitzvahed(confirmation) ,yet not all were born again -Nicodemus shows this to be true(not being born again despite being quite religious). Again water baptism was a command several years away.

 

[CopticChristian]

So what do you say to a person that has been born again but has never been baptized or how do you explain a person that has been baptized as a infant, claims to be Catholic but is the most miserable, sinful person on earth.

Baptist baptism is believers baptism like in the Bible

drywall

This sure helps answer the question for someone becoming Catholic.

 

[david_ruiz]

JL: Could you post OT scripture telling us when and how OT people where REGENERATED? Jewish children born of a Jewish woman are Jewish and under the OT covenant. Women were always under the protection of a male household covenant family. The male child had to be circumcised to enter the covenant, or he was cut off from his people.

GEN 17:10 This is my covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your seed after you… Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 12…HE THAT IS EITHT DAYS OLD SAHLL BE CIRCUMCISED 14 …THE UNCIRCUMCISED MAN CHILD whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised THAT SOUL SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE he hath BROKEN my covenant. Old Testament circumcision is not the same as baptism, although it did bring the circumcised into covenant family relationship with God, as does baptism. Circumcision made men members of the People of Israel, therefore the people of God.

Well if we agree that baptism IS a SACRMENT then we also MUST agree baptism is NOT a CONFESSION ONLY. A sacrament gives grace. The grace baptism gives is remitting and washing away our sins and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Your oral tradition of men that we are born again and receive the Holy Spirit when we first believe, is the tradition that needs to be overcome. Acts2:37-39 clearly contradict your tradition. Your tradition isn’t in scripture you can’t post scripture telling us that.

Acts2:37-39 tells us in BAPTISM our sins are remitted, washed away and we RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then PETER SAID unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. The PROMISE is unto you, AND to your CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

First the adult hears the Word, that word pricks their heart and they believe. They then ask, What must we do? Peter said, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED FOR remission of sins, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. Was Peter in error? With your tradition of men Peter should have said, Since you now believe you have been auto baptized and have already received the Holy Spirit. Now you can be baptized as a confession of that faith.

[Acts2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, **SAVE YOURSELVES

from the untoward generation. 41 THEN they that gladly RECEIVED his word were BAPTIZED: and the SAME DAY were ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN THE APOSTLES’ doctrine and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD (Mass), and in PRAYERS.] Notice Peter says SAVE YOURSELVES. How? By being BAPTIZED thru which they WERE ADDED to that ONE VISIBLE Apostolic Fellowship the Church.

ADD1Pt3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved BY WATER. 21 The LIKE FIGURE whereunto even BAPTISM doth also NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[TITUS 3:5 NOT by WORKS…we’ve done BUT by **HIS MERCY he SAVED us BY the WASHING of REGENERATION and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT 6 which he POURED OUT ON US richly THROUGH JESUS Christ our Savior 7 SO we might be JUSTIFIED BY his GRACE and become HEIRS…]

How does scripture tell us we are washed? Act22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord. How does scripture tell us we become a child of God?

[Gal 3:26 For YE ARE all the CHILDREN OF GOD by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY of you **AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

2Cor5:17 Therefore, if ANY ONE is IN CHRIST, he IS A NEW CREATION; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

Eph 4:22 PUT OFF THE OLD MAN that belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, 23 and BE RENEWED in the spirit of your minds, 24 and PUT ON THE NEW MAN, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

The Sacrament of Baptism not only remits, washes and cleanses, of sins but regenerates our soul, by POURING OUT the Holy Spirit. That indwelling Holy Spirit, justifies us by his grace making us a child of God and heirs. In baptism the body is now dead to sin, whereas before the soul was dead, and slave to the flesh. Now the body (flesh) is subject to the regenerated soul, by the Holy Spirit indwelling. Now we no longer live in old Adam but are born again into the new Adam.

Jn3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee. EXCEPT a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, EXCEPT a man be BORN of water AND of the Spirit, he CANNOT ENTER into the KINGDOM OF GOD. not much time ,if being born again (regeneration) is NOT old testament , why did Jesus bring it up as if Nicodemus was supposed to know ? That would take some time to show OT scriptures …As far as Acts 2 ,you must also look at the several other instances in Acts where people “believe” and even get the gift of the Holy Spirit BEFORE baptism. Acts 2 lumps it all together while Peter speaks .But if you follow events ,they definitely gladly believed before baptism. Man, throw our formulas out the window. Jesus did not need rituals to make people “see” and know Him and He doesn’t today either.

 

[CopticChristian]

Bonjour,

I had a conversation with my friend the other day about the differences in our faiths. And one thing I noted about her faith was that her church didn’t receive baptism as babies. She rationalized it, saying,“Babies just don’t understand the symbolism of baptism.”

So, why do Catholics do it to babies?

This one led me to seek out others more experienced in these matters than I.

Au revoir,
-MontChevalier

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5 from the Catechism. I suggest you read the catechism.

In brief if you look at The One Holy Apostolic Church, The Eastern Orthodox Church you will see that Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration whereby grace is provided to erase original sin and infuse the child with Faith, Hope and Charity. It is the sacrament whereby we are united with Christ.

If you look at what Protestant thought was in 1600 it was divided into Anglican, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists and Anabaptists for the most part. Baptists and Anabaptist were not baby baptizers and that is why your Baptist tradition does not Baptize babies. Using the Bible alone Protestants are divided into PedoBaptists or CredoBatptists. The same fallible teachings using a fallible book providing uncertain certainty. Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians baptize babies as a means of entering them into the Church.

The best bet to answer your question is the Cathechism. There you will find all the answers and all the Bible verses to support the belief.

 

[CopticChristian]

So what do you say to a person that has been born again but has never been baptized or how do you explain a person that has been baptized as a infant, claims to be Catholic but is the most miserable, sinful person on earth.

Baptist baptism is believers baptism like in the Bible

drywall

Did you know that Scotland is the one place where Calvinism is the state religion and where Calvinism succeeded where other geographic areas failed to establish Calvinism. It has the highest suicide rate, the highest rate of divorce, the highest rate of addiction and suicide than any other country in the UK. Calvinism has done wonders.

 

[CopticChristian]

Please show me anywhere in the Bible you must accept Christ first before you can be Baptized!

Matthew

Better yet provide one verse that anyone says to accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. Provide Biblical evidence for the nonbiblical teaching of Sanctification that Calvinists tout.

 

[CopticChristian]

Believers Baptism is when a born again believer is baptised in water. the eunuch confess his belief in the Son of God Jesus Christ before he was baptized.

drywall

Why did John Calvin insist on infant Baptism and put the necessity of infant Baptism in his catechism.

 

[CopticChristian]

If memory serves, in the Baptist tradition (and other Protestant traditions), “accepting Jesus as your savior” is critical for salvation, but baptism is purely symbolic.

In other words, you could “accept Jesus as your savior”, die, and enter paradise without having been baptized (though they are commonly done at the same time in some Protestant traditions).

That is what they tell us, as yet, not one has returned to confirm this.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think that the fundamental difference in Catholic v. Baptist baptism lies with the doctrines of sin and regeneration and not so much the act itself. Please excuse my spotty understanding of Catholic doctrine, but to my understanding baptism is administered as an initial cleansing both effectual and symbolic of original, and if possible in an infant, actual sin. Which through the act of partaking of the other sacraments is then repeated. In my understanding the other sacraments are then administered at a later and more mature age when the child is able to discern what they are doing, but the sacraments are then taken throughout the Catholic believers life to continually impart the grace of God and the forgiveness of sin. I hope I am not completely misrepresenting my Catholic brothers and sisters here. Now the Baptist and indeed most Protestant denominations believe that sin was immediately and eternally forgiven once for all at the crucifixion. Baptist believers hold that one must simply accept this forgiveness through confessing to God that they are indeed sinful and in need of this forgiveness, and that it is only available through the sacrifice of God’s only begotten son Jesus. This is our mode of faith for salvation. We believe that regeneration is immediate and the now “reborn” believer is fully regenerated in the image of Christ, and capable of pleasing God and resisting sin. Now it gets tricky from here because there are several different brands of Baptist and some believe in the effectual effects of baptism and some hold that is it purely symbolic, but commanded by scripture none the less. The latter typically view it as the first act of obedience to Christ. From this point on it is believed that no further acts be performed to continue on in being forgiven. The other sacraments in Baptist churches are observed as purely symbolic as well.

As far as being born of water and the Spirit most Protestant theologians would argue that this means to be born naturally of your mother and again of the Holy Spirit in order to secure salvation, as the question posed was “How can I once more climb into the womb”.

Hope this wasn’t to confusing, I am doing three things at once.

If you really want to not express other than the Catholic position read the Catechism. That way you can say, by way of my understanding of what your Catechism teaches…etc.

In consideration that what you are talking about “extrinsic” vs “intrisnic” regeneration, my question for you is this. If the salvation is the work of God from start to finish, then your confessing is a “work” asking God to impart to you salvation for something you do. You may want to study your own theology. The bargain is, I confess, you give me salvation.

 

[CopticChristian]

Show me there in scripture where it says that these childern were saved or born again because their parents brought them to Jesus

The case for baptizing infants rests primarily on the claim that “the transition from the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ form of God’s covenant . . . did not affect the principle of family solidarity in the covenant community”(Packer 214). This is just an elaborate way of saying the Old Testament promise to bless to the thousandth generation(Ex.20:6) applies to the Church as well. Calvin plainly affirms that the promise is the same for both covenants(Inst.4, 16, 4). Both covenant promises receive God’s fatherly favour of forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Calvin argues that circumcision was the token by which the Jews were “assured of adoption as the people and household of God”(Inst.4, 16, 4). Similarly, the people of the Church are consecrated to God through baptism, “to be reckoned as his people”(Inst.4, 16, 4).

Calvin reminds us that the children of the Jews were called a holy seed. They had been made heirs to the covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious. For the same reason, Calvin argues, the children of Christians are considered holy; and by the apostle’s testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolators(1Cor.7:14). It naturally follows then, that if infants share the covenant status with their parent, it is fitting “to give them a sign of that status and of their place in the covenant community”(

 

[david_ruiz]

JL:

The thief had no opportunity to be baptized. Natural birth is a necessity, but not an absolute necessity, without exceptions. Even natural birth has exceptions. In exceptional cases the physician intervenes birthing by cesarean. In exceptional cases the Great Physician must intervene in our spiritual birth. The Holy Spirit can circumcise the heart of one who desires to do the will of God, by baptism of desire or blood. When the lack, of baptism by water, is thru no deliberate fault of their own, such as the thief on the cross. CONTINUED;

Yes I have heard this before ,that if the thief had a chance ,he would have been baptized.Yes i have heard the intent must be there in case you don’t get baptized before a sudden death. It still is trying to maintain grace with a work -can you have both ways -saved by grace ,yet conditional upon a rite, a work ? But you are right ,given a chance the thief would have been baptized out of love for his savior who gave His life for him,obedience /confession driven by a regenerated heart .Remember, you must be born again to even “see” the kingdom, before you can begin to be sanctified, or even enter thru the pearly gates. My opinion is he saw (was born again) believed already ,This is the case most of the time in NT

 

[CopticChristian]

These are temperary places, King David and his son and all that were believers in the Old testament are now in heaven. I have read about David, in fact the whole Bible over a hundred times.

drywall

Scott Hahn read it as much as you and after reading it in depth he gave up being a Presbyterian minister to become Catholic. Sometimes reading isn’t enough.

 

[CopticChristian]

Romans 10 : 17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word Of God

This is a good example of why Sola Scriptura won’t work. You don’t just take books out of the bible, translate them the way you want to, but you change the nature of the words as you please. This is one of the reasons I could never be Protestant.

 

[CopticChristian]

Because their faith is that they will recieve faith by hearing the Word of God, your faith is that they will receive faith by baptism. the bible never says that we recieve faith by baptism, only by hearing the word of God, Putting baptism before recieving faith is like putting the horse before the cart.
Most every verse in the bible that mentions baptism, mentions repent first, (repent and be baptized) We must first repent of your sins and turn to God before we are baptized. A infant can not repent because they haqve no knowledge of their sins

drywall

Then you did not read the letter to Romans quite correctly becaus after discussing the entire issue of Faith Paul has an extended dialogue in Chapter 6 about how the Judaizing Jews can get in on the action.