I’d be interested to find out where it says in the bible that you become a Christian when you profess your faith at an age of decision-making.
Go to the Old Testament. How did Jewish children and infants become members of God’s people? It is true that a person capable of professing Faith must do so prior to Baptism. But in ALL instances when an adult professes Faith in Christ in the New Testament they are Baptized in water.
Hmmm, but some non-Christians can follow Christ unknowingly, correct? A woman I know is Hindu and in many respects lives a more Christ-like life than I do. I’ve always wondered…since we become ‘children of God’ through baptism (and faith if we are old enough), is this woman considered a ‘child of God’? Is she partaking of the ‘divine nature’?
“He who is seperated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may otherwise seem, will not be saved.”
JSmitty2005 said:
Red:
JPete, you need to do a little bit more of a comprehensive study of this. You’re right! Baptism is not just the “removal of dirt”. That is the baptism of John the Baptist. “11"I baptize you with**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23204b”)] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Matt 3:11) However, Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Notice that baptism presupposes water. In John 3:5 he states, "5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” Notice that Jesus does not separate water from Spirit in baptism. One occurs through the other. Notice how Matthew goes on to describe the very thing I (and Catholics) speak of about what occurs during baptism. “16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.” (Matt 3:16) Notice that it was THROUGH the water that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ. This wasn’t some abstract thing, it was concrete through the form of water.
ourselves with Christ.” (Gal 3:27). He says the same thing in Romans 6:3, “3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” Point being is that there is a little more going on here than you are giving credit to.
We are swearing an oath…I dont’ recall others swearing the oath for us which is what infant baptism is. We cannot pledge for someone else to receive Christ, we can instruct them in what he has taught us but the decision is theirs.JPete, you need to do a little bit more of a comprehensive study of this. You’re right! Baptism is not just the “removal of dirt”. That is the baptism of John the Baptist. “11"I baptize you with**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 3;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23204b”)] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” (Matt 3:11) However, Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Notice that baptism presupposes water. In John 3:5 he states, "5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” Notice that Jesus does not separate water from Spirit in baptism. One occurs through the other. Notice how Matthew goes on to describe the very thing I (and Catholics) speak of about what occurs during baptism. “16As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.” (Matt 3:16) Notice that it was THROUGH the water that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ. This wasn’t some abstract thing, it was concrete through the form of water.
There are tons of verses referring to our salvation that use language to suggest baptism (i.e. washing, water, etc.) We see examples of this in almost every book of the NT. " 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through THE WASHING OF REBIRTH AND RENEWAL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT," (Tit 3:5). Notice that these two are again tied together. Hebrews 10:22 states, **“22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies WASHED WITH PURE WATER.” **Paul ties our justification and sanctification to baptism in 1 Cor 6:11, **“But you were WASHED, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” **We have already seen that we die to ourselves in baptism so that we may live again, in Rom 6:4, "4We were therefore buried with him through BAPTISM into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, WE TOO MAY HAVE NEW LIFE."
Let us not forget Paul in Galatians says that we who “27…were baptized into Christ have clothed
When one takes a canonical look at baptism, it is impossible to explain the preponderance of evidence away. When Peter states, “the PLEDGE of a good conscience toward God” (1 Pet 3:21), I say AMEN! That’s what the sacraments are. They are pledges. Actually, they are more like OATHS. We are swearing an oath, or in other words making a covenant with God. That argument does not work in your favor, it supports the Catholic position.
Sacred Tradition has supported infant baptism for many centuries–long before the myth of the “age of reason” that was invented sometime after the reformation. This article is worth reading.
This is not a thread on infant baptism. You can’t stick to the topic because of the implications it has with other doctrines you hold to. That is the problem with your position. Either way, you still miss the point. The Jews circumcised after 8 days. The parent had faith for the child. It is the same thing here. And regardless of your view of infant baptism, your explanations of what baptism does are absolutely lacking.
Actually that verse is in John. And as for the Greek argument, that’s just silly. You could work at McDonald’s. I’m sure you’re qualified. Why don’t you?
AHHHH. This seems to be a common strategy amongst you and a couple of other Protestants over here. When you get into trouble, cannot refute a specific verse, simply restate one of your theses, and hopefully nobody will notice. Well, I noticed. This paragraph is your response to my post? You have not done anything to refute my point, you have just replied with your opinion. Furthermore, your opinion does not even attempt to address what the verse I used actually says from your view. Again, you just reply with your thesis.
Oh really? I thought you believed justification was a one time event? This has the “washing” preceding the sanctification, and the sanctification preceding the justification. How can that make sense with your explanation that these are already believers? You’re not being very consistent.
I think I recall you saying that, I just don’t recall ever seeing any proof. I have pointed out your tactic of retreating to your thesis when you cannot mount a response. I suggest you change that for the future. If you don’t, it says one of two things about you. 1) You don’t realize you’re doing it or 2) You don’t care (which is dishonest). I want to believe in the good of you, so I will assume number 1. I think you are an honest and good Christian man, but I also think you are trying to hold on to your views of Scripture despite not being able to make a reasonable argument to support them. I look forward to your next response.