Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[guanophore]

 Jesus DIDN'T command their baptism.  He commanded they not be left out, (understanding mine from what Jesus said).

We understand that part the same. But, since the Apostles taught that it is through baptism that we are brought into HIm, we do not see the two separated. BAptism makes us members of Him, and of one another. Those who are not baptized have not yet been buried with Him in His death, nor raised with Him in His resurrection, so they are “left out”. As He taught “they are condemned already”. We are born into this world under the death sentence from original sin.

I understand original sin.  It seems you don't understand how far reaching the mercy and grace of God is... it reaches to infants.

Indeed we entrust all the unbaptized to His mercy. However, since He has provided the free gift by which sins may be washed away, we do not forbid this to those who are unable to ask for it.

The first apostles, writers of the NT, taught they were different. Circumcision of the heart happens through trust in Christ’s substitute, the Gospel.

And they taught that this substitute is applied to the individual through baptism. In the waters of regeneration, as they called them, we are born again from above by water and Spirit. The Spirit, acting through the water, circumcises the heart of the baptized. We are buried with Him in death, and raised with Him in life.

You mean the understanding was lost for hundreds of years until a couple of hundred yrs ago.

This is how the Reformers framed the doctrinal innovations, so that they could justify their departure from the Catholic Church. They had to believe what they were doing was right.

 

[Dokimas]

We understand that part the same. But, since the Apostles taught that it is through baptism that we are brought into HIm, we do not see the two separated. BAptism makes us members of Him, and of one another. Those who are not baptized have not yet been buried with Him in His death, nor raised with Him in His resurrection, so they are “left out”. As He taught “they are condemned already”. We are born into this world under the death sentence from original sin.

Thank God His mercy covers infants with the Blood of Jesus until they can deside for themselves.

Indeed we entrust all the unbaptized to His mercy. However, since He has provided the free gift by which sins may be washed away, we do not forbid this to those who are unable to ask for it.

The free gift is in His Blood, not water! Anyone can get baptized. Not everyone will trust in the substutionary death of Jesus.

And they taught that this substitute is applied to the individual through baptism. In the waters of regeneration, as they called them, we are born again from above by water and Spirit. The Spirit, acting through the water, circumcises the heart of the baptized. We are buried with Him in death, and raised with Him in life.

We understand this a bit differently.

This is how the Reformers framed the doctrinal innovations, so that they could justify their departure from the Catholic Church. They had to believe what they were doing was right.

Disagreed. That’s what seems to be the best understanding from the NT.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Age of accountability (which is not mentioned directly in the Bible).

Thanks D. Not exactly what I asked though. My questions was a two parter:

1. Do you believe in OSAS?
2. If you do, how do you mesh the belief that infants are at one time saved (grandfathered in) and then at the age of accountability they are not? How can once saved always saved work with the belief that infants lose their salvation at the age of accountability? All hinging on you believing in OSAS of course

God bless you

 

[Dokimas]

Thanks D. Not exactly what I asked though. My questions was a two parter:

1. Do you believe in OSAS?
2. If you do, how do you mesh the belief that infants are at one time saved (grandfathered in) and then at the age of accountability they are not? How can once saved always saved work with the belief that infants lose their salvation at the age of accountability? All hinging on you believing in OSAS of course

God bless you

Depends upon who’s perspective. From God’s perspective, yes. From ours, I believe one can give back their salvation, not really loose it.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Depends upon who’s perspective. From God’s perspective, yes. From ours, I believe one can give back their salvation, not really loose it.

That’s very Catholic of you, not so much from what I hear from the OSAS crowd though.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Depends upon who’s perspective. From God’s perspective, yes. From ours, I believe one can give back their salvation, not really loose it.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think D is becoming too influenced by these boards. He may not be recognized by his Protestant brethren after awhile longer

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

I think D is becoming too influenced by these boards. He may not be recognized by his Protestant brethren after awhile longer

God bless

Sssshhh! I think so, too!

(Actually, I think he’s always said that he rejects OSAS, but we’re going to take credit for converting him on this anyway!)

 

[Dokimas]

That’s very Catholic of you, not so much from what I hear from the OSAS crowd though.

God bless

I try to understand the Bible. I haven’t read anything from the CC on the issue.

 

[Dokimas]

Sssshhh! I think so, too!

(Actually, I think he’s always said that he rejects OSAS, but we’re going to take credit for converting him on this anyway!)

No, I did believe in OSAS. I learned it in Bible School. I studied the issue reading commentaries. I studied the Bible and could not reconcil the understanding with what I read.

I don’t think anyone can loose their salvation. I don’t think there is any sin that would cause God to ‘take it away’. However, I do think a person who once believed can choose to stop believing, giving back to God His unspeakable gift. very

However, this is my understanding, thus my opinion and as I’ve said, it could be wrong.

You know how wrong I can be.

 

[guanophore]

Age of accountability (which is not mentioned directly in the Bible).

This is a very good example of an extra-biblical doctrine that is a tradition of men.

It also represents a departure from the Apostolic Tradition on original sin. The Apostles taught that we “all die in Adam”, so from the time of the fall of Adam, death entered the world. Human beings born “under Adam” are all dead in sin. This has nothing to do with “age of accountability”, but the inheritance that is part of our birthright. Until we are “born again” in the “new Adam”, we remain dead in sins.

In order to jettison the Apostolic Teaching on baptism of infants, the modern Evangelical movement has had to redefine the effects of original sin.

It is also a good example of how the faith is one, whole, seamless garment. When you start unravelling part of it, you end up unravelling more that perhaps was intended.

Luther was appalled at the effects of his Sola Scriptura doctrine at the end of his life. He could see that much of the faith had become unravelled already.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Luther was appalled at the effects of his Sola Scriptura doctrine at the end of his life. He could see that much of the faith had become unravelled already.

Do you remember the source of this? I would like to read it.

Thanks and God bless

 

[Dokimas]

This is a very good example of an extra-biblical doctrine that is a tradition of men.

Ah, you mean possibly like infant baptism.

 

[guanophore]

Thank God His mercy covers infants with the Blood of Jesus until they can deside for themselves.

This is a concept that cannot be supported by scripture, or anything in the history of the Church. It also cannot be reconciled to the notion that all died in Adam.

The free gift is in His Blood, not water! Anyone can get baptized. Not everyone will trust in the substutionary death of Jesus.

Water is the means by which He has provided that the saving effects of His blood sacrified are applied to the individual. We are “washed in His blood” spiritually, but physically, He has ordained that water be used. This is what He meant when He said that one must be “born from above by water and Spirit”.

The CC does not just baptize “anyone”. A profession of faith is required.

I agree with you, though, not all those that are born again through baptism will trust in Jesus unto salvation.

 That's what seems to be the best understanding from the NT.

Yes,my point exactly. They departed from the Apostolic practice of reading scripture in conjunction with the teaching of the Church, separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition, and came up with new doctrines based upon their “best understanding” of the text.

They believed they needed to do this in order to separate from the CC.

 

[Dokimas]

This is a concept that cannot be supported by scripture, or anything in the history of the Church. It also cannot be reconciled to the notion that all died in Adam.

Water is the means by which He has provided that the saving effects of His blood sacrified are applied to the individual. We are “washed in His blood” spiritually, but physically, He has ordained that water be used. This is what He meant when He said that one must be “born from above by water and Spirit”.

The CC does not just baptize “anyone”. A profession of faith is required.

I agree with you, though, not all those that are born again through baptism will trust in Jesus unto salvation.

Yes,my point exactly. They departed from the Apostolic practice of reading scripture in conjunction with the teaching of the Church, separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition, and came up with new doctrines based upon their “best understanding” of the text.

They believed they needed to do this in order to separate from the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

Age of accountability (which is not mentioned directly in the Bible).

So are you saying that every single human being is saved until the age of reason? Then, he must decide if he accepts Jesus or else he is not saved?

(Note: I am using “until” here in our modern understanding, not in the Biblical depiction, as it was used in Matthew 1:25 )

 

[guanophore]

So are you saying that every single human being is saved until the age of reason? Then, he must decide if he accepts Jesus or else he is not saved?

Wow. that is exactly what he is saying! And when it is put like this the bizarre nature of it is really glaring.

 

[tqualey]

Hooooooooooooooooold on you two … this is going to get ‘condescending’ pretty soon…

But, I am appreciating this approach on addressing not only obvious doctrnal eror but the internal contradiction needed to hold it together… or, at least try to!

Keep up the good work - - it looks like the thread is about to come to the end of the ‘spool’ or whatever the analogy is.

God bless

Wow. that is exactly what he is saying! And when it is put like this the bizarre nature of it is really glaring.

 

[Dokimas]

So are you saying that every single human being is saved until the age of reason? Then, he must decide if he accepts Jesus or else he is not saved?

(Note: I am using “until” here in our modern understanding, not in the Biblical depiction, as it was used in Matthew 1:25 )

Basically, yes (on the first point). You are still incorrect, but consistent, on the Matthew 1:25 point.

 

[Dokimas]

Hooooooooooooooooold on you two … this is going to get ‘condescending’ pretty soon…

Thanks for the observation and your opinion. Both are valued.

But, I am appreciating this approach on addressing not only obvious doctrnal eror but the internal contradiction needed to hold it together… or, at least try to!