The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant Baptism Question

Sorry I just can't get used to saying paedobaptism yet!! I didn't even know what that word meant until I came here and I had to look it up in my dictionary a while ago!!!

Anyways I know there is this answer somewhere in some thread already, but I'm curious of one thing.

For those of you who believe in infant baptism, do you believe then that the infant (who gets baptized) should later get re-baptized as an adult when they actually believe and make a profession of Christ??

No, they would not. The issue of baptism is in relation to how the paedo understands the nature of the New Covenant. Children born into a house with a set of believing parents baptize their children to identify them with partaking in the NC. Obviously, there will be paedos who will help clarify what I am saying, but the issue basically boils down to how one understands the NC in relation to the OC. Circumcision was the outward sign of participating in the OC, baptism in like manner, is the sign of the New. In both cases, infants receive that sign.

Fred
Staunch Water Baptized Dunkard

Ok. So how about a child who is baptized (let's say in the Roman Catholic church) to religious, but unbelieving parents at the time of the baptism. So this baptism is null and void? and the child later as an adult becoming a true Christian should then get baptized??

No. We cannot know if his parents were regenerate or not. Notice the two are not always the same. Baptists uphold professors baptism. Not all professors are Christians. To clarify Fred a bit, we believe children of believing parents are identified with the visible covenant and are therefore administered the sign of that covenant. The other side of the issue is if a profession is commanded prior to baptism within scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Well that's interesting. I'm not sure what to think. The situation above is actually my situation. My mother baptized me in the roman catholic church (but she wasn't a believer at that point). She was saved when I was about 4 and thankfully left the RCC and I was brought up in a protestant christian church. I later was saved at 17 1/2 and had a prompting to get baptized later. I was going to get baptized at my church and spoke with my pastor about it and then he asked me if I was baptized as a baby. At the time I had to go ask my mother if I was baptized in the RCC because I didn't know. She never mentioned it, because it really wasn't important since she wasn't a believer then and being in the RCC, etc. So when I told my pastor about this he told me that he really wasn't sure if he'd baptize me then. Well I was really thrown for a loop here and upset about this. It was clear to me that this baptism didn't mean anything because my mother did it out of religious conviction, wasn't a believer at the time, and my dad wasn't a believer (and still isn't). He was trying to tell me that the faith of my parents brought me to be baptized, etc. What faith??? (as I described) and one cannot give any salvation to one's child by baptism. Well I wound up going to another church to be baptized with some friends who were getting baptized 7 years after my conversion.
Honestly I was kind of shocked to see that some here believe in infant baptism. But I read Pilgrim's responses in the other post and he made it pretty clear about some other questions I had and where he stands about it. Some day I'll read about this Covenant Theology just out of curiousity. Seems like differences in theologies with baptism are even MORE difficult than I thought.

So isn't immersion of the baptism important?? Just for the adult?? Well this does leave me with some more questions like this, maybe I'll ask another day.

janean

If you are interested in reading about CT from a Reformed Baptist perspective, I would recommend you reading 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' by Dr. Fred Malone.

By all means however, I encourage you to read about CT from both a Credo & a Paedo perspective.

Tom

I totally understand. I was baptized twice as a youngster. Once when i was six by a homosexual pentecostal. The second into the mormon church. When I became a Christian I decided neither of these were performed by what I would call true ministers. I decided to be rebaptised. My pastor said that he was willing to accept the pentecostal baptism but I was adamant about being rebaptised. He understood and performed the act.


Agreed. Although those children within the visible covenant surely have access to more than those outside. Nobody here holds to baptismal regeneration. We baptize children because they are covenant children.


Not prescribed in scripture. Not necessarily described in scripture.


God bless,

william

Janean,

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the first pastor. There is a fundamental misunderstanding among many (not all) protestants concerning baptism. Perhaps, like them, you think that baptism is merely a sign, or public statement that one has received Christ, but according to the Bible it's much more than that. I invite you to study all scriptures in regard to water baptism such as Matt 28:19, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:39, 22:16, 1Corin 12:13, Gal 3:27, and 1Pet 3:21. These clearly indicate that baptism is intrinsically tied into our salvation and is a critical part of our conversion.

Which vindicates the pastor's position that it ought not be taken so lightly that it is done repeatedly; for to repetitiously undergo baptism is tantamount to recrucifying our Lord (as if the first time was insufficient). And we know that this is impossible as we read in Hebrews:

No doubt your pastor (correctly) believes baptism to be a sacred sacrament to be performed only once even as Christ was only once crucified for all our sins. And he is also evidence that this isn't some estranged Catholic belief, but is strongly held by all Christians who rightly divide the word of truth.

Another point I want to touch upon is your mother's departure from the Catholic Church. It is true that many people could not develop a close relationship to Christ in the Catholic Church, but more often than not, it's because of lack of adherence to devotional practice. The Church teaches us to not only show up for mass weekly, but to also participate in the many devotions, adorations, meditations, contemplations, Bible studies, and sessions of spiritual and thoughtful prayer. The Church not only encourages us to develop a close and enduring relationship to Jesus, they provide ample opportunity to do so corporately as well as privately.

Many Catholics don't take advantage of these opportunities, and typically, those who don't are not regular even in their attendance of the mass. Then they find Jesus outside of the RCC and they think that the Church had failed them and had to leave the Church to find Jesus. Many of these former Catholics then begin practices that they should have been doing to begin with, such as praying, reading the Bible, fellowship, and public and private worship.

A Catholic never needs to leave the Church to find Jesus, but with that said, for those who believe that it was necessary, more power to them, for if they have attained Christ by any means, I cannot but rejoice.
Paul was of the same attitude, becoming a Jew to Jews and a gentile to gentiles; becoming all things to all men that he might win some to Christ. He knew what was most important.

"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen." Eph 6:24

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Janean,

I'll briefly comment on two points you made and asked questions about:

1) Rebaptism: There is a difference of opinion within the Reformed camp as to whether the Roman State Church is a true church or not. I am on the side that does not recognize Rome; it fails as to the necessary "marks" of a true Church which are: a) The preaching of the pure gospel, b) the right administration of the sacraments, and c) proper church discipline. It is my view that Rome is apostate. Thus, any baptism performed by Rome is invalid.

2) Immersion: Contrary to some of my Baptist brethren, I find no warrant in Scripture to believe that immersion is the ONLY valid mode for baptism. I do believe that it is one of three that can rightly be administered: a) Aspersion, b) Effusion, and c) Immersion. In fact, it is doubtful that immersion was practiced during the time of Christ. For a succinct article on this subject see here: The Token of the Covenant by Rev. William MacIntyre.

On a personal note, I was baptized as an infant in a very liberal Methodist church. Neither of my parents were believers. When I was converted many years later, I came under conviction as to the validity of my former baptism and chose to be rebaptized by a believing pastor and according to my own personal faith. There are those who would object for various reasons and I do respect their opinion on the matter. However, I find no solid biblical teaching that would prohibit rebaptism when one's initial baptism was pagan with respect to everything involved; church, pastor, parents, etc.

In His Grace,

Catholic Soldier--

Well honestly I am not surprised to hear your response. As far as my Mother goes, she has quite an amazing testimony. It was simply from reading the book of John one night that Christ came to her. Her upbringing and membership in the RCC was religion only. And she was quite devout for several of those years and contemplated becoming a nun at one point. Over the course of about a year she read the Bible over and over and saw the manys errors of the RCC (and not from reading any anti-catholic material or such from anyone - just from scripture alone) All of the "battles" and discussions you have run into here of what many here on this site are trying to tell you are the same issues that my mother saw because she was born again and the Holy Spirit revealed them to her.

you said


Well for my mother Jesus found her and as a result she left the Catholic church. Personally I find it hard to believe of a true born-again Christian remaining in the RCC. I believe that God will eventually lead them out of it like He did with my Mother. (Please don't take this as a personal attack on you - you seem to be quite sensitive to this issue) But that's what I really believe. I don't know where you really are with God and what he's doing in your life. Only He does.

Like I said I'm not surprised with your disagreement. Too bad I can't get my Mom to get on this discussion board and add to things, but she has bad arthritis and she's too afraid of computers!!!

Pilgrim said:
Funny that the Catholic Church is the non exclusive one. Any adult convert who has been baptized in any Christian faith in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (the only scriptural requirements) will not have to be rebaptized in the Catholic faith.


Well, sir, you will also not find any scripture allowing the practice or a precident of rebaptism. But the opposite may be clearly deducted from scripture; that baptism is a holy sacrament and crucial part of our conversion, and therefore rebaptism (or why not stop there, let's get baptized every week) cheapens it.

Pax Christi

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

you said:


Pilgrim addressed the RCC specifically in response to me and my infant baptism which happened to be in the RCC. There many other churches and cult groups out there that also are considered apostate. What about (for example) the Mormon church?? I would assume they may also baptize in the name of the Father, Son and HS. Now should we accept a baptism from that church??

As far as I'm concerned a non-valid baptism is no baptism. And thus "re-baptism" is actually the initial valid baptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Thus, in such situations, there is no "re-baptism" but an initial baptism which is warranted.

I don't have a problem with a baptism which was done "in any Christian faith". What I do have a problem with is with baptism performed outside the Christian faith. As I made clear, it is my firm belief that Rome is apostate and is not to be included in "the Christian faith". Thus baptisms performed by Rome don't qualify.

In His Grace,

Catholicsoldier, you have much gall in speaking about "cheapening" anything! You (and the Catholic Church) have cheapened the work of Christ making claim that it is not efficient and sufficient to grant one salvation without baptism. You cheapen grace and faith embracing a work of man. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

Definitely not! Their Jesus (a mere angel) is a different Jesus then the one you believe in, et. al.

Janean,

You asked about the LDS faith (and it would be irresponsible to lump LDS in with Catholics) and what I have heard from RCIA is that most parishes will decide to rebaptize those who were baptized Mormon.

Yes, they baptize in the name of the the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but according to them who is the Father? He is a created being that started out quasipotent and ascended to the divine position he (lower case used intentionally) now occupies. Joseph Smith expressed a hope that he will one day occupy the place god now occupies as god moves on to yet a more exalted position. Sound familiar? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/threaddevil.gif" alt="" />

And who, according to them, is the Son? He is also a concieved and created being raised by the father and his heavenly wife. (who knows who that could be) He, and his sibling, Lucifer, both presented plans for salvation; the father accepted Jesus's and rejected Lucifer's casting him down to earth.

And who then is the Holy Spirit, according to them? Not much emphasis is made of their holy spirit. In fact Joseph Smith at one time referred to him as the "mind" of the other two. (Lectures on Faith 48-49)

These beliefs contradict even the Book of Mormon, and are derived from the ever deviating sermons that Smith gave as his church developed.

Can you see why most RCIA directors hesitate to give validity to Mormon baptisms? But there is no reason, other than pure animosity toward the RCC, to reject a Catholic baptism as our accurate doctrine of the Trinity has remained constant these 2000 years. There is only one Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the name of this most blessed and holy Trinity, we baptize.

In the Sacred Heart of Christ and the Immaculate Heart of Mary

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Mr. Edwards,

Yes, you're right sir, and their beliefs about the other two are equally disturbing; please refer to my post as I have spelled this out in some detail.

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Janean,

You said:

My testimony may change your thinking. I was raised in a Nazarine Church in a protestant family. I got on my knees as a 7 year old boy and asked Jesus into my heart. I was baptized at nine and raised with all the riches of the protestant tradition that I still treasure today. But more than anything; my personal relationship with Jesus; you see, I knew Jesus since I was very little and learned to love Him more and more as I grew up.

But when I became an adult I closely scrutinized the Bible and found protestantism to be in error in many respects, and that my true beliefs were more in line with the Catholic faith, and so I made an adult decision to convert to Catholicism. That was 11 years ago. Today my dad is a pastor in California, and all my family and closest friends are protestants. Do you see why I love you all here and consider you brethren?

Your belief that God will eventually lead a born again Christian out of RCC implies that we don't really know any better and that as we learn the truth, we will leave the Church. But my decision was well informed, and the more I learn about both Protestantism and Catholicism, the more assured I am that I made the right decision. I am a Catholic-with-eyes-wide-open.

Yes, I am sensitive, and I apologize to Pilgrim, averagefellar, semperreformanda, and any other that have felt my teeth sink deep. There are two factors I think contribute to this; one is how dear and precious to me is my relationship to Christ Jesus. I am a born-again Christian and everyday experience the evidence of the new birth. Perhaps a good analogy, for you married folk, is for someone to tell you that you aren't married to your spouse and have no relationship in that regard. Wouldn't that quickly get a rise out of you?

The second factor is that I'm the sole Catholic in a Reformation chat forum. Sometimes you may see my "treed cougar" stance as I become defensive, thinking everyone is against me. I know I bring this on myself voluntarily participating as a Catholic here, but this is a side effect; for the most part I enjoy our somewhat turbulant fellowship here.

And so, I hope everyone here will bear with me when I have an "episode", and simply roll your eyes saying "here he goes again," instead of regarding my presence here as intolerable. And in return, I'll try to grow thicker skin, like I do with my section chief and platoon sergeant.

And I again rejoice that your mother found Christ by any means. From an eternal perspective, that's all that really matters.

"Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen."

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />
(James)

James you appear to have a wonderful testimony and indeed I hope it is genuine. I say, “I hope” as you have claimed to have “found Protestantism to be in error in many respects.” Thus, this raises some questions (1) what doctrines within Protestantism are in error? (2) what truths are in Catholicism are truth against such alleged Protestant errors?, etc. Right now, as you know, to most of us you are a “cult member” with your eyes wide-shut (but, Luther was for a time as well).

While your other two reasons are admirably stated, I think there is a third reason that all of us here hope is the main reason (by God’s sovereignty) why you are here; to learn some truths about real Protestantism giving you space to repent from your Catholic views. I am sure you are not naive and thus understand that “heresy” is not allowed here. The moderators at The Highway consider the Catholic faith, as I do, to be heretical. Thus, the purpose of even allowing you to post at all is in grace hoping/praying that you will see and follow the truth of God’s Word. Thus, my responses to you, as I am sure many other responses, are evangelical in nature. Please note that you are being prayed for in this respect.

We hope you are here to do more than grow a “thicker skin.” Hopefully you will more clearly see what is on the “tough and yet tender skins” (the Bible—sheep skins, et. al.) and thus repent of much which you now entertain as truth.

Mr. Edwards


First, (and I say this kindly) you aren't speaking for everyone. For many, I would speculate, I'm here to give them something to protest, and the last thing they would want is for me to turn protestant, for then the fun would end. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

And second, I'm not sure if you read closely enough, but I was well instructed in the tenants of Protestantism, and then explored thorougly the tenants of Catholicism before making an informed and deliberate choice. Please don't hold your breath, you will most certainly suffocate! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />


Yes, and that's why I tread carefully and have clarified to Pilgrim from the start that I don't seek to undermine the syllibus if this forum, nor do I seek converts. But with this said, I will not fear to speak what have found with certainty to be true, for I ascertain that being a coward is far worse than being kicked out of this forum. (As regrettable as that would be, I've grown to love you all.)

Thank you for your concerns and prayers, but as you can see, I'm settled on my beliefs.

Pax Christi

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

It is always sad to see one say, "I'm settled on my beliefs," when those beliefs are heretical. Your informed and deliberate deceptive choice reminds me of Pharaoh who also was settled on his heretical beliefs and hardened his heart. In God's sovereign will another option for you being here (which I purposely did not mention in my previous post) is for your further hardening (as Moses spoke to Pharaoh, so this forum speaks to you). Again, I beseech you to repent and accept the truth—renounce the Catholic Church and its teachings. Without true repentance and the acceptance of the Truth we can only wait and see God's Red Sea approach and consume you.

To clarify my other post, I believe my infant baptism to be invalid even if it had been performed in a protestant church ( and mostly because my parents were not believers at the time) and honestly I can't say that I hold to any infant baptism at this point. You didn't have to explain about Mormon errors. I certainly know them (I have a Mormon neighbor that I've had deep conversation with). Anyways I was saying that as a kind of sarcastic example and not with any seriousness with my question. And I read your testimony. Very interesting. Will it change my mind. Honestly, not at all. I have to agree with J Edwards and Pilgrim. I would consider the RCC as a "cult" like J Edwards said also because there are just too many things out of line with Scripture. I have to say I believe too that you have deliberately (and from my view unfortunately) chosen error. None the less, it is interesting to read your point of view and you're the only catholic I know that's deliberately chosen that path.

Anyone who has the attitude to as you say: "I'm here to give them something to protest, and the last thing they would want is for me to turn protestant, for then the fun would end." I would question if they genuinely care about people (to put it mildly).

I am not a monitor on the Highway, so I hope I am not over stepping my bounds here, but based on the above and other statements you made in your post, I would say it is time for you to move on.

If as you say, you are set in your beliefs, then it is no use discussing these matters any more. Unless of course your real agenda is to get new converts to the Roman Catholic faith.

Pilgrim and the rest of the monitors have been more than a little patient with you and your heretical beliefs.
Anyone on the Highway, who has read enough of my posts, knows that I seldom make posts of this sort. In fact I have been accused on occasion of being too nice to the wolves.

Tom

Yeah. I thought Pilgrim was away on vacation or something!!

Tom,

Well, sir, I was hoping you'd understand the humorous context in which I wrote this, but it appears I have failed to adequately convey this. If you think that I don't care about you or the members of this post, then perhaps you haven't been paying attention, for I have expressed my affection for the people here just as I do for my family and closest friends.(All protestants as well.) If I took some of the scathing remarks I often receive from the members here (many more than you get) as a sign that people don't care for me, then I would equally be off the mark.

The members here have expressed these following sentiments to me:

Off the top of my head and among many more that I remember along the same lines, and don't think for a moment I don't hold these members just as dearly in my heart, which brings me to your second statement:

Tom, sir, just a few points I should make:

1. As I already pointed out there are many here who already do care for me, and whether you find it tasteful or not, they do enjoy being able to test Protestant doctrines in thoughtful discussion with an informed Catholic.

2. You suggest this based on my unwavering convictions in my Catholic faith. If my beliefs were whimsical and easily changed, not only would I be a bad Catholic, I would also make a terrible Protestant.

3. Only once, and just recently, has a Moderator rebuked me on a statement I made, and in response I demonstrated a willingness to comply. I will always strive to be sensitive to the members here and respectful of the forum's syllibus, but perhaps you may have overlooked that I'm not a guest here, I'm a member, with the same rights and privelidges as any other to express what I believe; as I'm sure you're not unaware, I'm not the only one who holds beliefs differing from the Forum's. (if everyone was of like mind, this would be a dull forum indeed!)

4. You retain freedom of association, and if you find it intolerable that I will not bend in my convictions, you are certainly at liberty to ignore my future posts. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, Pilgrim has designed this web site so you can do just that. Simply click on my profile and you'll see the option at the bottom of the screen.

Perhaps you are a little hasty in assessing how I fit in this forum, but I do have to agree with you that Pilgrim and the moderators here have been more than gracious and patient with me, especially in suffering my oft oversensitivity. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Maybe, sir, you could do the same for me.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Sir? So you are saying that I can believe something with unshakeable conviction and still be wrong? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />oo:

Well, my friend, then so can you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

carpe cerevesa Seize the beer! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />
(James)

Mr. Edwards,

Baptism is a sacrament, not a work, and in scripture it is itimately tied (not to our salvation) but to our conversion,
(which essentiall IS our salvation) Protestants' deliberate ignorance of the multiple scriptures that clearly say this causes me to wonder just what tota scriptura, sola scriptura really means to them.

And it unnerves me when they turn around and say that WE are unbiblical! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" />

"knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold...but with the precious blood of Christ!"

catholicsoldier <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />
(James)

Oh yes. Uh oh, that means the pope can be.......


God bless,

william

Popish Heresy! Baptism is a sacrament, but it is also a work of man obeying the Scriptures. In addition, baptism offers NO SALVATION to its recipient, but this has already been addressed and gone effectively unanswered by you.

That sure was a convincing argument of your faith. Did Pharaoh think he was going to make it through the Red Sea? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

catholicsoldier,

Do you think it is a gross sin when Roman Catholic parents defer baptism until the child is enough to make a decision for himself? Do you not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation? Do not the works of God save us?

catholicsoldier

I thought I would give you a link to an article that explains in a little more detale what J_Edwards is talking about.
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/acts_2_38.htm

Tom

Pilgrim What about what Calvin wrote in his Institutes:
http://www.thevine.net/~phillipj/calvin/bk4ch15.html#sixteen.htm
This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism.

Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God's, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin.

Johnnie,

Just so you know, I have some serious problems with Calvin's views on infant baptism. From what I have studied of Calvin's writings on this subject, I find myself at odds with his view concerning the validity of baptism performed by the apostate RCC. Calvin also believed in presumptive regeneration it seems which I strongly oppose. But to this matter of the validity of baptism, the problem I have isn't just with the one who administers it but also with the lack of a valid profession of faith of the parents who bring their children to baptism. The promise of God is to those who truly believe that their sins will be remitted as well as those of their children, should they likewise profess a true faith in Christ. It is my belief, that the promises of God are irrevocable, not excluding the promise of Acts 2:38, 39, which IMHO, interpreted rightly is addressed to the elect, "as many as the Lord our God shall call". Thus, the validity of baptism in not applicable to unbelievers; particularly to those who have not made a profession of faith.

On a personal note, I was baptized as an infant in a liberal Methodist church. My parents were not and never became believers. Thus, I chose to be (re)baptized after I was converted, believing that my first baptism was actually no baptism at all. As you would rightly surmise, I do not believe that a simple recitation of the Tridentine formula has any efficacy any more than does the preaching of the Gospel, in and of itself. It is the Holy Spirit alone that has the power and it is He alone Who works in the hearts of those who have been called of God. But again, the promise which is annexed to baptism belongs to the elect only. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

pilgrim,


What's your opinion regarding the validity of baptism performed by the apostate Reformed Church in the name of the feminist modalist deity (i.e. Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer)?

Same thing! The RCC doesn't have a lock on apostasy <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Do conservative Reformed churches investigate those coming from liberal Reformed churches to ensure they have had a proper baptism? This may be quite difficult in the case of infant baptisms because the liberal Reformed have had false baptisms for many years now and the adults may not remember the form of their baptism.

Unlike yourself, a conservative Reformed church, worth its salt, won't be mainly concerned about the person's baptism, but rather whether or not the person has a valid profession of faith. For, it is by grace through faith that anyone is saved and NOT through/by baptism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

BTW, could you please give some example of what you call "the liberal Reformed" is? Inquiring minds wanna know!

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

All conversative Lutheran churches require both the assurance of a valid baptism AND a valid public profession of grace alone, faith alone, and Christ alone as prerequisites for membership and Holy Communion.

It is interesting I, a Lutheran, agree with Calvin on the validity of baptism; whereas, you, a Calvinist, do not agree with Calvin. With Calvin, I accept the validity of baptisms perform by the cult of the AntiChrist (since they do not change Christ's institution) but I reject the validity of baptisms performed by Reform (UCC) and Lutheran (ELCA) cults who baptism in the name of some feminist modalist deity.


The Sacraments of the ELCA: Are they Valid?, John F. Brug, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Note: My apologies to the RCA and this forum. I had previously entered RCA in lieu of UCC.

speratus,

Methinks you are switching horses in the middle of the stream here. The original question you asked me, in reference to my rejection of baptism administered by the Roman State Church was:


But now you have brought in the issue of membership, which I consider to be an entirely different animal; an addition to the original question.

I follow Calvin wherever he is in agreement with the Scriptures and not otherwise. As I have said all along and for years previous, I believe Calvin to have accredited far too much to baptism in certain areas without a solid biblical warrant to do so. Perhaps I need to remind you once again that I hold to Sola Scriptura and not Sola Calvinura! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> And I repeat here also, that I do not hold that the Tridentine formula recited by a priest, bishop, elder, pastor, etc.. is the sole requisite for a valid baptism. What is also required is a valid profession of the one administering the sacrament, and a valid profession of faith of the recipient or of the parents of the infant being baptized. Since Rome is apostate in its doctrine as are all cults; they are not of the true church, then I reject the baptisms administered by them. For the command to baptize was given to the CHURCH and non else.

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

Sorry, I misunderstood you. The Roman cult officially accepts the Ecumenical creeds which properly define the Holy Trinity and justifying faith. Parents bring their children to be baptized unto these creeds.

The priests and the other teachers immediately seek to undermine justifying faith taught in the creeds according to the false doctrines of Catechisms, Councils, and Popes. If the Roman cult ever repudiates the trinitarian faith of the creeds, their baptisms would be in doubt.

From a Roman Catholic infant baptism rite


Notice that the papists do employ profession of faith directed toward the parents and God-parents. Is this not similar to the profession of faith of the Reform? In the Lutheran infant baptism, the profession of faith is made by the infant himself because we believe the infant is justified by personal faith not covenant faith.

To be quite frank, I would NEVER allow anyone into membership of a church I pastored on the basis of those questions. They should not be used and cannot confirm whether a person has saving faith in Jesus Christ. Yes, it is true that there are some churches, even ones that call themselves "Reformed" that use such similar questions when admitting a person into membership. But I would contend, that those that do use those or similar questions as the basis for church membership are doomed because they are invariably admitting unbelievers into their midst. Some "Reformed" churches say they ask more pointed and relevant questions of their candidates in private beforehand and that the public ceremony doesn't reflect this. But I would then say that such "private" things are unbiblical and a denial of the congregation's right to know who their brethren are no less than the sacred and secret society of the Eldership. Let ALL make a Public profession of faith and not simply answer some extremely generic questions which doubtless 75% of the people on the street would answer in the affirmative. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

But I am going to have to assume from your reply that you must actually believe that the administering Priest and the parents of the child brought forth for baptism are actually and truly regenerate and possess saving faith in the Lord Christ? To the contrary, I believe that it is more than doubtful that either have saving faith, but rather they are dead in sins and under the wrath and judgment of God. There is no magic to reciting a Tridentine formula over someone with the attendance of water that mystically produces salvation or even the possibility of it. Without faith, the baptism is actually judgment upon the individual. Your view(s) on baptism are far too "Roman" for my liking..... sorry! Luther should have discarded more of the Popish baggage when he left than he did. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

pilgrim,


Are you a Donatist? The baptism is effectual by reason of the institution and command of Christ, not the faith, if any, of the priest or the parents. I thought Calvinists were in agreement with Lutherans on this.


Augsburg Confession, What the Church is


He did discard the Popish baggage. The papists believe that faith is not necessary to receive the benefits of baptism. I don't know abour your confession but in the Lutheran confession, the Lord God is sovereign. He works regeneration/faith when and where it pleases Him. If He is pleased or not pleased to regenerate and give faith in baptism, it will occur or not occur no matter what the Papists and the Calvinists say.


Augsburg Confession, Of the Ministry

speratus, my dear Lutheran . . .

I don't have any allegiance to your "Confessions". Nor will I bow before the writings/opinions of any man, be he Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, etc... What I give full recognition and obedience to, as the Spirit of God enables, is the inspired, infallibly, inerrant written Word of God. Now, if you would care to EXEGETE that Word of God so as to show that the efficacy of baptism depends not upon the legitimacy of the one administering it and/or the recipient but in and of itself, then I would love to read it. Never doubt that I am "confessional", i.e., I gladly embrace any and all confessional statements which are wholly in accord with the teaching of Scripture. However, where they do not, then I must reject those statements as spurious. So, save yourself some time and energy by not quoting from your Augsburg Confession or some other document or even from Luther himself. They have no authority over me nor can they demand that I embrace anything in them.

Previously, I chided and encouraged you to READ what Calvinists actually believe so that you would at least be privy to what someone like myself holds to be true. This too would go a long way in saving you wasted time and energy in disagreeing with things which don't exist. You can find a number of articles re: baptism here: Ecclesiology: The Doctrine of the Church.

And, FYI.. here is what the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterians) teaches:

[color:"blue"]The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII[/color]
Of Baptism

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

I have been reading the referenced documents. The Westiminster Confession article is a correct exposition of scripture and it agrees with Augsburg Confession and what I have read of Calvin and Luther. So, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.

The Westminster Confession and the Augsburg may be in agreement in your mind, but that's not the problem, is it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> The problem is with YOUR interpretation of what they are teaching in regard to baptism, which is NOT in accord with what the Westminster Confession says.

So, unless you are willing and able to EXEGETE relevant biblical passages which you believe support your view on baptism, regeneration, etc., then I would agree, that there is no point in you continuing this discussion. Confessions and Creeds are secondary sources and therefore they are subject to the scrutiny of the divinely inspired written Word of God.

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

I can only judge the Westminster and Augsburg Confessions according to what they actually say and according to scripture. Your innovative view of baptism does not agree with either confession.


Westminster Confession, Of the Sacraments

For proof that the Westminster Confession is correct, I suggest you examine the referenced scripture texts.

Methinks you have an unfortunate reading/comprehension problem. For, I am in complete agreement with the baptism and sacraments section of the WCF. In a previous reply to you I highlighted the portion of the WCF which shows that it is necessary that the sacrament is valid, <span style="background-color:yellow">by the right use of this ordinance</span>. Further, in the section you quoted, it likewise states: The grace which is exhibited in or <span style="background-color:yellow">by the sacraments rightly used</span>.

And once again, you have offered NOTHING by way of exegetical proof of your position. All you have done is to quote a few passages. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> I thought you weren't going to continue the discussion?

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

You should stick to your confession. The right use of the sacrament of baptism is exactly as the WCF describes it.

The sacraments of the papist church are valid. The cult of the AntiChrist remains a heterodox Christian church in fulfilment of scripture. The Pope sits in the temple of God and make himself to be a god by saying that men must be saved following his laws rather than by faith alone and Christ alone.

Let us take a look at these references.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matt 28:19-20

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40 And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. Acts:38-47

6 "As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' 8 And I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' And he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.' 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' And the Lord said to me, 'Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.' 11 And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. 12 "And one Anani'as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, 13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, 'Brother Saul, receive your sight.' And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him. 14 And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from his mouth; 15 for you will be a witness for him to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. Acts:6-16

22 But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:22-29

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. 1Pet 3:18-22


I'm sorry Catholicsoldier but it's not clear to me how these indicate that water baptism is intrinsically tied into our salvation.

I believe these are a clear sign of spiritual baptism and the importance of intering into a covenantal relationship. To teach that water baptism is neccassary for salvation is to teach salvation by works and not of Grace. Oh... but of course you are Roman Catholic... so I guess the whole works thing.... well.... "works" for you huh?

I've only been baptised once as an infant and I havn't been baptised as an adult. I've confirmed my faith publicly during my daughters baptism, " her one and only baptism " and my wife has only had one baptism, as an infant....

And we'll all meet again in Glory. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

2 places in scripture seem to indicate that baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Jesus said to the theif on the cross "today you shall be with me in paradise" , then in 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

It doesn't fit that if baptism IS required for salvation, that Paul would then say: 'Christ didn't put me on a mission to baptize... my mission is to preach the Gospel-- that is the power of God unto Salvation...' ( my transliteration of that verse).

Sometimes I see baptism as less a 'ritual' and more of an internal action. The phrase 'buried with him in baptism' ( while some would use this as evidence of 'dunking, not sprinkling') speaks to me of my identification with his death , burial and ressurection.

I was raised Reformed, and then while in the service, ( Ft Bragg no less..), I started challenging my views. I went on a long whirlwind tour of different denominations ( I even looked at the RCC, I loved their liturgy-- but realized I had sharp differences with them, and couldn't join with a clear conscience). My views on the RCC hierarchy and the average RCC laity is also different. SO I am a little more accepting of someone who says they're RC and don't automatically assume they are hell-bound. I have met RC's whose views on Justification were markedly different from the Churches position... which always boggled my mind.

Baptism is intrinsically linked to salvation, but it is not a pre-requisite, or necessity. Either God saves alone, or God doesn't save at all. Outward baptism is an obediant response to his command. ( I leave that statement so that both Creado's and Paedo's can accept that statement). I further believe Baptism is a sacrament..

I have been 'Craedo-baptized'. My wife and I were burdened to join a church ( One of the many times while stationed at Fayette-Nam, NC). The church was non-denom with a background of Presby and baptists in it. The church was strong, and big on teaching, discipling, fellowship, and over-all missions. They covenanted to dedicate close to a 1/3 of all they recieved in monies to missionaries. I believe the Lord honored that, and they now sponsor over 20-30 missionaries.

But back to the story. I approcahed the pastor and told him that I would like to join, but that I still believed in the merits of Paedo-baptism. IN order to join, I had to undergo a 'believers baptism' for them.. and after praying about it, I felt the Lords peace in my decision.

Yet both of my children have been baptized by their Grandfather. I have stood before the congregation, and professed my faith in Christ, and claimed the promises of Christ for my children, until such time as they are old enough to claim them for themselves.

Sorry, I feel like I am rambling here. I probably am.

Catholic Soldier. If you are interested, I can put you in touch with several scholarly bible teachers in your area who would love to discuss Protestanism vs Catholicism. Many came from that background--

In fact, there is a Servicemans christian Center near you where the Teacher ( Rev Morrison) would love to 'apologize' the Christian faith. Its located right next to Carolina Bible College. Now he is not reformed.. he is dispensational, but I still love him anyway. Also there is a former SF/Ranger Chap (Ret) who worked for the Cadence Intl Hosp House-- but now is a pastor at a local church.. his last name is Boyle.. He is a hoot to hang out with and talk scripture. He also will challenge you immensely.

While I reject a lot of what your denomination believes theologically, I offer my right hand of friendship to you as a fellow airborne idiot ( unless you're a leg...(rofl))

Paux Christi

A qeustion for you -- did the Jewish child who was circumcized as an infant have to be recircumcized when he made a formal decision to follow Jehovah?

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

ONe of the things that caught my attention before I joined the Catholic Faith and in my overall study of the covenant -- Old and New -- was that when a child was circumcized in the Old Covenant, something REALLY DID HAPPEN!!

It was not just a "sign" which did nothing to the one being circumcized. He was really and truly made a member of the covenantal kingdom with all the attendant priviledges thereof. There was no need for him to understand what was happening. You see, the ordinances of God under the Old Covenant worked by the faith of the people of God, not the faith of the one being circumcized.

The same must therefore be true of the New Covenant. The New Covenant is called "a better covenant speaking of better things". If baptism in the New Covenant does LESS than circumcision did in the Old Covenant, if it does not make a child really and truly a member of the covenantal kingdom, adopted by God, and available to all the priviledges of the New Covenant, which are the Sacraments of Grace, then HOW is that a "better covenant". Seems a much WORSE covenant to me.

Your parents did not have to have faith. The faith of the priest or those in the beleiving community was sufficient for you. The proof of this once again lies in looking at how the ordinance of circumcision worked in the Old Covenant. The male in the household was circumcized on behalf of the females in his family. He had faith for them and on their behalf. Likewise, the infant male baby could not "believe and be saved" but was recieved by the faith of his father or of the community of believers.

This is one of the differences in Protestant and Catholic theology. Salvation is individual in Protestantism. In the Catholic faith, salvation is communal. Being saved is part of being in "the family."

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Good morning Pilgrim:

[quote]1) Rebaptism: There is a difference of opinion within the Reformed camp as to whether the Roman State Church is a true church or not. I am on the side that does not recognize Rome; it fails as to the necessary "marks" of a true Church which are: a) The preaching of the pure gospel,

Wrong, of course. Read the writings of the Early Fathers. The same Gospel which they believed is believed by the Church today. I will say this again and again: the so called "gospel" which Luther and Calvin invented was no "gospel" at all, but in fact, may have sent many thousands to the Pit of Hell because of the effect of their preaching. You do know, I'm sure, that during Luther's lifetime, that this idea that one is justified "once and for all time" before God led the Germans to turn Germany into a moral cesspool. After all, if one is "once saved - always saved" then of what difference does it make HOW one lives? And the German people came to this conclusion and turned Germany into a haven of immorality.

b) the right administration of the sacraments,

Might I ask you just HOW the Sacraments are supposed to be "rightly administered". I never heard of such a thing as "right administration" of the Sacraments as a Presbyterian.

c) proper church discipline.

To play in your sandbox, might I have some scriptural proof for this idea?

2) Immersion: Contrary to some of my Baptist brethren, I find no warrant in Scripture to believe that immersion is the ONLY valid mode for baptism.

I agree with you, but I am STRONGLY (like an 800 pound gorilla strong!)in favor of IMMERSION as the proper way of picturing the death burial and resurrection of our Lord. Also, it is the proper form to the administration of the New Covenant.

On a personal note, I was baptized as an infant in a very liberal Methodist church. Neither of my parents were believers.

[i]How do you know? What makes you the judge of another's heart? This is one thing I find extremely distasteful about Calvinist and Evangelical thought -- i.e., the right to judge others according to your standards of what makes one a Christian

When I was converted many years later, I came under conviction as to the validity of my former baptism and chose to be rebaptized by a believing pastor and according to my own personal faith. There are those who would object for various reasons and I do respect their opinion on the matter. However, I find no solid biblical teaching that would prohibit rebaptism when one's initial baptism was pagan with respect to everything involved; church, pastor, parents, etc.

Again, sir, and respectfully said to you, you do not understand how a covenant works.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

That is because the New Covenant and the Sacrament of Baptism as the entrance rite into the covenant [color:"FF0000"]WAS NOT INITIATED YET ! ! ! [/color] The thief on his cross was a circumcized member of the Old Covenant community. Therefore, he was already "in covenant with God" and simply had to repent (which he did with his statement of faith) and believe, returning to his covenantal vows of circumcision.

then in 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

Unbelievable. You rip a single verse out of context of the chapter and what St. Paul is saying and expect to make a whole doctrine of this. I am not trying to be nasty, but do you realize that this is what the JW's, Mormons, and a host of other cults do?

The great issue here which begins in verse 10 is the strife and divisions which were in the Corinthian parish. In verse 14 he goes on to state that he did indeed baptize some people, but the bigger picture is that he is trying to show that there should be no clannish arguments over who is of what sect of being baptized.

Furthermore, God has various jobs for various peoples. To say that St. Paul is not primarily concerned with baptism is not to say that baptism is not important -- it is to say that the primary calling of St. Paul was preaching. Baptism was given to others. And God had a purpose for doing that.

It doesn't fit that if baptism IS required for salvation, that Paul would then say: 'Christ didn't put me on a mission to baptize... my mission is to preach the Gospel-- that is the power of God unto Salvation...' ( my transliteration of that verse).

Sometimes I see baptism as less a 'ritual' and more of an internal action. The phrase 'buried with him in baptism' ( while some would use this as evidence of 'dunking, not sprinkling') speaks to me of my identification with his death , burial and ressurection.

No, baptism is much more than that. All human beings are members of Adam's family and are born separated from God by Adam's disobedience. God has initiated a rite by which we are adopted into the family of God. How then can one be saved if one insists upon remaining in the family of Adam rather than to enter the kingdom of God?

I even looked at the RCC, I loved their liturgy-- but realized I had sharp differences with them, and couldn't join with a clear conscience).


ever try a Byzantine Liturgy? Closest thing you will find to heaven on earth, especially the Christmas and Pascha Liturgy.

Baptism is intrinsically linked to salvation, but it is not a pre-requisite, or necessity. Either God saves alone, or God doesn't save at all. Outward baptism is an obediant response to his command.

Wrong. Look at the ordinance of circumcision in the Old Covenant. It truly made one a member of the kingdom of God. Are you saying that in the New Covenant, are you saying that baptism does less? Hardly.

Yet both of my children have been baptized by their Grandfather. I have stood before the congregation, and professed my faith in Christ, and claimed the promises of Christ for my children, until such time as they are old enough to claim them for themselves.

Well, see now, that is covenantal. Baptism makes one a member of the covenantal kingdom, but ulitmately, one must "confirm" that decision for themselves. The Jews had the ritual of Bar Mitzvah. The Church has the ritual of confirmation, a time when the baptized child takes for him/herself the oaths/sacntions of a covenant relationship with God.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Of course, I would beg to differ with you on the very nature and content of the Gospel which the Reformers preached as was and will forever be that which the Apostles preached and which is the power of salvation to all who believe. It is the gospel which Paul fought with all his strength to guard, especially against those who would pervert it by adding to grace and element of works. (cf. Gal 1:6-9; 2:1-19)

This is truly a nonsensical argument which the Roman State Church has used countless times to bring disrepute upon the pure and biblical doctrine of the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints. And, it has been shown to be fallacious countless times and that it is but a roughly assembled strawman that has no semblance to what the Reformed Faith teaches. The truth of the matter is, the biblical teaching is that IF a man is truly justified by grace through faith, then good works will of necessity follow and exhibit that faith. (cf. Rom 6; Matt 7:22, 23; Lk 6:46; Eph 2:8-10; Phil 1:11, 12; et al and The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIII - "Of Sanctification")

To be more accurate, the Belgic Confession, Article XXIX, on the true marks of the Church uses the phrase, "pure administration". Be that as it may, what the phrase means is that both baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered according to the biblical warrant; i.e., by an ordained clergy and to those who are qualified to partake of them and according to a right understanding of them. This would exclude such things as baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation.

A refutation of the view that immersion is the primary acceptable mode of administering baptism can be found here: The Token of the Covenant.

I know without question what the spiritual state of my parents are due to the fact that they categorically deny any need of Christ and/or salvation. If that isn't a warrant to judge them, then pray tell, what is? Further, to the Church is given the right to discipline those within its membership according to what they can "see" outwardly, including excommunication, which is a pronouncement that the individual is deemed to be outside the camp and has no part in the family of God; i.e., he/she is for all intents and purposes no warrant to be accepted as a believer. Such judgment is never to be understood as one that knows God's eternal decree for any individual in regard to salvation. However, this does not preclude the injunctions that men are to judge other men in regard to the fruit of their alleged profession of faith. It's unfortunate that the Roman Church has failed miserably to discipline not only its laity but especially its clergy who have openly defied and denied the official teachings of the church to which they are members and serve.

You are certainly entitled to your whimsical opinions about what I understand and/or don't understand. But what I do know is that I understand sufficiently that it is a fatal step into apostasy to distort the covenant of grace whereby one intermixes faith and works in order to be justified. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

OC you say:

No, because I am staying in context with what Paul is speaking about. He is discussing Baptism... and in the end he makes the statement that Christ did not call him to baptize! When one infers something from the text , they do so in relation to all that has been previously said.. I feel it is in perfect syntax to say that Paul is saying the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.. not baptism.

You then say:


God saves. Before we are even cognizant of this God saves us. IN fact God has saved those that are his in eternity past, before the creation and foundation of the world. God then gives us the gift of faith. Now that we are spiritually alive, and our will is free, and we posess faith ( which is needed top please God), we are able to respond to the Gospel message. However, we usually think that this is the moment we are saved. -- this is only the moment we become aware of our salvation. It has already occurred, and it has already been performed by God alone..

You further state:


No, thats RC theology. I have attended RC baptisms where after the announcement, they address the infant and proclaim to them that they are now part of the Body of Christ. That is language reserved for someone who has come to a saving knowledge of the truth, and has made a profession of faith.

Lastly


No, it is more than conformation. They must claim it for themselves. Until such time, they recieve the benefits that are extended to their parents who posess faith, and God bestows mercy and favor upon them because of this. ( IN fact this is a picture of how God bestows mercy and favor upon us becasue of what Christ did for us).. but no Reformed theologian believs that baptism introduces that child into the Kingdom of God... thus negating the need for that child to ever examine himself ( when he is older) and come before the Lord and ask for forgiveness, and ask the Lord to save them. At least, I don't see the same language used in our 'Order of worship' books in comaprison to the RC baptism ritual.

Lastly-- shall I list the examples of OT Jewish individuals who are clearly shown as being reprobate-- and your theory presupposes that just because a foreskin was sliced off, they are automatic members of God kingdom. Thats comparable to a Dispensational saying that Rom 11:25 refers to a national re-awakening and national salvation of Israel.

I agree. Baptism does not make one elect nor saved. It is also not limited to those of the invisible church alone but is applied to all within the visible covenant. Children are members of the visible church because their parents have professed faith. Children reap some benefits by simply belonging to the visible church. However, a guarantee to salvation is not included.

Some reformed folks are hyper-covenantal, taking Gods promises to the extremes. They would claim that either all children that die prior to being able to exhibit faith are elect OR that all children of elect parents are elect. However, I agree that all children need to confirm/announce/profess their own faith before receiving all the benefits of church membership.

OC is the first person in years I have seen put forth circumcisional-regeneration. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Well, surely, if one deny the need of the Savior to be delivered from one's sins, then that is pretty clear. What I was referring to was more in line with judgment based in personal habits -- i.e, you are not "saved" because you

A) have a drink of wine with dinner

B) go to the movies

C) attend a denomination different from mine

D) believe in the Sacraments

E) attend a Catholic church

etc. etc. etc.


I find it whimsical at best to see the "presuppositional blindness" which strikes people when they are presented with evidence that the Early Church, as early as the second century AD, believed in both baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist. You claim that the Gospel which your denomination preaches is that very same Gospel which the apostles taught, yet there is not a shred of evidence that such doctrines as the Reformers invented ever existed in the Church.

Let me ask you this: if there was another understanding of baptism and the Eucharist, where is the evidence to this effect. I.E., where is a Church Council on either of these subjects. You see, these are indeed issues of how one obtains eternal life...therefore, if there were another opinion other than that which the Early Fathers published in their writings, and if that opinion had a number of followers, there most certainly would have been a council to decide this issue.

Seeing, therefore, that there is a [color:"FF0000"]conspicuous absence of any such council on either subject,[/color] we must therefore conclude that such teachings as you adhere to, my dear sir, did not exist prior to 1517 and are the invention of a certain type of hermeneutics which the Church rejects out of hand.

I understand your concern not to mix grace and works....however, you do not understand the difference. The Hindu who goes down to the filthy Ganges River to baptize himself for the remission of his sins, doing so without any reference to the finishe work of Christ on his behalf, is trying to make covenant with God [color:"FF0000"]by works of his own invention.[/color]

But the person who submits to baptism is not "working his way to heaven" as I hear so often accused, but is being obedient to that Sacrament which God has given to mankind. Through this work, the sinner is joined to Christ (Gal. 3:27) and is made a partaker of His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3). We are baptized into Christ. The aforementioned Hindu, on the other hand, is baptized into nothing more than his own ideas of salvation -- which will ultimately fail.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

That's false. Now it's getting to be an old lie. I get my truth from Gods word.......I take into account writings from christians throughout the ages. However, none are infallible as only the bible is. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Of course they are members of the kingdom. Where do you get the idea that kingdom membership precludes the ability to either sin or even fall away (apostacize) form that kingdom?

[color:"0000FF"]Genesis 17:11-14 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And 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.[/color]

Notice that it says that the one who is uncircumcized is "cut off" from among my people. In fact, nothing in th verses above mention at all the idea that in order to enter the kingdom, one must exercise faith.

When one makes a covenant, the lesser always makes covenant with the greater. In this case, the sinner with God, and enters into a covenantal relationship with God. How is it that you would state that one could be circumcized, enter into relationship with God, and not be part of the kingdom?

Furthermore, St. Paul addresses the issue of salvation and eternal life in Romans 2: 5 - 10 where he states that [color:"FF0000"]eveny man will be judged according to his deeds....those who have done good unto eternal life and those who have done evil unto eternal torment.[/color]

Entering the covenantal family which is the kingdom of God is one thing. But receiving eternal life is something altogether different. The problem you have as a Protestant is that you have mixed together two items of faith -- salvation and eternal life -- which are distinctly different and separate according to the covenantal family paradigm.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Fine. Show me your proof that the Reformed doctrines existed in AD 100. AD 200. AD 300.


So do I. Obviously one of us has a mistaken idea of what the Bible teaches. And since there is no evidence that Reformed doctrines were taugh prior to 1517.....well.....


In other words, you read them to find out places where they agree with your interpretation, right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The writings of the Early Fathers show us very clearly [color:"FF0000"]how the scriptures were interpreted in the first century onward[/color] When you have the majority of believers in those centuries all holding to a specific doctrinal teaching (such as baptismal regeneration) and you find no opposition to that teaching in the form of councils, synods, etc. then you must know that there simply were no other teachings.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

I would say that regeneration is not what circumcision did. It made one a part of the kingdom of God.

The word "regeneration" is only found in two verses in the NT:

[color:"0000FF"]Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;[/color]

Now, the question you have to ask is this. WHAT is it that is being regenerated? Is it the individual, or is it the Creation of God as a corporate entity? I would favor the latter. I see very little evidence which points to the idea of individual regeneration.

Let me check out something in Kittle's real quick:

Okay. Very interesting. The word for regeneration is

paliggenesia.

Do you see the root word "genesis" in there? I think that the word "regeneration" ties in with Christ being the Last Adam and the world being "re-genesised" in terms of the covenant being restored between God and man so that mankind can once again be part of the divine family and communio personarum.

If I seemed to indicate that I believe that circumcision regenerated a person I apologize. That was not my intention. Jesus Christ regenerates -- both in the corporate sense of making the family of man one with the family of God again, and then individually as each person is entered into that covenantal relationship with God because there is no longer any separation between God and man.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Is it required to be believed by council(aren't those your requirements?) for it to be true? NO! Is it required to have been dealt with in depth prior to 1500 for it to be scriptural? Again, NO! Yet, once again so you will drop your false assertion.......



Now please stop spouting this error. Thank you.


I don't need synods, councils or popes. God gave us His Word and it doesn't give authority to any of these. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> It is truth, all other men being fallible and their writings as well.


God bless,

william

A very simple request, sir.

SHOW ME THE PROOF!

Nothing to it......IF you have proof. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


That's not the point. The Word of God didn't even exist in the first century as a finished canon. And the writings of the Early Fathers show what was believed of the epistles that were in circumlation at that time.

The isue was paedobaptism....why do you keep throwing quotes at me on predestination?

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Doesn't matter if the books had been "canonized" or not. The truths within them remain the same.


Because you keep asserting that nobody prior tom 1500 put forth those beliefs. I take into consideration what the ECF's wrote but do not consider it infallible. Their writings are not canon.


God bless,

william

Granted that the writings of the ECFs give us what was believed among them during the period in which they lived. However, anyone even remotely acquainted with those writings knows that there were differences, some great, among them as well. There is therefore no basis for one to rely upon them as a source of absolute truth. What is shown by their writings is that there was taking place during there time that which was even present during the time which Paul wrote his Epistles; i.e., false teachers would bring in heresies within the Church and lead even many astray. (cf. 1Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20) Peter also warned of such things to come when he wrote:

2 Peter 2:1 (ASV) "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Was not Arius a member in "good standing" when he denied the doctrine of the Trinity? What of Origen's objectionable hermeneutical method and Marcion's rejection of many of the New Testament books? Again, the writings of the ECFs are an interesting study and they do provide an insight into how dogma was being developed. But they are hardly an infallible or even in some cases, a reliable source upon which to find the propositional truths of the inspired written Word of God. Doubtless, one could find evidence for even the most bizarre belief in the writings of those men in order to substantiate it and which is totally contrary to sound biblical teaching.

So, what are we left with? That blessed doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", whereby a true child of God by the indwelling Spirit is able to come to know the truth and of which truth they are set free. And those who do come to know the truth are said to be but a remnant. That there were and will continue to be false teachers who bring in their damnable heresies who will represent the majority of the whole is something which testifies against Rome and its empty claim that they are the guardians of the truth.

In His Grace,