The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant Baptism Question

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,