the meaning of Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

So Baptism doesn't save. Did I read that correctly?
Why, then, would baptism save an infant?

Baptism is the laver of regeneration.

 

[MennoSota]

Baptism is the laver of regeneration.

Baptism is an effect brought on by regeneration.

 

[atpollard]

The vast Majority of Christians throughout history agree that babies ought to be baptised and that pouring water is just fine and that being a Catholic is the "right thing to do".

:smirk:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no they do not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baptism is an effect brought on by regeneration.

Nope, it is the laver of regeneration. That's what the bible says.

 

[MennoSota]

Baptism is the laver of regeneration.

la·ver1
ˈlāvər/
noun
an edible seaweed with thin sheetlike fronds of a reddish-purple and green color that becomes black when dry.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no they do not.

Yes they do. The vast majority of Christians through time were Catholic and did baptise babies and did use water poured over their head as the water of baptism. All easily verified.

 

[Josiah]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no they do not.

Not even uber-Calvinists agree that "going... baptizing... teaching" is "of no spiritual value".

Not even uber-Calvinists agree that we are specifically forbidden by words of Scripture to go.... baptize... teach those under the age of X.

Not even uber-Calvinists insist that we are forbidden to go... baptize... teach unless we KNOW they are among the "elect" and already have come to faith "immediately" (without any means of grace).

Virtually all Calvinist/Reformed DO go... baptize.... teach. Indeed, they historically have been passionate missionaries and evangelists! And virtually all practice infant baptism rather than forbid it.


Infant baptism IS practiced by the vast majority of Christians today.... and 100% of them before the Anabaptist movement in the 16th Century. Now, I agree that that doesn't "trump" the verbatim words of Scripture but then the Scriptures are to go.... baptize .... teach. Nothing about "but NOT until they have first celebrated their X birthday!" "But it's all a waste of time and of no spiritual value and useless to God!" "But those under the age of X don't need no God or mercy or grace or Christ so don't bother with them!" "But don't baptize with water but rather instead dunk them under the Holy Spirit and afterword you may teach them" or any of the other things promoted in this thread. Of course, we DO have Scriptures such as "Faith comes by hearing" and "Baptism now saves you" but evidently they only apply to those already Christians and over the age of X... or maybe to no one.


Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

Not even uber-Calvinists agree that "going... baptizing... teaching" is "of no spiritual value".

Not even uber-Calvinists agree that we are specifically forbidden by words of Scripture to go.... baptize... teach those under the age of X.

Not even uber-Calvinists insist that we are forbidden to go... baptize... teach unless we KNOW they are among the "elect" and already have come to faith "immediately" (without any means of grace).

Virtually all Calvinist/Reformed DO go... baptize.... teach. Indeed, they historically have been passionate missionaries and evangelists! And virtually all practice infant baptism rather than forbid it.


Infant baptism IS practiced by the vast majority of Christians today.... and 100% of them before the Anabaptist movement in the 16th Century. Now, I agree that that doesn't "trump" the verbatim words of Scripture but then the Scriptures are to go.... baptize .... teach. Nothing about "but NOT until they have first celebrated their X birthday!" "But it's all a waste of time and of no spiritual value and useless to God!" "But those under the age of X don't need no God or mercy or grace or Christ so don't bother with them!" "But don't baptize with water but rather instead dunk them under the Holy Spirit and afterword you may teach them" or any of the other things promoted in this thread. Of course, we DO have Scriptures such as "Faith comes by hearing" and "Baptism now saves you" but evidently they only apply to those already Christians and over the age of X... or maybe to no one.


Thank you.


- Josiah



.

You're being tripped up by an age thing that only Imalive has brought up.
You fail to acknowledge that a human is incapable of imparting a means of justification via baptism. In other words, your choosing to baptize a human, no matter the age, will never invoke justification from God.
God must choose to justify a person first. Then, and only then, can we baptize a person. Since we can never know if God chooses to justify an infant we can therefore never baptize an infant with the thought that they are somehow justified by God via the act of baptism.

 

[Imalive]

http://www.christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?4552-What-Is-Sin

For those insisting that those a day short of their 12th birthday have no sin and are already born again and heaven bound without Jesus or grace or mercy or faith.....



.

They dont say that. A kid makes a choice for Jesus w 5 or so and then they wait w baptism til he can properly discern good and evil.
6 y o Palestinian kids throwing rocks at Israeli's aren't really saved.

 

[Imalive]

Again no one is forbidding baptism. I am saying that there is NO regenerative properties in baptism. Infants are not spared hell by being baptized.
If infants are spared hell it is purely by the grace of God that the little rebels are redeemed.
To teach baptism as a means of salvation is an outright twisting of scripture.

The little rebels?
Jesus took a small kid and said: become like the little rebels.

 

[Imalive]

If someone is saved and born again from birth then baby baptism is good. If someone gets saved later, they have to be baptized then.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If someone is saved and born again from birth then baby baptism is good. If someone gets saved later, they have to be baptized then.

Why?

Nobody is finished being saved the moment they are baptised. And baptism is a once only thing. If you needed to be baptised every time you "came to the Lord" then you may as well live in a bath!

:smirk:

 

[Imalive]

Why?

Nobody is finished being saved the moment they are baptised. And baptism is a once only thing. If you needed to be baptised every time you "came to the Lord" then you may as well live in a bath!

:smirk:

Born again is at once. Peter was clean. He only needed a feet wash, your walk has to get holy. But you get a new spirit when you get born again and die and rise w Christ. That's what baptism symbolizes.
Peter had to come to repentance. He didn't need to get baptized again.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Born again is at once. Peter was clean. He only needed a feet wash, your walk has to get holy. But you get a new spirit when you get born again and die and rise w Christ. That's what baptism symbolizes.
Peter had to come to repentance. He didn't need to get baptized again.

The bible never says "baptism symbolises being born from above" it says Titus 3:5-7 And he saved us, not by works of justice that we had done, but, in accord with his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and by the renovation of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he has poured out upon us in abundance, through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that, having been justified by his grace, we may become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. and it also says John 3:5 Jesus responded: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. So baptism saves you it does not merely symbolise being saved.

 

[Imalive]

The bible never says "baptism symbolises being born from above" it says Titus 3:5-7 And he saved us, not by works of justice that we had done, but, in accord with his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and by the renovation of the Holy Spirit, (6) whom he has poured out upon us in abundance, through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that, having been justified by his grace, we may become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. and it also says John 3:5 Jesus responded: "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. So baptism saves you it does not merely symbolise being saved.

Yes it's part of getting saved, but if it's impossible it doesn't matter. Those ppl who had received the baptism of the Spirit and didn't know about baptism were already saved when they got baptized in water.


In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him


Romans 6:4

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 6:3 - Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

 

[Josiah]

You're being tripped up by an age thing

That IS a major factor for the "we're forbidden from baptizing those under the age of X" crowd. The "anti-infant baptism" stance is that baptism is disallowed to those under that never-disclosed age.

You fail to acknowledge that a human is incapable of imparting a means of justification via baptism

Well, no human can justify anyone - THAT I agree with.

But I disagree that God can only impart salvation if no human or any means is involved. By that rubric, it would be wrong to have Sunday school classes, wrong to have missionaries and evangelists, wrong to permit non-Christians to hear the Gospel, wrong to let anyone into church who is not over the age of X and already has publicly testified of their Christian faith. Jesus would be wrong to say "allow the little children to come to me and forbid them not." Paul would be wrong to preach the Gospel to whole families. I disagree with you there.

Jesus gave very, very few specific instructions the "Age of the Church" but one of them is directed to Christians. It is for us to GO..... BAPTIZE..... TEACH. It's not to "DO NOTHING and trust that the Holy Spirit will just cause faith to spring out of thin air." Nope. He gave two things to do: Baptize and teach. And Scripture speaks of both salvicly (just two examples: "Faith comes by hearing" and "Baptism now saves you."). Both were stressed for 1500 years until the Anabaptist came along.

I just find it difficult to accept that one of the very, very few things Jesus specifically instructs Christians to do in this age is..... well..... "of no value" and "a waste of time" as has been stated in this thread. Or that what He actually doesn't command us to baptize AT ALL but rather for the Holy Spirit to dunk them in Himself. Or that He forgot to say, "..... BUT do NOT baptize or teach those under the age of X." Why would Jesus COMMAND us to do two things but they are of no value, a waste of time? Why wouldn't He tell us we are forbidden to do these to those under the age of X if this prohibition is important? Seems odd to me....

your to baptize a human, no matter the age, will never invoke justification from God.

As I've posted to you several times, yes - while the Bible in verbatim words calls both teaching and baptizing salvic, this does not trump Jesus as the Savior. It simply makes them "Means of Grace" as both Luther and Calvin called them - means God uses as He determines. Faith "invokes" justification from God.... NO ONE on the planet that I know teaches that the Word and Baptism do. They are not substitutes for faith, they are means of conveying the gift of faith.

I think it was you who insisted we go by what Scripture says.... and not some denomination (such as Anabaptist). Well...... We are commanded to GO.... BAPTIZE...... TEACH. And never are we forbidden to do so for those under the age if X. And we are told that His Word does not return void but accomplishes what He desires (IMO, same with Baptism) and we are told Baptism now saves you. There is no verse that states that going.... baptizing.... teaching are "a waste of time" and "of no spiritual value" as has been claimed here, no verse says "But you are prohibited from doing this to those under the age of X or who are not already Christians." Nothing about "do nothing, say nothing - just trust that God will pull faith out of nothing and pop it into folks."

Why do you believe God is rendered impotent by those under the age of X? "No matter the age" seems to suggest that to you, AGE is the critical factor in whether God can justify. Why? And if so, why do the other part of the Great Commission (teaching) if God can't save a person if they are too young? What is it about a persons age that limits God here?

God must choose to justify a person first. Then, and only then, can we baptize a person.

Yet you cannot produce anything that states that. Just echoing a claim of the Anabaptist begining in the 16th Century.

We have Scriptures such as "Preach the Word" "His Word does not return void" "Faith comes by hearing" We have verses such as "baptism now saves you." But nothing that states, "God must give justification before you can go.... baptize..... teach" Nothing about the Great Commission being "a waste of time" and "of no spiritual value" and forbidden for those under the age of X." I think you are ignoring what Scripture says (and COMMANDS) while offering nothing that says God justifies immediately or that one must attain a certain biological age and first be given faith before we can go.... baptize..... teach.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

That IS a major factor for the "we're forbidden from baptizing those under the age of X" crowd. The "anti-infant baptism" stance is that baptism is disallowed to those under that never-disclosed age.





Well, no human can justify anyone - THAT I agree with. But I disagree that God can only impart salvation if no human or any means is involved. By that rubric, it would be wrong to have Sunday school classes, wrong to have missionaries and evangelists, wrong to permit non-Christians to hear the Gospel, wrong to let anyone into church wdo ho is not over the age of X and already has publicly testified of their Christian faith.

Jesus gave very, very few specific instructions for the "Age of the Church" but one of them is directed to Christians. It is for us to GO..... BAPTIZE..... TEACH. It's not to "DO NOTHING and trust that the Holy Spirit will just cause faith to spring out of thin air." Nope. He gave two things to do: Baptize and teach. And Scripture speaks of both salvicly (just two examples: "Faith comes by hearing" and "Baptism now saves you."). Both were stressed for 1500 years until the Anabaptist came along.

I just find it difficult to accept that one of the very, very few things Jesus specifically instructs Christians to do in this age is..... well..... "of no value" and "a waste of time" as has been stated in this thread. Or that what He actually doesn't command us to baptize AT ALL but rather for the Holy Spirit to dunk them in Himself. Or that He forgot to say, "..... BUT do NOT baptize or teach those under the age of X." Why would Jesus COMMAND us to do two things but they are of no value, a waste of time? Why wouldn't He tell us we are forbidden to do these to those under the age of X if this prohibition is important? Seems odd to me....






As I've posted to you several times, yes - while the Bible in verbatim words calls both teaching and baptizing salvic, this doea not trump Jesus as the Savior. It simply makes them "Means of Grace" as both Luther and Calvin called them - means God uses as He determines. Faith "invokes" justification from God.... NO ONE on the planet that I know teaches that the Word and Baptism do. They are not substitutes for faith, they are means of conveying the gift of faith.

I think it was you who insisted we go by what Scripture says.... and not some denomination (such as Anabaptist). Well...... We are commanded to GO.... BAPTIZE...... TEACH. And never are we forbidden to do so for those under the age if X. And we are told that His Word does not return void but accomplishes what He desires (IMO, same with Baptism) and we are told Baptism now saves you. There is no verse that states that going.... baptizing.... teaching are "a waste of time" and "of no spiritual value" as has been claimed here, no verse says "But you are prohibited from doing this to those under the age of X or who are not already Christians." Nothing about "do nothing, say nothing - just trust that God will pull faith out of nothing and pop it into folks."





Yet you cannot produce anything that states that. Just echoing a claim of the Anabaptist begining in the 16th Century.

We have Scriptures such as "Preach the Word" "His Word does not return void" "Faith comes by hearing" We have verses such as "baptism now saves you." But nothing that states, "God must give justification before you can go.... baptize..... teach" Nothing about the Great Commission being "a waste of time" and "of no spiritual value" and forbidden for those under the age of X." I think you are ignoring what Scripture says (and COMMANDS) while offering nothing that says God justifies immediately or that one must attain a certain biological age and first be given faith before we can go.... baptize..... teach.



Thank you.


- Josiah

Yet the sinners prayer and repenting is adding works and a problem, cause God does it all.

 

[Albion]

Yet the sinners prayer and repenting is adding works and a problem, cause God does it all.

Those aren't "works."

 

[MoreCoffee]

Those aren't "works."

MennoSota keeps saying that they are works.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION]

Yet the sinners prayer and repenting is adding works and a problem, cause God does it all.

I'm not sure what your point is, vis-a-vis my post you quoted..... But the unregenerate, atheist, unbeliever SAYING (active) "The Sinner's Prayer" in order to save himself, or the unregenerate unbelieving atheist "repenting' (ACTIVE) in order to save himself is not the same as Christ commanding CHRISTIANS, those who have faith, those who believe, those who are children of God, THEY going to the unsaved sharing Word and Baptism with them (the atheist being passive, a receiver). Follow me?

Going.... Baptizing.... Teaching are not things unregenerate, dead, atheist, unbelievers do to and for themselves. Nor are they things the unbeliever/dead person does to save themselves. The unregenerate, atheist unbeliever may RECEIVE (passive) this going.... baptizing.... teaching but they don't perform it to themselves, and they are not means whereby self saves self. Christians bring them as agents of God, by the specific Command of Christ - and GOD uses them to cause faith that brings GOD"S GIFT of salvation to them. There's a difference between self doing things for self as hoops that save themselves..... and God using things to give salvation. Follow me? The Bible say, "MY Word does not return void but accomplishes that for which I sent it." It's not a "waste of time" and it's not a good work that the unsaved atheist does to save SELF, it's a tool God uses for His purposes as He determines. Jesus COMMANDS us to "go.... baptize.... teach....." because it seems He can use those things, He can do something with that, not because they are "a waste of time" and "of no value" as has been stated here in this thread.


Follow me?


Thank you!

MennoSota keeps saying that they are works.

I admit his position entirely confuses me..... But yes, I think he sees the CHRISTIAN going.... baptizing.... teaching OTHERS (the unregenerate, unbelieving, spiritually dead atheist) is a good work that the dead do for self. Actually, they are commands to BELIEVERS and not to the UNBELIEVERS. The Great Commission was given to the Alive, the born again, the believer, the Christian.... and they aren't works that per se save but things God uses. The dead are passive receivers here.

I think of the rising of Lazarus. Lazarus was DEAD (really dead, sticking dead). JESUS gave him life! Now, He used something - a verbal command (words) but the words didn't give Lazarus life - Jesus did. And the words were not spoken by Lazarus for himself but by Jesus.

I agree MC, I suspect there is a "turning things upside down" going on here.... But MennoSota's whole line of thinking alludes me.




Pax Christi




- Josiah



.