Infant Baptism

[Josiah]

What does Romans 10:9-10 is not confess with your mouth and believe in your heart an action that has to take place?

Let me put my answer in the form of a question (pardon that approach)....

WHO is the Savior?

IF you answer "Jesus" then Jesus is the Savior. Justification is thus something Jesus does. Jesus is the Savior. Not you, not me. Not a bit, not at all, not now, not ever, not in any way or shape or form or manner. Salvation is entirely, wholly wrapped up in Jesus. It's entirely HIS work. HIS heart. HIS love. HIS mercy. HIS gift. HIS blessing. His life, His death, His resurrection. His Cross, His blood, His sacrifice. His righteousness, His obedience, His holiness. Not you. Not yours. Not me, not mine. You may have some other role in some other matter, but not this. The "job" of Savior belongs to Jesus. Not you. Not me. Not the Popes. JESUS saves.

IF you answer "ME!" then you are the Savior. Not Jesus. Not a bit, not at all. Not now, not ever. Not in any way, shape or form or manner. Salvation is all wrapped up in YOU. YOUR works. YOUR will. YOUR love. YOUR efforts. YOUR merits. YOUR obedience. YOUR righteousness. YOUR holiness. YOUR sacrifice. Not Jesus. Not Jesus'. Jesus may have some other role in some other matter, just not this one. The Savior is you.

Which is it? Try answering that. If you give the Christian answer, a LOT of Christianity falls into place.

Protestantism grew (in part) out of a PROTEST to the medieval RCC position that the answer ultimately is ME. That Jesus perhaps makes it POSSIBLE (the POSSIBILITY maker).... that Jesus perhaps is the HELPER (can't do it without his help).... nonetheless, it all comes down to ME. Luther and Calvin were "protestants" because they protested that answer (#2). Protestants, by definition, are ones who answer with #1 in terms of justification. Thus, when we talk about salvation in this sense, we look to the Cross. NOTHING in my hands I bring..... In fact even faith is (as the Bible states), the gift of God.

Now.... do the saved profess him? YES! Is professing him what saves us? No.


[This is usually a debate between Catholics and Protestants, not between Protestants]


Back to the topic....



- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

Of course Jesus is the Saviour we have np power to save ourselves but you must see this as a gift which it is and like any gift it has to be opened and accepted which is what Romans 109-10m is all about, the opening of the gift, or do you believe that God forces us to be saved? Or that we have absplutely no control over our lives and are just puppets?

 

[Alithis]

Of course Jesus is the Saviour we have np power to save ourselves but you must see this as a gift which it is and like any gift it has to be opened and accepted which is what Romans 109-10m is all about, the opening of the gift, or do you believe that God forces us to be saved? Or that we have absolutely no control over our lives and are just puppets?

yup..it is just as you say bill . JEsus is the SAVIOUR .. so apparently now we know .though we knew already . so now we know does "knowing " make us saved? .

you and I (and a lot of folks )get that it does not.

I used this example already but its simplicity is clear cut .

if i stand on the road and you on the side and you say to me "hey -get off the tracks there's a TRUCK coming .

the news you just told me is good news because i am now forewarned of the danger
.
so if i say to you .."thanks bill -i now know that there is a truck coming ." but if i do not get off that road, im not saved from the truck .the news did not save me

if i say thanks bill i now know there is a truck coming and i believe what you have told me - ,but do not get off the road ,im STill not saved from that truck -my belief in your words did not save me .becaseu my claim to believe you is FAKE ..if i believed you i would follow your instruction.

but if i have faith that what you say is true then faith activated causes me to respond to the MESSAGE in what you just told me ..i obey the instructions to " get off the road " so i act and i GET off the road .
then and only then has your good news and its instruction -saved me from that truck .. when it is obediently acted upon .
if i get back on the road again and stay there -that truck is gonna destroy me any way .

I'm really not sure why any one struggles with the simplicity of it all -the Gospel is good news with an instructive command . the news has the power to save the command give instruction on HOW to apply the news and be saved - but only activated (actioned)faith will cause either to be effective .

the instructive command is and has always been -REPENT .. and it means repent and remain repentant not repent and then get back on that road .

 

[Josiah]

Of course Jesus is the Saviour we have np power to save ourselves but you must see this as a gift which it is and like any gift it has to be opened and accepted which is what Romans 109-10m is all about, the opening of the gift, or do you believe that God forces us to be saved? Or that we have absplutely no control over our lives and are just puppets?

If I "must open it" in order for it to be a blessing, then the really key part is me. Catholicism in a nutshell, namely, "Jesus makes salvation possible but it's ultimately up to you to make it happen" or "Jesus opened the gate to heaven but you gotta walk through it," In fact, Catholicism makes a point you do not: we CANNOT do "our part" (at all) apart from the HELP that God gives; God EMPOWERS us to do our part. Luther and Calvin protested that. Those who protest that are called "Protestants." Luther and Calvin were excommunicated because they disagreed with Catholicism's point that WE must DO something (even if entirely empowered by God).

Justification, IMO, as a Protestant, is God's work. Jesus is the Savior, which means I'm not. Jesus saves which means I don't.

Yes, the Protestant position is that we don't save ourselves - in part or in whole, now or ever. So correct, the Protestant position is that we don't earn it, we don't contribute to it. We don't cause ourselves to be born the second time any more than we caused ourselves to be born the first time. Life comes from God - physical and spiritual. This is the essence of the foundational Protestant proclaimation of "Soli DEO Gloria" (one foundation of Protestantism, one aspect of what makes a Protestant Protestant). We return to Rome when we reject the Protestant view of Sola Gratia - SOLUS CHRISTUS - Sola fide - Soli DEO gloria. We return to Rome when we insist that Jesus isn't the Savior, we are (albeit only in part and only as empowered by God). If ultimately - in the final step - salvation is MY "stuff", MY good work, MY action (even if empowered by God) - then we've abandoned Protestantism, agreed with Rome that Luther and Calvin are heretics, and returned to the medieval Roman position that Protestants protest.


Now, friend, IF you want to pursue this, I recommend you start a thread: "Is or is not Jesus the Savior?" and I'd be more than pleased to join you in a conversation. But, with all due respect, THIS thread is about whether we should or should not permit infants to be baptized. A different subject. But that's just my recommendation, CH is a permissive site (which I love about it).



Thank you!!


A blessed New Year to you and yours!


- Josiah



.

 

[psalms 91]

I will bow out as this is off topic but of course like most things I go off topic it is because I amanswering something that is brought up and of course I can be called on it if it gets uncomfortabkle but I do abide by the fact it is off topic

 

[Lamb]

In baptism, who is doing the work? Those who follow infant baptism see it as God's work and those who feel they're doing it as a follower of Him don't view it as God doing anything.

 

[Alithis]

In baptism, who is doing the work? Those who follow infant baptism see it as God's work and those who feel they're doing it as a follower of Him don't view it as God doing anything.

if your speaking of the command to repent and be baptised then we do the obeying God does the work because a spiritual transformation takes place in the spiritual realm.

the old testament act symbolizing the real baptism to come was the crossing of the red sea .(the new testament also testifies to that )
God made the way out of sins dominion and control (egypt) and into Gods dominion . but the israelites had to be obedient and walk through it . Only death awaited them if they did not .
and now that which was signified by that account has become real . God has made a way for us to come out from sins dominion and control of the spirit of this world (egypt) and INTO the dominion and of the KINGDOM of GOD .. but we must be obedient walk through it .

if you are speaking of infant baptism ,none of this applies for reasons already well stated .
being - a baby Cannot be conscious of sin in order to repent ,cannot place its faith knowingly in God and thereby obey by being baptised .so while it is a nice sounding act by the parents and the child is set apart to god by the fiat of the parents and salvation is in the hands of God who says let the little children come to be and forbid the not . Once they reach the age of understanding(the age of shame ) they are then required ,as all others to come to God through the lord jesus ,repent of their sin and be baptised into CHRIST on their own faith .. not into a denomination without their knowledge or wil. -in fact they need to be delivered from the bondage of being baptised into a denomination as we cannot serve god and a denomination (that has become explicitly evident-by those who teach behaviours in opposition the word of god, forcing people to disobey GOD in order to be loyal to their denomination -we can't serve two masters )

 

[Alithis]

i mention above "a spiritual transformation takes place in the spiritual realm " For some who have not known such things but have been taught that water baptism is merely a symbolic act ( at VERY wrong teaching ) i share the account of a person who ,in nepal at the time . converted to christianity . though the local family and buddhists knew of this they were not affected by the news in any notable way and did not seem to have any opinion -
then a week later the person was baptised in water and immediately persecution rose up. ni the spiritual realm the demonic influence in the buddhists immediately recognized the change of kingdom power .water baptism is not only symbolic and thus must be done in accordance with the directive commands of the lord Jesus,who is the speaking of God

-repent and be baptised . -its very straight forward and simple. though i do understand why there is great spiritual and demonic resistance to it, the devil knows if believers start obeying this from the heart, that he loses ALL control and sinful dominion over that persons life -and he does not want to give it up so easily .
it is was and always wil be paramount to obey the word of God as he has stated it .. not was we modify it by our traditions . tradition imposed over the wil of god is nothing short of sinful rebellion.

babies cant repent of what they are not conscious of -to tell a person they are saved because they were baptized as a baby -is to tell them a lie .

 

[TurtleHare]

In baptism, who is doing the work? Those who follow infant baptism see it as God's work and those who feel they're doing it as a follower of Him don't view it as God doing anything.

God is at work in baptism of course and we see that God is consistently the same from the old testmant to the new. There are foreshadowings of baptism and it's always God at work because He puts His promises where He speaks and when He says something like Let there be light, you can be sure there is light so in baptism we are baptized into His name and our sins are washed away yet it's not our doing, but God who does these marvelous things.

 

[Alithis]

God is at work in baptism of course and we see that God is consistently the same from the old testament to the new. There are foreshadowings of baptism and it's always God at work because He puts His promises where He speaks and when He says something like Let there be light, you can be sure there is light so in baptism we are baptized into His name and our sins are washed away yet it's not our doing, but God who does these marvelous things.

I agree , God is at work in Baptism . but never outside the bounds of his own perfect word and will -he does not contradict himself .so it remains , baptism without repentance is NOT doing the work of God nor is it submitting to God doing the work .because of the command given . ie "repentance for the forgivness of sin is to be preached " and "repent and be baptised .. NEVER is it said ..only be baptised . so in the context of the word of god infant baptism in null and void no matter which way we look at it .

this does not forfeit a child's salvation while they are sanctified by their believing parent at an age where they have no consciousness of sin . but the moment they do have one - they must then repent and be baptised according to the command . thier infant baptism alone wil not and cannot save them . we must be so cautious not to preach a false Gospel by even unwittingly implying one .

 

[Josiah]

baptism without repentance is NOT doing the work of God nor is it submitting to God doing the work

1. Baptism in the Bible is passive..... people RECEIVE it, not PERFORM it. Passive! Thus, all your "obedience" and "submission" stuff doesn't apply to the receiver, it applies to the DOER.

2. You continue your absurd premise that "and" (Kai in Greek) MANDATES order. You've been shown repeatedly that this is silly..... that it doesn't apply in Greek (or in English, for that matter). Yes, people are to repent.... and we are to baptize and teach people.... but your premise that baptism is forbidden before there is repentance is just silly, it's entirely based on your persistent, absurd point that "kai" mandates order.

"repent and be baptised ..

You like to pull this singular verse out.... put it in isolation.... But you never have read it. The word is "AND" not "THEN." Until you actually read what you quote, you're not going to realize what it says. And notice again, "baptism" is in the PASSIVE here. The person doesn;t do it - in obedience or otherwise - someone ELSE does it TO them.


You say what matters is what God says, but you never seem to notice what God says. You just keep (on and on and on and on) substitute what YOU say, YOUR opinion - that there is a mandated order, that Baptism is our act, that those under the age of X are forbidden and prohibited from receiving baptism.... but you've yet to promise anything from God that so states. You've even admitted so, and that your opinion is YOUR OPINION to which you require God to submit, your opinion is YOUR "common sense" to which God is subject (and evidently, all people too).





- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

Will be interesting when we die to see how God does view all this and us as well. I doubt He would really like us fighting over this. I agree that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change and is meaningless otherwise but hey what do I know

 

[Josiah]

Will be interesting when we die to see how God does view all this and us as well. I doubt He would really like us fighting over this. I agree that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change and is meaningless otherwise but hey what do I know

I see your point.

I SUSPECT we're more disagreeing than "fighting"?

IMO, if one is dogmatically going to FORBID something, PROHIBIT a practice that is embraced by the overwhelming majority of Christians (by ALL prior to the German "Anabaptists" in the late 16th Century), well.... I think they should have something solid to base this new prohibition. I can better understand someone concluding that Baptism accomplishes nothing (although I wonder why then Jesus COMMANDED it, why it got SO much attention and focus, why so much is said of it... if it accomplishes nothing).... but I think it's a hard case to insist we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X (anti-paedobaptism) - the issue here. Yes, it seems at least theoretically possible we'll get to heaven and God will say, "You shouldn't have baptized/taught those under the age of X - I know I never actually told you not to, but you were not to." But I think it's MORE likely some will get to heaven and God will say, "Why did you neglect my command to baptize and teach? Where did you get off creating a prohibition that I never made?" Follow me?

I'm never in favor of fighting..... on the other hand, I"m not a relativist and I think we SHOULD try to resolve the issues that divide us - even if just on an individual level. I think we are called to agree on Truth, not agree that truth doesn't matter or truth is unknowable and that whatever one thinks/does is okay if they feel it is ("I'm okay, you're okay - no matter what"). See my point?

All that said..... I embrace the Anabaptist as my FULL, UNseparated brother or sister in Christ.... fully Christian. But we do disagree on some things (and it would be best if we did not).


Perhaps we disagree on such....


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

1. Baptism in the Bible is passive..... people RECEIVE it, not PERFORM it. Passive! Thus, all your "obedience" and "submission" stuff doesn't apply to the receiver, it applies to the DOER.

2. You continue your absurd premise that "and" (Kai in Greek) MANDATES order. You've been shown repeatedly that this is silly..... that it doesn't apply in Greek (or in English, for that matter). Yes, people are to repent.... and we are to baptize and teach people.... but your premise that baptism is forbidden before there is repentance is just silly, it's entirely based on your persistent, absurd point that "kai" mandates order.





You like to pull this singular verse out.... put it in isolation.... But you never have read it. The word is "AND" not "THEN." Until you actually read what you quote, you're not going to realize what it says. And notice again, "baptism" is in the PASSIVE here. The person doesn;t do it - in obedience or otherwise - someone ELSE does it TO them.


You say what matters is what God says, but you never seem to notice what God says. You just keep (on and on and on and on) substitute what YOU say, YOUR opinion - that there is a mandated order, that Baptism is our act, that those under the age of X are forbidden and prohibited from receiving baptism.... but you've yet to promise anything from God that so states. You've even admitted so, and that your opinion is YOUR OPINION to which you require God to submit, your opinion is YOUR "common sense" to which God is subject (and evidently, all people too).





- Josiah

the word is AND .. not then .. and the word i have used is AND - so not sure what your point is . the premise i use is not mine -it is plain scripture which any child can understand .. Are you advocation we disobey God ? are you advocating that we do not repent ? I have very much only repeated what God says .. Jesus said repentance for the forgivness of sin is to be preached .. the word of god says we must be baptised for the remission sin . there is no forgivness without repentance . forgiveness is simply received in all humility upon repentance and repentance is a perpetual state of being turned toward the lord Jesus to follow and obey him .. not turning back again and going the other way .
are you saying baptism without repentance is going to save us ? because thats how it comes across . your hair splitting words and opposing the simple plain scriptures

the scriptures tell us to repent and be baptized - the very act of baptism is an act of repentance .. you canot separate the two.. if you refuse to be baptised then you remain in disobedience to god rebelling againt him thus that shows the person is not repentant . if you are a baby ,you cannot be conscious of sin to make that distinction ..and once you become conscious of sin you must then obey God and repent of not obeying him . no one can baptize you without your consent . because no one else can "repent "on your behalf . so your argument here is nullified

also i have never said "those under the age of understanding are prohibited" -your being dishonest again and adding words i have never said - i have said to tell a person they are saved because they were baptized as a child is telling them a lie . for once they reach the age of understanding they must repent in order to be baptized into the death and resurrection of the Lord JEsus and they will receive receive the Holy Ghost .God did not change his word due to unforeseen circumstances .

 

[Alithis]

Will be interesting when we die to see how God does view all this and us as well. I doubt He would really like us fighting over this. I agree that baptism is an outward sign of an inward change and is meaningless otherwise but hey what do I know

i used tp view it that way -but then we observe the scripture does not view it that way . God is not in the habit of instituting mundane acts that are meaningless .

when a person is baptized in water upon repenting of sin and upon their own faith .. they are actualy born again of water -it is not an error wHEN THE LORD SAID "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.…
So we see that there is far more at stake then some symbolic act .. it is a fully spiritual act . it literally and practically removes a person from a spiritual domain (of egypt) where they are still under the dominion of the spirit of this world .. and brings them up again into the eternal dominion of god where the spirit of this world no longer has dominion over them -

earlier i shared a link which explains this well .

iv inserted again ---> HERE

 

[Josiah]

the word is AND .. not then ..

Thus, your entire premise of ORDER is..... baseless, false, wrong. your argument is nullified





.

 

[Alithis]

Thus, your entire premise of ORDER is..... baseless, false, wrong. your argument is nullified





.

so to repeat the scripture as it is given .. is to nullify the scripture ? this makes no sense at all.

 

[Alithis]

I see your point.

I SUSPECT we're more disagreeing than "fighting"?

IMO, if one is dogmatically going to FORBID something, PROHIBIT a practice that is embraced by the overwhelming majority of Christians (by ALL prior to the German "Anabaptists" in the late 16th Century), well.... I think they should have something solid to base this new prohibition. I can better understand someone concluding that Baptism accomplishes nothing (although I wonder why then Jesus COMMANDED it, why it got SO much attention and focus, why so much is said of it... if it accomplishes nothing).... but I think it's a hard case to insist we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X (anti-paedobaptism) - the issue here. Yes, it seems at least theoretically possible we'll get to heaven and God will say, "You shouldn't have baptized/taught those under the age of X - I know I never actually told you not to, but you were not to." But I think it's MORE likely some will get to heaven and God will say, "Why did you neglect my command to baptize and teach? Where did you get off creating a prohibition that I never made?" Follow me?

I'm never in favor of fighting..... on the other hand, I"m not a relativist and I think we SHOULD try to resolve the issues that divide us - even if just on an individual level. I think we are called to agree on Truth, not agree that truth doesn't matter or truth is unknowable and that whatever one thinks/does is okay if they feel it is ("I'm okay, you're okay - no matter what"). See my point?

All that said..... I embrace the Anabaptist as my FULL, UNseparated brother or sister in Christ.... fully Christian. But we do disagree on some things (and it would be best if we did not).


Perhaps we disagree on such....


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

a practice that is embraced by the overwhelming majority of Christians does not nullify the word of god -it does not mean God is wrong it means a majority of chrsitian practice has been wrong . the resolution to all chrsitian conflict is to conform to the simple straightforward word of God . not nullify it by traditions .

 

[Josiah]

a practice that is embraced by the overwhelming majority of Christians does not nullify the word of god

True, but nor does the OPINION of a few people in just the last 500 years - creating a prohibition that you've proven Scripture doesn't.




.

 

[Josiah]

so to repeat the scripture as it is given .. is to nullify the scripture ? this makes no sense at all.

You've admitted that in the single verse you keep isolating, the word is "AND" and not "THEN." Thus, you are admitting your whole premise, your whole argument, your whole point that "AND" actually should be "THEN" is noted to be void. AND does not mandate (or even imply) order. You know that. I know that. All the world knows that. And you admit the word is "AND" - not the word "THEN". There goes your whole point that FIRST there must be repentance, THEN, after that, following that, there is THEN to be baptism. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, admitting you're point is entirely void and baseless - but you keep endlessly repeating it anyway. READ THE VERSE you keep pulling out and isolating..... it says AND. It doesn't say THEN. Your whole case, your whole argument, your whole premise that ORDER is mandated is..... wrong, silly, baseless.



- Josiah