the meaning of Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not sure what your point is...

I think it is something along the lines of "people keep saying it is all of God so why all this talk about repentance because some of you people say that repentance is works and if God does it all why bother with repenting".

 

[Albion]

MennoSota keeps saying that they are works.

He was also advised what works are and are not--and in more detail than this quick response to Imalive.

 

[MoreCoffee]

He was also advised what works are and are not--and in more detail than this quick response to Imalive.

MennoSota has been the main poster in this thread for a while. His statement shape some replies. I think that is the case with imalive's reply.

 

[Imalive]

I think it is something along the lines of "people keep saying it is all of God so why all this talk about repentance because some of you people say that repentance is works and if God does it all why bother with repenting".

Ppl say here all the time that telling someone to repent and pray the sinners prayer is adding works. Then so is baptizing someone or preaching. If you may not add the sinners prayer, you may not add baptism or preaching either.

 

[Josiah]

Ppl say here all the time that telling someone to repent and pray the sinners prayer is adding works. Then so is baptizing someone or preaching. If you may not add the sinners prayer, you may not add baptism or preaching either.

No.

The unregenerate, atheist, dead, unbeliever SAYING (active) "The Sinner's Prayer" in order to save himself, or the unregenerate, dead 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) which God may use to convey faith. Not the same at all.

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 HUGE difference between self doing things for self as hoops that save themselves..... and God using things to give/bring 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.

Follow me?


Thank you!



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

The real 'God does everything' ppl sit in church their whole life in an old reformed church, waiting til God some day maybe is willing to save them.

 

[atpollard]

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



.

Congratulations, you have soundly refuted an argument THAT I DID NOT MAKE!
To what avail?

 

[Imalive]

No.

The unregenerate, atheist, dead, unbeliever SAYING (active) "The Sinner's Prayer" in order to save himself, or the unregenerate, dead 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) which God may use to convey faith. Not the same at all.

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 HUGE difference between self doing things for self as hoops that save themselves..... and God using things to give/bring 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.

Follow me?


Thank you!



- Josiah

Yes but I've never heard of an atheist doing that and it makes no sense at all for an atheist to do that.
Peter said to those in Acts: save yourself from this wicked generation. Ppl have to be taught to do something, let yourself get baptized, repent, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't do all the work. He just choses to work through people. He works the wanting and working in us.

 

[Albion]

Ppl say here all the time that telling someone to repent and pray the sinners prayer is adding works.

Yes, they do say that. And they are wrong about that.

Then so is baptizing someone or preaching.

No, it isn't.

All you're really saying here is that we're dealing with more examples of 'works' that aren't really works. Those people were wrong in the case of repentance and the sinners prayer and, not surprisingly, they're similarly wrong when calling baptism and preaching examples of good works.

Theologically speaking, not every action that takes some work (or movement) on our part constitutes a "good work."

 

[MennoSota]

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 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....







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?







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

You are talking like a broken record at this point, Josiah. I have answered you on multiple occasions and you still are fixated on age, which I never talked about. That complaint of yours is irrelevant to me.
You consider infant baptism to be like evangelism for babies. It is not doing anything itself, but God may use it as a route by which he redeems a person. By that logic, why not go to a beach, crowded with people, and just start baptizing them without asking. Just come up, grab them, say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and then splash them with water. Perhaps that will be the means by which God redeems them.
Do you go to the beach and do this? It is no different than taking a baby who is unaware of what is happening and saying those words while using an eye dropper of water. Perhaps that will be the means by which God redeems them?
I know I am stepping on the toes of tradition. As I have said before, tradition can be good as long as scripture supercedes tradition. But, tradition that has no basis in scripture should be ended.
Baptism, in scripture, always takes place after God has done his work of regeneration. It never comes before, as a means of grace. Why twist it around with infants? My conclusion is that people want some sort of tangible hope that a child is in heaven. To give themselves hope they created a ceremonial tradition that can assure them their child is with God. I get that, but it doesn't mean it's a valid hope. It means that a person hopes in baptism rather than in God the redeemer.
Just as we are dependent upon God to graciously redeem us, so we are dependent upon God to graciously redeem our infants should they die. We must trust God and believe that He will do what he feels is best. I am content leaving it in God's hands.

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota keeps saying that they are works.

They are an effect of God's making someone alive in Christ. They are not the cause. If they were the cause, it would be works salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

Congratulations, you have soundly refuted an argument THAT I DID NOT MAKE!
To what avail?

Here! Here!

 

[psalms 91]

I know. We are into a very fundamental disagreement between Christians. However, there are verses in scripture that do seem to say that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, which if true would mean IMO that it is not simply a gesture.

Never said it was a gesture and yes baptism is for forgiveness, Johns baptism was for repentance was it not

 

[Albion]

What you said was "as an act because of being saved."

I paraphrased that as "gesture." It's true that you did not use this word, but how is it not accurate?




And by the way, if...

yes baptism is for forgiveness,

How does that not mean that Baptism is effective, that it forgives sin?

 

[Albion]

You are talking like a broken record at this point, Josiah. I have answered you on multiple occasions and you still are fixated on age, which I never talked about. That complaint of yours is irrelevant to me.

The person who says that Baptism is for people of all ages is the one who's "fixated" on age, not the one who's argued that some people cannot be baptized...because they aren't the "right" age?

You consider infant baptism to be like evangelism for babies. It is not doing anything itself, but God may use it as a route by which he redeems a person. By that logic, why not go to a beach, crowded with people, and just start baptizing them without asking. Just come up, grab them, say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and then splash them with water. Perhaps that will be the means by which God redeems them.
Do you go to the beach and do this?

That's an old argument against infant baptism, but the sacrament requires SOME element of consent and commitment. Baptismal sponsors promise to raise the child in the faith, renounce the Devil, and so on. They do this on behalf of the child. The proverbial strangers on a beach are not in any way comparable to this.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ppl say here all the time that telling someone to repent and pray the sinners prayer is adding works. Then so is baptizing someone or preaching. If you may not add the sinners prayer, you may not add baptism or preaching either.

I do not like "the sinner's prayer" but I agree with your conclusion. If doing anything is "adding works" then I suppose the remedy is "do nothing" just absolutely nothing.

 

[MennoSota]

The person who says that Baptism is for people of all ages is the one who's "fixated" on age, not the one who's argued that some people cannot be baptized...because they aren't the "right" age?


That's an old argument against infant baptism, but the sacrament requires SOME element of consent and commitment. Baptismal sponsors promise to raise the child in the faith, renounce the Devil, and so on. They do this on behalf of the child. The proverbial strangers on a beach are not in any way comparable to this.

As I have stated before, infant baptism as an outward testimony by parents and others to raise up the child in the way of God seems perfectly acceptable as a tradition because it does not convey that God has extended his grace via baptism. Instead it is really no different than a child dedication service at a Baptist church. The only change is that Lutherans sprinkle some water on the child while the Baptists lay their hands on the child. The concept would be the same.
The hinge upon which there is controversy is the teaching that God extends his grace by invocation of infant baptism. God is under no obligation to do so and it is presumptuous to teach that He does so. In fact, it can point the unregenerate toward hell because they place their faith in their baptism and in completing a confirmation class. Once they jump through the denominational hoops, they only show up for Christmas and Easter services, but live like sons of hell.

 

[MennoSota]

I do not like "the sinner's prayer" but I agree with your conclusion. If doing anything is "adding works" then I suppose the remedy is "do nothing" just absolutely nothing.

That’s a good place to start since a dead person can do nothing else besides "nothing."
Once God makes them alive, however, then a person can do something.
It's all God, MC, and nothing of your doing. You're getting closer...

 

[psalms 91]

OK then I can just do as I wish the rest of my life since I can do nothing and nothing is required? Once in His hands cant fall away? Dangerous and wrong message my friend

 

[MoreCoffee]

That’s a good place to start since a dead person can do nothing else besides "nothing."
Once God makes them alive, however, then a person can do something.
It's all God, MC, and nothing of your doing. You're getting closer...

Well, you keep doing nothing and see how it goes.