Featured Baptismal regeneration

Who are you talking to? I'm not Roman Catholic.

 

Well Rebel, you hit it right on the nose. That is precisely how Covenant Theologians justify administering water to infants.

However, here is a simple way to expose the error of infant baptism.

1. Hebrews 10:1-4 says the Old Covenant ceremonial laws, especially the sacrificial aspect of the ceremonial law "could never take away sins". Because they were only figures/types or a "shadow" rather than the literal image casting the shadow.

2. Nevertheless, the Old Testament motif was to use the language of redemption with the figure because of the figure relationship with the literal, as the figure was a shadow of what did in fact remit sins (Acts 10:43). So if you go back into the Old Testament you will repeatedly find such language "for sins" for your "cleansing" associated with obedience to the types. Not because they could literally save or remit sins but because they were figures of what could.

3. The same motif is used by New Testament writers with figures/types of which baptism is explicitly said to be "the like figure" - 1 Pet. 3:21

4. The Old Testament provided the FIGURE of the New Covenant REALITY. Hence, under the figure 8 day old infants were circumcised, but under the reality that was a figure of literal spiritual children of God.

5. Finally, Abraham is set forth for "all who are of faith" as the pattern for remission of sins and imputed righteousness (justification) by faith WITHOUT external divine ordinances, as the blessedness of justification (Rom. 4:5-8) was obtained NOT IN CIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:9-10) but in uncircumcision as a completed action (Rom. 4:11 "had" - aorist tense).

Therefore, in all ages, before and after the cross remission of sins and imputed righteousness has always been received by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43 without works, without divine ordinances.

 

Sorry, I mistook you for someone else.

 

Probably not. He is as staunch defender of the RCC as any other RCC on this board.

 

I noticed that!

****************

 

RIGHT....
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

(So I guess in addition to being a "Pelagian free-will idolator", I'm also have the distinction of being a "staunch defender of the RCC". :thumbs: )

 

Oh really! Thanks for that tip DHK.

 

I don't have time to get into this now, but you may appreciate this view from a BB member who hasn't been around here for quite a while.

I used to enjoy debating with the author, Brandon C Jones, about Calvinism, at least he was rational about it, and Molinism to which I side with and he doesn't, but anyway I found myself pretty close with him on his views on the following which he has written this article about:

http://www.academia.edu/9443179/Believer_Baptism_Sacrament_of_the_New_Covenant

Its been around 5 years since I've discussed this and I should have many more notes tucked away in my docs on the subject but really wouldn't be interested in getting into it within the format here. I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days but drop by BaptistSymposium some time if you'd like to pick this subject up, I could use some refresher.

 

Baby baptism is a relic of Popery, there is not one single scripture In the entire Canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism or gives us an example of it, all the scriptures that Padeobaptists us can be easily exposed, I've been studying the subject for more than three years. Perhaps I will start the subject in a Lutheran Forum some time, many of them will know what the common scriptures are that Padeos use.

 

Uh oh...I better give the Lutherans a fair warning. :laugh:

Be advised, I suspect some of these Lutherans have also been "studying the subject for more than three years" (to say the least), and they just might take issue with the assertions that "Baby baptism is a relic of Popery" and "there is not one single scripture in the entire canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism". (Just thought I'd let you know. :thumbs: )

But, hey....knock yourself out. I'm sure they won't mind at all when you call them 'Pelagians' after they don't warmly receive your Five-Point propaganda. :smilewinkgrin:

 

The teaching of the papa and teaching magisterium trump Scripture every time.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

LOL sad but true Lord Lord types.

 

There is no focus on "baby baptism" in the article I offered, nor did I even mention it - so I haven't a clue what your response is supposed to mean to me...

 

Don't worry, you're in good company. Welcome to the club! :applause:

 

I can't image what that would be. The All Christian forums SoF is very basic - Trinity, Jesus, authority of Scriptures and the return of Christ. I'm sure the same expectations are in this forum, but I'm curious if you'd like to PM me.

Hope you looked at the article.

 

Yea we would not want to apply those words to His work (ie the word of God) only Him.