Infant Baptism: Doctrinal error? Who should we ask?

So how did people dip and soak their crusty arm pits after sweating all day? Fill up a big tub of water and soak in it? Let’s use some logic here Eliyahu, please.

Actually Eliyahu you where the one to point out in your number 2 post of this thread that immersion was the ONLY mode permissible in the Bible, so I was responding to that.

In regard to the Didache, this is not about providing details surrounding the Didache, but to show you and the class that we have a manuscript written in Greek, where the writer uses the word baptizo to mean something besides immersion in water.

Thanks for the verse, but I doubt that John exclusively uses Lev 14:8 as his means of starting baptism. Interestingly enough Lev 14:8 talks a lot about washing ones clothes and himself in water to be clean. Also check Lev 14:7 we see that water was sprinkled on the person who had leprosy. I don’t see immersion anywhere.

We do read in Holy Scripture were water has been the source of life and fruitfulness and we see in Genesis 1:2 were water was overshadowed by the Spirit of God.

The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism. The crossing of the Red Sea announces liberation wrought by Baptism. Baptism is also prefigured in the crossing of the Jordan River where the people of God received the gift of the land promised to Abraham’s descendents as an image of eternal life. The promise of this blessed inheritance is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

Christ says in John that one must be born of water and the spirit to be ‘born again’. Catholics along with the Church Fathers and many Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans interpret this as a reference to baptism.

As Zenas pointed out earlier, the problem is the difference of beliefs regarding baptism itself.

As Catholics, since the NT era, they see baptism as a Sacrament that which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sins, both original and actual sin; only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older adults.

The reason we see Paul saying to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, is b/c he was preaching to adults, who were still stained with both original and actual sin. So yes, they had to repent and be baptized.

An infant baptized is cleansed from original sin and once he gets of age, he goes through confirmation, where he repents of his actual sins.
-

 

Let’s be honest for a minute Bob, you haven’t a clue what a sacrament is or its purpose in the Church. I was first indoctrinated what Sacraments are from studying John Wesley and I simply built upon that understanding studying the Early Church.

Sacraments are not only images of grace, but they actually do something to you. They’re real agents through which grace comes.

To make this point, think of a kiss. A kiss is both physical and spiritual. Through a kiss we give, not merely an invisible reality, nor yet a merely physical gesture without spiritual content, but a sort of combination; an incarnation of love. A kiss is both physical and spiritual, like a human being.

Since studying Catholicism I can liken the sacraments as the kisses of God. Through them God not only symbolizes His love, He enacts it. Something happens to us through sacraments. Something is given. Something of the "stuff" of God is poured ("infused" to use theological word) into the human soul like water into a bucket. Thus, when the catholic Church speaks of grace infused, The Church speaks of God himself as if He were made of "stuff." In particular, the Church is recalling us to the language of the Creeds, which describe God himself as a substance when they say that the Three Persons of the Trinity, while distinct, are one in being. They are made of the same substance, the same "God stuff" if you will.

This seems crude to you and foreign to your E.G. White understanding, but then Jesus never shied from "crude" images (like comparing God to a mother hen) if they got His point across. And this is for a very good reason: Jesus Himself is a physical image--the Physical Image--of the ultimate spiritual reality (Hebrews 1:3). He is God in human flesh (John 1:1). And as God in human flesh he both symbolized God and carried to us His very Life--like a sacrament.

Now back to grace. As I studied John Wesley, I loved to idea of Baptism and Communion as a means of grace. I left the idea that grace was a mere legal fiction by which sinners (who remained objectively bad) are simply declared legally “not guilty” and thus “covered with Christ’s righteousness as snow covers a dunghill” To be sure, we are pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ, but this is the beginning, not the end of the Christian life. The rest of the story, which all believers live every day, is the fact that God causes us to "grow in him" to be changed by an increasing "infusion" of his grace into more and more areas of our being. We don't merely stop being sinners and have the heavenly account books zeroed out so we can squeak into heaven. We start being saints and go from grace to grace and glory to glory.

Since we are not disembodied angelic spirits. God reminds us every time we use the restroom, make love or eat a sandwich, that we are a peculiar combination of dreams and bones, part angel and part alley cat. So if sanctity is to really permeate our total being (body, soul and spirit, as Paul points out in 1 Thessalonians 5:23) it must be addressed to our total being.

As the child said to his mother, curling up to her side during the lightning storm, he couldn't just pray to God in his spirit because "I needed someone with skin on." So do we. Thus, the grace of God is given to our entire being, not just the spiritual part, in the sacraments, which are both physical and spiritual "means of grace." We experience, not just a legal "not guilty," not merely a divine attitude of "unmerited favor," but a physical touch and, through it, power from the grace of God so that we may be like the Man (not the disembodied Ghost) Christ Jesus and love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength: that is, with our total being. For Jesus, the Word made flesh, is the Original Sacrament. He came to give us "life abundantly." And that life comes to us, not merely in spirit, but "in spirit and in truth" through his very physical flesh, which He gives for the life of the world. (John 6:51).

When viewed in this way Bob, it become apparent that sacramentality is not a "magical" Catholic thing as you suggest. Rather, it is a Christian thing since a) all Christians believe that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the earth through the veil of Christ's very literal, very material, very human flesh (Hebrews 10:20) and b) all Christians believe that the body, (not just the spirit) belongs to the Lord and is holy to him (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Likewise, all Christians believe that the heaven and earth are full of God's glory (and are intended to show forth that glory). Indeed, it becomes apparent that (when we aren't talking about Catholic theology) even those Christians who find the idea of Catholic sacramentality magical see no difficulty at all with it in other areas. That is why a "Bible-believing Christian" feels no strangeness when he picks up a book (made of nothing more than paper, ink and glue as baptismal water is "only" water) and declares with perfect faith (as any Catholic would) that this mere creature is, in very truth, the Word of God that can bring us to salvation.

The principle is exactly the same: God communicating his life through a physical book called the Bible and God communicating his life through the physical waters of baptism. The only difference is that in the former, his life is communicated verbally while in the latter it is communicated non-verbally. But both are sacramental for both draw their life from the spiritual Word made matter in Christ Jesus. That's not magic. It's just the way things have been ever since Bethlehem.

Hope that helps!
Blessings
-

 

There is some truth in that (our needing of physical things), but mixed with a lot of antibiblical philosophical mumbo-jumbo. God is not "stuff", but He does make himself known to us through each other. That is the purpose of fellowship. God did become flesh in the Son, and the Spirit likewise manifests on earth in US. (There you have the working of the Tri-une God). Catholicism adds all of these other inanimate objects to the mix, and it becomes idolatry (all of these physical "pieces" of God), and then when you try to rationalize how they really become spiritual things, you end up with magical explanations.
Generalize as you may, you cannot find this overemphasis on physical objects in the NT.

 

I agree fellowship is important part of us growing as Christians, but in the same breath we have to acknowledge that humans beings, even if they are “born again” will fail you eventually. The grace communicated through the Sacraments Christ gave to His Church will never fail us.
-

 

Still, that "grace" is not physical objects. For those will fail us too, as they are cut from the same fallen universe as we are. God saves us, He saves us, and it is not some physical items that "communicates" this to us; but just His own invisible power (Heb.11:2) in itself.

 

No you misunderstand, it’s not the physical object that saves, it’s the grace from God communicated THROUGH these physical objects that saves. God is still doing the saving...

Go back and try re-reading my post 22 that may help.
-

 

I am not the authority. The Bible is authoritative. The Bible interprets itself. It is ashame that you don't study it.

People rely on their tradition rather than the Word of God. If they relied solely on the Word of God they would not baptize infants, and they would always immerse. We do not follow what other denominations do; we follow what the Bible teaches. It is a concept that the RCC hates; it is called sola scriptura.

The tradition that Paul spoke of was the truths of God's Word that he taught them, and nothing more. But you fail to accept that. Christ died in 29 A.D. This epistle was written about 55 A.D. (2 Thes). The span of time between the death of Christ and the epistle to the Thessalonians therefore is about 26 years. The RCC defines "Tradition" as "teaching, oral or written passed down through the centuries from one generation to another." The RCC encyclopedia's definition goes contrary to what the verse teaches. There is no way one can get centuries of tradition within 26 years of church history. You are not even logical in your own definitions. Paul was teaching them the truths of God's Word. That is what the word "tradition" means in that verse.

But you fail to bring a rebuttal to the real reason why infants cannot be baptized"
Repent and be baptized.
Believe and be baptized.

There are dozens of verses that teach this. This is always the accepted order. There is no other order in the Bible but this. It is a command. The command is to believe first, and then to be baptized--always.
Infants cannot believe.
Therefore infants cannot be baptized. Until you can get past this teaching you have no argument at all for baptizing infants.

Irenaeus was the one that thought that Jesus lived to 80. Why should we believe anything that he believes. I believe the Bible not man. I ask again: Can infants repent; can they believe? If not they cannot be baptized, no matter who you quote.
​

Perhaps Ireneaus wasn't even saved. We don't know that for sure. By his writings it doesn't seem he was. Again we go by the teachings of the Bible not of men. It doesn't matter who he was taught by. Here is what John said of some that he taught:

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

There were false teachers among the congregation that John taught. Perhaps Irenaeus was one of them.

Does it matter? No! What matters is what the Bible says. Learn that, and you will be far better off.

That is quite true. The RCC has taught a heretical gospel message, a message of works salvation, from its inception. Why not just admit it? It has never taught salvation by grace through faith and faith alone as taught in Eph.2:8,9.

Much of Tradition is heresy. The Bible interprets itself. If you do not use the Bible as your only standard, then your beliefs will surely be off base.

And most of them are man-made and heretical.

By those three things you can become a Hindu. The Hindu religion is older than Christianity and has its roots way back in antiquity.
It is universal, in that the Vedas are accepted by Hindus everywhere. So is baptism--a baptism that washes away their sins--just like the RCC.
It has a basic consensus that is agreed upon by all its various sects.
So why not just become a Hindu instead. BTW, Hinduism and the RCC have much in common.

That is false. Baptist's would never find themselves comfortable within the Tradition of the Catholic Church, and you know that very well. You probably don't even know any traditins of the Baptist churches. There is no "Baptist Church," per se. It is not a denomination.

Baptists approach the Bible with the attitude that the Bible is our sole guide. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Thus we are objective. We, no doubt, are the only ones that can be objective in that manner. All others that you have mentioned have some other authority that either goes with the Bible or even supercedes the Bible. The RCC especially falls into that category. You are unable to interpret the Bible in any other light except what the Magesterium has dictated for you. You have shut up the Holy Spirit and put him away from your life. You have substituted the Magesterium for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is unable to guide you into truth. Your traditions, your catechism, your Catholic dogmas all supercede the Bible.
It is not so with us. The Bible supercedes all else. It is our only rule of faith and doctrine. We have no other underlying interpretive system as you accuse us of having.

 

When you speak of God as "stuff" to justify this
"grace through physical objects" concept, and even use the Incarnation as a supposed example of it, you might as well be saying these items are God, and thus what saves us.

 

LOL DHK, and YOU act as if YOU have no tradition, which guides your own interpretation of Holy Scripture?

This very similar to people on two sides of a legal, constitutional debate both saying, “well, we go by what is constitutional, whereas you guys don’t.”

The US Constitution, like Holy Scripture is NOT sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and Courts are what is necessary, and its their decrees that are binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future Supreme Court or a Constitutional amendment. Therefore, there’s ALWAYS a final appeal, which settles the matter.

Unfortunately for you DHK, is that your appeal is a logically self-defeating principle and a book, in which MUST ALWAYS be INTERPRETED by human beings.

This is quite evident given the thousands of Protestant divisions; simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. Even you and Bob can’t agree on eternity and both of you appeal to Scripture. In the end, a person has NO assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. You can only “go to the bible” yourself and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or they adopt a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or where the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don't matter."

But the Holy Scripture doesn't teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians can freely and joyfully disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned within Holy Scripture. The only conclusion we can reach from the Holy Scripture is what I’ve often heard referred to as the "three-legged stool", which is the Holy Scripture, Church, and Tradition which are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
-

 

Roman Catholics aren't the only ones who practise infant baptism. Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, the Eastern Orthodex also practice it. One of the Reformers, Martin Luther, fiercely defended infant baptism.:jesus: :godisgood:

 

I challenge you to quote the tradition of my church. If not you will have to take back your statement.

The final appeal is the Bible. If there is a matter which must be decided upon (such as church discipline--see 1Cor.5:1ff), then the church acts according to the precepts laid down in the Bible. Your analogy fails. A local church is like a business with a constitution and a statement of faith. When a person accepts a position at that place of business he signs a contract agreeing to hold to the company policy and abide by its rules. If he doesn't he can be fired on the basis of violating the company policy and/or rules. The CEO and its board determined what the constitution and policy would be based on something far greater--goals, direction, foundational principles, etc.
Every church has its constitution and statement of faith. It is based on something far greater--a handbook that God gave to us that contains goals and directions and principles for our lives. If you don't like the consitiution or statement of faith of our church you don't have to join, and can go elsewhere.

The Book is God's revelation to mankind. The Holy Spirit reveals its truth to me. He guides me into truth according to his promise. You have made a very hypocritical statement as you have a church made up of men (most of whom are probably unsaved), that have made up doctrine (much of which is contrary to God's revelation), and you dare not go contrary to it. You are the one following man's doctrine, not me. I follow God's revelation; you follow man's.

Bob is SDA. Actually we don't have all that much in common. He belongs to a movement that started in the 19th century and never existed before that time. Though he claims to believe in sola scriptura, he is bound to beleive what he believes because, like you, he must defend what the SDA's teach him. He just can do a better job that you can because he knows his Bible better than you do. He also doesn't believe in as many heretical doctrnes as you do.

It is quite sad that you believe that. As far as salvation is concerned: I am sure, that if I were to die this minute that I would go straight to heaven--just as sure as if I had already been there a thousand years. I have no doubts about it. Please don't tell me I can't be sure. I can. BTW, I am not a Protestant. Maybe that is part of the difference.
Again, the difference is that I believe the Bible is my sole guide, the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Other Protestant denominations have not that belief. Therein lies a big difference. If the Bilbe is your all sufficient guide in life, you will surely come up with the right doctrines.

You have swallowed the RCC lie hook line and sinker. That three legged school is made of straw. Don't try to sit on it. It won't stand.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
--No RCC or Tradition here. It is the Word of God that is inspired of God, and is profitable...able to make one perfect.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--This condemns what you say. It is the Word of God only that is our guide; not tradition or the RCC.

Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
--Another condemning verse to your postion.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The RCC pales in light of the power of the Word of God. Tradition has no place whatsoever.

 

That doesn't make it right.
So do the Hindus. Does that make it right?

 

Baptizo has never meant Sprinkle in the Bible. When you baptize a person by Sprinkling, do you wash him or her? Maybe you have to shave him first, er? The primary meaning of Baptizo is Dip and Immerse, which no one can deny, but it is used for washing which may have originated from dipping the hands etc into the water in the basin. When it is used for Ritual Bath, it never meant Sprinkling, nothing other than Immersion.
Are you claiming that Sprinkling is the same as Washing?
You are trying to confess that your religion just declare Whitewash instead of Burial and Resurrection, aren't you?

OK

At least you have to declare who was it unless you are saying it from your dream. If he meant other than immersion, what did he claim as the meaning of Baptizo?

You need some more study which can hardly be found among Catholics.

The priest had to take 2 birds, the one was killed in the earthen vessel over the flowing water ( Lev 14:5), then take the other bird and dip the bird into the Blood of the first bird along with hyssop and Scarlet, then sprinkle the Blood unto the Leper seven times.

Thereafter the Leper wash himself in the Bath( verse 8), the Bath was called Mikveh and the bathing was called Rahats which is the same as Baptizo in Greek. Inside the temple there was the running water, and at the time of King Hezekiah, they built the Water Supply line so that they can bathe all the time in the living water, which still exists.
Often the blood of the Birds were replaced by the Ash-Water which is well explained in Numbers 19:1-22. The Red Heifer is the exact shadow of Jesus Christ as it was no blemish, spotless, never yoked. That Heifer was killed outside the city as Jesus was, and the Ashes was laid up and kept for purification water. The Purification water was SPRINKLED unto the sinners, and thereafter the sinners bathed himself in the Mikveh ( Ritual Bath), then he becomes ritually clean ( Tahor). Can you understand this? Read Lev 14 and Numbers 19.

Yes, but it has the Power of Death by immersion too when we read the Flood at the time of Noah which swallowed and immersed everything in the water.

Noah's Ark represents the Church floating on top of Death of Jesus Christ, which was sealed with the Kopher ( Pitch covered inside and outside the Ark) which is the homonym of Redemption too.

Yes, correct, it was preceded by Passover which was the death of Jesus Christ.

Crossing Jordan may be like the death of the Christian believer after the life in the wilderness of this world.

Of course.

No, Sir. It is a huge misunderstanding! Born again by Water and the Holy Spirit means that one should be born again by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. Water is the typical expression by Apostle John. Read 1 John 5:8.
Read verse 8:

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Why didn't Jesus mention the Blood then? Because those 2 ( HS and Water) will witness the Blood and Death of JC.

Why does Jesus ask us to be born again by Water and the Holy Spirit?
Water has the Cleansing Power by Death of Immersion.

Be careful as you are in the big trap of misunderstanding here.

Baptism doesn't mean any salvation at all. The Robber at the Cross was saved and went to the Paradise though he was not baptized.

Let's say we have one man who was not saved yet. In your theory, as soon as you baptize him, he is saved. It means that he was not saved before Baptism, then after Baptism he is saved. In other words, he didn't believe in Jesus before Baptism but you baptised him when he didn't believe Jesus. Then did he become to believe in Jesus by Baptism?
Baptismal Regeneration( which you are claiming now) is nothing but the confession that they are baptizing the Unbelievers, Non-Christians, they are strongly confessing that their religion is to bring the pagan believers into the church.
Once again, imagine this:
One second before you dip the unbelieving person into the water, he was unsaved and unbeliever, then one second after the Baptism, miraculously he becomes saved and a believer, this is theory of Baptismal Regeneration. Believers' Baptism means that the person repented already and accepted Jesus as his or her Lord in the life, then based on such confession of faith, as we read Acts 8:37-38, we baptise the believer who was already born again by the Water and the Holy Spirit.
Baptism doesn't make the people be born again, but the Baptism is performed to the person who was already born again in the Lord Jesus by the Holy spirit.

You may be talking about Peter( not Paul) in Acts 2:38, Repent relates to the Remission of the Sin, and the Baptism is based upon it and brings the gift of the Holy Spirit. That verse is often abused as well.

There is no teaching in the Bible like that. The Infant baptism doesn't help anything in their future life. No confirmation is found in the Bible. Your theory is orginated from the misunderstanding mentioned above.

BTW, Agnus, you found the difference between Circumcision and Baptism.
Everyone needs to circumcise the foreskin of the hearts, right? The infants must listen to the Gospel and have the foreskins of their hearts be circumcised, right?
I suspect you have never read those Bible verses before you posted them.

 

DHK,

Billwald told that Baptists perform the Baby Dedication.
Is it true to most of the Baptist church or only to some?
What is the meaning of it and its mode?