Baptismal Remission

That's our line. Tell us, how many people baptized as an infant do you know who can remember their baptism? How does a person who has no idea who Jesus is simply by virtue of not being consciously self-aware, have faith in Him?

 

There were only eight that were saved. They were all in the ark, and not one of them was an infant. There were many infants that you could say were "Baptized" by the flood. They, of course, were destroyed by it. Is that the picture that you portray with infant baptism--destruction?
DHK

 

But if baptism which is commanded by Jesus and is only a work then don't you have to say salvation is by faith and works? Since when did somebody have to be self-aware to have faith, again how do you know an infant isn't? Just because you remember doesn't mean that you weren't self aware. Of course if being self aware of the Gospel is what you call faith then according to you the devil is saved.

 

Chem said:
"How do you know that faith can't be sparked when an infant is baptized? How do you know the infant already doesn't have faith? Why do you doubt the promise of Rm 6 and 1 Pt 3:21? ""

Chem, what point have I been making? You do read my posts don't you? Your question above is answered by what I have been saying. We can know that faith is not sparked by baptism because of the millions and millions of baptized infants who grow up to adults who could care less about God, to be haters of God even. If there was power in Baptism it would mean something to everyone. The fact is the Holy Spirit enters thre person who has faith (saved by faith as you said) not the person who is Baptized.

Read the account of Phillip and the Eunch(sp?) in Acts 8 (read in the KJV please) and then tell me infants qualify for baptism.

In Love and truth,
Brian

 

Chem,

You misunderstand what is meant by "participationist". Ity mean that in being united to Chrost in His death, we participate in His death. That is pretty well what you said. So you are supporting our line, not your own there.

"Please don't tell me that is the best you can do."

LOL. No it is not. But it is certainly more than you have done!

 

Chemnitz, this topic has been debated to death before. You are not going to get these folks to move away from their works-based theology and their disbelief in the Bible.

If God offers a free gift to everyone, they say God is wrong and we have to make a "decision for Jesus" in order to take God's gift. If something in the Bible doesn't agree with their theology they say that portion of the Bible is merely symbolism.

Its frightening how Catholic these people are. I think that is one of the reasons you see so much Catholic hatred from Baptists. They feel a need to consistently seperate themselves since they believe so much alike.

 

So according to you the Word can not spark faith in anybody. Again your evidence of all the people who rejected the free gift offered in baptism is pretty poor.

If you are making baptism a symbol of confession then you have turned into a work. Then to instist a person be baptized because it is commanded by Christ is to make it a works righteous act, so you really can't claim saved by faith alone. The whole line of participationism is works righteousness because you believe it(baptism) is an act you do for God. When I say I participated in the death and ressurrection through baptism I am saying God worked it on me through baptism, I did nothing.

I have read it many times, but you see I believe infants can have faith, something which you would deny them. I am so glad you are relegating all infants who die to hell.

 

Chem, you obviously haven't read my posts on Baptism before. I don't see a need for baptism at all anymore. Not that it is a bad thing just not needed. Baptism in the early church was a way of confirming that one was true to what they proclaimed. Once baptized a person was a member of "the way" and open to severe persucution. Now we can join local churches etc... to make our proclamation. So how is that for true "faith alone"? We are saved by grace through faith.

Chem and sir Ed, do you realize that you have both reverted to being sarcastic and even somewhat mean. Why is that? I have been direct in my diagreement but never disrespectful and I plan to keep it that way.

My original question of why millions walk a way may not be easy to answer maybe it can't be answered. Please ponder the point I am trying to make and don't see it as an attack. see it rather as a way to reflect on what you believe and a challange to make sure you are right.

Chem, I struggle with free will vs. election. God is just and only he knows for sure what happens to infants when they die. I would like to think they are with him in Heaven

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

But salvation can be only through faith and according to you guys infants can not have faith so that relegates them to hell.

To deny baptism is to deny the gospel.

[ September 27, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

"But salvation can be only through faith and according to you guys infants can not have faith so that relegates them to hell."

This is not a scriptural argument. It is one that appeals to emotions.

In fact it is not incompatible to say that salvation is by faith alone and to say that infants may have faith. In the Calvanist thought, faith is a gift of God. If an infant is elect, he will have faith. We would of course have no way to detect it, but that is nt the point. The point is that it is entirely possible to maintain faith alone with the salvation of infants.

Further it is important to note that in fact "we" don't relegate anyone to hell. Becuase of original sin, all people are destined to hell unless God intervenes to grant faith. Coupled with the fact that people are depraved, they would be going exactly where they deserve to go, and where they want to go. So what if all infants go to hell? Is God any less just? No.

"To deny baptism is to deny the gospel."

In the NT, baptism and salvation are so closely bound up that some actually make the misake of thinking baptism salvific. Now I deny that of course, but baptism is still essential as part of one's response to Christ.

 

So if it is possible for infants to have faith why deny them baptism?

Baptism is not a mere response. It is the very essense of the Gospel message in a tangable form.

 

So if it is possible for infants to have faith why deny them baptism?

Baptism is not a mere response. It is the very essense of the Gospel message in a tangable form.</font>[/QUOTE]Faith is to precede Baptism. Baptism is not the very essense of the Gospel message, it is not even included in Paul's description of the Gospel that he preached.

 

Brian, I've answered your question two or three times now. It appears as though you just don't like the answer.

 

So if it is possible for infants to have faith why deny them baptism?

Baptism is not a mere response. It is the very essense of the Gospel message in a tangable form.</font>[/QUOTE]The reason infants are not baptised has to do with the fact that a) baptism is done subsequent to a confession of faith. Infants, while not necessarily incapapbe of faith, are incappable of commuicating that to us n a way that we understand. So we don't see a confession. b) there is no biblical evidene that supports the baptism of infants. There is the begged question argiment from "households" and the poorly grounded argument from a circumcision parallel. But we have no actual examples in the NT.

I did not say that baptism is a "mere response" I said that baptism is an act subsequent to faith. Please avoid making dichotomies were there are none. One believes by the grace of God, and is subsequently baptised, which "seals" the faith by allowing the person to participate and identify with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

I would certainly agree that baptism is the gospel actd out. But it is not salivfic. Baptism is an act that symbolically allows us to identify and participate in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is for that reason that immersion is the biblical mode of baptism; it portrays that truth most vividly. It protrays the measn of salvation, but is nt itself that ,means of salvation.

 

So now not only do you practice works righteousness, you are going to exclude mutes also. I really didn't realize that means of communication was required for faith. It seems you are reducing faith to be only understanding and ability to communicate, which satan is capable of doing. For you to be consistant you would have to say that satan is going to also be saved.

Then why was it commanded if it is only a symbol? Why do keep denying the ability of God to work through the water and Word of Baptism?

By reducing baptism to a symbol you make it a mere response.

What all of this boils down to is the fundamental flaws of calvinist/baptist thought the "finite cannot contain the infinite" and "if it cannot be understood by reason then it cannot be true". Which I find to be selectively applied when ever baptists/calvinists don't like something namely the sacraments. And these two calvinist ideas limit the power of God.

[ September 27, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

Latreia, please learn what a dichotomy is before telling people to avoid "making them."

 

Ed said:

"Latreia, please learn what a dichotomy is before telling people to avoid "making them.""

I know what a dichotomy is. Apparantly you don't. That's fine.

Chem said:

"So now not only do you practice works righteousness, you are going to exclude mutes also. I really didn't realize that means of communication was required for faith. It seems you are reducing faith to be only understanding and ability to communicate, which satan is capable of doing. For you to be consistant you would have to say that satan is going to also be saved."

I dont' practice works righteouness at all. That would be you who does that. And know I don't exclude mutes. Neither do I reduce faith to understanding. It requires trust as well, and Satan will never do that.

You are obviously not reading with an open mind, but only with a viw to seeing what you can possibly make into a disagreement. Warning: You are being contentious. Repeat this behaviour and I'll have to be quit of you.

"Then why was it commanded if it is only a symbol? Why do keep denying the ability of God to work through the water and Word of Baptism?"

Symbols have a reality behid them; the thing symbolised. And remember that I hold a particiupationsit view, not purely symbolic. And I don't deny the ABILITY of God to do anything. I merely point out that Biblically we have no evidene that He does, a matter of fact, save through Baptism. There is participationist language but not baptismal regeneration. I don't go beyind what is written, that's all.

You know you keep asserting and arguing from assumptin but you have put up no evidence.
"By reducing baptism to a symbol you make it a mere response."

No I don't. That which is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. I have already shown how it is not a "mere" symbol. You may continue to beat that straw man if you wish, but you will not altar the reality of things thereby.

"What all of this boils down to is the fundamental flaws of calvinist/baptist thought the "finite cannot contain the infinite" and "if it cannot be understood by reason then it cannot be true". Which I find to be selectively applied when ever baptists/calvinists don't like something namely the sacraments. And these two calvinist ideas limit the power of God."

Not at all. There is simply a differnece between saying God can do antyihng and sayingtha God thereore does anythig and everything. Your failure to recognise this makes Godf more after your own image. If we limit God so that he does not become in our image, then we do well.

 

Chem wrote:
"""Then why was it commanded if it is only a symbol? Why do keep denying the ability of God to work through the water and Word of Baptism?"""

Chem, and what verse has Jesus saying "I command you to be Baptized"

Would that be Luther 3:16? (that was humor not sarcasm, btw)

Chem, I am the one who has used the symbolic kind of statements about baptism. Remember I said it was not only symbolic but it was a way of proclamation. It was like the signing of a marriage certificate, it was the proof you were serious and the way of public proclamation for who you were in Christ. Baptisms were generally in the open for all to see. Baptism serves a lesser purpose in the Christian church of 2002, but is still a fine thing to do. When I stand before Christ someday he will not take me into His bossom because my body was baptized with water but will take me in because my heart was Baptized in His blood.

Chem, When I shared that I was really studying/pondering free will and election I was just being honest with you. I do not know it all and will not pretend to. I will grow in Christ because I am ever searching His words and am excited to keep exploring. You, however seem to have "arrived" and don't need to grow anymore. I plan to achieve that status when I enter Heaven and not a second before

In Christian Love,
Brian

Ed, You say you answered my question, please re-post or better explain the answer then because I did not see it. Baptism has meant nothing to millions of people and you say sin takes the person away from God but the Bible says he who is in us is greater then he that is in the world. That verse is not true if one recieves the Holy Spirit in Baptism and then can just walk away from God without a second thought.

[ September 30, 2002, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]

 

Brian, the Holy Spirit never leaves us. The Bible promises that. However, we have free will. We can leave the Holy Spirit.

 

Hey Ed,

So what you are saying is that God will let us go if we want. We can be true believers, secure in the "hand" of God and though we can't be plucked out of God's hand we can jump out, right?

A person could then jump in and out of God's hand throughout a life time, right?

When God, my father, grabbed me it was forever. He grabbed me at the moment of my faith and I am now His forever, bought with a price. It is so secure knowing that I am His forever that the thought of not serving him isn't really a thought at all.

I know that was slightly abstract but there is a great point in there, if you look for it

In Love and truth,
Brian