1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How are infants justified before God?

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Carson Weber, Jul 2, 2003.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 4
  1. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bob,

    You wrote, "Christ is their savior by default - until such time as they TOO can CHOOSE rebellion or choose to submit to Christ."

    Are you saying that infants are saved apart from faith?

    That WHOSoever BELIEVES on Him might have everlasting LIFE - as Christ said in John 3.

    Bob, just consider what I have to say before you respond - just this one time, please. This verse needs to be taken into context.

    In John 3:15, the believing spoken of is the type of belief exercised by one who has been "born from above" [anothen], which is the central theme of John 3. This is a supernatural belief exercised by the Christian who has been spiritually reborn.

    In the end of John 2, we read:

    "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed [pisteuo] in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not believe [pisteuo] himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man."

    This leads right into the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus:

    "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews."

    John is skillfully showing us that mere human belief in Jesus does not suffice; he shows that salvation is not the result of our human faith, but, rather, is a gift from God received in baptism, when we are given the supernatural, theological virtue of Faith. It is this type of faith that saves. When an infant is baptized, he or she is given this supernatural virtue of faith, which is a pure gift, a pure grace, given freely. Infant baptism is a powerful demonstration of just how free God's grace is. The infant doesn't do anything whatsoever to freely receive this gift.

    Rather the error of infant Baptism "evolved" over time.

    Bob, you've asserted that infant Baptism "'evolved' over time". Would you please back up your assertion by showing where in the early Church this was debated? Would you please point out the councils that addressed this practice and excommunicated the "supposed heretics" (who were really the orthodox, according to you)? Please, back up your assertion with historical evidence.

    According to RC historians when the error of infant baptism evolved

    Would you please point out the Catholic historian who admits that infant baptism is the product of evolution of doctrine?

    [ July 03, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
     
    #21 Carson Weber, Jul 3, 2003
  2. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Yelsew,

    You wrote, "John the Baptist made it clear that he baptises with water, but the one for whom he, John, is the forerunner will baptise by spirit. So what power is there in water baptism? NONE whatever."

    There is no power in the baptism of John, but there is power in the baptism of Jesus, which involves water, obviously (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)

    In Acts 19:1-6, we read:

    While Apol'los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus.

    There he found some disciples. And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

    And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

    And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?"

    They said, "Into John's baptism."

    And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."

    On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
     
    #22 Carson Weber, Jul 3, 2003
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Indeed - the Bible never calls infants to "repent" or to "Hear His voice and OPEN the door". NOR is Baptism applicable to them for it is "NOT the touch of magic sacramental water - or even magic rose petals - on the flesh but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3:21

    There is no "belief in God received in Baptism" in all of scripture. Not in John 3 or John 2 or in the entire 66. We do not have a single text showing us that "belief is received IN baptism" - RATHER we have "Believe AND are Baptized" as a "Sequence"

    However the RCC hopes to find (needs to find) what is never stated in scripture - namely "Baptized into BELIEF" or "Belief received through Baptism".

    FAITH is a gift from God - it is true - but it is NOT received "through Baptism" neither if "belief".

    For UNTO EACH one has been GIVEN a measure of Faith Romans 12.

    Faith - by definition CAN NOT be held by, expressed by, demonstrated by, or exercised by an infant.

    "Faith IS the substance of things HOPED for the CONVICTION of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1.

    At every turn - the RC position is cut short by the Explicit statements of God's Word.

    I find this amazing. It is as if you have to already BE Catholic to fall for it. Or perhaps you have to simply not know about the Bible teaching on these points when they are first presented by the RCC.

    Infant baptism is simply a tradition born out of an erroneous idea of limbo, a failure to study the essence of what faith really is, and superstitions of the dark ages.

    Are you "sure" that my RC source is going to reference "debates"?? I find that odd.

    Is it your argument that Catholic doctrine did not "evolve" over time?

    I really think it would be helpful to clarify your position - so that when these quotes are given we can see just exactly how your views compare with your own historians.

    I want to avoid the non-committal start so that you can then put a "nice face" on statements that clearly "pose a problem" for what you start off saying is "an issue".

    If you are arguing that doctrines (specifically infant baptism in this case) did NOT evolve over time - please say so.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #23 BobRyan, Jul 3, 2003
  4. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bob,

    I believe that I set forth a pretty good exposition of how John shows that human belief isn't enough to save us, that we need to be "born anothen" (Eng. "from above") in addition to human belief in order to be saved, and you chose not to address this exposition of mine, which is from where we get the very teaching of being "born again".

    Rather, you went about demonstrating how human belief accompanies baptism, which I wholly agree with.

    Faith - by definition CAN NOT be held by, expressed by, demonstrated by, or exercised by an infant.

    I agree with you. The supernatural virtue of Faith (this is a new faculty, a power) given to the human in baptism cannot be exercised by an infant. The inability to exercise this power (principle of action) does not negate the possibility (and reality) that the power has been given when the infant is "born from above" by means of "water and Spirit".

    Infant baptism is simply a tradition born out of an erroneous idea of limbo, a failure to study the essence of what faith really is, and superstitions of the dark ages.

    Bob, why is it that you misrepresent the Catholic Church on purpose? I have already stated on this thread, in my initial post, the following:

    "The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?"

    Infant baptism is attested to in some of the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament, and yet you say that it is born of superstition from the Middle Ages. Are you comfortable bearing such false witness? Does this affect your conscience?
     
    #24 Carson Weber, Jul 3, 2003
  5. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    None of these passages indicate a water baptism, except "John's baptism"
     
    #25 Yelsew, Jul 3, 2003
  6. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Yelsew,

    You wrote, "None of these passages indicate a water baptism, except "John's baptism""

    Whoooaa.. wait a second.. Are you kidding me?

    Are you seriously saying that when Peter said, "every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", he wasn't referring to being baptized with water?

    Are you seriously saying that "Hurry and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name" isn't referring to being baptized with water?

    Are you seriously saying that when Paul baptized the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:5, this didn't involve water?

    You also skipped right over Matthew 28:18-20, which I also provided. Was this intentional? Would you say that this passage doesn't speak of a baptism involving water?
     
    #26 Carson Weber, Jul 3, 2003
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Your treatment of John 3 "required" John to say that Belief was created in - brought about by Baptism. Your position "needed" the text to say "He who has been baptized into belief" or "He who is baptized Believes" or something to that effect. INSTEAD what I showed in several cases is that the "Sequence" we find in scripture is that BELIEF preceeds baptism. You did not respond to these EXPLICIT sequence that SHOW my position.

    You also did not respond to the utter lack of the "Believe created IN Baptism" texts your view "needs".

    John 3 makes it clear "He who BELIEVES" and does NOT argue that "belief arises OUT of Baptism" - though your preference "needs" it to argue that case.

    So having produced nothing to that effect - how will you sustain your point?

    In John 3 - those that are "Born of the Spirit" are saved. However the text does not say "at the moment the believers head touches the water he is BORN of the Spirit" as you propose. In fact in John 3 NO sequence is setup for belief with respect to water baptism. But we DO see it explicitly identified in other scriptures and it is always "Who BELIEVES AND is Baptized". Contrary to how the RCC would have it.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #27 BobRyan, Jul 3, 2003
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Here is the Cath Digest article you have requested. Parenthesis mine in the quotes below from the June 1999 article.

    Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

     
    #28 BobRyan, Jul 3, 2003
  9. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bob,

    You wrote, "Your treatment of John 3 "required" John to say that Belief was created in - brought about by Baptism.

    No, not mere belief, but the supernatural virtue of faith. John shows what mere belief by itself gets you in the end of chapter 2.

    INSTEAD what I showed in several cases is that the "Sequence" we find in scripture is that BELIEF preceeds baptism. You did not respond to these EXPLICIT sequence that SHOW my position.

    Yes, I did respond to your presentation. You are misrepresenting my response. I said, "Rather, you went about demonstrating how human belief accompanies baptism, which I wholly agree with."

    John 3 makes it clear "He who BELIEVES" and does NOT argue that "belief arises OUT of Baptism" - though your preference "needs" it to argue that case.

    Bob, are you reading my posts? I showed how John speaks of mere human belief in Jesus is not sufficient unto salvation in the end of John 2. This should give you pause.

    This is an integral part of the theological narrative John is building in his Gospel, and you are ignoring it outright.
     
    #29 Carson Weber, Jul 4, 2003
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ok - I stand corrected.

    Your treatment of John 3 "required" that John say that "Faith is Created in - brought about by Baptism" And you did not show that such a thing IS found in John 3.

    INSTEAD what I showed in several cases is that the "Sequence" we find in scripture is that BELIEF preceeds baptism. You did not respond to these EXPLICIT sequence that SHOWs my position.

    OK - so you AGREE with the SEQUENCE "Whoever BELIEVES and IS baptized" but your argument is that "BELIEF is Apart from Faith".

    Do you have any evidence AT ALL in scripture that for the Obedient - "Belief is APART from faith" or do you simply make that up because the RCC position "needs it"?

    Are you arguing that I can not find in scripture the fact that BELIEF is in fact a step of faith (I am thinking of Romans 10 here so you will need to be very careful. [​IMG] )

     
    #30 BobRyan, Jul 4, 2003
  11. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Which of those scriptures specify water? It is an assumption that any of them refer to water baptism. Afterall John's was a water baptism. However Jesus' baptism is spirit baptism. None of those scriptures say, "baptise with water". That includes Matthew 28:18-20. Please by all means prove me wrong. The scriptures certainly do not!
     
    #31 Yelsew, Jul 4, 2003
  12. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    There are a lot of things that the words of scripture do not say. It's much like hearing one side of a conversation.

    But the word for baptize (baptizo) means to dip, immerse or wash. Historical baptism is Judaism was by immersion. I see no deviation from immersion until the fourth century.
     
    #32 gb93433, Jul 4, 2003
  13. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    There are two other definitions for "immerse"; 1. to involve deeply, absorb, and 2. to embed, bury.

    Baptize can also mean, 1. to cleanse spiritually, and 2. initiate or dedicate by purifying. Purification need not be washing with water.

    The Holy Spirit does not wash by water. What is water to the Holy Spirit? Either of these could be what the Holy Spirit does.

    My point is that baptism by water is John the Baptist's baptism unto repentence, while Jesus baptism is Holy Spirit Baptism, and need not involve water in the least.

    Granted there are examples of people being baptized in water such as the Ethiopian Eunuch, but these need not be the rule.

    What seems to be standard practice is that the church uses baptism as a testimony to one's stated faith. Immersion in water is then a visible sign of one's testimony. Holy Spirit baptism has no "visible sign", but there are gifts given by the Holy Spirit and some denominations, Assembly of God for example insist on speaking in tongues as a sign of Holy Spirit Baptism. Not all are given the same gifts though, so if you don't speak in tongues, avoid the Assembly of God.
     
    #33 Yelsew, Jul 4, 2003
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    There is "no other" external - physical form of Baptism presented in scripture OTHER than water baptism - fully emersing the believer.

    There are certainly cases of "Believers" - those who place their FAITH in Christ, being SAVED before they are baptized and those who were never baptized pre-Cross.

    But AFTER the cross - all "believers" - all those who placed their faith in Christ - were called to ALSO follow Him in water Baptism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #34 BobRyan, Jul 4, 2003
  15. Yelsew

    Yelsew Guest

    Perhaps for repentance because that is what water baptism is for. Holy Spirit baptism is for regeneration of the believing heart.
     
    #35 Yelsew, Jul 4, 2003
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It must be admitted that there was never a time since the fall of man - where repentance was not needed, where regeneration was optional, where the fallen lost soul could just "go it alone" and that would "work just fine".

    I think most would agree to that.

    It is also the case that regeneration, belief, repentance etc are brought about in every case - through the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart.

    But the outward symbol of water baptism was not "always" the norm for the people of God in all ages. Rather it has become the standard once the Matt 28 commission required it as an outward sign of obedience and identification with Christ.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #36 BobRyan, Jul 4, 2003
  17. Frank

    Frank New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    The baptism that saves is immersion in water. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:12-14; 8:38,39, Eph.5:26.
    Holy Spirit baptism was for the apostles as per Joel 2:28, Luke 24:44-51, John 14:26, 15:26; 16;13, Acts 2:1-4,17,18. The complete fulfillment of this promise was whn the Gentiles( all flesh) were baptized in Acts 10.
    Holy Spirit baptism is not the baptism that saves per the following:
    1. Holy Spirit baptism could be performed by Christ only. Mat. 3:11.
    2. The baptism that was to continue till the end of the world was administered by human beings. Mat. 28:18-20.
    3. Holy Spirit baptism was a promise to be received, not a command to be obeyed. Luke 24:44-51.
    4. Holy Spirit baptism is never said to save.
    5. Holy Spirit baptism never imparted faith which is essential to be saved. Hebrews 11:6. It is the word of God that produces faith. Romans 10:17.
    6. It is the word that saves, not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. James 1:18.
    7. The miraculous power of the Holy Spirit was limited in time and scope. Acts 8:18, I Cor. 13:8-11.
     
    #37 Frank, Jul 7, 2003
  18. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have an Anabaptist reply: we do not and never have on the whole believed in OSAS, which is also a teaching absent from the ante-Nicene writers. And like the Eastern Orthodox, we traditionally rejected the Roman teaching of original sin, in that Scripture testifies that each man's sin is on his own head and he is never punished for the sin of another. However, to the extent that we can say that in Adam all men die, so in Christ are all men made alive; the provision of the atonement extends exactly as far as the effects of the fall. Therefore, yes, all infants are covered by the blood of Christ until like Paul, who was alive once without knowledge of sin, they come to awareness of their sinfulness, and they die spiritually. Then they are subject to the need to repent and have faith to reappropriate the benefits of the atonement. Since OSAS is false, this presents no problem for an Anabaptist.
     
    #38 Taufgesinnter, Jul 31, 2003
  19. 3AngelsMom

    3AngelsMom <img src =/3mom.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said!!
     
    #39 3AngelsMom, Jul 31, 2003
  20. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you!
     
    #40 Taufgesinnter, Jul 31, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 4
Loading...