The Baptism debate

With infant baptismal regeneration, you get two errors for the price of one.

The case of John the Baptist has absolutely nothing to do with infant baptism. It was a special and unique circumstance involving a unique person.

No one denies that God can save infants. What is being denied is that God can and does do that just because man pronounces words and applies water to an infant. Man cannot summon God through a ritual, cannot make God act through a ritual, cannot produce a spiritual result through a ritual, cannot induce God to perform a spiritual act through a ritual. God does not automatically move because man performs a ritual; God does not move at the behest of man. I do believe that baptism is God's act and not man's; that's one reason I don't believe in infant baptism -- infant baptism is all man's act and none of God's. The spirit blows where it wills, not where man wills that it should blow! When God brings a person to faith, that person is regenerated and is baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ -- that is the one true baptism and has nothing to do with outward physical water, has nothing to do with a ritual or man's words or actions. The most that outward water can do is to signify, symbolize, and represent this spiritual reality and spiritual baptism. That is the pure teaching of Jesus and the apostles and the witness of the NT churches and earliest Christians, apart from any corrupted tradition of men as represented in the fathers with their erroneous teachings based on superstition, fear, ignorance, and a wrong view of original sin.

Put tradition in it's place, get your doctrine from the scriptures, and infant baptism will be put in it's place -- a mere tradition and invention of man.

I keep posting this link because it is the absolute best refutation of infant baptism I have ever seen -- and by a former Presbyterian pastor, at that!

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

 

I can assure you that Biblicist has not admitted defeat. I can say that based on my heated debates with him in the past.

The only way that he won't be back is because of permanent incapacitation or death!

 

At this point in the debate, I think it best for me to step aside. I do not wish to be seen as condemning anyone who disagrees with me.

Also, in this forum I have been called the most vile things by some of the very Baptists whom I agree with the most on this particular subject.

It is quite clear to me and has been for sometime that I do not fit into any established belief system, otherwise known as a denomination; my beliefs are too diverse and cannot be neatly packaged so as to fit within any denomination.

The only thing I am 100% sure about is that we all see through a glass, darkly.

Best wishes to all who truly seek to follow Jesus in heart, spirit, and deed, as well as words.

 

Your main point here appears to be the denial that material items (such as baptismal water) play any part in the spiritual such as healing. Is this correct?

WM

 

Incorrect. I have not once said that God cannot or does not work through the physical; in fact, I believe He can and does. I have said that He cannot be induced to do so by man, through a ritual or otherwise. When, where, how, and upon whom He does is entirely up to Him and cannot be brought about by words or actions of humans.

 

Baptism is from God - not from man. We do it because he told us to do it. Even Jesus was baptized.

WM

 

Once again, you have no more proof that your interpretation of the Bible is correct than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses!

Where in the Bible does it say that baptism is OUR act of public profession of our faith. This is an assumption.

The most you can say, if you believe that baptism is only a figurative sign of what happens to us spiritually, is that you don't know why God tells us to do it.

 

If your postion is correct, what is the purpose of baptism? There is no where in Scripture that says it is a public profession of faith. This is a Baptist/Anabaptist assumption.

 

Note what Jesus tells John at Jesus' baptism when questioned whom should baptize whom that Jesus wanted to do it to fulfill "all righteousness". We know baptism wasn't a requirement for the Old Covenant. There was no need to have it done by the law. So in what manner of righteousness is being presented here. That statement only makes sense in a sacramental sense as the means of not only purging all original sin (which Jesus had none) but establishing the new signatory for the New Covenant (So to speak) and reciept of the Holy Spirit as we see exemplified in the Holy Spirit decending from heaven upon Jesus Baptism. In which it is clear we participate in the divine life of Christ as we too are baptised (cleansing us from original sin) and are raised from the water to recieve the Holy Spirit sealing us in that New Covenant. Otherwise what righteousness was there to fulfill by Jesus being baptized?

 

It is not an assumption. Every NT baptism was exactly that.

 

Wrong again. See my reply to WM.

 

You all just don't want to let me bow out of the debate, do you? :)

As strongly as I feel about infant baptism, I would not want to force paedobaptists out of a church of which I was a member.

In fact, my communion, the CAC, allows individual members and ministers to practice infant baptism, although most would see it the way the Church of the Nazarene does, for instance. The CAC does not affirm baptismal regeneration. And many hold to believer's baptism only. We have quite a diverse membership.

I personally could not perform an infant baptism -- an infant dedication, yes, but not an infant baptism.

When I was in the Methodist Church years ago and considering ministry there, I thought I could baptize babies on the basis of prevenient grace. But I realized that would be giving water baptism two different meanings -- one for infants and one for believers. However, then the UMC came up with their new baptism statement mandating a belief in baptismal regeneration, and I knew I could not remain in the UMC. Heck, even the Anglican Church does not require a belief in baptismal regeneration and contains several different beliefs about the meaning of baptism.

I am liking the Anglican Mission in the Americas more and more. While they ordain women only as deacons, I find I have much in common with them. If I ever move my local membership from the Baptist church, it will most likely be to an Anglican Mission church, even though the nearest one is an hour's drive.

I have discovered a long time ago that I need a church that is capable of holding a wide diversity of beliefs.

Well, off my soapbox.

I'll try to bow out now. :)

 

Water baptism is a pledge to God, a promise to God, that you will die to the ways of the world and live the Way of the Lord. See 1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Infants cannot make a promise. Moreover, no one, not even the infant’s parents can make a promise for their child, nor can anyone make a promise for anyone else.
A person can be baptized with the Holy Spirit before water baptism, during water baptism, or after water baptism.
Jesus does the baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus gives to those the Holy Spirit when he accepts them, Acts 15:8.

John the baptizer prepared the way for Jesus. He came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:76-80).

We are still to confess that we are sinners, and to repent, to prepare the way for Jesus Christ into our lives.

Acts 20:21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Acts 26:20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

The Bible tells us before people were baptized-they repented. Infants cannot repent.

Christians are to be water baptized, even after having received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47 Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”

Baptism illustrates a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Our old nature is to die and we are to be “buried with Him through baptism into death.” We are buried with the water, and raised out of the water, raised to “walk in newness of life” (live like Jesus).

Picture how baptism looks…the believer comes to make the pledge to God, to die to the sins of the world; so now standing in the water the believer falls back, as if dead; then, the believer goes under the water, buried; then, the believer rises up out of the water, raises up to live a new life.

Romans explain this perfectly.
Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Infant baptism interferes with people knowing and obeying the Truth. Infant baptism confuses non-Christians and those who want to be a Christian. Many people baptized as an infant do not understand why they do not really know the Lord. Those baptized as infants do not usually walk the path that Jesus teaches...unless they learn more of the truth later. Infant baptism has been confusing millions of people for years. It is more serious of an issue that most even realize.

Before Jesus saves a person and gives them the Holy Spirit, the person can privately confess to Jesus. Then, later or at the same time be baptized in water. Jesus can give the Holy Spirit before, during, or after the water baptism, as shown in the scriptures I quoted.

 

Where does the Bible say that baptism is OUR public profession of faith?

Why does God command us to be baptized?

Why in the Great Commission, does God make a such a big deal about baptizing all nations, if it has no spiritual meaning?

"Public profession of faith" is not found in the Bible.

 

Lutherans and Catholics agree that water baptism is figurative of what happens to us spiritually. I understand that Baptists do not believe that there is any more to it than that.

But what PURPOSE does baptism serve? That is my question. Baptists say that its purpose is to "publically demonstrate our faith to others". Where does it say that in the Bible?

 

It is found in every NT baptism.

The spiritual meaning of baptism is that outward washing with water is a sign and symbol of the inward washing by the Spirit which has already taken place when a person comes to faith, prior to the outward washing.

Baptism, when done by immersion, is a powerful picture, testimony, and witness of what has already taken place spiritually in a person -- death of the old nature, burial of it, and resurrection to new life in Jesus Christ, all brought about by the Spirit when a person comes to faith. That is the true spiritual meaning and significance of water baptism. It is the Gospel presented in visual imagery!

 

It doesn't say that in the bible. That is a Baptist tradition. :thumbs:

WM

 

You are not answering my question.

I understand what you believe is the meaning of baptism--a figurative picture of our spiritual salvation.

My question is: why does God tells us to do it? Why does God tells us to do it "to all nations". Where in the Bible does God tell us that the purpose of baptism is a public profession of faith?

He doesn't! You are assuming it.

We are in total agreement that the water flowing over a person is a sign of the spiritual washing with Christ's blood.

But what is baptism's PURPOSE according to the Bible, not according to your assumptions?

 

I never said baptism is a public profession of faith. Of course, it can be, if done in public. However, a person can be baptized with just themselves and the baptizer in a private place.

Water baptism is a promise, a pledge to God.

Infants cannot make a promise to God.