Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 192

Thread: Baptizing babies.?...!

  1. #136

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Water Baptism is therefore still applicable when similar conditions exist. But it is not a command requiring works to get saved. The only works that saves us is our attention and obedience to the works that Christ has already done and has supplied to us by his Holy Spirit.
    Water baptism was never a command for getting saved, neither is it considered any kind of "good works". It is simply obedience to Christ. Period.

    If a "Christian" will not obey Christ in this simple matter, then chances are this person was never saved, since salvation means receiving Christ as Lord (Master) and Savior. Please notice that based upon this principle the apostle Peter COMMANDED all the saved Gentiles in the household of Cornelius to be baptized. That should be more than enough proof.

    46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:46-48).

  2. #137

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel567 View Post
    Water baptism was never a command for getting saved, neither is it considered any kind of "good works". It is simply obedience to Christ. Period.

    If a "Christian" will not obey Christ in this simple matter, then chances are this person was never saved...
    There you go, saying Water Baptism is not a matter of salvation, and then threatening every Christian who does not agree with you that they will likely go to Hell! It is not quite so cut and dried. Remember that Paul said he was not called to baptize people with water, but rather, to preach the gospel. In other words, the gospel itself trumps Water Baptism!

    Secondly, John the Baptist said the one coming after him is greater than he was. And he said that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit--not with water.

    Therefore, water baptism, as much as it may lead to Jesus is not the vehicle that actually brings to Jesus. At best it is preparatory, a public statement of the intention to follow in the course of salvation, as opposed to a previous life of sin. Of course, nothing here would apply to someone *raised up in the faith, not in a life of sin!*

    But you answer none of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel567
    ...since salvation means receiving Christ as Lord (Master) and Savior. Please notice that based upon this principle the apostle Peter COMMANDED all the saved Gentiles in the household of Cornelius to be baptized. That should be more than enough proof.
    The fact Peter commanded people in Cornelius' family home to get baptized is "proof" that Water Baptism is a command for all? No, it is proof that Peter asked Cornelius' household to get water baptized as a 1st step in following Christ in salvation.

    Water Baptism was undoubtedly God's chosen Initiation Rite into Christian Salvation, particularly because it was introduced in the period of transition from apostate Judaism to international Christianity. Both apostate Jews and unbelieving Gentiles were encouraged to "purify" themselves with water publicly to show that they were renouncing their previous way of life in paganism to follow Christ in holiness.

    Nothing is said about those raised up in the faith. Nothing is said about the necessity of Water Baptism as a matter of obedience. It is encouraged as a 1st step towards renouncing paganism for Christianity.

    I don't believe God ever intended to make Water Baptism essential for the Christian life. He just seems to have encouraged those who had been walking with the world to show the world they were leaving it. How better to do that than through Water Baptism?

    If a convert to Christianity finds that Water Baptism works for him or for her, great! What really matters is that a break is made from the former way of life, and that the person determines to continue in Christianity. Ritualistic Water Baptism is only an aid. The command really concerns what the ritual represents--conversion to Christianity.

    If you want to believe the ritual is equal to obedience by all means obey the ritual. But don't judge those who serve their own lord and master--not you!

    Please note that on the Day of Pentecost *everybody* in the Upper Room spoke in tongues. Later, Paul indicated it was not incumbent upon all Christians to speak in tongues, even though it seemed all did initially. Why was that?

    I think it is because sometimes an event or even a ritual may be determined by God to be necessary to lead to something quite different. Tongues was part of the initiation of the gift of the Spirit. But the Spirit Himself is more important than tongues. Therefore, tongues is given by the Spirit only to some, and not to others. Who are we to say that *all* must speak in tongues?

    In the same way in the beginning all were getting water baptized. But the Spirit Baptism was more important. Therefore, water baptism remains in effect, but not necessary in all cases. The ritual must give place to the reality, which is far more important.

    Under the Law God used rituals as a beginning point for Israel to lead them to Christ. But after Christ came there was no longer any need for the rituals. Therefore, rituals are much less important than the reality. And the reality is Christ himself, and nothing else. All obedience is directed towards him. And his commands are quite simply, to love one another. To add ritualistic requirements to all is not our duty. Our duty is only to love God and to love His people. And sometimes it also requires us to love our enemies.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel567 View Post
    But legality is not the primary meaning of "valid". Here is the primary meaning, and that is what I was talking about:

    Vaild: (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:

    Rejecting believer's baptism does not have a sound basis in logic or in fact. The rest of your post was excellent, but you ruined it by giving this poster a break.
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    If rejecting believer's baptism does not have a sound basis in logic, then why do some professors who are believers and teach logic courses not believe it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel567 View Post
    Wilful blindness.
    Your answer is too simplistic. Have you read any books by those who teach paedo baptism and are also logic teachers? Have you read any book espousing paedo baptism that was written by a scholar regardless of whether or not he teaches logic (since most are formally trained in logic whether or not they teach it)?

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    1,928

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    If Scripture very clearly teaches it, why do so many truly born again, Spirit-filled people who want to obey the Scriptures disagree with your view? Why is your view the minority position in church history if it's very clearly taught?
    No born again , Spirit filled person that I know disagrees with it. I am aware that there are some who do, but as I said, I don't personally know of any. And you saying I am the "minority" on the position is grasping. Can you show some relevant data to support this claim ? TG, your response coming from the reformed side is very unexpected as most reformed churches I know of basically make baptism candidates take a test to ensure that they are saved before they will consider baptizing them. Churches who adhere to Calvin's doctrine are very , very discriminating concerning baptism in our area, often times waiting for a period before considering it as well.

    Have you ever read an entire book on the subject from someone who disagrees with your view? Or if not that, at one of those two-views/three-views books to try to understand why many disagree with you?
    Not about baptism. No. Have you ?

    Or do you only read material that agrees with you and address the counterpoint view by dealing with non-scholarly people in forums or in person?
    I don't only read material that agrees with me. I've read many things from reformed authors, and when I finish, I'm only more convinced that man has free will. Just an example. And "scholarly people" are often times some of the most spiritually dry people out there. This particular forum is filled with scholarly people who haven't practiced what they have learned in life. KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUATE INTO A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND WALKING IN THE SPIRIT. IT CAN OFTEN TIMES RESULT IN QUITE THE OPPOSITE. And before anyone says anything , I love theology and learning but if it isn't a reality in your life concerning your relationship with God and people then it's useless.

    Let's be honest, if it's as clear as you really claim, the other view shouldn't really exist among the regenerate nevertheless be held by a sizeable percentage (which is the case).
    Show me clearly in scripture where baptism was meant for anyone other than a believer in Christ. IT'S NOT THERE. I hear your point about church history and I am taking it to heart. But consider this....if you remove the Catholic church from this pool, then who else practices infant baptism ? Tell me who. Throw out some fact for your claim that the majority of the church currently practices this. Let's see some statistics along with scripture to back up your claim.

    Consider another ordinance of the church , the Lord's Supper... It is clearly for believers as well. Both ordinances are for THE CHURCH... The church consists of the saved folk who make it up. I know this is way too simple for so many scholarly minds but it is what it is. FOR THE CHURCH to observe.. Considering your reformed background you should be agreeing with me as Calvin points out that before Christ we are Spiritually dead and unable to even want God... Why would the church condone baptizing or feeding the Lord's supper to someone who is spiritually DEAD ????

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalahari
    Posts
    4,756

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    No born again , Spirit filled person that I know disagrees with it. I am aware that there are some who do, but as I said, I don't personally know of any. And you saying I am the "minority" on the position is grasping. Can you show some relevant data to support this claim ? TG, your response coming from the reformed side is very unexpected as most reformed churches I know of basically make baptism candidates take a test to ensure that they are saved before they will consider baptizing them. Churches who adhere to Calvin's doctrine are very , very discriminating concerning baptism in our area, often times waiting for a period before considering it as well.

    Not about baptism. No. Have you ?

    I don't only read material that agrees with me. I've read many things from reformed authors, and when I finish, I'm only more convinced that man has free will. Just an example. And "scholarly people" are often times some of the most spiritually dry people out there. This particular forum is filled with scholarly people who haven't practiced what they have learned in life. KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUATE INTO A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD AND WALKING IN THE SPIRIT. IT CAN OFTEN TIMES RESULT IN QUITE THE OPPOSITE. And before anyone says anything , I love theology and learning but if it isn't a reality in your life concerning your relationship with God and people then it's useless.



    Show me clearly in scripture where baptism was meant for anyone other than a believer in Christ. IT'S NOT THERE. I hear your point about church history and I am taking it to heart. But consider this....if you remove the Catholic church from this pool, then who else practices infant baptism ? Tell me who. Throw out some fact for your claim that the majority of the church currently practices this. Let's see some statistics along with scripture to back up your claim.

    Consider another ordinance of the church , the Lord's Supper... It is clearly for believers as well. Both ordinances are for THE CHURCH... The church consists of the saved folk who make it up. I know this is way too simple for so many scholarly minds but it is what it is. FOR THE CHURCH to observe.. Considering your reformed background you should be agreeing with me as Calvin points out that before Christ we are Spiritually dead and unable to even want God... Why would the church condone baptizing or feeding the Lord's supper to someone who is spiritually DEAD ????
    I do not know of reformed believers who would baptize unbelievers, only children of believers in accordance to the covenant God made with man.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    1,928

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalahari View Post
    I do not know of reformed believers who would baptize unbelievers, only children of believers in accordance to the covenant God made with man.
    But yet TG is reformed.

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalahari
    Posts
    4,756

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    But yet TG is reformed.
    TG can answer for himself, but that is not what I have understood from his post.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    But yet TG is reformed.
    I'm contrasting credo baptism with paedo baptism. I never said Reformed churches baptized unbelievers. Kalahari's statement above is accurate.

    I'll comment more when I have time.

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    1,928

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    I'm contrasting credo baptism with paedo baptism. I never said Reformed churches baptized unbelievers. Kalahari's statement above is accurate.

    I'll comment more when I have time.
    But you seem to support infant baptism under the name of church history and scholastic intellect. Only one can be correct TG. While I understand the contrast , I do not understand studying a position you KNOW is wrong just for the sake of knowing the position.

    Also, the burden of proof lies on the party who supports it not opposes it, and so far, I have seen no scriptural support for the belief.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Show me clearly in scripture where baptism was meant for anyone other than a believer in Christ. IT'S NOT THERE. I hear your point about church history and I am taking it to heart. But consider this....if you remove the Catholic church from this pool, then who else practices infant baptism ? Tell me who. Throw out some fact for your claim that the majority of the church currently practices this. Let's see some statistics along with scripture to back up your claim
    I'm busy today, PB, so I'm writing in small bits.

    If we remove Catholics who is left? Pb, I think the better question is who doesn't practice infant baptism?

    Lutherans baptize infants. So do Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglicans and Episcopalians. All Reformed churches except Reformed Baptists. Congregationalists. Nazarenes.

    It's a big group, Brother.

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    1,928

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    I'm busy today, PB, so I'm writing in small bits.

    If we remove Catholics who is left? Pb, I think the better question is who doesn't practice infant baptism?

    Lutherans baptize infants. So do Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglicans and Episcopalians. All Reformed churches except Reformed Baptists. Congregationalists. Nazarenes.

    It's a big group, Brother.
    Southern Baptists do not support the position. That's several million people.
    While historically the Methodists and Presbyterians have done this , I know of none in our region that do it now. Again, that's just what I know . I haven't seen any data supporting one way or the other.

  12. #147

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Southern Baptists do not support the position. That's several million people.
    While historically the Methodists and Presbyterians have done this , I know of none in our region that do it now. Again, that's just what I know . I haven't seen any data supporting one way or the other.
    ...Which just goes to show my point. The older non-revival groups used infant baptism as a dedication ceremony for infants raised up in the church. It had less to do with conversion than with starting families out with a Christian premise.

    Revival groups began with the premise that older churches had lost what it takes to be a Christian--much like the Pharisees did at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. Therefore, the revival groups promoted adult baptism as a *conversion technique.*

    Incidentally, how many of the original apostles were baptized? Anybody know?

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    4,564
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Southern Baptists do not support the position. That's several million people.
    While historically the Methodists and Presbyterians have done this , I know of none in our region that do it now. Again, that's just what I know . I haven't seen any data supporting one way or the other.
    Well of course a Southern Baptists don't. That's the stance of Baptists. I didn't claim otherwise. In regard to the rest of your post, I'll PM you.

    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

    If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    1,928

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    ...Which just goes to show my point. The older non-revival groups used infant baptism as a dedication ceremony for infants raised up in the church. It had less to do with conversion than with starting families out with a Christian premise.

    Revival groups began with the premise that older churches had lost what it takes to be a Christian--much like the Pharisees did at the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. Therefore, the revival groups promoted adult baptism as a *conversion technique.*

    Incidentally, how many of the original apostles were baptized? Anybody know?
    Show me in scripture clearly where a non believer pre conversion was baptized ... Show me where infants are baptized. Baptism is for the church, and for disciples, NOT unbelievers. Some of the things we discuss on this board are mind boggling.

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalahari
    Posts
    4,756

    Re: Baptizing babies.?...!

    Quote Originally Posted by Pbminimum View Post
    Show me in scripture clearly where a non believer pre conversion was baptized ... Show me where infants are baptized. Baptism is for the church, and for disciples, NOT unbelievers. Some of the things we discuss on this board are mind boggling.
    There are none of non believers as there should be none today.

    Act_16:15 After she and the people of her house had been baptized, she invited us, "Come and stay in my house if you have decided that I am a true believer in the Lord." And she persuaded us to go.
    Act 16:33 At that very hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; and he and all his family were baptized at once.

    Can you show me clearly that there were no infants? Do you not think that a change of the giving of the sign of the covenant not to children would be clearly stated in Scripture. But as it is not mentioned why would it have stopped without a clear teaching about it? Because it did not happened.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Babies?
    By J_sunshine4Christ in forum Apologetics and Evangelism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 24th 2009, 02:40 AM
  2. Replies: 142
    Last Post: May 20th 2009, 08:30 AM
  3. Loss of some Babies
    By sherwood1969 in forum Prayer
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Jan 19th 2009, 09:45 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •