[Bryan]

I posted this earlier and I have not seen anybody reply to it.

Originally posted by brown07
Most of the issue in the NT is whether or not to circumcize gentile converts. Because the seal of the Old Covenant was restricted to the Israelites, it need not be applied to the gentiles. Instead, we have baptism.

But the seal of the New Covenant is not restricted. Everybody is a part of the new covenant. The new covenant being "believe and be saved". The covenant says that if you believe you will be saved. It is a promise, and that promise has been extended to all peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations. So there should be no resrtiction on who recieves the covenantal seal. And this is all according to your logic.

However, if we become a part of the covenental family at the moment of true faith then that seal should be given when that "true faith" is evidenced. Not before that point.

[MicahB0B]

Are there examples of people getting baptised in the NT? Were those people believing adults or unbelieving babies? I'll look through scriptures for this, but if they were believing adults, I'd consider that fairly strong evidence of a changing in the time of administration of the covenantal seal. For the sake of appeasing you, I'll address brown07's mountain shortly.

In the NT everyone that was explicitly shown to be baptized were adults. But this does not mean that the standard wasn't for infants to be baptized. In the old covanent an adult that came to the entered the covenant would be circumsized, yet there were still child circumcisions. There is never a case in the NT where a person is born to baptized Christian parents and they wait to baptize him until he can make the decision on his own. It does however speak of households getting baptized (Acts 16:15,16:33), and we can assume this means infants too.

[Mithrandir]

Originally posted by MicahB0B
In the NT everyone that was explicitly shown to be baptized were adults.

Mmm... methinks you are mistaken.. throughout the NT, whole families are baptized...

[brown07]

Originally posted by Eggy
Mmm... methinks you are mistaken.. throughout the NT, whole families are baptized...

Right, but the fact that entire families were baptised only IMPLIES that infants were likely baptised along with them. The only individuals mentioned were believing adults.

Here are *some* of the reasons that I affirm infant baptism:

1) The clear connection to circumcision, without instruction to restrict the sacrament to adults.
2) The lack of instruction against infant baptism to a church of many believing Jews, who would automatically assume that they should baptise their infants.
3) The likelihood that household baptisms included infants.
4) The fact that infant baptism was the *universal* practice of the church before 200 years after (and I say immediately) Christ instituted the sacrament, without a word of objection from any of the apostles or early church fathers.
5) Instruction from both Origen and Augustine (who likely had more ancient materials and literature at their disposal) that the practice of infant baptism was passed on from the Apostles themselves.
6) The lack of any compelling scriptural argument to do otherwise.

[Souldog18CA]

Originally posted by Ridley's Own

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Souldog18CA
Okay guys, first off I don't believe in "infant baptism" because NOWHERE in Scripture does it say that you are to baptise the infants, and yet NOWHERE in Scripture does it say not to baptize the infants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And yet, you're still against, despite no biblical prohibition?

Yes, that is my PERSONAL OPINION, do you have a problem with that? If you would have read the next FEW lines, you would see my PERSONAL OPINION.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where have you found an infant going up on an altar call, or where have you seen someone witnessing to a newborn?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where have I seen 'altar calls' in scripture?

It was a choice of words, do you have an issue with that too? I just used what I was accustomed to, what I was brought up with. I am relaying to an infant RESPONDING to an invitation to accept Jesus Christ in their life with the understanding of what they're doing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The logic doesn't add up. There is an age of accountability that is different for every individual, once we reach that age of the knowledge of the understanding of salvation, we are solely responsible for what we do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Where is this in Scripture?


Gimme a break Ridley, you gotta be kidding! I didnt say I found it in Scripture did I? No.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to my next point, it is true that circumcision and sacrafice was the sealing of the OT covenant...but SOMEBODY PLEASE tell me where baptism all of a sudden became the God-given parallel between the OT covenant and the NT covenant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Scripture seems to be a good place to start. But I'm being pithy. This question has already been asked and answered. Go read the rest of the thread.


Ok, I asked YOU where it is in Scripture that baptism became the parallel betw. the OT and NT. And FYI Ridley, I READ the darn thread and as far as I am concerned, the "mountain" of Scriptures that brown07 posted were not concrete to your standpoints (In agreement with Dr. Worm).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apostle Paul clearly states in the first 6 chapters of Romans that the sacrafices and the works and the pomp and the circumstance of the Pharisees and Saducees etc. was good but for a season. Now that we have Christ Jesus as our Savior, this logic comes up void. Paul clearly points out that we can not be saved by works, but we are saved by grace through our faith in the ressurection of Jesus Christ:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who said Baptism was a work? The last time I checked, even people who affirm Baptismal Regeneration (as I do) believe that it is something done in faith through the grace of God; ie., that baptism is something God does for us, not the other way around. Don't strawman an argument no one has made.


First off, I never said that baptism is something we do for God, and second I am not strawmanning an argument pal, thats on your plate.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to my next point, baptism is an OUTWARD ACT of an INNER ACT taking place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You sound like a sacramentalist. Good work!

Your sarcasm nauseates me...I am not a sacramentalist, I grew up in a Calvary Chapel for pity's sake.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism can be likened to a public proclomation of your faith in Jesus, it can be likened to a open public covenant stating to the witnesses; "I am saved by grace through faith and I love the Lord so much that I am going to serve Him whole-heartedly through my actions. I am making a public proclomation to all of you that my old self is going to die today, and I am going to start my new life in Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course, you do have Scripture to support the 'public proclamation' theory, correct?

Show me where I said it was a theory...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, if you are witnessing to this person and they accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, do you quickly run to go get a tub of water and douse them with a make-shift baptism, just so they can get to heaven? I would think not!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



First, I hate the phrase "accept Jesus Christ as their savior." Its an absurd statement with even worse theology. Second, I would imagine that all communions that affirm Baptismal Regeneration have a special rite for "Baptism in Unusual Circumstances." I know the BCP does.

Well thats great that you hate the phrase "accept Jesus Christ as their savior" because, its kind of what you do when you become Christian....right? Hmm...I think so. Try out these references:

Is. 19:20; 43:3, 43:11, 45:21, Luke 1:47; 2:11, John 4:42, Eph. 5:23, Phil. 3:20, 1 Tim. 1:1; 4:10, ___. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1; 1:11, 1 John 4:14.........shall I go on?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our God is a merciful One, He knows our hearts and we as that person need to have faith that we will see that person we just led to the Lord at the gate of heaven.
(phew!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And who is denying that?

Um......no one....

You know, last time I checked, these message boards are forums for personal opinions, a forum for discussion...NOT for trying to change each other's to your own.

[Luke]

(Bryan)
The new covenant being "believe and be saved". The covenant says that if you believe you will be saved. It is a promise, and that promise has been extended to all peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations. So there should be no resrtiction on who recieves the covenantal seal. And this is all according to your logic.

(Luke)
The Old Covenant was (greatly simplified) "believe in God and be saved" and yet only Jews were included. Thus this holds no water...the requirements are the same and still everyone is not included. It makes significantly more sense to say the covenant body is the visible church, not everyone.

(Bryan)
However, if we become a part of the covenental family at the moment of true faith then that seal should be given when that "true faith" is evidenced. Not before that point.

(Luke)
Except that this is against clear Scriptural pattern. Abraham was given the covenental seal after faith was expressed. Isaac was given it beforehand, as an infant.

[Luke]

(Souldog18CA)
You know, last time I checked, these message boards are forums for personal opinions, a forum for discussion...NOT for trying to change each other's to your own.

(Luke)
I am trying to change the opinion of others (as well as having my own changed if such is shown necessary by Scripture).

Not that I would break fellowship if someone wasn't ever convinced...you're my brother in Christ regardless. And, outside of a theology forum, I probably wouldn't bring up differences much at all. But seeing as this is a theology forum....

[Souldog18CA]

Originally posted by Luke
(Souldog18CA)
You know, last time I checked, these message boards are forums for personal opinions, a forum for discussion...NOT for trying to change each other's to your own.

(Luke)
I am trying to change the opinion of others (as well as having my own changed if such is shown necessary by Scripture).

Not that I would break fellowship if someone wasn't ever convinced...you're my brother in Christ regardless. And, outside of a theology forum, I probably wouldn't bring up differences much at all. But seeing as this is a theology forum....

Don't worry, I getcha brother Luke! I've been in discussions with you outside of this forum, you're a good guy!

[Raphael]

Yup Luke is a good guy...pity his theology is up the pole

Relax Luke, I'm just joking.

[Chico]

hey guys, sorry i was gone for awhile. couldn't get to a computer yesterday. anyways, i'm glad we are recognizing that this is just discussion and that no matter what, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. but back to the discussion.

i believe that it was said that no one has refuted the list of scripture that showed the similarities of circumcision and baptism. that is completely false. if you go back, you'll find that i did and i don't think anyone really addressed anything i said. so go back and read that and then tell me what you disagree with.

also, there seems to be some confusion on how Luke and others are defining the "convanental seal" and "saved by faith". i am one of these people. but since Luke said there is a difference, then there must be. could you please define both these terms and tell how they are different? i think it will either prove the stawman to be a true, reasonable question, or you will completely negate the strawman out. so please do this for everyone's sake.

chris

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by Souldog18CA
[Yes, that is my PERSONAL OPINION, do you have a problem with that? If you would have read the next FEW lines, you would see my PERSONAL OPINION.

Well... Yes, if its not scriptural. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is actually true. If you don't have scriptural warrant to deny the sacrament of Baptism to infants, you shouldn't deny the sacrament of Baptism to infants.

It was a choice of words, do you have an issue with that too?

Yes, I do, actually, because the term and practice is totally and completely unbiblical and outside the realm of Scripture.

I just used what I was accustomed to, what I was brought up with. I am relaying to an infant RESPONDING to an invitation to accept Jesus Christ in their life with the understanding of what they're doing.

Except that the Scriptural response to adult conversion is baptism, not walkin' the aisle. And since when do we have to be fully cognizant to receive the grace of God? I don't believe that Isaac or any other Jewish male was fully cognizant of all the implications of circumscion in the Old Covenant.

Gimme a break Ridley, you gotta be kidding! I didnt say I found it in Scripture did I? No.

[

Maybe I'm a bit crazy, but it would seem to me that if you are going to be posting in a Christian Theology forum, you might want to be able to back up you assertions with Christian Theological materials.

I don't know. Call me nutzo.

Ok, I asked YOU where it is in Scripture that baptism became the parallel betw. the OT and NT. And FYI Ridley, I READ the darn thread and as far as I am concerned, the "mountain" of Scriptures that brown07 posted were not concrete to your standpoints (In agreement with Dr. Worm).

Since my justification for infant baptism is different for the Presbyterian/Reformed folk, you might want to ask them. And for what reason was Brown's arguments not 'concrete' to your liking?

First off, I never said that baptism is something we do for God, and second I am not strawmanning an argument pal, thats on your plate.

Ahh... By citing the 'not saved by works' motif, you implied that somehow those of us who are affirming padeobaptism are somehow arguing for salvation by works... And since no one has argued for salvation by works, its either irrelevant or an attempted strawman.

Your sarcasm nauseates me...I am not a sacramentalist, I grew up in a Calvary Chapel for pity's sake.

Your definition was very close to what sacramentalists (including myself) would define baptism was. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Show me where I said it was a theory...

When you said, "Baptism can be likened..." without Scriptural justification...

Well thats great that you hate the phrase "accept Jesus Christ as their savior" because, its kind of what you do when you become Christian....right? Hmm...I think so. Try out these references:

Is. 19:20; 43:3, 43:11, 45:21, Luke 1:47; 2:11, John 4:42, Eph. 5:23, Phil. 3:20, 1 Tim. 1:1; 4:10, ___. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1; 1:11, 1 John 4:14.........shall I go on?

No, its not what you do when you become a Christian; Peter is clear in Acts 2:38 what to do...

None of those verses, of course, have anything to do with 'accepting jesus as savior.' Maybe they would be pertinent if I was arguing that God hasn't sent a savior, but otherwise...

Um......no one....

Then why bring it up?

You know, last time I checked, these message boards are forums for personal opinions, a forum for discussion...NOT for trying to change each other's to your own.

Then why are you posting? I hardly see a point to 'discussion' if no one takes an adversarial position.

not commanded by god, than it becomes tradition.
infant baptism is just tradition than....

Of course, 'altar calls' aren't commanded by God either, so I'll just chalk this up to more hyper-evangelical hypocrisy.

it says here, it means forgiveness of our sins, when we are babys? and didn't even accept christ we are forgiven? only if we accept christ our sins are forgivened.... and baby cant accept christ

Again, 'acceptjesusaspersonallordandsavior' isn't scriptural, so to assert that as a proof against infant baptism is absurd. And this thread isn't on baptismal regeneration, though I would be happy to discuss that with yout... In an another thread, as this thread isn't on that particular issue.

and infants did all this how? they renounced satan when they are infant? repented their sins when they are infants? gasp! genius babys lol and how did they accept jesus and their lord and savior when they are infants?

The next question of the catechism answers this, as does the one after, which I left out because I had hoped it would be self-evident. The sponsors of the Children make the promises for them, and then when they are confirmed (usually in 8th or 7th grade) they make a public affirmation of the promises made at their baptism.

share citizensihp in the covenanct, membership in christ? i think they can do that when they grow up?

Or they can do it when they're infants. Either way is fine by me. But my child will be baptized as an infant.

[/b]just cause they get baptised doesnt mean they are gonna be 100 holy person later on their life. i know people who are baptised but still sins. so infant baptism means almost nothing.

[/b]

I know people who were baptized as adults who still sin (myself included). So adult baptism means almost nothing.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

"Ahh... By citing the 'not saved by works' motif, you implied that somehow those of us who are affirming padeobaptism are somehow arguing for salvation by works... And since no one has argued for salvation by works, its either irrelevant or an attempted strawman. "

This isnt a strawman, for the infant would be saved by his parents, having him baptized, he would not be saved by faith. He would be saved by another man's work. Getting sprinkled or dunked doesnt save you even if you are an infant, personally I think you are using the term strawman to blow off arguments you cant handle.

[happygrrl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ridley's Own


Ridley's Own: Except that none of those examples cited were altar calls in the same concept that you are using the term. Short answer is that there is no scriptural justification for people 'walking the aisle' to get saved. Its a made up 'sacrament' by 20th century evangelicals.

Actually, "walking down the aisle" should be linked to the "confessing with your mouth" part of Romans 10:9 and not all ministers or preachers require the walking down the aisle to the alter. Usually having them come down is a multipurpose thing because it means they can be prayed for, and talk to someone about getting linked up with a church or get some materials. No one says (at least that I know) "You have to do it this way in order to be saved." No, as long as you follow the guidelines of scripture, you will be saved. In the end, it's between GOD and you.


Ridley's Own: I wait in baited breath.

Well, I'm still looking for the particular scripture I found once upon a time... but for now all I can find is Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13. These verses explain that where the law has not been made known, there is no guilt of sin. Babies have no way of understanding what is right or wrong (besides, the "ta-ta to Mommy... NO!"... or not even this at the age they are baptized in many churches). Baptism cannot have any relevent signaficance for them and really, I believe, was something incorporated into the church's tradition for the parents sake. Most people have not studied the Bible enough to have peace about where their child would go if they died - so in fear they want them baptized, thinking it is what makes a person saved. This contradicts Romans 10:9 which says, "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
And also, Mark 16:16 says, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
It does not say whoever is not baptized will be condemned. Interesting.


Ridley's Own: Of course, you're failing to make the distinction betwixt the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ. Secondly, I still don't see any Scripture in the above statement. Just an assertion.

The Bible does not give an account of John's baptism. And if you meant the distinction between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - I thought you had enough knowledge of scripture to discern what I was referring to. I'm sorry. Matthew 3 contains the scripture pertaining to Jesus' (water) baptism.

[/b]

Ridley's Own: Which would seem fairly useless if it is just a symbol or proclimation.

It is not "just" a symbol or proclamation... but something that is almost a representation of what has happened and is happening to the person spiritually. They are forsaking their old lives, they are being buried, and they are being set apart. Baptism is to their benefit and probably helps us understand the situation better. It also shows our peers that we are serious about following Jesus. The former scripture I quoted (Colossians 2:11-12) relays to us that, we are circumcised by Christ (set apart to Him by the putting off of our sin nature) and then buried with Him in baptism AND raised with Him through your faith in the power of God. So what is the substance of baptism? Our faith in the power of God. Then THROUGH that we obtain burial and ressurection. But we still understand that we are saved by faith in Jesus, His forgiveness and the cleansing of His blood.
I still believe baptism means we are dedicating our lives to God, and we are being set apart by Him by our obedience.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
"Ahh... By citing the 'not saved by works' motif, you implied that somehow those of us who are affirming padeobaptism are somehow arguing for salvation by works... And since no one has argued for salvation by works, its either irrelevant or an attempted strawman. "

This isnt a strawman, for the infant would be saved by his parents, having him baptized, he would not be saved by faith. He would be saved by another man's work. Getting sprinkled or dunked doesnt save you even if you are an infant, personally I think you are using the term strawman to blow off arguments you cant handle.

First, baptismal regeneration doesn't have a thing to do with the thread. Quit pretending it does.

Second, the saving grace of God is extended BY GOD, not by the parents. All the parents do is present the child for baptism. It is still GOD'S WORKING GRACE that does the saving.

So... In a single post you've managed to raise an irrelevant argument and strawman the theology of baptismal regeneration. If you're going to attack BR, please get the theology correct.

Actually, "walking down the aisle" should be linked to the "confessing with your mouth" part of Romans 10:9 and not all ministers or preachers require the walking down the aisle to the alter.

And I'm sure Scripture makes this connection somewhere, right? Probably in the same place where 'age of accountability' is.

Usually having them come down is a multipurpose thing because it means they can be prayed for, and talk to someone about getting linked up with a church or get some materials. No one says (at least that I know) "You have to do it this way in order to be saved." No, as long as you follow the guidelines of scripture, you will be saved. In the end, it's between GOD and you.

However, if you follow the logic of baptists, since no scripture explicitly states that so-and-so walked down the aisle, it shouldn't be practiced.

Well, I'm still looking for the particular scripture I found once upon a time... but for now all I can find is Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13. These verses explain that where the law has not been made known, there is no guilt of sin. Babies have no way of understanding what is right or wrong (besides, the "ta-ta to Mommy... NO!"... or not even this at the age they are baptized in many churches).

The verses cited are wildly out of context of the rest of the scripture, and you can't arrive at teh conclusion you've come to without doing violence to the text.

Baptism cannot have any relevent signaficance for them and really, I believe, was something incorporated into the church's tradition for the parents sake.

Why does someone have to be cognizant of what something means for it to be significant? I'm sure none of the OT boys were aware of what their circumsicion meant when the were 8 days old, but it was still significant.

Secondly, you keep attacking BR, even though that's not what the thread is talking about. I would be more than happy to discuss it with you, however, you would need to start a different thread, as this one is unrelated to that subject.

The Bible does not give an account of John's baptism. And if you meant the distinction between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit - I thought you had enough knowledge of scripture to discern what I was referring to. I'm sorry. Matthew 3 contains the scripture pertaining to Jesus' (water) baptism.

The veiled ad hominem doesn't respond to the question. The Bible most certainly does draw a distinction between the two baptisms of John and of Christ.

It is not "just" a symbol or proclamation... but something that is almost a representation of what has happened and is happening to the person spiritually.

Almost a representation of what has/is happening? If you really mean 'is happening to the person,' then you've become a sacramentalist. Congratulations.

They are forsaking their old lives, they are being buried, and they are being set apart. Baptism is to their benefit and probably helps us understand the situation better. It also shows our peers that we are serious about following Jesus. The former scripture I quoted (Colossians 2:11-12) relays to us that, we are circumcised by Christ (set apart to Him by the putting off of our sin nature) and then buried with Him in baptism AND raised with Him through your faith in the power of God.

All of which means little if baptism is 'almost a representation.'

I still believe baptism means we are dedicating our lives to God, and we are being set apart by Him by our obedience.

And yet, there is no scripture that means that is the end-all-be-all of Baptism... So why do you still believe it?

[Chico]

before we get into this whole baptismal regeneration thing again. please define the difference b/t what you say the covanental seal is and saved by grace. if you tell us what you mean by this, then maybe people will quit arguing it. like i said before and it seems that everyone keeps ignoring my questions, by giving a definition, you either prove your point, or you prove the other. so by doing this, you may close the door.

chris