[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by 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

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking me to do...

Salvation by Grace = we're saved by God's grace, not anything we do

Covental seal = the outward and visible sign that we are apart of the New Covenant

[BillSPrestonEsq]

but if you beleive B/R it is necessary to have the sign for salvation. Why, other than B/R would you baptize an infant since it will do nothing for them since they have not received the gift of God by grace through faith. Also, Jonah and Ezekiel raise issues about infants being born condemned.

My questions

Why is the burden of proof for an extra-scriptural doctrine on those who say it is not in there?

Whats the point of it? It doesnt save, it symbolizes nothing in an infants life.

[Chico]

most everyone is saying that you can't be part of the New Covenant without being saved by grace. what is the New Covenant to you? the old covenant included having to sacrifice your best animal, food, whatever it was in order to be with God and be cleansed of sin. the new covenant was made when Jesus died for our sins and now we have a direct line to God through faith in Jesus Christ. you can't be a part of the new covenant without this faith, therefore what they and me are saying is that infant baptism doesn't stand for what you say it stands for.

chris

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
but if you beleive B/R it is necessary to have the sign for salvation. Why, other than B/R would you baptize an infant since it will do nothing for them since they have not received the gift of God by grace through faith. Also, Jonah and Ezekiel raise issues about infants being born condemned.

You would have to ask the more Reformed members that question.

My questions

Why is the burden of proof for an extra-scriptural doctrine on those who say it is not in there?

Because it (infant baptism, not B/R) is no more extrabiblical than altar calls and the SInner's Prayer. In order for it to be extrabiblical, you would have to show that scripture condemns the practice.

Whats the point of it? It doesnt save, it symbolizes nothing in an infants life.

Even if it doesn't, why does something have to be salvific for it to be spiritually significant. Morning prayer doesn't save, but it is still siginificant for Spritual growth.

most everyone is saying that you can't be part of the New Covenant without being saved by grace. what is the New Covenant to you?

From the BCP Catechism:

Q What is the New Covenant?

A The New Covenant is the new relationship with God given by JesusChrist, the Messiah, to the apostles; and, through them, to all who believe in him.

the old covenant included having to sacrifice your best animal, food, whatever it was in order to be with God and be cleansed of sin. the new covenant was made when Jesus died for our sins and now we have a direct line to God through faith in Jesus Christ. you can't be a part of the new covenant without this faith, therefore what they and me are saying is that infant baptism doesn't stand for what you say it stands for.

However, the infants in the OT couldn't take part of the OC, either, but God still included them because of the sign of the covenant (circumscion). The NC is more than this 'personal relationship' stuff; it is the entire Church, the entire body of the elect.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

"Because it (infant baptism, not B/R) is no more extrabiblical than altar calls and the SInner's Prayer. In order for it to be extrabiblical, you would have to show that scripture condemns the practice."

no extra-biblical it is, contra-biblical, no. BTW I think the sinners prayer, is bad theology in some ways. It implies salvation is invoked from our lips only, and ignores God's work. I don't beleive in altar calls as some people use with high pressure sales pitches and the view that either of these will get you to heaven is just as contrary to scripture as Baptismal Regeneration. They all rely on works of man to save.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Whats the point of it? It doesnt save, it symbolizes nothing in an infants life.

I repeat. Prayer in the morning doesnt save, but is a command in the psalms, and we are commanded to pray without ceasing. How does baptizing an infant have anything to do with this? It means nothing to them, is a symbol of nothing, is a sign of nothing, is a mark of nothing.

Circumcission was different than baptism. Circumcission was a mark of obedience to God's law, Baptism is a symbol of the death of the old man, and quickening of the new nature that occur at salvation.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Whats the point of it? It doesnt save, it symbolizes nothing in an infants life.

I repeat. Prayer in the morning doesnt save, but is a command in the psalms, and we are commanded to pray without ceasing. How does baptizing an infant have anything to do with this?

Because your stated position was that we shouldn't do it because it doesn't save. Then why do we do anything?

It means nothing to them, is a symbol of nothing, is a sign of nothing, is a mark of nothing.

Why does something have to mean something to the individual for it to be a spiritual reality? And it is a mark of something, it is the same as circumscion in that respect. Again, the OT boys who were circumscized didn't know anything about what was happening, either, but that doesn't mean that the Jews discarded a command of God (as is Baptism) for when the rite would mean something to them.

Circumcission was different than baptism. Circumcission was a mark of obedience to God's law, Baptism is a symbol of the death of the old man, and quickening of the new nature that occur at salvation.

All this is unsubstantiated assertions. No scripture comes close to limiting baptism to a 'symbol.'

[Chico]

Originally posted by Ridley's Own
From the BCP Catechism:

Q What is the New Covenant?

A The New Covenant is the new relationship with God given by JesusChrist, the Messiah, to the apostles; and, through them, to all who believe in him.

right, we agree on this.

However, the infants in the OT couldn't take part of the OC, either, but God still included them because of the sign of the covenant (circumscion). The NC is more than this 'personal relationship' stuff; it is the entire Church, the entire body of the elect.

but how do you enter the body of Christ? it is by faith in Christ like you said before. and if the body is the elect, then by saying infant baptism is what you say it is, you are choosing who the elect is and not God.

chris

[BillSPrestonEsq]

"Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Whats the point of it? It doesnt save, it symbolizes nothing in an infants life.

I repeat. Prayer in the morning doesnt save, but is a command in the psalms, and we are commanded to pray without ceasing. How does baptizing an infant have anything to do with this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because your stated position was that we shouldn't do it because it doesn't save. Then why do we do anything?"

No I said it does nothing, not just it doesnt save, its merely a bay microbath or shower.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It means nothing to them, is a symbol of nothing, is a sign of nothing, is a mark of nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why does something have to mean something to the individual for it to be a spiritual reality? And it is a mark of something, it is the same as circumscion in that respect. Again, the OT boys who were circumscized didn't know anything about what was happening, either, but that doesn't mean that the Jews discarded a command of God (as is Baptism) for when the rite would mean something to them.
"

Circumcission was a rite that left a permanent physical distinction as a jew. Baptism as such is different, what does it remove like circumcission does the foreskin? Circumcission isnt the same I proved that with the Galatians passage yesterday. Remember to prove its true requires that one falsity negates it in a proof.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by Chico
but how do you enter the body of Christ? it is by faith in Christ like you said before. and if the body is the elect, then by saying infant baptism is what you say it is, you are choosing who the elect is and not God.

Actually, and this is getting more into deeper sacramental theology than I really care to, God only regenerates the child 'if' he/she is one of the elect. The priest can't say, "This child is receiving the sacrament unworthily," so he baptizes them anyway.

Either way, God does the work here, not us.

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
No I said it does nothing, not just it doesnt save, its merely a bay microbath or shower.

Now you're back tracking. Moreover, you're just asserting that it does nothing without scriptural backing.

Circumcission was a rite that left a permanent physical distinction as a jew. Baptism as such is different, what does it remove like circumcission does the foreskin?

I believe its II Peter that says baptism is not the mere removing of dirt from the skin, but leaves an indelible mark as Christ's own. It is the sponsor's responsibility to make sure they live into the promises made for them. And, lets not forget that confirmation is a key part of this, too.

Moreover, the response still doesn't address the question; if a rite is only as effective as the person's understanding or cognizance of it, how would circumsiscion be effective as a covenantal sign?

Circumcission isnt the same I proved that with the Galatians passage yesterday.

Then you must have ignored the context of Galatians, as I pointed out yesterday.

[Luke]

(BillSPrestonEsq)
no extra-biblical it is, contra-biblical, no.

(Luke)
You have not established that infant baptism is contra-biblical.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

"Circumcission was a rite that left a permanent physical distinction as a jew. Baptism as such is different, what does it remove like circumcission does the foreskin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I believe its II Peter that says baptism is not the mere removing of dirt from the skin, but leaves an indelible mark as Christ's own. It is the sponsor's responsibility to make sure they live into the promises made for them. And, lets not forget that confirmation is a key part of this, too.
"
Where is confirmation even alluded to in scripture? making an extra biblical doctrine a key part of your theology is adding to Gods word and Id be a little scared to do that.(read the end of REV) The circumcission left an indelible physical reminder to the Jews that they ARE his chosen people, as did the monuments he had them leave all over the place to commemorate his acts on their behalf. Baptism doesnt do this first of all, its not a constant reminder that you see every day like circumcission is. If this indelible mark you claim as a part of baptism is administered to infants who will not be saved is this not a false hope of salvation which would be causing little ones to stumble?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Where is confirmation even alluded to in scripture? making an extra biblical doctrine a key part of your theology is adding to Gods word and Id be a little scared to do that.(read the end of REV)

Here's an article from the Dean of Advent Cathedral in Birmingham, AL, that explains scriptural justification for confirmation:

The five "lesser Sacraments", or sacramental rites, do not have the direct dominical command of Holy Baptism or the Holy Communion [Articles of Religion XXV, 1928 BCP p 607; 1979 BCP p 872]. They do possess Scriptural backing and the support of a long Church tradition.

Confirmation fits so closely with our Lord's teaching and was so clearly the practice of the Apostolic Church that it has been widely understood to be one of "the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" which He discussed with the Apostles before His ascension. Soon after the Church began its work, St. Philip the Deacon went to preach the Gospel in Samaria. But that was not enough. The Laying-on-of-Hands followed the Baptism, but Philip as a deacon was not qualified to do this. So he sent to Jerusalem for St. Peter and St. John, who were Apostles, and they "laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." [Acts 8:17]

Later, St. Paul was preaching in Ephesus. He also made converts. He baptized them, but, again, that was not enough. "When he had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." [Acts 19:6]

So Confirmation comes to us as an apostolic Rite administered by the bishops of the Church, grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and the steady practice of the Church, and the historic method of approach to the Altar. If one proposes to be a disciple of Christ, it seems reasonable to follow the accredited order - Holy Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion.

Archbishop Cranmer consulted the German reformer Martin Bucer [1491-1551] on several theological issues including the Anglican Ordinal and Confirmation. The Reformers viewed Confirmation as the adult ratification of vows made on behalf on infants, i.e. affirming their "personal" faith in Jesus Christ. Bucer was brough to England in 1549 where he was received with great honor by Edward VI and Cranmer. He was later made Regius professor of divinity at Cambridge. He died in 1551 and was buried at Great St. Mary's Church at Cambridge. During the persecutions of Protestants under Catholic Queen Mary, his body was exhumed and publically burnt in Market Hill.

Secondly, the use of Revelations to try to argue that I'm 'adding to God's word' is absolutely out of context. The verse itself is referencing additions or deletions to REVELATIONS, not the entire canon or its teachings.

The circumcission left an indelible physical reminder to the Jews that they ARE his chosen people, as did the monuments he had them leave all over the place to commemorate his acts on their behalf. Baptism doesnt do this first of all, its not a constant reminder that you see every day like circumcission is.

I'm reminded of my baptism every time I pray, every Eucharist, every confirmation, every confession, every ordination, every wedding, every baptism, every laying-on-of-hands. Just because I can't look down at my crotch and say, "Gee, something's missing... Oh yes.. I should be acting like a Christian now" doesn't mean it is meaningless.

If this indelible mark you claim as a part of baptism is administered to infants who will not be saved is this not a false hope of salvation which would be causing little ones to stumble?

Nope. Its indelible only if they're elect. This is not hard to grasp.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Where is confirmation even alluded to in scripture? making an extra biblical doctrine a key part of your theology is adding to Gods word and Id be a little scared to do that. Dont like Rev, read Job's end then.

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this indelible mark you claim as a part of baptism is administered to infants who will not be saved is this not a false hope of salvation which would be causing little ones to stumble?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Nope. Its indelible only if they're elect. This is not hard to grasp."

So its a false hope to the un-elect that causes them a stumbling- block. it would then be saying to the wicked you are righteous and incurring there sin on you (Ezekiel). So its really meaningless to you, for if they are elect, the baptism doesn't change that, if not it gives them a false hope of salvation.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Where is confirmation even alluded to in scripture? making an extra biblical doctrine a key part of your theology is adding to Gods word and Id be a little scared to do that. Dont like Rev, read Job's end then.

I gave you an article on it, with references. Did you just skip that? Don't respond to something if you're unwilling to read it.

So its a false hope to the un-elect that causes them a stumbling- block.

If they're apostate, they're apostate, and they know it. No false hope is given.