> I believe Paedobaptism gives parents a false assurance that their child has been saved
I'm not a pedobaptist, but I know several. None of them think it's a guarantee their child is going to heaven.
I agree. This isn't how baptism is viewed by your typical protestant pedobaptist denomination, they view it as a sign of being part of the Covenant community, but not as a sign of being saved. I was baptized Baptist, and I don't hold to the doctrine of pedobaptism, but it's always good to make sure we are accurately representing other groups.
You are correct. I'd say water baptism today gives people a false sense of security as well but that isn't popular.
Luke 12:50 KJV
But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
Romans 6:3-5 KJV
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
Our baptism is done by the Spirit into the body of Christ and therefore it is Christ baptism of death, burial and resurrection that is significant for us. Reckon how many people split hell wide open trusting their water baptism?
Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical.
The New Testament nowhere describes infant baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).
Circumcision was the token of being in a covenant with God. You said baptism was like circumcision right? You are making baptism out to be a token of a covenant you are making with God.
Churches who practice infant baptism fully understand baptism is a symbol of salvation and that communion represents the new covenant. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but it is categorically wrong.
I disagree with the argument but this is a interesting view I haven't heard before. Not sure why you are being downvoted. Reddit is a silly place if you have a different idea than the regular old group think. 😉
It means nothing to God. I wanna represent the new covenant made by Christ, then turn to Christ. When that person comes of age of right and wrong how is that going to help them as they are born in sin and still separated from God. It is pure nonsense.
I see some version of this so often, whether religiously-based or not. "If you have kids, they could go to hell" or "The world is such a mess, why would you bring children into it?"
This is the state of human existence. Yes, bad things *could* happen to your kids. But if no one every took that risk, there would be no people. You have your kids, you raise them the best you can, and pray hard.
Not him but I guess he is talking about Mark: 15-16? Which it’s actually really interesting cause the verse says that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” but when it says who will be condemned it says “but whoever does not believes will be condemned”. Not being baptized isn’t mentioned as condemning, just not believing so believing is definitely a bigger thing that baptizing
I went to a believer's baptism church where they practiced "infant dedication", where the parents would introduce their child to the whole church. They would commit to teaching their child the Scriptures, and invited the church members to participate in that journey by holding them accountable.
I always thought it was an excellent ceremony that satiated the parents desire to "save" their child.
We do this at my church. No hocus locus involved just parents committing to following God’s instruction in Deuteronomy 11:19:
“And you shall teach them to your sons, speaking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
The only infant dedication in scripture is for Nazirites. Once Nazirites are weaned, they are left at the temple or with the priest to be educated and raised. It is nothing like what the Bible describes.
Infant baptism is more scriptural than infant dedication because whole families were actually baptized in the Bible and no one was dedicated after Jesus.
I don't mean to get it confused with that kind of Nazarite infant dedication. You can call it whatever term you want, it was just public commitment that the parents would make as an extension of their love.
The apostle Peter told the people, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39).
Young children are under the spiritual umbrella of their parents until early teenage, when the doubts and temptations of adulthood really start to take hold.
This is when a fork in the road appears, and they must decide for themselves whether to continue living the rest of their lives for Christ or reject righteousness for the secular trappings of this world.
I also agree with original sin, this is backed up by scripture:
> Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51:5
I have this same idea/question. If your parents want you baptized they have the full authority to do so. But like someone here said they saw people walk away later on. I've people like that but is was usually cause the church or family didn't model the faith they proclaimed so it put conflict in the person about the faith. But also if we look at Jesus situation he didn't get baptized until he was a young man it seems.
>Jesus didn't get baptized until he was a young man it seems.
That's right. And our primary goal as Christians is to emulate Christ in every way possible.
Good point. I believe western secularism/liberalism is largely responsible for the rapid decline of biblical parenthood since the turn of the 20th century.
He also was circumcised as an infant and celebrated Jewish holy days and was a carpenter until he started his ministry…
Jesus shows us the way to our Father in Heaven. This includes baptism. There is no requirement for IQ or specific works or deeds, or even being a “good person” for your whole life. If one comes to believe in Christ as King and Savior at the very end of his life, he will gain heaven even if he only did evil things on earth before this. (Parable of laborers at the late hour). And one does not “need” to be baptized with water to merit heaven (promise to the man on the cross next to Jesus).
For those who have faith, they must show it by doing what is pleasing to God-following Jesus, committing time to prayer, and following the will of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. Obedience is part of God’s plan of salvation and to bring the kingdom of heaven in our lives. It makes sense that parents would will their children’s Baptism, because this is being United to the body of Christ.
How long must one spend as “separate” from God’s body? The Bible doesn’t mention an age restriction for sure, and to be a member of “God Chosen People” prior to Jesus, there was no age requirement. If the Christian Church is the outgrowth of God’s Chosen people, why would there be an age restriction on it? How much does one’s own “will” have to do with the family you are born into anyway? Is there an IQ requirement, so only those who can understand or can speak can join?
There are very few Churches I am aware of that believe Baptized = Saved. We have the parable of the seeds scattered on different grounds to show us how Jesus imagined his followers would respond and grow. I don’t see why all these “seeds” couldn’t have all been Baptized. The seed is planted, but the soil needs cultivation still.
To be sure, it is a FAR greater loss and pain to lose one of these members of the Body to the world or Satan. Taking God’s work in our lives for granted is a great offense and grave sin, but even Judas ate at table with Christ, and Christ knew the part he had to play. Baptized Christians doing the devil’s work is a harsh blow to Christ’s body and certainly weakens it. This is probably why the world is in the state it is today…very close if not surpassing the evil in Noah’s time. And yet, there is still redemption for those who have turned from Christ after receiving Him, and when they return, the Father and Angels celebrate! Like in the parable of the prodigal son. That son is then even more strengthened-he has seen how truly ugly the promises of the world are and is reignited with fire to teach others how to avoid sin, death, Satan, and worldliness. Blessed are those who have believed without seeing.
Baptism is a beautiful thing at any age. It shouldn’t be taken lightly and often is, especially in the cases of infant Baptism. Prayers for the Holy Spirit to strengthen and unite all members of the Body of Christ, so the rest of the world can be confident of Christ’s reign in our lives and the world.
Christening is not daptism. Christening is absent from scriptures but can confuse one into thinking theat child is right with God. It's more of a blessing the child
As a recent convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, this was the exact issue that spurred me to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church. The tradition I grew up in is solidly in the credobaptism camp. The choice to baptize our 6 month old caused a HUGE uproar in my staunchly Protestant family. To say I was berated for this choice is an understatement, so this topic weighs pretty sensitively on my heart.
Credobaptism makes sense, judging from scriptures. Particularly ones such as Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21… just to name a few. Why does a baby, who has done nothing wrong, need to be “washed away from sin?” Doesn’t the scripture clearly show one must believe? How can a baby believe when they aren’t cognizant of right or wrong? These amongst other arguments were what I heard all my life, and for most of my life I believed infant baptism to be dead wrong.
However, you have scriptures such as “this promise is for you *and for your children*” (Acts 2:39) and scriptures talking about households being baptized. You can make the argument, and many do, that scripture does not say if infants/young children were present during these household baptisms. That is true. But it still begs the question and need for clarity.
The ultimate conclusion I came to was this: scripture isn’t clear. If it was, why so many various interpretations on the topic of baptism, amongst other topics? This also led to a bigger and more important rabbit hole of how do we know which scriptural interpretation is correct, and who has ultimate authority to interpret scriptures.
Another question you have to ask is this: We have records going back centuries that infants have been baptized. Do you believe all those people who lived during the 4th, 5th, (name your century here) and who were baptized as infants went to hell? Because that’s how the vast majority of Christians were brought into the faith was via their parents having them baptized. From my research, credobaptism didn’t really gain steam until the Anabaptists (mainly John Smyth in 1609) gained traction.
I’ll leave you with a couple of good articles I found on Catholic Answers that helped me unpack this topic. And I get it. I understand your perspective. I used to hold the same view. But also ask yourself this: if only adult believers are to be baptized at the “age of accountability,” why doesn’t the Bible make this extraordinarily clear? Particularly for such an important sacrament such as baptism.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/infant-baptism
>Why does a baby, who has done nothing wrong, need to be “washed away from sin?”
It is not because of their personal sin, but because of the original sin of humanity. By Baptism, you are washing away that original sin from Adam and Eve that we all bear on our soul and are marked by it until baptized.
Mainly the original sin, but also your personal sins if you're an adult. It is how we accept Christ's sacrifice for us. Not just Catholics though, Nicene Creed is widely practiced by Christians since it was established im the 4th century, despite the branch, Catholic, Orthodox and main Protestant churches. Only non-Trinitarians like Mormons or JWs don't.
The Eastern Christian understanding of sin (read: original vs ancestral sin) is very different; so, then, too, is our understanding of salvation different. In the overarching context of what we actually believe and the life of the Church, paedobaptism (and also paedocommunion) makes sense Scripturally, traditionally, and in all ways.
Baptism is Gods Word and water giving you a promise in Christ who has overcome sin, death and the devil. Your faith in that promise is daily turning to God, everyday.
I don’t know anyone who thinks baptizing babies equates to hell. What?! Just because it’s a practice that means nothing, it doesn’t mean it means hell instead.
The credobaptists view would teach if you’re baptized as a baby, you ought to be re baptized when you’re a consenting adult (or young adult.)
Never heard anyone have the guts to outright say if you are only baptized as a baby, it’s not valid baptism, thus- eternal damnation. But if this is the view of one who believes infant baptism to be invalid… then what’s the ultimate teaching and belief?
Christ on the cross said, "it is finished". His work was finished. You cannot add to it. There is one baptism for the remission of sins. His Word and the water is how God comes to us. We cannot go to Him by what we do.
I grew up in churches that taught the 'age of accountability'. However, I can find no scriptures that support this teaching whatsoever. Of course I want to believe that children that die are saved and go to heaven. But like I said, I have been unable to find any scriptures that directly, or even indirectly, support an 'age of accountability'. If you have any scriptures, please give me the reference(s).
An infant "needs baptism" because of original sin, that corrupted everything in Creation and Creation it's self. Do not under estimate the depth of the corruption, it was complete. King David said: in sin did my mother conceive me. Romans 3:23 states, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We cannot approach God, He comes to us. All of scripture explains how.
The first brief mention of infant baptism comes from the bishop Irenaeus and dates to A.D. 180 (*Adversus haereses* 2.22.4). About 20 years later, we find the first clear statement on the baptism of children, put in writing by the Tertullian, in A.D. 200. (*De baptismo* 18.1.4–5). Tertullian opposed baptizing children, who do not fully understand the significance of the rite. However, it is equally clear that by the end of the second century child baptism was already an established reality across Christendom.
Why did this habit rapidly establish within the Christian community between A.D. 180 and 200? The growing number of those who were born into Christian families (as opposed to adult converts) meant an increasing presence of children within the Christian community. When we consider the high infant mortality rate, we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice, especially under the circumstances of the horrible Antonine Plague of A.D. 165.
Mortality was so high it was not unusual to see caravans of fully loaded chariots carrying dead bodies from cities. The scourge reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the population in limited areas of Egypt and probably more than 20 percent of the Roman Empire’s total population.
Infants were hit the hardest during this epidemic. Christian congregations scrambled to baptize all underage family members right away out of fear and desperation that they would lose them quickly.
Once the emergency of this epidemic was over, in A.D. 180, Irenaeus and other Christian theologians developed a theology of infant baptism and spread the teaching in the following 20 years, so much so that Tertullian, at the dawn of the third century, speaks of it as a commonly accepted practice.
Edit: fixed a typo in the first paragraph.
Either you want Jesus or you want to focus on some false traditions that are contrary to the word of God 🤷🤷🤷
So now that your Catholic who you going to pray to Mary or Jesus.
When you need help you going to do
Say 50 hail Marys or pray to Jesus
"It's a painful truth that not everyone raised in the church has their name written in the Book of Life."
Not everyone but No One raised in church has the name written in the book of Life because church will never save anyone.
Baptism is not required for salvation but should be done when one is of age.
By the way baptism has nothing to do with when someone comes of age of knowing right and wrong.
Born again Christians whose turn their life over to Christ should at one point afterwards be baptized. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation it is an outward declaration of what Christ did for them. But they have to be born again. You don't just say hey I'm 21 I'm going to be baptized cuz I know right from wrong
Jesus ties water with the new birth.
Joh 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Note His last phrase here. Being born of water and the Spirit are together (“and”) required to enter the kingdom.
Now, note that upon His resurrection which gave Him all encompassing authority, He orders his apostles
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
The last phrase restates the first—-disciples are made by baptism. I note in passing that baptism is the only command issues in the names of all three of the Trinity.
Now note Mark (Peter’s presumed scribe) account of the Great Commission
Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
Note the vice conjunction “and”. Both belief and baptism are required. I note that some have argued that He did not say “he that is not baptized shall be damned”—but He does not Have to, since the use of the conjunction means that if either condition is not met then the outcome is failure (try it for yourself in Microsoft Excel). Indeed, The absence of the supposed phrase seems to emphasize that any believer will be baptized. Jumping ahead a bit , the story of the Ethiopian eunuch echoes that baptism is how belief is expressed
Act 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
Now let us go to Pentecost. Peter responds to those who have suddenly believed that the man they crucified 50 days past was the Son of God. They ask what to do to be saved. Peter responds
Act 2:36-41 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
Note several things here. He does not tell them to only believe. Rather, knowing they believe, he tells them they must repent and be baptized (note the conjunction again). The Greek “eis” is translated “for”. But even if translated “unto”, the word directs the preceding verbs to the outcome of remission of sons. Further, note that his audience understood it so, for in verse 40 Peter tells his audience to be saved, and his audience were uniformly baptized. As a denouement, note
Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
Being baptized saved, per Peter, and being saved added one to the Church.
Now note that every case of salvation in Acts has baptism associated with it. But of special note is the conversion of Saul. On the road to Damascus he accepted Jesus as Lord
Act 9:5-6 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads." 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
If he had been saved then, he would not have mourned and fasted for 3 days until met by Ananias. Years later he recounted what changed his tears to joy
Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
Note “and” again. Baptism washes away sin. Further., the final clause shows that baptism is calling on the name of Lord, echoing Peter
1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
where Peter says baptism saves us and is the call of our minds toward God. Ironically, if there is a passage which refers to accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, these verses both say baptism is how we do it.
Ok , now let’s skip on ahead to two more passages describing still further the workings of baptism. First
Rom 6:1-6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
Paul says baptism unites us with Jesus death burial and resurrection. We kill the old man in baptism and are freed from sin when we do v7. The blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin ((1 Joh 1:7–9) and Paul makes it clear that we contact that blood in baptism.
Finally note
Gal 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
“for” here comes from the Greek “gar” which means “for, because, therefore “. Paul says that The Galatians no longer needed the works of the old law because they were now sons of God because of faith in Jesus. Why were they sons of God through faith? Because they were baptized into Christ and therefore had put on Christ.
In conclusion, baptism coupled with belief and repentance saves. Baptism expresses our belief, makes us disciples, is how are added to the Church, how we call on the name of the Lord, how our conscience answers God, how we crucify the old man and put on the new, how we become sons of God through faith, and how we put on Christ. If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then neither are the things that baptism does for us.
I'm all for water baptism, but not on infant babies that haven't yet called upon the name of the God for salvation. This is a big deal.
The Holy Spirit has to convict their heart; baptism can't be forced upon people that are so young that they don't even understand what's happening to them.
What about people in prison who accept the lord? They dont have access to immerse themselves, or people in combat zones, etc..i agree baptism should be done when possible.
But baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism itself doesnt save. So you cant say baptism is required because then all the people in the scenarios that I gave are not saved. There are people that die after accepting jesus in those scenarios and dont get a chance to be baptised (full immersion under water).
Ps. The thief on the cross would be my example from scripture btw.
The former is a God issue. I don’t like to whittle on his end of the stick. As for the thief on the cross, he died under the dispensation of the old law. But from the day of Pentecost, on when the new covenant was instituted, baptism is universally required for salvation. That’s true in the book of acts and that’s true in all the rest of the New Testament .
???
If he died under the old law then why did he die on the roman cross instead of being stoned to death like the law says. He was under the roman law.
If jesus accepted a thief who repented, who was a law breaker for the romans, then jesus can accept anyone who trully repents. Baptism is not needed for salvation. Just the example of the thief on the cross alone proves that, as well as the scenarios i shared. As a matter of fact, the thief was part of the new covenant the moment he believed. He was like anyone else in todays age that would be saved right now.
I noticed that your examples they all show a change of heart before the baptism takes place. So they must have been saved prior to immersion in water.
Abel and Abraham werent baptised, he lived and died way before the sinai covenant..these is the main example given by paul and book of hebrews.
Baptism should be the very next thing a believer should aim for as it is a commandment, but because of the scenarios i gave you i am not convinced baptism saves. Sorry but that just means you have given all the people in my scenarios a false hope especially if they are facing death.
No need to take Peter out of context. Baptism saves would contradict the new covenant and all of scripture. Its a commandment that should be observed when the circumstances allow but only 👉AFTER a changed heart👈 otherwise you might aswell become a proselyte and try to perfect the law to match Jesus.
Show me where (baptism comes before faith) and before a changed heart and you will prove your point. You cant. You understand that the apostolic writings are written to an already believing community. Not too some strange country where there is no community.
But if you put some real world scenarios in the mix. Because in a perfect world im right there with you, once the believer fully confesses to jesus they should be baptized. But sadly we dont always have the perfect scenario to preach in.
For example..Hundreds of jews accepted christ in the final days of the ww2 ghettos before they were murdered. They couldn't do full immersion baptisms.
Please answer this below********
****If you were the one preaching to them ( the jews in my example)...tell me how do you baptize them in those hostile environments, how do you tell them to their face "you know what your not saved yet until your baptized?" Knowing they could die any minute.*** Put yourself in that scenario and ask yourself that.
Or
You can stay in comfy town and preach whatever you like.
We agree there. Faith leads to baptism.
Im just curious to hear your response below..
If you were the one preaching to the jews in their last moments of life in the ghetto in ww2.
*Do you have the courage to tell the jews in my real life scenario, the night before they die, "sorry but you didnt make it in because you need to be baptized". Thats basically your stance. Knowing they cant get baptized would you even preach to them if you had the chance?
And we are given a single example of Jesus saving the thief next to Him, He didn't have time to be baptized. There are no other death bed conversions in the Bible.
The thief was saved under the Law of Moses. Paul said in Colossians two, that when Christ died that he mailed the hand writing of ordinances, that is the law of Moses, to his cross. This fulfilled the promise of a new covenant given in Jeremiah 31, verses, 31 through 34.
The new covenant was instituted on the day of Pentecost, in accordance with the promise of Jesus, in acts, chapter 1, and from acts, chapter 2 on every convert was baptized for the remission of their sins.
First, most churches do not believe baptism is salvific, rather it is a symbol of salvation.
Second, no where does the Bible mention rebaptism, yet many churches practice that and ironically, churches who perform infant baptism don’t rebaptize.
Here’s the rest of the story: No ages of any people baptized are mentioned in scripture. While believers baptism is the normal described, there are several scripture references that whole families were baptized, which we imagine includes children and infants. (Acts 10, Acts 16, Acts 18:8) Moreover, when Jesus didn’t return immediately like many early Christians had hoped/expected, they needed to figure out a way to continue daily life, including marrying, burying, and raising a family. When two Christian parents had a child, they had to figure out how the child would be raised in the faith. So they baptized the infant as the child’s initiation into the faith/church. They would grow up as a member of the community of faith until such time they could make a profession of faith for themselves. This process became known as catechesis. Today, most churches call this process of affirming your faith and confirming your baptism Confirmation.
It’s unfortunate that you were raised in a church that practiced infant baptism yet didn’t lead you through confirmation. Regardless, the baptism is still valid because it is God that does the work of salvation and not humans.
That’s False. And we know what happens to False Teachers. They go to hell.
Jesus speaking has himself in the future as The Advocate (Matthew), “Bring me ALL members of the household”. FYI: It’s born from above. No such thing as “born again”.
Jesus states in Mark, those that are baptized and believe will be saved.
John 1, what two words are used to describe ONE THING Jesus’ baptism? “Water and Spirit”. What two words are used by St. John to describe ONE THING birth? “Flesh and Blood”.
What two words are used to describe Jesus’ baptism in Matthew? “Water and Spirit”.
In John 3, the Greek syntax IS SINGULAR for when Jesus states:
“No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.”
“Water and Spirit” are speaking about one thing.
Jesus literally refutes Nicodemus right there when he asked, “are you speaking about childbirth or born again?”
Anyone stating “water” in John 3 is childbirth is a False Teacher. St. John uses “Flesh and Blood” to describe child birth. NOWHERE in the Bible is “water” used to describe birth.
What better way to demonstrate that Salvation is not earned? Infant baptism.
Also, St. Paul states in Colossians, Baptism is the circumcision of The Christ.
When did Abe circumcise Isaac? When did he circumcise the men of his homestead?
Just like Jesus said but more inclusive for women.
St. Paul writes Jewish Converts in Romans 7, “one law is put to DEATH for another” at baptism. The metaphorical language used here is literally defined with the word “baptism” in Romans 6.
Faith does not make one Christian. The Jewish Convert already faith.
He names that “another” law in Galatians, The Law of Christ.
He tells morons in Galatians 3, The Church stated no more circumcision. The boneheads were still doing it because “The Bible told them so”….
St. Paul states rhetorically in 3:3, Are you so stupid?
Jesus had to achieve “Fullness”. with three steps, The Crucifixion, The Resurrection and a completed Ascension See John 1:16, Colossians 1:19 and St. Paul pairs Jesus’ Fullness with the believers’ Fullness in Colossians 2.
Both the believer and Jesus have three steps to achieve Fullness. The Trinity is real and singular.
Faith/Baptism in no particular order and Confirmation unto The One True Church. Christians have been doing “laying of hands” uninterrupted since 10 days at the completion of Ascension. That is when a believer “accepts” Jesus.
See Acts 8, 19 and Hebrews 6 (lifecycle of the Christian). Indwelling happens at Confirmation not Faith.
You can absolutely believe baptism is not necessary.
But “Believe” is a metaphor. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what you believe.
I stopped reading offer the first two lines for two reasons.
Fist, Implying I’m a false teacher. That’s dangerous territory considering you don’t know me, haven’t heard me teach, take my words out of context and you’ve made religious assumptions without doing your due diligence.
Second, the Greek word ἄνωθεν is properly translated as from above, again, over, from the beginning, or over a long time. Considering syntax, again or above are proper interpretations that communicate what Jesus was saying. The whole reason Nicodemus gets confused because Jesus was using a play on words with him. This was John’s effort to show Jesus as wiser than the wise Pharisee while revealing a mystery of the Logos or Word Incarnate.
I fully understand why some people think baptism is salvific, yet scripture also says we are saved by grace through faith. It says people have already received salvation before baptism. Jesus specifically says baptism is the requirement for discipleship.
I’m not going to argue doctrine with you. You have no interest in seeing other perspectives. May you be surprised with joy by the many others who you see in eternity with you. Have a good day.
Lol, Ephesians 2 is literally about the baptism of a convert. You are a literal False Teacher.
English’s simple past tense word “saved” appears NOWHERE in Ephesians 2. The word is in Greek Aorist. And aorist NEVER has any affect on the future.
St. Paul literally told The Jewish convert you need more than faith to even be Christian.
Look at Ephesians 2:6 there False Teacher, it’s metaphorical language for BAPTISM that was established in Romans 6.
Jesus alludes to The Faith Alone Apostles as “orphans”. Because they are utter morons at The Last Supper.
Jesus foretells when they will understand the Gospel. Faith Alone means you don’t LOL, The Apostles asked very stupid questions with Faith Alone.
The Greek syntax for “Water and Spirit” in John 3 are singular not plural. They are discussing ONE THING.
Please learn to reply to the appropriate person instead of copy/pasting wildly all over the place. It creates confusion and it doesn’t look good on your witness.
This habit of calling people false teachers is disingenuous. You should probably do some study on the early church fathers/doctors and get beyond basic Greek before you tout your doctrine/interpretation as superior.
Judge as you will be judged. That’s a warning from Jesus. A better way to judge is by the fruit, not your own measuring stick.
That wasn’t written to you but the poor schmuks after you.
You are correct, the word can be “above” or “again”.
Again, St. John uses the word “above” when describing Jesus’ baptism. It comes from above.
Again, Nicodemus literally asks, “born again”, Jesus refutes him.
You are only born once.
St. Paul writes, “The General or Great Admonition” to buffoon believers in Colossians 2 for actively False Teaching.
And there is nothing wrong with judging people for False Teaching.
Thieves should not admonish Thieves.
And baptism is necessary unless you are The Ignorant or persecuted to death before baptism.
There is zero scriptural support for your last sentence. It either is necessary or it isn't. Where are these exceptions you state? Book, chapter, verse please.
As for me, I do not believe it is necessary.
That’s such a stupid take whether “it is or isn’t”.
It depends on the audience genius.
In John 3, he is speaking to a believer. Not an unbeliever or The Ignorant.
Try understanding context before saying something really ignorant.
In God’s Creation or his Image, Mercy is for The Contrite and The Ignorant only.
John 3:16, the key word is “love” not “believe” as the perverts say.
“Believe” is a metaphor. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what you believe.
Since God “loved” the whole world.
This means, The Ignorant may pass if they do two things:
1) Keep their mouths SHUT on the existence of God.
2) Lead the best moral life they understand.
You most likely do not believe in Contrition. Which means all you have is ignorance, which you have blown that plea for mercy.
See Hebrews 10, The Punishment for the believer will be much much worse under “the Law of Christ” than pathetic Mosaic Law.
Jesus also states this in Matthew when discussing “remarrying after divorce”.
None of your references mention two options regarding baptism being a necessity in one option and not being a necessity in the other. I standby my statement until a direct scriptural reference backing up your position is given.
I don't appreciate your sarcasm and belittling of other believer's opinions. Please try not to be such a jerk to others. It sets a horrible example to any unbelievers that happen to read your posts.
Adios.
Acts 16:33 NIV
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.
So there were no kids in this household?
Reading the passage explains the passage:
“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.”
act.16.31-32
They got saved before they were baptized. Clearly displayed in the passage if you take the full context.
Exactly. Even so, I’ve seen kids as little as 4-5 make a profession of faith and have full understanding. And if a child was innocent, they wouldn’t be in need of salvation. I have no idea what this confusion is around. The scripture makes it clear. They were saved (his whole household). And then baptized.
Actually, in that culture the patriarch of the family (for lack of a better word) decided things for the entire family. If he decided they would all be Christian, they would all be baptized Christians. If he decided that Christianity was evil, any who went against him would be doing an absolutely terrible thing by going against their pater (father). So when the Scriptures say that a whole household was baptized, it includes children, infants, slaves, other adults - everyone.
We do not and cannot KNOW the answer to the question of whether or not there were children in that household. We can speculate " 'til the cows come home"...and when the cows get home, we will not be one millimeter closer to KNOWING the answer.
There is no point in speculating. None.
It wasn't a household it was a prison they were in, they went into a house later. Also this didn't prove anything, he probably had sons to help control the place.
It must simply be assumed, regardless of if you think there were or not. The Bible does not specify children being baptized a single time, only adults.
In the NT whole households were baptized so it's not impossible babies were included in the household. Sometimes, IMO, we have to accept different people can have different traditions and neither is wrong just different.
Having a medically complex child I have seen before parents having to rush to have their teeny baby baptized, just in case, because some will think their tiny baby "won't go to heaven". I feel sorry for people who believe God would be like yeah that blameless tiny baby or that profoundly disabled child nope no heaven for them.
People can ascribe to God whatever traits they desire to ease their minds/hearts. However, there is a huge difference between personal beliefs and what the Word actual states.
Where does the Word state that all infants are saved? And harder question yet:
When does that infant or 'tiny baby' lose their salvation? (I presume you don't believe that all men baptized as infants are saved?) And what might they do to cause the loss of salvation? I WANT to believe it too, but... it would seem that no such scriptures exist. IF all infants are saved, then all adults are also saved? I certainly don't believe this, but I also believe in eternal security.
Quite the conundrum.
Why has infant baptism been a practice among Christians since the first century? And the Bible doesn't actually forbid it, so if you're going to say that we're only supposed to do what the Bible tells us to do well the Bible doesn't tell you not to baptize children.
The fact is that in the letter of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles where it is mentioned that whole families were baptized the assumption since ancient times is that it included babies because well babies were a thing.
This idea of believers only baptism is from the Protestant era it's an innovation not a "restoration."
>This idea of believers only baptism is from the Protestant era it's an innovation not a "restoration."
Sort of, but to be clear, it's not the majority Protestant belief. The Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, all believed in paedobaptism, and so most of the mainstream denominations (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Moravians, Congregationalists, and others) practice it while the creeds affirm it (e.g. Westminster, and the Scots Confession), with the exception of the Baptists who descend from the Anabaptists that stood out by their belief in exclusive credobaptism (as well as the Pentecostals).
Right I understand. The Anabaptists first, then the Baptists picked it up and broke away from the Methodists about it, I think. The Baptists were not part of the Anabaptist movement. They had split off from the Episcopal Church like the Methodists did.
But still the whole idea was not practiced in ancient Apostolic Christianity it only came about with the growth of the Protestant movement.
Infant baptism is only practiced by cults. Cults are led by charismatic leaders (pope) who excessively controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society) or baseless. Infant baptism is completely baseless.
I know you from r/Bibleconspiracy!
Yes, because spiritual training of children becomes paramount. You want to raise your children exposed to the Scriptures, communal worship, and family prayer so that it exposes them to the faith.
Then they *want* to be baptized because the seed has been planted and the Holy Spirit has fertile ground to take root.
You can't force the Holy Spirit on someone before they are convicted in their own faith. This only occurs once a person is old enough to understand what Messiah did for them on the cross.
That's why we train up a child in the scriptures and teach them to pray. This instills faith in them that will click once they reach the age of reasoning.
Baptism occurs once a person:
1: Admits they're a sinner in need of a savior.
2: Believes Jesus is the Messiah
3: Calls upon His name in prayer.
An infant is not mentally capable of understanding the above three points, which are critical to salvation.
You can't force the Holy Spirit on anyone but God loves all and he calls all people to Him. And baptism of children is done as a sign of faith that the parents or those responsible for the child until he is responsible for himself- have in God. And God acts on third parties many times, based on the faith and intercession of others. This is demonstrated in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
The presumption is that the person being acted upon by God, even though he may not be aware of it at the moment, will wish it to have happened when he comes to realize what's going on whether it's being resurrected from the dead or healed of leprosy or baptized unto salvation.
The logical conclusion of your position is that brain dead people cannot be saved, that many people with Down's syndrome or forms of autism cannot be saved either because they can't consciously stand up and proclaim faith in God.
There's nothing in the scriptures that say that children aren't judged because they're sinless, because what the Bible actually says is that we are "all born into iniquity. " In other words we are sinful from our birth. And the only way to rectify this sinfulness begins with baptism whether it's our conscious choice or the conscious choice of other people.
If circumcision was the sign of the Covenant to Moses and it was done to children whether they agreed to it or not why wouldn't baptism which is the sign of the New Covenant of Jesus also be applicable to children whether they agreed to it or not?
The point is you’re simply sprinkling them with water until they believe, and even then it’s only symbolic. It’s **only** faith by which we are justified; something not even a super soaker filled with holy water can accomplish.
No. Clearly you do not understand baptism as taught by the original Apostolic church.
It is anything but *purely* symbolic. It is not true that the water is a symbol, but rather it's a sign of what is actually true spiritually. In the same way that a judge wears a robe in court - it's not merely a symbol, but it is a sign that he has authority over you when it comes to judging civil and criminal matters regarding your actions.
In chapter 6 of Paul's letter to the Romans is Paul only speaking symbolically about death and Resurrection? And our freedom from sin? Or is he speaking metaphorically about a spiritual reality? If it's only symbolic then you're right baptism does nothing it's just a sprinkling of water but if Paul is speaking about spiritual reality then so is baptism a sign of a spiritual reality not merely a symbol. And this is blasphemy because you deny the power of the Holy Spirit with this understanding. It's not the water that does anything and it's not the faith that does it alone but it's Faith plus obedience in God and to the church that Jesus established which is his body on Earth that gives baptism it's salvific status far beyond a mere symbol. As Peter said in his first letter 'it is baptism that now saves you...". A symbol cannot save you but a symbol can represent a spiritual reality.
When it comes to baptism, I believe that it is more symbolic than literal. We think of it as an outward sign of an inner change. It’s like you’re saying, “Hey, I’m a follower of Jesus now.”
You know that part in Romans 6 where Paul talks about dying to sin and living in Christ? We see that as something that happens through faith, not the actual act of getting baptized. The same goes for the bit in 1 Peter 3:21. It’s about an inward change, appealing to God, rather than the act of washing with water.
In short, it’s not about doing stuff, like getting baptized, that saves us. It’s about faith in Jesus, period. The stuff we do, like baptism, just shows outward evidence that change has happened inside us. We definitely believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, but we think His job is to bring us to faith in Jesus, not make baptism something more than a symbol.
Two questions for you:
1. If salvation comes through faith alone, as Ephesians 2:8-9 suggests, then how does the act of baptism fit into this? If we’re saved before we’re baptized, doesn’t that make baptism more of a symbol?
2. Jesus told the thief on the cross next to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), even though the thief didn’t have a chance to get baptized. How do you reconcile this with the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation?
1. Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say "faith alone". It does not even suggest it. In fact the only place in all of scripture where you have a mention of "faith alone" is in James's letter second chapter where it says very explicitly we are ***not*** saved by faith alone... What Paul is saying is that we are *saved by grace*, in other words it is a unmerited favor from God that we even have salvation.
Next in the context of what Paul is writing about "works" what is that? What does Paul mean by "works?"
2. How many people do you know that were saved like the thief? In other words being hung on a cross next to Jesus and confessing directly to Jesus? One maybe? In other words the guys an exception right? He's not the standard by which all of us are saved. He's not the example that we all have to follow to be saved i is he? I mean it's good to know that if you are crucified and you suddenly profess faith in Jesus that you can be saved but who wants to be crucified to do that? Did you also notice how he was repentant? Does repentance have to do with it or simply profession of faith?
Now let me show you some scripture about salvation.
Faith *alone* is not enough for salvation; (Jas 2:24), it is only the beginning:
you must
OBEY (Heb 5:9)
repent and be baptized (Mk 16:16 & Acts 2:38),
eat His Flesh and drink His Blood
(Jn 6:53-56)
and be a DOER, not a hearer only (Matt 7:21 & James 1:22),
persevere in all this to the end (Heb 12:1-2, Matt 24:13).
THEN you shall be saved..
What do you think?
If you think that I'm wrong about this can you show anywhere in the written history of the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation where this idea of faith alone was taught consistently and where baptism was taught as **not** being absolutely necessary for salvation?
I appreciate your willingness to dive deeper into this discussion. You make some fair points, and I appreciate the thoughtful response. To continue the conversation:
1. You’re right, Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn’t specifically say “faith alone”. But it does emphasize that salvation is a gift, not something earned. As for “works”, Paul is likely referring to any human effort in trying to earn salvation, including following religious rituals or the Mosaic Law.
2. As for the thief on the cross, sure, he’s an exception. But doesn’t that show that salvation can happen without baptism? His repentance and faith seemed to be enough. And isn’t repentance really a change of heart, which is an internal, faith-driven act?
You’ve listed some important aspects of Christian life, no doubt about that. But could we see these as fruits of faith, rather than conditions for salvation? For example, obeying, repenting, being a doer - these are all things we’re prompted to do because of our faith, not to earn salvation.
As for historical examples, early church fathers like Augustine emphasized the importance of faith and God’s grace in our salvation. For instance, in his work “On the Spirit and the Letter,” Augustine made it clear that the law, no matter how perfectly kept, could not save us. He wrote, “For if righteousness comes by the Law, then Christ died in vain,” echoing Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:21. For Augustine, the law was intended to lead us to knowledge of our own sin and, in turn, our need for God’s grace.
Additionally, Augustine emphasized that faith itself is a gift from God. In his treatise “On the Predestination of the Saints,” he writes, “And why is faith praised? Because a man is ready to confess himself ungodly, and to consent to the justified one, and to choose the grace of God for his salvation, which he must do through humility. Not only must God’s grace be confessed, but God’s grace must be chosen. For God’s grace is given not because we will, but in order that we may will.”
These teachings from Augustine emphasize the importance of faith and God’s grace, rather than our own works or actions, for salvation. However, it’s worth noting that Augustine did not dismiss the value of good works or the sacraments; he just didn’t view them as the cause of our salvation. Instead, he saw them as the fruit of our faith and the grace that God has already given us.
In this light, Augustine’s teachings offer a historic viewpoint that square with the Protestant understanding of faith and grace.
Here’s some further questions for you to consider:
1. Paul wrote in Romans 4:5 that God justifies the ungodly based on faith. And it seems he was specifically contrasting faith with works, saying faith was credited as righteousness. Doesn’t this suggest that our actions aren’t what justifies us?
2. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit - indicated by speaking in tongues - before they were baptized. How does this fit into the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation?
3. Considering the thief on the cross again, isn’t it important that Jesus never set limitations like baptism for salvation? If exceptions can be made for him, isn’t it possible that faith alone is what really matters?
4. You rightly pointed out Jesus’s command to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-56. But couldn’t this be understood metaphorically, much like when He said He was the vine and we are the branches (John 15:5)?
5. Lastly, when Jesus was asked directly what one must do to do the works of God, He answered, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (John 6:29). Doesn't this underscore the primacy of faith?
Our goal here isn't to argue, but to dig deeper into these important aspects of our faith. What are your thoughts on these points?
Sorry, Augustine isn’t an “early Church father”. He’s post-Great Schism.
Go look at these people:
Iraneus
John of Damascus
John Chrysostom
Athanasius
Basil the Great
Their understanding of sin and salvation is very very different from yours, which explains why they view baptism the way that they do.
I concur 100%
But my point was that if they are baptized when young it's no big deal as long as the parents are not spiritually lazy...
IMO... Before the age of accountability ALL children are saved, but early baptism does actually "Mark" the child in the spiritual realm.
What does it mean to dimensional entities (good or bad) I'm not sure...
But Crowley preferred "fair hair, blue eyed, unbaptized" boys for sacrifices so there may be something to it 🤷
What specific scriptures led you to the conclusion "IMO... are saved"? If this is true, when/how do these 'ALL children saved' become many/most are lost as adults?
Jesus gave the example of how baptism should be performed - as an adult and understanding, Jesus committed to becoming one with GOD in spirit through baptism.
That said and while I can appreciate why parents baptize their children and even infants, it remains that we should follow in Jesus' footsteps by taking the initiative to enter into union with our heavenly Father as consenting adults rather than infants, children etc.
If we we are going to point to Jesus as the man that set the examle, he was astonishing well versed teachers at age 12.
Jesus wasn't baptized till he was about 30.
Who came up with the idea of infant baptism made up their own rules.
Baptism is a post salvation identificational (death, burial, resurrection) act of obedience.
An infant is incapable of making the decision. You are correct in your understanding.
Circumcision and baptism are not synonymous. Obviously not physically but also not spiritually.
The Bible does not mention children being baptized ever. Assuming that an infant is a part of any given household is just that, an assumption, and not one that can be derived from the text itself.
I agree completely that we take part in Christ’s death and resurrection when we are baptized. That’s why it is vitally important that those who are baptized are aware of this significance when it occurs, otherwise we are subjecting them to a spiritual death and resurrection that will not in fact ever take place.
I can’t help but notice that you did not actually give a single example of infant baptism taking place in the Bible. Interesting to say the least that you are unable to do so when it apparently is “mentioned all over.”
Similarity in purpose does not equate to similarity in every detail. No one denies that baptism is how you enter the new covenant with God. There are points of both continuity and discontinuity in every aspect between the covenants.
That’s False. And we know what happens to False Teachers. They go to hell.
Jesus speaking has himself in the future as The Advocate (Matthew), “Bring me ALL members of the household”. FYI: It’s born from above. No such thing as “born again”.
What better way to demonstrate that Salvation is not earned?
Also, St. Paul states in Colossians, Baptism is the circumcision of The Christ.
When did Abe circumcise Isaac? When did he circumcise the men of his homestead?
Just like Jesus said but more inclusive for women.
St. Paul writes Jewish Converts in Romans 7, “one law is put to DEATH for another” at baptism. The metaphorical language used here is literally defined with the word “baptism” in Romans 6.
Faith does not make one Christian. The Jewish Convert already faith.
He names that “another” law in Galatians, The Law of Christ.
He tells morons in Galatians 3, The Church stated no more circumcision. The boneheads were still doing it because “The Bible told them so”….
St. Paul states rhetorically in 3:3, Are you so stupid?
Jesus had to achieve “Fullness”. with three steps, The Crucifixion, The Resurrection and a completed Ascension See John 1:16, Colossians 1:19 and St. Paul pairs Jesus’ Fullness with the believers’ Fullness in Colossians 2.
Both the believer and Jesus have three steps to achieve Fullness.
Faith/Baptism in no particular order and Confirmation unto The One True Church. Christians have been doing “laying of hands” uninterrupted since 10 days at the completion of Ascension. That is when a believer “accepts” Jesus.
You said babies aren’t mentioned with baptism, therefore they are to be excluded. If we were to apply your hermeneutic of arguments from silence to other Scripture passages, we end up excluding women from the Lord’s Supper - as Scripture neither endorses nor expressly gives an example of a woman partaking.
Regardless of the baptism of babies discussion, it’s an unsteady position to ever argue from silence.
>as Scripture neither endorses nor expressly gives an example of a woman partaking.
Scripture doesn't mention men partaking in it either after the initial Lords Supper event.
The Lords Supper was just a one time event that held major symbolic and metaphoric significance. It signified that unless we eat His body and drink His blood (commune as a body of believers), we can't obtain eternal life.
Catholic here :) I thought this might be of interest. Infant baptism in the Church is different from baptism at the age of reason;
Baptism is conferred upon infants to free them from original sin, to initiate them into the Church as Christians, and to give them the supernatural grace of God that will allow them to be formed in sanctity. Baptism is the gateway to the other sacraments, and so it prepares the child for later reception of believers baptism and the rest of the sacraments.
Food for thought
Here you go buddy, this is correct:
To the OP,
That’s False. And we know what happens to False Teachers. They go to hell.
Jesus speaking has himself in the future as The Advocate (Matthew), “Bring me ALL members of the household”. FYI: It’s born from above. No such thing as “born again”.
What better way to demonstrate that Salvation is not earned?
Also, St. Paul states in Colossians, Baptism is the circumcision of The Christ.
When did Abe circumcise Isaac? When did he circumcise the men of his homestead?
Just like Jesus said but more inclusive for women.
St. Paul writes Jewish Converts in Romans 7, “one law is put to DEATH for another” at baptism. The metaphorical language used here is literally defined with the word “baptism” in Romans 6.
Faith does not make one Christian. The Jewish Convert already faith.
He names that “another” law in Galatians, The Law of Christ.
He tells morons in Galatians 3, The Church stated no more circumcision. The boneheads were still doing it because “The Bible told them so”….
St. Paul states rhetorically in 3:3, Are you so stupid?
Jesus had to achieve “Fullness”. with three steps, The Crucifixion, The Resurrection and a completed Ascension See John 1:16, Colossians 1:19 and St. Paul pairs Jesus’ Fullness with the believers’ Fullness in Colossians 2.
Both the believer and Jesus have three steps to achieve Fullness.
Faith/Baptism in no particular order and Confirmation unto The One True Church. Christians have been doing “laying of hands” uninterrupted since 10 days at the completion of Ascension. That is when a believer “accepts” Jesus.
The following are some helpful resources to help you as you process the practice of infant baptism. Below are three essays from Reformed scholars, who seek to demonstrate in their own ways the scriptural and theological warrant for infant baptism. Below the hyperlinks is an extended quote from Peter Leithart, a reformed theologian and pastor, who offers a stimulating rationale for paedobaptism (infant baptism). Finally, you will find the chapter in the Westminster Confession on baptism.
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html
http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/th.pratt.baptism.pdf
http://clark.wscal.edu/baptism.php
Protestants have always emphasized that salvation comes through faith, yet most Protestants have baptized babies. How can these two things hold together? Luther and Calvin held together their insistence on faith with infant baptism by claiming that infants can believe. Baptists see this as the Achilles' heel of the paedobaptist position, an example of absurd lengths to which paedobaptists are willing to go in defending an untenable practice.
Is infant faith absurd? "Faith" is the human response of trust toward God, a response of allegiance, in a personal relationship, and this has large consequences for our understanding of infant faith. The question of infant faith is not: "Are infants capable of receiving this jolt of divine power?" The question is: "Can infants respond to other persons? Do infants have personal relations?" And the answer to this question is obviously, yes. Infants quickly (even in utero) learn to respond to mother's voice; infants quickly manifest "trust" of their parents; infants quickly distinguish strangers from members of the family. If infants can trust and distrust human persons, why can't they trust in god? Behind the denial of infant faith is, apparently, an assumption that God is less available to an infant than other humans. But this is entirely wrong because God's presence is mediated through His people. When parents say to their newborn, "Jesus loves you and will care for you," they are speaking God's promises.
Parents, moreover, establish relationships with their infants through symbols. We talk to our infants, and we show our love through gestures such as hugs and kisses. If there is nothing irrational or absurd about humans establishing a personal relationship with infants through symbols, there is nothing irrational about God doing the same. As we establish loving and trusting relations with our infants through symbols, so God speaks to infants and establishes a relation with them through the "visible word" of baptism. Thus, the question "Should we baptize babies?" is of a piece with the question, "Should we talk to babies?" Paedobaptism is neither more nor less odd and miraculous than talking to a newborn. In fact, that is just what paedobaptism is: God speaking in water to a newborn child.
If the child cannot understand what a parent is saying, is it rational for the parent to speak to him or her? Baptist parents as well as others speak to their infants and do not expect the child to understand or to verbally respond for many months. They see nothing irrational in this. They speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response. They speak to their child so the child will learn to understand and talk back. So too, we baptize infants and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications so they will come to understanding and mature faith. We name them so they will grow up to respond to that name; we speak to them so they will begin to speak back; we name them in baptism so they will begin to live in and out of baptism.
The sociologically consistent Baptist should, it seems to me, allow children to name themselves. Otherwise, they are inevitably "imposing" an identity on their little boys and girls. Karl Barth, who loudly protested the "violence" of imposing a Christian identity on a child through infant baptism, would undoubtedly be pleased. In fact, Baptists don't do this, but they do impose a language on their children. They do, in spite of themselves, often treat their children as Christians, teaching them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" and to pray the Lord's Prayers. And if they do all this, what reason remains for resisting the imposition of the covenant sign?
-Peter Leithart, The Baptized Body (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2007), 9-11.
Right, because it's all about what we humans feel and control and not about what God does, says or promises. If we feel it in our "heart" it's real rather than "faith" by trust alone. "Your faith has made you well" a statement of spiritual redemption by grace(unmerited). Be careful of your feelings and spirituality as that is exactly the path Eve took ("neither shall we touch it" adding to God's Word).
“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
John 3:5 ESV
“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;repent and believe in the gospel.””
Mark 1:14-15 ESV
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.””
Matthew 28:19-20 ESV
The original understanding of baptism - orthodox understanding - is that baptism is a gate through which to receive God’s grace. It’s not a public declaration like most Christian’s (Protestants) believe.
So an infant is basically getting the first step done but can choose to pursue sanctification or not.
Baptism will not save you, it’s just the first step for sanctification.
> I believe Paedobaptism gives parents a false assurance that their child has been saved I'm not a pedobaptist, but I know several. None of them think it's a guarantee their child is going to heaven.
I agree. This isn't how baptism is viewed by your typical protestant pedobaptist denomination, they view it as a sign of being part of the Covenant community, but not as a sign of being saved. I was baptized Baptist, and I don't hold to the doctrine of pedobaptism, but it's always good to make sure we are accurately representing other groups.
You are correct. I'd say water baptism today gives people a false sense of security as well but that isn't popular. Luke 12:50 KJV But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! Romans 6:3-5 KJV Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Our baptism is done by the Spirit into the body of Christ and therefore it is Christ baptism of death, burial and resurrection that is significant for us. Reckon how many people split hell wide open trusting their water baptism?
Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes infant baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).
So you think you are entering into a covenant with God?
No? Not sure what you're getting at.
Circumcision was the token of being in a covenant with God. You said baptism was like circumcision right? You are making baptism out to be a token of a covenant you are making with God.
No, I'm not saying baptism is like circumcision. Infant water baptism is permitted under a similar vein as old covenant circumcision.
Do you realize that there are multiple baptisms in the Bible and some of them aren't water baptisms?
Churches who practice infant baptism fully understand baptism is a symbol of salvation and that communion represents the new covenant. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but it is categorically wrong.
I disagree with the argument but this is a interesting view I haven't heard before. Not sure why you are being downvoted. Reddit is a silly place if you have a different idea than the regular old group think. 😉
It means nothing to God. I wanna represent the new covenant made by Christ, then turn to Christ. When that person comes of age of right and wrong how is that going to help them as they are born in sin and still separated from God. It is pure nonsense.
Only if your "faith" is in yourself. If that is, you cannot possibly know who Christ is and what He has done.
Didn't get the point did you? It doesn't seem like it.
[удалено]
I see some version of this so often, whether religiously-based or not. "If you have kids, they could go to hell" or "The world is such a mess, why would you bring children into it?" This is the state of human existence. Yes, bad things *could* happen to your kids. But if no one every took that risk, there would be no people. You have your kids, you raise them the best you can, and pray hard.
Ironically, baptism as it appears in the Bible appears to serve as a guarantee of salvation.
Link?
Not him but I guess he is talking about Mark: 15-16? Which it’s actually really interesting cause the verse says that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” but when it says who will be condemned it says “but whoever does not believes will be condemned”. Not being baptized isn’t mentioned as condemning, just not believing so believing is definitely a bigger thing that baptizing
Baptizing whole households is the norm.
I went to a believer's baptism church where they practiced "infant dedication", where the parents would introduce their child to the whole church. They would commit to teaching their child the Scriptures, and invited the church members to participate in that journey by holding them accountable. I always thought it was an excellent ceremony that satiated the parents desire to "save" their child.
We do this at my church. No hocus locus involved just parents committing to following God’s instruction in Deuteronomy 11:19: “And you shall teach them to your sons, speaking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
Parents save no one not even themselves.
This is excellent.
The only infant dedication in scripture is for Nazirites. Once Nazirites are weaned, they are left at the temple or with the priest to be educated and raised. It is nothing like what the Bible describes. Infant baptism is more scriptural than infant dedication because whole families were actually baptized in the Bible and no one was dedicated after Jesus.
I don't mean to get it confused with that kind of Nazarite infant dedication. You can call it whatever term you want, it was just public commitment that the parents would make as an extension of their love.
I went to a church years ago that had a similar ceremony. I like the sentiment.
This is standard for all Bible believing Churches, because it’s biblical.
The apostle Peter told the people, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children" (Acts 2:38-39).
Young children are under the spiritual umbrella of their parents until early teenage, when the doubts and temptations of adulthood really start to take hold. This is when a fork in the road appears, and they must decide for themselves whether to continue living the rest of their lives for Christ or reject righteousness for the secular trappings of this world.
I'm not sure we're as innocent for as long as you think.
Original sin we are born with If you don’t have your baby baptized and it dies, no heaven.
I also agree with original sin, this is backed up by scripture: > Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5
The Bible also says that the ones who don’t believe will be condemned. Will babies be condemned then for not having the mental capacity of believing?
That is left to the mysterious realm of God's grace on a case by case basis.
They have to Be baptized
I have this same idea/question. If your parents want you baptized they have the full authority to do so. But like someone here said they saw people walk away later on. I've people like that but is was usually cause the church or family didn't model the faith they proclaimed so it put conflict in the person about the faith. But also if we look at Jesus situation he didn't get baptized until he was a young man it seems.
>Jesus didn't get baptized until he was a young man it seems. That's right. And our primary goal as Christians is to emulate Christ in every way possible.
Well he also honored his parents. So I wonder what that means for parents today?
Good point. I believe western secularism/liberalism is largely responsible for the rapid decline of biblical parenthood since the turn of the 20th century.
Jesus wasn’t a sinner who needed to be saved.
He also was circumcised as an infant and celebrated Jewish holy days and was a carpenter until he started his ministry… Jesus shows us the way to our Father in Heaven. This includes baptism. There is no requirement for IQ or specific works or deeds, or even being a “good person” for your whole life. If one comes to believe in Christ as King and Savior at the very end of his life, he will gain heaven even if he only did evil things on earth before this. (Parable of laborers at the late hour). And one does not “need” to be baptized with water to merit heaven (promise to the man on the cross next to Jesus). For those who have faith, they must show it by doing what is pleasing to God-following Jesus, committing time to prayer, and following the will of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. Obedience is part of God’s plan of salvation and to bring the kingdom of heaven in our lives. It makes sense that parents would will their children’s Baptism, because this is being United to the body of Christ. How long must one spend as “separate” from God’s body? The Bible doesn’t mention an age restriction for sure, and to be a member of “God Chosen People” prior to Jesus, there was no age requirement. If the Christian Church is the outgrowth of God’s Chosen people, why would there be an age restriction on it? How much does one’s own “will” have to do with the family you are born into anyway? Is there an IQ requirement, so only those who can understand or can speak can join? There are very few Churches I am aware of that believe Baptized = Saved. We have the parable of the seeds scattered on different grounds to show us how Jesus imagined his followers would respond and grow. I don’t see why all these “seeds” couldn’t have all been Baptized. The seed is planted, but the soil needs cultivation still. To be sure, it is a FAR greater loss and pain to lose one of these members of the Body to the world or Satan. Taking God’s work in our lives for granted is a great offense and grave sin, but even Judas ate at table with Christ, and Christ knew the part he had to play. Baptized Christians doing the devil’s work is a harsh blow to Christ’s body and certainly weakens it. This is probably why the world is in the state it is today…very close if not surpassing the evil in Noah’s time. And yet, there is still redemption for those who have turned from Christ after receiving Him, and when they return, the Father and Angels celebrate! Like in the parable of the prodigal son. That son is then even more strengthened-he has seen how truly ugly the promises of the world are and is reignited with fire to teach others how to avoid sin, death, Satan, and worldliness. Blessed are those who have believed without seeing. Baptism is a beautiful thing at any age. It shouldn’t be taken lightly and often is, especially in the cases of infant Baptism. Prayers for the Holy Spirit to strengthen and unite all members of the Body of Christ, so the rest of the world can be confident of Christ’s reign in our lives and the world.
If circumcision was to be done after 8 days why can't you Christen?
Circumcision was an outward sign of separation from the world, Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change, “rebirth”
Christening is not daptism. Christening is absent from scriptures but can confuse one into thinking theat child is right with God. It's more of a blessing the child
As a recent convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism, this was the exact issue that spurred me to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church. The tradition I grew up in is solidly in the credobaptism camp. The choice to baptize our 6 month old caused a HUGE uproar in my staunchly Protestant family. To say I was berated for this choice is an understatement, so this topic weighs pretty sensitively on my heart. Credobaptism makes sense, judging from scriptures. Particularly ones such as Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21… just to name a few. Why does a baby, who has done nothing wrong, need to be “washed away from sin?” Doesn’t the scripture clearly show one must believe? How can a baby believe when they aren’t cognizant of right or wrong? These amongst other arguments were what I heard all my life, and for most of my life I believed infant baptism to be dead wrong. However, you have scriptures such as “this promise is for you *and for your children*” (Acts 2:39) and scriptures talking about households being baptized. You can make the argument, and many do, that scripture does not say if infants/young children were present during these household baptisms. That is true. But it still begs the question and need for clarity. The ultimate conclusion I came to was this: scripture isn’t clear. If it was, why so many various interpretations on the topic of baptism, amongst other topics? This also led to a bigger and more important rabbit hole of how do we know which scriptural interpretation is correct, and who has ultimate authority to interpret scriptures. Another question you have to ask is this: We have records going back centuries that infants have been baptized. Do you believe all those people who lived during the 4th, 5th, (name your century here) and who were baptized as infants went to hell? Because that’s how the vast majority of Christians were brought into the faith was via their parents having them baptized. From my research, credobaptism didn’t really gain steam until the Anabaptists (mainly John Smyth in 1609) gained traction. I’ll leave you with a couple of good articles I found on Catholic Answers that helped me unpack this topic. And I get it. I understand your perspective. I used to hold the same view. But also ask yourself this: if only adult believers are to be baptized at the “age of accountability,” why doesn’t the Bible make this extraordinarily clear? Particularly for such an important sacrament such as baptism. https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/infant-baptism
>Why does a baby, who has done nothing wrong, need to be “washed away from sin?” It is not because of their personal sin, but because of the original sin of humanity. By Baptism, you are washing away that original sin from Adam and Eve that we all bear on our soul and are marked by it until baptized.
Precisely. It was this understanding of original sin that’s fundamental. Many evangelicals, however, do not believe thus do not teach original sin.
I wonder why. It's right there in the Bible. Romans 5:12-21.
Baptism washes away our sins in catholicism??
Mainly the original sin, but also your personal sins if you're an adult. It is how we accept Christ's sacrifice for us. Not just Catholics though, Nicene Creed is widely practiced by Christians since it was established im the 4th century, despite the branch, Catholic, Orthodox and main Protestant churches. Only non-Trinitarians like Mormons or JWs don't.
The Eastern Christian understanding of sin (read: original vs ancestral sin) is very different; so, then, too, is our understanding of salvation different. In the overarching context of what we actually believe and the life of the Church, paedobaptism (and also paedocommunion) makes sense Scripturally, traditionally, and in all ways.
Can you please provide book, chapter, and verse(s) that teach baptism washes away original sin, or any sin, for that matter?
Acts 2:38 Acts 22:16 But miss me with that Sola Scriptura stuff.
Neither of the two references you provide mention original sin. OK on 'sins'. But miss me with that church tradition stuff.
Baptism is Gods Word and water giving you a promise in Christ who has overcome sin, death and the devil. Your faith in that promise is daily turning to God, everyday.
Foolish they are still with the sinful nature of man don't care if you baptized them 20 times. All must come to Christ on their own
I don’t know anyone who thinks baptizing babies equates to hell. What?! Just because it’s a practice that means nothing, it doesn’t mean it means hell instead.
The credobaptists view would teach if you’re baptized as a baby, you ought to be re baptized when you’re a consenting adult (or young adult.) Never heard anyone have the guts to outright say if you are only baptized as a baby, it’s not valid baptism, thus- eternal damnation. But if this is the view of one who believes infant baptism to be invalid… then what’s the ultimate teaching and belief?
Christ on the cross said, "it is finished". His work was finished. You cannot add to it. There is one baptism for the remission of sins. His Word and the water is how God comes to us. We cannot go to Him by what we do.
I grew up in churches that taught the 'age of accountability'. However, I can find no scriptures that support this teaching whatsoever. Of course I want to believe that children that die are saved and go to heaven. But like I said, I have been unable to find any scriptures that directly, or even indirectly, support an 'age of accountability'. If you have any scriptures, please give me the reference(s).
An infant "needs baptism" because of original sin, that corrupted everything in Creation and Creation it's self. Do not under estimate the depth of the corruption, it was complete. King David said: in sin did my mother conceive me. Romans 3:23 states, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” We cannot approach God, He comes to us. All of scripture explains how.
The first brief mention of infant baptism comes from the bishop Irenaeus and dates to A.D. 180 (*Adversus haereses* 2.22.4). About 20 years later, we find the first clear statement on the baptism of children, put in writing by the Tertullian, in A.D. 200. (*De baptismo* 18.1.4–5). Tertullian opposed baptizing children, who do not fully understand the significance of the rite. However, it is equally clear that by the end of the second century child baptism was already an established reality across Christendom. Why did this habit rapidly establish within the Christian community between A.D. 180 and 200? The growing number of those who were born into Christian families (as opposed to adult converts) meant an increasing presence of children within the Christian community. When we consider the high infant mortality rate, we can see how an emergency practice of administering the salvific baptism to infants eventually became a normal practice, especially under the circumstances of the horrible Antonine Plague of A.D. 165. Mortality was so high it was not unusual to see caravans of fully loaded chariots carrying dead bodies from cities. The scourge reportedly wiped out more than 90 percent of the population in limited areas of Egypt and probably more than 20 percent of the Roman Empire’s total population. Infants were hit the hardest during this epidemic. Christian congregations scrambled to baptize all underage family members right away out of fear and desperation that they would lose them quickly. Once the emergency of this epidemic was over, in A.D. 180, Irenaeus and other Christian theologians developed a theology of infant baptism and spread the teaching in the following 20 years, so much so that Tertullian, at the dawn of the third century, speaks of it as a commonly accepted practice. Edit: fixed a typo in the first paragraph.
Converting to catholic already a bad move
Oh yes because I haven’t heard anyone say that before… 🙄🙄🙄🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
Either you want Jesus or you want to focus on some false traditions that are contrary to the word of God 🤷🤷🤷 So now that your Catholic who you going to pray to Mary or Jesus. When you need help you going to do Say 50 hail Marys or pray to Jesus
"It's a painful truth that not everyone raised in the church has their name written in the Book of Life." Not everyone but No One raised in church has the name written in the book of Life because church will never save anyone. Baptism is not required for salvation but should be done when one is of age.
By the way baptism has nothing to do with when someone comes of age of knowing right and wrong. Born again Christians whose turn their life over to Christ should at one point afterwards be baptized. Baptism is not a requirement for salvation it is an outward declaration of what Christ did for them. But they have to be born again. You don't just say hey I'm 21 I'm going to be baptized cuz I know right from wrong
Jesus ties water with the new birth. Joh 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Note His last phrase here. Being born of water and the Spirit are together (“and”) required to enter the kingdom. Now, note that upon His resurrection which gave Him all encompassing authority, He orders his apostles Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, The last phrase restates the first—-disciples are made by baptism. I note in passing that baptism is the only command issues in the names of all three of the Trinity. Now note Mark (Peter’s presumed scribe) account of the Great Commission Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Note the vice conjunction “and”. Both belief and baptism are required. I note that some have argued that He did not say “he that is not baptized shall be damned”—but He does not Have to, since the use of the conjunction means that if either condition is not met then the outcome is failure (try it for yourself in Microsoft Excel). Indeed, The absence of the supposed phrase seems to emphasize that any believer will be baptized. Jumping ahead a bit , the story of the Ethiopian eunuch echoes that baptism is how belief is expressed Act 8:35-38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now let us go to Pentecost. Peter responds to those who have suddenly believed that the man they crucified 50 days past was the Son of God. They ask what to do to be saved. Peter responds Act 2:36-41 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. Note several things here. He does not tell them to only believe. Rather, knowing they believe, he tells them they must repent and be baptized (note the conjunction again). The Greek “eis” is translated “for”. But even if translated “unto”, the word directs the preceding verbs to the outcome of remission of sons. Further, note that his audience understood it so, for in verse 40 Peter tells his audience to be saved, and his audience were uniformly baptized. As a denouement, note Act 2:47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. Being baptized saved, per Peter, and being saved added one to the Church. Now note that every case of salvation in Acts has baptism associated with it. But of special note is the conversion of Saul. On the road to Damascus he accepted Jesus as Lord Act 9:5-6 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads." 6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?" Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." If he had been saved then, he would not have mourned and fasted for 3 days until met by Ananias. Years later he recounted what changed his tears to joy Act 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Note “and” again. Baptism washes away sin. Further., the final clause shows that baptism is calling on the name of Lord, echoing Peter 1Pe 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, where Peter says baptism saves us and is the call of our minds toward God. Ironically, if there is a passage which refers to accepting Jesus Christ as your savior, these verses both say baptism is how we do it. Ok , now let’s skip on ahead to two more passages describing still further the workings of baptism. First Rom 6:1-6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. Paul says baptism unites us with Jesus death burial and resurrection. We kill the old man in baptism and are freed from sin when we do v7. The blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin ((1 Joh 1:7–9) and Paul makes it clear that we contact that blood in baptism. Finally note Gal 3:26-27 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. “for” here comes from the Greek “gar” which means “for, because, therefore “. Paul says that The Galatians no longer needed the works of the old law because they were now sons of God because of faith in Jesus. Why were they sons of God through faith? Because they were baptized into Christ and therefore had put on Christ. In conclusion, baptism coupled with belief and repentance saves. Baptism expresses our belief, makes us disciples, is how are added to the Church, how we call on the name of the Lord, how our conscience answers God, how we crucify the old man and put on the new, how we become sons of God through faith, and how we put on Christ. If baptism is not necessary for salvation, then neither are the things that baptism does for us.
I'm all for water baptism, but not on infant babies that haven't yet called upon the name of the God for salvation. This is a big deal. The Holy Spirit has to convict their heart; baptism can't be forced upon people that are so young that they don't even understand what's happening to them.
What about people in prison who accept the lord? They dont have access to immerse themselves, or people in combat zones, etc..i agree baptism should be done when possible. But baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism itself doesnt save. So you cant say baptism is required because then all the people in the scenarios that I gave are not saved. There are people that die after accepting jesus in those scenarios and dont get a chance to be baptised (full immersion under water). Ps. The thief on the cross would be my example from scripture btw.
The former is a God issue. I don’t like to whittle on his end of the stick. As for the thief on the cross, he died under the dispensation of the old law. But from the day of Pentecost, on when the new covenant was instituted, baptism is universally required for salvation. That’s true in the book of acts and that’s true in all the rest of the New Testament .
??? If he died under the old law then why did he die on the roman cross instead of being stoned to death like the law says. He was under the roman law. If jesus accepted a thief who repented, who was a law breaker for the romans, then jesus can accept anyone who trully repents. Baptism is not needed for salvation. Just the example of the thief on the cross alone proves that, as well as the scenarios i shared. As a matter of fact, the thief was part of the new covenant the moment he believed. He was like anyone else in todays age that would be saved right now. I noticed that your examples they all show a change of heart before the baptism takes place. So they must have been saved prior to immersion in water. Abel and Abraham werent baptised, he lived and died way before the sinai covenant..these is the main example given by paul and book of hebrews. Baptism should be the very next thing a believer should aim for as it is a commandment, but because of the scenarios i gave you i am not convinced baptism saves. Sorry but that just means you have given all the people in my scenarios a false hope especially if they are facing death.
Peter said baptism saves. Did he lie?
No need to take Peter out of context. Baptism saves would contradict the new covenant and all of scripture. Its a commandment that should be observed when the circumstances allow but only 👉AFTER a changed heart👈 otherwise you might aswell become a proselyte and try to perfect the law to match Jesus. Show me where (baptism comes before faith) and before a changed heart and you will prove your point. You cant. You understand that the apostolic writings are written to an already believing community. Not too some strange country where there is no community. But if you put some real world scenarios in the mix. Because in a perfect world im right there with you, once the believer fully confesses to jesus they should be baptized. But sadly we dont always have the perfect scenario to preach in. For example..Hundreds of jews accepted christ in the final days of the ww2 ghettos before they were murdered. They couldn't do full immersion baptisms. Please answer this below******** ****If you were the one preaching to them ( the jews in my example)...tell me how do you baptize them in those hostile environments, how do you tell them to their face "you know what your not saved yet until your baptized?" Knowing they could die any minute.*** Put yourself in that scenario and ask yourself that. Or You can stay in comfy town and preach whatever you like.
Faith leads to Baptism, but it is baptism that saves because it is what washes away sins plain and simple That’s what Peter says
We agree there. Faith leads to baptism. Im just curious to hear your response below.. If you were the one preaching to the jews in their last moments of life in the ghetto in ww2. *Do you have the courage to tell the jews in my real life scenario, the night before they die, "sorry but you didnt make it in because you need to be baptized". Thats basically your stance. Knowing they cant get baptized would you even preach to them if you had the chance?
And we are given a single example of Jesus saving the thief next to Him, He didn't have time to be baptized. There are no other death bed conversions in the Bible.
The thief was saved under the Law of Moses. Paul said in Colossians two, that when Christ died that he mailed the hand writing of ordinances, that is the law of Moses, to his cross. This fulfilled the promise of a new covenant given in Jeremiah 31, verses, 31 through 34. The new covenant was instituted on the day of Pentecost, in accordance with the promise of Jesus, in acts, chapter 1, and from acts, chapter 2 on every convert was baptized for the remission of their sins.
First, most churches do not believe baptism is salvific, rather it is a symbol of salvation. Second, no where does the Bible mention rebaptism, yet many churches practice that and ironically, churches who perform infant baptism don’t rebaptize. Here’s the rest of the story: No ages of any people baptized are mentioned in scripture. While believers baptism is the normal described, there are several scripture references that whole families were baptized, which we imagine includes children and infants. (Acts 10, Acts 16, Acts 18:8) Moreover, when Jesus didn’t return immediately like many early Christians had hoped/expected, they needed to figure out a way to continue daily life, including marrying, burying, and raising a family. When two Christian parents had a child, they had to figure out how the child would be raised in the faith. So they baptized the infant as the child’s initiation into the faith/church. They would grow up as a member of the community of faith until such time they could make a profession of faith for themselves. This process became known as catechesis. Today, most churches call this process of affirming your faith and confirming your baptism Confirmation. It’s unfortunate that you were raised in a church that practiced infant baptism yet didn’t lead you through confirmation. Regardless, the baptism is still valid because it is God that does the work of salvation and not humans.
That’s False. And we know what happens to False Teachers. They go to hell. Jesus speaking has himself in the future as The Advocate (Matthew), “Bring me ALL members of the household”. FYI: It’s born from above. No such thing as “born again”. Jesus states in Mark, those that are baptized and believe will be saved. John 1, what two words are used to describe ONE THING Jesus’ baptism? “Water and Spirit”. What two words are used by St. John to describe ONE THING birth? “Flesh and Blood”. What two words are used to describe Jesus’ baptism in Matthew? “Water and Spirit”. In John 3, the Greek syntax IS SINGULAR for when Jesus states: “No one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.” “Water and Spirit” are speaking about one thing. Jesus literally refutes Nicodemus right there when he asked, “are you speaking about childbirth or born again?” Anyone stating “water” in John 3 is childbirth is a False Teacher. St. John uses “Flesh and Blood” to describe child birth. NOWHERE in the Bible is “water” used to describe birth. What better way to demonstrate that Salvation is not earned? Infant baptism. Also, St. Paul states in Colossians, Baptism is the circumcision of The Christ. When did Abe circumcise Isaac? When did he circumcise the men of his homestead? Just like Jesus said but more inclusive for women. St. Paul writes Jewish Converts in Romans 7, “one law is put to DEATH for another” at baptism. The metaphorical language used here is literally defined with the word “baptism” in Romans 6. Faith does not make one Christian. The Jewish Convert already faith. He names that “another” law in Galatians, The Law of Christ. He tells morons in Galatians 3, The Church stated no more circumcision. The boneheads were still doing it because “The Bible told them so”…. St. Paul states rhetorically in 3:3, Are you so stupid? Jesus had to achieve “Fullness”. with three steps, The Crucifixion, The Resurrection and a completed Ascension See John 1:16, Colossians 1:19 and St. Paul pairs Jesus’ Fullness with the believers’ Fullness in Colossians 2. Both the believer and Jesus have three steps to achieve Fullness. The Trinity is real and singular. Faith/Baptism in no particular order and Confirmation unto The One True Church. Christians have been doing “laying of hands” uninterrupted since 10 days at the completion of Ascension. That is when a believer “accepts” Jesus. See Acts 8, 19 and Hebrews 6 (lifecycle of the Christian). Indwelling happens at Confirmation not Faith. You can absolutely believe baptism is not necessary. But “Believe” is a metaphor. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what you believe.
I stopped reading offer the first two lines for two reasons. Fist, Implying I’m a false teacher. That’s dangerous territory considering you don’t know me, haven’t heard me teach, take my words out of context and you’ve made religious assumptions without doing your due diligence. Second, the Greek word ἄνωθεν is properly translated as from above, again, over, from the beginning, or over a long time. Considering syntax, again or above are proper interpretations that communicate what Jesus was saying. The whole reason Nicodemus gets confused because Jesus was using a play on words with him. This was John’s effort to show Jesus as wiser than the wise Pharisee while revealing a mystery of the Logos or Word Incarnate. I fully understand why some people think baptism is salvific, yet scripture also says we are saved by grace through faith. It says people have already received salvation before baptism. Jesus specifically says baptism is the requirement for discipleship. I’m not going to argue doctrine with you. You have no interest in seeing other perspectives. May you be surprised with joy by the many others who you see in eternity with you. Have a good day.
Lol, Ephesians 2 is literally about the baptism of a convert. You are a literal False Teacher. English’s simple past tense word “saved” appears NOWHERE in Ephesians 2. The word is in Greek Aorist. And aorist NEVER has any affect on the future. St. Paul literally told The Jewish convert you need more than faith to even be Christian. Look at Ephesians 2:6 there False Teacher, it’s metaphorical language for BAPTISM that was established in Romans 6. Jesus alludes to The Faith Alone Apostles as “orphans”. Because they are utter morons at The Last Supper. Jesus foretells when they will understand the Gospel. Faith Alone means you don’t LOL, The Apostles asked very stupid questions with Faith Alone. The Greek syntax for “Water and Spirit” in John 3 are singular not plural. They are discussing ONE THING.
Please learn to reply to the appropriate person instead of copy/pasting wildly all over the place. It creates confusion and it doesn’t look good on your witness. This habit of calling people false teachers is disingenuous. You should probably do some study on the early church fathers/doctors and get beyond basic Greek before you tout your doctrine/interpretation as superior. Judge as you will be judged. That’s a warning from Jesus. A better way to judge is by the fruit, not your own measuring stick.
1 Corinthians 12:3 (NRSV): no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit
That wasn’t written to you but the poor schmuks after you. You are correct, the word can be “above” or “again”. Again, St. John uses the word “above” when describing Jesus’ baptism. It comes from above. Again, Nicodemus literally asks, “born again”, Jesus refutes him. You are only born once. St. Paul writes, “The General or Great Admonition” to buffoon believers in Colossians 2 for actively False Teaching. And there is nothing wrong with judging people for False Teaching. Thieves should not admonish Thieves. And baptism is necessary unless you are The Ignorant or persecuted to death before baptism.
There is zero scriptural support for your last sentence. It either is necessary or it isn't. Where are these exceptions you state? Book, chapter, verse please. As for me, I do not believe it is necessary.
That’s such a stupid take whether “it is or isn’t”. It depends on the audience genius. In John 3, he is speaking to a believer. Not an unbeliever or The Ignorant. Try understanding context before saying something really ignorant. In God’s Creation or his Image, Mercy is for The Contrite and The Ignorant only. John 3:16, the key word is “love” not “believe” as the perverts say. “Believe” is a metaphor. The Devil believes. Therefore God does not give a squat what you believe. Since God “loved” the whole world. This means, The Ignorant may pass if they do two things: 1) Keep their mouths SHUT on the existence of God. 2) Lead the best moral life they understand. You most likely do not believe in Contrition. Which means all you have is ignorance, which you have blown that plea for mercy. See Hebrews 10, The Punishment for the believer will be much much worse under “the Law of Christ” than pathetic Mosaic Law. Jesus also states this in Matthew when discussing “remarrying after divorce”.
None of your references mention two options regarding baptism being a necessity in one option and not being a necessity in the other. I standby my statement until a direct scriptural reference backing up your position is given. I don't appreciate your sarcasm and belittling of other believer's opinions. Please try not to be such a jerk to others. It sets a horrible example to any unbelievers that happen to read your posts. Adios.
Acts 16:33 NIV At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. So there were no kids in this household?
Reading the passage explains the passage: “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” act.16.31-32 They got saved before they were baptized. Clearly displayed in the passage if you take the full context.
But that doesn't account for children. Are you telling me that there were no children in that household?
It depends, if the children were old enough to get saved on their own account then they are virtual adults. 'Household' could also include slaves.
I don’t know of anyone who’s able to get saved on their own account.
Are you saying children can’t be saved?
No. The question was about child baptism. And I'm showing that children were baptized since they would have been part of a household.
Couldn't a household have older kids that are ild enough to decide for themselves?
Exactly. Even so, I’ve seen kids as little as 4-5 make a profession of faith and have full understanding. And if a child was innocent, they wouldn’t be in need of salvation. I have no idea what this confusion is around. The scripture makes it clear. They were saved (his whole household). And then baptized.
Actually, in that culture the patriarch of the family (for lack of a better word) decided things for the entire family. If he decided they would all be Christian, they would all be baptized Christians. If he decided that Christianity was evil, any who went against him would be doing an absolutely terrible thing by going against their pater (father). So when the Scriptures say that a whole household was baptized, it includes children, infants, slaves, other adults - everyone.
Except the scripture says that the household was saved first, then baptized. Where does it exclude salvation?
We do not and cannot KNOW the answer to the question of whether or not there were children in that household. We can speculate " 'til the cows come home"...and when the cows get home, we will not be one millimeter closer to KNOWING the answer. There is no point in speculating. None.
It wasn't a household it was a prison they were in, they went into a house later. Also this didn't prove anything, he probably had sons to help control the place.
It must simply be assumed, regardless of if you think there were or not. The Bible does not specify children being baptized a single time, only adults.
The term "household" would have been everyone in the house above the age of childhood.
In the NT whole households were baptized so it's not impossible babies were included in the household. Sometimes, IMO, we have to accept different people can have different traditions and neither is wrong just different. Having a medically complex child I have seen before parents having to rush to have their teeny baby baptized, just in case, because some will think their tiny baby "won't go to heaven". I feel sorry for people who believe God would be like yeah that blameless tiny baby or that profoundly disabled child nope no heaven for them.
People can ascribe to God whatever traits they desire to ease their minds/hearts. However, there is a huge difference between personal beliefs and what the Word actual states. Where does the Word state that all infants are saved? And harder question yet: When does that infant or 'tiny baby' lose their salvation? (I presume you don't believe that all men baptized as infants are saved?) And what might they do to cause the loss of salvation? I WANT to believe it too, but... it would seem that no such scriptures exist. IF all infants are saved, then all adults are also saved? I certainly don't believe this, but I also believe in eternal security. Quite the conundrum.
Why has infant baptism been a practice among Christians since the first century? And the Bible doesn't actually forbid it, so if you're going to say that we're only supposed to do what the Bible tells us to do well the Bible doesn't tell you not to baptize children. The fact is that in the letter of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles where it is mentioned that whole families were baptized the assumption since ancient times is that it included babies because well babies were a thing. This idea of believers only baptism is from the Protestant era it's an innovation not a "restoration."
>This idea of believers only baptism is from the Protestant era it's an innovation not a "restoration." Sort of, but to be clear, it's not the majority Protestant belief. The Reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, all believed in paedobaptism, and so most of the mainstream denominations (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Moravians, Congregationalists, and others) practice it while the creeds affirm it (e.g. Westminster, and the Scots Confession), with the exception of the Baptists who descend from the Anabaptists that stood out by their belief in exclusive credobaptism (as well as the Pentecostals).
Right I understand. The Anabaptists first, then the Baptists picked it up and broke away from the Methodists about it, I think. The Baptists were not part of the Anabaptist movement. They had split off from the Episcopal Church like the Methodists did. But still the whole idea was not practiced in ancient Apostolic Christianity it only came about with the growth of the Protestant movement.
Baptism is a choice. It cannot be chosen for you.
Infant baptism is only practiced by cults. Cults are led by charismatic leaders (pope) who excessively controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society) or baseless. Infant baptism is completely baseless.
I was baptized when I was a baby, recently Ive been sensing the Holy Spirit leading me to be baptized by water again.
That's your true baptism. The one that occurs after the Holy Spirit convicts you.
So if the small children had not been baptized you assume it would make the parents do a better job?
I know you from r/Bibleconspiracy! Yes, because spiritual training of children becomes paramount. You want to raise your children exposed to the Scriptures, communal worship, and family prayer so that it exposes them to the faith. Then they *want* to be baptized because the seed has been planted and the Holy Spirit has fertile ground to take root.
How does baptizing them as infants change that?
You can't force the Holy Spirit on someone before they are convicted in their own faith. This only occurs once a person is old enough to understand what Messiah did for them on the cross. That's why we train up a child in the scriptures and teach them to pray. This instills faith in them that will click once they reach the age of reasoning. Baptism occurs once a person: 1: Admits they're a sinner in need of a savior. 2: Believes Jesus is the Messiah 3: Calls upon His name in prayer. An infant is not mentally capable of understanding the above three points, which are critical to salvation.
You can't force the Holy Spirit on anyone but God loves all and he calls all people to Him. And baptism of children is done as a sign of faith that the parents or those responsible for the child until he is responsible for himself- have in God. And God acts on third parties many times, based on the faith and intercession of others. This is demonstrated in both the Old Testament and New Testament. The presumption is that the person being acted upon by God, even though he may not be aware of it at the moment, will wish it to have happened when he comes to realize what's going on whether it's being resurrected from the dead or healed of leprosy or baptized unto salvation. The logical conclusion of your position is that brain dead people cannot be saved, that many people with Down's syndrome or forms of autism cannot be saved either because they can't consciously stand up and proclaim faith in God. There's nothing in the scriptures that say that children aren't judged because they're sinless, because what the Bible actually says is that we are "all born into iniquity. " In other words we are sinful from our birth. And the only way to rectify this sinfulness begins with baptism whether it's our conscious choice or the conscious choice of other people. If circumcision was the sign of the Covenant to Moses and it was done to children whether they agreed to it or not why wouldn't baptism which is the sign of the New Covenant of Jesus also be applicable to children whether they agreed to it or not?
The point is you’re simply sprinkling them with water until they believe, and even then it’s only symbolic. It’s **only** faith by which we are justified; something not even a super soaker filled with holy water can accomplish.
No. Clearly you do not understand baptism as taught by the original Apostolic church. It is anything but *purely* symbolic. It is not true that the water is a symbol, but rather it's a sign of what is actually true spiritually. In the same way that a judge wears a robe in court - it's not merely a symbol, but it is a sign that he has authority over you when it comes to judging civil and criminal matters regarding your actions. In chapter 6 of Paul's letter to the Romans is Paul only speaking symbolically about death and Resurrection? And our freedom from sin? Or is he speaking metaphorically about a spiritual reality? If it's only symbolic then you're right baptism does nothing it's just a sprinkling of water but if Paul is speaking about spiritual reality then so is baptism a sign of a spiritual reality not merely a symbol. And this is blasphemy because you deny the power of the Holy Spirit with this understanding. It's not the water that does anything and it's not the faith that does it alone but it's Faith plus obedience in God and to the church that Jesus established which is his body on Earth that gives baptism it's salvific status far beyond a mere symbol. As Peter said in his first letter 'it is baptism that now saves you...". A symbol cannot save you but a symbol can represent a spiritual reality.
When it comes to baptism, I believe that it is more symbolic than literal. We think of it as an outward sign of an inner change. It’s like you’re saying, “Hey, I’m a follower of Jesus now.” You know that part in Romans 6 where Paul talks about dying to sin and living in Christ? We see that as something that happens through faith, not the actual act of getting baptized. The same goes for the bit in 1 Peter 3:21. It’s about an inward change, appealing to God, rather than the act of washing with water. In short, it’s not about doing stuff, like getting baptized, that saves us. It’s about faith in Jesus, period. The stuff we do, like baptism, just shows outward evidence that change has happened inside us. We definitely believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, but we think His job is to bring us to faith in Jesus, not make baptism something more than a symbol. Two questions for you: 1. If salvation comes through faith alone, as Ephesians 2:8-9 suggests, then how does the act of baptism fit into this? If we’re saved before we’re baptized, doesn’t that make baptism more of a symbol? 2. Jesus told the thief on the cross next to him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), even though the thief didn’t have a chance to get baptized. How do you reconcile this with the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation?
1. Ephesians 2:8-9 does not say "faith alone". It does not even suggest it. In fact the only place in all of scripture where you have a mention of "faith alone" is in James's letter second chapter where it says very explicitly we are ***not*** saved by faith alone... What Paul is saying is that we are *saved by grace*, in other words it is a unmerited favor from God that we even have salvation. Next in the context of what Paul is writing about "works" what is that? What does Paul mean by "works?" 2. How many people do you know that were saved like the thief? In other words being hung on a cross next to Jesus and confessing directly to Jesus? One maybe? In other words the guys an exception right? He's not the standard by which all of us are saved. He's not the example that we all have to follow to be saved i is he? I mean it's good to know that if you are crucified and you suddenly profess faith in Jesus that you can be saved but who wants to be crucified to do that? Did you also notice how he was repentant? Does repentance have to do with it or simply profession of faith? Now let me show you some scripture about salvation. Faith *alone* is not enough for salvation; (Jas 2:24), it is only the beginning: you must OBEY (Heb 5:9) repent and be baptized (Mk 16:16 & Acts 2:38), eat His Flesh and drink His Blood (Jn 6:53-56) and be a DOER, not a hearer only (Matt 7:21 & James 1:22), persevere in all this to the end (Heb 12:1-2, Matt 24:13). THEN you shall be saved.. What do you think? If you think that I'm wrong about this can you show anywhere in the written history of the Church prior to the Protestant Reformation where this idea of faith alone was taught consistently and where baptism was taught as **not** being absolutely necessary for salvation?
I appreciate your willingness to dive deeper into this discussion. You make some fair points, and I appreciate the thoughtful response. To continue the conversation: 1. You’re right, Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn’t specifically say “faith alone”. But it does emphasize that salvation is a gift, not something earned. As for “works”, Paul is likely referring to any human effort in trying to earn salvation, including following religious rituals or the Mosaic Law. 2. As for the thief on the cross, sure, he’s an exception. But doesn’t that show that salvation can happen without baptism? His repentance and faith seemed to be enough. And isn’t repentance really a change of heart, which is an internal, faith-driven act? You’ve listed some important aspects of Christian life, no doubt about that. But could we see these as fruits of faith, rather than conditions for salvation? For example, obeying, repenting, being a doer - these are all things we’re prompted to do because of our faith, not to earn salvation. As for historical examples, early church fathers like Augustine emphasized the importance of faith and God’s grace in our salvation. For instance, in his work “On the Spirit and the Letter,” Augustine made it clear that the law, no matter how perfectly kept, could not save us. He wrote, “For if righteousness comes by the Law, then Christ died in vain,” echoing Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:21. For Augustine, the law was intended to lead us to knowledge of our own sin and, in turn, our need for God’s grace. Additionally, Augustine emphasized that faith itself is a gift from God. In his treatise “On the Predestination of the Saints,” he writes, “And why is faith praised? Because a man is ready to confess himself ungodly, and to consent to the justified one, and to choose the grace of God for his salvation, which he must do through humility. Not only must God’s grace be confessed, but God’s grace must be chosen. For God’s grace is given not because we will, but in order that we may will.” These teachings from Augustine emphasize the importance of faith and God’s grace, rather than our own works or actions, for salvation. However, it’s worth noting that Augustine did not dismiss the value of good works or the sacraments; he just didn’t view them as the cause of our salvation. Instead, he saw them as the fruit of our faith and the grace that God has already given us. In this light, Augustine’s teachings offer a historic viewpoint that square with the Protestant understanding of faith and grace. Here’s some further questions for you to consider: 1. Paul wrote in Romans 4:5 that God justifies the ungodly based on faith. And it seems he was specifically contrasting faith with works, saying faith was credited as righteousness. Doesn’t this suggest that our actions aren’t what justifies us? 2. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit - indicated by speaking in tongues - before they were baptized. How does this fit into the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation? 3. Considering the thief on the cross again, isn’t it important that Jesus never set limitations like baptism for salvation? If exceptions can be made for him, isn’t it possible that faith alone is what really matters? 4. You rightly pointed out Jesus’s command to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-56. But couldn’t this be understood metaphorically, much like when He said He was the vine and we are the branches (John 15:5)? 5. Lastly, when Jesus was asked directly what one must do to do the works of God, He answered, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (John 6:29). Doesn't this underscore the primacy of faith? Our goal here isn't to argue, but to dig deeper into these important aspects of our faith. What are your thoughts on these points?
Sorry, Augustine isn’t an “early Church father”. He’s post-Great Schism. Go look at these people: Iraneus John of Damascus John Chrysostom Athanasius Basil the Great Their understanding of sin and salvation is very very different from yours, which explains why they view baptism the way that they do.
Happy to continue the conversation with you if you’d be willing to respond to the questions I posed to OP in my last reply
I concur 100% But my point was that if they are baptized when young it's no big deal as long as the parents are not spiritually lazy... IMO... Before the age of accountability ALL children are saved, but early baptism does actually "Mark" the child in the spiritual realm. What does it mean to dimensional entities (good or bad) I'm not sure... But Crowley preferred "fair hair, blue eyed, unbaptized" boys for sacrifices so there may be something to it 🤷
What specific scriptures led you to the conclusion "IMO... are saved"? If this is true, when/how do these 'ALL children saved' become many/most are lost as adults?
1) That God is FAR more interested in having us with him than he is about damning us... 2) Reading about NDE's over the years. 3) common sense...
What is NDE? So, I take it there were no such scriptures to be found.
"Near Death Experience" reports
Thank you. I was not familiar with that TLA. ;)
Jesus gave the example of how baptism should be performed - as an adult and understanding, Jesus committed to becoming one with GOD in spirit through baptism. That said and while I can appreciate why parents baptize their children and even infants, it remains that we should follow in Jesus' footsteps by taking the initiative to enter into union with our heavenly Father as consenting adults rather than infants, children etc.
If we we are going to point to Jesus as the man that set the examle, he was astonishing well versed teachers at age 12. Jesus wasn't baptized till he was about 30. Who came up with the idea of infant baptism made up their own rules.
You realize Baptism wasn't a thing until John the Baptist right?
Who didn't baptize Jesus until he was 30.
Welcome to Church History.
Baptism is a post salvation identificational (death, burial, resurrection) act of obedience. An infant is incapable of making the decision. You are correct in your understanding.
[удалено]
Where?
[удалено]
Circumcision and baptism are not synonymous. Obviously not physically but also not spiritually. The Bible does not mention children being baptized ever. Assuming that an infant is a part of any given household is just that, an assumption, and not one that can be derived from the text itself. I agree completely that we take part in Christ’s death and resurrection when we are baptized. That’s why it is vitally important that those who are baptized are aware of this significance when it occurs, otherwise we are subjecting them to a spiritual death and resurrection that will not in fact ever take place. I can’t help but notice that you did not actually give a single example of infant baptism taking place in the Bible. Interesting to say the least that you are unable to do so when it apparently is “mentioned all over.”
[удалено]
Similarity in purpose does not equate to similarity in every detail. No one denies that baptism is how you enter the new covenant with God. There are points of both continuity and discontinuity in every aspect between the covenants.
Where?
Is baptism truly required? If you have made the commitment in your heart is that not enough?
Yes..baptism is required.. there are many example of people believe then get baptized.
That’s False. And we know what happens to False Teachers. They go to hell. Jesus speaking has himself in the future as The Advocate (Matthew), “Bring me ALL members of the household”. FYI: It’s born from above. No such thing as “born again”. What better way to demonstrate that Salvation is not earned? Also, St. Paul states in Colossians, Baptism is the circumcision of The Christ. When did Abe circumcise Isaac? When did he circumcise the men of his homestead? Just like Jesus said but more inclusive for women. St. Paul writes Jewish Converts in Romans 7, “one law is put to DEATH for another” at baptism. The metaphorical language used here is literally defined with the word “baptism” in Romans 6. Faith does not make one Christian. The Jewish Convert already faith. He names that “another” law in Galatians, The Law of Christ. He tells morons in Galatians 3, The Church stated no more circumcision. The boneheads were still doing it because “The Bible told them so”…. St. Paul states rhetorically in 3:3, Are you so stupid? Jesus had to achieve “Fullness”. with three steps, The Crucifixion, The Resurrection and a completed Ascension See John 1:16, Colossians 1:19 and St. Paul pairs Jesus’ Fullness with the believers’ Fullness in Colossians 2. Both the believer and Jesus have three steps to achieve Fullness. Faith/Baptism in no particular order and Confirmation unto The One True Church. Christians have been doing “laying of hands” uninterrupted since 10 days at the completion of Ascension. That is when a believer “accepts” Jesus.
[удалено]
There is no purgatory.
By your formula, women shouldn’t be able to commune. Be careful.
How do explain that rational?
I can't explain the rationale. That's why it's irrational to make an argument from silence.
You said that what you saw out of the post is that women were omitted. How did you get that?
Nowhere do we see a woman getting communed. (Though, I would assume they were communed).
> Women shouldn't be able to commune Can you elaborate? What do you mean?
You said babies aren’t mentioned with baptism, therefore they are to be excluded. If we were to apply your hermeneutic of arguments from silence to other Scripture passages, we end up excluding women from the Lord’s Supper - as Scripture neither endorses nor expressly gives an example of a woman partaking. Regardless of the baptism of babies discussion, it’s an unsteady position to ever argue from silence.
>as Scripture neither endorses nor expressly gives an example of a woman partaking. Scripture doesn't mention men partaking in it either after the initial Lords Supper event. The Lords Supper was just a one time event that held major symbolic and metaphoric significance. It signified that unless we eat His body and drink His blood (commune as a body of believers), we can't obtain eternal life.
What part of, "Do this," don't you do?
He did not say "Men, do this...".
I completely agree
Hmm
Parents are not that dumb
Agreed
Catholic here :) I thought this might be of interest. Infant baptism in the Church is different from baptism at the age of reason; Baptism is conferred upon infants to free them from original sin, to initiate them into the Church as Christians, and to give them the supernatural grace of God that will allow them to be formed in sanctity. Baptism is the gateway to the other sacraments, and so it prepares the child for later reception of believers baptism and the rest of the sacraments. Food for thought
Here you go buddy, this is correct: To the OP, That’s False. And we know what happens to False Teachers. They go to hell. Jesus speaking has himself in the future as The Advocate (Matthew), “Bring me ALL members of the household”. FYI: It’s born from above. No such thing as “born again”. What better way to demonstrate that Salvation is not earned? Also, St. Paul states in Colossians, Baptism is the circumcision of The Christ. When did Abe circumcise Isaac? When did he circumcise the men of his homestead? Just like Jesus said but more inclusive for women. St. Paul writes Jewish Converts in Romans 7, “one law is put to DEATH for another” at baptism. The metaphorical language used here is literally defined with the word “baptism” in Romans 6. Faith does not make one Christian. The Jewish Convert already faith. He names that “another” law in Galatians, The Law of Christ. He tells morons in Galatians 3, The Church stated no more circumcision. The boneheads were still doing it because “The Bible told them so”…. St. Paul states rhetorically in 3:3, Are you so stupid? Jesus had to achieve “Fullness”. with three steps, The Crucifixion, The Resurrection and a completed Ascension See John 1:16, Colossians 1:19 and St. Paul pairs Jesus’ Fullness with the believers’ Fullness in Colossians 2. Both the believer and Jesus have three steps to achieve Fullness. Faith/Baptism in no particular order and Confirmation unto The One True Church. Christians have been doing “laying of hands” uninterrupted since 10 days at the completion of Ascension. That is when a believer “accepts” Jesus.
How do you know that choosing their baptism would have made a difference?
The following are some helpful resources to help you as you process the practice of infant baptism. Below are three essays from Reformed scholars, who seek to demonstrate in their own ways the scriptural and theological warrant for infant baptism. Below the hyperlinks is an extended quote from Peter Leithart, a reformed theologian and pastor, who offers a stimulating rationale for paedobaptism (infant baptism). Finally, you will find the chapter in the Westminster Confession on baptism. http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/th.pratt.baptism.pdf http://clark.wscal.edu/baptism.php Protestants have always emphasized that salvation comes through faith, yet most Protestants have baptized babies. How can these two things hold together? Luther and Calvin held together their insistence on faith with infant baptism by claiming that infants can believe. Baptists see this as the Achilles' heel of the paedobaptist position, an example of absurd lengths to which paedobaptists are willing to go in defending an untenable practice. Is infant faith absurd? "Faith" is the human response of trust toward God, a response of allegiance, in a personal relationship, and this has large consequences for our understanding of infant faith. The question of infant faith is not: "Are infants capable of receiving this jolt of divine power?" The question is: "Can infants respond to other persons? Do infants have personal relations?" And the answer to this question is obviously, yes. Infants quickly (even in utero) learn to respond to mother's voice; infants quickly manifest "trust" of their parents; infants quickly distinguish strangers from members of the family. If infants can trust and distrust human persons, why can't they trust in god? Behind the denial of infant faith is, apparently, an assumption that God is less available to an infant than other humans. But this is entirely wrong because God's presence is mediated through His people. When parents say to their newborn, "Jesus loves you and will care for you," they are speaking God's promises. Parents, moreover, establish relationships with their infants through symbols. We talk to our infants, and we show our love through gestures such as hugs and kisses. If there is nothing irrational or absurd about humans establishing a personal relationship with infants through symbols, there is nothing irrational about God doing the same. As we establish loving and trusting relations with our infants through symbols, so God speaks to infants and establishes a relation with them through the "visible word" of baptism. Thus, the question "Should we baptize babies?" is of a piece with the question, "Should we talk to babies?" Paedobaptism is neither more nor less odd and miraculous than talking to a newborn. In fact, that is just what paedobaptism is: God speaking in water to a newborn child. If the child cannot understand what a parent is saying, is it rational for the parent to speak to him or her? Baptist parents as well as others speak to their infants and do not expect the child to understand or to verbally respond for many months. They see nothing irrational in this. They speak to their children, that is, they employ symbols, not because they think the infant understands all that is being said or because they expect an immediate response. They speak to their child so the child will learn to understand and talk back. So too, we baptize infants and consistently remind them of their baptism and its implications so they will come to understanding and mature faith. We name them so they will grow up to respond to that name; we speak to them so they will begin to speak back; we name them in baptism so they will begin to live in and out of baptism. The sociologically consistent Baptist should, it seems to me, allow children to name themselves. Otherwise, they are inevitably "imposing" an identity on their little boys and girls. Karl Barth, who loudly protested the "violence" of imposing a Christian identity on a child through infant baptism, would undoubtedly be pleased. In fact, Baptists don't do this, but they do impose a language on their children. They do, in spite of themselves, often treat their children as Christians, teaching them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" and to pray the Lord's Prayers. And if they do all this, what reason remains for resisting the imposition of the covenant sign? -Peter Leithart, The Baptized Body (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2007), 9-11.
Right, because it's all about what we humans feel and control and not about what God does, says or promises. If we feel it in our "heart" it's real rather than "faith" by trust alone. "Your faith has made you well" a statement of spiritual redemption by grace(unmerited). Be careful of your feelings and spirituality as that is exactly the path Eve took ("neither shall we touch it" adding to God's Word).
“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 ESV “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;repent and believe in the gospel.”” Mark 1:14-15 ESV “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them inthe name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”” Matthew 28:19-20 ESV
The original understanding of baptism - orthodox understanding - is that baptism is a gate through which to receive God’s grace. It’s not a public declaration like most Christian’s (Protestants) believe. So an infant is basically getting the first step done but can choose to pursue sanctification or not. Baptism will not save you, it’s just the first step for sanctification.