S
Solo
Guest
How about a t-shirt that says:ThreeInOne said:
"I am a Roman Catholic Protestant!
I think everyone has a non-functioning brain
and are incapable of logical and analytical thinking!"
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Being Baptized Again
- Thread starter RobertMazar
- Start date
"I am a Roman Catholic Protestant!
I think everyone has a non-functioning brain
and are incapable of logical and analytical thinking!"
handy, you bring up some very good points.
I sort of land in the middle of all this, but I think babies can have faith. I also think faith doesn't depend on our understanding or ME thinking, but on God's grace. So, right now, in my walk with Christ, I can't see anything wrong with infant baptism.
I sort of land in the middle of all this, but I think babies can have faith. I also think faith doesn't depend on our understanding or ME thinking, but on God's grace. So, right now, in my walk with Christ, I can't see anything wrong with infant baptism.
G
Guest
Guest
Veritas said:
I believe the answer lies in determining what the purpose of 'baptism' is.
The struggle with this doctrine, as with all others, is to search the Scripture and allow it to do the teaching over our pre-conceived ideas and what we have been taught.
For me, baptism is an essential belief - mind you not a saving one - however, I firmly believe in the Anabaptist position on baptism - namely that Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.
That to profess a belief, one needs to be able to understand. As such, only those who are able to 'believe' should be baptised.
Along with this belief, is that baptism recogizes one's membership into the Church of Christ - the Body of Christ. Membership is voluntary.
S
Solo
Guest
I agree. Baptism is not to be a religious routine that will have absolutely no effect on those infants being baptized, or those who grow into adulthood believing that they are saved because they have been baptized as an infant.
No where in the Scriptures is infant baptism practiced. Only those who have heard the Word of God and believed are baptized, children and adults; not infants.
No where in the Scriptures is infant baptism practiced. Only those who have heard the Word of God and believed are baptized, children and adults; not infants.
RobertMazar
Member
There is nothing wrong with Infant Baptism because Infant Baptism does not impart salvation just as Adult Baptism does not impart salvation. All Infant and Adult Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ. :smt021Solo said:
ThreeInOne
Member
Deja VuRobertMazar said:
Well, I think baptism imparts forgiveness...
Peter replied, "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. Acts 2:38
I know there are no explicit references to infants being baptized. But there are also no explicit references to women recieving communion and we know that is okay.
I think it is likely infants would be included in the households that were baptized... like Crispus.
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. Acts 18:8
And again, I thnk infants can believe (or have faith) in Jesus. After all, baby John was so happy hearing Mary's voice that he leapt for joy...in Elizabeth's womb! Luke 1:41-45
Peter replied, "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. Acts 2:38
I know there are no explicit references to infants being baptized. But there are also no explicit references to women recieving communion and we know that is okay.
I think it is likely infants would be included in the households that were baptized... like Crispus.
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. Acts 18:8
And again, I thnk infants can believe (or have faith) in Jesus. After all, baby John was so happy hearing Mary's voice that he leapt for joy...in Elizabeth's womb! Luke 1:41-45
G
Guest
Guest
What infant as the capacity to believe and/or seek repentance?
The order is very clear in Scripture (the verses have been posted throughout this thread already):
BELIEVE/REPENT and then BAPTISM
The order is very clear in Scripture (the verses have been posted throughout this thread already):
BELIEVE/REPENT and then BAPTISM
And what is anybody's ability to believe and/or seek repentance?
I ask this because I think all of us cannot believe and/or seek repentance without God. As your avatar says.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8
I don't think so much emphasis should be placed on the believer and his/her ability in his/her mind to make a choice. I think it takes away from what God has done. I don't think any of us can have faith without God, and I don't think faith is limited to our reasoning capabilities.
So this is part of why I think its okay to baptize babies (and the fact it looks like they can have faith like John the Baptist did).
The focus is on God...and what He is doing, not what we are doing with making a choice.
I ask this because I think all of us cannot believe and/or seek repentance without God. As your avatar says.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. Ephesians 2:8
I don't think so much emphasis should be placed on the believer and his/her ability in his/her mind to make a choice. I think it takes away from what God has done. I don't think any of us can have faith without God, and I don't think faith is limited to our reasoning capabilities.
So this is part of why I think its okay to baptize babies (and the fact it looks like they can have faith like John the Baptist did).
The focus is on God...and what He is doing, not what we are doing with making a choice.
F
Fnerb
Guest
Veritas said:
Excellent post Veritas!
S
Solo
Guest
Are all that are baptized saved and going to heaven? Why or why not?
handy
Member
There are a lot of interesting points being brought up!
First, Robert, without wanting to be accused of having a non-functioning brain, I just want to point out that churches practice infant baptism in various ways. The Nazarene church views an infant baptism as nothing more than a dedication ceremony. The parents can decide whether or not to use water in the ceremony. However, many Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches do not view infant baptism as a mere dedication ceremony, but an actual cleansing, bringing the infant into church membership and a seal until they make their first public confession of faith. Usually this takes place after going through a catechism. Most of these churches view baptism as the replacement of circumcision.
Veritas,
You make a good observation, but I don't think I can accept the example of John's being filled with the Spirit in utero as proof that infants should be baptized. While we know that John was filled with the Spirit from the womb, we only know this because it's recorded in God's Word. Most of us will have no way of knowing if an infant is filled with the Spirit or not.
I believe that all infants are born in innocence and that they have a special relationship with God. I reject infant damnation because of this. To me the clearest scripture to look at regarding this is Romans 7:9 when Paul states that he was once alive apart from the law. Innocent babies, although born with a natural bent towards sin, as one of Michael's other posts points out, are considered innocent and alive because they have no knowledge of God's laws.
So, if babies are innocent, why not baptize?
Because the scriptures are clear in the order that aLoneVoice pointed out: Believe, repent, baptize.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, when God changed His sign of His covenant circumcision to baptism, He also changed who, when and how the sign was to be received. Circumcision was for males only, to be done on the eigth day, and involved the shedding of blood. But we now have a new covenant and a new sign. And, it's clear from Scripture that the order of those who receive baptism is first belief, then repentence then baptism.
Most who believe in infant baptism point to Crispus' household. However, this makes a huge assumption that his household would naturally have infants around. This is too big of an assumption for me to make in an issue as important as baptism. My household doesn't have any infants. We could enlarge my household to include not only those who live under this roof, but my husband's entire family. And, in my husband's entire family, the youngest person is now 6 years of age, certainly old enough to believe, repent and be baptised.
Probably it would be helpful if we looked at this text:
Colossians 2:9-12
For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
This is such a good passage to study because it shows the new nature of the new sign of the new covenant. The old sign just involved the removal of a small part of the body. The new sign removes the full 'body of the flesh'. The old sign was an outward sign. The new sign involves actual dying and being buried and being raised a new creation. The old sign was a work of human hands, the new sign is taken on by faith in the working of God.
The old sign was directly commanded by God to be performed upon male infants. No such commandment is present regarding the new sign. It is open for both male and female, Jew and Gentile alike and is for all who believe. But the key word here is believe, something an infant is incapable of doing.
Michael,
I believe that if baptism had been followed as the example of the Scriptures layed out for us, the answer to your question would have been yes, because only born-again believers would have been baptized.
But, considering the fact that baptism is no longer universally carried out in a biblical manner, then the answer is no. I mean consider the fact that Adolf Hitler was baptized.
First, Robert, without wanting to be accused of having a non-functioning brain, I just want to point out that churches practice infant baptism in various ways. The Nazarene church views an infant baptism as nothing more than a dedication ceremony. The parents can decide whether or not to use water in the ceremony. However, many Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches do not view infant baptism as a mere dedication ceremony, but an actual cleansing, bringing the infant into church membership and a seal until they make their first public confession of faith. Usually this takes place after going through a catechism. Most of these churches view baptism as the replacement of circumcision.
Veritas,
You make a good observation, but I don't think I can accept the example of John's being filled with the Spirit in utero as proof that infants should be baptized. While we know that John was filled with the Spirit from the womb, we only know this because it's recorded in God's Word. Most of us will have no way of knowing if an infant is filled with the Spirit or not.
I believe that all infants are born in innocence and that they have a special relationship with God. I reject infant damnation because of this. To me the clearest scripture to look at regarding this is Romans 7:9 when Paul states that he was once alive apart from the law. Innocent babies, although born with a natural bent towards sin, as one of Michael's other posts points out, are considered innocent and alive because they have no knowledge of God's laws.
So, if babies are innocent, why not baptize?
Because the scriptures are clear in the order that aLoneVoice pointed out: Believe, repent, baptize.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, when God changed His sign of His covenant circumcision to baptism, He also changed who, when and how the sign was to be received. Circumcision was for males only, to be done on the eigth day, and involved the shedding of blood. But we now have a new covenant and a new sign. And, it's clear from Scripture that the order of those who receive baptism is first belief, then repentence then baptism.
Most who believe in infant baptism point to Crispus' household. However, this makes a huge assumption that his household would naturally have infants around. This is too big of an assumption for me to make in an issue as important as baptism. My household doesn't have any infants. We could enlarge my household to include not only those who live under this roof, but my husband's entire family. And, in my husband's entire family, the youngest person is now 6 years of age, certainly old enough to believe, repent and be baptised.
Probably it would be helpful if we looked at this text:
Colossians 2:9-12
For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
This is such a good passage to study because it shows the new nature of the new sign of the new covenant. The old sign just involved the removal of a small part of the body. The new sign removes the full 'body of the flesh'. The old sign was an outward sign. The new sign involves actual dying and being buried and being raised a new creation. The old sign was a work of human hands, the new sign is taken on by faith in the working of God.
The old sign was directly commanded by God to be performed upon male infants. No such commandment is present regarding the new sign. It is open for both male and female, Jew and Gentile alike and is for all who believe. But the key word here is believe, something an infant is incapable of doing.
Michael,
I believe that if baptism had been followed as the example of the Scriptures layed out for us, the answer to your question would have been yes, because only born-again believers would have been baptized.
But, considering the fact that baptism is no longer universally carried out in a biblical manner, then the answer is no. I mean consider the fact that Adolf Hitler was baptized.
RobertMazar
Member
Well the RCC does not believe that Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ either. But I came up with the belief that Baptism is just a dedication of infants and adults to Christ so that I could retain the belief in Infant Baptism as well as Adult Baptism. :icecream:
handy
Member
Robert, I understand that you were baptized as an infant in the RCC and since then have come to be born-again via a protestant church.
I encourage you to be as the Bereans, (Acts 17:11) and study the Scriptures regarding baptism to see how what you've been taught and what your understanding of baptism is now lines up with what God tells us in His word.
Some who were baptized as infants see a need to be rebaptized, others do not. I believe this to be a very personal decision, but it should be an important one, made after prayer and study.
We who are born again are in one body, have one Spirit, are called in one hope in our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-5) This is a powerful statement and should cause anyone considering to be baptized again to pause and pray. Such a decision should be made after careful study of just what exactly baptism is and is not.
I just want to encourage you Robert, as someone who has been born-again for over 30 years now, and have seen many different facets of belief about baptism to prayerfully study this important issue and how it relates to you.
I encourage you to be as the Bereans, (Acts 17:11) and study the Scriptures regarding baptism to see how what you've been taught and what your understanding of baptism is now lines up with what God tells us in His word.
Some who were baptized as infants see a need to be rebaptized, others do not. I believe this to be a very personal decision, but it should be an important one, made after prayer and study.
We who are born again are in one body, have one Spirit, are called in one hope in our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-5) This is a powerful statement and should cause anyone considering to be baptized again to pause and pray. Such a decision should be made after careful study of just what exactly baptism is and is not.
I just want to encourage you Robert, as someone who has been born-again for over 30 years now, and have seen many different facets of belief about baptism to prayerfully study this important issue and how it relates to you.
S
Solo
Guest
This question is for Fnerb and Veritas. ~bumpSolo said:
Solo said:
All that are saved. Yes.
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. John 10:27-29
All that are baptized. Probably not
I think of baptism as a visible Gospel. And just as someone can reject the proclaimed Gospel, I think a person can reject God's act of baptism.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15)
So, I think baptism works the forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as stated above.
But, just as rejection of the proclaimed verbal Gospel places one in spiritual danger, so also rejection of God's gift and act of Baptism places one in spiritual danger.
jgredline
Member
I have said this before, but will say it again...When a person is ''born again'' his baptismal into Jesus happens at the same time....When Peter say ''Baptism now saves you, he is speaking of being baptized with Christ, into Christ...
Being Justified is a form of baptism...
Water baptism is different...Did you folks know that the Pharasses practiced water baptism? Many don't know this...This is why the pharisees where so upset with John the Baptist...This is also why the saducess did not care to much about John the Baptist ministry They did not believe in baptism...Anyway, where any of those that the Pharisees baptized saved? NO...
When John the baptizer said there comes one who will baptize with fire, Yes he was speaking of Jesus and Jesus said, he must leave so that who can come????? He is speaking of the Holy Spirit...When a person is born again he is baptized with fire....A fire that the water does not put out..
Since this is a fire that can't be put out, one is sealed for all eternity...This is justification in short folks...
Being Justified is a form of baptism...
Water baptism is different...Did you folks know that the Pharasses practiced water baptism? Many don't know this...This is why the pharisees where so upset with John the Baptist...This is also why the saducess did not care to much about John the Baptist ministry They did not believe in baptism...Anyway, where any of those that the Pharisees baptized saved? NO...
When John the baptizer said there comes one who will baptize with fire, Yes he was speaking of Jesus and Jesus said, he must leave so that who can come????? He is speaking of the Holy Spirit...When a person is born again he is baptized with fire....A fire that the water does not put out..
Since this is a fire that can't be put out, one is sealed for all eternity...This is justification in short folks...
destiny
Member
Amen to this jg ....it is "religion" that alway makes a big deal out of 'symbolism'. To me, it shows lack in relationship.jgredline said:I have said this before, but will say it again...When a person is ''born again'' his baptismal into Jesus happens at the same time....When Peter say ''Baptism now saves you, he is speaking of being baptized with Christ, into Christ...
Being Justified is a form of baptism...
Water baptism is different...Did you folks know that the Pharasses practiced water baptism? Many don't know this...This is why the pharisees where so upset with John the Baptist...This is also why the saducess did not care to much about John the Baptist ministry They did not believe in baptism...Anyway, where any of those that the Pharisees baptized saved? NO...
When John the baptizer said there comes one who will baptize with fire, Yes he was speaking of Jesus and Jesus said, he must leave so that who can come????? He is speaking of the Holy Spirit...When a person is born again he is baptized with fire....A fire that the water does not put out..
S
Solo
Guest
Thanks JG,
Some do not understand baptism and they purport that infant baptism is a fine thing to do, however, nowhere in Scripture is infant baptism performed, nor is there any references to any being saved without believin with the heart and confession with the mouth.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:10
Some do not understand baptism and they purport that infant baptism is a fine thing to do, however, nowhere in Scripture is infant baptism performed, nor is there any references to any being saved without believin with the heart and confession with the mouth.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:10