Quote:
You say you fully understood when you were 12. Fully understood what? Say at 15 you learn something else. Get baptized again? Say at 25 you have an existential experience. Get baptized again?
Ragoo said:I don't understand your use of the word proclaim as it relates to a child encased in amniotic fluid.swimmerbabe11 said:
John the Baptist proclaimed Christ from the womb.
Do you believe that sickness and death are a result of sin in the world? If so, why aren't infants immune?
True. I should have added "within the church." Mormons are not a church. They have no connection to the apostolic church. There is no evidence that a valid baptism was made if that church through which it received a Christian is false.jkag89 said:On the face of it, Mormons use a Trinitarian formula but there view of the Godhead is certainly different than the orthodox/traditional view. In other words, the formula is correct, the intent is not in view of the Catholic Church.chuckd said:
Reformed theology the same minus the intentions part. How would you even verify that?
As long as baptism is done in the Trinitarian formula, it is valid.
The Church (as lead by a bishop) can accept someone with a baptism in the name of the Trinity by economy. If that's the case, we usually receive them with christmation into the church.JJMt said:
You guys make some persuasive arguments. Do you think an adult needs to be rebaptized again if previously sprinkled as an infant?
What if the infant, when it grows to teenage years (or to the age of accountability, whenever that might be), expressly rejects God and Christianity, but then in later years becomes a Christian? Does that person need to be baptized as an adult?
What if an infant is sprinkled into the Lutheran faith, but then converts to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, or vice versa?
What about adults who were baptized as adults into one faith tradition and then later convert to another?
I'd love to hear the opinions of not only k2, but also swimmerbabe and members of the RCC so that we get all perspectives.
Taken from LCMS page, because I'm not the authority and its easier than typing everything out.JJMt said:Good question. Probably to distinguish between the actual procedures of sprinkling that usually is done to infants as opposed to the full dunking that many faith traditions practice with adults.Quote:
A question of my own, why did you use the word sprinkling when the sacrament involves infants instead of just using the word baptism?
Does your faith sprinkle adults too or does it do full dunking?
What is the biblical or historical basis for sprinkling vs. dunking?
I'm not trying to be argumentative at all here. I'm learning, and finding this fascinating.
Quote:
On the basis of the evidence provided in the New Testament, it is not possible to prove that the term "baptize" always refers to immersion, nor that the Baptisms mentioned were all done by immersion implying (in the view of some) that only Baptisms done by immersion can be considered valid.
In fact, taken as a whole, the evidence suggests otherwise. In some cases the term "baptize" is synonymous with "wash" (Titus 3:5-6; see also Heb. 9:19; Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16; and Mark 7:1-4 a passage in which some earlier translators considered the term "baptize" to include the washing of "dining couches"), and it is highly likely that Baptisms were performed in the early church by methods other than immersion.
Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem, where no river exists and no mention is made of other large quantities of water that would or may have been used.
In fact, the shortage of water supplies in general in many parts of the ancient world would have precluded Baptism by immersion.
As the Supplementary Volume of The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible correctly notes, "It is unlikely that in Jerusalem, Samaria, Damascus, Philippi, Corinth, Rome, or Asia Minor enough water was always available for a full bath" (87).
It should be noted that very early in Christian history methods other than immersion were used and allowed. The Didache requires the administrant of Baptism to "pour water three times on the head" (7:3). No mention is made of immersion.
Early Christian art depicts Baptisms of persons standing in shallow pools with water poured on the head (see David Scaer, Baptism, 96-101).
Lutherans have therefore held that the manner of Baptism (that is, immersion, pouring, sprinkling, etc.) does not determine whether a Baptism is valid, any more than the manner of distributing the Lord's Supper (common cup, individual glasses) affects the validity of this Sacrament. Only the Word of God and the "element" (water), according to divine institution, makes a Baptism valid.
Quote:
Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem, where no river exists and no mention is made of other large quantities of water that would or may have been used.
Quote:
To date, over 700 Jewish ritual baths (miqwa'ot) have been uncovered throughout the Land of Israel, most of them dating to the Second Temple period. These miqwa'ot appear in various contexts in private domiciles, next to synagogues, near burial grounds, and in association with the Temple compound in Jerusalem.
Quote:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
In the Catholic Church the primary method is by infusion, liberal pouring of water upon the head. This is true whether the person receiving the sacrament is an infant , child or an adult.JJMt said:Good question. Probably to distinguish between the actual procedures of sprinkling that usually is done to infants as opposed to the full dunking that many faith traditions practice with adults.Quote:
A question of my own, why did you use the word sprinkling when the sacrament involves infants instead of just using the word baptism?
Does your faith sprinkle adults too or does it do full dunking?
What is the biblical or historical basis for sprinkling vs. dunking?
I'm not trying to be argumentative at all here. I'm learning, and finding this fascinating.
Is not a blessing a prayer in which someone lays hands on a person and says a prayer over them? Soooo...what was the purpose of the laying on of hands if he didn't bless them?k2aggie07 said:
He didn't teach and bless them, He laid His hands on them and prayed for them "and then He departed".
I just read psalm 50 five times and this quote is nowhere in the psalm. Which translation are you using or are you paraphrasing although even a paraphrasing would not match up with my reading of it.k2aggie07 said:
. Everyone is in need of baptism, even infants. We are born into sin, Psalm 50 says "I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
I agree here. As mortals we have a fallen nature. As fallen men we are prone to sin. Thus we have need for the Christ's atonement.k2aggie07 said:
Our fallen nature isn't about individual sins but about the curse of death every human inherits from Adam.
please X pound on this as I have seen nothing you have posited that contradicts my position. If you are claiming that infants require baptism you are the one under the burden of proof because you are trying to show that something is required. i am making no claim. Just pointing out scant scriptural support for your position.k2aggie07 said:
We can not conclude what you think, because it would require us to invalidate many scriptures.
. This is where things get fun. You are taking a completely different scenario and a completely different sermon and making a flimsy connection between the two. The first o cuts in Galiea the second in Judea under different circumstances. The first, someone asks Jesus who will be greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus as a way of pointing out the silliness of the questioner as well as pointing out the purpose of the gospel and the power of chest, pulls a little child and states that a child, one who is humble will be the greatest. Based on the context of the time, the strife among the Pharisees and Sadducees and even Samaritans amongst themselves regarding who was correctly living the law of God and who would be most favored of God and would receive the greatest reward, Jesus is plainly putting the questioner down and illustrating that it is not important to puff yourself up or worry about your reward. It is those who do not worry about such things and humble themselves before God and simply try to follow His example that receive the greatest reward.k2aggie07 said:
And of course the kingdom of heaven is for "such as these". He already explained this previously, in Matthew 18. "Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." And what did He mean by "like children"? "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Children are humble, and have a simple joy and faith. He's not suggesting we become sinless like children. We don't "become sinless," our sins are forgiven. We become humble, we become pure and simple in our faith, by God's grace.
k2aggie07 said:
Your logic belies a fallacy that if a person is without sin, they don't need a savior.
actually that is not my position. My position is that faith or belief, the beginning of which must come before baptism, otherwise there is no baptism. A prerequisite for baptism is faith. Faith is the first step toward being converted toward Christ, and baptism is the second progression of that faith.k2aggie07 said:
Your mere intellectual belief is the same error in logic I addressed above - that somehow by our meager "belief" or "understanding" we can be worthy of the divine blessing by Christ.
. As far back as we have records being the operative word here. 200 AD is over 150 years after Christ's death and there was arguments among the early church fathers regarding several matters. It is well accepted that during the earliest missionary years of the church, the gospel was preached to adults and adults were the ones being baptized. Whether or not infant baptism existed in New Testament times is a matter of dispute. Certainly there were some early church fathers that supported it and believed it to be apostolic in origin. Others however, notably Tertullian as you stated did not. If it was a subject so easily settled then there would not have been dissent in the early church.k2aggie07 said:
Infant baptism was practiced by the entire church, as far back as we have records. The lone ancient dissenter was Tertullian, and he references sponsors. By this very witness we can see that the practice of baptism of infants with sponsors was already in effect (around 200 AD).
Babies were not brought into the covenant b/c they were circumcised. Someone was brought into the covenant with their heart was circumcised...same as today.FTAggies said:
Well tradition is rooted in scripture. "Hold fast to the traditions that I tell you"..... 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Anyway I would think it very odd as a "new" Christian in the early first century that my newborn would be allowed to be brought into the old covenant(circumcision) but not the newer "better" covenant under Jesus.
This is b/c a proper mikvah, prior to the start of Christianity, was triple immersion.k2aggie07 said:
That quote about the Didache is misleading. The Didache says:Quote:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
So, the prescribe method is triple immersion, and if you can't pour water three times on the head.
Probably a typo, try Psalms 51:5.Quote:
I just read psalm 50 five times and this quote is nowhere in the psalm. Which translation are you using or are you paraphrasing although even a paraphrasing would not match up with my reading of it.
k2aggie07 said:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
So, the prescribe method is triple immersion, and if you can't pour water three times on the head.
Sorry -- you said he blessed and taught them. I was saying he did not teach them, just blessed.Quote:
Is not a blessing a prayer in which someone lays hands on a person and says a prayer over them? Soooo...what was the purpose of the laying on of hands if he didn't bless them?
This is the concept of original sin as understood in the east (distinction between the definition that grew out of St Augustine's writings in the west).Quote:
I suppose that your belief regarding the need of infant baptism therefore is directly dependent upon your belief in the concept of original sin.
I agree here. As mortals we have a fallen nature. As fallen men we are prone to sin. Thus we have need for the Christ's atonement.
Being born is not a sinful act. We are born into a fallen world. Our nature, which as created is fundamentally good, was tarnished by the fall. Christ is the New Adam because He restored the fallen nature of man in Himself, forever tying the divine nature to the nature of man in Himself. By dying to our flesh and being spiritually reborn in the Spirit, He unites us to Himself, our flesh to His divinity. This is the mystery of salvation, and it has nothing to do with any particular individual sin. As I said, even a sinless person would be in need of this deifying grace.Quote:
No, my logic is based on a different understanding of sin which is a different debate altogether. You obviously believe that by being born we sin. And therefore are sinners through simply being created by God. I do not. But That is a slightly different debate, an extension of this debate no doubt but a different debate altogether, one I would be interested to have at some juncture.
Faith comes from God. Ephesians 2:1-9 explicitly, incontrovertibly, and fundamentally refutes the premise that our belief engenders our salvation. Faith is a gift from God promised to believers. Romans 1-5 is about faith, how faith is the answer and not the works of the Law, how faith fixes what we were fallen in the flesh. And when is this sealed in us? Baptism. Chapter 6 is about baptism. St Paul tells us that since we were baptized into Christ's death and raised into new life we have been "freed from sin and enslaved to God" and therefore we can "derive our benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life."Quote:
My position is that faith or belief, the beginning of which must come before baptism, otherwise there is no baptism. A prerequisite for baptism is faith. Faith is the first step toward being converted toward Christ, and baptism is the second progression of that faith.
What matters? Not baptism. Not salvation. Not the Eucharist. Not ecclesial structure.Quote:
200 AD is over 150 years after Christ's death and there was arguments among the early church fathers regarding several matters. It is well accepted that during the earliest missionary years of the church, the gospel was preached to adults and adults were the ones being baptized. Whether or not infant baptism existed in New Testament times is a matter of dispute. Certainly there were some early church fathers that supported it and believed it to be apostolic in origin. Others however, notably Tertullian as you stated did not. If it was a subject so easily settled then there would not have been dissent in the early church.
Five households were baptized.Quote:
Also I have yet to see an example of infant baptism in the New Testament. Show it to me and I will gladly recant.
jkag89 said:Probably a typo, try Psalms 51:5.Quote:
I just read psalm 50 five times and this quote is nowhere in the psalm. Which translation are you using or are you paraphrasing although even a paraphrasing would not match up with my reading of it.
There's a good study right there. Tell me about it. When did that occur? What was its purpose? When was it taught as the way unto salvation?k2aggie07 said:
Every instance but the five household baptisms.
Aggie4Life02 said:
Quote:
The Greek is simply, For for this end was the gospel preached to the dead also, or, still more literally, to dead men also. No one with an un-preoccupied mind could doubt, taking this clause by itself, that the persons to whom this preaching was made were dead at the time of being preached to. If this is the case, then, pretty obviously, St. Peter is carrying us back to his teaching of 1 Peter 3:19, and is explaining further the purpose of Christ's descent into hell.
And, this reminds me of St John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily:Quote:
St. Peter says, the gospel was preached also to the dead; they too heard the glad tidings of salvation (kai nekrois euengelisthe). Some have thought that the word "dead" is used metaphorically for the dead in trespasses and sins. But it seems scarcely possible to give the word a literal sense in ver. 5 and a metaphorical sense in ver. 6. Some understand the apostle as meaning that the gospel had been preached to those who then were dead, before their death; but it seems unnatural to assign different times to the verb and the substantive. The aorist euengelisthe directs our thoughts to some definite occasion. The absence of the article (kai nekrous) should also be noticed; the words assert that the gospel was preached to dead persons - to some that were dead. These considerations lead us to connect the passage with 1 Peter 3:19-20. There St. Peter tells us that Christ himself went and preached in the spirit "to the spirits in prison;" then the gospel was preached, the good news of salvation was announced, to some that were dead. The article is absent both here and in ver. 5 (zontas kai nekrous). All men, quick and dead alike, must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; so St. Peter may not have intended to limit the area of the Lord's preaching in Hades here, as he had done in 1 Peter 3. There he mentioned one section only of the departed; partly because the Deluge furnished a conspicuous example of men who suffered for evil-doing, partly because he regarded it as a striking type of Christian baptism. Here, perhaps, he asserts the general fact - the gospel was preached to the dead; perhaps (we may not presume to dogmatize in a matter so mysterious, about which so little is revealed) to all the vast population of the underworld, who had passed away before the gospel times. Like the men of Tyre and Sidon, of Sodom and Gomorrah, they had not seen the works or heard the words of Christ during their life on the earth; now they heard from the Lord himself what he had done for the salvation of mankind. Therefore God was ready to judge the quick and the dead, for to both was the gospel preached. That they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. The gospel was preached to the dead for this end (eis tuoto), that they might be judged indeed (inkrithosi men), but nevertheless live (zosi de). The last clause expresses the end and purpose of the preaching; the former clause, though grammatically dependent upon the conjunction ina, states a necessity antecedent to the preaching (comp. Romans 6:17, "God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart;" and Romans 8:10, "If Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness." The meaning seems to be - the gospel was preached to the dead, that, though they were judged, yet they might live. They had suffered the judgment of death, the punishment of human sin. Christ had been put to death in the flesh (1 Peter 3:18) for the sins of others; the dead had suffered death in the flesh for their own sins. They had died before the manifestation of the Son of God, before the great work of atonement wrought by his death; but that atonement was retrospective - he "taketh away the sin of the world;" its saving influences extended even to the realm of the dead. The gospel was preached to the dead, that, though they were judged according to men (that is, after the fashion of men, as all men are judged), yet they might live in the spirit (comp. 1 Cor 5:5, "To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus"). The verb krithosi, "might he judged," is aorist, as describing a single fact; the verb zosi, "might live," is present, as describing a continual state.
I can't hardly read that without tearing up with excitement!! Only two weeks to Great and Holy Lent...which means is won't be long before its Pascha!!!!Quote:
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness. let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.
O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.
