Alright kids, there are a few arguments in Christendom about what baptism is, what it means, what it does.. and of course, when one should baptize their infants.

If one might guess based on the way I phrased that last post, I obviously side with the paedobaptism with baptismal regeneration. I have a hard time understanding and accepting how anyone comes to any other belief..so this will be a fun practice in a few ways for me.,

Lets get a count on how many are on each side, then we can start the debate Play nice, y'all and remember to put the best construction on everything!
'

Where to begin in the case for infant baptism! So many things to say! Do we start with the flood? With the ability of the unborn to have faith? Baptize all nations and all members of every household? Some funny memes?

Nein.

Acts 2:38 tells us

Quote:

---

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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far offfor all whom the Lord our God will call."

40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

---

Every one of you. The promise is for both you AND your children! Do you think there were no children present that day? Of course there were! When a census is taken, all members of the household includes any babies in the house.

Faith? Of course God can work faith in infants. Before we were born he knew us! (Jeremiah 1)
"From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise ..." Psalm 8:2. "Yet You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast" Psalm 22:9.
It is no small thing that the very first being to recognize the Christ child was another unborn baby, one who would be the one who eventually baptized Christ! (Luke 1:44)

More to come soon, my food is getting cold and so are my fingers.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I obviously side with the paedobaptism with baptismal regeneration.

---

Which means what? I am aware of at least 3 views of what "baptismal regeneration" means.

So to you, the order of events "Repent, Baptized, and Be Saved" are not really important/prescriptive? (I hope this doesn't sound snarky, I didn't mean it to)

If it is just a profession of faith, why is it emphasized so much? what makes it so important if it doesn't "do" anything? Why can't you simply profess your faith verbally? Why is the water and the name of the trinity the mandatory recipe?


Sidenote: Is the venn diagram of people who believe in credobaptism and symbolic/remembrance Lord's Supper a perfect circle? I can't think of any faith traditions that believe one and not the other.

chuckd said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I obviously side with the paedobaptism with baptismal regeneration.

---

Which means what? I am aware of at least 3 views of what "baptismal regeneration" means.

---

Plagiarizing from my catechism:

It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.


It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.


It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

dermdoc said:

---

I believe in full immersion baptism after a personal profession of faith. Sorry.

---

Why are you sorry?!?

Because I always agree with you.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Baptism not a requirement for salvation is a strange thing to say. I don't know that any human can say in absolute terms what is and isn't required beyond the grace of God. God is sovereign. He saves whom He wills.

That is a far cry from denying that baptism is salvific. See, for example, 1 Peter 3:21, which literally calls it "saving baptism."

---

How about this, I reject the Baptist doctrine that I grew up around that to be saved meant you had to be baptized.

Specifically referencing 1 Peter 3:21, it mentions baptism symbolically and then at the end says, 'it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'

Putting your faith in Jesus is the central tenant here. What about the thief who defended Jesus on the cross? He wasn't baptized but Jesus told him straight up that he would see paradise.

It's all about Jesus, not our rituals. Not that they aren't important, but they are fruit of the spirit, not admittance into the spirit.

Quote:

---

How about this, I reject the Baptist doctrine that I grew up around that to be saved meant you had to be baptized.

---

Yeah, that's silly.

Quote:

---

Specifically referencing 1 Peter 3:21, it mentions baptism symbolically and then at the end says, 'it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'

---

No, it does not. St Peter speaks about the flood, and that during the flood eight were saved through water, and that the flood water is an image (literally anti-type, antitypon) the water of baptism which saves (literally sozei baptisma, "saving baptism"). The baptism is what is saving in that passage.

Quote:

---

Putting your faith in Jesus is the central tenant here. What about the thief who defended Jesus on the cross? He wasn't baptized but Jesus told him straight up that he would see paradise.

---

I don't believe that baptism is a "requirement." I already said that. But clearly it is salvific, one of the "precious and magnificent promises, so that through these you might become partakers of the divine nature," again quoting St Peter (2 Peter 1:4). As St Paul says, "He saved us through the washing of regeneration" (loutron means bath, the water itself vs the container and regeneration is paliggenesia literally again+genesis, re-generated, re-begun, re-birthed) "and the renewal of the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5). He also writes "but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." Again, apolouo, bathed or washed away, sanctified is literally to be made holy, justified is to be made righteous. Not by faith, it says, but in the name of the Lord and by the Spirit. Again, in literal scriptural terms, baptism is salvific, regenerative, sanctifying, justifying, rebirthing.

Quote:

---

It's all about Jesus, not our rituals. Not that they aren't important, but they are fruit of the spirit, not admittance into the spirit.

---

Baptism is not our ritual. It was commanded by Jesus Christ, and is scripturally the entry point into the Church. Using the scriptural sense, the Church is the ekklesia, the assembly of believers.You join to the body of Christ through baptism, you participate in His death and resurrection through baptism -- "For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" and "we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised up out from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life" and "having been buried with Him in baptism, you were raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead" and "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold, the new has come into being." and "put on the new man, having been created according to God in righteousness and holiness of truth." See the common language? participation, renewal, new creation, into Christ, new life, new man, re-created, righteousness and holiness.

Quote:

---

If it is just a profession of faith, why is it emphasized so much? what makes it so important if it doesn't "do" anything? Why can't you simply profess your faith verbally? Why is the water and the name of the trinity the mandatory recipe?

---

Because he told us to. Nothing more, Nothing less.

I checked the "profession of faith" one because it was lonely, but I think we care about this stuff much more than God does.

I would tend to agree, except for very clear history we can look at. Without doctrine you get absolute chaos with mutually exclusive teaching, and not just on minor things but on some pretty major and material aspects of the faith.

And it isn't as if He told Israel "oh, you know - just kinda do what seems best to you." Haha

Quote:

---

I would tend to agree, except for very clear history we can look at. Without doctrine you get absolute chaos with mutually exclusive teaching, and not just on minor things but on some pretty major and material aspects of the faith.

And it isn't as if He told Israel "oh, you know - just kinda do what seems best to you." Haha

---

Israel also had very clear instructions...and so we do we on baptism: Go baptise.

Now, we can obviously try and divine out from tradition or other Scriptures on how we should do it...but I don't think differences in "how" go against the command of God...to do it.

That's actually a very interesting and important point. Israel had very clear instructions - a liturgical manual of sorts. The form and shapes were shown to them. We don't have that. So we're left with a few questions: does this mean that God no longer cares? Or is the how no longer important? Did He not tell us how? Or was the NT not ever intended to be a liturgical manual?

When God tells us to do something, it isn't simply to see how high we can jump and If we will do it. I can think of no example where Christ commanded one of His followers to do anything where there wasn't real purpose..or a miracle following right after.

Collect that kid's lunch. Bam! Millions fed (just like we are at the communion rail)

Build a boat. Bam! Saved from death by a flood where the whole world was cleansed and reborn anew (sound familiar?)


The most famous example of a baffling "Do this because God told you to" is when God told Jacob to sacrifice Isaac, but that he did specifically to show mercy and foretell of the sacrifice of Christ, a miracle that the ram was provided in lieu of Isaac.

It seems to me, that those who put emphasis on not needing man made rituals, "high church", etc because it is not what God commands, would put special emphasis on this ritual and why God commands it so specifically, water + Word.. because it is more than just a symbol of faith, it is the miracle of rebirth..because every time God commands us to do something, a miracle follows.

Agree. Everything God tells us to do is for our own good.

Quote:

---

does this mean that God no longer cares? Or is the how no longer important? Did He not tell us how? Or was the NT not ever intended to be a liturgical manual?

---

No. Depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. My initial thought is no.

I don't know that we need a liturgical manual at all.

What we need is a personal relationship with God provided by Jesus.

Quote:

---

It seems to me, that those who put emphasis on not needing man made rituals, "high church", etc because it is not what God commands, would put special emphasis on this ritual and why God commands it so specifically, water + Word.. because it is more than just a symbol of faith, it is the miracle of rebirth..because every time God commands us to do something, a miracle follows.

---

For me, I just wouldn't want to constrain God in anyway. Sure, he might intend to do a miracle everytime he asks us to do something, but he's not guaranteed to. He's also entitled as the Creator to command without condition.

I do agree with you that evangelicals not doing something because of this "loss of focus" on God can be a cop out. This is why a lot of churches don't do Communion every sunday. To me, it's weak logic when he literally says "Do This In Remembrance of Me".

Ok, but we also have the scriptures telling us to cling to the traditions that we were taught (2 Thess 2:15), in the things we have learned (2 Tim 3:14), to hold on to the pattern of sound words which we have heard (2 Tim 1:13), we see people commended for maintaining traditions that were passed on to them (1 Cor 11:2), and the very earliest image of the Church is people devoted with intense effort (proskartereo) to the doctrine of the Apostles, the communion, and the prayers. After all, the phrase "sound doctrine" is a scriptural one (Titus 2:1), doctrine simply being a latinization of didaskalia, teaching.

So there's clearly a guard and border set up for what is and what isn't right, and true. And, teachings and pass-downs (which is what the word paradosis mean, things which were passed down or given over) must certainly include liturgical forms and prayers. We see several creeds in the scriptures, we see them literally liturgizing (Acts 13:2 "worshipping" or "ministering" is from leitourgeo), Acts 2:42 has a definite article about the communion and the prayers. St Paul says there is one baptism and one faith, because there is one Lord, one Body, and one Church.

As the Proverbs say, don't move the boundary stone your ancient fathers have set, and hold on to instruction and don't let it go because it is your life.

So do we need a liturgical manual? I think yes. Does it need to be canonical scripture? Obviously no.

Quote:

---

As the Proverbs say, don't move the boundary stone your ancient fathers have set, and hold on to instruction and don't let it go because it is your life.

---

Which ones? Because many in Israel and Judah followed false gods. And even the priests had gone astray.

Quote:

---

Which ones? Because many in Israel and Judah followed false gods. And even the priests had gone astray.

---

I think I made that pretty clear. We are to follow the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:42), the traditions passed down to us from the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15), follow sound doctrine is it was taught by the Apostles (Titus 2:1), follow the faith passed down once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3).

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which ones? Because many in Israel and Judah followed false gods. And even the priests had gone astray.

---

I think I made that pretty clear. We are to follow the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:42), the traditions passed down to us from the Apostles (2 Thess 2:15), follow sound doctrine is it was taught by the Apostles (Titus 2:1), follow the faith passed down once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3).

---

Many traditions, doctrine, liturgies, etc. were created after the Apostles.