Some Questions

FaithfulPilgrim · Nov 21, 2017

I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism. Is it's correlation with circumcision necessary, as the Bible mentions that true believers are circumcised in their hearts? What I mean is that the Jews had to get circumcised, but just because one went through the process does not necessarily mean their heart was in the right place, and I think you can extend that same logic to baptism if you are making it parallel with circumcision. I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

The main case I see for paedobaptism is that the Bible doesn't seem to prohibit it anywhere.

Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination (AFAIK), however, I think that just because a doctrine is absent among their teachings and writings doesn't mean that it is wrong or without any basis, it's just that doctrine matures over time and we gradually develop a better understanding of the religion. What are some other arguments used to justify Calvinism and predestination when it comes to the early church?

Oldmantook · Nov 21, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism. Is it's correlation with circumcision necessary, as the Bible mentions that true believers are circumcised in their hearts? What I mean is that the Jews had to get circumcised, but just because one went through the process does not necessarily mean their heart was in the right place, and I think you can extend that same logic to baptism if you are making it parallel with circumcision. I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

The main case I see for paedobaptism is that the Bible doesn't seem to prohibit it anywhere.

Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination (AFAIK), however, I think that just because a doctrine is absent among their teachings and writings doesn't mean that it is wrong or without any basis, it's just that doctrine matures over time and we gradually develop a better understanding of the religion. What are some other arguments used to justify Calvinism and predestination when it comes to the early church?

If the main case for paedobaptism is that there's no reference to its prohibition in the Bible then that would be arguing from a position of silence which is the weakest form of argumentation. Belief is a prerequisite to being baptized so given that, infants who are not capable of forming belief should not be baptized.

disciple1 · Nov 21, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism. Is it's correlation with circumcision necessary, as the Bible mentions that true believers are circumcised in their hearts? What I mean is that the Jews had to get circumcised, but just because one went through the process does not necessarily mean their heart was in the right place, and I think you can extend that same logic to baptism if you are making it parallel with circumcision. I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

The main case I see for paedobaptism is that the Bible doesn't seem to prohibit it anywhere.

Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination (AFAIK), however, I think that just because a doctrine is absent among their teachings and writings doesn't mean that it is wrong or without any basis, it's just that doctrine matures over time and we gradually develop a better understanding of the religion. What are some other arguments used to justify Calvinism and predestination when it comes to the early church?

I don't think God cares at all if a baby is baptized, it means nothing, the baby didn't choose it.

Unveiled Artist · Nov 21, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism. Is it's correlation with circumcision necessary, as the Bible mentions that true believers are circumcised in their hearts? What I mean is that the Jews had to get circumcised, but just because one went through the process does not necessarily mean their heart was in the right place, and I think you can extend that same logic to baptism if you are making it parallel with circumcision. I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

The main case I see for paedobaptism is that the Bible doesn't seem to prohibit it anywhere.

Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination (AFAIK), however, I think that just because a doctrine is absent among their teachings and writings doesn't mean that it is wrong or without any basis, it's just that doctrine matures over time and we gradually develop a better understanding of the religion. What are some other arguments used to justify Calvinism and predestination when it comes to the early church?

In a lot of churches that have infant baptism do so not to save infant at birth. During thar childs life they learn more about christ and scripture. When they are at age, they repent for the first time and then commune with ofher christians. Once they commune, then they are baptized in the name of christ. Until then, its "dormant" for lack of better words. The infant is blessed until he becomes the full member of christ body.

Calvinism, as I undestand it, kinda makes sense on a logical level. Why would thr creator save those who do not ask or want his gift of salvation? I think they are saying that only those who accept the gift will be saved.

As for predestation, many christians feel they will go to heaven because they gave their life to christ. They feelnthey are predestined to go once they are "saved" on the spot. I think Calvinist are against that. Its not salvation overnight though. Its a living salvation. I think it odd to assume one will automatically go to heaven and know they will. So, some will go and others will not. I just thinknits a pride thing. If some are rejected and gave their life to christ, it must be god's will. Thats how I understand it.

Its not something to take personal, though. I find both views make sense. The early church probably did so maybe because of fear of what may happen if they didnt say they were christians as pagans.

Narrow is the gate. If people were not chosen to be saved, the gate wouldnt be narrow. I think god leaves it up to christians.

Thats how it makes sense to me.

Winken · Nov 21, 2017

Water baptism for an infant is not scriptural and is not required as a pathway to eternal life. If folks want to water baptize their infants, go for it. Just don't decide that because of it they are saved forever. And be sure to explain to those youngsters as they grow up that reading, believing and confessing Romans 10:8-13 is the key. Romans 8:1 is the assurance....... no water, no works involved.

FaithfulPilgrim · Nov 21, 2017

Unveiled Artist said:
In a lot of churches that have infant baptism do so not to save infant at birth. During thar childs life they learn more about christ and scripture. When they are at age, they repent for the first time and then commune with ofher christians. Once they commune, then they are baptized in the name of christ. Until then, its "dormant" for lack of better words. The infant is blessed until he becomes the full member of christ body.

Calvinism, as I undestand it, kinda makes sense on a logical level. Why would thr creator save those who do not ask or want his gift of salvation? I think they are saying that only those who accept the gift will be saved.

As for predestation, many christians feel they will go to heaven because they gave their life to christ. They feelnthey are predestined to go once they are "saved" on the spot. I think Calvinist are against that. Its not salvation overnight though. Its a living salvation. I think it odd to assume one will automatically go to heaven and know they will. So, some will go and others will not. I just thinknits a pride thing. If some are rejected and gave their life to christ, it must be god's will. Thats how I understand it.

Its not something to take personal, though. I find both views make sense. The early church probably did so maybe because of fear of what may happen if they didnt say they were christians as pagans.

Narrow is the gate. If people were not chosen to be saved, the gate wouldnt be narrow. I think god leaves it up to christians.

Thats how it makes sense to me.

Yeah, I read that even though the infant is baptized, it is not technically "completed" until they accept Christ. I see both sides of the debate as well as when it comes to Calvinism and Arminianism.

Unveiled Artist · Nov 21, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
Yeah, I read that even though the infant is baptized, it is not technically "completed" until they accept Christ. I see both sides of the debate as well as when it comes to Calvinism and Arminianism.

Yeah. I got kicked out of a christian chat room because I have positive views on Arminanism. Like the trinity its hard to question it for discussion when it can be taken as an offense. With Ariminaism, after looking it up briefly, it may sound like its belittling christ. Probably why JW also arent considered christian to the majority. Definition of christianity varies; sad when its in ones own community. Tomatto. Tomoto, I guess.

If I were christian, I'd be 100% Roman Catholic. Calvanism probably sounds like Calvin is saying some christians wont make to heaven. Maybe its the way he phrased it, dont know.

Shrugs.

twin1954 · Nov 23, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism. Is it's correlation with circumcision necessary, as the Bible mentions that true believers are circumcised in their hearts? What I mean is that the Jews had to get circumcised, but just because one went through the process does not necessarily mean their heart was in the right place, and I think you can extend that same logic to baptism if you are making it parallel with circumcision. I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

Presbyterian Covenant Theology contends that baptism is a continuation of circumcision. They hold that while baptism doesn't save the infant it does put them in the covenant. The problem with that is if they are in the covenant they are saved. The other problem wit it is if they are in the covenant they should be allowed to partake of communion. But they are not allowed to do so until they make a profession of faith. Presbyterians use a few passages of Scripture that are not clear to support their view.

The main case I see for paedobaptism is that the Bible doesn't seem to prohibit it anywhere.

True but the Bible is clear on believers baptism. It is a mistake to practice a rite that the Scriptures are silent or unclear on.

Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination (AFAIK), however, I think that just because a doctrine is absent among their teachings and writings doesn't mean that it is wrong or without any basis, it's just that doctrine matures over time and we gradually develop a better understanding of the religion. What are some other arguments used to justify Calvinism and predestination when it comes to the early church?

You should read John Gill on the ECF. I believe he covers the subject in his "Cause of God and Truth".

twin1954 · Nov 23, 2017

I apologize to Presbyterians if I have mis-stated their views. I do not want to argue over it though.

Apologetic_Warrior · Nov 23, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism. Is it's correlation with circumcision necessary, as the Bible mentions that true believers are circumcised in their hearts? What I mean is that the Jews had to get circumcised, but just because one went through the process does not necessarily mean their heart was in the right place, and I think you can extend that same logic to baptism if you are making it parallel with circumcision. I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

The main case I see for paedobaptism is that the Bible doesn't seem to prohibit it anywhere.

Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination (AFAIK), however, I think that just because a doctrine is absent among their teachings and writings doesn't mean that it is wrong or without any basis, it's just that doctrine matures over time and we gradually develop a better understanding of the religion. What are some other arguments used to justify Calvinism and predestination when it comes to the early church?

Honestly do not have time to make a case either way on baptism, and have personally been on both ends of the spectrum. Said and done, for me personally it does not make or break Reformed theology, and a descent case can be made from both sides. A number of volumes have been written on the subject from both sides, some more convincing than others I'd imagine. However, I wouldn't allow any of them to be the final word, that would be more between God and conscience.

As to predestination, well the word and concept originates from Scripture, extra-biblical teachings in support and or agreement with it, are but gravy. If you do some searching through enough resources, you might be surprised with the results. You might also go to the monergism website where they have a whole mountain of resources. Even trying to scratch the surface in this format is, well daunting to say the least. What is called "Calvinism" and it's teachings on predestination, do not have their origin in Augustine or any early Church figure, however looking through the EFC's does demonstrate that the Reformers were not inventing new doctrines, that these teachings could be traced in Scripture most importantly, but also supported in various writings of select ECF's. Personally, I do not think equal weight can be given to each individual ECF, as they did not all write to the same extent or on all the same subject matter. In a way, they were, as we are, subjects of the time in which they lived. Quite often, it was opposition to the Church, that brought clarification to her, that brought about statements of what she had already believed. Her defense, most likely depended upon the opposition of that time.

Radagast · Nov 23, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I don't think any denomination teaches that everyone who gets baptized is saved or has a genuine saving faith.

We believe and confess that Jesus Christ,
in whom the law is fulfilled,
has by his shed blood
put an end to every other shedding of blood,
which anyone might do or wish to do
in order to atone or satisfy for sins.
Having abolished circumcision,
which was done with blood,
Christ established in its place
the sacrament of baptism.
By it we are received into God’s church
and set apart from all other people and alien religions,
that we may wholly belong to him
whose mark and sign we bear.
Baptism also witnesses to us
that God, being our gracious Father,
will be our God forever.
Therefore Christ has commanded
that all those who belong to him
be baptized with pure water
“in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 28:19]
In this way God signifies to us
that just as water washes away the dirt of the body
when it is poured on us
and also is seen on the bodies of those who are baptized
when it is sprinkled on them,
so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally,
in the soul,
by the Holy Spirit.
It washes and cleanses it from its sins
and transforms us from being the children of wrath
into the children of God.
This does not happen by the physical water
but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God,
who is our Red Sea,
through which we must pass
to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh,
who is the devil,
and to enter the spiritual land
of Canaan.
So ministers,
as far as their work is concerned,
give us the sacrament and what is visible,
but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—
namely the invisible gifts and graces;
washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls
of all filth and unrighteousness;
renewing our hearts and filling them
with all comfort;
giving us true assurance
of his fatherly goodness;
clothing us with the “new self”
and stripping off the “old self
with its practices.” [Colossians 3:9-10]
For this reason we believe that
anyone who aspires to reach eternal life
ought to be baptized only once
without ever repeating it—
for we cannot be born twice.
Yet this baptism is profitable
not only when the water is on us
and when we receive it
but throughout our
entire lives.
For that reason we reject the error of the Anabaptists
who are not content with a single baptism
once received
and also condemn the baptism
of the children of believers.
We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant,
as little children were circumcised in Israel
on the basis of the same promises
made to our children.
And truly,
Christ has shed his blood no less
for washing the little children of believers
than he did for adults.
Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament
of what Christ has done for them,
just as the Lord commanded in the law that
by offering a lamb for them
the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ
would be granted them
shortly after their birth.
This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore,
baptism does for our children
what circumcision did for the Jewish people.
That is why Paul calls baptism
the “circumcision of Christ.” [Colossians 2:11]

Radagast · Nov 23, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
Also, what is your view on the Early Church Fathers, none of them prior to Augustine seemed to advocate predestination

Predestination is clearly taught in the New Testament. Several of the ECFs explicitly taught it also.

Radagast · Nov 23, 2017

twin1954 said:
Presbyterian Covenant Theology contends that baptism is a continuation of circumcision. They hold that while baptism doesn't save the infant it does put them in the covenant.

Correct.

twin1954 said:
The problem with that is if they are in the covenant they are saved.

Well, no, it means that certain (conditional) promises apply.

twin1954 said:
The other problem wit it is if they are in the covenant they should be allowed to partake of communion.

And a few Presbyterian groups give communion to children for that reason.

hedrick · Nov 24, 2017

The connection between infant baptism and reformed theology is obvious. The two approaches to baptism are that it reflects our choice to follow Christ or Christ’s choice to call us. Modern baptists — whatever their historical roots — emphasize our decision for Christ. Reformed emphasize God’s choice and call to us.

It’s harder to give a clear Scriptural answer, because Scripture doesn’t give direct answers to some of our questions. Looking over all uses of the term baptism in the NT, it seems to be associated both with the presence of the Holy Spirit, and grafting into Christ.

In Acts, Christian baptism is contrasted with the baptism of John. John’s is said to be for repentance, but Christian baptism is baptism into Christ, which is expect to lead to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Act 1:5, 11:6, 19:4-6. (The actual presence of the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily happen at the same time, but it’s an expected association. Act 10:47.)

In Paul, baptism is into Christ and into his death. Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12. Hence the understanding that being lowered into the water and raised symbolizes death and resurrection with Christ. Baptism also is into his body. 1 Cor 12:19

So from a Scriptural point of view, the question becomes of the status of children. Can a child be in Christ? The Reformed understanding is that we become children of Christ by adoption (Gal 4:5) and through his promise (Rom1:8) Hence children of believers are holy (1 Cor 7:14).

It’s also true that we are his children by faith (Gal 3:26). But the context of that passage doesn’t see faith as our decision, but as something brought by God. Indeed 3:22 may well be better translated as the faithfulness of Christ rather than faith in Christ. At any rate, faith here is envisioned as a new scheme brought by Christ to replace the law, not as a human decision.

Baptism as a mark of belonging to the new covenant is there throughout Gal 3:23-29. It’s not explicitly contrasted with circumcision, but it’s what makes us Abraham’s offspring, so I think the contrast is understood.

AMR · Nov 26, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism.

See:
A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism
Infant Baptism: God's Grandchildren
Baptism, by Francis Schaeffer

Q.E.D.

Unveiled Artist · Nov 27, 2017

Its the phrasing. Some believe people chose christ. Othere believe christ chose them. Only X amount of people will chose christ. Only X amount of people christ will choose.

If you are a christian and not a calvanist, you chose christ. If you are, christ chose you. Regardless how both sides see it, the road is still narrow. It depends on if you chose christ how much emphasis do you put on Your choice and not god's.

FaithfulPilgrim · Nov 27, 2017

hedrick said:
The connection between infant baptism and reformed theology is obvious. The two approaches to baptism are that it reflects our choice to follow Christ or Christ’s choice to call us. Modern baptists — whatever their historical roots — emphasize our decision for Christ. Reformed emphasize God’s choice and call to us.

It’s harder to give a clear Scriptural answer, because Scripture doesn’t give direct answers to some of our questions. Looking over all uses of the term baptism in the NT, it seems to be associated both with the presence of the Holy Spirit, and grafting into Christ.

In Acts, Christian baptism is contrasted with the baptism of John. John’s is said to be for repentance, but Christian baptism is baptism into Christ, which is expect to lead to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Act 1:5, 11:6, 19:4-6. (The actual presence of the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily happen at the same time, but it’s an expected association. Act 10:47.)

In Paul, baptism is into Christ and into his death. Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12. Hence the understanding that being lowered into the water and raised symbolizes death and resurrection with Christ. Baptism also is into his body. 1 Cor 12:19

So from a Scriptural point of view, the question becomes of the status of children. Can a child be in Christ? The Reformed understanding is that we become children of Christ by adoption (Gal 4:5) and through his promise (Rom1:8) Hence children of believers are holy (1 Cor 7:14).

It’s also true that we are his children by faith (Gal 3:26). But the context of that passage doesn’t see faith as our decision, but as something brought by God. Indeed 3:22 may well be better translated as the faithfulness of Christ rather than faith in Christ. At any rate, faith here is envisioned as a new scheme brought by Christ to replace the law, not as a human decision.

Baptism as a mark of belonging to the new covenant is there throughout Gal 3:23-29. It’s not explicitly contrasted with circumcision, but it’s what makes us Abraham’s offspring, so I think the contrast is understood.

That makes sense, and is a compelling point you make.

JM · Dec 23, 2017

FaithfulPilgrim said:
I am interested in hearing your view on infant baptism.

I might be lambasted for this but I don't care about baptism as much as I use to. We are in a post Christian society and the Gospel is being obscured in pulpits across the world, we have bigger fish to fry and really need to focus on justification by Christ alone through faith. Baptism should be dealt with on a congregational level.

I could be wrong and often am.

jm

FaithfulPilgrim · Dec 23, 2017

JM said:
I might be lambasted for this but I don't care about baptism as much as I use to. We are in a post Christian society and the Gospel is being obscured in pulpits across the world, we have bigger fish to fry and really need to focus on justification by Christ alone through faith. Baptism should be dealt with on a congregational level.

I could be wrong and often am.

jm

I can see that. For me, that is part of the appeal of Quakers and the Salvation Army. It seems like the sacraments, baptism in particular, are too divisive and can get in the way of the Gospel.

I’m a credobaptist, but I’m starting to see merit in paedobaptism, but it’s not super important to me either way, so it is usually not one of the things I look at when choosing a church or denomination.

I think there is a Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland that lets its congregations decide whether or not to baptize infants:

sdowney717 · Jan 28, 2018

1 Corinthians 12:12-14New King James Version (NKJV)

12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.

The only baptism that matters to be a member of His body is the one Christ does for us.
People baptizing each other are saving no one. The inward reality is already present.

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

All believers are baptized by Christ, they are inseparable, you who believe are become one Spirit with Him .

Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

1 Corinthians 6:16
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.”

1 Corinthians 6:17
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Some Questions

Eternally Seeking

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Look! Its like the Nothing never was.

Heimat

Eternally Seeking

Look! Its like the Nothing never was.

Baptist by the Bible

Baptist by the Bible

Pilgrim

comes and goes

comes and goes

comes and goes

Senior Veteran

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed

Look! Its like the Nothing never was.

Eternally Seeking

Augsburg Catholic

Eternally Seeking

Newbie

Similar threads