The Assurance of Baptism

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
This should embarrass you:


Next consider the second century bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus (b. 115-130, d. around 200 AD). In his work titled Against Heresies, he writes,

And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (A.H., I.21)


I understand. I was once in the PCA and kept in darkness myself by the teachings of men like R.C. Sproul, James Boyce, and others who never quoted that which would have DESTROYED Calvin's teachings. And it does take a lot of work, sweat, and prayer to overcome the fear of becoming part of the Apostolic faith. I understand.

As I said, the church fathers spoke in the biblical language of the washing of regeneration. No surprise there. But Irenaeus was not writing against those who rejected baptismal regeneration in favor of some other view of baptism. That would be anachronistic to suppose because baptismal regeneration was not yet a developed doctrine. Irenaeus was writing against gnostics who rejected baptism altogether.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,988
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,321.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
QUOTE="Tree of Life: lol.

Glad I got you laughing!

Jesus is only the covenant head for his body. He only mediates for his body.

Well, yes. That's what I said. He offers YOM KIPPUR for mankind. He is the Last Adam, and reverses what Adam did. Adam sinned and as covenant head, plunged Creation into separation from God. Jesus turns this around by His obedience unto death so that all are reunited to God.

Wrong. Only Jesus' sheep benefit from his mediation.

Well, let's look at what St. Paul says on the matter:

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Note the bolded words. We know that not "many" but ALL mankind was separted from God (which is what death is -separation from He who is life). So the word many actually means the whole human race. I'm sure you would agree with that. Therefore, the verse goes on to say that the many (that is, ALL) have been recipients of God's grace. This means justification for all through the work of Christ, as Paul states here:

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Came upon all men unto justification of life. Hmmmmm.....wonder what part of that Calvin didn't get?

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Again, here is that word "many" which really means ALL because as we know, ALL were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam.

The author of Hebrews says that we are in the new covenant relationship that Jeremiah spoke of if we are in Christ. So, again, you are wrong.

No, not at all. I told you that IF we are in Christ, we are in the New Covenant relationship He has with the Father. But there is that little word "IF," as in if we break our covenant with Christ and are no longer in covenant with Him (what the Roman Catholics call "mortal sin") then we are also not in covenant with the Father because we are no longer in Christ. I'm thinking that you believe in that Calvinist fantasy that I once believed in called an "Unconditional Covenant." No such beast exists. All covenants have ethics (Principle Number 3) and oaths and sanctions (Principle Number 4) by which we keep the covenant. Violate the ethics you have vowed to keep and the covenant is OVER. DONE. TOAST. FINISHED.

Again, the biblical analogy that points to this is marriage. Break the marriage vow by adultery and guess what - there's the door! (Unless your spouse decides to forgive you upon your confession and repentance). Fortunately for us, we have the Divine Spouse who is always ready to forgive our covenant breaking.


I'm afraid that you don't understand Christ.

Not the way that Calvinists do. Thank God!! :oldthumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,988
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,321.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As I said, the church fathers spoke in the biblical language of the washing of regeneration. No surprise there. But Irenaeus was not writing against those who rejected baptismal regeneration in favor of some other view of baptism. That would be anachronistic to suppose because baptismal regeneration was not yet a developed doctrine. Irenaeus was writing against gnostics who rejected baptism altogether.

You missed the point altogether. You said that baptismal regeneration was not developed till the Middle Ages, yet here you have Irenaeus speaking about it!
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You missed the point altogether. You said that baptismal regeneration was not developed till the Middle Ages, yet here you have Irenaeus speaking about it!

Naw. Irenaeus and others used the biblical language of the washing of regeneration, but to say that they taught the medieval doctrine of baptismal regeneration would be anachronistic.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,988
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,321.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Naw. Irenaeus and others used the biblical language of the washing of regeneration, but to say that they taught the medieval doctrine of baptismal regeneration would be anachronistic.


Okay. I'll ask.

What is the difference between the two?
 
Upvote 0

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
So it means nothing for the person baptized? What does a baptized person have that an unbaptized person does not have?
Nothing. Baptism has no salvific value whatsoever. Salvation was bought and paid for in full on the cross. When Jesus said, "Tetelesai" (it is finished) that Greek word means, "paid in full." Baptism is an act of obedience, but it does not impart salvation to anyone. Baptism is important, but baptism is an ordinance of the Church that is commanded to believers. It is commanded to those already saved, not to those who are unsaved. Nowhere in the NT are unregenerate sinners baptized. Baptism was for those who had already made the decision to be followers of Jesus.

That is why infant baptism isn't biblical. Baptism is only for those who made the conscious decision to follow Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
66
Bristol
✟17,354.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Nope.

This is what the Christians of the first century believed:


Here is a selection from chapter 16 of the ninth Similitude of the Shepherd of Hermas (early second century):

They were obliged,” he answered, “to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. … For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” (Shepherd of Hermas)

and this:

Here is a selection from the eleventh chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) describing baptism:

“This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

and this also:

Next consider the second century bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus (b. 115-130, d. around 200 AD). In his work titled Against Heresies, he writes,

And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (A.H., I.21)
Romans 6 verses 1-3 is the Baptism that Jesus prophesied in Luke 12:50 and happens immediately at conversion.
 
Upvote 0

Pethesedzao

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2018
772
312
66
Bristol
✟17,354.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Once again, that is not what the Apostles taught to the next generation. The Apostles taught that baptism gives you new life, puts you into Christ, and forgives sin.

Wouldn't you rather believe what the first Christians taught than what some chap decided was right some 16 centuries later?
I am Peter and on my rocks the Church of Christ Jesus is being built. I stand on what I have posted previously and that water baptism does not save anyone.
 
Upvote 0

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Tree of Life,

You just affirmed that baptism is a means of grace, assurance builds up and strengthens our faith, and that's what a means does, convey more grace for the believer's faith.

Baptism does actually save. Salvation is more than justification, it is also our progressive sanctification, and it will be our final glorification. These are aspects of our total redemption (including election, regeneration, etc). Since baptism is to be performed after conversion (that moment of justification), that sacrament becomes a means to augment and increase your assurance and faith (as well as the congregation who watches the baptism of others). We are saved, are being saved, and will be saved.

Salvation = Jesus + 0. We find that He alone is fully sufficient as our Savior. Sanctification is the on going process by which we are being conformed into the image of Christ through the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. But that will not be achieved fully on this side of the grave. It will fully realized when sin is eradicated and we receive our glorified bodies (provided we have truly trusted in Christ as our Savior).

Your assurance of faith comes from God, not from baptism. Baptism doesn't "save" in the sense that we are saved from sin by that act. That is not what Peter was saying at all because he was not talking about water baptism.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Nothing. Baptism has no salvific value whatsoever. Salvation was bought and paid for in full on the cross. When Jesus said, "Tetelesai" (it is finished) that Greek word means, "paid in full." Baptism is an act of obedience, but it does not impart salvation to anyone. Baptism is important, but baptism is an ordinance of the Church that is commanded to believers. It is commanded to those already saved, not to those who are unsaved. Nowhere in the NT are unregenerate sinners baptized. Baptism was for those who had already made the decision to be followers of Jesus.

What about Simon Magus? He was an unregenerate sinner who was baptized.

Do you believe that every person your church baptizes is certainly regenerate? How can you know?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Okay. I'll ask.

What is the difference between the two?

Catholics might say that the first is the seed form of the second. The medieval doctrine which was officially taken up at Trent is much more developed than the primitive statements of the church fathers. The Roman Church did not really have much official theology on baptism until Trent because baptism was never seriously contested until the time of the Reformation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
What about Simon Magus? He was an unregenerate sinner who was baptized.

Do you believe that every person your church baptizes is certainly regenerate? How can you know?
Simon's "conversion" was proven to be false. They did not baptize him knowing he was still unregenerate. His "conversion was for purely self-serving purposes.

As for the people in my church... My point has nothing to do with whether or not I know who is or is not saved. That doesn't even address the point I raised. What I said was the Bible prescribes baptism ONLY to believers. God knows who is truly saved or not. That is not my problem. Baptism doesn't save us. It is the first act of obedience for the authentic follower of Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Simon's "conversion" was proven to be false. They did not baptize him knowing he was still unregenerate. His "conversion was for purely self-serving purposes.

You previously said that only regenerate people are to be baptized. And that nowhere in the NT are unregenerate people baptized. Do you now wish to amend that?

As for the people in my church... My point has nothing to do with whether or not I know who is or is not saved. That doesn't even address the point I raised. What I said was the Bible prescribes baptism ONLY to believers. God knows who is truly saved or not. That is not my problem. Baptism doesn't save us. It is the first act of obedience for the authentic follower of Jesus Christ.

If we cannot know whether or not a person is a true believer how can we baptize anyone in a conscionable way?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You previously said that only regenerate people are to be baptized. And that nowhere in the NT are unregenerate people baptized. Do you now wish to amend that?



If we cannot know whether or not a person is a true believer how can we baptize anyone in a conscionable way?
I have no need to amend that. The Bible only prescribes baptism for believers. The false conversion of Simon Mangus doesn't contradict that. A false conversion means his baptism was invalid. I am simply stating what the doctrine of baptism is in Scripture.

In my church, you make a public profession of faith. You accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and publicly profess that Jesus is your Lord and Savior. The moment your heart says "yes" to Jesus and you accept Him, you are follower of Jesus. You are now justified by faith and are placed in legal right-standing with God. At that point, you are a candidate for baptism.

Could someone come up and make a false profession and end up getting baptized? Sure. But again, that is not my problem. It is between that person and the Lord. They will be accountable to God for that. We cannot see into anyone's heart. If they are false convert, it will be borne out in the bad fruit their life produces. Over time, it will become apparent.

We are simply called to give people the truth in love. We are not accountable for the results. What they do with the truth is between them and the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I have no need to amend that. The Bible only prescribes baptism for believers. The false conversion of Simon Mangus doesn't contradict that. A false conversion means his baptism was invalid. I am simply stating what the doctrine of baptism is in Scripture.

In my church, you make a public profession of faith. You accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and publicly profess that Jesus is your Lord and Savior. The moment your heart says "yes" to Jesus and you accept Him, you are follower of Jesus. You are now justified by faith and are placed in legal right-standing with God. At that point, you are a candidate for baptism.

Could someone come up and make a false profession and end up getting baptized? Sure. But again, that is not my problem. It is between that person and the Lord. They will be accountable to God for that. We cannot see into anyone's heart. If they are false convert, it will be borne out in the bad fruit their life produces. Over time, it will become apparent.

We are simply called to give people the truth in love. We are not accountable for the results. What they do with the truth is between them and the Lord.

I disagree that the Bible prescribes baptism only for believers. Could you show me a verse that says that the children of believers are not to be baptized?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justified112

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2019
526
276
47
Midwest US
✟25,034.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I disagree that the Bible prescribes baptism only for believers. Could you show me a verse that says that the children of believers are not to be baptized?
I don't need to. The onus is on you to show infant baptism in the NT. Every verse about baptism is always connected faith in Christ. There is nothing about baptism that assigns it to anyone other than a believer. If you disagree, then it up to you to show that the Bible advocates for infant baptism.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I don't need to. The onus is on you to show infant baptism in the NT. Every verse about baptism is always connected faith in Christ. There is nothing about baptism that assigns it to anyone other than a believer. If you disagree, then it up to you to show that the Bible advocates for infant baptism.

There's lots of biblical evidence for this position. I'll just mention two pieces:
  1. There is no command to the contrary. In the Old Covenant, the children of believers were included in the covenant and given the covenant sign of circumcision. The first believers in the gospel were Jews. If the New Covenant sign was not supposed to be applied to the children of believers, you would think that someone would have explicitly mentioned this. But there is no command to withhold the New Covenant sign from covenant children. So we should assume that the former precedent still applies.

  2. The covenant formula for the New Testament is the same as the Old Testament. When God established the covenant with Abraham and gave him the covenant sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, he said: "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." (Genesis 17:7). Abraham's children are clearly included in the covenant and should be circumcised.

    Peter uses almost identical language when he says in Acts 2: "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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39). Here too the covenant includes the children of believers and so the covenant sign should be applied to them.
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Jesus died spiritually as well as physically. He went through pain and punishment that was meant for us.
We are told that Christ was dead only in the body, his spirit was quickened and preached to those in prison/hell.
1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

His body died and was buried after Crucifixion(John 19:30-42).
His spirit was quickened and lived and went to those in the grave/hell to preach to them(1 Peter 3:18).

His flesh was crucified, his spirit was not.
His flesh was killed, his spirit yet lived.
His body was buried in a tomb, his spirit was quickened and preached to souls in prison.

We see then the likeness of his death that we are baptized into is:
1. Crucifixion of the old man/flesh with Christ who was crucified for our sins(Romans 6:6; John 19:16-19)
2. Being made dead to the flesh with Christ in baptism as Christ was dead(Romans 6:7-8; John 19:30)
3. Burial in water of our bodies as Christ's body was buried bodily(Romans 6:4,5: John 19:38-42)
4. Quickening of the spirit with Christ as Christ's spirit was quickened(Colossians 2:12-13; 1 Peter 3:18, 21)
5. Raised unto a new life as Christ was resurrected unto new life(Romans 6:4-5; Luke 24:5-8)
 
Upvote 0

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
There's lots of biblical evidence for this position. I'll just mention two pieces:
  1. There is no command to the contrary. In the Old Covenant, the children of believers were included in the covenant and given the covenant sign of circumcision. The first believers in the gospel were Jews. If the New Covenant sign was not supposed to be applied to the children of believers, you would think that someone would have explicitly mentioned this. But there is no command to withhold the New Covenant sign from covenant children. So we should assume that the former precedent still applies.

  2. The covenant formula for the New Testament is the same as the Old Testament. When God established the covenant with Abraham and gave him the covenant sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, he said: "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." (Genesis 17:7). Abraham's children are clearly included in the covenant and should be circumcised.

    Peter uses almost identical language when he says in Acts 2: "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. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39). Here too the covenant includes the children of believers and so the covenant sign should be applied to them.
Brother,

1. We are told explicitly what is necessary before baptism.
A. faith in Christ and the understanding of what he did.
B. Confession with the person's mouth that Christ is God.
C. Repentance/confession of their own sins to God.
D True forgiveness of everyone that has wronged them or they will not be forgiven.
E. Baptism in Christ's name alone in water.

Those are the rules and requirements set forth by the Apostles and Christ in the New Testament. If an infant is able to perform all these things then they can be baptized.

2. The promise is faith(Galatians 3:14) and it is for everyone. For us for our Children and for those who are nowhere near us(for everyone in all the world). If the infant has faith in Christ then they have received the promise, afterward then they must meet all the requirements listed in point 1 before baptism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StephenDiscipleofYHWH

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2018
1,483
378
28
Ransom county
✟69,666.00
Country
United States
Faith
Apostolic
Marital Status
Single
Luke 12:50 gives us the first indication of the Baptism that saves us. Jesus said that those who were to believe in Him would go through that Baptism. Now that Baptism is not water or the Baptism WITH the Spirit, those two baptisms follow afterwards.
Are you speaking of the circumcision of the heart by faith?(Romans 2:28-29; Acts 15:7-9; Romans 10:8; Colossians 2:11-13; Philippians 3:3)

Or are you speaking of Christ's crucifixion, death, and resurrection?

Or are you speaking of both? I'm a little unsure what exactly you are referring to brother.
 
Upvote 0