A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Pelagius had much more complex theology than just "there is no original sin". Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does not support it.

I am quite sure that somebody somewhere condemned as heresy almost anything.

You wrote: Pelagius had much more complex theology than just "there is no original sin"
I write: Augustine had much more complex theology than just "there is original sin"

You wrote: Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does not support it.
I write: Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does support it. (Romans 5:12)

You wrote: I am quite sure that somebody somewhere condemned as heresy almost anything.
I write: Pelagius was a condemned heretic under the full authority of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 AD. Pelagius wasn't "somebody somewhere." Within the history of the Christian church very few heretics rise to Pelagius stature of full blown condemnation by whole Christian church.

 

[trophy33]

You wrote: Pelagius had much more complex theology than just "there is no original sin"
I write: Augustine had much more complex theology than just "there is original sin"

You wrote: Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does not support it.
I write: Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does support it. (Romans 5:12)

You wrote: I am quite sure that somebody somewhere condemned as heresy almost anything.
I write: Pelagius was a condemned heretic under the full authority of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431 AD. Pelagius wasn't "somebody somewhere." Within the history of the Christian church very few heretics rise to Pelagius stature of full blown condemnation by whole Christian church.

You wrote: Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does support it. (Romans 5:12)
I write: Romans 5:12 does not support it, Augustine read it wrong, for details check the links I provided

Pelagius and history of councils and condemnations is irrelevant for the issue that R 5:12 does not support it and that Augustine misunderstood it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY: INFANT BAPTISM IS NOW THE CONVERSION EXPERIENCE.

The core assumption among Credobaptists here is that you must have a conversion experience to be saved. You must turn away from a past life toward a new one, usually with tears and laments attesting your sincerity. And this view of Christianity works well in an evangelistic setting, where many have lived as open unbelievers. The problem is it’s an awkward fit when it comes to multi-generational faith. Anyone who was raised in a Christian home and still believes in Jesus knows that there wasn’t a time when he or she transitioned from “unbelief” to “belief.” We were never “converted.” It was simply inculcated from infancy, and for as long as we can remember, we have trusted in Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins, whether we were baptized as a baby or not. But because of the baptistic emphasis on conversion, many (if not most) raised in those churches found ourselves “converting” over and over, reciting the “sinner’s prayer” at countless altar calls during our childhood and teenage years, certain that each time, we were truly sincere, but always finding ourselves back at the altar. Some of us even asked to be re-baptized upon our fresh conversions. And everyone raised in evangelical churches will know what I mean when I say “testimony envy,”–that real and perverse jealousy you feel when someone who lived a nastier pre-conversion life than you shares their story. This is where I think the chief difficulty with infant baptism lies, at least for American evangelicals. I don’t believe baptistic evangelicals really view their children as unregenerate pagans (or as someone else said "Vipers in diapers") before their “credible profession of faith.” If they did, they wouldn’t teach them to say the Lord’s Prayer or to sing “Jesus Loves Me.” I think what’s really going on is a kind of alternative sacramentalism, where a dramatic conversion experience, rather than baptism, is the rite of Christian initiation. ​ It is not only infant membership in the OT church which is as clear as crystal. EVERY REFERENCE TO CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TREATS THEM AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. "Suffer the little children to come unto me." "The promise is to you and your children." "Now are your children holy." "Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Accompanied with the repeated reference to household baptisms as a normal practice such language used with reference to believers' children gives a positive, explicit mandate to continue receiving the children of believers into the New Testament church.​

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You wrote: Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does support it. (Romans 5:12)
I write: Romans 5:12 does not support it, Augustine read it wrong, for details check the links I provided

Pelagius and history of councils and condemnations is irrelevant for the issue that R 5:12 does not support it and that Augustine misunderstood it.

You wrote: I write: Romans 5:12 does not support it, Augustine read it wrong,
I write: Romans 5:12 does support it, Pelagius read it wrong,

 

[hedrick]

Not believing in original sin was the mistake of Pelagius. He was a condemned heretic.

There can be a variety of ways to talk about original sin. The article quoted was talking about the idea that everyone sinned in Adam, based on a translation of Rom 5:12 that matches the KJV. About all that can be said is that most modern commentaries thibk that was a mistake. I checked with Moo’s commentary. He is considered a moderately traditional Reformed scholar. One can still appreciate the corporate nature of sin without that particular exegesis of Rom 5:12. You may be interested to read Calvin’s commentary:

“There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned.”

Calvin says that the consequence of the fall is that our nature is corrupted, so we sin, but we are blamed for our sin, not Adam’s. The Heidelberg Catechism reflects this. The Westminster Catechism sees Adam as our covenant head, and so he sinned on our behalf.

Neither of these positions is Pelagian, although they are based on different understandings od Romans 5:12

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There can be a variety of ways to talk about original sin. The article quoted was talking about the idea that everyone sinned in Adam, based on a translation of Rom 5:12 that matches the KJV. About all that can be said is that most modern commentaries thibk that was a mistake. I checked with Moo’s commentary. He is considered a moderately traditional Reformed scholar. One can still appreciate the corporate nature of sin without that particular exegesis of Rom 5:12. You may be interested to read Calvin’s commentary:

“There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned.”

Calvin says that the consequence of the fall is that our nature is corrupted, so we sin, but we are blamed for our sin, not Adam’s. The Heidelberg Catechism reflects this. The Westminster Catechism sees Adam as our covenant head, and so he sinned on our behalf.

Neither of these positions is Pelagian, although they are based on different understandings od Romans 5:12

CCC 396-412 gives some helpful information about Original Sin.

 

[eleos1954]

If you are a member of the RCC, then you are baptized. Rome doesn't hold baptism as optional for a member.

Do YOU believe baptism is optional for a Christian? This is not a complex question.

Yes it is optional ..... however if a person who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior .... getting baptized in His name is their public testimony that they have done so .... baptism is not a requirement to be saved .... rather a public declaration that you one has been saved.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Yes it is optional ..... however if a person who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior .... getting baptized in His name is their public testimony that they have done so .... baptism is not a requirement to be saved .... rather a public declaration that you one has been saved.

Wow. I as afraid you would say this.

The Word of God REQUIRES all Christians to be baptized, per Jesus' command in Matthew 28:18f.

Additionally, Peter spells out prescriptively how and why baptism is to be administered in the church through out the ages (Acts 2:38-39).

Dual Commands: 1) Repent and 2) be baptized.
Dual Promises: 1)For the forgiveness of sins and 2) You shall receive the HS.
Baptism continuance: For you and your children.
Geographical or Missional significance: To all those who are far off and away

My prayer is that this belief of yours is not taught to new converts as they too might believe....baptism is optional and not be baptized at all.

You are the first person I have ever come across who believes this way.

 

[eleos1954]

Wow. I as afraid you would say this.

The Word of God REQUIRES all Christians to be baptized, per Jesus' command in Matthew 28:18f.

Additionally, Peter spells out prescriptively how and why baptism is to be administered in the church through out the ages (Acts 2:38-39).

Dual Commands: 1) Repent and 2) be baptized.
Dual Promises: 1)For the forgiveness of sins and 2) You shall receive the HS.
Baptism continuance: For you and your children.
Geographical or Missional significance: To all those who are far off and away

My prayer is that this belief of yours is not taught to new converts as they too might believe....baptism is optional and not be baptized at all.

You are the first person I have ever come across who believes this way.

Water don't save a person ..... Jesus does .... there is no act (including water baptism) man can perform that can save Him.

You are the first person I have ever come across who believes this way.

Evidently you don't get around much outside of your own beliefs .... LOL

It's about true repentance (change of heart/mind) of which only the Lord knows.

54 Bible verses about Repentance

One can dunk and/or splash water til the cows come home and it don't mean anything unless their heart/mind is changed (repentance).

It is God that leads one to repentance.

KJ21
Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

 

[Markie Boy]

It's definitely not an either or - baptism or believing. We should have both.

I have to say, I have heard a pastor say from the pulpit - You don't have to be baptized to be saved. Yes, it's true (thief on the cross), but not to be normative or a teaching. And I wouldn't want to put emphasis on it, as it's not the teaching of the New Testament.

 

[Valletta]

Water don't save a person ..... Jesus does .... there is no act (including water baptism) man can perform that can save Him.

As I pointed out to you before, the Bible says otherwise:

1 Pet 3:20-21 God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now . . ."


God saves us through the sacrament of Baptism, water is the sign of God's work.

 

[Markie Boy]

It was a Lutheran that first pointed out to me - baptism is something God does for us, not something we do for Him.

Totally the opposite of what modern Evangelicalism seems to say, but I think the one that actually makes the most sense.

 

[eleos1954]

As I pointed out to you before, the Bible says otherwise:

1 Pet 3:20-21 God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.


God saves us through the sacrament of Baptism, water is the sign of God's work.

God saves us through the sacrament of Baptism, water is the sign of God's work.

Right ... it's a sign/symbol .... of the work God has already done in the believer .... Jesus saves .... nothing else .... baptism is not required for salvation otherwise it is a work ... something we can do to be saved .... and our works are filthy rags. Without ME (Jesus) ye can do nothing.

sacraments
a religious ceremony or ritual

Ceremonies/rituals do not save a person ..... Jesus does.

1st Peter 3

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.

Water baptism is a symbol (verse 21). It is a symbol of our death and resurrection with Christ. Jesus saves!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Right ... it's a sign/symbol .... of the work God has already done in the believer .... Jesus saves .... nothing else .... baptism is not required for salvation otherwise it is a work ... something we can do to be saved .... and our works are filthy rags. Without ME (Jesus) ye can do nothing.

sacraments
a religious ceremony or ritual

Ceremonies/rituals do not save a person ..... Jesus does.

1st Peter 3

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.

Water baptism is a symbol (verse 21). It is a symbol of our death and resurrection with Christ. Jesus saves!

Oh, but it would be so much better and simpler if all we had to do to be saved would be to go to a special building and have a spiritual intercessor with God to say the magic words and/or do the magic formula and presto bingo! we would be saved.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Oh, but it would be so much better and simpler if all we had to do to be saved would be to go to a special building and have a spiritual intercessor with God to say the magic words and/or do the magic formula and presto bingo! we would be saved.

That's ex opere operato. What Protestant believes that

 

[bbbbbbb]

That's ex opere operato. What Protestant believes that

Actually, I have known a number of nominal church members of all persuasions who think that.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Actually, I have known a number of nominal church members of all persuasions who think that.

Just one "nominal church member" can destroy a generalized statement. Ex opere operato is condemned in the Lutheran Confessions, Reformed Confessions and Anglican confessions (Article XXVI). Normally, as you used whenever the word "magic" is used for both Baptism and the Lord's supper....it is accusing other other party of ex opere operato. A very old attack on the Sacraments.

 

[Valletta]

Right ... it's a sign/symbol .... of the work God has already done in the believer .... Jesus saves .... nothing else .... baptism is not required for salvation otherwise it is a work ... something we can do to be saved .... and our works are filthy rags. Without ME (Jesus) ye can do nothing.

sacraments
a religious ceremony or ritual

Ceremonies/rituals do not save a person ..... Jesus does.

1st Peter 3

In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to Him.

Water baptism is a symbol (verse 21). It is a symbol of our death and resurrection with Christ. Jesus saves!

God acts through people and even sometimes through objects. God's Word makes it clear God saves us through Baptism. When Jesus made a blind man wash it wasn't the water that gave the man sight--it was Jesus. But the man had to first follow the instructions of Jesus, just like with the sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Markie Boy]

I think American Christianity is too allergic to the idea of a "work". We had a conversation with a Baptist pastor one time, and it had this tone. Let's face it - even believing is doing something.

The question becomes, is salvation conditional - meeting conditions is not the same as earning anything. The word "if" is so many places in the New Testament. So, is believing a work?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Just one "nominal church member" can destroy a generalized statement. Ex opere operato is condemned in the Lutheran Confessions, Reformed Confessions and Anglican confessions (Article XXVI). Normally, as you used whenever the word "magic" is used for both Baptism and the Lord's supper....it is accusing other other party of ex opere operato. A very old attack on the Sacraments.

Quite true. Sadly, very true concerning the deeply-entrenched cultural beliefs of various nominal believers of any religion.