Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree it tends towards Zwinglian views, and that was my intention, in part, because it is presented as a protestant view, I wanted to be sure that what was written was a fair representation of at least a large body of protestant opinion.That’s a Zwinglian interpretation and is insufficient to describe the sacramental importance of the sacred mystery of Baptism, which like the Eucharist, directly imparts salvific grace.
I am not very sure that people who were baptised in infancy and never set food in a church afterwards would think of anyone as saved including themselves. But I may be wrong.I think salvation CAN come through baptism, but it does not entail salvation. Else, you would have to say there are a LOT of people out there who think they are "saved" because they were baptized as an infant and don't give a second thought to taking their faith seriously. Now, I'm sure this is a sure rarity on this forum, but I think I have a point worth making: Without a commitment to Christ, there is no salvation.
Further, I used to view baptism as only a symbol, but I have come to believe that something (don't know what) spiritual happens when a person is baptized. This does not mean that it is salvation itself that happens in baptism, but it could very well be an awakening of Spiritual Gifts in a person (or really any manner of different things).
Well Zwinglianism disagrees with the largest Protestant denominations (Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists and Baptists) on sacramental theology, but somehow survives.I agree it tends towards Zwinglian views, and that was my intention, in part, because it is presented as a protestant view, I wanted to be sure that what was written was a fair representation of at least a large body of protestant opinion.
The early church and to this day the Orthodox recognize as being saved martyrs and likely being saved any catechumens or infants who die before receiving the sacrament. This is why catechumens get the full Orthodox funeral (which is unavailable to people who kill themselves for reasons other than mental illness and people who voluntarily opt for cremation, as opposed to being cremated by the authorities).I think salvation CAN come through baptism, but it does not entail salvation. Else, you would have to say there are a LOT of people out there who think they are "saved" because they were baptized as an infant and don't give a second thought to taking their faith seriously. Now, I'm sure this is a sure rarity on this forum, but I think I have a point worth making: Without a commitment to Christ, there is no salvation.
Further, I used to view baptism as only a symbol, but I have come to believe that something (don't know what) spiritual happens when a person is baptized. This does not mean that it is salvation itself that happens in baptism, but it could very well be an awakening of Spiritual Gifts in a person (or really any manner of different things).
I do admit to feeling confused about Anglicanism and its relationship with Protestantism; at least some Anglicans I talk with do not want to self identify as protestant. If I am not mistaken the Church of England under Henry VIII was very Catholic in doctrine and many practises, less so under Edward VI, rather Catholic in practise and many doctrines under Elizabeth I, and from then onwards maintained varying degrees of Catholic like practise and doctrine over time until our own day.Well Zwinglianism disagrees with the largest Protestant denominations (Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists and Baptists) on sacramental theology, but somehow survives.
Indeed Lutheran and High Church Anglican sacramental theology on Baptism, and also strangely Calvinism, but not John Wesley, contra his views on Holy Communion, is extremely similar to Catholic and Orthodox positions. This is why for example OCNet has the Traditional Theology forum, because we have a number of members who are a part of these similar denominations and share enough in common, for example, myself and my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @Carl Emerson .
I am not very sure that people who were baptised in infancy and never set food in a church afterwards would think of anyone as saved including themselves. But I may be wrong.
Most confessional Lutherans don't like being called Protestant. we are "reformed Catholics" or evangelical Catholics...I do admit to feeling confused about Anglicanism and its relationship with Protestantism; at least some Anglicans I talk with do not want to self identify as protestant. If I am not mistaken the Church of England under Henry VIII was very Catholic in doctrine and many practises, less so under Edward VI, rather Catholic in practise and many doctrines under Elizabeth I, and from then onwards maintained varying degrees of Catholic like practise and doctrine over time until our own day.
In the Original Post I gave one Reformed body's view under the name of Herman Hoeksema.
And I am aware that John Calvin and Martin Luther were in deep disagreement with Ulrich Zwingli and his proteges.
I do not intend to give a summary that can adequately represent every shade of protestant and Anglican and Lutheran teaching. That is a task well beyond my ability.
Good. This is extremely important in my opinion.often includes the traditional and historic practice of exorcism prior to the actual trinitarian baptism. This longer form is always used in our Parish.
Most confessional Lutherans don't like being called Protestant. we are "reformed Catholics" or evangelical Catholics...
Our Baptismal theology remains more in line with the practices and teaching of the CC. Our Batpismal Rite (optional) often includes the traditional and historic practice of exorcism prior to the actual trinitarian baptism. This longer form is always used in our Parish.
I noted in the USA that in many locations people talk of "protestants" "Catholics" and "Lutherans" to differentiate. These are usually regions where there are LCMS, WELS, and other Confessional groups.
As I wrote in an earlier post, it is well beyond my ability to write something about baptism that covers every form of Protestant, Anglican, and Lutheran perspective, not to mention the Reformed and Presbyterian perspectives which - while being protestant - are unlike Baptist and many other branches of Protestantism.Good.
Indeed, however, the thing is Zwinglianism is not the lowest common denominator position, or representative of most Protestants.As I wrote in an earlier post, it is well beyond my ability to write something about baptism that covers every form of Protestant, Anglican, and Lutheran perspective, not to mention the Reformed and Presbyterian perspectives which - while being protestant - are unlike Baptist and many other branches of Protestantism.
Xeno,
I think you're question should be, can anyone find scripture teaching that baptism's only meaning is a public profession of faith? (Although some credo's do hold to the sign and seal language, but I'm not sure many people today understand that a seal is not meaningless, but something without which the thing in question becomes meaningless. (eg Uni degree needs the college seal, laws need the state seal etc)
So if an unbeliever is baptized, he is saved, though he continue in his unbelief?Surely you accept that Baptism was received at the hands of a fellow believer and intrinsically was a public profession in the both the past reality of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a public profession that we are dying and being buried with Christ, and a public profession that we believe in the future resurrection and our faith that Christ will raise us.
As I believe that baptism does save, I cannot answer for other credo baptists.
Thanks. . .that answers the question.Yes, this applies to all the elect, whether adult or infant. According to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF 28:6), the salvific grace promised in this sacrament is not only offered but actually conferred by the Holy Spirit to everyone to whom that grace belongs (i.e., the elect), whether adult or infant—"according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time."
But that baptized infant may grow up and not experience salvation until she is 24 years old. Her baptism was a sign and seal of God's covenant faithfulness but the efficacy of this sacrament is not necessarily "tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (ibid.). There is no necessity that one's dying to sin and being raised to new life occur on the day the sacrament which communicates that grace is administered.
Thanks for your thorough response.And it's no different for credobaptists. I remember hearing as a Baptist countless stories of adults whose experience of salvation was separated by months or years from their baptism—and even people who were baptized but, in the end, never experienced salvation.
As explained by Ligonier Ministries (2017), "Something actually happens in baptism—grace is conferred—but only to the elect, who invariably respond to that grace with repentance and faith, though the time of response does not necessarily coincide with the time of baptism."
If I am not mistaken, in your vocabulary "saved" means "will inevitably be with God in eternal bliss forever". If that is the meaning you are using then the answer is, "no, a baptised person who persists in unbelief is not saved".So if an unbeliever is baptized, he is saved, though he continue in his unbelief?
No. No such thing as OSAS, even with baptism.So if an unbeliever is baptized, he is saved, though he continue in his unbelief?
Regarding the born again, the NT is in disagreement (e.g., 2 Co 1:22, 2 Co 5:5, Eph 1:14, Php 1:6, 1 Jn 3:2).No. No such thing as OSAS, even with baptism.
Does OSAS comfort you?Regarding the born again, the NT is in disagreement (e.g., 2 Co 1:22, 2 Co 5:5, Eph 1:14, Php 1:6, 1 Jn 3:2).
I am unsure of what this means, please explain it to me.Clare73Xeno.of.athens
Co 1:22 isn't, as far as I can see, promising once saved always saved. Why would one need a guarantee if one were already completely safe and saved?
Php 1:6 is about confidence which need not imply once saved always saved.
1 John 3:2 is about confidence too, which confidence every believer enjoys - even those who reject once saved always saved.
Yesterday at 12:50 PM
Xeno.of.athens
These are comforting words, "Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God. Therefore the world knoweth not us, because it knew not him. Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God: and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is."
1 John 3:1-2
Yesterday at 12:57 PM
"even those who reject once saved always saved" (first comment)
Your issue in your first comment above is with Paul and John, not me:
1 Co 1:22 - absurd. . .why does the Holy Spirit give a guarantee?
Php 1:6 - absurd. . .why does Paul assert confidence?
1 Jn 3:2 - absurd. . .why does John state our certainty?
Your stated-above rejection of these Scriptures is not mine to address.
Today at 12:47 AM
Ro 6 presents baptism as our dying to sin and raised to live a new life in Christ, our dying to sin as Christ died for sin.
Can this apply to infants in paedobaptism?
So if an unbeliever is baptized, he is saved, though he continue in his unbelief?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?