KEPLER,
You have given me a great response; now, let me see if I can respond to you. (I would have done so yesterday, but for some reason, I couldn't log on to CF; don't know if anyone else was having the same problem. Anyway, better late than never I suppose.)
First let me say that you are right to point out the wording of Eph. 2:8-9 "
by grace,
through faith." Didn't mean to use awkward wording to discuss faith.
KEPLER said:
The Eastern Orthodox immerse their infants. They have always immersed their infants (three times, in fact!) .So, how does your argument work against them?
Obviously this would be irrelevant to EO. However, it would not be irrelevant to the many that do practice immersion. There's not a good blanket statement to make that is going to cover all the differences between the different groups who practice infant baptism. Bottom line is that if they don't practice effusion, but immersion, then they wouldn't apply. But there are groups, such as Rom Cath, who do not practice immersion of infants or of anyone for that matter. Those are the groups to whom I refer. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify that.
KEPLER said:
- Your "histoircal" argument is incorrect. In Mark 7 and Luke 11, the word "baptizo" is rendered "wash". The key thing in Mark 7 is not the pharisees, but the pots, pans and the table. Do you really think they picked up a table and immersed it in the kitchen sink (or wash tub, whatever!)??? That's how the KJV translators solved the problem. When it referred to people, they used "baptize"; when it referred to inanimate objects, the used "wash". They were wrong to do so.
The passages in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38 are both referring to the washing of hands before a meal. This reference is still keeping in the definition of "baptizo" meaning to "immerse." The verb "baptizo" doesn't specify in and of its definition as to whether it must be used with respect to a person or to an inanimate object. The act of immersing one's hands would have obviously been part of the washing of hands. I'm not quite sure what your connection is to what I was saying about the word "baptizo" itself.
My point was that "baptize" was not even an English word until the translation of the English Bible. In its original context of the Greek language, its meanings were "to dip, dunk, or immerse." The word does not connote what the purpose of the dipping, dunking, or immersing is. It only refers to the act itself. So anything accomplished by dipping, dunking, or immersing could be functions of this word in its original language setting. And so it could and was used to refer to acts of bathing or washing utensils. But, I would think we can all see the difference in context between those types of uses and baptism are two different contexts. Because the word was used in these two passages to refer to dipping, dunking, or immersing for the purpose of washing or cleansing, it is erroneous to assume therefore that all references to dipping, dunking, and immersing are for the purpose of washing and cleansing.
My response to your point here is that you are reading too much into the definition of a Greek verb that was brought over into English specifically in 1511 with the KJV. (Incidentally, don't forget that these practices were not in the keeping of Jesus and His disciples, but the Pharisees, so these practices of ceremonial washing are not being taught for our imitation.)
KEPLER said:
- Neither Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics believe in "once saved, always saved," so your crtique really doesn't apply.
I am not even speaking to the issue of the security of the believer; rather, I am speaking of original sin. I'm not sure what your point is here. In fact, I was reading my post several times to make sure, but I don't see anything in it that even has anything to do with the doctrine of the security of the believer. That's a different topic altogether. (BTW, I don't know if this is the case or not, but in case it is, let me just say this now. I'm sure that you looked at my profile to see that I am a Baptist by denomination; and I'm sure you have some view about Baptist that are "stereotypical," for lack of a better word. Please don't let your views of the Baptist denomination color your comments to me. I am not speaking to you as a Baptist, but as a Biblical theologian and linguist. If this is not the case, then forgive my comment, and I'll continue.)
- Presbyteraisn who baptize infants do believe in OSAS (although they define it differently (and better!) than the Baptists). BUt in their theology, infant baptism is rooted in inclusion in the New Covenant, in which case, your crtique does not apply to them either (although for differenet reasons).
First, Presbyterians baptize babies as a form of dedication to the Lord. It has no salvific import at all. I have family who are Presbyterian by denomination and can say that from experience in talking with them and their minister. And again, this has nothing to do with the doctrine of the security of the believer anyway, so, again, I don't understand the significance of that comment. The doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of the security of the believer are two different biblical doctrines.
I can only conlude Mark, that you do not understand the doctrine of Baptism as the EO, RC, Lutherans Presbyterians define it. (For that matter, I would further say that you also don't udnerstand baptism as the Scriptures define it...) 
First, let me say that I'd be careful with such strong comments as that; many would perceive that as disrespectful or rude (the last part of it, that is).
EO: Bishop Alexander Mileant in "Baptism and Chrismation - "This power of grace permeates the soul of the person submerged in water during baptism...The baptism of an infant reflects the parents’ burning desire to have their child partake of Christ’s blessings as soon as possible. Having been baptized, the child starts to develop in a church environment.
RC: Catholic Encyclopedia, Section on Baptism, Part XII: Effects of Baptism:
1. The Remission of All Sin, Original and Actual
(There are 4 others, but the first is the one relevant to our conversation.)
Lutherans: Wayne Weissenbuehler (Lutheran Minister/Theologian in Colo.) in an article "Infant Baptism":
"We believe that in baptism God adopts us into Jesus Christ as his child for time and eternity through the word, water and Spirit. It incorporates us into Christ's body the church. So begins the life of faith. Certainly there is no evidence that Jesus wants to exclude infants from this."
I'd like to think I have a little bit of knowledge regarding the stance other churches have taken on Baptism, esp. infant baptism.
GNOSTICISM ALERT!!!!
I am sorry my friend, but this division between "water baptism" and the "baptism of the Spirit" is an entirely gnostic division. At it's root, this intepretation is DENYING that God can or does work through physical means. In other words, in separating the Spirit from the Water, you also deny the God worked through a serpent on a stick, a burning bush, a bog box with a couple of graven images on it, a pillar of cloud, lamb's blood on a lintel, a baby in a manger...
OOPS! That last on'e a biggie!
I have said nothing that even hints of gnosticism. God can work through whatever means He chooses, and in His Word, He has revealed the means through which He chooses to work with salvation and baptism. There are most certainly two primary ways in which "baptism" is used in the NT. We already know the literal ones, but its the other one we get hung up on. Please allow me to give you a bible study:
a. Jesus Himself is described in John 1:33 as "the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."
b. 1 Cor. 12:13 tells us that we are all baptized into one body and made to drink of one Spirit.
This is the other type of baptism I was referring to. Yes, Scripture uses the allegory of water many times to refer to the Holy Spirit, but again, what has this to do with whether babies should be baptized. I don't separate the washing of the Holy Spirit from salvation. But I do separate it from the ordinance of baptism that takes place in a literal body of water as an outward picture of an inward change. A literal body of water is not needed for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as seen in Acts 8:15-17;10:44; and v.47 shows the separateness of these two acts. There are other verses that could be quoted, but I think you get the point.
And lastly, Acts 10 is the governing Scripture on this issue: Yes, God is capable of imparting the Holy Spirit outside the use of water, but Peter thought it was very strange, and immediately set about getting water to baptize the new believers. (And, FWIW, this takes care of the "thief on the cross" exclsusion as well).
If you will read the remainder of this paragraph, you will see that Peter is talking about the Day of the Lord, and in that context, he is reminding the readers of how the earth was once destroyed in the days of Noah, and will once again be destroyed in the end. My point is that you have removed the context of this passage and made it to mean something it was never intended to mean.
Strawman argument. Neither Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholic, nor Lutheran, nor Presbyterian theology "decides" what happens to an unbaptized infant. They are entirely in the hands of God. In essence, (speaking for the Lutherans) we would agree with you 100% on this, so it must not be an argument against infant baptism...?
With exception of Presbyterians, Lutherans, and EO, I would encourage you to check out the articles of belief from the RC church and you will see that their outlook for an infant who dies without first being baptized, (which is the only way into the Church, according to their theology), is not very good at all.
God Bless you as well, and I look forward to more dialogue with you. Sorry for the long post, but it was a lengthy topic.
Mark
