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.
TamaraLynne said:Hmmmm.........I did ask awhile ago(asked my husband) why some people baptize their babies. He told me it brought them more comfort..........which I understand being a mom myself. But I found more comfort in that my children were sanctified first.......then when they come of age they have a choice as to whether or not they love Jesus.
Understanding who Jesus is and chosing to follow himand then to be baptised. But you know what.....if someone wants to baptize their baby............then rebaptize later when they understand.........I see no problem.
It's alot better then no baptism at all like some preach.
Maybe someone can explain being sanctified by the parents ..........maybe I just don't understand.
Love
Tam
jckstraw72 said:yeah, cause every Protestant church wont make the same claim.
Or are you unable to account for the fact that the Baptist Distinctives are taught in scripture?
jckstraw72 said:theyre in the Baptist understanding of scripture, sure.
and every Christian group will tell you the exact same thing about their distinctives. crazy how that works.
And, again, rather than just dismissing them, why not examine them in light of scripture and show me where we're wrong?
Actually, every Christian group does not have these disctinctives.
Mark75 said: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.
Mark75 said: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.
The problem here is that baptize in Greek does NOT always refer to complete immersion. Greeks in the time of Christ, for example, had a ceremony for blessing a newly built boat. In this ceremony, either wine or water was poured over the bow of the boat, the boat was given a name, and then the boat was launched. This ceremony is called the baptism of boats, and as Im sure youve surmised, its a tradition that exists to this day. Surely, the boat was not immersed during this ceremony. Boats, after all, are not supposed to be immersed: thats kind of a bad thing!Mark75 said: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.
Youre the one who brought up etymology; thats all Im discussing here.Mark75 said: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.)
Admittedly, this part of the conversation gets much more subtle let me again quote what you originally wrote:Mark75 said: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.)Kepler said:Neither Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics believe in "once saved, always saved," so your crtique really doesn't apply.
Your assertion seems to be constructed thus:Mark75 said:Next, we must consider the motive of the baptism. Those who practice infant baptism do so because they think it removes the original sin of the infant so that if it should die in infancy, it will go to Heaven. That's a rather interesting view, because if our original sin could be removed by baptism, then there would be no sins committed later in life; afterall, that is why we are sinners, or committers of sin, we have original sin, or a predisposition to sin from birth - however you wish to word this. David tells in Ps 51 that from the womb, he was conceived in iniquity. Also, if we didn't bear the sin of Adam, we also wouldn't bear the consequences of his sin, which is death. But last time I checked, everyone is still dying.
Mark75 said:Kepler said: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.
Aww, cmon I used a winky . Oh, alright, fair enough. I apologize.Mark75 said:Kepler said:[FONT="] I can only conclude 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 understand baptism as the Scriptures define it...)[/FONT]
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).
Even if Oblio had not said this guy is not reflecting true EO doctrine, I still would have known it was incorrect. The EO do not speak of a guilt of eternal sin .thats not their vocabulary. Nuff said.Mark75 said:EO: Dr. Jewell, EO theologian, in Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, says, "... one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin, so that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised without such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a foregone conclusion."
Fair enough. Ill let Borealis or someone comment, but it seems accurate, AFAIK.Mark75 said: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.)
Thats fair as far as it goes. We would also add all the other things that people like Paul add:Mark75 said: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."
Yes, a little bit.Mark75 said:I'd like to think I have a little bit of knowledge regarding the stance other churches have taken on Baptism, esp. infant baptism.
In Church history, there has always been thought of only ONE baptism. This separation of the Holy Spirit from the water is rooted in rationalism (how can a metaphysical thing work through a physical thing?). It is a particular kind of rationalism rooted in Platonic thought, and which was expressed in Biblical times as spirit good, matter bad.Mark75 said:Kepler said:[FONT="] GNOSTICISM ALERT!!!![/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT][FONT="]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... [/FONT][FONT="]
OOPS! That last ones a biggie![/FONT]
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.
Kepler said:[FONT="] 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" exclusion as well).[/FONT]
No I didnt. Lets look at the whole passage.Mark75 said: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.
2 Peter 3:1-10 said:Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
Peter is warning his readers about certain "scoffers". What kind of scoffers?2 Peter 3:1-10 said:3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Mark75 said:With exception of Presbyterians and Lutherans, I would encourage you to check out the articles of belief from the RC and EO churches 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.Kepler said:[FONT="] 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...?[/FONT]
And I've already explained why this is not true.jckstraw72 said:all i said was you cant say youre not Protestant bc you claim your distincitves are in scriptures.
that is stupendous. but since i didnt say they did, that was unneeded
Actually, by saying that they would claim the same thing, you did say that.
Melethiel said:I believe what he was saying is that each Protestant denomination would claim that their own distinctives (different and sometimes contradictory to the Baptist ones) are fully supported in Scripture, not that every denomination claims the Baptist distinctives.
KEPLER said:Hush, Child! And stop using Logic on that Baptist! You're liable to hurt him...
Actually, by saying that they would claim the same thing, you did say that.
And I've already explained why this is not true.
Far be it from me to put words in their mouths; perhaps Oblio and Borealis can contribute something to this…?
FINAL THOUGHT: ... The Christian Church has, for two thousand years, understood Romans 6, Gal 3, Titus 3, Eph 5, 1 Peter 3, etc., to be speaking of water baptism, through which the Holy Spirit operates.
Mark, it seemed to me (perhaps I misread) that you were constructing the following logical argument:
Premise: Proper NT baptism is supposed to be by immersionI proved the syllogism incorrect by pointing out the Eastern Orthodox do indeed baptize their infants by immersion.
Premise: People who baptize infants do so by effusion.
Conclusion: Infant baptism is incorrect.
Baptize in Mark 7:4 also applies to the noun tables. (KJV says tables, while better translations say dining couches. NIV omits the word entirely (based on the fact that ONE manuscript omits the word, even though all the others include it), which IMHO shows their bias). And my question is, do you really think they picked up the table (or chairs), dunked it in the sink, and immersed it?
jckstraw72 said:acutally i said they all claim that THEIR distinctives are in scripture, i never said they lay claim to YOUR distinctives.
and yet your explanation fell short.
you cant call yourself a non-Protestant on the basis of saying the exact same thing as every other Protestant group concerning your respective distinctives.
KEPLER said:Mark, it seemed to me (perhaps I misread) that you were constructing the following logical argument:
Premise: Proper NT baptism is supposed to be by immersion
Premise: People who baptize infants do so by effusion.
Conclusion: Infant baptism is incorrect.
I proved the syllogism incorrect by pointing out the Eastern Orthodox do indeed baptize their infants by immersion.
KEPLER said:And my question is, do you really think they picked up the table (or chairs), dunked it in the sink, and immersed it?
No, of course not. So, in Scripture itself, we have at least ONE place where “baptize” most assuredly does NOT mean “immerse”.
KEPLER said:Boats, after all, are not supposed to be immersed: that’s kind of a bad thing!
If Protestants came out of the Reformation and we existed before the Reformation, then we are not Protestants. I'm sorry that such simply logic confuses you.
And I have already explained why your claim doesn't hold water.
jckstraw72 said:so there were Baptist Churches before 1517? How very interesting.
no, youve just repeated that your distinctives are found in scripture
which is a distinctly Protestant method of argument.
Like I said, we see examples of the Baptist Distinctives being taught all throughout the NT.
Not really. Baptists are well known for appealing to scripture.
Catholic Dude said:Why do some groups hold to the historical Christian teaching of infant Baptism while others do not?
The Catholic Church has always held to this important teaching as have groups like Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists but for some reason other groups reject it.
If you reject it, on what grounds do you reject it (especially considering other groups accept it)?
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?