Infant Baptism

[Gregory95]

Doubtful.



He gives without even being asked. He is more than good, He is gracious.



Right, it can't be pure grace if we have to add something of ourselves to it.

-CryptoLutheran

But yet you say to not pour water on the head of a infant is denying the infant Christ which only God can bring him to not you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

But yet you say to not pour water on the head of a infant is denying the infant Christ which only God can bring him to not you?

Saying that we shouldn't baptize our children is to say that Christ is not for them. That is denying Jesus to them. Yes.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

When it came time for Jesus' mission to start, the first step was a ritual cleansing before heading off to the desert to be tempted.
So I suppose as a symbolic gesture, taking an innocent infant and doing a ritual cleansing before sending them off to the desert of life, is an acceptable facsimile and ritual for those so inclined to make a tradition out of it.

 

[Gregory95]

What is this?

Why did no one tell me about this in all history ive seen this lacked

1525 The Anabaptist Movement Begins

 

[timothyu]

Why did no one tell me about this in all history ive seen this lacked

That alignment of church and state began officially with Constantine. They partnered up to create a new form of world power with each building their own institutions in partnership. Everything Jesus taught about division between the self serving ways of man vs the selfless will of God as reflected in the Kingdom was blind-sided. The direction of Christianity changed but fortunately the scriptures could not. But that was not a problem until the public actually got to see what was in them for themselves. But in the big picture of things the only way God could forward the truth of scriptures was within the corruption of man for corruption is the only system in man's world.

 

[Gregory95]

i think you see what i seen when history is looked at

i just found it interesting the catholics AND protestants detested these people

Yet they might as well of been lost to history if i hadn't been looking into things

That alignment of church and state began officially with Constantine. They partnered up to create a new form of world power with each building their own institutions in partnership. Everything Jesus taught about division between the self serving ways of man vs the selfless will of God as reflected in the Kingdom was blind-sided. The direction of Christianity changed but fortunately the scriptures could not. But that was not a problem until the public actually got to see what was in them for themselves. But in the big picture of things the only way God could forward the truth of scriptures was within the corruption of man for corruption is the only system in man's world.

 

[timothyu]

i just found it interesting the catholics AND protestants detested these people

Same tradition, same blind who lead the blind to lead the blind

 

[Gregory95]

Romans 2:27-29

Would it not be logical that this applies to baptism

Yes i know it is talking about circumcision

But think of the context and think about how the mainstream church makes baptism

 

[Gregory95]

My bad Romans 2:27-29

Romans 3:27-29

Would it not be logical that this applies to baptism

Yes i know it is talking about circumcision

But think of the context and think about how the mainstream church makes baptism

 

[ViaCrucis]

Romans 2:27-29

Would it not be logical that this applies to baptism

Yes i know it is talking about circumcision

But think of the context and think about how the mainstream church makes baptism

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses," - Colossians 2:11-13

Circumcision was a requirement of the Torah given to the Jews, it marked one as a member of the Jewish people and a member of that Covenant. Circumcision doesn't have meaning in the New Covenant. So the requirement of circumcision in the Church is a rejection of 1) That there is a New Covenant established for all people through Jesus the Messiah, 2) this New Covenant people consists of both the circumcised and uncircumcised (i.e. Jew and Gentile) without discrimination or distinction. The insistence by the Judaizers that Gentiles must be circumcised is rejected upon this foundation of apostolic teaching. These are among some of the major points Paul has to go over, and often repeat in different ways, in a number of his letters--Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. So when we read the Epistle to the Ephesians we see that in Christ the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been removed, for God has made one people from two. As we read through Romans we see how Paul brilliantly weaves together the themes of the universal bondage to sin and death that all human beings have, the universality of God's grace and Christ's saving work for all, and the lack of spiritual distinction between either. Likewise, in Galatians we see Paul very clearly condemn the false gospel of the Judaizers, we see Paul's insistence on grace, and so on.

So, no, Baptism isn't comparable to circumcision beyond the fact that circumcision prefigures and points to the deeper substance of Baptism. These are not, however, like for like. Circumcision was given as Law, Baptism is not Law but Gospel.

And there is, and indeed must be, every precaution made to make the firm and sharp distinction between Law and Gospel. For no one can be justified under the Law, for the commandments of God condemn sinners in their sin; and that is why human works and human efforts can merit no righteousness for us. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

When it came time for Jesus' mission to start, the first step was a ritual cleansing before heading off to the desert to be tempted.

Read the Gospel again. Jesus did not need a ritual cleansing, instead He received John's washing to "fulfill all righteousness". St. John the Baptist even makes it clear that it was Jesus who should be washing him, not him washing Jesus.

But Jesus' baptism in the Jordan by John does illustrate something about Baptism for us, for here in Jesus' baptism we find the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all mentioned. And Christians have often seen here something pointing to the fullness of Christian Baptism later, for Christian Baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it's no accident that here in the river the Father speaks, the Spirit descends, and the Son is down in the water, and that here St. John the Baptist declares, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

John's baptism or washing wasn't for Jesus' benefit, it was not necessary for Him. Therefore the appropriate question is to inquire on what the significance is, what does Christ mean when He says that it was for the fulfillment of all righteousness?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What is this?

Why did no one tell me about this in all history ive seen this lacked

1525 The Anabaptist Movement Begins

How well acquainted are you with the history of Christianity in general? Basically any history covering the 16th century and the Reformation is going to mention the Radical Reformation as well.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory95]

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses," - Colossians 2:11-13

Circumcision was a requirement of the Torah given to the Jews, it marked one as a member of the Jewish people and a member of that Covenant. Circumcision doesn't have meaning in the New Covenant. So the requirement of circumcision in the Church is a rejection of 1) That there is a New Covenant established for all people through Jesus the Messiah, 2) this New Covenant people consists of both the circumcised and uncircumcised (i.e. Jew and Gentile) without discrimination or distinction. The insistence by the Judaizers that Gentiles must be circumcised is rejected upon this foundation of apostolic teaching. These are among some of the major points Paul has to go over, and often repeat in different ways, in a number of his letters--Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. So when we read the Epistle to the Ephesians we see that in Christ the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been removed, for God has made one people from two. As we read through Romans we see how Paul brilliantly weaves together the themes of the universal bondage to sin and death that all human beings have, the universality of God's grace and Christ's saving work for all, and the lack of spiritual distinction between either. Likewise, in Galatians we see Paul very clearly condemn the false gospel of the Judaizers, we see Paul's insistence on grace, and so on.

So, no, Baptism isn't comparable to circumcision beyond the fact that circumcision prefigures and points to the deeper substance of Baptism. These are not, however, like for like. Circumcision was given as Law, Baptism is not Law but Gospel.

And there is, and indeed must be, every precaution made to make the firm and sharp distinction between Law and Gospel. For no one can be justified under the Law, for the commandments of God condemn sinners in their sin; and that is why human works and human efforts can merit no righteousness for us. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Completely missed what was said....

 

[Gregory95]

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses," - Colossians 2:11-13

Circumcision was a requirement of the Torah given to the Jews, it marked one as a member of the Jewish people and a member of that Covenant. Circumcision doesn't have meaning in the New Covenant. So the requirement of circumcision in the Church is a rejection of 1) That there is a New Covenant established for all people through Jesus the Messiah, 2) this New Covenant people consists of both the circumcised and uncircumcised (i.e. Jew and Gentile) without discrimination or distinction. The insistence by the Judaizers that Gentiles must be circumcised is rejected upon this foundation of apostolic teaching. These are among some of the major points Paul has to go over, and often repeat in different ways, in a number of his letters--Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. So when we read the Epistle to the Ephesians we see that in Christ the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been removed, for God has made one people from two. As we read through Romans we see how Paul brilliantly weaves together the themes of the universal bondage to sin and death that all human beings have, the universality of God's grace and Christ's saving work for all, and the lack of spiritual distinction between either. Likewise, in Galatians we see Paul very clearly condemn the false gospel of the Judaizers, we see Paul's insistence on grace, and so on.

So, no, Baptism isn't comparable to circumcision beyond the fact that circumcision prefigures and points to the deeper substance of Baptism. These are not, however, like for like. Circumcision was given as Law, Baptism is not Law but Gospel.

And there is, and indeed must be, every precaution made to make the firm and sharp distinction between Law and Gospel. For no one can be justified under the Law, for the commandments of God condemn sinners in their sin; and that is why human works and human efforts can merit no righteousness for us. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

-CryptoLutheran

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Would those not baptized (i speak not about spiritual baptism but physical) who follow Christ doctrine be just or those who were baptized and don't follow Christ?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Are you a Christian because you say so

Are you a Christian because you were baptized (physically)

Or are you a Christian because you follow Christ


29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Is not a Christian one who is a Christian on the inside

Isn't baptism supposed to be. Of the Spirit and the physical side isn't held above the Spiritual

For only then is it of God and not OUR WORKS

 

[ViaCrucis]

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Would those not baptized (i speak not about spiritual baptism but physical) who follow Christ doctrine be just or those who were baptized and don't follow Christ?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Are you a Christian because you say so

Are you a Christian because you were baptized (physically)

Or are you a Christian because you follow Christ


29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Is not a Christian one who is a Christian on the inside

Isn't baptism supposed to be. Of the Spirit and the physical side isn't held above the Spiritual

For only then is it of God and not OUR WORKS

1) Well, that's not what Scripture says now is it? Literally changing the words of Scripture probably isn't the most prudent argument. Apply your attempt at changing Scripture to other things and you'll see how bad this gets.

2) Esotericizing the things of Christianity is heretical. Imagine someone saying that Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead, He only "spiritually" rose from the dead. This hatred of the external, the visible, the material is the heresy of the Gnostics, Manichaeans, et al.

3) Denying God's visible works is not a defense of Grace alone, it is a rejection of God's grace. The Scriptures boldly and routinely proclaim the manifest and visible works of God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory95]

1) Well, that's not what Scripture says now is it? Literally changing the words of Scripture probably isn't the most prudent argument. Apply your attempt at changing Scripture to other things and you'll see how bad this gets.

2) Esotericizing the things of Christianity is heretical. Imagine someone saying that Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead, He only "spiritually" rose from the dead. This hatred of the external, the visible, the material is the heresy of the Gnostics, Manichaeans, et al.

3) Denying God's visible works is not a defense of Grace alone, it is a rejection of God's grace. The Scriptures boldly and routinely proclaim the manifest and visible works of God.

-CryptoLutheran

Well you sure took that left field

Do you not read what is said or do you truly not understand what i was saying explaining how you took it where you did

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well you sure took that left field

Do you not read what is said or do you truly not understand what i was saying explaining how you took it where you did

I completely understand what you've been saying. You're trying to argue that external things like circumcision and baptism aren't what matters, what matters is internal. A Christian isn't a Christian just because they have gotten wet. It's about a change of heart, an internal reality, etc. That about right?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory95]

Did Paul say you are not a Jew outwardly rather inwardly

Did Paul say circumcision is not outward rather inward

No run around just say

yes or no

I completely understand what you've been saying. You're trying to argue that external things like circumcision and baptism aren't what matters, what matters is internal. A Christian isn't a Christian just because they have gotten wet. It's about a change of heart, an internal reality, etc. That about right?



-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory95]

I completely understand what you've been saying. You're trying to argue that external things like circumcision and baptism aren't what matters, what matters is internal. A Christian isn't a Christian just because they have gotten wet. It's about a change of heart, an internal reality, etc. That about right?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Did Paul say you are not a Jew outwardly rather inwardly

Did Paul say circumcision is not outward rather inward

No run around just say

yes or no

Yes, he did.

What did he mean when he wrote those things?

-CryptoLutheran