The Assurance of Baptism

[ViaCrucis]

I think you are possibly mistaken about what I believe
Mi posted this a while ago
The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

Then your question is strange. What does it matter if the word "sacrament" is used in the text or not. And, for the record, the word mysteria (and related) certainly does get used in Scripture. What have been called "sacraments" in the West (from the Latin sacramentum) the East uses "mysteries" from the Greek mysteria. They are called "mysteries" because through these things God makes Himself known; and they are called "sacraments" because they are God's pledge toward us. Of course, this is ultimately unimportant, since arguing that something is wrong because a certain word isn't used in Scripture is self-defeating.

We use lots of words in our religious vocabulary as Christians that aren't explicitly used in Scripture: sacrament, Trinity; among these noticeably missing from the Scriptures is the Canon of Scripture--the Bible--itself. And that's because the Canon is itself extra-biblical, it is post-biblical, not existing until well after the last of the texts which make up the Canon were written. On the contrary, the Sacraments are explicitly stated in Scripture, as both Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper are mentioned and their meaning and purpose told to us, clearly and plainly. Yet even where Scripture is most plain there remain those who think they know better than the biblical writers and all who have received and confessed the Scriptures.

The innovators of religion are numerous, and don't deserve to be believed over and against the clear words of Scripture and the ancient, holy confession of Christ's Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pethesedzao]

Not according to Scripture.

-CryptoLutheran

The 3 main Baptisms are 1 baptism into Christ Jesus. 2 the Baptism WITH the Spirit and 3 water baptism.

 

[dstamps]

If anyone is baptized, regardless of whether or not their parents believe, they have this assurance. Children born into believing homes have the blessing of having this assurance from the earliest age. Hopefully this also comes with Christian nurture.

Using the word 'baptized' without stating which one creates confusion. Being baptized with 'living water' as stated in John 7:38 is the only one that results in our 'eating the flesh and drinking the blood' of Christ as stated in John 6:53-54 allegorically.

H2O baptism is a commitment by an individual to be baptized with 'living water'. The first symbolizes the latter. To make a commitment there must be an understanding of what you are doing. Therefore, the individual should be fully aware and competent when making the commitment.

 

[paul becke]

I don’t see Jesus using the word “water” for men to follow.

If Jesus said the word “water” baptism. That might be different.

Jesus said through Paul,

1 Corinthians 12:13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

But surely water baptism was the default. After their initial baptism by the Holy Spirit under the symbol of the washing with water, Catholics are or should be, 'born again', after each Confession.

 

[paul becke]

The 3 main Baptisms are 1 baptism into Christ Jesus. 2 the Baptism WITH the Spirit and 3 water baptism.

Don't they speak of martyrdom as a baptism by blood ?

 

[dstamps]

After their initial baptism by the Holy Spirit under the symbol of the washing with water, Catholics are or should be, 'born again', after each Confession.

How does that track with Hebrews 6? The phrase 'born again after each Confession' bothers me. It implies that willfull trespasses can be forgiven over and over. What happens when a person dies after sinning but before the next confession? I can understand a Christian unknowingly committing a trespass, learning that they did so, and then going to confession. Once we know something trespasses GOD's Ways, we should never do it again. To me sin is willfully trespassing GOD's Ways while knowing it is a sin.

That is the purpose of GOD's Law--to make us aware of ways that are not GOD's. Romans 3:20

 

[Pethesedzao]

Don't they speak of martyrdom as a baptism by blood ?

Possibly but it's not one of the main three.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The 3 main Baptisms are 1 baptism into Christ Jesus. 2 the Baptism WITH the Spirit and 3 water baptism.

The first and third are the same baptism. The second refers to a specific historical moment.

 

[paul becke]

How does that track with Hebrews 6? The phrase 'born again after each Confession' bothers me. It implies that willfull trespasses can be forgiven over and over. What happens when a person dies after sinning but before the next confession? I can understand a Christian unknowingly committing a trespass, learning that they did so, and then going to confession. Once we know something trespasses GOD's Ways, we should never do it again. To me sin is willfully trespassing GOD's Ways while knowing it is a sin.

That is the purpose of GOD's Law--to make us aware of ways that are not GOD's. Romans 3:20

 

[paul becke]

How does that track with Hebrews 6? The phrase 'born again after each Confession' bothers me. It implies that willfull trespasses can be forgiven over and over. What happens when a person dies after sinning but before the next confession? I can understand a Christian unknowingly committing a trespass, learning that they did so, and then going to confession. Once we know something trespasses GOD's Ways, we should never do it again. To me sin is willfully trespassing GOD's Ways while knowing it is a sin.

That is the purpose of GOD's Law--to make us aware of ways that are not GOD's. Romans 3:20

I don't believe, dstamps, that you have a realistic picture of our defectibility as fallen human beings. When we were told, in one of the Epistles, to confess our sins to one another, I think it is more than a reasonable assumption that the speaker - was it Paul ? - did not have in mind that his hearers would always come up with new, different sins ? I had recently read that when a person apologised to their confessor for confessing the same sins so often, the priest replied : 'What ? Do you want to confess new sins each time ? When I mentioned to a priest I was confessing to ; it cracked him up, as it had me.

However, your point is not entirely glossed over by the Church, since in its wisdom, it recommends this Act of Contrition : 'O my God, I am sorry for having sinned against you; and with the help of your grace, I resolve never to sin again.'

We know that we must sin until we die - its our fallen, mortal condition, so the word, 'resolve', here, surely denotes a determination, certainly a strong wish, not to sin again, further to Jesus' own words, namely, that we are to be perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect. We must not fall into the other extreme, however, of making little or no effort to avoid the more serious sins.

But as St Padre Pio remarked, Confession should be a joyful occasion, overall.

 

[Pethesedzao]

The first and third are the same baptism. The second refers to a specific historical moment.

No they are not the same and the Second one is administered by Jesus who is the same, yesterday today and forever...

 

[LoveofTruth]

Then your question is strange. What does it matter if the word "sacrament" is used in the text or not. And, for the record, the word mysteria (and related) certainly does get used in Scripture. What have been called "sacraments" in the West (from the Latin sacramentum) the East uses "mysteries" from the Greek mysteria. They are called "mysteries" because through these things God makes Himself known; and they are called "sacraments" because they are God's pledge toward us. Of course, this is ultimately unimportant, since arguing that something is wrong because a certain word isn't used in Scripture is self-defeating.

Then drop the word "sacraments" and see how things are understood from the Spirit of God through Scripture and not of men's traditions and made up ideas.

I quote another writer about this issue to consider

"That which comes first under observation is the name "sacrament," which is strange that Christians should stick to and contend so much for; since it is not to be found in all the Scripture, but was borrowed from the military oaths among the heathens, from whom the Christians, when they began to apostatize, did borrow many superstitious terms and observations, that they might thereby ingratiate themselves and the more easily gain the heathens to their religion, which practice (though perhaps intended by them for good, yet as being the fruit of human policy and not according to God's wisdom) has had very pernicious consequences. I see not how any, whether Papists or Protestants, especially the latter, can in reason quarrel us for denying this term, which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the penmen of the Scriptures to leave unto us.


Obj. But if it be said that it is not the name but the thing they contend for:

Answ. I answer, let the name then, as not being Scriptural, be laid aside, and we shall see at first entrance how much benefit will redound by laying aside this traditional term and betaking us to plainness of Scripture language, for presently the great contest about the number of them will vanish: since there is no term used in Scripture that can be made use of, whether we call them "institutions," "ordinances," "precepts," "commandments," "appointments" or "laws," &c., that would afford ground for such a debate, since neither will Papists affirm that there are only seven, or Protestants only two, of any of these aforementioned.

Obj. If it be said that this controversy arises from the definition of the thing as well as from the name:

Answ. It will be found otherwise, for whatever way we take their definition of a "sacrament," whether as an "outward visible sign whereby inward grace is conferred," or only "signified." This definition will agree to many things which neither Papists nor Protestants will acknowledge to be sacraments. If they be expressed under the name of "sealing ordinances," as some do, I could never see neither by reason nor Scripture how this title could be appropriate to them, more than to any other Christian religious performance: for that must needs properly be "a sealing ordinance," which makes the persons receiving it infallibly certain of the promise, or thing sealed to them.

Obj. If it be said it is so to them that are faithful;

Answ. I answer, so is praying and preaching, and doing of every good work. Seeing the partaking, or performing of the one gives not to any a more certain title to heaven, yea (in some respect) not so much, there is no reason to call them so more than the other.

Besides, we find not anything called the "seal" and "pledge" of our inheritance but the Spirit of God; it is by that we are said to be sealed (Eph. 1:14 and 4:30), which is also termed the "earnest of our inheritance" (2 Cor. 1:22), and not by outward water, or eating and drinking; which as the wickedest of men may partake of, so many that do, do notwithstanding it go to perdition; for it is not outward washing with water that maketh the heart clean, by which men are fitted for heaven; and as "that which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man, because it is put forth again" and so goeth to the dunghill, neither doth anything which man eateth purify him or fit him for heaven. What is said here in general may serve for an introduction not only to this Proposition but also to the other, concerning the Supper. Of these "sacraments" (so called) baptism is always first numbered, which is the subject of the present proposition, in whose explanation I shall first demonstrate and prove our judgment and then answer the objections and refute the sentiments of our opposers. As to the first part, these things following, which are briefly comprehended in the proposition, come to be proposed and proved."(Robert Barclays Apology Baptism)

The innovators of religion are numerous, and don't deserve to be believed over and against the clear words of Scripture and the ancient, holy confession of Christ's Church.

-CryptoLutheran

You say,

"words of Scripture and the ancient..."

Its the "and the ancient, holy confession that concerns me. When some put men above that which is written this is not safe. This is done by exalting the so called "church fathers" above or equal to scripture.

This is not safe.

1 Corinthians 4:6
And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="dstamps No, I see it as a Covenant between GOD and the parents--especially the father. The father and mother is saying we will teach our son in your ways and according to your laws. In a way, when the child has children and follows the same procedures, they are then committing as adults although I feel they should make a personal commitment.

I would not see a problem with this understanding, especially when you look at the ancient Suzerainty treaty covenants between kings. Each king was the head of his covenant community. No one could act for the king as head of that covenant community. The king did it on behalf of his people.

The family is simply a small kingdom with the father as head of that covenant community.

Infant baptism would serve the same purpose. This would not negate the need for the grown child to make their personal commitment to the 'New Covenant'.

Precisely. This "personal commitment" is what the Jews referred to as "Bar Mitzvah" and the Roman Catholic Church holds as "Confirmation." It is the time when the intellectual faculties of the child have reach the age where he/she can make their own personal covenant vows of fidelity to Christ.

Believing that Salvation occurs from an external act is living in delusion. The only Life that will be saved is Christ's. HE is the Alpha and the Omega--the Beginning and the End. In the End, their will be only one Life.

You have kind of stated the Orthodox position in that last paragraph. Christ is the Life, the Source of Life, and therefore, to be in Him is to have life. This is why baptism is so important - it places you in Christ (Romans 6:3). But.....like all covenants, one can break the vows of covenant and walk out of that relationship. If you don't return to it (repent) then you are outside Christ and have no life in you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No they are not the same and the Second one is administered by Jesus who is the same, yesterday today and forever...

Christian Baptism involves the use of water and is into Christ. Scripture never speaks of "water baptism" because baptism inherently includes water. If I tell you to go take a bath, I don't need to say "take a bath in water" you know that "bath" in all normal circumstances implies the use of water. The use of "baptism" in other contexts is by way of analogy. Such as when Christ speaks of His passion as a baptism, or when St. John the Baptist says the One after him will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. But there is no reason to assume that when the plain use of baptism is said that it means anything other than regular, ordinary baptism. This is the most plain reading of Scripture, and is what Christians have always believed.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. No where is there even so much as a hint that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is an individual experience. The only two cases where this is applied in Scripture is first on Pentecost, and then on the household of Cornelius. Read Acts 1-2 and Acts 10-11.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dstamps]

I don't believe, dstamps, that you have a realistic picture of our defectibility as fallen human beings. When we were told, in one of the Epistles, to confess our sins to one another, I think it is more than a reasonable assumption that the speaker - was it Paul ? - did not have in mind that his hearers would always come up with new, different sins ? I had recently read that when a person apologised to their confessor for confessing the same sins so often, the priest replied : 'What ? Do you want to confess new sins each time ? When I mentioned to a priest I was confessing to ; it cracked him up, as it had me.

However, your point is not entirely glossed over by the Church, since in its wisdom, it recommends this Act of Contrition : 'O my God, I am sorry for having sinned against you; and with the help of your grace, I resolve never to sin again.'

We know that we must sin until we die - its our fallen, mortal condition, so the word, 'resolve', here, surely denotes a determination, certainly a strong wish, not to sin again, further to Jesus' own words, namely, that we are to be perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect. We must not fall into the other extreme, however, of making little or no effort to avoid the more serious sins.

But as St Padre Pio remarked, Confession should be a joyful occasion, overall.

I don't believe Jesus came to show us what we couldn't be but to show us who we can be.

Believing you can accomplish a goal ALWAYS results in more commitment than believing you can't.

I see a transgression as being either innocent or willful. Only the latter is a sin. Therefore, a Christian can transgress ignorantly and not sin. Naturally, we hope that the Spirit in us will reveal an innocent transgression for what it is before we transgress. Unfortunately, there are many ways to transgress; but as we grow in Christ we will begin recognizing even innocent transgressions for what they are before we do the act that transgresses.

Consider Matthew 23:25-26 - The inside is the spiritual heart and the outside is the actions of the flesh. Again, Jesus is not telling them the impossible but how to make outer actions sinless.

Naturally, the self-serving nature of Man likes to believe that he can attain eternal life by following prescribed outer actions; but that is a lie. In the end, only the spiritual heart will be judged. If the self-serving nature controls a portion of that heart, that portion will be discarded. Matthew 25:14-30

 

[LoveofTruth]

Scripture never speaks of "water baptism" because baptism inherently includes water.

You are wrong here as scripture corrects you

Acts 1:5. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”

Luke 3:16. John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:”

 

[FireDragon76]

It's kindof interesting that Baptists are the sect that have made baptism the biggest issue and yet for them it means the least.

In their minds, they probably think others have put that on them. In truth, Baptists have alot of other distinctions, but that's just what they are known for because it is the most stark contrast to other elements of the English reformation.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Christian Baptism involves the use of water and is into Christ. Scripture never speaks of "water baptism" because baptism inherently includes water. If I tell you to go take a bath, I don't need to say "take a bath in water" you know that "bath" in all normal circumstances implies the use of water. The use of "baptism" in other contexts is by way of analogy. Such as when Christ speaks of His passion as a baptism, or when St. John the Baptist says the One after him will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. But there is no reason to assume that when the plain use of baptism is said that it means anything other than regular, ordinary baptism. This is the most plain reading of Scripture, and is what Christians have always believed.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. No where is there even so much as a hint that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is an individual experience. The only two cases where this is applied in Scripture is first on Pentecost, and then on the household of Cornelius. Read Acts 1-2 and Acts 10-11.

-CryptoLutheran

1 Corinthians 10:2. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;”

 

[paul becke]

I don't believe Jesus came to show us what we couldn't be but to show us who we can be.

Believing you can accomplish a goal ALWAYS results in more commitment than believing you can't.

I see a transgression as being either innocent or willful. Only the latter is a sin. Therefore, a Christian can transgress ignorantly and not sin. Naturally, we hope that the Spirit in us will reveal an innocent transgression for what it is before we transgress. Unfortunately, there are many ways to transgress; but as we grow in Christ we will begin recognizing even innocent transgressions for what they are before we do the act that transgresses.

Consider Matthew 23:25-26 - The inside is the spiritual heart and the outside is the actions of the flesh. Again, Jesus is not telling them the impossible but how to make outer actions sinless.

Naturally, the self-serving nature of Man likes to believe that he can attain eternal life by following prescribed outer actions; but that is a lie. In the end, only the spiritual heart will be judged. If the self-serving nature controls a portion of that heart, that portion will be discarded. Matthew 25:14-30

---------------------------------
'Believing you can accomplish a goal ALWAYS results in more commitment than believing you can't.'

Hence the form of words of the Act of contrition that I quoted to you.

It is worth pointing out that there are degrees of culpability, depending on how informed a person's conscience is, and their ability to apply their mind/soul(memory, will, understanding), i.e. their whole attention, to the matter in hand.

If only everything were as straightforward as a mathematical equation. It often happens that while I am reading or writing concerning a serious subject, out of the corner of my eye, I glimpse scantily-clad, vey well proportioned young women, e.g. cheer-leaders.

Since the option to be physically chaste has not presented any kind of problem to me for many years - I even wake up from a dream in the middle of the night, rather than have a nocturnal emission ; and I'm old and infirm enough not to then have the problem of being unable to get back to sleep without defeating the object of my awaking, by 'touching myself' - just to get back to sleep !

However, repeatedly catching a glimpse of that pin-up on the right of the page, out of the cormer of my eye, I sometimes decide to briefly look at her, to stop the image playing on my mind : not perfect, but arguably the better of two choices. it's a calculated ruse. Since I'm not going to get worked up by a brief look, to my mind, it is preferable to trying to assiduously allow an obscure corner of my attention to be repeatedly distracted by that image at the right margin of the screen. Sometimes, because most my attention is already occupied deliberately, however, I make a largely involuntary decision to look at the image. Looking at different pages of them is going too far.

What I do know, though, is that God wishes neither from me, but a mind as pure as my body. However, since I have OCD (in reality, demonic torment, whatever the medical profession might make of it), that is a tall order to put it mildly. Indeed, the more prayerfully occupied I am, the more liable to such persecution, usually towards the end of a session. Prayers can be tiring, can't they ? But they also invite the extreme displeasure of the forces of darkness, the fallen angels/demons/devils.

 

[Pethesedzao]

Christian Baptism involves the use of water and is into Christ. Scripture never speaks of "water baptism" because baptism inherently includes water. If I tell you to go take a bath, I don't need to say "take a bath in water" you know that "bath" in all normal circumstances implies the use of water. The use of "baptism" in other contexts is by way of analogy. Such as when Christ speaks of His passion as a baptism, or when St. John the Baptist says the One after him will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. But there is no reason to assume that when the plain use of baptism is said that it means anything other than regular, ordinary baptism. This is the most plain reading of Scripture, and is what Christians have always believed.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit was when the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost. No where is there even so much as a hint that "baptism with the Holy Spirit" is an individual experience. The only two cases where this is applied in Scripture is first on Pentecost, and then on the household of Cornelius. Read Acts 1-2 and Acts 10-11.

-CryptoLutheran

The Baptism WITH the Spirit is mentioned in all the gospels plus several times in the Acts of the Holy Spirit.