What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[philadelphos]

Well of course its a problem he was much more catholic than protestant in his teachings. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Infant baptism predates Catholicism, and your assumption is a Reformation-era mindset, anti-papal superstition, idolatry, etc. This is right in principle except the ironic reality is that the RCC isn't necessarily the enemy as Protestants and Christendom itself are anti-Christ, anti-Torah, and anti-semitic in many respects. Europe is a hot bed, yes, but if you study more broadly and deeply you'll find evidence throughout many branches of theology, church history, and within cultures throughout the world.

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor 10:1-4)

Baptism is ritual purification (Num 19:12), and not necessarily eclusive to Scripture as it's the reason Pharaoh's daughter "washed" (Ex 2:5) in the water, due to a skin illness, possibly leprosy. 'Washing' is practiced in many ancient cultures. Water is life and wherever water is mentioned in Scripture it represents some form of blessing and life.

Noah and Moses were both purified by water, set apart. Crossing the Red Sea, likewise was a baptism event en masse.

Christendom's fixation with baptism is ritualism, as it places a disporptionate emphasis on baptism, how, when, by whom, in what building, with what water, etc, in order to achieve a result: e.g. conversion, salvation, church membership, rite of passage, in order to marry, to become an deacon/elder/minister/bishop. Therefore, what was original a ritual purification has in Christendom become an obstacle or stumbling block. No different to circumcision group.

The 'age screening' or 'believers baptism' argument is legalistic, no different to Calvin's resentment towards Anabaptists. No different to Judaizers.

Also the physical aspect of Baptism is symbolic of Christ as the water of life (Jn 4:10-14; see Ezek 47:1-5, re new rivers that will run from Jerusalem). It's not the water itself, or the conditions for the baptism that are important, but rather the symbolism of water as a mere allusion to the power in Christ, as High Priest and King of Kings.

Therefore, this is more important, as carries the essence of baptism, spirtually first, physically second.

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:26-27)

Because what true baptism represents is purification as a requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven...

grace and peace. Shalom!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Infant baptism predates Catholicism, and your assumption is a Reformation-era mindset, anti-papal superstition, idolatry, etc. This is right in principle except the ironic reality is that the RCC isn't necessarily the enemy as Protestants and Christendom itself are anti-Christ, anti-Torah, and anti-semitic in many respects. Europe is a hot bed, yes, but if you study more broadly and deeply you'll find evidence throughout many branches of theology, church history, and within cultures throughout the world.

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Cor 10:1-4)

Baptism is ritual purification (Num 19:12), and not necessarily eclusive to Scripture as it's the reason Pharaoh's daughter "washed" (Ex 2:5) in the water, due to a skin illness, possibly leprosy. 'Washing' is practiced in many ancient cultures. Water is life and wherever water is mentioned in Scripture it represents some form of blessing and life.

Noah and Moses were both purified by water, set apart. Crossing the Red Sea, likewise was a baptism event en masse.

Christendom's fixation with baptism is ritualism, as it places a disporptionate emphasis on baptism, how, when, by whom, in what building, with what water, etc, in order to achieve a result: e.g. conversion, salvation, church membership, rite of passage, in order to marry, to become an deacon/elder/minister/bishop. Therefore, what was original a ritual purification has in Christendom become an obstacle or stumbling block. No different to circumcision group.

The 'age screening' or 'believers baptism' argument is legalistic, no different to Calvin's resentment towards Anabaptists. No different to Judaizers.

Also the physical aspect of Baptism is symbolic of Christ as the water of life (Jn 4:10-14; see Ezek 47:1-5, re new rivers that will run from Jerusalem). It's not the water itself, or the conditions for the baptism that are important, but rather the symbolism of water as a mere allusion to the power in Christ, as High Priest and King of Kings.

Therefore, this is more important, as carries the essence of baptism, spirtually first, physically second.

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph 5:26-27)

Because what true baptism represents is purification as a requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven...

grace and peace. Shalom!

Thanks for sharing !

 

[John Mullally]

Christendom's fixation with baptism is ritualism, as it places a disporptionate emphasis on baptism, how, when, by whom, in what building, with what water, etc, in order to achieve a result: e.g. conversion, salvation, church membership, rite of passage, in order to marry, to become an deacon/elder/minister/bishop. Therefore, what was original a ritual purification has in Christendom become an obstacle or stumbling block. No different to circumcision group.

The 'age screening' or 'believers baptism' argument is legalistic, no different to Calvin's resentment towards Anabaptists. No different to Judaizers.

Water baptism as presented mulitple times in the Great Commission, Acts, and the Epistles is always used as a confession of faith - one's conscious commitment to follow Jesus. I believe it is an error to go beyond what Acts and the Epistles say about it.

Paul's baptism analogy in 1 Cor 1:4-10 and baptism's different meaning under John the Baptist should not cause confusion.

 

[philadelphos]

Water baptism as presented mulitple times in the Great Commission, Acts, and the Epistles is always used as a confession of faith - one's conscious commitment to follow Jesus. I believe it is an error to go beyond what Acts and the Epistles say about it.

Paul's baptism analogy in 1 Cor 1:4-10 and baptism's different meaning under John the Baptist should not cause confusion.

Case in point. Supercessionism, Christendom elitism, Gentile infighting. The word "conscious" implies that the opposite is grossly immoral and wrong, like rape. This is a perversion and I'll explain why.

Water represents life which is of God, in the beginning. Its unique to this planet for a reason. Yet water also represents judgement/condemnation, e.g. pre-Noahic world, Egypt at the Exodus (future redemption prophesised, Isa 19), hanging Gardens of 'Babylon' (Nineveh). The reason for judgement is clear: rejection of God and self-idolatry/pride/conceit/narcissism. A violation of the 1st commandment, the order of nature and the natural law.

Baptism as a water purification ritual is then an outward sign to reflect an inward/outward 'repentance' in that the person recognises fault/error/sin and is now penitent/contrite.

Egypt had/has an abundance of water but they did not honour the one true God or honour the Jews, land promised to Joseph/Jacob/Israel at Goshen. The Gentile and Western world is similar in many ways. Nothing is new under ths sun.

Every synagogue in the world has a Mikveh or bath for ritual baptism (water purification).

Also, itmust be clarified that it isn't "infant baptism" but "family baptism" as the entire family (direct, indirect, and the congregation) gathers together to affirm/re-affirm their faith/commitment to God. The minister speaks to the parents because the child cannot speak. But once the child can speak the onus is on them to live up to the way they were brought up, in Christ, in Scripture, etc. They are absolutely expected to say something, do something, that affirms their faith in Christ and adherance to God's word. This is incomparable to new converts who are single people, where such churches full of 1st generation believers.

The family/household being the first holy institution, hence each house was covered in blood to propriate God's wrath during Exodus. Anyone inside that house would have life/blessing. Even Ishmael/Hagar as slaves of Abraham, by extension of Abraham's faith. His faith was trasmitted to and inherited by all of his household, bar Lot's wife who disobeyed at the worst possible moment.

In the same way, just one believing parent has the same potency within the family/household, as evidence by Rahab and her household in Jericho. Gender-unspecific. The parent ofc ultimately cannot save or determine the child's destination, yet the principle never changes. Even for entire 'kingdoms of the earth' a king has the same limited ability to sanctify (limited).

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” (1 Cor 7:14)

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off" (Acts 2:38-39)

WCF 28.4,

"Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,l but
also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." (; re Gen. 17:7, 9, Gal. 3:9, Col. 2:11, 12, Acts 2:38-39, Rom 4:11-12, 1 Cor 7-14, Mt 28:19, Mk 10:13-16)

Even for the Exodus people, Moses knew that he had to say/do something to prepare the new generation and future generations who were not guaranteed/saved/assured by their parents/grandparents. It is the reason why God wrote the Decalogue "to teach my people", "hat thou mayest teach them" (Ex 24:12, 4:12, 4:15, 18:20, ... Ezek 44:23) ---> Hence "washing by the word" (Eph 5:26-27)

"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deu 31:29)

As to baptism's power or capacity to produce a desired effect:

"The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;q yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.r" (WCF 28:6)

When baptist churches mature (generationally) they may come to realise this, as many often refer to the point when they were Baptised as a boasting point and reasoning for XYZ. It's this kind of thinking that made Baptists become heretics/rebels/sectarians, historically speaking. They make declarations but fail to recognise hypcrosisy within their own body/congregation. And IME the overemphasis of baptism or the superstition surrounding baptism creates an unspoken classism/elitism/division between 'baptised' and 'unbaptised', within families all supposed to be united under one faith, not 'baptism'. Baptism then ironically becomes the very sacramentalism the Reformers recognised as idolatry. And worse, a baptism cult. IME, on both sides.

Don't get me wrong, similar criticism can be made to all of Christendom, but the point is this:

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Tit 1:15) This is the child-like purity that Christ commends, as opposed to "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). Something is to be said for that, and for parents/families/congregations who mean well to raise their children in Christ, together as part of the of congregation, not a second-class 'ministry group'.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Case in point. Supercessionism, Christendom elitism, Gentile infighting. The word "conscious" implies that the opposite is grossly immoral and wrong, like rape. This is a perversion and I'll explain why.

Water represents life which is of God, in the beginning. Its unique to this planet for a reason. Yet water also represents judgement/condemnation, e.g. pre-Noahic world, Egypt at the Exodus (future redemption prophesised, Isa 19), hanging Gardens of 'Babylon' (Nineveh). The reason for judgement is clear: rejection of God and self-idolatry/pride/conceit/narcissism. A violation of the 1st commandment, the order of nature and the natural law.

Baptism as a water purification ritual is then an outward sign to reflect an inward/outward 'repentance' in that the person recognises fault/error/sin and is now penitent/contrite.

Egypt had/has an abundance of water but they did not honour the one true God or honour the Jews, land promised to Joseph/Jacob/Israel at Goshen. The Gentile and Western world is similar in many ways. Nothing is new under ths sun.

Every synagogue in the world has a Mikveh or bath for ritual baptism (water purification).

Also, itmust be clarified that it isn't "infant baptism" but "family baptism" as the entire family (direct, indirect, and the congregation) gathers together to affirm/re-affirm their faith/commitment to God. The minister speaks to the parents because the child cannot speak. But once the child can speak the onus is on them to live up to the way they were brought up, in Christ, in Scripture, etc. They are absolutely expected to say something, do something, that affirms their faith in Christ and adherance to God's word. This is incomparable to new converts who are single people, where such churches full of 1st generation believers.

The family/household being the first holy institution, hence each house was covered in blood to propriate God's wrath during Exodus. Anyone inside that house would have life/blessing. Even Ishmael/Hagar as slaves of Abraham, by extension of Abraham's faith. His faith was trasmitted to and inherited by all of his household, bar Lot's wife who disobeyed at the worst possible moment.

In the same way, just one believing parent has the same potency within the family/household, as evidence by Rahab and her household in Jericho. Gender-unspecific. The parent ofc ultimately cannot save or determine the child's destination, yet the principle never changes. Even for entire 'kingdoms of the earth' a king has the same limited ability to sanctify (limited).

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” (1 Cor 7:14)

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off" (Acts 2:38-39)

WCF 28.4,

"Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,l but
also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." (; re Gen. 17:7, 9, Gal. 3:9, Col. 2:11, 12, Acts 2:38-39, Rom 4:11-12, 1 Cor 7-14, Mt 28:19, Mk 10:13-16)

Even for the Exodus people, Moses knew that he had to say/do something to prepare the new generation and future generations who were not guaranteed/saved/assured by their parents/grandparents. It is the reason why God wrote the Decalogue "to teach my people", "hat thou mayest teach them" (Ex 24:12, 4:12, 4:15, 18:20, ... Ezek 44:23) ---> Hence "washing by the word" (Eph 5:26-27)

"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deu 31:29)

As to baptism's power or capacity to produce a desired effect:

"The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;q yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.r" (WCF 28:6)

When baptist churches mature (generationally) they may come to realise this, as many often refer to the point when they were Baptised as a boasting point and reasoning for XYZ. It's this kind of thinking that made Baptists become heretics/rebels/sectarians, historically speaking. They make declarations but fail to recognise hypcrosisy within their own body/congregation. And IME the overemphasis of baptism or the superstition surrounding baptism creates an unspoken classism/elitism/division between 'baptised' and 'unbaptised', within families all supposed to be united under one faith, not 'baptism'. Baptism then ironically becomes the very sacramentalism the Reformers recognised as idolatry. And worse, a baptism cult. IME, on both sides.

Don't get me wrong, similar criticism can be made to all of Christendom, but the point is this:

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Tit 1:15) This is the child-like purity that Christ commends, as opposed to "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21). Something is to be said for that, and for parents/families/congregations who mean well to raise their children in Christ, together as part of the of congregation, not a second-class 'ministry group'.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts .

 

[John Mullally]

Case in point. Supercessionism, Christendom elitism, Gentile infighting. The word "conscious" implies that the opposite is grossly immoral and wrong, like rape. This is a perversion and I'll explain why.

Voluntary is a synonym for conscious. There are many references to water baptism in the New Testament and no one is water baptized involuntarily. Your above references to Supercessionism, Christian elitism, Gentile infighting, and rape are inflammatory non-sense.

I agree with some of the points in the rest of your lengthy argument, but I disagree with your conclusion. The writer of Hebrews terms the "doctrine of baptisms" as being an elementary docrtine (Hebrews 6:1-2) - so at least at the time of its writing it was a settled issue.

Where possible, I prefer to reason directly from explicit statements and examples in Acts and the Epistles which are written to New Testament believers after the "Mystery of the Gospel" were revealed per Ephesians 3. In the word of God, revelation has been progressive. If one is looking at the relevance of water baptism one should stick to Acts and the Epistles as they have the more complete revelation, are addressed to NT believers, and throughly cover the topic.

 

[QvQ]

no one is water baptized involuntarily.

Infants are baptized involuntarily. The Church baptized infants for centuries and still does. Before the Reformation, no one questioned the practice.

 

[John Mullally]

Infants are baptized involuntarily. The Church baptized infants for centuries and still does. Before the Reformation, no one questioned the practice.

Anabaptists, who arose during the Reformation opposed infant baptism. And there are many denominations today that do not practice infant baptism.

 

[philadelphos]

Voluntary is a synonym for conscious. There are many references to water baptism in the New Testament and no one is water baptized involuntarily. Your above references to Supercessionism, Christian elitism, Gentile infighting, and rape are inflammatory non-sense.

I agree with some of the points in the rest of your lengthy argument, but I disagree with your conclusion. The writer of Hebrews terms the "doctrine of baptisms" as being an elementary docrtine (Hebrews 6:1-2) - so at least at the time of its writing it was a settled issue.

Where possible, I prefer to reason directly from explicit statements and examples in Acts and the Epistles which are written to New Testament believers after the "Mystery of the Gospel" were revealed per Ephesians 3. In the word of God, revelation has been progressive. If one is looking at the relevance of water baptism one should stick to Acts and the Epistles as they have the more complete revelation, are addressed to NT believers, and throughly cover the topic.

"Voluntary" and "conscious" are loaded words for a moralist argument. It is humanistic and unnatural. Also the argument for "consent" (what you're implying) is a radical argument. And I repeat, it is a perversion.

Do you not realise that the Lord commanded that circumcision be done on the "8th day"? (Lev 12:3; Phil 3:5-8) Does the lack of "consciousness" or "consent" make him immoral? Ofc not, that would be blasphemy. And yet that is what your argument implies.

Before nursing her child would you expect a mother to receive "consent"? For the infant to sign a waiver or a consent form? Ofc not, that would ludicrous.

Likewise, a child is "pure" innocent and sinless until youth. It's this loss of innocense (somewhere in between) that a child reaches their "youth" (Gen 8:21), and this is what/when change is necessited. Thus a verbal 'confession' (of faith) is expected, which must be "voluntary" and "conscious". This is true.

In order to have a truly righteous community and world all must be baptised, as "all have sinned" (Rom 3:23). To deny a child (or anyone) the grace of baptism is the very 'child abuse' you are alluding to in your argument. It is neglect and hypocrisy.

The minister who preaches that fractures a family/community/church into 2 classes: 'baptised' and 'unbaptised'. He is a family breaker. It tempts one group (without understanding) to idoloise the rite and ritual whilst the other will not care for it, their ignorance/naivity placing them at a disadvantage. Yet both can be righteous or wicked, regardless of externalism. Thus, baptism itself is moot. And it is therefore ritualism and superstition, prejudice and unjust discrimination. The minister who teaches this is blind.

Because there is no glory in the ritual (any ritual or sacrament), but rather the "repentance" of a sinner that is rejoiced and it is in heaven (Lk 15:7). Without true repentance as a change of heart and behaviour, the ritual itself is vain and cheap. It is but words and water. Cheap baptism.

Instead, the duty of a parent is to raise the family as 'one body' in Christ, "with the same care for one another" (1 Cor 12:25; Deu 6:7). All members of the family and community are equal under the law that is Scripture, until reason for otherwise. Rather than pressuming innocence, a 'believers baptism' accuses an infant of guilt when there is none, and simultaneously denies them the opportunity to vindicate themselves. It's terribly unjust and prejudiced. -- I speak from experience. It is not a happy story.

I know many Baptist ministers personally and I know their secrets. All I will say is that there are many reasons why a baptist church doesn't last more than a generation, 1 or 2 minister's terms at most.

Nevertheless, I do not care for either.

Baptismal righteousness/supremacy is a pharisaic quibbling point like 'washing of hands', less actual purity, intrinsic and extrinsic. It lacks understanding on many levels because true faith ultimately reflects this: "(That) I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord".

 

[John Mullally]

"Voluntary" and "conscious" are loaded words for a moralist argument. It is humanistic and unnatural. Also the argument for "consent" (what you're implying) is a radical argument. And I repeat, it is a perversion.

Labeling the terms "voluntary, conscious, and consent" as "humanistic, unnatural, and perversion" is not a reasonable argument.

Do you not realise that the Lord commanded that circumcision be done on the "8th day"? (Lev 12:3; Phil 3:5-8) Does the lack of "consciousness" or "consent" make him immoral? Ofc not, that would be blasphemy. And yet that is what your argument implies.

The OT direction concerning "circumcision" ihas nothing to do with NT direction concerning "water baptism". The rules for baseball do not apply to cricket - even though both sports revolve around pitching and hitting a ball.

Before nursing her child would you expect a mother to receive "consent"? For the infant to sign a waiver or a consent form? Ofc not, that would ludicrous.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Because there is no glory in the ritual (any ritual or sacrament), but rather the "repentance" of a sinner that is rejoiced and it is in heaven (Lk 15:7). Without true repentance as a change of heart and behaviour, the ritual itself is vain and cheap. It is but words and water. Cheap baptism.

I agree water baptism has no meaning outside of true reptentance.

Baptismal righteousness/supremacy is a pharisaic quibbling point like 'washing of hands', less actual purity, intrinsic and extrinsic. It lacks understanding on many levels because true faith ultimately reflects this: "(That) I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord".

Water baptism is not a pharisaic quibbling point, Jesus commanded his disciples to do it in the Great Commission:

Matthew 20:6 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” NIV​

Here we see Jesus commands his disciples to water baptize new disciples. There are no intances in Acts or the Epistles where Christians water baptize or are commanded to water baptize anyone other than new disciples.

 

[QvQ]

I have said, I was raised by atheist. However the Grandparents insisted that all three of us were baptized as Catholics as infants.
That was the end of any religious in our family until we were able to decide for ourselves

One brother voluntarily sought out the Catholic religion. He is a good Catholic

I affirm my baptism as valid through the Holy Spirit but I am not Catholic. If I were not baptized, I would get baptized. However according to the "denomination" quiz on Belief-O-Matic, I am a Puritan and most likely a Calvinist, neither of which denomination exists so I figure the Grandparents did me a favor as I am baptized, good enough. One baptism is sufficient, yes?

The other brother became a Baptist and was baptized by submersion to affirm his commitment to that congregation.

Now, the infant baptism was originally for the benefit of the Grandparents and all three of us would have gladly assented to their wishes, if we were the age of consent.

So exactly what is the problem?

 

[John Mullally]

I have said, I was raised by atheist. However the Grandparents insisted that all three of us were baptized as Catholics as infants.
That was the end of any religious in our family until we were able to decide for ourselves

One brother voluntarily sought out the Catholic religion. He is a good Catholic

I affirm my baptism as valid through the Holy Spirit but I am not Catholic. If I were not baptized, I would get baptized. However according to the "denomination" quiz on Belief-O-Matic, I am a Puritan and most likely a Calvinist, neither of which denomination exists so I figure the Grandparents did me a favor as I am baptized, good enough. One baptism is sufficient, yes?

The other brother became a Baptist and was baptized by submersion to affirm his commitment to that congregation.

Now, the infant baptism was originally for the benefit of the Grandparents and all three of us would have gladly assented to their wishes, if we were the age of consent.

So exactly what is the problem?

Given that the NT does not support infant water baptism, its up to you what to do. If you don't agree with my previous argument, you can ignore the rest I say - recognise we all have to give an account to God (Romans 14:12).

Like you I was infant baptized and came to Christ much later. For me another baptism was not a big deal as I saw that baptism was repentance and confession to faith and that could not be done in infancy - so why not make it straight by going through baptism again.

Although at a remote possibility it may be true, I don't like how you attributed your Baptist brother's baptism as allegiance to a denomination. Note that in the Great Commission (Matthew 20:16-20), the person water baptized is done so under the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. You and your brothers now have allegiance to them!

Blessings to you, John Mullally

 

[QvQ]

For me another baptism was not a big deal as I saw that baptism was purely confession to faith and that could not be done in infancy - so why not make it straight by going through baptism again.

That is the way my Baptist brother viewed his water immersion Baptism.

Although at a remote possibility it may be true, I don't like how you attributed your Baptist brother's baptism as allegiance to a denomination. Note that in the Great Commission, the person water baptized is done so under the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Your and your brothers have allegiance to them!

However, the fact is that one baptism was enough for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. My brother's second Baptism was an allegiance to a theology just as my other brother affirmed his baptism in his allegiance to the Catholic theology.
Is it true that most denominations require baptism as a "sign" of allegiance to a particular theological doctrine ?
I believe Calvin agreed with infant baptism. Don't know but to avoid off topic, I will leave it there.

 

[BPPLEE]

I have said, I was raised by atheist. However the Grandparents insisted that all three of us were baptized as Catholics as infants.
That was the end of any religious in our family until we were able to decide for ourselves

One brother voluntarily sought out the Catholic religion. He is a good Catholic

I affirm my baptism as valid through the Holy Spirit but I am not Catholic. If I were not baptized, I would get baptized. However according to the "denomination" quiz on Belief-O-Matic, I am a Puritan and most likely a Calvinist, neither of which denomination exists so I figure the Grandparents did me a favor as I am baptized, good enough. One baptism is sufficient, yes?

The other brother became a Baptist and was baptized by submersion to affirm his commitment to that congregation.

Now, the infant baptism was originally for the benefit of the Grandparents and all three of us would have gladly assented to their wishes, if we were the age of consent.

So exactly what is the problem?

I had to go to Belief o magic after seeing your post. Interesting site

 

[philadelphos]

That is the way my Baptist brother viewed his water immersion Baptism.

However, the fact is that one baptism was enough for the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. My brother's second Baptism was an allegiance to a theology just as my other brother affirmed his baptism in his allegiance to the Catholic theology.
Is it true that most denominations require baptism as a "sign" of allegiance to a particular theological doctrine ?
I believe Calvin agreed with infant baptism. Don't know but to avoid off topic, I will leave it there.

Exactly, this is true. And that exposes the hypocrisy of their view. They justify practices for religious dogma less for God.

My experience is the same as yours, and God is just. I have lived in all 3 camps and I know each system intimately. The engine of Calvinist theology has many limitations/inefficiencies for sure, but baptistic theolgogy has dysfunctional cylinders and doesn't know it!

 

[philadelphos]

Labeling the terms "voluntary, conscious, and consent" as "humanistic, unnatural, and perversion" is not a reasonable argument.

The OT direction concerning "circumcision" ihas nothing to do with NT direction concerning "water baptism". The rules for baseball do not apply to cricket - even though both sports revolve around pitching and hitting a ball.

False equivalence is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

However, "The OT direction concerning "circumcision"" most certainly has continued. Nothing has been dis-continued. That is the error of a supercessionist framework.

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart" (Deu 10:16, Jer 4:4) is carried into the NT, mentioned as "circumcision of the heart" (Rom 2:29) and "circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11)

"And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deu 30:6)

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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." (2:28-29)

To assume baptism is an invention in Acts (somehow exclusive to Gentiles or Christians, Christendom, evangelicalism, etc) is an abuse of Scripture and failure to recognise the meaning and historicity of baptism. BAPTISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

You are correct in that John's baptism differs. He preaches to adults, heads of households, but the effect of their baptism is applied to whole familes/households. There is no 'individualism' like in the West, in humanist thought. Either you are a Jew or you are not.

And yet John's message was not age-indiscriminate, nothing was said that precludes an infant/child from his baptism. But again, the concept of sin at youth is fundamental to grasp, as John's baptism followed after the Essenes at Qumran, that was done for ritual purification (daily etc) AND as an oath (once).

His ministry was "preparatory" and necessitated that Israelites rededicate themselves because what Moses prophesied before he died came true, that later generations would disbelieve and fall away (Deu 31-32), the corruption had peaked in Christ's life. Hence the 400 year silence between Malachi and John, a metaporic darkness. God's displeasure.

Thus, Christ's submission to this ordinance "to fulfill all righteousness" (Mt 3:15) shocked John as it was unnecessary yet remarkably perfect.--Like Queen Elizabeth's speech in South Africa on her 21st birthday, she didn't have to say or promise anything to the Commonwealth but she did. She laid down her life.--It does not do away with past ordinances but rather gives it new and deeper meaning.

The "confusion" is yours due to a replacement-theology perspective, assuming that Gentiles replace Jews/Israel. That is the error, for baptism and the Great Commission. One root, one people; one faith, one baptism; one bread, one wine; one blood, one Messiah; and one Scripture.

See Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, ch 4. He lays out the issues from Cyprianists to Pelagianists and Arminians, that even when ministers/priests were heretical, demoted, and sacked, infant baptism was never an issue. "So long as it appeared they (baptisms) were given in due form, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

Quote:

The relationship between circumcision and baptism, the one succeeding the other as the sign of the covenant, was so close that, as we have seen, it required in Cyprian’s day the action of a church council to permit baptism before the eighth day. Because the law of circumcision required that the rite be performed on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3), it was believed that baptism should not precede the eighth day, and council action was necessary to alter this. The early church thus not only recognized that baptism was the successor to circumcision as the covenant sign, but also that the same laws governed both. Precisely because this fact was always recognized, infant baptism was inescapably a fact in the early church.[12]

See also, Joseph Bingham’s, Antiquities of the Christian Church. He cites the evidence of a long-standing practice of participation by children and infants, from Justin Martyr and others, who made baptism parallel to circumcision: "We have not received that carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it by baptism, through the mercy of God, because we were sinners."

 

[John Mullally]

False equivalence is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges."

However, "The OT direction concerning "circumcision"" most certainly has continued. Nothing has been dis-continued. That is the error of a supercessionist framework.

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart" (Deu 10:16, Jer 4:4) is carried into the NT, mentioned as "circumcision of the heart" (Rom 2:29) and "circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11)

"And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deu 30:6)

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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." (2:28-29)

To assume baptism is an invention in Acts (somehow exclusive to Gentiles or Christians, Christendom, evangelicalism, etc) is an abuse of Scripture and failure to recognise the meaning and historicity of baptism. BAPTISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

By the way, you write beautifully.

Generally abstractions are used to aid our understanding - they are not to be taken literally. From your example in Deu 10:16 and Jer 4:4 we see talk about the circumcision of the foreskin of their heart, but there physically is no such thing. No offense: One can support about any argurment using biblical abstractions especially when mixing in a long chain of fuzzy logic using inductive reasoning.

Jesus purposely shooed away people that wanted to make him king after feeding them miraculously in John 6, by stating: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.". Was Jesus being literal? Use your imagination: What kind of crazy arguments can you make by taking this abstraction (which was expalined in the Last Supper) literaly?

Your arguments made from what I view as Biblical abstractions establish what I view as a false equivalience between Circumcision and Water Baptsim. That conflicts with the clear directives on water baptism in the Great Commission, Acts, and the Epistles. I always prefer the clear directives - especially from Acts and the Epistles as revelation has been progressive.

Blessings

 

[QvQ]

I had to go to Belief o magic after seeing your post. Interesting site

The "denomination" quiz on "gotoquiz" is better than Belief O Matic which is for religion. Type "what denomination am I?" into google search and look for the "gotoquiz" site.

One question I was intrigued with was...does baptism confer justifying grace or non justifying grace or is purely symbolic? I would say "non justifying."

What say you?

 

[philadelphos]

Abstractions are used to aid our understanding - they are not to be taken literally. For example, no one has physically circumcized the foreskin of their heart per Deu 10:16 and Jer 4:4. You can support almost any argurment by using abstractions.

Your arguments made from Biblical abstractions conflict with the clear directives on water baptism in the Great Commission, Acts, and the Epistles.

The only conflict is in your resistance, reflecting a nominal and shallow faith. I'm trying to aid your understanding.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." ( 1 Cor 13:11-13)

Notice the absence of age of consent/consciousness, permission, declaration of faith, etc. Because that is radical and unbiblical. -- Faith is from first to last (Rom 1:17), it doesn't delay or pause. That is the hiccup in your logic, hypocrisy and negligence. The earlier the better.

Baptism is necessary for Gentiles/heathens/pagans/polytheists to "wash" away former sin (idolatry etc), as proselytes into Israel. The early church barred people from baptism not by age but by obviously sinful practices, as charioteers, gladiators, astrologers, diviners, magicians, polygamists, etc, unless they forsook their profession. Consent is only for this group. Cf the dialogue between the Ethiopian eunuch and Steven: "What doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." (Acts 8:36-37)

A convert is a proselyte, a "new comer", or "to come", converting his old life into a new citizenship in the Commonwealth of Israel, not a denomination, church, or even Christendom as the Church, as all of that falls under the Commonwealth. All of his family (household, business, etc) will fall under the same grace offered to him. Get it?

Like asylum seekers, Gentile salvation partly relies on OT precedence, e.g. equivalence between Jew and Gentile once proselytised, as legal basis for citizenship. "One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you." (Num 15:16) That's how there can be 'Jew and Gentile' together. Gentile theology is not superior or a replacement, but rather our covenant works alongside theirs, as co-workers.

The problem historically was that Gentiles had a limited window, e.g. 7th year on shmitta (year of rest), in order to claim citizenship. Until the HS made that open.

The original process was circumcision + baptism + confession:

"From the law that proselyte and native Israelite should be treated alike (Num. xv. 14 et seq.) the inference was drawn that circumcision, the bath of purification, and sacrifice were prerequisites for conversion (comp. "Yad," Issure Biah, xiii. 4) ... he was circumcised in the presence of three rabbis, and then led to be baptized; but even while in the bath he was instructed by learned teachers in the graver and the lighter obligations which he was undertaking. After this he was considered a Jew (Yeb. 47a, b). ... Instruction in the Jewish religion precedes the ceremony, which, after circumcision and baptism, consists in a public confession of faith, in the main amounting to a repudiation of certain Christian dogmas, and concluding with the reciting of the Shema'." PROSELYTE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Yes, most certainly there is a parallel to circumcision. And the parallel remains although the Apostolic Council exempted Gentiles from circumcision, as 'generation' from the flesh is redundant to 're-generation', that is of the heart per the HS. The fleshly token is meaningless to a spiritual people, born not by genetics from Jacob, but as goyim chosen by the HS. So our token or rite is spiritual. Hence "circumcision is of the heart" not flesh. The "heart" represent our mind and thoughts (Mt 15:8).

"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me." (Mt 15:8; Isa 29:13; Ezek 33:31; Acts 8:21; Heb 3:12)

This metaphor is a critical as Gentiles are not supernaturally born per God's promise to Abraham relating to Isaac and Jacob. But rather our 'flesh is weak' because we are 'unclean', filthy in thought and deed, so our life starts as dirt, useless and unclean.

So we washing away our filth, in response to God's grace, who has chosen to remake what is originally worthless anew in the image of Christ. Wild (frail) branches "cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature" (Rom 11:24) implanted for repair in the "root and fatness of the olive tree" (Rom 11:17) that is Christ. Farmers graft to save the root/tree (from disease etc) but God grafts to save the person/family/nation/kingdom. "Whosoever is called".

To allege that that is a "biblical abstraction" would be 100% correct.

Baptism is purification and importation as a person is baptised into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27; εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸν θάνατον), both life and death. "This formula appears in other connections, as, for example, "baptised into Moses" (I Cor. 10:2) and "baptised into the name of Paul" (I Cor. 1:13)." (see John Murray on Baptism, 'For you and Your Children', pp 108-109, https://faculty.wts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/For-You-And-Your-Children.pdf; also pp 113 on the semantics of βαπτίζω (baptizo) with Isa 21:4, 2 Ki 5:14, Ps 68:23, Lev 11:32)

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb 10:16-17)

We wash with water AND with blood in response to "Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev 1:5)
And per the promise to Abraham, "it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." (Gen 17:10-12)

That is the relevance and parallel.

The object however is into the Triune God, more than "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16) The Lord's expressed words pre-ascension: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). i.e. "A cord of three strands is not easily broken" (Ecc 4:12) A triply strong graft. That's the similarity and the difference to earlier baptisms.

Whether this is all metaphorical or all literal is uncertain, but per literalisms like new "rivers" prophesied in Jerusalem in Ezek 47:1-5, and everything we know about the new kingdom, it very well may be super literal even though now that may seem abstract and difficult to grasp.

 

[John Mullally]

Your arguments made from what I view as Biblical abstractions establish what I view as a false equivalience between Circumcision and Water Baptsim. That conflicts with the clear directives on water baptism in the Great Commission, Acts, and the Epistles. I always prefer the clear directives - especially from Acts and the Epistles as revelation has been progressive.

The only conflict is in your resistance, reflecting a nominal and shallow faith. I'm trying to aid your understanding.

At this point we agree to disagree about infant baptism.