Why we Presbyterians Baptize infants.

[Ain't Zwinglian]

These categories are not air-tight. As you see it I could be any number of these Nominally Christian people groups. I believe in Original Sin, but I don't believe that prevents man from exercising his will, choosing for Christ, or doing good.

What an unregenerated person cannot do, however, is produce the fruits of a changed character. He may do good, but not of the character of Christ who was good by disposition. Fallen people remain fallen people, and the good they do may be good, but does not reflect a full conversion to Chrsit, who alone saves people. Truly saved people reflect an entirely new character--not just good works on occasion.

I do not believe we do 1% of our Salvation, with Christ producing only 99% of our atonement. He provided *all* of our atonement, and yet, we still have free will and must choose to accept his atonement. This is not Salvation by Works but our God-given ability to respond to God's Word, which is what makes our acceptance valid.

So it is all God, in terms of Salvation, even though we can legitimately choose it. Predestination is another matter entirely. All people are equally given access to Salvation. But only those God originally chose will accept it. The rest are people produced outside of God's original plan.

I'll let others comment here. I have dealt unfavorably with you before.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

@RandyPNW Baptism is what God does, people are passive recipients of God's grace in baptism and are passive recipients of the action of baptism that members of the Church perform on them. Baptism is wholly the work of others, not one of our own works, and hence baptism has no role whatever in a person's ability to boast of their works. We are, as the holy scriptures say, saved by grace, and the grace is administered by God using the means he has appointed; namely, baptism, the holy Eucharist, and participation in the life of the Church which is the body of Christ.

 

[John G.]

We are, as the holy scriptures say, saved by grace, and the grace is administered by God using the means he has appointed; namely, baptism, the holy Eucharist, and participation in the life of the Church which is the body of Christ.

We are saved by grace... full stop.
The thief on the cross did not get baptised nor did he partake of communion.
If there were requirements to obtain God's "grace", it wouldn't be grace.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

We are saved by grace... full stop.
The thief on the cross did not get baptised nor did he partake of communion.
If there were requirements to obtain God's "grace", it wouldn't be grace.

Seeking exceptions to dismiss the general rule can lead to the dissolution of all faith, effectively resulting in atheism. The thief crucified alongside Christ desired to follow God's will, which is why he asked to be remembered when Christ entered His kingdom and why he chastised the other thief, acknowledging their just punishment in contrast to Christ's innocence. This thief experienced a baptism of desire, aligning his will with God's, which included the intent to obey Christ's command to be baptised. Therefore, I consider your objection to baptism irrelevant and dismiss it as it merely serves as an excuse to reject the directive given by the Lord in John 3:5.

 

[John G.]

Add "requirements", "rules", "directives" to the cross and you end up subtracting from its power.
Baptism - which, by the way, I did not object to - Biblically follows conversion as an expression of what has already taken place.
Without conversion, it is worthless.
In contrast conversion, even without the opportunity to be baptised, results in eternal life.
The thief on the cross received God's grace through his faith - the general rule to being born again (John 3:5) and being saved.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The thief on the cross did not get baptised nor did he partake of communion.
If there were requirements to obtain God's "grace", it wouldn't be grace.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not applicable to the thief on the cross.

The Lord's Supper was instituted less than 24 hours before Jesus' sufferingon the cross. Scripture do not say the thief was present at the Last Supper.

As for baptism, Jesus instituted Christian Baptism AFTER his resurrection but before his Ascension. The first Christian baptism occurred on the Day of Pentecost some 53 days AFTER the thief's death. Of course, the thief was not baptized! Basic Biblical chronology affirms this fact. The thief was saved exactly like all the other OT saints in the hero's of faith listing in Hebrews 11: THE THIEF WAS SAVED BY FAITH.

The thief on the cross received God's grace through his faith

Amen.

 

[RandyPNW]

@RandyPNW Baptism is what God does, people are passive recipients of God's grace in baptism and are passive recipients of the action of baptism that members of the Church perform on them. Baptism is wholly the work of others, not one of our own works, and hence baptism has no role whatever in a person's ability to boast of their works. We are, as the holy scriptures say, saved by grace, and the grace is administered by God using the means he has appointed; namely, baptism, the holy Eucharist, and participation in the life of the Church which is the body of Christ.

Thank you for your response, but from my perspective you are speaking from an entirely different zone. If I get into a car, start the car, and take off I am the one driving--not some other force. When God tells a pagan he should convert, and he complies, getting water baptized, he is the one who gets baptized--not somebody else. You're welcome to believe as you wish...

 

[RandyPNW]

I'll let others comment here. I have dealt unfavorably with you before.

I'm okay with that. I could be wrong--I haven't been here long. But it seems that a number here are Sacramentalists?

I can never sign off on that since in my theology our own Works, including doing the Sacraments, do not obtain anything with respect to Salvation. They are just aids along the way.

So it may be worthless discussing these matters with you, if that's what you are? You may not think doing Sacraments is earning your Salvation. But in effect, why else would it be *required?* Why would it be proposed as instrinsic to our Salvation if it is not viewed as being a means of our Salvation?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I can never sign off on that since in my theology our own Works

Only Baptists and American Evangelicals believe the Sacraments are works. Please quote a Lutheran source, or a Calvinistic source, or a Anglican source, or a Methodist source, or a RCC source or a Othodox source demonstrating the Sacraments are works!

Baptists and American Evangelicals need to get out of their theological gettos and do some good academic research here.

 

[RandyPNW]

Only Baptists and American Evangelicals believe the Sacraments are works. Please quote a Lutheran source, or a Calvinistic source, or a Anglican source, or a Methodist source, or a RCC source or a Othodox source demonstrating the Sacraments are works!

Yes, Luther himself had a difficult time, it seems, justifying Sacramentalism in light of his theology of "Faith Alone." He did not want to throw out the biblical "sacraments," as he had been taught in Catholicism. And so he came up with a kind of justification for retaining it without comprommising his belief in "Faith Alone."

I don't personally think Luther had a legitimate case. Someone could simply define "Works" to mean "works that don't justify," and so deny some of the sacraments are "Works."

I've stated my own view, which is that if we *require* observance of the Sacraments as any kind of "self-atonement" then it is a form of illegitimate Sacramentalism. It is really a matter of the heart as to whether one is "self-atoning" or trusting in Christ for his atonement.

I might add this for clarity. I'm not against "Works," as such. We are indeed required to do "Works." What I specifically rejected was "Works that are intrinsic to our Salvation," and required as such. Christ certainly asked us to institutionally engage in sacraments like Water Baptism and Communion. But he *never* required it of us *as a matter of Salvation.*

The is the thing that I'm against, which are requirements formed that suggest Sacramentalism, that these ritual Works equip us with powers through the rituals, imparting to us, as if by magic, certain spiritual qualities. When we are told to obey Christ's Commandments, and thus to do Moral Works, we obtain spiritual blessings.

The Works themselves do not impart to us power to perform miracles or to get Saved. We are simply rewarded with God's good pleasure. We are blessed when we obey, just as Israel was blessed in obeying God when they were under the Law.

So it is important that we acknowledge that Christ told us to do certain ritual Works without suggesting it is saving us, or engaging in "self-atonement." We are not performing "spiritual sacrifice" when we perform the Eucharist. We are not actually "getting saved" when we get Water Baptized.

We are just performing advisable activities, being institutionalized by Christ, for purposes of testimonial and memorization. They provided useful functions *after* we have received our Salvation exclusively by faith, and not by our own Works.

But I'm not at all against Christian "Works," including Moral obedience and Sacramental observances.They do not have a thing, however, to do with getting saved.

Christ asked us to do them as aids in the course of Salvation which he provided exclusively through his atonement and received only by our faith and by our willingness to give up our own ways for the ways of Christ. These things may not have been easy for packing in denominational creeds. I do not find it easy to say either.

What matters, however, is that in our heart we recognize Christ owns the spiritual virtue, and we can receive that virtue only by submitting to his Lordship. That is true in our initial receiving Salvation. And that is also true as we continue to live out our Salvation consistently. I'm sorry if you thought I was rejecting the Sacraments outright.

 

[RandyPNW]

What do you mean by the following personal note that you just sent me?....
You said:

Ain't Zwinglian said:
I don't believe you have read a page of Luther. I therefore am going to access your account, hit the ignore button so I don't have to communicate with you anymore. God's blessings on you here at CF.

The Lord says that what people say and do in secret we should "shout from the housetops." If you mean to be underhanded, here is your opportunity in the light of day to explain what you meant?

I have no idea why you're "boiling over?" I had no intention of being insulting, although disagreements sometimes come across that way.

I assure you, I've read Luther. I've read his materials and spent the 1st 19 years of my life in church every Sunday and then some.

I have great admiration for Luther, have read biographies on his life, seen movies on his life, and agree with his main focus on Faith Alone.

What on earth has gotten into you? If you don't want to converse, simply stop responding to my posts!

 

[John G.]

The bottom line is: Christianity is NOT a religion that requires rituals and rites to be saved.
Rather it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who paid in full the price for our salvation.
Getting back to the topic at hand: we Presbyterians baptise infants however at baptism we stress that this does NOT make the infant a Christian. That is for the individual, later on in life, to deal with personally with God.

 

[Neostarwcc]

The bottom line is: Christianity is NOT a religion that requires rituals and rites to be saved.
Rather it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who paid in full the price for our salvation.
Getting back to the topic at hand: we Presbyterians baptise infants however at baptism we stress that this does NOT make the infant a Christian. That is for the individual, later on in life, to deal with personally with God.

Exactly. You baptize your children because God commanded you to do so and because it's a part of raising them in the faith. It's the planting of a seed, it's up to God whether or not that seed grows. But like I said before I've seen a lot of Presbyterian children in my day. The vast majority of them grew up to be Bible Believing Christians all because of the work that their parents did in raising them and in what God did in their hearts. It's true, not every child raised in the faith turns out Christian but in my experience a vast majority of them actually do. Especially of they're kept in a great Bible Believing church with a great elder leading them all of the way. Our elders are truly fantastic and I wouldn't want them to retire although our lead elder is almost in his 70s and will likely retire within the next 10-15 years or so.

 

[RandyPNW]

The bottom line is: Christianity is NOT a religion that requires rituals and rites to be saved.
Rather it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who paid in full the price for our salvation.
Getting back to the topic at hand: we Presbyterians baptise infants however at baptism we stress that this does NOT make the infant a Christian. That is for the individual, later on in life, to deal with personally with God.

I thank God every day that my folks baptized me as an infant, and didn't wait until I was a corrupt teenager before asking me to commit my life to Christ. Thank you!

 

[Dan Perez]

Seeking exceptions to dismiss the general rule can lead to the dissolution of all faith, effectively resulting in atheism. The thief crucified alongside Christ desired to follow God's will, which is why he asked to be remembered when Christ entered His kingdom and why he chastised the other thief, acknowledging their just punishment in contrast to Christ's innocence. This thief experienced a baptism of desire, aligning his will with God's, which included the intent to obey Christ's command to be baptised. Therefore, I consider your objection to baptism irrelevant and dismiss it as it merely serves as an excuse to reject the directive given by the Lord in John 3:5.

I am sure that he is quoting Eph 2:8 , Saved by Grace and NOT // OV Is a DISJUNCATIVE PARTICLE NEGATIVE , MEEANING

NEVERRRRRRRR will ever be by words >

Those that believe in Baptism OR Water Baptism see no difference, and there is a BIG DIFFERENCE ?

In 1 Cor 10 : 2 AND all were Baptized UNTO Moses in the CLOUD and in the SEA ?

If this is WATER // HUDOR , How were was MOSES and the Cloud and SEA , WATER BAPTIZED .

And in Mark 16:16 reads , He that BELIEVETH and is BAPTIZED , SHALL BE SAVED ??

Your thoughts PLEASE ??

dan p

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Your thoughts PLEASE ??

I believe that baptism is a means through which God bestows grace upon His people, fulfilling His promises. Additionally, the unusual Greek grammar remarks in your post seem to cloud the intended message.

 

[Dan Perez]

Only Baptists and American Evangelicals believe the Sacraments are works. Please quote a Lutheran source, or a Calvinistic source, or a Anglican source, or a Methodist source, or a RCC source or a Othodox source demonstrating the Sacraments are works!

Baptists and American Evangelicals need to get out of their theological gettos and do some good academic research here.

And we all have believes and some are hard to leave .

#1 I have yet to see the Greek word SCRAMENTS in the bible !!

# 2 Have yet to see the GREEK word for PURAGORTY !!

# 3 Have yet to see the n Greek word for POPE !!

# 4 I have yet to see anyone FORGIVE sins of man or woman in the BIBLE !!

Be glad to see anyone write where in the bible , have I missed them , so write where those verses are ?

I am a bible , KJV , believer and a DISPENSATIONALIST , Pre - tri and PRE- MILL

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

#1 I have yet to see the Greek word SCRAMENTS in the bible !!

It's in these passages (in Latin):

• Ephesians 1:9 Vulgate ut notum faceret nobis sacramentum voluntatis suae secundum bonum placitum eius quod proposuit in eo
• Ephesians 3:3 Vulgate quoniam secundum revelationem notum mihi factum est sacramentum sicut supra scripsi in brevi
• Colossians 1:27 Vulgate (27) quibus voluit Deus notas facere divitias gloriae sacramenti huius in gentibus quod est Christus in vobis spes gloriae
• 1 Timothy 3:16 Vulgate et manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum quod manifestatum est in carne iustificatum est in spiritu apparuit angelis praedicatum est gentibus creditum est in mundo adsumptum est in gloria
• Revelation 1:20 Vulgate (20) sacramentum septem stellarum quas vidisti in dextera mea et septem candelabra aurea septem stellae angeli sunt septem ecclesiarum et candelabra septem septem ecclesiae sunt
• Revelation 17:7 Vulgate (7) et dixit mihi angelus quare miraris ego tibi dicam sacramentum mulieris et bestiae quae portat eam quae habet capita septem et decem cornua

# 2 Have yet to see the GREEK word for PURAGORTY !!

# 3 Have yet to see the n Greek word for POPE !!

Purgatory is a Latin word.
Pope means father, you will find it in Greek many times - .1John 2:13 γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. γράφω ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν.

# 4 I have yet to see anyone FORGIVE sins of man or woman in the BIBLE !!

John 20:23 DRB Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

 

[RileyG]

I was baptized Catholic as an infant as well as was my wife and sister. My mother who was a "practicing" Catholic at the time made sure that my sister and I were baptized. I asked my Elders when I joined the PCA several years ago if my wife and i needed to get rebaptized because we were baptized Catholic and not Protestant and they said that all baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are valid. On the topic of RC sproul though i believe he would have rebaptized a Catholic if they requested him to do so.

Mainly because not all children who get baptized are saved. It's a little bit of a Grey area i think.

Your point about waiting to baptize your children is so true. As a believing parent you have a God given duty to raise your children in the faith and this includes getting them baptized as soon as possible. They might not be saved later on but God commands us to raise our children in the faith regardless and oftentimes more than not i see God working miracles in the children of believers. My church is full of children of God who I would be immensely surprised if they left the faith later in life.

All Christins who baptize infants accept baptisms from other (Trinitarian) traditions. I think only Baptist, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of Christ, Pentecostals, various Evangelical and non-denominational Churches will re-baptize someone baptized as a baby because they don't see infant baptism as "real baptism."

That's my understanding anyway.