Baptismal regeneration

[Reformed]

Well Rebel, you hit it right on the nose. That is precisely how Covenant Theologians justify administering water to infants.

However, here is a simple way to expose the error of infant baptism.

1. Hebrews 10:1-4 says the Old Covenant ceremonial laws, especially the sacrificial aspect of the ceremonial law "could never take away sins". Because they were only figures/types or a "shadow" rather than the literal image casting the shadow.

2. Nevertheless, the Old Testament motif was to use the language of redemption with the figure because of the figure relationship with the literal, as the figure was a shadow of what did in fact remit sins (Acts 10:43). So if you go back into the Old Testament you will repeatedly find such language "for sins" for your "cleansing" associated with obedience to the types. Not because they could literally save or remit sins but because they were figures of what could.

3. The same motif is used by New Testament writers with figures/types of which baptism is explicitly said to be "the like figure" - 1 Pet. 3:21

4. The Old Testament provided the FIGURE of the New Covenant REALITY. Hence, under the figure 8 day old infants were circumcised, but under the reality that was a figure of literal spiritual children of God.

5. Finally, Abraham is set forth for "all who are of faith" as the pattern for remission of sins and imputed righteousness (justification) by faith WITHOUT external divine ordinances, as the blessedness of justification (Rom. 4:5-8) was obtained NOT IN CIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:9-10) but in uncircumcision as a completed action (Rom. 4:11 "had" - aorist tense).

Therefore, in all ages, before and after the cross remission of sins and imputed righteousness has always been received by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43 without works, without divine ordinances.

I am not a paedobaptist, but you did not mention why Protestant paedobaptists baptize infants. They do not baptize them for remission of sins, they baptize them because they believe that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and it is to be applied to all family members within the local, visible church. They still believe that salvation is by grace through faith and that an infant still needs to be converted. Ergo, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

[Rebel]

Yea we would not want to apply those words to His work (ie the word of God) only Him.

Yes, His work, His inspiration, filtered through fallible human beings, to produce a book. You may raise a book to the level of Deity and ascribe to it qualities that can only belong to the Deity, but I will not. I will not ascribe infallibility to a man, such as the pope, or to a book, not even the Bible.

 

[Rebel]

I am not a paedobaptist, but you did not mention why Protestant paedobaptists baptize infants. They do not baptize them for remission of sins, they baptize them because they believe that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and it is to be applied to all family members with the local, visible church. They still believe that salvation is by grace through faith and that an infant still needs to be converted. Ergo, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

The Lutherans do, many Anglicans do, and these days some Methodists do.

 

[The American Dream]

I am not a paedobaptist, but you did not mention why Protestant paedobaptists baptize infants. They do not baptize them for remission of sins, they baptize them because they believe that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and it is to be applied to all family members within the local, visible church. They still believe that salvation is by grace through faith and that an infant still needs to be converted. Ergo, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

Unlike the free will-sovereignty issue, I believe we agree on this one. I know in the church I grew up in the justification for sprinkling infants was not exactly regeneration, but in effect it was similar. They believed that a covenant relationship between parent and child imparted salvation until what they called being accountable. Usually around 12 or so, one would start attending what was called a communicants class. My take on that is there is no NT justification for what is being called a covenant child-parent relationship. If there was such a thing, it could not impart salvation. Only Jesus Christ and His work on the cross saves by grace through faith. There is no Biblical reason to sprinkle infants. You could take your pet cat and sprinkle it and both would know the same thing about the Gospel, nothing.

Sometimes those who use the proper mode, ie immersion, also have regenerational Baptism, the most famous denomination being the Church of Christ. In essence they have turned the Gospel into a works Gospel. So its not just the sprinkling that is in error.

The only Biblical standard is by immersion, after salvation, as a symbol of the death, burial an resurrection of Jesus Christ and your newness of life. Other denominations are all over the map, from sprinkling, to sprinkling infants, to saving power in the baptism.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, His work, His inspiration, filtered through fallible human beings, to produce a book. You may raise a book to the level of Deity and ascribe to it qualities that can only belong to the Deity, but I will not. I will not ascribe infallibility to a man, such as the pope, or to a book, not even the Bible.

Then you have a serious problem. When God works even through fallible humans his work is perfect. Our imperfection does not negate His sovereignty or His power. If you believe man and his sin is more powerful than God than you have, as I said, serious issues.

See the Bible is not just a book. Those who refer to it as such have a very, very low view of His word. It is more than a book it is the very revelation of God. It is what He intends for us to know about Him. It is His expression of Himself in written form.

Those people like yourself who have little faith in His word cannot know their God as God has intended. It is just impossible. Your understanding of God will always be weak and your faith will always be a trouble for you. It is sad.

I believe God and all of His words. I believe His revelation of Himself as He has revealed it. I do not have to question any of His word because I do not question any of His word. It is all reliable and trustworthy. It is all true and there is nothing in it that is not true.

 

[Rebel]

Then you have a serious problem. When God works even through fallible humans his work is perfect. Our imperfection does not negate His sovereignty or His power. If you believe man and his sin is more powerful than God than you have, as I said, serious issues.

See the Bible is not just a book. Those who refer to it as such have a very, very low view of His word. It is more than a book it is the very revelation of God. It is what He intends for us to know about Him. It is His expression of Himself in written form.

Those people like yourself who have little faith in His word cannot know their God as God has intended. It is just impossible. Your understanding of God will always be weak and your faith will always be a trouble for you. It is sad.

I believe God and all of His words. I believe His revelation of Himself as He has revealed it. I do not have to question any of His word because I do not question any of His word. It is all reliable and trustworthy. It is all true and there is nothing in it that is not true.

I get tired of you trying to characterize me when you know nothing of me. When you do that, it approaches slander. How dare you presume to say that I have little faith in His word! That is an outrageous lie! I have a very high view of scripture. I just don't make an idol or deity of it.

The next time you start to post your drivel in response to me, keep your slanderous mouth shut. You're nothing but a punk.

 

[Revmitchell]

I get tired of you trying to characterize me when you know nothing of me. When you do that, it approaches slander. How dare you presume to say that I have little faith in His word! That is an outrageous lie! I have a very high view of scripture. I just don't make an idol or deity of it.

The next time you start to post your drivel in response to me, keep your slanderous mouth shut. You're nothing but a punk.

You are being rather hypocritical here aren't you Michael? You ascribe strong language to me such as raising the Bible to the level of Deity ( an accusation of Bible worship no less). Which is fine, but when I express my strong views on your position I am a Punk and I have slandered you? If your standard for what is a punk and slander is true what does that say about your post to me? Is it not equally slanderous? Are you not equally a punk?

I would suggest that if you have trouble debating and even in the midst of it the sharing of strong views then you should avoid it a long with the name calling.

 

[Robert William]

The Lutherans do, many Anglicans do, and these days some Methodists do.

Amen :thumbs:

I would say many Padeo's do also, silently.

 

[Robert William]

Then you have a serious problem. When God works even through fallible humans his work is perfect. Our imperfection does not negate His sovereignty or His power. If you believe man and his sin is more powerful than God than you have, as I said, serious issues.

See the Bible is not just a book. Those who refer to it as such have a very, very low view of His word. It is more than a book it is the very revelation of God. It is what He intends for us to know about Him. It is His expression of Himself in written form.

Those people like yourself who have little faith in His word cannot know their God as God has intended. It is just impossible. Your understanding of God will always be weak and your faith will always be a trouble for you. It is sad.

I believe God and all of His words. I believe His revelation of Himself as He has revealed it. I do not have to question any of His word because I do not question any of His word. It is all reliable and trustworthy. It is all true and there is nothing in it that is not true.

:thumbs: Amen, I will agree with all of the above, but only if you are referring to the original scrolls, we can not declare the copies as totally inspired because of the few minor errors in it. YHWH is perfect.

 

[Robert William]

I get tired of you trying to characterize me when you know nothing of me. When you do that, it approaches slander. How dare you presume to say that I have little faith in His word! That is an outrageous lie! I have a very high view of scripture. I just don't make an idol or deity of it.

The next time you start to post your drivel in response to me, keep your slanderous mouth shut. You're nothing but a punk.

Rebel, relax and have a couple glasses of wine :love2::1_grouphug:

 

[Robert William]

I am not a paedobaptist, but you did not mention why Protestant paedobaptists baptize infants. They do not baptize them for remission of sins, they baptize them because they believe that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and it is to be applied to all family members within the local, visible church. They still believe that salvation is by grace through faith and that an infant still needs to be converted. Ergo, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

No heathens can be part of the New Testament Church, you don't know which babies are the predestined elect. Padeobaptism is foolishness.

 

[McCree79]

Yes, His work, His inspiration, filtered through fallible human beings, to produce a book. You may raise a book to the level of Deity and ascribe to it qualities that can only belong to the Deity, but I will not. I will not ascribe infallibility to a man, such as the pope, or to a book, not even the Bible.

Then why believe anything it says? The whole book, if it can err, may all be an err. None of it is trust worthy. How do we discern what is fact and what is fiction(the err)?

 

[McCree79]

:thumbs: Amen, I will agree with all of the above, but only if you are referring to the original scrolls, we can not declare the copies as totally inspired because of the few minor errors in it. YHWH is perfect.

Do any originals still exist? I think they are all copies of the original. The Hebrew and greek texts of today are just copies. Even if the originals did exist how would we know which was the original? If modern translations err, then we have no hope of knowing the truth. Granted, I would not be using a paraphrase bible(the message, etc...) But when it comes to the more word for word tranlastions (NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV), Id we believe the Bible err's, we are not guaranteed truth from the Bible.

*Just realized you stated inspired not err

2 Timothy says all scripture is God breathed. What scripture, what text? The Jews were not carrying around the original text. The text they had differed slightly from copy to copy. The Septuagint was a translation. If there was an issue with it, why didn't Christ, Paul or Peter call it out? Why would 2 Timothy 3:16 exist, if the scripture they had(which was all copies and/or translations) was not God breathed?

:thumbs: Amen, I will agree with all of the above, but only if you are referring to the original scrolls, we can not declare the copies as totally inspired because of the few minor errors in it. YHWH is perfect.

 

[McCree79]

No heathens can be part of the New Testament Church, you don't know which babies are the predestined elect. Padeobaptism is foolishness.

I agree with you take. The New Covenant/Covenant of Christ is a covenant of believers, not an ethic people like the previous. One was born into the Abrahamic covenant. One is born-again into the new covenant. So you get the seal after enter into the covenant. Abrahamic covenant = birth(8days old). New covenant =spiritual birth(saved by grace).

 

[Reformed]

No heathens can be part of the New Testament Church, you don't know which babies are the predestined elect. Padeobaptism is foolishness.

Do you understand what our Presbyterians brethren believe in regards to infant baptism? You and I are agreed that baptized infants are not part of the Church. Presbyterians do not believe in an exclusive regenerate church membership. They believe baptized infants are covenant children. They are sanctified through their believing parents and are part of the New Covenant community. They see a parallel with covenant Israel. Just because a male child was circumcised does not mean the child was a believer by faith (c.f. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, Gen. 15:6). In the Presbyterian schema the baptized infant must still come to faith in Christ. The problem, as I see it, is that Presbyterians stray into presumptive regeneration. They have a hard time distinguishing between the application of the sign and an actual profession of faith at a later date. To be sure even children raised in Baptist homes may present that problem. My daughter never made the typical profession of faith. She was raised under the teaching of the Word of God and never displayed anything but an obedient attitude. I have complete confidence in her salvation because she confesses Christ. She has told me, "Dad, I believe in Christ, I just never remember not believing." Still, she was not baptized until she was able to articulate her faith in Christ.

 

[Robert William]

Do you understand what our Presbyterians brethren believe in regards to infant baptism? You and I are agreed that baptized infants are not part of the Church. Presbyterians do not believe in an exclusive regenerate church membership. They believe baptized infants are covenant children. They are sanctified through their believing parents and are part of the New Covenant community. They see a parallel with covenant Israel. Just because a male child was circumcised does not mean the child was a believer by faith (c.f. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, Gen. 15:6). In the Presbyterian schema the baptized infant must still come to faith in Christ. The problem, as I see it, is that Presbyterians stray into presumptive regeneration. They have a hard time distinguishing between the application of the sign and an actual profession of faith at a later date. To be sure even children raised in Baptist homes may present that problem. My daughter never made the typical profession of faith. She was raised under the teaching of the Word of God and never displayed anything but an obedient attitude. I have complete confidence in her salvation because she confesses Christ. She has told me, "Dad, I believe in Christ, I just never remember not believing." Still, she was not baptized until she was able to articulate her faith in Christ.

Reformed, I think it's time for us who see their deceptions, to expose Padeobaptism once and for all and get rid of the relic of Popery. We need to question them further when they make statements saying their children are covenant children, what exactly does that mean, what are those covenant children a part of???? Can you see the deception, and there are many more.
Our scriptures teach us that only those who's hearts are circumcised are part of the Church the body of Christ, a circumcision made without hands, not a man made water ritual.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are being rather hypocritical here aren't you Michael? You ascribe strong language to me such as raising the Bible to the level of Deity ( an accusation of Bible worship no less). Which is fine, but when I express my strong views on your position I am a Punk and I have slandered you? If your standard for what is a punk and slander is true what does that say about your post to me? Is it not equally slanderous? Are you not equally a punk?

I would suggest that if you have trouble debating and even in the midst of it the sharing of strong views then you should avoid it a long with the name calling.

:thumbs::applause::applause::thumbs:

 

[Rebel]

You are being rather hypocritical here aren't you Michael? You ascribe strong language to me such as raising the Bible to the level of Deity ( an accusation of Bible worship no less). Which is fine, but when I express my strong views on your position I am a Punk and I have slandered you? If your standard for what is a punk and slander is true what does that say about your post to me? Is it not equally slanderous? Are you not equally a punk?

I would suggest that if you have trouble debating and even in the midst of it the sharing of strong views then you should avoid it a long with the name calling.

My name is Thomas. Address me as that or not at all.

I responded to your presumption and insult. I do not have a low view of scripture. What you said is a lie. Stop with your insults, and I won't have a reason to respond the way I did. Yes, I was angry because this is how you always respond to me. You can't help but get in a dig, an insult, a shot. I have absolutely no respect for you because of that.

 

[Rebel]

Rebel, relax and have a couple glasses of wine :love2::1_grouphug:

I could get stumbling drunk, and my perception of Mitchell might change while in that state, but he would in actuality remain unchanged.

 

[Robert William]

I could get stumbling drunk, and my perception of Mitchell might change while in that state, but he would in actuality remain unchanged.

LOL funny :laugh: We will keep an eye on him.