Can infant baptism be Scriptural?

And if you're not obedient...? </font>[/QUOTE]you get punished, "spanked"...not anhilated.

 

Roman Catholicism gleefully watched Protestants tearing one another to pieces over water-baptism - whether immersion of sprinkling; whether of an adult or of a child; whether three time or once; etc. The question if child baptism is Scriptural is wong because water-baptism in any way is not Scriptural after the first-generation Christians who were Apostles : Baptism was one of the important signs someone was an Apostle - a beginner of the Gospel in history. That foundation had been laid; it cannot be laid more than once.

 

While I can't say I agree with Gerhard Ebersoehn, I do think that we non-Catholic Christians have made too much importance over the issue of Baptism. We even go to the point of requiring it for membership in our churches, and use it as a litmus test as a way of judging a person's faithfulness, and, sometimes, even their salvific state.

When I was baptized as a believer, I did so because I wanted go through the personal experience. Not because it was compulsory. In fact, I refused to join one church (IFB) because the pastor had "concerns" over not being able ot verify the "validity" of my baptism, despite the fact I gave him a long dissertation about my being born again. I told the pastor he was being a legalist, and I walked out, never to return. It's the only time I ever lost my cool with a pastor.

 

No. Its impossible.

Water baptism according to Gods scriptures follows salvation. Salvation occures at the moment of faith in Christ.

An infant is not yet developed to the point of comprehending the gospel.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

johnv,

Incredible.

I could see myself doing the exact same thing if I were in your shoes.

God bless,

Mike

 

"Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I still can't believe all of you are claiming faith is dependent on human action and yet still claim that you do not believe there is anything you can do to earn salvation. If comprehension is required then we all are in trouble for who can comprehend the mysteries of God.

 

It is natural in the New Testament for adults to be the candidates of water baptism because many converts were made, and mostly adults. There is little or no discussion about child conversion.

If one, however, follows through with the concept of circumcision and infant baptism, then only males are candidates.

In many churches who practice infant baptism, the emphasis is not on the candidate as much as those presenting the child. It is not efficacious for salvation, but rather dedicating the child to Christian instruction leading to a conversion experience. "Bring up a child....."

Those who follow covenant theology tend to sprinkle infants, but follow through with a confirmation....a time when one of an age of understanding studies the scriptures regarding knowing the Christ as Saviour. Certainly modernism has tainted these doctrines, but does not change the early facts of what they meant.

Even Queen Elizabeth I was immersed, as an infant, but it was common practice in Anglican Churches. Even to-day, many of the old Anglican Churches have a dunking tank somewhere in the building, often under the pulpit area.

So, we generally believe scripture teaches that only a twice-born believer is the proper candidate for baptism as a step of obedience, and immersion taken from the actual Greek word, which means to dunk or immerse.

Cheers,

Jim

 

When has faith become a "work" which "earns" salvation?

 

When is faith a work? When one thinks the faith is of one's self. The faith to believe is a gift of God, Eph. 2:8-10. Exercising such faith is not a work--in as much as "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hathe before ordained that we should walk in them."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

We are often so afraid of the work-salvation equation that we fail to see the role of work as displayed in scripture, all through the Old Testament and especially in the Epistle of James.

We fail to separate the work done by God, and man's responsibility, but rather we try to melt these two aspects of theology together.

As Spurgeon prayed, "Lord, save the elect and elect some more..." He was not saying that we could expand the company of the elect at will, but he was showing the relationship between what God does and man's inability to know, hence working things out to attract all humankind.

What is that old saying,"You tell me about your salvation by quoting the book and I will show you mine by my works."

Cheers,

Jim

 

Both are necessary.
You can't be saved without the "book." We often demonstrate our salvation through the Book. "Jesus saved me this I know; for the Bible tells me so."
Our salvation is rooted in God's Word.
At the same time, a saved person is changed person. If there is no change there may be cause for doubt in a person's salvation. But even then, it is not our place to judge. Only God knows the heart. "The Lord knows them that are His."
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. The Lord also tells us how He knows them that are His: "And let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim 2:19).

If there is no repentance, there is no salvation (Luke 13:3, 5).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr,
Who is the judge of repentance?
You or God?
Lot was declared just before God.
Are you in the place of God to declare who has repented and who has not? Or do you know this because only those who have been baptized by a COC minister in the COC church are the ones that have shown evidence of repentance. That is the mark of a cult. You are not God, nor are you in the place of God.
DHK

 

This is an oxymoron as God's "elect" would already be saved.

Creating man is a work done by God, thus any responsibility given to us by God (having faith in Him) is inherantly melted together. All men have the ability to have faith, and ALL men are commanded to have faith in God's Son. God's "elect" aren't given some cosmic "saving faith" to use while He witholds this from the rest of mankind.

 

Greetings bmerr

This doesn't make any theological discrimination for we all would seek to depart from iniquity. While this is a true statement, it must be understood as belonging to sanctification which cannot justify. You would wrongly blend sanctification into justification and say that final justification depends on departing from iniquity.

But who then can comply? NNE! You unwittingly endorse of system of death and despair.

Context is Jesus speaking to His fellow country man. Immediately after, He gave the Parable of the vineyard. Context dictates understanding national Israel.

Hence, the nation must repent or face national destruction (AD 70 by the Romans). This is the salvation of a nation - not salvatio by an individual. You make the same mistake the Calvinists make here.

One must observed context.
Lloyd

 

This is an oxymoron as God's "elect" would already be saved.

Creating man is a work done by God, thus any responsibility given to us by God (having faith in Him) is inherantly melted together. All men have the ability to have faith, and ALL men are commanded to have faith in God's Son. God's "elect" aren't given some cosmic "saving faith" to use while He witholds this from the rest of mankind. </font>[/QUOTE]You must be blind!

 

Quoting ascund (Lloyd), "Hence, the nation must repent or face national destruction (AD 70 by the Romans). This is the salvation of a nation - not salvatio by an individual. You make the same mistake the Calvinists make here."
I beg your pardon! Or maybe I don't understand you properly.
A calvinist, in any case, would reason: Why should God not warn those whom He knows are lost? Isn't it human audacity?

 

We know not who the elect are. We were given the Great Commission: to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. One could look at this from God's point of view and say: Go and evangelize until you find who the elect are, and lead them into my family.
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Man, you make a mountain out of a mole-hill quick! You're like "MR. EXTREME" or something. At what point did anyone (other than the pope) claim to be God, or to be in the place of God? Does God not now command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)? Repentance is requred of man if he would be saved from his sins (2 Pet 3:9).

All I did was give the rest of the scripture that you left out. It's not my fault you left it out, nor is it my fault it was there for you to leave out. Don't get angry with me if you don't like what the Bible says. I didn't write it.

If a man will not repent, he cannot be saved. In Acts 2:38, repentance is tied to baptism as a requirement for the remission of sins. Again, I didn't write it. God did.

Lots of people repent every day. Not all of them do so because they have believed the gospel. Many are just "turning over a new leaf". Repentance is simply a change of mind that results in a change of action.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, repentance is not something infants are capable of, and thus, they are not Biblical candidates for baptism.

Now settle down before you blow a gasket.

In Christ,

bmerr