How are infants justified before God?

[Carson Weber]

Hi Bob,

You wrote, "Christ is their savior by default - until such time as they TOO can CHOOSE rebellion or choose to submit to Christ."

Are you saying that infants are saved apart from faith?

That WHOSoever BELIEVES on Him might have everlasting LIFE - as Christ said in John 3.

Bob, just consider what I have to say before you respond - just this one time, please. This verse needs to be taken into context.

In John 3:15, the believing spoken of is the type of belief exercised by one who has been "born from above" [anothen], which is the central theme of John 3. This is a supernatural belief exercised by the Christian who has been spiritually reborn.

In the end of John 2, we read:

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed [pisteuo] in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not believe [pisteuo] himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man."

This leads right into the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus:

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews."

John is skillfully showing us that mere human belief in Jesus does not suffice; he shows that salvation is not the result of our human faith, but, rather, is a gift from God received in baptism, when we are given the supernatural, theological virtue of Faith. It is this type of faith that saves. When an infant is baptized, he or she is given this supernatural virtue of faith, which is a pure gift, a pure grace, given freely. Infant baptism is a powerful demonstration of just how free God's grace is. The infant doesn't do anything whatsoever to freely receive this gift.

Rather the error of infant Baptism "evolved" over time.

Bob, you've asserted that infant Baptism "'evolved' over time". Would you please back up your assertion by showing where in the early Church this was debated? Would you please point out the councils that addressed this practice and excommunicated the "supposed heretics" (who were really the orthodox, according to you)? Please, back up your assertion with historical evidence.

According to RC historians when the error of infant baptism evolved

Would you please point out the Catholic historian who admits that infant baptism is the product of evolution of doctrine?

[ July 03, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "John the Baptist made it clear that he baptises with water, but the one for whom he, John, is the forerunner will baptise by spirit. So what power is there in water baptism? NONE whatever."

There is no power in the baptism of John, but there is power in the baptism of Jesus, which involves water, obviously (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)

In Acts 19:1-6, we read:

While Apol'los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus.

There he found some disciples. And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"

And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?"

They said, "Into John's baptism."

And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
Christ is their savior by default - until such time as they TOO can CHOOSE rebellion or choose to submit to Christ."

Carson responds
Are you saying that infants are saved apart from faith?

Indeed - the Bible never calls infants to "repent" or to "Hear His voice and OPEN the door". NOR is Baptism applicable to them for it is "NOT the touch of magic sacramental water - or even magic rose petals - on the flesh but the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3:21

Bob referencing the Salvation promised in John 3 as applicable to believers such as Nicodemus - --
That WHOSoever BELIEVES on Him might have everlasting LIFE - as Christ said in John 3.

Carson
Bob, just consider what I have to say before you respond - just this one time, please. This verse needs to be taken into context.

In John 3:15, the believing spoken of is the type of belief exercised by one who has been "born from above" [anothen], which is the central theme of John 3. This is a supernatural belief exercised by the Christian who has been spiritually reborn.

In the end of John 2, we read:

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed [pisteuo] in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not believe [pisteuo] himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man."

This leads right into the discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus:

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews."

John is skillfully showing us that mere human belief in Jesus does not suffice; he shows that salvation is not the result of our human faith, but, rather, is a gift from God received in baptism

There is no "belief in God received in Baptism" in all of scripture. Not in John 3 or John 2 or in the entire 66. We do not have a single text showing us that "belief is received IN baptism" - RATHER we have "Believe AND are Baptized" as a "Sequence"

Mark 16:16
" He who has believed AND is baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, AND they were being baptized, men and women alike.


Acts 8:13
Even Simon himself believed; AND after being baptized, he continued on with Philip,

However the RCC hopes to find (needs to find) what is never stated in scripture - namely "Baptized into BELIEF" or "Belief received through Baptism".

FAITH is a gift from God - it is true - but it is NOT received "through Baptism" neither if "belief".

For UNTO EACH one has been GIVEN a measure of Faith Romans 12.

Carson
, when we are given the supernatural, theological virtue of Faith. It is this type of faith that saves. When an infant is baptized, he or she is given this supernatural virtue of faith

Faith - by definition CAN NOT be held by, expressed by, demonstrated by, or exercised by an infant.

"Faith IS the substance of things HOPED for the CONVICTION of things not seen" Hebrews 11:1.

At every turn - the RC position is cut short by the Explicit statements of God's Word.

I find this amazing. It is as if you have to already BE Catholic to fall for it. Or perhaps you have to simply not know about the Bible teaching on these points when they are first presented by the RCC.

Carson
Infant baptism is a powerful demonstration of just how free God's grace is. The infant doesn't do anything whatsoever to freely receive this gift.

Infant baptism is simply a tradition born out of an erroneous idea of limbo, a failure to study the essence of what faith really is, and superstitions of the dark ages.

Bob
Rather the error of infant Baptism "evolved" over time.

Carson responds --
Bob, you've asserted that infant Baptism "'evolved' over time". Would you please back up your assertion by showing where in the early Church this was debated?

Are you "sure" that my RC source is going to reference "debates"?? I find that odd.

Bob said ...
According to RC historians when the error of infant baptism evolved...

Carson responds..

Would you please point out the Catholic historian who admits that infant baptism is the product of evolution of doctrine?

Is it your argument that Catholic doctrine did not "evolve" over time?

I really think it would be helpful to clarify your position - so that when these quotes are given we can see just exactly how your views compare with your own historians.

I want to avoid the non-committal start so that you can then put a "nice face" on statements that clearly "pose a problem" for what you start off saying is "an issue".

If you are arguing that doctrines (specifically infant baptism in this case) did NOT evolve over time - please say so.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Bob,

I believe that I set forth a pretty good exposition of how John shows that human belief isn't enough to save us, that we need to be "born anothen" (Eng. "from above") in addition to human belief in order to be saved, and you chose not to address this exposition of mine, which is from where we get the very teaching of being "born again".

Rather, you went about demonstrating how human belief accompanies baptism, which I wholly agree with.

Faith - by definition CAN NOT be held by, expressed by, demonstrated by, or exercised by an infant.

I agree with you. The supernatural virtue of Faith (this is a new faculty, a power) given to the human in baptism cannot be exercised by an infant. The inability to exercise this power (principle of action) does not negate the possibility (and reality) that the power has been given when the infant is "born from above" by means of "water and Spirit".

Infant baptism is simply a tradition born out of an erroneous idea of limbo, a failure to study the essence of what faith really is, and superstitions of the dark ages.

Bob, why is it that you misrepresent the Catholic Church on purpose? I have already stated on this thread, in my initial post, the following:

"The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?"

Infant baptism is attested to in some of the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament, and yet you say that it is born of superstition from the Middle Ages. Are you comfortable bearing such false witness? Does this affect your conscience?

 

[Yelsew]

There is no power in the baptism of John, but there is power in the baptism of Jesus, which involves water, obviously (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16)

Acts 2:37. Hearing this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, brothers?"
38. `You must repent," Peter answered, "and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39. The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself."
40. He spoke to them for a long time using many other arguments, and he urged them, "Save yourselves from this perverse generation."
41. They accepted what he said and were baptised. That very day about three thousand were added to their number.

Acts 22:14. Then he said, `The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Upright One and hear his own voice speaking,
15. because you are to be his witness before all humanity, testifying to what you have seen and heard.
16. And now why delay? Hurry and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Acts 19
The disciples of John at Ephesus
1. It happened that while Apollos was in Corinth, Paul made his way overland as far as Ephesus, where he found a number of disciples.
2. When he asked, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?" they answered, "No, we were never even told there was such a thing as a Holy Spirit."
3. He asked, "Then how were you baptised?" They replied, "With John's baptism."
4. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance; but he insisted that the people should believe in the one who was to come after him, namely Jesus."
5. When they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus,
6. and the moment Paul had laid hands on them the Holy Spirit came down on them, and they began to speak with tongues and to prophesy.
7. There were about twelve of these men in all.

None of these passages indicate a water baptism, except "John's baptism"

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "None of these passages indicate a water baptism, except "John's baptism""

Whoooaa.. wait a second.. Are you kidding me?

Are you seriously saying that when Peter said, "every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", he wasn't referring to being baptized with water?

Are you seriously saying that "Hurry and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name" isn't referring to being baptized with water?

Are you seriously saying that when Paul baptized the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:5, this didn't involve water?

You also skipped right over Matthew 28:18-20, which I also provided. Was this intentional? Would you say that this passage doesn't speak of a baptism involving water?

 

[BobRyan]

Carson
I believe that I set forth a pretty good exposition of how John shows that human belief isn't enough to save us, that we need to be "born anothen" (Eng. "from above") in addition to human belief in order to be saved, and you chose not to address this exposition of mine, which is from where we get the very teaching of being "born again".

Your treatment of John 3 "required" John to say that Belief was created in - brought about by Baptism. Your position "needed" the text to say "He who has been baptized into belief" or "He who is baptized Believes" or something to that effect. INSTEAD what I showed in several cases is that the "Sequence" we find in scripture is that BELIEF preceeds baptism. You did not respond to these EXPLICIT sequence that SHOW my position.

You also did not respond to the utter lack of the "Believe created IN Baptism" texts your view "needs".

John 3 makes it clear "He who BELIEVES" and does NOT argue that "belief arises OUT of Baptism" - though your preference "needs" it to argue that case.

So having produced nothing to that effect - how will you sustain your point?

In John 3 - those that are "Born of the Spirit" are saved. However the text does not say "at the moment the believers head touches the water he is BORN of the Spirit" as you propose. In fact in John 3 NO sequence is setup for belief with respect to water baptism. But we DO see it explicitly identified in other scriptures and it is always "Who BELIEVES AND is Baptized". Contrary to how the RCC would have it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the Cath Digest article you have requested. Parenthesis mine in the quotes below from the June 1999 article.

Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44 "go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"


pg 45"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protege until the baptism"

<>

"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms. (daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."

"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."

<>

"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off, they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"

<>
"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fith century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point
(read change),
baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed as) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and concils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy saturday ceremony"

<>

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Bob,

You wrote, "Your treatment of John 3 "required" John to say that Belief was created in - brought about by Baptism.

No, not mere belief, but the supernatural virtue of faith. John shows what mere belief by itself gets you in the end of chapter 2.

INSTEAD what I showed in several cases is that the "Sequence" we find in scripture is that BELIEF preceeds baptism. You did not respond to these EXPLICIT sequence that SHOW my position.

Yes, I did respond to your presentation. You are misrepresenting my response. I said, "Rather, you went about demonstrating how human belief accompanies baptism, which I wholly agree with."

John 3 makes it clear "He who BELIEVES" and does NOT argue that "belief arises OUT of Baptism" - though your preference "needs" it to argue that case.

Bob, are you reading my posts? I showed how John speaks of mere human belief in Jesus is not sufficient unto salvation in the end of John 2. This should give you pause.

This is an integral part of the theological narrative John is building in his Gospel, and you are ignoring it outright.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob "Your treatment of John 3 "required" John to say that Belief was created in - brought about by Baptism.

Carson
No, not mere belief, but the supernatural virtue of faith. John shows what mere belief by itself gets you in the end of chapter 2.

Ok - I stand corrected.

Your treatment of John 3 "required" that John say that "Faith is Created in - brought about by Baptism" And you did not show that such a thing IS found in John 3.

INSTEAD what I showed in several cases is that the "Sequence" we find in scripture is that BELIEF preceeds baptism. You did not respond to these EXPLICIT sequence that SHOWs my position.

Carson
Yes, I did respond to your presentation. You are misrepresenting my response. I said, "Rather, you went about demonstrating how human belief accompanies baptism, which I wholly agree with."

OK - so you AGREE with the SEQUENCE "Whoever BELIEVES and IS baptized" but your argument is that "BELIEF is Apart from Faith".

Do you have any evidence AT ALL in scripture that for the Obedient - "Belief is APART from faith" or do you simply make that up because the RCC position "needs it"?

Are you arguing that I can not find in scripture the fact that BELIEF is in fact a step of faith (I am thinking of Romans 10 here so you will need to be very careful.

)

Bob
John 3 makes it clear "He who BELIEVES" and does NOT argue that "belief arises OUT of Baptism" - though your preference "needs" it to argue that case.

Carson
Bob, are you reading my posts? I showed how John speaks of mere human belief in Jesus is not sufficient unto salvation in the end of John 2. This should give you pause.

Unfortunately for your position (if you are really trying to argue the case of baptism from John 3) the chapter DOES NOT contrast TWO kinds of belief. Rather "Whosoever BELIEVES in Him might NOT perish but HAVE everlasting Life" John 3:16 is clearly identifying BELIEF that IS of faith and that IS NOT insufficient unto salvation.

How can you argue that in the face of the clear statements of John 3?

I do not doubt that in John 2:22 you have faithful disciples who "Believed the scriptures" and in vs 23 you have those that "Believed in His name". And in John 2 we see that Christ STILL does not "entrust HIMSELF to men" EVEN though Men were believing in Him.

We see another example of this in Matt 16 where Peter expresses BELIEF in Christ and later in the same chapter is addressed as "Satan". But that does not mean that his initial BELIEF was not of faith. It just means we should not TRUST IN PETER the man - but in Chirst the Son of God.

But your turning that around to say that in John 3 we should expect to find "whosoever BELIEVES is STILL not saved " is hardly credible. NOR do we find in John 3 a treatment of "Belief that is NOT of faith" NOR do we find "Faith BORN in Baptism".

And you have shown no text supporting such a claim.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Yelsew,

You wrote, "None of these passages indicate a water baptism, except "John's baptism""

Whoooaa.. wait a second.. Are you kidding me?

Are you seriously saying that when Peter said, "every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit", he wasn't referring to being baptized with water?

Are you seriously saying that "Hurry and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name" isn't referring to being baptized with water?

Are you seriously saying that when Paul baptized the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19:5, this didn't involve water?

You also skipped right over Matthew 28:18-20, which I also provided. Was this intentional? Would you say that this passage doesn't speak of a baptism involving water?

Which of those scriptures specify water? It is an assumption that any of them refer to water baptism. Afterall John's was a water baptism. However Jesus' baptism is spirit baptism. None of those scriptures say, "baptise with water". That includes Matthew 28:18-20. Please by all means prove me wrong. The scriptures certainly do not!

 

[gb93433]

There are a lot of things that the words of scripture do not say. It's much like hearing one side of a conversation.

But the word for baptize (baptizo) means to dip, immerse or wash. Historical baptism is Judaism was by immersion. I see no deviation from immersion until the fourth century.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by gb93433:
There are a lot of things that the words of scripture do not say. It's much like hearing one side of a conversation.

But the word for baptize (baptizo) means to dip, immerse or wash. Historical baptism is Judaism was by immersion. I see no deviation from immersion until the fourth century.

There are two other definitions for "immerse"; 1. to involve deeply, absorb, and 2. to embed, bury.

Baptize can also mean, 1. to cleanse spiritually, and 2. initiate or dedicate by purifying. Purification need not be washing with water.

The Holy Spirit does not wash by water. What is water to the Holy Spirit? Either of these could be what the Holy Spirit does.

My point is that baptism by water is John the Baptist's baptism unto repentence, while Jesus baptism is Holy Spirit Baptism, and need not involve water in the least.

Granted there are examples of people being baptized in water such as the Ethiopian Eunuch, but these need not be the rule.

What seems to be standard practice is that the church uses baptism as a testimony to one's stated faith. Immersion in water is then a visible sign of one's testimony. Holy Spirit baptism has no "visible sign", but there are gifts given by the Holy Spirit and some denominations, Assembly of God for example insist on speaking in tongues as a sign of Holy Spirit Baptism. Not all are given the same gifts though, so if you don't speak in tongues, avoid the Assembly of God.

 

[BobRyan]

There is "no other" external - physical form of Baptism presented in scripture OTHER than water baptism - fully emersing the believer.

There are certainly cases of "Believers" - those who place their FAITH in Christ, being SAVED before they are baptized and those who were never baptized pre-Cross.

But AFTER the cross - all "believers" - all those who placed their faith in Christ - were called to ALSO follow Him in water Baptism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is "no other" external - physical form of Baptism presented in scripture OTHER than water baptism - fully emersing the believer.

There are certainly cases of "Believers" - those who place their FAITH in Christ, being SAVED before they are baptized and those who were never baptized pre-Cross.

But AFTER the cross - all "believers" - all those who placed their faith in Christ - were called to ALSO follow Him in water Baptism.

In Christ,

Bob

Perhaps for repentance because that is what water baptism is for. Holy Spirit baptism is for regeneration of the believing heart.

 

[BobRyan]

It must be admitted that there was never a time since the fall of man - where repentance was not needed, where regeneration was optional, where the fallen lost soul could just "go it alone" and that would "work just fine".

I think most would agree to that.

It is also the case that regeneration, belief, repentance etc are brought about in every case - through the work of the Holy Spirit on the heart.

But the outward symbol of water baptism was not "always" the norm for the people of God in all ages. Rather it has become the standard once the Matt 28 commission required it as an outward sign of obedience and identification with Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Frank]

The baptism that saves is immersion in water. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:12-14; 8:38,39, Eph.5:26.
Holy Spirit baptism was for the apostles as per Joel 2:28, Luke 24:44-51, John 14:26, 15:26; 16;13, Acts 2:1-4,17,18. The complete fulfillment of this promise was whn the Gentiles( all flesh) were baptized in Acts 10.
Holy Spirit baptism is not the baptism that saves per the following:
1. Holy Spirit baptism could be performed by Christ only. Mat. 3:11.
2. The baptism that was to continue till the end of the world was administered by human beings. Mat. 28:18-20.
3. Holy Spirit baptism was a promise to be received, not a command to be obeyed. Luke 24:44-51.
4. Holy Spirit baptism is never said to save.
5. Holy Spirit baptism never imparted faith which is essential to be saved. Hebrews 11:6. It is the word of God that produces faith. Romans 10:17.
6. It is the word that saves, not the baptism of the Holy Spirit. James 1:18.
7. The miraculous power of the Holy Spirit was limited in time and scope. Acts 8:18, I Cor. 13:8-11.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

I have an Anabaptist reply: we do not and never have on the whole believed in OSAS, which is also a teaching absent from the ante-Nicene writers. And like the Eastern Orthodox, we traditionally rejected the Roman teaching of original sin, in that Scripture testifies that each man's sin is on his own head and he is never punished for the sin of another. However, to the extent that we can say that in Adam all men die, so in Christ are all men made alive; the provision of the atonement extends exactly as far as the effects of the fall. Therefore, yes, all infants are covered by the blood of Christ until like Paul, who was alive once without knowledge of sin, they come to awareness of their sinfulness, and they die spiritually. Then they are subject to the need to repent and have faith to reappropriate the benefits of the atonement. Since OSAS is false, this presents no problem for an Anabaptist.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Well said!!

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Thank you!