Infant Baptism: Doctrinal error? Who should we ask?

[Agnus_Dei]

The whole point of this thread is about infant baptism. It's purpose (if any)? It's necessity (if any)? It's Scripturalness (if any)? Its value (if any)?

The class has discussed the above; it’s more of a disagreement regarding baptismal regeneration.

In John 3:3, Jesus said: "Verily, verily I say unto you, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
It is evident that in order for a person to see heaven or have an assurance of going to heaven he must be born again, not baptized.

LOL, if we take just John 3:3 and build a doctrine of it, as Fundamentalist oppose doing, but do all the time, as in this case, then only men can be saved and one of apparent age. So what’s the minimum “age” of a man that can be saved. All these fundamentalist who claimed to have been “saved” at 6 years old, what of these folks? My Baptist associate’s Pastor’s wife said she was 4-years old when she was “saved”. And where in Scripture do we read a sinners prayer being conducted and that being sufficient? Where in Church History do we see conversions being done based on a formulated pre-scripted prayer?

Have you been born again?

Being raised a fundamentalist, I was scared into “salvation” after seeing a live play enacted of heaven and hell and I repeated the words of assurance that my soul would be saved for all eternity and that was at 8 years-old…So if you DHK believe in OSAO, you really can’t question my salvation, no matter what path I take on my spiritual journey…Methodist or Catholic. Remember, based on your theology I’m saved from all my sins past, present and future.

If so, how?

I was born into God’s family through Baptism: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27).

When?

1998

How do you know?

The Bible tells me

What? No answer Agnus?

Sorry, I'm not quick enough. God has opened a door for my family and I with a job opportunity in Wichita, KS. So my participation in the BB antics will be a little less at lest for the next few months.
-

 

[DHK]

The class has discussed the above; it’s more of a disagreement regarding baptismal regeneration.

Yes indeed. Baptismal regeneration cannot be demonstrated to be a Scriptural doctrine from the Bible. It is rather a heresy.

LOL, if we take just John 3:3 and build a doctrine of it, as Fundamentalist oppose doing, but do all the time, as in this case, then only men can be saved and one of apparent age. So what’s the minimum “age” of a man that can be saved. All these fundamentalist who claimed to have been “saved” at 6 years old, what of these folks? My Baptist associate’s Pastor’s wife said she was 4-years old when she was “saved”. And where in Scripture do we read a sinners prayer being conducted and that being sufficient? Where in Church History do we see conversions being done based on a formulated pre-scripted prayer?

John 3:3 is simply a summation of the entire passage of John 3:1-13. "You must be born again," is repeated three times in that passage. That makes it a very imporant truth, not just a doctrine built around one verse as you have falsely stated.
Another false statement that just comes out of nowhere: "only men can be saved." Who said that, and who on this board believes that?" Why not give a link providing some evidence that anyone on this board believes that doctrine coming from this verse, else take back your false accusations. This passage of Scripture has been explained many times, and no one has ever said that!!!! I want to see the evidence.
"So what is the minimum the age?
The minimum age is stated thusly: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
"As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
"Call upon the name of the Lord and thou shalt be saved."
--I trust you can get the minimum age from those verses.

"Where in Scriptures do we read of a "sinners prayer" being prayed?
We don't. And who says we do. I have never said the sinner's prayer. Do you think that I am not saved because of it? My wife was saved at the age of 7, and there was no sinners prayer. We don't use any such thing as a sinner's prayer in our church. If you have had a bad experience in a Baptist Church, and have seen some things done that should not have been practiced I am sorry for that. But don't lump us all into the same boat.
When my wife was saved at the age of seven, she enquired about salvation when talking to her mother. Her mother explained the way of salvation, and by faith she trusted Christ as her Savior. She knew that she was saved. She knew, as she looks back on that day that there was faith in Christ and repentance toward God. She never doubts that day in her life that she was saved. She can remember all the circumstances related to it. She knows if she were to die tonight that she would go to heaven, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
OTOH, I have a daughter who made a similar decision at approximately the same age when in Sunday School. She was even baptized shortly after. She thought she was saved, and her sins washed away as well. But later in her life, when she was going through some trials she realized that that profession was not genuine; she did it more for her SS teacher than for Christ. At the age of 13 she gave her life to Christ, trusted him completely, and again was baptized. Baptism before salvation is not baptism. Now she is sure of her salvation, and is a completely different person than before. Biblical salvation changes a person; not a prayer.
The Lord saves those who are convicted by the Holy Spirit, and who thus trust Christ by faith and faith alone.
We do not base our salvation on prescribed prayers. (Catholics do).
We do not base our salvation on history, rather the Word of God.

Being raised a fundamentalist, I was scared into “salvation” after seeing a live play enacted of heaven and hell and I repeated the words of assurance that my soul would be saved for all eternity and that was at 8 years-old…So if you DHK believe in OSAO, you really can’t question my salvation, no matter what path I take on my spiritual journey…Methodist or Catholic. Remember, based on your theology I’m saved from all my sins past, present and future.

If you were scared into salvation you are no doubt unsaved. Salvation is not based on emotionalism, but the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. It is not based on the repetion of the words of a prayer. That is a myth. If you started off on a false premise and a bad foundation how can you be sure that you are really saved?

I was born into God’s family through Baptism: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27).

Baptism does nothing to a person but makes them wet. Your salvation is based on the same premise that the Hindus salvation is. There is no difference.

The Bible tells me

What does the Bible tell you about having an assurance of salvation? There are no Catholics that have an assurance of salvation. They don't believe in OSAS, by their own admission. Any possiblity of committing a mortal sin can send them straight to hell.

 

[BobRyan]

As for starting a topic on abstinence, the Rapture, or tithing. I'm sure they've been hashed out before. I doubt anyones mind was changed. However, I sincerely believe that no person honest with scripture, nor Scholar, nor Theologian on earth can support the average Baptist belief on these subjects.
Which varies a great deal from the "Baptist Faith and Message" official teachings.

Well - you are right to say that just like this subject thread - those other subjects have already been posted. However - having a Baptist arguing against the sola-scriptura support for these doctrines is somewhat unique - I would have to say.

Just because a subject is "discussed" does not mean that all hearts were open to the topic at the time.

Who knows - someone may be open to truth this time around that was totally closed mind last time around.

All the "Higher Order" churches I'm aware of recognize that giving/tithing cannot biblicaly be a legalistic demand/law. Nor are all monies titheable. This is lost on most Baptist members. The "many" have been taught they rob God if the tithe (10% on all - no matter the origin of funds) isn't paid on everything. The "Baptist Faith and Message" has it correct and goes no further than scripture. I known several very pitiful examples of elderly Baptist tithing of Social Security, pretty much bankrupt with medical bills, and never being told better. Those old people were not robbing God, their Church was robbing them.
Gotta Go - I'm late.

sounds like a good OP for a tithe thread to me - I would join it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

I have always thought that the Lutherans had a very nice and concise presentation of the Scriptural basis for infant baptism here:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_baptism.pdf

Now, of course, one does not have to accept their interpretation of the Bible; but this article does provide a biblical basis for infant baptism.

It may not be Baptist-biblical, but it is biblical.

(If someone has already pointed this out, I apologize. I did not read through the 9 preceeding pages.)

CA

 

[DHK]

I have always thought that the Lutherans had a very nice and concise presentation of the Scriptural basis for infant baptism here:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_baptism.pdf

Now, of course, one does not have to accept their interpretation of the Bible; but this article does provide a biblical basis for infant baptism.

It may not be Baptist-biblical, but it is biblical.

(If someone has already pointed this out, I apologize. I did not read through the 9 preceeding pages.)

CA

I don't have to read past the first paragraph of the article to see that it is not Biblical. Infant baptism is not, and never has been Biblical. Where in the Bible do we ever have any example of any infant ever being baptized. There isn't. You can't make an argument from silence, nor from bad hermeneutics. Here is just the first paragraph of the article which you provided:

What is Baptism?
Baptism is not just plain water,but it is the water included in
God’s command and combined with God’s Word.1
What’s so special about a handful of simple water?
Nothing,until God connects His Word to it! In Baptism,that is
exactly what God is doing.He combines His life-creating and
life-giving Word with the waters of Holy Baptism,and thereby
we are born again of water and the Spirit (John 3:5).

First of all, John 3:5 mentions the word water, but it says nothing of baptism. Baptism is not in that picture at all. To read baptism into that verse is to do injustice to the passage.
Contrary to the opinion stated baptism is just plain water. In consists of two atoms of hydrogen to every one atom of oxygen. If a priest waves his hand over it, it does not change its composition. If you soak the Bible in it, it won't change; it will become dirty, but it will still be water. If you say a prayer over it, it won't make it any more holy; it will still be ordinary water. Why are people so superstitious about water. We are not Hindus who think that water can wash away their sins, and thus bathe in a "Holy River."

Jeremiah mocks:
Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.
--Water (baptismal or otherwise) cannot save; it cannot wash away sin; only the blood of Jesus Christ can do that.

 

[BobRyan]

I have always thought that the Lutherans had a very nice and concise presentation of the Scriptural basis for infant baptism here:

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_baptism.pdf

Now, of course, one does not have to accept their interpretation of the Bible; but this article does provide a biblical basis for infant baptism.

It may not be Baptist-biblical, but it is biblical.

Here is an example with the "problem" of calling that "biblical"

1 Peter 3:21;Titus 3:5–7 and
1 Cor.6:11.​

How can water do such great things?​

Certainly not just water,but the word of God in and with the
water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this
word of God in the water. For without God’s Word the water is
plain water and no Baptism.But with the word of God it is a
Baptism,that is,a life-giving water,​

Peter is being referenced but not QUOTED -- the DETAILS in 1Pet 3:21 are being totally denied by the verbage that comes next in the link.

Peter does not argue "Baptism saves you in the form of the WATER touching the flesh plus the power of magic words from the Bible said over the one whom the water touches"... YET from the argument made in the link you would surmize that this is exactly what 1Pter 3:21 said!!

In fact 1Peter 3:21 flatly denies such an argument -- the link RELIES on the fact that the reader will NOT look up the text and read it for themselves!!

And such is the case for all man-made doctrines opposed to the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob​

 

[Chemnitz]

Hmmm... Such a sweeping generalization made on the basis of one little summary document. The "What about...?" series was never meant to be an analysis indepth. They were to give a summary of our teachings in a form that could fit in a small pamplet. Before you make such sweeping judgements, Bob, I suggest you actually take the time to read our major theological texts which go into greater depth than a pamphlet. You will also notice that in the pamplet the reader is encouraged to read more.

May I suggest that you spend sometime reading
Christian Dogmatics Vol IIIby Francis Pieper
A Summary of Christian Doctrine by Walter Koehler
or Luther's Small Catechism with Explanation

You will find that contrary to your rash generalization we quote the verses in question.

BTW according to your own logic you are obviously defending a man made teaching because you never once quote 1 Pt 3:21 you merely reference it, obviously you are counting on us never actually looking it up.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this (the flood), now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(my addition in order to clarify context)

Rather plainly describes baptism as a washing which corresponds to the flood which was meant to cleanse the earth of sin.

 

[mes228]

Tithing

Bob, I apologize for the delay in answering. My work requires me to be out of town and I have little access to computers. These comments may not be the specific scriptural analysis on tithing that some here are addicted to. I work pretty much from memory as I've been addicted to Bible Study and am trying to quit, so please bear with me.

First, a general condensed view of many Baptist members is that all monies must be tithed. Tithing is a full 10 percent on everything (some teach gross income, some net) You are robbing God and are a thief if you don't tithe. The first ten percent is Gods no matter what. You are cursed if you don't pay up. You will be richly blessed if you give until it hurts. Sowing sparsely ie giving money, are the 'seeds" that lead to blessings. As an aside, I know of people that "reverse tithe" ie live on 10% and give 90% to God ie the church or work they are associated with. Many motivational, moving, and guilt inducing sermons are given to "force" or "guilt" the person into giving in many Baptist. I also need to say Baptist are not alone in this. Many televangelist, fundamentalist, and cults also teach these things.

Contrast this with the "true" Baptist doctrine as written in the "Baptist Faith and Message". I quote" God is the source of all blessings, temporal and spiritual. All that we have and are we owe him. Christians have a spiritual debtor ship to the whole world, a holy trusteeship in the gospel, and a binding stewardship in their possessions. They are therefore under obligation to serve Him with their time, talent, material possessions, and should recognize these as entrusted to them to use for the glory of God and helping others. According to scriptures, Christians should contribute of their means cheerfully, regularly, systematically, proportionately, and liberally...."

Please notice that the BFM does not induce guilt, accuse you of robbing God, does not mention "ten percent' and includes "time & talents" as offerings to God. I can agree with this statement. I cannot agree with what many Baptist believe and some will argue and "accuse" others because they "know" they are "right". Because they've been taught and preached highly motivational, unscriptural non-sense that can only be sustained by "proof texting" and supplying your own twist to scripture. The BFM goes to the world and those other than Baptist read it.
Most all Theologians and Scholars could agree with the stated doctrine of the Baptist in the BFM. But would find what some Baptist believe unscriptural, heretical, probably laughable, and abusive. Also as an aside, some Baptist end up very self rightous because "they tithe" and give, and give, then hold in little esteem other Christians that are not. I pretty much see this as legalistic bondage and not freedom at all. It's quite ungodly to teach the "law" is done away with - except where bondage and legalism benefits your "work" or church. Also it's not unheard of for Baptist Ministers to litterally own the church they preach in. As they start their own church. That is another subject but I also object to nepotism.

This is already too long. I'll try to give a balanced view of scripture on tithing/giving at some point. Best regards and have a great day.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmm... Such a sweeping generalization made on the basis of one little summary document. The "What about...?" series was never meant to be an analysis indepth. They were to give a summary of our teachings in a form that could fit in a small pamplet. Before you make such sweeping judgements, Bob, I suggest you actually take the time to read our major theological texts

As your post shows - I posted quite a bit of detail in the TINY BIT that I DID post -- far more detail than you repsonded to -

I could FLOOD this thread with more posts and quotes of RC sources and certainly I will provide SOME -- but that never results in more "substantive" and "more detailed" responses as your post illustrates -- so why flood the thread?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

First, a general condensed view of many Baptist members is that all monies must be tithed. Tithing is a full 10 percent on everything (some teach gross income, some net) You are robbing God and are a thief if you don't tithe. The first ten percent is Gods no matter what. You are cursed if you don't pay up. You will be richly blessed if you give until it hurts. Sowing sparsely ie giving money, are the 'seeds" that lead to blessings.
...

Please notice that the BFM does not induce guilt, accuse you of robbing God, does not mention "ten percent' and includes "time & talents" as offerings to God. I can agree with this statement. I cannot agree with what many Baptist believe and some will argue and "accuse" others because they "know" they are "right". Because they've been taught and preached highly motivational, unscriptural non-sense that can only be sustained by "proof texting" and supplying your own twist to scripture. The BFM goes to the world and those other than Baptist read it.
Most all Theologians and Scholars could agree with the stated doctrine of the Baptist in the BFM. But would find what some Baptist believe unscriptural, heretical, probably laughable, and abusive.

Well - IF we were on a thread about Tithing I woud point out that the "Rob God" quote comes from Malachi 4. If your claim is that the text does NOT make that argument -- then I suggest an exegetical review of the text before declaring Malachi to be "unbiblical" or even a quote of it "unbiblical".

It is easy to make sweeping claims that anyone quoting that text must be misquoting it -- but I think it is better to show the math when making a claim of that nature.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Chemnitz]

As your post shows - I posted quite a bit of detail in the TINY BIT that I DID post -- far more detail than you repsonded to -

I could FLOOD this thread with more posts and quotes of RC sources and certainly I will provide SOME -- but that never results in more "substantive" and "more detailed" responses as your post illustrates -- so why flood the thread?

in Christ,

Bob

Come now, Bob, it is time to address your hypocrisy. You decry Dr. Barry for merely including a reference and not actually quoting the passage and then you do the exact same thing in the same post. I called you on it. In addition, I pointed you to sources that give lie to your statement that we never deal with the verse itself.

P.S. nobody cares how many "sources" you could "flood" us with because numbers don't make you any more right. Oh yes, I am not RCC so I doubly don't care.

 

[BobRyan]

#1. The "What about..." quote came from a linke someone ELSE posted here - it was not mine. (details).

#2. My quote was from 1Peter 3 -- you have yet to respond "to the details" of that post.

#3. how can you continue to post nothing as your form of response?



1Pet 3:
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter directs us away from thinking of the "magic waters of baptism"! INSTEAD of a "magic sacrament" the REAL saving aspect is in the heart's knowing - deliberate - active "APPEAL to God for a good conscience". THAT is the sense in which baptism saves for it is a public symbol that the sinner has already made that “appeal to God for a clean conscience”.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Chemnitz]

Here is an example with the "problem" of calling that "biblical"



Peter is being referenced but not QUOTED -- the DETAILS in 1Pet 3:21 are being totally denied by the verbage that comes next in the link.

Peter does not argue "Baptism saves you in the form of the WATER touching the flesh plus the power of magic words from the Bible said over the one whom the water touches"... YET from the argument made in the link you would surmize that this is exactly what 1Pter 3:21 said!!

In fact 1Peter 3:21 flatly denies such an argument -- the link RELIES on the fact that the reader will NOT look up the text and read it for themselves!!

And such is the case for all man-made doctrines opposed to the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob[/left]
[/i][/size][/font]

Above is your post in its entirety. In it you lambast Dr. Barry by accusing him of negative intensions by merely referencing and not quoting the verse. Yet, you yourself never actually quoted 1 Pt 3:21 in your post. Instead you in quotes write your opinion of Dr. Barry's claims giving a false impression of a quote from his material. Now you insist that you quoted 1 pt 3:21 which if true means that you mistakenly believe that 1 Pt 3:21 is ""Baptism saves you in the form of the WATER touching the flesh plus the power of magic words from the Bible said over the one whom the water touches", because that is the closest you come to having anything resembling a quote. Now I am calling on you to repent of your hypocrisy.

 

[BobRyan]

Because you keep arguing that I am not quoting 1Peter 3...

#1. The "What about..." quote came from a linke someone ELSE posted here - it was not mine. (details).

#2. My quote was from 1Peter 3 -- you have yet to respond "to the details" of that post.

#3. how can you continue to post nothing as your form of response?



1Pet 3:
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter directs us away from thinking of the "magic waters of baptism"! INSTEAD of a "magic sacrament" the REAL saving aspect is in the heart's knowing - deliberate - active "APPEAL to God for a good conscience". THAT is the sense in which baptism saves for it is a public symbol that the sinner has already made that “appeal to God for a clean conscience”.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Here is an example with the "problem" of calling that "biblical"



Peter is being referenced but not QUOTED -- the DETAILS in 1Pet 3:21 are being totally denied by the verbage that comes next in the link.

Peter does NOT argue "Baptism saves you in the form of the WATER touching the flesh plus the power of magic words from the Bible said over the one whom the water touches"... YET from the argument made in the link you would surmize that this is exactly what 1Pter 3:21 said!!

In fact 1Peter 3:21 flatly denies such an argument -- the link RELIES on the fact that the reader will NOT look up the text and read it for themselves!!

And such is the case for all man-made doctrines opposed to the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob[/left]
[/size][/font][/i]

Chem
Above is your post in its entirety.

Now you insist that you quoted 1 pt 3:21 which if true means that you mistakenly believe that 1 Pt 3:21 is ""Baptism saves you in the form of the WATER touching the flesh plus the power of magic words from the Bible said over the one whom the water touches", because that is the closest you come to having anything resembling a quote.

Now I am calling on you to repent of your hypocrisy.

Whahuh???

How many more times do you need me to say "NOT" in that example?:BangHead:

How many more times do you want 1Pet 3:21 quoted??:saint:

What is up with this??:sleeping_2:

in Christ,

Bob