1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What did Jesus mean?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Craigbythesea, Aug 25, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 10 of 11
  1. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. Just found this one. Been off for a while. While I disgree with CBTS, I have read him enough to know that his knowledge of Scripture is anything but limited. No time to spend on this tonight, but will be back later. As far as infant baptism, CBTS is not far off on the belief that IB places a baby under the "Covenant of Grace". This is a very common teaching among many Presbys even though most do not connect infant baptism with salvation. Later.
     
    #181 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    DHK wrote,

    Who said anything about "baptismal regeneration"? And please tell us, from your point of view, for what purpose Presbyterians baptize babies.

    [​IMG]
     
    #182 Craigbythesea, Sep 6, 2005
  3. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    rjprince ......I know of no Baptist who believes in INFANT Baptism. The Bible is clear that Baptism is done out of Obedience AFTER ONE IS ALREADY SAVED. Not before. The word Baptize means " TO IMMERSE " and it is done as a proclamation of ones faith. and that is it.

    You will not find SPRINKLING of any kind done in the Bible. Especially of babies.

    Now dedications for babies is something else. For parents to go forward and dedicate to raising their child in a Christian home is much more appropiate and benificial.

    According to 1 Cor. 7:14 and unsaved spouse and the children are SANTIFIED through the believing spouse or parent. So babies do not need to be Baptized at all, and if they do they should be immersed. That DOESN'T mean they are SAVED either the unbelieving spouse or child. It just means they have a better chance of getting saved and are partakers of the blessings from the one that is SAVED. Thats all.
     
    #183 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    THE
    WESTMINSTER
    CONFESSION OF FAITH

    CHAP. XXVII. - Of the Sacraments.

    1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.
    2. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
    3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
    4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.
    5. The sacraments of the old testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

    CHAP. XXVIII. - Of Baptism.

    1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
    2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.
    3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.
    4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
    5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
    6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
    7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.
     
    #184 Craigbythesea, Sep 6, 2005
  5. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    RFW,

    I certainly do not belief in infant baptism. I was merely explaining that Covenant Theology sees water baptism as the covenant symbol of the New Covenant and thereby justifies IB.

    I believe that we saved by the Blood that ratified the New Covenant and that we will experiences some of the blessings of the New Covenant, but THAT THE NEW COVENANT IS WITH ISRAEL -- NOT THE CHURCH!!! (Jer 31:31-34)

    I AM FULLY WITH YOU ON BELIEVER'S BAPTISM ONLY BY IMERSION AND ONLY for those who are capable of understanding, embracing, and restating their salvation.
     
    #185 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  6. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    rjprince ......I know of no Baptist who believes in INFANT Baptism. The Bible is clear that Baptism is done out of Obedience AFTER ONE IS ALREADY SAVED. Not before. The word Baptize means " TO IMMERSE " and it is done as a proclamation of ones faith. and that is it.

    You will not find SPRINKLING of any kind done in the Bible. Especially of babies.

    Now dedications for babies is something else. For parents to go forward and dedicate to raising their child in a Christian home is much more appropiate and benificial.

    According to 1 Cor. 7:14 and unsaved spouse and the children are SANTIFIED through the believing spouse or parent. So babies do not need to be Baptized at all, and if they do they should be immersed. That DOESN'T mean they are SAVED either the unbelieving spouse or child. It just means they have a better chance of getting saved and are partakers of the blessings from the one that is SAVED. Thats all.
     
    #186 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  7. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    woops sorry I posted while you were sending yours
     
    #187 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  8. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    Oh ok, so what is Craigbythesea saying in his last post some kind of church rules on baptism :confused:
     
    #188 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    Craigbythesea wrote,

    Do any of you wish to answer this question? Upon what do you base your beliefs—mainstream Baptist dogma or the Holy Scriptures?

    Note: I personally do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

    [​IMG]
     
    #189 Craigbythesea, Sep 6, 2005
  10. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    RFW,

    All great men repeat themselves.

    All great men repeat themselves.

    Hah, sorry, could not resist.

    CBTS,
    Yes, I knew you were arguing your point from the Westminster perspective. But trying to explain it briefly sure muddied the waters!


    RFW,

    to respond to your second post, sorry, there I go again, no, babies do not need to be baptized at all, neither do adults! At least not for salvation!

    Not sure I understand your "better chance of getting saved" as relating to baptism. It does certainly relate to being raised under the influence of at least one believing parent. Maybe that was your point.
     
    #190 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  11. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBTS,

    Lightner has an excellent work on the subject of those who die in infancy.

    Bottom line, no there is no dogmatic Biblical support for the idea. There are some shadows in David's statement that I will go to the child but the child cannot return to me. There is also a shadow in Jesus words, "Suffer the little children and let them come, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven".

    Dogma, no. Some slight indication. I think so. Certainly more than for infant baptism and certainly more than for any suggestion that it is the covenant symbol for the church!
     
    #191 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  12. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    OH, by the way, I strongly OBJECT to the use of the word "sacrament" in reference to either baptism or the Lord's supper. The term implies that some sanctification is imparted by these ordinances. Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification are totally of GRACE - nothing of WORKS.

    I know, you were quoting WCF.
     
    #192 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  13. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    rjprince ..... I was refering to 1 Cor. 7:14
    on your statement right here ....CBTS is not far off on the belief that IB places a baby under the "Covenant of Grace". This is a very common teaching among many Presbys even though most do not connect infant baptism with salvation. Later.

    The Bible is clear that the only " Covenant of Grace " is found in this verse 1 Cor.7:14. It has nothing to do with Baptism, but with a child or spouse being under a " Covenant of Grace " through a saved family memeber. I was told this means that that unsaved person has a better chance of getting saved ( because of the saved person in the house, obviously more chances to hear Gods word ) and that they receive any blessings from the saved person as well.

    Thats all, I posted twice since I didn't understand Craigs post
     
    #193 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  14. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    rjprince ...... your last 2 post
    RIGHT ON
    [​IMG]
     
    #194 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    I was posting the official position of the more conservative Presbyterian denominations (who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith) on infant baptism to show the basis of what I posted and to show that DHK either did not understand my post or he is mistaken about what Presbyterians believe.

    [​IMG]
     
    #195 Craigbythesea, Sep 6, 2005
  16. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    OH I see thanks [​IMG]
     
    #196 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    rjprince wrote,

    Do you believe that babies, as well as adults, sinned in Adam?

    [​IMG]
     
    #197 Craigbythesea, Sep 6, 2005
  18. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not believe that anyone but Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. I believe that as the only man and as the representitive of our race, Adam's sin brought consequences on all of humanity and all of creation. The effect was certainly much broader than Adam's action alone.

    The following is my brief running commentary on Rom 5:12-21:
    Sin entered the world by Adam’s sin and deliberate willful choice. Eve was deceived, Adam made a clear choice with full knowledge, not of all the consequences of his sin, but with full awareness that his choice was a direct violation of God’s clear command. The sin nature and all its consequences passes to all who are born of the seed of man. Jesus was not born of the seed of man, but of the seed of the woman and the miracle of the incarnation (Gal 4:4). Since He was born without a sin nature, Jesus is the second and last Adam (1Cor 15:45).

    Death reigned over all men from Adam till Christ, because all men (babies too) are partakers of the sin nature. When Christ came and was born of woman, but not man, he was the second and last man to have the capacity to choose to not sin. Jesus did not die because death had any claim over him. He clearly said, “the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” (John 14:30). That is why the Jews, the Romans, and all the world could never take the life of the Lamb of God. He could not have died since death is a consequence of sin and He had none. Yes, He took our sins on Himself on the cross, but the suffering for sin was over before Jesus “dismissed His Spirit” (aphihmi, sent away, Matt). Jesus died because He laid down His life -- no one took it from Him. Yes, the Jews and Romans crucified Him, but they could never have taken the life of the God-Man. He had to lay it down. More later...

    SORRY, GOTTA GO MAKE A HOSPITAL VISIT. WILL PICK UP HERE AND FINISH LATER TODAY, DEO VOLENTE.
     
    #198 rjprince, Sep 6, 2005
  19. RightFromWrong

    RightFromWrong Guest

    rjprince

    RIGHT ON [​IMG] Very good explaination
     
    #199 RightFromWrong, Sep 6, 2005
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,583
    Likes Received:
    25
    rjprince wrote,

    But the Bible says,

    Rom. 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
    13. for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
    14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

    And Paul goes on to prove that we all sinned in Adam, the proof being that we all die, including those who were lived before the Law was given, and sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore, the ONLY sin for which those who sinned before the Law was given would have paid the penalty of death is the sin that they committed in Adam. Although the Law had not yet been given when Adam sinned, he was specifically told by God,

    Gen. 2:16. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
    17. but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

    [​IMG]
     
    #200 Craigbythesea, Sep 6, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 10 of 11
Loading...