Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sure. Allow me to elaborate.Shiranui117,
I like your defenses on baptism, especially, This is correct. In fact, I heavily repudiated that idea in my explanation to e.r.m.
but I don't know what you mean by ancient church. Best I know is that infant baptism started a couple of hundred years after the first century. There is no scriptural evidence that infant baptism existed in the NT church. The Phillipian jailer's household and Cornelius's household could have been without children, or could have had children of age to believe and repent. It doesn't say. There's nothing compelling to suggest anyone baptized an infant in the NT, especially since it was never mentioned. If it was the norm, an infant baptism culture would have developed within the NT, like it has today and the Bible would have picked up on it.
Oh wow, I wouldn't have noticed it wasn't e.r.m. had you not said anythingTo everybody. Feel free to use e.r.m. instead of e r.m. When I first signed up, I messed up. From the beginning, I meant it to be e.r.m.
Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.The statement itself says "save all" - not specific to children.
Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?I could see infant baptism arising by the year 200 (That would make Origen 15 y/o, unless he wrote while very young). This practice would be a deviation from the NT church.
1) Not as early as the NT, hence a deviation.
But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?2) Baptism, as we've both said, has been for forgiveness of sins. The Jews did not believe in original sin. It's against everything to think that anyone back then would baptize infants for the forgiveness of sins they didn't have. Sin comes at Romans 3:23, not at birth. 3) Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 said that baptism came in conjunction with belief and repentance.
Sincerly,
There are a lot of gaps where you're only expressing your opinions.
1. With as much as YOU use the word symbolic to describe baptism's "purpose", you should be able to find the word symbolic in the Bible, when referring to why people get baptized.
Otherwise I wouldn't use it.
2. When you say baptism has nothing to do with being saved, Stop inferring. Show a verse that says what you say and be done with it, if not let it go. Not interested in reformation theology.
Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.
Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?
Well of course you're not going to have it in the beginning, or at least not very often; Christianity was a new thing, so there weren't any second-generation Christians to be baptized yet. Most new Christians were adult converts. It is ambiguous whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, I will give you that much.
But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?
"If you train a boy in the way he should go, when he grows up he will not depart from it." --Aesop
Where does it say in the Bible that baptism is merely symbolic?1. e.r.m., I have shown the context verses which counter the "opinions" you have concluded from a single "and". Also, shown other groups of verses which show that your "opinion" for the "purpose of baptism" to by wrongly interpreted.
Symbolic is as valid a description of a thought/subject as is parable. It, also, gives the intended meaning.
Because it destroys your false assumption is no reason to not use the word "symbolism" to show the linkage expressed within consecutive verses.
Nor am I interested in your erroneous theology---as has been proven.
2. The scriptures are actuate which I have given---the inferring has all been on your part---so stop projecting.
In Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, adults are the audience.A deviation in the sense that it disobeys Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38. Belief and repentance are part of the package.
They are certainly prerequisites for converts, we're agreed on that.I don't see the lack of availability of children as an issue. Baptizing only those of age was, if anything, because belief and repentance were pre-requisites.
I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.That's a good point. I had never thought of that before.
I find a couple of problems with it though.
1. There is no sinful nature per say. The greek word for sinful nature is the flesh. The flesh desires bad things. Killing the flesh won't help, lol. It does say by the Spirit put to death the "misdeeds" of the flesh. But for a child to do that while growing up is just a new idea to my ears. I just don't see any discussion in the Bible about a child having the Holy Spirit, to sway me to believe that NT christians baptized children/infants for that reason.
2. There's an overwhelming amount of historical literature that the early catholic church baltized infants not for the sake of receiving the Holy Spirit, but because of original sin. This being the dominant reason later on, then infant baptism wouldn't have existed in the first century because there was no original sin. I had heard of an early debate of whether people should be baptized as a child/infant to get original sin or if they should be baptized just before death so they could no longer committ big sins. Crazy argument, but it shows how much baptism was for forgiveness of sins, since its inception.
What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?The scripture talks about how to raise a child, as you quoted. Holy Spirit not included.
Until I can respond tomorrow just a couple of comments.In Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, adults are the audience.
Jesus does say that we must believe and be baptized. So what's wrong with getting baptized as a baby and then growing up in the faith and believing? They still believe and are baptized.
Also, in Acts 2:38, the Apostles are speaking to an adult audience. As I (think I) said before, adult converts must make a profession of faith prior to baptism. That is the context in which we find this verse: Thousands of converts professing their new faith in Christ, and then being baptized.
They are certainly prerequisites for converts, we're agreed on that.
But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?
I would like to see a source for this, since the Augustinian idea of original sin wasn't around for hundreds of years before Augustine, and even then, the idea was only held in the Roman church; it was not held among any church in the East. The concept of "original sin" was a VERY small minority teaching.
Rather, the Orthodox position is that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin--i.e. mortality and an inclination to sin, as well as estrangement from God.
Romans 5:13 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Romans 5:21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Do you see the vicious cycle here? Would we not want to baptize our children before they get caught in that, freeing them from the control of sin and death?
Also, the early Church was NOT Roman Catholic.
What do you mean, Holy Spirit not included?
Alright. If you seek clarification on anything I've said, don't hesitate to ask. I'd be happy to explain further. I would also like to hear your agreements and disagreements.Until I can respond tomorrow just a couple of comments.
You are presenting teachings I've not heard before, probably cause I'm not too familar with Eastern Orthodox. It is definitely different than what I've heard from Catholics. I'm a little caught off guard.
There is a lot you said that I agree with as well as what I don't agree with.
Good night. Take care.
And this is indeed the case.
See 1 Peter 3:18-22: For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by/through the resurrection of Jesus Christ[/color], 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
Note that a statement of belief was one of the prerequisites to being baptized:
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
And baptism is the means by which we access that forgiveness. It is the means by which we participate in Christ's death and Resurrection. It is symbolic, yes, but it is also much more than that.
Read what Tertullian wrote. We have been over this before. Water by itself does not save anything. We are agreed in this, and we have been in agreement in this from the beginning, so there is no use in bringing it up. However, water with the Holy Spirit does have a salvific effect.
So if we cannot trust the faithful students of the Apostles, or even the Apostles themselves, then who can we trust to interpret the Bible correctly? We cannot hope to know for sure whether or not we are interpreting it correctly ourselves. Sola Scriptura was one of the worst things to ever happen to Christianity, and has only led to countless divisions and disputes. "You will know them by their fruits," Christ said.
Everything can be interpreted to be like the conditions of the world at the end if you're bored enough.
Also, if the Apostles and their students had not been faithful to Christ, then how do we know that anything of what we know about Him is true? Islam could very well have it right, in that case.
Yet through baptism, we are brought TO Christ. As said before, baptism is the means by which we access the salvific effects of Christ's death and Resurrection. This is an idea you have yet to disprove.Hi Shiranui, I have no problem with baptism per se because Jesus Christ commanded one to (Matt.28:19-20), " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen."
I made the wording red in the areas which shows Jesus to be the one to save and not baptism---in agreement with the context.
Where do you see that it is only symbolically?It was the "Ark"/"like figure" of Jesus who "saved the eight" "by/from the water".
In Mark16, Jesus is the one speaking and is the scene is that of Matt.28:19-20 above. The "Believes" was John3:16-17, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
Baptism in John3 is for the New birth. Yes, as Rom. 6 depicts, Baptism is symbolically "into Christ Jrsus who died, was buried, and was resurrected--and Believers are in being baptised "likewise" dying to the old man of sin and resurrecting into a new spiritual man having the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
This is true, but this could lead to a topic on Confession. So for now, I'll let this tangent go."Forgiveness" is by confessing our sins to GOD and Repenting of the same--HE is faithful to forgive us.
But how can the Holy Spirit lead two believers to completely different conclusions about Who God is, Who Christ is, Who the Holy Spirit is, the means by which we are saved, how to act towards others, what is sinful and what is not, the role of the Church, whence Truth is derived, and the role of the Sacraments?Shiranui, Paul, in 2Thess.2:3-4, spoke of a "falling away" from the truths of GOD by eccleisiastical professing persons. In Acts 20:28-31, Paul gives his oservations to the Ephesian leaders concerning what he had told the Thessalonians. "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. "
The same Holy Spirit who "inspired the Prophets"(SCRIPTURES) and Jesus said would guide the honest truth seeker I trust with my salvation rather than some "scholar" who is contradicting the Scriptures which were written for one's admonition.
I beg your pardon, I'm afraid I don't quite understand this comment of yours, but I get the gist that it's a compliment of some sort? Could you clarify what you mean?Your understanding of the scriptures impress me as one who wouldn't rely on another human being for correct understanding----especially in the humans of today---The immorality in high places.
What do you mean here?By your answer, I take it the promise of the second coming isn't a concern of yours.
Yet through baptism, we are brought TO Christ. As said before, baptism is the means by which we access the salvific effects of Christ's death and Resurrection. This is an idea you have yet to disprove.
2Pet.3:21("in like figure"); Rom.6:3(were baptized into Jesus Christ.). Those are not literal. However, baptism is symbolically referring to the Believer as being "born-again."Where do you see that it is only symbolically?
But how can the Holy Spirit lead two believers to completely different conclusions about Who God is, Who Christ is, Who the Holy Spirit is, the means by which we are saved, how to act towards others, what is sinful and what is not, the role of the Church, whence Truth is derived, and the role of the Sacraments?
You can have two Christians both claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, yet differ from each other in almost every way in how they read the Scriptures and how they believe. How can the same Spirit of Truth be guiding both of them?
Paul would beg to differ about the role of the Church:
1 Timothy 3:15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Also, don't forget that the Church proved itself capable, even in Acts, of settling doctrinal matters in the correct way by the will of the Holy Spirit:
Yes, there will be heretics and false teachers arising within the Church. But they will never be victorious.
Ephesians 5:23-30
In other words, Christ takes care of the Church and makes sure He keeps her clean.
We've been over this before. This argument is starting to go in circles.Hi Shiranui, Your saying such doesn't make it so. None of your Scriptures validate the assumption as I have shown.
Again, What is it that "brings one to Christ?" Not Baptism, as that is in attaining the "new man"--being "born again." Salvation is BY the blood of Jesus Christ---not by baptism.
Notice Gal.3:16-29, "Wherefore the law(Decalogue) was our schoolmaster(By it one has knowledge of one's Sin--Rom.3:20) [to bring us] unto Christ(Redeemed by the Blood of), that we might be justified by faith. (John 3:16--belief in HIS Sacrifice.)
Uhh, there is no 2 Peter 3:21... And 1 Peter 3:20-21 says this:2Pet.3:21("in like figure");
And where does it say that Baptism is merely symbolic?Rom.6:3(were baptized into Jesus Christ.). Those are not literal. However, baptism is symbolically referring to the Believer as being "born-again."
Exactly. But with Sola Scriptura, there is no way to be sure which Spirit is true, and which spirit is false. It's just one man's word versus another, and even if there is Scripture that blatantly disproves one's position, it's either reinterpreted in a way that doesn't contradict the position, or somehow disregarded. Very rarely do people actually admit that their interpretations are incorrect. Interpretation vs. interpretation will always end in a draw without an outside means of measuring and judging.I am aware of the Holy Spirit's functions. However, The Holy Spirit will never "lead" two seekers to two contradicting points of view. One of those "spirits" will be false---see 1John4:1-3
Yes, the Scriptures don't lie. But people misinterpret the Scriptures. When it comes down to merely private interpretations of the Scriptures, it's impossible to decide which interpretation is right, because those who derive the wrong conclusions from Scriptures will always reinterpret any Scripture that disproves their position.That is why Paul admonished Timothy to "Study" and "rightly divide"(interpret) the Scriptures. The Scriptures don't lie/deceive---like Eve, one chooses to accept their own preceived "lusts".
The Sabbath was still honored. It was just no longer the day of worship.Yes, the "church" was the repository for the Truths which was given, but was not to "think to Change the LAWS of GOD". Eusebius wrote this: "All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day."
Acts 15:28-29For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.Yes, in Acts15, there were some "believing Pharisees" who wrongly held tight to "circumcision and those sacrificial special(3X year) feast laws" which Jesus fulfilled(on the cross).
vs.21 acknowledges that the Sabbath is still being honored and NO CHANGE of it or the basic Principles of Sinai was addressed in this "council".
Wait, what? Paul and the Apostles were only establishing a remnant of the Church? They didn't establish the Church as a whole? How does that make sense?It is the Remnant of the "Church" that Paul was establishing along with the rest of the Apostles and Believing converts which are seen in each of the "seven churches".(another topic).
All Christians accept the work that Christ has done for them at some point in their Christian life. However, there are those who are lazy in ensuring that they maintain their salvation and cooperate with God, and there are those who turn away entirely. Salvation can be lost. It's more accurate to say that all are chosen, but not everyone accepts the election.Shiranui, Jesus Christ died for the sins of every person who has ever lived or will live prior to his second coming. However, the many are called, but few are chosen from that multitude. Those who are chosen are those who have accepted the "blotting out"/cleansing from all sins/in the washings of generation by HIS Shed BLOOD. Those HE Redeemed have chosen to "overcome by that blood". Therefore, "clean ever whit".(John13:10)---Another symbol of that "saving", as well as humility--enemy of pride.
They were cleaned "word spoken to them", before the command for baptism was given. This is why Peter wasn't baptized. Baptism started with the new covenant.
The Bible never refers to baptism as magic, Zwingli did. Amazing how a guy's idea from the 1520s is reveberated by protestants today.
Spiritual acts are not by definition devoid of physical aspects. E.g.- Romans 10:9-10 confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord".
Are you denying that baptism is to be performed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and asserting that baptisms should only be done in the name of Jesus?
Acts says that, as far as the baptismal formula goes, baptizing in the name of Jesus alone isn't enough.
Acts 8:15-17 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
When the Apostles say to baptize "in the name of the Lord Jesus," they mean to baptize with the AUTHORITY of Jesus. But as far as the actual FORMULA of baptism, one baptizes "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," as commanded in Matthew 28:19.
Are you also denying that baptisms are done using water?
Acts 2:29-47 does not contradict the fact that baptisms are performed using water. It simply doesn't go into specifics about how those baptisms were performed.
Acts 8:36
Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?
The Ethiopian eunuch clearly connects the idea of water and baptism.
Acts 10:47
Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?
I will note that the Holy Spirit came upon the members of Cornelius's household before they were actually baptized. This, however, is the exception rather than the norm. Even still, there is again this connection between water and baptism.
The water baptism was, as Jesus commanded, into the death ,burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins by HIS Act upon the Cross as Peter expressed.
Yes, all can be baptized, regardless of age.
Is it really a deviation? What do you mean by "deviation"? Do you mean to say it's an illegitimate and malicious innovation, or do you mean to say it was a development in the life of the Church?
Well of course you're not going to have it in the beginning, or at least not very often; Christianity was a new thing, so there weren't any second-generation Christians to be baptized yet. Most new Christians were adult converts. It is ambiguous whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, I will give you that much.
But Baptism is more than just for the forgiveness of sins. It is also for the coming of the Holy Spirit and being brought to new life in Christ. Yes, true, infants are not guilty of any sins. However, is it not still beneficial for them to die to their sinful nature and right off the bat begin a Christian life?
"If you train a boy in the way he should go, when he grows up he will not depart from it." --Aesop
Baptism is not just for the remission of sins. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit indwells the new Christian, and the power of sin and death is removed from the newly-baptized. Infants are also under the rule of death, and they also need to be raised up to new life in Christ.I believe children can be baptized but I would debate the efficacy of it. Children do not go through any change through the baptism. I could baptize a dog and get the same results.
Reincarnation is neither Biblical nor Christian, but that's neither here nor there. I wouldn't mind discussing this with you in another topic.I disagree. I believe every infant carries a conscience from previous lives and in all cases that conscience is not pure. However I also believe that a conscience can carry a repentance and/or salvation from a previous life. I believe the baptism of the infant will not purify its conscience and an infant with a cleansed conscience doesn't need a baptism.
So baptism has no effect at all, in your opinion? Do you believe in predestination?IMO baptism of infants comes from a belief that an unbaptized child will go to hell. I don't believe that will happen or that baptism changes the destination.
We've been over this before. This argument is starting to go in circles.
Uhh, there is no 2 Peter 3:21... And 1 Peter 3:20-21 says this:
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Also, see Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.
And where does it say that Baptism is merely symbolic?
Exactly. But with Sola Scriptura, there is no way to be sure which Spirit is true, and which spirit is false. It's just one man's word versus another, and even if there is Scripture that blatantly disproves one's position, it's either reinterpreted in a way that doesn't contradict the position, or somehow disregarded. Very rarely do people actually admit that their interpretations are incorrect. Interpretation vs. interpretation will always end in a draw without an outside means of measuring and judging.
Yes, the Scriptures don't lie. But people misinterpret the Scriptures. When it comes down to merely private interpretations of the Scriptures, it's impossible to decide which interpretation is right, because those who derive the wrong conclusions from Scriptures will always reinterpret any Scripture that disproves their position.
I see nothing about worshipping on the Sabbath.
In addition, even in Acts we see proof that the Christians worshipped on Sunday, AKA the first day of the week, AKA the eighth day.
In the earliest days of the Church, Christians would go to the synagogue to hear the readings of the Scriptures, but after the Jews kicked us out, we just decided to have the whole shebang on Sunday, since we couldn't do it on Saturday anymore. It was a logistical circumstance, not a matter of faith.
Also, Romans 4:6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
Either way, whether or not we work on the Sabbath, and whether or not we read the Scriptures on the Sabbath, we give glory to God. And that was the point of the Sabbath in the first place, was it not?
Wait, what? Paul and the Apostles were only establishing a remnant of the Church? They didn't establish the Church as a whole? How does that make sense?
All Christians accept the work that Christ has done for them at some point in their Christian life. However, there are those who are lazy in ensuring that they maintain their salvation and cooperate with God, and there are those who turn away entirely. Salvation can be lost. It's more accurate to say that all are chosen, but not everyone accepts the election.
2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;