Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
whether child or adult which is the biblical mode of baptism/
blade
blade
sprinkle and imersion?
- Thread starter Bladestunner316
- Start date
- Status
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Either.
Though I would confess that if an adult came to me my first impulse would be to dunk him... but I wouldn't have a problem with sprinking him either.
Though I would confess that if an adult came to me my first impulse would be to dunk him... but I wouldn't have a problem with sprinking him either.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
(Rom. 6:3-5)
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion.
When you plant a seed in the ground, (v. 5) you dig a hole and place the seed in a hole. You don't juse set it on the surface and sprinkle a little dirt on it.
When Jesus rose from the grave, he came completely out of the grave which would be represented by raising one out of the water.
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion.
When you plant a seed in the ground, (v. 5) you dig a hole and place the seed in a hole. You don't juse set it on the surface and sprinkle a little dirt on it.
When Jesus rose from the grave, he came completely out of the grave which would be represented by raising one out of the water.
[quote:5647ed707e][i:5647ed707e]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:5647ed707e]
(Rom. 6:3-5)
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion.
When you plant a seed in the ground, (v. 5) you dig a hole and place the seed in a hole. You don't juse set it on the surface and sprinkle a little dirt on it.
When Jesus rose from the grave, he came completely out of the grave which would be represented by raising one out of the water. [/quote:5647ed707e]
Inhumation is for the most part unknown in the ancient world. The readers of Romans 6 would not have thought at all of the typical American identification of American burial practices and the mode of baptism. While immersion may be biblical mode (I think sprinkling is the best mode) it simply is impossible to insist on immersion from Rom. 6. The only way is to deny history.
(Rom. 6:3-5)
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion.
When you plant a seed in the ground, (v. 5) you dig a hole and place the seed in a hole. You don't juse set it on the surface and sprinkle a little dirt on it.
When Jesus rose from the grave, he came completely out of the grave which would be represented by raising one out of the water. [/quote:5647ed707e]
Inhumation is for the most part unknown in the ancient world. The readers of Romans 6 would not have thought at all of the typical American identification of American burial practices and the mode of baptism. While immersion may be biblical mode (I think sprinkling is the best mode) it simply is impossible to insist on immersion from Rom. 6. The only way is to deny history.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Fred is right, but let's be more basic and ask a couple of practical question if we think bruial as in American burial is right.
[quote:c6a46ef8d0]
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion.
[/quote:c6a46ef8d0]
1) Jesus was not burried, he was entombed.
So would we want people to float on the water since we are copying his entombment?
2) Jesus was entombed for three days.
I don't know of anyone who can hold thier breath that long! Are we going to dunk them for three days?
3) Immersion was not even a question around the Anabaptists who sprung up at the time of the early reformation. It just was not an issue.
4) The Didache speaks of lots of water, and rivers which force Baptists to conlude that they must dunk them. But, running water seen in the Didache is in terms of "living water" or water that is flowing. (i.e. they woudl not want you to baptize someone with stagnant water in a pond.)
[quote:c6a46ef8d0]
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion.
[/quote:c6a46ef8d0]
1) Jesus was not burried, he was entombed.
So would we want people to float on the water since we are copying his entombment?
2) Jesus was entombed for three days.
I don't know of anyone who can hold thier breath that long! Are we going to dunk them for three days?
3) Immersion was not even a question around the Anabaptists who sprung up at the time of the early reformation. It just was not an issue.
4) The Didache speaks of lots of water, and rivers which force Baptists to conlude that they must dunk them. But, running water seen in the Didache is in terms of "living water" or water that is flowing. (i.e. they woudl not want you to baptize someone with stagnant water in a pond.)
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks so far 
blade
blade
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Immersion was the common practice of Scripture and the early church... to this day the Greek Orthodox still practice infant immersion... but the whole debate between immersion and sprinkling is really uselss because both sides come in with different answers to the question who is to be baptized... for I think it is clear that if we only baptize Disciples then the preferable method would be immersion because it was the practice of the Baptist and the Apostles but if we are to baptize infants then clearly immersoning infants is not the best way to do it because of obvious health risks for the baby. Therefore our answer to the mode is always dependent upon our answer to who is the proper object of baptism... the mode is indefferent but it is still a worthy topic because immersion of Christians is the most preferable method for adult Disciples.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian]
Tyler
[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian]
MICWARFIELD
Puritan Board Freshman
Pouring.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:50ccab9fbc][i:50ccab9fbc]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:50ccab9fbc]
[quote:50ccab9fbc][i:50ccab9fbc]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:50ccab9fbc]
Immersion was the common practice of Scripture and the early church... to this day the Greek Orthodox still practice infant immersion... but the whole debate between immersion and sprinkling is really uselss because both sides come in with different answers to the question who is to be baptized... for I think it is clear that if we only baptize Disciples then the preferable method would be immersion because it was the practice of the Baptist and the Apostles but if we are to baptize infants then clearly immersoning infants is not the best way to do it because of obvious health risks for the baby. Therefore our answer to the mode is always dependent upon our answer to who is the proper object of baptism... the mode is indefferent but it is still a worthy topic because immersion of Christians is the most preferable method for adult Disciples.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:50ccab9fbc]
many greek cults in the times of the apostles baptized by sprinkling or pouring.
baptize is used in greek for dying clothes. that is because of the *effect* that it had not *how* it was done.
we don't know if that was the practice of the apostles.
lastly, the greek word for supper *means* evening meal. now, did the first century church partake of communion in the evening? Does your church?
-Paul [/quote:50ccab9fbc]
Just as many persasive arguements could be lunched back at the the person who says that sprikling is better then immersion. I mean it is common knowledge that in the most [b:50ccab9fbc] usual [/b:50ccab9fbc]sense of the Greek word it meant immersion and cleansing. Also Josephus in one of his works distinguishes between sprinkling and immersion, showing that the two are not the same when he writes: "and dipping (baptizo) part of these ashes in [spring water], they sprinkled [ranio] them..." (Josephus) also are we to really think that when Christ said that he had a baptism to under still to come that he only had God's wrath sprinkled upon him or did God's wrath inflict the full punishment of sin- in other words did God's wrath immerse the Christ? Surely it did.
Therefore we could trade arguements like these back and forth all day... but we would begetting nowhere fast for we disagree on the question who is to be baptized and our answer to that question will always prejudice our answer to the mode of baptism. I think that if you adopted a credobaptist position you would also come to the conclusion that immersion is preferable normally to sprinkling and I am sure that if I were to come to adopt Paedobaptism I would come to the veiw that immersion my precious infant is not the best idea in the world... even if it can be done safely why risk it? hence I probably would not be a person to prefer immersion over sprinkling if I was a parent of a baptized infant. But as a Credobaptist I see the wisdom of following the example of the practice of the Apostles and the early church... for immersion captures the trial by water that was so pivital to the Covenant cleansing trials that took place in the ancient world when alleged Covenant breakers were thrown into the river to see if they would float and if they did they were innocent and if not they were guilty.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:50ccab9fbc][i:50ccab9fbc]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:50ccab9fbc]
Immersion was the common practice of Scripture and the early church... to this day the Greek Orthodox still practice infant immersion... but the whole debate between immersion and sprinkling is really uselss because both sides come in with different answers to the question who is to be baptized... for I think it is clear that if we only baptize Disciples then the preferable method would be immersion because it was the practice of the Baptist and the Apostles but if we are to baptize infants then clearly immersoning infants is not the best way to do it because of obvious health risks for the baby. Therefore our answer to the mode is always dependent upon our answer to who is the proper object of baptism... the mode is indefferent but it is still a worthy topic because immersion of Christians is the most preferable method for adult Disciples.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:50ccab9fbc]
many greek cults in the times of the apostles baptized by sprinkling or pouring.
baptize is used in greek for dying clothes. that is because of the *effect* that it had not *how* it was done.
we don't know if that was the practice of the apostles.
lastly, the greek word for supper *means* evening meal. now, did the first century church partake of communion in the evening? Does your church?
-Paul [/quote:50ccab9fbc]
Just as many persasive arguements could be lunched back at the the person who says that sprikling is better then immersion. I mean it is common knowledge that in the most [b:50ccab9fbc] usual [/b:50ccab9fbc]sense of the Greek word it meant immersion and cleansing. Also Josephus in one of his works distinguishes between sprinkling and immersion, showing that the two are not the same when he writes: "and dipping (baptizo) part of these ashes in [spring water], they sprinkled [ranio] them..." (Josephus) also are we to really think that when Christ said that he had a baptism to under still to come that he only had God's wrath sprinkled upon him or did God's wrath inflict the full punishment of sin- in other words did God's wrath immerse the Christ? Surely it did.
Therefore we could trade arguements like these back and forth all day... but we would begetting nowhere fast for we disagree on the question who is to be baptized and our answer to that question will always prejudice our answer to the mode of baptism. I think that if you adopted a credobaptist position you would also come to the conclusion that immersion is preferable normally to sprinkling and I am sure that if I were to come to adopt Paedobaptism I would come to the veiw that immersion my precious infant is not the best idea in the world... even if it can be done safely why risk it? hence I probably would not be a person to prefer immersion over sprinkling if I was a parent of a baptized infant. But as a Credobaptist I see the wisdom of following the example of the practice of the Apostles and the early church... for immersion captures the trial by water that was so pivital to the Covenant cleansing trials that took place in the ancient world when alleged Covenant breakers were thrown into the river to see if they would float and if they did they were innocent and if not they were guilty.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian]
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Tyler...
I am not so sure that mode goes with credo vs. paedo. Long before I was paedo, It did not seem to me to matter, since the mode does not an effectual baptism make. The Spirit does, I am pretty sure those who are baptized by the Holy Spirit are not only immersed, but held under.
We have all heard the jokes about having to be immersed twice or three times because of someone's sordid background, or having to be baptized twice or three times because it didn't take. While it may seem humorous to us, it was real at one time. That thinking actually entered the mind of people. If they thought this, then they really have tied the effectualness of baptism to the mode, water, minister, etc.
We know that this cannot be true. We need to stop looking at what we do as being the thing God requires in the command and start looking at what He does when we keep it. We could immerse everyone who professes, but that does not mean they're baptized. They are baptized when God says they're baptized because it is His work, not ours.
The only thing we are to make sure of is that we do it in the name of the triune God. Whether which much water or no, baptizing in His name will only be effectual if He has determined to circumcise that heart.
In Christ,
KC
I am not so sure that mode goes with credo vs. paedo. Long before I was paedo, It did not seem to me to matter, since the mode does not an effectual baptism make. The Spirit does, I am pretty sure those who are baptized by the Holy Spirit are not only immersed, but held under.
We have all heard the jokes about having to be immersed twice or three times because of someone's sordid background, or having to be baptized twice or three times because it didn't take. While it may seem humorous to us, it was real at one time. That thinking actually entered the mind of people. If they thought this, then they really have tied the effectualness of baptism to the mode, water, minister, etc.
We know that this cannot be true. We need to stop looking at what we do as being the thing God requires in the command and start looking at what He does when we keep it. We could immerse everyone who professes, but that does not mean they're baptized. They are baptized when God says they're baptized because it is His work, not ours.
The only thing we are to make sure of is that we do it in the name of the triune God. Whether which much water or no, baptizing in His name will only be effectual if He has determined to circumcise that heart.
In Christ,
KC
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
KC,
I do think our veiw of what baptism is will prejudice are answer to the question what is the preferable mode of baptism?... we would all agree I think that there are bad modes of baptism like using spittle as the Roman Catholic Church at one time did so we do not just want to blanket it and so mode does not matter at all for in point of fact it does matter.
You have (and I think you have always held) to a Augistinian-like "sacramental" view so that baptism is God's work and it is effectual despite the minster or baptized person but Reformed Baptist generally as a whole do not view baptism as an Augustinian-type-sacramentally (as you and Calvin do), though they view can list it as a "Means of Grace" most Reformed Baptist have always stressed that faith is essential and that it is an act of obeidence and that the Word of God is supreme over baptism in the sense that it most superceed it before it can be adminstered... Therefore I most now add that the mode of baptism cannot really be answered untill these different questions are first answered, what is baptism and who is to be baptized. Once these questions are answered then we can talk about the mode. Just my :wr50:
Tyler
[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Tertullian]
I do think our veiw of what baptism is will prejudice are answer to the question what is the preferable mode of baptism?... we would all agree I think that there are bad modes of baptism like using spittle as the Roman Catholic Church at one time did so we do not just want to blanket it and so mode does not matter at all for in point of fact it does matter.
You have (and I think you have always held) to a Augistinian-like "sacramental" view so that baptism is God's work and it is effectual despite the minster or baptized person but Reformed Baptist generally as a whole do not view baptism as an Augustinian-type-sacramentally (as you and Calvin do), though they view can list it as a "Means of Grace" most Reformed Baptist have always stressed that faith is essential and that it is an act of obeidence and that the Word of God is supreme over baptism in the sense that it most superceed it before it can be adminstered... Therefore I most now add that the mode of baptism cannot really be answered untill these different questions are first answered, what is baptism and who is to be baptized. Once these questions are answered then we can talk about the mode. Just my :wr50:
Tyler
[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Tertullian]
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Tyler....
[quote:9f40f8ee48][i:9f40f8ee48]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9f40f8ee48]
KC,
I do think our veiw of what baptism is will prejudice are answer to the question what is the preferable mode of baptism?... we would all agree I think that there are bad modes of baptism like using spittle as the Roman Catholic Church at one time did so we do not just want to blanket it and so mode does not matter at all for in point of fact it does matter.[/quote:9f40f8ee48]
I guess what I meant was that whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersing with water, the external aspect is administered correctly. Spitting would definitely not do, for the external aspect, because it is not given that way in the Scriptures.
I truly believe, also, that water was not used in some baptisms, which in certain circumstances, should be acceptable, especially when being done by an apostle of the Lord.
But this is just the external aspect.
[quote:9f40f8ee48]You have (and I think you have always held) to a Augistinian-like "sacramental" view so that baptism is God's work and it is effectual despite the minster or baptized person but Reformed Baptist generally as a whole do not view baptism as an Augustinian-type-sacramentally (as you and Calvin do), though they view can list it as a "Means of Grace" most Reformed Baptist have always stressed that faith is essential and that it is an act of obeidence and that the Word of God is supreme over baptism in the sense that it most superceed it before it can be adminstered... Therefore I most now add that the mode of baptism cannot really be answered untill these different questions are first answered, what is baptism and who is to be baptized. Once these questions are answered then we can talk about the mode. Just my :wr50:
Tyler[/quote:9f40f8ee48]
You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words.
Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours? Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were. That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.
Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture.
In Christ,
KC
[quote:9f40f8ee48][i:9f40f8ee48]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9f40f8ee48]
KC,
I do think our veiw of what baptism is will prejudice are answer to the question what is the preferable mode of baptism?... we would all agree I think that there are bad modes of baptism like using spittle as the Roman Catholic Church at one time did so we do not just want to blanket it and so mode does not matter at all for in point of fact it does matter.[/quote:9f40f8ee48]
I guess what I meant was that whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersing with water, the external aspect is administered correctly. Spitting would definitely not do, for the external aspect, because it is not given that way in the Scriptures.
I truly believe, also, that water was not used in some baptisms, which in certain circumstances, should be acceptable, especially when being done by an apostle of the Lord.
But this is just the external aspect.
[quote:9f40f8ee48]You have (and I think you have always held) to a Augistinian-like "sacramental" view so that baptism is God's work and it is effectual despite the minster or baptized person but Reformed Baptist generally as a whole do not view baptism as an Augustinian-type-sacramentally (as you and Calvin do), though they view can list it as a "Means of Grace" most Reformed Baptist have always stressed that faith is essential and that it is an act of obeidence and that the Word of God is supreme over baptism in the sense that it most superceed it before it can be adminstered... Therefore I most now add that the mode of baptism cannot really be answered untill these different questions are first answered, what is baptism and who is to be baptized. Once these questions are answered then we can talk about the mode. Just my :wr50:
Tyler[/quote:9f40f8ee48]
You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words.
Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours? Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were. That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.
Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture.
In Christ,
KC
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b3f7bb4029]You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
Thus is undisputed I also agree that baptism is important and does something in the life of the believer.
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
Exactly. Christ baptism is an excellent example for we know that Christ did not receive any "sanctifying grace" in his baptism for Christ was already perfect and was without sin, Christ never received grace because grace is unmerited and Christ merited whatever rewards he got. Hence, we must either say I think on Augustines view that Christ was not baptized or we can say that baptism is not essentially linked to sanctifying grace.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours?[/quote:b3f7bb4029]
What did the Spirit do in Christ's baptism? The Spirit is not given to us in water baptism but the Spirit uses baptism to legally clear our name, when Covenant breakers were charged with treason and wanted to be found innocent one of the tests was to be thrown into the river and if the gods had found favor and he did not drown that was legal proof that the man was innocent. Christians then must also go through such water ordeals and when they are baptized they are baptized into Christ and so identify themselves with Christ the Spirit is what raises the Christian out of the ordeal just as the Spirit raised Christ out of the grave. Baptism works legally not intrinsically and it is a sign of obedience as man seeks to identify himself with Christ. Baptism is man's work and it is man's response to God's grace. That is why baptism is to be given by the community because the individual confesses and units his destiny to the Christian community whose head is Christ. Therefore Baptism works by faith, by the Spirit and by obedience as God's Word preceded it.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
So would you disagree with Calvin and Augustine and say that baptism is dependent upon the quality recipient to work? I would argue that physical water is important for our spiritual soul.
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
If we are not then we are no longer sacramental in our understanding of the sacraments.
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were.[/quote:b3f7bb4029]
I disagree and agree... if you mean that we will receive some "special grace" what does that mean and what exactly does that do? But if you agree that baptism just gives us a clean conscience through faith if the Spirit gets us through it then I agree but if we do not have the spirit getting us through it and the faith to be baptized then we are still baptized but we have just failed the water ordeal and are calling judgment upon ourselves be legally found guilty.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
But is this not exactly what Augustine wants to deny? Augustine I think would deny that statement! For you are saying that baptism is dependent upon us to work for that is how the Spirit choses to do it? But if that is so, then baptism is ultimately dependent upon us to work and is therefore not really the Spirits work at all (though the Spirit chose to work that way)
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.[/quote:b3f7bb4029]
I don't think you want to say that though for your argument seems to run that God's spirit only chooses to work in the hearts of believers, making the condition of the heart of the recipient the condition of baptism effectiveness (just as the Spirit chose.) Hence you kicked the idea of baptism being man's work out the back door to make room for Augustines doctrine of sacramentalism but you sneaked man's work in through the back door leaving one foot on ice and the other on fire. If baptism is God's work then it is not dependent upon man but if it is man work then it is not God's work it cannot be both anymore then ice and be hot and warm at the same time and in the same sense.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
Augustine and Calvin's view is mysterious and beyond reason but I would argue that it is not because they followed Scripture but were only men who do not always get it right.
With respect and love... knowing that both sides sincerly seek to please God with all their hearts by obeying his every precept found in his words... Even so, Come Lord come.
Tyler
Thus is undisputed I also agree that baptism is important and does something in the life of the believer.
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
Exactly. Christ baptism is an excellent example for we know that Christ did not receive any "sanctifying grace" in his baptism for Christ was already perfect and was without sin, Christ never received grace because grace is unmerited and Christ merited whatever rewards he got. Hence, we must either say I think on Augustines view that Christ was not baptized or we can say that baptism is not essentially linked to sanctifying grace.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours?[/quote:b3f7bb4029]
What did the Spirit do in Christ's baptism? The Spirit is not given to us in water baptism but the Spirit uses baptism to legally clear our name, when Covenant breakers were charged with treason and wanted to be found innocent one of the tests was to be thrown into the river and if the gods had found favor and he did not drown that was legal proof that the man was innocent. Christians then must also go through such water ordeals and when they are baptized they are baptized into Christ and so identify themselves with Christ the Spirit is what raises the Christian out of the ordeal just as the Spirit raised Christ out of the grave. Baptism works legally not intrinsically and it is a sign of obedience as man seeks to identify himself with Christ. Baptism is man's work and it is man's response to God's grace. That is why baptism is to be given by the community because the individual confesses and units his destiny to the Christian community whose head is Christ. Therefore Baptism works by faith, by the Spirit and by obedience as God's Word preceded it.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
So would you disagree with Calvin and Augustine and say that baptism is dependent upon the quality recipient to work? I would argue that physical water is important for our spiritual soul.
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
If we are not then we are no longer sacramental in our understanding of the sacraments.
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were.[/quote:b3f7bb4029]
I disagree and agree... if you mean that we will receive some "special grace" what does that mean and what exactly does that do? But if you agree that baptism just gives us a clean conscience through faith if the Spirit gets us through it then I agree but if we do not have the spirit getting us through it and the faith to be baptized then we are still baptized but we have just failed the water ordeal and are calling judgment upon ourselves be legally found guilty.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
But is this not exactly what Augustine wants to deny? Augustine I think would deny that statement! For you are saying that baptism is dependent upon us to work for that is how the Spirit choses to do it? But if that is so, then baptism is ultimately dependent upon us to work and is therefore not really the Spirits work at all (though the Spirit chose to work that way)
[quote:b3f7bb4029]Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.[/quote:b3f7bb4029]
I don't think you want to say that though for your argument seems to run that God's spirit only chooses to work in the hearts of believers, making the condition of the heart of the recipient the condition of baptism effectiveness (just as the Spirit chose.) Hence you kicked the idea of baptism being man's work out the back door to make room for Augustines doctrine of sacramentalism but you sneaked man's work in through the back door leaving one foot on ice and the other on fire. If baptism is God's work then it is not dependent upon man but if it is man work then it is not God's work it cannot be both anymore then ice and be hot and warm at the same time and in the same sense.
[quote:b3f7bb4029] Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture [/quote:b3f7bb4029]
Augustine and Calvin's view is mysterious and beyond reason but I would argue that it is not because they followed Scripture but were only men who do not always get it right.
With respect and love... knowing that both sides sincerly seek to please God with all their hearts by obeying his every precept found in his words... Even so, Come Lord come.
Tyler
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Tyler....
Perhaps some words at the outset which may or may not clarify.
Baptism in essence is the Spirit's work. Only He can do it. He does it to whom He chooses. He does it when He chooses. The Spirit is free to work with or without the secondary means. He is just as free NOT to work in those whom He chooses. This work is invisible and may not be seen by us, for in those with whom He works, these are the Elect of God. We cannot see the Elect or know them, therefore we cannot see His work.
Baptism in outward administration is not a work in the sense that it merits grace or anything else. But in order for the sign to accompany the thing signified, it must needs follow the pattern given in the ordinance of Christ. It must be done by a minister of the gospel, who in himself, adds nothing. He speaks the words of institution and applies the water, but it is the Spirit and not his administration that makes any signification accompany the outward sign. He is a secondary means only and is necessary to the proper administration of the outward sign.
The outward sign must be applied to a person. That person does not add anything to the signification of the sign. It is not in him that any effectualness is found, but only by the Spirit. In the sense that he is brought or brings himself, he is aiding in this work of the Spirit, but again, this work merits nothing before God.
The water of the outward sign bears no signification in the sign. It is an ordinary thing and not special within itself. It has no power. When applied to the one being baptized, it signifies what only the Holy Spirit can do in the spiritual realm.
If it is the Spirit's will to cleanse the person and to put them in Christ, and to regenerate their souls, and to bestow upon them faith; either prior to, during, or after the baptism is performed, then He does this work as His will dictates. If the person is Elect, the Holy Spirit will, at some time in the life of this one, make the baptism effectual, even when there is no physical baptismal administration.
The only way for baptism to be truly baptism is if the Spirit does His work. There is nothing in this outward sign effectual within itself to the person to whom it is administered.
[quote:e0a4c69b20]
[quote:e0a4c69b20]You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Thus is undisputed I also agree that baptism is important and does something in the life of the believer.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Then your only disagreement must be that the physical administration carries with it some special thing that may be obtained just in the act. This is the Romish argument that you oppose. They believe that the administration by the priest and the faith of the believer have everything to do with their obtaining grace.
The Reformed position stands in stark contrast. Baptism in its outward sign made significant by the Spirit is what we mean by saying it is a means of grace. Baptism is the means by which God has given us to do all the things you have listed in your post. Is it not by God's grace these things are accomplished? Does He not use the ordinary means He ordained to accomplish it?
BTW, when you look at means of grace, are you looking from your perspective or God's? A means of grace from our perspective is that which we do so that we may obtain. You are right to buck against this. However, the means of grace from God's perspective is that which He uses to providentially carry out His plan. So, depending on perspective, one could either be sacerdotal or sacramental. The correct view is sacramental.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Exactly. Christ baptism is an excellent example for we know that Christ did not receive any "sanctifying grace" in his baptism for Christ was already perfect and was without sin, Christ never received grace because grace is unmerited and Christ merited whatever rewards he got. Hence, we must either say I think on Augustines view that Christ was not baptized or we can say that baptism is not essentially linked to sanctifying grace.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Christ was the embodiment of grace, yet the outward sign was still performed to fulfill all righteousness. And who says that baptism is all about sanctifying grace? Why does it follow that baptism is about sanctification? I think this is producing a false alternative.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours?[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
What did the Spirit do in Christ's baptism? The Spirit is not given to us in water baptism but the Spirit uses baptism to legally clear our name, when Covenant breakers were charged with treason and wanted to be found innocent one of the tests was to be thrown into the river and if the gods had found favor and he did not drown that was legal proof that the man was innocent. Christians then must also go through such water ordeals and when they are baptized they are baptized into Christ and so identify themselves with Christ the Spirit is what raises the Christian out of the ordeal just as the Spirit raised Christ out of the grave. Baptism works legally not intrinsically and it is a sign of obedience as man seeks to identify himself with Christ. Baptism is man's work and it is man's response to God's grace. That is why baptism is to be given by the community because the individual confesses and units his destiny to the Christian community whose head is Christ. Therefore Baptism works by faith, by the Spirit and by obedience as God's Word preceded it.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Then it testifies to what the Spirit has already done, is doing, or will do - In other words,, the thing signified. That is what a sign is. Why do you think I am saying otherwise? I do disagree with you that the sign is always accompanied with what the Spirit has done. There are many that receive the sign, but never receive the thing signified.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
So would you disagree with Calvin and Augustine and say that baptism is dependent upon the quality recipient to work? I would argue that physical water is important for our spiritual soul.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
See my points above. What does physical water, being immersed, or sprinkled do to our spirits?
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
If we are not then we are no longer sacramental in our understanding of the sacraments.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Could you clarify? I am arguing against sacerdotalism here. Are you arguing for it? Or, are you claiming that sacramentalists are really sacerdotalists.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
I disagree and agree... if you mean that we will receive some "special grace" what does that mean and what exactly does that do? But if you agree that baptism just gives us a clean conscience through faith if the Spirit gets us through it then I agree but if we do not have the spirit getting us through it and the faith to be baptized then we are still baptized but we have just failed the water ordeal and are calling judgment upon ourselves be legally found guilty.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
See above about the perspectives of the means of grace. I think you're seeing means of grace from the wrong angle.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
But is this not exactly what Augustine wants to deny? Augustine I think would deny that statement! For you are saying that baptism is dependent upon us to work for that is how the Spirit choses to do it? But if that is so, then baptism is ultimately dependent upon us to work and is therefore not really the Spirits work at all (though the Spirit chose to work that way)[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
How exactly did I claim that baptism is dependent upon us? I said exactly the opposite.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
I don't think you want to say that though for your argument seems to run that God's spirit only chooses to work in the hearts of believers, making the condition of the heart of the recipient the condition of baptism effectiveness (just as the Spirit chose.) Hence you kicked the idea of baptism being man's work out the back door to make room for Augustines doctrine of sacramentalism but you sneaked man's work in through the back door leaving one foot on ice and the other on fire. If baptism is God's work then it is not dependent upon man but if it is man work then it is not God's work it cannot be both anymore then ice and be hot and warm at the same time and in the same sense.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
I hope it is clearer to you now. I have never claimed that man's work makes his baptism effectual. I am saying exactly the opposite. There is a correct administration, but the mode, minister, and person being baptized have nothing to do with whether or not the Spirit has worked or will work. It is all of the Spirit and none of us. We perform the sign, He supplies the thing signified. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Augustine and Calvin's view is mysterious and beyond reason but I would argue that it is not because they followed Scripture but were only men who do not always get it right.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
And there, you would be wrong. But keep digging.
In Christ,
KC
Perhaps some words at the outset which may or may not clarify.
Baptism in essence is the Spirit's work. Only He can do it. He does it to whom He chooses. He does it when He chooses. The Spirit is free to work with or without the secondary means. He is just as free NOT to work in those whom He chooses. This work is invisible and may not be seen by us, for in those with whom He works, these are the Elect of God. We cannot see the Elect or know them, therefore we cannot see His work.
Baptism in outward administration is not a work in the sense that it merits grace or anything else. But in order for the sign to accompany the thing signified, it must needs follow the pattern given in the ordinance of Christ. It must be done by a minister of the gospel, who in himself, adds nothing. He speaks the words of institution and applies the water, but it is the Spirit and not his administration that makes any signification accompany the outward sign. He is a secondary means only and is necessary to the proper administration of the outward sign.
The outward sign must be applied to a person. That person does not add anything to the signification of the sign. It is not in him that any effectualness is found, but only by the Spirit. In the sense that he is brought or brings himself, he is aiding in this work of the Spirit, but again, this work merits nothing before God.
The water of the outward sign bears no signification in the sign. It is an ordinary thing and not special within itself. It has no power. When applied to the one being baptized, it signifies what only the Holy Spirit can do in the spiritual realm.
If it is the Spirit's will to cleanse the person and to put them in Christ, and to regenerate their souls, and to bestow upon them faith; either prior to, during, or after the baptism is performed, then He does this work as His will dictates. If the person is Elect, the Holy Spirit will, at some time in the life of this one, make the baptism effectual, even when there is no physical baptismal administration.
The only way for baptism to be truly baptism is if the Spirit does His work. There is nothing in this outward sign effectual within itself to the person to whom it is administered.
[quote:e0a4c69b20]
[quote:e0a4c69b20]You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Thus is undisputed I also agree that baptism is important and does something in the life of the believer.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Then your only disagreement must be that the physical administration carries with it some special thing that may be obtained just in the act. This is the Romish argument that you oppose. They believe that the administration by the priest and the faith of the believer have everything to do with their obtaining grace.
The Reformed position stands in stark contrast. Baptism in its outward sign made significant by the Spirit is what we mean by saying it is a means of grace. Baptism is the means by which God has given us to do all the things you have listed in your post. Is it not by God's grace these things are accomplished? Does He not use the ordinary means He ordained to accomplish it?
BTW, when you look at means of grace, are you looking from your perspective or God's? A means of grace from our perspective is that which we do so that we may obtain. You are right to buck against this. However, the means of grace from God's perspective is that which He uses to providentially carry out His plan. So, depending on perspective, one could either be sacerdotal or sacramental. The correct view is sacramental.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Exactly. Christ baptism is an excellent example for we know that Christ did not receive any "sanctifying grace" in his baptism for Christ was already perfect and was without sin, Christ never received grace because grace is unmerited and Christ merited whatever rewards he got. Hence, we must either say I think on Augustines view that Christ was not baptized or we can say that baptism is not essentially linked to sanctifying grace.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Christ was the embodiment of grace, yet the outward sign was still performed to fulfill all righteousness. And who says that baptism is all about sanctifying grace? Why does it follow that baptism is about sanctification? I think this is producing a false alternative.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours?[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
What did the Spirit do in Christ's baptism? The Spirit is not given to us in water baptism but the Spirit uses baptism to legally clear our name, when Covenant breakers were charged with treason and wanted to be found innocent one of the tests was to be thrown into the river and if the gods had found favor and he did not drown that was legal proof that the man was innocent. Christians then must also go through such water ordeals and when they are baptized they are baptized into Christ and so identify themselves with Christ the Spirit is what raises the Christian out of the ordeal just as the Spirit raised Christ out of the grave. Baptism works legally not intrinsically and it is a sign of obedience as man seeks to identify himself with Christ. Baptism is man's work and it is man's response to God's grace. That is why baptism is to be given by the community because the individual confesses and units his destiny to the Christian community whose head is Christ. Therefore Baptism works by faith, by the Spirit and by obedience as God's Word preceded it.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Then it testifies to what the Spirit has already done, is doing, or will do - In other words,, the thing signified. That is what a sign is. Why do you think I am saying otherwise? I do disagree with you that the sign is always accompanied with what the Spirit has done. There are many that receive the sign, but never receive the thing signified.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
So would you disagree with Calvin and Augustine and say that baptism is dependent upon the quality recipient to work? I would argue that physical water is important for our spiritual soul.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
See my points above. What does physical water, being immersed, or sprinkled do to our spirits?
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
If we are not then we are no longer sacramental in our understanding of the sacraments.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Could you clarify? I am arguing against sacerdotalism here. Are you arguing for it? Or, are you claiming that sacramentalists are really sacerdotalists.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
I disagree and agree... if you mean that we will receive some "special grace" what does that mean and what exactly does that do? But if you agree that baptism just gives us a clean conscience through faith if the Spirit gets us through it then I agree but if we do not have the spirit getting us through it and the faith to be baptized then we are still baptized but we have just failed the water ordeal and are calling judgment upon ourselves be legally found guilty.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
See above about the perspectives of the means of grace. I think you're seeing means of grace from the wrong angle.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
But is this not exactly what Augustine wants to deny? Augustine I think would deny that statement! For you are saying that baptism is dependent upon us to work for that is how the Spirit choses to do it? But if that is so, then baptism is ultimately dependent upon us to work and is therefore not really the Spirits work at all (though the Spirit chose to work that way)[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
How exactly did I claim that baptism is dependent upon us? I said exactly the opposite.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
I don't think you want to say that though for your argument seems to run that God's spirit only chooses to work in the hearts of believers, making the condition of the heart of the recipient the condition of baptism effectiveness (just as the Spirit chose.) Hence you kicked the idea of baptism being man's work out the back door to make room for Augustines doctrine of sacramentalism but you sneaked man's work in through the back door leaving one foot on ice and the other on fire. If baptism is God's work then it is not dependent upon man but if it is man work then it is not God's work it cannot be both anymore then ice and be hot and warm at the same time and in the same sense.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
I hope it is clearer to you now. I have never claimed that man's work makes his baptism effectual. I am saying exactly the opposite. There is a correct administration, but the mode, minister, and person being baptized have nothing to do with whether or not the Spirit has worked or will work. It is all of the Spirit and none of us. We perform the sign, He supplies the thing signified. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture [/quote:e0a4c69b20]
Augustine and Calvin's view is mysterious and beyond reason but I would argue that it is not because they followed Scripture but were only men who do not always get it right.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]
And there, you would be wrong. But keep digging.
In Christ,
KC
A_Wild_Boar
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:fd2dbdcd4d][i:fd2dbdcd4d]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:fd2dbdcd4d]
whether child or adult which is the biblical mode of baptism/
blade [/quote:fd2dbdcd4d]
I guess we need to find out how Jesus was Baptised or how John Baptized. I personally think full immersion is the way to go if possible but nowhere does it say that is how it is to be done alone.
Immersion, pour and sprinkling will do it though.
I recommend full immersion, there is something about being being raisd up from the water that makes it seem like a renewal.
whether child or adult which is the biblical mode of baptism/
blade [/quote:fd2dbdcd4d]
I guess we need to find out how Jesus was Baptised or how John Baptized. I personally think full immersion is the way to go if possible but nowhere does it say that is how it is to be done alone.
Immersion, pour and sprinkling will do it though.
I recommend full immersion, there is something about being being raisd up from the water that makes it seem like a renewal.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
KC,
I think our last posts reveal how improper it is to argue about immersion or sprinkling without first answering the questions what is baptism and to whom is it to begiving. By "improper" I meaning only that it is pointless and useless in making progress.
You repeat that baptism is only given to the elect yet I think human expeirence over and over again testifies against that intepretation... but then you reply no only water baptism is given to non-elect for true baptism is only given to the elect... hence water baptism is not true baptism but is the means to true baptism... I guess that it would be safe to say that "water baptism" is mens work and "true baptism" given in "water baptism" is God's work... and then you speak of baptism as being "God's work" but I confess I do not yet know how "true baptism" is God's work and therefore I cannot agree with what it because I do not know what I would be agreeing with... for I do not know what God does... if he does not santify nor regenerate... what does he do when he gives true baptism through water baptism? (I mean what does Scripture teach upon the subject if anything? or what verses says that "true baptism" is the Masters work not the Disciples work?)
I think water baptism is true baptism and I view it as a human work of Discipleship not a Divine work of grace... therefore I do not have to distingish between true baptism and water baptism... so on.
Therefore we both have different presumptions about baptism and to argue conclusions (ex. immersion) before these presumptions are dealt with would be a wast of time (or so I say)
Tyler
[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Tertullian]
I think our last posts reveal how improper it is to argue about immersion or sprinkling without first answering the questions what is baptism and to whom is it to begiving. By "improper" I meaning only that it is pointless and useless in making progress.
You repeat that baptism is only given to the elect yet I think human expeirence over and over again testifies against that intepretation... but then you reply no only water baptism is given to non-elect for true baptism is only given to the elect... hence water baptism is not true baptism but is the means to true baptism... I guess that it would be safe to say that "water baptism" is mens work and "true baptism" given in "water baptism" is God's work... and then you speak of baptism as being "God's work" but I confess I do not yet know how "true baptism" is God's work and therefore I cannot agree with what it because I do not know what I would be agreeing with... for I do not know what God does... if he does not santify nor regenerate... what does he do when he gives true baptism through water baptism? (I mean what does Scripture teach upon the subject if anything? or what verses says that "true baptism" is the Masters work not the Disciples work?)
I think water baptism is true baptism and I view it as a human work of Discipleship not a Divine work of grace... therefore I do not have to distingish between true baptism and water baptism... so on.
Therefore we both have different presumptions about baptism and to argue conclusions (ex. immersion) before these presumptions are dealt with would be a wast of time (or so I say)
Tyler
[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:beeb6c4c36][i:beeb6c4c36]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:beeb6c4c36]
Answer this, brother:
Is baptism a sign?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:beeb6c4c36]
Yes, it is a sign... of regeneration.
Tyler
Answer this, brother:
Is baptism a sign?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:beeb6c4c36]
Yes, it is a sign... of regeneration.
Tyler
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
nope
blade
blade
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b785fe7617][i:b785fe7617]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:b785fe7617]
Does that mean that all who receive it have been regenerated?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:b785fe7617]
Well it goes back to the question what is baptism for we can answer that question in two ways, (1) baptism is a human act of faith done in obedience to a Divine command in which they claim to the world they have been regenerated and are no longer guily and subject themselves to the Covenant ordeal test of water and so gain a clear concisnce or guilty consience depending upon if they are innocent or guilty (2) is baptism a Divine work of Grace in which that person is claimed to be regenerated by the word of God in order to help the faith of the person so that they might more confidentaly trust in the promises of God not because God's promise is uncertain but because man'f faith is weak...
If it is a Divine work of Grace in which God promises that you are regenerrated then we have to come to the natural conclusion that "yes all who are given the sign of regeneration are regenerated" and then conjucture two baptisms real and water, but if it is a human act of faith then we can only say that the words of men may prove to be vain and lie and those who are guilty far from baptism cleansing them it ultiamtely will testify against them as it pleads for the destruction symbolized in baptism to fall upon them... but there is only one baptism that is a sign of regeneration (in the sense that regeneration is the qualification for it). So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...
Tyler
[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Tertullian]
Does that mean that all who receive it have been regenerated?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:b785fe7617]
Well it goes back to the question what is baptism for we can answer that question in two ways, (1) baptism is a human act of faith done in obedience to a Divine command in which they claim to the world they have been regenerated and are no longer guily and subject themselves to the Covenant ordeal test of water and so gain a clear concisnce or guilty consience depending upon if they are innocent or guilty (2) is baptism a Divine work of Grace in which that person is claimed to be regenerated by the word of God in order to help the faith of the person so that they might more confidentaly trust in the promises of God not because God's promise is uncertain but because man'f faith is weak...
If it is a Divine work of Grace in which God promises that you are regenerrated then we have to come to the natural conclusion that "yes all who are given the sign of regeneration are regenerated" and then conjucture two baptisms real and water, but if it is a human act of faith then we can only say that the words of men may prove to be vain and lie and those who are guilty far from baptism cleansing them it ultiamtely will testify against them as it pleads for the destruction symbolized in baptism to fall upon them... but there is only one baptism that is a sign of regeneration (in the sense that regeneration is the qualification for it). So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...
Tyler
[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Tertullian]
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Tyler...
[quote:8b0a6e8239]So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...[/quote:8b0a6e8239]
Okay, let's just say for a moment we go with the former, that Baptism is only an act of faith and obedience.
Where does that faith come from? Follow up this with can we be truly obedient without the work of the Spirit?
In Christ,
KC
[quote:8b0a6e8239]So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...[/quote:8b0a6e8239]
Okay, let's just say for a moment we go with the former, that Baptism is only an act of faith and obedience.
Where does that faith come from? Follow up this with can we be truly obedient without the work of the Spirit?
In Christ,
KC
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b38700450d][i:b38700450d]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:b38700450d]
[quote:b38700450d]So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...[/quote:b38700450d]
Okay, let's just say for a moment we go with the former, that Baptism is only an act of faith and obedience.
Where does that faith come from? Follow up this with can we be truly obedient without the work of the Spirit?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:b38700450d]
First off, I think our understanding of "faith" might also be different I understand faith to be blessing of the Covenant of Grace not a condition of the Covenant of Grace.
Now dealing with the question where does faith come from? I would say that saving faith comes when a regenerated heart hears the Words of God and by the inward calling of the Gospel embraces it. This does not mean that there are no second causes and that God forces us to do good works for our good works are really our good works but it is God who gives us both the ability and the will to do the good works-our good works are therefore also blessings of the Covenant of Grace but they are truely our good works. Therefore obedience can only come from the Spirit of God, but someone objects what about all the good works that the Pharisees were able to do? My answer is that their "good works" was in the sight of God displeasing because without faith it is impossible to please God. In the very same way even though Pharisees and Disciples may both be baptized God can read the heart and He is pleased only with the baptism done in obedience and faith and God is displeased with the hypocrites when they baptized because their baptism is not done in faith in obedience but deceit and pride. The words and promises of men may fail and woe is he who puts their trust in men but every promise of God comes true and he who puts their trust in God's promise will never be disappointed. That is why I view baptism as man's work in which he confesses Christ and not Gods work in which God confesses to be our God and we his sons because I believe that when a baptism fails we have the failure of a man's word not the failure of God's word.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:b38700450d]So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...[/quote:b38700450d]
Okay, let's just say for a moment we go with the former, that Baptism is only an act of faith and obedience.
Where does that faith come from? Follow up this with can we be truly obedient without the work of the Spirit?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:b38700450d]
First off, I think our understanding of "faith" might also be different I understand faith to be blessing of the Covenant of Grace not a condition of the Covenant of Grace.
Now dealing with the question where does faith come from? I would say that saving faith comes when a regenerated heart hears the Words of God and by the inward calling of the Gospel embraces it. This does not mean that there are no second causes and that God forces us to do good works for our good works are really our good works but it is God who gives us both the ability and the will to do the good works-our good works are therefore also blessings of the Covenant of Grace but they are truely our good works. Therefore obedience can only come from the Spirit of God, but someone objects what about all the good works that the Pharisees were able to do? My answer is that their "good works" was in the sight of God displeasing because without faith it is impossible to please God. In the very same way even though Pharisees and Disciples may both be baptized God can read the heart and He is pleased only with the baptism done in obedience and faith and God is displeased with the hypocrites when they baptized because their baptism is not done in faith in obedience but deceit and pride. The words and promises of men may fail and woe is he who puts their trust in men but every promise of God comes true and he who puts their trust in God's promise will never be disappointed. That is why I view baptism as man's work in which he confesses Christ and not Gods work in which God confesses to be our God and we his sons because I believe that when a baptism fails we have the failure of a man's word not the failure of God's word.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:98d18f0673][i:98d18f0673]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:98d18f0673]
So, can it not be both a work of faith and the work of the Spirit? Can't there be a physical aspect and a spiritual one? It has physical and spiritual meanings, does it not?
It is all an originating work of the Spirit, is it not?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:98d18f0673]
It is hard to find middle ground between a "work of man" and a "work of God" is seems that if that is what a sacrament is then only Christ is a true sacrament!
If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
Therefore I think only a credobaptist position can do justice to the faith side of baptism and the fact that God is completely trustworthy.
Of course baptism is orginated by the Spirit as are all things... but ultimately baptism is a human work in response to divine grace in which the Holy Spirit by imparting life to us has given us the ability to participate in and when we particpate in it through faith we gain a clear consieince.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]
So, can it not be both a work of faith and the work of the Spirit? Can't there be a physical aspect and a spiritual one? It has physical and spiritual meanings, does it not?
It is all an originating work of the Spirit, is it not?
In Christ,
KC [/quote:98d18f0673]
It is hard to find middle ground between a "work of man" and a "work of God" is seems that if that is what a sacrament is then only Christ is a true sacrament!
If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
Therefore I think only a credobaptist position can do justice to the faith side of baptism and the fact that God is completely trustworthy.
Of course baptism is orginated by the Spirit as are all things... but ultimately baptism is a human work in response to divine grace in which the Holy Spirit by imparting life to us has given us the ability to participate in and when we particpate in it through faith we gain a clear consieince.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
[quote:186f0892f1]
If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
[/quote:186f0892f1]
Tyler and company,
Please forgive me for entering into to your discussion. I just wanted to remark on something.
Tyler, you write:
"Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command "
How is it that an infant cannot have faith? Faith is not necessarily something one needs to witness.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of [color=Red:186f0892f1]things not seen[/color:186f0892f1].
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that [color=Red:186f0892f1]things which are seen were not made of things which do appear[/color:186f0892f1].
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, [color=Red:186f0892f1]being warned of God of things not seen as yet[/color:186f0892f1], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
You add:
"....are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience."
Paedo baptism IS in fact an act of faith and obedience based upon Gods immutable promise and the parents faith and obedience to that promise and command.
If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
[/quote:186f0892f1]
Tyler and company,
Please forgive me for entering into to your discussion. I just wanted to remark on something.
Tyler, you write:
"Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command "
How is it that an infant cannot have faith? Faith is not necessarily something one needs to witness.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of [color=Red:186f0892f1]things not seen[/color:186f0892f1].
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that [color=Red:186f0892f1]things which are seen were not made of things which do appear[/color:186f0892f1].
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, [color=Red:186f0892f1]being warned of God of things not seen as yet[/color:186f0892f1], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
You add:
"....are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience."
Paedo baptism IS in fact an act of faith and obedience based upon Gods immutable promise and the parents faith and obedience to that promise and command.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:e909f45550][i:e909f45550]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:e909f45550]
[quote:e909f45550]
If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
[/quote:e909f45550]
Tyler and company,
Please forgive me for entering into to your discussion. I just wanted to remark on something.
Tyler, you write:
"Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command "
How is it that an infant cannot have faith? Faith is not necessarily something one needs to witness.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of [color=Red:e909f45550]things not seen[/color:e909f45550].
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that [color=Red:e909f45550]things which are seen were not made of things which do appear[/color:e909f45550].
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, [color=Red:e909f45550]being warned of God of things not seen as yet[/color:e909f45550], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, [b:e909f45550] and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.[/b:e909f45550] [/quote:e909f45550]
I agree... all infants that have faith in Christ and can explain what that means and confess that they are strangers and pilgrims on earth I will baptized... I just do not think that type of infant is a description of every infant born to Christian parents. I think the Reformed Baptist position has been forgivably misunderstood at this point by many Paedobaptist... we do not exclude all infants of Christians because of their age we exclude infants because they do not "confess to be strangers and pilgrims on earth" (Heb 11:13) but when an infant does we baptized them- we just think there is only one baptism rather then two one for infants and one for adults. You will object well infants cannot have faith or confess Christ yet... my response to you is you were the one who argued that they could and if we accept that premise then let us baptize the ones who have a knowledgable faith in Christ and confess to be strangers and pilgrims on earth.
[quote:e909f45550] You add:
"....are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience."
Paedo baptism IS in fact an act of faith and obedience based upon Gods immutable promise and the parents faith and obedience to that promise and command. [/quote:e909f45550]
I have no doubt that Paedobaptism is done sincerely and is an attempt to obey God's command... yet the Paedobaptist cannot consider baptism to be an "act of faith and obedience" because once it becomes an "act of faith" then only those who have faith are to be given it! I mean to say that well the parents have faith in God's promise... and therefore they baptize... makes baptism God's work not mans... therefore baptism is not an "act of faith" but a "work of God" on the Paedobaptist conception... but you will object that I think baptism is both an the first "act of obedience done in faith" and an "act of God" but I do not think that such middle ground is possible... it is either a human work it is a Divine work but it cannot be both.
hence this brings us back to the orginal question is baptism the "first step of obedience as a Disciple" or is it an "act of God in which he promises that we will be HIs people and He will be our God"
If the Reformed Baptist is right then it is the words of men that fail when a baptized person proves to be unregenerated but when an unregenerate person is baptized on the Paedoconception we must either say that they were never truely baptized and say that water baptism is not really baptism or say that God is not completley trustworthy.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]
[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:e909f45550]
If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
[/quote:e909f45550]
Tyler and company,
Please forgive me for entering into to your discussion. I just wanted to remark on something.
Tyler, you write:
"Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command "
How is it that an infant cannot have faith? Faith is not necessarily something one needs to witness.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of [color=Red:e909f45550]things not seen[/color:e909f45550].
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that [color=Red:e909f45550]things which are seen were not made of things which do appear[/color:e909f45550].
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, [color=Red:e909f45550]being warned of God of things not seen as yet[/color:e909f45550], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, [b:e909f45550] and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.[/b:e909f45550] [/quote:e909f45550]
I agree... all infants that have faith in Christ and can explain what that means and confess that they are strangers and pilgrims on earth I will baptized... I just do not think that type of infant is a description of every infant born to Christian parents. I think the Reformed Baptist position has been forgivably misunderstood at this point by many Paedobaptist... we do not exclude all infants of Christians because of their age we exclude infants because they do not "confess to be strangers and pilgrims on earth" (Heb 11:13) but when an infant does we baptized them- we just think there is only one baptism rather then two one for infants and one for adults. You will object well infants cannot have faith or confess Christ yet... my response to you is you were the one who argued that they could and if we accept that premise then let us baptize the ones who have a knowledgable faith in Christ and confess to be strangers and pilgrims on earth.
[quote:e909f45550] You add:
"....are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience."
Paedo baptism IS in fact an act of faith and obedience based upon Gods immutable promise and the parents faith and obedience to that promise and command. [/quote:e909f45550]
I have no doubt that Paedobaptism is done sincerely and is an attempt to obey God's command... yet the Paedobaptist cannot consider baptism to be an "act of faith and obedience" because once it becomes an "act of faith" then only those who have faith are to be given it! I mean to say that well the parents have faith in God's promise... and therefore they baptize... makes baptism God's work not mans... therefore baptism is not an "act of faith" but a "work of God" on the Paedobaptist conception... but you will object that I think baptism is both an the first "act of obedience done in faith" and an "act of God" but I do not think that such middle ground is possible... it is either a human work it is a Divine work but it cannot be both.
hence this brings us back to the orginal question is baptism the "first step of obedience as a Disciple" or is it an "act of God in which he promises that we will be HIs people and He will be our God"
If the Reformed Baptist is right then it is the words of men that fail when a baptized person proves to be unregenerated but when an unregenerate person is baptized on the Paedoconception we must either say that they were never truely baptized and say that water baptism is not really baptism or say that God is not completley trustworthy.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]
[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Tyler....
[quote:7794f8d960]It is hard to find middle ground between a "work of man" and a "work of God" is seems that if that is what a sacrament is then only Christ is a true sacrament![/quote:7794f8d960]
As we have said many times, a sacrament is a mystery. We cannot fathom how God uses the ordinary means of something to impart grace to us. And, yes, grace is imparted. Why would eating a bread and drinking wine do anything? At the very least, you should admit that it does proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Also, why would eating and drinking make someone weak or sick or even die? Is that not a mystery how God would work through the bread and the cup to chasten and judge?
[quote:7794f8d960]If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper.[/quote:7794f8d960]
If that is all it is or most of what it is, then I would agree with you. But that is only part of it. How does being baptized unite us to Christ? Is that not a mystery? Do we unite ourselves to Christ in our baptism, or does the Holy Spirit do a work in us?
You are divorcing a distinction that has been from the beginning. Water baptism is not the end. It is a sign. The thing the sign points to cannot be seen because it is the invisible work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Focusing too much on the sign will not allow you to see what is signified. What is signified is most important, not the water, not the pastor, not the one being baptized, not the mode. These are all means to an end, but they are not the end.
[quote:7794f8d960]Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.[/quote:7794f8d960]
The baptism in the midst of the sea, of which Paul equates clearly with our baptism, was an act of faith. Not only was it an act of faith to step into and cross over for the individual, but it was also faith that baptized the children of whom you say could have none. Those little children were baptized just the same as the adults. All were baptized using Paul's infallible words. Are we to believe that the faith of the parents or of the children themselves was not active in this baptism.
Now, how was their baptism made effectual? Only by the Spirit. For it is a mystery to us how they could have been baptized en masse. But it is none the less true. We cannot deny it.
And clearly the only ones whose baptism was made effectual were those ones that received the circumcision of the heart. The rest were, just like it is today, cursed for their participation. They were sealed for destruction.
[quote:7794f8d960]Therefore I think only a credobaptist position can do justice to the faith side of baptism and the fact that God is completely trustworthy.[/quote:7794f8d960]
And what you are completely ignoring is the way parents have always had a measure of faith for their children. Abraham did. Why is this so hard to understand?
I'll tell you why. Because somewhere along the line, we started believing it is all about us. We have become so individualistic and separate that we cannot see how God designed from the beginning that fathers would pass their faith on to their children. Now, it is every man for himself. Everyone has to make their own choice. Everyone has to exercise their own faith in the way they see fit.
We do not have faith just for ourselves. It is not given us so that we may horde it. It is not given so that we may stand aloof from our family. It is not private.
Now, I am in no way suggesting that we may have saving faith for our children. But we do have the faith that believes the promise of God. We place them in His hands. It is not for us to save them, but for Him. So, we baptize them into His holy name and trust that He will save them if it is His will to do so.
[quote:7794f8d960]Of course baptism is orginated by the Spirit as are all things... but ultimately baptism is a human work in response to divine grace in which the Holy Spirit by imparting life to us has given us the ability to participate in and when we particpate in it through faith we gain a clear consieince.[/quote:7794f8d960]
I commend you for seeing many things in baptism, but what you're ignoring is why you can't put it all together.
We are to make disciples. How is it that we accomplish this? By faith in the promise of God. We can't make anything. We can't procure our own salvation, let alone that of another. Yet we are to walk by faith, not by sight. We train, we teach, we rebuke, we admonish, and in all of these, we have faith that God will save those He has chosen. In faith, we are to baptize the disciples we make.
Do we honestly believe that we make true disciples? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. These are born not because of our will, or their own will, but because of God's will.
Therefore, we teach and train in the doctrines of God and stand by to see His work. But, we are commanded to baptize these same ones. It doesn't say that we baptize only the disciples of God's making. It says we baptize those disciples of our making. We must then exercise our faith to let God work in them as He has chosen.
It is eisogesis to believe that Christ is here saying that we wait until they are true disciples before we baptize them. This is built from a post hoc fallacy. We see all those baptized in the NT and conclude that faith always preceeds baptism. But it is inconclusive and incongruous to believe that we must make sure of their salvation before we baptize them. That was not Christ's command. It may only be implied if a small sampling of the Scriptures is used.
The majority of all those saved in the Scriptures are people who received the sign prior to God working faith in them. And by this I mean that they were either circumcized or baptized prior to becoming a "true" disciple.
So, for you to say that faith breaks down the paedo argument, you would be wrong. Faith is integral to the paedo argument, for it is by faith that we believe the promise of God.
In Christ,
KC
[quote:7794f8d960]It is hard to find middle ground between a "work of man" and a "work of God" is seems that if that is what a sacrament is then only Christ is a true sacrament![/quote:7794f8d960]
As we have said many times, a sacrament is a mystery. We cannot fathom how God uses the ordinary means of something to impart grace to us. And, yes, grace is imparted. Why would eating a bread and drinking wine do anything? At the very least, you should admit that it does proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Also, why would eating and drinking make someone weak or sick or even die? Is that not a mystery how God would work through the bread and the cup to chasten and judge?
[quote:7794f8d960]If baptism is a "work of faith" in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant "baptism" seems improper.[/quote:7794f8d960]
If that is all it is or most of what it is, then I would agree with you. But that is only part of it. How does being baptized unite us to Christ? Is that not a mystery? Do we unite ourselves to Christ in our baptism, or does the Holy Spirit do a work in us?
You are divorcing a distinction that has been from the beginning. Water baptism is not the end. It is a sign. The thing the sign points to cannot be seen because it is the invisible work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Focusing too much on the sign will not allow you to see what is signified. What is signified is most important, not the water, not the pastor, not the one being baptized, not the mode. These are all means to an end, but they are not the end.
[quote:7794f8d960]Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a "work of faith" in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.[/quote:7794f8d960]
The baptism in the midst of the sea, of which Paul equates clearly with our baptism, was an act of faith. Not only was it an act of faith to step into and cross over for the individual, but it was also faith that baptized the children of whom you say could have none. Those little children were baptized just the same as the adults. All were baptized using Paul's infallible words. Are we to believe that the faith of the parents or of the children themselves was not active in this baptism.
Now, how was their baptism made effectual? Only by the Spirit. For it is a mystery to us how they could have been baptized en masse. But it is none the less true. We cannot deny it.
And clearly the only ones whose baptism was made effectual were those ones that received the circumcision of the heart. The rest were, just like it is today, cursed for their participation. They were sealed for destruction.
[quote:7794f8d960]Therefore I think only a credobaptist position can do justice to the faith side of baptism and the fact that God is completely trustworthy.[/quote:7794f8d960]
And what you are completely ignoring is the way parents have always had a measure of faith for their children. Abraham did. Why is this so hard to understand?
I'll tell you why. Because somewhere along the line, we started believing it is all about us. We have become so individualistic and separate that we cannot see how God designed from the beginning that fathers would pass their faith on to their children. Now, it is every man for himself. Everyone has to make their own choice. Everyone has to exercise their own faith in the way they see fit.
We do not have faith just for ourselves. It is not given us so that we may horde it. It is not given so that we may stand aloof from our family. It is not private.
Now, I am in no way suggesting that we may have saving faith for our children. But we do have the faith that believes the promise of God. We place them in His hands. It is not for us to save them, but for Him. So, we baptize them into His holy name and trust that He will save them if it is His will to do so.
[quote:7794f8d960]Of course baptism is orginated by the Spirit as are all things... but ultimately baptism is a human work in response to divine grace in which the Holy Spirit by imparting life to us has given us the ability to participate in and when we particpate in it through faith we gain a clear consieince.[/quote:7794f8d960]
I commend you for seeing many things in baptism, but what you're ignoring is why you can't put it all together.
We are to make disciples. How is it that we accomplish this? By faith in the promise of God. We can't make anything. We can't procure our own salvation, let alone that of another. Yet we are to walk by faith, not by sight. We train, we teach, we rebuke, we admonish, and in all of these, we have faith that God will save those He has chosen. In faith, we are to baptize the disciples we make.
Do we honestly believe that we make true disciples? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. These are born not because of our will, or their own will, but because of God's will.
Therefore, we teach and train in the doctrines of God and stand by to see His work. But, we are commanded to baptize these same ones. It doesn't say that we baptize only the disciples of God's making. It says we baptize those disciples of our making. We must then exercise our faith to let God work in them as He has chosen.
It is eisogesis to believe that Christ is here saying that we wait until they are true disciples before we baptize them. This is built from a post hoc fallacy. We see all those baptized in the NT and conclude that faith always preceeds baptism. But it is inconclusive and incongruous to believe that we must make sure of their salvation before we baptize them. That was not Christ's command. It may only be implied if a small sampling of the Scriptures is used.
The majority of all those saved in the Scriptures are people who received the sign prior to God working faith in them. And by this I mean that they were either circumcized or baptized prior to becoming a "true" disciple.
So, for you to say that faith breaks down the paedo argument, you would be wrong. Faith is integral to the paedo argument, for it is by faith that we believe the promise of God.
In Christ,
KC
- Status