Baptism

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

I concur!

[Sevenseas]

 

 

From Martin Luthers Large Catechism:

http://bocl.org/?LC+IV+6

My phone won't copy and paste from the site. But he says that we need to be baptized to be saved.

I'm going to assume we have some Protestants in the crowd. The great reformer Martin Luther taught salvation by baptism.

and I will sadly assume that you are ignoring the link I provided because it is succinct, well written and does not support your claims

we have Christians in the crowd...the Bible was not written for Catholics, Protestants or any other denom...it was written so that we might believe that

Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that by believing, we might have life in His name

Sevensess,

No I did not read your link. And to accuse me of not reading because it doesn't support my position is irresponsible. How can I know it doesn't support my position if I Don't read it.

I didn't read it because I work from 9am to 9pm and do this correspondences on my phone between deliveries. When I get home I eat and go to bed. THAT is why I didn't read your link.

I have used scripture to make my point ( I can hear Shiloh banging on the keyboard now).

I did a quick google search and found that Luther tought the same thing which I found interesting since Protestants put a lot of value on the man.

 

 

 

Is saying "I assume" an accusation?  Its no wonder things get racheted up when responders insert words that were not ever said or intended

 

I used the words I assume in deference to your observation on Protestants.  It's obvious it does not support your claims and how is that irresponsible?  

I'm not texting while driving ... yuh know.....

 

No need for snarkism.  

 

As far as the rest of your post, only you know what your wrote.  If one wants to take a postion different from scripture, one should expect rebuttal and not

become defensive at a reply.

 

Telling people they need to be baptized to be saved is counter scripture and for new or weak Christians, this could pose a real problem and possibly

cause some to doubt their faith.

 

The bigger responsibility is yours...whether you work half a day or 12 hour shifts.  Why?  Because you made the claims...that's why

 

Just sayin...

[John Robinson]

Man, over a hundred pages and this guy is still at it. Talk about blinded. Sad and infuriating at the same time.

[Bible2]

faith pleases God said in post 1:

 

I have a 8 year old and a 6 year old they both want to be baptized. Should I baptize them?

 

Definitely.

 

For in order to be saved ultimately, believers must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus' death for our sins (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). If people believe with all their heart that Jesus Christ is the human/divine Son of God (Acts 8:37), they can get baptized anywhere there is water (Acts 8:36) into which they can be fully-immersed (buried) (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12). They need to make sure to be baptized in the name of God the Father; and of the Son, Jesus Christ; and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38). Believers can get water-immersion baptized at, for example, a Baptist-type congregation.

 

Besides getting water baptized, believers can get Holy Spirit baptized (Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46). They usually have to ask to receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13b) baptism, for it is usually not given to them automatically at the moment they become believers. That is why Paul the apostle asked some believers: "Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2).

 

Believers usually receive Holy Spirit baptism through prayer accompanied by the laying on of hands, subsequent to water baptism (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). Holy Spirit baptism won't result in speaking in tongues for everyone (1 Corinthians 12:30), but for almost everyone, as tongues are one of the Spirit's lesser gifts (1 Corinthians 12:8,9,10,11,28; 1 Corinthians 14:5). Many believers haven't yet experienced Holy Spirit baptism simply because they haven't yet asked for it, under the principle of "ye have not, because ye ask not" (James 4:2b). Many believers haven't yet asked for it because they have come under the influence of mistaken teachings which say it is no longer in effect. Believers can get hands laid on them to receive Holy Spirit baptism at any Pentecostal-type congregation, or at any charismatic-type congregation, which can be of almost any denomination.

 

--

 

Some people feel baptism can't be required for salvation, because baptism is a work, and salvation isn't based on works, but on faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). But baptism is a kind of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29). Just as Abraham, who is a model for Christians, was initially saved by faith alone, prior to his circumcision (Romans 4), so Christians are initially saved by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Romans 4:2-5), prior to their baptism (Acts 8:36-38, John 20:31). But just as Abraham was ultimately saved by his works (James 2:21-24), so Christians will be ultimately saved by their works (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 25:26,30, Philippians 2:12b, Philippians 3:11-14; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:10-12; 2 Peter 1:10-11, John 15:2a; 1 John 2:17b), which must include getting water-immersion (burial) baptized (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

[thereselittleflower]

I have a 8 year old and a 6 year old they both want to be baptized. Should I baptize them?

 

 

Absolutely!

[thereselittleflower]

hi

 

i cannot find one example in scriptures that one child as been baptized ,so if you can help me here show me where ?

 

 

even if you could show me one child that followed Christ as a disciple please show the scriptures ?

 

 

Entire households were baptized, which would have included children.

 

Paul alludes to the baptism of children when he speaks of children of a believing parent being holy:

 

1Co 7:14   For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 

 

The baptism of infants and young children was based on the belief of the parent, just as circumcision of infants is based on the belief of the parents.

 

All covenants have a sign.  The sign of the Old Covenant is circumcision.   The sign of the New Covenant is baptism

 

That baptism is this new sign of the New Covenant is made clearer when Peter calls baptism the circumcision without hands.  In so doing he directly connects the significance of both to each other in relationship to their respective covenants and how baptism supersedesand is superior to circumcision as the sign of the New Covenant which supersedes and is superior to the Old Covenant.

 

Now, here is what I think people miss  -  

 

• The New Covenant  supersedes the Old Covenant and is superior to it in every way.    
• The Old Covenant included infants.  
•  Infants were circumcized.  
• They were make partakers of the promises and obligations of the Old Covenant as infants.  
• They were not left out on the outside.  
• God made provision for them to be included.

 

Since this is true, why would God, in the New and BETTER Covenant, now leave children outside and make no provision for their inclusion?   Why would God go backwards in this regard?  He wouldn't.

 

In the Old Covenant we have types and shadows of what God gives us in the New Covenant.

 

Circumcision is the type and shadow of Baptism and so points to baptism.   Circumcision of infants is the type and shadow of baptism of infants and so points to infant baptism.

 

God has not made the New Covenant inferior to the Old Covenant by denying children the right to baptism and entrance into the promises and obligations of the New Covenant when infants had the right to circumcision and entrance into the promises and obligations of the Old Covenant.   Man alone has denied children this great blessing.

 

And Jesus warned about denying children access to him:

 

 

Mat 19:14    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

Mar 10:14  But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

 

Luk 18:16  But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

 

 

 

The apostles baptized entire households:

 

Act 16:15  And when she was baptized, and her household, 

 

Act 16:33  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

 

1Co 1:16   And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

 

 

 

This included not only the immediate family, but also servants and their families including children and infants.   And notice, the entire household was baptized by the apostles on the faith of ONE person, the head of the household.

 

 

Again:

 

'Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of heaven."

 

 

 

Look again at Paul's words above

 

1Co 7:14   For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

 

 

That word "holy" translates the Greek word hagios

hag'-ee-os

hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremoniallyconsecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint.

 

 

If we argue they are not holy, made a saint in the kingdom of God because of baptism, but the children of a believing parent is holy, a saint, because of the faith of the believing parent,  then why would baptism be denied one who is already holy and a saint?  

 

What possible reason could there be for withholding baptism from a child the scripture have already declared holy?

 

 

 

Additionally,   if one claims that it is the faith of the believing parent that makes it possible for their children  to be holy - and there is no age limitation on this,   then just as in the Old Covenant the infants were accepted and given the sign of the Old Covenant BASED ON the faith of the parents, then so much more so in the New and Better covenant does the faith of the believing parent open up the door to their children being given the sign of the New Covenant. with all its blessings and promises.

 

 

How can anyone deny baptism to their children,  those whom God has called Most Holy Ones, Saints in scripture?

[thereselittleflower]

 

One key Scripture reference to being "born again" or "regenerated" is John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." 

 

Early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5)

Well early Christians were wrong.  Baptism doesn't bring us salvation.   Early Christians were not very good at hermeneutics. 

 

 

Scriptures say otherwise:

 

1 Peter 3:21

 

... baptism now saves you ....

 

 

Mark 16:16

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved

 

 

 

 

The early christians were wrong?    This takes a great deal of chutzpah to say.      You hold yourself up as right and the early christians as wrong?   I'm speechless - almost.

 

 

Since the apostles were early christians, are you suggesting they were wrong?    

 

Since the apostles were early christians, are you suggesting they were not very good at understanding the scriptures?

 

The early christians were taught by the apostles themselves, the very apostles to whom Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead THEM into ALL truth.

 

Are you suggesting this promise of leading the apostles into ALL truth failed?

 

Are you suggesting Jesus was wrong above?

 

Are you suggesting the apostle Peter was wrong above?

 

 

If the apostles were wrong, then what they wrote in scripture is also wrong, and then the scriptural basis for christianity is undone.

 

 

Do you understand the implications of what you just said above?

[thereselittleflower]

Jesus's words are pretty clear to me in john 3:5 that you need to be born again by water and the spirit.

The rejection of salvation through baptism is a new teaching. And is not held by most Christians.

 

 

That is indeed true.

 

 

 

To say that the Churh taught error for 1800 years goes against Christ teaching. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail. So for 1800 years of believing salvation through baptism you would have to say using your point of view that there was no salvation.

And john 3:5 is very explicit and directly from Christ himself

 

 

That is also indeed true.

[thereselittleflower]

 

To say that the Churh taught error for 1800 years goes against Christ teaching. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail. So for 1800 years of believing salvation through baptism you would have to say using your point of view that there was no salvation.

And john 3:5 is very explicit and directly from Christ himself

the Church has taught error for 1800 years.  And it has been the Church that went against Christ's teaching.   Jesus proclamation that the gates of hell would not prevail against it doesn't provide the Church with the mantle of infallibility.

 

John 3:5 is NOT an explcit reference to baptism at all.  YOU are assigning that value to it. 

 

For a long time, "the Church" kept people dumb and illiterate, and told them that they had to pay for people to leave purgatory, called on to people venerate dead saints, persecuted and murdered Jews, and in some cases, popes murdered their own way into office.

 

So I don't put too much faith in the "Church" as the standard by which we interpret Scripture.

 

 

The Church kept people dumb and illiterate?    

 

Are you suggesting that the Church had the ability to make every one literate?     

 

The Church never taught people to pay money to release people from purgatory.  That is a myth.   You err not understanding history.

 

People venerate those whom they love.    

 

Shiloh, several years ago, 2 girls went missing near where my husband worked. .  they were later found dead at the neighbors house.  The neighbors house became a crime scene and was blocked off with wire fencing.   Pictures of the girls were hung up on the wire fence.  People came from all around to bring flowers and gifts, even kneeling before the images, to venerate their memory at their images hung on the fence.

 

Veneration of those who have died is part of all cultures.   It is an expression of love.

 

You do err not understanding the heart of others.

 

You also err in not differentiating the personal actions of individuals from the teachings of the Church they belong to.

 

 

 

And by the way,   Jesus told the apostles  

 

"As the Father sent me, so send I you."

 

John 20:21

 

Did the Father send Jesus with the power and authority to teach infallibly?    If not we are all undone.  So evidently God the Father did send Jesus with the power and authority to teach infallibly.

 

Jesus sent the 12 apostles as the Father sent him, and so Jesus sent the 12 Apostles also with the power and authority to teach infallibly.     If they did not teach infallibly, then we are all undone for then what they wrote cannot be infallible but prone to error, and thus the New Testament would also be fallible and prone to error.

 

Did Jesus mean what he said?  Or are you going to say Jesus is wrong and the Apostles were not led into all truth as promised and were not sent as Jesus was sent by the Father to teach infallibly?

 

Are not the Apostles the beginning of the Church, and did they not teach infallibly?  Thus did not Christ confer on the Church in the Apostles the mantel of infallibility as God the Father conferred it upon Christ?

[Your closest friendnt]

When someone believes Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins, he is under the blood, he is under the attonment of Jesus without any RITUALS,

Who is going to put fear in the children who are under the blood?

Go ahead find a way, tell his people who have obey God and have believe in his Christ , that Jesus will sent them to hell, put the fear in them, use some argeements, make them see themselves in Hell , so they run to be Baptize in water to be saved from Hell,

Go ahead use water Baptism, say Jesus did not did all, say something all the time to judge them, use fear to guide them to heavens , to save them,

That's why Paul spoke agains water Baptism,

because of the abuse on believers.

But I am not against if someone see it as a detication to a new life's direction, to leave behind the old lifestyle seeking a new one ahead of him,

But you can do that by renewing your understanding , and taking a stand for it.

Now if you were an idolater and you need a sing for others, re: don't invite me to partake in the idolatric retuals , for prosperity , fertility, .........

now I have Jesus for those blessings, I have renownce these powers from my life, I want the holy spirit to guide me, that ok, be water baptize,

BUT DON'T JUDGE THE BLOOD OF JESUS

You having bought by the blood of Jesus Christ before you were water baptize,

You don't need the water Baptism to belong to God, only the blood of the LAMB.