Conference yukon::christian_v7

    First, CONGRATULATIONS!!! :-)
    
    Now, as to the question.  The matter of infant baptism is one in which
    there are differening stances depending on the particular denomination.
    In some churches, it is the common, accepted practice.  In others,
    there is no such practice.  My personal belief is that there is no
    basis for infant baptism in the Scriptures; Scriptural baptism is the
    baptism of *believers*.  Now, I know that some denominations see the
    infant baptism as a type of covenant between the parents and the Lord. 
    I have no problem with an infant being dedicated to the Lord and the
    parents making a commitment to raise the child to fear the Lord to the
    best of their abilities.  Where I do have a problem is when the
    Scripturally-taught baptism is replaced by the baptism of the infant.
    
    My advice -- search the Scritures (I emphsize the New Testament for
    this) and see how baptism is taught.  And, by no means is infant
    baptism something that everybody does.
    
    Mark L.

    ohh, Can you say can of worms?!   Bill Christian_V6 had a topic
    dedicated to Baptism (immersion).
    
    The act will have significance to the wife, yes? The child will simply
    think it is raining and its parents failed to cover him, probably. And
    you, well, think of it as an excuse to wear a suit in church, you know,
    flake the dust off the threads, 8^)
        But seriously, for me,...
    
    Baptism is simply an outward physical demonstration of an inward
    spiritual act. Since Baptism opens the heart to the forgiveness of
    sins through the grace of God. I tend to believe that it is an
    invitation, by the parents, to have the Holy Spirit start to work in the
    child, (and the parents - whos own souls wish to help nuture the child
    in Christ), at a young age. This will help prepare the child, (And the
    parents), as the youth comes to think independently and seek the
    "meaning of life."
    
      $.02
        PDM

.1 sums it up.

If you do, it is clearly a dedication and not a replacement for "believer's"
baptism.  And as a dedication, I see nothing "wrong" with it, though some
may have strong opinions either way about this.  (I think the scriptural 
support for infant baptism is vague; but the scriptural argument *against*
infant baptism - not just *for* believer's baptism - is about as vague.)

MM

	re. 0

	Bill,

	It's of no spiritual utility and may be a cause of stumbling to the
child in later years. 

	"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many
as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" Gal 3:26-27

	Introducing "another" baptism may hinder the child's understanding,
or more importantly, receiving the proper baptism with it's spiritual
significance. I've seen in person many persons who receive the Lord Jesus for 
the first time, refuse to be baptized because they were baptized as infants.
Though they are saved through their faith, their testimony and and living is
hindered because they have not "put on" Christ thorugh the proper baptism.

	However, consecrating your child to the Lord is very proper and
will be a profit and glory to the Lord.

ace

Baptism of infants is only inferred in scripture.

The evidence we have consists of accounts of converts being baptized
along with all their whole household.  It can only be inferred that
there were infants within the household.

It seems to me that baptism, whether of an infant or of an adult, is
only fully effective if it is followed by continued learning and continued
increase in faith.

/john

    
    
    	As a child I was raised to beleive that water baptism as
    	a child was for the removal of original sin. As an adult,
    	along with study in the Word, (and lots of prayer) this
        does not feel right with me..
    
    
    	Bill

Perhaps, Bill, all you need do is approach your wife from a different tack
than a confrontational belief.  This is an opportunity for you and your 
wife to take a closer look at baptism.  Does your church also have infant
dedications?  And would this be what your wife really has in mind or does
she think that she's "covering the bases" on the original sin point?

If she really has dedication (like Samuel), in mind, a closer look will
reveal this.  If she has the original sin removal in mind, a closer look
will reveal this.

Come together to reason it out by the Word, and whatever you do, don't 
adopt a confrontational posture over something you both want to do FOR 
THE LORD anyway (and are concerned about form and function).

Mark

In a matter of minutes, you can read everthing there is to know about baptism
in the bible, and then decide for yourself.  Here's every occurrance of the
words "baptism", "baptisms", "baptize", "baptized", and "baptizing":

Matthew	 3:6,7,11,13,14,16, 21:25, 28:19			
Mark	 1:4,5,8,9, 10:38,39, 11:30, 16:16
Luke	 3:3,7,12,16,21, 7:29,30, 12:50, 20:4
John	 1:25,26,28,31,33, 3:22,23,26, 4:1,2, 10:40
Acts	 1:5,22, 2:38,41, 8:12,13,16,36,38, 9:18, 10:37,47,48,
	 11:16, 13:24, 16:15,33, 18:8,25, 19:3,4,5, 22:16
Romans	 6:3,4
1 Cor	 1:13,14,15,16,17, 10:2, 12:13, 15:29
Gal	 3:27			
Eph	 4:5			
Col	 2:12			
Hebrews	 6:2			
1 Peter	 3:21			

    Baptism is a share in Christ's death and resurrection and it is an
    entrance into the family of God. If the parents have the faith and
    love of Jesus Christ and desire His Kingdom then it becomes parents
    and God who agree on this for the child. 
    
    Baptism is a "yes" to God, made on the child's behalf, so that the
    child can receive all the spiritual graces God wishes to give. 
    Since parents are responsible for a child this is a most important
    decision.
    
    Jesus told his followers not to inhibit the little children from
    coming to him. They thought the children could not understand Jesus
    or that it was just foolishness. Jesus saw it as an opportunity to
    love them and given them grace and his presence. Who knows how the
    Lord ministers to us and gives us grace and wisdom as an infant and
    youth.
    
    God does not go against our free will at any time so to Baptize an
    infant is not to 'doom' that child to eternity with God in heaven or
    take away free will. It is a sacrament of inclusion and grace into
    the life of Christ.
    
    Those who later on want to be re-baptized as an adult do so due to
    lack of proper understanding of the sacrament. They either have been
    told that it was not valid as a baby (wrong) or they are expecting
    some sort of spiritual 'high' or transformance which is not the
    purpose of the sacrament or its effect.
    
    Yearly (at least) we confirm our Baptismal vows as part of our
    Easter worship. The sacrament of Confirmation is also imparted in
    the church.
    
    I would suggest that this matter be researched by the parent by
    seeking a good theological explaination through the church that
    would be performing the infant baptism. I'm sure there are good
    booklets available which goes into the church's basis for this.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    
    

Ace,

>	It's of no spiritual utility and may be a cause of stumbling to the
> child in later years. 

>	"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many
> as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" Gal 3:26-27

While you may disagree with whether infant baptism is proper, I don't think it's
a good idea to conclude that it is of "no spiritual utility."  After all, this
very verse says that EVERYONE (FOR AS MANY AS) who are baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.  It doesn't say, "All adults who were baptized have put on
Christ," but "For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

>	Introducing "another" baptism may hinder the child's understanding,
> or more importantly, receiving the proper baptism with it's spiritual
> significance. I've seen in person many persons who receive the Lord Jesus for 
> the first time, refuse to be baptized because they were baptized as infants.
> Though they are saved through their faith, their testimony and and living is
> hindered because they have not "put on" Christ thorugh the proper baptism.

If adult baptism is only a public confession of faith, how is one's refusal
to be rebaptized a "hinderance" to their testimony and living?  If baptism is
a means of grace such that withholding "proper" baptism is a disadvantage for
a person, why should we withhold it from our children?

You are arguing that the baby certainly should NOT be baptized because it may
hurt the baby.  Others, such as myself, could equally argue that not baptizing
the infant places it in grave and uncertain danger and deprives it of graces
that may help it come to faith in Christ.  Baptism _may_ be of spiritual
utility even for infants; you don't really know for sure.  Scripture certainly
doesn't warn against baptizing infants, but whenever it mentions baptism, it is
in a positive and beneficial light.  Therefore I'm not sure we can conclude that
it is of "no spiritual utility."  You might conclude that it's of questionable
spiritual utility, but downright dangerous?  I'd argue that if a baby is
baptized, and I'm wrong, no harm is done; if a baby is not baptized, and you're
wrong, that baby is missing out on a lot of "spiritual utility." I'd say if his
wife really wants to have the infant baptized, for the sake of those weaker in
faith, go ahead, let her do what she likes so as not to cause division and
present a stumbling-block.  I'm sure that if infant baptism is improper, God
will nevertheless look on the baptism as an act of faith and equivalent to a
"baby-dedication" although he's certainly free to be safe and call up his
pastor and make a baby dedication.

I'd be curious to more fully understand why you are disconcerted that some
people you know who were baptized as infants refused to be baptized as adults.
Most believers-baptism advocates I've spoken to would leave it up to the person,
but you seem to be saying that "proper" baptism is "necessary."  Necessary for
what?  And if a person who is baptized as an infant does not wish to be baptized
as an adult, is it not true then that they do not fully understand "proper"
baptism anyway, for if they did, they would desire to be rebaptized?  That is,
since they do not desire to be rebaptized, they don't have a "proper" under-
standing of baptism anyway, and so they shouldn't be baptized until they
understand baptism correctly, right?

>	However, consecrating your child to the Lord is very proper and
> will be a profit and glory to the Lord.

I see no Scriptural support for "baby dedication."  I've been to them and they
remind me of request hours on the radio. "Yes, I'd like to dedicate this next
baby to my Lord, Jesus Christ . . ."

Do what the early Christians did.  Baptize your infants!

Eric

    Hi Eric,
    
    I can understand why Ace said it could hurt the baby... lemmee explain.
    My ex-husband is catholic, and when we took our newborn son to Mexico,
    his mother insisted on Matthew being baptized.  Now here in the U.S. it
    was no problem because the catholic church would not baptize a bastard
    and that was what Matthew was considered since Rafael was divorced when
    I married him.  Oh yeah and of course the other reason was because I'm
    not catholic.
    
    So, when we were in Mexico, I really struggled with the idea of infant
    baptism... and I determined that it would not *hurt* my son, first
    because he didn't know what was going on, and secondly because I'd
    treat it more as a dedication from my heart to raise my sons
    spiritually, then as salvation.
    
    Now, Matthew 10, almost 11, has asked me why I allowed that infant
    baptism when he knows that it didn't do anything for him... is he
    catholic because of this even though he's placed his faith in Jesus as
    Savior and been baptized again?
    
    It has created some real discussions with him about this... now, to his
    benefit Matthew has been raised in church and knows the Bible fairly
    well for his age, so spiritually he hasn't been terminally harmed, 
��  but this has been quite an emotional ride.
    
    When someone grows up thinking because of an infant baptism this
    automatically puts them in the Lambs Book of Life... that is DANGEROUS. 
    I don't know if that is what Ace means, but it is mho.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    .4
    
    I don't think Ace counted me among those he's seen in person (he has, 
    though, hi Ace!) with problems coming from their infant baptism, but I
    am (was) one.
    
    I had big trouble when I had found the Lord and learned that he wants
    me to be baptised to discern whether I was all set with my infant
    baptism or not. Especially since being baptised *again* was perceived -
    in my family and in the Lutheran church here in Germany - as the worst
    sin you could ever commit. It was of great help for me to read in Acts
    19 that it was no problem for Paul to baptize when he found that the
    first baptism of the church in Ephesus was lacking something. When the
    Lord had taught me that 
    
    a) being baptised again does happen in the scriptures under certain
       circumstances and
    
    b) my infant baptism was lacking too much from what a scriptural
       baptism should show (repentance, immersion, dying with Jesus and 
       being resurrected with him etc.),
    
    I got baptized. Now, nearly 8 years later, I consider this the start of
    really living with Jesus. We don't want our kids to go through the very
    emotional trouble I went through. We are raising them in Love for Jesus
    and hope and pray that they'll decide to live with Him forever. When
    they are able to do a mature decision fo rthe Lord, they will be
    baptised. Do it once and do it right. And learn what's right (from the 
    scriptures)first. I've heard and read lots of justifications for infant 
    baptism. In the light of the Word and under prayer I didn't find any of 
    them to hold water. I don't want to rathole any of them, a very thorough 
    and helpful study about starting off as a christian/disciple is in the 
    book of David Pawson 'A normal christian birth'. Besides showing the
    four biblical steps of becoming a christian mainly along the book of
    Acts (repentance, faith, baptism, receiving the Spirit), it goes into 
    very detailed scriptural studies about infant baptism as well and shows 
    that neither from the practice nor from the theology there is biblical 
    evidence for infant baptism.
    
    I also second Ace's observation that many have a struggling start with
    the Lord because of this question. The struggle is definately not the
    desire of the Lord, but pretty successful work of the enemy (imho).
    
    Best regards,
                  Hartmut
                 

    Well, as long as we're into personal testimonies: :-)
    
    When I was younger, my family attended a Presbyterian church (it was
    actually quite "conservative" compared to some Presbyterian stances
    today -- it had "Orthodox" in it's name), and I was baptised as an
    infant (a standard Presbyterian practice).  I grew up accepting this,
    even when we later were attending a Christian & Missionary Alliance
    church, where the practice is immersion following belief.  Later, as I
    personally began to inquire into God's Word, I became convicted that I
    needed to be baptised *as a believer*, and I was, even though I had
    been a believer for many years.  I saw that this was the teaching of
    the Scripture for obedience to the Lord.
    
    Mark L.

>    Now, Matthew 10, almost 11, has asked me why I allowed that infant
>    baptism when he knows that it didn't do anything for him... 

Evidently Matthew has said this because of what you have taught him.  What makes
you so sure that infant baptism didn't do anything for him?  Isn't this a rather
presumptuous assumption?  Even Catholics believe that there is some grace in
actions done in faith even if they were wrong actions, if they were done in
ignorance. Did you not say yourself that you lifted up the baptism as a dedi-
cation of him to the Lord?  Did God reject this prayer on your part so that his
baptism was of absolutely no benefit to him?  Who are we to say conclusively
what God does not work through?

> is he catholic because of this even though he's placed his faith in Jesus as
>    Savior and been baptized again?

Of course not -- he's rejected the Catholic faith and hence cannot be Catholic.

>    When someone grows up thinking because of an infant baptism this
>    automatically puts them in the Lambs Book of Life... that is DANGEROUS. 

I agree, and so does the Catholic Church!! Anyone who believes the baptism
instantly secures assurance of salvation and obviates the need for faith is in
grave error indeed.  That baptism must be backed up with faith, as well as 
fruit, in order to be of any good to that person. However, this doesn't mean 
there is no reason to baptize infants, or that they must be adults before they 
can enter God's family. (How many families do you know that restrict membership 
to adults?)

Because of the fall, all human beings are born in sin, under the dominion of
Satan from the time of their conception.  They are born separated from God,
dead in the sin of Adam.  All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God --
not just adults, but children and infants as well.

Catholics also believe what Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit comes on
a person at baptism (cf. Jesus's own baptism), that it effects the washing of
regeneration (Titus 3:5) with the Word, who is Christ (John 1:1), and that 
baptism itself is dying with Christ in his death and sharing in his resur-
rection (Romans 6:3).  We believe that it washes away sins (Acts 22:16, Acts 
2:38), and that it clothes with Christ (Gal 3:27).  We also believe that this
promise is not only for us as adults, but also for our children (Acts 2:39). 
None of these verses place any restrictions on these effects, saying that one 
must be an adult to receive them.  Because of all these great graces that Christ
bestows when we come to him with faith in baptism, and because infants are 
children of Satan when they are born and hence we cannot place a false hope 
that they will be saved when they die (for they, too, need to be redeemed), we 
baptize them.

>    b) my infant baptism was lacking too much from what a scriptural
>       baptism should show (repentance, immersion, dying with Jesus and 
>       being resurrected with him etc.),

Immersion? I really wonder where people get this idea that Scripture teaches
that baptism by immersion is necessary, or even that it was done in every case
of baptism in Scripture. Let's examine Acts 2:41.  It says (or infers) that 
three thousand believed and were baptized that day.  Yet if you consider what 
location this occurred in and the time, you will discover that there was not 
enough water in Jerusalem for three thousand people to be baptized by immersion 
in one day.  Therefore not every person in Scripture who was baptized was 
baptized by immersion. In fact, the assertion that baptism must be by immersion 
has little support in Scripture, but is based on a number of assumptions: one, 
that because the word "baptizo" means "immerse" that baptism must be done by 
immersion, although in fact the word has other meanings which are consonant 
with other forms of baptism; two, that because Jesus was baptized by immersion, 
that everyone else should be, too. But Jesus was also baptized in a river, does 
that mean that everyone else should be baptized in rivers, too?

As for dying with Jesus and being resurrected, Romans 6 says that this happens
in baptism.  It is not something that one works to do, or does beforehand;
it is something that God in his grace effects through baptism.  Nor is it
something that God does first which prompts you to be baptized.  Romans 6 makes
it clear that this is a grace received in baptism, not a work done by the
Christian.

> it goes into very detailed scriptural studies about infant baptism as well 
> and shows that neither from the practice nor from the theology there is 
> biblical evidence for infant baptism.

Evidently he hasn't studied the church of the first two centuries, which was
in the habit of baptizing infants, because they believed then as we Catholics do
still, that baptism effects regeneration and rebirth and is open to all people,
not merely adults, so that sins may be forgiven, both sins committed personally
and the sin we inherit from Adam.

One can certainly argue that from one's theological position that infant 
baptism is not acceptable, but those who practice infant baptism consider it
not only Scriptural but the constant practice of the church from the first
century.  Those who disagree with their theology should nonetheless recognize
that we do what we do because we believe it to be a solidly Scriptural practice.

And while I respect your position and understand your reasoning, folks are
making very presumptuous assertions and very bold condemnations based on 
inconclusive Scriptural evidence. For example, the whole argument against infant
baptism assumes that baptism is not a work done by God, but is a work done by
man that is an act of confession of faith.  That is, people are baptized only in
order to show the world that they are a Christian.  This concept is based on
the fact that in Scripture, everyone who believed, believed and was then 
baptized.  Other than the fallacious logic that says that because this is what
happened in Scripture, then baptism is a confession of faith, there is abso-
lutely no Scriptural support for this doctrine.  In fact consider the eunuch in
Acts 8:36.  Philip had just shared the Gospel with him, and they came across 
some water, and the eunuch said, Why shouldn't I be baptized?  Philip didn't
say, "Well, no, sir, you see, baptism is a confession of faith before men,
therefore we should wait until we come to the community."  For what good is a
confession of faith if it's done privately? But instead Philip baptized him on
the spot. Evidently Philip did not consider baptism to be primarily a confession
of faith. And so I urge to respect the Catholic interpretation of Scripture
and not be over confident that your own interpretation of Scripture is airtight.

Eric

	re.14 

	Eric,

	> And so I urge to respect the Catholic interpretation of Scripture

	I think most here understand that already. 

	>and not be over confident that your own interpretation of Scripture 
	>is airtight.

	Why not allow each one to be as confident as you are?

ace

Touch�.

        The bible clearly shows the baptism of beleivers, those who've come
        to trust in the messiah for their salvation and have repented.  Any
        person whose reasoning powers permit him to understand his sinful
        condition, God's uncomplicated plan of salvation, and truly repent
        for having made Jesus' sacrifice necessary, can be scripturally
        baptized.  I have seen children as young as 8 years old baptized,
        and I'm sure that even younger folk are capable of understanding
        their condition and professing faith and repentence. 

        Concerning the baptism of whole households in the bible, it would
        be contradictory to think that infants were also baptized, as they
        would be unable to profess themselves beleivers.  Scripture cannot
        contradict itself.  In this case, the definition of baptism is
	clearer than that of a household, in that a household could also
	include its animals.

	Tony
	
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on
him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 19)

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2)

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added [unto them] about three
thousand souls.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2)

But when they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,
they were baptized, both men and women.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8)

Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was
baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the
miracles and signs which were done.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8)

And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a
certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what
doth hinder me to be baptized?
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8)

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they
went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and
he baptized him.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8)

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 10)

When John had first preached before his coming the
baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 13)

And when she was baptized, and her household, she
besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to
the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there].
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 16)

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed
[their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 16)

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed
on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians
hearing believed, and were baptized.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 18)

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized?
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 19)

Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on
him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 19)

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus.
(The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 19)

    Baptism is the first step in rite of Christian initiation. Laying on of
    hands is the second step. The imposition of hands, or Confirmation as
    it is known in the Catholic Church, isn't done until the person, who was
    already been Baptized, comes forward and confirms their faith before the
    community.

    I don't have the Scripture verses at hand, but Paul wrote about
    communities that had been Baptized, but had not received the 
    Holy Spirit because they had not hand hands imposed on them by one of
    the apostles or those they had sent.



     Jim

>	>and not be over confident that your own interpretation of Scripture 
>	>is airtight.

>	Why not allow each one to be as confident as you are?

I have explained a little about why Catholics regard infant baptism as con-
sonant with Scripture and why we feel it is beneficial.  I have expressed my
personal doubt that the evangelical view is soundly supported by Scripture.  I 
have reasoned that from an objective point of view, it is better to baptize 
infants in ignorance if infant baptism is wrong than to withhold infant baptism 
in ignorance if withholding infant baptism is wrong.  I have not, however, made
any assertions that Protestant baptism is improper or spiritually dangerous.
Nor have I said that the Protestant view of baptism is not a possible inter-
pretation of Scripture.  It is not my intent to tell anyone that you are wrong
and that you had better baptize your infants.  On the other hand, it has been
asserted here that infant baptism is dangerous and you had better baptize only
adults.

Whatever the merits of both sides, I don't think -- from an evangelical
Protestant perspective -- that you can speak with certainty that infant baptism
is wrong or that I can speak with certainty that infant baptism is essential.
Both sides can be successfully argued from scripture, IMO.  I am confident in
what I believe for extra-scriptural reasons.  I do not believe that such a
solid confidence is warranted from solely a Scriptural point of view, but
neither do I believe that your confidence is warranted from solely a Scriptural
point of view.  As far as I can tell, the evangelical view of baptism is as
much dependent on tradition as the Catholic view of baptism.  And, not all
Bible-believing, Sola-Scriptura Protestants agree with evangelicals in their
rejection of infant baptism. Therefore let us refrain from making judgments 
based on Scripture on one another's beliefs.

The extent of my defense shall be that I believe that the rejection of infant
baptism expressed here is based on a doctrine of baptism that is without solid
Scriptural support; rather, I believe that the doctrine of baptism taught by
Scripture exposes compelling reasons why baptism should not be withheld from
infants.  My defense also extends to the assertion that there is no sound
Scriptural reason to believe that infant baptism is dangerous; because of this,
I see no compelling reason to insist that infant baptism not be done even when
it could upset one's spouse.

Ace would argue that even if Bill's wife really wants their infant baptized,
Bill should do everything in his power to prevent it from happening because
infant baptism is dangerous.  I argue that this is not a sound assertion, but
is based on misplaced confidence because in fact there _are_ compelling 
Scriptural reasons to baptize infants. Because of this, I think Bill should not 
be concerned about satisfying his wife's desire. I think it would be better to 
keep peace in the family than insist that infant baptism should not be done 
because it's dangerous.  Bill is free to believe what he desires concerning
baptism, but I think I can demonstrate that infant baptism isn't a stupid idea
without Scriptural support or, worse, a dangerous practice.

Eric

>>    I don't have the Scripture verses at hand, but Paul wrote about
>>    communities that had been Baptized, but had not received the 
>>    Holy Spirit because they had not hand hands imposed on them by one of
>>    the apostles or those they had sent.

Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Acts 10

	Whoa!  Says here that it's possible to have received the Holy Ghost
	before baptism.  Indeed, Jesus, being God incarnate, had the Holy
	Ghost in him before He was baptized.

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:9

	Tony
	

    I was baptised as an infant and after an absence of 15 years was
    confirmed in the same Lutheran church. My mother was not a practicing
    Christian but believed, out of fear, that these rituals were necessary.
    
    Some years later at a Billy Graham crusade I responded to an emotional
    invitation. At that time a friend  had led me to a Baptist church
    because he was concerned for my spiritual welfare. At first my pride
    told me that the ritual performed for me many years earlier fulfilled
    my "need" to be baptised. During one Sunday evening service scripture
    was read describing Jesus' baptism (Matt 3:13-17) and remembering that
    Jesus "who was in the form of God yet taking the form of a servant" (my
    paraphrase of portion of Phil 2:5-7) shattered my pride; the words
    humbled me when I realised that my Lord, the One who should always be
    my example, submitted Himself to the symbolic ritual of baptism. He,
    who to my simple understanding, had no need to do so. So in obedience,
    I was later baptised by immersion in the church baptistry. Any other
    method would have been equally appropriate.
    
    Many years later at a Uniting church meeting I related the above
    pilgrimage to find myself severely spoken to by a reverend gentleman
    who considered sinful what I believe the Lord had led me to do.
    Actually the man became quite angry.
    
    When our children were small I refused to have them dedicated in the
    Baptist church because I (pride again) saw this ritual as a means of
    quelling the fear many people have about the heavenly, or otherwise,
    status of deceased, non-baptised, infants. However, as a teenager, our
    daughter made a decision for the Lord but because the Uniting church we
    then attended lacked a baptistry, the facilities at the seventh Day
    Adventist church up the street were used. (can be handy when they are
    not open for business on Sundays!) Sadly, only about half of our
    Uniting church congregation attended, whether because of the method of
    baptism or because of the denominational label on the building I do not
    know.
    
    My wife and I participated as God-parents at the baptism of the baby
    of a close friend who is an Anglican.
    
    We have been present at a Greek Orthodox baptism where the naked baby
    was totally immersed 3 times! How is that for symbolism?
    
    Does the form really matter? God loves us in spite of our futile
    attempts to place our worship and obedience in ritual straightjackets.
    
    Yours for the Lord,
    
    Erwin

	re.21

	Erwin,

	> At first my pride told me that the ritual performed for me many 
	> years earlier fulfilled my "need" to be baptised.

	Though you eventually overcame it, many do not.

ace

    re: .22
    
    This can be looked at in another way altogether. It can be human pride
    that believes the opposite also, that a second baptism is necessary.
    
    Do we question that God acted sacramentally in the first baptism 
    because we do not recollect our own conscent? If God does baptize then
    to seek a second baptism exibits doubt rather than faith and puts a
    lot of attention on the human perspective rather than that of God.
     
    We do not believe that the sacraments are empty ritual or fully
    dependent on perfect human understanding. It is an act of God's grace
    in the Church. The Church, the Body of Christ, gives consent on
    behalf of the child with promises to raise the child within the
    body of the Church. We believe that an innocent child would agree
    to this great blessing and gift of grace since our faith teaches
    us that it is only sin and pride that separates us from God.
    
    Jesus was presented in the Temple without His conscent by his 
    parents. It was not only without his consent, but also it was not
    necessary because the sin offering was not necessary in his case.
    Yet it was right that it was done.
    
    Jesus was also raised by his parents in his faith.
    
    Jesus was circumsized, the sign of his belonging to the family of
    Abraham and the people of the covenant. His circumcision was 
    permanent and it was made on his behalf before he had the opportunity
    to accept or reject his acceptance of God.
    
    Every Jewish child was circumsized without such a choice!
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    Mary
    
    
    

>    This can be looked at in another way altogether. It can be human pride
>    that believes the opposite also, that a second baptism is necessary.
    
    I don't see how human *pride* is the issue... I can see how human lack
    of faith can be in *some* circumstances.
    
>    Do we question that God acted sacramentally in the first baptism 
>    because we do not recollect our own conscent? If God does baptize then
>    to seek a second baptism exibits doubt rather than faith and puts a
>    lot of attention on the human perspective rather than that of God.
     
    God has given us the ability CHOOSE to serve him.  Church rituals
    performed on infants are not a choice of the infant, only the adults. 
    Therefore, your reasoning has holes.
    
    
>    We do not believe that the sacraments are empty ritual or fully
>    dependent on perfect human understanding. It is an act of God's grace
>    in the Church. 
    
    Without understanding this act becomes empty... we are not talking deep
    theology here... this is part of the foundation of our faith.  Truth is
    I wonder whether or not infant baptism wasn't insituted to "secure the
    family" and their related incomes into the church.
    
    
     The Church, the Body of Christ, gives consent on
>    behalf of the child with promises to raise the child within the
>    body of the Church. 
    
    If dedication on the parent's behalf to raise the child in the church,
    then I can hang with with that... but NOTHING ELSE.. infant baptism
    DOES NOT save the soul.
    
    
    >We believe that an innocent child would agree
>    to this great blessing and gift of grace since our faith teaches
>    us that it is only sin and pride that separates us from God.
    
    An innocent child can be manipulated.  The Bible says to train up a
    child in the way that he should go and when is *old* he shall not
    depart from it.
    
    Hitler said give me your child until he is 5 and he will always be
    mine.
    
    Tradition is not always right or good... go to God's word for direction
    not men or tradition.
    
    
>    Jesus was presented in the Temple without His conscent by his 
>    parents. It was not only without his consent, but also it was not
>    necessary because the sin offering was not necessary in his case.
>    Yet it was right that it was done.
    
    Where do you get this?  NO where in the Bible do I see that Jesus
    didn't consent.. Jesus was around 12 years old when he went into the
    temple... explain this reasoning with infant baptism please.
    
    
    >Jesus was also raised by his parents in his faith.
    
    Yes, this is true as each of us must do, but children must make their 
    own choice to follow God or it means diddly squat!
    
    >Jesus was circumsized, the sign of his belonging to the family of
    >Abraham and the people of the covenant. His circumcision was 
    >permanent and it was made on his behalf before he had the opportunity
    >to accept or reject his acceptance of God.
   
    Circumcision was under the law... Mary, under Grace circumcision is
    done away with and becomes a personal choice.  The analogy still
    doesn't hold imho.
    
     
   >Every Jewish child was circumsized without such a choice!
    
    See above.    
    
    
    
    Nancy

>	Erwin,
>
>	> At first my pride told me that the ritual performed for me many 
>	> years earlier fulfilled my "need" to be baptised.

>	Though you eventually overcame it, many do not.

> ace

I'd still like to know why it's such an overriding concern in your mind that
others be baptized "properly."  Do you believe that baptism is more than simply
a command of the Lord that demonstrates repentance, and if one is not 
"properly" baptized (i.e. as an adult), they miss out on some grace?


Eric

>>    Jesus was presented in the Temple without His conscent by his 
>>    parents. It was not only without his consent, but also it was not
>>    necessary because the sin offering was not necessary in his case.
>>    Yet it was right that it was done.
>    
>    Where do you get this?  NO where in the Bible do I see that Jesus
>    didn't consent.. Jesus was around 12 years old when he went into the
>    temple... explain this reasoning with infant baptism please.

Jesus was just a few weeks old when he was presented in the temple:

		When the time came for their purification
		according to the law of Moses, they brought
		him up to Jerusalem to present him to the
		Lord (as it is written in the law of the
		Lord, "every firstborn male shall be
		designated as holy to the Lord"), and they
		offerred a sacrifice according to what is
		stated in the law of the Lord, "a pair of
		turtledoves or two young pigeons."
							Luke 2:22-24

/john

    Luke 2:22  And when the days of her purification according to the law
               of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, 
               to present him to the Lord;
    
           23  (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that 
               openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
    
           24  And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the
               law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.
    
    This is not baptism... the working is different in the KJV slightly,
    look at verse 22.  This is basically saying that males are separated
    even at birth to be called according to His purpose.  
    
    So tell me does this mean that every male is holy all their lives? 
    When does choice come into the picture.
    
    This scripture imho is not representative a baptism.. which btw is a
    symbol of your acceptance of Christ as Savior... a baby can't accept.
    
    Nancy

We should distinguish totally between baptism and circumcision.  They are 
not equivalent, as they refer to different dimensions.

Circumcision is the sign of a physical birth, as an Israelite, into the
Abrahamic covenant.  Entry was by physical birth.  Everyone who was born
into any of the twelve tribes didn't then have to make a decision as to
whether they would be an Israelite or not; they were one automatically.  It
is the mark that every Israelite male carries as a sign of the physical
covenant the nation of Israel has with God.  It is still valid today, as is 
baptism, for the Jew who recognises Jesus as his Messiah.  This does not 
invalidate or supersede his circumcision.  They refer to different 
covenants.

Baptism is the sign of a spiritual birth.  The spiritual birth does not
follow automatically from any class of physical birth into the fallen human 
race.  We cannot say of any birth 'this one *will* be a Christian, so I
will baptize him/her'.  Even if the LORD revealed to the parents' hearts
that their new child would be spiritually born into the kingdom of heaven,
the time for its baptism would be after that spiritual birth, as a sign and
a testimony that it was this had occurred - the choice of the individual to
enter salvation (even though we know that the Holy Spirit is key in the
actual work of conviction and drawing into the kingdom). 

The references to baptism in the New Testament indicate that it follows 
awareness, understanding and acceptance (repentance) of what it stands for.

Matthew 28:19 :
	Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
	the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...

Mark 16:16
	He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
	believeth not shall be damned. 

Acts 2:38 
	Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you 
	in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
	receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Acts 2:41 
	Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day 
	there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 

Acts 8:12 
	But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
	kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, 
	both men and women. 

etc...

baptism is 'only' an indication of something which has already occurred,
but it is the appointed indication, which the individual uses as a witness.

For parents to initiate a little ceremony in which they indicate their 
desire that their new offspring should enter the kingdom of God is ok, but 
by this, they can only commit *themselves* to bring the child up in the 
'nurture and admonition of the LORD' - they can promise to teach their
best, but they cannot by any means guarantee that the child will be a
Christian - that would override the personality and free will of the
individual in a way that even God Himself refuses to do.  The ceremony they 
go through could be called anything, really, (my pastor disagrees with
dedication...), but it is not the baptism of conversion.  Neither is it the
ceremony commanded in Scripture.  The 'baptism of Jesus' is still a
responsibility of the individual when (if) they accept the LORD Jesus as
Saviour. 

Acts 19:4
	Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
	saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should 
	come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.  When they heard this, they 
	were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 

There are some 4 household baptisms mentioned in the Bible, of the 
households of: Lydia, Stephanos, Crispus, the Philippian jailor.  To assume
that these included or excluded children below the age of awareness, where
they could make a personal acceptance of whaty was indicated is to go
beyond scripture.  However, I consider that the fact that multiple adults
(even) were included is significant.  The spirit of those in the households 
concerned must have been sufficiently united for each to understand, 
accept, and follow where the head of the house had led.

The problem today with calling a ceremony performed on an infant 'baptism' 
is that baptism is not used as a general indication of a change of 
allegience - if someone is baptised, we don't then ask what baptism they 
have received (as happened in Acts); we assume it to be 'Christian'
baptism.  So where a child has been baptised before the age of
understanding / consent, in later life they are liable to assume that a
decision has been made for them in a matter where they, and they alone, can
decide.  It is therefore liable to delude them into foregoing the act of
witness which Jesus appointed for His followers to obey.

.23 � to seek a second baptism exibits doubt rather than faith ....

No - these are different baptisms.  Only the one done at the choice of the 
one being baptised is the 'one' baptism referred to as 'Christian' baptism.

but I'm glad the God knows the heart, folks, and doesn't have to rely on a
tally of how well we either understand or obey... 

							God bless
								Andrew

.27  Nancy

>    This scripture imho is not representative a baptism.. which btw is a
>    symbol of your acceptance of Christ as Savior... a baby can't accept.

I think you missed Mary's point.  Jesus' presentation wasn't about infant
baptism, it was about ritual without consent of the child.  

>           23  (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that 
>               openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)
>    
>    So tell me does this mean that every male is holy all their lives? 
>    When does choice come into the picture.

Holy simply means set apart.  It does not mean (in this case) living 
in the perfect will of God.  Israel is God's chosen, and those who are
added to Israel are God's chosen.  I think this is all it means.

Mark

For what it is worth:

The Church of the Nazarene's article of faith about Baptism:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       ARTICLE XII: BAPTISM

   We believe that Christian baptism, commanded by our Lord, is a
   sacrament signifying acceptance of the benefits of the atonement
   of Jesus Christ, to be administered to believers as declarative
   of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, and full purpose
   of obedience in holiness and righteousness.

   Baptism being the symbol of the new covenant (New Testament), young
   children may be baptized, upon request of their parents of guardians
   who shall give assurance for them of necessary Christian train-
   ing.

   Baptism may be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion,
   according to the choice of the applicant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess this makes us liberal (a label I wouldn't think would apply
to my denomination).

To be clear, it emphasizes that believers receive baptism as declarative of
their faith.  Baptizing children is a symbol of the new covenant.  And
sprinkling, pournig, or immersion isn't an issue.

I suppose you can see why I supplies the advice to Bill in .7:

>Come together to reason it out by the Word, and whatever you do, don't 
>adopt a confrontational posture over something you both want to do FOR 
>THE LORD anyway (and are concerned about form and function).

Would you advise something different for Bill?

.30

P.S.  Because of the issues raised in this notes string, the experience I have
had with Nazarene ministers is that they encourage infant and child dedication
over child baptism, to avoid the problems or issues later in life that
probably shouldn't be a problem or issue.  Basically, it like saying,
"You can, but I wouldn't.  I'd dedicate the child and let him decide
after he accepts Christ on his own."

I personally see no functional difference between baptizing an infant and
dedicating an infant.  I agree with Nancy that baptism does not save the
soul; it is a symbol.  But there's a topic I don't think I'd be fond of 
revisiting.

Mark

>I agree with Nancy that baptism does not save the soul;

Correct.  Belief is also required.

    Mark 16:16
	He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
	believeth not shall be damned. 

>it is a symbol.

Correct.  Baptism is a sign of incorporation into the Body of Christ.

As far as I know, all churches which perform infant baptism

	1. Require parents to promise to bring the child up in
	   the faith, and usually require other sponsors who
	   also participate in the promise.

	2. Require an individual profession of faith by the child
	   at an appropriate age, usually called confirmation.

Many churches include a reaffirmation of baptismal vows by all present
at any baptism or confirmation, in something like the following form:

As Christians we are buried with Christ by Baptism into his death, and raised
with him to newness of life.  I call upon you, therefore, to renew the
solemn promises and vows of Holy Baptism, by which we once renounced Satan
and all his works, and promised to serve God faithfully in his holy Church.

Celebrant	Dost thou reaffirm thy renunciation of evil and renew
		thy commitment to Jesus Christ?
People		I do.

Celebrant	Dost thou believe in God the Father?
People		I believe in God, the Father almighty,
		   maker of heaven and earth.

Celebrant	Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God?
People		I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord;
		   who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
		   born of the Virgin Mary,
		   suffered under Pontius Pilate,
		   was crucified, dead, and buried.
		   He ascended into heaven,
		   and sitteth on the right hand of
			God the Father Almighty.
		   From thence he shall come to judge
			both the quick and the dead.

Celebrant	Dost thou believe in God the Holy Ghost?
People		I believe in the Holy Ghost,
		   the holy catholic Church,
		   the communion of saints,
		   the forgiveness of sins,
		   the resurrection of the body,
		   + and the life everlasting.

Celebrant	Wilt thou continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship,
		in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People		I will, by God's help.

Celebrant	Wilt thou persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever
		thou dost fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People		I will, by God's help.

Celebrant	Wilt though proclaim by word and example the Good News
		of God in Christ?
People		I will, by God's help.

Celebrant	Wilt thou seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving
		thy neighbor as thyself?
People		I will, by God's help.

Celebrant	Wilt thou strive for justice and peace among all men, and
		respect the dignity of every person?
People		I will, by God's help.

Celebrant	May Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
		hast given us a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and
		bestowed upon us the forgiveness of sins, keep us in eternal
		life by his grace, in Christ Jesus our Lord.  Amen.

    Okay John,
    
    I see where you are coming from... I really do.  My experience with the
    catholic faith is quite the contrary.  When I go out on visitation and
    soul winning, people will say they are Christians because they were
    baptized as infants into the catholic church even though they've hardly
    ever set foot back in the church.  There homes are indicative of less
    then godly lives and yet they say they are okay spiritually based on an
    infant baptism... That's why I say it's DANGEROUS.
    
    Rather then infant baptism, I prefer the baby dedication which places
    the commitment and faith of the parent as a covenant with God, not an
    act on a child that can later inhibit his own, true, personal
    relationship with Christ.
    
    This is my experience in dealing with people.
    
    Nancy

People can become backsliders whether they were baptised as infants,
pre-teens, or adults.

Your argument in .-1 implies that any baptism is dangerous if it leads
people to believe that mere baptism is all that is necessary.

Churches which perform infant baptism _do_not_ teach that it is all
that is necessary.

/john

    I realize that... John really I do.  And in its proper context I can
    understand where you are coming from... but I'm speaking from practical
    experience... not doctrine.
    
    Infant baptism has gotten in the way of personal relationships with
    Christ.  Why?  Maybe as a result of parental neglect at truly rearing the
    child in the church, or the choice of the child to not be a part of the
    tradition... I don't know... but it's prevalent and the most common
    excuse for not receiving Christ is the blinders that all is okay
    because I was infant baptized.
    
    Nancy
    

Hi John,

This isn't about backsliders; it's about people who don't realise that 
they need to come to a personal commitment to the LORD Jesus in the first 
place, because they 'think it's been done for them' before they were aware.

� Your argument in .-1 implies that any baptism is dangerous if it leads
� people to believe that mere baptism is all that is necessary.
It would be! - it should be emphasised that this (baptism) is testifying to 
something that has already happened.  That is why at most (almost all) 
baptisms I have witnessed, the person to be baptized gives their personal 
testimony of salvation first.

� Churches which perform infant baptism _do_not_ teach that it is all
� that is necessary.

I would be happy to think that that were the case.  Sadly, it is not so in 
the UK.  I have heard an infant ceremony which claimed to bring the infant 
into the family of God.  I have encountered a number of people who wanted 
their child to be baptised as a formality, without ever intending 
themselves or the child to enter a church again.  And even those who were 
affronted by a request to attend a few services, or tuition classes, before 
their child was processed.  They clearly did not understand either what 
they were asking for, or what it would mean at all.

								Andrew

    RE:35
    Nancy, 
          I disagree with your assessment that Baptism has gotten in the way
    of personal relationships with Christ. How could it ? If anything,
    those who are Baptized as infants and have not grown in faith, will
    be drawn towards Christ in  search for meaning in their lives,
    often because they were Baptized as infants. Their infant Baptism, for
    most people, makes Christianity the root of their up bringing. Those
    who fall away will be drawn back to their roots.

    I was Baptized as an infant. I fell away from my faith, but it is where
    I went back and developed a personal relationship with Christ. If
    anything, my infant Baptism was conducive towards my finding Christ, not 
    a hindrance.

    Jim
    

>>    Infant baptism has gotten in the way of personal relationships with
>>    Christ.  

Hi Nancy,

Although personal, anecdotal type references don't necessarily prove anything,
I know quite a few people who were baptised as infants and who know and love
the Lord Y'shua as their Messiah, Redeemer, King, Lord, and God.  I'm one :-).

Leslie    

    
    	Bill,
    
    	What is your pastor's position regarding infant baptism ?
    
    	FWIW, we had Emily dedicated rather than baptized, and celebrated
    	the occasion with family.  It is our hope and prayer that she
    	will choose Christ and be baptized when she is older.
    
    	Jamie and I were both baptized as infants, both in the Catholic
    	church.  We also were both baptized as adults after being saved.
    	My mother kept asking me why I was being baptized when I'd already
    	been baptized as an infant, and I used the opportunity to witness
    	to her.  I also had her attend my baptism, which clearly explained
    	why I was being baptized.
    
    	Karen
     

 I was baptised (sprinkled) in the Episcopal church when I was 15 at my
stepmother's insistance.  I attended a class for a few weeks and to this
day don't remember what was taught.  But, nonetheless I was was baptised
to make everybody happy, while my stepmother and father promised to raise 
me in the faith and my aunt and uncle stood as Godparents making the same
committment.  Mom and Dad were somewhat true to the committment but my aunt
and uncle as I recall were not.


When I finally understood that I needed Christ and *I* made the decision
fully understanding what was going on, I was baptised, on January 7,1979 (just
found my certificate over the weekend :-)




Jim

    Jim and Leslie,
    
    Good point!  I suppose there's positive and negative to every story.  I
    suppose the reason I feel so strongly about it is because of the folks
    who turn away a personal relationship because of it, coupled with the
    fact that I don't find any scripture reference to it.
    
    Nancy

    Thanks, John, for reminding me of something.
    
    Some people think -- indeed it has been suggested here -- that for
    Catholics, infant baptism discourages someone from making a committment
    to Christ as an adult and encourages the idea that one need only to be
    baptized as an infant to be saved.
    
    However, at every baptism -- and indeed every year -- all baptized
    Catholics renew the vows made at their baptism and the baptism adults
    make.  Some encyclopedias call this "rebaptism," which I think is not
    inaccurate but confusing.  And as John mentioned, those who are
    baptized as infants -- at least in the Catholic and Anglican churches
    -- make a personal committment to the Lord in confirmation.  However,
    often teenagers are not properly prepared for confirmation and it ends
    up just being a meaningless rite of passage, yet I'd also argue that
    even adult baptism can become that way in other churches -- it depends
    on the strength of the teaching.
    
    Any ex-Catholic here who insists they never got a chance to make a
    personal profession of faith in the Catholic Church to complete their
    baptism either has a poor memory or never attended a Catholic baptism,
    an Easter liturgy, or confirmation.  I don't know many
    believers-baptism churches that have the whole congregation renew their
    baptismal vows/personal profession of faith together every year.
    
    Eric
    

    Eric,
    
    The Catholic church [traditional, not charismatic] does not teach
    salvation through repentance of sin, and acceptance of Christ only.  It
    teaches many things in addition to the aforementioned to secure one's
    eternal status.  It also teaches that you can pray, pay and sacrifice
    for someone elses soul who has already died.
    
    This is contrascriptural.  You can justify through your tradition, but
    it won't mean a hill of beans to me as I only accept God's Word on it.
    
    As far as renewing vows, in my church one is defrauding their
    Christianity when they accept the sacrament with unrepented sin. 
    Please note that I didn't say "unconfessed", but unrepented.  Their is
    a difference.  We are given reflectional and conversational time before
    in order to renew and confess and remember Christ.
    
    I know the catholic church does this as well, even if it is slightly
    different and I believe for different reasons.
    
    I'm not catholic bashing, I have many dear friends that are catholic,
    but I won't stand by and let a doctrine that doesn't exist in God's
    word go unchecked.
    
    Nancy

> It would be! - it should be emphasised that this (baptism) is testifying to 
> something that has already happened.  That is why at most (almost all) 
> baptisms I have witnessed, the person to be baptized gives their personal 
> testimony of salvation first.

    Well, about all we know from Scripture is that new adult Christians were
    baptized after believing and repenting.  Simply because this appears to
    be a testimony to what has already happened does not prove that it is. 
    The accounts of baptism in Scripture would also be consistent with the
    idea that baptism gives rebirth, regeneration, and remission of sins.
    As I mentioned earlier, there are no accounts in Scripture of groups of
    Christians standing in front of the assembly, giving their personal
    testimony that they are born again, and then being baptized.  Rather,
    Christians were baptized _immediately_ upon believing, right then and
    there, without waiting for a river or a church service.  In fact, in
    Acts 9:17-18, Acts 10:47-48 and Acts 16:33, people were baptized in
    private homes, which at that time did not have bathtubs which obviously
    made it impossible for full immersion baptism.  But that's another
    topic.

    The Scriptures that speak on baptism directly say this about baptism:

    1) In baptism, we are "baptized into his death", "buried with him
    through baptism", and "united with him [through baptism]" (Romans 6:3),
    Col 2:21);

    2) Baptism is "for remission of sins" (Acts 2:38);

    3) Baptism washes sins away (Acts 22:16);

    4) Through baptism we "put on Christ" (Gal 3:27).

    This is why I am not convinced that baptism is a symbol of what has
    already happened.
    

Nancy, (.44)

>    The Catholic church [traditional, not charismatic] does not teach
>    salvation through repentance of sin, and acceptance of Christ only.  It
>    teaches many things in addition to the aforementioned to secure one's
>    eternal status. 

Actually the Catholic Church does not teach that you can secure your
eternal status, nor that you can know that you have assurance of salvation 
without a direct revelation from God.

We do, however, teach what Scripture teaches, that faith without works is
dead and thoroughly lifeless (James 2:20, 26) and -- "You see we are not
justified by faith alone, but also by what we do."  We also teach with St.
John the Divine (1 John) that "This is how we know we are in him: Whoever
claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did" (2:6) and, "We know that we have
passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not
love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know
that no murderer has eternal life in him" (3:14-15).  I've accumulated a list
of Scriptures which contradict salvation by "acceptance of Christ only";
it exceeds 50 verses.

I have carefully examined all of the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and
compared them with Scripture, with evangelical writings, and with anti-
Catholic tracts, and I have determined that we teach what Scripture teaches
concerning salvation, and evangelical Protestants do not.  This realization of
the disparity between Scripture and evangelical teaching, and the Scriptural
truth taught by the Catholic Church, has caused a number of conversions of
evangelical ministers to Catholicism; I have the testimonies on tape of a
number of these ministers.

> It also teaches that you can pray, pay and sacrifice for someone elses soul 
> who has already died.

Indeed we do.  There are many examples in the Old and New Testament of people
interceding for others to prevent God's wrath from being visited upon them.
There is even an account in the early church of St. Perpetua, who was martyred
in 202 A.D., receiving a vision of her departed brother suffering immensely
(presumably in Purgatory).  She prayed fervently day after day, and was
rewarded with another vision, this time of him entering heaven.
    
>    This is contrascriptural.  You can justify through your tradition, but
>    it won't mean a hill of beans to me as I only accept God's Word on it.

It contradicts only your particular interpretation of Scripture. Praying
for the dead may be without basis in Scripture (according to your Bible, 
which is missing a few books that the early Christians used that we regard
as canonical), but your suggestion that we are saved by faith alone is 
contrascriptural, while the Catholic teaching is the Scriptural one.

Regarding God's Word, Scripture identifies the Word as that word which was
preached by the Apostles (1 Peter 1:25).  This is what Scripture identifies as
"the Word."  If you want to stand on God's Word, stand on that, and stand on
those words which will never depart from the mouths of the New Covenant people
(Isaiah 59:21). Somewhat missing is any verse which restricts God's Word to
Scriptures alone. In fact, when reference is made to the "word" it is usually
referring either to Jesus or to an oral tradition.

>    As far as renewing vows, in my church one is defrauding their
>     Christianity when they accept the sacrament with unrepented sin. 

I assume you speak of serious unrepented sin: in that case, we would quite
agree, although it is to our discredit and dismay not always preached nowadays.
Adults must repent of all their sins before they approach baptism (they don't
even have to confess them!), and no person in a state of serious sin should
receive communion.

>    Please note that I didn't say "unconfessed", but unrepented.  Their is
>    a difference.  We are given reflectional and conversational time before
>    in order to renew and confess and remember Christ.

Well, how much time are you given to reflect, converse, renew and confess?  In
the Catholic Church, the catechumenate -- that period between the time a person
seeks baptism and the time they are baptized, during which they learn about the
faith, reflect on their sins, seek repentance, and learn to reject sin -- runs
maybe nine months to a year.  When such a person is finally ready to be baptiz
ed, they explicitly renounce sin and renounce Satan and should be exorcised as
well.
    
>    I'm not catholic bashing, I have many dear friends that are catholic,
>    but I won't stand by and let a doctrine that doesn't exist in God's
>    word go unchecked.
    
Then I suggest you _do_ check God's Word! (the whole Word as defined by
Scripture, not by Luther!)

Perhaps infant baptism is not explicitly affirmed in Sacred Scriptures, but I
can point out a lot of Protestant doctrines that are not affirmed in Sacred
Scriptures either, as well as point out Protestants who do not regard infant
baptism as contrary to Sacred Scriptures.

Eric

Hi Eric,

The testimony was implicit in New Testament times.  It's only the
artificiality of these days - and the lack of understanding - that make it
necessary to interpolate instruction between salvation and baptism.  I
didn't say that the testimony was obligatory; rather that it is desirable
today, to preclude lack of understanding in our different culture.  In New
Testament culture, the symbolic action was more familiar.   I agree that 
it is preferable for the baptism to be the natural and immediate result of 
conversion.

Incidentally, 'baptism' is a transliteration of a greek word, whose 
translation would be 'dip'.  ie, they weren't using a special word; they 
were using the word 'to dip'.  This initiated discussion over how early
versions of the Bible would translate the word, and marginally a 
meaningless transliteration was used, which lost the significance of the 
original.

I'd wondered whether to go on to the 'death and resurrection' symbology of 
baptism, which again underlines the total immersion.

							Andrew

>    The Scriptures that speak on baptism directly say this about baptism:
>
>    1) In baptism, we are "baptized into his death", "buried with him
>    through baptism", and "united with him [through baptism]" (Romans 6:3),
>    Col 2:21);

This shows no incongruity with baptism as a symbolic ritual (physical sign)
or something within (inward grace imparted).

    2) Baptism is "for remission of sins" (Acts 2:38);

The word "for" can mean "because of"; this was hotly debated in a previous
conference, and is the main focus of some church groups who would add the
requisite of baptism for salvation.  The Scripture clearly teaches that
God's grace through faith is the only thing that brings salvation.

    3) Baptism washes sins away (Acts 22:16);

Again, the penitent declares his determined faith by an outward act that 
confesses to the world.  This account is about Paul.  Annanias has gone to
the blind Saul/Paul to baptize him into the faith.  "Acts 22:12-16 is not
a detailed or consecutive account of all the facts, as in Acts 9:17-18,
which states:

(a) Reception of sight (9:17-18)
(b) Filling of the Spirit (9:17)
(c) Arising from prayer (9:11, 9:18)
(d) Baptism in water (9:18)

Pauls' own testimony elsewhere proved he was saved by faith in the blood
(Rom. 3:24-25; 5:1; Eph. 1:7)

He was already saved, healed and filled with the Spirit before he was told 
to "arise" (v 16, with 9:17-18)

"Wash away thy sins" is clearly a ceremonial washing, as are all washings 
by man (matthew 8:3-4 with Leviticus 14-15).  The greek apolouo is used only 
two times: once here of ceremonial cleansing and once in 1 Corinthains 6:11
where it is the same meaning as the baptism "without hands" of Collosians 2:11.

No scripture says that sins are washed away by baptism other than ceremonially.
Cleansing is done by:

(a) God (Ps 51:1-13; Titus 2:11-13)
(b) Christ (Mt 1:21; Rev 1:5)
(c) The Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:11)
(d) Grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9)
(e) Faith in the blood (Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; 1 Jn 1:7; Mt 26:28; Heb 9:22, 
      1 Pet 1:18-23; Rev 1:5)
(f) Faith without works (Rom 2:24-31; 4:1-25; 5:1; FGal 3:19-29)
(g) Confession of sins (1 Jn 1:9; Rom 10:9-10; Acts 2:38; 3:19)
(h) The Word of God (1 pet 1:23; Jas 1:18;Jn 3:5; 15:3; Eph 5:26)

Ananias, a Jew, was well acquainted with ceremonial cleansings.  He knew 
that washing was outward and ceremonial and did not cleanse from:
 
(a) Leprosy (refs. omitted) 
(b) Guilt (Ps 26:6; 73:13)
(c) Sins (Isa 1:16; Jer 2:22)
(d) Wickedness (Jer 4:14)
(e) Defilement (Mk 7:1-23)

Washings only typified cleansing by blood (Heb 9:7-15, 21-26; 10:1-23).

Many words describing redemption are found 3,222 times in Scripture and not 
once is water baptism required to make any one pahse effective.

Many convincing examples of remission of sins without and before water baptism
are recorded in Scripture: (many refs. omitted - ask if you want them. 150-1)

Both Peter and John state baptism to be a "figure" and "witness" of the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3:21; 1 Jn 5:6-10).

Peter plainly says it does not save to the point of putting away the filth of
the flesh (1 Pet 3:21; Gal 5:19-21).

Paul definitely says sins are put off by circumcision *without hands* 
(Col 2:11-12).  This is the baptism of Rom 6:1-8; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal. 3:29;
Eph 4:5; Col 2:12)

Since water baptism is not the real, literal, physical death, burial and 
resurrection of Jesus, then it has to be figurative of it (1 Pet 3:21;
1 Jn 5:6-10).

Washing of sins by baptism is ceremonially and symbolic, like the ceremony
of the leper after he was cleansed (Mt 8:3-4 with Lev 14:1-9; 15:1-27) and
like the garments washed inthe blood (Rev 7:13-14).

Paul did not teach baptismal-regeneration (1 Cor 1:13-24; 15:1-5; Rom 1:16;
Rom 10:9-10; Eph 2:8-9).

Jesus did not teach baptism as a means of salvation.  He forgave multitude
without it (see point 8 above [I omitted the refs in point 8 because it
was lengthy]).  Not one time did he baptize anyone (Jn 4:2).  He once mentioned
faith and then baptism (Mark 16:16).

Texts used to teach remission of sins by baptism (Mt 3:6-8, 11; Mk 1:4-5;
Lk 3:3, 8-16; Acts 2:38; Mk 16:16) do not say sins are remitted by it,
but "for" or because of repentance (note a, Mt 3:16).  Repentance and faith
always precede baptism in these passages.  See Mt 28:19; Acts 2:38,41; 8:12, 37;
10:44-48; 18:8; 19:4."    --- Dake's commentary

>    4) Through baptism we "put on Christ" (Gal 3:27).
>
>    This is why I am not convinced that baptism is a symbol of what has
>    already happened.
    

When you focus on just a few passages, as the commentary shows in contrast,
you can get a distorted picture, as I believe you have.  Put your face close
to a TV set and what do you see?  Colored dots.  Step back from the TV
set and you see a picture.  Go back to the dots and look at them randomly
and what kind of picture will you put together in your mind?  
Place the dots in their proper perspective and you get the picture.

Salvation is by faith alone; baptism is a symbol of that grace effected.

Mark

Eric,
    
>Actually the Catholic Church does not teach that you can secure your
>eternal status, nor that you can know that you have assurance of salvation 
>without a direct revelation from God.

    Well, we are definitely out of synch from the very beginning on
    Sprituality.  I don't believe in a God who makes eternity a chance.
    
>We do, however, teach what Scripture teaches, that faith without works is
>dead and thoroughly lifeless (James 2:20, 26) and -- "You see we are not
>justified by faith alone, but also by what we do."  
    
    As do I.  But please see correlating scripture in regards to salvation
    and works as Paul wrote this to the church [believers] in Corinth,
    especially at verse 15.
    
    1Corinthians 3:13  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day
                       shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by 
                       fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what 
                       sort it is.
    
                   14  If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, 
                       he shall receive a reward.
    
                   15  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer 
                       loss: but HE HIMSELF SHALL BE SAVED yet so as by fire.
    

>I have carefully examined all of the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and
>compared them with Scripture, with evangelical writings, and with anti-
>Catholic tracts, and I have determined that we teach what Scripture teaches
>concerning salvation, and evangelical Protestants do not.  This realization of
>the disparity between Scripture and evangelical teaching, and the Scriptural
>truth taught by the Catholic Church, has caused a number of conversions of
>evangelical ministers to Catholicism; I have the testimonies on tape of a
>number of these ministers.

    That's an interesting piece of work you've done here.  
    In order for me to fully comprehend what you have
    studied, I have to ask where was your plum line?
    
>Indeed we do.  There are many examples in the Old and New Testament of people
>interceding for others to prevent God's wrath from being visited upon them.
    
    Please allow me the scripture references so that I may read for myself.
    
>There is even an account in the early church of St. Perpetua, who was martyred
>in 202 A.D., receiving a vision of her departed brother suffering immensely
>(presumably in Purgatory).  She prayed fervently day after day, and was
>rewarded with another vision, this time of him entering heaven.
    
    And where is this in the Bible?
        

>It contradicts only your particular interpretation of Scripture. Praying
>for the dead may be without basis in Scripture (according to your Bible, 
>which is missing a few books that the early Christians used that we regard
>as canonical), but your suggestion that we are saved by faith alone is 
>contrascriptural, while the Catholic teaching is the Scriptural one.
    
    Can someone help me as to why *we* don't use those books in addition to
    the Bible, besides the fact that Revelations teaches us so?

>Regarding God's Word, Scripture identifies the Word as that word which was
>preached by the Apostles (1 Peter 1:25).  This is what Scripture identifies as
>"the Word."  If you want to stand on God's Word, stand on that, and stand on
>those words which will never depart from the mouths of the New Covenant people
>(Isaiah 59:21). Somewhat missing is any verse which restricts God's Word to
>Scriptures alone. In fact, when reference is made to the "word" it is usually
>referring either to Jesus or to an oral tradition.
    
    Are you saying by using 1 Peter 1:25 that these are the only Words
    spoken by which should call the Bible?  Not sure I am very clear on
    your point here Eric.
    

>Adults must repent of all their sins before they approach baptism (they don't
>even have to confess them!), and no person in a state of serious sin should
>receive communion.
    
    This is contrascriptural.
    
    Romans 10:10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and
                  with the *mouth confession* is made unto salvation.
                                                                                    
    
    
    >Well, how much time are you given to reflect, converse, renew and confess?  In
>the Catholic Church, the catechumenate -- that period between the time a person
>seeks baptism and the time they are baptized, during which they learn about the
>faith, reflect on their sins, seek repentance, and learn to reject sin -- runs
>maybe nine months to a year.  
    
    Again this is sad... to believe in a God of chance and works that our
    humanity will always fail in one way or another... sigh.
    
    FYI, in my church the sacrament is given the first Sunday in each month
    during the evening service.  We know year around when it's coming and
    have each day to reflect on our lives and confess, repent, and seek
    counsel.   
    
    
>Then I suggest you _do_ check God's Word! (the whole Word as defined by
>Scripture, not by Luther!)
    
    Obviously a point we may never agree on.
    

>Perhaps infant baptism is not explicitly affirmed in Sacred Scriptures, but I
>can point out a lot of Protestant doctrines that are not affirmed in Sacred
>Scriptures either, as well as point out Protestants who do not regard infant
>baptism as contrary to Sacred Scriptures.

    Eric, I do not KNOW or PRACTICE protestant doctrine.  You are going
    down the wrong avenue on this one, at least with me.  I'd agree that
    much protestant doctrine is contrascriptural.
    
Nancy
    

Expanding on my TV anaolgy, when we look at specific topics, such as baptism,
we must be careful to not only collect the colored dots on baptism, baptize,
baptized, etc, although this is certainly a good study of what baptism is.
But what we do is to collect all the shaded blue dots and may come to
a conclusion that baptism is blue.  The thing is, we're really looking
at baptism as to how it does and does not affect salvation, and the
colored dots that pertain to salvation are not only shades of blue, but
of red and yellow, interacting to form one picture: FAITH.

(And it is interesting that when all colored light comes together,
the resulting color is White.)

Mark

re.46

Eric,

>Perhaps infant baptism is not explicitly affirmed in Sacred Scriptures,

	Why be tentative? It's not "perhaps", it is fact.

> but I can point out a lot of Protestant doctrines that are not affirmed in 
> Sacred Scriptures either, as well as point out Protestants who do not regard 
>infant baptism as contrary to Sacred Scriptures.

	Let me see if I got this right. Protestants have doctrines not found in 
Scripture, so you're entitled to believe doctrines not found in scripture. And 
you believe some Protestants are right concerning this doctrine and therefore 
you must be right. Eric, you really don't care what "Protestants" do or think, 
so what's the point?

	I suspect that infant baptism doctrine is the offspring 
of another doctrine, that of Baptismal Regeneration. Another contrascriptural
doctrine. 

ace

	

>    Can someone help me as to why *we* don't use those books in addition to
>    the Bible, besides the fact that Revelations teaches us so?

It is a fact that the Bible in use at the time Revelation was written included
books which the Jews later rejected.

If you want to use only the 39 books the rabbis picked, there would be another
27 very important books missing.

/john

    Notes discussing the Apocrypha have been moved to a new topic (214).
    
    Mark L. -- co-mod