"baptizo" .... what does it mean?
Raul Goulden
Does "baptizo" express mode?
Dr. James W. Dale's life work is 5 books on the
word "baptizo."
I just read the one called "Classic Baptism" which
is a study of the use of "baptizo" throughout ancient
greek literature.
Basically what Dale does is take the definition of "baptizo"
that is propagated by Baptist scholars and place it over
the entire body of greek literature to see if it is accurate.
The answer is that it fails miserable. The Baptist writers
insist it is mode but yet have to resort to a whole body of
different words to translate it and then make ridiculous
tranlations of the words obvious secondary use which
is removed from mersing. Over the several centuries that
Baptists have existed their scholarship has improved but
sadly it has been used to justify an obviously incorrect
position rather than to shine the light of truth.
Here is the definition that Dale places over the body of
Classic greek literature, this definition works every time-
"Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character,
state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that
object; and by such change of character, state, or condition
does, in fact, baptize it."
Does this mean Baptism as practiced by Baptists is wrong?
No.
What is does mean is that "baptizo" isn't expressing mode
but rather that it is a symbol of our changed condition in
Christ.
The volumes are in print and available here-
http://www.amazon.com/
Still Water also carries them in their photo copy format-
http://www.swrb.com/
Jennifer Usher
"Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
news:5dtx4.998$7Y2....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Does "baptizo" express mode?
To quote the late Baptist humorist, Grady Nutt, "Baptizo literally means to
'dip.' Therefore, I guess that makes the president of the Southern Baptist
Convention, 'The Big Dipper.'"
On a more serious note, Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't convey
that illustration.
--
Jennifer Usher
Raul Goulden
Christ's
> death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't convey
> that illustration.
How does immersion represent being put in a cave?
In case you didn't know Jesus wasn't "buried."
If you want to "act" it out maybe you should go into
a closet?
RG
Raul Goulden
> Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
In no way does any classic greek use of "baptizo" represent
"resurrection." It can represent being sunk or whelmed, but
not "resurrection." as a literal act.
RG
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On a more serious note, Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
> death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't convey
> that illustration.
If we compare this view with the passage in Ezekiel 36:22-31, we have a
view that God is the One who will sprinkle clean water on us and we will
be clean. That has little to do with the modern concept of God immersing
one in water in order to be clean.
The context of the passage has to do with what God said He would do and
has nothing to do about "an outward sign (or symbol) of an inward change."
--
In Christ Jesus,
Dan
"For while I was with you, I was determined to know only Jesus Christ
and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2, NET).
Jennifer Usher
>
> > Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
>
>
> In no way does any classic greek use of "baptizo" represent
> "resurrection." It can represent being sunk or whelmed, but
> not "resurrection." as a literal act.
Really? I don't think Paul would agree...
Jennifer Usher
"Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
news:0dux4.12590$vd7.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
> > ... resurrection. -Jennifer Usher
>
>
> In no way does any classic greek use of "baptizo" represent
> "resurrection." It can represent being sunk or whelmed, but
> not "resurrection." as a literal act.
Whoops....
As I was saying, I don't think Paul would agree....
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may
increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him
through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5
For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death,
certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing
this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of
sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7
for he who has died is freed from sin.
As I said, baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.
It does not save, but is solely an act of obedience, in which we confess
outwardly our inward conversion.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...> > On a more serious note, Baptism illustrates our identification with
Christ's
> > death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't
convey
> > that illustration.
>
> If we compare this view with the passage in Ezekiel 36:22-31, we have a
> view that God is the One who will sprinkle clean water on us and we will
> be clean. That has little to do with the modern concept of God immersing
> one in water in order to be clean.
It is an interesting passage. Has nothing to do with baptism though.
> The context of the passage has to do with what God said He would do and
> has nothing to do about "an outward sign (or symbol) of an inward change."
Baptism imparts no grace. It is merely a confession of what God has already
done.
--
Jennifer Usher
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > In article <Mwtx4.7059$aw3.1...@news2.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
> > <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On a more serious note, Baptism illustrates our identification with
> Christ's
> > > death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't
> convey
> > > that illustration.
> >
> > If we compare this view with the passage in Ezekiel 36:22-31, we have a
> > view that God is the One who will sprinkle clean water on us and we will
> > be clean. That has little to do with the modern concept of God immersing
> > one in water in order to be clean.
>
> It is an interesting passage. Has nothing to do with baptism though.
Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage sacramentally.
It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
> > The context of the passage has to do with what God said He would do and
> > has nothing to do about "an outward sign (or symbol) of an inward change."
>
> Baptism imparts no grace. It is merely a confession of what God has already
> done.
And where does it say in Scripture that we withhold Baptism from infants?
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> As I said, baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.
> It does not save, but is solely an act of obedience, in which we confess
> outwardly our inward conversion.
Then, we would have to concern ourselves with what Peter really means in 1
Peter 3:21. Your statement would also leave Baptism to being a work than
what it really is.
Vernon O
Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:t3wx4.8006$5Y2.1...@news3.mia...
>
> "Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
> news:0dux4.12590$vd7.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > In no way does any classic greek use of "baptizo" represent
> > "resurrection." It can represent being sunk or whelmed, but
> > not "resurrection." as a literal act.
>
>
Don't interchange the act, purpose and symbolic meaning of Baptism with the
literal definition of a word. That is what happens in discussions about
"blood" and "body" in the Lord's supper. We could go from there to "living"
water.
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
Baptism is the answer of a good conscience. (already saved)
Rom 4:1-6
Rom 6:4,5
Matt 28:19,20
Acts 2:38
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> In article <Mwtx4.7059$aw3.1...@news2.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On a more serious note, Baptism illustrates our identification with
Christ's
> > death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't
convey
> > that illustration.
>
> If we compare this view with the passage in Ezekiel 36:22-31, we have a
> view that God is the One who will sprinkle clean water on us and we will
> be clean. That has little to do with the modern concept of God immersing
> one in water in order to be clean.
>
> The context of the passage has to do with what God said He would do and
> has nothing to do about "an outward sign (or symbol) of an inward change."
>
Seminary Student
BAPTISM
Meaning. New Testament baptism had its origin in the command of Christ to
make disciples and baptize them (Matt. 28:19). In the origination of this
ordinance there is a particular order established; the first act was to make
disciples, then those disciples were to be baptized. This is the pattern
that is carried out in the book of Acts. Peter commanded that his hearers
should first repent, then be baptized (Acts 2:38). Only those who heard the
gospel, understood and responded to it through faith and repentance, could
be baptized. The result was that the people received the Word, then were
baptized (Acts 2:41). Those who responded to Philip's message first
believed, then were baptized (Acts 8:12), similarly with the Ethiopian (Acts
8:38), with Paul (Acts 9:18), the Caesarean Gentiles (Acts 10:48), Lydia
(Acts 16:14-15), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:32-33), and Crispus (Acts
18:8). All of these references indicate that baptism follows belief;
repentance and faith precede the ordinance of baptism.
Baptism means identification. In New Testament baptism it involves
identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. Being baptized in
the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) stresses association with Christ in the rite.
Although Romans 6:4-5 refers to Spirit baptism and not water baptism, the
passage nonetheless illustrates the meaning of water baptism. It is a public
declaration that the believer has been united to Christ by faith in His
death and resurrection.
Views of baptism. (1) Means of saving grace ( baptismal regeneration). In
this view baptism "is a means by which God imparts saving grace; it results
in the remission of sins. By either awakening or strengthening faith,
baptism effects the washing of regeneration." The Roman Catholic view is
that faith is not necessary; the rite itself, properly performed, is
sufficient. The Lutheran view is that faith is a prerequisite. Infants
should be baptized and may possess unconscious faith or faith of the
parents.
(2) Sign and seal of the covenant. This is the view of Reformed and
Presbyterian churches. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are
"signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing by means whereof God works
in us by the power of the Holy Spirit..Like circumcision in the Old
Testament, baptism makes us sure of God's promises..The act of baptism is
both the means of initiation into the covenant and a sign of salvation."
(3) Symbol of our salvation. The view of Baptists and others is that baptism
is only an outward sign of an inward change. It serves as a public testimony
of faith in Christ. "It does not produce any spiritual change in the one
baptized..Baptism conveys no direct spiritual benefit or blessing."
Moreover, it is to be conducted only with believers. Hence, this third view
is the only view that holds only believers should be baptized. The first two
views state that, along with adult converts, children (infants) should or
may be baptized.
Mode. There are differences of long standing concerning the mode of
baptism. Part of the problem is that the word baptism is actually an untrans
lated word, having been incorporated into English through transliteration of
the Greek word baptisma (verb, baptizo). There are three modes of baptism
being practiced today: sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. The defense for
each of the modes is as follows.
(1) Pouring or affusion. Historically, pouring was applied by the one
baptizing pouring water three times over the head of the one being
baptized-once for each member of the Trinity. It is argued that pouring best
illustrates the work of the Holy Spirit bestowed on the person (Acts
2:17-18). Phrases such as "went down into the water" (Acts 8:38) and "coming
up out of the water" (Mark 1:10), it is claimed, can relate to pouring just
as well as immersion. The Didache, written early in the second century,
stated, "But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited
all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. But if thou has not living water,
then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The inference is that
altho ugh the early church employed immersion, it allowed for pouring. It
appears that both of these modes were in existence as early as the second
century.
Further support for the pouring mode is claimed from early pictorial
illustrations showing the baptismal candidate standing in the water with the
minister pouring water on his head. And finally, in the household baptisms
of Cornelius (Acts 10:48) and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:33) it would
appear more likely that pouring rather than immersion was employed.
(2) Sprinkling or aspersion. In the early centuries sprinkling was reserved
for the sick or those too weak to receive public baptism by immersion or
pouring. Sprinkling was not accepted in general usage until the thirteenth
century. Two precedents are often cited in support of sprinkling. In the Old
Testament, Levites were cleansed when water was sprinkled on them (Num.
8:5-7; 19:8-13). Hebrews 9:10 refers to these ritual cleansings as
"baptisms" (translated "washings" in the NASB). In the third century, Cyp
rian declared that it was not the amount of water nor the method of baptism
that cleansed from sin; rather, where the faith of the recipient was
genuine, sprinkling was as effective as another mode.
(3) Immersion. It is generally acknowleged that the early church immersed
the people coming for baptism. A lexical study of baptizo indicates it means
to "dip, immerse." Oepke indicates baptizo means "to immerse" and shows how
the word has been used: "to sink a ship," "to sink (in the mud)," "to
drown," and "to perish." This basic meaning a ccords with the emphasis of
Scripture: Jesus was baptized by John "in the Jordan" and He came up "out of
the water" (Mark 1:9-10; cf. Acts 8:38). On the other hand, the Greek has
words for sprinkle and pour that are not used for baptism.
The many pools in Jerusalem would have been used for immersion and would
likely have been used to immerse a large group like the 3,000 on the day of
Pentecost (Acts 2:41). It is also known that proselytes to Judaism were
self-immersed, and immersion was also the mode practiced by the early
church. Immersion best illustrates the truth of death and resurrection with
Christ in Romans 6.
Infant baptism. Infant baptism, which is practiced by Roman Catholics,
Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans, is defended on several
grounds. It is related to covenant theology. As infants in the nation Israel
were circumcised and thereby brought into the believing community, so infant
baptism is the counterpart of circumcision, which brings the infants into
the Christian community. It is related to household salvation (cf. Acts
16:15, 31, 33-34; 18:8). Some understand the statement, "when she and her
household had been baptized" (Acts 16:15) to mean infants were baptized.
--
Hear the FRUIT of Steve Winter's Lips:
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/stevie.wav
Scriptural REFUTATION of Oneness Pentecostal
Doctrines: http://members.tripod.com/~ernchez/home/home.htm
Oneness Pentecostals refuted!
http://www.bible.ca/ar-UPC-60-questions-godhead.htm
17 ways NO ONE will get to heaven!
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/17ways.htm
Charismatic DECEIVERS?
Benny Hinn: http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
Kenneth Copeland: http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
Learn what they REALLY BELIEVE!
"Vernon O" <ver...@contractor.net> wrote in message
news:MEwx4.331$Q27....@news.uswest.net...
>
> Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:t3wx4.8006$5Y2.1...@news3.mia...
> >
> > "Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
> > news:0dux4.12590$vd7.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > > Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > > In article <Mwtx4.7059$aw3.1...@news2.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
> > > <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > Christ's
> > > > death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling or pouring just don't
> > convey
> > > > that illustration.
> > >
> > > If we compare this view with the passage in Ezekiel 36:22-31, we have
a
> > > view that God is the One who will sprinkle clean water on us and we
will
> > > be clean. That has little to do with the modern concept of God
immersing
> > > one in water in order to be clean.
> >
>
> Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage sacramentally.
> It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
>
and
> > > has nothing to do about "an outward sign (or symbol) of an inward
change."
> >
already
> > done.
>
> And where does it say in Scripture that we withhold Baptism from infants?
Same place it says that Preists can't marry, the Pope can't be a child, and
Mary transfigured as a virgin.
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> Then, we would have to concern ourselves!with what Peter really means in 1
> Peter 3:21. Your statement would also leave Baptism to being a work than
> what it really is.
In a sense, it is. But works do not save. They are the result of
salvation.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > It is an interesting passage. Has nothing to do with baptism though.
>
> Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage sacramentally.
> It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
Well, given that is hard to get "sprinkle" out of "baptizo," what else would
you expect?
> > Baptism imparts no grace. It is merely a confession of what God has
already
> > done.
>
> And where does it say in Scripture that we withhold Baptism from infants?
Baptism is for believers.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > And where does it say in Scripture that we withhold Baptism from
infants?
>
> Same place it says that Preists can't marry, the Pope can't be a child,
and
> Mary transfigured as a virgin.
A question for anyone who can answer.... Is there a denomination that
practices infant baptism that also baptizes by immersion? I seem to recall
something about one, but I can't put my finger on it.... Maybe I am
mistaken.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
>
> Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:t3wx4.8006$5Y2.1...@news3.mia...
> >
> > "Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
> > news:0dux4.12590$vd7.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In no way does any classic greek use of "baptizo" represent
> > > "resurrection." It can represent being sunk or whelmed, but
> > > not "resurrection." as a literal act.
> >
> > Really? I don't think Paul would agree...
> >
> Don't interchange the act, purpose and symbolic meaning of Baptism with
the
> literal definition of a word. That is what happens in discussions about
> "blood" and "body" in the Lord's supper. We could go from there to
"living"
> water.
Well, I will grant that the word "baptizo" does not mean "resurrection."
However, Paul does indicate that Christian baptism is a picture of the
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But, then again, Paul wasn't
talking about throwing a little water on top of someone's head.
Funny story:
I grew up Methodist, and I remember being told that the difference between
Methodist and Baptists, is that while Methodists sprinkle, Baptists "put
your whole head under the water." (If you haven't guessed, it was a
Methodist who explained this to me.) Well, for some reason, that gave me
the idea that Baptists had a large bowl in the front of the church where
they would baptize someone by sticking their head in it. (Yes, I
know....dumb, but that's how the guy made it sound.") I felt pretty silly
when I learned better, until a friend, who grew up Baptist, told me she used
to believe that Methodist churches had a shower stall behind the choir for
baptizing. <g>
--
Jennifer Usher
Raul Goulden
> As I said, baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and
resurrection.
> It does not save, but is solely an act of obedience, in which we confess
> outwardly our inward conversion.
Your practice does not illustrate the act, and the word
"baptizo" does not give us the mode. Where is the cross
you nail to to demonstrate the death? Where is the
cave you put people into?
You are bringing other issues into this but the narrow point
to be made is that the greek word "baptizo" does not tell
us the mode. It has a much more profound meaning which is
found int the precise definition that Dale gives-
"Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character,
state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that
object; and by such change of character, state, or condition
does, in fact, baptize it."
RG
Raul Goulden
> A lexical study of baptizo indicates it means
> to "dip, immerse."
Usage determines meaning, usage of "baptizo" does
not support it ever meaning "dip" .........EVER!
"baptizo's" original usage in greek was "merse,"
it also then fell into various usages where there
was influence without intusposition such as being
drunk, or taking opiates, or a conquered land.
The word with all of its usages was in full flower at
the time the NT was written.
> the water" (Mark 1:9-10; cf. Acts 8:38). On the other hand, the Greek has
> words for sprinkle and pour that are not used for baptism.
Greek also has a word for dip, it is bapto.
Baptizo does not, nor has it ever meant "dip."
Usage determines meaning and greeks never used "baptizo"
for dipping.
It can mean "sink," but last time I checked you were dipping
or people not drowning them.
If there is anything else someone would like me to address
in that boilerplate piece let me know.
RG
Raul Goulden
> practices infant baptism that also baptizes by immersion? I seem to
recall
> something about one, but I can't put my finger on it.... Maybe I am
> mistaken.
One interesting section from classical greek is where a man's
head is held under water to be drowned. (baptizo)
Anyway Dale said that there was a group of Baptists in
prussia that actually baptize that way. They stick their
head in a bucket and that is their baptism. According to
the greeks this is a baptism.
I thought it was funny, anyway......
RG
Raul Goulden
> Baptism is for believers.
> Jennifer Usher
Do you think all "believer baptisms" are of believers???
RG
Raul Goulden
> Well, I will grant that the word "baptizo" does not mean "resurrection."
> However, Paul does indicate that Christian baptism is a picture
Baptist practice does not picture a six hour agonizing
death on the cross, it does not picture a burial in a cave.
If you want a clue to the meaning in the passage start looking
at the greek tenses. The meaning is spiritual not a prescription
for mode. The real problem with your position is that there is
profound meaning in the passage which you wrest for a proof
text for mode, the wresting reminds me of romanists claiming
that "the great cloud of witnesses" means we can pray to saints.
RG
Jennifer Usher
>
> > Baptism is for believers.
> > Jennifer Usher
>
> Do you think all "believer baptisms" are of believers???
Of course not.
--
Jennifer Usher
Daniel & Amy North
<ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
> Don't forget to literalize "washed white as snow with blood"
True. As Nicodemus said, "How can this be?" We must always remember that
His ways and thoughts are not ours.
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage sacramentally.
> > It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
>
> Well, given that is hard to get "sprinkle" out of "baptizo," what else would
> you expect?
How about wash? Can a person wash a small cut with a little water? He
sure can. Can God was sins with a little water? He sure can.
> > > Baptism imparts no grace. It is merely a confession of what God has
> already
> > > done.
> >
> > And where does it say in Scripture that we withhold Baptism from infants?
>
> Baptism is for believers.
Now, where does it say that babies cannot believe?
Daniel & Amy North
<ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
> Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > In article <16wx4.8020$5Y2.1...@news3.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
> > <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As I said, baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and
> resurrection.
> > > It does not save, but is solely an act of obedience, in which we confess
> > > outwardly our inward conversion.
> >
> > Then, we would have to concern ourselves with what Peter really means in 1
> > Peter 3:21. Your statement would also leave Baptism to being a work than
> > what it really is.
> >
> > --
> > In Christ Jesus,
> > Dan
> > "For while I was with you, I was determined to know only Jesus Christ
> > and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2, NET).
>
> Baptism is the answer of a good conscience. (already saved)
> Rom 4:1-6
> Rom 6:4,5
> Matt 28:19,20
> Acts 2:38
Isn't it interesting in Matthew 28, Jesus puts Baptism before teaching?
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>
> > Then, we would have to concern ourselves!with what Peter really means in 1
> > Peter 3:21. Your statement would also leave Baptism to being a work than
> > what it really is.
>
> In a sense, it is. But works do not save. They are the result of
> salvation.
Just my point. Baptism is a work. A work of God, not man.
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> How about wash? Can a person wash a small cut with a little water? He
> sure can. Can God was sins with a little water? He sure can.
BUT, God does not wash away sins with water.
> > Baptism is for believers.
>
> Now, where does it say that babies cannot believe?
Can they express that belief?
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > In a sense, it is. But works do not save. They are the result of
> > salvation.
>
> Just my point. Baptism is a work. A work of God, not man.
Not water baptism.
--
Jennifer Usher
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>
> > sure can. Can God was sins with a little water? He sure can.
>
> BUT, God does not wash away sins with water.
>
> > > Baptism is for believers.
> >
> > Now, where does it say that babies cannot believe?
>
> Can they express that belief?
The people who resist infant baptism are the same ones who
resist the idea that salvation is all of God. There is the
notion that unless you ~do~ something, you cannot be saved.
But the ~do~ is not the cause of salvation, it is the effect.
The promise was to 'you and your seed', and the command given
to circumcise the children as a sign of that promise.
Baptism has replaced circumcision in that regard, as a washing
away of sins, done to us as if we were helpless babes,
completely dependent for all our needs on our gracious
and loving Heavenly Father.
As far as sprinkling or dunking goes, 1 Cor 10:1-2 says that
the children of Israel were baptised as they passed through
the Red Sea. Now I ask you, whereas the Israelites may have
gotten sprinkled as they walked between the walls of water,
the Egyptians were the ones who got dunked!
Jennifer Usher
"Ben Hopkins" <bhop...@metalogicsystems.com> wrote in message
news:38C6CAEB...@metalogicsystems.com...
> The people who resist infant baptism are the same ones who
> resist the idea that salvation is all of God. There is the
> notion that unless you ~do~ something, you cannot be saved.
That is silly. Baptism has no part in salvation.
> But the ~do~ is not the cause of salvation, it is the effect.
> The promise was to 'you and your seed', and the command given
> to circumcise the children as a sign of that promise.
>
> Baptism has replaced circumcision in that regard, as a washing
> away of sins, done to us as if we were helpless babes,
> completely dependent for all our needs on our gracious
> and loving Heavenly Father.
>
> As far as sprinkling or dunking goes, 1 Cor 10:1-2 says that
> the children of Israel were baptised as they passed through
> the Red Sea. Now I ask you, whereas the Israelites may have
> gotten sprinkled as they walked between the walls of water,
> the Egyptians were the ones who got dunked!
So, am I to understand that you are claiming that baptism of infants somehow
imparts salvation?
--
Jennifer Usher
The DataRat
"Baptism is for believers"
And, the children of believers !
( Acts 2:38-39 )
"...given that is hard to get 'sprinkle'
out of 'baptizo'..."
It must be understood in context of
the OT. ~That~ is how the First Century
Christians understood it.
In OT context we see:
"To purify them, do this: Sprinkle
the water of cleansing on them..."
( Numbers 8:7 NIV )
The DataRat
The DataRat
"am I to understand that you are
claiming that baptism of infants
somehow imparts salvation?"
Baptism is a ~promise~ of salvation
to the Elect ( Acts 2:38-39 ).
The DataRat
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Ben Hopkins" <bhop...@metalogicsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:38C6CAEB...@metalogicsystems.com...
>
> > The people who resist infant baptism are the same ones who
> > resist the idea that salvation is all of God. There is the
> > notion that unless you ~do~ something, you cannot be saved.
>
> That is silly. Baptism has no part in salvation.
So why insist in a believers' baptism? Baptism is a sign
of salvation, a seal of the promise of God to love us. That
salvation and promise are not contingent on our acceptance
or belief, but on God's good pleasure. The promise was made
to believers and their seed. So the babys get baptised.
> > But the ~do~ is not the cause of salvation, it is the effect.
> > The promise was to 'you and your seed', and the command given
> > to circumcise the children as a sign of that promise.
> >
> > Baptism has replaced circumcision in that regard, as a washing
> > away of sins, done to us as if we were helpless babes,
> > completely dependent for all our needs on our gracious
> > and loving Heavenly Father.
> >
> > As far as sprinkling or dunking goes, 1 Cor 10:1-2 says that
> > the children of Israel were baptised as they passed through
> > the Red Sea. Now I ask you, whereas the Israelites may have
> > gotten sprinkled as they walked between the walls of water,
> > the Egyptians were the ones who got dunked!
>
> So, am I to understand that you are claiming that baptism of infants somehow
> imparts salvation?
Where did I say that?
Raul Goulden
> out of 'baptizo'..."
"baptizo" is no more signified by radical immersionist
practice than it is by sprinkling or sticking your head in a
bucket. It isn't ABOUT mode.
RG
Vernon O
Holy Spirit. How do we accomplish this?
Raul Goulden <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote in message
news:fKxx4.13001$vd7.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > A lexical study of baptizo indicates it means
> > to "dip, immerse."
>
>
> Usage determines meaning, usage of "baptizo" does
> not support it ever meaning "dip" .........EVER!
>
> "baptizo's" original usage in greek was "merse,"
> it also then fell into various usages where there
> was influence without intusposition such as being
> drunk, or taking opiates, or a conquered land.
> The word with all of its usages was in full flower at
> the time the NT was written.
>
> > the water" (Mark 1:9-10; cf. Acts 8:38). On the other hand, the Greek
has
> > words for sprinkle and pour that are not used for baptism.
>
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>
> > Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > > <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > As I said, baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and
> > resurrection.
> > > > It does not save, but is solely an act of obedience, in which we
confess
> > > > outwardly our inward conversion.
> > >
in 1
> > > Peter 3:21. Your statement would also leave Baptism to being a work
than
> > > what it really is.
> > >
> > > In Christ Jesus,
> > > Dan
> > > "For while I was with you, I was determined to know only Jesus Christ
> > > and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2, NET).
> >
> > Rom 4:1-6
> > Rom 6:4,5
> > Matt 28:19,20
> > Acts 2:38
>
> Isn't it interesting in Matthew 28, Jesus puts Baptism before teaching?
Teaching and discipleship are part of a continuing life of a believer or
"pressing on" as Paul puts it.
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> >
in 1
> > > Peter 3:21. Your statement would also leave Baptism to being a work
than
> > > what it really is.
> >
> > salvation.
>
> Just my point. Baptism is a work. A work of God, not man.
That is taking predestination a little too far. So God chooses then dunks
you. Cute.
That is the ultimate in HyperCalvinism.
Raul Goulden
> O.K. so Baptized in the Holy Spirit is a sprinkling on your forehead of
the
> Holy Spirit. How do we accomplish this?
Actually we know that baptism of the spirit is a sheding
forth, or pouring out.
None of this has to do with the fact that the word "baptizo"
does not instruct us as to mode of baptism which was the
topic of my post.
RG
Daniel & Amy North
<ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
> > Isn't it interesting in Matthew 28, Jesus puts Baptism before teaching?
>
>
> Teaching and discipleship are part of a continuing life of a believer or
> "pressing on" as Paul puts it.
And if it is true that a child can exhibit faith in God, then this would
also logically follow. That is, unless you deny that a child can have
faith, even within the womb as did John the Baptist.
Daniel & Amy North
<ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
> > Just my point. Baptism is a work. A work of God, not man.
>
> That is taking predestination a little too far. So God chooses then dunks
> you. Cute.
> That is the ultimate in HyperCalvinism.
Vernon, I'm a Lutheran, not a Calvinist. Also, in Ezekiel 36, God tells
us what He will do. Man has little of his own action or response involved
in what God says here. You're still trying to understand with your own
intellect and not accepting what God plainly says.
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>
> > > In a sense, it is. But works do not save. They are the result of
> > > salvation.
> >
> > Just my point. Baptism is a work. A work of God, not man.
>
> Not water baptism.
You don't know that for sure. It is God's means to effect His purpose.
Take a strong look at Scripture. God works through means. His means are
what has saved you, not the response of man.
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > How about wash? Can a person wash a small cut with a little water? He
> > sure can. Can God was sins with a little water? He sure can.
>
> BUT, God does not wash away sins with water.
Who says He cannot? God cleansed the leper king with water. He employed
those means to clean the disease of the body. Who says He cannot or
doesn't clean the sins of the soul the same way?
> > > Baptism is for believers.
> >
> > Now, where does it say that babies cannot believe?
>
> Can they express that belief?
They certainly can. Jennifer, are you a mother? Or, have you ever seen
the faith involved with an infant suckling his/her mother's breast? That
can denote faith just as much as John the Baptist showed his faith in
Elizabeth's womb.
Daniel & Amy North
<bhop...@metalogicsystems.com> wrote:
> As far as sprinkling or dunking goes, 1 Cor 10:1-2 says that
> the children of Israel were baptised as they passed through
> the Red Sea. Now I ask you, whereas the Israelites may have
> gotten sprinkled as they walked between the walls of water,
> the Egyptians were the ones who got dunked!
Uh huh. And they perished as a result. Gee, God can save or condemn with
the water.
A truly wonderful point. Thank you Ben.
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Ben Hopkins" <bhop...@metalogicsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:38C6CAEB...@metalogicsystems.com...
>
> > The people who resist infant baptism are the same ones who
> > resist the idea that salvation is all of God. There is the
> > notion that unless you ~do~ something, you cannot be saved.
>
> That is silly. Baptism has no part in salvation.
You keep claiming that, but Scripture says otherwise.
> > But the ~do~ is not the cause of salvation, it is the effect.
> > The promise was to 'you and your seed', and the command given
> > to circumcise the children as a sign of that promise.
> >
> > Baptism has replaced circumcision in that regard, as a washing
> > away of sins, done to us as if we were helpless babes,
> > completely dependent for all our needs on our gracious
> > and loving Heavenly Father.
> >
> > As far as sprinkling or dunking goes, 1 Cor 10:1-2 says that
> > the children of Israel were baptised as they passed through
> > the Red Sea. Now I ask you, whereas the Israelites may have
> > gotten sprinkled as they walked between the walls of water,
> > the Egyptians were the ones who got dunked!
>
> So, am I to understand that you are claiming that baptism of infants somehow
> imparts salvation?
Yes, based on God's promise. Do you have a problem with that? I find
great relief that I have assurance that if my baby dies, she will be in
heaven waiting for her mother and I to join her.
Daniel & Amy North
Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote:
Very true. If I were a Pastor, I could even perform a Baptism in a
shower, a spa, or have a Dixie Cup of water. Mode is immaterial.
Vernon O
Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jsxx4.8340$5Y2.1...@news3.mia...> news:MEwx4.331$Q27....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > Jennifer Usher <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:t3wx4.8006$5Y2.1...@news3.mia...> > > news:0dux4.12590$vd7.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > > Baptism illustrates our identification with Christ's
> > > > > ... resurrection. -Jennifer Usher
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In no way does any classic greek use of "baptizo" represent
> > > > "resurrection." It can represent being sunk or whelmed, but
> > > > not "resurrection." as a literal act.
> > >
> > > Really? I don't think Paul would agree...
> > >
> > Don't interchange the act, purpose and symbolic meaning of Baptism with
> the
> > literal definition of a word. That is what happens in discussions about
> > "blood" and "body" in the Lord's supper. We could go from there to
> "living"
> > water.
>
> Well, I will grant that the word "baptizo" does not mean "resurrection."
> death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But, then again, Paul wasn't
> talking about throwing a little water on top of someone's head.
>
> Funny story:
>
> I grew up Methodist, and I remember being told that the difference between
> Methodist and Baptists, is that while Methodists sprinkle, Baptists "put
> your whole head under the water." (If you haven't guessed, it was a
> Methodist who explained this to me.) Well, for some reason, that gave me
> the idea that Baptists had a large bowl in the front of the church where
> they would baptize someone by sticking their head in it. (Yes, I
> know....dumb, but that's how the guy made it sound.") I felt pretty silly
> when I learned better, until a friend, who grew up Baptist, told me she
used
> to believe that Methodist churches had a shower stall behind the choir for
> baptizing. <g>
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
:>) :>)
Part of learning is unlearning. How many times do we find that childhood
stories or songs are not accurate, biblically.
I have posted a couple times before that there are Catholic Churches here
installing full Baptismals. I am waiting for the first Presbyterian church
here to do so. It would make for interesting commentary for (from) my buddy
Raul.
Vernon O
Ever wish you could "unpress" "SEND"?
Vernon O
> > O.K. so Baptized in the Holy Spirit is a sprinkling on your forehead of
> the
> > Holy Spirit. How do we accomplish this?
>
>
> Actually we know that baptism of the spirit is a sheding
> forth, or pouring out.
>
> None of this has to do with the fact that the word "baptizo"
> does not instruct us as to mode of baptism which was the
> topic of my post.
>
> RG
>
>
> >
Yes, I know. Tradition and example do though. IE John the Baptist and the
Ethiopian
Raul Goulden
> I have posted a couple times before that
> there are Catholic Churches here
> installing full Baptismals. I am waiting for
> the first Presbyterian church
> here to do so. It would make for interesting
> commentary for (from) my buddy Raul.
Presbyterians have never rejected inferior modes of
baptism. Baptism performed with water and in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are regarded
as Christian Baptism regardless of the worthiness of
the individual (or Church) administering it. Radical
immersionists are the ones that elevate mode akin to
Rome's elevation of the Host.
RG
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean."
Raul Goulden
> Yes, I know. Tradition and example do though. IE John the Baptist and
the
> Ethiopian
Tradition does not help Baptists, and no where in the
NT is there an example of immersion for baptism.
RG
Vernon O
> In article <fpBx4.250$jz....@news.uswest.net>, "Vernon O"
> <ver...@contractor.net> wrote:
>
> > > Isn't it interesting in Matthew 28, Jesus puts Baptism before
teaching?
> >
> >
> > Teaching and discipleship are part of a continuing life of a believer or
> > "pressing on" as Paul puts it.
>
> And if it is true that a child can exhibit faith in God, then this would
> also logically follow. That is, unless you deny that a child can have
> faith, even within the womb as did John the Baptist.
Nothing in the bible or even fair tales indicated an exhibit of "FAITH" by
John the Baptist. You had better bone up on the meaning(s) of faith,
especially the "Faith" imbued by God.
Predestination? A STRONG case. If that is the argument it is proof that
salvation is predestined and Baptism is an act of obedience and only takes a
cognative capability to understand why one is being Baptized of their own
free will.
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> >
> > > > In a sense, it is. But works do not save. They are the result of
> > > > salvation.
> > >
> > > Just my point. Baptism is a work. A work of God, not man.
> >
> > Not water baptism.
>
> You don't know that for sure. It is God's means to effect His purpose.
> Take a strong look at Scripture. God works through means. His means are
> what has saved you, not the response of man.
That statement doesn't make any sense. Maybe you left something out.
Anyway Baptism is what is done by man to man and hopefully with the
recipients impetus, otherwise it is a bath.
God saves. It doesn't take anything you or anyone else does.
Vernon O
Daniel & Amy North <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
dunks
> > you. Cute.
> > That is the ultimate in HyperCalvinism.
>
> Vernon, I'm a Lutheran, not a Calvinist. Also, in Ezekiel 36, God tells
> us what He will do. Man has little of his own action or response involved
> in what God says here. You're still trying to understand with your own
> intellect and not accepting what God plainly says.
I know very well that you are not "Calvinist", that is why I overstated the
case.
I was a Lutheran, and I dare say that I know more about the teachings of the
Lutheran Church, its true beliefs, what they hold sternly and what they do
as a result of "that's just the way we do it"
In the Lutheran Church, even though you are sprinked or doused by your
parents and have God Parents swearing to train you, NOTHING is of any
significance until COFIRMATION. In the Baptist church we have a baby
dedication. While I was in the Lutheran circles this was the explanation in
synods Augustana, Evangelical, American, Missouri, Wisconsin. I was
personal freinds with the senior Pastor in every case. We had many
discussions of what the average attendor believed and why they did things.
BTW Luther was as close to "Calvinist" as most ever get. His main pain
with Calvin was that Luther wanted to change the Catholic Church and Calvin
wanted to destroy it.
Raul Goulden
> dedication.
"strange fire"
RG
Vernon O
>
> > > And where does it say in Scripture that we withhold Baptism from
> infants?
> >
> > Same place it says that Preists can't marry, the Pope can't be a child,
> and
> > Mary transfigured as a virgin.
>
> A question for anyone who can answer.... Is there a denomination that
> practices infant baptism that also baptizes by immersion? I seem to
recall
> something about one, but I can't put my finger on it.... Maybe I am
> mistaken.
Two Catholic Churches here do. A Lutheran church here has immersion if
requested for adults accepting Jesus or for adults who question the validity
of their infant baptism.
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
>
Vernon O
> > A question for anyone who can answer.... Is there a denomination that
> > practices infant baptism that also baptizes by immersion? I seem to
> recall
> > something about one, but I can't put my finger on it.... Maybe I am
> > mistaken.
>
> One interesting section from classical greek is where a man's
> head is held under water to be drowned. (baptizo)
> Anyway Dale said that there was a group of Baptists in
> prussia that actually baptize that way. They stick their
> head in a bucket and that is their baptism. According to
> the greeks this is a baptism.
>
> I thought it was funny, anyway......
>
> RG
>
>
I've heard of those as well. I've also heard of the "rule" where no one can
touch you when you immerse yourself.
Vernon O
>
> > Baptism is for believers.
> > Jennifer Usher
>
> Do you think all "believer baptisms" are of believers???
>
> RG
>
A slightly lower ratio than Christians compared to attendees.
Of course it is well known fact that there is a higher percentage of
Christians in Baptist Churches than in Presbyterian Churches.
Vernon O
> In article <rexx4.8313$5Y2.1...@news3.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage
sacramentally.
> > > It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
> >
> > Well, given that is hard to get "sprinkle" out of "baptizo," what else
would
> > you expect?
>
> How about wash? Can a person wash a small cut with a little water? He
> sure can. Can God was sins with a little water? He sure can.
>
Raul Goulden
> A slightly lower ratio than Christians compared to attendees.
> Of course it is well known fact that there is a higher percentage of
> Christians in Baptist Churches than in Presbyterian Churches.
Thats alright y'all have your liberal apostates too!
RG
Astalis
Vernon O wrote in message ...
>...In the Lutheran Church, even though you are sprinked or doused by your
>parents and have God Parents swearing to train you, NOTHING is of any
>significance until COFIRMATION...
Not so. The application of water and God's Word in baptism
is what grants the child faith. An infant or young child is given
faith through this Sacrament. Why should that be so suprising?
As Martin Luther wrote in the explanation to the third article of the
Apostle's Creed "I cannot by my own reason or strength come to
Jesus Christ or come to Him. But the Holy Spirit has called me by
the gospel..." Faith is not something we come to on our own
anyway. So why should it be so suprising that faith and belief would
be given to an infant or small child through God's Working within
something that He Himself sanctioned?
As taken from Luther's Small Catachism within the official
website of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod:
http://www.lcms.org/president/catechism.html
First
What is Baptism?
Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God's
command and combined with God's word.
Which is that word of God?
Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Matthew: "Therefore, go and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
Second
What benefits does Baptism give?
It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives
eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God
declare.
Which are these words and promises of God?
Christ our Lord says in the last chapter of Mark: "Whoever believes and is
baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"
(Mark 16:16).
Third
How can water do such great things?
Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does
these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the
water. For without God's word the water is plain water and no Baptism. But
with the word of God it is a Baptism, that is, a life-giving water, rich in
grace, and a washing of the new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul says
in Titus, chapter three: "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through
Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we
might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy
saying" (Titus 3:5ó8).
Fourth
What does such baptizing with water indicate?
It indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and
repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new
man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and
purity forever.
Where is this written?
St. Paul writes in Romans chapter six: "We were therefore buried with Him
through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the
dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Romans
6:4).
And the Large Catachism:
http://www.lcms.org/president/LC.htm
That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved
from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been
thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet
many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both
because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace
of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of
Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. 50] But if God did not
accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of
His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no
man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism
by the gifts of His Holy Ghost, as is plainly perceptible in some of the
church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were
baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until
the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is
pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support
falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit.
51] This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and
unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I
believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.
52] Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the
person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become
invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. 53] This
now is perhaps somewhat acute, but it rests entirely upon what I have said,
that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each
other, that is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even
though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives
it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received
or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the
Word.
55] Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we
have said) even though infants did not believe, which, however, is not the
case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should
rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some
one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of
his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not
received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and
profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God's Word
and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?
56] Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus:
The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I
myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come
hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I
believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is
Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my
faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit
to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives
me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/5358/index.html
-----------------------
Astalis
Vernon O wrote in message ...
>
>news:luthercat-080...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>> In article <rexx4.8313$5Y2.1...@news3.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
>> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage
>sacramentally.
>> > > It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
>> >
>> > Well, given that is hard to get "sprinkle" out of "baptizo," what else
>would
>> > you expect?
>>
>> How about wash? Can a person wash a small cut with a little water? He
>>
>He does it with NO water. It is His blood.
And through what is forgiveness offered through Baptism?
Water *and* God's Word. It's within Scripture and it was
commanded by Christ.
Can a person be saved without Baptism? Yes. Certainly.
There are occasions in which Baptism cannot be given before
death. The question more should be if Baptism was able to be given,
why did the person refuse when Christ Himself instituted and
commanded it?
Jennifer Usher
> Jennifer Usher wrote:
> > That is silly. Baptism has no part in salvation.
>
> So why insist in a believers' baptism? Baptism is a sign
> of salvation, a seal of the promise of God to love us. That
> salvation and promise are not contingent on our acceptance
> or belief, but on God's good pleasure. The promise was made
> to believers and their seed. So the babys get baptised.
It is an act of obedience. An outward confession. It imparts no grace, and
failure to be baptized does not lead to loss of salvation. Baptizing babies
is without value, or purpose.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"The DataRat" <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C6D13D...@home.com...
>
>
>
> "am I to understand that you are
> claiming that baptism of infants
> somehow imparts salvation?"
>
>
>
> to the Elect ( Acts 2:38-39 ).
Let me see if I understand you... You are a Calvinist, and you believe in
infant baptism? Now that's a hoot! How do you know the kid is one of the
"elect?"
--
Jennifer Usher
GSR
>
> How does immersion represent being put in a cave?
>
> In case you didn't know Jesus wasn't "buried."
> If you want to "act" it out maybe you should go into
> a closet?
>
> RG
>
Jennifer Usher
> Vernon, I'm a Lutheran, not a Calvinist. Also, in Ezekiel 36, God tells
> us what He will do. Man has little of his own action or response involved
> in what God says here. You're still trying to understand with your own
> intellect and not accepting what God plainly says.
It's been said, you could take Luther out of the Roman Catholic church, but
you couldn't get all of the Roman Catholic church out of Luther....
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> You don't know that for sure. It is God's means to effect His purpose.
> Take a strong look at Scripture. God works through means. His means are
> what has saved you, not the response of man.
You seem to believe in baptismal regeneration. Simple question. Can one be
saved without being baptized? That is, if a person is led to the Lord, but
dies before they can be baptized, are they still going to go to Heaven?
What if they are killed on their way to church to be baptized? Sorry,
again, baptism does not save. It simply expresses to the world that one is
confessing that one HAS BEEN SAVED.
--
Jennifer Usher
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Ben Hopkins" <bhop...@metalogicsystems.com> wrote in message
> news:38C6D01E...@metalogicsystems.com...
> > Jennifer Usher wrote:
>
> > > That is silly. Baptism has no part in salvation.
> >
> > So why insist in a believers' baptism? Baptism is a sign
> > of salvation, a seal of the promise of God to love us. That
> > salvation and promise are not contingent on our acceptance
> > or belief, but on God's good pleasure. The promise was made
> > to believers and their seed. So the babys get baptised.
>
> It is an act of obedience. An outward confession.
Obedience on the part of the parents, a confession of faith in
the promise of God made beievers and their seed.
> It imparts no grace, and
> failure to be baptized does not lead to loss of salvation.
Failure to baptise would be a sign that faith and the accompanying
obedience is lacking. So it (failure to baptise) does not lead to
a loss of salvation, but it may well be a sign that there is no
salvation.
> Baptizing babies
> is without value, or purpose.
How can obedience to a command of God be without value or purpose?
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> Who says He cannot? God cleansed the leper king with water. He employed
> those means to clean the disease of the body. Who says He cannot or
> doesn't clean the sins of the soul the same way?
God says He will not... The Bible says we are saved by GRACE, through
FAITH, not of WORKS. Nothing about baptism there....
> They certainly can. Jennifer, are you a mother? Or, have you ever seen
> the faith involved with an infant suckling his/her mother's breast? That
> can denote faith just as much as John the Baptist showed his faith in
> Elizabeth's womb.
I do not agree that John the Baptist showed faith. And I do not believe
that a baby can understand in order to have faith in God.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
> > So, am I to understand that you are claiming that baptism of infants
somehow
> > imparts salvation?
>
> Yes, based on God's promise. Do you have a problem with that? I find
> great relief that I have assurance that if my baby dies, she will be in
> heaven waiting for her mother and I to join her.
So, are you claiming that un-baptized babies go to Hell? Or Limbo? I mean,
didn't the Roman Catholic church abolish Limbo? What happened to all the
babies that were there?
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Part of learning is unlearning. How many times do we find that childhood
> stories or songs are not accurate, biblically.
This is true. I learned a lot of inaccurate stuff growing up. I mean, if
an adult told me it was in the Bible, I had been taught to not argue. I
especially remember some rather odd teaching in the area of eschatology.
> I have posted a couple times before that there are Catholic Churches here
> installing full Baptismals. I am waiting for the first Presbyterian
church
> here to do so. It would make for interesting commentary for (from) my
buddy
I remember reading something about some Roman Catholics seeking baptism by
immersion. For what it is worth, I was offered that option when I joined
the Methodist church at the age of 12. The sad thing is, I knew that it was
how Christ had been baptized, but since it seemed an inconvenience (and
because at the time I was still confused about how Baptists actually carried
out baptism), I opted for sprinkling. I do remember visiting a Baptist
church, and wondering where the kept the big bowl.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> P.S, I should have said Baptisteries.
> Ever wish you could "unpress" "SEND"?
Yes, I have....
You can cancel a message by choosing the message, and then clicking on
Message->Cancel Message. No guarantees, but it gets rid of it on many, if
not most servers.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> Two Catholic Churches here do. A Lutheran church here has immersion if
> requested for adults accepting Jesus or for adults who question the
validity
> of their infant baptism.
Are you saying the Catholic churches immerse the infants? I was offered
immersion as an option in the Methodist church, but was told I would have to
go to the Baptist church to be baptized.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
This is true. Not far from where I live is a Southern Baptist church that
is probably closer to the Unitarians than to other Baptists. Now that might
be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much.
--
Jennifer Usher
Vernon O
Astalis <ast...@epsi.net> wrote in message news:38c7f...@news.epsi.net...
>
> Vernon O wrote in message ...
>
> >...In the Lutheran Church, even though you are sprinked or doused by your
> >parents and have God Parents swearing to train you, NOTHING is of any
> >significance until COFIRMATION...
>
> Not so
I have read and practically memorized all of that stuff.
Tell me. Why do they have Catechism, Confirmation and first communion and
why do they (did they) have it only after the person was 12 years old?
THAT is the rest of the story. THAT shows the true full meaning of the need
by the individual in the Lutheran Church. With predestination, it was
taught (at least to those who would listen) that those who are not "chosen"
or "saved" would, by the spirit, not be able to complete.
Vernon O
>
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>
> > us what He will do. Man has little of his own action or response
involved
> > in what God says here. You're still trying to understand with your own
> > intellect and not accepting what God plainly says.
>
> It's been said, you could take Luther out of the Roman Catholic church,
but
> you couldn't get all of the Roman Catholic church out of Luther....
>
> --
> Jennifer Usher
>
>
Luther said, (in German) "I did not leave the Church of Rome, the Church of
Rome left me and all other Christians."
Vernon O
Can't answer that. I am quite sure that infants are sprinkled.
Vernon O
Astalis <ast...@epsi.net> wrote in message news:38c7f...@news.epsi.net...
>
> Vernon O wrote in message ...
> >
> >> In article <rexx4.8313$5Y2.1...@news3.mia>, "Jennifer Usher"
> >> <jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Are you so sure it doesn't? I choose to take the passage
> >sacramentally.
> >> > > It is a foregone conclusion that Baptists don't.
> >> >
> >> > Well, given that is hard to get "sprinkle" out of "baptizo," what
else
> >would
> >> > you expect?
> >>
> >> How about wash? Can a person wash a small cut with a little water? He
> >> sure can. Can God wash sins with a little water? He sure can.
> >>
> >He does it with NO water. It is His blood.
>
>
> And through what is forgiveness offered through Baptism?
> Water *and* God's Word. It's within Scripture and it was
> commanded by Christ.
> Can a person be saved without Baptism? Yes. Certainly.
> There are occasions in which Baptism cannot be given before
> death. The question more should be if Baptism was able to be given,
> why did the person refuse when Christ Himself instituted and
> commanded it?
>
> Astalis
>
> --
Forgiveness is NOT offered through Baptism or anything like it. Forgiveness
occurred about 2000 years ago.
Raul Goulden
GSR <gsu...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1TSx4.12399$kO5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> Oh my, my sides are hurting...that was funny!
Is that from "act" -ing out where the spear was stuck
into His side?
Raul Goulden
> Forgiveness is NOT offered through
> Baptism or anything like it. Forgiveness
> occurred about 2000 years ago.
Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him
before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy and without blame
before him in love
Raul Goulden
> obedience is lacking. So it (failure to baptise) does not lead to
> a loss of salvation, but it may well be a sign that there is no
> salvation.
For Reformed Christians the matter is quite serious,
ask Moses what happened when he neglected giving
the covenant sign of initiation to his son.
RG
Jennifer Usher
> Luther said, (in German) "I did not leave the Church of Rome, the Church
of
> Rome left me and all other Christians."
Thanks....
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > It is an act of obedience. An outward confession.
>
> Obedience on the part of the parents, a confession of faith in
> the promise of God made beievers and their seed.
The parents have no standing to "confess" on behalf of their child. They
should look to the advice in Proverbs, as well as other passages, rather
than expecting some ritual to do their work for them.
> > It imparts no grace, and
> > failure to be baptized does not lead to loss of salvation.
>
> Failure to baptise would be a sign that faith and the accompanying
> obedience is lacking. So it (failure to baptise) does not lead to
> a loss of salvation, but it may well be a sign that there is no
> salvation.
Now that is an interesting twist.....
> > Baptizing babies
> > is without value, or purpose.
>
> How can obedience to a command of God be without value or purpose?
God does not command that infants be baptized, only believers.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> > Failure to baptise would be a sign that faith and the accompanying
> > obedience is lacking. So it (failure to baptise) does not lead to
> > a loss of salvation, but it may well be a sign that there is no
> > salvation.
>
> ask Moses what happened when he neglected giving
> the covenant sign of initiation to his son.
Moses was not under grace...
--
Jennifer Usher
The DataRat
"You are a Calvinist, and you believe in
infant baptism? Now that's a hoot!"
The only Calvinists that don't are the
Reformed Baptists. And, THEY are a
minority among Reformation Christians.
"How do you know the kid is one of the
'elect?'..."
Good question !
As YOU stated in another post:
"It imparts no grace"
We don't know with unequivocal certainty
who is Elect when we perform infant baptism.
SAME WITH ADULT BAPTISM !But -as baptism "imparts no grace"- THAT
is not an issue.Acts 2:38-39 makes it clear that baptism
is a "promise". One which is made only
to the Elect.Just as in adult baptism, that promise is
null and void to the reprobate."For the promise is for you and your
children, and for all who are far off,
AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD
SHALL CALL TO HIMSELF"
( Acts 2:39 NASB )
The DataRat
Jennifer Usher
> Can't answer that. I am quite sure that infants are sprinkled.
Well, I once developed a theory that sprinkling came about in order to allow
infant baptism.
--
Jennifer Usher
GoldRush
> Incidentally, the Calvinist Rodent is NOT
> knocking Reformed Baptists. There is
> a Reformed Baptist church up the street
> from where Bro. Rat lives. James White,
> a Greek scholar and nationally prominent
> Christian apologist being one of the Elders
> of that church.
>
> Charles Spurgeon was a Reformed Baptist.
> They're good, solid Calvinists ( Spurgeon
> said that "Calvinism is a nic name for
> Christianity" ), except for their little quirk on
> baptism, and -in some instances- a slight
> tendency toward Pietism.
>
> The DataRat
Your friends, the Calvinist "mutts", have belonged to both the
Presbyterian and the Reformed Baptist churches.
We approve of infant sprinkling and/or adult immersion. Whatever
witnesses to the world of the forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ
is fine with us.
We believe it is righteous and wonderful whenever anybody
submits themselves or their family members to water baptism, through
any mode, for they publically show to the world that they have faith God
has
sealed them, under Covenant, for Himself.
Practice and enjoyments of the sacraments
is what separates (sanctifies us) the faithful unto God
and declares us different than the unbelieving world.
Sacramental Baptism does not impart salvation.
Sacramental Baptism *evidences* Spiritual salvation.
And to get all hung up on when, where, and how, is futile and a waste
of time and energy and very divisive to the body of Christ.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Astalis
>Forgiveness is NOT offered through Baptism or anything like it.
Forgiveness
>occurred about 2000 years ago.
Scripture states otherwise:
Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe
will be condemned..."
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit..."
Acts 22:16
'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your
sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'
Galations 3
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Forgiveness was won for us by Christ on the cross. That is correct.
Forgiveness is offered through by grace through faith in Jesus. That is
correct.
Baptism is a means of grace through which God offers the forgiveness of sins
and gives the gift of faith b water and God's Word. That is also correct
Mark 16
15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to
every creature.
16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not
believe will be condemned.
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/5358/index.html
-----------------------
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Moses was not under grace..."
Nice Dispensationalist thought, but
the dispies are wrong !
No man can live up to the Law,
we're ALL sinners ( Isaiah 59:12,
Proverbs 20:9, Romans 3:9, 3:23,
1 Kings 8:46, 1 Kings 8:46, et. al. ).
If Moses wasn't under grace, he's
in hell right now awaiting the Final
Judgment !
But, as Romans 4 informs us, the
grace of God through faith goes
back to Abraham, and certainly then
would be available to Moses.
Sola Gratia !
The DataRat
Raul Goulden
> Jennifer Usher
What do you think he was under???
RG
Gal. 3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God,
it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Raul Goulden
> Well, I once developed a theory that sprinkling came about in order to
allow
> infant baptism.
Sprinkling is how all of the "various baptisms" of the OT
were performed. You are impoverished in your OT
knowledge.
RG
"So shall he sprinkle many nations"
Astalis
>Moses was not under grace...
>
>--
>Jennifer Usher
Indeed he was. The Old Testament believers were those who believed
within the Messiah promised to them way back in Genesis 3:15. New Testament
believers are those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah who came.
Astalis
Jennifer Usher wrote in message ...
>So, are you claiming that un-baptized babies go to Hell? Or Limbo? I
mean,
>didn't the Roman Catholic church abolish Limbo? What happened to all the
>babies that were there?
They are left in God's hands.
Astalis
>
>>
your
>> >parents and have God Parents swearing to train you, NOTHING is of any
>> >significance until COFIRMATION...
>>
>> Not so
>
>
>I have read and practically memorized all of that stuff.
>
>Tell me. Why do they have Catechism, Confirmation and first communion and
>why do they (did they) have it only after the person was 12 years old?
Did blind man in John 9 who Jesus gave sight to and confessed Jesus to
be the Savior jump right from ""Whether He is a sinner or not I do not
know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see."
right into Christian Doctrine101?
And does a small infant eat solid food only days after the formula?
>THAT is the rest of the story. THAT shows the true full meaning of the
need
>by the individual in the Lutheran Church. With predestination, it was
>taught (at least to those who would listen) that those who are not "chosen"
>or "saved" would, by the spirit, not be able to complete.
Regarding the Doctrine of Predestination, you're analysis of what the
Lutheran Church believes regarding it is in error. From the LCMS website:
http://www.lcms.org/belief/doct-14.html
Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod.[Adopted
1932]
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.) Pt. 13 Of the Election of
Grace
35. By the election of grace we mean this truth, that all those
who by the grace of God alone, for Christ's sake, through the
means of grace, are brought to faith, are justified, sanctified,
and preserved in faith here in time, that all these have already
from eternity been endowed by God with faith, justification,
sanctification, and preservation in faith, and this for the same
reason, namely, by grace alone, for Christ's sake, and by way of
the means of grace. That this is the doctrine of the Holy
Scripture is evident from Eph. 1:3-7; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14; Acts
13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; 2 Tim. 1:9; Matt. 24:22-24 (cp. Form. of
Conc. Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraphs 5, 8, 23; M., p. 705).
36. Accordingly we reject as an anti-Scriptural error the doctrine
that not alone the grace of God and the merit of Christ are the
cause of the election of grace, but that God has, in addition,
found or regarded something good in us which prompted or caused
Him to elect us, this being variously designated as "good works,"
"right conduct," "proper self-determination," "refraining from
willful resistance," etc. Nor does Holy Scripture know of an
election "by foreseen faith," "in view of faith," as though the
faith of the elect were to be placed before their election; but
according to Scripture the faith which the elect have in time
belongs to the spiritual blessings with which God has endowed them
by His eternal election. For Scripture teaches Acts 13:48: "And as
many as were ordained unto eternal life believed." Our Lutheran
Confession also testifies (Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraph 8; M. p.
705): "The eternal election of God however, not only foresees and
foreknows the salvation of the elect, but is also, from the
gracious will and pleasure of God in Christ Jesus, a cause which
procures, works, helps, and promotes our salvation and what
pertains thereto; and upon this our salvation is so founded that
the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, Matt. 16:18, as is
written John 10:28: `Neither shall any man pluck My sheep out of
My hand'; and again, Acts 13:48: `And as many as were ordained to
eternal life believed.."'
37. But as earnestly as we maintain that there is an election of
grace, or a predestination to salvation, so decidedly do we teach,
on the other hand, that there is no election of wrath, or
predestination to damnation. Scripture plainly reveals the truth
that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal,
that is, that it embraces all men without exception, that Christ
has fully reconciled all men unto God, and that God earnestly
desires to bring all men to faith, to preserve them therein, and
thus to save them, as Scripture testifies, 1 Tim. 2:4: "God will
have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth." No man is lost because God has predestined him to eternal
damnation. -- Eternal election is a cause why the elect are
brought to faith in time, Acts 13:48; but election is not a cause
why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God. The
reason assigned by Scripture for this sad fact is that these men
judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, putting the Word of
God from them and obstinately resisting the Holy Ghost, whose
earnest will it is to bring also them to repentance and faith by
means of the Word, Act 13:46; 7:51; Matt. 23:37.
38. To be sure, it is necessary to observe the Scriptural
distinction between the election of grace and the universal will
of grace. This universal gracious will of God embraces all men;
the election of grace, however, does not embrace all, but only a
definite number, whom "God hat from the beginning chosen to
salvation," 2 Thess. 2:13, the "remnant," the "seed" which "the
Lord left," Rom. 9:27- 29, the "election," Rom. 11:7; and while
the universal will of grace is frustrated in the case of most men,
Matt. 22:14; Luke 7:30, the election of grace attains its end with
all whom it embraces, Rom. 8:28-30. Scripture, however, while
distinguishing between the universal will of grace and the
election of grace, does not place the two in opposition to each
other. On the contrary, it teaches that the grace dealing with
those who are lost is altogether earnest and fully efficacious for
conversion. Blind reason indeed declares these two truths to be
contradictory; but we impose silence on our reason. The seeming
disharmony will disappear in the light of heaven, 1 Cor. 13:12.
39. Furthermore, by election of grace, Scripture does not mean
that one part of God's counsel of salvation according to which He
will receive into heaven those who persevere in faith unto the
end, but, on the contrary, Scripture means this, that God, before
the foundation of the world, from pure grace, because of the
redemption of Christ, has chosen for His own a definite number of
persons out of the corrupt mass and has determined to bring them
through Word and Sacrament, to faith and salvation.
40. Christians can and should be assured of their eternal
election. This is evident from the fact that Scripture addresses
them as the chosen ones and comforts them with their election,
Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13. This assurance of one's personal
election, however, springs only from faith in the Gospel, from the
assurance that God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world
to condemn the world; on the contrary, through the life,
suffering, and death of His Son He fully reconciled the whole
world of sinners unto Himself. Faith in this truth leaves no room
for the fear that God might still harbor thoughts of wrath and
damnation concerning us. Scripture inculcates that in Rom. 8:32,
33: "He that spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all,
how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
justifieth." Luther's pastoral advice is therefore in accord with
Scripture: "Gaze upon the wounds of Christ and the blood shed for
you; there predestination will shine forth." (St. Louis ed., II,
181; on Gen. 26:9) That the Christian obtains the personal
assurance of his eternal election in this way is taught also by
our Lutheran Confessions (Formula of Concord, Triglot, p. 1071,
Paragraph 26, M. 709): "Of this we should not judge according to
our reason nor according to the Law or from any external
appearance. Neither should we attempt to investigate the secret,
concealed abyss of divine predestination, but should give heed to
the revealed will of God. For He has made known unto us the
mystery of His will and made it manifest through Christ that it
might be preached, Eph. 1:9ff.; 2 Tim. 1:9f." -- In order to
insure the proper method of viewing eternal election and the
Christian's assurance of it, the Lutheran Confessions set forth at
length the principle that election is not to be considered "in a
bare manner (nude), as though God only held a muster, thus: `This
one shall be saved, that one shall be damned"' (Formula of
Concord, Triglot, p. 1065, Paragraph 9; M., p. 706); but "the
Scriptures teach this doctrine in no other way than to direct us
thereby to the Word, Eph. 1:13; 1 Cor. 1:7; exhort to repentance,
2 Tim. 3:16; urge to godliness, Eph. 1:14; John 15:3; strengthen
faith and assure us of our salvation, Eph. 1:13; John 10:27f.; 2
Thess. 2:13f." (Formula of Concord, Triglot, p. 1067, Paragraph
12; M., p. 707). -- To sum up, just as God in time draws the
Christian unto Himself through the Gospel, so He has already in
His eternal election endowed them with "sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth," 2 Thess. 2:13. Therefore: If, by
the grace of God, you believe in the Gospel of the forgiveness of
your sins for Christ's sake, you are to be certain that you also
belong to the number of God's elect, even as Scripture, 2 Thess.
2:13, addresses the believing Thessalonians as the chosen of God
and gives thanks to God for their election.
Ben Hopkins
>
> > Well, I once developed a theory that sprinkling came about in order to
> allow
> > infant baptism.
> > Jennifer Usher
>
> Sprinkling is how all of the "various baptisms" of the OT
> were performed. You are impoverished in your OT
> knowledge.
What do you expect from a dispensationalist?
Daniel & Amy North
"Raul Goulden" <presby...@charlotte.com> wrote:
> > Moses was not under grace...
> > --
> > Jennifer Usher
>
> What do you think he was under???
It makes me wonder if the Dispensationalists really do believe there are
two modes of salvation: One for the adults and one for the children.
--
In Christ Jesus,
Dan
"For while I was with you, I was determined to know only Jesus Christ
and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2, NET).
Daniel & Amy North
<jenni...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Daniel & Amy North" <luth...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:luthercat-090...@ci72803-a.nash1.tn.home.com...
>
> > > So, am I to understand that you are claiming that baptism of infants
> somehow
> > > imparts salvation?
> >
> > Yes, based on God's promise. Do you have a problem with that? I find
> > great relief that I have assurance that if my baby dies, she will be in
> > heaven waiting for her mother and I to join her.
>
> So, are you claiming that un-baptized babies go to Hell? Or Limbo? I mean,
> didn't the Roman Catholic church abolish Limbo? What happened to all the
> babies that were there?
Nope. But something does have to be said about the babies' parents who
deny that the babies have original sin. Says something of a compromise
and a real watering down of Christ's redemption and how far it actually
reaches.