"Why Baptize Babies" by Mark Horne

[sparkysugarsdad]

Infant baptism is about 2 things. 1 - God. First and foremost baptism is an act that God does. The pastor who performs the act is just a conduit. 2 - Vows. The parents and sponsors (godparents) take vows to bring up the child in the Christian faith and life. Also, part of it in Episcopalian and Methodist liturgies is a renunciation of sin and a reaffirmation of faith. It's pretty powerful. Also, many churches invite the children to gather near the front to witness the baptism. This gives the parents the opportunity to talk about the child's own baptism. This makes salvation an ongoing series of experiences, which, I think, is quite Scriptural. The Bible speaks of salvation as a continuing act - I am saved, I have been saved, I am continually being saved.

[elfdream]

Quote:The Bible speaks of salvation as a continuing act - I am saved, I have been saved, I am continually being saved.

Which is also the Catholic way of looking at it. I was fascinated by the fact that they don't practice 'event' salvation as in 'I was saved on July 8 1982' . They see nothing wrong with that as such but that's just not how they use the word. That's why when someone would out and out ask a Catholic (or Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist etc) 'Are you Saved?" and they looked at you strangely or didn't know how to answer it would be used as 'proof' that they weren't saved. They have a different frame of reference when it comes to the word 'saved'.

[chris1000bc]

(02-07-2011 09:03 AM)elfdream Wrote:  

Quote:The Bible speaks of salvation as a continuing act - I am saved, I have been saved, I am continually being saved.

Which is also the Catholic way of looking at it. I was fascinated by the fact that they don't practice 'event' salvation as in 'I was saved on July 8 1982' . They see nothing wrong with that as such but that's just not how they use the word. That's why when someone would out and out ask a Catholic (or Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist etc) 'Are you Saved?" and they looked at you strangely or didn't know how to answer it would be used as 'proof' that they weren't saved. They have a different frame of reference when it comes to the word 'saved'.

That's very interesting.

[elfdream]

Quote:You are conflating sanctification and regeneration.

Explain please. I think this is another case of using a different dictionary but want to make sure.

[elfdream]

(02-07-2011 12:58 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(02-07-2011 12:42 PM)elfdream Wrote:  Explain please. I think this is another case of using a different dictionary but want to make sure.

I believe the problem is RCC's equate sanctification and regeneration. They are two distinct things. Regeneration is a singular event without human participation. Sanctification is a continual process wherein the believer, acted upon by the Holy Spirit, is conformed to the image of the Son.

The problem with conflating the two is you have either a sanctification that doesn't require human effort because we know that God does this thing to us or you have a regeneration that requires human participation because we know we don't just "let go and let God."

We believe in sanctifying grace which comes through baptism. That is another difference in the dictionary. We also believe in actual grace, called actual because it is active. They are two different thing.

We believe that God gives us grace to do the things Jesus commanded us to. If that is what you mean by human participation then I suppose that part is true but realize that it is nothing we do in our own strength.

[elfdream]

(02-08-2011 12:04 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(02-07-2011 01:12 PM)elfdream Wrote:  We believe in sanctifying grace which comes through baptism. That is another difference in the dictionary. We also believe in actual grace, called actual because it is active. They are two different thing.

We believe that God gives us grace to do the things Jesus commanded us to. If that is what you mean by human participation then I suppose that part is true but realize that it is nothing we do in our own strength.

I'm not trying to be patronizing at all and I realize you don't *need* my "seal of approval" but I just wanted to say that I'm certain that I know lots of people who love and serve our Saviour in the RCC. I am presuming by your words that you are one of them as well. Unlike fundy baptists and fundy Pentecostals and fundy Reformed (that I've been involved with in the past) I may disagree with any number of groups but I refuse to reject you out of hand based on what I don't agree with.

(All this applies to our resident Lutheran whom I've been debating with as well)

I suspect that if we were all being persecuted in the Middle East or in some village in a Muslim state in Africa we'd all be happy just to find each other to worship together.

That's fine. I'm not there to convert anyone...just answer some questions and have civil discussions. And no you're not patronizing.

I grew up in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. went to BJ and attended all the Bible Doctrine classes and took it all to heart. Knew my Bible as much as it was possible to know it... so I might have some of you at a bit of a disadvantage because I already know where most of you are coming from but where I am coming from (and not just me) may be brand new. I'm just here to throw in another point of view.

And I can say that I am learning a lot about Calvinism here so its all good because we seem to be a pretty accepting group.

[fundyvangelicalcatholic]

@ Elfdream - The Catholic theology rocked me to my core. I too was IFB born and bred but shunned BJ for Liberty (I was sooo liberal). After a long journey, I found myself in the Catholic Church. My take on baptism now meshes with the Catholic theology.

Catholics believe that we are the true church based on Peter. Our view is that Protestants shunned all parts of Catholic tradition sans the Bible and are basing their faith in Christ solely on their interpretation of the scriptures (sola scriptura).

If you look back at the early church, Paul actually consulted Peter on whether or not circumcision was necessary if and when someone was baptized into the faith who may not have been circumcised. Baptism replaced circumcision based on Peters council. It was customary that when the head of the household was converted to Christianity, he was baptized as well as his house. Now, I take that mean that his family was then baptized based on his conversion (unless they actually got a hose and sprayed his dwelling ). Of course culturally, it didnt matter what the wife "thought". She was baptized too as part of the house along with the kids.

In the Catholic Church today, baptism is viewed as necessary for salvation and as initiation into the Church. You re-affirm your baptism during first communion and then confirmation. Every year at Easter, the whole church renews the individual vows taken by their parents/godparents during their initial baptism. Put it like this, baptism equals initiation and you re-affirm your baptism at every step to truly know what you were initiated into.

This is a far cry from IFB and mainline Protestant doctrine. It still makes for interesting debate because it is a tenant of the Catholic faith while more symbolic in the Protestant realm.

[Elijah Craig]

The assertion that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant fails to convince me. Jeremiah said that outward circumcision would be replaced with circumcision of the heart. It has always seemed to me that the essence of the New Covenant is a renewed focus on one's inner life as seen most plainly in the teachings of Jesus. To simply transfer the sign of the covenant to another outward action doesn't make sense to me.

However, reading Colossians 2:11-12 in the NIV presents a new look to me that I haven't fully processed.

[fundyvangelicalcatholic]

(02-10-2011 07:12 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(02-08-2011 12:48 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote:  If you look back at the early church, Paul actually consulted Peter on whether or not circumcision was necessary if and when someone was baptized into the faith who may not have been circumcised. Baptism

That makes a lot of sense given that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews.

Quote:replaced circumcision based on Peters council. It was customary that

I suspect it was based on divine revelation and interpretation of Scripture as opposed to merely Peter's opinion.

One interesting thing I always wondered is how RCC's deal with Paul calling Peter out for being a Judaizer?

Simple - Jesus deemed Peter the foundation of the Church. That didn't make Peter perfect, but at the same time Peter was the head of the Church. It wouldn't suprise me if Peter's human nature (and the fact that he was a Jew) leaned Jew. Of course, God worked on Peter showing him that Jewish customary tradition and law was no longer the law of the Church and that Gentiles were part of God's plan(Acts 10).

[elfdream]

Quote:One interesting thing I always wondered is how RCC's deal with Paul calling Peter out for being a Judaizer?

Popes are not perfect. We do not believe them to be impeccable. They are only human after all. They have been called out by various men and women down through the centuries. Contrary to myth they can indeed be rebuked for lapses in judgment.