DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Religious Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2756--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: August 2, 2015, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Deborah link ---
>
> But nevertheless they enter the covenant through physical
birth of Jewish parents. This is different from the new
covenant.
--- End Quote ---
How so? Asserting something doesn't make it true. Paul says
that having one believing parent makes the children clean. That
is slightly different from Judaism where the mother had to be a
believer.
--- Quote ---
> In any case, circumcision predates the covenant at Sinai.
--- End Quote ---
I do not see the significance of this? Where are you going with
this? Of course it did; and Jews still say the covenant with
Abraham supersedes the laws given through Moses. If there is a
conflict between observing the Sabbath and obeying the
commandment to circumcise, they do the circumcision.
But if we look into the details of the Abrahamic covenant, we
see God making a promise to Abraham.
Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall
possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
The Abrahamic covenant was not restricted solely to male
offspring of Israel.
Genesis 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your
foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and
you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you,
every man child in your generations, he that is born in the
house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy
money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in
your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
The Israelite who bought servants had spiritual authority over
them. Compare that to the man in the New Testament whose entire
household was baptized. We are not informed that there were
children or servants, but it does say "household" which implies
more than "immediate family."
--- Quote ---
> I agree, this verse indicates that there is a difference. But
people and churches disagree enormously on what the implications
of that difference are.
--- End Quote ---
We can't resolve here what various churches teach; but they
surely do disagree. The question for us if we can resolve some
things among ourselves reasoning from the Scriptures.
--- Quote ---
> Personally, I think that our children have a special status
before God until they are old enough to make a commitment to
Jesus for themselves. They do not need baptism until then.
--- End Quote ---
I find this idea doubtful. If that were true, we would be
doing children a favor by aborting them before they were born or
killing them after so they never reached the age where they had
to make a decision. We could send them all to Heaven by killing
them before they became adults and needed baptism to be saved.
That is a horrible though, but it is a logical conclusion of the
premises of that idea.
--- Quote ---
> Infant baptism muddies the waters enormously... what if they
reject the faith as adults and never return?
--- End Quote ---
In my way of thinking, to whom much is given, much is required.
What happens to people who repent and are baptized as adults
only to fall away? They were given a gift from God through
baptism and did not the gift responsibly. I don't see any
difference between people baptized as children or adults if they
later reject God after receiving His blessings.
--- Quote ---
> He knew about circumcision of the heart.
--- End Quote ---
Of course he did. Why would that make someone born again?
--- Quote ---
> What do you mean by 'can move like the wind'?
--- End Quote ---
I was referring to this passage -- let me quote it:
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it
goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
That says that every one who has been born of the Spirit can
move like the wind. I know what I make of it; the question was
what do you make of it? And why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to
know about it?
--- Quote ---
> I agree, that this is a major problem when discussing baptism.
We all come to it with preconceived ideas, and several of the
texts can be interpreted in more than one way (such as John
3:1-8).
--- End Quote ---
Some interpretations are better than others; and some have holes
a mile wide. For me, I cannot accept any ideas which do not
explain why Jesus expected Nicodemus to know this. It is Old
Testament material.
There are a few more clues further down in the chapter when
Jesus discusses the "Son of Man." Nicodemus would have
understood that phrase the way it's used in the Old Testament --
not the way many Christians do.
--- Quote ---
> Turning your back on the faith altogether is like a dog
returning to its vomit (II Peter 2:21,22). He isn't referring to
the individual sins that we all commit. Baptism is a
once-for-all event (this is the teaching of all churches, as far
as I know), so if our future sins are not dealt with, we have a
problem... we should wait until our deathbeds before being
baptised!
--- End Quote ---
That was how Constantine looked at it according to some people
when he waited until he was dying to be baptized. Let me quote
the passage from Peter for more clarity.
2 Peter 2: 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of
the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the
latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
This seems fairly clear to me. Doesn't it? Those who were
given the gifts that could lead to salvation and the knowledge
of how to live are worse off if they fall away than if they had
never escaped the pollutions in the first place.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the
holy commandment delivered unto them.
If baptism covered future sins, this would not be true.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb,
The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was
washed to her wallowing in the mire.
I read the sow being washed and returning to the mire as an
oblique reference to baptism.
--- Quote ---
> Why do you say that our future sins could condemn us? Isn't it
Jesus' blood that cleanses us? And He is not going to be
crucified again. Baptism is symbolic of this.
--- End Quote ---
I follow the Catholic belief on this fairly closely. Baptism
cleans us from any of the fallen human nature we may have been
born with. It corrects the fallen human nature which entered the
world through Adam. We did not sin ourselves to get that
nature. It is the result of what Adam and Eve did. We did
not sin to get that nature, and we cannot get rid of it by our
own efforts by repenting. Jesus came to correct how sin came
into the world -- and to remove that from us.
If an adult has sinned -- and surely he will have -- he needs
to repent of the sins he has committed himself before being
baptized. These can be easily forgiven since such sins were
committed in the fallen state which was thrust on him by the
Adamic fall. You might even say they are sins of ignorance.
Sins of ignorance are wrong but far more easily forgiven. (Think
of what Jesus said of Pilate and the Roman soldiers who did the
actual crucifixion versus the Jewish leaders who did not do much
but talked and their talk led to Jesus' death. The sins of the
Romans could be forgiven more easily than the sins of the Jewish
leaders who knew better.) The adult being baptized regrets
those sins he committed in his prior life. They are forgiven.
Things are different later. If he knows what he's doing, he
cannot be excused so easily. Jesus did not die so people could
keep sinning and sinning. If we sin knowingly after repenting
and being baptized, we are responsible. Jesus expects us to be
willing to correct things if we can. I can't steal from you
and say Jesus died so it's okay. If I steal from you, I need to
pay you back. If I'm not willing to give back what I stole,
I'm obviously not sorry at all. And if I think Jesus is going
to forgive me when I harbor the urge to steal in my heart and
perhaps even delight in it, I am trampling on the cross. Thus
the Catholic and Orthodox Churches teach the practice of
penance.
Baptism cleans us from the stain of sin up to the point of
baptism, and there is some immunity from being held accountable
while growing up -- but after knowing the truth and isn't that
what confirmation is about -- if we sin knowingly, we can't
expect Jesus to fix it all for us -- and most especially if we
stubbornly remain mired down in some sin -- and show no remorse
about it and are unwilling to try to fix anything. Some sins
can't be corrected entirely; but we can still usually try to do
something. Even if I return something I stole to someone, I
haven't corrected things completely. There is still a scar
there, a bad memory. But I believe if we are willing to fix
what we can, then Jesus will somehow fix what we can't.
--- Quote ---
> And not only those churches, but many Protestant ones also -
including the Anglican church, which is the one I currently
belong to. I respect their beliefs, although I am not personally
convinced by their arguments.
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure the Anglicans are convinced by their own arguments
at times or even if they always agree.
--- Quote ---
> Don't Catholic children have their 'first communion' at a
relatively early age? Isn't that before confirmation?
--- End Quote ---
From what I have read, it follows confirmation. And
confession. Any sins they committed after being baptized must
be confessed and penance done. (Catholic Crusader or Piper can
correct me if I have that wrong.)
For me, the distinction lies between knowing and not knowing.
People can carry the load of all kinds of sins. The fallen
Adamic nature is one, and for me that's the important thing
about being introduced into the Body of Christ through baptism.
That sin which we did not commit and do not understand is
taken care of by Jesus. Then there are sins of ignorance we
committed as children; and those can be excuse also and taken
care of. The load of those sins is removed to make it easier
for us to lead informed and sin-free lives in the future.
--- Quote ---
> The Anglican church allows unconfirmed children to take
communion. I have never been confirmed, nor has my daughter
(although at the age of 25 she is now considering it). As
someone coming into the Anglican church from 'outside', I don't
really see things the way they do.
--- End Quote ---
Perhaps then it's just as well then that you didn't go through
confirmation.
#Post#: 2757--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: August 2, 2015, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: CatholicCrusader link ---
>
> It would be good for all to look into the meaning of Covenant
to the Jews of the time as a kinship (i.e. family) bond between
two parties, with conditions or obligations, established and
sealed by an oath (sacramentum), the sharing of a meal, and some
sign. That has not changed.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, the person was considered to be a different person in some
way. Each person in a covenant took on part of the identity of
the other. Sometimes names were changed to show this.
Blood was also shed. I believe in the New Testament and in
parts of the Old too, the covenant we're talking about is shown
by the circumcision of the heart. Jesus already did his part.
The question is if we are willing to take up our own crosses and
follow him as he said. Are we willing to sacrifice any dark
spots in our hearts when they are shown to us?
The story about Ananias and Sapphira tells us something about
how physical things were owned in common by that community; but
beneath that story lies a greater truth which is spiritually we
do not own ourselves. The Body and Blood of Christ is
communal. When we are spiritually maturing, we may need to
take more than we give; but we should mature and then be willing
to give more than we take. Those who want to take spiritually
and never give may be committing a worse offense than Ananias
and Sapphira for all I know. I consider the attitude of "I
can sin if I want and don't need to do anything about it because
Jesus already did it all" a form of wanting to take, take, take
-- a dangerous idea. I already fear for my salvation at
times; but if I thought like that, I'd really be afraid. The
dark spots on the heart must be sacrificed so Jesus can give us
a new heart.
#Post#: 2758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
DIR By: CatholicCrusader
Date: August 2, 2015, 9:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is why its problematic to discuss such topics in isolation,
because they are part of a tapestry, a bigger picture: Covenant,
Baptism as the sign, Eucharist as the meal shared, the "oath"
(Sacrament) sworn, the nature of Christ's sacrifice on the cross
(I started a thread on that, click here
HTML http://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com/catholic-discussion/the-fourth-cup-dr-scott-hahn/).<br
/>. . . . . these things are all tied together, and one cannot
be
examined without examining them all and seeing how they all tie
together.
#Post#: 2759--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
DIR By: Deborah
Date: August 2, 2015, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> That says that every one who has been born of the Spirit can
move like the wind. I know what I make of it; the question was
what do you make of it?
--- End Quote ---
But it wasn't a question - you made a statement:
--- Quote ---
> Jesus said that those who are born of the Spirit can move like
the wind. I have not met many people who claim to have born of
the Spirit who can do that. I can believe they have been born
of water, but I cannot believe they are born of the Spirit.
There are people who can move like the wind; and those I can
believe have been born of the Spirit.
--- End Quote ---
Is it too much to ask you to explain what you mean - since you
were the person to bring it up? I cannot imagine what a person
'moving like the wind' would look like.
--- Quote ---
> Jesus did not die so people could keep sinning and sinning.
If we sin knowingly after repenting and being baptized, we are
responsible. Jesus expects us to be willing to correct things if
we can. I can't steal from you and say Jesus died so it's
okay. If I steal from you, I need to pay you back. If I'm
not willing to give back what I stole, I'm obviously not sorry
at all.
--- End Quote ---
I absolutely agree. "Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may
increase? By no means!" (Romans 6:1,2) Not because those sins
are not covered by baptism/Christ's death, but because we are
called to live the new life He has given us. Because He is my
Lord as well as my Saviour.
--- Quote ---
> From what I have read, it follows confirmation. And
confession. Any sins they committed after being baptized must
be confessed and penance done. (Catholic Crusader or Piper can
correct me if I have that wrong.)
--- End Quote ---
As I thought - it is normally at the age of seven, and
confirmation comes later.
HTML http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-did-the-church-decided-that-seven-is-the-age-of-reason-and-the-age-for-first-comm
#Post#: 2761--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
DIR By: CatholicCrusader
Date: August 2, 2015, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just saw this:
--- Quote ---
> Don't Catholic children have their 'first communion' at a
relatively early age? Isn't that before confirmation?
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> From what I have read, it follows confirmation. And
confession. Any sins they committed after being baptized must
be confessed and penance done. (Catholic Crusader or Piper can
correct me if I have that wrong.)
--- End Quote ---
Yes, that is wrong. I had my first communion at about age 6,
and confirmation around age 12. And of course I was baptised as
a baby. Not sure what that has to do with the topic, but there
it is.
#Post#: 2765--------------------------------------------------
Re: Must We 'Choose' Baptism?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: August 3, 2015, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: CatholicCrusader link ---
>
>
> Just saw this:
>
>
> Yes, that is wrong. I had my first communion at about age 6,
and confirmation around age 12. And of course I was baptised as
a baby. Not sure what that has to do with the topic, but there
it is.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for clearing that up. I would hate to think someone
read what I wrote and believed it.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page