http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RA-JzVxGTg&feature=related
“All I’m hearing is some new age, god is love, one size fits all crap!”
“I want a real chaplin that believes in a real God and real Hell!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxrRg8AFjPE
“The Lord has been getting mad respect since the beginning of time, he doesn’t need you defacing your body.”
“Can’t you see you’re not making Christianity better, you’re just making rock and roll worse.”
“I know you think the stuff you’re doing now is cool, but in a few years, you’re gonna think it’s lame and I don’t want the uh, Lord, you know, to end up in this box.”
Monday, June 13, 2011
Friday, June 10, 2011
Infant Faith
The following is a response to the following article at Extreme Theology - Infant Faith
The chief source of our disagreement is when you say, "Baptism is a work of the law."
First, what makes you say this? One concern I have is that baptism is part of the New Covenant, and the reason I cling to the New Covenant is precisely because the only works of the law that matter in this covenant are the ones which Christ did on my behalf, which He imputes to me. If baptism is a work of the law, either Christ has fulfilled baptism for me, or it's got nothing to do with the New Covenant.
Second, you cannot point to a Scripture which explicitly makes your point ("baptism is a work of the law"). Rather, you deduce it by taking Scripture as a whole. Similarly, we deduce infant baptism by taking Scripture as a whole. (For my purposes here, there is no explicit "proof-text" for infant baptism.)
Grace through Faith is indeed imparted to the believer but it is given during the conversion and regeneration of the soul done by the power of God which precedes confessions of sins and repentance.
This is probably the most important point. When other churches split from Lutherans on this, talking about baptismal regeneration or baptizing infants or infant faith is a bit pointless. But we have significant common ground here. So the question is: "How or in what way does God's power operate?"
Lutherans teach, quite simply, that this "power of God" which effects conversion, regeneration, faith, etc. is delivered by the Holy Spirit through the Word and Sacraments. (Of course, what makes sacraments sacraments? The Word!) Now, if God's power is not delivered through the sacraments, Lutherans don't have a particularly good reason to baptize infants.
Scripture gives no instance of infant baptism nor is it a command of God without Scriptual evidence given to instances of infant baptismBut Christians do many things without explicit Scriptural direction. Broadcasting the Gospel via radio, for example. Baptizing people in tubs rather than in rivers. Using grape juice for the Lord's Supper. The list is endless. The primary issue is whether a practice is in keeping with Scripture, not necessarily whether it can be explicitly cited from Scripture. Yes?
So in regard to infant baptism it is not a issue of conversion of the child's soul being conducted by God but a matter of mankind falsly assuming a work of God has accured in the infant.But we teach that baptism IS that work of God.
In conclusion infant baptism can mask a child's sinful nature in the eyes of their parents,plus giving him or her false assurance to belive Christ is indeed their Lord and Savior causing them tow alk in life all the way to death and eternal judgement in hell without them seeing a need to repent of their sins.Infant baptism doesn't encourage parents to be lax in bringing up their children. Quite the opposite, really. I am sure that lazy parents use infant baptism as an excuse, and that this excuse might be validated by lazy pastors/priests, but here the culprit is of course the lazy parents and/or lazy pastor.
In this Lutherans and others run the risk of accepting false converts as brothers and sisters.Not "in this." :) All churches at all times and in all places run equal risk of accepting false converts. At most, we judge others in the church by their public confession and public works. But we can't see their private behaviors, let alone their hearts. The difficulty is that it's pretty easy to fake it on the outside.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
On baptizing infants | Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Cranach blog linking an article I reference previously about Baptism. Some good discussion on Veith's site.
On baptizing infants | Cranach: The Blog of Veith
On baptizing infants | Cranach: The Blog of Veith
Baptism 7
Some Q & A. That link should be a direct link to the PDF on baptism. Try to look over the whole thing, some good points made and verses referenced. http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=537
Also wanted to link two more things. The Issues Etc. archive
http://issuesetc.org/2010/01/page/3/
Look for "Infant Baptism Pastor Thomas Eckstein of Concordia Lutheran-Jamestown, ND" and "Sermon Review: The Baptism of Jesus Pastor Daniel Preus of Luther Academy"
The PDF by Pastor Thomas Eckstein link is broken, but you can find it here:
http://wittenbergtrail.org/forum/topics/lutheran-responses-to
Also wanted to link two more things. The Issues Etc. archive
http://issuesetc.org/2010/01/page/3/
Look for "Infant Baptism Pastor Thomas Eckstein of Concordia Lutheran-Jamestown, ND" and "Sermon Review: The Baptism of Jesus Pastor Daniel Preus of Luther Academy"
The PDF by Pastor Thomas Eckstein link is broken, but you can find it here:
http://wittenbergtrail.org/forum/topics/lutheran-responses-to
Baptism 6
I mentioned in my first post on baptism, that CARM had used verses in Romans 10 to allow for differing views on baptism.
Romans 10:14-15 is not speaking about baptism, period. CARM says "Notice how Paul allows us to have differences of opinions on various issues? His goal was to have unity in the body of Christ and at the same time to allow for differences on debatable issues."
The issues Paul was discussing in this passage were not various, they were specific...food/dietary rules and what days should we worship.
Is there a principle being taught here of allowing Christian Liberty ( liberty of conscious ) in other issues? Yes. Especially when considering the baggage that new believers brought with them regarding dietary laws. It was discussed a few different times:
"Acts 10, 14. 15, nor worrying about the fact that the meat was taken from animals sacrificed to idols, 1 Cor. 10, 25, he makes use of the liberty which he has in Christ, thus honoring his Lord and Savior, as appears also from the fact that he returns thanks to God for the food, 1 Cor. 10, 30; 1 Tim. 4, 4."
Again, it's the food thing. Romans 10, NOT ABOUT BAPTISM.
Baptism is a BIG DEAL in God's economy. Paul had quite a bit to say about baptism in other letters and other verses ( so did Jesus ), but he was not talking about baptism here in verse 10 of Romans. He was not saying about baptism "I'm ok, your ok, you believe that about baptism, I'll believe this" I've heard folks use the Romans 10 verse in many ways to defend their drinking, smoking, eating, etc. etc., but never have I heard it used to say "think what you want about baptism".
Baptism does not appear to be an optional in the NT. Yes, the thief on the cross, folks love to pull that out of their back pocket, but it is the exception to the rule. As I said before, faith is what saves and God can choose how/who/what/when/where He wants. But the ordinary means God has given us are Baptism, the Lord's Supper and the Scriptures. In the NT, God has given us baptism for a reason. Not so we can say "we don't need it look at the thief", but rather a physical representation of God's means of grace.
In fact, the great commission " And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. "
The order of the great commission is interesting, baptize, then teach. Might be something to that.
Christianity is a very physical religion unlike any other religion. Christ was born a human, a real, living, bleeding human. Christ is reigning in bodily/human/man form in heaven. Paul made a big deal about the resurrection, not heaven. Getting our bodies back and the new heavens and new earth. Not us floating around on a cloud playing a harp, but a real, physical, recreated creation.
So much of what Christianity believes, teaches, and confesses has to do with the physicalness of our religion, the realness of it. Why do we work so hard to undo this and spiritualize everything and say "well, it can't mean that"?
Romans 10:14-15 is not speaking about baptism, period. CARM says "Notice how Paul allows us to have differences of opinions on various issues? His goal was to have unity in the body of Christ and at the same time to allow for differences on debatable issues."
The issues Paul was discussing in this passage were not various, they were specific...food/dietary rules and what days should we worship.
Is there a principle being taught here of allowing Christian Liberty ( liberty of conscious ) in other issues? Yes. Especially when considering the baggage that new believers brought with them regarding dietary laws. It was discussed a few different times:
"Acts 10, 14. 15, nor worrying about the fact that the meat was taken from animals sacrificed to idols, 1 Cor. 10, 25, he makes use of the liberty which he has in Christ, thus honoring his Lord and Savior, as appears also from the fact that he returns thanks to God for the food, 1 Cor. 10, 30; 1 Tim. 4, 4."
Again, it's the food thing. Romans 10, NOT ABOUT BAPTISM.
Baptism is a BIG DEAL in God's economy. Paul had quite a bit to say about baptism in other letters and other verses ( so did Jesus ), but he was not talking about baptism here in verse 10 of Romans. He was not saying about baptism "I'm ok, your ok, you believe that about baptism, I'll believe this" I've heard folks use the Romans 10 verse in many ways to defend their drinking, smoking, eating, etc. etc., but never have I heard it used to say "think what you want about baptism".
Baptism does not appear to be an optional in the NT. Yes, the thief on the cross, folks love to pull that out of their back pocket, but it is the exception to the rule. As I said before, faith is what saves and God can choose how/who/what/when/where He wants. But the ordinary means God has given us are Baptism, the Lord's Supper and the Scriptures. In the NT, God has given us baptism for a reason. Not so we can say "we don't need it look at the thief", but rather a physical representation of God's means of grace.
In fact, the great commission " And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. "
The order of the great commission is interesting, baptize, then teach. Might be something to that.
Christianity is a very physical religion unlike any other religion. Christ was born a human, a real, living, bleeding human. Christ is reigning in bodily/human/man form in heaven. Paul made a big deal about the resurrection, not heaven. Getting our bodies back and the new heavens and new earth. Not us floating around on a cloud playing a harp, but a real, physical, recreated creation.
So much of what Christianity believes, teaches, and confesses has to do with the physicalness of our religion, the realness of it. Why do we work so hard to undo this and spiritualize everything and say "well, it can't mean that"?
Baptism 5
At the time of the Reformation and soon after, there was a large number of folks that believed baptism to be "effectual" in conveying God's saving grace. Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed and to some extent Anglicans.
The Anabaptists believed in a "believers' only baptism" and they were against infant baptism. It's interesting to note that believer's baptism was considered heresy by all other major Christian denominations at the time of the Reformation period, as many of them saw baptism as necessary for salvation and thus wrong to delay baptism
until later in life.
Those denominations I mentioned above had pretty much held to the historic practice of infant baptism and believers baptism was considered a heresy.
The Anabaptists believed in a "believers' only baptism" and they were against infant baptism. It's interesting to note that believer's baptism was considered heresy by all other major Christian denominations at the time of the Reformation period, as many of them saw baptism as necessary for salvation and thus wrong to delay baptism
until later in life.
Those denominations I mentioned above had pretty much held to the historic practice of infant baptism and believers baptism was considered a heresy.
Baptism 4
Quoting from a Lutheran Commentary on the 1 Peter 3:21 passage, the counterpart to Noah's salvation story.
"Kretzmann's Popular Commentary"
The apostle now makes a splendid application of this incident: Which now saves also us as Baptism, its counterpart, not the removal of the dirt of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The words of the apostle are so simple and so clear that the deliberate misunderstanding of their import by a great number of Christians is a mystery. Water is to us Christians a means of salvation. It is water that saves us, that transmits to us the salvation of Christ in Baptism, which is the antitype or counterpart of the Flood, as Peter has just shown. This salvation, of course, does not consist in washing off the dirt which may have gathered on the skin of the body, but it cleanses the heart of sins; it is a pledge, a contract of a good conscience toward God; it guarantees to us that we may have, by virtue of its application, a clean conscience before God, thus being enabled to lift up our eyes to Him without the slightest trace of fear. This is true because the spiritual gifts and blessings which are the result of the resurrection of Christ, the certainty that God has accepted the sacrifice of His Son and granted forgiveness of sins to the whole world, are transmitted to the believer in Baptism. Thus all Christians are, by reason of their baptism, happy and blessed people, having the certain hope of eternal life through the grace of God in Christ Jesus which they received in the water of Baptism."
The link below discussing what Historical Reformed (Calvinist) beliefs have been regarding baptism. I'll simply toss some quotes after:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/baptismal-efficacy-the-reformed-tradition-past-present-future
Martin Bucer, Calvin’s mentor, wrote the following in his 1537 liturgy for infant baptism: “Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved son, our only savior, and is now your child and heir…”
This, then, is the point: God blesses us in baptism with new life, though baptism itself does not guarantee perseverance. Thus, we must combine the waters of baptism with enduring faith (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). If not, the heavenly waters God has poured out upon us will drown us in a flood of judgment
What is different, it seems, is that the higher views of baptism are now more out of favor than ever. If we categorically reject “baptismal regeneration,” it must be acknowledged that we have moved significantly away from some traditional Reformed formulations.
Baptism has been watered down (pun intended) from a means of sovereign, saving grace, to a means of granting external privilege.
The importance of baptism to one’s identity as a child of God can never be overestimated. In baptism, we are enfolded into the family of God and begin our enculturation in the life of the eschatological kingdom. In baptism, God unites us to his Son and pours out his Spirit upon us. He weds us to Christ and ordains us to his royal priesthood. He forgives our sin and grants us new life. As the WSC teaches, baptism is not a mere picture, but an effectual means of redemption.
True, baptized persons can renounce their Father and become prodigals; they can reject Jesus as their husband and become adulterers. Baptism is an act with eternal consequences for the faithful and the unfaithful, and covenant members who renounce their baptismal identity and fall from grace can only expect God’s harshest judgment (cf. Gal.5:4; Heb. 10:26ff). But apostasy is never our expectation for the baptized. Baptism itself is blessing through and through; indeed, it is the gospel in liquid form.
"Kretzmann's Popular Commentary"
The apostle now makes a splendid application of this incident: Which now saves also us as Baptism, its counterpart, not the removal of the dirt of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The words of the apostle are so simple and so clear that the deliberate misunderstanding of their import by a great number of Christians is a mystery. Water is to us Christians a means of salvation. It is water that saves us, that transmits to us the salvation of Christ in Baptism, which is the antitype or counterpart of the Flood, as Peter has just shown. This salvation, of course, does not consist in washing off the dirt which may have gathered on the skin of the body, but it cleanses the heart of sins; it is a pledge, a contract of a good conscience toward God; it guarantees to us that we may have, by virtue of its application, a clean conscience before God, thus being enabled to lift up our eyes to Him without the slightest trace of fear. This is true because the spiritual gifts and blessings which are the result of the resurrection of Christ, the certainty that God has accepted the sacrifice of His Son and granted forgiveness of sins to the whole world, are transmitted to the believer in Baptism. Thus all Christians are, by reason of their baptism, happy and blessed people, having the certain hope of eternal life through the grace of God in Christ Jesus which they received in the water of Baptism."
The link below discussing what Historical Reformed (Calvinist) beliefs have been regarding baptism. I'll simply toss some quotes after:
http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/baptismal-efficacy-the-reformed-tradition-past-present-future
Martin Bucer, Calvin’s mentor, wrote the following in his 1537 liturgy for infant baptism: “Almighty God, heavenly Father, we give you eternal praise and thanks, that you have granted and bestowed upon this child your fellowship, that you have born him again to yourself through holy baptism, that he has been incorporated into your beloved son, our only savior, and is now your child and heir…”
This, then, is the point: God blesses us in baptism with new life, though baptism itself does not guarantee perseverance. Thus, we must combine the waters of baptism with enduring faith (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-12). If not, the heavenly waters God has poured out upon us will drown us in a flood of judgment
What is different, it seems, is that the higher views of baptism are now more out of favor than ever. If we categorically reject “baptismal regeneration,” it must be acknowledged that we have moved significantly away from some traditional Reformed formulations.
Baptism has been watered down (pun intended) from a means of sovereign, saving grace, to a means of granting external privilege.
The importance of baptism to one’s identity as a child of God can never be overestimated. In baptism, we are enfolded into the family of God and begin our enculturation in the life of the eschatological kingdom. In baptism, God unites us to his Son and pours out his Spirit upon us. He weds us to Christ and ordains us to his royal priesthood. He forgives our sin and grants us new life. As the WSC teaches, baptism is not a mere picture, but an effectual means of redemption.
True, baptized persons can renounce their Father and become prodigals; they can reject Jesus as their husband and become adulterers. Baptism is an act with eternal consequences for the faithful and the unfaithful, and covenant members who renounce their baptismal identity and fall from grace can only expect God’s harshest judgment (cf. Gal.5:4; Heb. 10:26ff). But apostasy is never our expectation for the baptized. Baptism itself is blessing through and through; indeed, it is the gospel in liquid form.
Baptism 3
From my first two posts, I've tried to show that it simply looks like CARM is using the straw-man of infant baptizers believe baptism saves their babies. To quote a PDF I'll link to later from the LCMS site "a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone." The water does not save, Christ does.
Let's go back and break down the paragraph in 1 Peter 3 that we have been discussing. When looking 1 Peter 3:21, in it's paragraph, as a whole, would you agree that it is talking about God saving; salvation through Christ? It's as if Peter is trying to work up to baptism (which has water in it), so as an example, Peter says remember Noah and how he was *saved*, actually, Noah and his family.
Let's look at the Greek definitions for the words save/saved as it is used of Noah and baptism:
Noah saved " 1) to preserve through danger, to bring safely through a) to save, i.e. cure one who is sick, bring him through 2) to save, keep from perishing 3) to save out of danger, rescue "
Looks like if someone didn't intervene, Noah and his family would have perished. They were in danger. To bring him through, to translate from a dangerous place to a safe place.
Baptism saves "1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction a) one (from injury or peril) 1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health 1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue b) to save in the technical biblical
sense 1) negatively a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance"
Again, we see baptism rescues, saves (salvation) from perishing, to heal, to deliver.
If it was only symbolic, why use this language? Especially in the context of this paragraph speaking about salvation? So in the context of talking about salvation, real, actual salvation by God through Christ "through water" for Noah and us...in that whole context, it's just a symbol of what ***could*** happen *if* you make your own heart felt appeal??? as CARM states. I don't think so. Christ is the only one who can make that sort of appeal to the Father. And through baptism, the cleaning of our insides, not the outside, we are now able to make that sort of appeal.
Let's go back and break down the paragraph in 1 Peter 3 that we have been discussing. When looking 1 Peter 3:21, in it's paragraph, as a whole, would you agree that it is talking about God saving; salvation through Christ? It's as if Peter is trying to work up to baptism (which has water in it), so as an example, Peter says remember Noah and how he was *saved*, actually, Noah and his family.
Let's look at the Greek definitions for the words save/saved as it is used of Noah and baptism:
Noah saved " 1) to preserve through danger, to bring safely through a) to save, i.e. cure one who is sick, bring him through 2) to save, keep from perishing 3) to save out of danger, rescue "
Looks like if someone didn't intervene, Noah and his family would have perished. They were in danger. To bring him through, to translate from a dangerous place to a safe place.
Baptism saves "1) to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction a) one (from injury or peril) 1) to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health 1) to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue b) to save in the technical biblical
sense 1) negatively a) to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment b) to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance"
Again, we see baptism rescues, saves (salvation) from perishing, to heal, to deliver.
If it was only symbolic, why use this language? Especially in the context of this paragraph speaking about salvation? So in the context of talking about salvation, real, actual salvation by God through Christ "through water" for Noah and us...in that whole context, it's just a symbol of what ***could*** happen *if* you make your own heart felt appeal??? as CARM states. I don't think so. Christ is the only one who can make that sort of appeal to the Father. And through baptism, the cleaning of our insides, not the outside, we are now able to make that sort of appeal.
Baptism 2
It's my belief that CARM pulled that verse from Romans ( in link #2 ) completely out of context and is using it to apply to the matter of Baptism. Before I dig into that more, let me go back to link #1.
Read the paragraph again from 1 Peter 3 "18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."
The overall theme, if you will, is that ***God desires to bring us to Him "that he (Christ) might bring us to God"*** How? By suffering for our sins, his righteousness in exchange for my unrighteousness. The great exchange as it's called. When we're saved, Christ takes my sin, and we get his righteousness.
Now, if that is the overall theme, God saving (salvation) through Christ through this great exchange and he then goes on to talk about the salvation of Noah and his family, still talking God's desire to save and then says Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU.
But wait, before the reader of Peter's letter thinks it is the water that is saving us, he says, no, that the water is not removing dirt from the outside but the inside. The inside has to change before an appeal to God can be made.
On what grounds would a non-believer, without faith, have an appeal to God? Why say that baptism saves and NOT have an internal cleansing whereby we are then able to appeal to God? Without faith, there is no appeal to God. Faith must be transmitted in order to have ground to stand on for an appeal. Going before God's court for our sin, we have nothing of our own to stand on. But thanks be to God that we have the merits of Christ, his faithfulness, his suffering for my sin, as our appeal.
To me it looks like pre-baptism, no appeal, post baptism, we have an appeal, we have grounds to stand on because of what Christ has done for us.
Read the paragraph again from 1 Peter 3 "18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him."
The overall theme, if you will, is that ***God desires to bring us to Him "that he (Christ) might bring us to God"*** How? By suffering for our sins, his righteousness in exchange for my unrighteousness. The great exchange as it's called. When we're saved, Christ takes my sin, and we get his righteousness.
Now, if that is the overall theme, God saving (salvation) through Christ through this great exchange and he then goes on to talk about the salvation of Noah and his family, still talking God's desire to save and then says Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU.
But wait, before the reader of Peter's letter thinks it is the water that is saving us, he says, no, that the water is not removing dirt from the outside but the inside. The inside has to change before an appeal to God can be made.
On what grounds would a non-believer, without faith, have an appeal to God? Why say that baptism saves and NOT have an internal cleansing whereby we are then able to appeal to God? Without faith, there is no appeal to God. Faith must be transmitted in order to have ground to stand on for an appeal. Going before God's court for our sin, we have nothing of our own to stand on. But thanks be to God that we have the merits of Christ, his faithfulness, his suffering for my sin, as our appeal.
To me it looks like pre-baptism, no appeal, post baptism, we have an appeal, we have grounds to stand on because of what Christ has done for us.
Baptism 1
I had a conversation via email with a friend about Infant Baptism and how the CARM site explains verse 1 Peter 3:21 and CARM's overall view on Infant Baptism. What follows are responses to him via email.
+++
My friend asked "Was wondering how Calvinists reconcile 1Peter 3:21, and ran across this from CARM:
http://carm.org/baptism-and-1-pet-321
http://carm.org/is-it-okay-to-baptize-infants"
CARM says "But, is it teaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context. "
http://carm.org/baptism-and-1-pet-321
http://carm.org/is-it-okay-to-baptize-infants"
CARM says "But, is it teaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context. "
CARM is creating a straw-man. God can and does save in many ways. Salvation can happen apart from Baptism. Infant Baptizers are not saying we must be baptized with water to be saved. However, God has given us three visible means to create and/or strengthen our faith, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and His Word.
CARM goes on to say "Rather, it is showing us that the water symbolizes a spiritual cleansing through the power of the Holy Spirit gained through Christ's victory over death. It is the person's appeal to God that saves the soul, not the washing of water upon the body. "
If it's only a symbol, why do it? If it doesn't "do" or "mean" anything real, why do it? For more on this, read here -> http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/2011/05/25/an-interesting-discussion-on-baptism/
And near the end of the blog post, there is a link to this as well http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/2009/12/07/why-i-baptized-our-babies/
CARM says it is the persons appeal to God that saves the soul? A person is saved by God's grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)