# Mode of Baptism....



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> .......Why would someone be sprinkled, there isn't the slightest hint of it in the New Testament.



Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.  It is best represented through the pouring or sprinkling i.e. affusion of the element (always water).

Jehovah's mode of baptizing with the Holy Ghost is by sprinkling or pouring, or in some other way the Spirit coming to or upon the person baptized...

You will NEVER find an example of a person being "dipped" or "immersed" into the Spirit.

The element should be applied to the recipient.

Here are some passages where the Spirit is represented as:

Descending:  John 1:32
Anointing:  Acts 10:38
Pouring:  Acts 2:17
Given to:  Acts 15:8
Shedding forth:  Acts 2:33
Sealing:  Eph. 1:13
Falling:  Acts 11:15
Breathed on them:  John 20:22
Coming upon:  Acts 1:8
Sent from on high:  Luke 24:49
Received:  John 7:39

What do you do with I Corinthians 10:

 1For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

It certainly wasn't through immersion...The Egyptians were the ones who got immersed  

These are just some of the NT arguments....I didn't even delve into all the OT examples....yet


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 2, 2008)

What does it really matter. It is the act and intent itself that really counts, not the method.

Do you eat pork?


----------



## SBG (Oct 2, 2008)

Baptizo=Immersion, Submersion

Ac 8:38
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 2, 2008)

SBG said:


> Baptizo=Immersion, Submersion
> 
> Ac 8:38
> And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.



Into the water could have meant standing there knee deep while they were sprinkled.

But again I ask, what does it really matter?


----------



## SBG (Oct 2, 2008)

Yellow Hammer said:


> Into the water could have meant standing there knee deep while they were sprinkled.
> 
> But again I ask, what does it really matter?



Yes it could...but that would defy common sense. 

Baptizo means immersion.

BTW...it matters in the fact that we should emulate what the scriptures command. Having said that, if one has a bucket, cup, etc. poured over their head, in the belief that they are being scripturally baptized, its all good. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Baptizo=Immersion, Submersion



You sure about that?

Can you provide me NT verses where baptizo means to immerse only?


----------



## PWalls (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> Can you provide me NT verses where baptizo means to immerse only?



What does it matter? Again, Baptism is a symbolic representation of the old man/new man rebirth. Immersion or Sprinkling or Pouring doesn't much matter.

I guess you'll look into the NT to see whether or not the communion wafers should be round or square next?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> What does it matter? Again, Baptism is a symbolic representation of the old man/new man rebirth. Immersion or Sprinkling or Pouring doesn't much matter.



It does matter...Have you ever tried to join a Baptist church when you were sprinkled?  Some even close their communion tables to any who have either been sprinkled as an infant or as an adult...

This is a great topic to discuss.  I am sure that many on here (like myself at one time) have never even considered why some denominations sprinkle.  It isn't from tradition; it can be defended biblically.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> communion wafers



What are those?  I thought the elements were bread and wine


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 2, 2008)

SBG said:


> Yes it could...but that would defy common sense.
> 
> Baptizo means immersion.
> 
> BTW...it matters in the fact that we should emulate what the scriptures command. Having said that, if one has a bucket, cup, etc. poured over their head, in the belief that they are being scripturally baptized, its all good. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.




I suppose we should pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands, or any other body parts that offend our sense of spirituality then as well?

And again I ask, do you eat pork?

My point is there are many scriptures that can be taken literally and the figurative meaning of them will be missed entirely.

But either way, there is no doctrine that insures your passage into heaven, nor will the allegience to a doctrine provide such.


----------



## SBG (Oct 2, 2008)

Yellow Hammer said:


> I suppose we should pluck out our eyes or cut off our hands, or any other body parts that offend our sense of spirituality then as well?
> 
> And again I ask, do you eat pork?
> 
> ...



My sense of spirituality is not mine, rather the mind of Christ. It is really not relevant what mine, or your sense is for that matter. Thus sayeth the Lord.

I fail to see what how eating pork is relevant to the discussion. 

BTW, there is a doctrine that "insures passage to heaven." That is the doctine of the cross.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

SBG said:


> Yes it could...but that would defy common sense.
> 
> Baptizo means immersion.
> 
> BTW...it matters in the fact that we should emulate what the scriptures command. Having said that, if one has a bucket, cup, etc. poured over their head, in the belief that they are being scripturally baptized, its all good. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.





Banjo said:


> You sure about that?
> 
> Can you provide me NT verses where baptizo means to immerse only?





Banjo said:


> It does matter...Have you ever tried to join a Baptist church when you were sprinkled?  Some even close their communion tables to any who have either been sprinkled as an infant or as an adult...
> 
> This is a great topic to discuss.  I am sure that many on here (like myself at one time) have never even considered why some denominations sprinkle.  It isn't from tradition; it can be defended biblically.





PWalls said:


> What does it matter? Again, Baptism is a symbolic representation of the old man/new man rebirth. Immersion or Sprinkling or Pouring doesn't much matter.
> 
> I guess you'll look into the NT to see whether or not the communion wafers should be round or square next?



Oh boy....this one could get ugly   Kinda like the you gotta be baptized to be saved thread from a couple of months ago.

Well, I see the point that both parties make in this....and their is one requirement that I have for baptism, that is you have to be saved (therefore, this eliminates infants and young children who don't understand the gospel and can't make a profession of faith).

Now as to the method, well, I agree with SBG that Baptizo translates as immersion.  So, I would say that I think the best method is to be dunked.  However, I don't believe that it is a requirement.  I don't believe that someone who has been sprinkled or had water poured over their head needs to be re-baptized as long as they were truly saved when it occurred.  Again, what is the purpose of baptism?  It is an outward expression of an inward change. 

Oh...and one other thing...I do feel that it should be done by someone who is in a leadership position at the church (ie pastor, elder etc etc).


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 2, 2008)

My whole soul was saved..........not sprinkled on ..but purified and BAPTIZED in the fire and Holy Ghost. 

Therefore ...we might as well baptize the whole body.....you know to do it like Christ baptized our soul.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Oh boy....this one could get ugly  Kinda like the you gotta be baptized to be saved thread from a couple of months ago.



Howdy rj....

I didn't participate in that discussion....  

No need for this to get ugly.  I think we would all agree, with the exception of our Catholic friends, that baptism is not necessary for salvation (just remember that thief on the cross).



> that is you have to be saved (therefore, this eliminates infants and young children who don't understand the gospel and can't make a profession of faith).



You know I am going to have to take issue with this....

Are you saying that every single person who gets baptized is saved?  Think about it, if salvation was the requirement for baptism, the church has really botched....How many people have received baptism, yet apostatized?

Would God have made salvation a condition of baptism when NO man on earth can truly discern whether or not someone is saved?

There are several instances in Scripture where infants were regenerate....even without understanding the gospel or making a profession of faith.  David and John the Baptist come to mind....


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 2, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Oh...and one other thing...I do feel that it should be done by someone who is in a leadership position at the church (ie pastor, elder etc etc).



WEll can that person be gay?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> My whole soul was saved..........not sprinkled on ..but purified and BAPTIZED in the fire and Holy Ghost.



Isaiah 52:13-15
13 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high. 14 Just as many were astonished at you, so His visage was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men;15 So shall He sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; for what had not been told them they shall see, and what they had not heard they shall consider.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Oh...and one other thing...I do feel that it should be done by someone who is in a leadership position at the church (ie pastor, elder etc etc).





Branchminnow said:


> WEll can that person be gay?




Of course not....Husband of one wife as a requirement for being in church leadership comes to mind.


----------



## Israel (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.  It is best represented through the pouring or sprinkling i.e. effusion of the element (always water).
> 
> Jehovah's mode of baptizing with the Holy Ghost is by sprinkling or pouring, or in some other way the Spirit coming to or upon the person baptized...
> 
> ...



I am not interested in saying what form baptism should take...but I believe in answer to your question about immersion never being mentioned...

Romans 6: 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Colossians 2: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Now, one might argue the baptism there is not in reference to water, but that is not my contention. My interest is in the word "buried" and it's relationship to baptism in those verses...and I am open to being instructed that buried doesn't mean what I think it means.

You may also understand my interest in hearing what Mr. Banjo may have to say about this.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 2, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Of course not....Husband of one wife as a requirement for being in church leadership comes to mind.




So, the Pope could not Baptize anyone?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> So, the Pope could not Baptize anyone?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Howdy rj....
> 
> I didn't participate in that discussion....
> 
> No need for this to get ugly.  I think we would all agree, with the exception of our Catholic friends, that baptism is not necessary for salvation (just remember that thief on the cross).


You'd be surprised how many non-catholic friends in here believe you have to be baptized to get to heaven.  Just take a look at the thread and you'll be amazed.



			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> You know I am going to have to take issue with this....
> 
> Are you saying that every single person who gets baptized is saved?  Think about it, if salvation was the requirement for baptism, the church has really botched....How many people have received baptism, yet apostatized?
> 
> ...



No...didn't say that everyone who is baptized is saved.  I said that the only people getting baptized should be saved.  Sure...you and I can't tell for sure if a person is truly saved, but we should be diligent to make sure that the person understands what they are doing...understand what a profession of faith really means and that their life should mirror that profession.  offtopic: a little bit, but that is why I have a big problem with kids getting baptized.  They don't understand the prayer they said with mommy the night before and they've never had to make a choice about living for Christ because everything is a choice about obeying/disobeying mom & dad.  All of the sudden, you've got little sally who grows up turns away from the church, but then says, well, I was baptized when I was 4 so I know I'm saved.)

But why would someone who is not saved want to be baptized? 

Isn't the point of baptism to show an outward expression of your identification with Christ?  Isn't it to show everyone that you are a changed person?  What is the purpose of baptizing someone who isn't saved?  The only thing I can think of is it gives them a false assurance of salvation....kinda like signing a card or throwing a pine-cone in the fire at camp.


Again, per your last question...no one has to be baptized to be saved.  Adults/infants etc etc.  If an adult makes a choice not to be baptized, they are not following God's command and He will judge them for that, but it isn't going to keep them out of Heaven.

Infants, well, they can't make that choice, so God is not going to hold it against them.  As far as Babies going to heaven, I'm a firm believer that all children under the age of accountability will go instantly to heaven if they die.  Everyone from the child that was mis-carried at 8 weeks after conception to the 5 year old who was killed in a car wreck.  A great book to read on this issue is "Safe in the Arms of God" by John MacArthur.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Romans 6: 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
> 
> Colossians 2: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



We bury our dead UNDER the EARTH.  This may be conceived as something like putting a person under water....however, neither the Apostles, nor the people they preached or wrote to, would have known about this custom.

Think about it...

The Greeks and Romans burned their dead bodies, and collected their ashes in an urn.  No resemblance to dipping there.

How was Christ buried?  Not by being put in a coffin and covered with earth.  He was carried into a cave cut out of the face of a rock, and laid on a niche in the wall.  One can still find such tombs around Jerusalem today.  No dipping here either....

Neither Paul, nor any Jew or Gentile of his time could perceive any resemblance between the dipping of a person in water and a burial.  

Both the above verse do NOT reference water baptism.  They reference the baptism of the Spirit.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

The early church members were immersed in water.  That's why the word has been translated as baptism.  Early church history, outside the Bible, indicates that all people who came to believe were immersed in water.
Sprinkling and pouring are denominational changes to the original teachings of the apostles and early church.

Someone asked:  What difference does it make?
The appropriate question is this:  Why would any literate person decide to do it any other way?

I'll never for the life of me understand how a person can be so ready to debate complicated issues of scripture, then purposely ignore scripture such as the scripture that calls for us Christians to be baptized it.

To hear a church Pastor say "Yeah I know the Bible says to be baptized but you don't really have to, but if you do, it should be done by a church leader" proves the existance of denominationalism.  No person could sit and earnestly read the Bible, seeking to be obedient to it, and have any other understanding.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Of course not....Husband of one wife as a requirement for being in church leadership comes to mind.





Yellow Hammer said:


> So, the Pope could not Baptize anyone?



Not sure if I should even respond to this question.  So many thoughts come to my mind, but in effort to keep this thread on-topic and from getting out of hand, I'll let everyone's common sense answer that question.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Both the above verse do NOT reference water baptism.  They reference the baptism of the Spirit.




You are absolutely wrong in that regard.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I think we would all agree, with the exception of our Catholic friends, that baptism is not necessary for salvation (just remember that thief on the cross).





rjcruiser said:


> You'd be surprised how many non-catholic friends in here believe you have to be baptized to get to heaven.  Just take a look at the thread and you'll be amazed.





Ronnie T said:


> I'll never for the life of me understand how a person can be so ready to debate complicated issues of scripture, then purposely ignore scripture such as the scripture that calls for us Christians to be baptized it.
> 
> To hear a church Pastor say "Yeah I know the Bible says to be baptized but you don't really have to, but if you do, it should be done by a church leader" proves the existance of denominationalism.  No person could sit and earnestly read the Bible, seeking to be obedient to it, and have any other understanding.



See Banjo, it didn't take long for one of them to surface


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> All of the sudden, you've got little sally who grows up turns away from the church, but then says, well, I was baptized when I was 4 so I know I'm saved.)



This can be a problem in our Reformed Churches, yet can't the same be said for all the youth baptized after revival (or the adults for that matter).

No Presbyterian worth their salt would EVER tell their children they are saved because they were baptized.  



> But why would someone who is not saved want to be baptized?



It happens all the time.  Peer pressure, familial pressure, misunderstanding about salvations, scared of going to he77, thinking that baptism will save you....etc.



> Isn't the point of baptism to show an outward expression of your identification with Christ?



For a Baptist yes...

For a Presbyterian, baptism is both a sign and a seal.  As a sign, it signifies "the washing of regeneration."  It shows what MUST/OR WHAT HAS happened to the individual in order for them to be saved.  This is what the Holy Spirit must do to the soul, through the blood of Christ, which is the "blood of sprinkling."  

As a seal, it represents the promises and the conditions of the covenant of grace.  

God graciously promised to be a God to both His people and their descendants.  

Baptism does not make people "members."  It recognizes that the person baptized, adult or child, belongs to the number of God's covenant people.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> The early church members were immersed in water. That's why the word has been translated as baptism. Early church history, outside the Bible, indicates that all people who came to believe were immersed in water.
> Sprinkling and pouring are denominational changes to the original teachings of the apostles and early church.



Hmmmm......got any Scripture to back that up?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> age of accountability



Where is this idea found in the Bible???


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> It does matter...Have you ever tried to join a Baptist church when you were sprinkled?  Some even close their communion tables to any who have either been sprinkled as an infant or as an adult...
> 
> This is a great topic to discuss.  I am sure that many on here (like myself at one time) have never even considered why some denominations sprinkle.  It isn't from tradition; it can be defended biblically.



I was sprinkled in the Methodist Church and dunked when I became a Baptist, so I got it covered either way

I agree with the others, it makes no difference except to those who wish to stir up and divide Christ's Church


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

What on earth and in heaven would cause a pastor/preacher to preach on the following verse but leave out the call for baptism?
The answer:  denominationalism.

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, " Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Oct 2, 2008)

if it wasn't running water it didn't take.....








that one was for you Branch...


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> What on earth and in heaven would cause a pastor/preacher to preach on the following verse but leave out the call for baptism?
> The answer: denominationalism.



Am I missing something here...Who has said that baptism is an option?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

PWalls said:


> What does it matter? Again, Baptism is a symbolic representation of the old man/new man rebirth. Immersion or Sprinkling or Pouring doesn't much matter.
> 
> I guess you'll look into the NT to see whether or not the communion wafers should be round or square next?



You have communion wafers  Are you still Catholic?


----------



## Israel (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> We bury our dead UNDER the EARTH.  This may be conceived as something like putting a person under water....however, neither the Apostles, nor the people they preached or wrote to, would have known about this custom.
> 
> Think about it...
> 
> ...



Either way, buried under the earth or laid in a tomb/cave...the word baptism there is linked to being "completely out of sight".

Like I said, my interest is not at all in trying to elevate one method over another, and like I also said, one may say that's only baptism in the spirit to which it refers.
Either way, I have never found Jesus give us instruction by the spirit that is confusing...or could easily be confused.

Since you are the one seeming to dismiss some methods or at least claim that the practice is not in accord with what would be to me and at least one other on here the simplest understanding of the word...again I would ask...what does Mr Banjo have to say about it?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Oct 2, 2008)




----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Am I missing something here...Who has said that baptism is an option?



Several on this board.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Israel said:


> what does Mr Banjo have to say about it?



I think it should be Ms Banjo, but I'm sure she, like the rest of us, doesn't mind a little ambiguity on this message board.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

The following scripture shows baptism being more than symbolism.

Baptism is the circumcision on the New Testament, the place of removing the sins of the world.  Not thru the washing of the water but in the power of Jesus.

Col 2:  6Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 
7having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude. 
8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 
9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 
10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Either way, buried under the earth or laid in a tomb/cave...the word baptism there is linked to being "completely out of sight".
> 
> Like I said, my interest is not at all in trying to elevate one method over another, and like I also said, one may say that's only baptism in the spirit to which it refers.
> Either way, I have never found Jesus give us instruction by the spirit that is confusing...or could easily be confused.
> ...



Let's start with Isaiah 52:15 where the Holy Scriptures speak of Christ baptizing many nations by "SPRINKLING."

From there...go to Matthew 3:11

"He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Now go to Acts 1:5

"For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Acts 2:33  

"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has POURED forth this which you both see and hear."

Beginning in the OT, we see the doctrine of baptism laid out for us and continued through into the New Testament.  It was ALWAYS by affusion.  The element is ALWAYS applied to the recipient.  

The whole idea of baptism being a burial began with the Roman Catholic Church.  The Baptists adopted it from them.  It is called the "burial theory."

It was never heard of until after the Council of Nice, in A.D. 325.  

The first mention one can find of it is in Roman Catholic doctrines.  "The water is used instead of the sepulcher, the oil instead of the Holy Ghost, the seal instead of the Cross, the anointment is instead of the Confirmation, the dipping into water is the dying with Christ, and the rising out of the water is the rising again with Him."

(Apostolic Contitutions, Book 3, Section 2)


So says Ms. Banjo


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> ... that baptism is not necessary for salvation (just remember that thief on the cross).
> 
> 
> ....



What we disagree with:

The negative document: "De Baptismo"
The negative document we call the canons on baptism decreed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, De Baptismo), in which the following doctrines are anathematized (declared heretical): 

*The baptism of John (the Precursor) had the same efficacy as the baptism of Christ, 
*True and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and therefore the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost" are metaphorical. 
*The true doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is not taught by the Roman Church, 
*Baptism given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost with the intention of performing what the Church performs, is not true baptism, 
*Baptism is free, that is, not necessary for salvation. 
*A baptized person, even if he wishes it, can not lose grace, no matter how much he sins, unless he refuses to believe. 
*Those who are baptized are obliged only to have faith, but not to observe the whole law of Christ. 
*Baptized persons are not obliged to observe all the precepts of the Church, written and traditional, unless of their own accord they wish to submit to them. 
*All vows made after baptism are void by reason of the promises made in baptism itself; because by these vows injury is done to the faith which has been professed in baptism and to the sacrament itself. 
*All sins committed after baptism are either forgiven or rendered venial by the sole remembrance and faith of the baptism that has been received. 
*Baptism although truly and properly administered, must be repeated in the case of a person who has denied the faith of Christ before infidels and has been brought again to repentance. 
*No one is to be baptized except at the age at which Christ was baptized or at the moment of death. 
*Infants, not being able to make an act of faith, are not to be reckoned among the faithful after their baptism, and therefore when they come to the age of discretion they are to be rebaptized; or it is better to omit their baptism entirely than to baptize them as believing on the sole faith of the Church, when they themselves can not make a proper act of faith. 
*Those baptized as infants are to be asked when they have grown up, whether they wish to ratify what their sponsors had promised for them at their baptism, and if they reply that they do not wish to do so, they are to be left to their own will in the matter and not to be forced by penalties to lead a Christian life, except to be deprived of the reception of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, until they reform. 

The doctrines here condemned by the Council of Trent, are those of various leaders among the early reformers. The contradictory of all these statements is to be held as the dogmatic teaching of the Church. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm


As for the thief on the cross:

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Seems simple enough to me. Rantiso is the Greek word for "sprinkled". Baptiso is Greek for "immersed". Go to the earliest New Testament manuscripts in Greek and see which word was used in that context. I like the imagery of immersion, myself. I believe you will find baptiso to be the more prevalent word used to describe what we generally call baptism.

But truthfully, I believe baptism by the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the only one that counts for any spiritual purpose. The physical  "wetting", if you will, is more for emotional reinforcement, illustration of obedience, and a corporeal celebration of 
a new member being ushered into the Body of Christ. These are important reasons to baptize, but that which the Holy Spirit performs is THE most important.

Use "wet wipes", I don't think the alcohol or soap will hurt.

Peace.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> For a Presbyterian, baptism is both a sign and a seal.  As a sign, it signifies "the washing of regeneration."  It shows what MUST/OR WHAT HAS happened to the individual in order for them to be saved.  This is what the Holy Spirit must do to the soul, through the blood of Christ, which is the "blood of sprinkling."
> 
> As a seal, it represents the promises and the conditions of the covenant of grace.
> 
> ...





Banjo said:


> Hmmmm......got any Scripture to back that up?





Banjo said:


> Where is this idea found in the Bible???




You ask others for scripture back-up and Biblical references, but your responses are void of them.  

Where is the idea of baptizing into the covenant in the Bible?  The only case of baptism in the Bible that I can find is for people who have made a profession of faith and want to show everyone that they've made that choice.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

FX Jenkins said:


> if it wasn't running water it didn't take.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's funny


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Baptism is the circumcision on the New Testament,



I believe this.....  This is why we baptize our Covenant children.  The New Testament is even more inclusive because both female and male children can receive the sign of the Covenant.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> The only case of baptism in the Bible that I can find is for people who have made a profession of faith and want to show everyone that they've made that choice.



Hmmm...what about all those household baptisms.  In the NT we have ten records of Baptism.  Out of those ten, two were single indivduals with no children (Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch).  One was the baptism on the day of Pentecost when families as such were not present...although they are reminded that the promise is unto them AND THEIR CHILDREN.  

We are left with seven instances....no less than five are family baptisms.  Doesn't this evidence that family (covenant) baptism was the common practice in apostolic times?

Do we ever have an example in the NT where believing parents are baptized, but not their children until they make their own profession of faith?

How many times in a Baptist church have you ever witnessed a Covenant baptism which included the whole family?  Why not?

Oops...I left out the Scripture references:

Acts 2:41
Acts 8:27-38
Acts 9:1-18
Acts 8:12
Acts 19:5
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:32-33
I Cor. 1:14
Acts 18:8
I Cor. 1:16
Acts 11:14


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

I did a quick google search and came up with this very interesting site.
It seems to answer all of our questions about the history of baptism.

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...baptism+by+immersion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I did a quick google search and came up with this very interesting site.
> It seems to answer all of our questions about the history of baptism.
> 
> http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...baptism+by+immersion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us




Baptism has roots in pagan religions


----------



## Israel (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Let's start with Isaiah 52:15 where the Holy Scriptures speak of Christ baptizing many nations by "SPRINKLING."
> 
> From there...go to Matthew 3:11
> 
> ...



Ms banjo,
I know you would like to be teaching us...and that's between you and your husband...I cannot, will not deal with you according as I would deal with a brother who is so far afield as to be straining at gnats, but who has obviously swallowed the camel, it is not decorous for a brother to deal thusly with a sister.

But, since you want to make it plain, you speak for yourself, and feel no need to give that honour to your head, it's quite plain to me the order to which you have chosen to ascribe.

You were very correct when you said..."denominations have their place."

The relative position of that place to the Lord, however, is not as you imagine.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

Did baptizo mean immersion in the following verses:

Mark 7:4:  "4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."

Do you think they were immersing tables????


----------



## PWalls (Oct 2, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> You have communion wafers  Are you still Catholic?



That one was for you Brother. 


Actually, we have little square crackers now. I still remember the round communion wafers. Branch's church actually has the Deacon's wives that make unleavened bread. 

Point is that it is that "ACT" of communion that is important. Not every infinite little detail (I know my fire-ant Breathren will say there is a "little" more to it ). Same way with Baptism. I personally attend a Baptist church. That belief is in complete immersion as an outward representation of what happened inward.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Hmmm...what about all those household baptisms.
> 
> Do we ever have an example in the NT where believing parents are baptized, but not their children until they make their own profession of faith?


The household was baptized because the whole household made a profession of faith.  In several of the examples you've referenced below, it says that the Household spoke the name of Jesus and believed...therefore, the household would be baptized.



			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> How many times in a Baptist church have you ever witnessed a Covenant baptism which included the whole family?  Why not?



Well, it wasn't a baptist church that I grew up in, but one of those Non-denominational churches that would find most in-common with the Baptist convention.  But there were several instances of a Husband and Wife and even a kid or two of their's being baptized at the same time.  They were all lost and then they all got saved at the same time (or relatively close time period).  It is truly amazing.

Why don't you see it more often?  well, how often is it that a person's whole household gets saved at the same time?  Doesn't happen very often...especially in today's society where >80% have heard about Jesus.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

PWalls said:


> That one was for you Brother.
> 
> 
> Actually, we have little square crackers now. I still remember the round communion wafers. Branch's church actually has the Deacon's wives that make unleavened bread.
> ...



Well, for the record it should be round


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Point is that it is that "ACT" of communion that is important. Not every infinite little detail (I know my fire-ant Breathren will say there is a "little" more to it ). Same way with Baptism. I personally attend a Baptist church. That belief is in complete immersion as an outward representation of what happened inward.



Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Hmmm...what about all those household baptisms.  In the NT we have ten records of Baptism.  Out of those ten, two were single indivduals with no children (Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch).  One was the baptism on the day of Pentecost when families as such were not present...although they are reminded that the promise is unto them AND THEIR CHILDREN.
> 
> We are left with seven instances....no less than five are family baptisms.  Doesn't this evidence that family (covenant) baptism was the common practice in apostolic times?
> 
> ...



By shear numbers, I would go with the Pentecost baptism.
That would render the five  or seven family baptisms a little short for lead in the "common practices" category.

Peace.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Well, for the record it should be round



You know how hard it is to cut little round pieces of dough?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> I know you would like to be teaching us...and that's between you and your husband...I cannot, will not deal with you according as I would deal with a brother who is so far afield as to be straining at gnats, but who has obviously swallowed the camel, it is not decorous for a brother to deal thusly with a sister.



Israel....

My husband knows that I discuss these matters with you all.  He sent me the weblink fully knowing that I would engage.  Teaching or discussing????

Have you all willingly placed yourselves under my teaching authority?  Do I have any kind of ecclesiastical authority over any of you?  I would say, "Certainly not," nor do I want it.  

Perhaps this is your way of bowing out of this discussion.  If it violates your conscience to discuss theology with a woman, please put me on ignore.  I won't be offended.  

Let me say, that I am glad this is not the consensus of the men at my church.  No women are allowed to teach men or hold leadership positions in our church.  In fact, we practice "heads of households" voting as well.  

We do, both men and women, regularly discuss the Scriptures together....just as the women who sat at the Apostles and our Lord's feet did.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 2, 2008)

Baptizo is a derivative of the root word Bapto. 

Bapto means "to whelm". Which means to "fully wet".

Baptizo means "to make whelmed". To make fully wet.

Looks to me like the Greek word is pretty specific on making something fully wet. How do you do that with a "sprinkling".

Also, Banjo, remind me not to eat at your house if you "wash" your dishes (your reference in Mark 7 above) just be "sprinkling" them instead of fully immersing them in water to get them clean.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> The household was baptized because the whole household made a profession of faith. In several of the examples you've referenced below, it says that the Household spoke the name of Jesus and believed...therefore, the household would be baptized.



Lydia was the only believer, but she was baptized and her children (oikos).  

"The Lord opened HER heart."  "She attended the things spoken by Paul, and she was baptized and her children."  "she besought the apostles."  She said, "if ye have judged ME faithful to the Lord."

The Philippian jailer believed, he rejoiced, but he and all his were baptized.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> aptizo is a derivative of the root word Bapto.
> 
> Bapto means "to whelm". Which means to "fully wet".
> 
> Baptizo means "to make whelmed". To make fully wet.



Did baptizo mean immersion in the following verses:

Mark 7:4: "4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."

Do you think they were immersing tables????



> Also, Banjo, remind me not to eat at your house if you "wash" your dishes (your reference in Mark 7 above) just be "sprinkling" them instead of fully immersing them in water to get them clean.



I just let my dogs lick them...


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 2, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> You know how hard it is to cut little round pieces of dough?



The nuns can handle it


----------



## Israel (Oct 2, 2008)

John 3: 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because_ there was much water there_: and they came, and were baptized.

Mark 1: 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Acts 8: 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

If someone cares to make the point that both stood in the water while one was sprinkled, or poured on, or immersed, fine.

But one cannot conclude from the accounts that at any time the mere presence of a glassful of water was sufficient, nor that it excludes one fully immersing another.

Indeed, since the word baptizo is used, and the point made that John baptized in a place where there was "much" water, immersion is not an unlikely conclusion.

As to the familiarity of John the Baptist's disciples (and the jews of that day) with the practice of a mikvah, and the prescriptions for such, full immersion would also be something not foreign to them.

Again, I cannot overstress my absolute dissociation in my posts to either present a qualifying or disqualifying method of baptism.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Lydia was the only believer, but she was baptized and her children (oikos).
> 
> "The Lord opened HER heart."  "She attended the things spoken by Paul, and she was baptized and her children."  "she besought the apostles."  She said, "if ye have judged ME faithful to the Lord."
> 
> The Philippian jailer believed, he rejoiced, but he and all his were baptized.



You look to the two that leave out the entire family was saved, yet ignore every other instance of just the believer being saved or the entire family being saved before baptism.  That doesn't make sense to me.  But, again, I've got my baptist glasses on, so I interpret it the right way


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> The nuns can handle it


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Did baptizo mean immersion in the following verses:
> 
> Mark 7:4: "4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."
> 
> Do you think they were immersing tables????



Baptizo or rantizo?  Or was another Greek word used for washing?
 Odd religious practice: washing tables. Sounds more like Health Dept regs.





> I just let my dogs lick them...





EEEEEEWWWW!  DOG SPIT BAPTISM !!!   You got to be kidding?


Peace?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> John 3: 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.



"polla hudata"= many waters, a Greek word of number and not quantity

Example...from how this word is found in English composition....Polynesia means many islands, not "much" islands

**Do you agree Gparts?

Out of the fifteen times in Scriptures where "polla hudata" occurs, this is the only time it is translated "much water."  All other fourteen render it "many waters."  (NT>>>Rev. 1:15, 14:2,17:1,19:6).

Hudata = springs

Aenon = a place of springs

How about this translation:

"And John also was baptizing in Aenon (or at the springs), near to Salim, for there were many springs there, and the people came and were baptized."

If they needed MUCH water for immersion, why didn't they just stay at the Jordan River?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> You look to the two that leave out the entire family was saved, yet ignore every other instance of just the believer being saved or the entire family being saved before baptism. That doesn't make sense to me. But, again, I've got my baptist glasses on, so I interpret it the right way



Do you mean the Bible left out the part about the family being saved???  

If even one instance is recorded where the head of the household believed, yet the entire household was baptized, wouldn't that be proof enough for Covenant baptism?

I am not trying to leave out the other...  I could use the OT to show time after time where the head of the household believed and all the males in the household were circumcised...yet with most on here it won't hold any weight because that "was the Old Covenant..."



> I've got my baptist glasses on, so I interpret it the right way



Wait until you try on some Presbyterian glasses...the whole Bible really make sense then....


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> EEEEEEWWWW! DOG SPIT BAPTISM !!! You got to be kidding?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Lydia was the only believer, but she was baptized and her children (oikos).
> 
> "The Lord opened HER heart."  "She attended the things spoken by Paul, and she was baptized and her children."  "she besought the apostles."  She said, "if ye have judged ME faithful to the Lord."
> 
> The Philippian jailer believed, he rejoiced, but he and all his were baptized.



Banjo,

Lydia was a seller of purple dyes and was considered wealthy. There is no indication she had children. Oikos is Greek for house (the structure) or household (which would include any family, employees (servants), and, if appropriate to the situation, slaves; but, not necessarily children. 

To indicate such is presumptuous!

Ditto, for the jailer. "All his" what?

Peace.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Mark 1: 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:



Is coming up out of the water the same thing as coming out from under the water?  If Jesus had been immersed, wouldn't he have had to be "taken" up out of the water instead of coming out of it on His own accord?

Here is something interesting to ponder considering John's Baptizing...

John the Baptizer belonged to the priestly order.  His father was a priest, and his mother was of the daughters of Aaron.

How did priests baptize?  Sprinkling water.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to suppose that John baptized the same way according to the prediction of the prophet in Ezekiel:

"I will sprinkle clean water upon you."


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Lydia was a seller of purple dyes and was considered wealthy. There is no indication she had children. Oikos is Greek for house (the structure) or household (which would include any family, employees (servants), and, if appropriate to the situation, slaves; but, not necessarily children.



The word "oikos" means family and has special reference to infant children.  

Gen. 34:30, Num. 16:27, Deut. 25:9, Ruth 4:12, Psa. 113:9, I Sam. 2:33....

When the Jews read that Lydia and her house (oikos), the jailer and his house (oikos), and the house (oikos) of Stephanas were baptized... wouldn't they ascribe the same meaning to the word "oikos" that the OT writers did?

btw...I like your new avatar...


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

According to the Catholic Church to have a valid sacrament you must have three elements:

1.	The Proper Form or Words. In the case of baptism “I baptism you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, as stated at the end of the gospel of Matthew.
2.	The Proper Matter. In the case of baptism the matter would be water.
3.	The Proper Minister of the Sacrament. In the case baptism anyone may administer baptism, however the usual minister is the Priest.


----------



## Tim L (Oct 2, 2008)

SBG said:


> Baptizo=Immersion, Submersion
> 
> Ac 8:38
> And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.



Your exactly right.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> "polla hudata"= many waters, a Greek word of number and not quantity
> 
> Example...from how this word is found in English composition....Polynesia means many islands, not "much" islands
> 
> **Do you agree Gparts?



"Many springs" is an easy concept to grasp. It does not necessarily exclude the possibility of sufficient water for immersion. In fact, "many springs" would logically increase the probability of that being the case. That John used it for "baptizo", confirms it for me. How about you?



> Out of the fifteen times in Scriptures where "polla hudata" occurs, this is the only time it is translated "much water."  All other fourteen render it "many waters."  (NT>>>Rev. 1:15, 14:2,17:1,19:6).
> 
> Hudata = springs
> 
> ...



I would conclude from the verse quoted, that John had several places wherein he baptized and as the verse says plainly, it was "near to Salim".

Peace.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 2, 2008)

I'm sitting here laughing out loud.  I cannot BELIEVE that now, for the second time, this issue has gotten 74 RESPONSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Ac 8:38
> And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
> Your exactly right.



BOTH went down into the water....do you mean they were BOTH immersed...of course not.

Verse 36 says they came to a certain water...

Verse 38 says the chariot was stopped  probably close by the water.  They both "went down" from the chariot to the ground, and from the place where the chariot stood to the water...to the edge.  The "down" was not from bank to bottom, but from the chariot to the ground and from the place where the chariot stood to the water's edge.

Verse 39 says they went up from (ek), not from under the water, but away from it on to the road again.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> I'm sitting here laughing out loud. I cannot BELIEVE that now, for the second time, this issue has gotten 74 RESPONSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I missed the first one....  Was there anyone representing the "sprinkling/pouring" mode?  If so, where are they now?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> The word "oikos" means family and has special reference to infant children.
> 
> Gen. 34:30, Num. 16:27, Deut. 25:9, Ruth 4:12, Psa. 113:9, I Sam. 2:33....
> 
> ...




I'll start near the bottom. The OT writers did not use Greek, so I would say that as asked, the question is meaningless.


All OT references were not originally written in Greek. While the word in the Hebrew may have had a specific meaning which included children, the Greek word oikos does not necessarily include children. Lydia may have been unmarried and childless, but with servants.

You just can't build a "house" with two "bricks".

Peace.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Do you think they were immersing tables???



Read what I posted again please.

I said it meant "fully wet". In the case of a table, I imagine you can do that without throwing it in a river.

In the case of a human, I would also imagine that "immersing" would be the standard and easiest way.

You are the one who started throwing around the Greek word. I can not help it if "fully wet" doesn't agree with your interpretation.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm sitting here laughing out loud.  I cannot BELIEVE that now, for the second time, this issue has gotten 74 RESPONSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Well you know how women are. Once they get the bit in their mouth, it is rough going. 



And, for the record, I am in no way saying that women are horses. It was just an analogy made in fun.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Well you know how women are. Once they get the bit in their mouth, it is rough going.
> 
> 
> 
> And, for the record, I am in no way saying that women are horses. It was just an analogy made in fun.



Perhaps "mule" would have been a more suited analogy....


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> All OT references were not originally written in Greek. While the word in the Hebrew may have had a specific meaning which included children, the Greek word oikos does not necessarily include children. Lydia may have been unmarried and childless, but with servants.



So we dismiss the word that those who translated the Septuagint used....  I imagine they understood the original meanings much better than we do.



> You just can't build a "house" with two "bricks".



You forget...I have the entire OT as well.



> Lydia may have been unmarried and childless, but with servants.



Which would still prove my point....Lydia BELIEVED, but her household was baptized.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I missed the first one....  Was there anyone representing the "sprinkling/pouring" mode?  If so, where are they now?



Me I guess.  But I represent it as "acceptable".  I think you agree with that.  It's funny to me that "sprinklers" are cool with dunking.  

But dunkers say "ain't no way you're sprinkling me buddy!"


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Me I guess. But I represent it as "acceptable". I think you agree with that. It's funny to me that "sprinklers" are cool with dunking.
> 
> But dunkers say "ain't no way you're sprinkling me buddy!"
> _____



Yes...our church accepts dunking.  It's a good thing because that is how my husband was baptized...and he is the preacher


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Yes...our church accepts dunking.  It's a good thing because that is how my husband was baptized...and he is the preacher



Oh...I see how it is at your church....as long as the preacher does it, it's okay.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> Oh...I see how it is at your church....as long as the preacher does it, it's okay.




You know better than that....

I was both sprinkled (in the UMC when I had NO spirituality about me whatsoever) and then later dunked at GHBC 

Which one do you think was my baptism

Having said that...my husband will only sprinkle or pour to baptize...as he believes it is Scriptural.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Having said that...my husband will only sprinkle or pour to baptize...as he believes it is Scriptural.



So, how does he get someone "fully wet" or "to whelm" if he only pours or sprinkles? He must use a really big bucket or maybe a garden hose.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

> All OT references were not originally written in Greek. While the word in the Hebrew may have had a specific meaning which included children, the Greek word oikos does not necessarily include children. Lydia may have been unmarried and childless, but with servants.
> So we dismiss the word that those who translated the Septuagint used.... I imagine they understood the original meanings much better than we do.




I can't depend on your imagination. As for the LXX translation, since they used "baptizo", they either understood the Hebrew to mean immersion or they erred in their use of "baptizo".



> You just can't build a "house" with two "bricks".
> You forget...I have the entire OT as well.



OK.
Give me a count as to how many times baptiso or a derivative AND rantizo or a derivative is used in, the OT and NT, to indicate the activity we know today as water baptism .




> Lydia may have been unmarried and childless, but with servants.
> Which would still prove my point....Lydia BELIEVED, but her household was baptized.



Not sure what your point is but if each member of her household was only baptized and never believed in Christ as their personal savior, they each might just as well have stayed dry for all the good it did them. Dunked , sprinkled, dripped on, hosed down, spat on, pelted with snowballs, or sponged makes no difference.

Peace to you and yours.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Me I guess.  But I represent it as "acceptable".  I think you agree with that.  It's funny to me that "sprinklers" are cool with dunking.
> 
> But dunkers say "ain't no way you're sprinkling me buddy!"



Count me as preferring "dunk" due to my understanding of scripture. Accepting of the "drip process" as not being a stumbling block for me. Absolutely certain that the thief on the cross who asked to be remembered was indeed with Christ in paradise that very day and dry as Death Valley on the 4th of July.

Peace.


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

Something interesting to point out this is an early Christian fresco from the 3rd century in the Roman Catacombs of San Callisto. Notice what is going on here


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> BOTH went down into the water....do you mean they were BOTH immersed...of course not.
> 
> Verse 36 says they came to a certain water...
> 
> ...




Stick with it Banjo, pretty soon you'll be able to prove that spitting in someones face is sufficient for New Testament baptism.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

PJason said:


> Something interesting to point out this is an early Christian fresco from the 3rd century in the Roman Catacombs of San Callisto. Notice what is going on here






Looks like Peter out for a stroll on Galilee Blvd after seeing Jesus jogging through the waves.



Peace.


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

One more early Christian fresco of baptism


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 2, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Well you know how women are. Once they get the bit in their mouth, it is rough going.
> 
> 
> 
> And, for the record, I am in no way saying that women are horses. It was just an analogy made in fun.



It seems that some people just plain don't want to get wet!


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Looks like Peter out for a stroll on Galilee Blvd after seeing Jesus jogging through the waves.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace.



The fresco depicts a baptism

The taller figure is pouring water over the shorter figure with a scallop shell


----------



## Banjo (Oct 2, 2008)

> The fresco depicts a baptism



This is a good point...


----------



## PJason (Oct 2, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This is a good point...



I get one a week

Darn now I can't argue and win with my wife.


----------



## Israel (Oct 2, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Me I guess.  But I represent it as "acceptable".  I think you agree with that.  It's funny to me that "sprinklers" are cool with dunking.
> 
> But dunkers say "ain't no way you're sprinkling me buddy!"



Why would it even be an issue? 
I am not sure what a "dunker" is (I guess someone that holds to only full immersion)...but if he is a recent convert, why would he care much one way or the other for his mode of baptism? I would tend to think that whoever led him to the Lord would also be trusted to understand baptising him/her.
Now, I realize there may be some who were Bible scholars that may have some opinion about it...and then they see the light and repent...maybe they might say..."I wanna be dunked"...but from my experience, the simple trust of a convert rarely demands a particular exercise of any ordinance, one way or the other. 
They usually trust the one who preached to them for further instruction, also.

If one is convicted that only sprinkling is "right", then it would behoove them to only sprinkle.
Likewise those to whom immersion appears the only acceptable method.
If and when it becomes an issue of "You are excluded from what I consider the household of faith because your baptism doesn't meet my requirements"...then there is a problem.
All that matters here is the new creature...and that creature will show a desire to submit to the Lord Jesus...if the brother was led to the Lord by a sprinkler, be careful about rejecting his faith...if you are a "dunker".
You may find yourself opposing Jesus.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 2, 2008)

PJason said:


> The fresco depicts a baptism
> 
> The taller figure is pouring water over the shorter figure with a scallop shell



My bad. Thought I recognized the Big Fisherman from his high school pics.

Peace


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Am I missing something here...Who has said that baptism is an option?





Ronnie T said:


> Several on this board.



NOT ME! 
Like on another thread going my Church says this:

Baptism

1 Baptism is a true Sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ. 
2 The materia remota of the Sacrament of Baptism is true and natural water. 
3 Baptism confers the grace of justification. 
4 Baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both eternal and temporal. 
5 Even if it be unworthily received, valid Baptism imprints on the soul of the recipient an indelible spiritual mark, the Baptismal Character, and for this reason, the Sacrament cannot be repeated. 
6 Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation. 
7 Baptism can be validly administered by anyone. 
8 Baptism can be received by any person in the wayfaring state who is not already baptised. 
9 The Baptism of young children is valid and licit. 

Rest and why HERE:
http://www.theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm#Dogma-XVI-Last

More HERE:
http://www.catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

*The Necessity of Baptism*

The Necessity of Baptism


Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12). 

Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

More HERE: http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."



Isn't that the "baptism" of the Holy Spirit that one must have in order to be regenerate???

Aren't there two types of baptism?  One with the Holy Spirit...and one with water.  Only the first one ensures salvation.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> I can't depend on your imagination. As for the LXX translation, since they used "baptizo", they either understood the Hebrew to mean immersion or they erred in their use of "baptizo".



In a study of 175 uses of baptizo in ancient Greek writings, Dr. T.J. Conant (a Baptist) translated baptizo with some form of the English word dip only ten times. The following examples from Dr. Conant’s study suffice to illustrate the point. 

“Polybius, History, book VIII, ch. 8,4.  Describing the operations of the engines, which Archimedes constructed for the defense of Syracuse when besieged by the Romans, and with which he lifted the prows of the 
besieging vessels out of the water, so that they stood erect on the stern, and then let them fall, he says: ‘Which being done, some of the vessels fell on their side, and some were overturned; but most of them, when the prow 
was let fall from on high, BEING SUBMERGED(BAPTIZED), became filled with sea-water and confusion.’”   

“Didorus (the Sicilian), Historical Library, book XVI. ch. 80. In his account of Timoleon's defeat of the Carthaginian army on the bank of the river Crimissus in Sicily, many of the fugitives perishing in the stream swollen by a violent storm, he says: ‘The river, rushing down with the current increased in violence, SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED) many, and destroyed them attempting to swim through their armour.’”   

“Diodorus (the Sicilian), Historical Library, book I, ch. 36. Describing the effects of the rapid rise of the water during the annual inundation of the Nile, he says: ‘Most of the wild land animals are surrounded by the stream 
and perish, being SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED); but some, escaping to the high grounds, are saved.’"

In all of these examples we have the water coming upon the vessel, individuals or animals...

The Greek word baptizo does not imply "taking out of the water."  

"Bapto" expresses the idea of dipping, yet is never used.  

Baptizo does not prescribe any specific act....

Dr. Hodge:

"It (baptizo) is analogous to the word bury.  A man may be buried by being covered up in the ground; by being placed in an empty cave; by being put into a sarcophagus; or even, as among the Indians, by being placed upon a platform elevated above the ground.  The command to bury may be executed in ANY of these ways.  So with regard to the word 'baptizo,' there is a given effect to be produced, without any specific injunction as to the manner, whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling."

Here...knock yourselves out  :

http://grovergunn.net/andrew/mode.htm#ch2


----------



## PWalls (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> So with regard to the word 'baptizo,' there is a given effect to be produced, without any specific injunction as to the manner, whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling."



So, who is confused now? 

You start this thread that says sprinkling is the only Biblical way.

You are refuted. Given several Scriptures and even the definition of the Greek word you kept throwing around. All that lend credence towards full immersion.

Now you post a quote that says the above.



You being convicted that maybe your interpretation/opinion might not be so concrete after all?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

PWalls said:


> So, who is confused now?
> 
> You start this thread that says sprinkling is the only Biblical way.
> 
> ...




ruh roh....I think there is a "flaw."


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> You start this thread that says sprinkling is the only Biblical way.



Well...I thought that I had maintained our church accepts sprinkling/pouring and immersion.

I do believe there is a better argument for sprinkling/pouring, but I never said immersion was invalid.

Did I say that "baptizo" means to pour or sprinkle....


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Well...I thought that I had maintained our church accepts sprinkling/pouring and immersion.
> 
> I do believe there is a better argument for sprinkling/pouring, but I never said immersion was invalid.



It was "implied"



Banjo said:


> Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.  It is best represented through the pouring or sprinkling i.e. affusion of the element (always water).....
> 
> You will NEVER find an example of a person being "dipped" or "immersed" into the Spirit....
> 
> ...


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> It was "implied"





> Yes...our church accepts dunking. It's a good thing because that is how my husband was baptized...and he is the preacher



dawg...dawg...dawg


----------



## SBG (Oct 3, 2008)

Nicander the Greek poet and philosopher understood the meaning of "baptizo." 


Baptizo-

1.	to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 

2.	to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 

3.	to overwhelm 

_Not to be confused with the Hellenistic Greek word bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped'(bapto) into boiling water and then 'immersed' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. _


----------



## PWalls (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> dawg...dawg...dawg



You implied it. There is no denying that. You have been very adamant in your posts.

Regardless, I don't think it matters one way or the other as it is a "symbolic" representation.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> dawg...dawg...dawg



I still say it was implied.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

Pwalls....

I don't know what kind of church you attend.....but I am assuming you guys don't sprinkle/pour.

Would my children (when the reach adulthood), who were baptized as infants by sprinkling, be allowed to join your church?

Could they take communion with you?



> You have been very adamant in your posts.



Adamant in putting forth that sprinkling/pouring is Scriptural.  Adamant in putting forth that the baptisms found in the NT could have been sprinkling or pouring...


----------



## gtparts (Oct 3, 2008)

Our concern should be in the complete immersion at the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Half a dose won't get it. Three quarters is not enough.

We should want it ALL. 

( There's that word again.)

Come Holy Spirit, continually fill us that we might do the will of God.

Peace.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Pwalls....
> 
> I don't know what kind of church you attend.....but I am assuming you guys don't sprinkle/pour.
> 
> ...


I know that the question wasn't directed at me but I'll answer anyways.

I don't believe baptism is a requirement for church membership or communion.

However, I would not call what your children did as infants true baptism, but rather a baby dedication.  As such, when they reached age of understanding what the symbol of baptism means, I'd encourage them to be baptizo'd again.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> I know that the question wasn't directed at me but I'll answer anyways.



I always appreciate your input..



> I don't believe baptism is a requirement for church membership or communion.
> 
> However, I would not call what your children did as infants true baptism, but rather a baby dedication. As such, when they reached age of understanding what the symbol of baptism means, I'd encourage them to be baptizo'd again.



So...could someone become a member and take communion at your church who had never been baptized?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

We practice Closed Communion, so if you are not a member you can not partake in Communion...

By member I mean, a Believer, with a Scriptual Baptism, which to us is full immersion...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> We practice Closed Communion, so if you are not a member you can not partake in Communion...
> DB BB



Sounds rather Catholic


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Sounds rather Catholic


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


>



Oh yeah, my wife was baptised in a Baptist church and when she became Catholic, it was recognized and she didn't have to do it again


----------



## PWalls (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Pwalls....
> 
> I don't know what kind of church you attend.....but I am assuming you guys don't sprinkle/pour.
> 
> ...



We immerse. Southern Baptist.

Why would a church recognize a sprinkling on an infant? Baptism is an outward expression of a conscious decision made by a person to get rid of the old man and take on the new man. When has an infant ever done that? We have baby dedications but no "baptism" is involved in that.

Communion is for all Christians at our church. We leave that finite analysis up to the individual (or parent of a child). 

Yes, you have been adamant. But then you have been shown otherwise and then you post a quote from a website that debunks or at leasts cast doubt on your own position.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Oh yeah, my wife was baptised in a Baptist church and when she became Catholic, it was recognized and she didn't have to do it again


 

You and Big7 are trying to work on me aren't you....

It ain't happening...


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You and Big7 are trying to work on me aren't you....
> 
> It ain't happening...



I hunt alone


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> Yes, you have been adamant. But then you have been shown otherwise and then you post a quote from a website that debunks or at leasts cast doubt on your own position.



And none of the Scriptures I presented even gave you the slightest inkling that Sprinkling is not only acceptable, but could have been practiced....NONE????

None of the frescos that Pjason placed on here depicting EARLY baptisms as sprinkling mean anything to you?  The earliest pictures of Jesus being baptized had the element being applied to Him.  Kind of like the Holy Spirit DESCENDING on Him....

The quote I pasted says that "baptizo" does not indicate one particular mode...but then again...I never said it did....



> So with regard to the word 'baptizo,' there is a given effect to be produced, without any specific injunction as to the manner, whether by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling."



Baptists are the ones who say it does....immersion.  Not only do they say immersion is the only way to baptize, but they won't allow Christians to join their church (or take communion in some cases) unless the submit themselves to THEIR understanding of baptism. Whereas, Presbyterians, and come to find out RC's do allow a "dunkee" into membership.

Man...and you guys think I am close minded....


----------



## PWalls (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> And none of the Scriptures I presented even gave you the slightest inkling that Sprinkling is not only acceptable, but could have been practiced....NONE????
> 
> None of the frescos that Pjason placed on here depicting EARLY baptisms as sprinkling mean anything to you?  The earliest pictures of Jesus being baptized had the element being applied to Him.  Kind of like the Holy Spirit DESCENDING on Him....
> 
> ...



OK. I guess I am done.

You were the one who started the thread and gave all this rhetoric and Scripture about how immersion is not Scriptural and so forth. You were refuted. Now you are doing a two step.

I personally do not care one way or the other if it is immersion or sprinkling because I think it is symbolic only. However, I do personally believe that immersion interpretation lines up better with Scripture.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> And none of the Scriptures I presented even gave you the slightest inkling that Sprinkling is not only acceptable, but could have been practiced....NONE????



Sure, they might have done it that way, but that doesn't mean they were doing it RIGHT!



> None of the frescos that Pjason placed on here depicting EARLY baptisms as sprinkling mean anything to you?  The earliest pictures of Jesus being baptized had the element being applied to Him.  Kind of like the Holy Spirit DESCENDING on Him....



One word: PHOTOSHOP!!!



> The quote I pasted says that "baptizo" does not indicate one particular mode...but then again...I never said it did....



All his quotes were secular in origin. The spiritual definition is more tightly defined as being "completely submerged and then resurfacing".





> Baptists are the ones who say it does....immersion.  Not only do they say immersion is the only way to baptize, but they won't allow Christians to join their church (or take communion in some cases) unless the submit themselves to THEIR understanding of baptism. Whereas, Presbyterians, and come to find out RC's do allow a "dunkee" into membership.



SBC churches are autonomous. They are SBC because they understand the SBC Baptitst Faith and Message. The SBC has no authority over the local body of believers who choose to affiliate. There is great liberty afforded the local church and the individual believer in this arrangement. We've had people who were "deathly" afraid of immersion and people physically unable to be immersed who by profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are received into fellowship. We have also had those with essentially the same issues insist on baptism by immersion because they wanted to publicly give that testimony to the world.



> Man...and you guys think I am close minded....


 Think?

Not at all, if it's settled for you and God has given you His peace on the matter, then it is a closed matter. Being a Christian means some stuff is non-negotiable.

Peace.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Not at all, if it's settled for you and God has given you His peace on the matter, then it is a closed matter. Being a Christian means some stuff is non-negotiable.


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Pwalls....
> 
> I don't know what kind of church you attend.....but I am assuming you guys don't sprinkle/pour.
> 
> ...



I can answer for three of us since we are ALL on the same page

A- In order:

Catholic
sprinkle/pour
Yes - dunked one's too.. Only one is valid and licit -CAN NOT be REPEATED!
Yes - After Catechist
ME Too...
ME Too...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Oct 3, 2008)

Now for those that eat pork;

Isaiah 65


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> You know better than that....
> 
> I was both sprinkled (in the UMC when I had NO spirituality about me whatsoever) and then later dunked at GHBC
> 
> ...



The FIRST one.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

PJason said:


> Something interesting to point out this is an early Christian fresco from the 3rd century in the Roman Catacombs of San Callisto. Notice what is going on here



Most won't see it!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

PWalls said:


> We immerse. Southern Baptist.
> 
> Why would a church recognize a sprinkling on an infant? Baptism is an outward expression of a conscious decision made by a person to get rid of the old man and take on the new man. When has an infant ever done that? We have baby dedications but no "baptism" is involved in that.
> 
> ...



Here's why -

INFANT
BAPTISM
"‘He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.’ Therefore, only people who have faith can be baptized. So why baptize infants?"

Those who believe that we should baptize adults only quote St. Mark 16, 16 for support: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Therefore, only those who have first undergone a "born again" experience by accepting Jesus Christ as their "personal Lord and Savior" can be baptized. It is also argued that Jesus Christ Himself was not baptized until the age of thirty. 

According to St. Paul, baptism in the Christian religion replaces the Jewish rite of circumcision (Col. 2, 11-12). This Jewish rite was normally given to infants and made them "religiously" clean and a member of God’s Chosen Race. With the coming of the Christianity, infants were to be accorded a similar and even greater spiritual privilege.

Catholics and Fundamentalists differ radically as to the meaning and effect of Baptism. Fundamentalists hold that baptism is only an ordinance whereby the "born-again" adult makes a public manifestation of his conversion. It is not necessary for salvation as the person has already been saved by accepting Jesus as his "personal Lord and Savior." Baptism does not infuse any grace to re-generate the soul as the candidate’s sins are "covered up" with the acceptance of Christ. Infants without reason who die unbaptized go straight to heaven as they only need to accept Christ as Savior after they have committed sin. Therefore, baptism of infants is pointless.

Catholics, on the other hand, assert that Baptism is an obligatory sacrament instituted by Christ which in itself makes us born-again: "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (St. John 3, 5 [Douai]). Further, baptism bestows the grace it signifies into the soul of the recipient. This includes sanctifying grace, the seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the infused theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, the infused moral virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, as well as the uncreated grace of the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity: "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them" (St. John 14, 23). Lastly, the candidate receives a right to actual graces to assist him in carrying out his baptismal promises. Consequent upon infusion of grace, all sin, original and actual, is forgiven and all temporal punishment due to sin is remitted. Without this infusion of grace the soul cannot be in a fit state to behold the Beatific Vision upon death. Baptism has all these effects irrespective of the age of the candidate.

On this basis Catholics see no reason to withhold the wonderful effects of Baptism from infants until they reach the age of reason. By baptizing infants, the Catholic Church frees them as soon as possible from the dominion of Satan and admits them into the company of children of God: "Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs" (St. Matt. 19, 14). No where is it stated in Sacred Scripture that Baptism be administered only to adults.

With the enormous growth of the Church after Pentecost, large numbers of adult Jews and Pagans were being converted (Acts 2, 41). Obviously, these new Christians first had to believe in Jesus Christ before being baptized. However, in the case of some of these adults their entire families were baptized with them. Probably some of these families would have had infant children: 

(The family of Cornelius and all the persons present in his house during St. Peter’s visit) "Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Acts 10, 47); 

"A certain woman named Lydia, a worshiper of God, was listening to us...The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul. When she and her household were baptized, she urged us..." (Acts 16, 14-15); 

"At the same hour of the night he (the jailer) took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay" (Acts 16, 33); 

"I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1, 16).

As for the claim that Jesus Christ was baptized only when He was an adult, it should be realized that Our Lord did not receive Christian baptism, in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the baptism of St. John the Baptist, which was only a symbolic washing and did not infuse grace. 

It is entirely false that infant baptism began late in the Church’s history. However, it is true that after three centuries of evangelization generations were now Christian by family tradition and this led to a decrease in the rate of adult catechumens and baptisms. 

The Fathers:

St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition (C. 215 A.D.):

"Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." 

Origen, Homilies on Leviticus (Post 244 A.D.):

"...According to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous." 

If there was controversy, it was only about the age at which children should be baptized... 

Tertullian, Baptism (Inter 200 - 206 A.D.):

"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, is it necessary - if it be not a case of necessity - that the sponsors too be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition?"

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters to Fidus (C. 251-252 A.D.):

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth...,and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise." 

Nothing changed in the fourth century according to the testimonies of St. John Chrysostom (In Sermo 11:17, 28) and St. Ambrose, in his work on Abraham (2:81). 

St. Augustine of Hippo (+430 A.D.):

"The Church has always baptized children. She received this tradition from our forefathers’ faith and she will keep it until the end of time. Infant baptism is a practice which is in harmony with the very firm and ancient Faith of the Church." 

Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):

If, then, through the transgression of Adam, children can inherit original sin, with still stronger reason can they attain through Christ our Lord grace and justice that they may reign in life. This, however, cannot be effected otherwise than by Baptism. 

Pastors, therefore, should inculcate the absolute necessity of administering Baptism to infants, and gradually forming their tender minds to piety by education in the Christian religion. For according to these admirable words of the wise man: A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):

No. 1250: Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. 

No. 1251: Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them. 

No. 1252: The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

PJason said:


> Something interesting to point out this is an early Christian fresco from the 3rd century in the Roman Catacombs of San Callisto. Notice what is going on here


 
By observing the style of painting it would have been pretty hard to pull off painting someone being dunked completely underwater... If you notice the colors do not seem to over-lap one another... so by that it would have been pretty hard to show a body completely covered by water...

Just an observation... from an Artist... I could be wrong...

Thanks for posting the artwork, I love seeing old art, there is just something about it...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 3, 2008)

Big7 said:


> Here's why -
> 
> INFANT
> BAPTISM
> ...


 

You didn't post the link where you got that from....



DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 3, 2008)

> The FIRST one.



Don't beat your head on that wall....I agree.

The first baptism was done by an ordained minister, with water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost...

I just got wet the second time....boy did I get wet.

Maybe I should say I was overwhelmed....


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 3, 2008)

FX Jenkins said:


> if it wasn't running water it didn't take.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks ole buddy you know right where Im coming from...... 

BTW Nobody will ever be baptized in the same water that I was.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Well, for the record it should be round



it is very hard for me to take ANYTHING you post seriously at this time with the green boogered dog in your avatar.......


----------



## PWalls (Oct 3, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> Thanks ole buddy you know right where Im coming from......
> 
> BTW Nobody will ever be baptized in the same water that I was.



We know why Hillbillies dunk. Shoot, it's the best bath most of them will ever get.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 3, 2008)

PWalls said:


> We know why Hillbillies dunk. Shoot, it's the best bath most of them will ever get.



In some cases its the only bath..................


----------



## Twenty five ought six (Oct 3, 2008)

> Not only do they say immersion is the only way to baptize, but they won't allow Christians to join their church (or take communion in some cases) unless the submit themselves to THEIR understanding of baptism.



There are some SBC churches that will accept members from another congregation with a profession of faith.  

Sprinkling was mentioned in the first century B.C. as an alternative to baptism.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> In some cases its the only bath..................



'cept fer them feets


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Oct 3, 2008)

Dunk em it was good enough for Jesus.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You didn't post the link where you got that from....
> 
> 
> 
> DB BB



I only done it a thousand times one more won't hurt.
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Apologtc/R_Haddad/Course/Book2-A.htm#INFANT
When you get there, go back to the home page.
You just Might learn Something! (Herman Cain(sp?)) 

BTW - Take off some of them !!!! after AMEN -  The thread won't fit on my 21 inch screen!


----------



## Big7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Don't beat your head on that wall....I agree.
> 
> The first baptism was done by an ordained minister,with water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost...I just got wet the second time....boy did I get wet.
> 
> Maybe I should say I was overwhelmed....



Good for you!
BTW - Don't have to be a Minister, Mine was and most are
just saying.... I could have done it!


----------



## PJason (Oct 3, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> By observing the style of painting it would have been pretty hard to pull off painting someone being dunked completely underwater... If you notice the colors do not seem to over-lap one another... so by that it would have been pretty hard to show a body completely covered by water...
> 
> Just an observation... from an Artist... I could be wrong...
> 
> ...



I wish the picture was clearer I will look for one with more detail. What is washed-out in this is the hand of the person baptizing. They are using a scallop shell to pour water over the person being baptized.

I get the point of it being difficult paint someone underwater.

 I would also point out that the painter found the subject matter, baptism, important enough to paint about, but if the importance laid in how one preforms baptism , sprinkling, dunking, pouring, and so on, it could be a fare guess that the painter would have been more studious in a more accurate portrayal of baptism.

If you will notice, again I apologize for the quality, the water that is being poured does cover the figure while not obscuring the face or front of the body, the water seems to surround the person thus flattening the painting. This same technique could be used to show a person laying back in the water or being dunked backwards.

Again I think it goes back to intent here. Was the artist intent to a baptism or was the intent to single out a specific method, in this case pouring, by which a person must be baptized.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2008)

Do we know for sure that the artist was depicting Christian baptism??  Maybe he was painting an adult giving a child a bath.

Anyway, what's the big deal.  Wouldn't everyone want to be dunked since it appears that is what Jesus and all New Testament converts submitted?


----------



## PJason (Oct 3, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Do we know for sure that the artist was depicting Christian baptism??  Maybe he was painting an adult giving a child a bath.




Yes we do. This fresco was not a lone piece of early Christian art, the catacombs of Rome have hundreds of paintings depicting scenes from baptism to the Eucharist, crosses, fish, Christ as the Good Shepherd, and one scene that I mentioned before:


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 3, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Do we know for sure that the artist was depicting Christian baptism??  Maybe he was painting an adult giving a child a bath.Anyway, what's the big deal.  Wouldn't everyone want to be dunked since it appears that is what Jesus and all New Testament converts submitted?



puh-leeez


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> puh-leeez




Hey............ Cut me some slack.  He could have been anointing someone's head with oil.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 4, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Big7  View Post
> Here's why -
> 
> INFANT
> ...



To the best of my knowledge, the Jews did not circumcise infants of the female gender. So.............................

Are they "in" or "out" as regards the replacement concept?
Males = replacement.
Females = New religious standing?

Peace.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 4, 2008)

> To the best of my knowledge, the Jews did not circumcise infants of the female gender. So.............................



Don't you love the new covenant...it is more inclusive...and no blood rite.  Now females can received the Covenant sign, gentiles...

In the Old Testament, females were considered "circumcised" if their male authorities were...I just can't remember the verse.

Too much housecleaning and cooking going on for me to look for it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I always appreciate your input..
> 
> 
> 
> So...could someone become a member and take communion at your church who had never been baptized?





PWalls said:


> Why would a church recognize a sprinkling on an infant? Baptism is an outward expression of a conscious decision made by a person to get rid of the old man and take on the new man. When has an infant ever done that? We have baby dedications but no "baptism" is involved in that.
> 
> Communion is for all Christians at our church. We leave that finite analysis up to the individual (or parent of a child).



I'm not sure about how the church I attend now would be about membership and communion.  I'm thinking that it would probably require baptism by immersion for both.  However, I would disagree with it....I think the way PWalls describes is best.  Communion should only be closed to those who are not believers.  Since baptism and membership is not a requirement for salvation, why should it be a requirement for communion

Banjo,
Curious...say one of your children who has been sprinkled walks away from the Lord and rebels.  Obviously, not a Christian.  Then 20 years down the road repents and makes a profession of faith.  Do they get baptized again or was the sprinkling enough?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> Banjo,
> Curious...say one of your children who has been sprinkled walks away from the Lord and rebels. Obviously, not a Christian. Then 20 years down the road repents and makes a profession of faith. Do they get baptized again or was the sprinkling enough?



I do pray this never happens....However, if it did, no they would not get baptized again.  

The first baptism placed the mark of the covenant on them, just as circumcision did in the old covenant.  Even if the Lord chose not to regenerate them until late adulthood, it doesn't matter.

Let me ask you this:  

If a man gets baptized after a profession of faith, yet leaves the church, only to come back in ten years making another profession, do you baptize him again?  What if he leaves and returns yet another time?  Another baptism?  How about ten times?  When do you stop?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Let me ask you this:
> 
> If a man gets baptized after a profession of faith, yet leaves the church, only to come back in ten years making another profession, do you baptize him again?  What if he leaves and returns yet another time?  Another baptism?  How about ten times?  When do you stop?



I guess you'd stop when the Lord finally saved him or when he didn't come back anymore.

But I don't think that that would ever happen in the real world church of rjcruiser.  I think that there should be more than just a profession for someone to be baptized.  It is frustrating to me to see you kids and even adults who come on Sunday morning...walk the aisle...say a prayer and sign a card and then are baptized Sunday evening and all they say is "I asked Jesus into my heart."

I know, I might get flamed for this, but there needs to be a little more understanding of what true Biblical repentance and salvation is than just "I asked Jesus into my heart" before someone should be baptized.  That is something that I think is so hurtful to many.  They get baptized as an infant or young child and hold on to that as a sign of their conversion.  I know, you've already stated that this doesn't happen in PCA churches, but I think it happens a lot throughout all of Christianity.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> It is frustrating to me to see you kids and even adults who come on Sunday morning...walk the aisle...say a prayer and sign a card and then are baptized Sunday evening and all they say is "I asked Jesus into my heart."



I totally concur.



> They get baptized as an infant or young child and hold on to that as a sign of their conversion. I know, you've already stated that this doesn't happen in PCA churches, but I think it happens a lot throughout all of Christianity.



I belong to an RPCUS church...several differences between us and the PCA.  We strictly subscribe to the WCF.  

I think both Baptists and Presbyterians can be guilty of this.  It is kind of like when well-meaning Baptist parents ask their children if they love Jesus and want to go to heaven.  Most answer affirmatively.  Then the child prays with the parents and "asks Jesus into their heart."    The child is pronounced "saved" and baptized.  How many people do you know who are resting on a decision they made years ago to get them into heaven?  

I have heard moms say things like:  "I know 'Johnny' isn't living right, but he walked the aisle when he was 10 and got baptized."


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> mark of the covenant on them, just as circumcision did in the old covenant. Even if the Lord chose not to regenerate them until late adulthood, it doesn't matter.


 
So tell me, does this mark of the covenant, have some special purpose? Does it protect the person from he11 if they were to die before they make a profession of faith? Just curious if this is like the RCC infant baptism...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

PJason said:


> I wish the picture was clearer I will look for one with more detail. What is washed-out in this is the hand of the person baptizing. They are using a scallop shell to pour water over the person being baptized.
> 
> I get the point of it being difficult paint someone underwater.
> 
> ...


 

It seems a shtough the image painted is more of a childlike drawing, I am not meaning to insult anyone in stating that. I love those kinds of drawings esspecially when my kids bring me ones they have obviously spent a lot of time doing. It is an artform unto itself... in this 2D look(non-perspective drawing) I think it would be nearly impossible to show someone getting dunked by someone else... The only way I think it could be done is if the person doing the dunking was standing directly behind a person laying down and only have the top half of the person floating on a blue color to denot water... but I think it would be rather difficult to pull off... Just my opinion...

Please post more, I love this old old artwork....

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> So tell me, does this mark of the covenant, have some special purpose? Does it protect the person from he11 if they were to die before they make a profession of faith? Just curious if this is like the RCC infant baptism...



Well, it is special because God commands us to place the sign of the covenant on the children He sovereignly places in our Christian homes.  

No, it is only a sign of what must happen in order for the child to be saved.  The Holy Spirit must regenerate the child.  When this happens is up to Him.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

One more thought...  I think I have probably said this before, but  it bears repeating.

Can any of us truly discern whether someone is a believer?  Can we know beyond a shadow of a doubt?

If not, (and I say not), how can it be a requirement of baptism?

Something else I thought about:



> Banjo,
> Curious...say one of your children who has been sprinkled walks away from the Lord and rebels. Obviously, not a Christian. Then 20 years down the road repents and makes a profession of faith. Do they get baptized again or was the sprinkling enough?



In the Old Covenant, how many times could someone get circumcised?

Here are some good articles on paedobaptism:

http://www.paedobaptism.com/


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Well, it is special because God commands us to place the sign of the covenant on the children He sovereignly places in our Christian homes.
> 
> No, it is only a sign of what must happen in order for the child to be saved. The Holy Spirit must regenerate the child. When this happens is up to Him.


 
So at what age is it too late to get a child's "sign of the covenant" done?

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Can any of us truly discern whether someone is a believer?  Can we know beyond a shadow of a doubt?



Well, God says we can.  Matt 7

17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 

 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 

 19"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 

 20"So then, you will know them by their fruits. 




			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> Something else I thought about:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Old Covenant, how many times could someone get circumcised?



Oh boy...I thinking only once...I'd hate to think of having to do it twice.

But, I will say, you like comparing/mixing the old covenant and the new covenant when it suits you, but then toss out the old when it doesn't   I guess I'm starting to sound like Dixie Dawg here

Just as a quick disclaimer...I'm half saying the above in jest, but with a little seriousness as well.  No offense meant, just more of a


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> But, I will say, you like comparing/mixing the old covenant and the new covenant when it suits you, but then toss out the old when it doesn't  I guess I'm starting to sound like Dixie Dawg here



Help me out here...when do I throw out the old?

Perhaps the ceremonial law??  I wouldn't throw it out as we can still study its underlying principles. 

I don't mind if you   me...It makes me think.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 6, 2008)

*Help me out here.....*



Banjo said:


> Well, it is special because God commands us to place the sign of the covenant on the children He sovereignly places in our Christian homes.



Scripture, please.



> No, it is only a sign of what must happen in order for the child to be saved.



Do you put this "sign" on the elect and non-elect? How do you know?





> The Holy Spirit must regenerate the child.  When this happens is up to Him.




Must? Even if they are non-elect? If not, what is the point? And if so, what is the point?

Doesn't your concept of election render this "sign" or "mark" worthless?



Peace.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo,

Sorry, didn't mean to open up a can of worms.. I was just curious...

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

This view is consistent with how God worked in the Old Covenant. A son is born, and is given the mark of the covenant. Jewish parents did not wait in fear and trepidation, hoping and praying that one day this covenant child would embrace the faith and be brought into the kingdom. God established no system of “confirmation”, when the child reached a certain age. No Hebrew ever walked an aisle, or made a decision. He was instead raised within the covenant community.

Some may object that the Old Covenant was an earthly covenant. God had promised Abraham that He would give him a land that He would show him. He promised also that He would give him a son, and through him a mighty nation. He promised Abraham also that he would be a blessing to all the nations. All of these promises, though they are astounding in their grace, cannot be compared with the greatest promise, that the Lord would be God to Abraham (and to his seed.)

How does one have God as his God? There is only one way, through the mediatorial work of the Son. All those, old covenant and new, who are not in union with Christ are at war with the Father. Abraham had peace with God, and the sign of that peace was circumcision. The promises, then were not merely earthly, but heavenly. The sign symbolized God’s covenant blessing.

Others may object that not all Israel was Israel. Paul himself said so. How can circumcision be a sign of belief when some had the sign and did not believe? Wouldn’t it make more sense to give the sign of belief only to those who actually believe? Of course some were given the sign who did not believe. The sign is a sign, not a guarantee, a peek into the Lamb’s book of life. The same is true of covenant baptism. Because we are not sacerdotalists, we affirm that indeed some are given the sign of faith who do not have faith. Not all of the new covenant community are of the new covenant community. The trouble with this objection is that it objects to too much. Those who baptize covenant children are not alone in this dilemma. Even in baptistic churches there are those who are given the sign of faith who are in fact not in the faith. That someone lacks the thing signfied does not mean that they should not have been given the sign. The trouble is that we just don’t know who are the elect of God and who are not. Neither circumcision, paedo-baptism nor credo-baptism can get past that fact.

Others still might object that little children do not have the capacity for faith. If such is the case we can safely conclude two things. First, all those who die in infancy spend eternity facing the wrath of God. The Scripture affirms both that we are sinners from the beginning, and that there is only one way to escape the wrath of God, by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who cannot believe cannot escape. Second, we must not take those who cannot have faith into the heavenly temple. If they have no faith, they are not covered by Christ. If they are not covered by Christ, then appearing in God’s courtroom is not a safe place for them to be.

There is every reason to believe that little children do not have the capacity to believe the gospel. They lack that which is necessary. The good news is that no person has the capacity to believe the gospel. Not a one of us can believe on our own, not because we aren’t smart enough, but because we are not good enough. What stops the little children from believing is not a tiny brain, but a wicked heart. And God is stronger than both tiny brains, and wicked hearts. It is a miracle, regeneration, but if God can do it in a sinner like me, He can certainly do it in a sinner like a little baby. He can even do it in the womb. When Elizabeth came to visit Mary, the Scripture tells us that John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb. The unregenerate do not leap in the presence of the Christ, they cower. John, even in the womb, had been given new life.

The rest is here...http://www.paedobaptism.com/sprouljr.htm


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Others still might object that little children do not have the capacity for faith. If such is the case we can safely conclude two things. *First, all those who die in infancy spend eternity facing the wrath of God. The Scripture affirms both that we are sinners from the beginning, and that there is only one way to escape the wrath of God, by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who cannot believe cannot escape. Second, we must not take those who cannot have faith into the heavenly temple. If they have no faith, they are not covered by Christ. If they are not covered by Christ, then appearing in God’s courtroom is not a safe place for them to be.*


 

I have a real problem with this, in particular that which I bolded...

My wife and I lost a child at 11.5 weeks, I believe that child is in Heaven right now...

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Help me out here...when do I throw out the old?
> 
> Perhaps the ceremonial law??  I wouldn't throw it out as we can still study its underlying principles.
> 
> I don't mind if you   me...It makes me think.



Well, I guess I'm talking about the Abrahamic covenant that God made with His people Israel and how you then apply that to the Church today.  

I guess that is how you apply the fact that Baptism is the new circumcision.

Also, I know that your post above and the link go into the infant dying and being saved from sin, but how do you think that it occurs?  

Are they sinless in the womb? Are they sinless until the age of reason or accountability? (rhetorical question)

Are all babies/young children that die going to heaven?  Are some and others not?  What is the reasoning?

I guess some of this is a little , but I'm curious how you justify that based on your views.  I'll start a new thread if you'd like....also, I know that this can be a difficult subject for some so I encourage all of us to be as civil and understanding as possible.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> Well, I guess I'm talking about the Abrahamic covenant that God made with His people Israel and how you then apply that to the Church today.
> 
> I guess that is how you apply the fact that Baptism is the new circumcision.
> 
> ...



I never thought of that, but yes, I can see how one might construe that...  I believe the Abrahamic covenant was given to Abraham (Nation of Israel)...with the intention that it would eventually be given to the elect, or the Church.  That is why God told Abraham that it was an everlasting covenant and through him ALL nations would be blessed (not just the Jews).  

Elect infants that die in infancy and elect individuals who cannot profess faith (physically or mentally handicapped) go to heaven.  God regenerates them.  

Would you agree that in the old administration of the Covenant of Grace the sign was circumcision, but in the new administration (of that EVERLASTING covenant of Grace) baptism is the sign?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Elect infants that die in infancy and elect individuals who cannot profess faith (physically or mentally handicapped) go to heaven.  God regenerates them.


  I'd disagree with this, but that is another topic/thread.  I think God's grace/mercy covers all babies (I guess that would make them all "Elect").  I've read MacArthur's book "Safe in the Arms of God" and I think it does a great job of representing this case.  I recommend it to all who are struggling with the death of a young person.



			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> Would you agree that in the old administration of the Covenant of Grace the sign was circumcision, but in the new administration (of that EVERLASTING covenant of Grace) baptism is the sign?


Nope...the Covenant of Israel was circumcision (I wouldn't call that Grace).  They were under the law, not under Grace.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

gtparts...

Have you ever studied the other side?  Have you read the works published by many concerning paedobaptism.

If interested, here is a great series of articles written by a man who once was credobaptist, but then retracted his position and became convinced that paedobaptism is Scriptural.

Here is the site:  http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/Baptism&InfantBaptism.htm#Articles on Baptism/Infant Baptism:

The articles are found by scrolling down the page.  It is scholarly work, and very interesting to read.

Here is one paragraph:

I do not believe in Paedo-Baptism because John Owen believed it, or Dabney, Edwards, Calvin, Turretin, Ames, Adams, Goodwin, Manton, Caryl, Charnock, Bridges, Trail, Newton, Flavel, Watts, Case, Robinson, Gurnall, Boys, Burroughs, Love, Perkins, Murray, Hodge, Berkhof, Luther, Augustine, Heywood, Baxter, Jenkyn, Cunningham, Henry, Bolton, Swinnock, Rutherford, Gillespie, Knox, Wickliffe, Sibbs, Watson, Clarkson, Brooks, Hus, Toplady, Alexander, James, A’brakel, Whitaker, Van Til, Brown, Scougal, Hall, Lloyd Jones, Vincent,Dyke, Alliene, Steele, Mead, Bayly, Pearse, Ranew, Symonds, Shepherd, Doolittle, Miller, Ainsworth, Shaw, Greenhill, Warfield, Willison, Stoddard, Hopkins, Plumer, Gouge, Beza, Tyndale, Foxe, Greenham, Hooper, Dod, Kuyper, Ridderbos, Dering, (can we think about thousands of others?!) believed it.  I unquestionably do not adhere to a theological formulation because it is “vogue” to do so, and neither did these men; otherwise they are daft for doing so, and I would have given into it 15 years ago on the basis of its “historical fashionableness.”  I now acknowledge it because I am convinced there is a solid, biblical solution proving decisively that Infant Baptism is biblically consistent with the manner in which God works among His covenant people.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

rj...

If you want to start another thread, I would be glad to participate.  (It will have to be later though, as I am walking out the door.)

Do you think Muslim babies go to heaven?  

Is there a difference between a baby that God sovereignly places in a Christian home, and one He sovereignly places in a pagan home?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> rj...
> 
> If you want to start another thread, I would be glad to participate. (It will have to be later though, as I am walking out the door.)
> 
> ...


 
What if God chooses to take the child at 11.5 weeks, during pregnancy, on Christmas day?

miscarriages happen everyday to Christian people... It happened to my wife and I...

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 6, 2008)

> What if God chooses to take the child at 11.5 weeks, during pregnancy, on Christmas day?
> 
> miscarriages happen everyday to Christian people... It happened to my wife and I...



It happened to my husband and myself as well.  I think we have EVERY reason to believe that our children are a part of the elect, therefore they are in heaven.

God has promised to be a God to both us and our children as well.  I will list some of those scriptures later.

David said that he knew that he would see his son again in heaven.  This was the infant son that he had with Bathsheba....


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> It happened to my husband and myself as well.  I think we have EVERY reason to believe that our children are a part of the elect, therefore they are in heaven.
> 
> God has promised to be a God to both us and our children as well.  I will list some of those scriptures later.
> 
> David said that he knew that he would see his son again in heaven.  This was the infant son that he had with Bathsheba....



I'm sorry to hear of your loss and I again, based on my position, agree with you on the issue of your child being in heaven.

I've bumped a thread started by DB BB a while back.  I'd love to hear your side of things and how you know that your children are part of the elect.  Again, I agree with you on the fact that your child is in heaven, just differ on how you get to that position.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 6, 2008)

Banjo said:


> It happened to my husband and myself as well. I think we have EVERY reason to believe that our children are a part of the elect, therefore they are in heaven.
> 
> God has promised to be a God to both us and our children as well. I will list some of those scriptures later.
> 
> David said that he knew that he would see his son again in heaven. This was the infant son that he had with Bathsheba....


 
I am sorry that you and your husband had to go through that, I think it was one of the toughest trails I have ever endured...

It is actually very scarey how common, miscarriage is... Our doctor told us that 1 out of 3 babies are miscarried...  Very Scarey!

DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Again, I agree with you on the fact that your child is in heaven, just differ on how you get to that position.



WCF:  Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth:  so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

There is nothing in the state of infancy to exclude an infant (even one in the womb) from being a beneficiary of the atonement.  The atonement is just as imputable to a baby as to an adult.

God works covenantally within families.   Remember Noah who found favor in the eyes of the Lord.  Noah's whole family entered the ark for safety from God's judgment (Gen. 6:18).  

Gen.  17:7:  "And I will establish my covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generation, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you."

II Sam. 12:23:  "But now he is dead; why should I fast?  Can I bring him back again?  I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

Psalm 103:17-18:  "But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and His righteousness to children's children, To those who keep His covenant and remember His precepts to do them.

Ezekiel 16:20-21:  "Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured.  Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, that you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire?

Acts 2:38:  "Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

I Cor. 7:14:  "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."

Eph. 6:1:  "Children, obey your parents in the Lord...

Children of believers are set apart.  They were placed by God in a Covenant home where they have access to the means of grace and where they will be raised in the admonition of the Lord.  We have every reason to hope that our children are or will be regenerated by the Lord.  Here is one difference between how Presbyterians and Baptists look at their children.  We presume they are (or will be) regenerated unless they prove otherwise.  They are baptized members of the Church.  Christ put them in the Church by nature of them being born into a Christian family.   Baptists presume their children are unregenerate until a profession of faith is made, then they are admitted into the church. 

Do you teach your children to pray?  Do you teach them that God is their Father, or do you wait until they make a profession of faith?  Do you allow them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" only after they have made a profession of faith and been baptized?  

Here is a good article on the Covenant and Believer's Children:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 7, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> 'cept fer them feets



yes sir feets get it at least once a year.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

It is truly scary that Banjo has the need to add "elect" in front of the children that get to go to Heaven when they die.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

PWalls said:


> It is truly scary that Banjo has the need to add "elect" in front of the children that get to go to Heaven when they die.



Well...I guess I can go along with it, but I'll just say that "all" (and I mean every single one in the World) children are the elect


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> It is truly scary that Banjo has the need to add "elect" in front of the children that get to go to Heaven when they die.



Why is that scary?  Can you prove from the Bible that ALL children who die go to heaven?  I don't know if God counts ALL infants and children under a certain age as part of the elect.  The BIBLE is silent on this.  I do know that everyone (infants included) who are among the elect ARE going to heaven.  The BIBLE most definitely speaks to that.

By the way, the Westminster Confession of Faith is where I got that statement.  You can read it here:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/i....org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

Here is a list of the men who wrote it.  Check out the credentials listed behind their names.  They earned higher level degrees in a time when they actually meant something.  

http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/AssemblyMembers.htm

To put it bluntly, these men would be able to wipe the floor with any modern day theologians.  A more learned group of individuals have never assembled to hammer out the theology presented in the Bible.  Every point made is backed by Scripture.

You should read it...  

The sad thing is that most modern Christians are so anemic when it comes to theology (and education in general) that they would be completely unable to comprehend what is written without extreme difficulty.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> The sad thing is that most modern Christians are so anemic when it comes to theology (and education in general) that they would be completely unable to comprehend what is written without extreme difficulty.





I would agree that most modern Christians are anemic when it comes to theology.  Yes...there are many reasons for it...but we've hashed that out in other threads.

However, there are brilliant theologians from our day as well.  Also, there are Bible verses to back up the positions that I've stated as well.  

It is interesting how in one discussion when the Bible only mentions something once, it can be applied to all, but in another discussion when the Bible only mentions something once, it is the exception rather than the rule.  Not saying that I agree with either camp here, but I'll give an example.

Baptism necessary for Salvation?--Thief on the cross an example that it is not necessary.  Is this an example or an exception?

Children going to Heaven?--David and Bathsheeba's first born.  Is this an example or an exception?

So, yes, we will all have differences in our theology and our interpretations.  And there are doctrines and theologies in which there is no room to waiver, but on issues such as this, I think that there is room for personal interpretations and differences.  This is not a matter of eternal destiny for the Christian.  This is an issue that we will find out when we get to Heaven ourselves and see all the little children that Jesus so cared for.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> I would agree that most modern Christians are anemic when it comes to theology. Yes...there are many reasons for it...but we've hashed that out in other threads.
> 
> However, there are brilliant theologians from our day as well. Also, there are Bible verses to back up the positions that I've stated as well.



O.k... I will admit that remark came off as a bit snarky.  There are times when I get quite frustrated.  Pwalls' remark irritated me...(Sorry Pwalls).  

I do agree that there have been some brilliant thinkers recently; the sad thing is that most Christians have never heard let alone read any of their writings.  Example:

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Cornelius Van Til
R.J. Rushdoony

Who would you add to the list rj?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> O.k... I will admit that remark came off as a bit snarky.  There are times when I get quite frustrated.  Pwalls' remark irritated me...(Sorry Pwalls).
> 
> I do agree that there have been some brilliant thinkers recently; the sad thing is that most Christians have never heard let alone read any of their writings.  Example:
> 
> ...



I'd have to add Creflow Dollar, TD Jakes, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen....

Just kidding...thought I'd try my hand at a little humor..although I might get some flames for those last two.

Actual people to add to the list above...

John MacArthur
John Piper
AW Pink
Aw Tozer

I'm sure there are a few more I'm leaving out.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

This is the same disagreement about "ALL" that we have already had.

Answer me this.

If you believe that only the "elect" children go to Heaven, then how can you have kids? How can you have a child not knowing they will go to Heaven or not? It's not their decision right? How can you love someone that fully and then get to Heaven one day and then they not show up? How could you sleep at night?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> If you believe that only the "elect" children go to Heaven, then how can you have kids? How can you have a child not knowing they will go to Heaven or not? It's not their decision right? How can you love someone that fully and then get to Heaven one day and then they not show up?



Do you know for sure that your children will make a valid "profession of faith?"  

None of us can know for sure that our children will go to heaven.  I can say this with all sincerity.  As a Christian mother, while I love my children more than words could ever convey, I must love the Lord more and trust Him to work all things out for good.  My children belong to the Lord, even more than they do to me.  They are His.  He has placed them in our Covenant home to be instructed in His ways.  They are prayed for and with.  They are being brought up in the admonition of the Lord...daily.  How gracious God has been to place them where they will learn of Him from their earliest of days.  

Ultimately, their salvation is up to Him, as He is the author and finisher of our faith.  

Would it make you feel better if I extracted a "decision" out of them?  I could have from the earliest of age.  They have always espoused that they love Jesus.  I bet most of our children have.  Yet, it is not that "decision" that will save them.  



> How could you sleep at night?



I am resting and trusting in God's promises.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 7, 2008)

Subject:  Theologians.

The greatest theologian of all times is the Holy Spirit.  The Old Testament was God inspired and now we have the Gospel of Jesus (New Testament) that is not only inspired by God but it is alive and delivered to us by the Holy Spirit.  When I look to a theologian or group of theologians to tell me what to believe or understand, I'm leaving God-inspired text and asking weak, sinful humans what "truth" is.  
Rather than study theologians, study God's word and simplify it.  Look for the simply answers.  Seek to uncomplicate the Gospel because it is not meant to be complicated.
Banjo, you obviously are a great person and a person who seeks God's will but I do believe you over-think some things.  Some issues of Godly understanding can simply be over-intellectualized.  Wow! that's a big word for me.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> gtparts...
> 
> Have you ever studied the other side?  Have you read the works published by many concerning paedobaptism.
> 
> ...



Done!

 Please answer the Qs in my post 12;45 PM yesterday, #162.

Peace.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Do you know for sure that your children will make a valid "profession of faith?"
> 
> None of us can know for sure that our children will go to heaven.  I can say this with all sincerity.  As a Christian mother, while I love my children more than words could ever convey, I must love the Lord more and trust Him to work all things out for good.  My children belong to the Lord, even more than they do to me.  They are His.  He has placed them in our Covenant home to be instructed in His ways.  They are prayed for and with.  They are being brought up in the admonition of the Lord...daily.  How gracious God has been to place them where they will learn of Him from their earliest of days.
> 
> ...



I don't think that it is an extraction that one is looking for, but rather a real heart change.

Obviously, before the age of accountability, I believe that my children are Heaven bound if they should die.  Again, I'll work on scripture that supports this that is out of MacArthur's book that I've referenced before....just don't have it at work.  

Once a person can understand, then they become accountable for their sin and their sin nature.  It is at this point that someone who has not repented and believed would be sent to he11 if they die.

You are right, I like you, pray for my children every day and am thankful that I had the priviledge of growing up in a Christian home.  It is only by God's grace and mercy that my kids will someday choose Him to be their Lord and Savior.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Banjo
> Well, it is special because God commands us to place the sign of the covenant on the children He sovereignly places in our Christian homes.
> Scripture, please.
> ...



Genesis 17:11:  "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.  He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendent..."

Colossians 2:11:  "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ..."

Circumcision has been replaced by Baptism.  Both represent, signify and seal the same things.  

Children of believers have been receiving the mark of the Covenant from Abraham on....  Has God ever abrogated this in His Word?  If you start with the New Testament to form all your doctrines concerning the Church, you will end up baptistic in your understanding of baptism...  Why not start where God did, in Genesis?

The sign of the covenant is put upon believer's children.  Just as it was placed on Jacob and Esau.  One God loved, and the other He hated.  We cannot know for sure who is among the elect.

Election does not render this sign worthless.  Again...it is a sign of what must happen (or has already happened) to that child in order for them to be saved.  

Baptists think it is a sign of a regenerate heart....but we have already established that nobody can ever really know that for sure...How can it then be a condition?


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 7, 2008)

Some of these posts are ....well........just................well


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Do you teach your children to pray? Do you teach them that God is their Father, or do you wait until they make a profession of faith? Do you allow them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" only after they have made a profession of faith and been baptized?



I am curious as to how you all would answer these questions.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Genesis 17:11:  "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.  He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendent..."
> 
> Colossians 2:11:  "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ..."
> 
> ...



Baptism means I am a Jew??? WOW!! Thanks, Banjo.

Actually, the Baptists see it as a sign that the candidate has made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior which is believed to be what has taken place spiritually in their heart already. Water baptism has no power, it's obedience. Baptism by the fire of the Holy Spirit is where the power is and is always evidenced by a changed life yielding fruit. 

Infant baptism is merely hopeful ritual that the child is one of the elect and if so, they will be saved at some later date. If they are not among the elect, they are just another child with a wet scalp. If they are not of the elect before infant baptism, can your actions (sprinkling) place that child in the elect column?


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 7, 2008)

You guys are making this more complicated than the Catholics do.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> ans I am a Jew??? WOW!! Thanks, Banjo.



Shalom....

Gal. 3:29:

"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Do you know for sure that your children will make a valid "profession of faith?"
> 
> None of us can know for sure that our children will go to heaven.  I can say this with all sincerity.  As a Christian mother, while I love my children more than words could ever convey, I must love the Lord more and trust Him to work all things out for good.  My children belong to the Lord, even more than they do to me.  They are His.  He has placed them in our Covenant home to be instructed in His ways.  They are prayed for and with.  They are being brought up in the admonition of the Lord...daily.  How gracious God has been to place them where they will learn of Him from their earliest of days.
> 
> ...



I do not know if my children will ever make the decision to accept Christ. However, I have FAITH that they have the option to make that decision. You do not. The only faith you have is that God may or may not have "elected" them for Salvation.

I am glad that you are bringing them up in the admonition and love and teachings of the Lord. We are all instructed to do that and it is a wonderful thing to hear them say they love Jesus. However, your faith means that all of that could be all for naught.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I am curious as to how you all would answer these questions.



My youngest son who is only 8 years old prays daily. He goes to Sunday School and Church Services. He sings praise and worship songs. He loves Jesus.

He has not made a profession of faith.

What is your point? Why would one be exclusive of the other?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I am curious as to how you all would answer these questions.


 
Do you teach your children to pray? Yes, when we adopted our 2 girls, they liked to recite the same prayer every single time they prayed, the only difference was that one was a prayer for blessing the food and the other was a prayer before going to bed... Once the adoption was final we started talking to them about how they should pray, that they should say what is own their hearts, It has taken sometime, but they now say there own prayers, and each time it is different, and each time I see them grow more and more in Jesus....

Do you teach them that God is their Father, or do you wait until they make a profession of faith? Yes, we teach them that God is their Father, and that we(as Parents) are just more like shepards or them, we keep the safe, love them, teach them right from wrong, and always in everything we do, point them towards God...

Do you allow them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" only after they have made a profession of faith and been baptized? Nope, I know that one of the girls is saved, the other I am unsure of, but I don't stop either one of them from praising God...

Those are my answers,
DB BB


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Infant baptism is merely hopeful ritual that the child is one of the elect and if so, they will be saved at some later date. If they are not among the elect, they are just another child with a wet scalp. If they are not of the elect before infant baptism, can your actions (sprinkling) place that child in the elect column?
> ___



By baptizing our infants, we are saying that we believe God is a covenantally faithful God...A God who is not only a God to individuals, but to their families as well.  God in His work of redemption intends to restore the solidarity of the family...

Malachi 4:4-6:  "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.  And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, least I come and strike the earth with a curse."

This restoration involves a great deal of personal responsibility...both for the covenant parent as well as the covenant child.  

We believe our children are federally holy as is proclaimed in 
I Cor. 7:14.  As a result of this relationship, they have certain privileges and rights that do not belong to the children of unbelievers.    We believe the visible church consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Baptists think it is a sign of a regenerate heart....but we have already established that nobody can ever really know that for sure...How can it then be a condition?



It is not a condition of Salvation. That is where you are wrong. Baptism is only an outward symbolic event of what has taken place. I don't know if anyone other than myself is saved. I don't know if my Pastor is saved. Only him and God know that 100%. Baptisms are done to show that the person is "saying" they are saved. The fruit they produce after the fact will help show whether or not they are truly saved.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

*Who?   Me?*

Nope! Already circumcised. 

Thanks anyway.

Already baptized; sprinkled once as a non-believing infant Methodist and once as a believer in "Jesus' work on the cross for me" in a Baptist church.

Triple dipping!!!!!

None of those physical events means diddly if I have not truly given my life to Christ.

Peace.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> My youngest son who is only 8 years old prays daily. He goes to Sunday School and Church Services. He sings praise and worship songs. He loves Jesus.
> 
> He has not made a profession of faith.
> 
> What is your point? Why would one be exclusive of the other?



My point is that according to most Baptist's theology, one is not a member of Christ's church (or saved) until they have made a profession of faith and been baptized...  

I am glad that your son loves the Lord.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Quote:
> Do you teach your children to pray?Yes Do you teach them that God is their Father, or do you wait until they make a profession of faith? The first partDo you allow them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" only after they have made a profession of faith and been baptized? Sure they can sing the song anytime they want, and they were baptized as infants
> 
> 
> I am curious as to how you all would answer these questions.




In addition, mine also go to parochial school where they have religion class and go to church services during the week.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I am curious as to how you all would answer these questions.



Do you teach your children to pray? 

Yes...I pray with my 3 year old every day.  Sometimes she'll say the prayer at the dinner table.  It is amazing to hear a young child's prayer as it is truly from the heart and has no pre-conceived notions or agendas.  Also, everytime I go hunting, she prays that daddy will get a deer.  So far, the Lord has not answered that prayer


Do you teach them that God is their Father, or do you wait until they make a profession of faith? 
I'm not so sure about this one...haven't had to deal with it yet as my kids are 3 and 1.  My wife and I teach our 3 year old that God is made up of 3 persons...the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  I honestly don't know if I'd teach her that God is her Heavenly Father until she makes a profession of faith.


Do you allow them to sing "Jesus Loves Me" only after they have made a profession of faith and been baptized? 
Yes, we sing "Jesus Loves Me" together and other Bible songs all the time.  Jesus loves us the whole world...John 3:16...so everyone can sing the song.  And remember, I  believe that the "little children" do truly belong to Him.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Do you teach your children to pray? Yes, when we adopted our 2 girls, they liked to recite the same prayer every single time they prayed, the only difference was that one was a prayer for blessing the food and the other was a prayer before going to bed... Once the adoption was final we started talking to them about how they should pray, that they should say what is own their hearts, It has taken sometime, but they now say there own prayers, and each time it is different, and each time I see them grow more and more in Jesus....



What a blessing to have been able to adopt, both for you and your wife and the children God sovereignly placed in your family.  They will reap all the benefits of a Christian home....God is so good.

I think most Baptists really treat their children as if they believe what Presbyterians do....

To carry out the Baptist logic, one couldn't really teach their "unsaved" children to call God, Father, because He refuses to hear the prayers of the wicked... (I am NOT saying this of your children....)

Let me ask it this way,  is there any difference between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> My point is that according to most Baptist's theology, one is not a member of Christ's church (or saved) until they have made a profession of faith and been baptized....



I've not read that from hearing from all of the Baptist's on this board.  The only one who'd agree with you on that is Ronnie T.  

Ronnie, this is not a call out or anything like that, but rather just an observation from your posts.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Let me ask it this way,  is there any difference between the children of believers and the children of unbelievers?



Yup....what their parents do on Sunday morning


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Do you teach them that God is their Father, or do you wait until they make a profession of faith?
> I'm not so sure about this one...haven't had to deal with it yet as my kids are 3 and 1. My wife and I teach our 3 year old that God is made up of 3 persons...the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I honestly don't know if I'd teach her that God is her Heavenly Father until she makes a profession of faith.



Well...at least this is consistent.  How about the Lord's Prayer...  Will you allow them to recite it before they make a profession of faith?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Well...at least this is consistent.  How about the Lord's Prayer...  Will you allow them to recite it before they make a profession of faith?



Sure...already my 3 year old is memorizing scripture in Cubbies.  It is great to hear her recite scripture.  Does she understand it?  Not fully, but as she grows and matures, I know it will be a solid foundation for her to grow on.

Does her reciting the Lord's prayer mean the same thing to her as someone who is a Christian and understands the full meaning of it?  No....of course not.  She is 3.  But that doesn't mean that it doesn't bring glory to God.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

PWalls,

I think I get whats going on here. Banjo needs some assurance as do some others that their children have the inside track on salvation by election. We raise our children to be godly and pray they will make a decision for Christ. She sprinkles babies and obligates the Holy Spirit to regenerate them on His time schedule.

Isn't that what you said? Must.

Peace.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Yup....what their parents do on Sunday morning



Come on now, rj....

Even if just one parent is a believer, the children are considered holy....

Not naturally purer or better than others, for by nature we are all children of wrath....  The are federally or covenantally holy...Children of a believing parent are holy, as the people of Israel were holy (Lev. 20:26, Ezra 9:2, Deut. 7:6).  

The are separated from the world and stand in covenant relationship to God.

Otherwise, the Scripture tells us, they would be unclean.  Unclean means unconsecrated, undedicated state of the Pagans...

Calvin:  "The children of the Jews, because they were made heirs of the covenant, and distinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed; and, for the same reason, the children of Christians, even when only one of the parents is pious, are accounted holy; and according to the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters."

The sign of baptism sets our covenant children apart from the world which does not received the sign of the Covenant.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 7, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> You guys are making this more complicated than the Catholics do.



After watching some of the catecism"s (sp) and the other services....I think you are right!


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Banjo needs some assurance as do some others that their children have the inside track on salvation by election. We raise our children to be godly and pray they will make a decision for Christ. She sprinkles babies and obligates the Holy Spirit to regenerate them on His time schedule.
> 
> Isn't that what you said? Must.



John 3:8  "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Didn't I say it was a sign of what "must" happen for salvation to occur....I will go back and look.

Found it:



> it is only a sign of what must happen in order for the child to be saved.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 7, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes...I pray with my 3 year old every day.  Sometimes she'll say the prayer at the dinner table.  It is amazing to hear a young child's prayer as it is truly from the heart and has no pre-conceived notions or agendas.  Also, everytime I go hunting, she prays that daddy will get a deer.  So far, the Lord has not answered that prayer
> 
> 
> :



sorry but that is good!!


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Come on now, rj....
> 
> Even if just one parent is a believer, the children are considered holy....
> 
> ...




Not sure if I agree with that Calvin quote....can't believe I just said that, but from just reading that short piece of it, not sure if I do.

I'm not a covenental theologist....I'm a dispensationalist.  

I do believe that the Jews are still God's chosen people.  He will deal with them as He sees fit.  How He will incorporate the covenant He made with Abraham and Jacob with the fact that the Jews crucified Christ, I have no idea.  But I don't question God.  His ways are higher than mine.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> sorry but that is good!!



I guess the only good thing about it is that my daughter wants me to get a deer just about as bad as I do, so it helps when I have to "ask" the wife if it is okay to go again


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> 'm not a covenental theologist....I'm a dispensationalist.



Don't I know it...Have you ever studied that olive tree in Romans 11?

http://www.credenda.org/issues/7-4disputatio.php?type=print

It is relevant to the discussion on baptism.... If you drive a wedge between the Old and New Testaments, you will have a hard time with infant baptism.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> My point is that according to most Baptist's theology, one is not a member of Christ's church (or saved) until they have made a profession of faith and been baptized...



Again, you are wrong on the last part.

You are not a member of Christ's church until you are saved. The "church" is the body of Christ. That means you have to be a believer. Baptism doesn't save anyone or make anyone a believer.

Now, some Baptist congregations/churches want to make sure they are populated with believers. In order to ensure this (as best they can), they ask for members to step forward with a profession of faith and be baptized. That allows their names to be written in the roll book of that local church. But, it doesn't "save" them.


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 7, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I guess the only good thing about it is that my daughter wants me to get a deer just about as bad as I do, so it helps when I have to "ask" the wife if it is okay to go again



If the dry spell continues then you might want to get the daughter to pray that mom has a more "giving " heart when comes early morning  on Saturday.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> You are not a member of Christ's church until you are saved. The "church" is the body of Christ. That means you have to be a believer. Baptism doesn't save anyone or make anyone a believer.



My point was you can't join a Baptist church without a profession of faith and Baptism.  I don't think Baptism saves any more than you do.  

If your children aren't admitted into the Church membership until they make a credible profession of faith and are baptized....what does this make them until then?  

Are they outside of the church?  

Also....what of those individuals who physically can't make a profession of faith (due to physical or mental disabilities)?  Are they EVER baptized and admitted into membership in a Baptist church?


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Well, it is special because God commands us to place the sign of the covenant on the children He sovereignly places in our Christian homes.
> 
> No, it is only a sign of what must happen in order for the child to be saved.  The Holy Spirit must regenerate the child.  When this happens is up to Him.



The Holy Spirit MUST draw your children to Christ because you had them sprinkled whether they are among the elect or not?

I understand why a non-calvinist  would teach their children, to influence them toward God. 

But a calvinist parent can't help their non-elect child toward salvation nor can they do anything to keep their elect child from gaining salvation. 

You sound like you put a lot of effort into something that was decided before you were born. What's the point?


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> My point was you can't join a Baptist church without a profession of faith and Baptism.  I don't think Baptism saves any more than you do.
> 
> If your children aren't admitted into the Church membership until they make a credible profession of faith and are baptized....what does this make them until then?


It makes them "Non-members, regular attendees"    Actually, it is kinda funny, but that was a check box on the registration card at the church that I grew up going to.  Then the pastor did a huge series on church membership and how it was important and after that, that box suddenly dissappeared. 

You are right about most Baptist churches and the church membership thing.  At the perfect church of rjcruiser, children wouldn't become members.  They only come because their parents make them.  What is the purpose for making a child a member of a church other than it causing them to think that since they are on the "roll" they are saved.  But then again, I don't think a child should be baptized until it can be reasonably observed that it is a heart transformation and not merely a prayer recited.  Let the flaming begin.




			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> Also....what of those individuals who physically can't make a profession of faith (due to physical or mental disabilities)?  Are they EVER baptized and admitted into membership in a Baptist church?



That is a great question.  At the church I grew up at, they had a ministry for those who were mentally handicapped.  It is was amazing how much they understood and often thier testimonies (often read by someone else) during Baptism were some of the most amazing.  But again, if they were severely mentally handicapped and couldn't understand the basics of salvation, I would group them into the "children" category and they would never reach the age of accountability.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

gtparts said:


> The Holy Spirit MUST draw your children to Christ because you had them sprinkled whether they are among the elect or not?
> 
> I understand why a non-calvinist  would teach their children, to influence them toward God.
> 
> ...



Because you don't know if they are the elect or not.  And as a command from God, we are to train up our children in Righteousness.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Don't I know it...Have you ever studied that olive tree in Romans 11?
> 
> http://www.credenda.org/issues/7-4disputatio.php?type=print
> 
> It is relevant to the discussion on baptism.... If you drive a wedge between the Old and New Testaments, you will have a hard time with infant baptism.




I wouldn't say I "drive a wedge" between the OT and NT.  That is a little strong, but I'll let you call it what you want

I must say, you've got your firing today.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> The Holy Spirit MUST draw your children to Christ because you had them sprinkled whether they are among the elect or not?



Let me clarify...I in NO WAY meant that the Holy Spirit is OBLIGATED to save the child because he/she was baptized.

I meant...the Holy Spirit MUST regenerate the child for salvation to take place... just as the Holy Spirit MUST regenerate an adult for salvation to take place.

Sorry if I was unclear... What you understood me to say indicates baptismal regeneration, which I repudiate.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> You sound like you put a lot of effort into something that was decided before you were born. What's the point?



Faithfulness to God.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I wouldn't say I "drive a wedge" between the OT and NT.  That is a little strong, but I'll let you call it what you want
> 
> I must say, you've got your firing today.




hehehehe...Maybe I just need to go drink a beer on the front porch and relax...


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> My point was you can't join a Baptist church without a profession of faith and Baptism.  I don't think Baptism saves any more than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> hehehehe...Maybe I just need to go drink a beer on the front porch and relax...



You should try it sometime.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

rj...

I found this blog that is written by a man who received his M.Div. from Master's Seminary....(as a heads up, he is not Dispensational).

http://dispensationalist.blogspot.com/2007/03/continuity-vs-discontinuity.html


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> You should try it sometime.



I have many times ... and I plan on doing so again in just a few minutes after I get my pork tenderloin in the oven.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> hehehehe...Maybe I just need to go drink a beer on the front porch and relax...






Ahh....a cold brew and a nice cigar....hmmm...now only if I could do this while overlooking my imaginary 80 acre pasture with my deer rifle at my side waiting on the big one to step out of the hardwoods bottom at the far end of the field.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Faithfulness to God.






> (From rjcruiser) Because you don't know if they are the elect or not. And as a command from God, we are to train up our children in Righteousness.




OBEDIENCE








Good answer!!!

Peace.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> I have many times ... and I plan on doing so again in just a few minutes after I get my pork tenderloin in the oven.



BLASPHEMY!


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> They don't need membership, they need salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
> 
> The don't need water baptism, they need salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.



According to you, children who can't make a profession of faith are lost sinners and unable to be admitted into membership, or receive baptism.



> Lost sinners.



What is the difference for mentally or physically impaired people?


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Ahh....a cold brew and a nice cigar....hmmm...now only if I could do this while overlooking my imaginary 80 acre pasture with my deer rifle at my side waiting on the big one to step out of the hardwoods bottom at the far end of the field.



No cigar, just a Land Shark and my pellet rifle for all those squirrels   (and chipmunks when I am honing my marksmanship) who refuse to avoid my bird feeder.

I know, I know....


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> BLASPHEMY!



Not for a Presbyterian....


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> rj...
> 
> I found this blog that is written by a man who received his M.Div. from Master's Seminary....(as a heads up, he is not Dispensational).
> 
> http://dispensationalist.blogspot.com/2007/03/continuity-vs-discontinuity.html



Obviously, he didn't receive enough training to be brainwashed into thinking like MacArther while out at TMS

I read his blog and his argument is week at best.  I just get frustrated when people presume on things....I'm thinking of his presumption that Dispensationalists are looking through a pre-conceived grid.  The funny thing is, He's not?  Who is the one who determines what is objective thinking?    Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to debate tactics.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

Oh..this is off topic, but just a thought.

Banjo,

When you quote people.  Put [ ] around the word "quote=rjcruiser" and then we'll all know who you are quoting.


----------



## rjcruiser (Oct 7, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> BLASPHEMY!



actually, this , but my wife and I were out on the town last night and we decided to each have an alcoholic beverage with our meal.  Funny thing, we ran into some old Baptist friends of ours  Oh we wanted to be fly's on the wall to hear what they had to say after saying hello to us.  For some reason, I just don't think that my mug of Amber bock was something they approved of


----------



## PWalls (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> If your children aren't admitted into the Church membership until they make a credible profession of faith and are baptized....what does this make them until then?



They are my children and are loved by that Church just as much as I am.

It doesn't make them anything other than a special "outreach" program by some of the more caring and loving members who want to help in anyway they can to get them to see the need to accept Christ.


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

With regard to the baptism of infants, I no longer accept the requirement for "express warrant" that I used to hold to when I was baptistic in my convictions. The "express warrant" hermeneutic winds up prohibiting way too much -- worship on the Lord's Day, women taking communion, and so on. At the same time, when I was baptistic I really wanted the question to be settled by an express statement of the Scripture. It would be really cool, thought I, if there were only a verse recording Paul baptizing an infant from the household of Demetrius.

When I was working through the material for my book on infant baptism, I came across what I believe is express warrant for infant baptism (by good and necessary consequence). Those who want the fuller development can find it in the book, but here is the outline of the argument. Like I said, I don't believe express warrant from the New Testament is necessary, but it turns out we do have express warrant. Gravy.

The New Testament identifies believing synagogues as churches. James identifies the two in his letter. If a man in filthy rags comes into your synagogue (Jas. 2:2), don't do thus and such. And if anyone there is sick, let him call for the elders of the church (Jas. 5:14). Now when Paul came to Jerusalem (where many of these believing synagogues were), he went out of his way to reassure everybody that he was not teaching Jews to discontinue circumcising their infants. This means, in the short form, that there were New Testament churches that had infant members. A circumcised infant in a believing synagogue was a member of that church. Now if Jewish churches/synagogues had infant members, on what grounds could we exclude infants from membership in Gentile churches? We could not exclude them. But we could say that circumcision was not required for them, because the sign and seal of the covenant was in the process of being changed to baptism. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:27-29).

The question for our baptistic brethren is this. Are you prepared to maintain that an infant brought to your congregation (formally and covenantally excluded) is in the same position as an infant brought to a believing synagogue in Jerusalem in AD 52? Not only would the believing synagogue not exclude such an infant, I believe that they would have difficulty even comprehending the concept of excluding the infants. And if there was such a generation-long uproar over the inclusion of the Gentiles, what would the commotion have been if the apostles really were teaching the Jews that not only must you start admitting the Gentile adults, but you must start excluding your own children? I have trouble believing that this would not have caused the Mother of all Theological Controversies. But there is not a word about such a controversy in the New Testament.

http://www.dougwils.com/?Action=Search&searchstring=paedobaptism


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

Banjo said:


> According to you, children who can't make a profession of faith are lost sinners and unable to be admitted into membership, or receive baptism.



That's right. You didn't ask how God was going to deal with that situation. Why would that  ( membership and baptism ) even be important to a calvinist? Election takes care of that. I trust in God to do what is just and perfect. He hasn't made any mistakes yet. 



> What is the difference for mentally or physically impaired people?


 Thought that was obvious. Physically impaired, unless we are combining those two, have full mental capabilities to make the decision to give their life to Christ, so they are just like any able bodied person as regards salvation. Mentally impaired covers a whole lot of territory, but I'd say God knows who has the mental capacity to make that same decision or not. Sufficient capacity, they need to make that decision to be saved. Insufficient mental capacity, God will do the just and perfect thing. 

IMHO, too many people don't trust God to do what is right in their minds, so they "cook up" a bunch of theology ( that is what man thinks about God) to satisfy themselves instead of letting God do the thinking.

Peace


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

*You are correct , sir.*



rjcruiser said:


> actually, this , but my wife and I were out on the town last night and we decided to each have an alcoholic beverage with our meal.  Funny thing, we ran into some old Baptist friends of ours  Oh we wanted to be fly's on the wall to hear what they had to say after saying hello to us.  For some reason, I just don't think that my mug of Amber bock was something they approved of


----------



## gtparts (Oct 7, 2008)

PWalls said:


> They are my children and are loved by that Church just as much as I am.
> 
> It doesn't make them anything other than a special "outreach" program by some of the more caring and loving members who want to help in anyway they can to get them to see the need to accept Christ.




Now that's Christ living in and through the church!



Amen!


----------



## Banjo (Oct 7, 2008)

> Why would that ( membership and baptism ) even be important to a calvinist?



What kind of question is that.... You still don't have much of an understanding of Calvinism????

Both baptism and church membership are commands given in Scripture...



> Election takes care of that.



How so?



> too many people don't trust God to do what is right in their minds, so they "cook up" a bunch of theology ( that is what man thinks about God) to satisfy themselves instead of letting God do the thinking.



Cop out....  We will only understand God as much as we understand proper theology.  However, an understanding of proper theology with no heart change is of little effect.  

Just curious, but how do you propose that one "lets God do the thinking?"  What does that specifically look like?

BTW...still looking for your answer over on the TULIP post...


----------



## Israel (Oct 7, 2008)

Nothing trumps the simple trust one either has, or does not have, in the judge of the whole earth doing right. 
Coming to the point that what I think is right is of no consequence in the light of him who does all things well, and right.
There is not one bit of innocence that is ever lost to the Lord, no matter where it appears.
Calvin died for no one.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 8, 2008)

Thanks, Israel. Your wrapping is beautiful, right down to the bow. But, with apologies, I think I will unwrap this for Banjo and rewrap when finished.




Banjo said:


> What kind of question is that.... You still don't have much of an understanding of Calvinism????



The more I learn of calvinism, the less it looks like Christism. In it's structure and application, it is pharisaical , far too lofty and self-righteous to mirror how Jesus taught, lived, died , and rose.  For me, gnats are breakfast and camels are..well,....camels.



> Both baptism and church membership are commands given in Scripture...



Indeed, both are clearly instructed in scripture. In obedience, I have partaken and will remain. Calvinism, on the other hand, is NOT scripture.  



> How so?


 ( as to how election effects baptism and church membership)

The validity of baptism and church membership rest in the commands of Holy Scripture alone. The concept of election (not calvinism as a whole) is, in it's simplest form, unconditional predestination. If it is true in ALL ( there's that word, again) aspects, then it makes baptism and church membership invalid. Baptism and church membership are acts of the individual will. One submits to baptism and applies for church membership. If election is the inevitable will of God, the will of the individual is quite unnecessary.





> Cop out....  We will only understand God as much as we understand proper theology.  However, an understanding of proper theology with no heart change is of little effect.



Love what you wrote here. Let me respond with a question.

How many people were saved ( had that heart change) in the New Testament without any understanding of calvinism or "proper theology"?

1 Cor. 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 
2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 
4 And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 
5 that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 
6 We speak wisdom, however, among them that are fullgrown: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nought: 
7 but we speak God`s wisdom in a mystery, [even] the [wisdom] that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: 
8 which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory: 
9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And [which] entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him. 
10 But unto us God revealed [them] through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 
11 For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. 
12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. 
13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man`s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual [words]. 
14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. 
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man. 
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. 





> Just curious, but how do you propose that one "lets God do the thinking?"  What does that specifically look like?



Reread 1 Cor. 2, above.



> BTW...still looking for your answer over on the TULIP post...



That must be the one where I have commented on "T" and "U" so far.  "LIP" when I get to them.

Peace.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 9, 2008)

Great points gtparts and Israel.

Calvin means nothing to me.  His teaching or thoughts are of little consequence to me.  Martin Luther, as I understand it, began the turn to bring the church back in line with the early, 1st century church.  But, Martin Luther, and his teachings, mean little to me.  
Theology has to do with mankind.  Theology takes God's word and interprets it into useable doctrine.......... But the Holy Spirit already did that.  It's pretty simply I think, and I'm a little on the dumb side.  It's been said that my elevator doesn't go to the top floor.  But still, the Gospel, and only the Gospel, is the safe thing for me.
Too many people would rewrite it if they could.


----------



## Dawgy_Daddy (Oct 9, 2008)

Due to this fast paced world we live in and in an effort to make everyone happy,  our church changed their methods of baptism.  We line em up and shoot em with a super soaker.  Saves time and water and every one gets sprinkled and drenched at the same time.


----------



## gtparts (Oct 9, 2008)

skoonce said:


> Due to this fast paced world we live in and in an effort to make everyone happy,  our church changed their methods of baptism.  We line em up and shoot em with a super soaker.  Saves time and water and every one gets sprinkled and drenched at the same time.



Could just show them "Free Willy",  "StarTrek: The Journey Home", "Waterworld", "Moby Dick", "Point Break" or any version of "Mutiny on the Bounty"and just point out the water. Blind people could just feel the screen.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 9, 2008)

How about a little nudge at the water fountain!!

I remember when people use to go down to the creek for baptisms.  While two people helped with the baptisms the rest would watch for snakes.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 9, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> How about a little nudge at the water fountain!!
> 
> I remember when people use to go down to the creek for baptisms.  While two people helped with the baptisms the rest would watch for snakes.



Why?  You guys don't play with those do ya?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 9, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I remember when people use to go down to the creek for baptisms. While two people helped with the baptisms the rest would watch for snakes.


 
I was baptized in a pond... Just down the hill from a bunch of chicken houses, and in the middle of February.... talk about COLD!!!

DB BB


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 9, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Why?  You guys don't play with those do ya?




No Sir!  I'm sure God doesn't want me to play with snakes.

A snake fell in the boat with me years ago.  I fell in the water and the snake was right behind me.  I got back into the boat.  I think I scared the snake as much as it scared me.


----------



## Big7 (Oct 9, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I was baptized in a pond... Just down the hill from a bunch of chicken houses, and in the middle of February.... talk about COLD!!!
> 
> DB BB



I would be a little more worried about the "Just down the hill from a bunch of chicken houses" part than the cold!


----------



## PWalls (Oct 9, 2008)

Big7 said:


> I would be a little more worried about the "Just down the hill from a bunch of chicken houses" part than the cold!



Scripture doesn't say anything about "clean" water for Baptism does it?????


----------



## Big7 (Oct 9, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Scripture doesn't say anything about "clean" water for Baptism does it?????



Yeah - I know.

I just don't want to take a bath in chicken scat! 

BTW - Scripture doesn't say anything about a lot of things.


----------



## PWalls (Oct 10, 2008)

Big7 said:


> BTW - Scripture doesn't say anything about a lot of things.



That's why you have to rely on Church tradition and Scholars like Luther and Calvin.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 10, 2008)

Big7 said:


> I would be a little more worried about the "Just down the hill from a bunch of chicken houses" part than the cold!


 

Wasn't bad at all... of course I went and got a 1 hour shower after that, just to make sure I got the smell off of me...

Looking back on it now, I think it was a better choice than the Altamaha River... they have Catfish in there that could take off a leg....

DB BB


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 13, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> How about a little nudge at the water fountain!!
> 
> I remember when people use to go down to the creek for baptisms.  While two people helped with the baptisms the rest would watch for snakes.





Use to??? Thats is a summer "end of revival" regular job........still do it here...


----------



## Branchminnow (Oct 13, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Scripture doesn't say anything about "clean" water for Baptism does it?????



We could talk about Naaman(sp)


----------

