[PG4G]

I find difficulty with philosophies that try to ... How would I say... Overhypthesize religious issues.

I sort of view Christian beliefs like I view physics. Things happen. They set of cause and effect. We sin. Therefore we deserve death. If we are brought to account for this, we are guilty. Jesus died in our place, and being god, he is eternally more payment than required for my sin. If brought to account, my crime has been dealt with justly. At the same time, Jesus wanted us to realize that his death on the cross won't cover for an intent to sin. We have to put to death that intent, and move along our lives in a new direction, following him.

He gave us the gift of a new life with new intent. That's God's grace displayed to us. He told us to eat and drink emblems of his death with other believers, in remembrance of him.

I don't see how/why we "theologise" these things up. They're simple. It's a simple doctrine, it's a simple truth. Like physics, it's simply cause and effect. Why do we need to complicate it with "graces" as if they're items of grace (grace meaning giving or the desire or intent to give that which isn't deserved). And Jesus' body ACTUALLY being the bread, and Jesus' blood actually being the wine? Maybe that interpretation is accurate but is it important? We remember him the same. We honor him the same.

[belovedgirl]

The means of grace is a Lutheran term which means that there are certain "means" or methods through which the Holy Spirit works in the lives of people. These are the word of God (the bible) and the sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism (which basically are the word of God enacted in rituals that were instituted and commanded by Jesus). This was in opposition to the Schwarmerei (enthusiasts) who said that the Holy Spirit can speak the knowledge of God directly in to the lives of people external to any of these means. But if this were so, there would be no need to ever send missionaries to any countries who have never heard about God, as he could just "zap" this knowledge into their heads, without anyone ever having to tell them about Jesus. But this is refuted by Romans 10:14: How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

so the only way the holy spirit works is through baptism, communion, and the bible? what about pentecost, the tongues of fire and such?

God could just "zap" knowledge, but he chooses to use us to do his work.

[Vogon Poets]

Okay, i'm sorry. I have had a lot of people say things to me online which they would not have the courage to say in person, and calling my faith unsubstantiated and abhorrent does hurt, believe it or not. So if i read the ground rules correctly, you are allowed to insult my faith and the basis for it, and i am not allowed to get upset about it, correct? Seems a bit unfair, but oh well.

I haven't insulted anyone's faith. And I thought what I said was pretty straightforward, you know, we have a conversation in here, we may disagree, whatever. I apologize for using the words abhorrent and unsubstatiated, however I have met MANY people who advocate for infant baptism on the basis that it "saves" the soul of the baby if it dies. Sorry for jumping to a conclusion.

To teach anything counter to this is idolatry, as it points away from God as the source of our salvation, and instead places the faith in our decision. Romans 6:23 (above) says that the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life. So if a gift is dependant on me in some way, having to earn it by my decision, or some work that i do, then it is not a gift, is it?

I could quote a heap of verses back at you that indicate that we do earn our salvation in many ways.

No we don’t baptise infants so they don’t go to hell. That’s terrible, and not at all in line with faith in the God revealed to us in all of Scripture who is gracious. We baptise them because they are part of “all nations” and therefore covered in the great commission of Matthew 28. Therefore we baptise infants because Jesus told us to. This is the same Jesus who in Matthew 19:14 said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Matthew 28 is to do with teaching people the ways of the kingdom (and baptizing them). It's to do with making disciples, not baptizing babies who dont participate in what they're doing. This is clearly indicated by the fact it does not say "Baptize the babies in your church and then teach them God's ways", but rather it says "Go into the world and make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them my ways".

Do you have a problem with the fact that people can turn away from the grace of their baptism? You above stated that people choose for or against God every day. So why is it a problem that Baptism doesn’t guarantee heaven because people can still turn away? You can’t have it both ways. Baptism isn't magic. Surely you are not suggesting that people, once baptised as adults, never turn away? Is heaven guaranteed for them, seeing they were baptised as adults?

No, because I dont see "heaven" as being dependant on baptism. Of course people will turn away after infant and adult baptism.

I don’t think you understand. The “convention” (which you described earlier as being no justification to do anything anyway) is infant baptism. It is only a modern minority that re-baptises, or baptises adults only and excludes children.

The modern minority seems to do things in accordance with the gospels and Paul. I cant recall an infant being baptized in the bible, unless you can show me different.

Why does it matter whether it is a process or a moment? I was just explaining it to people as someone who has lived through it. Either way though, it means that you agree that for millions of people, baptism comes first, and then faith. That is the point I was trying to make. It means that it WORKS for those who are baptised as infants. God works in them through baptism and teaching, and builds faith. This is exactly in line with the Great Commission in Matthew 28 to make disciples by baptising and teaching. The two never stand alone.

See, I would argue that discipleship (teaching etc) comes first, then people are baptized into wanting to be a part of God's work. They need to see it before they become a part of it. It needs to be a wilful decision to be meaningful. Basically the whole bible is a collection of people struggling to be obedient to God's ways.

How can we be perfunctory, or apathetic, about such a great gift as baptism? It isn't ours to be apathetic about. God has worked in our lives, forgiven our sins, claimed us as his own. In fact, wouldn't "perfunctory" be a good description of those who deny the importance of their baptism, and ending up despising it, so that they feel they need to do it again and again?

For some people, a recommitment may be an opportune time to be baptized again. Not sure I see this as a problem really.

But to answer your question, baptism is not dependant on environmental factors. Faith often is. Baptism is part of a journey, called a Christian life, where we are taught, and surrounded by other Christians in a church. That is why we do not baptise in homes or parks, but in churches. Otherwise we would be setting up a defenceless soul with no reinforcements to face the world, the devil, and their sinful self alone. We surround the baptised with prayer and teaching, and bring them back to God’s house, where they can be fed and strengthened for the journey. We forget sometimes, I think, that Faith is not a solitary undertaking. It is always communal.

Plenty of baptisms in the NT seemed to be done outside the synagogue. I agree though that being a part of a community of faith is beneficial.

Surely what is subjective is whether those who extol believer baptism feel they have enough faith to be baptised? What is enough Faith, was i really Christian enough? Do I FEEL saved? That is subjectivity, when faith becomes based on ourselves, which are constantly changing and growing.

No, it is "I've seen and tasted that the Lord is good, and now I commit myself to Him". An infant cannot make that decision. It is subjective, as discipleship is subjective.

[belovedgirl]

I could quote a heap of verses back at you that indicate that we do earn our salvation in many ways. .

For once i agree with most of what you've said. except this.

by grace alone you are saved. Eph. 2:8-10

and heaps of other places.

faith without works is dead, but works are proof of salvation, not a means to earn it. if you say that we have to earn it, then Christ's sacrifice is insufficient.

[The Missionary]

StikkyX89 wrote:

It seems to me that infant Baptism has more relation to the practices of post-Constantinian administration and registration of citizens (particularly in Western Europe, where Churches/Bishops in differing ways took on aspects of what are now seen as the government's domain of taking care of basic education and welfare). Are Infant Baptism and Christening added to Christian Education not merely forms of administering the citizenry? Are we dealing with a collective? And is this a bad thing?

I had never thought of it that way, and that is an interesting hypothesis. However, the evidence does not back it up unfortunately.

Infant baptism was practised prior to Constantine (272-337A.D)

Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant.

Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

The smae opinions are found in the writings of Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God....especially infants....those newly born."

Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: "For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants." Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins."

Cyprian's reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: "Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born."

(quotes taken from http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=4411)

[The Missionary]

I could quote a heap of verses back at you that indicate that we do earn our salvation in many ways.

Start quoting then, because i will come back at you with a lot that shows this is not the case.

This is the synergistic heresy, that we can somehow work together with God to earn our own salvation. Make sure that the verses you are thinking of don't refer to those who are already in Christ.

Because if you could prove that people could earn their own slavation, you would be devaluing the work of Jesus, and saying that we do not need him.

This would place your position outside of the realms of Christianity.

[The Missionary]

so the only way the holy spirit works is through baptism, communion, and the bible? what about pentecost, the tongues of fire and such? God could just "zap" knowledge, but he chooses to use us to do his work.

The tongues of fire at Pentecost was not for everyone, to happen over and over again. Yes, God worked in that way, but then, on that day, the apostles baptised thousands! He didn't say "go and make disciples by having them wait until i appear in tongues of fire. He said go and baptise and teach! He also said o this in remembrance of me: Holy Communion

God CAN work in other ways. God can work however he wants: He is God. But he has GIVEN us tools through which he has promised to work. Why should we despise them, and deny them, and say he has to work some other way to prove he is God?

The church has simply observed the way he has chosen to work throughout history and used the tools he has given us. That's all the means of grace are, just a term to refer to the word of God and what we consider to be the two sacraments.

(We define sacraments as rituals instituted and commanded by Christ, using a material element such as water, bread and wine, and the word of God, through which God builds faith and forgives sins)

[Vogon Poets]

Start quoting then, because i will come back at you with a lot that shows this is not the case. This is the synergistic heresy, that we can somehow work together with God to earn our own salvation. Make sure that the verses you are thinking of don't refer to those who are already in Christ. Because if you could prove that people could earn their own slavation, you would be devaluing the work of Jesus, and saying that we do not need him. This would place your position outside of the realms of Christianity.

It may be synergism, maybe not synergistic heresy.

If you deny some level of synergy, God becomes the sole factor in any person's salvation, and that is entirely problematice for the following reasons:

- The Genesis account clearly states that we are made "in the image of God". If this does not mean beings with their own will and volition, and with the ability to choose right and wrong, good and evil, what does it mean? In certain ways of looking at things the Genesis account is reduced to a mere "God made us, we stuffed up and now we are all crap, thank goodness he is good and will save a few of us".

- God becomes an autocratic dictator who decides entirely who he will let into his club and who he will not. Acknowledging that this may not be the case does not remove God's power and status, but allows God to be someone who creates and allows others volition and free will.

- The eternal state of the unrighteous becomes an intolerable unfairness for any level headed person. God creates, God saves (only some) and God punishes the unregenerate is absurd, and so contrary to the person and work of Jesus.

The verses I am thinking of mostly are Matthew 24 and 25. To me, the distinction of being "in" Christ or not "in" Christ isn't relevant here, as at any point in our lives we may choose to be "in" or not "in" Christ.

[The Missionary]

It may be synergism, maybe not synergistic heresy.

From : yourdictionary.com

synergism:
an ancient heretical doctrine, extant since the 3rd century, which holds that spiritual renewal is a cooperative endeavor between a person and the Holy Ghost. Cf. Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism. —synergist, n. —synergistic, adj.

Pelagianism:
the heretical doctrines of Pelagius, 4th-century British monk, especially a denial of original sin and man’s fallen spiritual nature, and an assertion that man’s goodness was sufficiënt for him to work out his salva-tion without the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Semi-Pelagianism. —Pelagian, n., adj.

- The Genesis account clearly states that we are made "in the image of God". If this does not mean beings with their own will and volition, and with the ability to choose right and wrong, good and evil, what does it mean? In certain ways of looking at things the Genesis account is reduced to a mere "God made us, we stuffed up and now we are all crap, thank goodness he is good and will save a few of us".

A few of us?
Where does this come from? The Bible clearly states that Christ died for all:

1 Peter 3:18 (New International Version)
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.

Yes, not everyone will be saved, but that is not because God doesn't want them to be. He gives us a choice, to respond to him in faith, or to turn away. This is the free will you rightly point out, and that is a necessary part of my argument.

We have the choice to ACCEPT God, or to say no. But if he had not come to us first, how would we know what we were accepting or rejecting? The acceptance is not what saves us: God saves us. We just accept it.

It would be like someone putting a million dollars in my bank account. They have done the work. I can believe it is there and go get it out, or say "no, i don't believe it is there".

but if i did believe it, and receive the benefit of it, i wouldn't thank MYSELF for making the decision to get it out, would i? I would thank the one who gave it to me freely as a gift.

Therefore these conclusions:

- God becomes an autocratic dictator who decides entirely who he will let into his club and who he will not. Acknowledging that this may not be the case does not remove God's power and status, but allows God to be someone who creates and allows others volition and free will. - The eternal state of the unrighteous becomes an intolerable unfairness for any level headed person. God creates, God saves (only some) and God punishes the unregenerate is absurd, and so contrary to the person and work of Jesus.

are superfluous, as they are built on an incorrect hypothesis. (that God only wants to save a few of us)

If you deny some level of synergy, God becomes the sole factor in any person's salvation, and that is entirely problematice for the following reasons:

In fact, God becoming the sole factor in anyone's salvation is not problematic, but essential. God is the "first cause". we can choose to accept his work in our lives, but this does not save us, as the ability to believe is in itself a gift.

It is because someone has come to us with his word, or in baptism, and told us about him. Faith is a gift.

Otherwise, how could you choose to go and get the million dollars out of your account, if no-one told you it was there? God works FIRST.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (New International Version)
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.

[StikkyX89]

StikkyX89 wrote: I had never thought of it that way, and that is an interesting hypothesis. However, the evidence does not back it up unfortunately. Infant baptism was practised prior to Constantine (272-337A.D) Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants and children, boys and youth, and old men." The smae opinions are found in the writings of Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God....especially infants....those newly born." Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: "For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants." Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins." Cyprian's reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: "Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born." (quotes taken from http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=4411)

I stand corrected. Thank you for taking the time to post these sources. I am not really all that familiar with early Church Fathers' works, and this is intriguing.

So it's more like: as the Jews circumcised to give membership to the Jewish race, so did early Christians see Baptism as giving membership in the Church. Now, this could be to do with the much higher influence of the family and community upbringing on the average person in that period of time and the dangers (see Confessions of a Sinner by St Augustine) of a young person finding temptation outside of Christianity in a pagan society.

I was actually aware that infant Baptism pre-dates Constantine, however the use of Baptism becoming an administrative one certainly becomes more important post Constantine.

It is also hypothesised that as the Christians grew in influence (pre-Constantine) there was greater emphasis on it being a badge of honour to be a member from Birth. You produced some sources (all of which I have checked) that show a mid-3rd century date, when Christianity had grown into almost a shadow religion to paganism and certainly influential enough for Constantine to have had some contact with it in Roman Britain and Gaul.

That is not to say that the originating motive for infant Baptism isn't a spiritual one. I have no doubt that if Polycarp had been baptised as an infant, the Apostle John would have had a sound basis for doing so.

However, this is not the case. A cursory scan of the Irenaean letter (Irenaeus, V.xxxii.) shows that Polycarp was a companion of Papias, a hearer of John, who introduced him to John and others who had seen Jesus. Polycarp then entered into discussion with these people. There is no date of baptism, but the imputation is that he was baptised as a sentient, which precludes infancy unless he was most prodigeous in nature. He may have however been anything up to 21, so still young, of course.

I can think of no reason not to suffer the little children to come to the Lord, and given that Jesus himself values the position of Children within his Church and says that we should ALL come to him "like" little children, then I see no reason not to baptise - as long as the parents are not just making a tokenistic endeavour to bring their children up in the Lord.

[The Missionary]

as long as the parents are not just making a tokenistic endeavour to bring their children up in the Lord.

and therein lies the rub i think.
I have people who come to me and want their children baptised because Grandma and Granddad want them "done". It makes me shudder, and means it is time for a long chat about what baptism means.

It says in Scripture that no-one can come to Jesus unless the father draw them. As stated earlier by someone on here God works though people. So if someone is drawn to baptism by their parents, as an infant, the best case scenario is that they are baptised and taught (as i have said falls in line with the great commission).

In fact, when we have the conversation with parents as above, we actually teach-baptise-teach.

The traditions of giving the family a certificate and a candle are good ones to remind the child of their baptism and the objective nature of what happened on the day.

My little boys (who have faith, by the way), have mum and dad bring down their certificate from its pride of place, and light their baptismal candle every year on their baptismal birthday, and tell the story again of what God did for them on that day.

Of all the qualifications i have earned, my baptismal certificate is the most important to me. the others say what i have done. IT says who i am. (and WHOSE i am)

In cases like i mentioned above, i usually baptise anyway, but then we follow up, and talk about having God-parents, to make sure the parents are taking their role of teaching the child seriously. but i baptise, as i don't want to be a barrier to the grace of God, who can work even in imperfect situations.

[The Missionary]

By the way, well spotted on that Polycarp one. I didn't question it as i trusted the source. I should know better.
Joel.

[StikkyX89]

I wish all clergymen were as thorough as yourself.

EDIT: Ah that looks really bad given your last follow up comment. I really do mean it, though. And I would have trusted the source too, in your position.

[The Missionary]

Yeah, the problem arose over his martyrdom speech, where he states that "eighty and six years i have served the Lord" and he was thought to be 86 at his martyrdom, (which would mean he was baptised at birth) but another ancient source says he was 104 at martyrdom, which, although hard to believe in those days, would mean he was baptised later.

But anyway, the writings of the others still stand. But as VG has rightly pointed out, tradition is a secondary authority, not primary, as is scripture.

Interesting, nonetheless, to see the practice of those who were contemporaries of the apostles, and in the subsequent generations.

Joel.

[The Missionary]

You know, in all this, i think we have forgotten the pastoral aspect, and that is the fact that LittleSteph is going to get rebaptised.

If that is what you decide to do, may God bless you richly through it, and keep you close to him.
I, for one, will be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you before the throne of heaven one day.

We are all one family after all, even if we have some family squabbles and differences.

Joel.

[StikkyX89]

Yes, definitely. I'm really glad for you Steph, and I hope all goes well for you before, during and after.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Muentzer and Tertullian heretics as well, I'm not so sure. I do understand that Lutherans and Anabaptists have bad blood (The Battle of Frankenhausen, for example), but many, many Christians (specifically, Baptists) Tertullian a Church Father and a few more radical Anabaptists and Mennonites would call Muentzer a martyr (though personally, I find his mariolatry to be distasteful).

I'm just not so sure about this approach by the Missouri synod (!) or Dr Kastens - it just seems a little too confrontational for me, but then again I am an Anglican... so you know non-confrontational to the max.

[Vogon Poets]

You know, in all this, i think we have forgotten the pastoral aspect, and that is the fact that LittleSteph is going to get rebaptised. If that is what you decide to do, may God bless you richly through it, and keep you close to him. I, for one, will be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you before the throne of heaven one day. We are all one family after all, even if we have some family squabbles and differences. Joel.

Agreed....if I get to the throne of heaven that is!

[The Missionary]

Have faith brother.
What Jesus has done is enough.
Glory in it. As Paul said, boast in it.

Joel

[belovedgirl]

Agreed....if I get to the throne of heaven that is!

why do you say if?

[belovedgirl]

I could quote a heap of verses back at you that indicate that we do earn our salvation in many ways. .

The biggest problems i can see with this are:

1) if you have to earn salvation, how do you know when you have earnt it? can you have asssurance of your salvation?

2) if you can earn it, it implies you can be good enough, and the bible says,

no one is good- Romans 3:10-12

all fall short - Rom 3:23

Salvation is by grace, not works Eph. 2:8-10

[littlesteph]

heres why id get re-baptized.

(and no i havent read the last x-pages since i last posted before my recent comment)

because when i did it the first time i only did it coz i thought thats what i had to do (to be a christian) like if i didnt do it i wasnt a christian.

it would be more meaning full now, because i would know what it meant and understand it clearly and more deeply. it would be more meaningful and mean a lot more to me about declaring my faith etc and what it means now.

[littlesteph]

heres why id get re-baptized.

(and no i havent read the last x-pages since i last posted before my recent comment)

because when i did it the first time i only did it coz i thought thats what i had to do (to be a christian) like if i didnt do it i wasnt a christian.

it would be more meaning full now, because i would know what it meant and understand it clearly and more deeply. it would be more meaningful and mean a lot more to me about declaring my faith etc and what it means now.

[PG4G]

The biggest problems i can see with this are: 1) if you have to earn salvation, how do you know when you have earnt it? can you have asssurance of your salvation? 2) if you can earn it, it implies you can be good enough, and the bible says, no one is good- Romans 3:10-12 all fall short - Rom 3:23 Salvation is by grace, not works Eph. 2:8-10

Believe it or not, Belovedgirl, I'm going to agree with you here. The bible is quite clear that our salvation is not our own work but Christ's.

Do our works matter? Yes. But they are not an earner. They simply display characteristics that are indicative of being saved.

Someone who is health conscious will inevitably be healthy. But do they need to be healthy to be health conscious? Must they have a healthy body to be health-conscious? Maybe that person was really UNhealthy and they became health conscious and their body is slowly changing but it isn't yet healthy. Maybe the change isn't yet apparent, but if you'd seen how they were, then it would start to show up.

In the same way, our works don't "buy" our salvation. We can't earn it. We have a faith. The evidence of that will be changes in our lives. Some fast, some slower. Its a change that will just naturally occur.

So what part do works play? They show up inconsistencies. They are clues. Someone who's health conscious won't rapidly decrease in health, or they won't be caught always gorging themselves on chips. They won't be getting fatter, and earning a place on The Biggest Loser. Them getting fat doesn't lose their title of health conscious. Its that forgetting about health causes their getting fat.

In the same way, we can observe that people are rapidly going in the wrong direction and its evidence they may not be quite so "saved" as they thought they were. Their spirit isn't displaying the actions that come along with being saved and covered by God's grace.

Still, its important to understand which is the cause, and which is the effect. Not being saved causes an effect of no works. It isnt that no works causes and effect of not being saved. Its the wrong way around.

[Hayley]

I have been thinking a bit about this and being baptised more then once...

The more i think the more pointless it seems to me... getting baptised is about taking a public stand and saying you follow christ, it is showing God your committed and in it, Often it is talked about that after you get baptised there is a "spirtual attack" and i found for me I encounted a huge one, and one that I probably am still trying to bounce back from after all these years.

I dont think getting baptised more then once would be a good thing, If you have already made that committment to God through baptisim you do not need to do it again..

Even though you get baptised it does not make following christ any easier, if not it gets harder, it is a long long journey that i am contually getting lost on, i am always learning and always being challenged, and I continue to find myself stuck, Me getting baptised would not fix that would not change it, Getting baptised again wouldnt solve it.. I need to recomit my self to God through prayer through reading the bible and even through going to church more, and surronding myself with christian friends, I dont need to get baptised again as i dont think that would help...

hmm...

just thinking about that.

[belovedgirl]

i like what you've said hayley. i'm proud of the growth i can see in you.