 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Baptism (take three) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 3:48 PM (GMT -6) |   | Nonetheless:
quote:
Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann writes in "By Water and the Spirit":
"The newborn child belongs to a family. It does not have any autonomous existence; its life is determined and formed in full - both in the present and in the near future - by this belonging. And the family - if it is a Christian family - belongs to the Church and finds in the Church the source, the content and the transcendental aim of its existence in its capacity as a family. Therefore, the child who belongs to the family and, in a more concrete, biological sense, to the mother, by this very means belongs to the Church and is truly her child, already brought and commended to God."
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
. . .The assertion of the Baptists that the original practice of the Christian Church consisted in the baptism only of adults that had consciously accepted the faith is an argument that holds little weight, not having confirmation in Church history. If the practice of bap-tizing children were an innovation, how then did it spread everywhere and become confirmed in both the Christian East and West, without having evoked any opposition on the part of Christians? After all, the believers of the first centuries were incomparably more zealous and strict as regards both religious questions and Church practice than present-day members of the Church. If the baptism of infants were a new matter, it could have been confirmed only after great disputes, as the result of struggle and, perhaps, even divisions. However, the history of the Church does not inform us of anything concerning disputes among Christians regarding the baptism of infants. The first objections to the baptism of infants appeared in Germany in the sixteenth century on the part of the Anabaptists. What then happened during all these fifteen centuries after the Nativity of Christ? Can one really think seriously that the whole Ecumenical Church tore itself away from Jesus Christ because of the baptism of children?
I'm not saying it's not old enough. I'm saying if it replaces believer's baptism, it's wrong. But it's not that big a deal to me.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
If the Enlightenment got something right that no one else got, good for the Enlightenment! Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
The "Enlightened" emphasis on "choice" misses the mark of what is really at play in baptism and everything about faith.
Instead of "choice" focus on "DESIRE." "Whom have I desired except Thee, and there is none upon the earth that I desire besides Thee. My flesh and my heart faileth; but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever." (Which Psalm is that -- we used to sing it in high school in the early 70s.)
Desire is not "deliberative." The legacy of the Church fathers advises us to discern a kind of deliberation ("deliberative will" in John of Damascus' writing) that is bound to sin. Mary did not deliberate...she did not weigh pros and cons, this future or another. Mary said "yes" TO GOD. We see in her response a freedom from bondage to the flesh that came only from devotion to God (not immaculate conception--that heresy). She said: "be it unto me according to thy word."
Her desire did not take away her freedom. It made her more free to respond with the answer that her very being -- and ours -- desire. Rather than deliberation dragging us down, and placing bookmarks where we might return to (like Elisha's servant), our response to God's grace to grant us an "individual choice" should be without deliberation.
Enlightenment ideals need to get nailed to the Cross.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | - Psalm 10:17
You hear, O LORD , the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
- Psalm 20:4
May he give you the desire of your heart and make all your plans succeed.
- Psalm 21:2
You have granted him the desire of his heart and have not withheld the request of his lips. Selah
- Psalm 37:4
Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.
- Psalm 40:8
I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart."
- Psalm 73:25
Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
- Psalm 145:19
He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them.
- Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
If infant baptism makes the child part of the body of Christ, do they still have to be "born again"? And if not, does the child ever get to choose his spiritual standing?
You appear to have made "born again" to be something autonomous to Christ!
The child has to run the race to completion. No one-time decision is enough for anybody. (Martin Marty said that conversion is a good use of fifteen minutes...but then what?)
Does someone have to have a single conversion experience. Ask D. L. Moody: his stake in the ground was so that he would start moving forward and stop thinking that he was starting over. No one "is saved," onlly "being saved" -- a phrase I've heard both on Moody Radio in Chicago and on an EO website.
That newly baptized infant has lots of obedience, and discipleship, and confession, repentance, absolution etc. ahead in life. That child does not "have" salvation, but can grab hold of Salvation which is the One Mediator, Christ.
There ain't no "once saved always saved." There is only "In Christ."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
Desire is not "deliberative." The legacy of the Church fathers advises us to discern a kind of deliberation ("deliberative will" in John of Damascus' writing) that is bound to sin. Mary did not deliberate...she did not weigh pros and cons, this future or another. Mary said "yes" TO GOD. We see in her response a freedom from bondage to the flesh that came only from devotion to God (not immaculate conception--that heresy). She said: "be it unto me according to thy word."
This is all inference. You could also say that Mary never blinked or coughed. There is the same evidence for those assertions. The Bible doesn't say she didn't choose but instead only desired. And even if it did, how is that prescriptive? Just because an idea is old or first century Christians believed it doesn't make it right. And just because an idea is new doesn't make it wrong.
I have TWO proofs to this.
First, there is no tape recording of it. It is writen by someone withing to make a point, to pass on a lesson.
From that can be noticed the difference between Mary and Abraham's Sarah. Mary didn't laugh. She wondered at "how is this possible." But she accepted it flat out.
Second, from the devotional life of the Church, where the Holy Spirit has been at work as Christ sent it to, comes the notice of these diferences in scriptural accounts. Tradition points to the Holy Scripture as holding significant lessons that are applicable to us to. Mary was the first Christian. The first to accept Christ into her heart, as well as her womb. The Bible shows this: "be it unto me according to thy word."
All scripture is God-breathed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Luke 1: 46And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48For he hath looked upon the low estate of his handmaid: For behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. 49For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; And holy is his name. 50And his mercy is unto generations and generations On them that fear him. 51He hath showed strength with his arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart. 52He hath put down princes from [their] thrones, And hath exalted them of low degree. 53The hungry he hath filled with good things; And the rich he hath sent empty away. 54He hath given help to Israel his servant, That he might remember mercy 55(As he spake unto our fathers) Toward Abraham and his seed for ever.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/18/2004 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm still enjoying this, Sahid. And I appologize that on my shelf is the notes I wrote on a printing of one of your posts. I owe it to you.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/18/2004 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I wouldn't consider these proof. She didn't laugh? She could have made a choice without laughing. Mary was the first Christian? Maybe, but what does it matter? This doesn't mean she suspended her volition. As to the verses you quoted, I, of course, agree with them all. But none of them say that people don't choose God.
I believe that baptism is "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". However, Peter is comparing the story of Noah to baptism. God is the one who saved Noah and his family. Noah's role was very small compared to God's, but it was a role. I think it's assuming a lot to think that Noah simply got the boat building itch without any "deliberate" desicision on his part. I'm not saying that our choosing needs to be a long, drawn out process. I've heard lots of stories about people who hear about Jesus for the first time and they immediately say yes, but that doesn't mean they didn't choose. I think at the minimum the individual must realize the need for help and trust God to provide that help.
As to salvation being an event or a process, I'd say it's both. If there are two general outcomes to life, there must be a point of salvation. If not, then what happens when we die? Do some go half to heaven and half to hell? No, there must be some crucial moment. This must be balanced with the truth that faith without works is dead. If salvation produces no change, there are doubts as to whether there is salvation. This isn't necessarily once saved always saved. Whether people can move back and forth across the point of salvation is another issue.
Today salvation has come to this house - Lk. 19:9
Take the helmet of salvation - Eph. 6:17
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling - Phil. 2:12
Put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation. - 1Th. 5:8,9
Obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls - 1Pet. 1:9
I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation. - Jude 3
Salvation is both now and not yet. We experience salvation now, but later salvation will be complete.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 2:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I wouldn't consider these proof. She didn't laugh?
I wrote: "It is writen by someone withing to make a point, to pass on a lesson. From that can be noticed the difference between Mary and Abraham's Sarah."
quote:
Mary's faith is presented to the reader. That's the writer's intention.
Hmmm: So?
quote:
This doesn't mean she suspended her volition.
 : Volition does not mean that will has to be exercised with "deliberation." Will follows from nature, and Mary was created in God's image, and as human her "natural" desire was to have God within her. It is sin that is unnatural. "Chocolate or butterscotch" could be weighed and considere without sin. But the moment one delberates "God or not God" one has made oneself to be "god" already. (God is not butterscotch!  )
quote:
...none of (the verses) say that people don't choose God.
 : They say HOW or in what kind of manner that choosing subsists. (Above.)
quote:
I believe that baptism is "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
But the Death part needs to be highly emphasized. Christ CHOSE his death WILLINGLY. His desire from his very conception was to die for us. He never, ever, wavered from that desire. And as prerequisite to baptism THAT has to be OUR desire to. And with our individual decision of our faith (which is a gift in itself) the Spirit gives us CHRIST'S faith. And that faith is participation with God. That faith is more like "belonging" than a concept.
quote:
I think it's assuming a lot to think that Noah simply got the boat building itch without any "deliberate" desicision on his part.
 : Did you get lost?
quote:
I'm not saying that our choosing needs to be a long, drawn out process. ... I think at the minimum the individual must realize the need for help and trust God to provide that help.
 : I don't want to discuss paedeobaptism right now; but infants FIT the criteria of realizing need for help, and trusting. "As a child." I used to get up four times a night for feedings, bottles, and changing by the light of the streetlight. Infants HAVE NOT forgotten God. They have not yet "let the world squeeze them into its mold" (J.B.Philips translation of Philipians). But paedeobaptism can come later.
Noah may have done a lot of deliberation. When Moses did it caused trouble. But when Noah finally agreed THAT did not have deliberation -- he did not leave breadcrumbs to find himself back out. Faith isn't that. Faith is "substance" of what is hoped for -- not an empty void.
quote:
As to salvation being an event or a process, I'd say it's both. If there are two general outcomes to life, there must be a point of salvation. If not, then what happens when we die? Do some go half to heaven and half to hell? No, there must be some crucial moment.
 : You are being silly. "Scripture says "We shall be changed." The "trumpet shall sound." We will put down our pencils and pass in our papers.
quote:
Salvation is both now and not yet. We experience salvation now, but later salvation will be complete.
(approve): Bingo!
quote:
Today salvation has come to this house - Lk. 19:9
 : Salvation is Christ.
quote:
Take the helmet of salvation - Eph. 6:17
: "Take."
quote:
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling - Phil. 2:12
: Yex! Ain't no "once saved always saved.
quote:
Put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation. - 1Th. 5:8,9
: "Obtaining" is progressive tense. It ain't over till its over. St. Maximus the Confessor says that were one to leave God one could never forget his incomparable glory, and no counterfeit, however bright would ever begin to match up. Missing the God you'd left would be self-torcher. (I added the last part.)
quote:
Obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls - 1Pet. 1:9
: "Obtaining" is progressive tense. And it has elements of BOTH now and not-yet when you include "outcome."
quote:
I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation. - Jude 3
: Paul doesn't consider it all to be over -- he "fights" to keep working on his salvation. And so should we. Scripture even uses language that we help to save each other. We are co-redeemers with Christ. (We ARE his body -- so it is Christ who is doing it through us!)
GOOD VERSES!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/19/2004 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and consider the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him." Luke 14:26-29
I think these verses speak to a deliberate decision that is to be made before we follow Jesus. Jesus also makes it a universal requirement. "If anyone comes to me". The verses you sighted in favor of desire over deliberation in no way say that desire is a universal requirement. They give examples of desire (often of God's desire), but do not say that desire is what we need in order to come to him. Romans 8:5 is a good example. quote:
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
We are to set our minds on what the Spirit desires. It says nothing about our desires but what we are to set our minds on. I do think desire is usually there, and it grows as we get to know God (or God's energies) better.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, so those who are not intellegent enought are going to hell?
(You opened yourself up with this Gnostic possition, and aught to live with it a bit. )
BTW -- You don't think infants think? Choose, etc. Mom and Dad are icons of Christ to them. Through us they see and experience God's love and grace and guidance, and forgiveness. ("Whatsoever ye bind...") Same for the whole church.
The Gnostic take on the gospel is sooooo narroooow! (Need a link on its history and how it entered medieval Europe?) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/19/2004 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | | I posted this a couple days ago.quote:
I still think the little children are safe. "Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died." Rom 7:9
Was Paul alive apart from the law, because his parents baptized him? Infant baptism has nothing to do with being alive apart from the law, and because Paul was raised a strict Jew from birth, this verse can only be refering to some sort of age of accountability. It is my opinion that a child does not need to come to Christ, because he/she is already there. Like you said, they have done nothing that they need to repent of. But when we sin, we need to come back, and anyone who comes should count the cost. Infant baptism is both superfluous and insufficient. It is unneccesary for the child's salvation, and, because it was not their choice, it is not related to Spiritual baptism.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I wasn't aware of the Gnostic nature of the gospel of Luke. Was Luke misquoting Christ, or was Christ wrong, or was I wrong to think that counting the cost means counting the cost? Was I wrong to think that setting our minds on something is an intellectual event?
No, Luke isn't Gnostic. But the emphasis the Reformation put on "will" instead of "being" is.
Of that change: (OFFSITE QUOTE)"Truth no longer depends on being but on will, which is now primal: Not only is imputed righteousness more real than real righteousness; even faith is redefined in volitional or fiducial terms as fiducia "trust, loyalty.""
Accepting and living the cost, while not very Reformed, is more biblical. (Intellectual counting is not even necessary.)
quote:
I thought you didn't want to talk about infant baptism. I haven't brought it up since you said that except to respond to what you have written. You seem very eager to talk about it.
Sorry, I thought that you were bringing it up. My mistake. Please forgive me. (When you wrote "first sit down and consider the cost" I took the 'first' to be a contrast to paedeobaptism. Again, my mistake!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I do think desire is usually there, and it grows as we get to know God (or God's energies) better.
Missionaries to Cameroon say that is the attitude of the nationals to arranged marriages too. (Walter and Ingrid Trobish, IVPress) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Was Paul alive apart from the law, because his parents baptized him?
The law showed Paul his inability to keep it. (Nothing to do with his parents.)
quote:
Infant baptism has nothing to do with being alive apart from the law
Huh?
quote:
...this verse can only be refering to some sort of age of accountability.
Is this some "imputation" model. Original sin has its consequences, and those are ontological--real(!), and not imputed.
quote:
It is my opinion that a child does not need to come to Christ, because he/she is already there.
Death seems grossly under-represented here. We all inherit the death/mortality of the fall, and its "sting" sin. (I don't know what you mean by "there.")
quote:
Like you said, they have done nothing that they need to repent of.
OK. But covering sin is not the only thing baptism is for. Have you forgotten what you said before: Death and Resurrection. Baptism is to transform death from a curse into a blessing. In Christ our death becomes the passage to eternal life. Prior to that it is the curse that binds us to the consequences of sin. Infants may not have sin, but they still need Resurrection!
quote:
But when we sin, we need to come back, and anyone who comes should count the cost.
Repentance is sometimes spoken as the "baptism of tears" -- not a literal second baptism, but called that in literary fashion. Repenting, Christ makes us clean again, as clean as we are in baptism. (So the EO say--and I believe them.)
quote:
Infant baptism is both superfluous and insufficient.
Wrong. Wrong. The Faith in baptism is Christ's. Without that faith of the only one who willed death and conquered it, even the most noble individual's faith would be "insuffiencent." Superfluous? It is what God makes it, and what those involved commit to. (Third party opinions don't enter in.)
quote:
It is unneccesary for the child's salvation, and, because it was not their choice, it is not related to Spiritual baptism.
UNLESS you can establish that it is "against" their choice, you may not say that!!! Everything about their choices are formed and matured in them for the nine months in their mother. With that mother they have felt worship, hearing and sensing the emotions and focus of worshiping God. (Stop and think here, Zack. Interudero--I'm a dad!) As to "choice" following along in the community of their family and loved ones is their choice. It is. Strongly!!! (That's obvious!) As to "spiritual baptism" if you mean what the Spirit does, then you have no right to speak to that. Duck. But if you mean "inner" then that is the medieval Gnostic influences again, the duality that says that mind matters more than body, that will matters more than being, and that salvation is an imputation and a virtual reality and not ontologically real.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2004 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, Sahid. I didn't get time today to type the brief annotation notes to a post of yours a few days ago.
In Christ.
Thanks,
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/19/2004 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No, Luke isn't Gnostic. But the emphasis the Reformation put on "will" instead of "being" is.
Of that change: "Truth no longer depends on being but on will, which is now primal: Not only is imputed righteousness more real than real righteousness; even faith is redefined in volitional or fiducial terms as fiducia "trust, loyalty.""
I didn't quote any Reformationist. I quoted Jesus through Luke. How do you interpret the passage in Luke? And if we're dealing with imputed righteousness, we've got to deal with Genesis 15:6 too. So how do you read these passages? quote:
(Intellectual counting is not even necessary.)
Jesus said otherwise.
quote:
Is this some "imputation" model. Original sin has its consequences, and those are ontological--real(!), and not imputed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is my opinion that a child does not need to come to Christ, because he/she is already there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death seems grossly under-represented here. We all inherit the death/mortality of the fall, and its "sting" sin. (I don't know what you mean by "there.")
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you said, they have done nothing that they need to repent of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. But covering sin is not the only thing baptism is for. Have you forgotten what you said before: Death and Resurrection. Baptism is to transform death from a curse into a blessing. In Christ our death becomes the passage to eternal life. Prior to that it is the curse that binds us to the consequences of sin. Infants may not have sin, but they still need Resurrection!
I wasn't thinking about imputation when I wrote it. I'm not firmly against imputation, but I was talking about Paul's being alive apart from the law. In some sense, Paul was alive apart from the law. So when was that? He was raised on the law. On the list of people inundated by the law at an early age, Paul has got to be high on the all-time list. So when was he alive apart form the law. Here's the preceding verse: quote:
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
Paul was a pretty smart guy. When he wants to generalize about the human race, he can adequately do so. But here he doesn't. He uses the first person singular. He uses it fairly consistently in his other writings to refer to himself. I don't think I being too literal in thinking his repeated use of "I" and "me" refer to himself. So there was a time when Paul was alive apart from the Law, and when the Law came it produced sin and he died. I know it can be spun a million different ways, but at least those words I think we can agree upon.
I think we can see a very similar thing in the garden of Eden story. Sin came through the one "law" that they had. They didn't one day just say, "God, you stink, and I'm not naming animals for you anymore!" Now I'll grant that none of this says sin only works this way, but it happens very frquently.
So here's my question to you. In what sense do you think Paul was alive before the Law?
I'm saying it must have been when he was very young, before he could understand the Law. Not that we can ever know it fully or anything. But before he knew right from wrong in any sense. I a big Eden parallel. The knowledge of good and evil is where our sin comes from. For now I won't take it any futher than that.
I agree that infants need resurrection. And I believe that they will have it. They are killed by a sinful world but they haven't sinned. The power of Christ's death and Resurrection covers them. Why wouldn't it? What need do they have for baptism? They never broke fellowship with God. And if baptism is necessary for infants, what happens to infants of Islamic parents who die? If it is not necessary for babies in Iran, why is it necessary for babies in Texas? Maybe you think it's necessary children of Islamic parents too. Necessary for what? Salvation? quote:
The Faith in baptism is Christ's.
Then why does He only baptize babies born in Christian homes? I think baptism requires the faith of both Christ and the baptized. quote:
It is what God makes it, and what those involved commit to. (Third party opinions don't enter in.)
Yes. But we define involved differently. quote:
UNLESS you can establish that it is "against" their choice, you may not say that!!! Everything about their choices are formed and matured in them for the nine months in their mother.
Why is the burden of proof on me. Explicitly the practice is extra-biblical. Some people think the Bible implies infant baptism, some don't. But the only hard biblical evidence is against it. I think the burden of proof is on those who affirm infant baptism. Saying that people did it a long time ago doesn't change this. It just begs the question. Prove that they were right in not just doing this extra-biblical practice but in prescibing it to others. quote:
With that mother they have felt worship, hearing and sensing the emotions and focus of worshiping God. (Stop and think here, Zack. Interudero--I'm a dad!)
You stop and think. I'm more recently a kid. I'm probably taller too. But none of these things matter. Milton Gleason agrees with me and he's my dad. quote:
As to "choice" following along in the community of their family and loved ones is their choice. It is. Strongly!!! (That's obvious!)
A choice implies options. I've been debating this with Lee for a while. A choice with only one option is not a choice. If the baby starts crying before baptism, do you stop to respect his or her wishes, or is the babies will so wrapped up in his/her mother that it cannot choose otherwise? That's not a choice either. By that reasoning I can choose to fall when I'm pushed off a cliff. quote:
As to "spiritual baptism" if you mean what the Spirit does, then you have no right to speak to that.
Why? I thought we could at least know His actions or energies. quote:
But if you mean "inner" then that is the medieval Gnostic influences again, the duality that says that mind matters more than body, that will matters more than being, and that salvation is an imputation and a virtual reality and not ontologically real.
I disagree. I believe salvation is ontologically real. I'm a new creation.
I'm still enjoying this. I may sound angry or frustrated or something, but I'm not. What post of mine has caught your interest and why?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and consider the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him." Luke 14:26-29
To my eyes this is just a warning not to begin what one really isn't resolved to finish. It says to "sound" (like sonar) one's depths, and spend any necessary time (as in catechumins) preparing before committing.
For THAT reason the Church does not baptize stranger's kids -- even if they are in need; as completing the task calls for resources those outside the church family do not have. But the infant has so little obsticals to worth through--obviously. And s/he will, with the support of the Fellowship, have no trouble seeing the task to completion. Like you said, its BOTH a product and a process. The infant is presented with no obsticals to the process, and God handles the initial product. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:35 AM (GMT -6) | | As to: "And if we're dealing with imputed righteousness..."
PoW: I reject that concept. "Imputed guilt" too. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
In some sense, Paul was alive apart from the law. So when was that? He was raised on the law. On the list of people inundated by the law at an early age, Paul has got to be high on the all-time list. So when was he alive apart form the law.
I didn't read that as a sequntial timetable. I hear that as describing different aspects--which can be concurrent. Its a description of the picture of his relationship to the law, and not an account of sequential events. He's describing what the law did for him in forcing him to look at grace, and his limited ability to make use of the law until then.
Paul does at one place talk about what a good Pharasee he was. BUT, I've read the point made at what a BAD follower of God he was. He was trying to kill the people of God who worship God. That's as bad as one gets. His fallen-law (like Adam and Eve in the garden) made him into a god. His effort to serve that fallen-image of the law turned him against God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 2:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Here's the preceding verse: quote:
But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
Paul was a pretty smart guy. When he wants to generalize about the human race, he can adequately do so. But here he doesn't. He uses the first person singular. He uses it fairly consistently in his other writings to refer to himself. I don't think I being too literal in thinking his repeated use of "I" and "me" refer to himself. So there was a time when Paul was alive apart from the Law, and when the Law came it produced sin and he died. I know it can be spun a million different ways, but at least those words I think we can agree upon.
So here's my question to you. In what sense do you think Paul was alive before the Law?
Not necessarily a "time."
I also think Paul is being personal. (Though a principle may apply too.) As I said above, I don't hear it as being so much a matter of sequence, as a mental examination of the role of things that can be present as to thoughts examination but coexist and are inseparabe in reality. (As a pattern of thought: the way Christ's two natures can each be thought about separately but can't be torn apart in reality comes to mind.) | | Back to Top | | |
| 107 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|