| Author | Message | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1674 Registered: 4-2000  |
Hec, Since salvation is from the Lord alone, there is no such thing as an "age of reason" or an "age of accountability." It is the rage in many churches today (fashioned after Charles Finney--the founder of the "anxious bench" or altar call) to practice "decisional" regeneration that is solely dependent upon the benediction of man as a means to one's eternal destiny. If one repeats a certain prayer, walks an aisle, and kneels at the rostrum he is declared saved. No person is authorized to declare another person as being "saved." Moreover, "decisional" regeneration takes many other forms as well (i.e., as in Adventism, when their schools conduct baptismal classes or a "week of prayer"). This practice puts an immense amount of pressure on the each person in the class to conform to the wishes of the school, pastor, or church. Thus, it becomes a socially-acceptable idea to get baptized. Young teenagers are particularly vulnerable to be liked by their peers. In short, you are expected to get baptized. Sometimes one is not even required to confess Ellen White before baptism due to the pressure to baptize large numbers of people. Dennis Fischer | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4782 Registered: 9-2006  |
Esther, I really appreciate your post, I guess mainly because you don't produce answers in cold theological sequence. When my grand daughter was a baby, my son and his wife were not following God. I sat with my grand daughter on my lap when everybody else was in the living room gabbing and I claimed her life for Jesus, it may be theologically incorrect, but I let my faith reach out for her. There is so much I don't understand, but I believe God is just, faithful, loving and kind. That's what I did and I am stickin' to it. I bring this prayer of nineteen years ago up to God often. So for the little infant children I believe in God to be just and faithful to these little one. Me, I encourage you to pray for your children often, ask God to bless them and leave what you don't understand with him, trust him fully. We might as well, because he is in control of any future we have anyhow. River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4783 Registered: 9-2006 |
And I don't imagine God is really impressed with our theology. He inhabits the praises of his people, not their theology.  River | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 381 Registered: 2-2003  |
Hey Keri, I don't think this has been covered yet. As a theology teacher, I have come across around five different interpretations for this verse, so it is not any easy one! Some believe it refers to water baptism, so it would mean: "Unless you are baptised and born of the Spirit..." I do not think this is the case. Jesus is not talking about baptism here. Some think it refers to natural birth - i.e. the "waters" surrounding the baby in the womb. In this case: "Unless you undergo both physical and spiritual birth..." This does not really make much sense to me. Seems to be a rather forced interpretation. There are some references in the NT to water as a symbol of the Word, e.g. Eph 5:26, and Peter talks about being born again by the Word, 1Peter 1:23, so this could mean: "Unless you are born of the Word and the Spirit". This is a possibility. In John's Gospel itself, however, Jesus uses water as a symbol of the Spirit in other places (John 4:13-14; 7:38-39), so he could be using the symbols of both wind and water to refer to the Spirit. In this case: "Unless you are born of water, i.e. of the Spirit". So take your pick, but the last one seems most likely to me. Adrian | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 431 Registered: 10-2008 |
Doc, I really appreciate your thoughts ... I am slowly journaling my way through the book of John. I'm only on John 1:13,14 . I'm looking up all the cross-references for each verse. This may take me until I die ... but it has been enlightening. John 1:13 - speaks of being born of God - so I looked at the cross-references ... Here are some of the verses: Titus 3:5 - "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,"(NASB). In the NIV it says, "washing of rebirth". The ESV says, "washing of regeneration". It was interesting as I searched the different texts that I also was sent to Lev. 8:6 - where Moses washed Aaron as a sign of ordination. This may be a stretch ... but born of water AND the Spirit. Could be the AND is inserted - don't know ... but if I take it to mean 2 things water and Spirit ... Born Again - seems to indicate that I come to faith in Jesus, because I realize the desperate state I'm in - He washes me of my sin, my guilty conscience, and places His Spirit in me - I now have an alive "spirit" that has the privilege of communing with the Father. I really like the idea of being washed of my sin; my guilty conscience - born of water. The book of John also refers to Jesus as the Living Water and when Jesus died both blood and water flowed from His side ... I realize what you have said Doc and if I can choose ... Anyways, ... Keri | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 432 Registered: 10-2008 |
Esther, I appreciated your thoughts and you have been on my mind all morning ... Just know I am praying for you as you seek God to understand baptism, salvation, and its implications for little Mac. In prayer for a searching mother's heart, Keri | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 382 Registered: 2-2003 |
Diana, Your reference to dipping three times reminded me of the Didache, so I looked it up. It is not quite how I remember. The Didache is a short manual of Christian practices which is thought to date back to the late first or early second century. The section on baptism is as follows: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before." (Didache, chapter 7). So from this I gather that immersion was the usual practice (baptise means immerse), but pouring was permitted if there was not enough water available. It mentions the formula "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" as in Matthew - hence the "three times" I guess. It also mentions, "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."" (Chapter 9), so the rule at that time was that only those who had been baptised could take communion. Also, off topic, but it has some interesting things to say about visiting ministers: "But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet... But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him..." (Chapter 11). Perhaps we should still take heed today... Adrian | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 309 Registered: 8-2008 |
A lot I want to comment on: 1) Dennis, you're absolutely correct about Finney. The more I read about him the more convinced I am that this guy was a false prophet. The common methods of evangelism practiced in Christian churches today, which come from him, are inherently manipulative. They are the same kinds of methods of social pressure and emotional manipulation that cults use. Is it any wonder that a large portion of those who say the "Sinner's Prayer" and "get saved" end up leaving the faith within a few years? Christ didn't seem to care about quantity. There were times in His ministry when He deliberately said controversial things to pair down the number of people claiming to be His followers, so that only the truly committed would remain. 2) I don't sense that the Scriptures hold a sacramental view of the sacraments. What I mean is, there is no sense I get from Scripture that the Sacraments are a "means of grace." While discussing that He is the Bread from Heaven, Jesus makes clear it is belief in Him that gives life. Jn. 6 seems to show that Christ refers to eating His flesh and believing in Him as the same thing. When we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we do not receive grace thereby, but rather it indicates and proclaims the grace we have already received. When the disciples get offended by his statement, He tells them. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." In context, if the "sacraments" were the means of grace, surely the Lord would not have said "the flesh counts for nothing." | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 383 Registered: 2-2003 |
I tend to agree with Colleen that baptism and communion should be regarded as signs of the new covenant. This whole subject of the covenants has been very much misunderstood until fairly recent times (as has been discussed here extensively), and so the idea of the signs has not been understood either. The RC teaching that they are "sacraments" remains in the concept of "means of grace", which is a similar idea really. Just because they are "only" signs, however, does not mean they should be neglected. It is interesting that God gave convenantal signs in the Old Testament too, and ignoring them could lead to very serious trouble. Having called Moses to go to Egypt, God was about to kill him, the reason being that he had not circumcised his son (Exodus 4:24-26). I never understood that passage, until I realised that Moses had neglected to observe the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, which he was under at the time. Breaking the Sabbath also involved the death penalty (Numbers 15:32-36). So even though these were only external and physical, they were important as God had given them as signs. Even in the New Testament, it says that believers in Corinth had become sick and/or died because of taking communion in an inappropriate manner (1Cor 11:27-30). So, maybe the signs are significant after all, Adrian | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9829 Registered: 12-2003  |
Esther, I totally understand your post above. As I read it, I sort of had an insight--tell me if I'm off base here. I picked up that for you, infant baptism represents your faith in God to save your child—your act of faith in His faithfulness that you can do for your child so he will receive the full blessing of God in the body of Christ. Is that correct? I so appreciated River's post about his grandchild. We totally CAN believe God to be faithful to His promises for our children. What I have come to see is that ultimately God asks me to give up my fear for my sons and trust Him with them. There is nothing I can do to secure their position with Christ. When my sons were very young, I worried a lot about them. They actually suffered a lot, and their little psyches were really hurt. They both reacted in sometimes serious ways...one with outbursts of hostility, the other with deep withdrawing—both unhealthy and dangerous. I OFTEN feared for their eternal security. (Yeah--I was an Adventist then...but God was actually using my experiences with these boys to teach me...) I actually had good reason to fear for their security. They were hostile and rebellious; one of them resisted prayer and didn't want to be forced to "do worship", etc. I knew that only a miracle of God could redeem their pain and save their souls. Somewhere during those years, as they grew and I "matured" (ha!), I realized that I had to mentally and emotionally "give them up" to God's will. I often would pray over them after they were asleep at night, asking God to heal their hearts, redeem their pain, and bring them to Himself. I came to realize that their salvation was not my "problem". It was God's "problem". My job was to pray for them and to commit myself to being available to God to love them for Him--not according to my needs or even to my perception of their needs, but to be available to stand before the boys submitted to God, allowing Him to touch them through me. It didn't always "feel" good! Esther, I believe this issue will clear up for you as you become able to release your son to God, trusting His Father's heart to nurture and win this child for Himself. He has brought you and you husband to new life in Jesus—and this miracle is partly for His purpose of winning your son to the Lord. As you begin to know that your son belongs to God, and He is even more concerned than you are about his eternal salvation, you can trust that He will save your son—as He promised—and that salvation has nothing to do with any act you perform for or on behalf of your son. He will save your son because He is faithful. Your prayers for him are your response to God—and He will fill your heart with His peace and joy as you relinquishe your son more and more completely to Him. I think I understand your feelings, Esther. Love and prayers, Colleen | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 485 Registered: 5-2004 |
Yes, Colleen. Your first sentance almost sums it up completely. Just like my baptism doesn't save me, it wouldn't save Mack either. But it is a sign of belonging, and of our commitment to Christ. I should probably completely move away from the term "means of grace". I don't think that either baptism, nor the blood and wine of communion are anything more than symbols...however, there is a blessing for Christians by participating in those given symbols. And like I said about prayer...God has chosen to use 'things' to bless us with by our partaking in them...whether that blessing comes through the act of our partaking just because God said to, or it's in our spirits because we're submitting them to God... who knows. I have completely given up my fears for his salvation to God...as per my faith. Whether I end up believing in infant baptisms or not, I trust God completely with Mack's future and have complete peace about that. My struggle is more along the lines of if I'm denying him of a blessing by partaking of the community of faith?. Just like I wouldn't go out to eat and deny him food by making him sit there and watch me. Bottom line: my questions are about whether this is applicable for children/infants? Do they partake of the signs...as the children in the OT did. We don't believe that salvation was any different in the OT, and as Adrian pointed out (thanks) there were very serious consequences by not partaking in the signs. The NT continues to address the seriousness of the symbols/signs so...where does that leave us River, thanks for sharing your story with your granddaughter. That really is where I'm at. I trust God completely and fully without any fears for his future... I've already committed him to Christ. Just, do I dedicate or baptize So far, I seem to be convincing myself on the side of baptizing. Another side of this question involves personal preference I think. Like, for me, I know that I was dedicated as a child which is cool, and then was baptized SDA. But, for me, I think it would have been awesome growing up knowing I was already baptized into the body of Christ, and that when I'd formally made my own decision for Christ it was just a "progression" of my upbringing. But then, now, not having that, I wish to be rebaptized into the real body of Christ and think the experience will be profound for me. But since the baptism itself is just a symbol, with no inherent power...is it something we should remember, or not. I think I crave it because I know I wasn't raised in the body of Christ. But that's just me. I do appreciate everyone's input | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2738 Registered: 10-2004  |
Keri, The way I understand John 3:5 from the immediate context is that it is talking about physical vs. spiritual. I don't think this is a "forced" interpretation if we look at the verses before and after also:
So it seems to me that "born of water" is the same as "born of the flesh" in the next verse. Jeremy | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 434 Registered: 10-2008 |
I know that you have been discussing the blessings that come from baptism and communion, but I am also struck by the blessings that come from suffering. (Forgive me if I digress to another symbol/sign/issue that brings blessing - but is not always appreciated for its' blessing) Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation. If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. (1 Peter 4:12-14; NASB) Realize I'm totally talking to myself and 'thinking out loud' ... Am I as willing to partake of sufferings for the "blessing" as I would be willing to partake of communion for its' blessings? | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 435 Registered: 10-2008 |
Jeremy, I was posting just as you posted. Yes, that makes sense ... Keri | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 486 Registered: 5-2004 |
Keri...exactly! It seems these purely 'physical' things that we partake of in this world still offer the opportunity to bless us (by God blessing us through them). I like the correlation with suffering...kind of where I was going with the topic of prayer too. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4787 Registered: 9-2006 |
If I could save souls by dunking, I wouldn't be sitting in this office, I would be busier that a dunkin-doughnut shop. Unfortunately if I did go out and threaten, beg, cajole them into it, I'm afraid they would just go down a dry sinner and come up a wet one. Salvation comes first (born again) then follows the sign that we have died, buried and resurrected with Jesus Christ, the baptism. But until salvation comes they ain't much use in getting wet unless its a heated pool or a hot day. As for the children, there may not be an age of accountability, but there is an age of innocence and I believe God will take care of that innocent child in life or in death. River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4788 Registered: 9-2006 |
Double post. (Message edited by river on May 14, 2009) | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 437 Registered: 10-2008 |
Doc and Jeremy, I thought you might be interested in what the Assoc. Pastor of the Church I attend sent me regarding John 3:5 ... I had asked the question in a group setting and he emailed the group with the following response ... "Here are the possible answers I found to our question of John 3:5 'unless one is born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God' Some say it refers to the natural birth and spiritual birth. Some say it refers to baptism and being born again spiritually. Another option is that given the Old Testament imagery of the cleansing nature of water and God giving us a new spirit, it refers to the necessity of being cleansed and being made new by God. Ezekiel 36:25-26 uses this imagery NAB Ezekiel 36:25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I think # 3 makes the most sense, because in the Greek the words are just ‘water and spirit’ not ‘water and the Spirit.’ Just thought you might be interested. Keri | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9830 Registered: 12-2003 |
Just to dovetail with River's post above--Romans 6:1-7 details the spiritual significance of baptism. Paul dissects "baptism" and "dying to sin" and shows that when we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death (v. 3). Then, in verses 5-7, he continues by explaining that being united with Christ in the likeness of His death means we are united with the likeness of His resurrection, and therefore our old self was buried, and our body of sin has been done away with so that we are no longer slaves to sin, "For he who has died is freed from sin." Now, we know that this death to sin only happens when we receive Jesus. It is not related to baptism per se. It is something we experience with full accountability before God. It happens when we believe in the Lord Jesus. Because Paul links baptism with being born again, I personally have trouble seeing baptism as symbolizing anything other than our participation in Jesus' death and in our own new birth. In Acts 10:44-48, the Holy Spirit "fell upon those who were listening to the message," and then Peter said, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" Infant baptism, while a wonderful symbol, is nonetheless derived from the structure of the Old Covenant, when babies were brought into the covenant by circumcision. Of course people have always been saved the same way—by faith in God. But God has revealed Himself in different ways at different times, and He has revealed Himself most completely in the Person of Jesus. The Old Covenant was shadows; the New Covenant is completely new. Moreover, the NT draws a comparison between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart. The NT realization of OT circumcision is the New Birth, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of being born again—the sign of entering the New Covenant which is entirely about receiving justification and being born of the Spirit. People didn't enter the Old Covenant by means of a new heart; they entered physically, by means of circumcision. Romans 2:25-28 expounds on the difference between circumcision and the new birth; Romans 6 expands on the connection between baptism and the new birth. There is no NT comparison between circumcision and baptism. But Esther, I understand your dilemma. Moreover, your son may elect to be baptized by immersion later on when he does receive the Lord Jesus as his Savior. In fact, I have witnessed many baptisms of people who acknowledge having been baptized as infants but choosing later to be baptized as a believer because they now know Him. Colleen | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 438 Registered: 10-2008 |
I just preached a sermon to myself while mowing the lawn tonight  . I was thinking about Blessings and this thread ... And I was correlating it with a book I'm reading by Larry Crab called, "The Pressure's Off" and then some New Testament passages came to mind. In the Old Testament the Israelites were to follow the law and then they would receive blessings - if they didn't follow God's law - curses (Deut. 28). Funny thing though ... God knew they wouldn't/couldn't keep the law (Deut.31:16-18). Another interesting piece is that the Israelites and Joshua were instructed to write the "law" on large stones and plaster them with plaster (Deut. 27:2-4). Right next to these monument plastered "law" stones they were to build an alter and offer sacrifices (this was done when they entered the promised land). The symbolism is amazing ... the law (plastered stones) placed next to the alter of sacrifice. God knew the Israelites could never keep the law and so He reminded them of the sacrifice for their failure (the alter). Larry Crabb mentions that the Old Law or Old Covenant was based on obedience - If obedient blessings ... disobedience - curses. You do A and B will follow. The new way according to Crabb is much different. He says, The spiritual journey is rooted in liberty, the freedom of grace: Come as you are, trembling, and learn to rest. Then go out into life doing what's right because you're privileged to do so, because you want to be holy, not because doing right is the way to a pleasant life. Life may provide rich blessings. Or it may not. Either way you can know God. The New Way is not do this and be blessed ... the new way is you May OR you MAY NOT be blessed. But you can know God. Then fast forward to the Sermon on the Mount (hmmm. . . another mountain ). In my Bible, Blessings are defined in this way - More than a temporary or circumstantial feeling of happiness, this is a state of well-being in relationship to God that belongs to those who respond to Jesus' ministry (ESV Study Bible). In Matthew 5 the "Blessed are the ..." are not pleasant things! I.E. Those who mourn ... Poor in Spirit (those who recognize their need of God); who are persecuted ... It is not like the Old Way ... I do A and "happy me" I get B (as Larry Crabb would say). No, I am broken, poor, and battered, and recognize that God is the 'ultimate source of real righteousness [ESV Study Bible] - that is where the blessings are. I totally recognize that I am dust - then I am blessed (Keri's paraphrase - no extra charge). This is where the blessings come ... This is why I rest ... And the blessings are Jesus. I have just experienced a very difficult situation and my heart has been truly broken from it ... BUT I am slowly understanding the blessings that come from brokenness ... No longer do I work to be blessed ... I am broken and I am blessed. And the blessings all relate not to a temporal kingdom, BUT to HIS KINGDOM (i.e. kingdom of heaven; comforted; inherit the earth; satisfied in Him; receive mercy; see God; kingdom of heaven; reward is great in heaven). The blessings of suffering is intimacy with Him in a way that is different than non-suffering might bring. Anyways, ... May you be BLESSED in a new way, Keri |
