Reading through the institututes.

[JesusFan]

I understand what you are saying and not wanting to get into it.... and not deliberately switching subjects away from your discussion... I always wonder what ever did they do with the babies in the new Testament times when the whole families were baptized such as the Jailer, and Lydia, and Crispus, Stephanus and not to forget Cornelius.

Maybe when the mom was being baptized someone else held the babe? This has bothered me for decades.

Some reformed churches did follow John Calvin pretty close. The Westminster Confession of Faith certainly did.

Interesting to wonder if Calvin actually started the whole infant baptism thing to begin with because he said
Here is a short summary statement of John Calvin’s argument for applying the sign of baptism to the children of Believers:

John Calvin on “Infant Baptism”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

Think its mainly due to Non Baptist reformed seeing water baptism corresponding in the NT now what circumcision's was to the OT a sign of being in the community of faith, while we would say that none are actually in the new Covenant until first saved

 

[Josheb]

Think its mainly due to Non Baptist reformed seeing water baptism corresponding in the NT now what circumcision's was to the OT a sign of being in the community of faith, while we would say that none are actually in the new Covenant until first saved

I know that's the way many "see" water baptism, but where might I find that stated in scripture?

 

[JesusFan]

I know that's the way many "see" water baptism, but where might I find that stated in scripture?

Think that it is implied and inferred by those holding to that view, same way they see water baptism of infants in the NT was down even though not stated directly

 

[Josheb]

Think that it is implied and inferred by those holding to that view, same way they see water baptism of infants in the NT was down even though not stated directly

Hmmm... So now we're rendering scripture based on inferences only?

 

[JesusFan]

Hmmm... So now we're rendering scripture based on inferences only?

They would appear to be doing such

 

[Josheb]

.

Think that it is implied and inferred by those holding to that view, same way they see water baptism of infants in the NT was down even though not stated directly

Hmmm... So now we're rendering scripture based on inferences only?

They would appear to be doing such

Pass

What scripture explicitly states cannot and should not be ignored, and sound interpretation always builds its inferences first from what is explicit and never the reverse.

 

[JesusFan]

.

Pass

What scripture explicitly states cannot and should not be ignored, and sound interpretation always builds its inferences first from what is explicit and never the reverse.

That is why i remain a Baptist, as really think the bible teaches to us under the NC believers water Baptism

 

[Josheb]

That is why i remain a Baptist, as really think the bible teaches to us under the NC believers water Baptism

What if many of the mentions of "baptized" the NT writers were referring to the baptism of the HS, and not water? Ever consider that? Do a little exercise this week and use your eBible to find all the epistolary mentions of "be baptized, or "was baptized," etc., and read the passage in which those verses occur. Keep this in mind: the believers in Acts 19 who knew only of "John's" baptism. They'd all been baptized in water. Were they saved? I'm inclined to answer in the affirmative simply because Paul treats them as believers and Luke calls them disciples (is there such thing as an unsaved disciple?). However, their salvation would be dependent upon their God-given faith, the faith they were bestowed with by God for that purpose of their salvation. It would not be because they took a quick bath. The problem is they had no power. They didn't possess that which is bestowed by God when He baptizes a person in/with the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostals invented an entire theology around this but the Ephesians' example is an anomaly, an exception to the rule, not the norm. Normally the indwelling and renewal by the Holy Spirit occurs at the time of salvation, along with the performing of a ritual known as water baptism, Humans do not perform baptism by the HS. Humans preform a ritual in which a person is dunked or sprinkled with water. If and when something in addition to a quick bath occurs then that occurs by an act of God, too. Peter drew and correlation between the Noahic flood and baptism, stating,

1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

This is a little ambiguous because it leaves room for the so called "pledge" to be from either God or the one being baptized. Is this pledge a declaration by God from God promising a clear conscience for the believer? Or is it a declaration by the believer promising s/he will from that point on have a clear conscience? If the latter, then every person has failed his covenant promise to God in the baptism ritual . And we don't find a lot in the theological literature (Baptism or not) about that.

Would it be correct to render the following as a reference to HS baptism?

Titus 3:4-7
4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He richly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Can anyone be saved without that? I say no. Can someone be saved without having been baptized in water? I say yes. The thief on the cross would be one example. That thief would, like the Acts 19 disciples, be an exception to the rule so we would not want to discard water baptism based on one anomaly. Neither would we want to force a legalism on ritual. In this particular op, the matter of baptism is ironic because Calvin attributed his salvation (partly) due to his pedobaptism and he (like most of the other Reformers) upheld the practice. It was the Anabaptists of the Reformation that said adult could/should/would be performed only on adults (or those mature enough to make a conscious and conscientious profession of faith. It's ironic because every Baptist congregation holding to that same position is Anabaptist! Anabaptist Baptists . Of course, there are other matters that separate the two (particularly in the areas of soteriology and ecclesiology).

 

[JesusFan]

What if many of the mentions of "baptized" the NT writers were referring to the baptism of the HS, and not water? Ever consider that? Do a little exercise this week and use your eBible to find all the epistolary mentions of "be baptized, or "was baptized," etc., and read the passage in which those verses occur. Keep this in mind: the believers in Acts 19 who knew only of "John's" baptism. They'd all been baptized in water. Were they saved? I'm inclined to answer in the affirmative simply because Paul treats them as believers and Luke calls them disciples (is there such thing as an unsaved disciple?). However, their salvation would be dependent upon their God-given faith, the faith they were bestowed with by God for that purpose of their salvation. It would not be because they took a quick bath. The problem is they had no power. They didn't possess that which is bestowed by God when He baptizes a person in/with the Holy Spirit. The Pentecostals invented an entire theology around this but the Ephesians' example is an anomaly, an exception to the rule, not the norm. Normally the indwelling and renewal by the Holy Spirit occurs at the time of salvation, along with the performing of a ritual known as water baptism, Humans do not perform baptism by the HS. Humans preform a ritual in which a person is dunked or sprinkled with water. If and when something in addition to a quick bath occurs then that occurs by an act of God, too. Peter drew and correlation between the Noahic flood and baptism, stating,

1 Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

This is a little ambiguous because it leaves room for the so called "pledge" to be from either God or the one being baptized. Is this pledge a declaration by God from God promising a clear conscience for the believer? Or is it a declaration by the believer promising s/he will from that point on have a clear conscience? If the latter, then every person has failed his covenant promise to God in the baptism ritual . And we don't find a lot in the theological literature (Baptism or not) about that.

Would it be correct to render the following as a reference to HS baptism?

Titus 3:4-7
4But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He richly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Can anyone be saved without that? I say no. Can someone be saved without having been baptized in water? I say yes. The thief on the cross would be one example. That thief would, like the Acts 19 disciples, be an exception to the rule so we would not want to discard water baptism based on one anomaly. Neither would we want to force a legalism on ritual. In this particular op, the matter of baptism is ironic because Calvin attributed his salvation (partly) due to his pedobaptism and he (like most of the other Reformers) upheld the practice. It was the Anabaptists of the Reformation that said adult could/should/would be performed only on adults (or those mature enough to make a conscious and conscientious profession of faith. It's ironic because every Baptist congregation holding to that same position is Anabaptist! Anabaptist Baptists . Of course, there are other matters that separate the two (particularly in the areas of soteriology and ecclesiology).

There is the water Baptism commanded by our Lord Himself to all believers in him to be performed, and when first saved, all will experience the true 'Baptism in/of the Holy Spirit" as per the bible, and not as Pentecostals and charismatics tend to see it

 

[Josheb]

There is the water Baptism commanded by our Lord Himself to all believers in him to be performed, and when first saved, all will experience the true 'Baptism in/of the Holy Spirit" as per the bible, and not as Pentecostals and charismatics tend to see it

Relevance?