Jerry, give me a break. I never said that I held to infant baptism, or baptismal regeneration. The latter is clearly unbiblical. However, arguments can be made from Scripture to support the Reformed Presbyterian view (best articulated by R.C. Sproul).
ECT Roman Catholic Doctrines
- Thread starter tdhiggins
- Start date
Jerry, give me a break. I never said that I held to infant baptism, or baptismal regeneration. The latter is clearly unbiblical. However, arguments can be made from Scripture to support the Reformed Presbyterian view (best articulated by R.C. Sproul).
Hi and I heard that and never would they show where that verse is found as proof and since you believe that , give me a verse ??
dan p
God's Truth
New member
You contradict yourself. You don't say something is biblical and then say you don't believe it. By the way, stop repeating yourself and get the Lord.
I said that one can make a Biblical argument, not that I think infant baptism is Biblical. And please don't get your feelings hurt.
Well, if you read the book of Acts, you'll see that people were baptized after they believed. Thus, baptism is not what caused salvation, but a profession that salvation occurred. A good example is found in Peter's sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter told the listeners to repent and then be baptized. Since repentance is only possible through the work of the Holy Spirit, it stands to reason that salvation occurs, and then baptism occurs. Hope that helps.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Arguments can be made about anything. But the Scriptures state in no uncertain terms that there is only "one baptism" and that baptism can only be the one where the Holy Spirit baptizes people into the Body of Christ (1 Cor.12:13).
What baptism do you think is the "one"?
Jerry, we're clearly talking about the ordinance (or sacrament if you prefer that term) of baptism, not the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. If you want to pick a fight, at least please stay on topic.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What point are you trying to make? That because "baptism" is a so-called ordinance that it doesn't count as a baptism so there are really two baptisms for today?
Besides that, why do you think that the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins was an "ordinance"?
Jerry. The ordinance of baptism does not cause regeneration. The Holy Spirit regenerates the heart. Jesus told His apostles to baptize (physically) new disciples. We continue this practice today. Baptism is a profession of faith, a profession that the Holy Spirit as already done the work of regeneration. First comes salvation, then comes physical baptism.
I'm assuming that you disobey Jesus' command to baptize new disciples because that is a practice of the "dark ages" as you so arrogantly call the period of the early church.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you think that water baptism is the "one baptism" and the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not the one baptism?
Jerry. Paul is very clear, and you are distorting the meaning of the verse. This is painfully obvious. The baptism Paul is talking about is not physical baptism. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to unite us with Christ. This does not negate Jesus' command to physically baptize new believers.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You are the one distorting Paul's words and not me. Paul says in no uncertain terms that today there is but "one" baptism but you have at least two. The Lord's commandment to baptize was for another dispensation and not for the present dispensation.
Or perhaps you think that was is in "bold" in the following passage is still for today?:
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:15-18).
Jerry. Please think carefully about what I am saying. The baptism that Paul is talking about is a spiritual baptism only performed by the Holy Spirit to unite the believer with Christ. What we are discussing is the physical act of baptism - the physical act commanded by Christ in the Great Commission.
Do you think that Paul did not physically baptize people? Or, are you misunderstanding what I mean when I say baptism? I am really trying to understand why you are having such a difficult time understanding this. Let me state things in another way.
1. The physical act of baptism DOES NOT save anyone.
2. Physical baptism is an outward sign proscribed by Christ in the Great Commission to publicly proclaim faith in and union with Christ.
3. Physical baptism DOES NOT achieve union with Christ.
4. Union with Christ is a work done by Holy Spirit, by His sovereign act of regeneration.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Of course it doesn't. Perhaps you can explain why we read in The Shorter Catechism of the Reformed faith cites Titus 3:5 in answer to the following question about water baptism?:
Q. 17. What is signified by water in baptism?
A. The cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ, Rev. 1:5, and Spirit of Christ, Tit. 3:5.
A. The cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ, Rev. 1:5, and Spirit of Christ, Tit. 3:5.
Here is Titus 3:5:
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).
Jerry. What does the word "signify" mean?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If water baptism is for the present dispensation then why did Paul say the following?:
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect" (1 Cor.1:17).
The Lord's commandment to baptize was for another dispensation and not for the present dispensation.
Or perhaps you think that was is in "bold" in the following passage is still for today?:
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mk.16:15-18).
It means "to be a sign of: MEAN" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).
So according to Calvinism "water baptism" means or is a sign of "regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."
What meaning do you put on the word "signify"?
You do know that Paul assumed believers would be baptized, right?
Exactly Jerry. It's a sign. The Reformed view does not say that baptism causes regeneration. Baptism is a public profession of faith. It is a symbol. The water is symbol, just like the immersion and rising out of the water is a symbol.
God's Truth
New member
I don't have my feelings hurt. You need to stop contradicting yourself and get the Lord.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why did you not address the fact that Paul said that he was NOT sent to baptize?
So was the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins only a profession of faith? Was it only a symbol?
Or do you think that those who submitted to that rite actually had their sins forgiven?
Do you think that those who submit to the same rite today have their sins remitted?
If your answer is "no" then tell me when the purpose of that rite changed from when it actually was for the remission of sin.
God's Truth
New member
Just because Paul was not sent to baptize does not mean he did not believe in it.