Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[katiemygirl]

Here is where Reformed Theology departs from scripture.
This purpose for baptism in Jesus's name is never written in scripture.

People cite scripture like Romans 6:3-4 and then comment on it to support this theory, but it's always only the commentaries that support the theory. The written scripture never actually describes baptism in Jesus's name that way.

Right.

The RC actually does.

Hello E.R.M.,
In your opinion, what is the purpose of baptism? I'm curious to know where you stand on this issue.
Katie

 

[Spockrates]

I can't speak for all Calvinists, but none of the Reformed churches that I have attended believe in infant baptism ... Baptism is an outward public demonstration affirming the inner change ... which as you point out is impossible for an infant.

Infant baptism was an idea promoted and defended by John Calvin, I think. I found several sources to verify this. One source states:

The most significant controversy to centre upon the sacrament of baptism has arguably been the debate over whether it is legitimate to baptize infants or not(McGrath 443). In his most renowned work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin takes up this issue endeavouring to prove that infant baptism is a divine institution(Wendel 324). Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8). He reasons this primarily through paralleling circumcision and baptism, asserting that Scripture testifies to the fact that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision was previously for the Jews(Inst.4, 16, 11).

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html
​

It sounds, then like the Calvinists you know have reformed Reformed Theology!

Infant baptism usually points to a more general covenant view on salvation ... God saves all who are faithful to the church (like Catholics and I think also Lutherans), who also have a second ceremony to serve the same function as Baptism does in a Reformed Church (Confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church if I remember correctly).

So I don't think that anyone believes that sprinkling an infant is all it takes to be saved.

Agreed. It's clear KatieMyGirl doesn't believe that either. It seems I'm being clear as mud, again. My apologies. The point I was trying to make to her is this:

1. She said we are saved at the moment we are baptized
2. She said faith is also required to be saved
3. Many Calvinists baptize infants
4. Calvinists who are baptized as infants cannot possibly have saving faith

Therefore, I don't see how (1) can be true when (3) takes place.​

But as you said, I was incorrect to believe you believe in infant baptism. I mistakenly assumed you agreed with Calvin on this topic and share his opinion that failing to baptize infants is a blatant violation of God's will. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Spockrates]

Lol.

I've actually cheated--having been baptized by a Catholic priest as an infant and rebaptized by a Baptist as a teen.

 

[Spockrates]

Yes, my understanding from Scriptures is that all infants/children are saved. Why wouldn't they be? Far as I can tell, the thing that separates us from God is sin, and infants/children can't sin if they don't know right from wrong.

I don't know that calvinists baptize infants. I've not heard that before. The Greek word for the English transliteration "baptism" is baptizo which means immerse. Do they immerse babies? And what would be the purpose if they do? Or do they pour water on their heads? If so, why?

This article from a Calvinist website explains why Calvinists believe it is a violation of God's will to not baptize infants:

Infant baptism

But as Atpollard explained, he does not agree with Calvin on this point.

To have faith in Jesus Christ is to believe He is who He said He is, and to trust and obey Him. I believe John 3:36 supports this. Believe and obey are used interchangably in this verse.

36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

You misrepresent what I said when citing John 3:18. Of course we must believe in Jesus.

My apologies for misrepresenting you. Please explain what I said that is incorrect.

I was referring to the way we interpret Scripture. I thought I was pretty clear in that. I don't believe God will condemn either Arthur or me for our belief about baptism, or TULIP, but if either of us didn't believe in Him, that would be a different story. As I said before, we are all at a different level of learning. We all come from different backgrounds and teachings. Remember, I came out of Roman Catholicism. I've spent the past four decades relearning. I don't believe for a second that I have 100% accurate understanding. God knows my heart. He knows I search the Scriptures and pray for guidance. I don't believe I will be judged according to how I interpret the Scriptures. I will be judged by my deeds.

So maybe Atpollard and you will clear this up for me? My understanding or misunderstanding is that he believes the only requirements to be saved are to repent and have faith in who Jesus is and what he did. My understanding or misunderstanding of your belief is that one must repent and have faith AND obey Christ's commands, such as the command to be baptized. Atpollard does not believe obeying Christ's commands do anything to save him, since such acts of obedience are good works, and Paul says in Ephesians 2:9 that such good works are not causes of salvation. Am I still missing the boat in figuring out what you two believe about saving faith?

 

[atpollard]

Infant baptism was an idea promoted and defended by John Calvin, I think. I found several sources to verify this.

That's it, John Calvin is out of the club!

On a serious note, the basic concept of baptizing infants suggests that an infant can make the choice to respond to God's irresistable grace ... which is crazy. It rubs everything that I believe in and "T.U.L.I.P" implies the wrong way.

 

[Katzpur]

On a serious note, the basic concept of baptizing infants suggests that an infant can make the choice to respond to God's irresistable grace ... which is crazy. It rubs everything that I believe in and "T.U.L.I.P" implies the wrong way.

Okay, I promise I'm not trying to be contentious; there's just something that doesn't make sense to me. You refer to a person as making a choice to respond to God's irresistible grace. Unless I am totally misunderstanding you, I don't get how "choice" and "irresistible" can be used in the same sentence. If God's grace is extended to us and we have a choice as to whether to accept or reject it, then it's not truly irresistible. If, on the other hand, it is truly irresistible, then we have no choice whatsoever as to whether to accept it or not.

 

[atpollard]

So maybe Atpollard and you will clear this up for me? My understanding or misunderstanding is that he believes the only requirements to be saved are to repent and have faith in who Jesus is and what he did. My understanding or misunderstanding of your belief is that one must repent and have faith AND obey Christ's commands, such as the command to be baptized. Atpollard does not believe obeying Christ's commands do anything to save him, since such acts of obedience are good works, and Paul says in Ephesians 2:9 that such good works are not causes of salvation. Am I still missing the boat in figuring out what you two believe about saving faith?

I think that your most fundamental error is to assume a greater distance between our very different positions than actually exists in real practice.

Even pushing both of our positions to their logical conclusions:

• Katiemygirl believes that a soon-to-be-saved person must have Faith (believe), accept Grace (what Jesus did), obey Jesus commands (Love and be Baptized) and then they will be saved (receive justification from sin) ... immediately after that they begin the process of sanctification (more Love, more obedience and more repentance).
• I believe that a soon-to-be-saved person must have Faith (believe), accept Grace (what Jesus did) ... immediately after that they will be saved (receive justification from sin) ... then they begin the process of sanctification (more Love, more obedience and more repentance) including obey Jesus commands (Love and be Baptized).

These two positions are different.
The differences are real.
However, the difference is more about how one divides "cause" and "effect" between Jusstification (initial forgiveness) and Sanctification (ongoing Christ like transformation).

The most important point is that the difference belongs to God and following both her path and my path will hit all the same truck stops to reach the same destination. We just disagree on the exact midpoint by one truck stop.

 

[atpollard]

Okay, I promise I'm not trying to be contentious; there's just something that doesn't make sense to me. You refer to a person as making a choice to respond to God's irresistible grace. Unless I am totally misunderstanding you, I don't get how "choice" and "irresistible" can be used in the same sentence. If God's grace is extended to us and we have a choice as to whether to accept or reject it, then it's not truly irresistible. If, on the other hand, it is truly irresistible, then we have no choice whatsoever as to whether to accept it or not.

More in practice than theory (but it may apply to theory as well) but irresistable grace is more like falling in love with someone doing everything in their power to woo me ... rather than a spiritual rape.

Most people hear the word "irresistable" and picture a force closer to rape.
"Irrisistible" is more like God is really, really charming ... to know Him is to love Him.

So I had no choice about God's decision to pursue me, but I did choose to yield to God's irresistible charm.

 

[atpollard]

This article from a Calvinist website explains why Calvinists believe it is a violation of God's will to not baptize infants:
Infant baptism

I think that that site may be arguing for more Christian Love in our views on Infant Baptism than actually advocating for Infant Baptism (which I agree with ... infant baptism isn't evil, it just seems misguided and prone to people having a false confidence in a salvation that they do not have.)

Here is what the Baptist Faith and Message teaches about Baptism:

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.​

Does this sound like something that a baby can do?
Does it sound like something that one person can do for another?
Or, does it sound like something that a person must decide for themself?

 

[e.r.m.]

Hello E.R.M.,
In your opinion, what is the purpose of baptism? I'm curious to know where you stand on this issue.
Katie

Sure.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Baptism in Jesus's name is for salvation/forgiveness, but per these scriptures must be accompanied by faith in Jesus and repentance to be effective.

 

[e.r.m.]

I've actually cheated--having been baptized by a Catholic priest as an infant and rebaptized by a Baptist as a teen.

I'm glad you live in this era. Rebaptizers and rebaptizees in the 1500s were hunted down and dealth with.

Unfortunately, Baptists disobey Acts 2:38-39 by baptizing in Jesus's name for reasons contradicting the purpose stated in this passage.

I came from a Baptist background.

 

[atpollard]

Here is where Reformed Theology departs from scripture.
The outward public demonstration affirming the inner change purpose for baptism in Jesus's name is never written in scripture.

People cite scripture like Romans 6:3-4 and then comment on it to support this theory, but it's always only the comments that support the theory. The written scripture never actually describes baptism in Jesus's name that way.

I am not trying to convince you or Katiemygirl to change your views on the 'necessity' of baptism for justification (You have a lot of scriptural support on your side ... I only have my personal experience that requires me to disagree.)

But just for conversation, what do you make of this:

Acts 10
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tonguesfn and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.​

Were they Spirit filled but not saved (justified)?
Were they saved before immersion?
Was this a special case to prove a point?

Just interested in hearing other thoughts.
(My best guess is obvious, but not the only possible explanation.)

​

 

[Katzpur]

More in practice than theory (but it may apply to theory as well) but irresistable grace is more like falling in love with someone doing everything in their power to woo me ... rather than a spiritual rape.

Most people hear the word "irresistable" and picture a force closer to rape.
"Irrisistible" is more like God is really, really charming ... to know Him is to love Him.

So I had no choice about God's decision to pursue me, but I did choose to yield to God's irresistible charm.

I'm assuming, then, that it would be possible for a person to just be so hard-hearted and stubborn that he would not yield. If that's the case, what you're saying makes more sense. I guess the only thing that's still bothering me about your perspective is the idea that God would intentionally "do everything in His power to woo" some of His children. I just can't imagine Him not wanting us all back.

 

[e.r.m.]

I am not trying to convince you or Katiemygirl to change your views on the 'necessity' of baptism for justification (You have a lot of scriptural support on your side ... I only have my personal experience that requires me to disagree.)

With ALL due respect to your personal experience, there's probably a compelling personal experience for every belief system out there, whether or not it contradicts scripture. The Holy Spirit wrote what He wrote through the Bible authors for a reason.

But just for conversation, what do you make of this:

Acts 10
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tonguesfn and praising God.

Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.​

Were they Spirit filled but not saved (justified)?

They weren't spirit filled.
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

The Holy Spirit came "on" them.

Were they saved before immersion?

There's no scriptural evidence that they were.

Was this a special case to prove a point?

I don't understand this question, sorry.

Just interested in hearing other thoughts.
(My best guess is obvious, but not the only possible explanation.)

I hope this helps.

What is your best guess that's obvious?

 

[atpollard]

May I ask your source for
VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper?

I said, but it was apparently not clearly communicated, my bad.

It was from the Southern Baptist Convention, "The Baptist Faith and Message" ... Link HERE.

 

[atpollard]

With ALL due respect to your personal experience, there's probably a compelling personal experience for every belief system out there, whether or not it contradicts scripture. The Holy Spirit wrote what He wrote through the Bible authors for a reason.

They weren't spirit filled.
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

The Holy Spirit came "on" them.

There's no scriptural evidence that they were.

I don't understand this question, sorry.

I hope this helps.

What is your best guess that's obvious?

Just for clarification, can you really see absolutely no scriptural evidence even remotely supporting any possible interpretation except the one which you have embraced?
Your comments seem to suggest so.

 

[e.r.m.]

Just for clarification, can you really see absolutely no scriptural evidence even remotely supporting any possible interpretation except the one which you have embraced?
Your comments seem to suggest so.

I'm not closed to being shown things that I've missed. I'm not up for interpretation really, but written scripture. If there is writing that shows it meant something different than what I've come to understand, then that carries weight.

 

[katiemygirl]

I think that your most fundamental error is to assume a greater distance between our very different positions than actually exists in real practice.

Even pushing both of our positions to their logical conclusions:

• Katiemygirl believes that a soon-to-be-saved person must have Faith (believe), accept Grace (what Jesus did), obey Jesus commands (Love and be Baptized) and then they will be saved (receive justification from sin) ... immediately after that they begin the process of sanctification (more Love, more obedience and more repentance).
• I believe that a soon-to-be-saved person must have Faith (believe), accept Grace (what Jesus did) ... immediately after that they will be saved (receive justification from sin) ... then they begin the process of sanctification (more Love, more obedience and more repentance) including obey Jesus commands (Love and be Baptized).

These two positions are different.
The differences are real.
However, the difference is more about how one divides "cause" and "effect" between Jusstification (initial forgiveness) and Sanctification (ongoing Christ like transformation).

The most important point is that the difference belongs to God and following both her path and my path will hit all the same truck stops to reach the same destination. We just disagree on the exact midpoint by one truck stop.

Arthur, you sure have a wonderful way with words. You nailed it, my friend! You've said exactly what I think. Maybe this will help our friend Sockrates to understand better.

 

[katiemygirl]

Sure.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Acts 2:38-39 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off---for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Baptism in Jesus's name is for salvation/forgiveness, but per these scriptures must be accompanied by faith in Jesus and repentance to be effective.

We agree! Thank you for clarifying.

 

[katiemygirl]

This article from a Calvinist website explains why Calvinists believe it is a violation of God's will to not baptize infants:

Infant baptism

But as Atpollard explained, he does not agree with Calvin on this point.



My apologies for misrepresenting you. Please explain what I said that is incorrect.

So maybe Atpollard and you will clear this up for me? My understanding or misunderstanding is that he believes the only requirements to be saved are to repent and have faith in who Jesus is and what he did. My understanding or misunderstanding of your belief is that one must repent and have faith AND obey Christ's commands, such as the command to be baptized. Atpollard does not believe obeying Christ's commands do anything to save him, since such acts of obedience are good works, and Paul says in Ephesians 2:9 that such good works are not causes of salvation. Am I still missing the boat in figuring out what you two believe about saving faith?

Misrepresent was probably not my best choice of words. Maybe I should have said misunderstand instead. When I said I didn't think we would be judged by what we believe, I didn't mean we wouldn't be judged for not believing in Jesus. In my mind, belief in Jesus was a given. I was making the point of how I don't think we will be judged by how we interpret Scripture as each of us are at a different level of learning/understanding and we each come from a different background and doctrinal system. We are judged by our deeds not by our view of Scripture. I apologize for not making myself clearer. I'm not always good at expressing my thoughts in words.

I think atp did a great job answering your question about requirements to be saved and saving faith. It seems his and my difference is more about timing and when we reach the point of salvation rather than the requirements to be saved. As I pointed out before, we've both been immersed.