Baptism

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

To: richardm@cd.com (Richard Masoner)
Subject: Re: Baptism reply
From: wcopes@communique.net (Walter Copes)
Sincerely,

 RM> I've noticed myself that "faith alone" adherents will absolutely
 RM> ignore these points about the historical background.  One problem
 RM> for us, though, is that the historical belief seems to have been
 RM> pretty universally in baptismal regeneration, which Apostolic
 RM> Pentecostals specifically reject.  Baptismal regeneration is the
 RM> idea that the water itself does the cleansing.  This doctrine
 RM> leads to justification for infant baptism.

     You are correct. It seems to be an especially difficult for those
who are not oneness to understand. Even after carefully explaining
that we do not believe in baptismal regeneration they will continue to
make the same old tired accusations over and over. I have about come
to the conclusion that it is not a matter of understanding at all. It
has been said that if a lie is told often enough (and loud enough)
that it will be accepted as truth.

     My research leads me to believe that the practice of infant
baptism was the result of another piece of bad doctrine called "origi-
nal sin."  This says that the sin of Adam is imputed to all. (This is
not the same as the belief that all have inherited a sinful nature
from Adam.) Thus even the infant has sin at the moment of birth. I
find that this doctrine is in direct contradiction with what Scripture
has to say on the subject.

     Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall
not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon
him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 > [Zwingli]
 > "These ceremonies are external signs which demonstrate to others
 > that the recipient has pledged himself to a new life and will con-
 > fess Christ even unto death." In the end Zwingli concluded that
 > baptism did

 RM> Ah, so that's where the "outward sign of an inward change" stuff
 RM> comes from.

     Zwingli is the start point. It was his disciple Calvin who took
these beliefs and expounded upon them to the point where most believe
that he is the originator.

 RM> the Ethiopian in the desert, the jailer at midnight:  How do the
 RM> Calvinists explain around these incidents?  I suppose I should
 RM> ask my brother Mark, who's a die-hard Calvinist.

     My experience has been that they are about as easy to pin down
with this as it is to catch a greased pig. It is amazing the length
they will go to and some of the silly outlandish statements they will
make. Their most frequent tactic is to divert attention away from the
subject.

 RM> One phrase I've heard that I would like to ask for comments on:
 RM> "Saved by grace through faith alone, but saving faith is never
 RM> alone."

     My take on it is that salvation comes through faith. There is no
work we can do which will earn that salvation. However, for the Cal-
vinists seem to take it a step beyond. Anything which the Scripture
requires of the individual (baptism for instance is declared a work of

man rather than a work of God) is declared as a work. I bring up the
fact that it is man that has to do the repenting because God will not
do it for us which causes them serious problems. I like to push them
on the works thing by defining work as the expenditure of energy. Thus
even thinking (belief) becomes a work of man. <g>

Walter Copes=7F
The joy of the Lord is my strength
(wcopes@communique.net)
Walter L Copes=20