does baptism have a expiration date?

Doug Brents said:

LOL, as Peter says in 1 Pet 3:21, it is not a bath to remove dirt from the body. It is an appeal to God to receive a clean conscience, and forgiveness of sin, and resurrection from death (Rom 6:1-7, Col 2:11-14).

Click to expand...

What differentiates this bath from an ordinary bath? According to many people such as The Liturgist, the bath, in and of itself, is what saves the person (usually a baby). I know you don't believe that this is true for babies.
Others insist that it is the procedure that saves a person - dipping three times, face forward, with the right spoken words, for example - and that other forms, such as only dipping once simply cannot be proper baptism. Still others, include faith in the baptism, which will wash away the sins. My father was of that persuasion. He once showed me the creek in which he had been baptized and all his sins ended up in the Gulf of Mexico. He trusted his baptism to get him into heaven.

bbbbbbb said:

What differentiates this bath from an ordinary bath? According to many people such as The Liturgist, the bath, in and of itself, is what saves the person (usually a baby). I know you don't believe that this is true for babies.
Others insist that it is the procedure that saves a person - dipping three times, face forward, with the right spoken words, for example - and that other forms, such as only dipping once simply cannot be proper baptism. Still others, include faith in the baptism, which will wash away the sins. My father was of that persuasion. He once showed me the creek in which he had been baptized and all his sins ended up in the Gulf of Mexico. He trusted his baptism to get him into heaven.

Click to expand...

It is not the baptism that saves, any more than it is the rope that kills when a man is hung by a court/king/law. It is the order of the court that causes the death, the rope is just the tool used to execute the criminal; it is God that saves, baptism is just the tool implemented to carry out His will.

There is nothing in Scripture that specifies multiple dippings, or certain words that must be said (other than doing it in the name of Jesus/Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/calling on the name of the Lord). But it does mandate that understanding of the Gospel must precede baptism, so infants and children (and those mentally incapable of understanding (I believe)) are not candidates for baptism.

Doug Brents said:

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not sacraments. A sacrament is "a religious ceremony or ritual regarded as imparting divine grace". There is nothing that does that.

Click to expand...

I don’t know if Baptism or “the Lord’s Supper” as you call it, are efficacious means of grace in non-liturgical churches which do not believe them to be such*, but I do know that the sacrament of Holy Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, as celebrated in the Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Roman Catholic Church and other traditional liturgical churches are sacred mysteries, instituted by Christ our True God, in which the Holy Spirit imparts divine grace. The grace that is imparted comes from God, obviously; we do not believe that the sacraments are some sort of magical ritual that produces grace in a magical manner by virtue of its own existence. But we do know that in our churches, these sacraments dispense grace.

There are additional mysteries which the Orthodox regard as sacraments, and which our Evangelical Catholic friends would I think regard as sacramentals, such as the anointing of the sick with oil, which I have also seen as means by which God has dispensed grace.

* Since I do believe that Christ, owing to his loving kindness, saves all Christians, in churches such as the Salvation Army and the Quakers, which do not celebrate Baptism or the Eucharist, or in churches which do not believe that these are means of grace, I believe that our Lord in his mercy will provide some means of economy by which grace is still received.

Doug Brents said:

It is not the baptism that saves, any more than it is the rope that kills when a man is hung by a court/king/law. It is the order of the court that causes the death, the rope is just the tool used to execute the criminal; it is God that saves, baptism is just the tool implemented to carry out His will.

There is nothing in Scripture that specifies multiple dippings, or certain words that must be said (other than doing it in the name of Jesus/Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/calling on the name of the Lord). But it does mandate that understanding of the Gospel must precede baptism, so infants and children (and those mentally incapable of understanding (I believe)) are not candidates for baptism.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Doug Brents said:

Baptism requires first that a person have repented and confessed Jesus as Lord before it has any efficacy. Otherwise, a person just gets wet, with no salvation, no forgiveness of sin, no resurrection.

Click to expand...

That’s obviously inaccurate, since the baptism of infants and the intellectually disabled would lack efficacy, and we have established that in the traditional liturgical churches, the sacrament of Baptism is fully efficacious when applied to infants and the intellectually disabled.

Doug Brents said:

There is nothing in Scripture that specifies multiple dippings, or certain words that must be said (other than doing it in the name of Jesus/Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/calling on the name of the Lord). But it does mandate that understanding of the Gospel must precede baptism, so infants and children (and those mentally incapable of understanding (I believe)) are not candidates for baptism.

Click to expand...

Actually, that’s completely inaccurate. Matthew 28:19 requires that baptism be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And on the other hand, there is no text that mandates an intellectual understanding of the Gospel precede baptism. Indeed the baptism of entire households obviously includes the infants who lived in those households.

bbbbbbb said:

According to many people such as The Liturgist, the bath, in and of itself, is what saves the person (usually a baby).

Click to expand...

That’s not true. I have never taught such a thing! I think it not unreasonable to require that people should refrain from ascribing to me doctrines which I have never taught, or statements which I have never made, or never would make, for in fact what you say is inimical to my belief. Indeed, you are implying that I take a view of the sacraments which is not sacramental but magical.

My position on the sacrament of Baptism is that it is the means by which we are born again in Christ, with Christ in the Jordan, through the salvific grace of the Holy Spirit, and that the rite of baptism in and of itself is not what saves the person, obviously; rather, God saves the person; the rite of Baptism is merely the means by which this salvific grace is accessed under ordinary circumstances. And it is equally applicable to infants and adults.

Whether or not someone is to be received into the Church via baptism depends on whether or not they were baptized already in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, since it is a violation of the Nicene Creed to baptize someone more than once. We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins. So naturally, people baptized only in the name of Jesus Christ, in violation of Matthew 28:19, or people who have not been baptized, will be baptized regardless of their age, so they might be children, they might be adolescents and they might be adults. There is neither a minimum nor a maximum age for receiving Baptism or any other sacrament.

We also give the Eucharist to those who have received baptism, since it by partaking of the actual Body and Blood of Christ our True God that we receive salvific grace and are united with the entire ekklesia.

The Liturgist said:

That’s obviously inaccurate, since the baptism of infants and the intellectually disabled would lack efficacy, and we have established that in the traditional liturgical churches, the sacrament of Baptism is fully efficacious when applied to infants and the intellectually disabled.

Click to expand...

How has that been established? Not through Scripture!
Rom 10:13-14, 17 "for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ."
One cannot "call on the name of the Lord" if he has not believed, and he cannot believe if he has not heard (and understood) the Gospel. Thus children and the intellectually disabled who cannot understand the Gospel cannot gain any value from baptism.

I follow faith not symbolic ritual

The Liturgist said:

Actually, that’s completely inaccurate. Matthew 28:19 requires that baptism be in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

Matt 28:19 does not say you have to use these words. It says that baptism must be in the name of the Trinity. Just 10 days later, when Peter preached the first sermon, he didn't include the Father and the Spirit, but only mentioned baptizing the men there in the name of Jesus. Do you think Peter was in error when he said this?

The Liturgist said:

And on the other hand, there is no text that mandates an intellectual understanding of the Gospel precede baptism.

Click to expand...

See post 89 above.

The Liturgist said:

Indeed the baptism of entire households obviously includes the infants who lived in those households.

Click to expand...

In the first century, a person was not considered part of the "household" until they were approximately 12 or 13. This was the time when, as Jesus was, they are presented at the Temple.

HopeSings said:

I follow faith not symbolic ritual

Click to expand...

What is faith?

Doug Brents said:

What is faith?

Click to expand...

I believe in my heart that im saved. It's a battle sometimes. Jesus wins.

HopeSings said:

I believe in my heart that im saved. It's a battle sometimes. Jesus wins.

Click to expand...

Is that all that faith is... belief in your heart that you're saved? Is that what Scripture says faith is?

Doug Brents said:

Is that all that faith is... belief in your heart that you're saved? Is that what Scripture says faith is?

Click to expand...

Faith works by love. I aim to love God and people.

Doug Brents said:

. It says that baptism must be in the name of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

That’s not, on a literal basis, that is to say, according to the actual words in Matthew 28:19, correct. What it literally says, since the word Trinity is a theological term of art coined by Tertullian in the third century, is that baptism must be in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, or the equivalent, I mean, obviously, in different languages, the words are different, but the meaning is the same, and I don’t know of any church that teaches that the baptism must be done in a specific language in order to be efficacious.

For reference, in the King James Version, which I rather like but do not regard as uniquely authoritative, Matthew 28:19 reads as follows:

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

The Gospel of Matthew contains the authoritative instruction on the matter (since the longer ending of Mark is of uncertain authenticity, we cannot regard it as being a source of dogmatic instruction), that takes priority over the narratives in Acts, particularly when one considers that if you baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, you have baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, effectively, whereas the reverse is not true, in that baptizing in the name of each person of the Trinity is inclusive of God the Son, whereas baptizing in the name of God the Son is not inclusive of the other persons of the Trinity.

This is relevant because every Christian denomination I am familiar with baptizes in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, even the Baptists and Adventists, and as such, it is an important point of commonality; the only people who I am aware of who do not use this formula are Oneness Pentecostals, who are not Trinitarian but rather Modalist, and thus are not Nicene Christians (since obviously, they do not accept the Nicene Creed, which is Trinitarian rather than Modalist).

Doug Brents said:

Thus children and the intellectually disabled who cannot understand the Gospel cannot gain any value from baptism.

Click to expand...

They are able to appreciate the Gospel noetically, despite their intellectual limitations. Christ our True God has instructed us to let children and infants be baptized and to receive Him, when he instructed his disciples to “Suffer the little ones to come to me.” I am very thankful for the fact that I was baptized as an infant, and for the fact that in my very early childhood I was introduced to the Eucharist.

HopeSings said:

Faith works by love. I aim to love God and people.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask how faith works. I asked what is faith.

Doug Brents said:

I didn't ask how faith works. I asked what is faith.

Click to expand...

It's trust in God through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Doug Brents said:

I didn't ask how faith works. I asked what is faith.

Click to expand...

Scripture said that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. To bear the fruit of God's love is hoped for and evidence.

Hebrews 11:11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Romans 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

​

​

​

Forgive me for what I said about the catholic cult. They worship a man that they say is Christ on Earth who has the authority of Christ, have men that they call "Father" in direct contradiction of Scripture, and they have many other practices that are in direct conflict with Scripture, but they call themselves a Christian Church so we must not offend them.

The "eucharist" AKA the Lord's Supper/Last Supper/communion is a reenactment of the Passover and if someone eats it in an unworthy manner then he is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, and he eats and drinks judgement unto himself (1 Cor 11:27-29).

The Liturgist said:

They are able to appreciate the Gospel noetically, despite their intellectual limitations. Christ our True God has instructed us to let children and infants be baptized and to receive Him, when he instructed his disciples to “Suffer the little ones to come to me.” I am very thankful for the fact that I was baptized as an infant, and for the fact that in my very early childhood I was introduced to the Eucharist.

Click to expand...

"Suffer the little ones to come to me." has nothing to do with their salvation. They are innocent at that age, and so (I believe) not subject to condemnation because guilt is not imputed where there is no law (Rom 5:13). Baptism as an infant has no value other than to upset the child and as a show for the congregation of the intent of the parents to raise the child in proper Biblical doctrine.