Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
Sorry Raven.. You're badly mistaken here. My argument is not on thin ice as you suppose. Just like I said to Pela, paying proper attention is key.
Indeed, the 2nd reference I quoted did apply to the RCC position on infant baptism; that much is true.
However , I gave another reference also. Why don't you refer to that too instead of picking just one ? The first reference I gave, which was from the Council of Nicea/Constantinople-381 AD stated belief in "one baptism for the remission of sins". This is a reference to baptism in general, not just their stance on infant baptism, as you assert. (I'm assuming you know that the 381 Nicene Creed was not in any way focused on infant baptism.) Your argument is very faulty here. Anyone coming into the church as as an adult would have been subject to baptism, so the reference to baptism in that instance was not limited to infant baptism.
My simple point there, which he (and you also, apparently) seemed to be misunderstanding, was a simple reference to the fact that a key component of Acts 2:38 salvation doctrine (i.e. the remission of sins via water baptism) was a widely held belief in Christendom, not just the Roman Church.
(And yes, I'm aware that many/most of the churches were already baptizing in the titles but that is/was not my point.)
|
It's helpful to see how this point has been argued historically:
There are two approaches to this issue:
Augustinian/Evangelical or Pelaganism/Arminian.
The "Evangelical" position would say that you are baptized because you are saved, that the baptism itself produces no "work."
The "free will" or Arminian side would emphasize the obedience angle and the "effective work of grace" in the act of being baptized.
My position on this?
BOTH are correct. You're just looking at two sides of the same coin. And like a coin, our humaness keeps us from seeing both sides simultaneously.
I'm not at this position through wishy-washiness, either. It's been a long battle, but for me a very important battle.