chukwudi44:

37Now when(A) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(B) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(C) "Repent and(D) be baptized every one of you(E) in the name of Jesus Christ(F) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(G) the gift of the Holy Spirit


This implies that before forgiveness of sins can take place one must be baptised

Actually, I would say that the act of baptism was the forgiving of sins, not what happened before it.

I think we also ought to think about what we mean by 'In the Name of . . . ". I understand to mean - by the authority of . . .

I believe there is nothing wrong with "dedication" (so to speak), and I may even endorse it because it will have the effect of making the child "more aware" of God at an early age c.f. Samuel.

. . .

My 2 cents.

Child baptism is not wrong if it's done as a demonstration of faith of the parents, it's a form of dedication. Even if they've not reach the age of accountability. The same way children dedicated to idols don't need to understand details , to be giving over to demons, so also, by faith , Christian parent may baptize their children in a prophetic way as sanctified unto the lord. As a matter of fact, they are automatically sanctified unto God by birth through Christian parents.

Malachi 2:15
15 Has not[ the Lord] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.

1 Corinthians 7:14
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

chukwudi44:

Sorry to contradict you here when a ma child is conceived he is conceived in sin as plainly stated in psalm 51:5.This is the main reason why a child is baptised to cleanse him of original sin and open up the grace of the Lord Jesus to him.Only then can he benefit from the sacrificial death of christ.


Circumcision was vital to being among God's chosen people in the OT,it was only removed by the death of Jeeus on the cross of calvary which abolished the mosaic law.

This your own private interpretation which is dangerous and defective and can lead souls sraight to hell fire.Why do you Jeus got baptised ?was it not to show us the way to follow

I would repeat my quote in te previous post for you


This pertinent question of salvation were asked by the firsts converts as to what was necessary for salvation

37Now when(A) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(B) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(C) "Repent and(D) be baptized every one of you(E) in the name of Jesus Christ(F) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(G) the gift of the Holy Spirit


This implies that before forgiveness of sins can take place one must be baptised

you quoted psalm 51 vs5 but you are wrong.Psalm was written in the old testament when Jesus have not died and original sin was existing.After christ died,he redeemed us and destroyed original sin.We are talking about how christ's death redeemed us and you are busy going deeper into the OT. Moreover,what christ received was not a water baptism because christian baptism had not been instituted.Christ receive baptism of repentance. ''Paul said,John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, ''Acts 19 vs 4.Baptism is a law and we cannot be saved by it ''I do not set aside the grace of God,for if righteousness could be gained through the law,then christ died for nothing''Galatians 2 vs 22.Besides when a clear fact is proved to you,you'll say that its the persons private interpretation. Moreover you mentioned something about baptism being a key to repentance but you are wrong ''for it is with your heart that you believe and are justified,and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved''Romans 10 vs 10 again John 1 vs 9 ''if we confess our sins,he is faithful and just to forgive us all our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.So can see that baptism is not mentioned for the forgiveness of sins,unless you want to put up another blind fact. Now concering circumcision,I've already proved to you biblically about Abraham who was proved righteous even without circumcision.Obviously,you dodged it and only wanted an arguement.May God bless you.

chukwudi44:

Sorry to contradict you here when a ma child is conceived he is conceived in sin as plainly stated in psalm 51:5.This is the main reason why a child is baptised to cleanse him of original sin and open up the grace of the Lord Jesus to him.Only then can he benefit from the sacrificial death of christ.


Circumcision was vital to being among God's chosen people in the OT,it was only removed by the death of Jeeus on the cross of calvary which abolished the mosaic law.

This your own private interpretation which is dangerous and defective and can lead souls sraight to hell fire.Why do you Jeus got baptised ?was it not to show us the way to follow

I would repeat my quote in te previous post for you


This pertinent question of salvation were asked by the firsts converts as to what was necessary for salvation

37Now when(A) they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers,(B) what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them,(C) "Repent and(D) be baptized every one of you(E) in the name of Jesus Christ(F) for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive(G) the gift of the Holy Spirit


This implies that before forgiveness of sins can take place one must be baptised

you quoted psalm 51 vs5 but you are wrong.Psalm was written in the old testament when Jesus have not died and original sin was existing.After christ died,he redeemed us and destroyed original sin.We are talking about how christ's death redeemed us and you are busy going deeper into the OT. Moreover,what christ received was not a water baptism because christian baptism had not been instituted.Christ receive baptism of repentance. ''Paul said,John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, ''Acts 19 vs 4.Baptism is a law and we cannot be saved by it ''I do not set aside the grace of God,for if righteousness could be gained through the law,then christ died for nothing''Galatians 2 vs 22.Besides when a clear fact is proved to you,you'll say that its the persons private interpretation. Moreover you mentioned something about baptism being a key to repentance but you are wrong ''for it is with your heart that you believe and are justified,and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved''Romans 10 vs 10 again John 1 vs 9 ''if we confess our sins,he is faithful and just to forgive us all our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.So can see that baptism is not mentioned for the forgiveness of sins,unless you want to put up another blind fact. Now concering circumcision,I've already proved to you biblically about Abraham who was proved righteous even without circumcision.Obviously,you dodged it and only wanted an arguement.May God bless you.

Moreover,what christ received was not a water baptism because christian baptism had not been instituted

.

If Christ was not baptised with water do you mind telling me what he was baptised with and which portion of the scripture substantiates it.

Baptism is a law

This is a fallacy ,where did you get this trash from.Baptism was never part of the obsolete mosaic law

I've already proved to you biblically about Abraham who was proved righteous even without circumcision.

whwen

,

I've already proved to you biblically about Abraham who was proved righteous even without circumcision

God has already callled Abraham before the law of circumcision was instituted,after that Abraham was circumcised likewise his descendants.

If I may say if baptism is not relevant to salvation,then why are christians baptised?

Also why did God order the circumcision of infants before there are old enough to decide for themselves?

Pastor AIO:

I say that there is an actual effect that occurs due to the partaking of the eucharistic meal.  And this effect is more than just having a full belly where a few minutes earlier you have an empty one.  A divine influence is actually imparted to the partakers of the meal.
The same with Singing praise songs.  Song has the power of attuning the human soul to the right frequency in which to connect to the divine. 
Similarly Baptism has a real tangible effect.  It is indeed an ablution.  A purification, a washing away of what was.  Holy Spirit cannot abide with filth so it is necessary to purify oneself before the Holy spirit can take it's place within someone.  Contrary spirits cannot co-exist together in one person at the same time.

  I like your breakdown here above, however I'm going to have to solicit further 'breaking of downs' on the bolded portion .

  I hesistate to say that the act of baptism itself is an ablution regardless of the state of mind or heart of the person undergoing it. Shuffle back to why I insisted "of understanding". There are obviously people who have been baptized (and I know a few) but with no change to show for it. Hence why I believe the physical act of baptism does not have the same and equal effect on everyone who partakes of it. 

  ^but all this is just besides the point, I'm sure you don't necessarily antagonize those points. What I really want to get to is this portion of your quote:

Holy Spirit cannot abide with filth so it is necessary to purify oneself before the Holy spirit can take it's place within someone

I will use myself if I may as an example. I didn't get baptized until well after a decade after I believed - not for any reasons but there just wasn't really an opportunity (believe it or not) for that to happen. Are you saying that the HolySpirit did not begin to walk with me until I took the holy plunge? Because for me, the Holy Spirit has walked with me, taught me, led me from the first moments when I first believed.

So are you of the belief until one is baptized, they cannot be indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

But I think you may have already answered me by adding this disclaimer:

Although I would hesitate to say that Baptism is the only way in which a man can be made pure.

I say that communion, baptism, praise singing etc are not representations of something else that is occurring on another level but are rather the event themselves.

I will even say that they are both - both the outward manifestation of something inside and simultaneously a powerful event that turns around and echoes again inside - resulting a perfect spiritual circle.

JeSoul:

  I hesistate to say that the act of baptism itself is an ablution regardless of the state of mind or heart of the person undergoing it. Shuffle back to why I insisted "of understanding". There are obviously people who have been baptized (and I know a few) but with no change to show for it. Hence why I believe the physical act of baptism does not have the same and equal effect on everyone who partakes of it. 

There is something more to the rite than just immersing oneself in water. Is it that the act must be filled with Intention? Is it that the water must be charged with some sort of divine influence? Is the difference due to the person performing the baptism or the person undergoing the baptism? The issue of the spiritual state of officiating priests was a big one that was thrashed out by the church many centuries ago. We can discuss that later if you like.

JeSoul:

  ^but all this is just besides the point, I'm sure you don't necessarily antagonize those points. What I really want to get to is this portion of your quote:
I will use myself if I may as an example. I didn't get baptized until well after a decade after I believed - not for any reasons but there just wasn't really an opportunity (believe it or not) for that to happen. Are you saying that the HolySpirit did not begin to walk with me until I took the holy plunge? Because for me, the Holy Spirit has walked with me, taught me, led me from the first moments when I first believed.

So are you of the belief until one is baptized, they cannot be indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

But I think you may have already answered me by adding this disclaimer:

That's right! Jesus forgave sins with a phrase. 'your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more'. I believe that he created quite a stir from doing so.

I will even say that they are both - both the outward manifestation of something inside and simultaneously a powerful event that turns around and echoes again inside - resulting a perfect spiritual circle.

Out of academic interest it would be interesting to know what you think of Theurgy. In the practice of Neo-Platonism there are 2 methods that are practiced. One is just pure contemplation/meditation. The other is ritual. It is possible that these 2 paths are paralleled in every religious tradition in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy

Plotinus urged contemplations for those who wished to perform theurgy, the goal of which was to reunite with The Divine (called henosis). Therefore, his school resembles a school of meditation or contemplation. Iamblichus of Calcis (Syria), a student of Porphyry (who was himself a student of Plotinus) taught a more ritualized method of theurgy that involved invocation and religious, as well as magical, ritual [2]. Iamblichus believed theurgy was an imitation of the gods, and in his major work, On the Egyptian Mysteries, he described theurgic observance as "ritualized cosmogony" that endowed embodied souls with the divine responsibility of creating and preserving the cosmos.

Iamblichus' analysis was that the transcendent cannot be grasped with mental contemplation because the transcendent is supra-rational. Theurgy is a series of rituals and operations aimed at recovering the transcendent essence by retracing the divine 'signatures' through the layers of being.

Pastor AIO:

There is something more to the rite than just immersing oneself in water. Is it that the act must be filled with Intention? Is it that the water must be charged with some sort of divine influence? Is the difference due to the person performing the baptism or the person undergoing the baptism?

Very relevant questions. Perhaps it is a combination of all? I don't know. Because scripturally all the above seem to be important - the full emersion in the water, the baptizer being a person of authority, the baptized needing to have already believed.

The issue of the spiritual state of officiating priests was a big one that was thrashed out by the church many centuries ago. We can discuss that later if you like.

Yes I would indeed like to hear more about this. One of the reasons I did not get baptized sooner was I didn't trust the leadership and hence wasn't willing to submit myself to be baptized by them. Please do share . . .

That's right! Jesus forgave sins with a phrase. 'your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more'. I believe that he created quite a stir from doing so.

Yes, quite . . .

Out of academic interest it would be interesting to know what you think of Theurgy. In the practice of Neo-Platonism there are 2 methods that are practiced. One is just pure contemplation/meditation. The other is ritual. It is possible that these 2 paths are paralleled in every religious tradition in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy

^This is really the first I'm seeing of the word "Theurgy" so thanks for the new addition to my lexicon. I am much more familiar with the definition, thankfully. I do agree that its a given that these practices of meditation/ritual are pillars holding up religious traditions everywhere. And I don't think you can divorce one from the other - meditation from ritual or vice versa - without losing something or it being empty altogether. Just my little understanding. Or where you asking more of the methods of these seperate ideas? I'd like to hear more of what you think.

chukwudi44:

,
God has already callled  Abraham before the law of circumcision was instituted,after that Abraham was circumcised likewise his descendants.

If I may say if baptism is not relevant to salvation,then why are christians baptised?

Also why did God order the circumcision of infants before there are old enough to decide for themselves?

We Christians are baptised today because we believes that it washes away our sins but we are wrong because when a sinful man who has not repented is baptised,the sin is still there.Baptism is just an outward representation of the inward appearance.It is like a wedding ring.Now tell me;if a woman doesn't put on her wedding ring,does that prevent her from going into her matrimonial home?   Then concerning your second question,are you asking God or are you asking Benstino? If it is for I,then I'm not the one who instituted circumcision and baptism.Obviously your question is meant for God and sadly you can't question his decisions:Can you? All I know is that God appoved infant circumcision and christ taught that one has to repent before being baptised and that obviously excludes infants.Period

chukwudi44:

.

If Christ was not baptised with water do you mind telling me what he was baptised with and which portion of the scripture substantiates it.


This is a fallacy ,where did you get this trash from.Baptism was never part of the obsolete mosaic law

whwen

When I wrote the word 'law',there was no prefix of 'mosaic' along with it.You should have asked what I meant by the word 'law' b/4 helping me to add a prefix to it.Anyway thanks for the addition.We christians now impose baptism as a must for salvation.Any member who is not baptised is now considered as an uncircumcised man.Doesn't that make it a law for us?or must it contain 'mosaic b/4 it becomes a law.''For it is with your heart that you believe and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved''Romans 10vs10.We are saved by repenting and not by a ceremony.Moreover,it is amusing that you think that because water was used to baptise Jesus and that made it a water baptism.What do you think that water baptism symbolizes for us? Do we not believe that it is being buried with christ thereby resurrecting with him.When John did his baptism of repentance on Jesus and others,did he bury them with who so as to resurrect with who? During Johns baptism,the individual only had to confess his sins not minding if he is repented of them and after that,the person is then considered as a repented fellow ;but you must be repented b/4 receiving the baptism that Christ taught.The baptism of John never had anything to do with the holy spirit but Christs baptism is all about the holy spirit ''I baptise you with water but he will baptise you with the holy spirit''Mark 1vs8.

We Christians are baptised today because we believes that it washes away our sins but we are wrong because when a sinful man who has not repented is baptised,the sin is still there

When a man who is baptised does not beleive in the efficacy of the baptism,his baptism is void ,consequently he has not been baptised.

.

Baptism is just an outward representation of the inward appearance.It is like a wedding ring.Now tell me;if a woman doesn't put on her wedding ring,does that prevent her from going into her matrimonial home

Please stop trivialising the holy sacrament of baptuism prersonally instituted by Jesus for our salvation.the rite of baptism cannever be compared to a wedding ring .Marriages can always be contracted without a wedding ring,But One cannever become a christian unless one is baptised.

Then concerning your second question,are you asking God or are you asking Benstino? If it is for I,then I'm not the one who instituted circumcision and baptism.Obviously your question is meant for God and sadly you can't question his decisions:Can you? All I know is that God appoved infant circumcision and christ taught that one has to repent before being baptised and that obviously excludes infants.

Circu cision was the symbol of the old covenant necessary for becoming a jew ,without which one one is cut off from God as plainly stated in the book of Genesis 17:14


9 God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant


Your argument against infant baptism is predicated on the premise that since infants are not aware of what is happening around them they can't decide for themselves and thus their baptism is void.If we were to apply that to the OT,it will mean since infants are not aware of the God,joining them into a covevant with him through a physical act of circumcision will be void as well.

We can however see from the scriptures that God never discriminated against children as he made them part of his covenants.

CAN YOU SHOW ME A SIGLE BIBLE PASSAGE WHERE IT IS STATED THE CHILDREN/INFANT S SHOULD NOT BE CIRCUMCISED?

Your conclusion on the baptiam of infants is simply based on your personal interpretation of the biblical phrase "repent and be baptised" which in your opinion since infants are too young to repent ,they cannot thus be baptised.

This view is misleading since Christ has always recognised the need for children to come to him. Besides Peter plainly stated in Acts 2:39 that baptism was for both children and adults
Acts 2:39 (King James Version)

39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

We are saved by repenting and not by a ceremony.

How can one who cannot keep a simple commandment say he has repented.

I ve asked you before and I would do so again If baptism is not necessary for salvation then why was it instituted by Jesus?

Mark 16:15-16- Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”


Peter 3:21

1 Peter 3:20-21 (New International Version)
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,



- Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water

The church fathers on baptism

'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).



Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow, And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).


"When, however, the prescript is laid down that 'without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.'" Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:1 (A.D. 203).

Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).


"[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to 'lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,' unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, 'Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.', [O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" Cyprian, To Stephen, 71:72 (A.D. 253).


if no one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head." John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, 3:5-6 (A.D. 387).

is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another's will when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn, 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.' The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was in one Adam." Augustine, To Boniface, Epistle 98:2 (A.D. 408).

the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent's poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted." Augustine, On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, 43:27 (A.D. 412

JeSoul:

Very relevant questions. Perhaps it is a combination of all? I don't know. Because scripturally all the above seem to be important - the full emersion in the water, the baptizer being a person of authority, the baptized needing to have already believed.
Yes I would indeed like to hear more about this. One of the reasons I did not get baptized sooner was I didn't trust the leadership and hence wasn't willing to submit myself to be baptized by them. Please do share . . .

Well, it all revolves around a certain heresy called Donatism named after Donatus Magnus, a north african christian. The issue was whether the efficacy of a rite was ex opere operantis or ex opere operato. In other words is the efficacy due to the person performing/operating the rite, the operantis, or is it due to the rite itself the Operato (the operation itself).

After christianity had been newly legalised there were many christians in the same position as you yourself were who simply did not trust their priests. Many priests were traditurs, meaning that they cooperated with the oppressive Roman empire and handed over christians to the state for persecution. Many of them were well known, but after christianity was legalised the authorities did not do anything about them. The question then was 'how can someone who was known to be such a deadly enemy of the faith now officiate in the rites of the faith? Can such a rite have any efficacy?'

The Church authority responded that it was not due to the righteousness of the priest but the efficacy was in the rite itself, the operato not the operantis. So the priest could be the evilest man in the world but as long as he performed the rite properly then the rite would work. The Donatists disagreed with this and they were declared to be heretics.

The second question was the validity of sacraments celebrated by priests and bishops who had been apostates under the persecution. The Donatists held that all such sacraments were invalid; by their sinful act, such clerics had rendered themselves incapable of celebrating valid sacraments. This is known as ex opere operantis, Latin for from the work of the one doing the working, that is, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the worthiness and holiness of the minister confecting. The Catholic position according to Augustine was ex opere operato — from the work having been worked; in other words, that the validity of the sacrament depends upon the holiness of God, the minister being a mere instrument of God's work, so that any priest or bishop, even one in a state of mortal sin, who speaks the formula of the sacrament with valid matter and the intent of causing the sacrament to occur acts validly. Hence, to the Donatists, a priest who had been an apostate but who repented could speak the words of consecration forever, but he could no longer confect the Eucharist. To Catholics, a person who received the Eucharist from the hands of even an unrepentant sinning priest still received Christ's Body and Blood, their own sacramental life being undamaged by the priest's faults.

As a result, many towns were divided between Donatist and non-Donatist congregations. The sect had particularly developed and grown in northern Africa. Constantine, as emperor, began to get involved in the dispute, and in 314 he called the Council of Arles; the issue was debated and the decision went against the Donatists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

There is an interesting ancient story originally set in ancient Egypt commonly called The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Goethe wrote a famous poem about it and Disney even made a animation film out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9PG_oNrWM&feature=related

A sorcerer's apprentice discovers his master's book of spells when the master is away and decides to experiment with some incantations. He winds up releasing magical powers that run amok on him. My point is that those forces are released due to just following the steps in the book. It does not require any personal development from the person casting the spells.

@Pastor AIO:

Thanks. As always, your post is very enlightening. Im a Donatist, although I never knew the term until now. . .

Pastor AIO:

Well, it all revolves around a certain heresy called Donatism named after Donatus Magnus, a north african christian. The issue was whether the efficacy of a rite was ex opere operantis or ex opere operato. In other words is the efficacy due to the person performing/operating the rite, the operantis, or is it due to the rite itself the Operato (the operation itself).

After christianity had been newly legalised there were many christians in the same position as you yourself were who simply did not trust their priests. Many priests were traditurs, meaning that they cooperated with the oppressive Roman empire and handed over christians to the state for persecution. Many of them were well known, but after christianity was legalised the authorities did not do anything about them. The question then was 'how can someone who was known to be such a deadly enemy of the faith now officiate in the rites of the faith? Can such a rite have any efficacy?'

The Church authority responded that it was not due to the righteousness of the priest but the efficacy was in the rite itself, the operato not the operantis. So the priest could be the evilest man in the world but as long as he performed the rite properly then the rite would work. The Donatists disagreed with this and they were declared to be heretics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

There is an interesting ancient story originally set in ancient Egypt commonly called The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Goethe wrote a famous poem about it and Disney even made a animation film out of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9PG_oNrWM&feature=related

A sorcerer's apprentice discovers his master's book of spells when the master is away and decides to experiment with some incantations. He winds up releasing magical powers that run amok on him. My point is that those forces are released due to just following the steps in the book. It does not require any personal development from the person casting the spells.

This was a very interesting read. Thanks Pastor.

Thinking about it, I'm not so sure either side is completely right or completely wrong. I think it may go much deeper than that, territory that only God treads. There are obviously preachers and pastors who outwardly seem to belong to Christ, and we therefore trust them based on what we can see, but inwardly, they may be truly be "enemies of the faith". I don't know beyond all doubt that the reverend who baptised me is truly saved - and if he wasn't, does that then render the rite he performed over me invalid? So I definitely empathize with the Catholic church's position/non-donatist. The gospel is power, and its efficacy does not depend on the medium expressing it (as Paul even rejoiced that greedy men were preaching the gospel).

And at the same time, I would not willingly go to a figure that is well-known to be evil all the while saying "it does not matter since the power is in the rite itself". The scriptures do teach us to test every spirit and to be careful who we submit ourselves to.

So perhaps its not even a 2-way street, but a massive intersection of all kinds of factors coming into play and only God Himself truly knows. Inesqor the Donatist please feel free to comment too.

Pastor AIO:

Well, it all revolves around a certain heresy called Donatism named after Donatus Magnus, a north african christian.  The issue was whether the efficacy of a rite was ex opere operantis or ex opere operato.  In other words is the efficacy due to the person performing/operating the rite, the operantis, or is it due to the rite itself the Operato.

@JeSoul:

Referring to Pastor AIO's post, please understand that when I said I am a Donatist though I never knew, I half-heartedly meant it, but in the absolute sense of the word.

Pastor AIO:

The question then was 'how can someone who was known to be such a deadly enemy of the faith now officiate in the rites of the faith?  Can such a rite have any efficacy?'

The Church authority responded that it was not due to the righteousness of the priest but the efficacy was in the rite itself, the operato not the operantis.  So the priest could be the evilest man in the world but as long as he performed the rite properly then the rite would work.  The Donatists disagreed with this and they were declared to be heretics.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

That is, the righteousness of the priest cannot simply be ignored like the case of the Magician's Apprentice (some other fairytales render this as the Magician's Nephew).

Pastor AIO:

There is an interesting ancient story originally set in ancient Egypt commonly called The Sorcerer's Apprentice.  Goethe wrote a famous poem about it and Disney even made a animation film out of it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9PG_oNrWM&feature=related

A sorcerer's apprentice discovers his master's book of spells when the master is away and decides to experiment with some incantations.  He winds up releasing magical powers that run amok on him.  My point is that those forces are released due to just following the steps in the book.  It does not require any personal development from the person casting the spells. 

So please note that I am NOT saying, either, that the priest's "goodness" is what gives efficacy to the rite. After all, by what token is this goodness or holiness measured?

This is like saying I know a restaurant joint  with excellent recipes and great cooks but a very dirty kitchen. If I want healthy good food, would I go there? On the other hand, we can't say the recipe alone if followed judiciously is good enough to deliver healthy and good food. The hands that prepare the food have a LOT to do with the delivery.

In effect, saying Im a Donatist, I mean that the lives of the priests are i[i]nvariably intertwined [/i]with the rite they perform. It's an inseparable unit and its not like magic that can be recited by every man and his dog.

See for yourself why I said what I said:

1 Samuel 15:22

(The Message)
22-23 Then Samuel said,
[size=13pt]   Do you think all God wants are sacrifices—
      empty rituals just for show?
   He wants you to listen to him!
   Plain listening is the thing,
      not staging a lavish religious production.
   Not doing what God tells you
      is far worse than fooling around in the occult. [/size]
   Getting self-important around God
      is far worse than making deals with your dead ancestors.
   Because you said No to God's command,
      he says No to your kingship.

(New Living Translation)
22 But Samuel replied,

[size=13pt]   “What is more pleasing to the Lord:
      your burnt offerings and sacrifices
      or your obedience to his voice?
   Listen! Obedience is better than sacrifice,[/size]
      and submission is better than offering the fat of rams.

Truly enough though, as Jesoul has posited, there is no way to tell about priests whose hearts are right with God except in blatantly evil cases where they contradict established scripture and fundamental laws of love. In other cases, its a walk of faith and either way God will justly do what he will, regardless of one naughty heart.

off topic: love your blog. . . Inesqor! visit there everyday!

InesQor:

In effect, saying Im a Donatist, I mean that the lives of the priests are i[i]nvariably intertwined [/i]with the rite they perform. It's an inseparable unit and its not like magic that can be recited by every man and his dog.

Thanks for clarifying that though no clarification was necessary by luxury of me already knowing where you stand on most issues. But sha your own Donatism take style siddon for another side of the classic definition as narrated by PastorAIO  .

I am interested in hearing more about this bit from you:

InesQor:
I mean that the lives of the priests are i[i]nvariably intertwined [/i]with the rite they perform.

Care to speak a little more on this? to what degree or extent are their lives intertwined? and to what extent does this effect the performance of these rites and[i] those [/i] upon whom these rites are performed on? thanks in advance.

@Tonye-T: Whoa thanks bro but are you sure you got the right blog? Cos i must confess i have been a lazy blogger, i have two and one has been abandoned since last year, the other for 3 months! I will take this as a reminder, I need to get back to my blog(s).

@JeSoul: trust me, I knew you knew. I was just being careful for other readers' sake, for posterity.

What i meant is summarized in Jesus teaching in John 4:23-24. God is spirit and those who "worship" him must do so in SPIRIT and in TRUTH. Note that any spiritual "rite" is an act of "worship". The rite is not enough even when done properly. It must be in spirit (that is, you become intertwined or become ONE with the act of worship, even as God is spirit, ONE, HOLY, steadfast, resolute, unchanging. You get it) and in truth (unfeigned and absolute). So you see, the priest must be one with the rite he performs as an act of worship. Nothing less will do.

How does it affect those whom receive participation in the rite by faith? If God has an exception to the priest who intends to conduct the rite (like the famous offering of strange fire, cant recall the scripture ref), I believe he will instruct his own. If it is trivial to God, the important thing is that this guy has acted by faith. It will be credited to his account as righteousness.

I know that continuing my arguement might make some christians to decide in waving off baptism and that I don't want.Though Christ is a perfect creature,yet he was baptised.Not because if he never did,he will not receive salvation or that he won,t go into God's kingdom.He did it to fulfil all righteousness.In the same manner,lets be baptised because our saviour did so and it is our obligation to follow his footsteps.But all we've got to know is that it does not account for our salvation.Lets not be misguided by some posts that claims that it is for our salvation and that'll obviously will result in many christians committing sins after baptism with the belief that they are already saved through baptism.If you do so,you are already a qualified candidate towards hell fire.We are saved by our faith in Christ and abstainance from sin.If baptism is as some believe,then obviously after baptism,one will no more have desires for sin.What actually saves us is receiving baptism of the holy spirit and the holy spirit will guide us to all righteousness.Baptism is not a crime and will never be.But note,our saviour was not baptised as an infant and we've got to follow his footsteps.

InesQor:

@Tonye-T: Whoa thanks bro but are you sure you got the right blog? Cos i must confess i have been a lazy blogger, i have two and one has been abandoned since last year, the other for 3 months! I will take this as a reminder, I need to get back to my blog(s).

off topic: When the Qu** is traced with his core topics on nairaland. . .I can never go wrong . Yeah the blog seems untouched for a while. . .but responses keep it fresh. . *hoping we'll do stuffs together.

Is very biblical coz Jesus christ our savior was also christend at d eight days

Tonye-t:

off topic: When the Qu** is traced with his core topics on nairaland. . .I can never go wrong . Yeah the blog seems untouched for a while. . .but responses keep it fresh. . *hoping we'll do stuffs together.

WHoa! You got me, dude!! LOL. . . Hmmm I am thinking maybe you found my blog thanks to twitter :p.

Alright man, no wahala

Attention JeSoul

Following on from here  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-549736.32.html#msg7146877

please see below (and footnotes as well) :

Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?

A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers
from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,1066
but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in
Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.1067

From http://www.puritanseminary.org/media/Larger_Catechism.pdf

On reflection, I think it is of wider benefit to quote footnote 1067 too.

1067 Genesis 17:7, 9. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,  And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

Galatians 3:9, 14. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Colossians 2:11-12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 2:38-39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Romans 4:11-12. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

1 Corinthians 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 18:15-16. And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Romans 11:16. For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

I just feel its a form of thanksgiving

Thanks for the heads up Enigma.
But I must say there's really nothing new there. Plus you would be opening a couple other cans of worms if you were to be using the above scriptures as basis or justification for the practice.

In all of those cases, the issue under address is not baptism - so why take a foreign verse and apply? To me this is indicative of over-reaching to try to justify a something that is not present. Rm 11 is talking about us believers being grafted into God's tree hence the quote "if the root is holy, so are the branches" - not that children by extension become holy if their parents are saved . . . can of worms. 1 Cor 7 - what does the "sanctified" mean? Do family members really become "holy" because one of the parents is? what does "holy" in this context mean?" . . . can of worms. And they brought infants to Jesus - to pray for them, not baptize them.

All in all I know you don't want to tussle this matter. I still believe Baptism is a biblical directive to those who have come to believe - you believe otherwise and that's fine .

Can anyone explain to me why baptism should be done if it has no part to play in a man's salvation.Why take the stress of baptsing someone that has already be saved.

Also I would like someone to answer the question posed by st Paul in 1 cor 15 : 29

, why are people baptised on behalf of the dead?