Lent ?

Brother,

I believe to label lent a "Roman Catholic Practice" is not correct as it pre-dates the formation of the Roman Catholic Church which began officially in AD 1100 but of course before that was formed and had differences with the eastern Church.

Many during the reformation kept the practice of Lent and it is only more modern churches that have started to disregard this as well as the entire Church calendar. I am sure Llody-Jones church kept many other parts of the Church Calendar and with the same reasoning they should have discarded it.

Lent is a time of humiliation before celebrating Easter, the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a time that helps us to appreciate more significantly the death of our Lord. And allows us to walk in self-denial as our Lord did on this earth, as he fasted 40 days.

I would see the greater danger is not ever celebrating or thinking deeply on vital aspects of the faith. To celebrate the birth of Christ seems wrong to some people but everyone takes 1 day a year to celebrate their own birth or a turning of a new year. The Jewish people by prescription of God had annual festivals, sacrifices and feasts that memorialized spiritual truths for them to remember and continue to bring back to memory each year. We are the same, fickle and feeble and need constant reminder of the great work of salvation, incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord.

Here is an interesting article on infant baptism from a reformed perspective: http://www.covenantalthoughts.com/10-myths-commonly-believed-about-infant-baptism/ :

The Evangelical church at large today seems to often misrepresent and misunderstand Infant Baptism in a number of ways. This list should not be seen as comprehensive or extensive. It is really just a cursory look at some of the common misunderstandings. It should also not be seen as a diatribe against any particular position, though the views and biases of the author, a committed Presbyterian, will certainly be seen in how I interact with some of these myths.

1) It’s a Roman Catholic practice

Many evangelicals automatically associate infant baptism with the Roman Catholic church. Because of this it can seem strange when they encounter Protestant brothers and sisters who have what seems to be very similar theology as them who also baptize infants. This (like many of the other myths) stems from the fact that infant baptism is a practice that predates the institution of the Roman Catholic church. Reformed churches and Catholic churches share this practice because they both recognize it’s historicity, though they have very different theological rationales for it.

2) It washes away Original Sin

Those who associate infant baptism with Roman Catholicism might also mistakenly associate it with the Roman Catholic doctrine of Original Sin. In their minds, infant baptism may serve to remove original sin from the baby allowing the child to start with a proverbial moral blank slate. This is not the historic Reformed position on baptism. To the Reformed, baptism is not so much a literal washing away of sin, but a sign and a seal that points to the ultimate washing away of sin in Christ.

3) It is a heretical practice

People in evangelical circles like to throw the "H word” around a little bit too loosely and sometimes claim that infant baptism is heresy. However, there has never been any historic church council that has condemned it as such and it has no real logical or practical ties to any recorded heresy. If someone is going to call infant baptism heresy, the only real justification they could have for doing so is that they just really want to consider it as such.

4) It represents Baptismal Regeneration

Some also associate Infant Baptism with Baptismal Regeneration. They think that in Infant Baptism’s theological system, the baptizing of the infant makes the baby saved. This is simply not true. According to historical Reformed theology, baptism has never marked the actual salvation of the infant.

5) Credo-Baptism is the standard position

In the current state of affairs, it certainly does seem that baptist theology is the standard position of the church and that those who hold to Infant Baptism are the outliers. It should be noted, however, that throughout history this was not at all the case. From the earliest days of the church up until around the Reformation, baptist theology did not exist. Even after the Reformation, it did not come to prominence until it spread in North America. Historically speaking, the standard position of the Church regarding baptism was always Infant Baptism.

6) The Burden of Proof is on the Paedo-Baptist

With that being said it should also be noted that when talking about baptism the burden of proof should be on the credo-baptist to show why their position should be adopted in the face of such historic and pervasive opposition.

7) It is based only on tradition

One might then bring the argument that Infant Baptism is based solely in tradition and that historicity does not necessarily ensure that a doctrine is true. However throughout Church history, there have been many exegetical investigations into the Biblical precedent for Infant Baptism. The tradition of the doctrine in this instance is built upon Scripture.

8) There is no Biblical Precedent for it

Along with the previous myth is the myth that there is no actual Biblical precedent for Infant Baptism. This is quite false indeed. There may not be any proof-texts that outright say "baptize your babies” but the Church has historically recognized that infant baptism fits in with God’s dealing with whole nations, peoples, and families in redemptive history. It notices a continuity of the way in which God deals with his people from the Old Testament context to the current day in light of New Testament developments.

9) It has nothing to do with circumcision

Opponents of infant baptism might deny that there is any correlation between the Old Testament practice of Circumcision and the New Testament practice of baptism. This is where the continuity between Old and New Testament is most focused for the advocates of Infant Baptism. Paul Connects the two in Colossians 2:11-13. What needs to be recognized is that in the Reformed conception, both circumcision and baptism are signs and seals of the same thing. The signs are different but the thing signified is the same. The thing signified is Christ’s redemptive work. Peter says that baptism is not a removal of dirt from the body, but an appeal to God for a clean conscience. It is appeal to something greater, an appeal to a greater washing. Circumcision likewise is an appeal to the redemption of Christ as well. As God revealed overtime, baptism became the clearer sign, a preliminary fulfillment of Circumcision.

10) Since we don’t see any infants being baptized in the Bible we shouldn’t baptize infants.

Just because we don’t see many explicit baptisms of babies in the New Testament doesn’t mean that that was not the practice of the New Testament church. In Acts 18:8 we see a whole household (which most likely contained children) being baptized. We see this again in 1 Corinthians 1:16 and again with the Phillipian jailer in Acts 16:30-34. We also see in Acts 2:38-39 that Peter even goes so far as to say "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Don’t miss that the promise is for you and for your Children. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 10:2 that all who passed through the Red sea were baptized in the cloud and in the sea… including the children.

I agree with PP, Travis and of course Martin Loyd Jones on this. The notion that the Catholic church started in 1100 ad is simply wrong. Not sure why anyone would feel the need to go to extraordinary lengths to defend the traditions of a religion that killed tens of millions of saints in the name of God and gave us such high heresies such as Co-redemptrix , infallibility, purgatory, indulgencies, transubstansitation, worship of saints and images and on and on and on. The fact that the reformers kept many of the traditions of a long established Catholic church speaks ill of the reformers, it proves nothing. There was a reason for sola scriptura and it still stands. It is the word of God that establishes truth, not the traditions and the vain imaginations of men.........bro Frank

Point # 3 says............

3) It is a heretical practice

"People in evangelical circles like to throw the "H word” around a little bit too loosely and sometimes claim that infant baptism is heresy. However, there has never been any historic church council that has condemned it as such and it has no real logical or practical ties to any recorded heresy. If someone is going to call infant baptism heresy, the only real justification they could have for doing so is that they just really want to consider it as such."

The actual truth is that the word heresy was used by those who persecuted ( and named) the anabaptists. That name was used to describe those who baptized again but this was rejected by those who did not believe in infant baptism because they were not doing something " again," for the first baptism, the infant baptism had no legitimacy in their minds ( correctly I would say) They were being baptized as adults for the first time. So we can clearly see that the ones who lean on tradition and the teachings of men were the ones who severely persecuted the ones who used Scripture alone as their authority........bro Frank

...Lets look at church history through the lens of Scripture instead of looking at Scripture through the Lens of Church History !...

This probably explains why some evangelicals will read the church fathers and wind up crossing the Tiber River and joining Roman Catholicism. They are looking at scripture through the lens of church history.

My thoughts.

Bro Blaine

Saints,

My reason for posting the article on infant baptism is to simply say that many reformers and protestants still believe the doctrine and it is not damning. I personally see possibility for baptism of smaller children who have a grace of the Lord in their life and profession. the belief that we have to keep them till 16 until they are of the age of accountability is also not in scripture.

Children raised in Christian homes have a grace upon their lives.

My point though is that many traditions of the Church are being discarded completely by the modern day evangelical church in North America and I see a value in not disregarding them all but seeing the good in those the Church has always kept to.

Christianity is much larger then our current generation including our social and religious situation in North America.

Travis writes.........

" I don't believe that grace is equivalent to rebirth as all are born in sin and all must be born again."

Amen, and after one is born again then one would follow that with baptism..............bro Frank

At the risk of being monotomous, I agree with pp again. In Luke 18 just prior to Jesus speaking of the little children, He teaches us who is righteous and who is not. Who is saved and who is not. The pharisee was righteous in his own eyes, but the publican, who was broken and contrite and could not even lift his head, it was he who went down the hill justified. Immediately after this we hear that the disciples tried to keep the little children away from the Lord and of course the Lord famously says .....

"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.(Luk 18:16-17)

Innocence here is equated with a little child. Unless we have a similar innocence we cannot enter the kingdom of God.How does one become as innocent as a little child? Jesus just told us in the previous verses. We must come before the Lord and humble ourselves and be contrite, we must recognize our state and recognize our need for a Saviour and cry out to that Saviour. We must be born again from above. And it is all equated with the innocence of a little child.

Now I dont know about anyone else, but what Jesus says is good enough for me. The notion that little children, infants and babies who die outside of water baptism are eternally damned to hell is a notion from hell itself to further torment the parent who have lost their children. We primarily get this teaching from Catholicism, an excellent example of the madness of men who think they are something, but are foolish in the the eyes of God. Now, even this notion was too repulsive for Catholics so they came up with a place they like to call "limbo."

Limbo, according to our wonderful schoolmen, that some on this site would like to rely upon and build upon, lies at the edge of hell. We have hell, we have purgatory, we have limbo and we have heaven according to the finest Catholic teachers. In purgatory we can suffer for our sins and atone for them and we can work our way into heaven. In limbo our infants and babies who have died outside of water baptism can also suffer the pains of hell for thousands of years and they can work off their " original sin," or as Calvin liked to put it, our " total depravity." I suppose that notion brought them some comfort and kept their heads on their shoulders because grieving parents of lost children are not very receptive to the notion that their infants are rotting eternally in hell because of original sin or total depravity. Let me tell you what is totally depraved, this teaching. It has been vomited forth from the bowels of hell. And therefore, as always, I will stick with the Word of God and its simplicity...........bro Frank

"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.(Luk 18:16-17)

Good thoughts bro Travis,

I have people who have suggested to my face that my own mentally handicapped son ( Down Syndrome) must be born again to enter heaven, even although he would not nor could have any concept of this. He does love the Lord and speaks of him, in his own way. I also had a son who died at the age of two days.

I believe in the age of accountability as you spoke of and I believe it will be somewhat different for each person but the Lord knows what a child truly understands or does not and He knows when. Our God is a just God and this attribute i wonderful. I fully trust in a just God who delights in the innocence of a child as spoken of by Jesus...........bro Frank