And the act of baptism itself does not ex opere operato make one forgiven or born again, regardless of whether one can exercise faith, thus regeneration can precede baptism, as the heart is purified by faith (which baptism expresses) and appropriates justification, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Rm. 4:3-8) out of a broken and contrite heart. (Ps. 34:18)
Thus those baptized as infants are yet in need of their day of salvation, at which time of believing they are to be baptized. The paedobaptised are told they already are Christians .
See here and extensive debate which follows:
The Catholic church doesn’t look at infant baptism the same as it does baptism as a sign of salvation. Its equal in Baptist and other protestant churches (like the non-denominational church I attend) would be an infant dedication ceremony.
Other stories of interest:
Once again, 'man' saying what they 'think' which is opposite of what GOD SAYS. ....infants cannot fulfill the stated requirements of repentance and whole-hearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)
Preach it, Daniel!!
Gee, I wonder how all those jewish baby boys agreed to the covenant at 8 days old when they were circumcised?
Do not forget that in the NT Book of Acts, WHOLE households were baptized and that DOES includes infants with the parents. So this should not be an issue.
Since baptism is an outward expression of an inward event, an infant can not be baptized.
They can be dedicated, but not baptized.
That is why each year at Easter Catholics RENEW the promises made at their baptism, so that is “the day of salvation” that you mentioned.
There are far more problems with the doctrines of the Catholic Church than just baptism. Just the fact that Protestants would be willing to sign ecumenical agreements with Rome should be warning flags to Protestants that they have left the reservation.
We should be asking ourselves, “Would Luther sign such an agreement?” If not, why not?
It will be interesting to see where this goes. My optomistic self is ‘its a start.’
‘The Catholic Church has long recognized the validity of Protestant baptisms in which the person was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he explained. In the last ten or fifteen years, however, there were concerns among Catholic bishops regarding Protestant baptisms in which different names were substituted for the Holy Trinity, or in which a method of sprinkling was used that did not achieve any flow of water on the skin.’
Another argument in favor of staying with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit(or Ghost) and not doing the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” routine.
One step closer to a one world religion?
Hmmm, no discussion of the left wing of the Reformation churches (Anabaptists and the “nondenominational Evangelicals”) Which are by far the most vibrant and actively growing groups (and probably already a majority of Protestants in the US).
I was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic Church but when I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, after I understood the gospel of the grace of God, I was baptized again for what I consider the first, legitimate time. This was because I had personally received Jesus Christ and made a conscious decision to follow Him.
The Common Agreement was signed last night in Austin, Texas by members of both the Presbyterian Church USA and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as well as the Christian Reformed Church of North America, the Reformed Church of America and the United Church of Christ.The PCUSA is the liberal wing of the Presbyterian church (they ordain ministers who deny the deity of Christ) and The Church of Christ has a lot of controversy surrounding it. They do not believe musical instruments should be used in church among other un-Biblical beliefs.
The Reform churches seem pretty straight forward Christian as far as I can see.
I don't see this as a great merging of Catholic and Protestant beliefs.
The majority of Protestant denominations are not included and the ones that are stray from Biblical Christianity.