the meaning of Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

It seems alot of ppl are simply doing a christian-lite version of the Judaizers.
They wanted new believers to be circumcised in order to REALLY be saved...
Now, the modern day version is Water-baptism.

It's baptism. It is with water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It saves (1Peter 3:21). It washes away sins (Acts 22:16). It regenerates and renews in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). It unites to Christ and brings about death to sin and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:3-9). These are the things baptism does. The holy scriptures say so.

 

[user1234]

Baptism does what circumcision use to do.

Old Covenant? Works?

Baptism does what circumcision use to do.



Baptism also does more than circumcision used to do.

Adds works to works?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Old Covenant? Works?


Adds works to works?

Only God's works. None that are human. Yet human beings do things do they not? Anyway Baptism is with water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It saves (1Peter 3:21). It washes away sins (Acts 22:16). It regenerates and renews in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). It unites to Christ and brings about death to sin and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:3-9). These are the things baptism does. The holy scriptures say so.

 

[user1234]

Only God's works. None that are human. Yet human beings do things do they not? Anyway Baptism is with water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It saves (1Peter 3:21). It washes away sins (Acts 22:16). It regenerates and renews in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). It unites to Christ and brings about death to sin and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:3-9). These are the things baptism does. The holy scriptures say so.

Various religious denominations have various interpretations of what those ↑ verses mean. Obviously there's a number of diff beliefs just by reading this thread alone, there's very little agreement.

I know all too well the problems with relying on denominational interpretations, they often add confusion and keep ppl in darkness, rather than set them free into the light.

In the case of the interpretations above re: baptism, I disagree with what you've stated, whether it's the RomanCatholic denominations version or your own interpretation, idk, I disagree, but,
you are entitled to your opinion, and if you are convinced you MUST adhere to those interpretations or fear not being saved, then I guess you better, I wont tell you you're not allowed to believe what you want.

I'm simply saying here and asking you to consider, that, salvation is by faith in Jesus and what Jesus did for us on the cross, He said it is finished, the sacrifice is complete, once and for all, as proven by His rising from the dead, and we're saved by believing in Him APART from any interpretation of verses about baptism.

Jesus loves you (and for some strange reason, so do I) :disgonbegood: (I blame the Dutch) Anyway, the important thing is...Jesus does, thats why He died to pay for ALL your sins.

Proving points or winning arguements about baptisms is secondary to the glory of the Lord when a person gets saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus.

 

[Josiah]

db

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION]

Moses commanded the Israelites in Deuteronomy 10:16 to circumcise their hearts, and even promised that God would do the circumcising (Deuteronomy 30:6).
It symbolizes the cutting off of the sin nature.

In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Can babies circumsize their heart?

Friend.... respectfully.....


No one baptizes themself.

Can God do this? Is God rendered impotent in the case of those under the age of X? Why is God incapable to bless a child, why is God unable to do that?

The Great Commission to "go.... baptize.....teach......" was given to CHRISTIANS, to living, regenerate, born-again, believers. The Commission is not given to babies to go to and baptize and teach themselves. Or to 45 year olds. WE are to baptize. Don't loose sense of who is active and who is passive in this.

I once read a testimony of a man who was born again since birth. If that's the case a baby can be baptized.

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and faith before he was even born..... God was able to give him faith and the Holy Spirit, God was not impotent by youth there. Why would God be impotent regarding children now?

Acts 2:38…babies can't follow these instructions.

1. Remember, the Greek word "kai" (and) - just like the English word "and" - simply is a connector, it connects things. It is NO WAY WHATSOEVER mandates or even implies order or sequence. "I have a mother and a father" doesn't mean my mother is older or I got a mother before I got a father. It is wrong to delete the word in the text ("and") then replace it with an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning (such as "then"). That's not permitted in hermaneutics.


2. John the Baptist could be given faith and the Holy Spirit..... while still in the womb. Why didn't John (not yet born) render God impotent to bless?


3. "Repent" is an act of faith. Repent comes AFTER being given faith and the Holy Spirit because it's an act of faith moved by the Spirit. "Repent" is not the same thing as remorse. Remorse is NOT spiritual (even your pet feels remorse!), remorse is a psychological thing that has NOTHING to do with God or faith or the Spirit or Christ or religion. The verse you note isn't calling for remorse but for repentance. Repent means 1) Embracing God's Law and the Authority of such, there's an acknowledgement that self has "missed the mark, fallen short of God's standard" (which is the literal meaning of "sin" - to miss the mark, fall short of the target). 2) Stopping this behavior because it violates God's will. 3) Turning to God's mercy and grace, seeking in such forgiveness. 4) Embracing the power of the Holy Spirit, walking in a new way. Unbelieving, unregenerate, atheist, DEAD people can't and won't do that, not because they are too young but because they are DEAD, they are unbelieving, unregenerate, atheists who reject God's existence, mercy, grace, forgiveness, authority, Spirit and Law.


4. The "and" here is doing the only thing the word can do, it's connecting things. There are LOTS of things God desires, LOTS of thing God calls people (generally LIVING people to do) - and the word "kai" connects these. The word is "AND" which cannot be deleted and replaced with "then." This verse by no means is saying DEAD people must repent and THEN, after that's all done, THEN they may be blessed by God, THEN God is no longer rendered impotent to bless.


5. The Bible says, NO ONE is capable of even saying "Jesus is Lord" (as a statement of faith) unless the Holy Spirit causes such. NO ONE. Is even CAPABLE. It doesn't say, "Those under the age of X render God impotent to bless." "Those under the age of X make the Holy Spirit incapable of giving them faith." It says NO ONE. NONE. That means not John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb) AND it also means a 45 year old with an IQ of 200 and 6 doctorate degrees who has memorized every word in the Bible. NO ONE. The Holy Spirit enlivens. The physically DEAD don't give themselves physical life.... the spiritually DEAD don't give themselves spiritual life. The DEAD can't do a whole lot (well, good anyway, lol). So, while I agree that John the Baptist still in the womb couldn't give himself faith, spiritual life and regeneration.... the Bible says NO ONE can.



Thank you!


- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

No one baptizes themselves.

Can God do this? Is God rendered impotent in the case of those under the age of X? Why is God incapable to bless a child, why is God unable to do that?





John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and faith before he was even born..... God was able to give him faith and the Holy Spirit, God was not impotent by youth there. Why would God be impotent regarding children now?


Acts 2:38…babies can't follow these instructions.

So then, what is your point here? What is it youre accusing Imalive of in her post?
What is it youre hoping to accomplish that would either bring glory to God or help someone get saved or teach believers something that would edify the body?
Why do you believe God is incapable to bless a child?
Why do you believe God us impotent regarding children?

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION] - Josiah is right. No one baptises themselves. It is something done for/to them by others. A work done on their behalf a little bit like Jesus redeeming work is done on behalf of you.

God is the one who does the work in baptism. God commands his servants to apply the waters of baptism and to invoke the Holy Spirit so that the one baptised receives from God the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

 

[Josiah]

Friend.... respectfully.....


No one baptizes himself. Baptism is passive for the receiver.

Can God do this? Is God rendered impotent in the case of those under the age of X? Why is God incapable to bless a child, why is God unable to do that?

The Great Commission to "go.... baptize.....teach......" was given to CHRISTIANS, to living, regenerate, born-again, believers. The Commission is not given to babies to go to and baptize and teach themselves. Or to 45 year olds. WE are to baptize. Don't loose sense of who is active and who is passive in this.




You posted, "I once read a testimony of a man who was born again since birth. If that's the case a baby can be baptized."

John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and faith before he was even born..... God was able to give him faith and the Holy Spirit, God was not impotent by youth there. Why would God be impotent regarding children now?




You posted, "babies can't follow these instructions in Acts 2 "


1. Remember, the Greek word "kai" (and) - just like the English word "and" - simply is a connector, it connects things. It is NO WAY WHATSOEVER mandates or even implies order or sequence. "I have a mother and a father" doesn't mean my mother is older or I got a mother before I got a father. It is wrong to delete the word in the text ("and") then replace it with an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning (such as "then"). That's not permitted in hermaneutics.


2. John the Baptist could be given faith and the Holy Spirit..... while still in the womb. Why didn't John (not yet born) render God impotent to bless? How does this teach us that God cannot bless babies and children, those under the age of X? IMO, this shows God is not rendered impotent by those under the age of X.


3. "Repent" is an act of faith. Repent comes AFTER being given faith and the Holy Spirit because it's an act of faith moved by the Spirit. "Repent" is not the same thing as remorse. Remorse is NOT spiritual (even your pet feels remorse!), remorse is a psychological thing that has NOTHING to do with God or faith or the Spirit or Christ or religion. The verse you note isn't calling for remorse but for repentance. Repent means 1) Embracing God's Law and the Authority of such, there's an acknowledgement that self has "missed the mark, fallen short of God's standard" (which is the literal meaning of "sin" - to miss the mark, fall short of the target). 2) Stopping this behavior because it violates God's will. 3) Turning to God's mercy and grace, seeking in such forgiveness. 4) Embracing the power of the Holy Spirit, walking in a new way. Unbelieving, unregenerate, atheist, DEAD people can't and won't do that, not because they are too young but because they are DEAD, they are unbelieving, unregenerate, atheists who reject God's existence, mercy, grace, forgiveness, authority, Spirit and Law.


4. The "and" here is doing the only thing the word can do, it's connecting things. There are LOTS of things God desires, LOTS of thing God calls people (generally LIVING people to do) - and the word "kai" connects these. The word is "AND" which cannot be deleted and replaced with "then." This verse by no means is saying DEAD people must repent and THEN, after that's all done, THEN they may be blessed by God, THEN God is no longer rendered impotent to bless.


5. The Bible says, NO ONE is capable of even saying "Jesus is Lord" (as a statement of faith) unless the Holy Spirit causes such. NO ONE. Is even CAPABLE. It doesn't say, "Those under the age of X render God impotent to bless." "Those under the age of X make the Holy Spirit incapable of giving them faith." It says NO ONE. NONE. That means not John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb) AND it also means a 45 year old with an IQ of 200 and 6 doctorate degrees who has memorized every word in the Bible. NO ONE. The Holy Spirit enlivens. The physically DEAD don't give themselves physical life.... the spiritually DEAD don't give themselves spiritual life. The DEAD can't do a whole lot (well, good anyway, lol). So, while I agree that John the Baptist still in the womb couldn't give himself faith, spiritual life and regeneration.... the Bible says NO ONE can.



.

What is it youre accusing Imalive of in her post?

I accused no one of anything.

Read the post. If I accused someone of something, underline and embolden the words where I did so.

What is it youre hoping to accomplish that would either bring glory to God or help someone get saved or teach believers something that would edify the body?

IMO, my giving God alone the praise, glory and "credit" for spiritual life is giving glory to God for this. IMO, those who insist THEY supplied the really key factor for their salvation/life (by being old enough, smart enough, educated enough, remorseful enough, reciting the sinners' prayer, etc.) detracts from the glory of God.

IMO, what I posted is edifying. If you feel differently, ignore it.

Why do you believe God is incapable to bless a child?

I guess you didn't read what I posted....

My position is the exact opposite - as it has been for well over 80 pages now in this thread.

Why do you believe God us impotent regarding children?

I guess you didn't read what I posted.....

My very consistent position for well over 80 pages in this thread is the exact opposite.




Thank you


- Josiah



.

 

[Imalive]

[MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION]





Friend.... respectfully.....


No one baptizes themself.

Can God do this? Is God rendered impotent in the case of those under the age of X? Why is God incapable to bless a child, why is God unable to do that?

The Great Commission to "go.... baptize.....teach......" was given to CHRISTIANS, to living, regenerate, born-again, believers. The Commission is not given to babies to go to and baptize and teach themselves. Or to 45 year olds. WE are to baptize. Don't loose sense of who is active and who is passive in this.






John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and faith before he was even born..... God was able to give him faith and the Holy Spirit, God was not impotent by youth there. Why would God be impotent regarding children now?






1. Remember, the Greek word "kai" (and) - just like the English word "and" - simply is a connector, it connects things. It is NO WAY WHATSOEVER mandates or even implies order or sequence. "I have a mother and a father" doesn't mean my mother is older or I got a mother before I got a father. It is wrong to delete the word in the text ("and") then replace it with an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning (such as "then"). That's not permitted in hermaneutics.


2. John the Baptist could be given faith and the Holy Spirit..... while still in the womb. Why didn't John (not yet born) render God impotent to bless?


3. "Repent" is an act of faith. Repent comes AFTER being given faith and the Holy Spirit because it's an act of faith moved by the Spirit. "Repent" is not the same thing as remorse. Remorse is NOT spiritual (even your pet feels remorse!), remorse is a psychological thing that has NOTHING to do with God or faith or the Spirit or Christ or religion. The verse you note isn't calling for remorse but for repentance. Repent means 1) Embracing God's Law and the Authority of such, there's an acknowledgement that self has "missed the mark, fallen short of God's standard" (which is the literal meaning of "sin" - to miss the mark, fall short of the target). 2) Stopping this behavior because it violates God's will. 3) Turning to God's mercy and grace, seeking in such forgiveness. 4) Embracing the power of the Holy Spirit, walking in a new way. Unbelieving, unregenerate, atheist, DEAD people can't and won't do that, not because they are too young but because they are DEAD, they are unbelieving, unregenerate, atheists who reject God's existence, mercy, grace, forgiveness, authority, Spirit and Law.


4. The "and" here is doing the only thing the word can do, it's connecting things. There are LOTS of things God desires, LOTS of thing God calls people (generally LIVING people to do) - and the word "kai" connects these. The word is "AND" which cannot be deleted and replaced with "then." This verse by no means is saying DEAD people must repent and THEN, after that's all done, THEN they may be blessed by God, THEN God is no longer rendered impotent to bless.


5. The Bible says, NO ONE is capable of even saying "Jesus is Lord" (as a statement of faith) unless the Holy Spirit causes such. NO ONE. Is even CAPABLE. It doesn't say, "Those under the age of X render God impotent to bless." "Those under the age of X make the Holy Spirit incapable of giving them faith." It says NO ONE. NONE. That means not John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb) AND it also means a 45 year old with an IQ of 200 and 6 doctorate degrees who has memorized every word in the Bible. NO ONE. The Holy Spirit enlivens. The physically DEAD don't give themselves physical life.... the spiritually DEAD don't give themselves spiritual life. The DEAD can't do a whole lot (well, good anyway, lol). So, while I agree that John the Baptist still in the womb couldn't give himself faith, spiritual life and regeneration.... the Bible says NO ONE can.



Thank you!


- Josiah




.

I don't say it's impossible that God gives a baby faith and it can get baptized. It doesnt get faith because it gets baptized though. Simon the scorserer was baptised. Didnt save him. Faith saves. But the reason they wait is that a baby can't express it. Could be that you baptize a baby who isnt saved at all and has no idea what they're even doing. Depends on the testimony later on. If there was no change whatsoever til they were 7 and accepted Jesus, then they'd have better not done it too soon.

 

[user1234]

Josiah - The fact that Imalive had to write the first sentence →↓ shows that she too felt you were accusing her by implication. You tend read a spin into someones post, then imply they say or mean something they didnt say or mean, forcing them to have to defend against a false accusation by implication.

It's getting really old and tiresome to have to see ppl being put in the position to keep having to say, 'No, Josiah, I didnt say that' 'No, Josiah, that's not what I said' 'No, Josiah, your putting words/meanings/spins on what I said, Josiah...No one here is saying that, Josiah, thats not what we said, Josiah' .

Thats why I put the Question right back on you. YOU asked, 'Why is God impotent?' implying that thats what Imalive was accusing God of being.
So since you asked Imalive, 'Why is God impotent?', I asked you to answer your own question...'Tell us, Josiah, why do YOU believe God is impotent?'

And now youre having to tell us, No, that's not what you meant.

Maybe we can stop the strawman arguements and the accusations/guilt by implication and just deal with the issue honestly.
Do you want to baptize babies? Go ahead. Others here dont believe its necessary or efficacious for the babys salvation.

I don't say it's impossible that God gives a baby faith and it can get baptized. It doesnt get faith because it gets baptized though. Simon the scorserer was baptised. Didnt save him. Faith saves. But the reason they wait is that a baby can't express it. Could be that you baptize a baby who isnt saved at all and has no idea what they're even doing. Depends on the testimony later on. If there was no change whatsoever til they were 7 and accepted Jesus, then they'd have better not done it too soon.

 

[Imalive]

Josiah - The fact that Imalive had to write the first sentence →↓ shows that she too felt you were accusing her by implication. You tend read a spin into someones post, then imply they say or mean something they didnt say or mean, forcing them to have to defend against a false accusation by implication.

It's getting really old and tiresome to have to see ppl being put in the position to keep having to say, 'No, Josiah, I didnt say that' 'No, Josiah, that's not what I said' 'No, Josiah, your putting words/meanings/spins on what I said, Josiah...No one here is saying that, Josiah, thats not what we said, Josiah' .

Thats why I put the Question right back on you. YOU asked, 'Why is God impotent?' implying that thats what Imalive was accusing God of being.
So since you asked Imalive, 'Why is God impotent?', I asked you to answer your own question...'Tell us, Josiah, why do YOU believe God is impotent?'

And now youre having to tell us, No, that's not what you meant.

Maybe we can stop the strawman arguements and the accusations/guilt by implication and just deal with the issue honestly.
Do you want to baptize babies? Go ahead. Others here dont believe its necessary or efficacious for the babys salvation.

Oh I dont see anything as an accusation, they just believe it different.

 

[Josiah]

I don't say it's impossible that God gives a baby faith and it can get baptized. It doesnt get faith because it gets baptized though.

Respected..... you and I have a bit of disagreement here, of course.

I hold that God CAN use The Great Commission, but of course everyone agrees that our going... baptizing... teaching in response to His command and our love doesn't MANDATE that God ERGO must immediately (or ever) give them faith. Jesus preached to LOTS of people who never were given faith..... I image LOTS of folks who have heard Billy Graham preach (in person or otherwise) did not end up in heaven. Nonetheless, I don't think that means that THEREFORE we should ignore the Great Commission and do nothing.... not go, not baptize, not teach. We have love, care.... we want people blessed in the greatest way there is.... we want to do as God calls us to do.... but none of this binds God. Scripture says, "My Word does not return to me void but accomplishes all that I desire." I think that applies to all the Great Commission (indeed to all God's will)... and I'd add, the promise does not say "and this happens IMMEDIATELY."


Friend, I have a higher allowance for those who believe God's Great Commission to us is a waste of time because it can't do anything and God can't and won't use it. I have less (LOL) for those who insist that God is impotent to bless those under the age of X and that God cannot give faith to those under that (never disclosed) age. I have less (LOL) for those who insist on inserting ALL KINDS of restrictions, prohibitions and limitations on God and His Great Commission because of what they believe God can't do.

I agree - we cannot KNOW if a baby has faith or not. Of course, you can't KNOW if I do. Only God knows what He has placed in our heart. I can KNOW about me..... I can't KNOW about anyone else. Even harder is the demand of one in this thread insisting we are forbidden to "go.... baptize.... teach....." any who is not The Elect. How in the WORLD can anyone know what unbelievers are among the Elect? I agree with you, faith is not always evident and obvious - and that IS more likely in an adult. But I don't think that means faith is THEREFORE absent in those younger than that.

Faith saves

Amen! It's Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide !!!!!!! But of course while God CAN give faith "immediately" (without any means - just dump it into hearts, lol) - as in the case of John the Baptist having faith and the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, that appears to be atypical. God typically works through MEANS - delivering His gift of faith, the Holy Spirit, salvation via means. In classical theology, these are called "The Means of Grace" ("tools in the hands of the Carpenter"). The Great Commission speaks equally and inseparately of two: baptizing and teaching. BELIEVERS... GOING to them in love..... baptizing..... teaching...... All just tools that in and of themselves can accomplish nothing per se, but put a hammer in the hands of a carpenter and miracles can happen! Place our loving, our going, our baptizing, our teaching into the hands of The Carpenter and..... miracles CAN happen, according to the plan and will of the Carpenter in whose hands they are.

Do you follow my perspective here? NOT remotely asking you to agree, only if you "see" it.

But the reason they wait is that a baby can't express it. Could be that you baptize a baby who isnt saved at all and has no idea what they're even doing. Depends on the testimony later on. If there was no change whatsoever til they were 7 and accepted Jesus, then they'd have better not done it too soon.

Here we disagree, my friend. I don't think we should do NOTHING vis-a-vis the unbelieving, dead, unregenerate people whom we love (that includes our children perhaps more than any others). Yes, our love and care and attempts to bless our children MAY be for nothing, but I don't think therefore parents shouldn't do it. Yes, we may bring our children to church, may teach them of Jesus, may love them and care for them - and they turn out to be unbelieving mass murders. That doesn't mean we were wrong to do as we did, and it especially doesn't mean we were sinning and violating God's prohibition of such things.

Follow? Again, not remotely seeking your agreement just hoping to convey my pov, feeling, heart.



Thank you!


- Josiah

 

[TurtleHare]

I'd like to see a show of hands of who all believes that the Word of God has the capability to penetrate an adult and give him faith but not a little infant who has yet to have that fight within him that a grown man has because here's the deal on all this baptism and when you get down to it it's about if you are believing God can work through His Word or not. If God's Word is all powerful then wow you know He could easily give faith to a baby and there wouldn't be any arguments against infant baptism but hey if you are the kind of person who has a weak viewpoint on what God's Word is capable of then you don't trust it to effect a cause within anyone because an infant would be sooooooooo much easier than some experienced sinful adult. Show of hands now as I request who believes that God's Word can penetrate an adult but not an infant or is it you're just needing proof of faith being given because you don't trust His Word is allive and active and effects what it says it can do? yo

 

[Josiah]

Josiah - The fact that Imalive had to write the first sentence →↓ shows that she too felt you were accusing her by implication.

I don't think so.


Friend, CH is not a debate website, it's a discussion website. When we reply to a post, we are REPLYING. I may 100% agree with the post, my replying in no what whatsoever indicates, states or implies disagreement. I may 100% disagree with the post, simply replying doesn't in any way indicate, state or imply agreement. I'm REPLYING. Giving my feelings, heart, pov. It's how this works. The same is true for all posters. Replies MAY be one of disagreement, one of agreement, a bit of both, or simply sharing some of our thoughts on the topic. It's called conversation. It's what we do. Just like all the posters here.


Our friend shared some thoughts (for which I'm thankful). I found them all valid and certainly appreciated. I replied with some of my thoughts. No debate. No accusations. We're friends. It's called discussion. One shares thoughts, the other shares thoughts.


It's how it works.

So since you asked Imalive, 'Why is God impotent?', I asked you to answer your own question...'Tell us, Josiah, why do YOU believe God is impotent?'

I never said she said that. Nor did I ask the question SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY to Imalive - it was a question as part of a point I was making. I don't REMOTELY think our sister thinks God is impotent; even if I had directed this specifically and exclusively to her, I'd be 100% confident she'd say "He's not!!!!!" (obviously she would) but it wasn't that type of question, as it very, very obvious - it was part of a point I was making on the topic, the general theme that she was also commenting on. Come on.

I never "imply" anything. At least never intentionally; if you are IMPUTING that into my posts, then it's you IMPUTING that - certainly against my wishes and such would be unfortunate.

I use the quote feature, and I do so accurately - never changing the words.

Do you want to baptize babies? Go ahead. Others here dont believe its necessary or efficacious for the babys salvation.

Friend, some here are saying it's wrong, bad, CONTRARY to Scripture to apply the Great Commission to those under the age of X. Just because you are indicating that's not YOU PERSONALLY, YOUR OWN insistence doesn't mean that point is not a part of the discussion here.


No one here has stated it by necessity results in salvation (at least not that I've read). I've certainly have stated the opposite, many times. I do agree that's a part of our discussion, it's just no one yet in 88 pages has taken the position that it is (at least that I've read). Several KEEP making this point (which is fine) but of course, no one is disagreeing. Okay because this is not a debate forum, it's a discussion forum - and it's okay to say what we all are agreeing about - as you do when you point out that going.... baptizing.... teaching don't NECESSARILY result in the receiver ending up in heaven. You certain my keep repeating your pov there, even though no one is saying otherwise. I'm not angered that that or think you are implying I believe something you know I don't. Come on, friend.


And no one has said that it's necessary for faith. In fact, I and many others have made the opposite point.... I don't know of any who has said it's necessary for faith. Now, that doesn't make it invalid to say that since that can be a part of the discussion, it's a valid contribution and perhaps even important to add, but of course no one here is disagreeing with it. It is okay to state things no one is disagreeing with because, again, CH isn't a debate forum, it's a discussion forum. Points can be brought up that aren't in debate.


And obviously, just because I include something in a post does NOT remotely indicate that the post I'm responding to has stated the opposite. What a strange idea! When you speak, does EVERYTHING you say make the opposite point of what was said to you? Of course not! We share OUR thoughts ..... contributing to the conversation.


Again, I never imply anything. I work hard to say what I mean and mean what I say. NOT to debate (that's not what we do here) but to discuss and enter things into the discussion.



:focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus:



Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[user1234]

Oh I dont see anything as an accusation, they just believe it different.

Yes ok, I kinda figured that was coming. I saw your first sentence in the other post as an explanation against an apparant accusation. By him asking 'why is God impotent' in response to your post. I didnt take that as they believing it different.
I sorry, :sad6: I only tried to defend you, but where it wasnt wanted or needed. Thought i was doing the right thing, I apologize.

 

[user1234]

I'd like to see a show of hands of who all believes that the Word of God has the capability to penetrate an adult and give him faith but not a little infant who has yet to have that fight within him that a grown man has because here's the deal on all this baptism and when you get down to it it's about if you are believing God can work through His Word or not. If God's Word is all powerful then wow you know He could easily give faith to a baby and there wouldn't be any arguments against infant baptism but hey if you are the kind of person who has a weak viewpoint on what God's Word is capable of then you don't trust it to effect a cause within anyone because an infant would be sooooooooo much easier than some experienced sinful adult. Show of hands now as I request who believes that God's Word can penetrate an adult but not an infant or is it you're just needing proof of faith being given because you don't trust His Word is allive and active and effects what it says it can do? yo

Exactly. Maybe ppl who feel a NEED to water-baptize a baby are showing a weakness of faith and they need proof, or maybe they think thats what saves the baby, (or children or adults, too?) instead of the blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Exactly. Maybe ppl who feel a NEED to water-baptize a baby are showing a weakness of faith and they need proof, or maybe they think thats what saves the baby, (or children or adults, too?) instead of the blood of Christ.

I'm sure that, if what you say here were so, some of them would have said so instead of denying it every time you or another representative of your fringe group try to insert the idea that baptism guarantees salvation.

 

[Josiah]

I'd like to see a show of hands of who all believes that the Word of God has the capability to penetrate an adult and give him faith but not a little infant who has yet to have that fight within him that a grown man has because here's the deal on all this baptism and when you get down to it it's about if you are believing God can work through His Word or not. If God's Word is all powerful then wow you know He could easily give faith to a baby and there wouldn't be any arguments against infant baptism but hey if you are the kind of person who has a weak viewpoint on what God's Word is capable of then you don't trust it to effect a cause within anyone because an infant would be sooooooooo much easier than some experienced sinful adult. Show of hands now as I request who believes that God's Word can penetrate an adult but not an infant or is it you're just needing proof of faith being given because you don't trust His Word is allive and active and effects what it says it can do? yo


.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!




"It's a Waste of Time" Position.

I "get" that some people believe that Jesus' Great Commission to the church is, well, pretty much a waste of time, that it can't or won't do anything, that Jesus can't and won't use any of that. I find that, well, curious that among the very, very few things Jesus specifically commands to the church - something taken SO seriously in the Bible and for 1500 years by every church - would be, well, worthless and of no value. BUT I "get" the perspective. And it has been articulated clearly in this thread. I think we're just disagreeing on that.

What I have more trouble understanding are the reasons WHY (always focused on the baptizing part, never the other inseparable and equal parts - the going, baptizing, making disciples parts of it). Some of these reasons have been articulated here (often repeatedly and in various wordings):

+ God cannot give His Spirit or His gift of faith or justification to those under a certain age (that age is never disclosed; I discuss it as the age of "X")
+ God need not because those under that "age" are already justified and are sinless (perfectly and always "hitting the target" of all God desires, His nature and holiness and love)

These (and other reasons) have been given - wording often in a rich variety of ways but making the same point - all to underscore that applying the Great Commission is a waste of time. Frankly, it's the REASONS they give for their perspective that concerns me! I "get" the perspective.... I just (rather passionately) disagree with the REASONS they give for their perspective. And yes, I've spent some time in this thread sharing my disagreement with these "reasons."

These folks nearly always practice infant baptism - as the customary, matter-of-course, of their churches. But they see it purely as cultural, a nice tradition.



"It's forbidden" Position


BUT, some go further. They aren't arguing that it's a waste of time (at least among the non-elect and those under the age of X) but insist it's forbidden, wrong, sinful, not to be done. They often articulate these reasons:

+ Every one of the people who received Baptism in the Bible were over the age of X, among the Elect, and beforehand had documented their regeneration, justification and Christian status.
+ We cannot do things for others unless there is a DIVINE PROMISE and proof that the receiver will go to heaven as a direct result.
+ If a person cannot precisely and verbally articulate something, they don't have it.
+ It is expressly forbidden to minister to the non-Elect.
+ Now, they ALSO affirm the two reasons given for why it's a waste of time (God CANNOT or NEED NOT bless those under the age of X) but that's not their point, we aren't allowed to apply this Command.

These reasons are worded in a rich variety of ways but making the same point the same argument.

Here again, it's the REASONS they give for their perspective that concerns me! And yes, I've been pretty active in these many pages disagreeing with these REASONS.

These churches don't practice infant baptism. Some parents may secretly take their beloved children to the local Lutheran or Methodist church to be baptized (and don't tell anyone in their own church) but the churches that hold it's forbidden don't do this and don't approve of others doing it.



My half cent....


Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

I'm sure that, if what you say here were so, some of them would have said so instead of denying it every time you or another representative of your fringe group try to insert the idea that baptism guarantees salvation.

Representative of your fringe group? Be glad I'm a christian, jack!