the meaning of Baptism

[Imalive]

You may not see it, but you have made a good argument for the insignificance of water baptism other than to say to the community that we hope God elects to save our children. Since we cannot know God's mind, we cannot say anything more about the effects of water baptism.

Of course he is. God is also under no obligation to extend grace to anyone regardless of whether we water baptize them as infants. It is arrogant to imagine water baptizing will force God to do something He has never promised he would do.

Of course. God also says he can create vessels doomed to destruction (Romans 9). Who are we to demand that our children be vessels of His glory? We can only raise them as God wills. God must save them.

Yes, it is a command to us.
1) Go
2) Make disciples
3) Baptize
4) Teach
This is the command to you and me.

No, we are to recognize that we are all thoroughly corrupt and there is nothing good in us apart from Christ. If we view all as elect, it gives you a ready excuse to ignore God's commission.
We must preach reconciliation to the world and pray that God might use our preaching to save the elect of His choosing.

No one is reversing the Great Commission, Josiah. That is a faulty claim on your part.

The catholic church did that. They forced Jewish babies to get baptized, then they were supposedly christian and they took them from their parents to be raised in a christian home. Talk about reversing the great commission, reversing, hm, dunno how to call that.

http://www.remnant.net/baptism.htm

 

[Josiah]

The issue really is whether God makes the Sovereign choice in saving people or whether humans by their free-will make the choice and then God gives the big thumbs up.

Well, I can understand why those who believe in "free will" as you put it would reject infant baptism since they'd likely (and correctly IMO) conclude that a unregenerate, spiritually dead baby who doesn't believe in God would choose God. Of course, the same would be true for one of any age.

But I fail to see what that has to do with your rejection of applying the Great Commission to those under the age of X because you don't hold to "free will" you are a monergist who believes that God does it. For you, the issue really is whether God is incapable of blessing and giving His gifts to those under the age of X, whether God is impotent to do so for those under this mystical age of X. This is why MoreCoffee kept reminding you of John the Baptist still in his mother's womb, why he kept reminding you of the soverignty of God. I too gave up trying to understand why a Monergist (especially one as bold as you are - quite admirably) must hold to God's impotence in this regard.

I think, in part, you keep holding to a strawman - that the Means of Grace MUST ALWAYS be effective or else again, God is impotent. Strange, because no one has claimed they are. MC, I admit, APPEARS to be saying that at times but you aren't reading all he's saying (or all I'm saying). This is why I tried - oh so very, very many times, over and over - to convey to you that you're arguing against a point no one holds. And again, it seems YOU are the one denying the soverignty of God: The Great Commission is from God to us, not the other way around. As I've quoted to you many times, "My word does not return to be void but accomplishes all that I desire." The "I" there refers to God - not the evangelist and not the receipient. But just because His desire may or may not be to save doesn't mean it's forbidden to do as He commands. It MAY be that a baby baptized doesn't end up in heaven and MAY be isn't among the Elect. But then the same is true for ANY unbeliever of ANY age - and it equally goes for the other part, teaching. I don't think God is MANDATED by our actions to act against His will - I just don't see God as so small. But that doesn't mean we should go against His mandate to us. We are to LOVE our neighbor - whether he is the Elect or not, whether he ends up in heaven or not, but my reflecting and applying God's love may not return to Him void but may accomplish all that He desires. I honestly think MoreCoffee has been arguing the "soverignty of God" point FAR more than you..... has been arguing against free will far more than you. THAT, your seeming to position yourself so contrary to monergism - is what has puzzled me right from the start. I'd never have expected it from you. I'm coming at this whole issue as an uber-monergist, and finding MoreCoffee a lot closer to that than you.

No act of humans, whether good or bad, can change the will of God.

And neither I nor MoreCoffee or Lamm Or Tigger or many others have ever disagreed with that. Of course, that goes for the Will of God for us as Christians too, including "Go.... baptize.... teach....."

Loving, caring, serving, going, reaching out, baptizing, teaching...... NOTHING changes the will of God. But it's also not true that God generally gives His gifts and blessings in a complete vacuum - void of people or words or voices or actions. God can (of course) just ZAP His gifts and blessings directly to people (again, John the Baptist in his mother's womb) but that seems very atypical. God typically uses means. Calvin called these "The Means of Grace." It wasn't a new idea - Orthodox and Catholic and Lutheran Christians had been speaking of them before Calvin, he simply AGREED with them. God typically delivers His gifts via means. It doesn't mean they aren't His gifts. If the mailman delivers a birthday present from me, did I not give you the gift? If a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house, it is not the carpenter who built the house? God is a big God, my friend. MC and I and others are giving GOD the credit for His will being done, not stumbling over the mailbox or the hammer as you seem to be doing, as if we can't say the carpenter build the house if he uses a hammer, I can't be the giver of your present if it comes via the US mail.

But that water baptism does nothing to cause God to save someone

Well, at least you've admitted you don't read anything but bullet points (and only two of those, at most). Because you would not keep making this absurd point if you had been reading even 10% of what's been written to you.

And friend, it seems to me YOU are the one undermining the Soverignty of God, undermining Monergism.... making God too small to accomplish His will. You've been asked by others: WHAT, pray tell, is it about a loving Christian parent reaching out to their child..... loving them in Christ...... permitting them to be baptized.... teaching them about Jesus (even if PERHAPS they aren't Elect).... WHAT, please tell us, WHAT about that renders God impotent to give His gifts and blessings to that child... to accomplish His will for that child? What is SO bad about doing the Great Commission that will keep God from His will? WHAT is it about those under the age of X that makes God impotent? YES, YES, YES, YES, a thousand times YES - there is no MANDATE that God MUST give justification to all people whom we have loved, whom we've reached out to, whom we've sung Sunday School songs to, whom we
be brought to Sunday School and Sunday worship, whom we've allowed to be baptize that FORCES God to act contrary to His will, His sovernignty, His wisdom. Friend, no one has said otherwise. I have said that to you over and over and over and over - but yes, you admit you don't read most of what's posted to you. But that doesn't make His will FOR US CHRISTIANS irrelevant. It doesn't make it forbidden for loving Christian parents to reach out and minister to their children, to apply the Great Commission to those they love. Again, CALVINIST, MONERGIST missionaries WENT to Hawaii..... LOVED them...... preached ALL of them (Elect and non-elect)... baptized all their babies..... BECAUSE they held to monergism, BECAUSE God can do His will.... BECAUSE they love and the obey the will of God. They were uber Calvinists, uber Monergists. It's you insisting they were wrong. I find YOU to be the one out of synch with Monergism and Calvinism. And yes, Scripture.

. You don't have that kind of power to force your will on the God of Creation.
Therefore, just as going to the temple and circumcising a child and/or offering sacrifices never removed the sins of the participant, so water baptism does nothing to remove the sins of the participant. Water baptism is thus no more than a ceremonial obedience to God's command.
Whether you have the capability to accept what I tell you is irrelevant to me. God will one day open your eyes so you can read the Bible without adding or subtracting your own wishes into the text. It took me many years to read without my childhood bias pushing me to ignore what God actually was saying. It may take you years to get to the same point as well. I don't begrudge anyone as they travel the path as long as the covenant with God to be honest with His word.

Yeah, I remember your mandate: I'm permitted only BRIEF bullet points, and only 2 of those.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, it is a command to us.
1) Go
2) Make disciples
3) Baptize
4) Teach
This is the command to you and me.

Yup. So all these points are entirely missing, absent, NOT what is said

But thou shouldest NOT unless they are over the age of X
But this is a waste of time, worthless, meaningless and of no value unless they are over the age of X
But thou shoudest NOT unless they have proven to be among the Elect
But thou shouldest NOT unless there is guarentee that said reciever will go to heaven as a direct result of this
But thou shouldest NOT unless they first have documented their regeneration and justification.
But thou shouldest NOT think God can accomplish His will via any of this for God art impotent to use what He commands us to do.


I invite you read post 902. I realize I've violated your command to say no more to you than brief bullet points (and you allowed me only two of those) but I honest think it will advance things if you'd actually read a whole post. Try 902



.

 

[Josiah]

Two negative positions being promoted in these nearly 90 pages......


"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.



Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah, you fail to see your problem when you expect God to extend grace upon those whom he may not choose to extend grace.
You baptize liberally when no such thing is done in scripture. You do this because you presume upon God your will. Thus you preach a free-will salvation.
I won't presume upon God what he does not promise. I will not baptize a person until that person desires to obey God in baptism. That is between God and that person. You or I have no right to force our will upon them. Thus, infant baptism is you imposing your will upon God. It's really quite arrogant.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, you fail to see your problem when you expect God to extend grace upon those whom he may not choose to extend grace.

Friend, I honestly don't see how you've read what I've posted to you....

I never once even used the word "expect." I never once - anywhere - said a THING about what I 'expect' of God or anyone or anything. I don't think you've read what I've posted to you.... not at all.... but then you said I'm limited to very brief bullet points, and only 2 of those.

You baptize liberally when no such thing is done in scripture

ENTIRELY irrelvant. I've written to you about this SO many times.... I don't think you read what's written....

And you are posting on the internet literally when no such thing is done in Scripture.

And how do you know "no such thing was done in Scripture?" You don't. There is no verse that REMOTELY states that. We all know that.

You do this because you presume upon God your will. Thus you preach a free-will salvation.

Try READING post 902.

Please quote ANY post of mine here at CH... ANY.... in ANY thread. And underline where I said I "presume" anything. From anyone or anything. About anything. Do you READ what I psot to you?

No. I'm NOT the one presuming God can't give faith to those under a certain age..... I'm not the presuming God meant to say not to do this for those under that age.... I'm not the one presuming that God MUST or MUST NOT use the things He has commanded us to do for His purposes....

No. I do NOT teach "free will." I teach GOD'S will - which is why I think it's important to do His will and why I think He can accomplish His will - in spite of a humans age or IQ or gender or nationality or education.

I won't presume upon God what he does not promise

Seriously, friend, do you READ what is conveyed to you? This is suppose to be a CONVERSATION.

Take ANY post I've written in this thread. ANY. To ANYONE. Now quote it and underline where I even use the word "promise" About anything. Do READ what's conveyed to you?

Try reading # 902 for starters.


(By the way, the Bible uses that word as in "And the promise is for you and your children" but take that up with the one who said it, I didn't)

You or I have no right to force our will upon them. Thus, infant baptism is you imposing your will upon God. It's really quite arrogant.

I'll have a baby boy in February..... Frankly, I have NO INTENTION to withhold my passionate love from him, to withhold food and shelter and all he needs (and probably a bunch he doesn't need - just because I already LOVE him, crazy love him). I don't think hugging or loving or giving or blessing my son is FORCING some horrible thing upon him that will ruin his life and make him unable for God to bless.

I may do things that won't save his soul - but then that's not for me to do anyway. But just TRY to KEEP me from telling him about Jesus, just try to KEEP me from singing Jesus songs to him, just try to KEEP me from bringing him to church and to baptism and to Sunday School, you CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT keep me from loving him and wanting the best for him. God may not give him faith - that's not my call, not in my control - but I CAN love him, I CAN apply the Great Commission to him, I CAN hug him and teach him and guide him. NOT because I'm some monster FORCING bad, horrible, evil things (like Jesus) on the poor innocent kid who should just be left alone and given NOTHING, NOT because I'm an EVIL, mean Christian parent but because I LOVE him. LOVE him. L.O.V.E. him. And while that GUARENTEES nothing (OF COURSE) it doesn't make it wrong, bad, evil, meaningless, a waste of time! It doesn't make my love something I should withhold. I guess I just have a very different idea of parenting, of love, of ministry.


.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Josiah, you fail to see your problem when you expect God to extend grace upon those whom he may not choose to extend grace.
...

Circumcision was given to all Israelite male children (and some foreign male children too) as the sign of covenant membership and nobody quibbled against expecting "God to extend grace upon those whom he may not choose to extend grace. "

 

[Josiah]

Circumcision was given to all Israelite male children (and some foreign male children too) as the sign of covenant membership and nobody quibbled against expecting "God to extend grace upon those whom he may not choose to extend grace. "

I'm SURE God mandated that all the boys FIRST prove their participation in the Jewish Covenant and knew all the Torah.... and CERTAINLY, God prohibited any from giving this to ANY boy who didn't specifically request it! How HORRIBLE it would be for God to FORCE something on innocent little boys, something that would hurt as much as getting their hair wet!

Sorry. I still haven't cooled down from my last post in this thread, lol.

I gotta go home. Get some dinner going for my beloved and me... before we think of all the ways we can withhold love from our yet unborn son....

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I'm SURE God mandated that all the boys FIRST prove their participation in the Jewish Covenant and knew all the Torah.... and CERTAINLY, God prohibited any from giving this to ANY boy who didn't specifically request it! How HORRIBLE it would be for God to FORCE something on innocent little boys, something that would hurt as much as getting their hair wet!

Sorry. I still haven't cooled down from my last post in this thread, lol.

I gotta go home. Get some dinner going for my beloved and me... before we think of all the ways we can withhold love from our yet unborn son....

Congratulations to you both! arty2:

 

[MennoSota]

Friend, I honestly don't see how you've read what I've posted to you....

I never once even used the word "expect." I never once - anywhere - said a THING about what I 'expect' of God or anyone or anything. I don't think you've read what I've posted to you.... not at all.... but then you said I'm limited to very brief bullet points, and only 2 of those.




ENTIRELY irrelvant. I've written to you about this SO many times.... I don't think you read what's written....

And you are posting on the internet literally when no such thing is done in Scripture.

And how do you know "no such thing was done in Scripture?" You don't. There is no verse that REMOTELY states that. We all know that.




Try READING post 902.

Please quote ANY post of mine here at CH... ANY.... in ANY thread. And underline where I said I "presume" anything. From anyone or anything. About anything. Do you READ what I psot to you?

No. I'm NOT the one presuming God can't give faith to those under a certain age..... I'm not the presuming God meant to say not to do this for those under that age.... I'm not the one presuming that God MUST or MUST NOT use the things He has commanded us to do for His purposes....

No. I do NOT teach "free will." I teach GOD'S will - which is why I think it's important to do His will and why I think He can accomplish His will - in spite of a humans age or IQ or gender or nationality or education.





Seriously, friend, do you READ what is conveyed to you? This is suppose to be a CONVERSATION.

Take ANY post I've written in this thread. ANY. To ANYONE. Now quote it and underline where I even use the word "promise" About anything. Do READ what's conveyed to you?

Try reading # 902 for starters.


(By the way, the Bible uses that word as in "And the promise is for you and your children" but take that up with the one who said it, I didn't)





I'll have a baby boy in February..... Frankly, I have NO INTENTION to withhold my passionate love from him, to withhold food and shelter and all he needs (and probably a bunch he doesn't need - just because I already LOVE him, crazy love him). I don't think hugging or loving or giving or blessing my son is FORCING some horrible thing upon him that will ruin his life and make him unable for God to bless.

I may do things that won't save his soul - but then that's not for me to do anyway. But just TRY to KEEP me from telling him about Jesus, just try to KEEP me from singing Jesus songs to him, just try to KEEP me from bringing him to church and to baptism and to Sunday School, you CANNOT, absolutely CANNOT keep me from loving him and wanting the best for him. God may not give him faith - that's not my call, not in my control - but I CAN love him, I CAN apply the Great Commission to him, I CAN hug him and teach him and guide him. NOT because I'm some monster FORCING bad, horrible, evil things (like Jesus) on the poor innocent kid who should just be left alone and given NOTHING, NOT because I'm an EVIL, mean Christian parent but because I LOVE him. LOVE him. L.O.V.E. him. And while that GUARENTEES nothing (OF COURSE) it doesn't make it wrong, bad, evil, meaningless, a waste of time! It doesn't make my love something I should withhold. I guess I just have a very different idea of parenting, of love, of ministry.


.

Josiah there is no purpose in baptizing infants. Your argument from the silence of scripture and assuming all humans are already regenerated until proven otherwise is simply put, not biblical.
Second, if you can't keep on point in short posts, I just won't read it. Give me your comment succinctly or stop posting to me. It's good to learn clarity of thought.

 

[MennoSota]

Circumcision was given to all Israelite male children (and some foreign male children too) as the sign of covenant membership and nobody quibbled against expecting "God to extend grace upon those whom he may not choose to extend grace. "

Circumcision was given to ancient Israel under the Mosaic Covenant. You are correct. We are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant.
God gave no rules to the church regarding infant baptism.
God gives grace as he wills to sinners, but he has zero need for water baptism as a means to give grace. You are arguing from complete and utter silence. Thus, your argument is illegitimate. Give substance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Circumcision was given to ancient Israel under the Mosaic Covenant. You are correct. We are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant.
God gave no rules to the church regarding infant baptism.
God gives grace as he wills to sinners, but he has zero need for water baptism as a means to give grace. You are arguing from complete and utter silence. Thus, your argument is illegitimate. Give substance.

How compartmentalised your 66 book bible makes your thinking. It leave no room for continuity, None for growth as revelation progresses. That is such a flaw. So serious an error. No wonder your posts are at war with anybody who disagrees.

 

[MennoSota]

How compartmentalised you 66 book bible makes your thinking. It leave no room for continuity, None for growth as revelation progresses. That is such a flaw. So serious an error. No wonder your posts are at war with anybody who disagrees.

Nope. Your other books don't help you either.
The continuity is that God has chosen to extend grace from the garden to the present. Salvation has never been by works.
MC, you cannot provide any viable text, but you do misrepresent many scriptures by forcing a meaning on the text due to your presupposition.
When you preach grace instead of works, let me know.

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah there is no purpose in baptizing infants. Your argument from the silence of scripture and assuming all humans are already regenerated until proven otherwise is simply put, not biblical.
Second, if you can't keep on point in short posts, I just won't read it. Give me your comment succinctly or stop posting to me. It's good to learn clarity of thought.

Let me add that no one told you, Josiah, not to love your child. But, you can deeply love your child without baptizing your child as an infant. Water baptism won't assure or take away from your love. Baptism doesn't have that power.

 

[Josiah]

Your argument from the silence of scripture

Friend, all your positions, all your arguments are from silence of Scripture.

The Great Commission is NOT: "Go... baptize.... teach but thou canst NOT do this unless the receiver is at least X years old, has an IQ of at least X, has attained an educational level of at least X, requests such, and first documents and proves their regeneration and justification - and even then, thou must not do this with water and the word but only dunk them under the Holy Spirit." Friend, that's not what the verse says. ALL the prohibitions, limitations, denials, etc. you make are absent in the command and in the Bible. You keep proving that.

assuming all humans are already regenerated until proven otherwise is simply put, not biblical

Once again, it appears obvious you have not read anything I've posted to you. Go though all the posts I've ever made here at CH - concerning any topic - and quote where I state "all humans are already regenerated until proven otherwise." In fact, you can find MANY cases just in this thread where I've said the exact opposite. But you've ordered me to post to me no more than short bullet points (and a max of 2 of those).

Your assumption that God cannot give His Spirit, His gift of faith and justification to one under the age of X is simply not biblical. Several of us have addressed your assumption but I don't think you read any of them.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Friend, all your positions, all your arguments are from silence of Scripture.

The Great Commission is NOT: "Go... baptize.... teach but thou canst NOT do this unless the receiver is at least X years old, has an IQ of at least X, has attained an educational level of at least X, requests such, and first documents and proves their regeneration and justification - and even then, thou must not do this with water and the word but only dunk them under the Holy Spirit." Friend, that's not what the verse says. ALL the prohibitions, limitations, denials, etc. you make are absent in the command and in the Bible. You keep proving that.





Once again, it appears obvious you have not read anything I've posted to you. Go though all the posts I've ever made here at CH - concerning any topic - and quote where I state "all humans are already regenerated until proven otherwise." In fact, you can find MANY cases just in this thread where I've said the exact opposite. But you've ordered me to post to me no more than short bullet points (and a max of 2 of those).

Your assumption that God cannot give His Spirit, His gift of faith and justification to one under the age of X is simply not biblical. Several of us have addressed your assumption but I don't think you read any of them.



.

Josiah, let Mr X go, because I am not making that argument. The issue is not with Mr X. The issue is with you baptizing with no discernment. Since you cannot know if an infant is chosen by God and the infant cannot express her faith (after all, she is born in sin) there is no legitimate means of knowing that God has extended grace to her. It becomes an issue of the baptizer forcing his will upon God by baptizing a person for whom there is no means of knowing they are chosen of God.
Therefore the water baptism that is performed can only be something akin to John the Baptist's baptism, which was only for repentance.
Can you accept that infant baptism is equal to John the Baptist's baptism and not equal to the baptisms done by the Apostles and early church after a person came to redeeming faith in Christ for the remission of their sins?

 

[Josiah]

Since you cannot know if an infant is chosen by God

1. No one can know if ANYONE is among the Elect. Yes, you can know if someone CLAIMS he/she has faith but that doesn't mean the are among the Elect.

2. Where does the Great Commission say, "Thou canst NOT go.... baptize.... teach any who has not documented their Elect status?" Where is that? You keep insisting we can't make arguments from silence, from things not expressly stated in the words of Scripture, so where is this verse, where is this limit and requirement on the application of the Great Commission?

3. Do you hold that the other part of the Great Commission - Teaching - is also to be withheld from people unless they first document they are among the Elect? As I've noted to you, those uber-Calvinist missionaries to Hawaii (who PASSIONATELY believed in predestination in full TULIP sense) preached to ALL the Hawaiians (never demanding they first PROVE their Elect status) and baptized all their babies. Yes, some came to faith - some didn't - but they applied the Great Commission to ALL.... everyone...... with NO demand that FIRST they had to prove the were Elect of God. The elect will respond, the non-elect won't, but that's God's part. Our part is to go.... baptize.... teach...... and nowhere did Jesus EVER give all the prohibitions and limitations and denials you keep stressing. Nothing about any age requirement. Nothing about any Elect requirement. Nothing about how they must understand everything before we can go... baptize and teach them. All your prohibitions and limitations are from pure silence, not from what Jesus EVER remotely stated.

there is no legitimate means of knowing that God has extended grace to her

True, but we can never know that about anyone. And where is the verse where Jesus mandates, "Thou canst NOT love, go, baptize, teach any unless and until they prove that God has extended grace to them!"

And of course I disagree with you that God ONLY extends grace in a pure vacuum, only directly without any means, and that God is impotent to give his gifts and accomplish His will if means are used. I don't agree that if we go... baptize....preach therefore God is rendered impotent to save. Indeed, I suspect that God often uses the means He commands (although He certainly doesn't have to, and obviously there's no mandate that He does).



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1. No one can know if ANYONE is among the Elect. Yes, you can know if someone CLAIMS he/she has faith but that doesn't mean the are among the Elect.
...

I keep saying that when people say "are you saved?" and "do you have assurance of salvation?" and they get all worked up and say I believe in salvation by works. Never been able to figure it out. Must be a "protestant thing".

 

[Confessional Lutheran]

I keep saying that when people say "are you saved?" and "do you have assurance of salvation?" and they get all worked up and say I believe in salvation by works. Never been able to figure it out. Must be a "protestant thing".

Aaahhh, but what species of Protestant? There are several, after all.

 

[MennoSota]

1. No one can know if ANYONE is among the Elect. Yes, you can know if someone CLAIMS he/she has faith but that doesn't mean the are among the Elect.

Agreed. Therefore water baptism has zero regenerative properties and is merely symbolic of what the person is claiming, not what God has done.

2. Where does the Great Commission say, "Thou canst NOT go.... baptize.... teach any who has not documented their Elect status?" Where is that? You keep insisting we can't make arguments from silence, from things not expressly stated in the words of Scripture, so where is this verse, where is this limit and requirement on the application of the Great Commission?

This is your red herring. If you wish to apply John the Baptist's baptism upon people, I guess you can, but it is not the baptism shown in the book of Acts. In those cases the persons were making a claim of having already been redeemed. Thus, it is not for you to make a decision for another person. That's just you forcing your will upon another human being...even if it's a child you love.

3. Do you hold that the other part of the Great Commission - Teaching - is also to be withheld from people unless they first document they are among the Elect? As I've noted to you, those uber-Calvinist missionaries to Hawaii (who PASSIONATELY believed in predestination in full TULIP sense) preached to ALL the Hawaiians (never demanding they first PROVE their Elect status) and baptized all their babies. Yes, some came to faith - some didn't - but they applied the Great Commission to ALL.... everyone...... with NO demand that FIRST they had to prove the were Elect of God. The elect will respond, the non-elect won't, but that's God's part. Our part is to go.... baptize.... teach...... and nowhere did Jesus EVER give all the prohibitions and limitations and denials you keep stressing. Nothing about any age requirement. Nothing about any Elect requirement. Nothing about how they must understand everything before we can go... baptize and teach them. All your prohibitions and limitations are from pure silence, not from what Jesus EVER remotely stated.

Is there a benefit in feeding pearls to swine? If God has not chosen to make a person alive in Christ, then teaching the deep truths of God to them is pointless. They still remain hell bound. Make sure they are disciples or the teaching will be foolishness to them.

True, but we can never know that about anyone. And where is the verse where Jesus mandates, "Thou canst NOT love, go, baptize, teach any unless and until they prove that God has extended grace to them!"

God says we ought to love our neighbor as ourself. Is it loving to baptize a person who is dead in their trespasses and sins and then tell them they are saved? No, that's abominable. Let that person express how they believe God has extended grace to them. Then baptize them with water. That's what happens in the Bible. You don't see another human forcing baptism on another person in hopes that God might have extended them grace. Do you see the foolishness of your position?

And of course I disagree with you that God ONLY extends grace in a pure vacuum, only directly without any means, and that God is impotent to give his gifts and accomplish His will if means are used.

You therefore preach salvation by your works. It is either all God (sola) or it is God-plus. You have stated "sola gratia", but here you are wanting to add your "plus." Do you see your flaw yet?

I don't agree that if we go... baptize....preach therefore God is rendered impotent to save.

No one says that, Josiah. You make this up in your mind. But, you intentionally ignore "make disciples" which is very clearly in the Great Commission. God saves as He wills, when He wills. You cannot force it upon God by baptizing infants. You can't. Do you agree with that?

Indeed, I suspect that God often uses the means He commands (although He certainly doesn't have to, and obviously there's no mandate that He does).

God may choose to adopt a person anyway He wishes. You, however, are using God's capability as a means of forcing God to save via infant baptism. God may, in fact, send billions who are infant baptized to HELL because He never extended His grace in the ceremony.
Why is it so hard for you to wait until God makes the child aware of her/his being chosen and then baptize them? Don't you owe it to the child to let God male that decision and reveal it to them? Why MUST you force your will upon the child and upon God?