Baptism - Is it Innert or Effectual?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:
atpollard said:
Which is the One Baptism that saves, the Water Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

I agree with the Bible that there is one baptism, so there is no "or". See Ephesians 4:5

So do I.


So you have 3 options:

1. There is one baptism - and involves both water and the Holy Spirit, so there is no "or" (the historic, orthodox, ecumentical position)
2. There is one baptism - and it is only water, with no Holy Spirit (or Father or Son) involved
3. There is one baptism - and it involves only the Holy Spirit (so there is no baptism that involves water and your church needs to remove that tank behind the pulpit)

I think your whole issue, the entire question you ask, is nonsensical.



Back to the issue.....


I shared some of the Scriptures and just a few of the quotes from early Christians that indicate an effectual baptism.

Of course, it is a foundational/defining dogma of Baptists (and those who continue the Anabaptist invented dogmas of baptism) that Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual ritual... "worthless" to quote one here at CH.... "only an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment." But so far, no one has been willing to post the Scriptures and Christians (before that radical synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who invented the Baptist view). Perhaps they yet will?





.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, Lutherans are real Christians. For that matter, I believe that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are also real Christians. At lest to the extent that anyone is a real Christian based on church affiliation ... ultimately, Jesus decides who the real Christians are and who He never knew.

My comment was intended as a bit of an inside joke. Around this site, Paedobaptists have a tendency to emphasize the ‘traditional Church’ with a 2000 year history (of which they are all part) versus the new doctrines of the last 400 years. While generally a valid historic fact, it is employed as an attack implying that the ‘traditional beliefs’ remain unchanged from the lips of Jesus to the modern church ... which is not a historic fact ... and imply that the ‘new doctrines’ are written by men with no basis in scripture (as if we were offering the Book of Mormon). This is also inaccurate.

So I was offering a tongue in cheek challenge to those who oppose ‘Believers Baptism’ to explain exactly what it is that baptism “effectively” accomplishes. Sometimes it sounds like you (Covenant Baptists) are claiming that God works His salvation through the sacrament of baptism, and then at other times you protest when we suggest that you believe that baptism ‘effects’ the salvation of infants.

No offense was intended to anyone. The implication was that MennoSota and I were not “real Christians”, like those of you with 2000 year old Apostolic traditions.

[That said, I really would like clarification in what it is that you think Baptism “effects” since it seems to me to be a constantly changing target.]

Thank you for clarifying. I don't think anyone here thinks that you or Menno are not real Christians!

When we say baptism effects...what we mean is that God is at work bringing the benefits of the cross to us as we are baptized into the triune God's name. He promises us (this gift is for you and your children from Acts) that our sins are washed away...again because of the cross, not because of the water (Acts 22:16. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.), we receive the forgiveness of sins that Jesus won for us at the cross as well as the Holy Spirit...again found in Acts ("Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ) and we clothe ourselves in Christ just to name a few things (Galatians 3:27. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.)

As you see from those verses, man isn't doing a thing but receiving.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thank you for clarifying. I don't think anyone here thinks that you or Menno are not real Christians!

When we say baptism effects...what we mean is that God is at work bringing the benefits of the cross to us as we are baptized into the triune God's name. He promises us (this gift is for you and your children from Acts) that our sins are washed away...again because of the cross, not because of the water (Acts 22:16. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.), we receive the forgiveness of sins that Jesus won for us at the cross as well as the Holy Spirit...again found in Acts ("Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ) and we clothe ourselves in Christ just to name a few things (Galatians 3:27. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.)

As you see from those verses, man isn't doing a thing but receiving.

Does a Lutheran infant also receive those things when he/she is baptized?
Is it unreasonable to characterize those things which you described as “received” as “salvation” (for an adult)?
If the answer to both of the above questions is ‘Yes’, then is it inaccurate to say that you believe that baptism saves infants?

[Obviously, the talk of ‘magic water’ would not apply to the above. I KNOW that you don’t view baptism like casting a spell. I believe you view it more like the ‘body and blood’ ... a mystery of both the physical and spiritual co-existing in a Sacrament of God.]
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So you have 3 options:
1. There is one baptism - and involves both water and the Holy Spirit, so there is no "or" (the historic, orthodox, ecumentical position)
2. There is one baptism - and it is only water, with no Holy Spirit (or Father or Son) involved
3. There is one baptism - and it involves only the Holy Spirit (so there is no baptism that involves water and your church needs to remove that tank behind the pulpit)
I think your whole issue, the entire question you ask, is nonsensical.
A. It is always convenient to have a Lutheran decide what the available choices are for a Particular Baptist to believe. It saves me from the need to bother expressing what I ACTUALLY DO believe.

B. That you find the question of the real difference between our beliefs on Baptism “nonsensical” and only want to debate something that I do not believe, is the reason why you will never really understand why a Particular Baptist is not the same as your hypothetical straw man Anabaptist.



Back to the issue.....
I shared some of the Scriptures and just a few of the quotes from early Christians that indicate an effectual baptism.

Of course, it is a foundational/defining dogma of Baptists (and those who continue the Anabaptist invented dogmas of baptism) that Baptism is just an inert, ineffectual ritual... "worthless" to quote one here at CH.... "only an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment." But so far, no one has been willing to post the Scriptures and Christians (before that radical synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who invented the Baptist view). Perhaps they yet will?
Perhaps, but since they are not my beliefs, I will not be the one to attempt to defend them.

The problem, as I see it, is that you set up only one position that you were prepared to defend, and then also set up only one position that would be accepted to counter your position. By setting the limits of both sides of the discussion, you create a topic that has no need for anyone else but you. All other opinions are irrelevant and, as you are well aware, the counter argument that you demand any who disagrees with you defend is not defensible ... especially given the boot (more than just a thumb) on the scale tipping the discussion in your favor.

Enjoy YOUR argument. Both positions are of YOUR creation and neither is what I believe.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah said:
atpollard said:
Josiah said:
atpollard said:
Which is the One Baptism that saves, the Water Baptism or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

I agree with the Bible that there is one baptism, so there is no "or". See Ephesians 4:5


.

So do I.


then you have 3 options:

1. There is one baptism - and involves both water and the Holy Spirit, so there is no "or" (the historic, orthodox, ecumentical position)
2. There is one baptism - and it is only water, with no Holy Spirit (or Father or Son) involved
3. There is one baptism - and it involves only the Holy Spirit (so there is no baptism that involves water and your church needs to remove that tank behind the pulpit)

I think your whole issue, the entire question you ask, is nonsensical.
It is always convenient to have a Lutheran decide what the available choices are for a Particular Baptist to believe. It saves me from the need to bother expressing what I ACTUALLY DO believe.


I said nothing about what you believe. YOU asked which baptism I hold is effectual..... water baptism OR Holy Spirit baptism.

That implied to me you hold there are at least two baptisms

So I posted that I agree with the Bible that there is only one (thus no "or" or "which")

You posted that you agree with me on that. YOU said that, I didn't claim you agreed, YOU posted that you did.

Since there is no "which" or "or" because there aren't two baptisms (according to you), I gave the only logical possibilities (since you are always focused on what is and is not logical). You didn't give a fourth option. You just evaded the point.




atpollard said:
That you find the question of the real difference between our beliefs on Baptism “nonsensical”


I posted no such thing. As we all know.

I posted that IMO, you asking "WHICH...... OR" when you believe there are not two baptisms is "nonsensical." Obviously.






.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Does a Lutheran infant also receive those things when he/she is baptized?
Is it unreasonable to characterize those things which you described as “received” as “salvation” (for an adult)?
If the answer to both of the above questions is ‘Yes’, then is it inaccurate to say that you believe that baptism saves infants?

[Obviously, the talk of ‘magic water’ would not apply to the above. I KNOW that you don’t view baptism like casting a spell. I believe you view it more like the ‘body and blood’ ... a mystery of both the physical and spiritual co-existing in a Sacrament of God.]

An infant receives what God has promised and is shown through those verses I gave. Baptism saves because you are receiving what Jesus won at the cross. Not because there is water but that Jesus authorized baptism and it includes water along with God's word which are the promises in the verses I gave.

An adult can easily say that He doesn't believe in the Savior...which would not make him a candidate for baptism since He already rejects. Do you think babies so easily reject Jesus? I would think it's easier for a baby to believe than an adult and it's not like a baptism is just done without ANY scripture being read or the invocation of the triune God happening!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The opening post seems to have been forgotten. Here it is....



.


THE QUESTION: Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? A ritualistic act that God cannot use for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that God actually can accomplish something via Baptism, that God can use it for something?


In the late 16th Century, the radically synergistic Anabaptists overturned 1500 years of Christian faith by inventing a new dogma that baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that accomplishes nothing (spiritual or otherwise). They invented an entirely new and never before heard of concept that "Baptism is visible, outward proof of the person choosing Jesus as their personal Savior." In effect, they claimed that Baptism is what Christians had held Confirmation is. It was a radical idea, a brand new one, reversing 1500 years of universal Christianity.



What does SCRIPTURE say?



I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distictive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission because... well... it is meaningless, worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma.

But there are several, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at those (hopefully the program here will bring them up for you to read)...


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication.
And of course we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual, useless ritual; only a symbol.


We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all.




What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none - NOT ONE Christian prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual or symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol...

Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating an inward decision." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something.

Not until the late 16th Century.... not until the Anabaptists invented the new dogma of "Baptism Can't Do Anything" did ANY Christian agree with that view or even express it.

The Anbaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians .... it is a radical new dogma invented out of the blue by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century[/size]





.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
An infant receives what God has promised and is shown through those verses I gave. Baptism saves because you are receiving what Jesus won at the cross. Not because there is water but that Jesus authorized baptism and it includes water along with God's word which are the promises in the verses I gave.

An adult can easily say that He doesn't believe in the Savior...which would not make him a candidate for baptism since He already rejects. Do you think babies so easily reject Jesus? I would think it's easier for a baby to believe than an adult and it's not like a baptism is just done without ANY scripture being read or the invocation of the triune God happening!
Yet, so very, very, very many baptized infants have no faith as they grow and are antagonistic toward the gospel.
Has God failed? Is God a liar? Has he ignored his promise?
In many, many, many cases baptism utterly fails to save. How do you wrap your mind around that seemingly massive contradiction?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yet, so very, very, very many baptized infants have no faith as they grow and are antagonistic toward the gospel.


And so very, very, very, very many people who heard the Gospel preached have no faith and are antagonistic toward the Gospel. Does that prove that the Word is ineffectual, a "waste of time" as someone here said of baptism, "an outward symbol of a personal inner accomplishment?" No. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction? Do you forbid any to heard the Gospel because you can list a bunch of people who heard it and are antagonistic toward Christ? If not EVERYONE who sets foot in a Baptist Crusade doesn't accept Christ, do you insist God is a liar and a failure? Even though there are Scriptures that speak of faith comes by hearing, etc.?

Now, I realize that to one who holds to the false doctrines of "ONCE saved, ALWAYS saved" and "irresistable grace" this creates a question, but that's not because Scripture is wrong in what it says about Baptism only that some latter-day radical Calvinists were wrong in inventing those two false doctrines.

When my son was born, he was granted American citizenship. The USA is able to do that. Now, can he later give that up and become a citizen of China? Sure. And some do. Does that prove the USA was never able or willing to give him American citizenship?




Now, read the opening post. I listed some Scriptures and early Christians that suggest that Baptism is NOT simply an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you), "just an outward SYMBOL of an inner personal accomplishment." Indeed, some pretty significant things seem to be associated with it! Now, even at this late point, perhaps you will finally list some Scriptures and perhaps early Christians that present Baptism as an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... "worthless"..... " just an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment. Then we can compare our two lists.





.
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
The opening post seems to have been forgotten. Here it is....
Your comment...
THE QUESTION: Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? A ritualistic act that God cannot use for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that God actually can accomplish something via Baptism, that God can use it for something?
...makes no sense.

Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite?
Baptism is a command from God for those who confess faith and repentance as a covenant between God and man.
A ritualistic act that God cannot use for anything?
Foolish question. God gave Sarah a child when she had no eggs left. God gave Mary a child when she had no sperm to fertilize the egg. With God, nothing is impossible.
Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything?
Water Baptism symbolizes the work that God has done in immersing us into Christ. It is an outward expression to the body and to the world of what God has spiritually accomplished via His Holy Spirit.
Or does Scripture suggest that God actually can accomplish something via Baptism, that God can use it for something?
God can do many things through water baptism. He can encourage the body and bless the community. God can convict sinners of the need for faith and confession of sin. Since God has already saved the recipient of water baptism, there is no spiritual salvation involved, but there is great encouragement.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
And so very, very, very, very many people who heard the Gospel preached have no faith and are antagonistic toward the Gospel. Does that prove that the Word is ineffectual, a "waste of time" as someone here said of baptism, "an outward symbol of a personal inner accomplishment?" No. How do you wrap your brain around that massage contradiction? Do you forbid any to heard the Gospel because you can list a bunch of people who heard it and are antagonistic toward Christ? If not EVERYONE who sets foot in a Baptist Crusade doesn't accept Christ, do you insist God is a liar and a failure? Even though there are Scriptures that speak of faith comes by hearing, etc.?

Now, I realize that to one who holds to the false doctrines of "ONCE saved, ALWAYS saved" and "irresistable grace" this creates a question, but that's not because Scripture is wrong in what it says about Baptism only that some latter-day radical Calvinists were wrong in inventing those two false doctrines.

When my son was born, he was granted American citizenship. The USA is able to do that. Now, can he later give that up and become a citizen of China? Sure. And some do. Does that prove the USA was never able or willing to give him American citizenship?




Now, read the opening post. I listed some Scriptures and early Christians that suggest that Baptism is NOT simply an inert, ineffectual, "worthless" (to quote you), "just an outward SYMBOL of an inner personal accomplishment." Indeed, some pretty significant things seem to be associated with it! Now, even at this late point, perhaps you will finally list some Scriptures and perhaps early Christians that present Baptism as an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... "worthless"..... " just an outward symbol of an inner personal accomplishment. Then we can compare our two lists.





.
Who holds the once saved always saved view?
Does God predestine or not? Another topic, but you bring up the strawman.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yet, so very, very, very many baptized infants have no faith as they grow and are antagonistic toward the gospel.
Has God failed? Is God a liar? Has he ignored his promise?
In many, many, many cases baptism utterly fails to save. How do you wrap your mind around that seemingly massive contradiction?

So what if an infant later in life rejects God? That doesn't mean God did it wrong. It means man can reject God as the bible tells us. Just because people turn away from God doesn't mean that God didn't fulfill His promises.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
So what if an infant later in life rejects God? That doesn't mean God did it wrong. It means man can reject God as the bible tells us. Just because people turn away from God doesn't mean that God didn't fulfill His promises.
What did God actually do if the person is dead in their trespasses and sins and spends eternity in hell?
What does it say about the power of man to be able to override God's will?
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What did God actually do if the person is dead in their trespasses and sins and spends eternity in hell?
What does it say about the power of man to be able to override God's will?

If you're questioning whether man call fall from faith then take it to another thread? Josiah has worked hard to try to keep this one on topic.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
If you're questioning whether man call fall from faith then take it to another thread? Josiah has worked hard to try to keep this one on topic.
You brought it up in regard to baptism. I'm looking for clarification from you as it seems you are saying that humans can nullify the effects of baptism at a later point in their lives.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You brought it up in regard to baptism. I'm looking for clarification from you as it seems you are saying that humans can nullify the effects of baptism at a later point in their lives.

I don't think you want clarification, I think you just want to argue because you're out of arguments for the topic.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I don't think you want clarification, I think you just want to argue because you're out of arguments for the topic.
Do you not see the really big theological problem you have created in your position on baptism? You are elevating humanity and bringing God down regarding eternal issues. Your position on this topic opens up a huge can of worms for you.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
So what if an infant later in life rejects God? That doesn't mean God did it wrong. It means man can reject God as the bible tells us. Just because people turn away from God doesn't mean that God didn't fulfill His promises.
So for you who follow infant baptism, what did the baptism actually do if the baptized person can nullify the baptism at any point by exercising her/his will to reject the faith God gave them?
This fits with the topic as I wonder what baptism actually, effectually, does if humans can nullify what God does?
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Now, I realize that to one who holds to the false doctrines of "ONCE saved, ALWAYS saved" and "irresistable grace" this creates a question, but that's not because Scripture is wrong in what it says about Baptism only that some latter-day radical Calvinists were wrong in inventing those two false doctrines.
You go too far, sir, in calling Irresistible Grace a “false doctrine”. That is a charge of heresy leveled against all who hold that belief.

[Jhn 6:44 NASB] 44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Did Jesus lie when he said the father DRAWS? (I know you know everything, but what does the Greek word draw mean and how is it used in other scriptures?). Did Jesus lie when he claimed he would raise up those the father drew to him because he would only raise up those that did not resist the draw and did not ‘jump out of God’s hand’ later?

[Jhn 10:26-30 NASB] 26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one."
Did Jesus exaggerate when he said that his sheep would follow him ... a resistible draw means that only some of His sheep will follow and others will resist. Did he lie when Jesus said that the Father gave them to him? A resistible draw means that the Father led them to the Son, but the sheep decided who they wanted to belong to.

[Rom 8:29-30 NASB] 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Did God really predestine?
Did God really justify “those He called”, or only those that God called who did not RESIST?
Did God really glorify “those he justified”, or only those that God Justified who did not RESIST?


Your accusation is insulting and unjustified. You may disagree, but to call “Perseverance of the Saints” (the real doctrine behind the slur “Once Saved, Always Saved”) and “Irresistible Grace” both “false doctrines” is to call God and Scripture a ‘false’ as well.

Boo, hiss.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,653
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So for you who follow infant baptism, what did the baptism actually do if the baptized person can nullify the baptism at any point by exercising her/his will to reject the faith God gave them?
This fits with the topic as I wonder what baptism actually, effectually, does if humans can nullify what God does?

What happens when an adult is brought to faith during a church service and then turns away from God? It's the same thing. Man has the ability to reject God and has had that ability since Adam decided he wanted to be his own god. It does not mean that God failed to do His job of being merciful and gracious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom