Does Jesus Hate Children?

[Lamb]

So you make an assumption, but there is no direct statement about children. Is that accurate?

The assumption that there might have been children (infants) in a household is stronger than the assumption that there were none if you look at the corporate nature of the household in biblical times.

The Israelites and the Jews did not have our modern belief that the household was mom, dad and a kid or two. If you research more you'll find out that households included grandparents, grandchildren, servants and their children, slaves and their children, etc... You can start by looking at Genesis 46:5-27 where Jacob left Bathsheeba with his family that amounted to 70 people.

 

[MennoSota]

The assumption that there might have been children (infants) in a household is stronger than the assumption that there were none if you look at the corporate nature of the household in biblical times.

The Israelites and the Jews did not have our modern belief that the household was mom, dad and a kid or two. If you research more you'll find out that households included grandparents, grandchildren, servants and their children, slaves and their children, etc... You can start by looking at Genesis 46:5-27 where Jacob left Bathsheeba with his family that amounted to 70 people.

You make an assumption. Neither you nor I can make a definative statement, however, nowhere in scripture do we find a description of infant baptism. All you have is inference.
I accept that you believe the inference can be made. I am just establishing that you are inferring children into the verse.

 

[Josiah]

You make an assumption.

So did you - a MUCH bigger one.

But while you have earlier ridiculed people who made (MUCH smaller, MORE likely) assumptions, now - at last - you admit, so do you.

Neither you nor I can make a definative statement

There goes your entire (frankly, silly) apologetic: The "every baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT was of ADULTS who FIRST chose Jesus and made adequate public testimony of such and thus canceled the divine prohibition."

All you have is (very unlikely) speculation.

nowhere in scripture do we find a description of infant baptism.

No one has claimed otherwise....


1. Your whole premise is absurd and frankly one you yourself refuse in EVERY situation EXCEPT Baptism. Since when are we to discard what the Bible teaches and in place of that, in lieu of that, as a substitution of that, rather use the VERY few examples of things we see done in the NT, forbidden to do otherwise and mandated to do the same? You don't do that, so why should we? Here you are posting on the internet - where is that exampled in the NT? Where are youth pastors and youth groups? Where are websites and powerpoint? Where is celebrating Communion 4 times a year by passing around to everyone present a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice? Where are seminaries in the NT? Where do you see baptismal tanks behind a curtain in a church? See.... you reject your whole premise, you don't accept your mandated rubric and apologetic - yet insist that everyone else "buy" it but ONLY in ONE exclusive, singular, individual matter (Baptism) and NOTHING else. Think about that....


2. Where do you see blonde haired, blue-eyed folks baptized in the Bible? Where do you see Japanese or Native Australians baptized in the Bible? And where do you see a Gentile performing the baptism? Where do you see a baptism performed in the USA? See..... you don't prohibit things we never see done in the Bible..... and yet your entirely apologetic rests on what you don't believe or do.

 

[atpollard]

Okay.... But that's not the issue.

Yes it is.
Is is not your issue with the Anabaptists, but is is, and has always been, my issue.
It cannot be argued by any reasonable person that the baby repented at the time of its baptism, so there WAS a baptism without repentance when scripture says "repent and be baptized" [two actions linked by "and" (kai)].

 

[Josiah]

Yes it is.
Is is not your issue with the Anabaptists, but is is, and has always been, my issue.
It cannot be argued by any reasonable person that the baby repented at the time of its baptism, so there WAS a baptism without repentance when scripture says "repent and be baptized" [two actions linked by "and" (kai)].

No verse says, "Repent at the time of or prior to the time of baptism."


I agree with your point of CO-requisites (that's the traditional baptism view rejected by the Anabaptists) - yes, lots of things are important and associated (the sole function of the word "kai"). Where I disagree is that "kai" mandates a certain chronological sequence - a mandated chronological order of all important things - and a prohibition to do them otherwise. I think you will find in a study of the word "kai" that that's not at all its function.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Back to the issue that when God blesses, we must assume that all children are EXCLUDED because God generally doesn't love or care or bless children...




- Josiah



.[/QUOTE [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]....I don't have to assume that too do I?
(An attempt at a joke)

Jesus shows us what you know and is the truth and without contradiction, so I really don't want to assume that children aren't blessed when He says they are so much more than merely blessed.

So this whole thing is over baptism age? Is that the jist of it?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

You make an assumption. Neither you nor I can make a definative statement, however, nowhere in scripture do we find a description of infant baptism. All you have is inference.
I accept that you believe the inference can be made. I am just establishing that you are inferring children into the verse.

You are correct that we don't know all the details, but your version is less reliable when you take into account historical accuracy of what "household" meant.

 

[MennoSota]

You are correct that we don't know all the details, but your version is less reliable when you take into account historical accuracy of what "household" meant.

My version is that those to whom God granted grace were baptized. I just don't assume that household equals "universal household." In that case do we add pets and neighborhood kids who slept over?
No one is disputing that households would have a variety of age range.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus shows us what you know and is the truth and without contradiction, so I really don't want to assume that children aren't blessed when He says they are so much more than merely blessed.

So this whole thing is over baptism age? Is that the jist of it?

Technically, no. In a thread about Baptism, a point was made that we should ASSUME that children are excluded.... I found that remarkable, and to ME I think we probably should assume that children are INCLUDED (unless told they aren't), because it seems to me, Jesus has a particularly embracing view of children. This thread is about if Jesus tended to exclude children (thinking little of them) or include children (loving them, prehaps even especially).


Yes, the Anabaptist view of Baptism embraces especially two things, they are known as Anti-paedobaptism (anti-children baptism) and Credobaptism (Believer baptism - that the person must FIRST choose Jesus as their personal Savior and adequately and publicly prove that - then the prohibition against baptism is lifted). Often Anabaptists add more prerequisites, too (such as repentance, education/intelligence, etc.). But yes, essential to it is the view that we should ASSUME children are excluded from God's heart, blessings and work.



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

My version is that those to whom God granted grace were baptized. I just don't assume that household equals "universal household." In that case do we add pets and neighborhood kids who slept over?
No one is disputing that households would have a variety of age range.

Scripture does not show that the households ONLY baptized the adults and there is no such proof you'll ever find. But we know that households included infants as a most likely scenario. We also know that God uses means to provide for all His children, not just adults.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Technically, no. In a thread about Baptism, a point was made that we should ASSUME that children are excluded.... I found that remarkable, and to ME I think we probably should assume that children are INCLUDED (unless told they aren't), because it seems to me, Jesus has a particularly embracing view of children. This thread is about if Jesus tended to exclude children (thinking little of them) or include children (loving them, prehaps even especially).


Yes, the Anabaptist view of Baptism embraces especially two things, they are known as Anti-paedobaptism (anti-children baptism) and Credobaptism (Believer baptism - that the person must FIRST choose Jesus as their personal Savior and adequately and publicly prove that - then the prohibition against baptism is lifted). Often Anabaptists add more prerequisites, too (such as repentance, education/intelligence, etc.). But yes, essential to it is the view that we should ASSUME children are excluded from God's heart, blessings and work.



- Josiah

That's one hell of an assumption for any believer I would think.

Thanks for the clarification.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Scripture does not show that the households ONLY baptized the adults and there is no such proof you'll ever find. But we know that households included infants as a most likely scenario. We also know that God uses means to provide for all His children, not just adults.

No one is arguing against that. The question remains: What is the purpose of baptizing those who cannot express that God has given them the gift of faith?
There is essentially no difference in baptizing an infant as there is in walking down the street with a bucket of water and a toilet brush, sprinkling anyone who goes by and yelling out, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!" The baptism is meaningless to the infant since it does not provide regeneration.

 

[popsthebuilder]

No one is arguing against that. The question remains: What is the purpose of baptizing those who cannot express that God has given them the gift of faith?
There is essentially no difference in baptizing an infant as there is in walking down the street with a bucket of water and a toilet brush, sprinkling anyone who goes by and yelling out, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!" The baptism is meaningless to the infant since it does not provide regeneration.

Do you think the innocent or ignorant will be held accountable for sin?

If all are judged by their works yet an infant does no knowing works, then why would they need to be baptised or not?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

Do you think the innocent or ignorant will be held accountable for sin?

If all are judged by their works yet an infant does no knowing works, then why would they need to be baptised or not?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

There are no innocent or ignorant people. The Psalmist tells us we are sinners at conception.
The better question is: Will God give the gift of grace to a child who dies without having the capacity to repent?
King David gives us incite when he speaks about his infant son who died and states that he will one day see his son again.
I believe that God provides the gift of grace to infants who are aborted or die without the ability to repent. This includes people God chose to create without physical capacity to repent.
Therefore, infant baptism is a useless practice created by church dogma, not biblical mandate.
Grace is greater than all our sin and only God decides to whom He will extend grace. If God does not extend grace to you...you will die in your sins and be judged by your corrupt works. You will fall short and spend eternity in hell as justice demands.

 

[Josiah]

The question remains: What is the purpose of baptizing those who cannot express that God has given them the gift of faith?

What would be the purpose of teaching those who cannot express that God has given them the gift of faith?

Why do you limit what God can do to your knowing the PURPOSE of it? If God doesn't give you an answer (one that you consider valid and adequate), does that mean God can't have a purpose and is rendered impotent by it?

Why do you demand that God answers all your questions, and if He doesn't, He's impotent to use something for His purposes?

 

[Josiah]

Do you think the innocent or ignorant will be held accountable for sin?

If all are judged by their works yet an infant does no knowing works, then why would they need to be baptised or not?

"The wages of sin is death." Want to know if God holds children accountable for their sin? Just note if any of them ever die. If God didn't hold humans under the age of X accountable, none under that age would ever die. Kinda simple.

 

[popsthebuilder]

"The wages of sin is death." Want to know if God holds children accountable for their sin? Just note if any of them ever die. If God didn't hold humans under the age of X accountable, none under that age would ever die. Kinda simple.

What?

All die.

It is the second death that matters and the one which is not accounted to the ignorant or innocent.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

There are no innocent or ignorant people. The Psalmist tells us we are sinners at conception.
The better question is: Will God give the gift of grace to a child who dies without having the capacity to repent?
King David gives us incite when he speaks about his infant son who died and states that he will one day see his son again.
I believe that God provides the gift of grace to infants who are aborted or die without the ability to repent. This includes people God chose to create without physical capacity to repent.
Therefore, infant baptism is a useless practice created by church dogma, not biblical mandate.
Grace is greater than all our sin and only God decides to whom He will extend grace. If God does not extend grace to you...you will die in your sins and be judged by your corrupt works. You will fall short and spend eternity in hell as justice demands.

An infant has nothing to repent of or turn from without the knowledge of sin which is through the written law and the hands of men....not children.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

An infant has nothing to repent of or turn from without the knowledge of sin which is through the written law and the hands of men....not children.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Wrong. Your ignorance of your own sin is no excuse. Sin is determined by God and His law, not by our interpretations.
We will all stand before God, condemned by our corruption and reliant solely upon the mercy and grace of God. If God chooses not to extend mercy and grace then we will be justly condemned.
However..."There is now, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Jesus gift of grace is our only hope.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Wrong. Your ignorance of your own sin is no excuse. Sin is determined by God and His law, not by our interpretations.
We will all stand before God, condemned by our corruption and reliant solely upon the mercy and grace of God. If God chooses not to extend mercy and grace then we will be justly condemned.
However..."There is now, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
Jesus gift of grace is our only hope.

If a child is unable to sin or understand then for GOD to destroy them eternally or worse; torture them eternally would be wholly amoral and against the will of a benevolent merciful all knowing GOD.

I DO NOT WORSHIP SUCH.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk