Infant Baptism

[Josiah]

you have not changed that in the scripture repentance precedes baptism

1. Scripture says "AND." Repent AND be baptize..... Your whole premise, your entire position, rests on deleting the word "and" in Scripture then simply substituting a word that helps support your personal opinion (you choose the word "THEN"). All you have shown is that you don't like what Scripture says and feel free to appoint yourself to change what it says.

2. The word is "AND" (Kai in koine Greek). It is the most generic, general, non-specific connector word in the Greek language. In Greek (as in English and every other language known to me), "and" does not mandate order. What you desire to do is violate very simple, elementary, basic grammar so as to make "and" the wrong word for God to have used here and correct God by insisting He should have said "THEN."

3. Even if examples mattered (and they don't), you cannot show that in every example of Baptism recorded in the Bible, the receivers first repented. Thus, even if examples are normative, you'll fail to show that it supports your position that Scripture is wrong is saying "and" when it should say "then."

one cannot be baptised without repentance of sin

We realize that's YOUR personal opinion. Fine.... but what you've so powerfully proven, Scripture says no such thing.





Pax


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

What did John the Baptist say to the people? Was it not to repent and then he baptised them? Babies cannot repent nior can they confess anything or accept the kingdom or Jesus, so while a nice ceremionmy not exactly what was stated in the bible

 

[Alithis]

What did John the Baptist say to the people? Was it not to repent and then he baptised them? Babies cannot repent nor can they confess anything or accept the kingdom or Jesus, so while a nice ceremony not exactly what was stated in the bible

yes but ..if you add something to the bible for long enough and ignore whats already there .doesn't it make it true .. ? haha NOPE ..

 

[Josiah]

What did John the Baptist say to the people? Was it not to repent and then he baptised them? Babies cannot repent nior can they confess anything or accept the kingdom or Jesus, so while a nice ceremionmy not exactly what was stated in the bible

John was doing a JEWISH baptism of repentance. I think we're discussing CHRISTIAN baptism?

I agree that babies can't do much (well, sleep and poop). So in terms of the LAW, they can only disobey. But I don't think that babies render God impotent or the Gospel irrelevant; I don't personally believe that God is impotent unless WE help Him out, unless WE have attained a certain IQ or age, unless WE are a certain race or color or gender or nationality, unless WE generate a certain emotion, unless WE do x,y,z (so that SELF is the Savior - at least in part - rather than Jesus). I think that while a person may utter words and put water on the person, the actions of that person (uttering syllibles and placing water) is not the issue, I think God's grace, God's mercy, God's love, God's forgiveness, God's grace is the issue.

Another thing.... the Bible states that NO ONE can say "Jesus is Lord" (come to faith). NO ONE. I doesn't say, "Only those who have attained the age of X can say...." Or, "only those who have an IQ of at least X can say...." Or, "only those who have learned x,y,z and understand them can say...." It says NO ONE. I believe the Holy Spirit GIVES faith, GIVES life..... and God can do so with any, I reject that God is impotent unless and until WE become savable by what WE do and accomplish and feel - our intelligence or knowledge or emotions or race or gender or color or..... A 45 year old German male with an IQ of 300, 4 Ph.D.'s and who has memorized all the words of the Bible CANNOT say "Jesus is Lord" - come to faith. Faith is "THE GIFT OF GOD" the Bible says. An African American baby girl with an IQ of 60 and no education at all CANNOT say "Jesus is Lord" - come to faith. Faith is "the gift of God" the Bible says. I believe God saves. I believe God loves, justified, grants faith. I belive that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide are GOD'S doing. And IMO, God is not rendered impotent by babies. By believe there.

Now, I don't deny that faith - knowledge - repentance - obedience - love - these are all inter-related and all mandated, I just reject that 1) God is rendered impotent to save unless WE FIRST perform certain things, jump through certain hoops, essentially saving ourselves (partly, at least). And (to the point of discussion) that there is any mandate in Scripture that we are forbidden, prohibited from baptizing someone unless FIRST they have repented and/or said the 'sinner's prayer' and/or responded to an altar call and/or attending X under of Bible studies and/or attained the age of X and/or have at least the IQ of X. This "God PLUS ME" approach is exactly what Luther and Calvin "protested." This "God PLUS ME" rejection is what makes a Protestant, well..... Protestant.... this mixing/blending of Law and Gospel, of Jesus and self, this confusion of God's grace with our merit is EXACTLY what caused Luther and Calvin to protest. YES - the saved are to be HOLY, PERFECT, LOVING, REPENTANT!!! Absolutely! But no, being holy, perfect, loving, repentant is not what makes us saved (rendering Jesus irrelevant). As a Protestant, I've very uncomfortable with this "YOU GOTTA....." inserted into the Gospel, so that justification actually hinges on ME - MY age, MY intelligence, MY knowledge, MY righteousness, MY emotions/feelings, MY obedience.... "Jesus PLUS" is the thing Luther and Calvin protested against. "God's grace PLUS your ______" is the very thing Protestants protest; rejecting and protesting that is what makes us Protestant.


IMO, the Command (not suggestion, lol) is to go and make disciples - baptizing and teaching. Until I can find the verse that says, "But NOT - listen NOT - NOT unless they FIRST have attained the age of X or the IQ of X, NOT unless they have FIRST said the sinner's prayer or responded to an altar call, NOT unless they first have enough of a feeling of _________ - you are forbidden to teach and baptize them!!!" Until I see that in Scripture, I am uncomfortable putting up road blocks, limitations, prohibitions where God did not. See my perspective?


Yes, one could say, "But nowhere does it say to baptize and teach specifically CHILDREN" and I agree..... but then it doesn't specifically say to baptize and teach Americans or Germans or Asians or Indians either.... or ONLY those over the age of X or of an IQ over X or ..... Yes, one could say, "you have no SPECIFIC command to baptize and teach all ages" and I agree.... but then we have no prohibition from baptizing and teaching people above or below any certain age either. AND.... going back to the original post, we see that the early church, the early Christians CLEARLY understood the great commission to including children and infants, they didn't understand some UNSTATED prohibition. Jesus said, "Love one another." Now, you could argue that doesn't specifically state "your wife" and so you shouldn't love your wife because it doesn't specifically say "YOUR WIFE." Or you could say, "I don't have to love those over the age of X because Jesus didn't specifically say "of all ages". Well..... we are told to go.... make disciples...... baptize...... teach....... I can't find anything that FORBID us to teach and baptize those under the age of X, and I don't buy that if commands don't have restrictions, we can appoint self to make them, especially as a dogma or mandate.


See my perspective? (okay if you don't share it, obviously, lol)



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

yes but ..if you add something to the bible for long enough

As some for nearly 500 years have done by adding, "But you may baptize and teach ONLY those over the age of X - you are forbidden to baptize and teach any under that age!" Or "All must REPENT and THEN, after that, you may baptize them!" You mean those things that Scripture nowhere says but for some 500 years, a small minority of Christians have stated?




.

 

[Alithis]

John was doing a JEWISH baptism of repentance. I think we're discussing CHRISTIAN baptism?

I agree that babies can't do much (well, sleep and poop). So in terms of the LAW, they can only disobey. But I don't think that babies render God impotent or the Gospel irrelevant; I don't personally believe that God is impotent unless WE help Him out, unless WE have attained a certain IQ or age, unless WE are a certain race or color or gender or nationality, unless WE generate a certain emotion, unless WE do x,y,z (so that SELF is the Savior - at least in part - rather than Jesus). I think that while a person may utter words and put water on the person, the actions of that person (uttering syllibles and placing water) is not the issue, I think God's grace, God's mercy, God's love, God's forgiveness, God's grace is the issue. Another thing.... the Bible states that NO ONE can say "Jesus is Lord" (come to faith). NO ONE. I doesn't say, "Only those who have attained the age of X can say...." Or, "only those who have an IQ of at least X can say...." Or, "only those who have learned x,y,z and understand them can say...." It says NO ONE. I believe the Holy Spirit GIVES faith, GIVES life..... and God can do so with any, I reject that God is impotent unless and until WE become savable by what WE do and accomplish - our intelligence or knowledge or emotions or race or gender or color or.....

Now, I don't deny that faith - knowledge - repentance - obedience - love - these are all inter-related and all mandated, I just reject that 1) God is rendered impotent to save unless WE FIRST perform certain things, jump through certain hoops, essentially saving ourselves (partly, at least). And (to the point of discussion) that there is any mandate in Scripture that we are forbidden, prohibited from baptizing someone unless FIRST they have repented and/or said the 'sinner's prayer' and/or responded to an altar call and/or attending X under of Bible studies and/or attained the age of X and/or have at least the IQ of X. This "God PLUS ME" approach is exactly what Luther and Calvin "protested." This "God PLUS ME" rejection is what makes a Protestant, well..... Protestant.... this mixing/blending of Law and Gospel, of Jesus and self, this confusion of God's grace with our merit is EXACTLY what caused Luther and Calvin to protest. YES - the saved are to be HOLY, PERFECT, LOVING, REPENTANT!!! Absolutely! But no, being holy, perfect, loving, repentant is not what makes us saved (rendering Jesus irrelevant).

IMO, the Command (not suggestion, lol) is to go and make disciples - baptizing and teaching. Until I can find the verse that says, "But NOT - listen NOT - unless they FIRST have attained the age of X or the IQ of X, NOT unless they have FIRST said the sinner's prayer or responded to an altar call!!!" Then I am uncomfortable putting up road blocks, limitations, prohibitions where God never did. Yes, one could say, "But nowhere does it say to baptize and teach specifically CHILDREN" and I agree..... but then it doesn't specifically say to baptize and teach Americans or Germans or Asians or Indians either.... .. Yes, one could say, "you have no SPECIFIC command to baptize and teach all ages" and I agree.... but then we have no prohibition from baptizing and teaching people above or below any certain age either. AND.... going back to the original post, we see that the early church, the early Christians CLEARLY understood the great commission to including children and infants, they didn't understand some UNSTATED prohibition.

See my perspective?



Pax


- Josiah

as with many or the things you say , you base them on "your opinion" & what you believe or don't believe according to your own reasoning . base it on the word of God alone regardless of your opinion ,so that your opinion and mind will be renewed and conformed to the word of God instead of attempting to conform the word of God to our opinions.

you say you don't believe God is rendered impotent in regard to the salvation of children .. and your correct but i say that NOT based on MY opinion but based on what the word states . for if the unbelieving spouse of a believer is sanctified(set apart) for marriage by the believing spouse then the children are all sanctified (set apart) by the the believing spouse . so they are not "heathen or illegitimate. but being set apart does not mean saved -but God is able .

however in the scripture the precise command is to repent and be baptised .the child of no comprehension cannot do this ,as you have already agreed . so "if " they have beep baptised as an infant it means nothing . and if they have been told they are "saved due to infant baptism then they are being lied to as the bible NEVER states that to be the case . IF however they are true believer they wil have NO problem with this knowledge but wil do what all TRUE believers do .. they will ,upon knowledge of the command .. OBEY it . becaseu the lord JEsus said . "IF you LOVE ME you will OBEY .. "


then you say "IMO, the Command (not suggestion, lol) is to go and make disciples - baptizing and teaching. Until I can find the verse that says, "But NOT - listen NOT - unless they FIRST have attained the age of X or the IQ of X, NOT unless they have FIRST said the sinner's prayer or responded to an altar call!!!" -but here you contradict the scripture by your OPINION .so we must reject ether your opinion or the scriptures . because the very act of being baptized is the first outer evident act of a repentant heart . the unrepentant DON'T get baptised . if they do it means nothing for they are having it done to them from a disobedient stance having not obeyed the command to "repent" -you must never imply that God accepted those who remains disobedient to him. he NEVER says so.

and you say :"Then I am uncomfortable putting up road blocks, limitations, prohibitions where God never did. Yes, one could say, "But nowhere does it say to baptize and teach specifically CHILDREN" and I agree..... Good you agree .

and you say "but then it doesn't specifically say to baptize and teach Americans or Germans or Asians or Indians either...." here you contradict the scriptures you yourself promoted of making disciples of ALL nations so its makes this piece of argument null and void . or ONLY those over the age of X or of an IQ over X or .....

and you then say "Yes, one could say, "you have no SPECIFIC command to baptize and teach all ages" and I agree.... but then we have no prohibition from baptizing and teaching people above or below any certain age either. " but here again it is self contradictory and goes beyond common sense ..you cannot teach a baby below a certain age and as the baby is before the age of understanding and has no consciousness of sin , from what then is it repenting in order for you to baptise it ? So why would the scripture give a directive to NOT baptize babies when it has already said we must repent and be baptized (BOTH) -it does not need to give a directive for we already know by common sense that we canot teach a bay such things . no one is prohibiting you from doing it -but to tel a person they are saved becaseu they wee baptized as a baby ..is simply deceiving them into a false hope .
once they reach the age of understanding (which is undefined except by the arrival of 'shame") then the gospel must be explained ,sin must be repented of and the person must turn and obey God . none are exempt .

then you say " AND.... going back to the original post, we see that the early church, the early Christians CLEARLY understood the great commission to including children and infants, they didn't understand some UNSTATED prohibition. " - but this is purely your opinion .- the church of the book of acts preached the gospel of repentance for the forgivness of sins and baptized the repentant . not the unrepentant . you cannot make a definitive statement based on what is NOT in the scriptures to one side or the other of any argument . this is why i agree that the bible does not forbid baby baptisms ..nor does it tell us to perform them .
but it DOES cleary state -that to be saved - we must repent and be baptised and you will recieve the holy Ghost (the spirit of LIfe ) not be baptised and remain unrepentant . so again.. based NOT on my opinion but solely on the scriptures ..to tell a person they are saved because they were baptised as a baby- is a very deceptive lie which the bible in NO WAY validates .it opposes even the implication.

 

[Josiah]

however in the scripture the precise command is to repent and be baptised .

Correct (thus you are agreeing with my point). It's not, "repent THEN be baptize."

the very act of being baptized is the first outer evident act of a repentant heart

You keep repeating your opinion but with nothing in Scripture that so states. You have all your opinions..... to "support" your prohibitions and divine limitations.... but they are YOURS, not Scriptures.

So why would the scripture give a directive to NOT baptize babies when it has already said we must repent and be baptized

Again, the single (isolated) verse you keep ripping out actually says, "repent AND be baptized" (this to a specific situation). You don't seem to notice the word is AND, you demand to change it to the word "THEN." You seem to be aware that "and" does not mandate (or even imply order) but you just don't care, you just ignore the word you keep posted and substitute the word "THEN."

we already know by common sense

..., an admission that GOD says no such thing. YOU have designated that God is subject to YOUR "common sense." So, the Bible doesn't matter...... the words in Scripture don't matter ..... it's YOUR declaration of your "common sense" that matters.

once they reach the age of understanding

1. Would you please quote all the Scriptures where "age of accountability" appear? Or is this too God being subject to YOUR concept of what is "common sense," God being subject to your own opinions?

2. Please quote where Scripture states, "but thou canst NOT baptize and teach those under the age of accountability."

you cannot back a definitive statement based on what is NOT in the scriptures to one side or the other of any argument

That's your whole premise.... you are condemning the entirely of your argument. The Bible says "and" not "then." You have admitted that your positions is based NOT on what the Bible says but on YOUR declaration of what is "common sense." I've ask for this prohibition you are insisting on.... and I've given up, because while you insist we must act based on clear Scripture, you have nothing..... and you've admitted so, you stated that it's NOT what Scripture says but rather what it does not - it's based on YOUR sense that YOUR opinion is "common sense" and thus just trumps Scripture.

repent and be baptised ..and you will recive the holy Ghost

Try reading what you quote. Notice the word is "and" not "then."




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

Correct (thus you are agreeing with my point). It's not, "repent THEN be baptize."









You keep repeating your opinion but with nothing in Scripture that so states. You have all your opinions..... to "support" your prohibitions and divine limitations.... but they are YOURS, not Scriptures.






Again, the single (isolated) verse you keep ripping out actually says, "repent AND be baptized" (this to a specific situation). You don't seem to notice the word is AND, you demand to change it to the word "THEN." You seem to be aware that "and" does not mandate (or even imply order) but you just don't care, you just ignore the word you keep posted and substitute the word "THEN."







..., an admission that GOD says no such thing. YOU have designated that God is subject to YOUR "common sense." So, the Bible doesn't matter...... the words in Scripture don't matter ..... it's YOUR declaration of your "common sense" that matters.








1. Would you please quote all the Scriptures where "age of accountability" appear? Or is this too God being subject to YOUR concept of what is "common sense," God being subject to your own opinions?

2. Please quote where Scripture states, "but thou canst NOT baptize and teach those under the age of accountability."








That's your whole premise.... you are condemning the entirely of your argument. The Bible says "and" not "then." You have admitted that your positions is based NOT on what the Bible says but on YOUR declaration of what is "common sense." I've ask for this prohibition you are insisting on.... and I've given up, because while you insist we must act based on clear Scripture, you have nothing..... and you've admitted so, you stated that it's NOT what Scripture says but rather what it does not - it's based on YOUR sense that YOUR opinion is "common sense" and thus just trumps Scripture.







Try reading what you quote. Notice the word is "and" not "then."




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

ok you didn't read my post very well at all did you .you just parroted some things i already said and again -changed nothing refuted nothing.

infant baptism is not taught in the scripture for the simple reason that a baby cannot be taught to repent ..is not conscious of sin and when they become conscious of sin they wil need to repent and be baptised .
and again the point is .. to tell a person they are saved becaseu they were baptised as a baby - is a lie . Don't do it . it does not agree with Gods word . do not impose opinion over the word of God .

and vs then..word games do not invalidate the word of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If one dislikes infant baptism then do not have your own infant children baptised. Of course choosing to do so is wicked. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and for the incorporation of the one baptised into the body of Christ. Baptism saves those who are baptised not by washing away bodily oils and dirt but by cleansing the consciences of the faithful. It is what holy scripture teaches christians to do.

'You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

Jesus said to them, 'And I will ask you a question, just one; answer me and I will tell you my authority for acting like this. John's baptism, what was its origin, heavenly or human? Answer me that.' (Mark 11:29-30)

You cannot have forgotten that all of us, when we were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death. So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father's glorious power, we too should begin living a new life. If we have been joined to him by dying a death like his, so we shall be by a resurrection like his; realising that our former self was crucified with him, so that the self which belonged to sin should be destroyed and we should be freed from the slavery of sin. (Romans 6:3-6)
​

 

[psalms 91]

John was doing a JEWISH baptism of repentance. I think we're discussing CHRISTIAN baptism?

I agree that babies can't do much (well, sleep and poop). So in terms of the LAW, they can only disobey. But I don't think that babies render God impotent or the Gospel irrelevant; I don't personally believe that God is impotent unless WE help Him out, unless WE have attained a certain IQ or age, unless WE are a certain race or color or gender or nationality, unless WE generate a certain emotion, unless WE do x,y,z (so that SELF is the Savior - at least in part - rather than Jesus). I think that while a person may utter words and put water on the person, the actions of that person (uttering syllibles and placing water) is not the issue, I think God's grace, God's mercy, God's love, God's forgiveness, God's grace is the issue.

Another thing.... the Bible states that NO ONE can say "Jesus is Lord" (come to faith). NO ONE. I doesn't say, "Only those who have attained the age of X can say...." Or, "only those who have an IQ of at least X can say...." Or, "only those who have learned x,y,z and understand them can say...." It says NO ONE. I believe the Holy Spirit GIVES faith, GIVES life..... and God can do so with any, I reject that God is impotent unless and until WE become savable by what WE do and accomplish and feel - our intelligence or knowledge or emotions or race or gender or color or..... A 45 year old German male with an IQ of 300, 4 Ph.D.'s and who has memorized all the words of the Bible CANNOT say "Jesus is Lord" - come to faith. Faith is "THE GIFT OF GOD" the Bible says. An African American baby girl with an IQ of 60 and no education at all CANNOT say "Jesus is Lord" - come to faith. Faith is "the gift of God" the Bible says. I believe God saves. I believe God loves, justified, grants faith. I belive that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide are GOD'S doing. And IMO, God is not rendered impotent by babies. By believe there.

Now, I don't deny that faith - knowledge - repentance - obedience - love - these are all inter-related and all mandated, I just reject that 1) God is rendered impotent to save unless WE FIRST perform certain things, jump through certain hoops, essentially saving ourselves (partly, at least). And (to the point of discussion) that there is any mandate in Scripture that we are forbidden, prohibited from baptizing someone unless FIRST they have repented and/or said the 'sinner's prayer' and/or responded to an altar call and/or attending X under of Bible studies and/or attained the age of X and/or have at least the IQ of X. This "God PLUS ME" approach is exactly what Luther and Calvin "protested." This "God PLUS ME" rejection is what makes a Protestant, well..... Protestant.... this mixing/blending of Law and Gospel, of Jesus and self, this confusion of God's grace with our merit is EXACTLY what caused Luther and Calvin to protest. YES - the saved are to be HOLY, PERFECT, LOVING, REPENTANT!!! Absolutely! But no, being holy, perfect, loving, repentant is not what makes us saved (rendering Jesus irrelevant). As a Protestant, I've very uncomfortable with this "YOU GOTTA....." inserted into the Gospel, so that justification actually hinges on ME - MY age, MY intelligence, MY knowledge, MY righteousness, MY emotions/feelings, MY obedience.... "Jesus PLUS" is the thing Luther and Calvin protested against. "God's grace PLUS your ______" is the very thing Protestants protest; rejecting and protesting that is what makes us Protestant.


IMO, the Command (not suggestion, lol) is to go and make disciples - baptizing and teaching. Until I can find the verse that says, "But NOT - listen NOT - NOT unless they FIRST have attained the age of X or the IQ of X, NOT unless they have FIRST said the sinner's prayer or responded to an altar call, NOT unless they first have enough of a feeling of _________ - you are forbidden to teach and baptize them!!!" Until I see that in Scripture, I am uncomfortable putting up road blocks, limitations, prohibitions where God did not. See my perspective?


Yes, one could say, "But nowhere does it say to baptize and teach specifically CHILDREN" and I agree..... but then it doesn't specifically say to baptize and teach Americans or Germans or Asians or Indians either.... or ONLY those over the age of X or of an IQ over X or ..... Yes, one could say, "you have no SPECIFIC command to baptize and teach all ages" and I agree.... but then we have no prohibition from baptizing and teaching people above or below any certain age either. AND.... going back to the original post, we see that the early church, the early Christians CLEARLY understood the great commission to including children and infants, they didn't understand some UNSTATED prohibition. Jesus said, "Love one another." Now, you could argue that doesn't specifically state "your wife" and so you shouldn't love your wife because it doesn't specifically say "YOUR WIFE." Or you could say, "I don't have to love those over the age of X because Jesus didn't specifically say "of all ages". Well..... we are told to go.... make disciples...... baptize...... teach....... I can't find anything that FORBID us to teach and baptize those under the age of X, and I don't buy that if commands don't have restrictions, we can appoint self to make them, especially as a dogma or mandate.


See my perspective? (okay if you don't share it, obviously, lol)



Pax


- Josiah




.

But almost all the promises of God are conditional, we are not automatically saved, we have to do something in orde rto be saved. We are not automatically sinless once we are saved, we have a chioice, everything with the gospel requires faith and obedience. The gospel is good news for those who love Him and accept Him. You will notice that a lot of words dealing with being in the kingdom end in eth. eth denotes continual action, not a one and done thing

 

[Alithis]

If one dislikes infant baptism then do not have your own infant children baptised. Of course choosing to do so is wicked. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and for the incorporation of the one baptised into the body of Christ. Baptism saves those who are baptised not by washing away bodily oils and dirt but by cleansing the consciences of the faithful. It is what holy scripture teaches christians to do.

'You must repent and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

Jesus said to them, 'And I will ask you a question, just one; answer me and I will tell you my authority for acting like this. John's baptism, what was its origin, heavenly or human? Answer me that.' (Mark 11:29-30)

You cannot have forgotten that all of us, when we were baptised into Christ Jesus, were baptised into his death. So by our baptism into his death we were buried with him, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the Father's glorious power, we too should begin living a new life. If we have been joined to him by dying a death like his, so we shall be by a resurrection like his; realising that our former self was crucified with him, so that the self which belonged to sin should be destroyed and we should be freed from the slavery of sin. (Romans 6:3-6)
​

this is a half truth .. amounts to a half lie .

repentance for the forgivness of sins is to e preached
the command is to rerent and be baptised -not only "be baptised"

telling a person they are saved because they were baptised as a baby when there is no repentance in their life ..is a lie .

 

[Josiah]

infant baptism is not taught in the scripture

What you have made obvious that what matters to you is what YOU regard as "COMMON SENSE" in you.

What is NOT taught in Scripture is that repentance is a mandate before we are permitted to baptize and teach.... what is NOT taught is YOUR self-described "common sense" that FIRST there must be repentance and THEN there may be baptism.... what is NOT taught in Scripture is that in that single verse you've ripped out, it goofs in stating "and" and should have said "then."

You keep saying what matters is not "opinion" (such as your "common sense") but what Scripture says. Okay.... I'm still waiting for you to quote the verse that says one must repent before they may be taught/baptized.... one must attain the age of "X" before they can be taught/baptized..... one must be beyond the "age of accountability" before they can be taught/baptized.... where the BIBLE states we can't do this. But the most we've gotten from you is, "God does NOT say it because MY common sense says it!" But then you insist your opinions don't matter - only what God says.




.

 

[Josiah]

this is a half truth .. amounts to a half lie .

repentance for the forgivness of sins is to e preached
the command is to rerent and be baptised -not only "be baptised"

telling a person they are saved because they were baptised as a baby when there is no repentance in their life ..is a lie .

The command is to go.... make disciples..... baptize..... teach. Now, YOU claim that while God does not say so, what YOU declare as "common sense" in YOU says that FIRST one must attain the age of X, be past the "age of accountability" and must repent BEFORE they can be taught and baptized. YOUR "common sense" you insist places these prohibitions, denials, limitations. But what you've admitted and made clear is that God said no such thing. Scripture says no such thing. You stress a single verse that says in a certain situation, "repent and be baptized" but you persistently refuse to acknowledge (or even notice) what the verse says.... AND. You want us to ignore what the verse says and submit to YOUR opinion, YOUR self-declared "common sense" that what SHOULD be in the verse is actually "THEN" rather than the word "and" that actually is the word of the verse. Your entire argument.... your whole premise is based on accepting YOUR "common sense" in lieu of Scripture, accepting YOUR deleting of the word "and" and substitution of the word "then". So you are NOT submitting to Scripture but to your common sense (as you declare it to be) and your substitution of a word for the one that actually is in Scripture.




.

 

[Josiah]

we have to do something in orde rto be saved.

Here is our basic disagreement. I believe that Jesus is the Savior, thus Jesus saves. I'm a Protestant.... and a Protestant by definition is one who protests your view: that salvation is a cooperative, synergistic, joint effort with Jesus doing the best He can (perhaps) but the really key point, the thing that actually results in our justification is what WE do so that it's a JOINT effort (but the effectual part being ours): Jesus at best being the PART Savior (the part that doesn't actually result in our being saved). I protest that view (as did Luther and Calvin).... it's what makes ME "Protestant."

As long as you hold to this very non-Protestant view of self as Savior (it all coming down to ME and MY actions, MY feelings, MY obedience, MY works) then - yes - you and I are not going to agree on much.

You've reached this view (which Luther and Calvin protested) for the same reason many medieval Catholics did: because you have either ignored the Gospel entirely or so entangled it with the Law, so strangled it with the Law, as to make it ineffectual and irrelevant. It's still all YOU..... YOUR feelings..... YOUR obedience..... YOUR works..... YOUR jumping through hoops..... (very un-protestant). My suggestion: Stop being so obsessed with the one you see in the mirror, and look to the Cross. As long as you agree with the Pharisees and see salvation as about you (in whole or in part), as long as you look into the mirror for justification ..... yes, we're going to foundationally disagree. On everything in Christianity.

Yes... verbs require action. Where I disagree with you is that Jesus is irrelevant, that His actions are - in the final sense - irrelevant because it's all up to ME: MY actions.... MY feelings...... MY obedience..... MY hoop jumping...... Yes, justification requires blood, holiness, perfection. Yes, you can look to you for these things or you can look to Christ for these things; it all comes down to whether you are looking in the mirror (and seeing merit in the actions of YOU) or looking to the Cross and seeing merit in the actions of Christ. In other words, where is your faith? In the actions of you or the actions of Jesus?

But you digress..... this thread is not about what is and is not salvic, it's about whether infants may (even should) be baptized. We agree that a baby can't earn his/her salvation - I'm simply saying nor can you (or me) so your point there is irrelevant to this discussion.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[TurtleHare]

this is a half truth .. amounts to a half lie .

repentance for the forgivness of sins is to e preached
the command is to rerent and be baptised -not only "be baptised"

telling a person they are saved because they were baptised as a baby when there is no repentance in their life ..is a lie .

Baptism and teaching go hand in hand and that's why Jesus told the disciples how to go out and make new disciples so neither of those should be ignored but tied together. This is why pastors encourage the parents to keep their children entwined in the Word of God so they can hear the Law and Gospel and not lose salvation.

 

[TurtleHare]

This post really hits the nail on the head as to how this all goes down. Either you have a Savior who saves you or you have yourself to look and hope you're doing well enough to please God to make it to heaven and that's not what God wants. He wants you to stay in the faith and that doesn't mean looking back to you constantly to see how you're doing, it means clinging to the cross and forgiveness so that you may have eternal life. Looking at you is so flawed but relying on the Savior who was perfect is true obedience.

Here is our basic disagreement. I believe that Jesus is the Savior, thus Jesus saves. I'm a Protestant.... and a Protestant by definition is one who protests your view: that salvation is a cooperative, synergistic, joint effort with Jesus doing the best He can (perhaps) but the really key point, the thing that actually results in our justification is what WE do so that it's a JOINT effort (but the effectual part being ours): Jesus at best being the PART Savior (the part that doesn't actually result in our being saved). I protest that view (as did Luther and Calvin).... it's what makes ME "Protestant."

As long as you hold to this very non-Protestant view of self as Savior (it all coming down to ME and MY actions, MY feelings, MY obedience, MY works) then - yes - you and I are not going to agree on much.

You've reached this view (which Luther and Calvin protested) for the same reason many medieval Catholics did: because you have either ignored the Gospel entirely or so entangled it with the Law, so strangled it with the Law, as to make it ineffectual and irrelevant. It's still all YOU..... YOUR feelings..... YOUR obedience..... YOUR works..... YOUR jumping through hoops..... (very un-protestant). My suggestion: Stop being so obsessed with the one you see in the mirror, and look to the Cross. As long as you agree with the Pharisees and see salvation as about you (in whole or in part), as long as you look into the mirror for justification ..... yes, we're going to foundationally disagree. On everything in Christianity.

Yes... verbs require action. Where I disagree with you is that Jesus is irrelevant, that His actions are - in the final sense - irrelevant because it's all up to ME: MY actions.... MY feelings...... MY obedience..... MY hoop jumping...... Yes, justification requires blood, holiness, perfection. Yes, you can look to you for these things or you can look to Christ for these things; it all comes down to whether you are looking in the mirror (and seeing merit in the actions of YOU) or looking to the Cross and seeing merit in the actions of Christ. In other words, where is your faith? In the actions of you or the actions of Jesus?

But you digress..... this thread is not about what is and is not salvic, it's about whether infants may (even should) be baptized. We agree that a baby can't earn his/her salvation - I'm simply saying nor can you (or me) so your point there is irrelevant to this discussion.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

Here is our basic disagreement. I believe that Jesus is the Savior, thus Jesus saves. I'm a Protestant.... and a Protestant by definition is one who protests your view: that salvation is a cooperative, synergistic, joint effort with Jesus doing the best He can (perhaps) but the really key point, the thing that actually results in our justification is what WE do so that it's a JOINT effort (but the effectual part being ours): Jesus at best being the PART Savior (the part that doesn't actually result in our being saved). I protest that view (as did Luther and Calvin).... it's what makes ME "Protestant."

As long as you hold to this very non-Protestant view of self as Savior (it all coming down to ME and MY actions, MY feelings, MY obedience, MY works) then - yes - you and I are not going to agree on much.

You've reached this view (which Luther and Calvin protested) for the same reason many medieval Catholics did: because you have either ignored the Gospel entirely or so entangled it with the Law, so strangled it with the Law, as to make it ineffectual and irrelevant. It's still all YOU..... YOUR feelings..... YOUR obedience..... YOUR works..... YOUR jumping through hoops..... (very un-protestant). My suggestion: Stop being so obsessed with the one you see in the mirror, and look to the Cross. As long as you agree with the Pharisees and see salvation as about you (in whole or in part), as long as you look into the mirror for justification ..... yes, we're going to foundationally disagree. On everything in Christianity.

Yes... verbs require action. Where I disagree with you is that Jesus is irrelevant, that His actions are - in the final sense - irrelevant because it's all up to ME: MY actions.... MY feelings...... MY obedience..... MY hoop jumping...... Yes, justification requires blood, holiness, perfection. Yes, you can look to you for these things or you can look to Christ for these things; it all comes down to whether you are looking in the mirror (and seeing merit in the actions of YOU) or looking to the Cross and seeing merit in the actions of Christ. In other words, where is your faith? In the actions of you or the actions of Jesus?

But you digress..... this thread is not about what is and is not salvic, it's about whether infants may (even should) be baptized. We agree that a baby can't earn his/her salvation - I'm simply saying nor can you (or me) so your point there is irrelevant to this discussion.



Thank you.


- Josiah

What does Romans 10:9-10 is not confess with your mouth and believe in your heart an action that has to take place?

 

[Josiah]

double post.... sorry

 

[Josiah]

What does Romans 10:9-10 is not confess with your mouth and believe in your heart an action that has to take place?

Again.... important to keep Law and Gospel separate....

But let me put my answer in the form of a question (pardon that approach)....

WHO is the Savior?

IF you answer "Jesus" then Jesus is the Savior. Justification is thus something Jesus does. Jesus is the Savior. Not you, not me. Not a bit, not at all, not now, not ever, not in any way or shape or form or manner. Salvation is entirely, wholly wrapped up in Jesus. It's entirely HIS work. HIS heart. HIS love. HIS mercy. HIS gift. HIS blessing. His life, His death, His resurrection. His Cross, His blood, His sacrifice. His righteousness, His obedience, His holiness. Not you. Not yours. Not me, not mine. You may have some other role in some other matter, but not this. The "job" of Savior belongs to Jesus. Not you. Not me. Not the Popes. JESUS saves.

IF you answer "ME!" then you are the Savior. Not Jesus. Not a bit, not at all. Not now, not ever. Not in any way, shape or form or manner. Salvation is all wrapped up in YOU. YOUR works. YOUR will. YOUR love. YOUR efforts. YOUR merits. YOUR obedience. YOUR righteousness. YOUR holiness. YOUR sacrifice. YOUR accomplishes. YOUR hoop-jumping. What YOU do. Not Jesus. Not Jesus'. Jesus may have some other role in some other matter, just not this one. The Savior is you.

Which is it?

Protestantism grew (in part) out of a PROTEST to the medieval RCC position that the answer ultimately is ME. That Jesus perhaps makes it POSSIBLE (the POSSIBILITY maker).... that Jesus perhaps is the HELPER (can't do it without his help).... nonetheless, it all comes down to ME. Luther and Calvin were "protestants" because they protested that answer (#2). Protestants, by definition, are ones who answer with #1 in terms of justification. Thus, when we talk about salvation in this sense, we look to the Cross. NOTHING in my hands I bring..... In fact even faith is (as the Bible states), the gift of God.

Now.... do the saved profess him? YES! Is professing him what saves us? No.


[This is usually a debate between Catholics and Protestants, not between Protestants]


Back to the topic....



- Josiah

 

[TurtleHare]

What does Romans 10:9-10 is not confess with your mouth and believe in your heart an action that has to take place?

Confessing with our mouth only proclaims that which we already have faith to be true, that we already have a Savior who died on the cross and our sins are forgiven. A non-believer would not ever confess such a thing so it's not that the action saves us, but it's a proclamation of faith instead because of what already happened.