Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

What a charming way you have in wording your accusation to fit your own theology:laugh:

Your question ASSUMES infants or small children must be part of the household for it to be a household! However, that is not merely an assumption built upon pure silence but is denied by the immediate context as all in these households are described as believers.

I don't think you understand the stark and drastic difference the New Covenant is to a community established on the OLD COVENANT!

The OLD merely typified the NEW in regard to circumcision. The circumcised infant had to be taught by others to know God but circumcision on the eighth day is a TYPE of the new birth under the NEW Covenant where NONE have to be taught to know God - NONE - from the least to the greatest as salvation under the New Covenant IS knowing God (Jn. 17:2-3):

Jer. 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The last part of this verse is quoted in Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17 in description of the NEW Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:34 is directed toward such an OLD Covenant culture as a direct CONTRAST to what the New Covenant culture would be about.

 

It is directed in the Word of God. Faith must precede baptism.
That excludes infants.

 

Simple answer by this simple question. Was this during a baptism? Or was this during a parable theological discussion? Did this occur before the Great Commission. What did Peter say?

I disagree.

In fact I don't see one verse in the NT which states specifically - Don't Baptize your children. Show me the verse.

But what does Paul say about baptism?

So he see's baptism as covenantal on par with Circumcision.

Yes but wasn't the Gospel of John the Baptist incomplete?

The question is can they be apart of the covenant?

So God didn't have a covenant with Israel? They were let into the covenant on the eight-th day of their birth by circumcision which Paul compares to Baptism.

So God wasted his time in the OT or Does God intend that we adult believers should

 

Not at all. All I've done is shown you the fallacy of faith that doesn't naturally flow into good works. IT remains cerebral thus intellect only.

I'm not talking about Jewish Law. I'm talking about works proceeding from faith.

James is clear and does not go against paul He specifically says

You can't get clearer than that. Deeds must follow faith to be faith.

 

So your assertion is that Household do not inlcude Children?

I certainly do. We are no longer bound by Jewish law but by Faith.

That doesn't mean "get rid of". Also note the Old is fulfilled in the New.

But Christian children aren't?

So according to you I don't have to teach my children about God. I can just leave God out of the picture and miraculously my children will know all doctrine and scripture referrences?

Why listen to a sermon then? You're wasting your time. In fact No need to read commentaries on scripture. And all the differences in theology between Christians isn't really happening.

 

It is all a matter of context! In the context the term "household" is used in Acts it does not include infants or children unable to repent and believe.

Yes it does in so far as an Old Covenant economy.

As types are fulfilled in antitype. Literal infants literally circumcised on the literal eighth day are TYPES of spiritual infants regenerated and ALL Christians are born spiritual infants.

You are confusing parental instruction with Divine instruction. The new birth is an act of God. Eternal life IS knowing God experientially (Jn. 17:3) and is a REVELATION of God directly to the soul (2 Cor. 4:6).

 

You have no biblical defense for infant baptism, none.

 

You simply do not distiguish between faith and what flows from faith and the origin of the flow from faith.

Faith must first be IN Christ before you can be faithful TO Christ. Faithfulness TO Christ is the product of REGENERATION not justification whereas faith IN Christ is inclusive in JUSTIFICATION not regeneration.

James is talking about what is essential to faith in regard to manifest evidence. He is not giving a definition of what faith IS as Hebrews 11:1 nor is he speaking about justification by faith BEFORE GOD as is Romans 3:24-5:2. He is talking about the relationship between faith and life. Justification does not proivde ABILITY for faithfulness as that comes from the regenerative indwelling Spirit.

 

I believe that I do. Faith is given to us by God through his Grace. But it is not faith if good deeds do not naturally follow.

But you can't have Faith in Christ if you are not Faithful TO Christ.

He actually is because he says he is. Deeds must follow

Lets look at hebrews closely

Certain indicates that you act on the faith or what scriptures calls a lack of faith. Uncertain would be faith not acted on. Note what were the ancients commended for?

all of these people acted on their faith.

 

Everyone is permited an opinion. You've declaired yours.

 

Or, as Lot was, he became backslidden. And if so, as Heb.12 teaches, God will chasten him in his own time. The chastening may be severe, as in 1Cor.11:30 where some got sick, some weak, and others God killed. God deals with each of his children in different ways. But if they are children of God, he will discipline them.

 

Yes he has, and he is quite correct. There is no Biblical defense for infant baptism. It is not only opinion. It is fact.

 

The Bible leaves two distinct possibilities.
The thief on the cross never had any good works.
God alone knows the heart; we do not.
Why do you want to be so judgmental when only God knows the heart. That is what I can never figure out.

It is as if you or some others want to look at a person with scrutinizing eyes and then say: "Ha, Ha, you wicked, filthy, dirty sinner! I have seen no good works in your life. You are going straight to Hell. Repent. Repent. You are hell bound you unregenerated scum of the earth!"

You are just waiting your opportunity to jump on a person and say that aren't you? (or something similar). So, quick to judge, when you don't really know the heart; the heart that God alone knows--not you.

 

Here is really the crux of our disagreement. You make faithfulness TO Christ the basis for faith IN Christ.

Please consider my words carefully. How can you be faithful TO God unless you first believe IN God?

Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is...."

Coming to God precedes working for God (faithfulness) just as believing IN God precedes working for God (faithfulness).

If you do not believe IN God you will not serve God.

He is giving a litmus test to determine the presence of true faith. He is not giving a definition of what faith is.

Christ deeds must precede before your deeds follow. Faith is double sided. Faith first embraces the promise of the gospel - Christ's satisfaction and then REGENEATIVE love motivates us to respond to His revealed will by faith.

In the former the substance of faith is the revelation of the gospel which is RECEIVED as our sole hope of salvation while in the latter the substance of faith is the commandments of God relevant to our present case which is OBEYED "by" faith. The former requires faith "IN" Christ while the latter requires faithfulness TO Christ.

 

I said, not necessarily. But I also said that if they are truly saved and their lives don't show it, they will be disciplined by God. In the NT God even killed some of them who professed to be Christians and did not live as Christians. See 1Cor.11:30.

 

Excellent, this deserves re-posting. Clears up a lot for me.
The 'must not have been saved in the first place' just doesn't wash when one has become aquainted with your testimony.

 

Whether or not it agrees with his testimony is not important. This is not merely a clear and explicit teaching of scripture (Mt. 13; 1 Jn. 2:19) but it is self-evident when you deal "Christian" cults and a great majority of professing Christendom.

What you are saying is that profession ALWAYS accompanies regeneration and that is simply not true Bibically or experientially.

I can give you many personal testimonies of people who made such a false profession without regeneration who later were actual saved by God's grace and transformed by regeneration.

However, the important thing is the Scripture clearly acknowledges profession without possession. Moreover, even common sense must acknowlge it or else you are forced to conclude that every single profession is accompanied by regeneration!! Since we cannot see the heart and many times cannot distinguish between fruits of reformation versus transformation no one can say that truthfully.