Salvation in Catholic and Baptist Theology

[The Biblicist]

So your contention is whole households do not include everyone in the household?

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 Jewish or Roman Culture of that time. Repentance preceeded baptism by the head of housholds it is assumed the rest of the Household would follow the Head's faith. Or do you believe the head of household was the only baptized person and the distinction whole households only means one or two?

2. Not specifically but certainly weren't children apart of households? Certainly Col refers to the connection between baptism and circumcision.

3. Explain what you mean by "proxy faith" and where the new covenant "terms" deny that. Certainly New Testiment has very little to say with infants. and Certainly we both conceed an adult must have their own faith.

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.

 

[DHK]

That's just it. It simply isn't mentioned in a direct and specific way. I don't take that to mean its against the word of God, but rather that it isn't directly addressed by the word of God.

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

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matthew 19:13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

If the disciples were baptizing infants, as the Catholics claim, why do you think the disciples rebuked the people who brought the little children?
And, why did Jesus place his hands on them but not baptize them?

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?

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

You see, infant baptism is not biblical

I disagree.

In fact, infant baptism goes against the Word of God.

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

John the baptizer prepared the way for Jesus. He came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:76-80).

But what does Paul say about baptism?

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead

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

We are still to confess that we are sinners, and to repent, to prepare the way for Jesus Christ into our lives

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

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[c] and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve men in all.

The Bible tells us before people were baptized-they repented. Infants cannot repent.

The question is can they be apart of the covenant?

Water baptism is a promise of a good conscience to God. See 1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Infants cannot make a promise. Moreover, no one, not even the infant’s parents can make a promise for their child, nor can anyone make a promise for anyone else.

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.

Infant baptism interferes with people knowing and obeying the Truth. Infant baptism confuses non-Christians and those who want to be a Christian. Many people baptized as an infant do not understand why they do not really know the Lord. Those baptized as infants do not usually walk the path that Jesus teaches...unless they learn more of the truth later. Infant baptism has been confusing millions of people for years. It is more serious of an issue that most even realize.

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

Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here you have shown your weakness in understanding the Biblical DOCTRINE of justification by faith which is BEFORE God but you reinterpret it to be BEFORE MEN.

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.

Since I am a man, all I can do is say "IF" but the doctrine is not based upon my perception or on your perception but upon God's perception "before God" (Rom. 3:19; 4:2).

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

James deals with justification not "before God" and not DOCTRINALLY but in its practical application in the life of the one still professing justification by faith who is WITHOUT WORKS before men. James deal with relation of justification with spiritual LIFE - regeneration connection.

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

14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]?

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

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

So your assertion is that Household do not inlcude Children?

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

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

The OLD merely typified the NEW in regard to circumcision.

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

The circumcised infant had to be taught by others to know God

But Christian children aren't?

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):

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?

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

So your assertion is that Household do not inlcude Children?

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.

That doesn't mean "get rid of".

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

Also note the Old is fulfilled in the New.

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.

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?

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).

 

[Moriah]

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

You have no biblical defense for infant baptism, none.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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 clear and does not go against paul He specifically says
You can't get clearer than that. Deeds must follow faith to be faith.

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.

 

[JarJo]

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.

So does it go like this:

1. Regeneration: God changes the person so that he is able to do good and so that he has faith.
2. Profession of faith: The person professes faith and gets baptized
3. Good works. If the person's faith came from regeneration, rather than from some human decision, he will go on to do good works. If he doesn't go on to do good works, his faith must have been human faith and not the true experiential faith of the regenerate.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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

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.

Faith must first be IN Christ before you can be faithful TO Christ

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

James is talking about what is essential to faith in regard to manifest evidence. He is not giving a definition of what faith IS

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

as Hebrews 11:1

Lets look at hebrews closely

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.

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?

By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice

7 By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

all of these people acted on their faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have no biblical defense for infant baptism, none.

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

 

[DHK]

So does it go like this:

1. Regeneration: God changes the person so that he is able to do good and so that he has faith.
2. Profession of faith: The person professes faith and gets baptized
3. Good works. If the person's faith came from regeneration, rather than from some human decision, he will go on to do good works. If he doesn't go on to do good works, his faith must have been human faith and not the true experiential faith of the regenerate.

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.

 

[DHK]

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

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

 

[JarJo]

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.

So are you saying that true regenerate faith will not necessarily be accompanied by works?

 

[DHK]

So are you saying that true regenerate faith will not necessarily be accompanied by works?

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.

 

[JarJo]

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.

What??? I'm just trying to understand what Baptists believe, not trying to judge people without works. It sounds like we agree that a person without good works might still be saved. Like you said God alone knows the heart.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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 actually is because he says he is.

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

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.

 

[DHK]

So are you saying that true regenerate faith will not necessarily be accompanied by works?

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.

 

[Walter]

A couple of things Biblicist. You don't seem to have a consept of time or growth over a period of time. When I first believed I was 15. I'm in my 40's now and a lot of growth and understanding has developed over time. Second of all I have always believed in the Biblical doctrine of Faith. And Just recently in the past several Years have come to understand that Faith Alone is not a biblical doctrine as you can't find faith spoken of in alone. In fact the only place where faith alone is even mentioned in the bible is in James saying that faith alone does not save. So you don't really know what you are talking about.


wrong again. You are showing your true judgmental colors. I did and and I grew to understand more.


As spoken of in the Scriptures Faith must be evidenced by Good Works or else you don't have faith. Its very simple. You cannot have faith and remain in Sin. What does Paul Say?



Your understanding of alone is lacking you can't have two alones. Thats like saying the Lone Rangers. It makes no sense. You can't have it singular and viewed plurally! You are either saved by Grace Alone or you are saved by Faith alone and when you say Faith you don't mean Faith you mean belief. Faith is evidenced by what you do about it. Every one has a belief. Or an intellectual assent. However, Faith is powerful and transformative and it turns an Alcoholic into a sober man, It turns a sinner into a saint. However, intellectual assent does nothing. I know many Alcoholics who say Yeah I need to give up drinking but never do. This is your faith. Which really isn't faith but a belief. And the Scriptures say even the demons believe and shake. I am saved by grace through faith working in love. Simple as in they work together. You claim to be saved by an oxymoron. However, I believed like you for many years until I discovered the truth behind these things.

Unfortunately, since you don't believe in apostasy or any freedom of the will you must hold to the time old tried but tired saying "you musn't have been saved in the first place." Which shows a lack of intellectual vigor.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.