The Baptism debate

[The Biblicist]

Not at all. I've shown you the context of Romans 4 and the emphasis of that chapter is not on blessedness but on faith.

The emphasis on faith is due to the fact that it is by faith "this blessedness" is RECEIVED. "This blessedness" is based upon the reception of the TWO basic constituent elements of justification defined in Romans 4:5-8.

1. Imputed righteousenss - satisfication of the Laws righteous standard
2. Non-imputation of sin - satisfaction of the Law's penal demands

It is the "ungodly" who RECEIVES these constitutent elements through faith and that results in the "blessedness" of that man.

"By Faith" is explicitly defined in Romans 4:16-21 to be a complete repudiation of ANY KIND OF ASSISTANCE or PARTICIPATION or CONTRIBUTION on the part of the one being justified but rather simply RECEPTION of God's promise by God's power - v. 21. Human participation/contribution/participation is explicitly defined by the words "dead" and "deadness" in verse 18.

Hence, the role of faith plays only as TRUST in God's promise, thus that promise is simply the OBJECT of faith which OBJECT is RECEIVED by God's power and God's power alone. It is this definition of justification by faith that is directly applied to New Testament believers response to the gospel - Rom. 4:21-25.

The emphasis on faith is because the whole passage emphasizes the complete denial of participation/assistance/contribution of man in obtaining the promised blessedness found in the constituent elements of justification.

You fail to recognize this and restructure the whole chapter on the one word blessedness which is an example quote from David.

You fail to recognize that both these examples from Abraham and David are brought together in this passage for only one purpose and that is to define the constituent elements of justification and how it is obtained only by faith without any kind of participating, contributing works by men as the ONLY kind of person being justified is the "ungodly" which by definition is one who is WITHOUT RIGHTEOUSNESS altogether.

The Context of the Chapter is about Faith not blessedness.

First, you have no clue to the kind of faith Paul is referring to. It is the kind of faith that MUST simply trust in God's power ALONE to perform His promise - Rom. 4:21 without any human ASSISTANCE or CONTRIBUTIONS as this is the definitive context of Romans 4:16-21 as both the ability to assist and/or contribute is defined as "dead" and "deadness" (Rom. 4:18).

Second, as previously stated "faith" is meaningless, worthless, empty and vain apart from the constituent elements of justification which is defined by "this blessedness" in verses 6-8.

Blessedness is a result of the faith that Paul is addressing.

"This blessedness" refers first to the CONTENT or CONSTITENT elements of Justification from which "blessedness" is derived. Faith is the means through which it is received. Apart from those constitutent elements of justification faith is worthless, meaningless, vain and empty and cannot provide blessedness.

You are READING INTO this passage Catholic nonsense. This passage repudiates the very foundation of Catholicism.

 

[Wittenberger]

Dear Christian brothers and sisters, curious unbelievers:

While the pastors and theologians debate "hermeneutics" and "sorteriology", let us, the laypeople, look at some passages of Scripture in their simple, literal interpretation.


Luke 18:15-16

King James Version (KJV)


15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

We see in these passages from the Book of Luke how much our Lord loved infants and little children, "Suffer little children to come unto me".

With so much love and compassion for little children, isn't it odd that Christ, in the Baptist view of things, would leave no manner in which infants and little children can come to him spiritually?

In the version of the Baptist faith that I grew up in, all infants and small children who died were covered by a blanket pardon of innocence--they would automatically go to heaven, whether they were children of Christians or children of unbelievers.

Little children are covered by this blanket pardon until they reach an Age of Accountability, an unspecificed age at which they suddenly can discern good from evil. At that moment, their innocence is removed and they are required to make a decison for Christ, or against Christ. If they do not choose for Christ, repent, and ask Christ into their hearts to be their Lord and Savior, and are killed two minutes later, they will burn in hell for all eternity.

Is there any Scriptural support for this belief? Not in the New Testament. Supporters of this view reach back to the Old Testament, and use statements by King David about his recently deceased infant as support for this position.

Don't you think that Christ, who so loved little children, would have established some better way for little children to "come to him" than this very scripturally tenuous theory? Would Christ really let your children have just a split second chance to "accept Him" when their period of innocence expires and they reach the Age of Accountability? Would He be so merciless that he only gives them that one split second chance and then their eternal destiny was constantly in peril from any car racing down the street, any accidental fall, etc. which could snuff out their lives in a second. and send them hurteling to hell?

Don't you think He would have established a much more loving way to save your children?

I will continue this thought later today.

God bless!

 

[reformed_baptist]

Dear Christian brothers and sisters, curious unbelievers:

While the pastors and theologians debate "hermeneutics" and "sorteriology", let us, the laypeople, look at some passages of Scripture in their simple, literal interpretation.


Luke 18:15-16

King James Version (KJV)


15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

We see in these passages from the Book of Luke how much our Lord loved infants and little children, "Suffer little children to come unto me".

With so much love and compassion for little children, isn't it odd that Christ, in the Baptist view of things, would leave no manner in which infants and little children can come to him spiritually?

In the version of the Baptist faith that I grew up in, all infants and small children who died were covered by a blanket pardon of innocence--they would automatically go to heaven, whether they were children of Christians or children of unbelievers.

Little children are covered by this blanket pardon until they reach an Age of Accountability, an unspecificed age at which they suddenly can discern good from evil. At that moment, their innocence is removed and they are required to make a decison for Christ, or against Christ. If they do not choose for Christ, repent, and ask Christ into their hearts to be their Lord and Savior, and are killed two minutes later, they will burn in hell for all eternity.

Is there any Scriptural support for this belief? Not in the New Testament. Supporters of this view reach back to the Old Testament, and use statements by King David about his recently deceased infant as support for this position.

Don't you think that Christ, who so loved little children, would have established some better way for little children to "come to him" than this very scripturally tenuous theory? Would Christ really let your children have just a split second chance to "accept Him" when their period of innocence expires and they reach the Age of Accountability? Would He be so merciless that he only gives them that one split second chance and then their eternal destiny was constantly in peril from any car racing down the street, any accidental fall, etc. which could snuff out their lives in a second. and send them hurteling to hell?

Don't you think He would have established a much more loving way to save your children?

I will continue this thought later today.

God bless!

You simply replace one error with another, and you use the same text to support it! The bible is clear that we are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and nothing else, eph 2:8-9 and not by works.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The emphasis on faith

Finally you at least agree to that!

is due to the fact that it is by faith "this blessedness" is RECEIVED.

Yes and what faith is that?

the obedience of faith

The type of faith that leads to obedience. Which is the whole point of the book of Romans! Yes if I had faith that leads to obedience I am blessed by having my sins forgiven!!!! But remember Chapter 4 Paul is dealing specifically with those Jewish Christians who believe they have something to boast about having been circumcised. Paul isn't questioning they ability to do good deeds but relying on their circumcision which wasn't what saved Abraham because he was considered righteous by his faith which lead him to obedience.

By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went."—Hebrews 11:8

 

[The Biblicist]

Finally you at least agree to that!

The emphasis on faith and the definition of faith is because what it is contrasted to - "works" - the very thing you are attempting to define as "faith."

You totally ignore the contextual contrast to faith and the definition of faith as given in Romans 4:16-21. You must ignore it because it exposes your Catholic interpretation of faith as false doctrine.

Come on, deal with Romans 4:16-21 if you really want to get down to defining the CONTEXTUAL definition of faith.


You are confusing "faithfulness" to the commands of God (Heb. 11: with "faith" in relationship to the promises of God. The latter precedes the former. The latter RECEIVES the promises as the OBJECT of faith whereas the former RESPONDS by the ACTIONS of faith. Justification by faith require RECEPTION and embracing the truth of the gospel promise that Christ ALONE and his actions ALONE satisfy the full demands of God's law.

Again, if you want to HONESTLY define "faith" in connection with justification in Romans 4 then deal with Romans 4:16-21. I doubt you will take that challenge as it will be very embarassing for you to do so.

 

[The Biblicist]

The emphasis on faith and the definition of faith is because what it is contrasted to - "works" - the very thing you are attempting to define as "faith."

You totally ignore the contextual contrast to faith and the definition of faith as given in Romans 4:16-21. You must ignore it because it exposes your Catholic interpretation of faith as false doctrine.

Come on, deal with Romans 4:16-21 if you really want to get down to defining the CONTEXTUAL definition of faith.


You are confusing "faithfulness" to the commands of God (Heb. 11: with "faith" in relationship to the promises of God. The latter precedes the former. The latter RECEIVES the promises as the OBJECT of faith whereas the former RESPONDS by the ACTIONS of faith. Justification by faith require RECEPTION and embracing the truth of the gospel promise that Christ ALONE and his actions ALONE satisfy the full demands of God's law.

Again, if you want to HONESTLY define "faith" in connection with justification in Romans 4 then deal with Romans 4:16-21. I doubt you will take that challenge as it will be very embarassing for you to do so.

I have business to take care of and so I have to go for this morning and will be off line. However, I will return and see if TS is willing to take on the contextual definition of faith in Romans 4:16-21.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The emphasis on faith and the definition of faith is because what it is contrasted to - "works" - the very thing you are attempting to define as "faith."

You totally ignore the contextual contrast to faith and the definition of faith as given in Romans 4:16-21. You must ignore it because it exposes your Catholic interpretation of faith as false doctrine.

I haven't ignored anything about that passage rather I put it in the context for which it had always been meant. Just read the book of Romans for crying out loud!!!! Its clear. Look the whole point of the book of Romans is cited in Romans 1 and Romans 16 where Romans 1 says

through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,

where Romans 16 says

but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Where in Romans Paul is specifically speaking to those jews who rely on their circumcision

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God - Romans 2: 17

and

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law-vs 18

but it really has no value because

but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.

because in reality

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter-vs28-29

so whats the point of being a Jew then in the view of Christianity?

What then? Are we Jews[a] any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,- romans 3:9

Nope because everyone are sinners. Therefore what needs to bring us to obedience is Faith not circumcision

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe - Romans 3:21-22

Does this mean all we have to do is have some belief with out obedience? No!

Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.- Romans 3:31

For instance look at Abraham if the issue of circumcision were the point then that would have saved him but scriptures say that Abraham believed God.

What then shall we say was gained by[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness Romans 4:1-3

Because if it was about circumcision and the law then God would owe Abraham

4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

But no, its about faith

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness vs 5

Because even king David testifies

just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
- Romans 4:6-8

not because God owed that man because but because of God's grace. But then does this grace only apply to the Jews? No.

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Romans 4:9-12

At no point in this discourse does Paul Change types of faith. He still talking about that faith which leads to obedience and in Romans 4 that faith is what the Jews should have who rely on the law and their circumcision! And its clear thats what he means because he says in Romans 6

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

This faith doesn't do away with Gods requirement for obedience or right living it upholds it. Even as Paul said in Chapter 3 he upholds the Law but you can't acheive that by being circumcised only by faith which leads to obedience.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, -Romans 6:12-15

Its clear the faith he's talking about is the faith that leads to obedience. The context is clear!!!

 

[The Biblicist]

I haven't ignored anything about that passage rather I put it in the context for which it had always been meant. Just read the book of Romans for crying out loud!!!! Its clear.

How about trying honesty for a change? The words "the faith" can and are used in your examples to refer to the whole body of apostolic doctrine and practice in general. We are called to be obedient to the Apostolic doctrine and practice once delivered and defend it.

However, within the book of Romans the the term "faith" is also found in specific contexts where it used in other well established senses:

1. "measure of faith" - Rom. 12:3,6 - no reference to apostolic faith and doctrine

2. "whatsoever is not "of faith" is sin - Rom. 14:22-23 (LIMITS of personal convictions)

3. "faith" - Rom. 4:16-21 - Trust in another Person, promise, ability


The approach you have taken to Romans 3:24-5:2 and "faith" is as absurd as applying the same approach to the term "faith" in Romans 12:3,6.

It is absurd as applying it to Romans 14:22-23

None of the examples you cite deal with the doctrine of justification faith any more than they deal with the personal "measure of faith" given to each child of God or the personal limitations of convictions.

I challenged you to deal with the immediate contextual definition in Romans 4:16-21 but as I predicted you would not dare enter into that debate.

Your approach is abusive to Scriptures, dishonest in regard to scholarship, superficial and purely political to escape sincere honest exegesis of the immediate context.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How about trying honesty for a change?

I've been honest the whole time.

The words "the faith" can and are used in your examples to refer to the whole body of apostolic doctrine and practice in general.

I thought I made that issue clear from the begining in our discussion of Romans. The faith that leads to obedience which I consider right living. Obedience to apostolic doctrine leads to that of course. But I think I was clear. Faith that Leads to Obedience is that circumcision of heart which Paul is speaking about

The approach you have taken to Romans 3:24-5:2 and "faith" is as absurd as applying the same approach to the term "faith" in Romans 12:3,6.

What is absurd is that you refuse to understand Romans 4 in the context of what Paul is talking about. You try to single it out from the context of Paul's dialogue and make it mean something not entirely what Paul means. And you refuse to acknowldedge his disputation with those who hold their Jewishness and adherance to their Jewish identifiers.

None of the examples you cite deal with the doctrine of justification faith any more than they deal with the personal "measure of faith" given to each child of God or the personal limitations of convictions.

All of the points I've made are the context of the text. It is you who create a predetermined set of Doctrine and then apply scripture to it regardless of the context of the passages.

I challenged you to deal with the immediate contextual definition in Romans 4:16-21 but as I predicted you would not dare enter into that debate.

This is a straw man as I had dealt with that passage and provided a proper exegesis of the entire context of the Book of Romans up to chapter 6. What is true is that in your attempt to discredit what I've said you act as if I hadn't dealt with it. Again you are that man in my experience who puts his fingers into his ears and screams "I will not listen" Which if that is your defence fine. But at leasts be honest about it.

Your approach is abusive to Scriptures

My approach has always been to honor scriptures and place them in the context in which they were written.

dishonest in regard to scholarship

I have not been dishonest in scholarship as I'm not currently writing a thesis or am I in College. I have given you my sources and still you call me dishonest. Sir the one dishonest here is you.

superficial and purely political

Politics have nothing to dow with anything I've said in regard to scripture and certainly to point out the plain reading of a text does not equate to superficial.

What you have done as you always do when presented with facts that don't agree with your assesment is to insult the person who disagrees with you. You cease to debate and go directly to Ad hominem attacks. As you think that some how validates your position. When in fact like a school yard bully who riducules others to make himself look better you end up not looking better but revealing your true intent. Being a bully.

 

[The Biblicist]

I've been honest the whole time.

Total dishonesty with Romans! Your reasoning is premedliated in order to escape the contextual definition of faith in Romans 4:16-21 and YOU KNOW IT because you will not dare enter into discussion over that passage!

I thought I made that issue clear from the begining in our discussion of Romans.

More dishonest dribble! You know right well that from the beginning I pointed out the various uses of "faith" in the book of Romans and no honest Bible student can GUTSIDE THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT of a particular subject (Rom. 3:24-5:2) and arbritarily assign a definiton of "faith" to Romans 3:24-5:2 when the context itself provides the definition that clearly repudiates your arbritrarily selected one!! Simply dishonest scholarship.

IF there was but one usage of "faith" in the book of Romans you would have a point but the fact of the matter there are more than one way the term "faith" is used in Romans.

What is absurd is that you refuse to understand Romans 4 in the context of what Paul is talking about.

What an absolute pathetic lie!!!!! It is YOU that refuse to recognize the definition of "faith" explicilty given in this context (Rom. 4:16-21)!

I dare you to enter into a discussion of how faith is defined in Romans 4:16-21! I believe you will do everything possible to avoid such a discussion and that very mindset proves you are being dishonest and purely being political and defending Rome's heresies.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

slight correction here;



Eternal security has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism but rather belongs to certian Arminian camps, it is not to be confused with the persverence of the saints which teaches that one who is genuinely saved will perservere in the faith right upto the end.

Any6way sorry for intrrupting, back to the subject at hand

Not true, but don't want to argue about it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not true, but don't want to argue about it.

It is true! There is a difference between perseverance of the saints versus preservation of the saints. The former has to do with "good works" whereas the latter has to do with our continuance in faith in the gospel regardless of our works. Eternal secuurity has to do with justification by faith not sanctification through faithfulness.

 

[Wittenberger]

(continued from my previous comments above)

In Christianity today there seems to be three dominant belief systems regarding the Safety/Salvation of children and infants:

Arminian Christians (Free-will Baptists and others): all infants and young children are under a blanket protection from God's judgement. Some believe these children do not have original sin, others of this group believe they do have original sin, but God does not hold them accountable for this original sin until they reach an age of understanding Good from Evil, referred to as "The Age of Accountability". So if a child in this age group dies, God will take him/her to heaven. This will occur regardless of the status of the parents, Christian or non-Christian.

Once the child reaches the Age of Accountability and realizes that he is a sinner, he must make a choice: Repent and accept Christ as his personal Savior or reject Christ. If he refuses to accept Christ or even delays to make a decision, he is in mortal danger, because if he dies in this state, he will be sent to hell to burn for all eternity.

Calvinist/Reformed Christians (Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist): this group of Christians usually do not believe in an Age of Accountability because they do not believe that the sinner has a free will to make a decision about his eternal destiny. God has either chosen to save you or he has chosen to send you to hell.

Therefore some of these Christians may baptize their infants, but the purpose of Baptism is not regenerational, only convenantal. Baptism is a sign only, but it does bring the child into the family of the church. If the child is one of the Elect, he/she will make a public profession of his/her faith in Christ sometime later in life demonstrating to all he/she is one of the "chosen".

If an infant/child of Calvinists dies before being able to make a public profession of faith, his status is essentially in limbo. His parents will never know (in this life at least) if their child went to heaven or hell.

orthodox Christians (Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox)
These Christians believe that the salvation status of the parents significantly influences the salvation status of the children.

Most orthodox Christians believe that the children of Christians are "safe" until they are baptized at which time they are saved.

In other times, some orthodox Christians insisted that if a baby of Christian parents died, without being baptized, then the baby was lost, and would go to hell. Lutherans at least, and I would bet most other orthodox Christians, currently believe that if the baby dies before the Christian parents can baptize him, or if the baby was miscarried, the child is safe and will go to heaven.

So where in the New Testament do any of these three groups of Christians have explicit references regarding infants/young children that support their stated positions?

Nowhere.

Each group bases their belief on verses that they believe infer that their position is correct.

Continued...

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

 

[The Biblicist]

(continued from my previous comments above)

In Christianity today there seems to be three dominant belief systems regarding the Safety/Salvation of children and infants:

All three groups beleive in an age of confirmation/accountability of children. The only difference is about the exposure to God's wrath between birth and confirmation/accountability.

God's wrath is repeatedly said throughout scriptures to be based soley upon PERSONAL MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY determined by their works.

All three groups agree that infants or those under the age of confirmation/accountability are incapable of doing any works based upon moral determination. Hence, it is impossible for God to hold them MORALLY accountable for anything they do until they can comprehend moral accountability.

Hence, they are obviously safe from an kind of judgement based upon works.

Furthermore, the New Testament provides NO COMMAND, NO DOCTRINE, NO EXPLICIT EXAMPLE for the baptism of infants.

The totall omission of doctrine/practice or examples can only be attributed to one of two reasons. Either, the New Testament writers were totally incapable of compassion for the most helpless of our race or they did not regard infants in any kind of danger of judgement. Take your choice!

I think the answer is obvious - they are not in any danger and so you do not have to provide doctrines that provide escape from judgement when they are not in danger. There is no examples of infant baptism because there is no need. It is just that simple.

 

[The Biblicist]

All three groups beleive in an age of confirmation/accountability of children. The only difference is about the exposure to God's wrath between birth and confirmation/accountability.

God's wrath is repeatedly said throughout scriptures to be based soley upon PERSONAL MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY determined by their works.

All three groups agree that infants or those under the age of confirmation/accountability are incapable of doing any works based upon moral determination. Hence, it is impossible for God to hold them MORALLY accountable for anything they do until they can comprehend moral accountability.

Hence, they are obviously safe from an kind of judgement based upon works.

Furthermore, the New Testament provides NO COMMAND, NO DOCTRINE, NO EXPLICIT EXAMPLE for the baptism of infants.

The totall omission of doctrine/practice or examples can only be attributed to one of two reasons. Either, the New Testament writers were totally incapable of compassion for the most helpless of our race or they did not regard infants in any kind of danger of judgement. Take your choice!

I think the answer is obvious - they are not in any danger and so you do not have to provide doctrines that provide escape from judgement when they are not in danger. There is no examples of infant baptism because there is no need. It is just that simple.

In the above post I have simplified the whole argument. The truth is so obvious and so simple that only a predisposition against the truth keeps one back from accepting the plain obvious truth - padeobaptism has nothing to do with scripture. Paedobaptism has its roots in Christianized paganism plain and simple.

 

[Wittenberger]

(continued from my previous comments above)

So, as we saw in my last comments, neither Arminians, Calvinists/Reformed, or orthodox Christians can provide scripture verses that explicitly prove their position on Infant Safety/Salvation.
Isn’t it strange that Christ does not explicitly discuss this subject in the Gospels? We saw in the Gospel of Luke how much He loved little children.
Isn’t it also strange that none of the writers of the epistles explicitly discuss this subject? Would the Apostles and other early Christians really encourage people to convert to the new faith/religion without giving them ANY information regarding the salvation status of their children? Wouldn’t that be one of the first questions that any parent would ask if considering conversion to another religion??

But there is no explicit discussion of this subject anywhere in the New Testament. Why?

Orthodox Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglo-Catholics) believe that the reason that there is no explicit mention in the New Testament of this topic, is that the paradigm of salvation did not change!

The only changes between the Old and New Covenant were that the sacrifice changed: no longer a lamb, now the Lamb of God. The means of atonement changed: from faith and the Law, to faith in Christ alone. And the sign of the Covenant changed: from circumcision to baptism.

What was the paradigm in the Old Testament? A male child born to Jewish parents was given the sign of the covenant on the 8th day of life. He was taught the Law and to love God while growing up in the home, so that when he was an adult he would keep the law and maintain his faith in God.

Did this child have to undergo a conversion experience when he reached an Age of Accountability? There is no evidence in Scripture of this.

Could this circumcised Jewish child, grow up and blaspheme God, break all His commandments, live a life of sin, and still expect to make it into Paradise just because of his circumcision? Highly unlikely.

No, the Jewish male child was brought into the Covenant at his circumcision. As he grew, he eventually expressed faith in God, and like Abraham, God counted this faith as righteousness. Could this child have ignored God’s command to be circumcised and still have faith, and therefore, have eternal life? Very unlikely. He would have been “cut off”.

One other point: people in the Middle East during the Biblical times were not in the habit of converting individually. If the head of the household converted to a new religion, the entire household, including wives, children, servants and slaves converted. (Abraham is a perfect example.)

So when the Apostles are preaching to the Jews calling on them to convert to the new faith, the idea that the head of the household would convert alone, and that the rest of his household each had to make an individual decision would have been unheard of! If such an individual conversion was really necessary, the Apostles would have had to explain this in great detail.

But, there is no such detailed discussion recorded in Scripture.

So orthodox Christians believe that when Peter said to the crowd in Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” that Peter was promising the forgiveness of sins for them AND their children if they, the head of the household converted.

What other scriptural evidence is there of this?

(to be continued below)

 

[The Biblicist]

(continued from my previous comments above)

So, as we saw in my last comments, neither Arminians, Calvinists/Reformed, or orthodox Christians can provide scripture verses that explicitly prove their position on Infant Safety/Salvation.
Isn’t it strange that Christ does not explicitly discuss this subject in the Gospels? We saw in the Gospel of Luke how much He loved little children.
Isn’t it also strange that none of the writers of the epistles explicitly discuss this subject? Would the Apostles and other early Christians really encourage people to convert to the new faith/religion without giving them ANY information regarding the salvation status of their children? Wouldn’t that be one of the first questions that any parent would ask if considering conversion to another religion??

But there is no explicit discussion of this subject anywhere in the New Testament. Why?

Orthodox Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglo-Catholics) believe that the reason that there is no explicit mention in the New Testament of this topic, is that the paradigm of salvation did not change!

The only changes between the Old and New Covenant were that the sacrifice changed: no longer a lamb, now the Lamb of God. The means of atonement changed: from faith and the Law, to faith in Christ alone. And the sign of the Covenant changed: from circumcision to baptism.

What was the paradigm in the Old Testament? A male child born to Jewish parents was given the sign of the covenant on the 8th day of life. He was taught the Law and to love God while growing up in the home, so that when he was an adult he would keep the law and maintain his faith in God.

Did this child have to undergo a conversion experience when he reached an Age of Accountability? There is no evidence in Scripture of this.

Could this circumcised Jewish child, grow up and blaspheme God, break all His commandments, live a life of sin, and still expect to make it into Paradise just because of his circumcision? Highly unlikely.

No, the Jewish male child was brought into the Covenant at his circumcision. As he grew, he eventually expressed faith in God, and like Abraham, God counted this faith as righteousness. Could this child have ignored God’s command to be circumcised and still have faith, and therefore, have eternal life? Very unlikely. He would have been “cut off”.

One other point: people in the Middle East during the Biblical times were not in the habit of converting individually. If the head of the household converted to a new religion, the entire household, including wives, children, servants and slaves converted. (Abraham is a perfect example.)

So when the Apostles are preaching to the Jews calling on them to convert to the new faith, the idea that the head of the household would convert alone, and that the rest of his household each had to make an individual decision would have been unheard of! If such an individual conversion was really necessary, the Apostles would have had to explain this in great detail.

But, there is no such detailed discussion recorded in Scripture.

So orthodox Christians believe that when Peter said to the crowd in Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” that Peter was promising the forgiveness of sins for them AND their children if they, the head of the household converted.

What other scriptural evidence is there of this?

(to be continued below)

Are you oblivious to common sense and Biblical truth? Apparently so. Your position has been thoroughly discredited by both common sense and scripture and yet you continue to blather this nonsense!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is true! There is a difference between perseverance of the saints versus preservation of the saints. The former has to do with "good works" whereas the latter has to do with our continuance in faith in the gospel regardless of our works. Eternal secuurity has to do with justification by faith not sanctification through faithfulness.

So the RCC would take perseverance view, while baptists the preservation way?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is true! There is a difference between perseverance of the saints versus preservation of the saints. The former has to do with "good works" whereas the latter has to do with our continuance in faith in the gospel regardless of our works. Eternal secuurity has to do with justification by faith not sanctification through faithfulness.

Well, I'll make it easy for you. I don't believe in either one.

 

[Yeshua1]

(continued from my previous comments above)

In Christianity today there seems to be three dominant belief systems regarding the Safety/Salvation of children and infants:

Arminian Christians (Free-will Baptists and others): all infants and young children are under a blanket protection from God's judgement. Some believe these children do not have original sin, others of this group believe they do have original sin, but God does not hold them accountable for this original sin until they reach an age of understanding Good from Evil, referred to as "The Age of Accountability". So if a child in this age group dies, God will take him/her to heaven. This will occur regardless of the status of the parents, Christian or non-Christian.

Once the child reaches the Age of Accountability and realizes that he is a sinner, he must make a choice: Repent and accept Christ as his personal Savior or reject Christ. If he refuses to accept Christ or even delays to make a decision, he is in mortal danger, because if he dies in this state, he will be sent to hell to burn for all eternity.

Calvinist/Reformed Christians (Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist): this group of Christians usually do not believe in an Age of Accountability because they do not believe that the sinner has a free will to make a decision about his eternal destiny. God has either chosen to save you or he has chosen to send you to hell.

Therefore some of these Christians may baptize their infants, but the purpose of Baptism is not regenerational, only convenantal. Baptism is a sign only, but it does bring the child into the family of the church. If the child is one of the Elect, he/she will make a public profession of his/her faith in Christ sometime later in life demonstrating to all he/she is one of the "chosen".

If an infant/child of Calvinists dies before being able to make a public profession of faith, his status is essentially in limbo. His parents will never know (in this life at least) if their child went to heaven or hell.

orthodox Christians (Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox)
These Christians believe that the salvation status of the parents significantly influences the salvation status of the children.

Most orthodox Christians believe that the children of Christians are "safe" until they are baptized at which time they are saved.

In other times, some orthodox Christians insisted that if a baby of Christian parents died, without being baptized, then the baby was lost, and would go to hell. Lutherans at least, and I would bet most other orthodox Christians, currently believe that if the baby dies before the Christian parents can baptize him, or if the baby was miscarried, the child is safe and will go to heaven.

So where in the New Testament do any of these three groups of Christians have explicit references regarding infants/young children that support their stated positions?

Nowhere.

Each group bases their belief on verses that they believe infer that their position is correct.

Continued...

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

couple more concepts that have been held on children!

God foreknows IF they would have accepted jesus if allowed to be adults, if was presented Gospel, so bases salvation on that

God has decide to Elect in Christ ALL under age of accountibility, as infants/mentally challened etc!