An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

[Wittenberger]

This thread is a continuation of a discussion which developed at the end of the thread entitled "Why is it impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong?". We stopped talking about Mormons and began a study/debate of the New Testament starting with the first chapter of Matthew.

As we go along, I am going to try and post every passage of Scripture in the New Testament that discusses these topics:

1. Salvation by faith in Christ
2. Any passage that includes the words: saved, salvation, believe, born again, repentance, faith, and grace.
3. Any passage that discusses receiving the Holy Spirit.
4. Any passage that includes the words: baptize, baptism, or any discussion of water in relation to, or possibly in relation to, a spiritual issue or event.

The last passage of Scripture discussed on the "Mormon" thread was the parable of "The Rich Young Man". There are many more parables in the rest of Matthew. Many of them discuss what happens to the righteous and what happens to the unrighteous. Since they are parables, the exact significance of the parable may be debatable, so I am not going to list anymore parables. However, if anyone feels we are then leaving an important parable out that relates to the topics above, feel free to bring it up.

Just in case you haven't read my profile, I am a conservative Lutheran Christian, so I therefore believe that Justification is by the grace of God, received in faith, but I also hold to the catholic/orthodox position on the doctrine of Baptism. I was raised a fundamentalist Baptist.

Even though I strongly believe my Lutheran doctrine, there is still a little Baptist in me that hasn't been 100% convinced that Luther got it right in 1517. My purpose of being on the Baptist Boards is to test my Lutheran doctrines against the denomination whose interpretation of Scripture is, in my opinion, the most plausible alternative interpretation of Scripture---the Baptists.

So I will follow this OP with the next passage of Scripture for discussion. I will be using the English Standard Version. If anyone feels that a particular passage discussed in the ESV is at odds with the KJV, I will be happy to post the passage in the KJV also. God bless!

 

[Wittenberger]

So as I said in the OP, I am skipping the rest of the parables. I was expecting to get to the story of the Thief on the Cross, but to my surprise, this story is not discussed in the Gospel of Matthew! Matthew only tells us that both thieves "reviled" Christ.

So the next passage is Matthew 28:19-20

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Of all the passages in Scripture, the Great Commission is probably the passage that gives me the most pause about the Anabaptist/Baptist/Reformed/evangelical view of baptism. (Hereafter referred to as the "evangelical" position.)

If salvation occurs by "accepting Christ into your heart", why doesn't the Great Commission read thus, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations by preaching that they must accept Christ into their hearts and make Him their personal Lord and Savior. Then command them to be baptized as an act of obedience/public profession of faith, in the name of the Father...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..."

It just seems strange to me that in Christ's last words to his disciples before he left them to go to heaven, baptism is given such a prominent position in his farewell. I grew up Baptist until I was eighteen. I never once heard an altar call where the preacher said, "Come forward to be made a disciple of Christ and to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Never. Baptism was always an afterthougt. It was important, for sure, but it was never discussed with the emphasis that Christ makes of it here in the Great Commission. That seems really strange to me!

Now I realize that you could interpret "make disciples" as "telling people that they must accept Christ into their hearts", but why didn't Christ take the time to go into this detail about the all important manner of salvation?? He uses only TWO words to discuss "salvation", but then goes on to discuss the "ordinance" of baptism with SEVENTEEN words! Isn't that very odd?? Wouldn't the manner of salvation be the more important topic to discuss in his final minutes on earth??

 

[The Biblicist]

So as I said in the OP, I am skipping the rest of the parables. I was expecting to get to the story of the Thief on the Cross, but to my surprise, this story is not discussed in the Gospel of Matthew! Matthew only tells us that both thieves "reviled" Christ.

So the next passage is Matthew 28:19-20

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.

Of all the passages in Scripture, the Great Commission is probably the passage that gives me the most pause about the Anabaptist/Baptist/Reformed/evangelical view of baptism. (Hereafter referred to as the "evangelical" position.)

If salvation occurs by "accepting Christ into your heart", why doesn't the Great Commission read thus, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations by preaching that they must accept Christ into their hearts and make Him their personal Lord and Savior. Then command them to be baptized as an act of obedience/public profession of faith, in the name of the Father...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..."

It just seems strange to me that in Christ's last words to his disciples before he left them to go to heaven, baptism is given such a prominent position in his farewell. I grew up Baptist until I was eighteen. I never once heard an altar call where the preacher said, "Come forward to be made a disciple of Christ and to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Never. Baptism was always an afterthougt. It was important, for sure, but it was never discussed with the emphasis that Christ makes of it here in the Great Commission. That seems really strange to me!

Now I realize that you could interpret "make disciples" as "telling people that they must accept Christ into their hearts", but why didn't Christ take the time to go into this detail about the all important manner of salvation?? He uses only TWO words to discuss "salvation", but then goes on to discuss the "ordinance" of baptism with SEVENTEEN words! Isn't that very odd?? Wouldn't the manner of salvation be the more important topic to discuss in his final minutes on earth??

Again, the issue is a matter of context - overall context. There are parallel accounts that must be taken into consideration.

1. This commission grammatically consists of one primary verb - Aorist imperative verb literally tanslated "make disciples" modified by three adverbial participles "go" (Aorist) "baptizing" (Present tense) "teaching" (Present tense).

2. Hence, the primary verb defines the goal of the mission and the three adverbial participles defines how that goal is obtained.

3. The first Aorist tense participle demands that "go" has occurred in time PRIOR TO making disciples as its action precedes the action of the main verb. Thus "go" is assumed to be a completed action already accomplished. The distinction between objects is significant. The object of the command "go" is the world or every creature but the object of baptism is "them" or those who received the gospel in distinction from the rest of the "world."

4. From the parallel account (Mk. 16:15) we learn this previous completed action is having gone preaching the gospel to every creature:

Mk. 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Here is the crux of your primary problem with this text as a Lutheran. The aroist tense demands that evangelization of the gospel has already occurred prior to baptism.

This interpretation is born out by how the Apostles themselves understand this commission and apply it in the first time in Acts 2:40-41

a. "As many as received the word" = "go preach the gospel"

b. "were baptized" = "baptizing them"

c. "and added unto them..and continued stefastly in the apostles doctrine" = Teaching them to observe all things...."

5. The next participle is present tense and thus concurrent action with the main verb. "baptizing THEM" refers to those who received the gospel" rather than the world that rejected the gospel. It is this gospel reception that distinguishes "them" from the "world" they preached the gospel to.

6. Baptism is the instrumental act of how members are "added unto them" (Acts 2:41) so that they can be taught "how to observe all things"

7. The third participle completes the action of the main verb - "Teaching" them to observe all things....I have commanded."

Hence, a "disciple" is one who receives and adopts the faith and practice of His Master. He is first evangelized, then baptized and added to the assembly and then instructed how to observe all things" His Master has commanded producing a disciple of like faith and order.

 

[Wittenberger]

Again, the issue is a matter of context - overall context. There are parallel accounts that must be taken into consideration.

1. This commission grammatically consists of one primary verb - Aorist imperative verb literally tanslated "make disciples" modified by three adverbial participles "go" (Aorist) "baptizing" (Present tense) "teaching" (Present tense).

2. Hence, the primary verb defines the goal of the mission and the three adverbial participles defines how that goal is obtained.

3. The first Aorist tense participle demands that "go" has occurred in time PRIOR TO making disciples as its action precedes the action of the main verb. Thus "go" is assumed to be a completed action already accomplished. The distinction between objects is significant. The object of the command "go" is the world or every creature but the object of baptism is "them" or those who received the gospel in distinction from the rest of the "world."

4. From the parallel account (Mk. 16:15) we learn this previous completed action is having gone preaching the gospel to every creature:

Mk. 16:15-16 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Here is the crux of your primary problem with this text as a Lutheran. The aroist tense demands that evangelization of the gospel has already occurred prior to baptism.

This interpretation is born out by how the Apostles themselves understand this commission and apply it in the first time in Acts 2:40-41

a. "As many as received the word" = "go preach the gospel"

b. "were baptized" = "baptizing them"

c. "and added unto them..and continued stefastly in the apostles doctrine" = Teaching them to observe all things...."

5. The next participle is present tense and thus concurrent action with the main verb. "baptizing THEM" refers to those who received the gospel" rather than the world that rejected the gospel. It is this gospel reception that distinguishes "them" from the "world" they preached the gospel to.

6. Baptism is the instrumental act of how members are "added unto them" (Acts 2:41) so that they can be taught "how to observe all things"

7. The third participle completes the action of the main verb - "Teaching" them to observe all things....I have commanded."

Hence, a "disciple" is one who receives and adopts the faith and practice of His Master. He is first evangelized, then baptized and added to the assembly and then instructed how to observe all things" His Master has commanded producing a disciple of like faith and order.

I agree with you that the order of events in this passage are as follows:

1. "make disciples"
2. baptize them (those you have made disciples)
3. teach them

I believe that the process of making disciples for Christ involves the convert following three commands of God: Believe by faith, repent, be baptized. Can you really be a disciple of Christ and refuse to be baptized?

We Lutherans definitely do NOT believe that Christ commanded us to go out and baptize any person we can find to make them a disciple. Believing in Christ, by faith, and repentance, must proceed baptism. But this verse just doesn't sound as if baptism is the afterthought (ordinance) that Baptists believe it is.

The Great Commission in the Gospels of Mark and Luke read as follows:

Mark 16:15-16 "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Luke 24:46-47 "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Can a person be "saved" during an altar call at an evangelical worship service but then never get around to being baptized because it would be embarrasing to get "wet" in front of so many people? "I'll just love Jesus and repent of my sins, turn my life over to Christ, and that's really enough."

Doesn't baptism seem like it has so much more significance in the accounts of people being baptized in the New Testament than something you do a couple of months later after being saved when you get around to it?

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with you that the order of events in this passage are as follows:

1. "make disciples"
2. baptize them (those you have made disciples)
3. teach them

No, this is not the order given. Nor is that the order followed in Acts 2:40-41. Nor is that the order repeated throughout the New Testament. The order both given and followed is:

1. Go preach the gospel
2. Make disciples
3. baptize them
4. Teach them

The Aorist participle translated "go" (Mt. 28:19) but interpreted to mean "go preach the gospel" (Mk. 16:15) demands evangelization has already been accomplished PRIOR to the present tense "baptizing THEM."

Here is a basic rule in Greek Grammar. The adverbial participles modify the primary verb. If the participle is found in a completed action tense then the action of the participle precedes the action of the verb. If the action of the participle is incomplete and present tense then the action of the participle is simeltaneous with the action of the primary verb.

Hence, going and preaching the gospel is presented by Christ as assumed completed. This action is toward all nations or every creature. However, the action of baptizing is simeltaneous with the action of the main verb and regards only "them" or the evangelized out of the nations.

The aorist tense going with the gospel as a completed action precedes baptism. That is the grammar. That is the example of this very commission in Acts 2:41

1. "AS MANY AS RECEIVED received the word"
2. "were baptized"


The words "as many as" equal the pronoun "them" in Matthew 28:19 or those who received the gospel out of the nations unto whom the gospel was FIRST preached.

This is the order in the Great Commission. This is the order in its first application in Acts. This is the repreated order throughout the whole New Testament. Paedobaptists attempt to pervert this order and must pervert in order to justify their doctrine of infant baptism.

 

[Wittenberger]

No, this is not the order given. Nor is that the order followed in Acts 2:40-41. Nor is that the order repeated throughout the New Testament. The order both given and followed is:

1. Go preach the gospel
2. Make disciples
3. baptize them
4. Teach them

The Aorist participle translated "go" (Mt. 28:19) but interpreted to mean "go preach the gospel" (Mk. 16:15) demands evangelization has already been accomplished PRIOR to the present tense "baptizing THEM."

Here is a basic rule in Greek Grammar. The adverbial participles modify the primary verb. If the participle is found in a completed action tense then the action of the participle precedes the action of the verb. If the action of the participle is incomplete and present tense then the action of the participle is simeltaneous with the action of the primary verb.

Hence, going and preaching the gospel is presented by Christ as assumed completed. This action is toward all nations or every creature. However, the action of baptizing is simeltaneous with the action of the main verb and regards only "them" or the evangelized out of the nations.

The aorist tense going with the gospel as a completed action precedes baptism. That is the grammar. That is the example of this very commission in Acts 2:41

1. "AS MANY AS RECEIVED received the word"
2. "were baptized"


The words "as many as" equal the pronoun "them" in Matthew 28:19 or those who received the gospel out of the nations unto whom the gospel was FIRST preached.

This is the order in the Great Commission. This is the order in its first application in Acts. This is the repreated order throughout the whole New Testament. Paedobaptists attempt to pervert this order and must pervert in order to justify their doctrine of infant baptism.

I completely agree with you: "Go" is the first command, and Mark makes it clear that we are to "go and preach the Gospel". Thank you for your correction. So the correct order should be:

1. Go (to preach the Gospel) to the whole world.
2. Make disciples of those who receive the Gospel: those who believe, by faith, and repent of their sins.
3. Baptize those who have believed and repented.
4. Teach the baptized.

I and the Lutheran Church are in complete agreement with you on this order.

The question is not whether the person who believes by faith and repents is saved before being baptized. We are in complete agreement with you here. The issue is this: can a person who refuses/rejects baptism be a true, repentant believer?

Lutherans say, "Probably not".

An adult who believes in Christ by faith and repents...and then dies before he has an opportunity to be baptized, WILL go to heaven as a Christian. Even the Roman Catholic Church believes this.

But a man who says that he believes and has repented but who refuses to follow God's command to be baptized cannot be a true follower of Christ. He is not a disciple. He is not a Christian because he is not "following" Christ.

Baptism is not something that you can shrug off just because you have believed and repented and "that's enough". Read the doctrinal statement of some of the big, nondenominational evangelical churches. Some of them don't even mention baptism, or if they do it is way down the list on their doctrinal priorities.

Baptism REALLY mattered in the New Testament conversions. It has to be more than just an "ordinance" that you can put off until you feel like it.

This passage of Scripture does not discuss infant baptism specifically, but the order of conversion must remain the same as above for anyone, regardless of age. The issue is this: can infants believe and repent?

A Baptist/evangelical would say, "That's a ridiculous question! Of course, infants cannot believe and repent."

Lutherans would say, "Why not?". Salvation is not a work of man, but 100% a work of God. If God is doing all of the saving, and salvation is a "free gift", why can't God give belief and repentance to ALL he chooses to save, even infants? Sinful man does not come to Christ to be saved! Christ comes to sinful man who is dead in his sins. Dead men can't choose to be saved! God does it all, and if he wants to save infants, he can do it in the same manner that he does adults.

I know that Baptists/evangelicals find this line of thinking outrageous and appalling, but let's keep reading Scripture and see which point of view has more Scriptural support.

 

[The Biblicist]

I completely agree with you: "Go" is the first command, and Mark makes it clear that we are to "go and preach the Gospel". Thank you for your correction. So the correct order should be:

1. Go (to preach the Gospel) to the whole world.
2. Make disciples of those who receive the Gospel: those who believe, by faith, and repent of their sins.
3. Baptize those who have believed and repented.
4. Teach the baptized.

I and the Lutheran Church are in complete agreement with you on this order.

The question is not whether the person who believes by faith and repents is saved before being baptized. We are in complete agreement with you here. The issue is this: can a person who refuses/rejects baptism be a true, repentant believer?

Lutherans say, "Probably not".

During the New Testament period I think a person rejecting baptism IS a lost person. However, not so today. Reason? Because there is so much confusion today about what is baptism and what is it's significance and such perversion of baptism. So today, I believe the majority of professed Christians are unbaptized and many are true believers.

 

[The Biblicist]

The issue is this: can infants believe and repent?

A Baptist/evangelical would say, "That's a ridiculous question! Of course, infants cannot believe and repent."

Repent of what? They have not PERSONALLY committed any knowledable sin! Judgement day has but one standard "according to his works" and they have no PERSONAL "works" to be judged for!

Sure, they partook of the sin and nature by the representation of Adam but that is not an INDIVIDUAL sin but a RACE sin. So again, I ask "repent of what"?

 

[Wittenberger]

During the New Testament period I think a person rejecting baptism IS a lost person. However, not so today. Reason? Because there is so much confusion today about what is baptism and what is it's significance and such perversion of baptism. So today, I believe the majority of professed Christians are unbaptized and many are true believers.

I'm not 100% sure of the Lutheran Church's position on your point, but I will bet it is this, and this is how I feel:

If a person is not baptized because someone has confused them as to the role of baptism and its importance, I think that person can still be a Christian if they believe by faith in Christ and repent.

I am talking about someone who KNOWS that it is Christ's command to be baptized but refuses to do so either due to laziness or willful defiance.

I and the Lutheran Church would not say to this person, "You aren't saved!" but we would seriously counsel them and urge them to examine if they sincerely do believe, have repented of all sin, and are really willing to "take up their cross and follow Christ" if they stubbornly refuse his first command to Christians.

To Lutherans, you don't have to be baptized to be saved, but to refuse and reject baptism puts the genuiness of your faith and repentance into serious question.

 

[Wittenberger]

Repent of what? They have not PERSONALLY committed any knowledable sin! Judgement day has but one standard "according to his works" and they have no PERSONAL "works" to be judged for!

Sure, they partook of the sin and nature by the representation of Adam but that is not an INDIVIDUAL sin but a RACE sin. So again, I ask "repent of what"?

You have a very interesting position here, and I think it would be terrific if you were correct.

However, can you name any Baptist group or other evangelical denomination that holds this view, other than maybe one or two individual congregations? I grew up in the Bible Baptist Fellowship (fundamentalists). I never heard this doctrine from them. They based their belief in the "Age of Accountability" on the statement of King David in the OT, nothing more.

 

[The Biblicist]

You have a very interesting position here, and I think it would be terrific if you were correct.

However, can you name any Baptist group or other evangelical denomination that holds this view, other than maybe one or two individual congregations? I grew up in the Bible Baptist Fellowship (fundamentalists). I never heard this doctrine from them. They based their belief in the "Age of Accountability" on the statement of King David in the OT, nothing more.

What do you think the age of accountability doctrine is?

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm not 100% sure of the Lutheran Church's position on your point, but I will bet it is this, and this is how I feel:

If a person is not baptized because someone has confused them as to the role of baptism and its importance, I think that person can still be a Christian if they believe by faith in Christ and repent.

I am talking about someone who KNOWS that it is Christ's command to be baptized but refuses to do so either due to laziness or willful defiance.

I and the Lutheran Church would not say to this person, "You aren't saved!" but we would seriously counsel them and urge them to examine if they sincerely do believe, have repented of all sin, and are really willing to "take up their cross and follow Christ" if they stubbornly refuse his first command to Christians.

To Lutherans, you don't have to be baptized to be saved, but to refuse and reject baptism puts the genuiness of your faith and repentance into serious question.

Let me be clear. The Bible NEVER conditions salvation on baptism or any other external ordinance and especially today it should be vigorously repudiated that salvation is connected with baptism in any sense whatever other than an external figure.

 

[Wittenberger]

What do you think the age of accountability doctrine is?

I was an Independent, fundamental Baptist preacher’s son and grew up in the Baptist Bible Fellowship until I was eighteen. In this denomination I was taught the following regarding the “safety” of infants:

ALL infants and very young children, of believers and unbelievers, who die, will go to heaven. This belief is based on a statement in the Old Testament by King David in which David discusses that he will see his dead infant son again one day. These Baptists believed that since infants/young children cannot make a decision to be saved, we must, therefore, have faith and put our trust in a loving, merciful God that He would not send babies to hell.

However, these Baptists definitely believed that infants are stained by original sin, and are therefore unrighteous and in need of a Savior as Scripture states, “there is none righteous, no not one”. That verse does not exclude infants. These Baptists put their faith in a loving God to grant a “pardon” to these infants who die. This pardon wipes clean their inherited sinfulness from Grandfather Adam.

I have never heard of any Baptist group use passages of Scripture related to the Last Judgment as proof of this belief, and very definitely I have never heard any Baptist state that God does not hold some sinners blameless for original sin, even if they are infants. According to all the Baptists I am acquainted with, Reformed Baptists, Southern Baptists, BBF Baptists, American Baptists, ALL sinners must either make an informed decision to believe (accept Christ) or they are pardoned of their stain of original sin because they are infants, or their fate is determined by whether or not they are one of the Elect. I have NEVER heard another Baptist state that God holds infants blameless because they haven’t committed sins of their own.

Of course we Lutherans reply that these beliefs have no scriptural basis in the New Testament whatsoever. It is all made-up to be compatible with what we believe to be a false teaching that sinful man, who the Bible states is DEAD spiritually, can make a decision for God. Since infants cannot make decisions, Baptists then are forced to create an alternative method of salvation for them.

Again, I ask you, does ANY Baptist group share your belief or is this a new truth that you have discovered?

Please provide a doctrinal statement by the SBC, ABC, BBF or any other Baptist group that states that infants are not held responsible for sin because they themselves have not committed any sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

These Baptists believed that since infants/young children cannot make a decision to be saved,

Well, you present the postive side what about the negative side? They cannot personally and individually make a decision to be saved any more than they can make a personal and individual decision to sin. Their only sin is by natural union with Adam whereby ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE brought condemnation upon all born through him. I would suggest that where sin abounded grace did much more abound and just as they were condemned by the disobedience of one man they are redeemed by the obedience of ONE MAN apart from any individual decision or independent act of their own positive or negative. Thus apart from individual works or choice they are justified as they were condemned.

Natural head Adam- birth, condemnation, death, hell
Second Adam - new birth, justification, life, heaven

 

[Wittenberger]

Well, you present the postive side what about the negative side? They cannot personally and individually make a decision to be saved any more than they can make a personal and individual decision to sin. Their only sin is by natural union with Adam whereby ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE brought condemnation upon all born through him. I would suggest that where sin abounded grace did much more abound and just as they were condemned by the disobedience of one man they are redeemed by the obedience of ONE MAN apart from any individual decision or independent act of their own positive or negative. Thus apart from individual works or choice they are justified as they were condemned.

This is a wonderful belief system, and I would very much would like to believe it is true.

I understand that you probably believe that all records of this belief were wiped out by the "catholics" for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, but shouldn't at least one of the modern major Baptist groups, including the fundamentalist BBF, still hold this belief and have it written in their doctrinal statements?

If so, please direct me to a website or a Baptist document that confirms that Baptists have always believed since the days of the Apostles that infants are not held accountable for sin because God only holds humans accountable for their own sins, not those they inherited from Grandpa Adam, and infants cannot sin.

Or did you re-discover this truth yourself?

 

[The Biblicist]

This is a wonderful belief system, and I would very much would like to believe it is true.

I understand that you probably believe that all records of this belief were wiped out by the "catholics" for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, but shouldn't at least one of the modern major Baptist groups, including the fundamentalist BBF, still hold this belief and have it written in their doctrinal statements?

If so, please direct me to a website or a Baptist document that confirms that Baptists have always believed since the days of the Apostles that infants are not held accountable for sin because God only holds humans accountable for their own sins, not those they inherited from Grandpa Adam, and infants cannot sin.

Or did you re-discover this truth yourself?

If is just the flip side of the positive argument for the same position. If they could not individually and personally repent and believe in the gospel then obviously they could not personally and individually willfully choose to sin. The positive side is more emphasized than the negative.

Since judgement day has but one standard which is repeatedly stated over and over gain in Scriptures - "according to his works" then obviously no dying infant can be condemned at judgement on that basis.

Romans 5:12-19 provide the comparison and application. David's child provides an example. However, as you pointed out Jesus infers such are in heaven. Also the command to kill infants of the Canaanites by God can be seen as a merciful act in the sense that they were not permitted to grow up in heathenism and be condemned to hell.

Hence, they are in no danger of condemnation to hell. The fact that Jesus took away the singular "sin" of the world (Jn. 1:29) removes eternal condemnation for the sin by representative choice but not for individual choice.

 

[Wittenberger]

If is just the flip side of the positive argument for the same position. If they could not individually and personally repent and believe in the gospel then obviously they could not personally and individually willfully choose to sin. The positive side is more emphasized than the negative.

Since judgement day has but one standard which is repeatedly stated over and over gain in Scriptures - "according to his works" then obviously no dying infant can be condemned at judgement on that basis.

Romans 5:12-19 provide the comparison and application. David's child provides an example. However, as you pointed out Jesus infers such are in heaven. Also the command to kill infants of the Canaanites by God can be seen as a merciful act in the sense that they were not permitted to grow up in heathenism and be condemned to hell.

Hence, they are in no danger of condemnation to hell. The fact that Jesus took away the singular "sin" of the world (Jn. 1:29) removes eternal condemnation for the sin by representative choice but not for individual choice.

Your reluctance or refusal to answer my question is very telling...

To Lutheans, this issue is one of the biggest holes in the Baptist/evangelical interpretation of Scritpure: how could the same loving Jesus who chastised his disciples for forbidding the little children to come to him turn around and create a salvation paradigm which leaves our little children in spiritual limbo? Why would the Christ who so loved little children leave no sure means for their salvation or safety if they were to die? How could our loving God who says he even cares for the sparrows of the field leave grieving Christian parents with no sure scriptural solace that they will ever see their dead infant or toddler again??

Your belief system on this issue has no support from The Church Fathers, church history, or even from the Baptists themselves! If Baptists have always had the "true Gospel" then please provide a doctrinal statement from ANY major Baptist group which concurs with your stated beliefs on this issue.

You don't give any Baptist doctrinal statements, brother, because you know that there are NONE! You have "discovered" this belief yourself.

The unscriptural doctrine of the "Age of Accountability is not the only glaring hole in the evangelical/Baptist belief system we notice here. This discussion is the perfect example of why it is dangerous for Christians to believe that they have the right of "individual, personal interpretation" of the Bible, regardless of what the previous 2,000 years of Christians believed.

Just because Christian Snake Handlers can quote Mark chapter 16 for proof that "true Christians" should be able to pick up snakes, and that anyone who refuses to do so, lacks true faith, does not mean that this belief is proper Christian doctrine and practice. That's why looking to the Church Fathers is so important! Not to establish your interpretation as the supreme authority, but to verify and denounce new interpretations that no previous generation of Christians has believed!

If no one for the last 2,000 years has believed your doctrine and you suddenly "discover" it, SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG! Who is more likely to be right: the millions of Christians who have held the faith since the Apostles, or YOU?

 

[The Biblicist]

To Lutheans, this issue is one of the biggest holes in the Baptist/evangelical interpretation of Scritpure: how could the same loving Jesus who chastised his disciples for forbidding the little children to come to him turn around and create a salvation paradigm which leaves our little children in spiritual limbo? Why would the Christ who so loved little children leave no sure means for their salvation or safety if they were to die? How could our loving God who says he even cares for the sparrows of the field leave grieving Christian parents with no sure scriptural solace that they will ever see their dead infant or toddler again??

Surely you have not understood what I said??? Better read it again. What I said covers every dying child and every mentally deficint person dying - nothing could be more gracious and merciful.

However, the idea of infant baptism as the safety blanket for dying infants is cruel to the millions of infants that die in non-Christian cultures and among those Christians who reject infant baptism. EITHER IT BENEFITS or IT DOES NOT - you cannot have it both ways.

Your belief system on this issue has no support from The Church Fathers, church history

Surely you jest? Would you expect that doctrine from the records and selective materials of Paedobaptists????

, or even from the Baptists themselves!

You need to get out more! I never dreamed this up. First, there is a Biblical basis for it. Second, I have had professors in Bible college teach this. Third, you can find it in Baptist Theology books. Indeed one of the earliest and most comprehensive Baptist Theologogy books presents the basis for this view - A.H. Srong, Systematic Theology, pp. 661-664. There are other Baptist Theologians and Theologies that teach the same basic premises You can find it in early Baptist Associational minutes and writings.

However, does that really matter to you anyway?????

 

[Wittenberger]

Surely you have not understood what I said??? Better read it again. What I said covers every dying child and every mentally deficint person dying - nothing could be more gracious and merciful.

However, the idea of infant baptism as the safety blanket for dying infants is cruel to the millions of infants that die in non-Christian cultures and among those Christians who reject infant baptism. EITHER IT BENEFITS or IT DOES NOT - you cannot have it both ways.



Surely you jest? Would you expect that doctrine from the records and selective materials of Paedobaptists????



You need to get out more! I never dreamed this up. First, there is a Biblical basis for it. Second, I have had professors in Bible college teach this. Third, you can find it in Baptist Theology books. Indeed one of the earliest and most comprehensive Baptist Theologogy books presents the basis for this view - A.H. Srong, Systematic Theology, pp. 661-664. There are other Baptist Theologians and Theologies that teach the same basic premises You can find it in early Baptist Associational minutes and writings.

However, does that really matter to you anyway?????

How would Lutherans answer the question, "What happens to the infant children of unbelievers if they die"?

Answer: the Bible doesn't say, so we don't know.

We do not make up a doctrine to fill in the holes.

I tried to go online and find Strong's Systematic Theology, pp. 661-664 and couldn't find those pages. Could you or someone else post these pages for us to read? I very much would like to read them.

Are you saying that at least one group of Baptists has ALWAYS believed this and you can provide evidence of that? I still would like to see the doctrinal statement of at least ONE Baptist denomination/group who agrees with you on this. Could you supply one for us to read?

Once again, I am here to test my catholic/orthodox beliefs against the denomination whose interpretation of the Bible seems the next most plausible---you Baptists. I'm giving you my best "shots", I want to see you either knock them down or prove them correct.

This debate matters ALOT to me! Why aren't I on the Greek Orthodox, RCC, or Presbyterian websites debating them? I'm not on their sites because I have no doubt that they are wrong on many doctrines. However, I still have doubts that the Baptists are wrong. I want to either eliminate these doubts or return to being a Baptist. I want to be with those who have the true doctrines of the faith. I'm not satisfied with being mostly sure I'm right. Therefore I am giving you my best "Lutheran" shots. I want you to either prove me wrong or prove me right!

 

[Wittenberger]

Here is the next passage of Scripture in our study of the New Testament:


Mark 1:4-5
English Standard Version (ESV)

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

I'm going to beat Brother Biblicist to the punch on this one:

These verses in Mark are yet another twisted, purposefully mistranslated passage of Scripture by the coniving paedobaptists! They have really out-down themselves here. In Matthew chapter 3 they falsly referred to John's baptism as a baptism FOR repentance, but here they go even further: They refer to John's baptism as "a baptism OF repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins!"

What an outrage!

We all now know, thanks to Brother Biblicist, that what these verses should really say is this: "a baptism because of repentance because of the forgiveness of sins".

Thank goodness we have Brother Biblicist and his excellent knowledge of the Greek language to guide us to the true Word of God!