Law of Christ

The infants are not the "you" that killed Christ.

The infants were not pierced to the heart.

The promise was that those who follow the steps --
#1. Repent
#2. Be Baptized

would receive the GIFT - the PROMISE of the Holy Spirit.

DELETING the Repent part and STILL claiming to have gotten the promise - is not possible nor suggested by the text.

Acts 2:38 Sequence - - In order to RECEIVE the gifts of the Holy Spirit - you must first have the sin-separation problem solved

Acts 2:38 Repent + Baptized = fully prepared to receive the GIFTs of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:16-17 provides the context of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the 120 saints of the Acts 1 in the NT and the fact that this is
exactly the fullfillment of Joel 2 that men, women, children would recieve it.

Then in Acts 2:38 we see that the same benefit is available to the Jews gathered to listen, but before receiving it they must repent and they must receive forgiveness of sins for that is a prerequisite to receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit being witnessed in that context.

41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Obviously the infants did not "receive his word". Scripture never describes "receiving" or "rejecting" the word as something that infants were capable of doing. So the text DOES limit this action to "understanding" believers capable of "receiving" the spoken word.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is instructive that He did not baptize them either. In fact we have no examples in all of scripture of infant baptism EVEN though we DO have examples of those who hear and accept the truth being baptized while others refused to believe and are not baptized.

However - if the RCC argument were true Christ "should" have done as our RCC friends do in making this significant argument "Let the children come to Me so that I may baptize them".

At a minimum we should find His disciples baptizing them - not a single word of confirmation of the RCC speculation on this point.

------------------------------

Christ makes the opposite argument in the text. INSTEAD of saying "These have not been baptized and until they are baptized - of such is NOT the kingdom of heaven" - He claims that they ALREADY are accepted by God - they ALREADY represent the saints - INSTEAD of arguing that they are headed to Limbo and "of such are the masses in Limbo" - Christ shows them to BE accepted in the beloved already.

And of course - historically even the RCC admits this. Their historians argue that Baptism was a rigorous historic process taking several years to complete and requiring a sponsor.

They also admit that the Deacons and Leaders of the church refused to be called priests - and that they were primarily Bible teachers - UNTIL the idea of "magic sacraments" evolved where infants could be saved by pronouncing words over those who could not possibly know them. AT that point the rift began to develop between the profane laity and what became the sacred clergy.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "magic powers" of the clergy have evolved to the point that now - the RCC claims that EVEN if a priest is defrocked - and excommunicated - his powers (recieved at his ordination) to create the body of Christ and to forgive sins- do not leave him - He retains those "powers".

And no - the RCC does not claim that "you" or any RC parishoner have those powers. Only a RC priest.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ok lets see the text.

It is easier to see that all have sinned - than it is to also make the connection that Paul makes with total depravity assigned to that same group.

However - since Christ also "Draws all mankind to Him" John 12:32 - the "depravity" of "all" has its perfect solution in Christ - and apart from CHrist the "Slavery" mentioned in Romans 6 and Eph 2:1-5 is the "result" that might be expected from the statements we see in Romans 3.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 19, 2002, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Hi BobRyan,

I have a couple of questions for you:

1. If an infant dies, what happens to him/her? Are they automatically saved?
2. What did Christ come to save us from.. annihilation or eternal fire?

God bless,

Carson

 

Bob:
Yes, Paul lumps them all together. The jew that traveled in the way under the mosaic law also became unprofitable by going out of the way. The Christians at Rome who were travleling in the way become unprofitable when they chose to go out of the way. This is a parallel between following God and then choosing not to follow him. This is the choice all men have under both the old and new cov. Paul uses the falling way of the israelites as a parralel inllustration to demonstrate that those at Rome choose to do the same.
Paul is teaching the eternal principle of choice between good and evil. Deut 30:11-15, Joshua 24:15, Hebrews 11:22-26, Hebrews 5: 12-14.

 

Carson says:

Lets look at this verse: (Acts 2:39 KJV) "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."

Just as those "afar off" would not immediately be baptized because they were "afar off," those who were "infants" would not immediately be baptized because they were "infants."

BUT, he says "as many as the Lord our God shall call." Those afar off would NOT be baptized until called and those infants would not be baptized until called. And how can one be called if he doesn't understand language? Jesus said "Allow the little children come to Me" (Luke 18:16) But allowing shows that they must have a will to do so! He says "allow them" not "drag them." When they are old enough to hear the gospel, to understand the call, then allow them to come!

Hey, Frank, how's it going?

[ December 21, 2002, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

DHK:

1. You have not offered any relaible evidence that eis is translated because of. In fact, epi is translated because of. Epi is used in II Cor.9:15, not Acts 2:38. Your hypothesis for the alternative meaning of eis is just an unsubstanitated opinion. In fact, baptist scholars and the original language so teach. SEE Ray Summers, Daniel Wallace, Goodspeed. Henry B. Dewing, Bowdoin College, president of Athens College, Athens Greece said, " I should say that eis indicates NOT result or consequence but rather end or design, I should translate," let everyone of you be baptized for the attainment of the forgivenenss of sins. The meaning because of is utterly out of the question." Henry Bracket, professor of Greeek at Clark College agrees.

Mat. 12:41 is often times sited as a passage where eis is because of. However, this is not the case. The grammar requires the meaning of eis to be they repented toward the preaching of Jonah. J. R. Manley, baptist scholar, and Dr. Ralph Marcus of the University of Chicago agreed in Journal of Bible Literature Vol. LxxL, no. 1, 1952.

The word eis is never translated because of. Again, no scriptural evidence. Just your opinion. The totality of the evidence and harmony of it is against your position. I have posted the scriptures pertaining to salvation and eis in Acts 2:38. If your assertion were true, and it is not, you have men repent because their sin are already forgiven. This is foolishness. This would mean the blood sacrifice of Christ was not necesssary. Again,foolishness. Hebrews 9:14,20-22. This puts to rest your linguistic gymnastics.

2. Your claim that the jailer was saved before he was baptized is a FALSE ASSERTION. If it were true, and it is not, he was saved without repentance. Verse 33. He washed their stripes( This is repentance. Metanoeo. Luke 13:3. Mat. 3:8), and then he was baptized. Both repenantce and baptism are essential to salvation. Jesus said so. Mark 16:16, Luke 13:5. This is the same message Peter declared in Acts 2:38. Peter said to one, repent, two, be baptized for the remission of sins. You state the jalier was saved before baptism. Yet, you provide no evidence. The context and the words of Christ expose your fallacy.

3. The list of scriptures has been quoted in previous threads in conversation with you. They are written in english and interpret themselves when studied in totality and context, harmonizing all of them. You just refuse to study them because your position is proven false. In other words, you simply do not believe in doing the noble thing and study the list to see if those things are so. Acts 17:11. I do not think anyone thinks your lack of nobility helps your cause. I am not impressed by a lack of dilligence in the study of the word of God. I use referneces so people will read it for themsleves. I also quote the same passages I list. This is a feeble attempt at avoidance of the argument made from the word of God, no more no less.
4." Scripture needs explaining. And I gave it to you." You have been shown that what you "expalin is a lie." II Thes 2: 9-11, CF. I Thes. 2: 3,4.

 

Christ said of the pre-cross - not-baptized infants/children of His day "Of Such IS the kingdom of heaven". Christ is their savior. If they die as infants - they are covered by His blood.

Even non-baptized Jewish children - "Of such IS the kingdom of heaven" - according to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - but we do not find Him "baptizing them" or having His disciples do it.

Not once in all of scripture.

Rev 20 calls it "The second death" Rev 21:8- the "lake of Fire".

Jude also agrees - calling it "eternal fire" - you know like Jude says of Sodom and Gomorrah - that they are also examples of destruction by "eternal fire" Jude 7.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi BobRyan,

You wrote, "Christ said of the pre-cross - not-baptized infants/children of His day"

Are you saying that baptism wasn't administered before Christ underwent his passion? If so, read John 3:22, "After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing" and John 4:1-2, "Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, just his disciples).

You wrote, "If they die as infants - they are covered by His blood."

Are you saying that all infants who die go automatically to heaven even though they have no faith?

So infants are saved without faith?

Aren't "all ... deprived of the glory of God" in Romans 3:23?

Jesus tells us, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit". If no one can enter the kingdom of heaven without being born again, then are you saying that infants are automatically born again, become unborn at the age of reason, then need to be born a third time thereafter? I don't catch you.

I asked you, "What did Christ come to save us from.. annihilation or eternal fire?", and I didn't understand your answer.

Can you give me a clear answer?

1. annihilation

or

2. eternal fire

Thanks!

God bless you,

Carson

[ December 22, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hey Sola:
It is good to see you. I have missed your posts. I am happy you are back! I am doing fine.

 

Grammar and Structure of Acts 2:38
In Acts 2:38 the main verb is metanoesate (change mind), the aorist direct imperative (a command) of metanoeo which means to repent (change mind). This refers to that initial repentance of the sinner unto salvation. The verb translated "be baptized" is in the indirect passive imperative (a command to receive; hence, passive voice in Greek1) of baptizo, which does not give it the same direct command implied in "repent." The preposition "for" in the phrase "for the remission of sins" in Greek is "eis," unto or into, and it is in the accusative case (direct object). It can mean "for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins." It is the same preposition we find in 1 Cor. 10:2 in the phrase "and were baptized unto Moses." Note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification. These people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses. Repentance, therefore, is presented as identifying an individual with the remission of his sins, even as baptism following repentance provides an external identification visible by others. Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God while baptism involves others. That is why baptistheto (let be immersed) is in the passive voice indicating that one does not baptize himself, but is baptized by another usually in the presence of others. Repentance, however, is an act taking place within a person's heart as the Holy Spirit moves in the sinner.

All people are commanded to repent for their sins. This is what believers have already done by becoming Christians. Baptism, then, is the outward identification with being a Christian for those who have already repented. Also, as the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2), so too, Christians are baptized into Jesus. That is, they are identifying themselves, publicly, with Christ. Likewise, in Rom. 6:1-5 where baptism is related to death, burial, and resurrection, it is again and identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why it is said of Christians that we have died to sin (Rom. 6:2, 11; Gal. 2:20; Col. 2:20; Col. 3:3; 1 Pet. 2:24). This verse is not demonstrating that baptism is essential for salvation, but that baptism is the thing which we receive, in order to publicly identify ourselves completely and totally with Christ as a manifestation of the inward work God has done within us.
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/acts_2_38.htm

 

I am saying there was no "Christian church" just the one true God-ordained nation-church of Israel before the cross - and that the jews were NOT practiciing infant baptism before the cross, nor do we have any reason to speculate that they were - NOR does the RCC argue such a pre-cross practice - NOR do we have any Gospel statement about pre-cross infant baptism even by the disciples of Christ.

And the text about "baptizing disciples" John 4:1-2 can not be a reference to "infants" by any account.

So your problem remains on that one.

============================

"To him who KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is SIN" James 4:17.

Christ came as the "savior of the World" 1John 4:4.

The infant "has a savior" from the start - just as he has a totally depraved sinful nature from the start (as we find in Romans 3:23). But the infant does not have the "ability" to "know sin" since he does not know the "right thing to do". The entire concept of faith, "knowing right", etc is beyond the infant. They don't "need to Repent and be baptized" since they do not have that capacity - they have Christ's blood covering them from the start.

They do not "receive the word", they do not "accept Christ", they do not "believe", they do not "repent" they do not "know the right thing to do" and they are not affected in anyway by saying "magic words over them".

Baptism in its spiritual "essence" is the sinners "Appeal to God for a clean conscience" according to the Apostolic teaching of Peter. The mormon notion of someone else accept Christ "for you" is not Biblical even if it is found in the RCC.

Nope.

The text of John 3 deals exclusviely with those that can CHOOSE darkeness vs light. It declares that "Whosoever BELIEVETH on Him would have eternal life" and those that choose not to believe in Christ "Loved Darkness rather than light" - only two groups - and infants do not fit either one. Trying to "insert infants" into that discussion fails at the door step of exegesis and context.

===================================

What question do you have regarding the answer?

Eternal fire is the answer I pointed to in Jude 7 and it is the one we see in Rev 14:10 where they suffer "IN the presence of the Lamb and His saints" and it is the one we see in Rev 21:8 called the "Second death" and the "lake of fire".

Eternal fire - Eternal fire. Thats it!

Are you saying that you don't like/understand those Bible statements on the second death, lake of fire, eternal fire, that Christ came to save us from?

What is the question?

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 22, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Hi BobRyan,

I am saying there was no "Christian church" just the one true God-ordained nation-church of Israel before the cross

And to become a Jew you were circumcized, not baptized.

and that the jews were NOT practiciing infant baptism before the cross, nor do we have any reason to speculate that they were

The Jews administered infant circumcision, and baptism replaces circumcision according to Paul (Col 2:11-12).

The infant "has a savior" from the start - just as he has a totally depraved sinful nature from the start (as we find in Romans 3:23).

You say that the infant has a saviour from the start by quoting 1 Jn 4:4, "Christ came as the 'savior of the World'".

Now, this verse doesn't say that the entire World is going to be saved because Christ is its saviour. Else, everyone would be saved. It says that Christ died for everyone (his merit is superabundantly sufficient for every person that ever lives - not just the elect).

They don't "need to Repent and be baptized" since they do not have that capacity - they have Christ's blood covering them from the start.

So does Christ's blood stop covering us when we sin? And then when we sin, we need faith so that his blood will "re-cover" us? And then if we sin beyond that, there's no fourth covering? How does this work?

The text of John 3 deals exclusviely with those that can CHOOSE darkeness vs light.

So in other words, when Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again", what he really means is "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one - except infants - can see the kingdom of God without being born again"?

Eternal fire - Eternal fire. That's it!

Good, I'm agree that we both can agree that the unsaved will be eternally damned.

God bless,

Carson

 

In fact they "born jews" -and Then only the boys were circumcized.

Circumcision was for "national identity" not "church identity" or "salvation identity".

None of them were "baptized".

In Romans 2 - Paul says that circumcision is only of value in the spiritual sense "IF you keep the law" (not possible for infants - ever).

He says that those gentiles where obey God but are not physically circumcised are regarded by God as having the spiritual benefit of spiritual circumcision "of the heart".

The entire notion that circumcision had spiritual implicatoin for infants and that they used to be "saved" by circumcision is missing on two counts.

1. IT was an outward physical act that ONLY applied to boys.

2. The spiritual "value" according to the apostolic teaching of Romans 2 could only be found "in the heart" for BOTH Jew and Gentile. Salvation via magic ritual is foreign to scripture.

... the jews were NOT practiciing infant baptism before the cross, nor do we have any reason to speculate that they were

And of course - "only boys".

In Romans 2 Paul states that circumcision "is of the heart" and is done by the Holy Spirit.

In Colossians 2 Paul states that the Baptism you speak of is like spiritual circumcision in that "you were Buried With Him in baptism..Raised with Him THROUGH FAITH in the working God"..

An "impossible" step for an infant.

As the apostolic teaching of Peter affirms - the substance of baptism is NOT in "magic holy water and the removal of dirt from the skin" but "an APPEAL to God for a clean conscience".

Again - this is stated as an "impossible" step for any infant.
..


The infant "has a savior" from the start - just as he has a totally depraved sinful nature from the start (as we find in Romans 3:23).

Well see... we do agree on something.

1John 4 (and your point above) shows the blood of Christ to be available to all the world - however each one must "Accept it" - "To as many as received Him to THEM he gave the right to BECOME called the children of God" John 1:12

Until the infant can do that - we have the words of Christ ABOUT that not-baptized infant "OF such is the Kingdom of heaven" and "Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble...it would be better for him if a millstone were hung about his neck and he were tossed into the sea". Christ accepted them as they were. He did not call for their baptism - and yes - girls were also infants.

-------------------------------------


They don't "need to Repent and be baptized" since they do not have that capacity - they have Christ's blood covering them from the start.

(Be honest - you're having fun with this. Me too.)

nope. The issue is the acceptance of the Savior - not how many times you sin and require the atoning blood to cover another sin. When the child is old enough to comprehend the concept of saved/lost and Savior and sin. They are subject to God's own work "Convicting the world of Sin and Rightouesness and Judgment". John 16:8.

Christ is then to them "the light that shines in the darkness" John 1:5. HE is the one who "draws ALL mankind unto Him" John 12:32. They must either respond yes - or no. "No" leaves them unsaved.


The text of John 3 deals exclusviely with those that can CHOOSE darkeness vs light.

In other words - you never have the option of abandoning exegesis. The Text itself shows the meaning. Isolating one part of the text from the others is never "an option" for getting what you want (eisegesis).

Combining the Words of Christ as found in the entire chapter of John 3 we find that HE defines TWO groups (those who BELIEVE in Him and those that LOVE the darkness) and He also says that "unless one is born again he can not enter the kingdom of heaven". Allowing the words to speak for themselves - it is a born again requirement (in both the OT and NT ages) that applies only to those that have the ability to "accept faith - Believe IN Christ, or Love Darkness rather than light - standing condemned".

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 22, 2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Bob said : Eternal fire - Eternal fire. That's it!

Indeed eternal fire, eternal death, eternal damnation.

I am one of those who takes the Bible as it reads - literally. A real 7 day creation week for Gen 1-2:3 just as the Exodus 20:11 summary of that event states - equating the days of Gen 1 with the days of Exodus 20.

That means when we get to Rev 14:10

Rev 14 10-11 describes the ultimate end of the wicked. This is described before Rev 14:14-20 where the righteous are gathered to God and the wicked are pressed into the wrath of God.

14:9-10 is explicit about the fact that this is personnal and individual (not buildings - but people).

9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ""If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels (Holy Ones / Saints) and in the presence of the Lamb.
11 ""And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.''

It is personnal and individual and it is carried out "in the presence of the holy ones and in the presence of the Lamb

As much as some people are uncomfortable with that - it is literally true.

It is the second death according to Rev 20 - the fire, the brimstone the smoke of their torment ascending up forever. And we notice that Even in Rev 20 it is still in the presence of the Lamb and His Holy ones - since the wicked have surrounded the city of God - "the camp of the saints" Rev 20:9.


Rev 20:
10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

In Christ,

Bob

[ December 22, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

DHK:
The totality of the harmonious evidence does not support your contention. You state, it is possible for eis to be translated because of. Possible? Unfortunately, it is not so translated. Possiblities do not make fact or truth. There is no scriptural evidence it is ever translated this way, NONE. It is almost unbelievable one would argue in such a manner. There is not one scripture that employs eis as because of.

 

The author of the article I posted above for you translates it "for the purpose of," which I also agree with. He explains it well.
DHK

 

DHK:
The evidence and scholarship do not justify the use of eis in this manner. In fact, Epi is used to mean because of. Epi, not eis is transalated because of. The original language will not allow such a meaning as it would contradict the very purpose of the shed blood of Christ. Rev. 1:5, Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14 I Pet. 1:18,19, Hebrews 9:14, I Pet. 1:2, Mark 14:24. You have men repenting because there sins are already forgiven. Jesus said this is not so. Luke 13:3. Mat.3:8. He shed his blood for unto the remission of sins, not because they were already forgiven. The Bible says in Hebrews 9:22, " And almost all things are by the law PURGED WITH BLOOD; and WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION. The the implication of what you are teaching is in direct contradiction to the purpose fo the shed blood of Christ and his words that relate to this subject.
As for the one who authored his opinion on the possibility might be, is engaged in error to the meaning as provided in the text and the over all theme of the Bible which is the redemption of man.( SEE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH). Your author cannot provide one case where eis is translated because of. He can claim there is a possibility from now to the end of time. However, that will not change the meaning of the word as it is used in the harmonious context of the scriptures on this subject. Acts 2:38 will always read for unto the remission of sins, not because of. Eis does not mean the same as Epi.
Jesus did NOT shed his blood because sins were already forgiven. he shed hjis blood for unot the obtaining of the remission of sins. Mark. 14:24, Acts 2:38.