1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Pre-Age of Reason children.

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by thessalonian, Feb 16, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 4 of 5
  1. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thessalonian, is "Bob Lyan" just a freudian typo, or are you really stooping to name-calling ?

    Please say it was a mistake.
     
    #61 Bro. Curtis, Feb 18, 2004
  2. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ooops. Sorry.
     
    #62 thessalonian, Feb 18, 2004
  3. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did you like my "freudian typo" joke ? [​IMG]
     
    #63 Bro. Curtis, Feb 18, 2004
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The problem is that in the "details" Paul says nothing about Baptism in connection with the believing parents "sanctifying" the Children.

    NEITHER do we find the statement "Baptism now sanctifies you".

    Pauls first statement shows that infants "without choice" have "no need of Baptism". But in the RC model the infant IS NOT sanctified by the believing parent UNTIL the Holy water hits - until the magic words are spoken by a priest with "the power".

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #64 BobRyan, Feb 18, 2004
  5. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob,

    This idea that every verse that mentions any kind of salvatoin and or Baptism has to have a full exposition of the doctrine is so stupid words can't describe the nonsense. It's like my wife telling me to put the keys in the car, go up morgan and down brookdale..... Every time she asks me to get a jug of milk. "Baptism now saves you" means what it says Bob. It implies santification through the Holy Spirit which Peter ties to baptism in Acts 2:38 plain as day. Only a blind man would miss it. No magic with the Holy Spirit, just the miracle of salvatoin freely given. And babies can even recieve the HS as proven by John the Baptist recieving it even from his MOTHER'S WOMB.

    We can go round in circles again for weeks with no consensus. You will put your silly quotation marks around everything and quote snippets out of the Catholic Digest that make what the article is trying to say 180 degrees from what it does say. You will make Catholic authors seventh day adventists. Your posts are nonsense. And declare your "opinion" of scripture infallible. I have wasted enough time with you this month.

    Blessings
     
    #65 thessalonian, Feb 18, 2004
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :rolleyes:
     
    #66 Bro. Curtis, Feb 19, 2004
  7. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    Hello all,

    I have been reading this thread with interest, and now that Thess has given up on everyone, I will give my opinion.

    The first scripture is in Jer 1-5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

    Since God is no respecter of persons; if He knew Jeremiah then He knows all the rest of us as we are being carried by our mothers.

    The next scripture is in Matt 18-3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    We have to become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. We must take Christ for what He says. Little children are innocent and believe what their parents say. I take that to mean that the little innocent children will enter the kingdom!!(whether or not they are baptized or sprinkled)

    42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

    This is where jesus went to the Temple to teach.


    Luke 2-49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

    Since we are supposed to be like Jesus, I think the time of the age of reason is "about" 12 years old.

    Matt 18-10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.


    If the angels of the children are always seeing the face of the Father, then they are pretty close to God.

    Now, I do think the age of reason comes at different times for different kids. For some it could be as early as 4 or 5. some otheres it could be 11,or 12' or 13.

    But I am of the firm opinion that if a young child dies, they go to be with Jesus.

    And all the children of abortion, go to be with Jesus. Look at it any other way and you are condemning millions of babies to hell and I know my God does not do that!!!

    Working for Him,

    Tam,

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #67 tamborine lady, Feb 19, 2004
  8. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tamb,

    Good post. I like your verses and think they give much hope to a mother who has aborted a child and later repented. But it misses the heart of my question. I have no quarrellel with anyone who thinks that anyone before the age of reason goes to heaven. Though I do find it to be an interesting question as to whether others who believe that all children go to heaven include budhist or hindu or Islamic Children in the heavenly end as well.

    My contention is illustrated in the following verses:

    Acts 16:16
    And it came to pass in our going on to prayer, a certain maid, having a spirit of Python, did meet us, who brought much employment to her masters by soothsaying,

    Acts 16:17
    she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, 'These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;
    and this she was doing for many days, but Paul having been grieved, and having turned, said to the spirit, 'I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to come forth from her;' and it came forth the same hour.

    Now I think Paul knew that it was an evil spirit speaking in her because she said "declare to us A WAY of salvation". Paul did not declare a way but THE WAY. No, my belief is that there is one way of salvation for all mankind. I have no problem reconciling this with my Catholic faith. We say The way of salvation is grace alone. But many non-catholics believe salvatoin is by faith alone. Sola Fide in Latin. Now for this to be true there has to be two ways of salvation as all have agreed (except for our Lutheran friend, Chemitz) that, at least certainly infants cannot have any real faith. Many on this board also say that the Bible contains all we need for our salvation. Yet it is clear that it does not according to faith alone theology tell how an infant is saved even if it says he is. At least not that I know of. Hope this clears things up a bit.

    Blessings
     
    #68 thessalonian, Feb 19, 2004
  9. Meercat

    Meercat New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    To those who believe it is un-scriptural to baptize infants......if your baby dies, would that baby go to hell?......as a Catholic, I do not believe they would because of the PARENT'S desire for that child's salvation and baptism. In the old testament, babies( male) had to be circumcised to be a part of the Covenant. Baptism is now the sign of the New Covenant and it is for both boys and girls. By the way, if I can find the source unless one of you does so before me, I heard that there was some type of ceremony for girls too, but it's not mentioned in Scripture. But if anyone knows what I'm talking about, please feel free to jump in! Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the male infant does not make a concious choice to be under the "Covenant", his parents do! Later on when that child reaches the age of understanding, he makes that choice for himself as to whether he will remain under that covenant as is witnessed by a plethora of biblical figures such as David vs his son Absolom. That is only one example. (so much for plethora, lol), but you guys know what I'm talking about.

    Gina, as far as what constitutes Scripture and what doesn't, Catholics believe in 7 more scriptures from the Old Testament than you do, and knowing this, wouldn't use them as examples in explaining things to you without telling you so. So what is the point in conversing with those who believe in more chapters of Scripture than you? Plenty. Please don't throw up your arms in frustration so to speak. - God bless! - Meercat
     
    #69 Meercat, Feb 21, 2004
  10. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Meercat, with that logic I should REALLY listen to the baptists. They believe in even more scripture than Catholics. :eek:
    Gina
     
    #70 Gina B, Feb 21, 2004
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What a "weak" defense for your position of "ignoring the details of the text".

    How amazing that those who claim to worship Mary and Peter's supposed "successors" think it is "stupid" to listen to "pope" Peter in 1Peter 3.

    How amazing that they view it to be "stupid" to accept the Word of God IN ITS DETAIL and yet "required" to swallow the vain traditions of man.

    Is this not the spirit of the dark ages?

    Is this not the same mindless rebuttal that Martin Luther had to face?


    Excellent "snippet" peek at the text of what Peter said in 1Peter 3 Thess. I am "amazed" you will "allow" yourself to admit to "that much detail" in what he actually said.

    Now letting Peter defined his OWN statement HE said "Baptism now saves you - NOT the touching of holy water to your flesh BUT an APPEAL to God for a CLEAN conscience".

    Devastating to your own traditions - you "can't" even allow yourself to "quote the text" let alone speak to its "detail".

    But I am free to do so. Peter said "NOT" to the VERY THING you insist is the "ONE AND ONLY" reality of Baptism for infants.

    Magic "holy" water.

    Magic powers of the priest.

    Magic mantra said over the infant.

    INSTEAD of that wrong-headed view - Peter said "NOT" that, Peter said "NO NOT that" - Peter said "RATHER it is the APPEAL to God for a CLEAN conscience". Peter is in PERFECT agreement with Paul in Romans 10 on this point Where Paul said that you BELIEVE and then you CONFESS and right then and there - SALVATION.

    This is in PERFECT agreement with the view that Didache gives of Baptism to the extent that it shows that it can apply ONLY to a believer intelligent enough to be making choices, awake enough to engage in spiritual disciplines.

    But then these are all "details to be ignored" if one is praying as a devotee of "the dead". [​IMG] :rolleyes:

    (Did I say that?) :eek:

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #71 BobRyan, Feb 21, 2004
  12. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct in saying that RCCs follow the traditions of man. Adventists, on the other hand, follow the vain traditions of a hypocritical, plagarizing WOMAN ... a "detail" that is readily acknowledged by current and former SDA scholars.

    Yes, you did say that you are a devotee of a dead, discredited woman.
     
    #72 Harley4Him, Feb 21, 2004
  13. music4Him

    music4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,333
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Morning Ya'll~

    2 Quotes by Thess~
    #1
    _______________________________________________________
    I have no problem reconciling this with my Catholic faith. We say The way of salvation is grace alone. But many non-catholics believe salvation is by faith alone.
    _______________________________________________________
    #2
    _______________________________________________________
    Many on this board also say that the Bible contains all we need for our salvation. Yet it is clear that it does not according to faith alone theology tell how an infant is saved even if it says he is. At least not that I know of. Hope this clears things up a bit.
    __________________________________________________
    _____
    Thess~
    In Romans 12:3 it states that God has dealt every man a measure of faith.

    I wonder when the faith was added? Was it added when we were being fourmed?
    If salvation is through faith, and if a child has faith in them (because God put it there), and if a child should die (before they sin and know better ~ie accountability or age of reason), then wouldn't that be right for them to go to heaven?

    Ok but....... heres this verse about grace. Ephesians 4:7 But unto everyone of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
    Does this mean we get the grace....once we realize we are sinners.... then when we recive the gift... that Chirst gives us? The gift is salvation right? Right! [​IMG]

    Romans 5:1-2 says~
    1
    Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
    2
    By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

    So I guess when we come to the age when we know what sin is and the difference between right and wrong then its decision time to where we'll apply our faith? But until then wouldn't the children be coverd with faith?

    Thanks Thess~ for the thread its pretty
    interesting and I do see where you are comming from with the faith and the grace issues. [​IMG]

    ~God bless you~
    Music4Him
     
    #73 music4Him, Feb 21, 2004
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Music4Him --
    Great point - but the infant has no "faith". It is an act of a thinking intelligent believer - the substance of things hoped for. They don't hope and they have not concept of reality etc.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #74 BobRyan, Feb 21, 2004
  15. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Now letting Peter defined his OWN statement HE said "Baptism now saves you - NOT the touching of holy water to your flesh BUT an APPEAL to God for a CLEAN conscience".

    Devastating to your own traditions - you "can't" even allow yourself to "quote the text" let alone speak to its "detail". "

    Sigh. We've been though this before Bob and still you misstate Catholic theology. The unstable twist and distort to their own destruction Bob. You even misquote the verse Bob. Now that is twisting.

    1 Peter 3:21
    Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--NOT THE REMOVAL OF DIRT from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

    In other words it is not a physical bath but a spiritual bath which is exactly what the Catholic Church says.

    [​IMG]
     
    #75 thessalonian, Feb 21, 2004
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    1 Peter 3:21
    Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--NOT THE REMOVAL OF DIRT from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience

    Get it - the part you want to "omit" the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" is the VERY point that Peter emphasizes. The very point devastating to a holy water, magic phrase, powers-of-priest model by contrast.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #76 BobRyan, Feb 21, 2004
  17. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob continues to twist the scriptures and Catholic thought. Are you denying that Peter is talking about water baptism. There is no contradiction with regard to the verse in questoin except in the mind of a man who thinks he is infallible in his understanding of the Bible and of Catholicism. Our sins are washed clean in baptism. Therefore we have a clean conscience. It is the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism that clears our conscience. Bob denies that the Holy Spirit has such power. The water is an outward sign of the inward grace. That is what sacrement means in Catholicism. Grace is by the action of the Holy Spirit. No magic there. Just God working in us. And by the way Bob, a priest isn't neccessary for baptism so once again you make a fool of yourself with regard to this "alleged" "expertise" you "have" with regard to Catholicism. You don't know what your talking about Bob with regard to Catholicism . Why don't you just admit it.

    Blessings
     
    #77 thessalonian, Feb 22, 2004
  18. thessalonian

    thessalonian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Music4

    Thanks for the thoughtful post. Does a child have some sort of faith at birth. I don't know. I do believe that according to Romans 2:15 that he has planted his laws on each man's heart. A part of the law is of course the first commandment that we are to worship and serve God alone. Now a child intellectually can not reason out how this applies to his life, but it is within him no less. I do find it very easy to teach my very little ones about God and faith at some simple level and I do think sometimes children see and understand more easily than adults. My son at 18 months one evening was with my wife and I. We had the TV going on EWTN and the Mass was on. We were talking and not paying alot of attention. There is a part of the Mass we call the consecration where the priest reenacts the Lord's Supper. As the priest said the words "this is my body" and raised the Eucharist, our son pointed and said "Jesus, Jesus". When he raised the wine and said the words "this is my blood" our little boy also said "Jesus, Jesus". So I do believe that children understand far more than we give them credit for. Whatever level they understand however must be nourished by the parents.

    Blessings
     
    #78 thessalonian, Feb 22, 2004
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Are you denying that Peter is talking about water baptism?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Why can't you "bring yourself" to address "NOT the Water touching the flesh" ?

    Why can't you bring youself to address "BUT RATHER the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience"?

    When Peter says "Corresponding to that Baptism NOW saves you and by that I do NOT mean the part about WATER but rather the APPEAL to God for a clean Conscience" - you are in a great haste to OMIT the clarifying point that Peter makes so that you can "re-spin" the entire statement of Peter?

    Why be so afraid of the complete point that he makes as HE SAYS "NOT the part about WATER as it touches flesh"??

    Why are you so afraid of the words of Peter?

    Again you "omit" the "APPEAL to God FOR a clean conscience" and simply insert the end "we have a clean conscience" in this - the INFANT has a clean conscience according to your hatchet job on these words of Peter by carefully stopping yourself from even uttering the WORDS that Peter has said here.


    Notice that you dodge the point of Peter "again" as Peter said "NOT the WATER touching the flesh" in literal Baptism - "BUT RATHER the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience".

    Now notice that WHILE still avoiding an ACTUAL address of the part of Peters statement most devastating to your case - you simply throw in another rabbit trail.

    Bob denies that the Holy Spirit has power to cleanse our conscience?

    OR Bob denies that Peter says this is happening WITHOUT an "APPEAL to God for a Clean conscience"?

    Or do you even care to support your claim at all?


    Speaking of which Thess - here is what your "OWN" historians say about that ...


    So ends another straw-man from Thess.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #79 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2004
  20. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, I looked in my Christian bible and didn't find the words you put in quotation marks. Is this how it reads in the Adventist bible, or did you just decide (again) that you know better than the Holy Spirit?
     
    #80 Harley4Him, Feb 22, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 5
Loading...