Saved souls

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
Pauline, When I showed you direct scriptual evidence about infant Baptism you did not accept it. We know no babies were baptized because belief was the requirement of the eunuch. If this was a court trial any jury would find for my argument over yours.

In Love and Truth,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Philip was talking to an adult. Must we necessarily generalize this to infants as well? They would not be able to answer either way, but would that preclude them from Baptism?

An imperfect analogy:

I will give a drink of water to anyone who is thirsty.

You tell me you are thirsty, so I give you a drink of water.

You have a baby in your arms. Do I withhold water from it because it did not say it was thirsty?

You say, "The baby is thirsty."

Do I continue to withhold water?

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
T2U, I appreciate your analogy and perhaps me and you would have set up things differently but we are constrained to God's plan not ours. You left out the 1st verse I used which does say that infants can't be baptized:
""8:36: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

What would have hindered the eunuch? Not understanding why he was being Baptized would have. No belief or heart confession =
no Baptism.

In Love and Truth,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, I think the strongest statement that you can make is that your personal interpretation of this particular verse is no belief = no baptism. You don't actually speak for God, right?

Now there are other verses in Scripture which may be appealed to as a support of infant Baptism. It is simply that you wanted to focus on this one.

BTW in regards to: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?", my question as to whether this must be generalized to infants still stands. The eunuch was an adult. Perhaps your "heart confession" is only required of adults, not infants. The fact is you do not really know.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
DHK.
And, you can't prove from scripture that some of those "entire" households didn't have babies which were baptized. So you aren't any further along on proving your position on this topic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pauline, as I said before, you cannot read into Scripture that which is not there. There are no recorded infants in those households. There are no recorded infants anywhere being baptized IN THE BIBLE. You may have some heretical teachers teaching that afterward. I am not concerned with those men. I am concerned only with God's inspired Word. I have given you plenty of Scripture to think about, and a simple challenge:
ANSWER SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE!

So far I haven't seen that from you. Ye do err not know the Scriptures, neither the power of God.
DHK

 

The Bible does not speak directly on the topic of infant baptism. To say that it does is an outright untruth. Thus, we must go to other verses that allude to infant baptism.

As soon as ya'll so show me the verses that say infant baptism is improper, I will change my ways. Until then I continue to rely on the teachings of the early Church fathers and:

Mark 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
John 1: 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 1: 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Matthew, v. 19: Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Likewise in St. Mark, the last chapter, v. 16:He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 19:4.9 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Mark 10:39.27 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized

Peace be with you.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir Ed:
The Bible does not speak directly on the topic of infant baptism. To say that it does is an outright untruth. Thus, we must go to other verses that allude to infant baptism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post Sir Ed. But you should have stopped at the word "baptism." "The Bible does not speak of the topic of infant baptism," therefore to read infant baptism into the Bible is absolutely wrong and heresy. The Bible does not speak of purgatory, therefore to read purgatory into the Scriptures is absolutely wrong and heresy. The Bible does not speak of indulgences, therefore to read indulgences into the Scriptures in absolutely wrong and heresy. The Bible does not speak of kissing the pope's feet, therefore to kiss the pope's feet is absolutely wrong (it is idolatrous), and it is heretical. Be consistent Sir Ed.
DHK

 

Brian, with all respect, you would be wasting your time. Like I said, until you show me the verse that says infants are not to be baptized, I will continue to believe the early Church fathers and my understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit, of Scripture. What someone says in 2002 about baptism and their interpretation of Scripture is way down my list as far as the basis for beliefs.

My faith is a simple one. Scripture tells me this:
1. We are baptized with the Holy Ghost.
2. We are baptized of God, not man.
3. The Spirit from Heaven descends on us like a dove and remains with us at baptism.
4. We are to baptize all.
5. Baptism is a part of Salvation.
6. We are baptized that we should believe on Christ.
7. We are baptized with the same baptism as Christ.

I'm sure you will tell me that the verses I listed don't mean what they say. If you don't DHK will. However, like I said, my faith is a simple one.

Peace be with you.

 

DHK, FYI: Let me remind you again, I don't read your posts and I don't respond to them. Your hatefulness, lack of reason, twisting of Scripture, and reliance on yourself as the ONLY authority leaves us nothing to talk about.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Briguy:
T2U, I think in life in general everyday we weigh out evidence and draw conclusions. I do not speak for God but I can, with the help of the Holy Spirit, weigh out the scriptual evidence on a subject and draw a conclusion based on that. My conclusion of the two verses in question is the logical conclusion and the only one I see, therefore I feel I can boldly say it is God's rule for baptism. I hope you can see my logic there. In fact, if you think about it that is what we all do here on the BB. T2U, Do you agree that based on these two verses I have a logical conclusion? Be honest now!!! (Ha Ha)
Take care and keep searching and growing,
In Christ,
Brian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is going to drve you crazy, but no, your conclusion is not the only logical conclusion. As I said the verses in question concern an adult, not an infant. it tells us nothing about infants.

Do you hold to a belief in "age of accountability"? If so why? Because before such an age, one cannot make a declaration of belief, because one is not sufficiently formed?

Ok, why then does this mean that Baptism of infants is not valid? It may simply mean that if one is not Baptized by that age, then one needs to declare that belief because they are now capable of doing so. Prior to that age, such a declaration is not possible and so not necessary.

I don't recall any passages in the Bible which say "Baptize except infants."

Ron

 

Sir Ed,
You are perfectly right when you say that the Bible does not speak of altar calls, and guitars in church. These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history. Concerning guitars we don’t use a guitar at all in our church. So that ought not to be an issue. There are a variety of Baptist churches as you know, each having a wide variety of traditions. This type of tradition is not doctrinal. Playing a guitar is not going to affect my salvation. The giving of an altar call (which again is done in some Baptist churches but not in all), is not going to affect my salvation, or my walk with God. They are simply extra-Biblical traditions.

However the last two examples that you gave are taught in the Bible.
The sinner’s prayer is recorded in Luke 18:13,
”And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is. You must be old enough to believe, to understand, to repent, to be baptized after having believed and repented. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” applies only to those of an age of accountability, only to those old enough to understand and believe the gospel. I do not believe this is either heretical, extra-Biblical, or otherwise. It is something that is taught in the Word of God.
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Sir Ed,
You are perfectly right when you say that the Bible does not speak of altar calls, and guitars in church. These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history. Concerning guitars we don’t use a guitar at all in our church. So that ought not to be an issue. There are a variety of Baptist churches as you know, each having a wide variety of traditions. This type of tradition is not doctrinal. Playing a guitar is not going to affect my salvation. The giving of an altar call (which again is done in some Baptist churches but not in all), is not going to affect my salvation, or my walk with God. They are simply extra-Biblical traditions.

However the last two examples that you gave are taught in the Bible.
The sinner’s prayer is recorded in Luke 18:13,
”And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is. You must be old enough to believe, to understand, to repent, to be baptized after having believed and repented. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” applies only to those of an age of accountability, only to those old enough to understand and believe the gospel. I do not believe this is either heretical, extra-Biblical, or otherwise. It is something that is taught in the Word of God.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&gt;&gt;These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history.&lt;&lt;

How does this differ from what you would reject as mere traditon of men?

&gt;&gt;The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is.&lt;&lt;

This sounds like a completely different and note worthy change from the standard that you have used in the past when judging the beliefs of others.

I must remember to refer you back to this line of reasoning should you fall back on your old ways.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The age of accountability is simply defined as the age to understand and believe. In any science or study (theology = the study of God) one has terminology germane to his field of study. “Age of accountability” may not be found in the Bible in those exact words, (as the word trinity), but the principle certainly is. You must be old enough to believe, to understand, to repent, to be baptized after having believed and repented. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” applies only to those of an age of accountability, only to those old enough to understand and believe the gospel. I do not believe this is either heretical, extra-Biblical, or otherwise. It is something that is taught in the Word of God <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it really? I beg to differ. Age of accountability is a story that was conjured up to reasure guilty parents for not baptizing their children, that is what I think. A story conjured up by people so caught up in their own human reasoning that they refused to believe that a small child or infant can believe even though they can't tell us. A story conjured up by people who honestly believe that in their sinful depravity that is human nature, they can do something for God. My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God.

God does not recognize some age at which a person is now accountable for his deeds. A child is already damned because of the fall. All flesh is born sinful. God made it quite clear that he holds even infants accountable when he made the convenant of circumcision.

Comparing age of accountability to the trinity is a pretty lame comparison. There is Biblical evidence for the Trinity whereas for age of accountability there is ziltch.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You will have to do it without me. Sorry. I'm too tired.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

&gt;&gt;These two things are traditional, and can be traced back in history.&lt;&lt;
How does this differ from what you would reject as mere traditon of men?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

”How does this differ from what you would reject as mere tradition of men?”

It is Jesus that rejects that rejects the tradition of men or the commandments of men when they put these commandments on an equal value or greater value than the Word of God, “thus making the Word of God to none effect.” We all live with tradition. Every one has tradition. New years Eve/Day, Birthday parties, anniversaries, etc., are all examples of traditions. But these have nothing to do with my faith or my religion.
Those traditions that are religious in nature and definitely contradict the Bible we must reject. Over time infant Baptist became a tradition and a doctrine in liturgical churches. From the beginning it was not so. It cannot be demonstrated from Scriptures. The same is true for the other things that I previously mentioned: purgatory, the kissing of the pope’s feet, both of which are either are directly prohibited in the Bible or have a bearing on our salvation.
The Bible is our standard in all things. Everything must be measured by the Bible. The history of music is an interesting discussion. In the past I posted quite a bit in the music forum. There are principles of music taught in the Bible (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). At one time in the Christian church there used to be no instruments at all. Gradually there were some. Some churches only have a piano and/or organ. Some churches will only play traditional old hymns of the faith. Some now accept modern CCM music. I am of the opinion that the latter genre of music obscures the message of the gospel. That is my opinion based on principles that I have gleaned in the Word of God. You will find that Adam disagrees with me, and goes to a different type of church than me. He has that soul liberty, that right, and I hold nothing against him for his belief. There are many Baptist churches that now accept CCM music. They are still Baptist. They don’t differ with me in doctrine. But their standard of music is different. It is a historical change in the church. You must decide for yourself what is right or wrong on such issues on the basis of what you believe the Bible teaches.
I hope this helps.
DHK

 

Sir Ed posted:
"My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God."

Baptism is a work. It is a work that man does for you. He baptizes you. He does the work. You are being baptized by someone. That is called a work. God is not directly baptizing you. How then could baptism be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is baptism called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Sir Ed posted:
"My fellow Luth.'s and Cath.'s we are just going to have to start from the begining and show the reformed/anabaptists that Baptism is not a work, but is rather a gift from God."

Baptism is a work. It is a work that man does for you. He baptizes you. He does the work. You are being baptized by someone. That is called a work. God is not directly baptizing you. How then could baptism be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is baptism called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Accepting Jesus is a work. It is a work that you do for yourself. You accept Jesus. You do the work. You are being accepting Jesus by yourself. That is called a work. God is not directly accepting Jesus for you. How then could accepting Jesus be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is accepting Jesus called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trying2understand:

Accepting Jesus is a work. It is a work that you do for yourself. You accept Jesus. You do the work. You are being accepting Jesus by yourself. That is called a work. God is not directly accepting Jesus for you. How then could accepting Jesus be a gift from God. Eternal life is a gift from God (Rom.6:23), but nowhere is accepting Jesus called a gift of God, not is it done by God. It something that is done by man--a work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the only "work" that God accepts.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


It is the only "work" that God accepts.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

&gt;&gt;It is the only "work" that God accepts.&lt;&lt;

You might check that against Matthew 25.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: trying2understand ]