Wittenberger
New Member
"For whom He did foreknow would make a free will decision for him sometime in the future, them did he predestinate..."
Where do we find that verse in the Bible?
-
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!
The Baptism debate
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
"For whom He did foreknow would make a free will decision for him sometime in the future, them did he predestinate..."
Where do we find that verse in the Bible?
Wittenberger
New Member
(continued from my previous comment above)
In my last comment above, I discussed how orthodox Christians believe that the reason no specific mention is made in the New Testament regarding the safety/salvation of infants is because the paradigm (the pattern or method) of salvation for infants and young children did not change from that of the Old Covenant.
I discussed above how orthodox Christians believe that in Acts 2: 38 Peter promises the forgiveness of sins to the crowd and to their children if THEY, the head of the household/parents, repent and are baptized.
Is this the only passage of scripture that indicates that “household conversion”, such as that of Abraham in the Old Testament, continued into the New Covenant of the New Testament?
No.
There are several accounts of heads of households/parents converting and then their entire household being baptized, such as Lydia, the merchant of purple goods, mentioned in Acts. Baptists are correct to point out that no mention is made in any of these passages of infants being baptized.
However, in this period of history, without contraception, the average family was very large. And if the family had money, they also had servants and slaves, who would be included in the term “household” as was the case with Abraham. (Over 300 males in Abraham’s “household” underwent circumcision upon Abraham’s conversion.) The Bible mentions approximately five situations in which whole “households” were baptized. Can we really realistically believe that none of these households had little children???
And if these households did have little children, wouldn’t the writer of Acts, at least once, mention that the entire household was baptized “except the little children”?
And is it really plausible that in each of these household conversions, EVERY member of the household (wife, adult children, servants and their adult children, slaves and their adult children) individually felt convicted of his/her sins, got on their knees, repented, and prayed to ask Jesus to come into their hearts and save them??
I don’t know about you, but if I were a slave, the last thing I would do is want to convert to my “master’s” new, persecuted, hated religion!
The possibility that there were no small children in any of these households AND that every single member of the family, servants, and slaves independently made a personal decision to accept Christ, is highly, highly, unlikely.
No. The head of the household converted by believing, repenting and being baptized and then the entire household DID AS THEY WERE TOLD and were baptized into the faith.
Still don’t believe me? How about this: When Paul and Silas answered the Philippian jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?”, look very carefully at their answer:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, AND THY HOUSE.”
Now, I know that some Baptists, reinterpret that verse and say, “Well, what Paul and Silas really meant was this: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and if your house believes, they will be saved too.”
That is not what the simple, literal interpretation of the Bible says! God knows EXACTLY what He is saying. He doesn’t need your help to straighten out his choice of words or word order!
Paul and Silas promise salvation to the entire “house” if WHO believes??
They promise salvation to the entire house if HE, the jailer, the head of the household, believes!
(continued below)
Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
In my last comment above, I discussed how orthodox Christians believe that the reason no specific mention is made in the New Testament regarding the safety/salvation of infants is because the paradigm (the pattern or method) of salvation for infants and young children did not change from that of the Old Covenant.
I discussed above how orthodox Christians believe that in Acts 2: 38 Peter promises the forgiveness of sins to the crowd and to their children if THEY, the head of the household/parents, repent and are baptized.
Is this the only passage of scripture that indicates that “household conversion”, such as that of Abraham in the Old Testament, continued into the New Covenant of the New Testament?
No.
There are several accounts of heads of households/parents converting and then their entire household being baptized, such as Lydia, the merchant of purple goods, mentioned in Acts. Baptists are correct to point out that no mention is made in any of these passages of infants being baptized.
However, in this period of history, without contraception, the average family was very large. And if the family had money, they also had servants and slaves, who would be included in the term “household” as was the case with Abraham. (Over 300 males in Abraham’s “household” underwent circumcision upon Abraham’s conversion.) The Bible mentions approximately five situations in which whole “households” were baptized. Can we really realistically believe that none of these households had little children???
And if these households did have little children, wouldn’t the writer of Acts, at least once, mention that the entire household was baptized “except the little children”?
And is it really plausible that in each of these household conversions, EVERY member of the household (wife, adult children, servants and their adult children, slaves and their adult children) individually felt convicted of his/her sins, got on their knees, repented, and prayed to ask Jesus to come into their hearts and save them??
I don’t know about you, but if I were a slave, the last thing I would do is want to convert to my “master’s” new, persecuted, hated religion!
The possibility that there were no small children in any of these households AND that every single member of the family, servants, and slaves independently made a personal decision to accept Christ, is highly, highly, unlikely.
No. The head of the household converted by believing, repenting and being baptized and then the entire household DID AS THEY WERE TOLD and were baptized into the faith.
Still don’t believe me? How about this: When Paul and Silas answered the Philippian jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?”, look very carefully at their answer:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, AND THY HOUSE.”
Now, I know that some Baptists, reinterpret that verse and say, “Well, what Paul and Silas really meant was this: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and if your house believes, they will be saved too.”
That is not what the simple, literal interpretation of the Bible says! God knows EXACTLY what He is saying. He doesn’t need your help to straighten out his choice of words or word order!
Paul and Silas promise salvation to the entire “house” if WHO believes??
They promise salvation to the entire house if HE, the jailer, the head of the household, believes!
(continued below)
Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house
Do infants have the word of the Lord spoke to them? No.
This is not a forum for posting your beliefs or a forum for proselyting others. It is a debate forum. What you are doing is against the forum rules.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
What? Everyone posts his or her beliefs here. And I don't see that he is proselytizing. Why don't you address his points?
This issue was settled for me a long time ago regarding supposed household baptisms, but why don't you answer his post? You've done an excellent job until now.
Wittenberger
New Member
(Continued from my last comment above)
As I showed in my last comment above, Peter promised the forgiveness of sins to the children of new converts in Acts 2:38. Then I also showed how Paul and Silas promised salvation to the entire house of the Philippian jailer if he believed. I also showed how in several other instances, entire households were baptized when the head of the household converted (Lydia).
Are there more passages of Scripture that demonstrate that the spiritual status of the parents can automatically affect the spiritual status of the children without any decision or participation of the children?
Yes! Read the following passages from I Corinthians:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
If God requires that the children of Christians grow up and make their own free will decision whether or not to accept Christ, and by making that free will decision they become righteous, holy, in His sight…why would He declare the children of the above marriage “HOLY” simply based on the spiritual status of one parent?!
The simple, literal interpretation of this verse contradicts the Baptist position on this fundamental issue!
It is very clear that God, through Paul, is stating that the spiritual status of Christian parents bestows spiritual benefits to their children.
So all through the New Testament we see the same theme: The promise of salvation and the forgiveness of sins is promised to believers and their children! This is why orthodox Christians baptize their children!
“Go ye into all the world and baptize all nations!” Christ did not put an age restriction in the Great Commission!
We baptize our children because Christ commands it. We baptize our children because Christ cries out, “Suffer the little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven!”
Christians have been baptizing their infants and little children since the time of the Apostles as referenced above. Christians were baptizing their infants and young children in the catacombs below Rome during the times of persecution.
Christians have been baptizing their infants and young children for almost 2,000 years!
Don’t let anyone distort the Word of God with revisionist history, sinister conspiracy theories, complicated extrapolations and theories, and new, false doctrines, never seen on planet earth until 1,000 to 1,500 years after our Lord’s death!
It is false doctrine! Don’t let them twist and contort God’s Holy Word to explain away the simple, literal meaning of the Bible which even a child can read and understand.
Brothers and sisters, you don’t have to wait until your children make a “decision” for Jesus!
Jesus has already made the decision to save them!
Bring your infants and children to Jesus! He wants to save them! Bring them to the waters of Holy Baptism and by faith you can believe that Jesus, God Almighty, King of all Creation, will keep the promise he made in Acts 2:38, and HE WILL SAVE YOUR INFANTS!
God bless!
Amen!
Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
As I showed in my last comment above, Peter promised the forgiveness of sins to the children of new converts in Acts 2:38. Then I also showed how Paul and Silas promised salvation to the entire house of the Philippian jailer if he believed. I also showed how in several other instances, entire households were baptized when the head of the household converted (Lydia).
Are there more passages of Scripture that demonstrate that the spiritual status of the parents can automatically affect the spiritual status of the children without any decision or participation of the children?
Yes! Read the following passages from I Corinthians:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
If God requires that the children of Christians grow up and make their own free will decision whether or not to accept Christ, and by making that free will decision they become righteous, holy, in His sight…why would He declare the children of the above marriage “HOLY” simply based on the spiritual status of one parent?!
The simple, literal interpretation of this verse contradicts the Baptist position on this fundamental issue!
It is very clear that God, through Paul, is stating that the spiritual status of Christian parents bestows spiritual benefits to their children.
So all through the New Testament we see the same theme: The promise of salvation and the forgiveness of sins is promised to believers and their children! This is why orthodox Christians baptize their children!
“Go ye into all the world and baptize all nations!” Christ did not put an age restriction in the Great Commission!
We baptize our children because Christ commands it. We baptize our children because Christ cries out, “Suffer the little children to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven!”
Christians have been baptizing their infants and little children since the time of the Apostles as referenced above. Christians were baptizing their infants and young children in the catacombs below Rome during the times of persecution.
Christians have been baptizing their infants and young children for almost 2,000 years!
Don’t let anyone distort the Word of God with revisionist history, sinister conspiracy theories, complicated extrapolations and theories, and new, false doctrines, never seen on planet earth until 1,000 to 1,500 years after our Lord’s death!
It is false doctrine! Don’t let them twist and contort God’s Holy Word to explain away the simple, literal meaning of the Bible which even a child can read and understand.
Brothers and sisters, you don’t have to wait until your children make a “decision” for Jesus!
Jesus has already made the decision to save them!
Bring your infants and children to Jesus! He wants to save them! Bring them to the waters of Holy Baptism and by faith you can believe that Jesus, God Almighty, King of all Creation, will keep the promise he made in Acts 2:38, and HE WILL SAVE YOUR INFANTS!
God bless!
Amen!
Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
Michael Wrenn
New Member
The issue of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism was an issue with which I struggled mightily many years ago. It was one of the main issues that kept me out of the United Methodist ministry, having finally come down on the side of believer's baptism.
I read much during that time about the subject. One of the best things I ever read was from a former Presbyterian minister, Fred Malone, who through his studies of the subject became a Baptist. While I disagree strongly with his Calvinism, I strongly agree with his position on baptism. The following is from A String of Pearls Unstrung: A Theological Journey into Believers' Baptism by Dr. Fred Malone. Notice his "The Third Pearl: Specific Proof Texts", in which he discusses the cases of household baptisms in the New Testament.
This article is probably the most convincing thing I've ever come across on this subject. I would copy and paste the entire article here because of its importance, but it is just too long. So, I will post the link and urge all participants in this thread to read it:
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html
I read much during that time about the subject. One of the best things I ever read was from a former Presbyterian minister, Fred Malone, who through his studies of the subject became a Baptist. While I disagree strongly with his Calvinism, I strongly agree with his position on baptism. The following is from A String of Pearls Unstrung: A Theological Journey into Believers' Baptism by Dr. Fred Malone. Notice his "The Third Pearl: Specific Proof Texts", in which he discusses the cases of household baptisms in the New Testament.
This article is probably the most convincing thing I've ever come across on this subject. I would copy and paste the entire article here because of its importance, but it is just too long. So, I will post the link and urge all participants in this thread to read it:
http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I would just like to say that, although I don't believe in infant baptism, I would agree with the General Baptists in their statement of faith that "We believe that infants are in the covenant of Gods grace", and I strongly believe in services of infant dedication.
I have answered his points but he refuses to respond. He just keeps posting! This is a debate forum but he refuses to acknowledge any responses.
Again, here is my response to his first series of posting and as of yet no response.
Entrance into the covenant of grace
However entrance into the covenant of grace has always been by faith even in the Old testement, as Paul makes plain in Romans 4 by using the examples of Abraham and David!
Entrace into the Abrahamic covenant was by birth and circumcision but the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic covenet are earthly, temporary covenants that picture and point twoards the covenant of grace they are not administrations of the covenant of grace so the arguement has no basis!
Acts 2:38-39
But the text simply does not say that does it, no it says;
Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." (Act 2:38 NKJ)
The promise is to;
1) You
2) Your Children
3) all those who are far off.
If you say my repentence and baptism sanctifies my children you are alos saying it sancifies all those who are afar of as well - is that what you are saying? I really hope it isn't
It certainly isn't what Peter is saying because in that last phrase he makes the condition of the promise clear "as many as the Lord our God will call." The promise is for as many of the lord shall call out of these three catagaries, you, your children and all who are afar off.
Now as you are the one who keeps telling us to take scripture literally I think it is time you started to do that too my freind
household baptism
Is this the only passage of scripture that indicates that “household conversion”, such as that of Abraham in the Old Testament, continued into the New Covenant of the New Testament?
No.
There are several accounts of heads of households/parents converting and then their entire household being baptized, such as Lydia, the merchant of purple goods, mentioned in Acts. Baptists are correct to point out that no mention is made in any of these passages of infants being baptized.
However, in this period of history, without contraception, the average family was very large. And if the family had money, they also had servants and slaves, who would be included in the term “household” as was the case with Abraham. (Over 300 males in Abraham’s “household” underwent circumcision upon Abraham’s conversion.) The Bible mentions approximately five situations in which whole “households” were baptized. Can we really realistically believe that none of these households had little children???[/quote]
Well perhaps it would be helpful to look at the one mention of a household being baptised that we do have enough detail about to consider and that is the Philippian jailor in Acts 16:30-34
And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
Two things to notice, firstly Paul and Silas spoke to all who were in the house and we must assume they were able to understand because in v34 we are told that they all belived. Hence we must conclude that children are either not present, or are ignored.
In relation to Lydia it appears that she is head of her house, so likely she doesn't have any young children and we are told nothing about her staff at all so any case made from her is an arguement from silence, do you really wish to establish an important doctrine based on what the bible doesn't say? The other 'household' baptism are just mentioned in passing and contain no more detail.
Why? When it is clear from the whole of the NT that baptism follows repentence, that would be a redundant statement!
That is what we are specifically told happened in the house of the Philippian jailor in the word of God. Acts 16:34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (Act 16:34). Perhaps that question that should be asked is why so few household baptism mentioned in the bible.
If it only required the head of the house to believe why weren't there many more? The very rarity of the occurence compared to the huge number of conversions we read about suggests they very point you are argueing against. There were so few household baptism because it was only ahndful of houses where everyone in that house believed. These occurences are singled out because of their rarity.
Slaves and conversion
What like Onesimus (slave) and Philemon (master) - see the book of Philemon. actually when a salve saw his master chnage and follow Paul's teaching regard how to be a master - that might have won many for Christ by the grace of God.
I also wonder if you understand ancient slavery - did you know doctors and teachers were slaves in Rome. Did you also know that in Isreal people often choose to remain slaves even when they could go free in Jubillee year - there were laws aboput how you could voluntarily bind yourself to your master for life. Did you also know that slaves might inherit their masters wealth - Gen 15:2
I must conclude this is a none arguement too!
Well we have seen that is simply an unfounded assertion and the reality is that it was incredibly unlikely that infants were either number in the household baptism or more likely there were none on these few occasions household baptsim are mentioned.
There is no evidence for this at all - your arguements are based upon reading your assumptions into the text, and I have shown how each assumption is false so your conslusion bears no weight my freind!
Back to the philippian jailor
No. but we do not isolate a verse from it's context and establish a theology about it. We notice that in v32 Paul and silas spoke to everyone inj the house, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." and we also notice that all in his house believed, v34 "having believed in God with all his household."
So we say
1) all his household heard the gsople
2) all his household believed the gsople
3) all his household were baptised as their profession of faith in the gospel
cont...
However entrance into the covenant of grace has always been by faith even in the Old testement, as Paul makes plain in Romans 4 by using the examples of Abraham and David!
Entrace into the Abrahamic covenant was by birth and circumcision but the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic covenet are earthly, temporary covenants that picture and point twoards the covenant of grace they are not administrations of the covenant of grace so the arguement has no basis!
Acts 2:38-39
But the text simply does not say that does it, no it says;
Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." (Act 2:38 NKJ)
The promise is to;
1) You
2) Your Children
3) all those who are far off.
If you say my repentence and baptism sanctifies my children you are alos saying it sancifies all those who are afar of as well - is that what you are saying? I really hope it isn't
It certainly isn't what Peter is saying because in that last phrase he makes the condition of the promise clear "as many as the Lord our God will call." The promise is for as many of the lord shall call out of these three catagaries, you, your children and all who are afar off.
Now as you are the one who keeps telling us to take scripture literally I think it is time you started to do that too my freind
household baptism
Is this the only passage of scripture that indicates that “household conversion”, such as that of Abraham in the Old Testament, continued into the New Covenant of the New Testament?
No.
There are several accounts of heads of households/parents converting and then their entire household being baptized, such as Lydia, the merchant of purple goods, mentioned in Acts. Baptists are correct to point out that no mention is made in any of these passages of infants being baptized.
However, in this period of history, without contraception, the average family was very large. And if the family had money, they also had servants and slaves, who would be included in the term “household” as was the case with Abraham. (Over 300 males in Abraham’s “household” underwent circumcision upon Abraham’s conversion.) The Bible mentions approximately five situations in which whole “households” were baptized. Can we really realistically believe that none of these households had little children???[/quote]
Well perhaps it would be helpful to look at the one mention of a household being baptised that we do have enough detail about to consider and that is the Philippian jailor in Acts 16:30-34
And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
Two things to notice, firstly Paul and Silas spoke to all who were in the house and we must assume they were able to understand because in v34 we are told that they all belived. Hence we must conclude that children are either not present, or are ignored.
In relation to Lydia it appears that she is head of her house, so likely she doesn't have any young children and we are told nothing about her staff at all so any case made from her is an arguement from silence, do you really wish to establish an important doctrine based on what the bible doesn't say? The other 'household' baptism are just mentioned in passing and contain no more detail.
Why? When it is clear from the whole of the NT that baptism follows repentence, that would be a redundant statement!
That is what we are specifically told happened in the house of the Philippian jailor in the word of God. Acts 16:34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (Act 16:34). Perhaps that question that should be asked is why so few household baptism mentioned in the bible.
If it only required the head of the house to believe why weren't there many more? The very rarity of the occurence compared to the huge number of conversions we read about suggests they very point you are argueing against. There were so few household baptism because it was only ahndful of houses where everyone in that house believed. These occurences are singled out because of their rarity.
Slaves and conversion
What like Onesimus (slave) and Philemon (master) - see the book of Philemon. actually when a salve saw his master chnage and follow Paul's teaching regard how to be a master - that might have won many for Christ by the grace of God.
I also wonder if you understand ancient slavery - did you know doctors and teachers were slaves in Rome. Did you also know that in Isreal people often choose to remain slaves even when they could go free in Jubillee year - there were laws aboput how you could voluntarily bind yourself to your master for life. Did you also know that slaves might inherit their masters wealth - Gen 15:2
I must conclude this is a none arguement too!
Well we have seen that is simply an unfounded assertion and the reality is that it was incredibly unlikely that infants were either number in the household baptism or more likely there were none on these few occasions household baptsim are mentioned.
There is no evidence for this at all - your arguements are based upon reading your assumptions into the text, and I have shown how each assumption is false so your conslusion bears no weight my freind!
Back to the philippian jailor
No. but we do not isolate a verse from it's context and establish a theology about it. We notice that in v32 Paul and silas spoke to everyone inj the house, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." and we also notice that all in his house believed, v34 "having believed in God with all his household."
So we say
1) all his household heard the gsople
2) all his household believed the gsople
3) all his household were baptised as their profession of faith in the gospel
cont...
...cont
What is literal interpretation
Wrong, because it is not a lieteral interpretation to take a phrase of pros out of it's context and make it say something that the context clearly contradicts!
No, he instead needs you to lift texts from his word and string them together to make them say the oppsoite of what the context God has given to them demand that they say! My freind, I am sure you would be easily able to pick holes in the JWs denail of teh deity of christ when he does the same thing with the bible as you are doing here. What saddens me is that you cannot see your own inconsistency and you allow tradition to blind you to the lack of exegetical principles in play when you make a case!
They promise salvation to those that believe and they baptise those that believe!
No it isn't! Actsually go back to Acts 16:31 you have to wonder to what Paul is refering to when he says "you, and all your house" Is he referring to being saved, or the need to believe on the Lord jesus Christ - either are grammatically possible!
I will wait to see how you respond to this, and my post on another thread regarding the didache that clearly shows baptist practise being present in the early church.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1880623&postcount=35
What is literal interpretation
Wrong, because it is not a lieteral interpretation to take a phrase of pros out of it's context and make it say something that the context clearly contradicts!
No, he instead needs you to lift texts from his word and string them together to make them say the oppsoite of what the context God has given to them demand that they say! My freind, I am sure you would be easily able to pick holes in the JWs denail of teh deity of christ when he does the same thing with the bible as you are doing here. What saddens me is that you cannot see your own inconsistency and you allow tradition to blind you to the lack of exegetical principles in play when you make a case!
They promise salvation to those that believe and they baptise those that believe!
No it isn't! Actsually go back to Acts 16:31 you have to wonder to what Paul is refering to when he says "you, and all your house" Is he referring to being saved, or the need to believe on the Lord jesus Christ - either are grammatically possible!
I will wait to see how you respond to this, and my post on another thread regarding the didache that clearly shows baptist practise being present in the early church.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1880623&postcount=35
Wittenberger
New Member
You are wrong, my Baptist/evangelical sister! Read below:
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: Luke 1:41
Logic and reason would tell you that an infant in the womb cannot discern and understand the significance of hearing the salutation of the mother of Christ. With God it can happen.
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. Luke 1:15
Logic, reason, and Baptist doctrine would tell you that an infant cannot be born, filled with the Holy Spirit. He must grow up, arrive at an age of maturity, at which time he can make a free will decision to believe and have faith. According to Baptist doctrine this must occur regardless of whether the child is in the Old Covenant or the New Covenant.
If you say that John the Baptist was a special situation, then you admit that God does not ALWAYS require a free will decision to believe and have faith before he gives the Holy Spirit!
Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
Now, take your explanation and apply it to my post below and you will readily see there is absolutely no basis for or need for infant baptism at all:
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
All three groups beleive in an age of confirmation/accountability of children. The only difference is about the exposure to God's wrath between birth and confirmation/accountability.
God's wrath is repeatedly said throughout scriptures to be based soley upon PERSONAL MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY determined by their works.
All three groups agree that infants or those under the age of confirmation/accountability are incapable of doing any works based upon moral determination. Hence, it is impossible for God to hold them MORALLY accountable for anything they do until they can comprehend moral accountability.
Hence, they are obviously safe from an kind of judgement based upon works.
Furthermore, the New Testament provides NO COMMAND, NO DOCTRINE, NO EXPLICIT EXAMPLE for the baptism of infants.
The total omission of doctrine/practice or examples can only be attributed to one of two reasons. Either, the New Testament writers were totally incapable of compassion for the most helpless of our race or they did not regard infants in any kind of danger of judgement. Take your choice!
I think the answer is obvious - they are not in any danger and so you do not have to provide doctrines that provide escape from judgement when they are not in danger. There is no examples of infant baptism because there is no need. It is just that simple.
Wittenberger
New Member
Entrance into the covenant of grace
However entrance into the covenant of grace has always been by faith even in the Old testement, as Paul makes plain in Romans 4 by using the examples of Abraham and David!
Entrace into the Abrahamic covenant was by birth and circumcision but the Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic covenet are earthly, temporary covenants that picture and point twoards the covenant of grace they are not administrations of the covenant of grace so the arguement has no basis!
Acts 2:38-39
But the text simply does not say that does it, no it says;
Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." (Act 2:38 NKJ)
The promise is to;
1) You
2) Your Children
3) all those who are far off.
If you say my repentence and baptism sanctifies my children you are alos saying it sancifies all those who are afar of as well - is that what you are saying? I really hope it isn't
It certainly isn't what Peter is saying because in that last phrase he makes the condition of the promise clear "as many as the Lord our God will call." The promise is for as many of the lord shall call out of these three catagaries, you, your children and all who are afar off.
Now as you are the one who keeps telling us to take scripture literally I think it is time you started to do that too my freind
household baptism
Is this the only passage of scripture that indicates that “household conversion”, such as that of Abraham in the Old Testament, continued into the New Covenant of the New Testament?
No.
There are several accounts of heads of households/parents converting and then their entire household being baptized, such as Lydia, the merchant of purple goods, mentioned in Acts. Baptists are correct to point out that no mention is made in any of these passages of infants being baptized.
However, in this period of history, without contraception, the average family was very large. And if the family had money, they also had servants and slaves, who would be included in the term “household” as was the case with Abraham. (Over 300 males in Abraham’s “household” underwent circumcision upon Abraham’s conversion.) The Bible mentions approximately five situations in which whole “households” were baptized. Can we really realistically believe that none of these households had little children???
Well perhaps it would be helpful to look at the one mention of a household being baptised that we do have enough detail about to consider and that is the Philippian jailor in Acts 16:30-34
And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
Two things to notice, firstly Paul and Silas spoke to all who were in the house and we must assume they were able to understand because in v34 we are told that they all belived. Hence we must conclude that children are either not present, or are ignored.
In relation to Lydia it appears that she is head of her house, so likely she doesn't have any young children and we are told nothing about her staff at all so any case made from her is an arguement from silence, do you really wish to establish an important doctrine based on what the bible doesn't say? The other 'household' baptism are just mentioned in passing and contain no more detail.
Why? When it is clear from the whole of the NT that baptism follows repentence, that would be a redundant statement!
That is what we are specifically told happened in the house of the Philippian jailor in the word of God. Acts 16:34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. (Act 16:34). Perhaps that question that should be asked is why so few household baptism mentioned in the bible.
If it only required the head of the house to believe why weren't there many more? The very rarity of the occurence compared to the huge number of conversions we read about suggests they very point you are argueing against. There were so few household baptism because it was only ahndful of houses where everyone in that house believed. These occurences are singled out because of their rarity.
Slaves and conversion
What like Onesimus (slave) and Philemon (master) - see the book of Philemon. actually when a salve saw his master chnage and follow Paul's teaching regard how to be a master - that might have won many for Christ by the grace of God.
I also wonder if you understand ancient slavery - did you know doctors and teachers were slaves in Rome. Did you also know that in Isreal people often choose to remain slaves even when they could go free in Jubillee year - there were laws aboput how you could voluntarily bind yourself to your master for life. Did you also know that slaves might inherit their masters wealth - Gen 15:2
I must conclude this is a none arguement too!
Well we have seen that is simply an unfounded assertion and the reality is that it was incredibly unlikely that infants were either number in the household baptism or more likely there were none on these few occasions household baptsim are mentioned.
There is no evidence for this at all - your arguements are based upon reading your assumptions into the text, and I have shown how each assumption is false so your conslusion bears no weight my freind!
Back to the philippian jailor
No. but we do not isolate a verse from it's context and establish a theology about it. We notice that in v32 Paul and silas spoke to everyone inj the house, "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." and we also notice that all in his house believed, v34 "having believed in God with all his household."
So we say
1) all his household heard the gsople
2) all his household believed the gsople
3) all his household were baptised as their profession of faith in the gospel
cont...[/QUOTE]
You yourself are making a very big assumption: that infants cannot believe. It is God who gives belief and repentance. He can give it to whomever he choses. He creates the belief and repentance, not you by your maturity and intelligence.
See my comments above regarding John the Baptist. God can do some really miraculous things in infants, my friend!
Can't you see that John the Baptist was not an ordinary man but the exception to the rule. How many people do you know that were filled with the Spirit from their mother's womb? How many people do you know were born after their parents were physically incapable of child bearing? How many persons do you know who were the fulfillment of an Old Testament prophet (Elijah)? How many people do you know that no other born of women are greater?
You take this as your RULE for infants?
Again, either the writers of the New Testament were completely heartless concerning the most helpless of humanity OR they believed they were in absolutely no danger at all since they gave absolutely no command, no doctrine, no example at all for infant baptism in the New Testament.
Again, God's judgement is solely based upon "according to their works" due to moral determination. How can infants be JUSTLY held to that standard when they are incapable of MORAL determination???? They can't! Hence, they are in no danger of damnation in the first place until they are able to make moral determinations.
What about those who die before that time?
1. They are saved by Christ without their will just as they were damned by Adam without their will as Christ paid for eternal penalty for the sin of Adam so that none go to hell for Adam's sin but for their own sins.
2. They are made to hear and believe in the gospel just as God made John hear and believe in the womb.
Wittenberger
New Member
Your are very intelligent and clever, Biblicist. But your doctrine is an invention of sixteenth century Europe. You cannot provide any evidence that any Christian living in the first six centuries after Christ believed that the sole purpose of Baptism was as an adult believer's public profession of faith.
You use revisionist history and cospiracy theories to try and cover the fact that N
NE during this time period left any evidence of this Baptist belief.Any Christian of that era that makes statements that support the orthodox Christian position, you brand has apostate.
If there were people living during that era that held that Baptist view of baptism, there would be some evidence, somewhere, on a cave wall, that supports your position.
You have no support for your Baptism belief other than extrapolations and complex explanations to explain away the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Your doctrine is new. It is only 500 to possibly, 1,000 years old. All new doctrine is heresy, just as your doctrine of the Rapture which was invented in the 1830's by Scottish Presbyterians and Plymouth Brethren--baby baptizers.
Come let us reason together...
Do you really believe that during the first sixteen hundred years after the apostles that recorded church history really was omnipresent and omniscient? There were no means of communication other than letter carriers. There was no universal omniscient omnipresent historian. There were no printing presses. It should be obvious that Rome CONTROLLED the selection and publishing processes. From their own history inquisitions were not simply lone occurrences but a primary practice beginning very early where they used the sword of secular government not only to persecute and kill their religious opponents they called "heretics" but vehemently attempted to destroy all their literature and convert them by the sword as they did in England in the sixth century. Do you really believe they would give a "Fox" report that is fair and balanced about the belief's of those they justified the use of the government sword to destroy?
You have been drinking RC koolaide too long! You actually believe the Roman historian monks were fair and balanced when even non-religious historians like Gibbon accuse them of tampering with God's Word, false decretals, and relentlessly destroying and distorting their enemies they called heretics. What is Romes response to historians like Gibbon??? Yes, you guessed it, he is not a fit historian, he is biased, he can't be trusted - only The Church can be trusted. Keep on drinking your koolaide but not I.
It is their history that is a Revisionist history and the Bible proves it by inspired predictive characteristics of the future of true versus apostate Christianity.
I gave you solid Biblical reasons and this is your response? Why can't you deal with the evidence I gave you? Why do you ignore it?
Is it because you have been drinking paedobaptism koolaide for so long you cannot even objectively deal with contrary Bibical evidence to your position?
You talk about "invention" don't you think that a doctrine which has NO BIBLICAL COMMANDS and NO BIBLICAL EXAMPLE is more of an "invention" than one which is repeatedly found in commands and examples throughout the New Testament???????????? You talk about a koolaide diet! That takes the cake. You are calling good evil and evil good.
So do they view Baptism as essential in order to be saved or not?
- Status