Originally posted by Justified Saint:
DHK, you aren't addressing the crux of the issue, just picking and chosing with it. The children would be otherwise unclean. That means something happened that made them go from being inherently unclean to clean and holy. You can interpret what that process or act is however you want, the fact still stands that by the sanctified members of the marriage the children have been made clean. Also, I wasn't trying to say that there were infants in the house, rather that the believer and head of the house was saved and consequently all his family was saved, you AND YOUR FAMILY will be saved was the result of him believing.
The word clean refers to a setting apart. It simply refers to the influence of a godly parent on his or her children. If the parent were not saved (believing) the children would no doubt remain unclean (in spiritual darkness).
I don't believe that the last part of Acts 16:31 is a cut and dry promise (written in stone, so to speak) of the entire family being saved. It just is not so. There are many believing parents that have unsaved children and brothers and sisters. That part of the verse is more like a principle. Any thing that involve family relationships usually is. For example, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he shall not depart from it." There are many instances of children rebelling in their latter years when godly parents have trained their children in a very godly manner. Their are exceptions to some principles dealing with family associations.
You have no right to choose the "process" whereby the children are made "clean". There is no baptism in this passage. It is ridiculous even to think such a thought. Paul is not talking of baptism. Demonstrate in the passage where baptism is the subject. How does baptism enter in? This is not the subject of Paul. Paul is speaking of the occasion of one spouse to leave another, not baptism. To fit baptism into such a passage is ridiculous. That is not the context of the passage.
"...do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38
Your profile says baptist. You ought to be honest with the board. I ought to report you. Be honest with me at least. You are Catholi aren't you? I used to be one. You have done nothing but defend the Catholic Church since you have posted. You are speaking as a Catholic. "Do Penance" The Bible never uses the word penance. It is not a Scriptural term; it is a Catholic term. Admit your deception.
Doing penance is a far cry from repent, which is the word used in Acts 2:38. If you want to discuss the verse on the basis of repentance I will, but not on the basis of the heresy of penance.
And of course Jesus tell his Apostles to go out and preach and baptize ALL. Believe and be baptized and you shall be saved. No one will go to heaven unless they are born of water and the Spirit etc.
Your Catholic theology is really showing now. Jesus never said a person was born again by baptissm, which you infer. Baptism isn't even mentioned in John chapter 3. Study it out. When you have get back to me.
The command as you quoted is to believe first, and then be baptized. It does not say that no one will not enter heaven without baptism. That is called baptismal regeneration, another heresy, promoted by the Catholic church.
So we have established that baptism is necessary for salvation. Since we don't specifically see examples of infants being baptized we are thus to conclude that infants aren't to be baptized, that we must invent a new doctrine oriented more anti-Catholic than biblical that says that infants are automatically saved until they come of age. Show me DHK in the NT that the transgression of Adam has been forever destroyed.
The primary thing we have established is that you say you are baptist, but in reality are a Catholic. You are a deceiver--a wolf come is sheep's clothing. The transgression of Adam: that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom.5:12). The consequence of that sin is death--eternal death: separation from God for all eternity (Rom.6:23. The solution to that sin is Jesus Christ:
Rom.5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
He died that He might take away your sin, if you believe on Him.
The answer:
Rom.10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
--This is something a baby cannot do. He cannot believe in his heart. He cannot call upon the name of the Lord. He cannot confess with his mouth. He cannot be saved.
The transgression of Adam was paid for by Christ's death on the cross, and must be freely accepted by faith. That can only be done by one who understands the message. That excludes infants.
Infants were circumcised in the old law and those who weren't were outside the covenant, same with baptism as Paul illustrates how it replaces circumcision. You haven't done a thing to establish baptism is necessary for salvation; not one thing at all.
First we are not under the law.
Second baptism does not replace circumcision.
Right, Baptism is not necessary for salvation; as noted above only faith is--that is faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
DHK
As far as reading into Scripture, maybe I'm wrong, but isn't that what we are supposed to do if we are our authority? God bless your day! --Quo vadis?
