- Apr 30, 2013
- 30,473
- 18,454
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Baptism is not a limit on God's grace. It's just a sure sign of it.
Upvote
0
As usual, managing to the exceptions. We believe that children under the age of reason are already in God's mercy. We also believe that there are many who are invincibly ignorant of God's mercy, who will not be held accountable for a lack of action. And before you jump on another word, ignorance is not an insult. We're all ignorant of things.
Please accept my apology...Hi again RoJ, I realize what you mean when you use the word "ignorance" in this case. I'm actually not attacking you here (sorry if it seems that way), I'm just trying to wrap my mind around what you (and many Protestants for that matter) believe (and why you believe it).
God gives mercy to everyone. It's very hard to understand. You, as Calvinist, me as Catholic, Abdul, as Muslim, the native aborigine in Australia or South America or Africa. We all receive grace and mercy to the degree we're capable. It's more about us being the receptor than how much God confers on anyone. Regarding children, under the age of reason, they're incapable of receiving God's mercy. Of course, those of us who believe in infant baptism think it's somehow 'better' to have it done soon to ensure the baby's ascension.Back to what you just wrote, what is the difference between a child who is baptized and is therefore "in God's mercy", and one who isn't baptized and yet, is "in God's mercy"? IOW, does one have an advantage with God that the other one does not?
Thanks!
--David
Please accept my apology...
Regarding children, under the age of reason, they're incapable of receiving God's mercy. Of course, those of us who believe in infant baptism think it's somehow 'better' to have it done soon to ensure the baby's ascension.
We believe that Baptism is the gateway to Christian life. It's a great thing. So let's get it done right away. While it is the gateway, it's not the end. There's years of education, but Baptism is the first step.Accepted, but no apology was needed. You continue:
But if all babies, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc., are "in God's mercy" prior to the "age of reason", are they not all "ensured" of ascension? Why the need for paedobaptism then?
You're kind of dating yourself. This approach seems pre-1960s. And it's not the attitude of the Church that God loves anyone more or less. God is love, so there cannot be more or less. That methodology is dated.I have a Catholic friend who told me as a little girl in church she was shown three pictures (well, her Sunday School class was anyway). The first was a picture of a baptized baby, the second picture was of an un-baptized baby, and the third, simply a picture of a rock. The children were then supposed to pick the picture they believed God loved most.
No.Does God love a baptized baby more than one who hasn't been?
You know a car can run along seemingly fine without an oil change, but it can benefit greatly from one, yes? We believe in God's mercy, but we have a responsibility as parents to see that our children are cared for. Baptism is one thing we must do.Also, there is the CCC which comments about paedobaptism saying:
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have 'need' of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would 'deny a child the priceless grace' of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth. (403; 1996)
What does this mean if all infants are, as you have said, "in God's mercy", until the age of reason?
No worries, David, your questions are sincere.Again, I apologize if it seems like I am trying to back you into a corner personally. I'm not. I'm simply trying to understand what the RCC believes about paedobaptism and why.
Thanks!
Yours and His,
David
I am saying nothing more than what Scripture says about how to be saved. John 20:31 is clear enough: "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."So many questions, when it's right in front of your face, yet so little time. Let me turn them around a bit...
Regarding the Holy Spirit, are you saying that you don't have to believe everything God taught about himself to be saved?
Salvation has never been about what people say they believe, but only what they believe. What they say is irrelevant.So you can take it or leave it, as long as you say you believe?
Immaterial. That belief isn't saving faith. Yet, even the fallen angels know that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. But because there is no evidence that Jesus died for any angels, it isn't saving faith for them.Hint: Satan believes that God is Lord and master of the universe, yet he is not saved.
He's actually no example at all. Trying to compare angels with humans is like comparing apples to oranges.In fact, Satan is a perfect example of a being that turned away from God, and will never be allowed back.
In that parable, it began with him being the son, he remained a son throughout the parable, and it ended with him still a son. That was never in doubt. Yes, someone needs to revisit what it says, but it's not me.Regarding the Prodigal Son, if you don't see the wayward son as in danger of dying (physical in the parable, spiritual in its meaning), you need to revisit what it says.
Except that there's so many chapters and verses that tell us what we must do after we believe in order to be saved...I am saying nothing more than what Scripture says about how to be saved. John 20:31 is clear enough: "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."
From Jesus Himself: ‘Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He (the Messiah), you will die in your sins.” John 8:24
So you can believe something contrary and not be saved. Thanks.Salvation has never been about what people say they believe, but only what they believe. What they say is irrelevant.
Being a child of God is never the question. It's being saved. Had the young man been content to live on stolen pods from the swill of pigs, he would not have been welcomed back into his Father's house.Immaterial. That belief isn't saving faith. Yet, even the fallen angels know that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. But because there is no evidence that Jesus died for any angels, it isn't saving faith for them.
He's actually no example at all. Trying to compare angels with humans is like comparing apples to oranges.
In that parable, it began with him being the son, he remained a son throughout the parable, and it ended with him still a son. That was never in doubt. Yes, someone needs to revisit what it says, but it's not me.
Regarding the man who persevered, then faltered, vs the man who committed evil and then repented, do some legwork. Lots of people, by the way, have faith from the day they're born. They're brought up by their parents, who represent them until they're capable. None of this "Let them make up their own minds" stuff.
I don't believe that because I've never found any. In fact, think about Paul's answer to the jailer who asked him what he MUST DO to be saved. And Paul's answer was direct and clear: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Nothing about what he MUST DO after he believed.Except that there's so many chapters and verses that tell us what we must do after we believe in order to be saved…
Once a person believes, they have eternal life, which is a gift of God. And God's gifts are irrevocable.So you can believe something contrary and not be saved. Thanks.
Here's the facts. A child of God is saved. And all saved persons are children of God. They are inseparable.Being a child of God is never the question. It's being saved.
I don't deal with any "what if's…..", but only the "what is's….". We have to deal with what Jesus said about the parable, and not second guess it.Had the young man been content to live on stolen pods from the swill of pigs, he would not have been welcomed back into his Father's house.
You're kind of dating yourself.
This approach seems pre-1960s. And it's not the attitude of the Church that God loves anyone more or less. God is love, so there cannot be more or less. That methodology is dated.
I have a question about Baptist baptism, as well. My mother and father had me baptized as an infant in the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Later they renounced that denomination, and journeyed, eventually to Southern Baptist. Recently she told me she was sorry she had me baptized as a child because it meant I couldn't make my own decision. I had to tell her that parents make lots of decisions for children before they're capable of making them for themselves, and that I considered my infant baptism valid and true. She also told me of the many times she's been baptized in pools, and tanks, and so on, because she felt the spirit to do so. I wonder why Baptists believe that you can be baptized over and over....
I don't believe that because I've never found any. In fact, think about Paul's answer to the jailer who asked him what he MUST DO to be saved. And Paul's answer was direct and clear: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Nothing about what he MUST DO after he believed.
Once a person believes, they have eternal life, which is a gift of God. And God's gifts are irrevocable.
None of which involves his salvation. Paul was clear and to the point: believe in Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Period. Many verses teach this. Of course it is normative for new believers to seek out other Christians to find out more about Christ and participate in the Christian life. But that doesn't always occur.What Paul is doing is giving a short answer, and trusting that the jailer will want to seek out other Christians to find out more about Jesus and to participate in their common life.
More conflation here. Paul WAS teaching that salvation IS individual. What is meant by 'revivalistic view of salvation'?He in no way is endorsing some kind of individualistic, revivalistic view of salvation, since elsewhere Paul talks about things that are normative for Christians to do.
What's wrong with being "really hung up" on what Scripture says? Nothing.You're really hung up on that, even though Paul was talking about a whole nation of people (Israel), not an individual.
I used to do things I was told would guarantee that I would go to Heaven. But I kept doing more, just to make sure.I was wondering those who believe Faith and works together saves us, how do they know if they are doing ENOUGH works?
And what works would all be included?
I'm not a Calvinist, so my view is strictly found within Scripture. Second, I've never used just 1 verse to support eternal security. There are many that state eternal security very clearly, unlike the conditional security view, in which there are absolutely no verses that tell us or warn us that we can lose our salvation.You're using spurious logic and a single Biblical quote to try to support a "Once Saved Always Saved" theology that the Bible just doesn't support, especially outside of a Calvinist context.
If it isn't a choice, then it's just pre-determined who will believe or not? That seems to be the only alternative. So, where does the Bible teach that idea?Revivalism is the belief that salvation is about your choice to believe in Jesus.
Because of all the verses that say so.Some even teach that once you make that choice, you are "once saved always saved".
I think you've conflated spiritual growth, or sanctification, with salvation. It is our sanctification that is a process, and a lifelong one at that.It makes salvation into a single event, rather than a process.
If good works are required for salvation (redemption of the body), then Rom 8:23 directly contradicts what else Paul wrote:I used to be a free grace supporter, and know that fg accuses Calvinist doctrine of backloading salvation by works:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/freegrace.html
Quote
Some charge that, by stating all Christians will inevitably show fruit in their lives, we are requiring works as a condition for salvation. The free grace teachers call this "backloading the gospel".
They claim that fruit, good works, ARE required, but only for rewards, over and above salvation.
However, the text clearly shows that good works, putting to death the deeds of the body, is required for the REDEMPTION of the body.
Where is any warning of entering eternity with "a body-less spirit"?Nobody wants to enter the afterlife with a bodi-less spirit, which has been saved, but as through fire.
If good works are required for salvation (redemption of the body), then Rom 8:23 directly contradicts what else Paul wrote:Rom 4:4,5 - 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,Eph 2;8,9 - 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Where is any warning of entering eternity with "a body-less spirit"?