Are all born again Christians saved?

[Serving Zion]

If I understand you correctly, the operative word is "sowing" as in the practice of sin to which I agree. 1 John 1 states that we all sin, as no one is without sin. IF we WALK IN THE LIGHT, then Jesus' blood cleanses us from occasional sin upon repentance (v.7). The condition as indicted by the word "if" is walking in the light. This is contrasted with walking in darkness where the practice of sin evidences that a believer has not genuinely repented as the sin is habitual. Instead of living according to the Spirit and persevering, the believer has instead chosen to live according to the flesh - the result of which is spiritual death according to Rom 8:13. Do you agree or disagree?

I do agree with what you said here, while also entering a notice that I do not take part with the pagan doctrines of a superstitious and magical "cleansing of blood" (Acts 15:29, 2 John 1:10-11).

 

[Oldmantook]

I do agree with what you said here, while also entering a notice that I do not take part with the pagan doctrines of a superstitious and magical "cleansing of blood" (Acts 15:29, 2 John 1:10-11).

I did not mean to imply that you believe or take part in magical "cleansing of the blood." I merely employed the phrase in reference to 1 John 1:7 where it declares the efficacious blood of Jesus to cleanse us of sin.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

 

[The Times]

Being born again......hmmmmm.....what is it? and how it works?

Being born again is not about Jesus, for it is solely about you the believer in Christ, who was already called to faith, meaning you believe wholeheartedly in Christ's Life, crucifixion and resurrection.

Being born again, as Jesus had alluded to, is elaborated by Apostle Paul in his letters and it is the infinite verb of putting off your old man and putting on the new man. The act of mortifying the old man, is an infinite verb in continuous action, that is continually being applied. So that being born again is a life long process, until a witness in their struggle against sin (body of sin), have resisted to the point of shedding their blood, meaning to overcome sin onto death, whilst keeping the faith. (Hebrews 12:4)

So every believer called to Christ is being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, over their life time and it is the marrying of the two wills, as two willing partners in union, so that the rehabilitation process can continue to take effect. That is why Jesus said, continue to stay in, as I am in you and you in me. This two party spiritual union, is based on loyalty and obedience to Christ.

12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

This is what Jesus meant to follow him, in his footsteps, by carrying your own crosses onto your own Calvary.

There are obligatory life long conditions of being born again and so it is highly suggestive, that so long we have not yet finished our race of faith (2 Timothy 4:6-8), we are under obligation to keep the faith and stay the narrow path in Christ, whilst we agree as a willing party to mortify the deeds of the flesh, the Old Man (Romans 6:6-13).

Apostle Paul says, those who are governed by the mind of flesh are hostile to God and will not conform to his ways and Laws. So a born again is a process that gradually and throughout a lifetime is transforming those willing parties called to Christ, to be gradually transformed over a life time, to a mind governed by the Spirit. So no one has actually arrived to being a full born again, for this will be only realised after biological death, when the righteous Judge will give us our Crown of Life, on resurrection day.

In this regard we have not arrived at being born again, but are on a path, a trajectory, to that ultimate sinless state, because being born again is when Christ appears to us, by then we would have been transformed in that sinless state/nature and to see him as he is in his glorified form (1 John 3:2), because we too would have taken that resurrection form after biological death, on the day of judgment (Hebrews 9:28).

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; (Process of putting off over a life time) fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

9Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; 10And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Colossians 3:5, 9-10)

So, that no one can boast to claim that they have already arrived at their new birth, as being born again, but are merely travellers in this temporal lifetime, aspiring to reach their destinies and to be reunited with Christ after they biologically die. The Crown of Life is the realisation of the new birth, the born again and we only receive our Crown of Life, our inheritance, only after we as Testators biologically die (Hebrews 9:15-17)

Being born again is a life-long process that is a progressive birthing, a life long transformation from a mind governed by the flesh, owing to the Old Man (Romans 6:6-13) to the New Man, whose mind is governed by the Spirit.

As Apostle Paul would teach....

Those (Christians as recipient's) who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

And if anyone (Christians as recipient's) does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

12Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

14For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. (Romans 8)

Full Preterists believe that in the here and now a believer in Christ is a born again, meaning is a new creation, that is a new man (Romans 6:6-13). They claim to have already arrived and are in posession of their Crown of Life (eternal inheritance). This claim is very far away from the truth.

Therefore no one, who is called to Christ, can boast that they are born again, that is in claiming to have arrived at the sinless nature state and in posession of their eternal inheritance.

 

[The Times]

Being born again, in regards to John 3:5 is a life long trial by fire, we are being baptised by the purgation fires of the Holy Spirit, after we were baptised in Christ by water, in declaring our death with him.

Born Again = Water (baptised thrice as being dead with Christ) + Holy Spirit (Purgation sanctifying fires)

This third I will put into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.'" (Zechariah 13:9)

 

[Serving Zion]

I did not mean to imply that you believe or take part in magical "cleansing of the blood." I merely employed the phrase in reference to 1 John 1:7 where it declares the efficacious blood of Jesus to cleanse us of sin.
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Thanks for the clarification! I might have been clearer by using the expression "cleansing by the blood".

It is the mechanism by which the blood is efficacious in purifying our unrighteousness, that what I am drawing attention to (Hebrews 10:26-31).

Some teach a hocus-pocus doctrine, encouraging people to go under a deception by believing that they are cleansed by the blood simply because they believe that they are cleansed by it upon declaring so.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s judgement comes on the children of disobedience. Therefore do not be partners with them.
- Ephesians 5:6-7

 

[Marvin Knox]

"Refraining from sin" refers to being obedient as a believer.

Of course it does. Who would say otherwise?

If a believer chooses to instead indulge in the flesh and not refrain from sin. is he/she still saved according to Hebrews 5:9?

Hebrews 5:9 says,
"and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"

It says that Jesus is the source of salvation for obedient Christians. Who else would be their source - Muhammad?

Hebrews 5:9 does not address the subject of the eternal security of believers. Those who disobey are not mentioned in any way.

However --- 1 John 2:1 does mention them.

"And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;"

You know? For a person claiming to have as much training in theology as you do, you sure make a lot of theological mistakes.

 

[Oldmantook]

Of course it does. Who would say otherwise?

Hebrews 5:9 says,
"and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"

It says that Jesus is the source of salvation for obedient Christians. Who else would be their source - Muhammad?

Hebrews 5:9 does not address the subject of the eternal security of believers. Those who disobey are not mentioned in any way.

However --- 1 John 2:1 does mention them.

"And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;"

You know? For a person claiming to have as much training in theology as you do, you sure make a lot of theological mistakes.

Hello Marvin. We've disagreed before so I assume you want to have another go at it.
I find you replies to be quite inadequate. Of course everyone including myself agrees that
refraining from sin refers to being obedient so your red herring fallacy is quite illogical. Secondly in Heb 5:9 in case you probably weren't aware, the Greek word for "obey" is rendered as a present tense participle, therefore believers must go on "obeying" in order to have the assurance of eternal life. Those believers who do not continue in obedience, do not have eternal life. We must continue obeying Jesus/Word, otherwise the promise of eternal life in Heb 5:9 is invalidated.
You wrote: "Those who disobey are not mentioned in any way.
You make an argument from silence which is the weakest form of argumentation; certainly not a good way to form your doctrine. So by logical extension, when believers lead a disobedient lifestyle, then they are still saved according to your belief? Is that correct since you also refer to 1 Jn 2:1?
Note that in 1 Jn 2:1, the apostle John stated his purpose for writing his letter - "that you may not sin." His epistle is a caution or warning to the brethren to refrain from sin. Everyone sins according to 1 Jn 1:8,10. However, IF a believer's lifestyle is marked by continued disobedience and not walking in the light, the forgiveness of sin is not promised. 1 Jn 1:7 states But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. This is a conditional sentence indicated by the word "if." IF believers are walking in the light, then when they occasionally sin (which they do, since no one is without sin) they repent and the blood of Jesus is efficacious in cleansing from sin. Those believers who are not walking in the light are not assured of forgiveness and cleansing as they walk in darkness and do not even have fellowship with God (v.6). Theological training helps; I suggest you do likewise.

 

[Marvin Knox]

We've disagreed before so I assume you want to have another go at it. I find you replies to be quite inadequate.

My reply made perfect sense so I don't know what there is left to have a go at.

My reply was not only adequate it was spot on. You can't assume that because one thing is true another thing must also be true unless there logic demands that it be. In this case it does not.

Your presentation was like saying that Paul, who was a top notch believer and servant of the Lord, was saved therefore Joe Blow who falls short of that lofty walk is not saved.

That's not good logic nor is it even remotely biblical.

Of course everyone including myself agrees that refraining from sin refers to being obedient so your red herring fallacy is quite illogical.

No red herring at all. I'm just agreeing with what you said since it is obviously true from scripture - unlike the jumps of assumption you often make.

Secondly in Heb 5:9 in case you probably weren't aware, the Greek word for "obey" is rendered as a present tense participle,

Believers who are obeying have Him as their savior. So what?

therefore believers must go on "obeying" in order to have the assurance of eternal life. Those believers who do not continue in obedience, do not have eternal life. We must continue obeying Jesus/Word, otherwise the promise of eternal life in Heb 5:9 is invalidated.

There is a world of difference between saying that those who are living in great obedience have assurance concerning their being saved and saying that those who are not are not saved.

You can rightly say (from many other testimonies from the scriptures) that those who are in disobedience have reason to question their salvation. But you have gone beyond what the scriptures say on the matter of assurance.

You make an argument from silence which is the weakest form of argumentation; certainly not a good way to form your doctrine.

You are the one making arguments from silence - not I.

So by logical extension, when believers lead a disobedient lifestyle, then they are still saved according to your belief? Is that correct since you also refer to 1 Jn 2:1?

In many cases yes. But not all. Nor have I said otherwise.

Note that in 1 Jn 2:1, the apostle John stated his purpose for writing his letter - "that you may not sin." His epistle is a caution or warning to the brethren to refrain from sin. Everyone sins according to 1 Jn 1:8,10.

Quite right on both counts.

IF a believer's lifestyle is marked by continued disobedience and not walking in the light, the forgiveness of sin is not promised.

Quite right. Discipline as a son by God is promised.

Theological training helps;I suggest you do likewise.

Yes it does and one of the first things they taught me during that training was to refrain from making assumptions while looking at a scripture. Do not go beyond what is written.

I understand that you do not believe in eternal security. Heck, I'm not sure you even believe the simple gospel.

But you can't make a scripture say something it doesn't say and that is not even dictated by logic.

You can have the last word. ​

 

[Oldmantook]

No red herring at all. I'm just agreeing with what you said since it is obviously true from scripture - unlike the jumps of assumption you often make.

So why even bring it up? As you know it takes time to reply so it's more productive addressing our differences.

Believers who are obeying have Him as their savior. So what?

So what happens to believers who are not obeying Marvin? Your trite answers are quite inadequate. What happens to those who are disobeying?

There is a world of difference between saying that those who are living in great obedience have assurance concerning their being saved and saying that those who are not are not saved.

Look at the verse. Just what does that assurance consist of? Shouldn't you know that the text gives you the answer? It states He is the author of eternal salvation to all those obeying him. The assurance of salvation only applies to those obeying. Does it include those believers not obeying? What happens to those who are not obeying? Do they have salvation too? If not, what happens to them. You don't fully explain what happens to those who do not obey.

You can rightly say (from many other testimonies from the scriptures) that those who are in disobedience have reason to question their salvation. But you have gone beyond what the scriptures say on the matter of assurance.[/QUOTE
No, Scripture is quite adequate in and of itself, and I don't have to go beyond what it states. Do those believers who take the mark of the beast have eternal life? Are they eternally secure Marvin? Your answer would be they were never believers in the first place. Rev 14:9 states that if anyone worships the beast and his image and takes a mark.... Anyone includes both unbelievers and believers. Rev 14:12 which follows the warning of the preceding verses therefore calls on the SAINTS to persevere. "This calls for endurance from the saints, who keep God's commands and their faith in Jesus." Believers must endure and refrain from taking the mark. Would you YOU take the mark Marvin? If not, why not since you are eternally secure, aren't you? If you reply that you would never take the mark then your confidence level and self-assuredness matches that of Peter when he confidently proclaimed that he would never deny the Lord. And we both know what happened to Peter.

You are the one making arguments from silence - not I.

You have not explained what happens to believers who disobey.

n many cases yes. But not all. Nor have I said otherwise.

"Yes but not all?" How so Marvin? More elaboration is necessary.

Quite right. Discipline as a son by God is promised.

I did not use the word "discipline" as that is your choice of word. The verse specifically refers to the Jesus' cleansing blood which we both know is associated with the forgiveness of sin. One can be in the process of God's discipline so that repentance may result but one is not yet forgiven because the discipline process is still ongoing. If Jesus' cleansing blood is not applied, are believers still saved? For example is a believer has the habit of remaining bitter toward another person and refuses to forgive that person, will God still forgive him? Is that believer walking in the light and does the blood of Jesus still cleanse him of his sin? Scripture states that if we don't forgive, God will not forgive us. Are we still saved if God does not forgive us?

 

[bcbsr]

You don't get the right to be born of God until you believe.

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" John 1:12

Therefore everyone born of God is a believer and thus has eternal life, as faith in Christ is the sole condition for salvation according to the gospel.

As for sinning, there is no such thing as one who has been born of God who continues to characteristically sin. Because of regeneration they are incapable of doing so. (This I mention in response to so many of the "salvation by works" Christians posting on this thread.)

1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1Jo 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.
1Jo 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him.

Apparently a lot of Christians are unfamiliar with these truths.

 

[zoidar]

As for sinning, there is no such thing as one who has been born of God who continues to characteristically sin. Because of regeneration they are incapable of doing so. (This I mention in response to so many of the "salvation by works" Christians posting on this thread.)

But, THAT IS NOT TRUE! I was born again 8 years ago. A few years later I fell back to living in sin. I even went back to practicing Buddhism for a while.

 

[zoidar]

Being born again is a life-long process that is a progressive birthing, a life long transformation from a mind governed by the flesh, owing to the Old Man (Romans 6:6-13) to the New Man, whose mind is governed by the Spirit.

I don't fully agree with this. I was born again 8 years ago. I know the exact moment, 21th of June 2010. I understand that many Christians don't have such a radical conversion as I had, to many people it may seem like a process, but there is always a moment in time when you are reborn. Either you are a child of God or you aren't, there is no in between. When you are reborn the life-long process begins to know God even better, to grow in grace.

 

[zoidar]

No comments at all to what I said ?

 

[Tangible]

Except that there's no record of one in the New Testament, nor any teaching on the subject of infant baptism.

Since there is also no scriptural record of anyone denying baptism to an infant nor any teaching that explicitly excludes infants from receiving God's gift of baptism either it seems to me that you are just making up rules regarding baptism that were never expressed or intended by God. Why would you want to do that?

Perhaps it is because you view baptism as law, a rule to be obeyed, a step to be trod upon, a god-pleasing work we are commanded to do after conversion ... for some reason ... like Jesus was a new Moses giving us weird, arbitrary laws. "OK, after you have been converted, I want you to submit to being dunked in water in order to prove you were sincere about converting." That just doesn't sound like the Jesus I see in holy scripture. It also places the act of conversion on the shoulders of us sinful and fallible men, in direct contradiction to numerous scriptural passages clearly stating that conversion is a gracious act of God upon completely undeserving men naturally incapable of doing anything pleasing to God.

Am I arguing against baptizing an elderly person? No.

Why not? "There's no record of one in the New Testament, nor any teaching on the subject of [elder] baptism," to use your own statement. Replace 'elder' with any of an infinite number of unscriptural qualifiers if you want. It makes the point that if God didn't say it, we are not bound to it. And if God didn't say that infants are not to be baptized, who are we to say otherwise?

Perhaps denying baptism to infants belies theological errors in the basic scriptural understanding of Christian anthropology, christology, and soteriology, along with the nature and source of God's grace, faith in Christ, and salvation itself.

Arguing that infant baptism occurred in the New Testament Church because of the absence of specific ages given for anyone who was baptized is essentially to try to make a positive case for something on the basis of an absence of evidence for it. You wouldn't succeed with this line of reasoning in a court of law and it doesn't work here, either.

You're referring to an argument from silence, correct? That blade cuts both ways, friend. Since there is no explicit exemption or proscription against the baptism of infants, you are effectively arguing from silence as well.

Anyway, to argue that X does not apply as a limiting factor when X is never expressed or implied in the texts describing or explaining the nature of baptism is NOT an argument from silence. If I say,"It would be difficult and dangerous for cars with less than 10% of brake pads remaining intact to be required stop at every stop sign; therefore stop signs do not apply in all cases to such vehicles," you would not be arguing from silence when you state that there is no such stipulation or exclusion expressed in the motor vehicle code, thereby invalidating my statement.

It's not an argument from silence to argue against a position upon which the scriptures are explicitly silent (though as VC stated, there are sufficient implicit reason not to believe that out of all the entire households in the Roman Empire, the all three households specifically named in scripture somehow happened to contain no small children or infants.)

We have sufficient details in the New Testament concerning those who are specifically mentioned as being baptized to reasonably conclude that they were all of sufficient age to be able to fully comprehend the Gospel and the significance of baptism. Those John baptized, the Ethiopian eunuch, the Philippian jailer, the "men and women" (not infants) of Acts 8:12, Paul, Lydia, Crispus - these were all clearly adults.

If I say that cows have spots, it is certainly true in general. But that clearly doesn't mean that there are no cows, or even very few cows, without spots.

Again, you are making an argument from silence.

But I'm not arguing against the baptism of any of these sorts of people, only against the baptism of infants, who are utterly incapable of understanding the Gospel or the purpose and meaning of baptism.

As VC stated, intellectual comprehension is not necessarily required for the word of God to do it's work through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Actually, directly following the verse mentioned in the OP there is a very clear passage stating that God works where and when he will to bring about that which he desires to do.

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

So we can see that God does not require anything from us in order for him to bestow upon us undeserving sinners all the gracious gifts he has to give us.

John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So where does faith in Christ come from? Is it something we produce in ourselves after having an intellectual epiphany or an emotional experience? Is it an act that an unconverted person can do that effectively moves him from the unsaved column to the saved column? Hopefully you know the answers to these questions.

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

1 John 4:9-10 This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him. And love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

And of course that wonderful passage from the beginning of Ephesians, chapter 2:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

So what does this have to do with baptism? It is clear from scripture that Holy Baptism is one way that God has promised to his people to work in them, a means through which he gives us his gifts, and the greatest gift that he gives us is faith in his Son, Jesus Christ. That faith shows itself according to the age and abilities of the recipient. It looks different in an infant, a youth, an adult, and an elder. All have different capacities and appreciation for the expression of their faith and their thankfulness to God for giving them this gift.

1 Corinthians 6:11 ... But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Galatians 3:6-7 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Titus 3:4-7 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

I could go on.

I suppose, though, by extension, I would be arguing against the baptism of anyone who could not, due to illness, mental deficiency, or brain injury, comprehend the Gospel and the significance of baptism.

That's right. You are wishing to deny the good gifts God has to give all of his children to some simply because they are intellectually less astute than others. Who gets to draw the line? How smart or capable does someone have to be before God can give them his gifts?

Having blonde hair, or being adolescent, or elderly, though, does not, as it does in the case of an infant, necessarily indicate an inability to comprehend the Gospel and baptism. An infant by virtue of being an infant is completely incapable of understanding either thing, unlike the blonde or elderly person who aren't unable to understand the Gospel and the purpose and meaning of baptism merely because they are blonde or elderly.

And yet I have demonstrated that intellectual capacity is no more a prerequisite for salvation than age or hair color. It simply doesn't depend on us.

I have a child (seven actually) and each one of them, by virtue of being conceived and birthed - processes over which they had no control - inherited several things from me: my name, my love and protection, my providing for their needs, some of my genes (thankfully their mother is beautiful) and so forth. They didn't do anything to earn or deserve them. I gave them these gifts because by God's grace I and my wife gave them physical life.

Well, I disagree. I think it is very evident in Scripture that baptism is the consequence of a process involving knowledge, persuasion, belief and trust. Divorce baptism from these things and it becomes meaningless.

Perhaps then you have a mistaken view of the meaning of baptism.

Why you would engage in a religious ritual you did not understand - especially when you were at an age where you could have understood it - is a mystery to me. What I think of your doing so I have already made clear, I believe, in my comments above.

Did you fully understand? Can anyone fully understand? I don't think so. We all grasp only a small portion.

 

[aiki]

Since there is also no scriptural record of anyone denying baptism to an infant nor any teaching that explicitly excludes infants from receiving God's gift of baptism either it seems to me that you are just making up rules regarding baptism that were never expressed or intended by God. Why would you want to do that?

If there were no records in the NT of anyone being baptized, then you might have a case for objecting to my thinking. But we have a number of recorded instances of baptism in the NT and not one of them explicitly mentions a child or infant being baptized. The NT only tells us about adults being baptized. Why is that? Why, if infant baptism was a common practice in the New Testament Church, do we never hear anything about it? It is not, then, that I am arbitrarily making up a rule about baptism but confining my thinking on baptism to what Scripture - not man-made tradition - actually teaches about it.

Perhaps it is because you view baptism as law, a rule to be obeyed, a step to be trod upon, a god-pleasing work we are commanded to do after conversion ... for some reason ... like Jesus was a new Moses giving us weird, arbitrary laws.

I can't stop you from your...peculiar imaginings, but this is nothing like what I think or how I'm motivated in the matter of baptism.

"OK, after you have been converted, I want you to submit to being dunked in water in order to prove you were sincere about converting." That just doesn't sound like the Jesus I see in holy scripture. It also places the act of conversion on the shoulders of us sinful and fallible men, in direct contradiction to numerous scriptural passages clearly stating that conversion is a gracious act of God upon completely undeserving men naturally incapable of doing anything pleasing to God.

Do you know what a Strawman argument is? You just made one here.

You're referring to an argument from silence, correct? That blade cuts both ways, friend. Since there is no explicit exemption or proscription against the baptism of infants, you are effectively arguing from silence as well.

Not so. The Bible is not silent on who was being baptized in the NT Church. See above.

If I say that cows have spots, it is certainly true in general. But that clearly doesn't mean that there are no cows, or even very few cows, without spots.

Again, you are making an argument from silence.

No, I'm limiting myself to the record and teaching of Scripture.

As VC stated, intellectual comprehension is not necessarily required for the word of God to do it's work through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

This verse does not ground your point. It does not say that the word of God may work on a person separate from their intellect.

Actually, directly following the verse mentioned in the OP there is a very clear passage stating that God works where and when he will to bring about that which he desires to do.

John 3:8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

And so? What does this have to do with comprehending the purpose of baptism? It speaks only of the incorporeality of the Holy Spirit.

So we can see that God does not require anything from us in order for him to bestow upon us undeserving sinners all the gracious gifts he has to give us.

John 1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Except that we exercise faith in the Gospel and receive the gift that He offers to us in Christ. If we don't do these things, we cannot be saved.

So where does faith in Christ come from? Is it something we produce in ourselves after having an intellectual epiphany or an emotional experience? Is it an act that an unconverted person can do that effectively moves him from the unsaved column to the saved column? Hopefully you know the answers to these questions.

I am not a Calvinist. God imparts to us faith to believe, but we must actually exercise ourselves in that belief.

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

And the verse just before this one ends how?

It is clear from scripture that Holy Baptism is one way that God has promised to his people to work in them, a means through which he gives us his gifts, and the greatest gift that he gives us is faith in his Son, Jesus Christ.

I disagree. I think God's greatest gift is Himself.

That faith shows itself according to the age and abilities of the recipient. It looks different in an infant, a youth, an adult, and an elder.

No infant possesses faith in the sense in which it is meant in Scripture in connection with receiving salvation. And baptism is predicated upon this saving faith. So, no infant ought to be baptized.

All have different capacities and appreciation for the expression of their faith and their thankfulness to God for giving them this gift.

An infant has no capacity for saving faith. Such faith requires some understanding of the tenets of the Gospel which is, obviously, beyond an infant.

I could go on.

You could, but since none of the verses/passages you posted establish the idea of infant baptism, what would be the point?

And yet I have demonstrated that intellectual capacity is no more a prerequisite for salvation than age or hair color.

No, actually, you haven't. You have posted verse/passages into which you read an essentially Calvinist perspective and assume I will do the same. I don't.

I have a child (seven actually) and each one of them, by virtue of being conceived and birthed - processes over which they had no control - inherited several things from me: my name, my love and protection, my providing for their needs, some of my genes (thankfully their mother is beautiful) and so forth. They didn't do anything to earn or deserve them. I gave them these gifts because by God's grace I and my wife gave them physical life.

I understand that no analogy is perfect, but this one doesn't even begin to approximate a believer's advent into God's family. I don't hold to the Calvinist notion of God dragging someone against their will into His kingdom. God is entirely responsible for making us able to respond positively to the Gospel but being made "response-able" we must then choose to believe and receive His salvation. God does not "birth" anyone into His family totally apart from their choice to be saved.

Perhaps then you have a mistaken view of the meaning of baptism.

Nope.

Did you fully understand? Can anyone fully understand? I don't think so. We all grasp only a small portion.

One can understand sufficiently without understanding fully.

 

[Tangible]

If there were no records in the NT of anyone being baptized, then you might have a case for objecting to my thinking. But we have a number of recorded instances of baptism in the NT and not one of them explicitly mentions [argument from silence] a child or infant being baptized.

Then you will easily be able to point me to the scripture in which explicitly excludes infants from receiving baptism, either in the recorded words of Our Lord Jesus or one of the Apostles, I'm not picky. Please do so and I will gladly concede the point. If, however, you can only continue to make arguments from silence (though you deny it) you will only prove my point for me.

The NT only tells us about adults being baptized. Why is that? Why, if infant baptism was a common practice in the New Testament Church, do we never hear anything about it?

Because infant baptism perhaps did not become commonplace until the second generation of believers were being brought into the Church, something that became increasingly widespread as the cannon of scripture was being closed.

In the writings of the Early Church Fathers we see infant baptism mentioned many times in passing, as something taken for granted. There was no controversy about whether or not infants should be baptized until much later in the church's history, with those who advocated the delay of baptism doing so for reasons very different from the position you espouse.

All the examples of baptisms in scripture are of adults (with the notable and undeniable exceptions of the three recorded household baptisms of course) simply because it was among adults that the first wave of conversions were accomplished by the Holy Spirit working through the word of God in the mouths of the Apostles and other believers.

If I want to know how a car runs, I could go down and watch cars driving by all day on the road and learn very little except that cars do in fact run, propelling themselves down the road at amazing speeds. A much better way to learn how a car runs would be to pop the hood and take a look at all the inner workings, along with studying the writings of automotive engineers and manufacture's manuals.

So instead of reading only the accounts of baptisms recorded in narrative portions of scripture, such as in Acts, perhaps to gain a fuller understanding of what the bible teaches regarding baptism it would be better to study the theological and doctrinal portions of scripture, such as in the Epistles, where there are numerous passages that clearly explain and illustrate what God accomplishes through Holy Baptism. You might begin in Romans, chapter 6.

It is not, then, that I am arbitrarily making up a rule about baptism but confining my thinking on baptism to what Scripture - not man-made tradition - actually teaches about it.

But, you see, you are only looking at the parts of scripture that show what specific, individual cases of baptism looked like and then drawing all kinds of man-made assumptions from those cases. Just because baptism is recorded to have happened one way does not lead to a valid assumption that baptism can only happen in the ways they were recorded.

Look at what Peter, Paul, John and others wrote about baptism. Read what Jesus actually said about baptism without filtering it through a credobaptistic lens. You may be surprised by what you find (and don't find!).

Not so. The Bible is not silent on who was being baptized in the NT Church. See above.

But it apparently is silent on explicit accounts of infants and young children being baptized (if you set aside the witness of the recorded household baptisms, anyway). Your argument here is a classic example of an argument from silence. "It's not explicitly recorded, therefore I can say that it categorically didn't happen."

No, I'm limiting myself to the record and teaching of Scripture.

But not the whole record and teaching of Scripture.

Except that we exercise faith in the Gospel and receive the gift that He offers to us in Christ. If we don't do these things, we cannot be saved. / I am not a Calvinist. God imparts to us faith to believe, but we must actually exercise ourselves in that belief.

And thus you set aside the Reformation solas that so many died to confess and join together with the Church of Rome to assert that man must cooperate with God in order to obtain salvation.

No infant possesses faith in the sense in which it is meant in Scripture in connection with receiving salvation. And baptism is predicated upon this saving faith. So, no infant ought to be baptized. / An infant has no capacity for saving faith. Such faith requires some understanding of the tenets of the Gospel which is, obviously, beyond an infant.

King David seemed to believe differently.

Psalm 22
Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

You could, but since none of the verses/passages you posted establish the idea of infant baptism, what would be the point? / No, actually, you haven't. You have posted verse/passages into which you read an essentially Calvinist perspective and assume I will do the same. I don't. / I understand that no analogy is perfect, but this one doesn't even begin to approximate a believer's advent into God's family. I don't hold to the Calvinist notion of God dragging someone against their will into His kingdom. God is entirely responsible for making us able to respond positively to the Gospel but being made "response-able" we must then choose to believe and receive His salvation. God does not "birth" anyone into His family totally apart from their choice to be saved.

I am not a Calvinist. I have quite strong objections to positions in which Calvinism exceeds scripture. However, I have come to believe that the only fully and truly scriptural position on justification is patently monergistic. Lutherans do have that in common with Calvinsts, with certain reservations and stipulations.

 

[aiki]

Then you will easily be able to point me to the scripture in which explicitly excludes infants from receiving baptism, either in the recorded words of Our Lord Jesus or one of the Apostles, I'm not picky. Please do so and I will gladly concede the point. If, however, you can only continue to make arguments from silence (though you deny it) you will only prove my point for me.

But my point was that the Bible is not silent on who was baptized. In the several instances where people are baptized in the NT record, all of them are adults.

Really, if anyone is contending for their view from an absence of evidence, it is you. You can't offer a single instance of infant baptism in all of the NT. Not one. Seems to me, then, that you're the pot calling the kettle black here.

Because infant baptism perhaps did not become commonplace until the second generation of believers were being brought into the Church, something that became increasingly widespread as the cannon of scripture was being closed.

Well, that's a theory, yes, but I see no evidence for it in the NT whatever.

In the writings of the Early Church Fathers we see infant baptism mentioned many times in passing, as something taken for granted. There was no controversy about whether or not infants should be baptized until much later in the church's history, with those who advocated the delay of baptism doing so for reasons very different from the position you espouse.

Tertullian, the first Church "Father" to mention infant baptism explicitly in his writing, didn't appear to think infant baptism a settled practice in the Church.

"According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if [baptism itself] is not necessary—that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? For they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition…. They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation! (de baptismo, ch. xviii)"

All the examples of baptisms in scripture are of adults (with the notable and undeniable exceptions of the three recorded household baptisms of course) simply because it was among adults that the first wave of conversions were accomplished by the Holy Spirit working through the word of God in the mouths of the Apostles and other believers.

It is no more justified to assume those households contained infants than to assume that my household includes them (which it doesn't). Quite obviously, a household does not require infants in order to be a household.

So instead of reading only the accounts of baptisms recorded in narrative portions of scripture, such as in Acts, perhaps to gain a fuller understanding of what the bible teaches regarding baptism it would be better to study the theological and doctrinal portions of scripture, such as in the Epistles, where there are numerous passages that clearly explain and illustrate what God accomplishes through Holy Baptism. You might begin in Romans, chapter 6.

As it happens, I have memorized Romans 6:1-18. You? Nothing Paul writes concerning baptism suggests to me that infants ought to - and were - included in baptism.

And thus you set aside the Reformation solas that so many died to confess and join together with the Church of Rome to assert that man must cooperate with God in order to obtain salvation.

Baloney. Labeling isn't effective arguing.

King David seemed to believe differently.

Psalm 22
Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.
On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Inasmuch as this passage is speaking of Christ, it reflects a unique circumstance. Here's the full section of verses:

Psalms 22:1-18
1 To the Chief Musician. Set to 'The Deer of the Dawn.' A Psalm of David. My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning?
2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; And in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But You are holy, Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in You; They trusted, and You delivered them.
5 They cried to You, and were delivered; They trusted in You, and were not ashamed.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me; They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 "He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue Him; Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!"
9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother's womb You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me, For trouble is near; For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have surrounded Me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths, Like a raging and roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots.

 

[BobRyan]

This may sound like a stupid question. I apologize if it comes off as stupid I'm 100% sincere. But are all born again Christians saved? There are many varying opinions on google so I was searching for the correct interpretation.

Yes they are all saved - by definition.

to be born-again means to be saved, to have the new-creation of 2 Cor 5.

But that does not mean that some day in the future they could not be lost.

 

[Tangible]

But my point was that the Bible is not silent on who was baptized. In the several instances where people are baptized in the NT record, all of them are adults.

When Our Lord Jesus gave his 12 disciples his body and blood to eat and drink in the bread and wine of the Supper scripture records that only males were present to receive it. Likewise, in the epistles, Paul makes no explicit statement that women are participating in Holy Communion to my knowledge.

Using your logic, therefore, only males should be allowed to participate in Holy Communion. Females are to be excluded because there is no explicit scriptural account of them receiving communion.

Prove this statement wrong using only scripture if you can.

Really, if anyone is contending for their view from an absence of evidence, it is you. You can't offer a single instance of infant baptism in all of the NT. Not one. Seems to me, then, that you're the pot calling the kettle black here.

As I have stated above, there is no need for a positive proof that infants are specifically included in receiving God's gifts through Holy Baptism because there is nowhere in scripture that indicates that they are specifically to be excluded.

Jesus simply said to baptize and teach all nations. All nations means all nations. Nations include infants along with every other artificially imposed specific age group. All nations does not mean all the people of a nation except the infants.

The onus is squarely upon you to prove that Jesus did not mean what he plainly said and that there is at least one group of people who for whatever reason do not qualify to be the recipients of God's gifts that he promises to give through Holy Baptism.

Your whole argument is that because it is not specifically, explicitly recorded as happening in the narrative portions of scripture, therefore it cannot or should not happen. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Shall we go looking for other churchly practices for which there is no explicit record in scripture of a particular group of people being included? Scripture, especially narrative scripture, is not prescriptive. It is descriptive. It simply describes what happened. It does not prescribe what must happen or how something must happen. If that criteria were to be applied across the board, there is a significant number of other changes we must be prepared to make in the practice of the life of the church.

Well, that's a theory, yes, but I see no evidence for it in the NT whatever.

Maybe that's because I clearly iterated that my statement was not based on the cannon of scripture?

Tertullian, the first Church "Father" to mention infant baptism explicitly in his writing, didn't appear to think infant baptism a settled practice in the Church.

"According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if [baptism itself] is not necessary—that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? For they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition…. They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation! (de baptismo, ch. xviii)"

Nice quote mining. This is actually the example I alluded to earlier in the conversation when I stated that an early father (who later apostatized, btw) questioned the propriety of baptizing little children, not because it is not scriptural or because it is not efficacious for them, but because of an erroneous doctrine that can be summed up as stating that if someone sins after being baptized, there is no forgiveness for those sins. For this mistaken reason many at that time delayed baptism until just before death (if indeed they were fortunate enough to have someone available to baptize them at the time of their demise).

Imagine actually dreading the reception of baptism through believing Satan's lies when in scriptural reality it is a Christ-instituted vehicle of countless wonderful gifts and blessings poured out on us richly by our gracious Heavenly Father!

It is no more justified to assume those households contained infants than to assume that my household includes them (which it doesn't). Quite obviously, a household does not require infants in order to be a household.

No one that I know would state categorically that the three households recorded to have been baptized in scripture was necessarily comprised of adults, children and infants. It is an implication, willingly granted, but based upon what we know about the size and makeup of households in that region at that time, it is a very strong implication indeed.

Again the burden of proof would necessarily be on those who would categorically state that these households contained no small children or infants, or that these little ones were denied the gift of baptism given and received by all the other members of their household despite the clear words of scripture stating that the whole household were baptized.

As it happens, I have memorized Romans 6:1-18. You? Nothing Paul writes concerning baptism suggests to me that infants ought to - and were - included in baptism.

Congratulations on your accomplishment. Since you are intimately familiar with this passage, please indicate to me the portion which excludes infants from receiving all of the gifts God gives through baptism that this passage reveals.

Baloney. Labeling isn't effective arguing.

Do you deny that man must cooperate with God in order to achieve final justification? The statement you made earlier indicated that you believe one must. "If we don't do these things, we cannot be saved." "God imparts to us faith to believe, but we must actually exercise ourselves in that belief." This is a correct basic statement of the doctrine of justification taught by the Roman Catholic Church.

If the label fits ...

Inasmuch as this passage is speaking of Christ, it reflects a unique circumstance.

Quite true. Inasmuch as this passage is speaking of David, however, it does not reflect a unique circumstance.

While this is indeed a beautiful passage prophetic of the passion of the Messiah, that is not necessarily the one sole, unique and exclusive meaning of the passage. Prophesy is most often reflective of several layers of reality, and while this passage's ultimate fulfillment is certainly found in the perfect, sinless life and suffering of Our Lord, that doesn't mean that it was not reflective of David's state of objective righteousness granted to him as a gift by God through faith while he nursed at his mother's breast. Likewise, that doesn't mean that David was not speaking the truth as he poured out his heart before God regarding the heart-rending difficulties he faced as the promised earthly king of God's people.

Faith in Christ alone for our justification (or in God's OT promises fulfilled in Christ) is explicitly stated in scripture to be a gift, of necessity given to us sinners by our merciful God. The gift is not merely the ability or the propensity to believe in Christ but the actual, real deal: Faith in Christ alone for our justification. God doesn't give deficient, incomplete gifts.

In his mercy, God freely gives us all that which he requires of us for our justification. And it's a good thing too. Otherwise we would never obtain it, since we are naturally hostile to God and cannot even begin to understand the spiritual things of God until he acts to open our minds when he declares us righteous for the sake of Christ alone.

And since faith in Christ is a gift given by God, there is no set of requirements or qualifications that must be met in order for his gifts to be given. They are poured out upon us like water, and as the earth passively receives life-giving moisture from the rain, we are passive vessels into which God pours all of his priceless gifts: Faith in Christ, justification before God, forgiveness of sins, eternal life, his own very Self in the Holy Spirit, all of this and more. Our cup truly does overflow.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

If communion with God means communicating with God then I guess females are very inclusive as biblically Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Hannah, Mary and others did so. But you`re speaking religiosity.