Name calling? Really?
Except that I said nothing antisemitic. The modern Messianic movement is easily demonstrated to have developed not from ancient Jewish Christians but from Pentecostal and Charismatic Protestantism, which in turn are the theological descendants of pietistic Wesleyan Christianity. Let's call a spade a spade.
That's a whole other debate. "Replacement Theology" is simply the clear teaching of Holy Scripture and the continuous, historical witness of the Church catholic. Ironically, it is the historical teaching of the Church that has been replaced by some and labeled "Replacement Theology".
Influenced - definitely. But not "developed." Our origins were from 3 orthodox rabbis from eastern Europe in the 1880s and 90s. Chassidic Rabbi Joseph Rabinowitz in Moscow, Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstien in Rumania and Rabbi Leopold Cohn from Hungary. They started Messianic synagogues apart from any christian influence.
Why impose limits on the words of Our Lord that were not included in his statement?
As stated numerous times in this thread, God's gifts are unconditional. We don't - can't - merit them, qualify for them, or earn them. He gives them according to his promises, for the sake of Christ alone.
So the Hebrews just left their infants on the beach, then? Of course not! All of them, infants and all, passed through the sea that God opened for them to pass through. This is a great passage in support of infant baptism.
Again, from where does repentance originate? From man or from God?
Okay, I do not agree and I do not believe your scriptures support that God thrusts repentance on anyone, but rather it is a mutual covenant between God and the believer, but aside from our disagreement, let us say you are correct, and God accepts an infants baptism and remits their sin of concupiscence. From your own admission repentance requires a daily turn from unbelief, sin and false gods back toward faith in the sufficiency of Christ's work and merits. How does an infant make that daily decision when they were mentally incapable of making the original decision - to use your words how is an infant capable of continuing down their path of everlasting life when they were incapable of beginning the journey in the first place?
I dislike this form of text based communication! So much grass grows between comments! Lets not get too far removed from the original question. You stated "It is not until God has granted us his Holy Spirit that we are able to recognize our sinful state, experience contrition, and believe the Gospel." I replied that the individuals in Acts 2:37 had not yet received the Holy Spirit yet when Peter exposed their error they recognized their sinful state and sought out how to "fix it." I further stated isn't that why anyone comes to repentance and baptism because they first recognize the sinful state that they are in and are looking for something better/different?
As I wrote earlier, infants grow into the practice of the faith just like new adult converts. They grow in the grace and knowledge of Our Lord as their minds grow and develop.
As they grow and develop their sinful nature certainly asserts itself. And as they grow and develop, infants who have been converted by God also grow and develop in their faith.
I've amply demonstrated from scripture how no one in their natural, unregenerated state is capable of desiring to seek God or come to him.
I already have, several times. Please review earlier posts.
No, I haven't. I will look it up.
Well, I didn't say that. I said it is meaningless for infants to be baptized. For adults, or even children who have grown into awareness, it is meaningful.
I do, but getting baptized alone doesn't mean a person will be sitting with divine beings for all eternity. Far, far from that. As for what I remember, please don't presume to know me and I will grant you the same courtesy.
If you can find it, it is well worth your time. Here is a link to a Christian reviewer's take on it: Theological Moviegoings: Babette’s Feast
Not to argue, but you said ...
My point was that hopefully you believe that something actually was accomplished when God seated you with Christ in the heavenly places. It's certainly a mystery how this could be possible. We can't understand it, but we believe that it is true nonetheless.
Please forgive me if I have offended you. I meant no offense.As for what I remember, please don't presume to know me and I will grant you the same courtesy.
Yes, but there are other such gray areas in scripture, too. And they govern some equally important doctrines that we all argue over.In fact there is nothing about the baptism of a baby there at all beyond supposition. It could be suggested that a real doctrine of such importance if biblically based would receive a specific and unambiguous mention there. God Bless You
Hi lismore. I know you didn't address me specifically ... but this is my thread.Hello Albion. Thank you for your reply. Please try and see this view from the opposite viewpoint though, there is nothing in those passages specifically about the baptism of babies. In fact there is nothing about the baptism of a baby there at all beyond supposition. It could be suggested that a real doctrine of such importance if biblically based would receive a specific and unambiguous mention there. God Bless You
That's quite alright. Thank you.
You know the Bible better than I. However, I can't help but question people who use scholarly pretexts only when it's convenient. This is especially true of your take (or anyone's take, my pastor's included) on the Luke 12:49-53 quote. I know what I know.
You are very gracious.
Questioning is good. However, you need to be careful where you look to for the answers to your questions. There are a lot of people out there with some pretty crazy ideas that have nothing to do with the original intention of the scriptural writings.
I'm not familiar with this line of thinking, but frankly and honestly it seems like some pretty wild speculation to me.
The baptism Jesus was speaking of in this context is clearly his suffering, death, and resurrection. In Jesus' case this is clearly an instance of the symbolic use of the word 'baptism'. However, it does tie in very well with the passage in Romans 6 where St Paul teaches exactly what is accomplished in us Christians through the sacrament of Holy Baptism.And he did mention baptism in that quote so I guess that's why you think it has nothing to do with baptism.
Ken Ranks answer pretty much says it all.
Why do you believe that infant baptism is not scriptural? Can you give me scripture references that specifically exclude infants from receiving God's gift of baptism?
So you're saying that baptism is merely a work of man, done uniquely under conscious and intentional obedience to Jesus' instructions? If so, can you show me where that idea is found in scripture?
If you had an infant child, and you believed that God has given us specific promises in scripture that he would give the gifts of the forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, eternal life and salvation through his word combined with water in Holy Baptism, would you deny this to your child?
I have no idea why you would say that.
Which is exactly why those who deny infant baptism do not have a historical or a hermeneutical leg to stand on. They deny the baptism of infants because they claim that there is no explicit example given in scripture. This, my friend, is an argument from silence.
