Queen of heaven

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

Major1 said:
When we do the work and study instead of using Blogs and RCC apolgetic web sites, we can easily understand that the Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized."

A separate question that my guess is you will not attempt to answer, but I will at least try.

Can you tell me how the average Christian was suppose to do an analysis like this of Scripture in the first century? Or the tenth? Or fifteenth?

Your position has been that Christ established a temporary authority structure for one generation of Christians only, and then the Bible became the sole infallible authority.

There were no printing presses. Any copies of Scripture had to be done by hand, so no average person could ever afford one. And literacy rates were somewhere between 3-10 percent. That doesn’t significantly change until the Industrial Revolution.

So how was every Christian supposed to get their knowledge of the Christian faith from “doing the work and study?”

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

pescador said:
Not coincidence, right?

I assume you would also believe it was just “coincidence” when John the Baptist was inside the womb of Elizabeth and heard Mary’s voice, and he physically reacted to her presence.

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

pescador said:
Apparently you don't know your Bible very well. Have you read Paul's comments about Peter and his behavior when some Jews came to visit?

Galatians 2:11-13, "When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."

Please do not try to convince me that you know what Scripture says. You can idealize Cephas [Peter] all you want but he was clearly a flawed man. In addition to Paul's comments about him above, Jesus clearly and distinctly called Peter "Satan". He didn't describe any other apostle or disciple that way.

I know the Bible quite well and am quite familiar with that passage. I have never tried to profess a view where Peter was not a sinner.

I also know that Christ said that the way Peter would die would glorify God. Do you believe him?

You believe Peter’s flaws make him incapable to infallibly lead the apostles and the New Testament Church. Yet you believe he was capable of penning two books of infallible Scripture. Would you care to explain how that makes sense?

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

pescador said:
What does this mean? Do you consider the Bible to be true and infallible, or do you believe that it's just some sort of guide? (I know your answer even if you won't admit it.)

I believe the Bible is true and infallible; I simply do not believe it is the sole authority given to us by Christ. I believe the Bible when St. Paul when tells us that we are to hold firm to what we were taught whether it was orally or through Scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15), that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), that God’s manifold wisdom will be made known through the Church (Ephesians 3:10) and that when there is a disagreement about doctrine we should follow the instructions of Christ to “take it to the Church" (Matthew 18:17) as they did in Acts 15. You reject all of these things found in the Bible you claim to be infallible and your sole authority.

If the Bible is the sole infallible authority, that means that individual interpretations can be in error. The truth of that is quite obvious in the disagreement among Protestant faiths about the meaning of baptism. Both claim the Bible is infallible, true, and their sole authority. One side is obviously in error.

I simply do not believe that Christ left us with an infallible text but no way to know with certainty that it’s been infallibly interpreted.

I especially do not believe that Christ left us with the only infallible authority to be an infallible text that the majority of Christians for the first 15-18 centuries of the church could not read due to lack of availability and literacy rates.

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

pescador said:
Infant baptism isn't in the Bible, it's an invented ritual. Sola scriptura.

And half of the sola-Scriptura believing branches of Christianity disagree with you and believe it’s quite Biblical. Your explanation for that would be?

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

Major1 said:
MY dear friend. That Scripture does not say one single thing about water baptism for an infant or anyone else.

If Scripture does not say anything about "water baptism" for anyone, why do you “water” baptize people at all?

You are correct, Scripture never refers to "water baptism." Why? Because there's only one baptism. You continually refer to "water baptism" because you're professing two different kinds of baptism, which is not Biblical.

Major1 said:
The context of Jesus’ words dealing with being born “again” (3:3). Nicodemus responds by mentioning the experience of being born from the womb (v. 4).

Jesus then speaks of water and the Spirit and then says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” (John 3:6).

The clear teaching then is that the first birth is the natural birth, and the second birth is the spiritual birth.
In other words, “born of water” refers to the water of the womb–the first birth. Then born of the "Spirit" is about the 2nd Birth!

And thank you for the question. It is always a blessing to me to be able to help others rightly divide the word of God!

Yes, Nicodemus misunderstands Christ because he is focused on his birth from his mother’s womb. Jesus asks Nicodemus “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (John 3:10). Nicodemus misses what Christ is saying because he fails to reach back into his Jewish history.

Christ is indeed referring to how creation must be “born again” and become new. And when we look at the original birth of creation, we find that water (literal water, not figurative) and the Holy Spirit are old, old friends. The second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2 tells us that at the moment of the first creation, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” This original creation by water and the Holy Spirit was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, and indeed must be reborn. We indeed must be born again by “water and the Spirit,” as creation was born the first time by “water and the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit moves over the face of the baptismal waters just as He moved over the face of the waters of the first creation. Literal water in both cases. And as St. Paul says, when we are “in Christ” we become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). And how do we get “in Christ” according to St. Paul? We are baptized into him (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27).

Water (literal water, not figurative) and the Holy Spirit are seen working together as a theme throughout Scripture.

And have you ever noticed what Jesus did IMMEDIATELY after his conversation with Nicodemus? Probably not, and I’m sure you’ll say that’s just a coincidence. Immediately after his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus and his disciples began to baptize people. With water, because that’s what baptism means. Yet since it is Christ who is baptizing, we know he is also baptizing by the Holy Spirit don’t we? Born again by water and the Holy Spirit, just like the first creation was born by water and the Holy Spirit. LITERAL WATER.

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

Major1 said:
I should not have to tell you that.

Romans 10:9 tells us HOW to be saved..........
"That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

Is it possible for an INFANT to do those things?????

This is not brain surgery!!!!

So a question about this. You indicated earlier than you believe all infants are automatically included in the kingdom of God.

St. Paul has an interesting take on children of Christian parents. He says “If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.” (1 Corinthians 7:13-14)

How can all children be automatically in the kingdom of heaven if some are unclean? And how does a child become holy based on the faith of a believing parent?

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

Major1 said:
Your question is actually not a valid one.

You asked......" “The Bible never says that we don’t have to be baptized to be saved.”

1st of all....... faith is always stated a requirement for salvation. If baptism is required for salvation, then the Holy Spirit has made a horrible mistake. It should be mentioned every time as a condition for salvation, if that is the situation and it does not do so.

If baptism is essential for eternal life, then the thief who hung on a cross next to Jesus never made it to heaven. But that is not what Jesus said. Jesus did promise the thief eternal life because he believed (Luke 23:42-43). The thief died on the cross. He never had a chance to be baptized, but he did go to heaven – he believed – he trusted in Jesus.

The thief died under the Old Covenant and before Jesus gave the great commission to baptize believers.

But we also know that Jesus and his apostles baptized people during his ministry. Your assertion that the thief on the cross was never baptized is mere speculation. He obviously had some knowledge of who Christ was, so to state he never had a chance to be baptized isn’t true. There is no basis to assert he was never baptized.

Major1 said:
By faith in Jesus we enter heaven. By baptism we show our submission to Jesus. Baptism is an act of obedience. We are to believe and be baptized!

So is obedience optional for salvation or a requirement?

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

Major1 said:
Now you already know that there is no specific Scripture that says that.

1st Corinthians 1:17, ......
“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Did the thief on the cross go to heaven?
Was he taken down, baptized and then put back on the cross.
Did Jesus lie when He said..."Today you will be with Me in Paradise".

IN CONTEXT, Paul is not downplaying the importance of baptism here. He is telling them that it doesn’t matter WHO baptized them. Some were getting puffed up because they had been baptized by someone they thought was more important than others.

“I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Steph′anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.): 1 Corinthians 1:14-16

narnia59 · Jan 9, 2022

Major1 said:
All Protestant church that I know about follow the simple rule of the Age of Accountability.

The age of accountability refers to the time in a person's life when he or she is capable of making a decision whether to trust Jesus Christ for salvation.

Then you have a limited knowledge of Protestant churches.

There is nothing about an age of accountability to be found in the New Testament.

Major1 said:
As I have said to you now # TIMES....the Bible says that to be saved in Romans 10:9-10 one must...........
"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."

Now I will be glad to explain that to you if you do not understand it.

Southern Baptists, Calvary Chapel, Assemblies of God, Mennonites, Disciples of Christ and others practice believer's baptism, in which the person must reach the age of accountability before being baptized.

And other Protestant sola-Scriptura denominations such as as Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and some other Reformed denominations, Methodists, Nazarenes practice infant baptism.

If that’s not a problem with sola-Scriptura, exactly what is the root problem that has allowed such a difference in practice?

narnia59 · Jan 10, 2022

Major1 said:
There is NO interpretation of the Scripture you posted. The Scriptures in NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE give instructions on the water baptism of infants.

The Scriptures in NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE give instructions on how to prepare a child for baptism either. The earliest New Testament book wasn't written until about 20 years after the first adult converts came into the faith. By that time, the most logical question of how to know when a child is ready to be baptized would have most certainly had to have been asked and answered IF they weren't baptizing infants and young children. The Protestants who abandoned the practice of infant baptism then had to invent this "Age of Accountability" teaching to answer that question, which never is even hinted at in Scripture.

And Scripture never speaks to "water" baptism. Baptism is an act of using water and the words Christ gave us to baptize people. "Water" baptism is a redunancy because water is always used in baptism. "Spiritual" baptism is a redundancy because Christian baptism is always by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is why you never see the terms "water baptism" and "spiritual baptism" used in Scripture, just BAPTISM. For there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM, NOT TWO (Ephesians 4:5). The fact that you have to use terms never found in Scripture to support your theology about baptism should tell you something.

Major1 · Jan 10, 2022

Valletta said:
And what man decides the age for each religion, because I have found no such age in the Bible? How do they know it is the correct age and who is right? What happens if a person is baptized before they are mentally ready, does it count? What if each parent just decides on his or her own?

WHY does a "MAN" have to be asked what that age is. Is there a Scripture which says such a thing that you are suggesting????

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin.

Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents.

In Psalms 51:5 David wrote.......
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

The age of accountability is the belief that God saves all those who die never having possessed the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. One verse that may speak to this issue is
Rom. 1:20......
“Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

According to this, mankind’s guilt before God is based, in part, on the fact that people reject what they can “clearly see” of God’s existence, eternality, and power. This leads to the question of children who have no faculty for “clearly seeing” or reasoning about God—wouldn’t their natural incapacity to observe and reason provide them with an excuse?

Thirteen is the most common age suggested for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13.

However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

Charles Spurgeon’s opinion was that “a child of five can as truly be saved and regenerated as an adult.”

Major1 · Jan 10, 2022

narnia59 said:
Please demonstrate in Scripture where the terms “water baptism” and “spiritual baptism” are used. Why are they necessary to explain your theology when Scripture only refers to "baptism?"

I accept it wholeheartedly.

But answer this please – what do you think the Bible means when it speaks to having “faith” or to “believe” in Christ?

For example, do you believe repentance is part of a saving faith, or a work?

Do you believe obedience is part of a saving faith, or a work?

The question here is does John the Baptist mean that Christ will baptize using water as he did, but it will be by the power of the Holy Spirit? Or does he mean that Christ will not baptize using water at all, but Christian baptism will only be a spiritual baptism? You can have either of those. But there is no interpretation that allows for Christian baptism to be two separate events with two separate purposes. Which is why St. Paul is clear – as a Christian there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM. (Ephesians 4:5)

If you are insistent that in Acts 2:38 Peter is referring to a spiritual baptism only, then we should conclude that when we’re then told 3000 were baptized there is no evidence water was used at all. Is that your position?

Let’s see. Your position is that the correct translation should be “having called on his name,” rather than “calling on his name.” That would mean that all of the Bible scholars that did these translations are in error:

21st century KJV (KJ21), American Standard Version (ASV), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), Darby Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), International Standard Version (ISB), King James (KJV), Authorized KJV (AKJV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), New International Version (NIV), New King James Version (NKJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

Would you like to provide us with your credentials that would lead us to conclude that we should accept your view over them? Is your position they all used blogs and Catholic apologetics sites as the basis for their work?

Baptism is the act of using water and the words Christ gave us to baptize in Matthew 28:19. It is not a “picture” of God’s inner washing away of sin. The Bible knows nothing of that type of Baptism.

Please show in Scripture where it tells us that Paul was spiritually cleansed at the time Christ appeared to him? If this were the case, why does Ananias tell him that his sins still need to be washed away?

Again, you only get ONE BAPTISM per St. Paul (Ephesians 4:5). Why do you ignore this and profess there are two different kinds of baptism that happen at two different times in the life of a believer? Scripture never refers to a “spiritual” baptism and “water” baptism that happens at two different times in the life of a believer – just BAPTISM.

Your theology requires you to have two different types of Baptism so you can explain the Scriptures that speak to Baptism as the way we come into the body of Christ, have our sins washed away etc. so they have nothing to do with the act of being baptized. There is NOTHING Scriptural to support that. Scripture NEVER speaks to two different types of baptisms, Scripture NEVER defines two different types of baptism, and the idea of having two different types of baptism is flatly contradicted by St. Paul who clearly tells us there is only ONE BAPTISM.

Exegesis that is evidently in disagreement with every even remotely reliable translation of Scripture available.

All you have done here is provide your opinion. And based upon an acceptance of sola-Scriptura, it has to be considered to be an opinion that has the potential for error so cannot be relied upon.

When I opened this forum this morning I had 23 posts from YOU to me.

Maybe you do not have anything to do but sit at a computer but I do. I will however respond to this question.

I did NOT SAY that there are TWO baptism's. YOU SAID that.

When a lost person is saved, he at that moment receives ALL that God has to offer which is the infilling of the Holy Spirit to ones heart!

The Bible then says that the person is to follow the example of Christ and be baptized in water.

"SOME"..........erroneously teach that the saved person is then to pray for a "2nd Blessing" or as some say ....A Baptism of the Holy Spirit which I just said is not Biblical. We get all of God when we are saved by Romans 10:9-10......
" 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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

THAT is how ALL people come to be saved from the judgment!

Major1 · Jan 10, 2022

narnia59 said:
The Scriptures in NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE give instructions on how to prepare a child for baptism either. The earliest New Testament book wasn't written until about 20 years after the first adult converts came into the faith. By that time, the most logical question of how to know when a child is ready to be baptized would have most certainly had to have been asked and answered IF they weren't baptizing infants and young children. The Protestants who abandoned the practice of infant baptism then had to invent this "Age of Accountability" teaching to answer that question, which never is even hinted at in Scripture.

And Scripture never speaks to "water" baptism. Baptism is an act of using water and the words Christ gave us to baptize people. "Water" baptism is a redunancy because water is always used in baptism. "Spiritual" baptism is a redundancy because Christian baptism is always by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is why you never see the terms "water baptism" and "spiritual baptism" used in Scripture, just BAPTISM. For there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM, NOT TWO (Ephesians 4:5). The fact that you have to use terms never found in Scripture to support your theology about baptism should tell you something.

Agreed and that is because there are NO Scriptures in the Bible on Infant baptisms! NONE!!!!!!

You are actually arguing something on which we agree.

I have to ask you......is arguing your nature?????

The "Age of Accountability" is the commons sense approach from the parent of the child who knows that the child has reached an age to know right from wrong and has the ability make right choices.

This is not as hard as you are trying to make it.

Major1 · Jan 10, 2022

narnia59 said:
I’m sure you are not the only person here who has had experience with infants. And I’m also sure that you are not more of an “expert” than Christ. When he says that the Father has hidden things from the wise and revealed them to infants, I believe him. Quite evidently you do not, because you think you’re more of an “expert.”

Faith is a supernatural gift, not an intellectual exercise. Why do you think Jesus says that unless you receive the kingdom like a “little child” you will never enter it? Far from being unable to encounter and respond to Christ by faith, they are to be an example for us.

Do you believe that John the Baptist reacted to being in the presence of Christ even when he was in the womb? How does that fit in with your experience of infants?

LOL!!!!

You my dear are exactly like every other Catholic apologetic person. You will and have pulled out of context every Scripture to make it fit your agenda.

You used Matthew 11:25 to say.........
"And I’m also sure that you are not more of an “expert” than Christ. When he says that the Father has hidden things from the wise and revealed them to infants, I believe him. Quite evidently you do not, because you think you’re more of an “expert.”

How silly this is.

IF you would READ THE BOOK (Bible) you would have understood that the reference here was to people such as yourself. the CONTEXT of that Scripture is that Jesus was speaking to the RELIGOUSE Jewis Pharisees and Scribes of the nation which has rejected Him.

Then He turns to the Father and says thanks because the Father has "HID THESE THINGS" from the people who profess to be all knowing and wise and prudent. Reminds me of YOU.

Then He says thanks to the Father that those PEOPLE WHO ARE HUMBLE AS LITTLE CHILDREN RECEIVE HIS MESSAGE WHILE THOSE WISE AND RELIGOUSE REJECTED HIM.

You said..........
"Faith is a supernatural gift, not an intellectual exercise.

YES IT IS.

Then you mentioned faith like a child and I really do not think you understand what Jesus was saying. YOU are trying to use that pphrase to support something you believe and that is not what Jesus what talking about.

Instead, becoming like a little child means that we maintain the wonderful and beautiful characteristics and qualities of children that life in this sinful world tends to beat out of us.

Like what?

Like tenderness of conscience.

Openness about emotions and feelings.

Creativity and imagination.

Wonder and awe.

Joy.

Eternal hope.

Playfulness and humor.

Trust.

Easy forgiveness.

Undying love.

Major1 · Jan 10, 2022

narnia59 said:
If Scripture does not say anything about "water baptism" for anyone, why do you “water” baptize people at all?

You are correct, Scripture never refers to "water baptism." Why? Because there's only one baptism. You continually refer to "water baptism" because you're professing two different kinds of baptism, which is not Biblical.

Yes, Nicodemus misunderstands Christ because he is focused on his birth from his mother’s womb. Jesus asks Nicodemus “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” (John 3:10). Nicodemus misses what Christ is saying because he fails to reach back into his Jewish history.

Christ is indeed referring to how creation must be “born again” and become new. And when we look at the original birth of creation, we find that water (literal water, not figurative) and the Holy Spirit are old, old friends. The second verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:2 tells us that at the moment of the first creation, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” This original creation by water and the Holy Spirit was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, and indeed must be reborn. We indeed must be born again by “water and the Spirit,” as creation was born the first time by “water and the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit moves over the face of the baptismal waters just as He moved over the face of the waters of the first creation. Literal water in both cases. And as St. Paul says, when we are “in Christ” we become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). And how do we get “in Christ” according to St. Paul? We are baptized into him (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27).

Water (literal water, not figurative) and the Holy Spirit are seen working together as a theme throughout Scripture.

And have you ever noticed what Jesus did IMMEDIATELY after his conversation with Nicodemus? Probably not, and I’m sure you’ll say that’s just a coincidence. Immediately after his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus and his disciples began to baptize people. With water, because that’s what baptism means. Yet since it is Christ who is baptizing, we know he is also baptizing by the Holy Spirit don’t we? Born again by water and the Holy Spirit, just like the first creation was born by water and the Holy Spirit. LITERAL WATER.

I am sure that YOU would not intentionally distort any Scripture to support your opinioins.

Allow me demonstrate for YOU what I mean as you said.........
"And have you ever noticed what Jesus did IMMEDIATELY after his conversation with Nicodemus? Probably not, and I’m sure you’ll say that’s just a coincidence. Immediately after his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus and his disciples began to baptize people. With water, because that’s what baptism means. Yet since it is Christ who is baptizing, we know he is also baptizing by the Holy Spirit don’t we? Born again by water and the Holy Spirit, just like the first creation was born by water and the Holy Spirit. LITERAL WATER".

Sarcasm aside, allow me to say to you that Opening the possibility that Jesus did baptize is Matthew 3:14, where John the Baptist says to Jesus,.....
“I need to be baptized by you.”

Taken by itself, John’s statement could imply that Jesus was in the habit of baptizing people in water. But the context suggests otherwise: previously, John had said in Matt. 3:11.......
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I. . . . He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”.

John distinguished his baptism with water, from the Lord’s baptism with the Holy Spirit. When John spoke of his need to be baptized by Jesus, he was most naturally referring to his need for the Holy Spirit. Would you now like to clarify your comment??????????

Then WHEN WE READ THE BOOK we see that there are Two verses in John 3 that seem to say that Jesus did indeed baptize which YOU picked out to support your opinion without adding the CONTEXT.

John 3:22 says that..........
“Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.”

And in John 3:26 Jesus’ actions are reported to John:.......
“Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him.”

But in the next chapter John clarifies what was happening in John 4:1-2.......
“Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John—although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples” .

So, Jesus was “baptizing” in that the disciples were doing so by His direction and under His authority. John, after a couple of mentions of Jesus’ work of baptism, explains that Jesus was not personally baptizing anyone.

FROM YOUR POST #909...........I AM REALLY SURPRIZED THAT YOU WOULD EVEN ASK THIS QUESTION AS YOU ALREADY HAVE GIVEN THE PROPER ANSWER.

Now, ISN'T IT AMAZING WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE SCRIPTURES WHEN WE ACTUALLY READ THEM????

Valletta · Jan 10, 2022

Major1 said:
WHY does a "MAN" have to be asked what that age is. Is there a Scripture which says such a thing that you are suggesting????

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin.

Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents.

In Psalms 51:5 David wrote.......
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

The age of accountability is the belief that God saves all those who die never having possessed the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. One verse that may speak to this issue is
Rom. 1:20......
“Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

According to this, mankind’s guilt before God is based, in part, on the fact that people reject what they can “clearly see” of God’s existence, eternality, and power. This leads to the question of children who have no faculty for “clearly seeing” or reasoning about God—wouldn’t their natural incapacity to observe and reason provide them with an excuse?

Thirteen is the most common age suggested for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13.

However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

Charles Spurgeon’s opinion was that “a child of five can as truly be saved and regenerated as an adult.”

There is no Scripture that says anything about waiting to an age of maturity. So how do your leaders tell you to decide, do they recommend an age? Do you think Scripture gives them or you such authority?
Holy Scripture tells us we are saved through Baptism. With a discerned reading of the Bible it becomes clear that men fall but God continues to give us saving grace. In all of my reading I don't recall reading about once saved, always saved in any historical documents before the Protestant "reformation." We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling according to the Word of God. What we do makes a difference, we don't want our faith to die.

narnia59 · Jan 11, 2022

Major1 said:
When I opened this forum this morning I had 23 posts from YOU to me.

Maybe you do not have anything to do but sit at a computer but I do. I will however respond to this question.

I did NOT SAY that there are TWO baptism's. YOU SAID that.

When a lost person is saved, he at that moment receives ALL that God has to offer which is the infilling of the Holy Spirit to ones heart!

The Bible then says that the person is to follow the example of Christ and be baptized in water.

"SOME"..........erroneously teach that the saved person is then to pray for a "2nd Blessing" or as some say ....A Baptism of the Holy Spirit which I just said is not Biblical. We get all of God when we are saved by Romans 10:9-10......
" 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. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

THAT is how ALL people come to be saved from the judgment!

You had 11 posts from me to you; the rest were to someone else. But who’s counting? And all of my posts to you were in response to things you had posted. You definitely have the propensity to think you have the right to post freely but then bristle when someone responds to what you present.

You are of course free to not read or respond. That is how a message board works. I consider my questions to you as rhetorical at this point anyway as you rarely answer even the direct ones.

Did you say there are two baptisms? No. Do you consistently post about two different kinds of baptisms? Yes, and I guess you find it out of line that I can count that there are two?

Example, in post 789 you said this:

“Certain theological traditions misinterpret Peter’s statement baptism now saves you to refer to spiritual salvation by water baptism (i.e., baptismal regeneration). But baptism (from baptizo) simply means “to immerse,” and not just in water. Peter here uses baptism to refer to a figurative immersion into Christ as the ark of safety that will sail over the holocaust of judgment on the wicked.”

So let’s see, you refer to

1) Water baptism
2) Baptism as a figurative immersion into Christ

And the reason you determine Peter is speaking about a baptism that is a “figurative immersion into Christ?” Because he speaks to baptism as having saved us, and you reject that the act of Christian baptism is salvific, so you have to conclude there are two different baptisms – water baptism that doesn’t save and a “figurative” baptism that does.

This is of course in direct contradiction to where St. Paul tells us that there is ONE BAPTISM (Ephesians 4:5)

Another example, post 788 you said:

“Water baptism does not save; any more than keeping the Law saves. It is the Holy Spirit’s baptizing the sinner safely into Jesus Christ—the elect’s only ark of salvation—that forever rescues the sinner from hell and brings him securely to heaven. This is the ultimate triumph of Christ’s suffering for them, and the pledge of triumph in their own unjust suffering.”

So once again, how many baptisms to you profess?

1) Water baptism that does not save
2) The Holy Spirit’s baptizing the sinner into Christ that does save.

And why do you do that? Because there are multiple references in Scripture that the way we are brought into Christ is through baptism (1 Corinthians 12:13, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27). And since you reject that the act of Christian baptism is salvific you have to conclude there are two different baptisms – water baptism that does not save and the Holy Spirit baptizing someone into Christ that does.

This is of course in direct contradiction to Scripture where St. Paul tells us that there is ONE BAPTISM (Ephesians 4:5).

Scripture never uses the term “water baptism” as you have to in order to identify it from a different kind of baptism because there aren’t two different kinds of baptism identified in Scripture – there is only ONE BAPTISM. Splitting in into two different kinds is a false construct that is necessary for you to make the Bible fit your theology instead of aligning your theology to the Bible.

So, did you ever say there were two baptisms? No. Do you consistently in your posts speak to two different kinds of baptisms in order to bend Scripture to fit your theology? Yes.

narnia59 · Jan 11, 2022

Major1 said:
Agreed and that is because there are NO Scriptures in the Bible on Infant baptisms! NONE!!!!!!

You are actually arguing something on which we agree.

I have to ask you......is arguing your nature?????

The "Age of Accountability" is the commons sense approach from the parent of the child who knows that the child has reached an age to know right from wrong and has the ability make right choices.

This is not as hard as you are trying to make it.

And there are NO Scriptures in the Bible that speak to an age of accountability, there are no instructions given on how to know if a child has reached that age in order to be baptized, and there are no examples of a child who was brought up in a Christian home ever coming forward to be baptized.

So under the rule of sola-Scriptura we can invent things that aren’t in Scripture to make our theology work as long as they are “common sense?” I think it’s common sense that when Scripture shows us that the faith of one person like Lydia who is a head of household can result in her entire household being baptized, we can assume that parents have the God-given authority over their children to have them baptized and bring them into the covenant family of God.

It seems that you view your own posts as being “informative” but if somebody dares to challenge your views they are being “argumentative.” As though your continual references that others should READ THE BOOK as though you’re the only one who actually has could not likewise be viewed as being argumentative. And condescending.

narnia59 · Jan 11, 2022

Major1 said:
LOL!!!!

You my dear are exactly like every other Catholic apologetic person. You will and have pulled out of context every Scripture to make it fit your agenda.

You used Matthew 11:25 to say.........
"And I’m also sure that you are not more of an “expert” than Christ. When he says that the Father has hidden things from the wise and revealed them to infants, I believe him. Quite evidently you do not, because you think you’re more of an “expert.”

How silly this is.

IF you would READ THE BOOK (Bible) you would have understood that the reference here was to people such as yourself. the CONTEXT of that Scripture is that Jesus was speaking to the RELIGOUSE Jewis Pharisees and Scribes of the nation which has rejected Him.

Then He turns to the Father and says thanks because the Father has "HID THESE THINGS" from the people who profess to be all knowing and wise and prudent. Reminds me of YOU.

Then He says thanks to the Father that those PEOPLE WHO ARE HUMBLE AS LITTLE CHILDREN RECEIVE HIS MESSAGE WHILE THOSE WISE AND RELIGOUSE REJECTED HIM.

You said..........
"Faith is a supernatural gift, not an intellectual exercise.

YES IT IS.

Then you mentioned faith like a child and I really do not think you understand what Jesus was saying. YOU are trying to use that pphrase to support something you believe and that is not what Jesus what talking about.

Instead, becoming like a little child means that we maintain the wonderful and beautiful characteristics and qualities of children that life in this sinful world tends to beat out of us.

Like what?

Like tenderness of conscience.

Openness about emotions and feelings.

Creativity and imagination.

Wonder and awe.

Joy.

Eternal hope.

Playfulness and humor.

Trust.

Easy forgiveness.

Undying love.

I’m glad we agree that faith is a supernatural gift and not an intellectual exercise. So why do you propose that a certain level of intellect is necessary to receive it? Why do parents not have the authority to baptize their children and bring them into the body of Christ?

And perhaps most importantly, why does St. Paul refer to the child of at least one believing parent as holy, as opposed to being unclean? (1 Corinthians 7:14)?

Queen of heaven

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads