Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You mean like Matt has tried to use the case of the infant John the Baptist as the ground rule for all humans?
if you ever actually read the early Christians, you'd know the answer was yes.
actually, I didn't do that. you said that you can't baptize babies since they must first believe, and then be baptized. I used the Baptist as an example to show they can believe even while in the womb, which isn't the same as saying all will.
they live as non-Christians because they choose to. Saul was still anointed as king, but he didn't use the gift that was given.
and I know we disagree, but I am not the one justifying my position with a modern definition of belief not found in the Bible.
I said the NT. The early church was full of error, look at Jesus' criticism of them in Revelation.
So as Saul was king, a baptized infant is ipso facto, a regenerated or born again person?
We again disagree.
You implied it was the ground rule for all humans regarding infant baptism.
fine, the earliest Christians in Acts still went to synagogues and the Temple. St Paul even remarked he had to celebrate Pentecost.
that's Liturgical.
they live as non-Christians because they choose to.
That would have been the pre-church era, correct?
Not opposed to liturgy, just not so much, YMMV. A lot of protestant churches have been incorporating some liturgy in their services.
This is the problem, an infant doesn't choose anything in regards to baptism. There is no belief first, nor can there be, as we see in the NT model of baptism.
Only if you discount the NT.
So what do you imagine I believe that the NT church did not? Do you find incense and the ritualism of your church there?
I said the NT. The early church was full of error, look at Jesus' criticism of them in Revelation.
You don't believe in priests.
NT: John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
This is a continuation of the priesthood which began with Adam. Priests represent God to man and man to God. Furthermore, scripture states that we have been made priests unto God. Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
The priesthood is three-tiered and a continuation of the structure set up in the OT. There is the general priesthood of the covenant people - the laity. Then there is the sarcedotal priesthood in which they perform the covenant rituals such as baptism, marriage, ordination, etc. Finally, there is the Great High Priest, which is Christ. (Hebrews 7-10).
You believe in "making a decision for Christ" and deny that infant children are baptized into the congregation of God.
This again is refuted both by the testimony of the Early Fathers and their writings, as well as the covenant nature of membership in the congregation of God. The principle of covenant membership was began with Abraham in Genesis 15-17 and continues. In this manner, God told Abraham to circumcize his infant male children. By doing so, they were made members of the covenant community and set aside as special unto God. Late in life, the child would go through Bar Mitzvah where he would take the covenant vows his parents made on his behalf as being his own vows, thus accepting for himself that which was done for him.
You believe in a form of penal substitution salvation in which the fall of Adam and the corresponding separation of mankind from God is a legal and penal matter rather than one of healing the sickness of the soul.
This wretched doctrine began within the Latin Church
and they were and still are the ones pushing it. Salvation is not a matter of a once-and-done "decision for Jesus" (which again, is anti-covenant in denying infants the right to become members of the covenant community) but rather an ongoing process in which we are changed into the likeness of Christ (theosis).
This takes a lifetime, and can also be lost, another thing which the "once-and-done" crowd denies.
You (maybe not you, but many Baptists I heard preach - Billy Graham would be an example) teach that once you make the decision for Jesus, you are declared "not guilty" in the court of heaven and are "as sure of heaven as if you were there right now."
Don't tell me otherwise. I was a Bob Jones Anabaptist for 13 years and drank deeply of that well.
You slam "ritualism" yet you haven't a clue what ritual is about.
The word "covenant" appears over 300 times between OT and NT.
All covenant operations are done with rituals. Marriage is an example. You don't just walk up to a woman you have been dating and say "Now you are my wife." There is an entire process of legalizing and formalizing the marital covenant. The same is true with public service. Look at the rituals of making a man a police officer or increasing him in rank.
Your problem is that you, like just about every Baptist I have ever spoken with, do not realize that we are covenant people and you don't understand the principles by which a covenant works.
I outlined them for you in another place on this board and you didn't even have the politeness to acknowledge that I had posted them.
The Kingdom of God is a Suzerainty Covenant Kingdom, in which the Father is the Great Suzerain. If you don't "get" these terms, look them up and study them. They go all the way back to the OT and carry forward to the NT. Covenant principles do not change.
Since we are discussing baptism, I will close with this: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The criticism of them in Revelation has nothing to do with the covenant principles they were following.
Ephesus -- left her first love. Their zeal waned. Has nothing to do with the covenant rituals.
Smyrna -- No criticism. Encouraged to be faithful under persecution.
Pergamos -- tolerance of sin within the congregation. Again, has nothing to do with the covenant practice of baptizing infants into the Kingdom.
Thyatira -- problems with a woman named "Jezebel" a fornicator and false prophetess. Was this a real woman or is this symbolic language of something else going on? Either way, it has nothing to do with presenting infant baptism as an error.
Sardis -- had become a dead church. Their works were imperfect.
Philadelphia -- commended for having a "little strength" and standing for truth. Christ promises to strengthen them.
Laodicea -- the famous "lukewarm" church. Kind of like the church in America - just crusing along, self-satisfied and lacking zeal.
Where is the specific condemnation of baptizing infants, which was common practice?
Whole households. You know this already.Where is the specific mention of baptizing infants, rather than assumptions?
...and that has indeed been done in this case.My point was just because the early church did something doesn't validate it, it has to be measured against the yardstick of Scripture.
Whole households. You know this already.
...and that has indeed been done in this case.
it has to be measured against the yardstick of Scripture.
two questions: where is this said,
and what did the Church do in the 17ish years between the Resurrection and the writing of the first books of the NT?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?