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.
IMO, we are saved by grace through faith. Children are innocent by the simple fact that they are oblivious to their actions... They are saved by Grace as they are incapable of faith.Not the question
speak yes or no
IMO, we are saved by grace through faith. Children are innocent by the simple fact that they are oblivious to their actions... They are saved by Grace as they are incapable of faith.
Crazy to believe that a loving God would condemn an infant due to the actions, or inaction of the child's parents....Yes saved by grace
its crazy to me why anyone would choose doctrine men created or tradition of men over Christ doctrine further more if memory serves me correctly when Christ spoke of mens tradition He did not speak well of it
Crazy to believe that a loving God would condemn an infant due to the actions, or inaction of the child's parents....
Yes saved by grace
its crazy to me why anyone would choose doctrine men created or tradition of men over Christ doctrine further more if memory serves me correctly when Christ spoke of mens tradition He did not speak well of it
I'm saying that God saves and, as I have already shared, that God uses more than one means to do so.
Check out post #485How many people in this thread have said that unbaptized infants are condemned to hell?
My guess is that it's probably zero.
-CryptoLutheran
So, traditions of men such as Decision Theology and denying baptism to certain people based on unbiblical reasons?
-CryptoLutheran
Check out post #485
no my friend heres what I'm saying
Biblical doctrine is above mans
Read acts 8:37 if you believe what Phillip said then you know that ONLY thing that could of stoped the Ethiopian from being baptized was if he would not profess faith
This is where my question comes in to which ive yet to get a direct response instead of the run around
if the only requirement is you must profess your faith how is it a infant who can not even comprehend the world around them how can a infant profess faith
Also read acts chapter 2 to see this again
Now if you admit it is not really baptism rather a ritual then we run into this issue
It is unbiblical as nowhere has it said to do this ritual this tradition of men in and of itself a tradition that is not condemned in the Bible in and of itself is okay
BUT
if you read the NT you see Paul say even if somthing isn't a stumbling block for you IF it causes your brother to stumble you need to stop and seeing as its just a tradition and seeing how much division it causes it would be in the best interest of the true Church as a whole if we stopped bickering over silly things and got to work seekimg truth and not our own will
Pro of the tradition
Makes parents feel good
Con of tradition causes division and stumbling block
So what fruit is produced from it
If none why be so resilient to stopping it?
So if pointing to Scripture is not good enough what is your basis for supporting your doctrine?You are building your entire theology on a single verse that was absent from Scripture until the 6th or 7th century, and which is found in only a minority of manuscripts from after that time. That's why I mentioned that the verse is not found in all translations--it is a late addition to the text.
That's not a very good basis for building an entire theological system.
It's the same reason why you won't find me using Mark 16:16 in this discussion on baptism. It's also why I don't use 1 John 5:7 when arguing for the Trinity. These are recognized to generally be later additions to the text. I don't have a problem with any of these passages in what they say--but building an entire case upon them is shaky.
So building an entire case on Acts 8:37, that one must make a public profession of faith before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is, simply, a bad foundation for an argument.
I was hoping that by pointing this out initially you would understand this and try and find a better case to make.
-CryptoLutheran
Also if you read what i said you'll see i said acts chapter2 as wellYou are building your entire theology on a single verse that was absent from Scripture until the 6th or 7th century, and which is found in only a minority of manuscripts from after that time. That's why I mentioned that the verse is not found in all translations--it is a late addition to the text.
That's not a very good basis for building an entire theological system.
It's the same reason why you won't find me using Mark 16:16 in this discussion on baptism. It's also why I don't use 1 John 5:7 when arguing for the Trinity. These are recognized to generally be later additions to the text. I don't have a problem with any of these passages in what they say--but building an entire case upon them is shaky.
So building an entire case on Acts 8:37, that one must make a public profession of faith before receiving the Sacrament of Holy Baptism is, simply, a bad foundation for an argument.
I was hoping that by pointing this out initially you would understand this and try and find a better case to make.
-CryptoLutheran
Oh Please. Post #485 is a roadmap to conversations on this thread where one poster has came right out and stated that infants that are not baptized are condemned.Nothing in post 485 says unbaptized infants are condemned to hell.
That infants are sinners, because all are born the victims of Adam's sin--and so all of us need the grace of God--doesn't mean unbaptized infants go to hell.
I realize this probably is hard to wrap your head around, but just because infants are born sinners and in need of God's saving grace doesn't mean that unbaptized infants go to hell. Just as being an adult who isn't baptized, or being an adult who has never heard the Gospel, means one goes to hell.
You're going to have to move past this idea that salvation means doing certain things in order to attain salvation. The historic teaching of the Christian Church, rooted in the confession and proclamation of who God is and what God has done, in Jesus Christ, for us is that God is trustworthy to save.
Those people, over there, on that island who have never heard the name of Jesus? I can trust that the God who is gracious and kind cares as much for them as He does for you and I. And that He will act justly, kindly, mercifully, and graciously with them.
Salvation isn't about winning some kind of lottery by being born in the right place and right time, or by subscribing to the correct set of theological propositions, it's not about getting our t's crossed and i's dotted. It's about God sending Jesus Christ to save and reconcile a lost world of sinners to Himself.
Jesus Christ died for you. Trust this, for it is most certainly true.
-CryptoLutheran
So if pointing to Scripture is not good enough what is your basis for supporting your doctrine?
Also if you read what i said you'll see i said acts chapter2 as well
Oh Please. Post #485 is a roadmap to conversations on this thread where one poster has came right out and stated that infants that are not baptized are condemned.
I told you to look at post 485 because it's all there..
I do not believe that infant baptism does anything but make the parents and the priest happy.
I think I have given enough information here. If you don't want to see it, that's fine.. Continue to believe that nobody here is saying that unbaptized infants go to hell.I must have missed the "non baptized infants go to hell" statement in that post. Perhaps you could quote, exactly, what was said.
-CryptoLutheran
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?