• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Other protestant thoughts on Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

JVAC

Baptized into His name
Nov 28, 2003
1,787
81
40
Fresno, CA
✟2,369.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
theseed said:
I disagree, because of the use of the 3 creeds and the Augsburg Confession
Seeing that the very thing that decided what was and was not Scripture, also declared one of those Creeds :p .

Also, none of the Ecumenical Creeds [Apostolic, Nicene, Quicunque Vult] are against Scripture. They all expound the true Christian Faith catholic.

The Lutheran possition is, tradition is useful, but cannot go against Scripture, and has been that way since 1521!

-James


(Singing* Oh where, Oh where, has this little thread gone, Oh where, Oh where, can it be?...)
 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟75,788.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
JVAC said:
Seeing that the very thing that decided what was and was not Scripture, also declared one of those Creeds

That was the Nicene Creed, and from my understanding, it was not the only standard or method used. Baptist believe that the scriptures alone are sufficient.

Also, none of the Ecumenical Creeds [Apostolic, Nicene, Quicunque Vult] are against Scripture. They all expound the true Christian Faith catholic.

That may be true, but the Bible is divinely inspired, and sufficient in my oppinion. And the Quicunque Vult implies that we are judged by our works to determine our salvtion.

The Lutheran possition is, tradition is useful, but cannot go against Scripture, and has been that way since 1521!

Many Baptist believe that tradion is one source of authority, but like authority, is superceded by The Bible. That is to say, it must be tested.


 
Upvote 0

JVAC

Baptized into His name
Nov 28, 2003
1,787
81
40
Fresno, CA
✟2,369.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That may be true, but the Bible is divinely inspired, and sufficient in my oppinion. And the Quicunque Vult implies that we are judged by our works to determine our salvtion.
We discussed this before, we explained to you that pelagianism was condemned, it does not imply that.

Many Baptist believe that tradion is one source of authority, but like authority, is superceded by The Bible. That is to say, it must be tested.
Thanks for restating what I just said, only substituting Lutherans, with Baptists.

Lets get back on topic.

-James
 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟75,788.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
JVAC said:
We discussed this before, we explained to you that pelagianism was condemned, it does not imply that.

You did not explain per se, but said that it was explained in some council. The literal, explicit claim of the Quiquonqe Vult is that works determine what judgment we face.

Thanks for restating what I just said, only substituting Lutherans, with Baptists.
There is a difference, you say the creeds don't go against the bible, nor does Ausberg Confession. We say that the bible is sufficient, and no other writings are necessary. Perhaps I'm splitting hair. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
theseed said:
There is a difference, you say the creeds don't go against the bible, nor does Ausberg Confession. We say that the bible is sufficient, and no other writings are necessary. Perhaps I'm splitting hair. :sigh:
It's not that they don't go against scripture, it's that they are the correct interpretation of scripture. Nothing in any of them is contradictory or extranious to scripture. If a church wishes to re-write the Apostle's Creed in their own words and call it a "statement of faith," we find it perfectly acceptable. We just say, it's already written, so why re-write it?

Since we are on baptism, and you brought up sola scriptura, where is "the age of accountability" found in scripture?
 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟75,788.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Lotar said:
Since we are on baptism, and you brought up sola scriptura, where is "the age of accountability" found in scripture?

Why do you ask? That comes from nowhere. "Age of accountability" is not a Baptist teaching from what I have seen.
 
Upvote 0

Lotar

Swift Eagle Justice
Feb 27, 2003
8,163
445
45
Southern California
✟34,644.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
theseed said:
Why do you ask? That comes from nowhere. "Age of accountability" is not a Baptist teaching from what I have seen.
I've never met a Baptist who didn't believe it. :scratch:

Believer's baptism is commonly contrasted with "baptism of infants" or pedobaptism. It is the belief that only a person who has reached the "Age of Accountability" is eligible for baptism into a local church of believers. The age of accountability is not a specific age, but rather is the age at which a person is capable of making a well-informed decision to believe in Jesus Christ and his saving grace and is typically between eight and ten. A person who is not mentally or emotionally capable of weighing the evidence and concluding if they wish to become a believer is generally believed to be in a state of grace, and thus, not subject to separation from God and Heaven. Some Baptists, especially those holding a strict Calvinistic viewpoint, though practicing believer's baptism, reject the concept of an "Age of Accountability". The ritual of baptism consists of total immersion in water in parallel to baptism by John the Baptist. In most cases this consists of the submerging of a believer in water, backwards, while invoking the Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist
 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟75,788.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I've never met a Baptist who didn't believe it. :scratch:
Oh, now I know what you are referring too. Bapstist believe that baptism is for the believing--those who can make a profession faith to be exact. So once Baptist establish that, then the "age of accountablity" is common sense--since it is obvious that young children can not make a profession of faith, and are limited in how much they can understand God.

However, I've never seen "age of accoutiblity" discussed in all my 12 years as a Christian attending Baptist churches. Nor have I ever readthe phrase in Baptist literature. My church baptizes children if they make a profession of faith.

And as far as children being saved, that even further removed. That's not a Baptist teaching, but is probably a common understanding among many protestant Chrisitians.
 
Upvote 0

Jamie70

Regular Member
Mar 21, 2004
108
1
45
✟22,754.00
Faith
Anglican
theseed said:

Oh, now I know what you are referring too. Bapstist believe that baptism is for the believing--those who can make a profession faith to be exact. So once Baptist establish that, then the "age of accountablity" is common sense--since it is obvious that young children can not make a profession of faith, and are limited in how much they can understand God.

However, I've never seen "age of accoutiblity" discussed in all my 12 years as a Christian attending Baptist churches. Nor have I ever readthe phrase in Baptist literature. My church baptizes children if they make a profession of faith.

And as far as children being saved, that even further removed. That's not a Baptist teaching, but is probably a common understanding among many protestant Chrisitians.


Hence the fact of what I mentioned earlier... just shows how much of your own denominations have become diverse.
 
Upvote 0

ChiRho

Confessional Lutheran Catholic
Mar 5, 2004
1,821
99
45
Fort Wayne
✟24,982.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Libertarian
theseed,


Oh, now I know what you are referring too. Bapstist believe that baptism is for the believing--those who can make a profession faith to be exact. So once Baptist establish that, then the "age of accountablity" is common sense--since it is obvious that young children can not make a profession of faith, and are limited in how much they can understand God.

However, I've never seen "age of accoutiblity" discussed in all my 12 years as a Christian attending Baptist churches. Nor have I ever readthe phrase in Baptist literature. My church baptizes children if they make a profession of faith.

And as far as children being saved, that even further removed. That's not a Baptist teaching, but is probably a common understanding among many protestant Chrisitians

Sola Scriptura? Common sense...common understanding among many?

The common sense of man is utterly sinful...not a great defense for your belief on Baptism.

"...when the (41) patience of God (42) kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (43) the ark, in which a few, that is, (44) eight (45) persons, were brought safely through the water.
21 (46) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--(47) not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a (48) good conscience--through (49) the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 (50) who is at the right hand of God, (51) having gone into heaven, (52) after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him."

1 Peter 3

Did I understand you correctly? Did you say this was speaking of another kind of Baptism? If so, how and how do you know that it is?

Please do not say common sense or common belief. That is not Sola Scriptura.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
 
Upvote 0

ChiRho

Confessional Lutheran Catholic
Mar 5, 2004
1,821
99
45
Fort Wayne
✟24,982.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Libertarian
theseed said:


How do you know so much about Baptist? And what we believe? We back all our doctrine sola scriptara, that is why the Baptist icon in this forum is the bible. In Titus 3.5 I believe, we read that it is Spiritual baptism and not water Baptism that saves.


But when the (14) kindness of (15) God our Savior and His love for mankind (16) appeared,
5 (17) He saved us, (18) not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but (19) according to His mercy, by the (20) washing of regeneration and (21) renewing by the Holy Spirit,
6 (22) whom He poured out upon us (23) richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made (24) heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Titus 3:5

How do you know that this is not water Baptism?
 
Upvote 0

Celticflower

charity crocheter
Feb 20, 2004
5,822
695
East Tenn.
✟9,279.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
As a Methodist I thought I'd wade into this.
I was baptized as an infant, as is the tradition of the UMC. We are taught that baptism is done only once with water, whatever the form. As a teen ager I (and many friends of the same age) attended confirmation classes to learn what our baptism meant and about salvation by grace thru faith. We were than able to confirm the vows taken for us at our baptism. Our baptism is sometimes referred to as a "covenent baptism" because it enters us into a relationship with God and the church, but in no way saves us.

On a side note--for the past few years, since moving to the "Bible belt", my husband decided the family should attend one of the local independent, nondenominational Christian churches. He feels they are "closer to the 1st century church" (not that I agree). I am not allowed to be a member because I was not baptized "right" according to their beliefs. Recently, while beginning the "40 Days of Purpose" program, we found this troubling note place in the book by the church elders. It reads in part:
"The Leadership of.....church disagrees with Rick Warren's statements that faith alone is all that is needed to receive salvation thruogh Christ. QWe believe that the Bible teaches that salvation is being united with Christ, and that occurs at baptism as we repent of our sins, confess Him as Savior and Lord and submit to Him in faith and obedience."
We are beginning to question the teachings of this church.
 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟75,788.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
ChiRho said:
The common sense of man is utterly sinful...not a great defense for your belief on Baptism.

The post is not about Baptism, its about "age of accountablity". And it's not a Baptist teahing that there is an age of accountiblity. The burden of proof lies on the claimnant. Hence, you must find official Baptist literature or website to valdate Lotor's claim. I don't accept wiki-pedia, especially since I think some of the articles are submitted by individuals.

"...when the (41) patience of God (42) kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (43) the ark, in which a few, that is, (44) eight (45) persons, were brought safely through the water.
21 (46) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--(47) not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a (48) good conscience--through (49) the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 (50) who is at the right hand of God, (51) having gone into heaven, (52) after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him."

Everyargument has been said, you have nothing new to offer. Do you really want to debate this? I don't. I'll just cut and paste.

Set Free in Christ said:
The following is taken from “Word Studies in the Greek New Testament” by Kenneth S. Wuest

The words “the like figure” are in the Greek ho antitupon. The question as to whether the word “figure” refers back to the word “ark” or the word “water,” is easily settled by the Greek grammar involved in this expression, for the relative pronoun ho is neuter, the word “ark” is feminine, and the word “water” neuter. The relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender. Therefore the word “figure” which is neuter and construed grammatically with the pronoun ho goes back to the word “water.” The word “figure” is the translation of antitupon which means ‘the counterpart of reality.” The Greek word “baptism” is in apposition with the word “figure.” Our translation so far reads, “Which (water) also (as a) counterpart now saves you, (namely) baptism.” Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not agued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word “counterpart.” So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing his faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type. The moment he conceived in his heart that he would bring his offering to the tabernacle, his faith leaped the centuries to the time when God would offer the Sacrifice that would pay for his sin. Our Lord said, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56) the act of bringing the sacrifice was his outward expression and testimony of his inward faith. Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is his visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith.

Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.” Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing fro the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words “the answer of a good conscience toward God,” and he explains how this is accomplished, namely “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.

Fuller translation…. (18) Because Christ also died once for all in relation to sins, as just One on behalf of unjust ones, in order that He might provide you with an entrée into the presence of God, having in fact been put to death with respect to the flesh, but made alive with respect to the spirit, (19) in which (human spirit) also proceeding, He made proclamation to the spirits in prison (20) who were at one time rebels when the longsuffering of God waited out to the end in the days of Noah while the ark was being made ready; in which eight sols were brought safely through by means of the intermediate agency of water, (21) which (water) as a counterpart now saves you, (namely) baptism; not putting off of filth of flesh, but the witness of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (22) who is at the right hand of God, having proceeded into heaven, there having been made subject to Him, angels, and authorities, and powers.

Sola Scriptara all the way.
Did I understand you correctly? Did you say this was speaking of another kind of Baptism? If so, how and how do you know that it is?

Yes, Biblical baptism. Baptism is a work, and we are not saved by works (Eph. 2.8-10).

Please do not say common sense or common belief. That is not Sola Scriptura.

There are many common beliefs that are not necessarily sola scriptara. How did you conclude that common beliefs were sola scriptura?










 
Upvote 0

theseed

Contributor
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
6,026
132
Clarksville, TN
Visit site
✟75,788.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WHAT I BELIEVE

1) Baptism does not save, but only grace and faith sola gratia, sola fide. Hence, I believe baptism by water combined with human speech is a work. I believe that God through His Holy Spirit creates us unto good works like baptism (Eph. 2.8-9).
1 Peter 3:21--Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

"Corresponding to that"--look at the preceding verse: 1 Peter 3:20--"...who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." The ark saved Noah’s family, not the water. The water was the judgment upon the world. Just as the ark brought them through the judgment, so Christ brings us through the judgment. Peter clarifies his statement so that no one misunderstands--"Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience..."
2)I beleive baptism is for the believing, those who "get saved" or receive salvation if you will.

The book of Acts records people who were saved before they were baptized. Here are some instances.

Acts 9:17-18 Saul was saved and then baptized.

Acts 10:47-48 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. [These Gentile believers were first saved, then baptized.]

Acts 18:8 Crispus and the Corinthians believed, then were baptized.

3)Baptism is only a symbol of the work of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

John 3:5--Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Baptism is a symbol of death, not birth (Romans 6:3). "Born of water" does not mean baptism, but birth through the sac of water in the mother’s womb--physical birth. This is confirmed by verse 6 which says, "That which is born of flesh (physical birth) is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is spirit" (spiritual birth).
I comfirm this, I've spent many hours studying John, and I will spend many more studying his writings. This interpretation is parellel with Nicodemus objection about being born a 2nd time.


4)Here is a link to a thread that looks at guardian angels and children in regards to salvation. This is based on my own study, meaning that I have never seen Baptist clergy discuss "age of accountiblity", which implies a that God does not draw men to Himself. Only through Calvinism, can salvation of chidlren be explained--so I've read. Becasue it is done totally by God. The arguement among Baptist does go, however, that infants can't believe because they have not learned human language, and basically don't have the the compacity to believe. The "age of accountiblity" is a common believe among man protestants that is supplimented to the belief of pedo-baptism. As I have stated, I have not read about the age of accoutability in any official Baptist literature, nor have I ever heard it used by any clergy.

However, becasue Baptist believe in the "priesthood of the believer"; they are free to study the scriptures for themselves and determine what the bible says about children.

Here are the links.

All Children Inherit Salvation: A Look at Guardian Angles
http://www.christianforums.com/t100939

Reformed Sotieriology and Children: Help
http://www.christianforums.com/t107263




 
Upvote 0

Reformationist

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam
Mar 7, 2002
14,273
465
52
✟44,595.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
JVAC said:
Which denomination doesn't?

What denomination doesn't what, believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation? I thought that was the whole purpose of this thread. I have yet to see you even show a majority position on the matter, much less that it's the sole position in the Protestant community.

We must follow the commands of Jesus, if we are going to pick and choose which ones then we would hardly be confessional Christians. Baptism is necessary for salvation Mark 16:16, yet not 'absolutely necessary' ex: Dismas.

-James

I agree that we must follow the commands of Jesus. I also think it is arrogant that those who usually make these types of statements are clearly inferring that they follow the commands of Jesus while those of different beliefs do not. All you've done here is violate the law of contradition. You've have stated that baptism is necessary for salvation but not absolutely necessary. Either it's necessary or it's not. Now, if all you are contending is that we are commanded to be baptized I would agree wholeheartedly. However, contradictory qualifiers like "necessary but not absolutely necessary" do nothing for me except show that you're willing to compromise your position to fit your needs. If something is not "absolutely necessary" for the attainment of salvation then it's not necessary at all. That is not to say that Christ did not command us to be baptized. He did. Our necessity to be baptized is in accordance with His command to be baptized, not because water baptism is a condition for salvation.

Lotar said:
The two are not seperate.

So if someone has not been water baptized they have not been baptized by the Holy Spirit? Did I just misunderstand you?

JVAC said:
So much for the 'fear and trembling'.

Instead of mocking the faith and assurance of a fellow Christian you should commend her on her steadfastness in the Lord's promise that the Spirit of God testifies with our spirit that we are children of God and that the Lord will finish the good work He started in us. Encouragement is one thing, i.e., "It's great that the Lord has given you that assurance but that doesn't give you license to ignore His commandment to be baptized," and snide disdain, which is what you've expressed does nothing but show your lack of love for another.

Jamie70 said:
The general consenus (in our belief) that we RECIEVE Christ through baptism (whether as a child or an adult) and that it is something that is GIVEN to us and not something that is TAKEN (as most baptists like to think).

I don't think that I've ever met a Baptist Christian who believes we take our salvation from God, much less that it's a majority position amongst their faith. I think you should be careful with qualifiers like "most baptists" unless you're willing to back that up with proof. As to your statement about receiving Christ, what do you mean by "we receiveChrist through baptism?" Does that mean that prior to water baptism the Lord is not with us and then, through means of our water baptism He indwells us?

Thanks,
God bless
 
Upvote 0

Flynmonkie

The First Official FrankenMonkie ;)
Feb 23, 2004
3,805
238
Home of Harry Truman - Missouri
Visit site
✟27,776.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Bulldog said:
Exactly Lotar. And I would also like to know were in the Bible it says that God has an obligation to automatically send all babies to heaven.
I have given you scripture for this over and over and over......I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide you on this.
 
Upvote 0

Flynmonkie

The First Official FrankenMonkie ;)
Feb 23, 2004
3,805
238
Home of Harry Truman - Missouri
Visit site
✟27,776.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
There are several here that I see understand this process however I thought I would again post this on the whole age of accountability thing....I posted this in another forum with the same topic so I will share here.
Mark 10
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not:
for of such is the kingdom of God.

How much clearer does this really need to be.
Not only does this verse suffice to say that Gods Grace is for all, even though all will not accept it.

But more plainly it says HEY, Don't think that Children are not worthy....The KINGDOM of HEAVEN is THEIRS.

Little ones...are not exempt from Heaven just because they are too young to choose. He says it
BELONGS to THEM!

Babies cannot sin because they have no knowledge of right and wrong. When David's baby died he said, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Sam. 12:23). David knew his child was in heaven and looked forward to being reunited with him.

Little children are special to God. In fact, Jesus used a little child to teach his disciples an important lesson about His kingdom (Matthew 18:1-4).

Babies, cannot sin. They don't have the knowledge of the law. However we are all sinners by nature at birth, Babies are
covered under Gods Grace by discern of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful" (Romans 7:7-13).

God is Love above everything else. His word is a love story to you. The truest and most purest love that exists. Real Contentment. I really hope and pray you find that. Love, Mercy and Justice in that order is the best way for you to understand his message. God simply would not be Loving to send helpless children which he holds in high esteem to eternal Hell, nor would that show Mercy, and there is definatly no Just in that (however he can do this, it is by his right) His nature is defined completely opposite of this action ALL over the Bible. These verses just seem to make it clear.:prayer:
 
Upvote 0

ChiRho

Confessional Lutheran Catholic
Mar 5, 2004
1,821
99
45
Fort Wayne
✟24,982.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Libertarian
God simply would not be Loving to send helpless children which he holds in high esteem to eternal Hell, nor would that show Mercy, and there is definatly no Just in that (however he can do this, it is by his right) His nature is defined completely opposite of this action ALL over the Bible.

There it is! Putting man's understanding of just and fair above God. "But babies are innocent, they have no sin!" Scripture disagrees.

Read Psalm 51:5

Read Romans 3

You may call me mean hearted, but I am a realist. Babies are indeed sinful and without faith, perish. No one who disbelieves gets a free pass. This is why Holy Baptism is necessary and salutary. Life is not a game! Do not keep the children from the saving waters of Baptism.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.