Yes, children were present in household baptisms. Biblical evidence.

[ViaCrucis]

Here it is. It's stated in the contrary form, but I think it means the same.

If faith only comes as a gift from God, then anyone who doesn't get offered the gift has it withheld.

If someone isn't being offered the gift then it's because we're not preaching the Gospel. Jesus told His Church to preach the Gospel and to baptize. God certainly isn't withholding it from anyone; and when it is rejected when it is offered, it isn't God withholding it either.

And God is the one doing the withholding--if belief is truly a gift. It's only a paradox if you assume that God imparting the ability to believe is the gift spoken of in Eph 2:8-9.

If it's a paradox then no it isn't God doing any withholding, it is God doing the giving and the saving; and it is man doing the rejecting.

You are trying to submit Scripture to your reason rather than submitting your reason to Scripture, which is why you are trying to find alternatives to the word of God, as follows:

There are two other options, at least.
1. Grace is the thing that is the gift of God. And it comes through faith/belief in Him.

That's redundant. The text says that we are saved by grace through faith; the verb is saved, who is doing it? God. How is God doing it? By grace, through faith. "saved by grace through faith" is a complete action being accomplished by God, which is why "it is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God".

2. The gift is everlasting life. And it comes through faith/belief in Him.

See my response to your first alternative, it's the same. It's all from God, God is the One saving by His grace, through faith--which is not of ourselves, but God's gift.

"Belief" is something God wants from us, not something He gives us. This is the message of the whole bible. Without faith it is impossible to please God. With faith it is possible, because we trust in what He has provided for our reconciliation to Him, I.e., Jesus Christ crucified.

So then you deny "not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that none may boast" from Ephesians 2:8-9?

Because you're saying that it is of yourself and of your works, that you may take credit for your faith and the salvation which is found in it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Derf]

If someone isn't being offered the gift then it's because we're not preaching the Gospel. Jesus told His Church to preach the Gospel and to baptize. God certainly isn't withholding it from anyone; and when it is rejected when it is offered, it isn't God withholding it either.

I thought you were saying that the "faith" that is the gift of God was not being withheld from anyone. Read your comment again and see if you can at least see a bait and switch between "faith" and "the gospel".

He doesn't hold faith from anyone, but we do resist and reject it. That's one of the paradoxes we find in Scripture.

If the gift of God is the gospel, as you said in the more recent post, then we're in significant agreement.

If it's a paradox then no it isn't God doing any withholding, it is God doing the giving and the saving; and it is man doing the rejecting.

You can't reject something you aren't offered. If faith is the gift from God, and you are given any, there's nothing to reject. If faith is given to everyone, then if some reject and some accept, the you still have to wonder, in your theology, what's the difference between the one group and the other--something to boast about, perhaps? If the gift is salvation, and we either accept (believe) or reject it, the work is still being done by the Father and Christ, but we can take no credit for it. "Belief" is then not a work, especially since it is contrasted with "works" in other places.

You are trying to submit Scripture to your reason rather than submitting your reason to Scripture, which is why you are trying to find alternatives to the word of God, as follows:



That's redundant. The text says that we are saved by grace through faith; the verb is saved, who is doing it? God. How is God doing it? By grace, through faith. "saved by grace through faith" is a complete action being accomplished by God, which is why "it is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God".



See my response to your first alternative, it's the same. It's all from God, God is the One saving by His grace, through faith--which is not of ourselves, but God's gift.



So then you deny "not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that none may boast" from Ephesians 2:8-9?

Well, I'm denying the correctness of your interpretation, but not the verse. I hope you can see the difference.

Because you're saying that it is of yourself and of your works, that you may take credit for your faith and the salvation which is found in it.

-CryptoLutheran

If I can't be held responsible for my faith, then unbelievers can't be held responsible for their lack of faith, and be sent to hell for it.

If Christ admonished his disciples for their "little faith", and commended others for their "great faith" who was He really admonishing and commending, in your view?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I thought you were saying that the "faith" that is the gift of God was not being withheld from anyone. Read your comment again and see if you can at least see a bait and switch between "faith" and "the gospel".

Perhaps I just wasn't being clear. My position is that God gives faith through the Gospel. That's the central thrust of everything I'm saying.

"But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!' But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

It is through the Gospel, which Paul calls here "the word of faith that we proclaim" and also calls it "the word of Christ", that God gives faith. That is why Paul says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ".

It is impossible to "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" without faith (see 1 Corinthians 12:3, "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit", and then also look at Ephesians 1:13, "In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,")

Since it is impossible without faith to confess Jesus and believe in Him as our Lord, Paul speaks of the preaching of the Gospel: "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?"

So when I said: "If someone isn't being offered the gift then it's because we're not preaching the Gospel. Jesus told His Church to preach the Gospel and to baptize" That is what I'm referring to. Christ's Great Commission to His Church:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20

"And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'" - Mark 16:16-17

"and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.'" - Luke 24:46-48

God gives faith through the Gospel. It is through "the word of faith which we proclaim" that God gives faith, since "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". That is why Jesus told His Church to do this, to preach the Gospel. That is how God meets sinners in order to save them? Because through faith in Christ in alone we are justified.

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 5:1

And this is why Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Is what I'm saying here making any sense to you at all? I'm not being condescending, but I want to make sure that there's no confusion here in what I'm saying.

If the gift of God is the gospel, as you said in the more recent post, then we're in significant agreement.

See what I've said above.

You can't reject something you are offered. If faith is the gift from God, and you are given any, there's nothing to reject.

What do you mean someone can't reject something that they are offered? You know that's not true, right? If you offer me to sleep on your couch and I say no, I've rejected your offer. If you hand me a hundred dollars and I slap it out of your hands and walk away, I've rejected your offer. It is plainly obvious that an offer can be rejected.

That an offer can be rejected shouldn't be the contentious part. I can understand find it strange that one can't make a choice to receive faith since it is a pure gift, but that it can be rejected should be obvious.

If faith is given to everyone, then if some reject and some accept, the you still have to wonder, in your theology, what's the difference between the one group and the other--something to boast about, perhaps?

The difference between those who are given faith as a free gift and those who reject that faith is just that: one rejected.

That's the paradox: We don't do anything to receive God's gift; but we can and frequently do reject it. We can't take any credit for our receiving faith, "not of yourselves ... so that none may boast", but we absolutely can reject it, "but not all have received the Gospel. . For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?'" (Romans 10:16).

If the gift is salvation, and we either accept (believe) or reject it, the work is still being done by the Father and Christ, but we can take no credit for it. "Belief" is then not a work, especially since it is contrasted with "works" in other places.

The Greek word translated as "works" is ἔργων (ergon) which simply means "things done", doing something is, by definition, a work. That's anything. So if you say that faith is something we do, then you are saying faith is a work.

That faith is a work, actually, isn't the contentious issue. The question isn't if faith is a work or not; but rather the question is whose work is it? Is it God's work, or is it our work? We must, however, on this point, recognize that when Paul speaks of "works" he means works which we do, rather than works which God does.

My position is that faith, being a gift, is therefore God's work--not our work. Faith, therefore, cannot be contrasted with our works IF we are taking credit for our faith as being our work.

Who takes credit for our faith? God or man?

Well, I'm denying the correctness of your interpretation, but not the verse. I hope you can see the difference.

And I'm arguing that you can't interpret it any other way without fundamentally denying what the passage says in its most plain sense.

What I do fully understand is that I am presenting an interpretation that is fundamentally at odds with how you have understood it. I know that I had a very hard with this. I was raised believing a lot of the things you are saying in this discussion. I was raised in the Evangelical tradition.

So I fully understand the difficulty of hearing something that is deeply at odds with what one has been raised to believe. It took me a lot of years to work through these things. But there were a lot of things that helped me in this. For example, that faith is a gift from God being spoken about in Ephesians 2:8-9 isn't just some weird thing that only Lutherans believe. It's actually how all Christians understood this passage all the way from the time of the Apostles right up until Martin Luther and the Reformation. This is why you won't see Catholics and Orthodox arguing against this when Lutherans bring it up, because it's simply what Christianity has always taught.

The idea that faith is something we do, that it is our work of belief rather than God's gift of faith is an incredibly recent innovation in the history of Christianity. If you look at Protestant commentaries from all manner of denominations, you'll see that they too agree with what I'm saying. For example, here is John Wesley's commentary on Ephesians 2, and he rather flatly says, "And this is not of yourselves — This refers to the whole preceding clause, That ye are saved through faith, is the gift of God." and "Not by works — Neither this faith nor this salvation is owing to any works you ever did, will, or can do."

I'd be happy to provide all manner of proofs throughout Christian history to back my claims up. Why, then, have so many modern Protestants rejected the basic premise of this text: That the entire enterprise of our being saved by grace through faith is the gift, power, and work of God apart from ourselves and from all our works?

If I can't be held responsible for my faith, then unbelievers can't be held responsible for their lack of faith, and be sent to hell for it.

If we can't take credit for our salvation, then we can't be held responsible for our sin? Because that is the essence of what you're saying. Except that isn't biblical.

"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." - Romans 5:15-17

If Christ admonished his disciples for their "little faith", and commended others for their "great faith" who was He really admonishing and commending, in your view?

What we do with the faith we have been given matters, right?

"Peter said, 'Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?' And the Lord said, 'Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.'" - Luke 12:41-48

And what of the man who says to the Lord, "Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief!"? (Mark 9:24).

You believe because God gives you faith. Yet you are sinful. Continually look to Christ who gives you faith. Abiding in Him at the foot of His cross. He is the Vine and we are the branches.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Derf]

Perhaps I just wasn't being clear. My position is that God gives faith through the Gospel. That's the central thrust of everything I'm saying.

"But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart' (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!' But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

It is through the Gospel, which Paul calls here "the word of faith that we proclaim" and also calls it "the word of Christ", that God gives faith. That is why Paul says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ".

If "faith" is the same as the gospel, then you can say God gives faith when He gives the gospel, but you can't say anyone can ever reject the gospel--because God has given him the faith to accept, not the faith (or lack thereof) to reject it. Why would He do that? If He's not giving someone "faith" when that person hears the gospel, then your connection between the two doesn't work. If He is giving "faith" when a person hears the gospel and that person rejects it, then there is still something about that person that is "less worthy" than those who are given faith and accept it. You haven't solved the problem you claim I have--you still have it. To avoid it, in you view, drives you into strict Calvinism, where God decides who gets faith and that faith is ALWAYS effectual, but then it has other problems you have to deal with.

It is impossible to "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" without faith (see 1 Corinthians 12:3, "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit", and then also look at Ephesians 1:13, "In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,")

I don't see why you think that verse helps your case. Of course, once they heard the gospel and BELIEVED (i.e., exercised their faith), they were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.

Since it is impossible without faith to confess Jesus and believe in Him as our Lord, Paul speaks of the preaching of the Gospel: "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in Him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?"

But the preaching is not faith. Because some reject the gospel--they don't believe (i.e., don't exercise faith). Again...if some that have been given "faith" believe, and some that have been given "faith" don't believe, then there's a worthiness factor you have to deal with.

So when I said: "If someone isn't being offered the gift then it's because we're not preaching the Gospel. Jesus told His Church to preach the Gospel and to baptize" That is what I'm referring to. Christ's Great Commission to His Church:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:19-20

"And he said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'" - Mark 16:16-17

"and said to them, 'Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.'" - Luke 24:46-48

Yes. We are told to go into all the world. And yes, we haven't always done it completely. But that just means, in your view, that some have not heard the gospel, so they have no chance at believing. But we're talking about those who have heard, right?

God gives faith through the Gospel. It is through "the word of faith which we proclaim" that God gives faith, since "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ". That is why Jesus told His Church to do this, to preach the Gospel. That is how God meets sinners in order to save them? Because through faith in Christ in alone we are justified.

"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." - Romans 5:1

And this is why Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Is what I'm saying here making any sense to you at all? I'm not being condescending, but I want to make sure that there's no confusion here in what I'm saying.

I hope you and I agree that our justification is not really by our faith. If Jesus Christ had never died on the cross, but we had faith that He had, our faith would be in vain, just like it would be if Jesus never rose from the dead. Our faith is merely our acceptance of what He did for us, but what He did for us is where the power actually is.

What do you mean someone can't reject something that they are offered? You know that's not true, right? If you offer me to sleep on your couch and I say no, I've rejected your offer. If you hand me a hundred dollars and I slap it out of your hands and walk away, I've rejected your offer. It is plainly obvious that an offer can be rejected.

That an offer can be rejected shouldn't be the contentious part. I can understand find it strange that one can't make a choice to receive faith since it is a pure gift, but that it can be rejected should be obvious.

I had a critical spelling error. I meant to say that you can't reject something that isn't offered (I corrected it in my post). Sorry for the confusion.

The difference between those who are given faith as a free gift and those who reject that faith is just that: one rejected.

But that means there's another category, doesn't it? Those to whom faith is NOT given, right?
To review, there are three types of people in your view:
1. Those who have been given "faith" and accepted the gospel.
2. Those who have been given "faith" and rejected the gospel.
3. Those who have not be given "faith" (and therefore can't accept or reject the gospel).

Now, compare #1 with #2, and tell me whether there isn't some kind of extra "worthiness" in #1. Of what value is that "faith" if they still reject the gospel once they have heard it?

On the other hand, if instead of "faith" being the gift, it is the gospel that is the gift (preached), and it can be rejected or accepted, it makes much more sense, and comports with biblical passages. Then "faith" goes back to being what we know it as--the exercise of our will to accept what we've been told.

That's the paradox: We don't do anything to receive God's gift; but we can and frequently do reject it. We can't take any credit for our receiving faith, "not of yourselves ... so that none may boast", but we absolutely can reject it, "but not all have received the Gospel. . For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?'" (Romans 10:16).

I don't think a paradox is necessary. If we believe, it is credited to us for righteousness, even though we haven't done any righteousness to earn it. This tells us explicitly that "faith" is not a work, so we can still have faith and not take any credit for our salvation. Not faith as a lump of something God gives us, but faith as a response to what He gives us.

 

[Derf]

(Continued)

The Greek word translated as "works" is ἔργων (ergon) which simply means "things done", doing something is, by definition, a work. That's anything. So if you say that faith is something we do, then you are saying faith is a work.

That faith is a work, actually, isn't the contentious issue. The question isn't if faith is a work or not; but rather the question is whose work is it? Is it God's work, or is it our work? We must, however, on this point, recognize that when Paul speaks of "works" he means works which we do, rather than works which God does.

My position is that faith, being a gift, is therefore God's work--not our work. Faith, therefore, cannot be contrasted with our works IF we are taking credit for our faith as being our work.

Who takes credit for our faith? God or man?

You're making a distinction scripture refuses to make. Faith in scripture is contrasted with works. If faith IS a work, then the contrast is invalid. Thus, in your view, scripture presents an invalid contrast (which leads to a perception of paradox). This is why the "faith-works" term you used earlier doesn't comport with scripture. It would have to be inserted into any place "faith" needs to be contrasted with exercise-of-faith-without-God's-insertion-of-His-version-of-faith, which you can see is quite clunky. But Paul contrasted "faith" with "works", not "faith" with "faith-works".

And I'm arguing that you can't interpret it any other way without fundamentally denying what the passage says in its most plain sense.

And I'm arguing that you can't interpret it the way you are trying to interpret it without fundamentally denying what all the other faith passages are saying. So, since I'm claiming all the other scriptures that require faith, and you are only able to claim Eph 2:8-9, I think I have the upper hand in mere volume of scripture. What that usually means is that the odd interpretation of the single verse must give way to an interpretation that fits all of the others.

What I do fully understand is that I am presenting an interpretation that is fundamentally at odds with how you have understood it. I know that I had a very hard with this. I was raised believing a lot of the things you are saying in this discussion. I was raised in the Evangelical tradition.

There's a very good reason why you had a very hard time with that--it's because it is wrong, and you, being a rational being, recognized the irrationality of the interpretation and how it is at odds with the rest of scripture.

So I fully understand the difficulty of hearing something that is deeply at odds with what one has been raised to believe. It took me a lot of years to work through these things. But there were a lot of things that helped me in this. For example, that faith is a gift from God being spoken about in Ephesians 2:8-9 isn't just some weird thing that only Lutherans believe. It's actually how all Christians understood this passage all the way from the time of the Apostles right up until Martin Luther and the Reformation. This is why you won't see Catholics and Orthodox arguing against this when Lutherans bring it up, because it's simply what Christianity has always taught.

I think it's because it's a nonsense argument. If there is no such thing as "faith-works", then people don't know what to do with it when you introduce it. They immediately include it in the "works" category, because that's what the term ends with. But because faith isn't a "work", as Paul's contrast points out, then it is a nonsense term.

The idea that faith is something we do, that it is our work of belief rather than God's gift of faith is an incredibly recent innovation in the history of Christianity. If you look at Protestant commentaries from all manner of denominations, you'll see that they too agree with what I'm saying. For example, here is John Wesley's commentary on Ephesians 2, and he rather flatly says, "And this is not of yourselves — This refers to the whole preceding clause, That ye are saved through faith, is the gift of God." and "Not by works — Neither this faith nor this salvation is owing to any works you ever did, will, or can do."

I'd be happy to provide all manner of proofs throughout Christian history to back my claims up. Why, then, have so many modern Protestants rejected the basic premise of this text: That the entire enterprise of our being saved by grace through faith is the gift, power, and work of God apart from ourselves and from all our works?

But Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. That word "believed" is the verb form of "faith". I.e., Abraham "faithed" (i.e., exercised his faith). We are told to do this ("believe and you will be saved"), but Paul makes it clear that it is not a work, else it can't be contrasted with "works". If you call it a work, then you disagree with Paul.

If we can't take credit for our salvation, then we can't be held responsible for our sin? Because that is the essence of what you're saying. Except that isn't biblical.

"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." - Romans 5:15-17

What I mean is that taking credit for believing is biblical, though taking credit for dying for our sins is not. Being accountable for rejecting the gospel is the fate of all who go to hell--and it's the opposite of believing, and it is punishable by hellfire. If it is not something we have any control over, then God is unjust to punish anyone who He doesn't give faith to. If we do have control over it (i.e., we can either accept it or reject it), then you have to deal with the worthiness value of the acceptance over the rejection, and you are pointing as many or more fingers back at yourself as you are at me.

What we do with the faith we have been given matters, right?

"Peter said, 'Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?' And the Lord said, 'Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.'" - Luke 12:41-48

And what of the man who says to the Lord, "Lord, I believe! Help my unbelief!"? (Mark 9:24).

You believe because God gives you faith. Yet you are sinful. Continually look to Christ who gives you faith. Abiding in Him at the foot of His cross. He is the Vine and we are the branches.

-CryptoLutheran

You believe when you accept what God says as truth. You believe when you agree with God that the gospel really is good news. That IS faith. And rejecting the gospel is not having faith. If God gives faith and yet someone rejects the gospel in your view, you are saying that he both has faith and doesn't have faith at the same time. That's not a paradox...that's a contradiction. And contradictions demean God's glory.

How did Jesus "help" the man's unbelief? Wasn't it by healing his son's epilepsy? Thus, his faith would be strengthened by seeing the power of God at work. (The same action would harden a man who was already rejecting Christ's power and authority--similar to how Egypt's Pharaoh was hardened, while Israel was convinced, by the same miracles) If giving someone "faith" is akin to "helping" someone's "unbelief", and it is the same actions that also harden the unbeliever, then God isn't "giving" the faith to them all, but they are exercising their belief/unbelief (their faith) based on what God does. And as you've pointed out, there are some who reject Christ even after God has given them "faith", as you define it. So they are exercising something to decide to follow Christ or reject Him--so you still have the same dilemma--what is it about the particular person that causes him to accept or reject the gospel--even after God has given him "faith"?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Credobaptists hold to a narrow definition of household and Paedobaptists hold to a wide definition of household.

For Paedobaptists, the term “household” has a wide definition. It basically means a social family unit all “living under the same roof” and therefore would include children. Scriptural evidence would be:

• Children of pastors and deacons are mentioned in households. I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well. And I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
• All Christian parents are to provide for their small children in their households. I Tim. 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever. We certainly hope parents who are Credo’s, provide for their small children even though not specifically mentioned in the text.
• A household can also mean a multi-generational family unit. In Luke 12:51ff, Jesus is going to bring division within the “household” between mother in laws and daughter in laws. Children would be present within that family unit, even though not mentioned.
• A household is a word substitution for the church. Eph2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household ( See also Gal. 6:10 & I Peter 4:17). We certainly hope Credo’s believe children are apart of the Church….although some Credo’s affirm children can’t be apart of the church until after the Age of Accountability.
• The widest meaning of the term household in Scripture could be all citizens of a nation’s political bureaucracy. “Pharaoh, king of Egypt, made Joseph governor over Egypt and all his household. (Acts 7:10). In Genesis 39 the entire nation did homage to Joseph and he had all authority. Contextually, this does not exempt small children.
• Could or should slaves or servants included in the household? Theoretically yes. Our Lord in his teaching and parables include servants within the context of a household (Mt. 24:44 and Lk 14:21). But at the practical level, I find no Biblical narrative that specifically links servants with a christian household.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Credobaptists hold to a narrow definition of household and Paedobaptists hold to a wide definition of household.

For Paedobaptists, the term “household” has a wide definition. It basically means a social family unit all “living under the same roof” and therefore would include children. Scriptural evidence would be:

• Children of pastors and deacons are mentioned in households. I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well. And I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
• All Christian parents are to provide for their small children in their households. I Tim. 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever. We certainly hope parents who are Credo’s, provide for their small children even though not specifically mentioned in the text.
• A household can also mean a multi-generational family unit. In Luke 12:51ff, Jesus is going to bring division within the “household” between mother in laws and daughter in laws. Children would be present within that family unit, even though not mentioned.
• A household is a word substitution for the church. Eph2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household ( See also Gal. 6:10 & I Peter 4:17). We certainly hope Credo’s believe children are apart of the Church….although some Credo’s affirm children can’t be apart of the church until after the Age of Accountability.
• The widest meaning of the term household in Scripture could be all citizens of a nation’s political bureaucracy. “Pharaoh, king of Egypt, made Joseph governor over Egypt and all his household. (Acts 7:10). In Genesis 39 the entire nation did homage to Joseph and he had all authority. Contextually, this does not exempt small children.
• Could or should slaves or servants included in the household? Theoretically yes. Our Lord in his teaching and parables include servants within the context of a household (Mt. 24:44 and Lk 14:21). But at the practical level, I find no Biblical narrative that specifically links servants with a christian household.

Who do you think Onesipheros and Philemon were? What do you think Rhoda was? Those are only two that come to my mind. By the way, neither Onesipheros nor Rhoda were servants. They were slaves.

Paul, also specifically instructed servants and slaves twice in his epistles, and he also instructed their owners concerning how to treat them.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Credobaptists hold to a narrow definition of household and Paedobaptists hold to a wide definition of household.

For Paedobaptists, the term “household” has a wide definition. It basically means a social family unit all “living under the same roof” and therefore would include children. Scriptural evidence would be:

• Children of pastors and deacons are mentioned in households. I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well. And I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
• All Christian parents are to provide for their small children in their households. I Tim. 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever. We certainly hope parents who are Credo’s, provide for their small children even though not specifically mentioned in the text.
• A household can also mean a multi-generational family unit. In Luke 12:51ff, Jesus is going to bring division within the “household” between mother in laws and daughter in laws. Children would be present within that family unit, even though not mentioned.
• A household is a word substitution for the church. Eph2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household ( See also Gal. 6:10 & I Peter 4:17). We certainly hope Credo’s believe children are apart of the Church….although some Credo’s affirm children can’t be apart of the church until after the Age of Accountability.
• The widest meaning of the term household in Scripture could be all citizens of a nation’s political bureaucracy. “Pharaoh, king of Egypt, made Joseph governor over Egypt and all his household. (Acts 7:10). In Genesis 39 the entire nation did homage to Joseph and he had all authority. Contextually, this does not exempt small children.
• Could or should slaves or servants included in the household? Theoretically yes. Our Lord in his teaching and parables include servants within the context of a household (Mt. 24:44 and Lk 14:21). But at the practical level, I find no Biblical narrative that specifically links servants with a christian household.

The whole problem with your argument (which has already been said but you refuse to listen) is that even if household does include children, that is NOT positive evidence that Paedobaptism is Biblical. Why? Because there is no concrete evidence that children were ever baptized in the NT. It says "household" but that does not mean that children were baptized. There are a LOT of things you have to know before you can say that like whether the household actually has children or not. Because it CAN include children, does not mean it always does. And based on the book of Acts, baptism always comes AFTER belief (or nearly always). So saying Acts is not prescriptive does not work for you since the only positive evidence you have for a whole household being baptized based on the belief of one person is found in... Acts.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Who do you think Onesipheros and Philemon were? What do you think Rhoda was? Those are only two that come to my mind. By the way, neither Onesipheros nor Rhoda were servants. They were slaves.

Paul, also specifically instructed servants and slaves twice in his epistles, and he also instructed their owners concerning how to treat them.

Very good point about Rhoda. My criteria for this post is where 'household is specifically used" and the mentioning of a slave.

12 And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 When he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer.

The text speaks about the house of Mary not a household of Mary. This one I missed. The "house" of Mary and "household" of Mary in my mind are close enough to be synonymys, so your point holds.

The book of Philemon does mention the word "house" in vs. 2, but not in the context of household. Paul is using the word as a meeting place of the church, rather than a person living with Philemon under one roof.

So Philemon doesn't link the term "household" with "slaves."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Because there is no concrete evidence that children were ever baptized in the NT.

What? We go to the passages of Scripture that specifically teach about Christian Baptism, even more specifically the who should be baptized. We have two texts+ which allows children to be baptized.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

• Infants and small children are apart of all nations.
• Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women, grandparents, friends and children & infants.
• We are not to exclude what Jesus has included.
• The Divine commission is to "baptize the nations"— and there never was a nation without infants.”
• Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all.

The other passage of Scripture that speaks of who should be baptized is Acts 2:39 " For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Peter includes the children within the command of who is to be baptized. The Scriptures are clear here.

Credobaptists counter this argument from other texts of Scripture, which contextually has nothing to do with baptism. In otherwords, they go to they ignore specific baptismal texts in favor of texts that only take about adults and those texts have NOTHING TO DO WITH BAPTISM.

I marshal my evidence from Biblical texts that teach about baptism only.

We have to remember the only reason we baptism children is it is a REMEDY FOR ORIGINAL SIN. Most credos don't believe this,---either they are guiltless and sinless until the Age of Accountabilty or at least morally neutral. There is no Scriptural evidence for the Age of Accountability.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

What? We go to the passages of Scripture that specifically teach about Christian Baptism, even more specifically the who should be baptized. We have two texts+ which allows children to be baptized.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

• Infants and small children are apart of all nations.
• Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women, grandparents, friends and children & infants.
• We are not to exclude what Jesus has included.
• The Divine commission is to "baptize the nations"— and there never was a nation without infants.”
• Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all.

The other passage of Scripture that speaks of who should be baptized is Acts 2:39 " For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Peter includes the children within the command of who is to be baptized. The Scriptures are clear here.

Credobaptists counter this argument from other texts of Scripture, which contextually has nothing to do with baptism. In otherwords, they go to they ignore specific baptismal texts in favor of texts that only take about adults and those texts have NOTHING TO DO WITH BAPTISM.

I marshal my evidence from Biblical texts that teach about baptism only.

We have to remember the only reason we baptism children is it is a REMEDY FOR ORIGINAL SIN. Most credos don't believe this,---either they are guiltless and sinless until the Age of Accountabilty or at least morally neutral. There is no Scriptural evidence for the Age of Accountability.

Children fall under a different category since there is a time until they come of age.

"Jesus said, “Leave the little children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to me, because the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”" (Matthew 19:14)

Children do not need to be baptized because they are already in the Kingdom of Heaven until an age of accountability.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Children do not need to be baptized because they are already in the Kingdom of Heaven until an age of accountability.

Sounds like Universalism.

Are children and infants in a default state of being saved before the age of accountability, then go to a default state of “unsaved” one second after AOA? Then do they go into the state of being saved after saying the sinners prayer?

And what happens one second after they reach the Age of Accountability? If they don't accept Jesus right then, are they eternally condemned? Or is there some kind of 30 day grace period after reaching the AoA?

Can a saved baby grow up to become unsaved adult? What about "once saved, always saved?"

And just how mentally impaired as an adult do you have to be to avoid accountability and trigger God’s mercy?

If all severely mentally ill people and infants are in a state of “savedness’ then wouldn’t it be good for God to keep all humans in a mental state of incapacity, where they could not make free and informed decisions to morally sin here on earth? If God did that, then all people would be saved!

How does Scripture demonstrate objective actual age cut-off date when AOA begins? Chapter and verse.

Does a decision for accepting Jesus before AOA invalidate the decision itself, to believe in Christ?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Sounds like Universalism.

Are children and infants in a default state of being saved before the age of accountability, then go to a default state of “unsaved” one second after AOA? Then do they go into the state of being saved after saying the sinners prayer?

And what happens one second after they reach the Age of Accountability? If they don't accept Jesus right then, are they eternally condemned? Or is there some kind of 30 day grace period after reaching the AoA?

Can a saved baby grow up to become unsaved adult? What about "once saved, always saved?"

And just how mentally impaired as an adult do you have to be to avoid accountability and trigger God’s mercy?

If all severely mentally ill people and infants are in a state of “savedness’ then wouldn’t it be good for God to keep all humans in a mental state of incapacity, where they could not make free and informed decisions to morally sin here on earth? If God did that, then all people would be saved!

How does Scripture demonstrate objective actual age cut-off date when AOA begins? Chapter and verse.

Does a decision for accepting Jesus before AOA invalidate the decision itself, to believe in Christ?

You have the same exact problem. What if a baby dies before it is baptized? Does it go to hell?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You have the same exact problem. What if a baby dies before it is baptized? Does it go to hell?

I see you are non responsive about Scripture allowing the baptism of children. Then change the subject matter. So be it. This is a typical credo tactic.

Scripture doesn't speak about this issue. It does speak about Baptism as instrument by which the Word of God is brought to the child who doesn't understand the preached word. The Scriptures are clear on this. Baptism contains the Word of God and the AoA contains NO WORD OF GOD. Baptism is "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word (Eph 5:27). The promise of Scripture is wherever the Word of God is present the Holy Spirit can regenerate (Romans 10:17 and Eph 6:17). The promise of Scripture is wherever the Word of God's the Spirit can regenerate. In otherwords, there is no such thing as a Spiritless Word. God can regenerate through the Word contained in baptism.

There is no such hope for those who hold the the AoA which is a man made doctrine (traditions of men) Mark 7. How in the world people believe in something that is not found in Scripture is beyond me?

Now it is your turn, using the credo tactic of changing the subject matter to something else. Still haven't responded to my post about Mt 28 and Acts 2. Never will.....just change the subject, change the subject and more change the subject.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Very good point about Rhoda. My criteria for this post is where 'household is specifically used" and the mentioning of a slave.

12 And when he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 When he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer.

The text speaks about the house of Mary not a household of Mary. This one I missed. The "house" of Mary and "household" of Mary in my mind are close enough to be synonymys, so your point holds.

The book of Philemon does mention the word "house" in vs. 2, but not in the context of household. Paul is using the word as a meeting place of the church, rather than a person living with Philemon under one roof.

So Philemon doesn't link the term "household" with "slaves."

Ah, I understand your microscopic analysis now. Just because Paul instructs slaves in obedience to their masters must mean that whether or not the master was a believer he would have been baptized when the slave with his household was baptized. Or, I suppose it only works in one direction where the slave would never have been baptized unless his master was baptized with his household.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Ah, I understand your microscopic analysis now. Just because Paul instructs slaves in obedience to their masters must mean that whether or not the master was a believer he would have been baptized when the slave with his household was baptized. Or, I suppose it only works in one direction where the slave would never have been baptized unless his master was baptized with his household.

Yes. In my original post I did a study on the word "household" and contextually how wide of meaning it has. I didn't do a search on the word "house" which you alerted me to Rhoda.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the NT concept of Slavery. Clare73 wrapped me pretty hard for taking a simplistic approach to this issue. Since then I have read some heavy weight articles on the subject....which caused a significant amount of more questions I need to think through.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I see you are non responsive about Scripture allowing the baptism of children. Then change the subject matter. So be it. This is a typical credo tactic.

Scripture doesn't speak about this issue. It does speak about Baptism as instrument by which the Word of God is brought to the child who doesn't understand the preached word. The Scriptures are clear on this. Baptism contains the Word of God and the AoA contains NO WORD OF GOD. Baptism is "Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word (Eph 5:27). The promise of Scripture is wherever the Word of God is present the Holy Spirit can regenerate (Romans 10:17 and Eph 6:17). The promise of Scripture is wherever the Word of God's the Spirit can regenerate. In otherwords, there is no such thing as a Spiritless Word. God can regenerate through the Word contained in baptism.

There is no such hope for those who hold the the AoA which is a man made doctrine (traditions of men) Mark 7. How in the world people believe in something that is not found in Scripture is beyond me?

Now it is your turn, using the credo tactic of changing the subject matter to something else. Still haven't responded to my post about Mt 28 and Acts 2. Never will.....just change the subject, change the subject and more change the subject.

Infant baptism didn't start until the second century. It was not done originally. Why did this start? Because parents of small children believed their child must be baptized to go to heaven. Do you believe you MUST be baptized to go to heaven? Because that is what the foundation of your belief is based on. Parents who had children who were dying would baptize their children so they would be baptized before they died. That is where the tradition comes from. So you have a tradition of man you are dealing with here. I repeat, since it is clear: There are no positive examples of children being baptized just like there are no positive examples of homosexuality in the Bible. We only have tangle examples to the contrary.

 

[BobRyan]

Credobaptists hold to a narrow definition of household and Paedobaptists hold to a wide definition of household.

Credobaptists hold to "believe and is baptized - shall be saved" statement actually found in scripture.

Credobaptists affirm the Bible statements about hearing the gospel , accepting it - and then choosing to be baptized.

But Paedobaptists do not think that the person baptized needs to hear, or accept, or believe the gospel at all. Just get baptized. As R.C. Sproul pointed out - we have not one example of Paedobaptism in all of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

There are no positive examples of children being baptized

the book of acts points to entire households - hearing the Gospel and then being baptized.

Only persons in such a household who "could" actual "hear the gospel" and knowingly respond to it - are included in such a statement

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Infant baptism didn't start until the second century.

Documentation please.

Because parents of small children believed their child must be baptized to go to heaven.

Document this assertion from the early church writings. I never heard of this before. What early church historical writing assert this?

Do you believe you MUST be baptized to go to heaven? Because that is what the foundation of your belief is based on.

I believe Scripture commands baptism. Do you believe Baptism is optional? Do you believe that Jesus gave a polite suggestion to be baptized and not a command? Do you believe Christians shouldn't be baptized? Just tell us! Should baptism be rejected by Christians?

Parents who had children who were dying would baptize their children so they would be baptized before they died.

Quote early church writing source. DON'T MAKE UP STUFF.

That is where the tradition comes from.

Please quote early church writings. Don't make up stuff.

So you have a tradition of man you are dealing with here.

Boy this refers to AoA The AoA is pure "tradition" of man. There is no promise of salvation attached to AoA. Just a tradition of man. Wow....placing trust in the traditions of men. Please show me where AoA allows a person to go to heaven. You are placing faith in a theological innovation! Please demonstrate AoA from Scripture. I am not a universalist. Are you a universalist?

​