ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[patrick jane]

Since babies are with no need for it and nothing is accomplished by it, why press for infant baptism? BTW, where did you read that? What book or author?

i tend to agree now - that a person should have an understanding of baptism beforehand. but who am i ?

 

[Cross Reference]

The Hebrew interpretation of the Fall of man in Genesis 3 was accepted wholeheartedly by the Church.

What are we saved from, if we are not born into sin?

Again, innocence is blameless as in without fault. "For the Law results in [divine] wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression [of it either]." Romans 4:15 (AMP) Baby's know no law and of such is the "kingdom of God" Mark 10:14.

The interpretation of Gen 3 must address that all in order for it not to be "subjective", doncha think?

 

[Sheila B]

Again, innocence is blameless as in without fault. "For the Law results in [divine] wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression [of it either]." Romans 4:15 (AMP) Baby's know no law and of such is the "kingdom of God" Mark 10:14.

The interpretation of Gen 3 must address that all in order for it not to be "subjective", doncha think?

Are you saying a person has no need for Christ until one actually sins when one reaches the age of accountability?

 

[Sheila B]

In sin did my mother conceive me... King David

 

[TFTn5280]

You will find discussions get off track very easily. My reason for this OP is very serious business because it is foundational to false doctrine the church baths in.

Let me first apologize for whatever degree to which I caused this thread to get off track. It was not my intention to do that at all. Secondly, let me commend you and agree with you that this is indeed a very important topic and discussion that has served to divide the Church and its members many times over the course of its history. And it continues to have the potential to do that again in this day. So right on, brother, I am with you and I am on board!

That said, I would like to re-engage this topic if I may from slightly a different vantage point. AND I will say up front that it is ever so slight. The belief and concern that those who hold to a baptismal regeneration view have is that baptism actually actuates the forgiveness of sins: "... and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38) It is not out of pride alone, if at all, that they will not relent in their steadfastness here; it is because they believe very much that it is the truth, and out of concern for you and the well being of others and the Church at large they want you to believe it too, that by all means you too may be saved.

1) Here is the problem with that view. 2) AND here is the reason why your side has not been effective in changing opinions against it. 3) BOTH sides operate from an insufficient view of the atonement. Both their theory of Christ's atoning work and your theory of the same are too narrow to break the impasse. Whether baptism effectuates the forgiveness of sins, as they suggest, or justification is by grace alone through faith alone, as do you, both are irrelevant at this point. 4) BECAUSE neither forgiveness nor justification equals what Christ did in making atonement for us; that is, neither equals salvation. Humbly I say to you, Cross Reference, your statement about innocent and blameless infants not needing salvation by Jesus Christ proves this point. But I digress.

At every point of our walk of salvation Jesus Christ steps in for us and vicariously accomplishes what we ourselves are perilously inept at doing. Whether it be faith, repentance, baptism, obedience, sanctification, communion, prayer and confession or loving God and others: at every point it is his vicarious activity on our behalf that covers our frail attempts at getting it right and sees us through. And so, as it relates to the topic at hand, let us look to Jesus’ baptism by John in order to understand how baptism relates to us.

Why was Jesus baptized? John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. So, why did Jesus need to be baptized, did he have sins to confess, did he need to repent? These are not silly questions. Indeed they are the very questions that were on John’s mind (See Mat 3.14). I am going to shock you here but the answer to these questions is yes. Yes, Jesus had sins to confess: They were our sins. And, yes, Jesus needed to repent: Not for himself, but for us. Look at what he said: "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." The Greek word for righteousness is also the word for justification. Jesus was baptized “to fulfill ALL justification.” Jesus had no sins of his own to confess, yet he came confessing sins. Jesus had nothing of which to repent, yet he came repenting. Why? To fulfill all righteousness on our behalf. To fulfill ALL justification for us. This is the only answer to John’s question that is applicable. “Permit it to be so…”

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is not salvific; it does not regenerate: for even if it brings forgiveness, we are still gonna die (That was the problem with those infants). There has to be more or we are not going to be resurrected. Everlasting life eludes us. But let Jesus step into every point of your understanding and you will see how it is that his baptism does bring with it the POWER of resurrection. Romans 6.4: “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Blessings, T.

 

[Cross Reference]

Are you saying a person has no need for Christ until one actually sins when one reaches the age of accountability?

Yes, in the sense of needing forgiveness and reconciliation for failing the "allegiance test"but, in the "more" of Christ does one, even the innocent need Him. Wanna talk about that? There a magnificence going completely unspoken of by the church that requires insight into that to be recognized and understood.

 

[TFTn5280]

In sin did my mother conceive me... King David

May I make a small observation here? We need to be careful about using Hebrew poetry to set our understanding of doctrine. The Hebrew writers employed a broad range of literary devices in their poetic language. Here I would like to suggest that David is using embellishment to communicate his sorrow and guilt before the Lord.

Please look with me at Job 31.18 for a less volatile example of embellishment in Hebrew poetry: "(But from my youth I reared him as a father, And from my mother's womb I guided the widow);" Job was not surely attempting to convey that he had actually cared for the widow from birth. Would we make a doctrine stating he was? Surely not. Well neither should we make a doctrine of David's words. He is simply embellishing sorrow. “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze 18.20)



.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Through no fault of his own, had Nicodemus never heard of Jesus Christ, would he have gone to hell and suffered with the wicked?

Do you believe persons never hearing of Jesus Christ cannot be condemned for their unbelief?

AMR

 

[patrick jane]

May I make a small observation here? We need to be careful about using Hebrew poetry to set our understanding of doctrine. The Hebrew writers employed a broad range of literary devices in their poetic language. Here I would like to suggest that David is using embellishment to communicate his sorrow and guilt before the Lord.

Please look with me at Job 31.18 for a less volatile example of embellishment in Hebrew poetry: "(But from my youth I reared him as a father, And from my mother's womb I guided the widow);" Job was not surely attempting to convey that he had actually cared for the widow from birth. Would we make a doctrine stating he was? Surely not. Well neither should we make a doctrine of David's words. He is simply embellishing sorrow. “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze 18.20)



.

Amen. i said the same thing basically, a few times when i started. welcome :jazz:

 

[patrick jane]

How is hearing the good news relevant?

Do you honestly believe that each and every one of those that do not hear the good news or have never heard of Jesus Christ get to bypass eternal punishment for their unbelief?

AMR

do you believe that anyone, ever, that never hears of Jesus or God are eternally punished ?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Since babies are with no need for it and nothing is accomplished by it, why press for infant baptism?

I did not know the whole purpose of this thread is to debate paedo vs. credo baptism. Is this the purpose of the OP?

AMR

 

[jsjohnnt]

From TNTn5280: At every point of our walk of salvation Jesus Christ steps in for us and vicariously accomplishes what we ourselves are perilously inept at doing. Whether it be faith, repentance, baptism, obedience, sanctification, communion, prayer and confession or loving God and others: at every point it is his vicarious activity on our behalf that covers our frail attempts at getting it right and sees us through. And so, as it relates to the topic at hand, let us look to Jesus’ baptism by John in order to understand how baptism relates to us.

Would a Catholic or someone who believes in original sin as commonly narrated, tell me why the above quote from 5280 does not effectively challenge the belief that an infant is lost, at birth, if not baptised as an infant?

 

[Cross Reference]

Do you believe persons never hearing of Jesus Christ cannot be condemned for their unbelief?

AMR

Cannot?? Will not is what I am saying. Why? How can they be condemned if they never heard/here of Jesus? What God be unjust to those who place their trust in Him Who, to them, has no name?

Question: What did Jesus tell the disciple-missionaries to do? And did not Paul example these instructions by his Mars Hill discourse? Lets try to not leave anything out that might help us understand.

 

[Cross Reference]

I did not know the whole purpose of this thread is to debate paedo vs. credo baptism. Is this the purpose of the OP?

AMR

No, it isn't. Folk here have seen fit to believe that because, I guess, they have thought that is why I have started it..

I was intending to begin to explain this today and you have now pressed me to do so, so I feel I must.

Two doctrines hang in the balance: One of Calvin and one lending itself to the understanding of freewill.

The purpose is to first point up the fact man was not born reprobate and in need of a gift of faith that could never be administered by God anyway because reprobation is a decree of God that can never be reversed. Besides that, God would never arbitrarily do so. So the opposite must be true. Man was/is born with a measure of faith for him to believe and seek God. (cf Gen 4:26 and Rom 1:28-32).

Secondly, God does not arbitrarily decree salvation. Given that fact and the fact that any new born baby has to have the mental faculties to understand __ which it does not, it is therefore exempted from any responsibility in the matter of its salvation, the responsibility being placed upon those who are not exempt, regardless of who they are. For this reason did Jesus say: "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble." Luke 17:1-2 (NASB) The scriptures also said these words concerning the disposition of these "little ones": "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 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. "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them". Mark 10:13-16 (KJV) So what is about a little one that we need to learn or revisit to our minds that we might better understand what the need to be born again is all about? If one believes God decrees everything, and many do to varying decrees, he/she is forced to believe most all I have written above as being metaphoric which is obviously not metaphorical language. Consequently, the object of the OP is to bring to light, that while God is sovereign, He cannot be unjust or violate in any way, His own Holiness and Righteous decrees.

Man must first have a natural birth and when able to discern between good and evil, be given the message of Jesus Christ that he, by parental grooming, be able understand to choose "Good" as in "choosing God". It will be then that God will enact His Divine program for that life. A side word here: In the attempt to understand there often is the battle to not want to understand because of the cost. Even in that, because that one has heard and is indecisive, God does not arbitrarily alter His program if, in His foreknowledge He knows the salvation of that one is sure to happen. In fact, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, . . . . " Romans 8:29 (KJV) I have to believe this for myself.

To be continued __ <for sure> . .

 

[Cross Reference]

From TNTn5280: At every point of our walk of salvation Jesus Christ steps in for us and vicariously accomplishes what we ourselves are perilously inept at doing. Whether it be faith, repentance, baptism, obedience, sanctification, communion, prayer and confession or loving God and others: at every point it is his vicarious activity on our behalf that covers our frail attempts at getting it right and sees us through. And so, as it relates to the topic at hand, let us look to Jesus’ baptism by John in order to understand how baptism relates to us.

Would a Catholic or someone who believes in original sin as commonly narrated, tell me why the above quote from 5280 does not effectively challenge the belief that an infant is lost, at birth, if not baptised as an infant?

How one believes he doesn't have to "get it right" or doesn't care if he "gets it right"? Does Christ Jesus simply fill in the 'cracks'?

 

[TFTn5280]

How one believes he doesn't have to "get it right" or doesn't care if he "gets it right"? Does Christ Jesus simply fill in the 'cracks'?

I don't think I would say it that way but now that it's out I will answer yes -- although in the areas of our greatest need, i.e., where we are at our weakest and need it most, the cracks are a mile wide.

Yes in all things we are called to get it right and our love for Christ compels us to try but where we struggle and become weary his perfect response in our behalf is offered up to the Father, as seen in the Mediator, Advocate, High Priest language of Scripture.

John 6.19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth."

 

[Cross Reference]

Let me first apologize for whatever degree to which I caused this thread to get off track. It was not my intention to do that at all. Secondly, let me commend you and agree with you that this is indeed a very important topic and discussion that has served to divide the Church and its members many times over the course of its history. And it continues to have the potential to do that again in this day. So right on, brother, I am with you and I am on board!

No need for an apology and thank you TFT. I feel privileged for your kind words.

That said, I would like to re-engage this topic if I may from slightly a different vantage point. AND I will say up front that it is ever so slight. The belief and concern that those who hold to a baptismal regeneration view have is that baptism actually actuates the forgiveness of sins: "... and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins..." (Acts 2:38) It is not out of pride alone, if at all, that they will not relent in their steadfastness here; it is because they believe very much that it is the truth, and out of concern for you and the well being of others and the Church at large they want you to believe it too, that by all means you too may be saved.

I rather believe it is out of confusion since the belief in God decreeing everything leaves a very 'muddy' spiritual water in which to baptize anyone.

1) Here is the problem with that view. 2) AND here is the reason why your side has not been effective in changing opinions against it. 3) BOTH sides operate from an insufficient view of the atonement. Both their theory of Christ's atoning work and your theory of the same are too narrow to break the impasse. Whether baptism effectuates the forgiveness of sins, as they suggest, or justification is by grace alone through faith alone, as do you, both are irrelevant at this point. 4) BECAUSE neither forgiveness nor justification equals what Christ did in making atonement for us; that is, neither equals salvation. Humbly I say to you, Cross Reference, your statement about innocent and blameless infants not needing salvation by Jesus Christ proves this point. But I digress.

At every point of our walk of salvation Jesus Christ steps in for us and vicariously accomplishes what we ourselves are perilously inept at doing. Whether it be faith, repentance, baptism, obedience, sanctification, communion, prayer and confession or loving God and others: at every point it is his vicarious activity on our behalf that covers our frail attempts at getting it right and sees us through. And so, as it relates to the topic at hand, let us look to Jesus’ baptism by John in order to understand how baptism relates to us.

Then why does the Holy Spirit convict? What is the need for it?

Why was Jesus baptized? John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. So, why did Jesus need to be baptized, did he have sins to confess, did he need to repent? These are not silly questions. Indeed they are the very questions that were on John’s mind (See Mat 3.14). I am going to shock you here but the answer to these questions is yes. Yes, Jesus had sins to confess: They were our sins. And, yes, Jesus needed to repent: Not for himself, but for us. Look at what he said: "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." The Greek word for righteousness is also the word for justification. Jesus was baptized “to fulfill ALL justification.” Jesus had no sins of his own to confess, yet he came confessing sins. Jesus had nothing of which to repent, yet he came repenting. Why? To fulfill all righteousness on our behalf. To fulfill ALL justification for us. This is the only answer to John’s question that is applicable. “Permit it to be so…”

I never saw it before in that light. It makes sense to the degree you have explained it. I believe it answers some questions I have had on the subject and I thank you for that.

Baptism for the forgiveness of sins is not salvific; it does not regenerate:

True

for even if it brings forgiveness, we are still gonna die (That was the problem with those infants)

.

But he that believes in Christ [lifestyle here] shall never die. So why the emphasis placed upon physical death?" (Jn 11:26)

There has to be more or we are not going to be resurrected. Everlasting life eludes us. But let Jesus step into every point of your understanding and you will see how it is that his baptism does bring with it the POWER of resurrection. Romans 6.4: “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Blessings, T.

But you are making it all to be relating to mans salvation and resurrection. What does this say to you with regards to what God has accomplished for Himself by the Atonement:

"And this is eternal life, that they might [now] know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3

Question: If Jesus steps into every facet of our lives to lead us, why the need to pursue God __ and Jesus, to know them?

[emphasis mine]

 

[Cross Reference]

I

don't think I would say it that way but now that it's out I will answer yes -- although in the areas of our greatest need, i.e., where we are at our weakest and need it most, the cracks are a mile wide.

Why, if our allegiance is what God is after? Did not God leave Adam AND Jesus completely alone in their time of greatest need?

Yes in all things we are called to get it right and our love for Christ compels us to try but where we struggle and become weary his perfect response in our behalf is offered up to the Father, as seen in the Mediator, Advocate, High Priest language of Scripture.

So where might be the cutoff point when we might expect Christ to step in and take over the situation?

John 6.19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth."

. . . .

by abiding in the Truth and the True abiding in us

__ a relationship, to be sure. . .

 

[Cross Reference]

I don't think I would say it that way but now that it's out I will answer yes -- although in the areas of our greatest need, i.e., where we are at our weakest and need it most, the cracks are a mile wide.

Yes in all things we are called to get it right and our love for Christ compels us to try but where we struggle and become weary his perfect response in our behalf is offered up to the Father, as seen in the Mediator, Advocate, High Priest language of Scripture.

John 6.19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth."

"For" connotes a static condition where "To" shows action, i.e., "kinetic" "If you have love one to another". If you are using the KJV you find those two preps to be very important, significant for understanding. The same can be said for "In" and "of" (exam. Gal 2:20). Learn to recognize them and be enriched.

 

[TFTn5280]

No need for an apology and thank you TFT. I feel privileged for your kind words.



I rather believe it is out of confusion since the belief in God decreeing everything leaves a very 'muddy' spiritual water in which to baptize anyone.



Then why does the Holy Spirit convict? What is the need for it? In sanctification the Holy Spirit convicts us that we become aware of our need, then sends us the ability to prevail, the whole time Christ is interceding on our behalf



I never saw it before in that light. It makes sense to the degree you have explained it. I believe it answers some questions I have had on the subject and I thank you for that.



True

.

But he that believes in Christ [lifestyle here] shall never die. So why the emphasis placed upon physical death?" (Jn 11:26)

Because physical death would be there to prevent us from never dying were it not for the resurrection that is in Christ Jesus. It is not enough to be forgiven, e.g.; we must still be born again in the resurrection of Christ

But you are making it all to be relating to mans salvation and resurrection. What does this say to you with regards to what God has accomplished for Himself by the Atonement:

"And this is eternal life, that they might [now] know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3

This speaks to the whole end for which we were created, that we be adopted as sons and daughters, that we know God the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

Question: If Jesus steps into every facet of our lives to lead us, why the need to pursue God __ and Jesus, to know them?

see above

[emphasis mine]