Students at Clemson are protesting because the university has decided to remove tampon dispensers from the men's restrooms. Pan (note the creative first name)Tankersley declared, "Today, we are marching for the reinstatement of the menstrual products in the men’s restrooms in Cooper Library and throughout campus." It seems strange to have to explain to COLLEGE students that men don't use tampons. If you need a tampon, then you are not a man and thus should not be in the men's restroom. Perhaps sixth graders would need to have that explained to them, but at the age of twenty, people generally know that MEN don't use tampons. It's like the idea that men don't wear bras, or that men don't have babies. Do we now have to explain to COLLEGE students that these things are true??? And if a young adult cannot understand such a basic concept, then does that person really need to be in college? "Yes, I want to get my degree in physics, but first I need to run down to the men's restroom and get a tampon." Huh?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/students-march-university-removing-tampons-mens-bathrooms

The university is incorrect in its reasoning.

https://www.self.com/story/male-period-trans-model-kenny-jones

Uhm...it is necessary to have a vagina in order to use a tampon, and in that situation, the individual is a...WOMAN, even if she is pretending to be a man. The university's reasoning is so correct that it's overwhelming. In the case of this Kenny Jones, he/she would not need to get a tampon to begin with, so the whole point of you linking this story is to demonstrate what?

Uhm...it is necessary to have a vagina in order to use a tampon, and in that situation, the individual is a...WOMAN, even if she is pretending to be a man. The university's reasoning is so correct that it's overwhelming..
No pretending is going on. She IS anatomically (but not chromosomally) a woman who is transitioning to be her real self: a man. Please read the article I posted.

Read the story after this subheading:

"I knew I was meant to be a boy since I was 14. At 15 years old, I started menstruating."

They are not fooling me . This is college age people. They live for the high . Now if you soak a tampon in 190 proof ethyl alcohol or vodka and shove it where the sun don't shine ;the body absorbs the alcohol quickly. It is a dangerous practice .
Some kids mistakenly think doing this will prevent breathalyzer failure .

No pretending is going on. She IS anatomically (but not chromosomally) a woman who is transitioning to be her real self: a man. Please read the article I posted.

Read the story after this subheading:

"I knew I was meant to be a boy since I was 14. At 15 years old, I started menstruating."Even if I agreed with all of this, what does it have to do with a person with no vagina thinking he/she needs to find a tampon in a men's restroom? Why wouldn't a person with a vagina simply go into the women's restroom, or better yet, if that is perceived as being a problem, buy these articles at Walmart? Why should a college have to waste money on such a childish undertaking as putting tampon machines in men's restrooms?




They are not fooling me . This is college age people. They live for the high . Now if you soak a tampon in 190 proof ethyl alcohol or vodka and shove it where the sun don't shine ;the body absorbs the alcohol quickly. It is a dangerous practice .
Some kids mistakenly think doing this will prevent breathalyzer failure .





Tom's statement is a far more likely explanation. At any rate, only fifty deluded souls were in the protest march, so it would seem that sanity is, for once, prevailing on a college campus.

She DOES have a vagina and a uterus (and will get periods) until she's allowed to and can afford to have surgery. She doesn't go into the women's restroom because she must live her authentic life as a male. That will be done gradually to promote the highest standards of care (WPATH) over the next years --

***Hormone therapy (to create masculine characteristics such as a deeper voice, facial hair growth, redistribution of body fat away from hips and breasts, and not getting a period.

Male chest reconstruction, or “top surgery” (to remove the breasts and breast tissue)

Hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy (to remove female reproductive organs such as the uterus and ovaries/fallopian tubes)

Phalloplasty or “bottom surgery” (construction of a penis using skin from other parts of the body). Metoidioplasty is a type of “bottom surgery” that causes the clitoris to work more like a penis, which is accompanied by hormone treatment to make the clitoris grow larger.***
https://www.center4research.org/what-to-know-about-transgender-medical-transitioning-female-to-male/

She DOES have a vagina and a uterus (and will get periods) until she's allowed to and can afford to have surgery. She doesn't go into the women's restroom because she must live her authentic life as a maleSo you are basically arguing that everyone else must accept this insanity of putting tampons in the men's restrooms because people like KS don't have enough sense to go to Walmart and pick up what she needs? That doesn't sound very compelling.

But even at that, if you had read your own article, you would have noticed this. "Now I am 24 years old, and I haven't bled since I was 19." So this person, as it turns out, does not need tampons. How about that?

So this person, as it turns out, does not need tampons. How about that?
She isn't the only trans at Clemson (28,000+ students). Women's washrooms should have a condom dispenser too.

She isn't the only trans at Clemson. Women's washrooms should have a condom dispenser too.Yes, and they should spend millions to put urinals into the women's restrooms as well.

If a person has a working, menstruating vagina, which this person does NOT have, a fact you missed since you didn't even read your own article, then rather than inconvenience everyone else, that person could simply step into the women's restroom and get a tampon, or better yet, they could use even a little bit of common sense and get them at Walgreens. But that wouldn't serve the purpose of making everyone else bow at the altar of TG.

I have nothing at all against these people, but I absolutely will not participate in this lunacy with them.

Why is the term "leading he/she/zie/their authentic life/self" trawled out for these cases.
Mother Nature has already made that determination, so anything else is basically against nature.
Has humanity finally decided that they are above mere natural selection and biology.

Bottom line, once you're an adult, do as you please, but don't expect everyone else to buy into your delusion...

Bottom line, once you're an adult, do as you please, but don't expect everyone else to buy into your delusion...Well said. I can and must love all sorts of people, but I dare not encourage them in their sad, mistaken delusions.

Why is the term "leading he/she/zie/their authentic life/self" trawled out for these cases.
Mother Nature has already made that determination,
Nope. Mother Nature screwed up. Messed up the chromosomes and hormones and slapped the opposite sex organs onto the baby's exterior.


Well said. I can and must love all sorts of people, but I dare not encourage them in their sad, mistaken delusions.
I'm sure you have family members and/or relatives who are in the LGBTQ+ community.

Has humanity finally decided that they are above mere natural selection and biology.

Thank you . It is the humans created God complex if only they just dream it


When you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you
If your heart is in your dream
No request is too extreme

Yes, and they should spend millions to put urinals into the women's restrooms as well.
Great idea! And only one per bathroom would be needed.


If a person has a working, menstruating vagina, which this person does NOT have, a fact you missed since you didn't even read your own article, then rather than inconvenience everyone else, that person could simply step into the women's restroom and get a tampon, or better yet, they could use even a little bit of common sense and get them at Walgreens. But that wouldn't serve the purpose of making everyone else bow at the altar of TG.
Apparently, YOU didn't read the article.

I have nothing at all against these people, but I absolutely will not participate in this lunacy with them.
Bwahahahahaha!! Tell me another lie!!!

Just the usual nonsensical reply. I read the article enough to find what you didn’t. Nuff said. And as usual, WG, who loves to lecture to everyone else about not being judgmental, makes a stupid judgment about someone supposedly lying. Pretty bad. It’s what people do when they know the battle is lost.

And what did I lie about?

I didn't say you lied.

What was my "stupid judgment"?

"Bwahahahahaha!! Tell me another lie!!!"

"Bwahahahahaha!! Tell me another lie!!!"
Lunacy??? Battle lost? Hardly!!! Apparently your head is buried deep in the sand.

So sad. You just can't admit to being wrong, can you? Instead, we get the intellectual equivalent of a fifth grader with "Bwahahahaha" and "Apparently your head is buried deep in the sand." Oh well, it's as I said. This is what people do when they know the battle is lost and can do no better than link to an article describing a person who (unknown to you) does not use tampons to argue for the need for tampons in men's restrooms. You'd be far better served to simply admit, "OK, I didn't realize my link was a non-starter, and I accused you of lying when I had no way of knowing if you were or not." I would suggest you copy and paste that statement.

You apparently read others' links with blinders on. The cherry picker hard at work.

(And no I'm not a lib Dem, but am a registered Repub.)

LGBTQ+ people (especially trans) are everywhere. They have library cards and might be standing near you at the 973s, behind you in the grocery store check-out line, or sitting in the row behind you at the movie theater. They are on TV every day -- contestants on "Jeopardy" and "Wheel of Fortune" and discuss human rights on talk shows. Several of my best friends are Tgirls, as they sometimes call themselves.

You apparently read others' links with blinders on. The cherry picker hard at work.Completely absurd response. I read the link you provided and QUOTED the article where the person said he/she did not have periods. Please stop acting like a fifth grader. It gets very tiresome having to constantly correct you.

The fact that LGBTQ people are in existence is not at all in debate. So are thieves, child abusers, adulterers, liars, hypocrites, drug addicts (I know many), alcoholics (know many of them as well),and retired librarians who don't know what they're talking about. It doesn't mean we should accept any of it, so stop trying to change the subject.


You'd be far better served to simply admit, "OK, I didn't realize my link was a non-starter, and I accused you of lying when I had no way of knowing if you were or not." I would suggest you copy and paste that statement.

You're the biggest lib dem I know of, and also the most obstinate.

JL said "the article where the person said he/she did not have periods."

Please read more carefully.

She said in that article --

"At 15 years old, I started menstruating.

When I was 16 years old, I began the process of medical transition and started hormone therapy (http://www.teni.ie/attachments/9ea50d6e-1148-4c26-be0d-9def980047db.PDF), which eliminated my monthly period."

Yes, she had periods but stopped them with hormone therapy.

So he/she currently does not have them? And hasn’t in years just like I said and quoted? Well how about that???

Fifth graders. They require much patience.

But other trans girls and women, pre-hormone therapy, who use women's public washrooms have periods.

And if they use women's public washrooms, then why would we need to have tampon machines in the men's rooms?

And if they use women's public washrooms, then why would we need to have tampon machines in the men's rooms?
Becaaaaaaause....other trans girls and women, who are receiving hormone therapy, use men's washrooms, yet still may have periods.

And they, rather than expecting the other 99.5% of the population to join in with their delusion, can simply purchase tampons at Walmart. It's not really complicated.

And they, rather than expecting the other 99.5% of the population to join in with their delusion, can simply purchase tampons at Walmart. It's not really complicated.
You expect them to carry (how many???) tampons around 24/7??? How stupid do you think they are? Periods don't begin (like clockwork?) when women think they will, aren't the same amount of blood each hour/day/month. Tampon dispensers in public washrooms are there for emergencies anyway.

I expect people to take care of themselves. Keep a few in the purse at all times. Not real complicated. A college student can’t handle that?

I expect people to take care of themselves. Keep a few in the purse at all times. Not real complicated. A college student can’t handle that?
Sounds stupid. At all times???? Give it a rest! No way. Have you ever seen one, held one, put one into your pocket???

And no condoms in men's washrooms either. And no urinals either. I've had to clean them. Gag!

Sounds stupid. At all times???? Give it a rest! No way. Have you ever seen one, held one, put one into your pocket???I've taken care of myself all of my adult life. I don't think it's asking much for a woman to carry personal articles in her purse. They seem to have no trouble carrying around enough makeup for a small army. I'll bet they can handle this as well.


And no urinals either. I've had to clean them. Gag!You really think that makes sense? By that "thinking", there can be no toilets either. After all, it's a nasty business cleaning them. For that matter, there can be no floors or sinks because they all can be a pain to clean as well. You can start a new movement. LIBERAL DEMS WHO WANT TO DO AWAY WITH RESTROOMS!! They are too much trouble to clean!

The great majority of men's restrooms that I've been in don't have condom machines. Wife and I just returned from an eight hundred mile, three day trip. I didn't see a single one. Sorry to disappoint you.

Not restrooms. Urinals. Men spray all over them and on the wall and floor.

And those tampons in restrooms are expensive!

Not restrooms. Urinals. Men spray all over them and on the wall and floor.Think a little. You are arguing that urinals are nasty to clean and so must go. But you just asserted that the same is true of the walls and floors, so by your thinking, the whole room has to go.


And those tampons in restrooms are expensive!Another reason to get rid of the tampon machines.

I'll give you the last word on this. It has become a ridiculous exchange.

I didn't say anything has to go. The aim has to improve.

Mother Nature screwed upI think what you mean to say is: Human Nature is screwing up Mother Nature. Will Human nature triumph over mother nature?
I worry about you WG. Do you know why "the earth cries out with pain"? God is the potter and we are the clay that He shapes to His own purposes, making us into worthy vessels to be filled with His Holy Spirit. When we submit and surrender our will to our Heavenly Father, He will shape and mold us according to His will.

Of course, everybody has the right to choose their own will (fixing - as if God makes mistakes) over God's will. Mother Nature is not the source of life...although It might be for others. Life is not what it seems. Get out of your head and into the Body of Christ Jesus.

There is only One GOD, One Body, One Kingdom. One Death, and One Life. Go your own way (choosing life over death) and you will be Without a GOD. Without a Body. Without a King. Without a kingdom and Without a life.

I think what you mean to say is: Human Nature is screwing up Mother Nature. Will Human nature triumph over mother nature?
Then why are animals and birds and insects and plants in the LGBTQ+ community? God gave the universe (and Mother Nature) free will.

What religious studies have so confused you, waltero?

Then why are animals and birds and insects and plants in the LGBTQ+ community?
Really, you're not going to get away without definitive sources for that statement.....

CB is correct. The statement about animals and birds is silliness.

Here's one source --

https://nextgenpaws.pet/blogs/news/10-species-that-don-t-adhere-to-a-gender-binary-in-the-animal-world-unlike-the-human-world

Google the words, gay animals.

Gay animals are nothing new and has been known about for many years, that isn't what you were referring to at all.
You missed the amphibians that can spontaneously change sex to ensure continuation of the species, these, however, are not members of the Alphabet mafia, nor even close.
Either way there's still a very clear binary there, even homosexuality is a binary...
There is NO third, or higher numbers, sex or gender.

Yes there is a clear biological reason for some species. For humans however it is clear cut .,,,,,. male and female The 1% variations is Abby Normal .

Here's one source --

https://nextgenpaws.pet/blogs/news/1...he-human-world (https://nextgenpaws.pet/blogs/news/10-species-that-don-t-adhere-to-a-gender-binary-in-the-animal-world-unlike-the-human-world)

Google the words, gay animals.Completely missing in this "source" is even one example of a species where the males routinely have sex with the other males. And in the cases of males that become females (or vice versa), the individuals actually develop naturally (sans surgery) the functional genitals of the opposite sex so as to be able to operate in that way. That is not even close to Lia Thomas or other TG "men", so we can see that your supposed source did not have a single example of a species that supported the LGBTQ agenda. There was not even one.

The 1% variations is Abby Normal .Young Frankenstein!!

yes or 'when humans play God '

.For humans however it is clear cut .,,,,,. male and female
I'll introduce you to them in heaven. There are undoubtedly at least a few in your family tree.

my family tree is loaded with Italian Stallions

What religious studies have so confused you, waltero?Now I understand where you are coming from. You seem to be Religiously Confused. You should know that religion is a haven for confusion and misunderstanding.

It’s Jesus that’s the real point of contention. What He says seems at odds with our common thinking and reality. Jesus only baffles ones who weren’t meant to understand. He said many times “Your father satan.” They were not of G-d. G-d is not the author of confusion. That’s the other jacker dude.

Even your idea of life doesn't jive with Mother Nature. Is it better to try to work with, rather than against, Mother Nature? "why this - why that???" These are words coming from the lips of somebody who is living a life of confusion... you continue to make it up as you go. "God is not the author of confusion".

Mother Nature knows what she is doing.

He said many times “Your father satan.”Actually, Jesus never said that. He did on one occasion say, "ye are of your father the devil." That does not amount to "many times". Does that place you among the "baffled", and among those living a "life of confusion"?

Does that place you among the "baffled", and among those living a "life of confusion"?Could be.
I know the scriptures as the living Word that brings life. I also know you are missing out. You can verse it any way you like. There are over 100 Bible verses about children of the Devil. Those Words (that you know so well) on a page must come alive in you. If you only know the author who wrote, just words on a page, without knowing the power of the word...you will be missing out. Do not rely on your own understanding.

The Word became flesh and lived among us.

There are over 100 Bible verses about children of the Devil.This is the kind of statement that gets you in trouble. Rather than there being "over 100", there is actually precisely one. It's found in 1 John. "In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." And that was after I checked in six different major translations. You will doubtless counter by saying that you only said they were "about children of the Devil". That allows you to throw in all kinds of verses regardless of how little they might actually pertain to it. It still comes back to a simple truth. You don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know much about the Bible. Rather than simply admitting that, you try to act spiritual and suggest the problem lies with someone else. You need to discipline yourself to read your Bible and become intimately familiar with it. "Study to show yourself approved, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." When a person refuses to do that, then he runs the risk of appearing to be nothing more than a spiritual blowhard.

Now yes, that's not the end of it. Jesus the living word must richly dwell in our hearts. But even though it's not the end of it, it is certainly necessary, and it is something that is sadly missing in your life. And rather than contend against that, you would be much better served to acknowledge the truth and correct your problem.

You don't know much about the Bible.One thing I do know, that you don't, that is true; Its the living Word.
You are willing and able to argue the Bible. If that is your lot in life so be it.

When I read the Bible, a Word might pop out of the page. At that point, I might gain some awareness and or understanding. During the course of my life, I might run across that same verse and gain a different or better understanding...it doesn't nullify the first lesson (the first time it popped off the page...I'm sure It won't be the last. Sometimes when reading the Scripture it is as if I am reading it for the first time).

Long ago I mentioned that Jesus never taught about the Love of God in Public. Whenever He mentioned the love of God it was when he was alone with his disciples. And I went further. I had mentioned that you will not see the Apostles preaching the love of God in the setting up of the Church (Book of Acts).

You, yourself read through the Book of Acts a couple of times and did not see it, being mentioned, either. But In Support of your understanding of John 3:16, you simply said "It might have not been mentioned but it was inferred." end of story.
Rather than there being "over 100", there is actually precisely one.
You simply do not know the word as a Living word. Every time a Christian mentions the Word (simple words on a page) It is not a one-time deal...it is life in the Word. "You Brood of Vipers." "The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one." “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?" Do you have any idea of what this is - "I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.” The Devil knows the Word, he has heard the Word...He has finally seen the Word...have you seen the Word or are you simply hearing the Word? The Word is to be seen not heard.

I'm not going to get into it with you being that you are ignorant of the fact that The Bible is the living Word of God. The Bible is the living Word that became Flesh.

You simply returned to this thread in an attempt to aid in the defence of your friend. Therefore - You do not have the Word at heart.

I am not defending anyone. I am simply pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about. Rather than admitting that and addressing it as a problem in your life, you instead choose to continue in the arrogant path you have chosen. So rather than admit that, no, there are not more than a hundred references to the children of the devil, or that there are not "many" mentions of "your father satan", you instead load up with what amounts to spiritual sounding nonsense.

I'm not going to get into it with you being that you are ignorant of the fact that The Bible is the living Word of God. The Bible is the living Word that became Flesh.

The Word is to be seen not heard.

Is this too spiritual for you? Or could it simply be a case of - you don't know what it is I'm talking about?

Think About it.

The Bible is the living Word that became Flesh.

Not really. You have misunderstood that passage.


you don't know what it is I'm talking about?Even worse, YOU don't know what it is you're talking about.


The Word is to be seen not heard.It is difficult to imagine a more unbiblical comment that could be made. Why do you think we are commanded to "preach the word" ?In Romans we read, "And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Jesus himself commanded us to, "go into all the world and preach the Gospel." Where do you get these ideas from?

Jesus himself commanded us to, "go into all the world and preach the Gospel.Did he really? I got news for you - "He said it to them"(The Eleven). 

Jesus even rebuked them (before he said it) for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen. Seen what? Seen what???

If you haven't noticed, the Church is in dire straits. They are hurting, running amuck. Do you think it might have anything to do with too many Preachers Preaching and never seeing and believing?  

If the Bible is not the living Word then you might want to ask yourself - what is it you believe in? Where does your hope rest? What are the words that come out of your mouth, who do they belong to? They are not your Words. They don't belong to you.

The Word in no way shape or form is alive in you. How can it be, if the Word you are reading and preaching is not living? If it is not living then it is dead. And we all know Jesus Lives and so does his Word.

Did he really? I got news for you - "He said it to them"(The Eleven).


The Great Commission is the foundation for evangelism [the mission work of teaching the Gospel] in Christian theology.
The Great Commission appears in Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15–18; Luke 24:44-49; John 20:19-23; and Acts 1:8.
Springing from the heart of God, the Great Commission calls Christ's disciples [and we are also His disciples] to carry out the work God started by sending his Son into the world to die for lost sinners.
https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-the-great-commission-700702

they did not believe those who had seen. Seen what? Seen what???
Jesus on the cross, blood on His head and body -- from beatings and a spear thrust to make sure He was dead, blood on his brow from the crown of thorns. The empty tomb. The disciples didn't even believe Jesus had risen until He showed up where they were hiding.

If you haven't noticed, the Church is in dire straits. They are hurting, running amuck. Do you think it might have anything to do with too many Preachers Preaching and never seeing and believing?
Please give details about the Church being in dire straits.

If the Bible is not the living Word then you might want to ask yourself - what is it you believe in? Where does your hope rest? What are the words that come out of your mouth, who do they belong to? They are not your Words. They don't belong to you.
Micah 6:8

If the Bible is not the living Word then you might want to ask yourself - what is it you believe in?Jesus is the Living Word of God, and my faith is in Him, but the Bible is not Jesus. When I hold the Bible in my hand, I am not holding Jesus. If my Bible burns up in a housefire, Jesus has not burned up. When Jesus was crucified, it was not the Bible that was crucified. For that matter, when Jesus lived and walked the earth, much of the Bible (the NT) did not yet exist. You are completely confused.

Sadly, you are trying to excuse your lack of knowledge of the Bible by pointing the finger at others. If you really believed Jesus is the Bible, then you would read it nonstop. Clearly you don't, so I'd suggest you point that finger at yourself first. You don't even believe this mistaken idea you are proclaiming.

I will ask this again. If The Word is to be seen not heard, as you claim, then why is there such an emphasis in the NT on preaching the Word? Why would Paul have said, "I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome." Why did he say, "that is, the word of faith which we are preaching?" He wrote, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you." He claimed, "But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles." He told Timothy, "Preach the word, in season and out of season." Peter said, "But the word of the Lord endures forever.” And this is the word which was preached to you." And there are MANY other passages which tell the importance of preaching.

Your are greatly mistaken. Now do people need to see the Gospel working in the lives of people? Absolutely they do, but not at the expense of the stopping of preaching as you are calling for. Your ignorance of the Bible is showing through.

JL, Could you please just stop and listen?

This comes straight out of Scripture.

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are happy because you did not learn this from man. My Father in Heaven has shown you this.

And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it

"I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”[/B]

Take this for instance. Your Father tells you - "Children are to be seen not heard." Now try to understand this - "Out of the mouth of Babes." You have two sayings; one comes from secular and the other comes from Christian. When a child speaks, as in "out of the mouths of babes, where do you think that comes from? Is the Child simply repeating something they have heard, or have they seen something?

so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces? Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But Peter and John answered them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken; who can but prophesy?” Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of God's Word, You will find God's Word in the mouths of the Prophets, Apostles, and his Sons Jesus as well as all who are in Christ...in the Word. The Disciples didn't know the Scriptures. The apostles Knew the Scriptures because they were witnesses to the fulfillment of the Scriptures. One minute (when they were Disciples) they hadn't a clue. The next minute (after the death of Christ, the Scriptures came alive in them and they knew the Word of God backward and forward. Why do you think this is? Because the Scriptures have been fulfilled. God's Word Has been spoken, it went out and returned to him...not empty-handed.

You continue to look at things as you always have. - "That is about the most unbiblical thing I have ever heard." Yes, and Jesus went about doing the most unbiblical things the Pharisees have ever witnessed. They heard his words, the problem was that they could not see!

I've heard Preachers say - My Sermon isn't going to write itself." Of course, it won't...not if you don't believe in it. It has already been written, don't you see it?


The Word is to be seen not heard. I hear you, Bro. All I've heard is you Preaching about how important it is for us to Preach. - "The Word is to be seen not heard." - I've said nothing (here) against preaching.

"I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”[/B]

You continue to look at things as you always have. - "That is about the most unbiblical thing I have ever heard." That's because your suggestion that the Word is not meant to be heard is just that...wildly unbiblical.


I've said nothing (here) against preaching.Of course you have. You claimed the word is to be seen and not heard. If that is true, then preaching would be out.

I think your biggest problem is that you are careless in your statements. You claimed the Bible mentioned the children of the devil more than a hundred times. When it was pointed out that it was only one time, you just blew right past it and kept going. You also said, " But In Support of your understanding of John 3:16, you simply said 'It might have not been mentioned but it was inferred.' end of story." But that's not true. I never said that and have no idea of what you're referring to. And even now I suspect you will not admit that your statements were not correct. You will just ignore it all. The willful presenting of untrue statements is what liars do, and I don't think you want to appear to be a liar.

You listed a long collection of verses above, but they don't support your idea that the Word is to be seen but not heard. In fact, they contradict it. For instance, you posted, " for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." And then there was, " God's Word Has been spoken, it went out and returned to him...not empty-handed." I'm convinced you are trying to say that the Word should be both seen AND heard and should be first seen with the eyes of the heart, but you took it too far. It's time to face that truth.

Now you do sometimes make statements that are interesting. For instance, there is this. "If you haven't noticed, the Church is in dire straits. They are hurting, running amuck. Do you think it might have anything to do with too many Preachers Preaching and never seeing and believing?" I think there are several factors at work in the church being in "dire straits", but poor, unenlightened preaching is certainly one of them.

Listen up.


let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
Paul is not saying to all parishioners; You shall not listen when a woman speaks. But if I am doing them and you don’t believe (the words coming out of my mouth) me, believe (can you see) the works themselves.


Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.
A different perspective.
You claimed the word is to be seen and not heard. If that is true, then preaching would be out.Says who? Jesus said he speaks what he and his Father have seen. He also goes on to say that we speak only what we hear - we, as in we all know this to be true in us also.

It's not a miss if one is able to Draw from the story of Jesus and the power of his life.

It seems every time I speak It's as if I am bruising your Ego.

By all means, Preach. But you will never have the Passion of preaching until you are able to believe by seeing the living Word (Bible - from where you derive the words that you speak) come alive.

1. Seeing is done when using one's eyes.
2. Believing is done when using one's mind (brain, thinking ability) and heart.

Two separate activities that don't have to happen together.

A person can see without believing/understanding.
A person can believe/understand without seeing.

It seems every time I speak It's as if I am bruising your Ego.No. You're just wrong much of the time. You have no influence at all on my ego.

Sadly, you proved this to be true. " And even now I suspect you will not admit that your statements were not correct. You will just ignore it all. The willful presenting of untrue statements is what liars do, and I don't think you want to appear to be a liar."


A person can see without believing/understanding.
A person can believe/understand without seeing.I think Walter is using the term "see" in the sense of gaining perception and clearer understanding.

I think Walter is using the term "see" in the sense of gaining perception and clearer understanding.
Like when someone says, "Oh, I see now!", meaning "Oh, I understand now!"?

I think so. We'll have to see what he says.

I do wish to see some honesty from Walter.

I think Walter is using the term "see" in the sense of gaining perception and clearer understanding.This is not at all what I am saying.

This is not at all what I am saying.
Then please explain as simply as possible.

I think I might have lost sight...we should always pray first.

Father, we thank you that we’re able now to turn our thoughts away from everything else and everyone else to you and to the Bible that you have given to us. We ask for your particular help that we might not do a disservice to its truth, either by our attitude or our demeanor or the words that we speak or think. Speak to us in the stillness of these moments, and be our teacher, Lord, we pray. For Jesus’ sake. Amen.

God’s Word was not given to us, ultimately, that our knowledge might increase but rather that our lives might be changed. You see, whenever faith doesn’t issue in love; whenever doctrine, however orthodox, is unrelated to the living of life; whenever we’re tempted to settle down for a kind of self-centered Christian experience that ignores the social and material needs of other people; or whenever our conduct doesn’t match the creed that we declare, then the Scriptures have something to say to us that we disregard at our peril. when we read the Bible, it obviously comes home to our hearts in different ways. We are, after all, individuals.


We’re all in this together. If you look at the book of James 3:2, he says, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers (Preachers). If you love me, show me.” That’s essentially the book of James. That’s what God is saying through his Word in James: “Don’t sing me no songs.” And we love to sing songs, don’t we? We understand the importance of that. “Don’t read me no rhymes. Don’t waste my time. Show me.” So in other words, if the Scripture takes root in my life, in your life, in our lives, then there will be a visible impact. In other words, our doctrine must inevitably find itself on display. Our faith must inevitably begin to function in a way that is unavoidable and difficult to miss.

This is not a walk around a gymnasium, pointing out the various exercise machines. This is an invitation to get on the exercise machines. And for people to be able to say there is an observable difference in you, and directly as a result of becoming the “doers of the word” which is provided for us.


If you go to the first verse, where James is introduced to us as the writer. “James,” he introduces himself. We can safely say that he is a brother of the Lord Jesus. I can detail that for you, but I won’t take time to do so. We might be tempted to say, “Well, why then, if he is the brother of Jesus, does he not introduce himself as the brother of Jesus?”

The Words you speak as a Preacher/teacher is not the way one goes about introducing himself as a Brother in Christ Jesus. They are just Words coming out of your mouth...everybody has words coming out of their mouth. Of course, if you are of Christ Jesus then those are the words you want coming out of your mouth...that is just who you are...who you have become. I've heard Preachers say; "Nobody can out-preach me." Preaching is not where it's at.

Jesus says he only speaks of what he and his Father have seen. What are they speaking of, what have they seen?

I can tell you what they have seen. They have seen the Word come alive in you, in me, in all who believe God's word to be true...the truth is marching on! The truth in his word, that which he has seen before he even uttered a breath. As soon as God uttered a breath - Whoop, there we are!!!

Thanks so much for explaining as simply as possible. [/sarc]

How about posting I Corinthians 13 instead of all your confusing verbiage?

Then please explain as simply as possible.Good thing you didn't ask him to give a long, convoluted answer.

This is the kind of carelessness I referred to earlier. Walter claims James said, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers (Preachers). If you love me, show me.” Problem? James did not say that. He said the first half, but the, "If you love me, show me," is just made up. What he actually wrote was, "because you know that we will receive a stricter judgment." It would be wonderful if you would acknowledge your mistake.


We can safely say that he is a brother of the Lord Jesus. I can detail that for you, but I won’t take time to do so.It's because James the Apostle was long dead. There's the detail.

Waltero, what does this mean to you? "If you love me, show me."

After you respond, I will tell you what it means to me.

You would think that having tampons in the men's rooms at Clemson would lead to a constipation epidemic on campus .

You would think that having tampons in the men's rooms at Clemson would lead to a constipation epidemic on campus.This is more to WG & JL's liking. A subject matter they can relate to. I'm sure they are able to go on and on, and on about a subject such as this.

@WG - what does it matter? When you have the ultimate understanding of God's love already in your mind. You seem to know exactly what it is when talking about God's [unconditional] love. You're not going to gain anything other than your own understanding. One can not know God's love without first experiencing God's love...You seem to have summed it up with one word (that everybody is able to understand).
Problem? James did not say that.You spend too much time looking at a single Verse. Look and see the entire picture and you might gain a better understanding of What is being shown.

God's Word can be interpreted in whichever way is right for you. Your interpretation might fit you, But your interpretation isn't meant to fit everybody...it is meant to fit God. Remember when Moses scolded Aaron? Aaron knew the true meaning of the Word while Moses was looking at the legal aspect. God is able to fit each individual on so many different levels.

You really need to stop yourself and cry hallelujah (as opposed to - That's not what it says, or That's not what it means) when somebody is willing to express their willingness toward God. If your brain isn't able to immediately pick up on something, you will simply disregard it as unbiblical...hearing a single excerpt you have already discredited it as false.

It's like WG -

Waltero, what does this mean to you? "If you love me, show me."
After you respond, I will tell you what it means to me. Regardless of any response (If you love me you will obey my commands) that I may give, It will be overlooked being that WG has already determined to tell me what it means, regardless of my response... being blind, having no understanding of what I'm speaking right now.

You spend too much time looking at a single VerseOne person's careless approach to the Bible is not another person's fault.


If your brain isn't able to immediately pick up on something, you will simply disregard it as unbiblical.When one person's claim is unbiblical, then that is not the fault of a second person.

If a person on this site claims that 2 + 2 = 5 and someone points out that the solution of 5 is not correct, then the person needs to change his/her answer and not point an accusing finger at the person who corrected him or her.

@WG - what does it matter? When you have the ultimate understanding of God's love already in your mind. You seem to know exactly what it is when talking about God's [unconditional] love. You're not going to gain anything other than your own understanding. One can not know God's love without first experiencing God's love...You seem to have summed it up with one word (that everybody is able to understand).
WG asks waltero, "What is your understanding of God's [unconditional] love?"

waltero said to WG, "One can not know God's love without first experiencing God's love..."
WG says, "Yes, I have experienced that."

God's unconventional love?Unconventional or unconditional?

Unconventional or unconditional?
I was still typing. Autocorrect took over when I wasn't looking, when I was busy typing sentences after that. Then I proofread and saw that and fixed it.

Actually, after thinking about it, God's love for us is both unconventionnl AND unconditional!

Unconventionnl or unconventional??? Kidding!


God's love is, in a sense, unconditional. His acceptance of us is not.

un·con·ven·tion·al

ADJECTIVE


not based on or conforming to what is generally done or believed:
"his unconventional approach to life"
SIMILAR:
unusual (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+unusual&FORM=DCTRQY)
irregular (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+irregular&FORM=DCTRQY)
unorthodox (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+unorthodox&FORM=DCTRQY)
unfamiliar (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+unfamiliar&FORM=DCTRQY)
uncommon (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+uncommon&FORM=DCTRQY)
unwonted (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+unwonted&FORM=DCTRQY)
rare (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+rare&FORM=DCTRQY)
out of the ordinary (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+out+of+the+ordinary&FORM=DCTRQY)
atypical (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+atypical&FORM=DCTRQY)
singular (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+singular&FORM=DCTRQY)
distinctive (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+distinctive&FORM=DCTRQY)
individual (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+individual&FORM=DCTRQY)
individualistic (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+individualistic&FORM=DCTRQY)
free-spirited (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+free-spirited&FORM=DCTRQY)
alternative (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+alternative&FORM=DCTRQY)
different (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+different&FORM=DCTRQY)
new (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+new&FORM=DCTRQY)
fresh (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+fresh&FORM=DCTRQY)


* Unlike any other god that has been or is being worshipped *

Then the person needs to change his/her answerReally, Really? Who are you that I should listen to, rather than God?
You proclaim that the Word is dead (I'll use your own reasoning...If it isn't alive it's dead). You are welcome to blabber all you like. I am through entertaining your dribble... you're too smart for me.

WG says,
"Yes, I have experienced that."What will it take for you to understand? You just don't get it.
The only time Jesus ever spoke about God's love was when he was alone with his disciples. Yet here we are declaring "unconditional Love. Hey everybody, God loves you and he loves you unconditionally." Good Idea! Yes, everybody gets that (don't they?). They will surely understand God's love now. If you preach God's love to those who have never experienced "God's love"...you're wasting your breath! They will never understand, being that they have never experienced "God's Love." We seem to have summed up the Bible with one Verse that explains God's love perfectly. Now we have Homosexuals and other blatant sinners wanting, demanding that the Church accept them...because if God accepts them unconditionally, then the Church must accept them unconditionally too. Our understanding of God's love is askew. We can never understand God's love. it is so far beyond our understanding. God's love is all about..."Show me." It's a life. God Spoke it we are to live it.

We know your Idea of God's Love has gone Askew, Being that many of you believe a Loving God would never condemn his subjects. What do they know about God's love? God loves them enough to let them go...when they want nothing to do with him or his love. They seek death, God gives them what they desire...He's a good good God. God said; We are God's and we will die a human death. We are currently separated from God. Some people would have it no other way.

Ah, waltero, you hate the LGBTQ+ community. Now I understand!!!

God accepts you the way YOU are, doesn't He? Like that well-known hymn says, "Just as I am, without one plea...."

You proclaim that the Word is dead (I'll use your own reasoning...If it isn't alive it's dead).You're making things up again, otherwise known as lying.

I cannot help a person who is given to lying and will not acknowledge his own mistakes.


The only time Jesus ever taught about God's love was when he was alone with his disciplesNow that is an interesting comment. It's not correct, since the comment about the love of God spoken of by Christ in John 3 was directed to Nicodemus, not His disciples. Still, it's interesting that in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus never refers to God's love for people other than in Luke 11:42. However, God's love is a major theme of Romans, so unless we want to just ignore part of the NT, we must acknowledge (celebrate!!) God's love for man.

Now we have Homosexuals and other blatant sinners wanting, demanding that the Church accept them...because if God can accept them unconditionally, then the Church must accept them.Another interesting comment. It does illustrate the difference between God's love and God's acceptance. However, what difference is there between a man who has sex with other men and a man who routinely lies on an internet message board? And I say that with no meanness at all. It's just very worth considering.


God accepts you the way YOU are, doesn't He?No, he doesn't, but the rest of your statement explains the key element.


Like that well-known hymn says, "Just as I am, without one plea...."You have, for whatever reason, left off the next words. "But that thy blood was shed for me." And there is the key for God's acceptance. The sinner who accepts the sacrifice of Christ has a great plea, but that, however, is very much conditional.

Christ's blood was shed for me before I accepted Him as my Savior. He loved me even before I was born.

God accepts you the way YOU are, doesn't He?No. Mainly because I could never allow God to accept me the way I am. I love him and I want to be like him. He is my Father and I want everybody to know it!!! I can't accept myself the way I am. I trust God is transforming me into his likeness...that I like. I want to show my Dad that I love him, and I choose to go to him when he cries for me.
Ah, waltero, you hate the LGBTQYou simply take the easy way out. I don't hate anybody. I love my Niece (which is now my nephew). I love my Brother and his male spouse. I do support them but I can never promote their way of life.

Now, do you understand? - There is no explaining God's love to somebody who has never experienced God's love.

All of that is true, but it still requires a person placing their faith in Christ. Either that, or John 3:16 needs to be removed from the Bible. And that acceptance is certainly a condition.

When did you accept Christ as your Savior?

At 3 weeks of age. Baptism.

Infant baptism is never described as a placing of faith in Christ. A three week old cannot believe.

Mark 10:14 “Let the children come to me; because the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”
Isaiah 40:11 “Like a shepherd, he will care for his flock, gathering the lambs in his arms, hugging them as he carries them”
Ephesians 5:1-2 “Mostly what God does is love you.”
1 John 3:5 “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”
1 Peter 3:21 “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”


Many Christian traditions that support infant baptism do so because they understand baptism to be the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision (https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-circumcision.html). Just as circumcision joined Old Testament Hebrews to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, baptism is believed to join a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is based on the apostle Paul’s statement in Colossians 2:11–12 (https://www.bibleref.com/Colossians/2/Colossians-2-11.html): “When you came to Christ, you were ‘circumcised,’ but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead” (NLT).
https://www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

Oh Brother. Here you guys go again.

WG, I could say the same thing about you.
Ah, WG, you hate the LGBTQ+ community. Now I understand!!! Promoting such behavior is doing greater harm...nothing doing with the love of God. It's all you.

Infant baptism is never described as a placing of faith in Christ. A three week old cannot believe.
God created faith in me.


Oh Brother. Here you guys go again.

WG, I could say the same thing about you. Promoting such behavior is doing greater harm...nothing doing with the love of God. It's all you.
As you said, "There is no explaining God's love to somebody who has never experienced God's love."

God created faith in me.God isn't going to do it for you.

That's why it's a living Faith.


As you said, "There is no explaining God's loveThen why do you and other God-haters understand it as - I don't want to trust in a God that is capable of condemning?

God isn't going to do it for you.

That's why it's a living Faith.
Boy, you definitely missed confirmation and Bible classes!

The Holy Spirit works faith in us, even in babies.

Mark 10:14 “Let the children come to me; because the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”



There is no indication they were coming to be saved.

Isaiah 40:11 “Like a shepherd, he will care for his flock, gathering the lambs in his arms, hugging them as he carries them”No connection there with salvation at all.

Ephesians 5:1-2 “Mostly what God does is love you.”That is not at all what that text says, and I'm amazed you would put that in quotes.
1 John 3:5 “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”No support at all for infant baptism.

1 Peter 3:21 “And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”So you made an appeal to God for a good conscience at the age of three weeks? I don't think that's true.


The second paragraph is just speculation.

Can you give a single instance in the NT describing an infant being baptized? I'd hate to have my eternal security resting upon a theory that is nowhere stated in the Bible.

So you are saying it's a waste of water to baptize babies and small children. God doesn't care about them.




There is no indication they were coming to be saved.What were they coming for?

So you are saying it's a waste of water to baptize babies and small children. God doesn't care about them.I'm saying there is no indication in the NT that baptizing infants results in a Christian conversion. But if there is, then post the text.


What were they coming for?What does the passage say? "so that He might touch them"

I'll say it again with all due concern for you. I'd hate to have my eternal security resting upon a theory that is nowhere stated in the Bible.

Can you give a single instance in the NT describing an infant being baptized? I'd hate to have my eternal security resting upon a theory that is nowhere stated in the Bible.
That's why two sponsors promise to help the parents raise the child in a God-loving way.

Your eternal security???

That's why two sponsors promise to help the parents raise the child in a God-loving way.That's a great idea, but nowhere in the Bible is that any assurance of salvation.

I have long loved this passage from Romans where Paul gives us the promise of salvation from three different approaches, and yet they all present the same idea. I lean heavily upon this.

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, [f (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-28199f)]resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, [g (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-28199g)]resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be [h (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+10&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-28200h)]disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

That's a great idea, but nowhere in the Bible is that any assurance of salvation.
You've never heard of Confirmation?

You've never heard of Confirmation?Can you find any place in the Bible where an infant was baptized and thus converted to the Christian faith???

I'm not really interested in religious tradition. It is the Bible that sways me.

Can you find any place in the Bible where an infant was baptized and thus converted to the Christian faith???

I'm not really interested in religious tradition. It is the Bible that sways me.
Apparently it has worked well for centuries.

"Can you find any place in the Bible where an infant was baptized and thus converted to the Christian faith???"

You cannot, so I'm amazed that you would risk everything on something so non-biblical.

Good night, WG. God bless your evening.

"Can you find any place in the Bible where an infant was baptized and thus converted to the Christian faith???"

So we can't baptize babies and children. They will go to hell if they die before the age of reason. And you have no belief in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring even babies and children to faith.

And you have no scripture whatsoever to support your ideas.

And you have no scripture whatsoever to support your ideas.
The church you belong to doesn't baptize babies or children?

We dedicate babies but don't baptize them. In the case of children, if that child has made a genuine confession of faith, then that child would be baptized. We don't baptize infants since there is, as we have seen, no Biblical reason to do so. Babies cannot, as you had put it, "accept Christ" any more than they can decide what town to live in.

I think it's unfortunate that you are so comfortable with a doctrine that has no support at all in the Bible and works against the concept of a person making a conscious decision to trust Christ as his all in all. There are many scriptures to support that idea while there are zero, evidently, to support infant baptism.

One of my favorites. "Look unto me and be saved all ye ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other." An infant cannot do that.

Being Baptized is one thing. Being born again is another.

It doesn't matter what you think or what you think you know.

The boy shall be a Nazirite [dedicated] to God from birth.


Judas Iscariot was baptized after all (as I understand it)? Jesus gave Judas the power to cast out unclean spirits and heal the sick.

The two of you go round and round rehearsing the same thing over and over. This has been going on for years. When will you ever learn? Here we have two educators trying to educate each other...Carnality at its finest!

Being Baptized is one thing. Being born again is another.Correct.


It doesn't matter what you think or what you think you know.I have been telling you that for months. I'm glad you have finally gotten it.


The two of you go round and round rehearsing the same thing over and over. This has been going on for years. When will you ever learn? Here we have two educators trying to educate each other...Carnality at its finest!In what way are you not guilty of your own accusation?

In what way are you not guilty of your own accusation?That must be what you were talking about when you said - Blaming it on the other guy.

That must be what you were talking about when you said - Blaming it on the other guy.I'm not blaming you for anything or suggesting that anything here is your fault. I am pointing out that if it's bad for WG and me, then it's bad for you as well. Perhaps you need to live up to your own expectations first before trying to impose them on others.

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about you. Why do I feel like I'm talking to a child?

Just like a kid; "what about you"


The two of you have been on here for years, YEARS! One mention of Hell, or Baptism as a child (and many other subjects), will set you off in a different direction. Avoiding the Current topic.
You're funny

You were talking about yourself when you said this??? "That must be what you were talking about when you said - Blaming it on the other guy." Sorry. Don't believe that one at all. It was clearly addressed to me.

Again, perhaps you need to live up to your own expectations first before trying to impose them on others.


The two of you have been on here for years, YEARS! One mention of Hell, or Baptism as a child (and many other subjects), will set you off in a different direction. Avoiding the Current topic.You are describing yourself.

We discuss things. If you don't like that, then find something else to do. You are certainly most welcome to stay, but it's really your choice.

You're FunnyAnd so predictable. You won't listen (you can't, it's impossible) because you are a know-it-all.

And so predictable. You won't listen (you can't, it's impossible) because you are a know-it-all.I ask questions. It seems to make you uncomfortable because you have beliefs not rooted in scripture, and you tend to just make things up as you go along. I actually listen to you rather carefully only to find that much of what you say is not true.

I think it's unfortunate that you are so comfortable with a doctrine that has no support at all in the Bible and works against the concept of a person making a conscious decision to trust Christ as his all in all. There are many scriptures to support that idea while there are zero, evidently, to support infant baptism.

One of my favorites. "Look unto me and be saved all ye ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other." An infant cannot do that.
Thus, you totally cancel out the power of the Holy Spirit to work faith in that baby as it grows up, especially with Christian parents and sponsors heavily involved, beginning when I was baptized. I was taught prayers, was read to from children's Bible story books (which I still have), was taken to church and Sunday School every Sunday plus to special services and religious activities such as during Lent and Christmas. At 13, after a year of special weekly instruction by the pastor in a class with others my age, I was confirmed and renewed my baptismal vows plus received my first Holy Communion. This is how the Protestants bring up their children, in knowledge and love for the Triune God and in particular for our Savior, Jesus Christ.

You're simply being entertained. You are not listening. Because if you were, you wouldn't be so easily distracted by the never-ending arguments the two of you have been continuously going through for decades.


The Holy Spirit to work faith in that baby WG, I think you have a misconception of what faith is. Like I said before - "God is not going to do it for you."

Don't you think It would be Both the mother and father's faith in God? Faith in God to Accept their Baby that they dedicated to the Lord??? There are many stories in the Scripture. God is waiting for somebody to stand up.

Read the Story about Phineas. I think it's numbers 25:7

Thus, you totally cancel out the power of the Holy Spirit to work faith in that baby as it grows up, especially with Christian parents and sponsors heavily involved, beginning when I was baptized. I was taught prayers, was read to from children's Bible story books (which I still have), was taken to church and Sunday School every Sunday plus to special servicesand religious activities such as during Lent and Christmas. At 13, after a year of special weekly instruction by the pastor in a class with others my age, I was confirmed and renewed my baptismal vows plus received my first Holy Communion. This is how the Protestants bring up their children, in knowledge and love for the Triune God and in particular for our Savior, Jesus Christ.I have contested none of that. I have simply pointed out that your idea that infant baptism results in a Christian conversion is found nowhere in the Bible.

Now if, at the age of 13, you confessed your sinful state, repented, and confessed a genuine faith in Christ, then that would be a different story.

You're simply being entertained. You are not listening. Because if you were, you wouldn't be so easily distracted by the never-ending arguments the two of you have been continuously going through for decades.
Your sentences are very convoluted and wander all over the place. Unfortunately, what you write often doesn't make sense. Please use simple sentences with orderly thinking.

You're simply being entertained. You are not listening.I read your posts attentively. It's how I know that much of what you post is made up or incorrect. Now if you want to believe otherwise, then go for it.


Your sentences are very convoluted and wander all over the place.Sadly true.

I have contested none of that. I have simply pointed out that your idea that infant baptism results in a Christian conversion is found nowhere in the Bible.

Now if, at the age of 13, you confessed your sinful state, repented, and confessed a genuine faith in Christ, then that would be a different story.
I had said that the sponsors at a baptism then support the parents in bringing up the child. Infant baptism sets the stage for the child to grow into a life-changing faith.

You're simply being entertained. You are not listening. Because if you were, you wouldn't be so easily distracted by the never-ending arguments the two of you have been continuously going through for decades.
I assume you are using this as an example. You don't understand what is being said or implied, here?
wander all over the place Sadly this holds true for most of the conversations around here.

I assume you are using this as an example. You don't understand what is being said or implied, here?
I do not understand your train of thought that wanders all over the place.

Sadly this holds true for most of the conversations around here.
Actually, no. I may disagree with other posters but, whether I agree or disagree, at least I know what they have said. I cannot make sense of what you are trying to say. Please post in short, simple sentences.

I just read back on this thread. Most of what you have posted is understandable. But on the Christianity board, not so much!

Yes. Most every conversation gets sidetracked whenever, especially, Hell or some other fudal conversations that you and JL have rehearsed in the past. There have been many times when I said something, something that I researched and found to be solid. Just to have the two of you go off with another one of your crazy arguments. the two of you are so in tune to your own thoughts that you fly off to another world... Off again to one of your old arguments.

That alone shows me that the two of you are only trying to teach. You have no desire to learn anything new. It's all old news.
Almost all Christians think so. Anything that has been discovered or said pertaining to the scriptures has been known. There is nothing new that anybody can come up with. no new understanding, no new revelation. If that is so, then we are all doomed for destruction. The Church is in trouble and if it continues to believe as it does, Jesus is liable to spit it out of his mouth.
Once he spits, there is no coming back!

I had said that the sponsors at a baptism then support the parents in bringing up the child. Infant baptism sets the stage for the child to grow into a life-changing faith.Yes, and you are welcome to that view. I'm simply saying that infant baptism is supported nowhere in scripture, and certainly the idea that infants can have saving faith is not supported and would seem to be an absurd idea. If it was true, then surely somewhere in the NT we would read something to the effect of, "Bring your infants into the church that they might be baptized and thus obtain a genuine Christian faith. Don't wait until they're old enough to make their own decisions. Get the job done at three weeks." Strangely, that seems not to be in the Bible.


There have been many times when I said something, something that I researched and found to be solid. Could you give a specific example, Walter, of when you have done that? If it's happened "many times", then I have no doubt you can post an example of it.

The Church is in trouble and if it continues to believe as it does, Jesus is liable to spit it out of his mouth.
Once he spits, there is no coming back!
Please explain.

"Bring your infants into the church that they might be baptized and thus obtain a genuine Christian faith. Don't wait until they're old enough to make their own decisions. Get the job done at three weeks." Strangely, that seems not to be in the Bible.
I never said that! We baptize babies so that they grow in grace. That's why the parents and sponsors (godparents) have such a huge role in the child's life. As 2 Peter 3:18 says, "Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."

I asked, "When did you accept Christ as Savior?" You replied in post 90, "At 3 weeks of age. Baptism." You have argued since then that you became a Christian at that point, but you now seem to be saying that infant baptism does not save but rather puts a person on the pathway to salvation. If that is the case, then when did you actually accept Christ as Savior? In other words, at what point did you actually become a Christian?

In other words, at what point did you actually become a Christian?
Formally, at Confirmation, age 13. Informally, as soon as I understood the Gospel message, probably around the age of 3 or 4.

Are you a Pentecostal?

Pentecostal? No. I am a Christian who believes the Bible is God's word and follows it as God's grace helps me.


Formally, at Confirmation, age 13. Informally, as soon as I understood the Gospel message, probably around the age of 3 or 4.That's a sensible answer, though why you didn't say that from the beginning is a mystery. Still, that's fine, but it's confusing considering that about a year ago you claimed, "I was born again when I received the gift of Holy Baptism at the age of three days." Now you can't be born again before your acceptance of Christ and the Christian faith, so that's difficult to resolve. Evidently you see things differently now.

Because I had a pastor as a father, God was always a part of my everyday life, especially when I was a child and teen.

An answer which resolves nothing. How could you be born again at 3 days (weeks?) old, but not accept Christ until 3 or 4 years old? Doesn't make sense.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=850082&page=8&p=3887425#post3887425

And we can just drop it if you would prefer, but I stay concerned about you with these answers that seem...strange.

Oh, certainly the Holy Spirit is unable to come into the heart of a baby! And a small child certainly can't accept Jesus as its Savior!

Yeah, let's drop it. Maybe I can get Martin Luther (my birthday buddy) to explain it to you in heaven.

Oh, certainly the Holy Spirit is unable to come into the heart of a baby! And a small child certainly can't accept Jesus as its Savior!You claimed this happened at 3 days. Can a 3 day old accept Christ? Of course not. It's just an idea that has no grounding in scripture whatsoever. Zero.

Consider it dropped.

You claimed this happened at 3 days. Can a 3 day old accept Christ? Of course not. It's just an idea that has no grounding in scripture whatsoever. Zero.

Consider it dropped.
I had meant 3 weeks back then and had mistyped. I was baptized at 3 weeks. And yes, the Holy Spirit can come into the heart of an infant that age.

Lord what fools these mortals be.

That's what you say but again, it is unsupported by Scripture and so is just your opinion. That's not to say there haven't been some exceptions to that. John the Baptist comes to mind, though his situation was prophesied. Jesus doubtless was filled with the Holy Spirit in Mary's womb as far as I know, though that is never stated. But there are no promises in the Bible of the Holy Spirit filling a baby just because they were baptized at 3 weeks. It's just groundless. You wanting it to be true is not sufficient.

We just have a different approach to truth. You seem to go with whatever seems reasonable and desirable to you. My disposition is much more to lean towards the Bible. It's why we so frequently end up not in agreement.

We each have been taught different truths. That's why I asked if you are a Pentecostal. Or maybe Assemblies of God. They don't believe in infant baptism.

oh oh oh I know that one Mr Kotter John 18:38

oh oh oh I know that one Mr Kotter John 18:38
Excellent, tomder!!!

Wikipedia says it well: "Christians who baptize infants believe that baptism has replaced Old Testament circumcision and is the religious ceremony of initiation into the Christian community."

and

"Since the creation of faith is exclusively God's work, it does not depend on the actions of the one baptized, whether infant or adult."

There is no such thing as different truths.

Appealing to wiki is not an appeal to the Bible.

Does anyone really care when children get baptized ? I say any age is a good age . Hope I don't go to hell for that reply.

I don’t care if they baptize an infant as long as they don’t try to connect it with Christian conversion.

I don’t care if they baptize an infant as long as they don’t try to connect it with Christian conversion.
Not conversion!!!!

You claimed you were born again (converted??) at the age of three days because of a baptismal ceremony. Are you flip-flopping now? Perhaps you have a different view of conversion than I do?

Perhaps I should have written, "I don’t care if they baptize an infant as long as they don’t try to connect it with actually becoming a Christian. "

Lord what fools these mortals beSimply amazing isn't it? I think this has more to do with neither of them believing the Bible as (And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us) the living Word of God. This is what happens to those who can not see the Word. They are simply hearing the Living Word, not seeing. When Jesus said; "And you do what you have heard from your father.” This is what we do when we only hear...those who simply go on "hearing the Word".
"The Word is to be seen not heard."This has to do more with Seeing the Word as opposed to hearing the Word. I'm confident that JL & WG will someday know the Scriptures as a Living Word. The Devil is able to quote the Scriptures better than anyone... So we should go on preaching that which we have simply heard...such as the love of God??
and you do what you have heardthere is no knowledge of things insofar as they are external in effect.
"I speak of what I have seen with my Father"but insofar as their nature and quiddity is grasped by the mind.
"The Word is to be seen not heard." You must believe the Scripture is the living Word of God, otherwise, you will never be able to live according to his Word.

You must believe the Scripture is the living Word of God, otherwise, you will never be able to live according to his Word.
I do live according to His Word.

Be careful! Matt. 7:1.


You claimed you were born again (converted??) at the age of three days because of a baptismal ceremony. Are you flip-flopping now? Perhaps you have a different view of conversion than I do?

Perhaps I should have written, "I don’t care if they baptize an infant as long as they don’t try to connect it with actually becoming a Christian. "
Of course not!! Not conversion! It is the beginning for that child, with adults promising to teach that child about God and His love for us.

I do live according to His Word.Yes, and so did the Pharisees.
I do live according to His Word.This is equivalent to saying that you live by the Law (according to the law). Maybe you heard about the love of God, developing your own understanding, without experiencing the love of God (similarily being Baptized as a baby)?

Come on WG, Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. If you live according to his Word then you know his Word as the living Word! Otherwise, your life is no life at all.

Come on WG, Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. If you live according to his Word then you know his Word as the living Word! Otherwise, your life is no life at all.
I know His Word as the Living Word and joyfully live according to it.

Did you ever watch the youtube Christian movie, "The Encounter"? It's my most favoritest movie of all time!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bj-PekUGBnA

Of course not!! Not conversion! It is the beginning for that child, with adults promising to teach that child about God and His love for us.So you consider being born again to be different from conversion? How can a person be born again and yet be unconverted?

Sorry, Walter, but you have lost your credibility here. Your multiple accounts of demonstrating that you are perfectly willing to treat the Bible carelessly have done you in, and that's not to mention several instances of, shall we say, making claims that clearly were not true.

For my 2 cents on the subject of baptism . I'll go by what I was taught in Catechism . It is essential for a person to be baptized to obtain salvation. That means as harsh as it sounds ;a child not baptized does not obtain salvation and that is true by voluntary or involuntary omission.
John 3 5-8
Jesus answered, Believe me, no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless birth comes to him from water, and from the Holy Spirit. What is born by natural birth is a thing of nature, what is born by spiritual birth is a thing of spirit. Do not be surprised, then, at my telling thee, You must be born anew.


My child was baptized as soon as she could be

And that is my total contribution to the discussion.

It is essential for a person to be baptized to obtain salvation.While the thief on the cross disproves that, it is still a point well taken. However, the NT pattern is that a person first believes, and then is baptized. Baptism outside of faith is not a scriptural pattern for salvation. Acts 16. 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of [n (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2016&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-27516n)]the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.


That means as harsh as it sounds ;a child not baptized does not obtain salvation and that is true by voluntary or involuntary omission.
John 3 5-8
Jesus answered, Believe me, no man can enter into the kingdom of God unless birth comes to him from water, and from the Holy Spirit. What is born by natural birth is a thing of nature, what is born by spiritual birth is a thing of spirit. Do not be surprised, then, at my telling thee, You must be born anew.You are making an assumption that the water spoken of by Christ is the water of baptism. It is also possible to view it as the water of natural childbirth, a view which makes sense considering the the final five words of the passage. It could read, "Just as you were born naturally, you must be re-born supernaturally."

At any rate, there is no support there for the idea that infant baptism amounts to a person becoming a Christian, and that is my primary concern. The entire weight of the NT supports the concept that a person must make a decision to follow Christ. There is no recording of an infant baptism at all.

Like I said . This is the Catholic teachings I did not make them up .

I know His Word as the Living Word and joyfully live according to it.Just the other day you said it wasn't the living Word. You were in agreement with JL - "The Scriptures aren't alive." "How can words on a page be alive." "is the Door alive."

If the Bible is not the living Word then what is (JL's word)?

None of us sees any piece of reality from every perspective (as God does), and what we do see, we frequently misappropriate. So we benefit incalculably to know well the perspectives of others and run them through our developing grid of Bible-informed and Spirit-indwelt thinking, loving, and doing.

Because we are not God, because we are finite, we cannot know everything at a glance, and therefore our knowledge is limited to one perspective or another. We are finite, and our knowledge is finite. I can only know the world from the limited perspective of my own body and mind.

The effect of this finitude, and even more of sin, should caution us against cocksureness in our claims to knowlege. I am not saying that we should doubt everything.

Acts 16. 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

"Household"" includes babies and children.

So, Baptize your Baby. So, you were Baptized as a baby! Who cares?
What difference does it make...to others???

Well, I drink my Beer with a lime.

Acts 16. 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

"Household"" includes babies and children.It included those capable of believing. That did not include infants.


What difference does it make...to others???Eternity.

I actually have one other observation . Jesus spoke so idiots like me could understand. I think when he talked of water he meant water ;not amniotic fluid .

I've noticed that some self-proclaimed Christians on this site have repressed the unity impulse. They can spot a supposed theological error from a mile away and have no trouble spinning out immediate shaming (and sassy) responses and calculated separations. Anyone different from us, in just about any way, could be a candidate for a verbal beat-down, or at least a relational Snub. Have we lost our heart to love like our savior does?

Watch out for those causing division.


I think when he talked of water he meant waterWas that hot water or cold water (maybe spring water)?

So, Baptize your Baby. So, you were Baptized as a baby! Who cares?
What difference does it make...to others???

It made a difference to my parents and godparents and other relatives plus family friends who joyfully got involved in contributing to my Christian education. This included reading Bible story books to me, singing to me and teaching me Christian songs, teaching me how to pray and praying with me, etc.


It included those capable of believing. That did not include infants.

Thus, unbaptized and unbelieving infants and children go to hell.[/sarc]

Was that hot water or cold water (maybe spring water)?

Walter now you are going beyond my understanding . I liken religious debates to the eternal question of how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

My parents were in the born again Catholic movement . No harm no foul We had a loving relationship

If I was wrong in having my daughter's head doused I will answer in the great beyond. If indeed that did not matter and the real baptism happens when there is understanding then that would be my daughter's business.

Let's just say I employed Pascal's wager and covered my A$$ .

It made a difference to my parents and godparents and other relatives plus family friends who joyfully got involved in contributing to my Christian education. This included reading Bible story books to me, singing to me and teaching me Christian songs, teaching me how to pray and praying with me, etc.
No harm no foul We had a loving relationshipI agree. I think that is Awesome, really I do.

This involves your Personal relationship with Jesus. Why should it matter to others? Who tries to discredit one's Baptism (talk about suppressing unity)? Oh, wait, you weren't baptized in the Name of Jesus. You weren't submerged, you weren't confessing your sins, you weren't baptized on a Sunday, you were submerged in lukewarm water...You need to be baptized according to my own understanding of baptism. I am the preacher man and what I say goes...Don't you know who I am?

You are unbiblical and therefore your Baptism is irrelevant, IRRELEVANT! Your Baptism is null and void!

Baptism allows us to demonstrate our connection with Jesus and with our brothers and sisters in Christ. We're all members of one body under the authority of the same Lord. But it's important to remember that Ephesians 2:8-9 says faith in Jesus Christ is the only requirement for salvation, not baptism.

Watch out for those causing division.You do realize that includes you?


Thus, unbaptized and unbelieving infants and children go to hell.That is your conclusion, not mine.


Baptism allows us to demonstrate our connection with Jesus and with our brothers and sisters in Christ. We're all members of one body under the authority of the same Lord. But it's important to remember that Ephesians 2:8-9 says faith in Jesus Christ is the only requirement for salvation, not baptism.That's a good observation. Now we could add that since we are told to be baptized, then obedience to Christ as Lord would lead us to baptism.

WG, I'd still like to know how you see conversion versus being born again. You seem to see them as significantly different. I just wonder how.

That is your conclusion, not mine.
I was being sarcastic. Will edit accordingly.

WG, I'd still like to know how you see conversion versus being born again. You seem to see them as significantly different. I just wonder how.
Conversion is a process. Being "born again" is immediate.

I was being sarcastic. Will edit accordingly.Then I will as well. That is a conclusion evidently held by no one here. [not sarc]

There is no Biblical basis at all for suggesting that infant baptism is equivalent to the new birth. I keep saying it, and you can come up with nothing to support your idea, so it would seem that that's that. (I like the triple use of "that".)

There is no Biblical basis at all for suggesting that infant baptism is equivalent to the new birth.
I never said it was.

Would you say baptism is a new birth?

I never said it was.You did when you claimed you were born again at the age of 3 days.


Would you say baptism is a new birth?I would say there is no Biblical reason to say that.

You did when you claimed you were born again at the age of 3 days.

I was baptized by my father when I was three weeks old.

Would you say baptism is a new birth?

I would say there is no Biblical reason to say that.
Luther pointed out in his 1526 Trinity Sunday sermon that the reason why man according to the sinful nature into which he is born cannot come into God’s kingdom, and why a different, new birth is necessary, a birth that occurs because of the work of the Holy Spirit.

I was baptized by my father when I was three weeks old.
And, you claimed, born again.


Luther pointed out in his 1526 Trinity Sunday sermon that the reason why man according to the sinful nature into which he is born cannot come into God’s kingdom, and why a different, new birth is necessary, a birth that occurs because of the work of the Holy Spirit.First of all, with all due respect, Luther is not the Bible. But even at that, nothing you quoted, as good and biblical as it is, has anything to do with infant baptism. But his comments would be a great topic for discussion. I like Luther.

And, you claimed, born again.

First of all, with all due respect, Luther is not the Bible. But even at that, nothing you quoted, as good and biblical as it is, has anything to do with infant baptism. But his comments would be a great topic for discussion. I like Luther.
The current topic is being born again.

And, you claimed, born again.
I was physically born in November. Three weeks later, I was spiritually born through baptism.

And for the 79th time, there is nothing in the Bible that we can find to support that idea. " I was spiritually born through baptism."

And for the 79th time, there is nothing in the Bible that we can find to support that idea. " I was spiritually born through baptism."
And so what? It a terrific idea!

oh that original sin . Why should babies live with it ?

Jesus would not prevent them from grace because they did not understand

People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Luke 18

People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them.They were not being baptized and certainly were not becoming Christians. There is no reason to believe that a person becomes a Christian simply by being baptized. Adolph Hitler received infant baptism and went through Catholic confirmation. Didn't seem to work very well, did it?


And so what? It a terrific idea!So now it becomes clear. You are essentially saying, "I don't care if it's in the Bible. I like the idea, so I'm going with it." If you want to live by, "Thus sayeth Wondergirl", then go for it, but God is not bound by your ideas.

This is all really pretty simple. You think to yourself, "If we are to baptize infants for salvation, then surely somewhere this amazingly simple and wonderful idea will be clearly spoken of in the NT." So you do a word search for "baptize" to find all the many references which surely must exist to explicitly support this view. I suggest you do that and get back with me. You will need something a great deal more substantial than a reference to Jesus placing his hands on babies. Where are the references to infant baptism? (80th time??)

There is no reason to believe that a person becomes a Christian simply by being baptized.
Us Catholics disagree. And with that I conclude my contributions to this religious discussion on the Current Events board .

I understand you are appealing to Catholic doctrine. I am not since my appeals are only to the Bible. If you are right, then it would certainly seem that we'd have to consider Hitler to have been a Christian.

You can count many more who were baptized and who consider themselves Christian who have a one way ticket to hell. That includes pastors and other religious leaders . So we can agree that being baptized is far from the only way to salvation. In fact I would argue that the innocent babe is by far more deserving than the lot of us .

I understand you are appealing to Catholic doctrine. I am not since my appeals are only to the Bible. If you are right, then it would certainly seem that we'd have to consider Hitler to have been a Christian.
Hitler had free will, as do all of us. He was born to a practicing Catholic mother, Klara Hitler, and was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. Hitler, after leaving home at 18 years old, lived in a men's home in Vienna and never again attended Mass or received the sacraments, thus rejecting the promises made at baptism.

There is no such thing as different truths.This sentence, at the present moment, does not express anything that is now either true or false.

You can count many more who were baptized and who consider themselves Christian who have a one way ticket to hell. Completely agree, thus indicating pretty clearly that simply getting baptized, as an infant or otherwise, does not result in a new birth.


I would argue that the innocent babe is by far more deserving than the lot of us .
One of several things the NT is crystal clear on is that NONE of us are deserving. It is one of the central features of grace. God only saves the undeserving. Romans was written, in large measure, to make that very point. Paul concludes his wonderful discussion of this in chapter 3 where he writes, "21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."

Conspicuously absent from his wonderful discourse on salvation is any mention of infant baptism.


thus rejecting the promises made at baptism.He made no promises at birth since...he was an infant, and so incapable of that level of thought. And he, like us, was certainly not born again simply because his mother made some promises.

And please don't respond with, "Oh, you believe then that infants that die will go directly to hell and are outside of God's grace!!!" We are not even talking about that. We are discussing your contention that infant baptism results in the baby being born again. Just the content of this one post clearly would seem to show that is not the case.

He made no promises at birth since...he was an infant, and so incapable of that level of thought. And he, like us, was certainly not born again simply because his mother made some promises.
I very carefully avoided saying "he". I said "the promises made" - by parents, godparents, relative, family friends to raise the child as a Christian.

Yes, and I already made reference to that in my reply. Like infant baptism, the idea that a child's parents can make promises that result in the baby being born again is supported nowhere in the NT

Yes, and I already made reference to that in my reply. Like infant baptism, the idea that a child's parents can make promises that result in the baby being born again is supported nowhere in the NT
That's not what I said or alluded to. Twist and shout!!!

Then in what way was Hitler's infant baptism different from yours? You claim you were born again. Was he also born again as an infant?

Then in what way was Hitler's infant baptism different from yours? You claim you were born again. Was he also born again as an infant?
Please tell me in which post I said I was born again.

Go back to post 135 where, a whopping two days ago, I posted a link to where you said this. Good grief. Just to be on the careful side, here is the text.

"I was born again when I received the gift of Holy Baptism at the age of three days." Could it possibly be any clearer, Miss "Twist and Shout"? In post 176, yesterday, you alluded to it again. "I was physically born in November. Three weeks later, I was spiritually born through baptism." You also claimed, "My mind has been made up since I was three days old." So we are to believe a three week (day?) old infant, who cannot even decide what day it is, can somehow make up his or her mind about the Gospel?

Please don't go back to "cherry-picking" or some other device to somehow make it seem I did not understand you. Your statements have been quite clear.

At three weeks, not days. I clarified that, had mistyped. (WG stepped up into the pulpit.) And the Holy Spirit can work wondrous things including babies et al. being born again because of Trinitarian baptism!

Please tell me in which post I said I was born again.You asked for the post in which you said that, as though you doubted you had. I supplied what you wanted. You're welcome.

As to infants being born again because of baptism, I am still waiting for any mention of such a thing in the Bible. (81st time??)

To be fair, I'm all in favor of parents, church-members, and others joining together in commitment to point a child towards Christ. That's a great idea and one which I practice and commend.

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

The New Testament nowhere commands us to baptize infants, but neither does it anywhere forbid it.

Baptism results in the baby being born again Whichever way you want to go (adult or Baby), being Baptized is not the means of remission or forgiveness of sins. So why focus on Babies?

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


The New Testament nowhere commands us to baptize infants, but neither does it anywhere forbid it.An argument from silence is generally a poor one. And in this case, not only is the command lacking, but it's not even mentioned. Now I always am suspicious when someone advocates for an action that is not even so much as mentioned in the Bible. Surely Paul would somewhere have admonished everyone to "get those babies baptized, for goodness sake." Just seems really weak to me, weak to the point of just not being credible at all.

all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”.Many of the Israelites who came out of Egypt were unacquainted with God. And it was the desire of God to deliver them from bondage that they might have a relationship with Him. By this experience, the Israelites were dedicated to Moses as their leader. They recognized his authority and bound themselves to obey his instructions. As their “visible leader,” Moses passed on to the people God’s laws and requirements. Therefore, it might be said that by being baptized “unto Moses” they were pledged to obey God and worship Him. I'm pretty sure there were babies in that group. When A father or Mother has their Baby Baptized, It might be they are pledging themselves and their loved ones to God...Just as Jesus did for himself, or us.

Sounds good until you put the scripture into context. "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-3.htm)They all ate the same spiritual food 4 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-4.htm)and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-5.htm)Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness." In other words, the blessing of God did not profit them since they were not walking by faith. Exodus makes that abundantly clear.

Even at that, there is no support at all for the idea that infant baptism results in being born again. The fact that infant baptism is never, ever, ever mentioned anywhere in the Bible should really close the door on the whole topic.

Many of the Israelites who came out of Egypt were unacquainted with God. And it was the desire of God to deliver them from bondage that they might have a relationship with Him. By this experience, the Israelites were dedicated to Moses as their leader. They recognized his authority and bound themselves to obey his instructions. As their “visible leader,” Moses passed on to the people God’s laws and requirements. Therefore, it might be said that by being baptized “unto Moses” they were pledged to obey God and worship Him. I'm pretty sure there were babies in that group.
A terrific, very understandable post, waltero! And it fits in with the NT command to baptize the entire household (babies and small children included).

When A father or Mother has their Baby Baptized, It might be they are pledging themselves and their loved ones to God...Just as Jesus did for himself, or us.I'm not sure I can pledge someone else to God. I can certainly pledge myself to God, and pledge myself to be a blessing to my children and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And if infant baptism is done in that regard, then that's a much more sensible idea.


And it fits in with the NT command to baptize the entire household (babies and small children included).A command, it should be noted, that is found nowhere in the NT at all. As has been said dozens of times, infant baptism is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the Bible. There is no NT "command" to baptize the entire household.

the idea that infant baptism results in being born again. The idea of anybody's baptism being born again is also a misnomer.

The idea of anybody's baptism being born again is also a misnomer.I would agree with that.

The idea of anybody's baptism being born again is also a misnomer.
I would agree with that.

So why belittle somebody's faith by discrediting Baptism? Should (can) a person be baptized twice (I don't know why they would)? It sounds like you believe they should

So why belittle somebody's faith by discrediting Baptism?You just discredited baptism, didn't you, saying it is not connected to being born again? My objection has been the exact same objection. I have belittled no one's faith, but I have advocated for the truth of the Gospel, as I would think you would do as well. The suggestion that infant baptism results in a baby becoming a Christian at three weeks or days of age is simply not a biblical idea.

There is no NT "command" to baptize the entire household.
Here are two reports:
In Acts 16 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+16&version=ESV), when Luke reports on the conversion of two locals (a wealthy merchant named Lydia and a jailer), he tells us that Paul baptized their entire households.

I Cor. 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas.

And if a baby or small child is baptized, what's the harm? If anything, it will put the adults' rears in gear to teach that child about God.

There's no command not to baptize -- plus it is, for infant baptism, also a naming ceremony.

Those two passages are NOT commands. They are simply historical observations, and there is no reason to believe that Paul was including infants, who are not yet able to believe, as part of the "household". In fact, this passage would seem to indicate that they were not included since they had not believed. "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God."

So you are still looking for even one reference to infant baptism. It's not there.


And if a baby or small child is baptized, what's the harm? If anything, it will put the adults' rears in gear to teach that child about God.I have no great objection to it so long as the people are not led to believe that the infant has become a Christian by virtue of being baptized. There is no biblical reason to advocate for that.

The suggestion that infant baptism results in a baby becoming a Christian at three weeks or days of age is simply not a biblical idea.
No one has said that!!!


Those two passages are NOT commands.
I said they are reports!!!


I have no great objection to it so long as the people are not led to believe that the infant has become a Christian by virtue of being baptized. There is no biblical reason to advocate for that.
No one does. Being Christianized hasn't happened yet!!!

No one has said that!!!To be born again is to become a Christian. You are confused.

You claimed earlier, "And it fits in with the NT command to baptize the entire household (babies and small children included)." You are now backing away from that, so good for you, for there is certainly no such command. There are, as you said, "reports", but no commands as you had incorrectly tried to assert.

What do you mean by "being Christianized"?

To be born again is to become a Christian. You are confused.
You are mixing up posts and comments. Take a nap!

You are mixing up posts and comments.It's what you like to say when you know you are out answers and basically whipped. Better luck next time!!

It's what you like to say when you know you are out answers and basically whipped. Better luck next time!!
At least wait until I've had a chance to post my entire response!!!

I am NOT out of answers!!!

I am waiting eagerly!!

I am waiting eagerly!!
If there are no parents, family members, friends, etc. to support the child in its growing in grace and knowledge, then baptism is unnecessary.

It's unnecessary in any case. The parents, etc. can pledge to support the child completely aside from a baptism which, in that case, is a baptism with no meaning to the child.

You are entitled to your own views. If you want to believe that you were born again when you were baptized at three weeks, then go for it.

It's unnecessary in any case. The parents, etc. can pledge to support the child completely aside from a baptism which, in that case, is a baptism with no meaning to the child.

You are entitled to your own views. If you want to believe that you were born again when you were baptized at three weeks, then go for it.
This was supposed to be a discussion, not a rock-throwing contest.

Baptism with no meaning to the childA child has a soul that “is truly a part of God above". Focus on this fundamental part of your child and see the good inherent in them. Moreover, just like when we hold a candle near a large flame it will be attracted to the larger flame, our souls are attracted to its Divine Source. When we train our children in the observance of a command (a good deed or religious precept),
we afford them the opportunity for their souls to shine overtly. Baptism isn't wrong at any age.
When did you accept Christ as your Savior?
At 3 weeks of age. Baptism Martin Luther was baptized at one day old and he used to walk around exclaiming "I'm a Baptized Man!" Why do you think he said that? Baptism first faith later?

This was supposed to be a discussion, not a rock-throwing contest.I don't recall rocks. There have been questions. That's what we do in discussions.

It is well known that Martin Luther became a Christian as an adult. Any infant baptism had nothing to do with it. His discovery of the meaning of Rom. 1:17 was key. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Baptism with no meaning to the childA child has a soul that “is truly a part of God above". Focus on this fundamental part of your child and see the good inherent in them. Moreover, just like when we hold a candle near a large flame it will be attracted to the larger flame, our souls are attracted to its Divine Source. When we train our children in the observance of a command (a good deed or religious precept),
we afford them the opportunity for their souls to shine overtly. Baptism isn't wrong at any age.
When did you accept Christ as your Savior?
At 3 weeks of age. Baptism Martin Luther was baptized at one day old and he used to walk around exclaiming "I'm a Baptized Man!" Why do you think he said that? Baptism first faith later?
infant baptism had nothing to do with it.Says Who? I remember one of you saying that Jesus' Baptism had nothing to do with it either. If Martin Luther Babtism was irrelevant, then why did he proclaim it? I think Baptism has more to do with it than meets the eye. I would think of it as two Godly parents dedicating their child to God...which was a thing in the OT, why not the NT?

Says history books about Luther. He confessed a genuine faith in his twenties.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/8742/when-and-how-did-martin-luther-arrive-at-the-justification-by-faith

I doubt that Martin Luther went about proclaiming, "I'm a baptized man."


I remember one of you saying that Jesus' Baptism had nothing to do with it either.You don't recall me saying it.

He confessed a genuine faith in his twenties.Probably about the same time he confessed his being a Babtized man. Again, why would he exclaim that he was a Baptized man?
I doubt that Martin Luther went about proclaiming, "I'm a baptized man." That's the response I suspected.
I doubt that Martin Luther went about proclaiming, "I'm a baptized man."Well he did. You can look it up and get back to me.

A child has a soul that “is truly a part of God above". Focus on this fundamental part of your child and see the good inherent in them. Moreover, just like when we hold a candle near a large flame it will be attracted to the larger flame, our souls are attracted to its Divine Source. When we train our children in the observance of a command (a good deed or religious precept),
we afford them the opportunity for their souls to shine overtly. Baptism isn't wrong at any age.Does this resonate with you at all?

Look at the entire nation of Israel. They were circumcised on the 8th day. They had to recite scripture every day. They lived the life of a jew since the day they were Born. They had no say, they had no free will. Only until they were of Age were they allowed to walk out the back door.

I understood what you were getting at. But you turned the Corner when you doubted Luther ever exclaiming he was a Babtised man. At what age does one have to be baptized, before they can proclaim as being Baptized?

You can look it up and get back to me.You have a story you can't verify. It's your job to find support for it. I have no intention of going off on a wild goose chase for a story I doubt is true to begin with. But I'm sure you can find it with no problem.


Baptism isn't wrong at any age.I haven't said it is.

I haven't said it isI understood what you were getting at. But you turned the Corner when you doubted Luther ever proclaiming he was a Babtised man. At what age does one have to be baptized, before they can proclaim as being Baptized?

It wouldn't matter if Luther were here himself...you would simply go off as you always do...sticking to your guns.

But you turned the Corner when you doubted Luther ever exclaiming he was a Babtised man.I doubt it because you have a history of making wild claims that turn out to not be true. In this case, you have a claim you cannot verify.

Baptize them at any age you want, but don't pretend it amounts to Christian conversion or the new birth because it does not. And I'm sure you know that's true.

Earlier you mentioned baptism had nothing to do with it. I think that is going too far off left field.


When Luther was tempted by the devil, he would look at the words written in chalk on his desk: “baptizatus sum” (Latin for “I am baptized”). Do you think this might have helped him (at whatever age) overcome temptation?

I just looked it up. It's easy to find. You might not want to look it up being afraid you might learn something.

Earlier you mentioned baptism had nothing to do with it.This has been my contention from the word go. "The suggestion that infant baptism results in a baby becoming a Christian at three weeks or days of age is simply not a biblical idea." Do you have a problem with that?

Martin Luther aside, do you have a problem with the statement above, that infant baptism does not result in a baby being born again and becoming a Christian? Do you disagree with that?

I commend you for finding the ML story, but it's still all window dressing. Do you agree with the statement or not, because that's what this discussion is about.

The ML link. https://lutheranhuskerblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/baptizatus-sum-sermon-for-1-7-2018/

A pretty good article on baptism, written by a good author, Sinclair Ferguson.

https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/the-meaning-of-baptism

baptism isn’t first of all a sign of what we do. It’s a sign that calls us to do something—to come to Christ, to live for Christ. And when we see that our baptism reflects Christ’s baptism—first in the river Jordan and then on the cross of Calvary—then every time we’re at a baptism, our own or others, the gospel is being preached to us in order that every day of our lives we might live as baptized Christians.

this is fromLegionare ministries.

I must have been reading the same thing

It’s a sign that calls us to do something—to come to Christ, to live for Christ.I think you have the order wrong. We first come to Christ, and then get baptized, but that's still close enough and it was a good paragraph. But I'd still like to know if you agree or disagree with this. "The suggestion that infant baptism results in a baby becoming a Christian at three weeks or days of age is simply not a biblical idea."

Skip it if you want to, but that's the core of this discussion, one which has been talked about pretty much enough.

Good night, all. Your ML story turned out to be a good one. Congratulations.

not a biblical idea.Isn't it...Biblical Theology?

(more of that same link)
You’ve probably seen that famous optical illusion where there’s either an old hag that you see or a beautiful young woman. And many people, if they see the old hag in the picture, seem to find it very difficult to find the beautiful woman. And you’ll forgive me for saying that sometimes I think it’s a little bit like that with baptism. Some of us look at it and see only ourselves and our faith decision. And forgive me for putting it this way, but if we think baptism is about ourselves then, well, we are more like the old hag. After all, we are sinners.

But baptism presupposes we are sinners and that we need to be cleansed, and that’s why it points us not to ourselves first, but to Christ. It points us, as sinners, to the promise of cleansing and renewal there is in Jesus Christ, and that’s why it gives us such daily reassurance. It’s not so much a message about our faith, but a sign that calls us to live by faith. So, we need to see something quite different in the picture that baptism portrays. Not ourselves—the old hags, the sinners—but the beautiful woman, or to put it in real life terms, the beautiful Savior.

Would it not point a child toward Christ too?

For a child to be told he or she has been baptized into a family? being told It's your Family...Much more than your biological family. I see similarities having to do with the nation of Israel and her offspring. I believe when a Gentile wanted to join with Israel, they went through a similar baptism.

As far as your question: I believe it has the potential.

Tired. headed for bed.

Edited.
P.S. Seems like we are on the same page. I didn't see the link you posted until after I posted. I also am headed for bed, didn't see your post stating that you were going nie, nie until after I posted. How crazy is that (posting the same link really blew me away)!

I'm all for baptism. I am entirely opposed to telling a person that infant baptism resulted in that person becoming born again. That is what I'm referring to when I say it is not biblical.

It's one thing to tell a Christian who thinks they know the love of God and is currently striving to walk in that love, That their baptism played no part in their salvation. Baptism is a Gift from God. It is a bit different when asking somebody "when they first became saved," and they say -"when I" did this or that. Salvation in no way depends on what the elect do or decide (Rom. 9:11).

Whether submerged or sprinkled or whatever. I've read somewhere (based on scripture) talking about Baptism being meditation.

I've read somewhere (based on scripture) talking about Baptism being meditation.Baptism equivalent to meditation? In what way?


Salvation in no way depends on what the elect do or decide.Depends on how you look at it. The Philippian jailor asked, "What must I DO to be saved?" The reply was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

If a person comes to faith in Christ after a previous "baptismal experience?
Baptism equivalent to meditation? In what way? I'd have to look at it again. Something doing with the Jews Crossing the Red Sea. It has to do with Moses telling them to be still while walking through.

Baptism is a cleansing. Even if we confess Jesus as our savior. No matter what promises we make, we will assuredly break them. Knowing Jesus and being Baptized into his baptism might make all the difference in a person's life. Our conscious decision means nothing....we know this... when looking through the eyes of the OT covenant.

Baptism is a cleansing.Maybe, but not a cleansing of sin.


Even if we confess Jesus as our savior. No matter what promises we make, we will assuredly break them. Knowing Jesus and being Baptized into his baptism might make all the difference in a person's lifeI have no doubt that being obedient to the command of Christ to be baptized will make a lot of difference.


Our conscious decision means nothing....we know this... when looking through the eyes of the OT covenant.I'm not following you on this one. First of all, the NT is filled with commandments that require a conscious decision on our part. One of my favorite passage of scripture is the beginning verses of Romans 10. There Paul speaks of, "confess with your mouth...believe in your heart...believe...call upon the name of the Lord." Those all require conscious decisions.

Secondly, I don't see the connection of the OT covenant at all. Deut. 28 makes it abundantly clear that God expected the Jews to make a conscious decision to follow his law as part of the covenant. Maybe I'm not understanding where you are trying to go with that?

First of all, the NT is filled with commandments that require a conscious decision on our part. Same with the OT covenant. Regarding the OT - Obedience to the terms of the covenant is the path of life; rejection of the covenant is ipso facto the individual’s election of misfortune, unhappiness, and death. The latter cannot be seen as evil insofar as they are the just response of the offended deity. The covenant and it alone legitimates the corpus of behavioral norms in Scripture.

Here we are dealing with a New Covenant (Jesus fulfilled the Old). The New Covenant involves a total change (from the old behavioral norms) of heart so that God’s people are naturally pleasing to Him. The New Covenant is the promise that God will forgive sin and restore fellowship with those whose hearts are turned toward Him.
First of all, the NT is filled with commandments that require a conscious decision on our part. Jesus (Love) always comes First. We see what happened when the Israelites made a conscious decision to follow the commands that were given.

It's out of Christ's love and what he did for us. Receiving that same love enables us to love him.
We all, at one time in our life, only read a bunch of commands. There comes a point in all of our lives when we know that there is no way, no how we can obey any command coming from God. That's why we Pray and ask for forgiveness and help. We pray that the Love of God gives us a change of heart.

Once we receive a change of heart we do it out of love...they are no longer seen as "simple" Commands in a book.

It's not giving your life to Christ Jesus. It's not living your life for Jesus. It has everything to do with killing that life that is in you, for Jesus...because he gave his life for yours...His love runs full circle along with God's love for all who participate in that love. God is wanting to live his life in you. Surrender all!

That's why we Pray and ask for forgiveness and help. We pray that the Love of God gives us a change of heart.All of which involves making conscious decisions, doesn't it? Love and faith mandate making conscious decisions to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God and in the best interest of my brethren in Christ.

Otherwise, I think your description above is quite good, especially this. " The New Covenant involves a total change (from the old behavioral norms) of heart so that God’s people are naturally pleasing to Him. The New Covenant is the promise that God will forgive sin and restore fellowship with those whose hearts are turned toward Him."

Love and faith mandate making conscious decisions to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God and in the best interest of my brethren in Christ.I suppose. Right now I am trying to focus on what not to do. If it's hard for me to give something up then I know there's a problem. I will continue practicing to do that which I don't want to do. Until I have given all to my Lord. I have been Blessed with much. I'm beginning to understand not everything we receive is a blessing. we have a tendency to consume everything that comes our way. Jesus has done all the Good that I could ever do. I need not worry about that so much as worry about receiving and doing that which I should not receive or do.

It has a lot to do with the oaths I took. When I say took, what I mean is the oaths I've confessed were acceptable to God.
He reminds me of his great power and love when he brings to mind the Oaths I took. I know only he can fulfill them.

I love God, I don't want to piss him off.

It has a lot to do with the oaths I took. When I say took, what I mean is the oaths I've confessed were acceptable to God.
He reminds me of his great power and love when he brings to mind the Oaths I took. I know only he can fulfill them.But we are told not to take oaths. Jesus himself said this in Matthew 5.


But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[

James said, "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation."

Recently I was in court because of what I thought was going to be a routine court action concerning our inheritance. Our attorney, who gave me no preparation at all or even so much as a heads up on the deal, called me as a witness. The judge said the usual, "Do you swear to blah, blah, blah?" I was so bamboozled that I simply said "I do". I'm still aggravated with myself for doing that. Most courts will allow you to simply "affirm" rather than take an oath.

James said, "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation." I understand that. I also understand that King David was an oath-maker. Not only that, wouldn't you agree that we take an oath when giving our lives to Christ? My yes rarely means yes and my no rarely means no. The Oath that I committed to did not come from me. God will make it happen. And the thing on letting your yes be yes and your no be no...simply means, knowing when you say yes/no you say it as if the Lord is saying it...your word is true. I would guess that we, as Christians don't suffer condemnation when our yes means no and our no means yes. I understand the Oath that I took and I know that I need to be true to it. I think King David talks about the way God brings Oaths back to your remembrance, to feel that same elation that we once felt, having God's favor when we took such oaths. Psalms 61 I think.

I've come to learn the real reason Jesus and James said what they said. I took the oath when I was fasting and in heavy prayer, and I have come to the end of myself. If I hadn't been in such a situation while taking an oath, I'm sure I'd be suffering condemnation.

Jesus said take no oaths. That's good enough for me. When I tell someone I will/will not do something, then I must be willing to honor my word.

There is no oath mentioned in the Bible in relationship to becoming a Christian, or at least not that I'm aware of.

Jesus said take no oaths. That's good enough for me. When I tell someone I will/will not do something, then I must be willing to honor my word.

There is no oath mentioned in the Bible in relationship to becoming a Christian, or at least not that I'm aware of.
Oaths in Jesus' time were not like oaths now.

How’s that?

There is no oath mentioned in the Bible in relationship to becoming a Christian, or at least not that I'm aware of.And look, here we are talking about Baptism.
The first meaning of baptism is that it is a pledge. It is every bit as binding as a wedding vow. Oath vs pledge - One takes an oath in the name of someone or something that is greater, than, above him/her and which he/she holds sacred. to pledge has the element of a guarantee so when one pledges he solemnly promises to do something. The difference is that oath is more solemn more sacred and has a higher standing as an utterance.

Many are “for Christ” but few are “with Christ”. At bap­tism, we are buried with Christ through our pledge of commitment. We also have the Lord's supper - The basic meaning of a sacrament is an oath, an obligation, a vow. In legal termino­logy, it is a pledge.

I'm guessing most people even Christians have taken Oaths. Jesus says not to...if you so happen to take a Vow or oath, make sure it is acceptable to God...follow through with said vow as if your life depends on it...cuz it does!


And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head at Cenchrea, for he had made a vow.

Found this:
PAUL'S MOTIVES.
The strong feeling of thankfulness for deliverance from danger, following upon fear which, as in nearly all phases of the religious life, has been the chief impulse out of which vows have grown. We have seen the fear, and the promise, and the deliverance, in the record of St. Paul's work at Corinth, and the vow of self-consecration, for a season, to a life of special devotion was the natural result. St. Paul had not learnt to despise or condemn such expressions of devout feeling.


Oaths in Jesus' time were not like oaths now.
How’s that? Probably has more to do with making a pledge rather than a Vow. In baptism, you make a pledge in answer to a question...Opening up the possibility for the Father to step in for his child, in regard to infant baptism ( I know I could have worded that better).

The first meaning of baptism is that it is a pledgeWhere does the Bible say that?


Jesus says not to...if you so happen to take a Vow or oath, make sure it is acceptable to GodIf Jesus says no, and you take an oath, how could that be acceptable to God? Wouldn't you be doing what Jesus said not to do?

When did Paul take that vow, before he became a Christian or afterwards? At any rate, vows are not the same as oaths.


The strong feeling of thankfulness for deliverance from danger, following upon fear which, as in nearly all phases of the religious life, has been the chief impulse out of which vows have grown.Seems like speculation but interesting nonetheless.

Found this contrasting vows and oaths. Worth thinking about.

The difference between an oath and a vow is that (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=60509a85b2c7f87aJmltdHM9MTY5ODI3ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0x NWI5ODEyZC04OWQ1LTY4N2QtMGNmYy05MTk4ODg3NDY5ZjgmaW 5zaWQ9NTg4MA&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=15b9812d-89d5-687d-0cfc-9198887469f8&psq=how+are+vows+different+from+oaths&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5jeWNsb3BlZGlhLmNvbS9lbnZpcm 9ubWVudC9lbmN5Y2xvcGVkaWFzLWFsbWFuYWNzLXRyYW5zY3Jp cHRzLWFuZC1tYXBzL3Zvd3MtYW5kLW9hdGhz&ntb=1)1 (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b39bda14ac86ff51JmltdHM9MTY5ODI3ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0x NWI5ODEyZC04OWQ1LTY4N2QtMGNmYy05MTk4ODg3NDY5ZjgmaW 5zaWQ9NTg4MQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=15b9812d-89d5-687d-0cfc-9198887469f8&psq=how+are+vows+different+from+oaths&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZW5jeWNsb3BlZGlhLmNvbS9lbnZpcm 9ubWVudC9lbmN5Y2xvcGVkaWFzLWFsbWFuYWNzLXRyYW5zY3Jp cHRzLWFuZC1tYXBzL3Zvd3MtYW5kLW9hdGhz&ntb=1)2 (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=760aa3de3269ee9eJmltdHM9MTY5ODI3ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0x NWI5ODEyZC04OWQ1LTY4N2QtMGNmYy05MTk4ODg3NDY5ZjgmaW 5zaWQ9NTg4Mg&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=15b9812d-89d5-687d-0cfc-9198887469f8&psq=how+are+vows+different+from+oaths&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubXlqZXdpc2hsZWFybmluZy5jb20vYX J0aWNsZS92b3dzLWFuZC1vYXRocy8&ntb=1)3 (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a73f6dfbbbb7c77eJmltdHM9MTY5ODI3ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0x NWI5ODEyZC04OWQ1LTY4N2QtMGNmYy05MTk4ODg3NDY5ZjgmaW 5zaWQ9NTg4Mw&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=15b9812d-89d5-687d-0cfc-9198887469f8&psq=how+are+vows+different+from+oaths&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9zaG9ydC1xdWVzdGlvbi5jb20vd2hhdC1pcy 10aGUtZGlmZmVyZW5jZS1iZXR3ZWVuLWEtcHJvbWlzZS1hLXZv dy1hbmQtYW4tb2F0aC8&ntb=1)4 (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c7c3856682c1032dJmltdHM9MTY5ODI3ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0x NWI5ODEyZC04OWQ1LTY4N2QtMGNmYy05MTk4ODg3NDY5ZjgmaW 5zaWQ9NTg4NA&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=15b9812d-89d5-687d-0cfc-9198887469f8&psq=how+are+vows+different+from+oaths&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9oaW5hdGl2ZS5jb20vcXVlc3Rpb25zLzEwMz U4MzY&ntb=1)5 (https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e031d5e12419d211JmltdHM9MTY5ODI3ODQwMCZpZ3VpZD0x NWI5ODEyZC04OWQ1LTY4N2QtMGNmYy05MTk4ODg3NDY5ZjgmaW 5zaWQ9NTg4NQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=15b9812d-89d5-687d-0cfc-9198887469f8&psq=how+are+vows+different+from+oaths&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93aWtpZGlmZi5jb20vb2F0aC92b3c&ntb=1):

A vow is a personal promise, usually made to someone else or to oneself, about something specific or general. A vow can be religious or secular, and does not involve any legal or institutional consequences.
An oath is a solemn pledge or promise, usually made before an authority or a deity, to attest to the truth of a statement or to perform a duty or obligation. An oath can be legal or ceremonial, and involves some form of sanction or penalty for breaking it.

Jesus also said don't call anybody a fool. Yet Paul calls the Galatians Foolish.

So are you suggesting that it is alright to disobey the teachings of Christ?

To tell someone they are behaving foolishly as Paul did to the Galatians is not the same as calling them a fool.

not the same as calling them a fool.In Galatians 3:1, Paul says “O foolish Galatians”
Could we dispense with Wordplay for a moment? Paul said it. Maybe we should find out what Jesus meant when he said...?