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 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.
Was that hot water or cold water (maybe spring water)?Quote:
I think when he talked of water he meant water
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Thus, unbaptized and unbelieving infants and children go to hell.[/sarc]Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
Was that hot water or cold water (maybe spring water)?
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$$ .
I agree. I think that is Awesome, really I do.Quote:
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 relationship
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.
You do realize that includes you?Quote:
Quote:
Watch out for those causing division.
That is your conclusion, not mine.Quote:
Thus, unbaptized and unbelieving infants and children go to hell.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
I was being sarcastic. Will edit accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Conversion is a process. Being "born again" is immediate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Then I will as well. That is a conclusion evidently held by no one here. [not sarc]Quote:
I was being sarcastic. Will edit accordingly.
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".)
I never said it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Would you say baptism is a new birth?
You did when you claimed you were born again at the age of 3 days.Quote:
I never said it was.
I would say there is no Biblical reason to say that.Quote:
Would you say baptism is a new birth?
I was baptized by my father when I was three weeks old.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Would you say baptism is a new birth?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And, you claimed, born again.Quote:
I was baptized by my father when I was three weeks old.
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.Quote:
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.
The current topic is being born again.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was physically born in November. Three weeks later, I was spiritually born through baptism.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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
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?Quote:
People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them.
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.Quote:
And so what? It a terrific idea!
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??)
Us Catholics disagree. And with that I conclude my contributions to this religious discussion on the Current Events board .Quote:
There is no reason to believe that a person becomes a Christian simply by being baptized.
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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This sentence, at the present moment, does not express anything that is now either true or false.Quote:
There is no such thing as different truths.
Completely agree, thus indicating pretty clearly that simply getting baptized, as an infant or otherwise, does not result in a new birth.Quote:
You can count many more who were baptized and who consider themselves Christian who have a one way ticket to hell.
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."Quote:
I would argue that the innocent babe is by far more deserving than the lot of us .
Conspicuously absent from his wonderful discourse on salvation is any mention of infant 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.Quote:
thus rejecting the promises made at baptism.
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.
I very carefully avoided saying "he". I said "the promises made" - by parents, godparents, relative, family friends to raise the child as a Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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!
You asked for the post in which you said that, as though you doubted you had. I supplied what you wanted. You're welcome.Quote:
Please tell me in which post I said I was born again.
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.
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?Quote:
Baptism results in the baby being born again
Already discussed above.Quote:
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."
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.Quote:
The New Testament nowhere commands us to baptize infants, but neither does it anywhere forbid it.
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.Quote:
all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”.
Sounds good until you put the scripture into context. "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, 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.
A terrific, very understandable post, waltero! And it fits in with the NT command to baptize the entire household (babies and small children included).Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 PM. |