 |
No evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Your church affiliation. Finally answered.Quote:
Point to the question you have asked that I have not answered. Pretty sure you won't find one. I won't say how I would characterize your statement lest I hurt your feelings. Putdown Alert!
Or maybe that's just your dogged determination to attack mercilessly another's opinion, to elevate your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No you stated what an ancient man said that Jesus said by whomever wrote the statement which is the author. It's okay if YOU accept it as truth, but I don't and question it's veracity, as I do most religious writings of ancient man.Quote:
Except that in the passage you quoted, I did not interpret anything. I simply stated the truth.
Not sure which author you are referring to, but pretty sure they didn't know me and certainly had no idea what my present "way" is. I gave you two scriptures. Accept it or reject it, but don't blame it on me. I am not the author. I simply asked you to think for yourself.
It is you that question the words of others so why be surprised when they question your words? You don't seem to want a two way street, but a one way alley where you control the traffic flow. Not everyone here can deal with your very abrasive style of discussion, but I doubt he change your ways that you are set in.Quote:
I really enjoy the give and take of genuine discussion. It becomes tiresome when people don't want their own beliefs examined but want to dig incessantly into mine. I don't mind that at all, but it needs to be a two way street. Besides, what Christian would hesitate for even a second to describe the day that he/she put their faith in Christ? I would think it would be a wonderful story worth sharing with everyone.
I accept you as you are and just keep it moving as I try to do with everybody, you stubborn old cooot!
8D
Now try to be nice!
WG So are you trying to say that you are saved by your works? PK, taught SS, and even born on Luther's birthday, and so you just have to be a Christian? That's rather shocking. Surely you worded that carelessly.Quote:
That's incorrect. I'm a Lutheran PK, hung out with other Lutheran pastors and their families, am a graduate of a Lutheran college, a long-time Lutheran SS and adult Bible class teacher, and was born on Luther's birthday (but different year).
Blah, blah, blah. Poor ole Tal. If you can't handle being asked questions, then go play cards with someone. No one is forcing you to be here.Quote:
Or maybe that's just your dogged determination to attack mercilessly another's opinion, to elevate your own.
You asked for my belief. I gave it to you, so now you want to pitch a fit about it. Believe what you will. I've told you that a million times.Quote:
It's okay if YOU accept it as truth, but I don't and question it's veracity, as I do most religious writings of ancient man.
I said plain as day I did not mind being questioned. In fact I enjoy it. Your statement is just flat wrong. Sorry, but that's just how it is.Quote:
It is you that question the words of others so why be surprised when they question your words? You don't seem to want a two way street, but a one way alley where you control the traffic flow.
Remember the old saying about the person who can't stand the heat needing to stay out of the kitchen? I don't force anyone to engage in discussion. Go do something else if you can't handle it but please, please stop the incessant whining and complaining. You guys love to ask questions, and that's fine, but then you have a fit if you are asked to answer a question. If you'd like, we can just talk about football or something else equally meaningless.Quote:
Not everyone here can deal with your very abrasive style of discussion, but I doubt he change your ways that you are set in.
Oh, c'mon! I was pointing out my Lutheran background and that I just didn't pop into it yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Oh, and I'm doing research and a survey of Lutheran pastors to find out if you know whereof you speak.
I was born again during infant baptism.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
OK. I know this bothers you, but Luther and I want to know where in the Bible you find even a whisper of an indication that infant baptism amounts to being born again.Quote:
I was born again during infant baptism.
Also, how can you explain that the born again passage in John 3 was spoken to a grown man and not an infant, and nothing was said about being baptized?
Keep coming back JL, so will I God willing, and the creek don't rise.
Deal! We drive each other crazy sometimes, but I think we actually have a lot in common. You are open with your beliefs and that's a nice thing. I tell WG that she needs to be more like you. That's big praise, my friend!!Quote:
Keep coming back JL, so will I God willing, and the creek don't rise.
***Fundamentalists often criticize the practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Since, according to Fundamentalists, only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. (Hmm, how do they figure THAT happens?) Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.***
Acts 2:38 --Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
Matt. 19:14 -- “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Luke 18:15ff -- 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 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. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
Paul notes in Col. 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. Baptism became “the circumcision of Christ.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
"[Lydia] was baptized with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
I commend you for making an effort! Let's take them one at a time, primarily to look for any mention of infant baptism.
First of all, he is speaking to adults only. Secondly, do you know of any way an infant can repent?Quote:
Acts 2:38 --Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
Luther used this passage, but there is no mention of baptism. When the children came to him, he did not baptize them.Quote:
Matt. 19:14 -- “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Again, no mention of baptism, and not even a mention of salvation. Might also note that he says a person must accept the Kingdom "like a little child", not "as a child".Quote:
Luke 18:15ff -- 15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 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. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
This is absolutely terrible. Baptism has replaced circumcision? That is never stated in that passage. This is so bad that it borders on intentional deceit. I can say that since I know you did not write this. Rather amazingly, I think, you copied it from a Catholic website. https://ourcatholicfaith.org/teachin...ntbaptism.htmlQuote:
Paul notes in Col. 2:11-12 that baptism has replaced circumcision. Baptism became “the circumcision of Christ.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Here is the passage. See for yourself. "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." And again, there is no mention of infant baptism.
Yes, people got baptized, but there is no mention of infants being baptized. In fact, you can read the entire NT and not find a single instance of an infant being baptized, and nor can you find a single occasion where a person professed to have become a Christian as an infant. Might also ask this. When did they get baptized? Was it not after a confession of faith in Jesus? Pretty sure you did not do that as an infant.Quote:
"[Lydia] was baptized with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
We are born again in Baptism! No, he isn't speaking to adults only. Households include children and babies. All were baptized! Why wait until the age of reason? God's grace is already at work.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Babies were (and still are) circumcised. Should Jews wait until the males are of the age of reason? (Ouch!)
Again, households include children and infants. All were baptized or the writer would have said so. In fact, there is NO verse that says DO NOT BAPTIZE BABIES.
That's why sponsors are at the baptism. They promise to pray for the child and follow its growth as a Christian.
That is your conjecture. There is not a single verse of scripture that says we are born again at baptism.Quote:
We are born again in Baptism! No, he isn't speaking to adults only. Households include children and babies. All were baptized! Why wait until the age of reason? God's grace is already at work.
There's no verse that says DO NOT baptize dogs. So does that mean we should do so? An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command.Quote:
In fact, there is NO verse that says DO NOT BAPTIZE BABIES.
If baptism is all there is to it, then why did Peter tell the people to repent in Acts 2? Did you repent when you were baptized at three weeks?
Ephesians 2 contains the most detailed account of what happens at conversion I know of. Look at the first three verses. Does that strike you as adults or infants?
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body[a] and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.[b] 4 But[c] God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There is no prohibition not to baptize babies and young children.Quote:
There's no verse that says DO NOT baptize dogs. So does that mean we should do so? An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command.
Yes, that's why I had sponsors, to speak for me. Have you ever read the words spoken by the pastor when he/she baptizes?Quote:
If baptism is all there is to it, then why did Peter tell the people to repent in Acts 2? Did you repent when you were baptized at three weeks?
And 3:5 is followed by 3:6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." So the water reference is clearly to the waters of childbirth, not to the waters of baptism.
And again. "An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command."Quote:
There is no prohibition not to baptize babies and young children.
Sponsors to speak for you? So they repented for you at three weeks old? Repented for what? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds? If a 20 year old is baptized, can someone repent for him as well?
You did not comment on the Ephesians passage.
Good grief! What a leap! Are you on opioids?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
There is no prohibition stating no baptism of babies.Quote:
And again. "An absence of a prohibition does not amount to a command."
A 20 yo is capable of speaking for him/herself. If that person is verbally challenged, sponsors will speak in his/her stead unless the pastor is creative enough to elicit a response from that person. (ASL needed? an interpreter needed?)Quote:
Sponsors to speak for you? So they repented for you at three weeks old? Repented for what? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds? If a 20 year old is baptized, can someone repent for him as well?
So you don't believe a loving God can work faith in babies. That makes me sad that you don't have that much faith.Quote:
You did not comment on the Ephesians passage.
No. It's called letting scripture interpret scripture. You should try it.Quote:
Good grief! What a leap! Are you on opioids?
And again, for the third time, there is also no prohibition stating no baptism of dogs and cats. AN ABSENCE OF PROHIBITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A COMMAND! Is that starting to sink in now?Quote:
There is no prohibition stating no baptism of babies.
When we all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, there will be no sponsors. Babies cannot repent. It is foolishness. Sponsors and infant baptism are never mentioned in the Bible. Not ever, ever, ever. Not once and on no occasion is infant baptism ever mentioned or described as being practiced. Never, never, never. It is never mentioned. It is never described. It is never commanded. It is never taught.
Faith is what we have in God's word. God has never said that, so we cannot have genuine faith in it. It makes me sad that you have so little understanding of the Bible. You place your own emotional beliefs above Scripture. Truthfully, you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that you have never personally repented. You have never personally put your faith in Christ and made a personal, individual decision to trust and follow Him. You have never made a personal decision to "Look unto (God) and be saved, all ye ends of the earth," as Spurgeon and untold millions of others have done. You have placed your faith, not in what God says, but in what some people said when you were three weeks old. All of that worries me about you. And with a Bible sitting in front of you, you can make no excuses. I would encourage you to toss aside what other people have told you and read it for yourself. There is much at stake.Quote:
So you don't believe a loving God can work faith in babies. That makes me sad that you don't have that much faith.
I am still surprised that you linked to a Catholic website to defend your Lutheran beliefs. Luther would be appalled.
This is what I find to be very interesting in your comments about infant baptism. You have belittled and even mocked the use of proof texts, calling them "Bible Bingo". You did, of course, until you thought the practice might be useful in this case, and you have attempted to bring forward proof texts to perhaps establish your point. Now I think your texts and case are alike very weak, but that's not the point. The point is that you have dismissed the several dozen pointed, "on-target" texts I posted about hell since you do not approve of that, but you believe in infant baptism on the basis of a handful of rather weak affirmations. Interesting.
Woke up rather grouchy this morning huh JL. That's okay, it happens. Grab a cup of Joe, repent this sin of engaging mouth for condensation, and enjoy the blessing of life and embrace the opportunity to share some love and understanding. Put your normal idiocy aside so as to open your mind to modern application and relevancy of a very important discussion. Why can't it be a friendly one that fosters caring and sharing, teaching and learning. That was what my Christian experience was about and still is, though I am not one.
Are you really putting your best foot forward? After that sorry rant, can you really face your maker and explain yourself? You can do better, so why choose to be worse? Or am I wrong and you have scripture that allows you to beat others about the head like a self righteous b@stard!
Show me that scripture please.
You can really amuse me at times. You think I woke up grouchy? Wow. Look in the mirror. Is that what you call opening your mind, "to a modern application and relevancy of a very important discussion...a friendly one that fosters caring and sharing?" I guess, in your world, those "friendly" conversations end in calling the other guy a, "self righteous b@stard."Quote:
Woke up rather grouchy this morning huh JL. That's okay, it happens. Grab a cup of Joe, repent this sin of engaging mouth for condensation, and enjoy the blessing of life and embrace the opportunity to share some love and understanding. Put your normal idiocy aside so as to open your mind to modern application and relevancy of a very important discussion. Why can't it be a friendly one that fosters caring and sharing, teaching and learning. That was what my Christian experience was about and still is, though I am not one.
Are you really putting your best foot forward? After that sorry rant, can you really face your maker and explain yourself? You can do better, so why choose to be worse? Or am I wrong and you have scripture that allows you to beat others about the head like a self righteous b@stard!
I'm going to ask questions. I've told you before that if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. Your whining and complaining will make no difference. They are good, honest, probing questions intended to make the other guy think. I ask questions while you toss around insults. Is that your "best foot forward"? I like my approach a LOT better than yours. You can keep calling names and making insults, and I'll keep thinking and asking questions.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 PM. |