The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[Jason0047]

Repentance is not missing with saving belief/faith in Christ. Those who trust in Christ for salvation have already repented in the process of changing their mind and choosing to trust in Christ for salvation. Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. Mark 16:16 - Repent and believe the gospel. Acts 20:21 - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable in receiving salvation.

No Godly sorrow/no repentance = no saving belief/faith in Christ, no salvation.

In Matthew 12:41, when God saw their works, that they turned from their wicked way, then God "relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them." In Jonah 3:4, we see that Jonah told the people of Ninevah that the city of Ninevah would be overthrown in 40 days if they do not repent of their wickedness (Jonah 1:2). The people of Ninevah repented "changed their minds" at the preaching of Jonah, believed God, and "turned from their evil ways" "fruit of repentance" (Jonah 3:5,10; Matthew 3:8). Keeping with Strong's designation, the Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. Repentance is a "change of mind" and the context must determine what is involved in this change of mind. For the people of Ninevah, the object of their repentance was changing their mind about continuing in their wicked ways, not trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to save them. The content of their faith was believing that God would overthrow Ninevah, not trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption for salvation. When we repent we change our mind about our self trust in works, our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Believers turn from practicing sin to practicing righteousness (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 John 3:9-10).

We are forgiven when we repent and believe the gospel. Practicing adultery accompanied by no Godly sorrow is practicing sin which is not the fruit of repentance.

Well, after what you had written here, for the most part it seems we are on the same page. I was merely briefly concerned because I never leave out repentance when talking about the gospel and or salvation. When you talk about believing the gospel we cannot assume everyone holds to the view that repentance is a part of that belief. We must clarify that reality for people.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Repentance is the missing key on your list. If a person just believes Jesus as their Savior and yet they are not sorry for their sin in the fact that they don't acknowledge their sinful condition before God and or ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins, then they are not saved.

This is just ignorant. The only reason someone is going to have true belief, true saving faith in Christ is because they do acknowledge their sinful condition. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe. Recognizing and acknowledging our sin nature is the basis for realizing we need to believe the Gospel!

For Godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Do you understand what that means? You've been given the definition of metanoia (metanoia) countless tiimes and you still ignore it. It means "change your mind," about God, about our sin, about who Jesus is, and because we change our mind, we are able to then believe. None of this happens without the power of the Holy Spirit, drawing, calling, opening us up to the truth.

In other words, I believe it is wrong to say a person can just have a mental acknowledgment alone.

You're right. That isn't salvation. And if you can accept that, you must also accept that the whole person -- mind, spirit, soul -- must agree that the Gospel is true for a true confession of our sinful state and our need for a Savior who is Christ to be made. But God must acknowledge that confession as true and valid for salvation to take place, and the Holy Spirit being given is His acknowledgement.

If there is no seeking to be forgiven from the Savior, then how is one forgiven? For can a man cheat on his wife and have any hope to be forgiven by her if he refuses to say he is sorry to her?

Great example. I turn the question back on you, for I see it all the time: Is he forgiven if his motivation is not restoration to his wife, but only sorry for being caught?

What implications for your answer are there for believing the Gospel?

 

[mikeuk]

You are a very foolish and mixed up young man that need our prayers.
Please go study your bible and learn the truth.

Perhaps he already did, and that is why he thinks what he thinks.

As for "truth" it is an interesting question! Every issue of substantial doctrine ends on this forum with some or many mutually exclusive and opposing views. If the truth were obvious to all why are there so many arguments, leading to so many thousands of protestant denominations?

Seem to remember a scripture though that says "call no man fool" in Matthew 5:22, but perhaps that is because we catholics read our bibles sometimes!

 

[Word_Swordsman]

IMO a child who can demonstrate understanding of the concepts of belief repentance and confession should by all means be baptized. My daughter demonstrated such understanding before her 5th birthday.

Such a precious age! Both our daughters had learned enough gospel by ages 7 and 8 to be able to preach it, and both were water baptized when each requested that. It bothered them that the congregation commented that was "cute". It was, but they had it down, probably better than most adults hearing. The second daughter deciding to be baptized had to complete a Berean course before allowed by the church we were attending at the time. Once she convinced the board (at age 10), they permitted it. I thought that was a splendid policy, still do. They both ran into serious trouble in college when speaking up against ungodly teaching, well versed in what was then known of creation science, knowing many contradictions of evolution. One was insulted in class by the instructor who asked "How many fools are here that still hang on to religion?", but she held her ground, kept cool, gave answers like Jesus did to Satan, got removed, but the college moved her to another science class. It cost both of them academic scores in those classes, but didn't affect them overall. I am certain that their early start with the Lord promoted them well ahead of their peers. One became a high school teacher.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Perhaps he already did, and that is why he thinks what he thinks.

As for "truth" it is an interesting question! Every issue of substantial doctrine ends on this forum with some or many mutually exclusive and opposing views. If the truth were obvious to all why are there so many arguments, leading to so many thousands of protestant denominations?

Seem to remember a scripture though that says "call no man fool" in Matthew 5:22, but perhaps that is because we catholics read our bibles sometimes!

Christian denominations got a big boost in numbers from the Reformation, many people disgusted with the RCC.

Here's an excerpt of one breakaway Christian denomination, the Anabaptists.
"The name Anabaptist is derived from the Greek term anabaptista, or "one who baptizes over again." This name was given them by their persecutors in reference to the practice of re-baptizing converts who already had been baptized as infants.[SUP][6][/SUP] Anabaptists required that baptismal candidates be able to make their own confessions of faith and so rejected baptism of infants. The early members of this movement did not accept the name "Anabaptist", claiming that since infant baptism was unscriptural and null and void, the baptizing of believers was not a re-baptism but in fact their first real baptism. Balthasar Hübmaier wrote:

I have never taught Anabaptism. ...But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ...[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP]:204[/SUP]
​

As a result of their views on the nature of baptism and other issues, Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both Magisterial Protestants and Roman Catholics.[SUP]"[/SUP] (Anabaptists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Across America my experience has been, when traveling much in my career, finding a non-Catholic church in small towns was difficult. Whatever churches appeared were for people refusing to go Catholic for various reasons, particularly papal authority, which is definitely not Bible truth. Sometimes the only alternative was a Baptist church, or maybe a Methodist or a charismatic congregation. I experienced all the major denominations, not visiting enough of most to figure out what makes them different from others, except what you can see, like different robes, no robes, divorcees welcome or shunned, Lord's Supper every Sunday, or hardly ever, music or no music, manner of dress, men separate from women or mixed, Baptisms, tongues good or "of the Devil", women speaking/preaching or not, all sorts of unresolved reasons for separation of congregations. One preacher can come in identifying error or maybe bringing error, causing a split. But in the big picture, all somewhat agree on the fundamentals of Christianity, certainly concerning salvation.

So now comes the Pope apparently relaxing Bible prohibitions of some sins, already the RCC not opposed to evolution, etc. . That's enough for many Catholics to come visiting us, some staying.

 

[SeaBass]

Romans 5:12 pretty well illustrates the point.

The blood line passes from the father to the son. In the case of Jesus Christ His body was through Mary who was descended from the line of David. His blood line was passed from His Father Who is God.

Jesus Christ was unique. Fully man through Mary and fully God through Jehovah.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

--I do not find in the bible where it teaches original sin (OS) therefore it would not teach OS comes from the father. If original sin were true then Christ would have been born with OS (Heb 2:17; Phil 2:7,8) and the idea OS passes through the father (along with the "immaculate conception") are also made up out of thin air to cover that problem. Psa 51:5 the supposed "proof text" for OS only mentions the mother, the father is not mentioned at all.


--Rom 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even overthem that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." The claim is made that people die as a result of inheriting Adam's sin yet the verse say people died as a result of having not sinned after the likeness of Adam's sin.

"EVEN over them that had not sinned" would be referencing infants/mental disabled who have not sinned. Even though infants jhave not sinned, death reigned over them. "The reason of introducing the persons referred to by the word 'even', implies that they are such persons as apparently ought to be excluded from the reign of sin and death. This cannot designate those who in an way know the law. But it evidently applies to infants...... Death reigned from Adam to Moses, over all the human race, even over infants, who did not actually sin, but sinned in Adam" Haldane's Exposition on Romans.


If infants have not sinned then why does death reign over them? Rom 5:12...

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Here Paul makes NO EXCEPTIONS. If you can make exceptions for Christ, then I can make exceptions for infants, yet Paul makes NO EXCEPTIONS.

Paul also said 1 Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all die..." no exceptions. So if the penalty of sin is death, then why do infants die, why did Christ die when they have no sin?

Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,..." Yet from the account in Genesis, Eve sinned before Adam. In 1 Tim 2:14 Paul says "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Since Eve sinned first, Paul evidently in Rom 5:12 is making Adam the representative head of all mankind. Therefore all men who are born into mankind, even though they all may not personally sin as Christ or infants, sin representatively through Adam:

"All have sinned. — That is, all have really sinned, though not in their own persons. This does not mean, as some explain it, that infants become involved in the consequences of Adam’s sin without his guilt. Adam stood as the head, the forefather and representative of all his posterity They were all created in him; and in the guilt of his sin, as well as its consequence, they became partaker." Hadane's Expositon on Romans

""The meaning is not, that death hath come on all because all have sinned actually; for infants, who have not sinned actually, die; but that they have sinned in Adam as their federal head [proxy]; that is, are involved in the consequences of his sin." MacKnightWhen Christ became flesh, became part of the human race Christ sinned, not personally, but sinned representatively through Adam thereby Christ also faced death. "God's law regarding sin and death was proved to be operative invariably and without partiality or exceptions, even upon God himself "come in the flesh"! How truly marvelous is the absolute righteousness of God. No thoughtful person could find fault with the justice and fairness of such a Governor of creation." Coffman's Commentary

 

[SeaBass]

True. Jesus is a descendant of Adam. His physical genealogy (Which is only on his mother's side) can be seen in Luke chapter 3.



In Adam all die. In Christ all are made alive. Adam imputes his sin to all of mankind. When a person repents and accepts the Lord, then Christ imputes His righteousness to them.

Christ was born without sin because sin is passed down thru the male seed. That is why Jesus had a virgin birth. For in the Garden, Adam and Eve's eyes were not open to their nakedness (sin) until Adam ate of the wrong tree.

See my post #346.

 

[DesiredHaven]

Rom 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,


After the similitude of might be a good place to highlight though dont you think?

 

[SeaBass]

And you came to this conclusion/interpretation by what means? Personal interpretation? Remember, the Bible says not to rely on private interpretation of Scripture (2 Peter 1:18-21; Eph.1:22)
Catholic understanding of this passage is as follows:
In this passage Paul uses the first person singular in the style of diatribe for the sake of argument. He aims to depict the disastrous consequences when a Christian reintroduces the law as a means to attain the objective of holiness pronounced in Rom.6:22. Also, The apostle defends himself against the charge of identifying the law with sin. Sin does not exist in law but in human beings, whose sinful inclinations are not overcome by the proclamation of law.

I also noticed you failed to to show where given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts? And where it says in Scripture that Baptisim is strickly for adults only. Whys is that?


Pax Christi


"because he has looked upon the humiliation of his servant. Yes, from now onwards all generations will call me blessed' ---Luke 1:48

A person has to take the words he reads and interpret those words in order to arrive to the meaning of those words. Just as you must read the words in my post here, interpret those words to understand what I am saying. 2 Pet 1:20,21 does not say you and I cannot interpret the bible to understand it, but refers to those inspired writers of the bible who received words from the Holy Spirit and wrote those words down as given by the Holy Spirit and did not add their own private interpretation to those inspired words.

I see that you gave the Catholic "private interpretation" of the verse. I also see that Paul did not say what the Catholic private interpretation has him saying. Paul did not say "Sin does not exist in law but in human beings" that was pulled out of thin air.

What Paul actually did say was "For without the law sin was dead."

If there was no law then there would be no sin for sin does not exist without law. Since law defines what sin is, then sin is dead without law.

Paul then says " I was alive without the law once". The logical implication of this is:

--if Paul was without law
--and law defines sin thereby sin is dead without law
--then Paul was alive once where sin was dead to him for he was without law.

Yet when Paul matured in his understand, God's commands came to him, sin then sprang up in him and he then died. Paul did NOT say sin was in him when he was born or that he was born spiritually dead. But sin was something that sprang up in some point AFTER he was born, he spiritually died some point AFTER he was born. Sin did not spring up in him and he did not spiritually die until some point AFTER God's commands came to him. Even when Paul was born, God had laws in place yet those laws/command did not apply to Paul as a new born infant for Paul said "I was alive WITHOUT the law once". So how could he ever been alive WITHOUT law when God's law was present and had always been present even when at the time Paul was born?



In MK 16:16 Jesus made belief a prerequisite to being baptized. Infants do not have the developed language or cognitive skills required to have a biblical belief. So the bible is not silent on this issue but plainly teaches baptism is only for those with developed skills in being able to understand the gospel and have a biblical belief.

 

[SeaBass]

Speak for yourself, or let "Wayne Jackson" come to the floor.

Thayer's comment wouldn't apply either, "If one participates in an activity for a long time, it become part of his nature. " Natural habit isn't in the context, else one could just follow Jesus around by habit because of believing he is a mighty majician, by that habit become saved without having faith in the gospel message.

Scripture in context is apparently lost on you. I'll try this way. The Bible reason man could not save himself from sin is because he is by nature of natural flesh born of the physical seed of Adam. No man of his seed could then possibly be savior, all disqualified at conception because of his sin. The promise of Christ began in the garden to Eve, through her seed, which was not of Adam, but of special creation. All people on earth came by way of Adam's seed, except Jesus, born of a virgin, carrying Eve's original seed. God is his Father. Both the woman and Jesus have legal genealogy back to Adam, Jesus' line by proper legal adoption through Joseph the husband of Mary whose lineage was direct to David, then Adam. Mary had a direct lineage to David then Adam, but all women carry the precious seed of Eve, perhaps indeed accurately the "mitochondrial Eve" in nature.

Having that lineage gave God the legal route to destroy the works of the Devil, which stood intact until Christ came. It had to be legal and proper since man (Adam) chose another god, the Devil, making all his male offspring wholly "Children of the Devil". God didn't take the initiative to force man to return to him. Most people choose to remain with Satan as Lord. Man's redemption had to rest upon man's decision to choose God instead, through faith, in his Son Jesus, a legal proper man on earth, the "second man Adam", yet was not of legal lineage to Adam in the flesh. The rest of us all have legal lineage back to Adam, all disqualified from being Messiah, Lord Christ. Jesus alone was both 100% man genetically, while 100% God in the flesh, and it was entirely legal in the court of Heaven.

Going deeper, Abraham fathered a fraction of people on earth, notably the 12 princes of Ishmael and 12 tribes of Israel, father of the branch of Hebrews that were chosen by God to be Israel. Jesus was in his loin not by direct male genealogy, but through faith of Abraham who believed God. Again, Jesus' connection is recorded through Joseph, by adoption according to the Law.

"Original sin" is why people are the way they are until in Christ, and Christ in them. Being born clean of sin, then working hard to be sinners by nature, would make it possible to reverse the trend and work yourself clear of sin again, saved by your own effort. Instead God made a way for us to escape something we were born into, slavery to sin, through Jesus, who was born free, servant of Father God.

If infant baptism meant anything spiritually, particularly involving salvation, then there would be no need for the child to grow up to believe the gospel, not bothering to learn a thing about Jesus, supposedly secure in whatever way he chooses. That flies against all the gospel.

Infant baptism is a tradition of some, not taqught in scriptures. Every baby needs to grow up, respond to God by his or her own volition when called to do that, choosing Jesus as Savior and Lord. If that person rests upon something his parents had done at age 8 days, hell is his destiny.

Nature: a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature", Thayer.

You cannot just simply dismiss the definition Thayer gave to the word "nature" simply because you do not like it. If fact, the CONTEXT backs up that definition:

Eph 2:2,3 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

It does not say they were "born according to the course of this world" but shows how they chose for themselves as to how they walked in this world. They chose to walk so long in sin that it became part of their nature. They were spiritually dead for their own sins they walked in and not because of the sins of Adam.....verse 1 says "your sins" and not "Adam's sin"

Paul says in Rom 2:14 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" If these Gentiles were born depraved sinners they could not possible do "by nature" the things contained in the law.


I quoted Wayne Jackson for I am not an expert in Greek verb usage. The simple tense and voice of the verb "were" is sufficient enough to disprove your position...you did not, could not refute it.

Lastly, if original sin were true, than all infants that are still born, aborted(murdered) and those that die becasue of various medical reasons shortly after being born are all lost for having Adam's sin.

 

[SeaBass]

"Mental assent" belief acknowledges "that there is one God" (James 2:19) and even acknowledges the existence and historical facts about Christ but falls short of saving belief in Christ which believes/entrusts your spiritual well being to Christ; has faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. That's what it means to truly believe/have saving belief in Christ.

The word translated believe is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere "mental assent belief," as in (James 2:19) or also include "trust and reliance in Christ for salvation," as in (Acts 16:31). The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

As I have said numerous times before, in James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington as the means of my salvation. See the difference? Saving belief/faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief/faith trusts exclusively in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of our salvation.

It's one thing to believe that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ "happened" (believe in your head) and another thing to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the all sufficient means of your salvation (believe in your heart). Unfortunately, many "professing" Christians today believe "mental assent" in Christ yet their trust and reliance is in WORKS as the means of their salvation.

I saw no difference between a (1) belief that is "mental assent" of the mind and a (2) belief that entrusts. In both cases no work is present for all that takes place is a mental process.

I can have a belief type mental assent of the mind in acknowledging the fact Christ died for the sins of mankind. I can also have a belief that "entrusts", that has a "conviction" that Christ died for the sins of mankind. There is no difference for again, both are nothing more than a mental thoughts neither with any works.

What separates a dead belief of simple mental thoughts from a living viable saving belief are the obedient works.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I saw no difference between a (1) belief that is "mental assent" of the mind and a (2) belief that entrusts.

Trust doesn't come from the mind. It is a product of the spirit. It must first be accompanied by agreement in the spirit, mind, and soul that the Gospel is true. This is true faith. Belief seated in knowledge alone, emotional reaction lone, earthly soul-based sorrow alone -- these are not faith to salvation. These are non-salvic events that may or may not lead, eventually to salvation.

In both cases no work is present for all that takes place is a mental process.

That's true, but the first does not save. It merely gives intellectual assent. The second actually arises from the agreement of mind, spirit, and soul of the Gospel truth.

I can have a belief type mental assent of the mind in acknowledging the fact Christ died for the sins of mankind.

This is mere opinion, nothing more, the same that you can have for a food, sports team, or political candidate preference.

I can also have a belief that "entrusts", that has a "conviction" that Christ died for the sins of mankind.

If that belief leads to a true confession of your need for Christ as Savior because you realize you are otherwise a hopeless sinner, then certainly that is saving faith.

There is no difference ...

I think you can see from those descriptions of each that there is a vast difference. Mental assent, a pastor of mine used to say, is 18" from salvation -- the distance from the mind to the heart, or spirit.

What separates a dead belief of simple mental thoughts from a living viable saving belief are the obedient works.

Wrong. The obedient works are the result of saving faith through the grace of God. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:10 that the good works we do are those prepared by God beforehand -- before our faith, knowing we would come to love Him, trust Him for salvation, and serve Him through those works. Those works meaning nothing salvation-wise. They mean everything temporally as evidence of our faith, and eternally as the products by which we are rewarded.

 

[mailmandan]

I saw no difference between a (1) belief that is "mental assent" of the mind and a (2) belief that entrusts. In both cases no work is present for all that takes place is a mental process.

So you see no difference between believing in our head and believing in our heart that God raised Him from the dead? (Romans 10:9). With the heart one believes unto righteousness.. (Romans 10:10).

I can have a belief type mental assent of the mind in acknowledging the fact Christ died for the sins of mankind. I can also have a belief that "entrusts", that has a "conviction" that Christ died for the sins of mankind. There is no difference for again, both are nothing more than a mental thoughts neither with any works.

Your belief does not entrust your spiritual well being to Christ when you are trusting in your works to save you. So you did not understand my analogy about George Washington? I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington as the means of my salvation. It's the same with Christ. As I said, many "professing" Christians today believe "mental assent" in the existence and historical facts about Christ, but they are not trusting exclusively in Him as the means of their salvation. Mere "mental assent" belief in Christ conjoined with trust and reliance in WORKS as the means of our salvation is not saving belief/faith.

What separates a dead belief of simple mental thoughts from a living viable saving belief are the obedient works.

The obedient works are the fruit of living faith, not the essence of living faith and not the means of our salvation. We are made alive with Christ by grace through faith, created in Christ Jesus, FIRST then "unto/for good works" (Ephesians 2:5-10). These obedient works that follow are produced from living faith, not dead faith. We must not put the cart before the horse or else we end up with salvation by works.

 

[Utah]

What any of your ongoing replies so far has to do with your accusation of me of slapping God in the face I sure dont know.

Gods presence wasnt in my life then and I wasnt going to lie about it simply to have my word agree with yours.

God wasn't in your life but you were in His. That's the point and you cannot refute that.

God was at your baptism., rejoice knowing that, or don't, I couldn't care less.

 

[DesiredHaven]

God wasn't in your life but you were in His. That's the point and you cannot refute that.

God was at your baptism., rejoice knowing that, or don't, I couldn't care less.

Thanks, you werent invited 48 years ago so I dont know why you would care.

 

[fordman]

A person has to take the words he reads and interpret those words in order to arrive to the meaning of those words. Just as you must read the words in my post here, interpret those words to understand what I am saying. 2 Pet 1:20,21 does not say you and I cannot interpret the bible to understand it, but refers to those inspired writers of the bible who received words from the Holy Spirit and wrote those words down as given by the Holy Spirit and did not add their own private interpretation to those inspired words.

I know we are getting a bit off topic here, but I fell its important to correct you here. By this statment of yours, I see you follow Martin Luther’s feeling that an individual can interpret the Bible perfectly if they pray first. I/Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit guides our Bible reading and illuminates our understanding.
However, I'm not sure that every time someone picks up a Bible, prays, and starts reading, that they are surrounded by the Holy Spirit, even if they are sincere. For example, Martin Luther, after praying and reading the Bible, decided that the Book of James didn't belong in the Bible. To me this is a problem, because here is a guy prayerfully reading the Bible, who decided parts of it didn't belong there, yet he said the Bible was the unerring word of God. This seems kind of cyclical to me. In the preface to his Bible, Martin Luther said:

"the St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw ... for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it."
​

About the Book of Revelation, Luther said:

"I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.. . . and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . there are many far better books for us to keep."
​

So even for Martin Luther, Scripture alone was not enough, he acknowledged that there needed to be human authority governing it, he just thought that the authority should be him, rather than the Catholic Church.

Surely God did not want people to have conflicting interpretations of Scripture, because that would be in conflict with the Bible itself which calls us to unity. (Jn 17:21) Each of these 33,820 denominations was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not reletive then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct.

There are many "Bible believing" denominations (possibly yours?) who say "Jesus is Lord" have now ruled that Gay Marriage and abortions are OK. This includes Lutherans, some Methodist churches, the United Church, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc. That is their interpretation of Scripture. I/Catholics have a problem with that. I/we think Jesus understood the human mind's capacity to rationalize its own wishes even with the Bible in hand, and while saying "Jesus is Lord." I believe we need a higher authority than millions of diverse and conflicting Christians with Bibles in their hands. Catholics think that the final word on the interpretation of Scripture falls on the authority to which Jesus appointed. (Mathew 16:18-19).

I have to get to work right now, and will continue my post later.

Pax Christi


"because he has looked upon the humiliation of his servant. Yes, from now onwards all generations will call me blessed' ---Luke 1:48

 

[tribesman]

There is nothing in Rom 3 that says infants are born sinners. Paul said of himself in Rom 7:8,9 he was not born a sinner but sin was something that sprang up in him later in his life.

John said sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not just an idea passed from one person to another, Eze 18:2-4, 19.20. Infants have not transgressed the law by lying, stealing ,murder, etc therefore no transgression = not a sinner. Paul said of Jacob and Esau in Rom 9:11 that the unborn twins had done no good or evil. Not having done evil/transgression they were not sinners. Mt 19 Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" The kingdom of heaven is not made up of lost, unforgiven reprobate sinners. Those with severe mental disability are innocent as infants.

John moving within his mother somehow "proves" he was a believer is too preposterous to be believable. John moved because of the excitement of his mother hearing a loud voice from Mary. Children do move within the mother Gen 25:21,22. Lightfoot's commentary says " For John, while he was an embryo in the womb, knew no more what was then done, than Jacob and Esau when they were in Rebekah's womb knew what was determined concerning them."

In Acts 2:39 "children" in the context refers to descendants not infants.

The tradition you are coming from is called "restorationist", however it should rather be called rationalist, since much of what it believes seems to be centered around the philosophy that "you can't believe anything that your mind cannot comprehend rationally" i.e. you must understand things only by your intellect before you can believe them.

The way you want to have it, that all infants are innocent and sinless, may be appealing to the sort of emotionalism that would think it "harsh" by God to hold sin against them. But scripture is not agreeing with you. Scripture says that all men have sinned (Rom.3:23). It does not put up any age limit for that category.

It is only "preposterous" to believe that John the baptist did not understand what was going on, even while in his mother's womb, other than for the rationalist who makes faith in God entirely being something of intellectual and mental consent and understanding, not believing God when He says that faith is a gift which only His sheep, His elect, actually possess. And there is no age limit when they will possess it. You are age-limiting Acts.2:39, whereas scriptures is silent about such a discrimination.

Your judgment that people "with severe mental disability are innocent as infants" may sound plausible. But do you know in every case where such comes from? Do you think it always has to be because of genetic defects or other medical reasons? That would be to say far too much. Again, your rationalism makes incursions on what God revealed in the Scriptures.

 

[fordman]

I see that you gave the Catholic "private interpretation" of the verse.

You would be incorrect. I rely on the Church to interpret the Bible when it comes to essential doctrine. Now like it or not bassman, history tells us that the Canon of Scripture was not arrived at until 382 A.D. Until then, there was some dispute over both the Old and the New Testament. In 382 A.D. the Catholic Church, in a general council of bishops at Rome, under the supervision and sanction of the Pope, discerned the list of books which belong in the Bible. Therefore, if the Church discerned which books are the Bible, as Catholics, we believe that the Church can rightly interpret the written Word of God.

Now... does this deny any Catholic or non-Catholic Christian from studying and meditating on God's Holy Word? Absolutly not!
As David wrote in Ps. 119: "Thy Word have I hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against thee." Catholics, as all other Christians, ought to seek God's will for their individual lives by reading the Bible. Christ does speak to us through the Bible; He: leads us....teaches us, and strengthens our faith through His Word. As Saint Paul wrote in Romans, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.(Romans 10:17)
Our Lord said that he would build a Church and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:13-20) He told Peter feed my sheep. (John 21:15-17) St. Paul wrote to Timothy and told him to appoint bishops and elders. Presbyters is where we get the word for our New Testament Priest. Pope Francis (St.Peter's successor) bishops and priests are responsible for feeding His sheep. He did not say go write a book and let every man figure it out for himself. There are 30,000 plus Protestant denominations, each of whom is claiming that the Holy Spirit has lead them to teach this or that. Jesus says Himself, "He is The Way, The Truth, and The Light" not... "the way(s), the truth(s), and the light(s)."

I also see that Paul did not say what the Catholic private interpretation has him saying. Paul did not say "Sin does not exist in law but in human beings" that was pulled out of thin air.

This is starting to sway off the topic of infant baptisim. Out of respect to the OP, we should stay on topic. However. feel free to start a new thread.

In MK 16:16 Jesus made belief a prerequisite to being baptized. Infants do not have the developed language or cognitive skills required to have a biblical belief. So the bible is not silent on this issue but plainly teaches baptism is only for those with developed skills in being able to understand the gospel and have a biblical belief.

Well bassman, something you should consider...The Bible contains many “rules and regulations” concerning baptism. All of these “rules and regulations” in the Bible regarding baptism are for adults since that in the entire Bible the people that are speaking and interacting are an adult, or they are people that are old enough to have a comprehension level of an adult. To better rephrase the latter part of the last statement; all of the Biblical figures, which are adults, are of the age of reason; they are able to discern what is right and what is wrong.








Since these “rules and regulations” are written for adults that are recorded
from adults’ interactions with Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament they cannot apply in exactly the same way the same to infants who live under different circumstances.Infants are new to the world and the only sin they have against them is the Original sin. An infant is not old enough to be able to sin against God for they have not even come close to the age of reason. In order to read the Scriptures one must have some sort of adult comprehension and reading level to obtain a basic understanding.
Now, someone might come back with the argument that infants also are not old enough, or of the age of reason, to have faith in Jesus Christ. In light of that argument one should keep in mind two key points: one must have a comprehension like that of the people of the New Testament to fall under the same criteria for Biblical adult baptism and that Jesus was sent by the Father so that anyone who obeys Him and does the will of the Father will be saved ( John 3:16-18, John 6:40).

Anyone includes all people. It means that the kingdom of God is open to
all people who meet the above stated criteria, which includes infants for they are people just as we are people and one’s grandparents are people.
Since the Kingdom of God is open to anyone who seeks and believes in Christ and since baptism is a necessity for entrance into the Kingdom (John 3:5) and since infants do not have the same comprehension level as adults nor have they reached the age of reason then the provisions for infant baptism must be different than the ones for adult conversion and baptism.However, this does not mean that infants do not get the same effects as an adult baptism because it is still the act of baptism.


The Bible tells us in John 21:25 that there are many things that Jesus did, but are not contained in the Scriptures. Recall that in order to read the Scriptures one must have some sort of adult comprehension level.Ponder the following question bassman... why would the Scriptures instruct someone how to be baptized as an infant if they had already passed that stage of their life? Second Thess. 2:15 says, “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, either by word of mouth [oral statement] or by letter.This verse also shows that there are some things that are not written and that things handed down (i.e. tradition) are just as good as those that are written.

Infant baptism is one of the traditions that was handed down, but not recorded in the Scriptures. Jesus handed it down to His disciples as one of the unwritten events (John 21:25) for the disciples to practice and hand on to their successors. It was passed down as a tradition carried out by the disciples as instructions on how to baptize infants.Infant baptism is a tradition and practice of the early Church that is just as valid then, now and will be forever.



Pax Christi


"because he has looked upon the humiliation of his servant. Yes, from now onwards all generations will call me blessed' ---Luke 1:48

 

[Jeff_56]

Yahweh says clearly anyone who relies on the heresy, He curses. so simple and true.

also,
long before the law was given,

adam and havah knew, they were very conscious of , their sin.

and also

cain knew, was very conscious of his sin. no one can rightly say they needed the law before the law was given to know that

they sinned. they knew.

 

[SeaBass]

Trust doesn't come from the mind. It is a product of the spirit. It must first be accompanied by agreement in the spirit, mind, and soul that the Gospel is true. This is true faith. Belief seated in knowledge alone, emotional reaction lone, earthly soul-based sorrow alone -- these are not faith to salvation. These are non-salvic events that may or may not lead, eventually to salvation.

That's true, but the first does not save. It merely gives intellectual assent. The second actually arises from the agreement of mind, spirit, and soul of the Gospel truth.

This is mere opinion, nothing more, the same that you can have for a food, sports team, or political candidate preference.

If that belief leads to a true confession of your need for Christ as Savior because you realize you are otherwise a hopeless sinner, then certainly that is saving faith.

I think you can see from those descriptions of each that there is a vast difference. Mental assent, a pastor of mine used to say, is 18" from salvation -- the distance from the mind to the heart, or spirit.

Wrong. The obedient works are the result of saving faith through the grace of God. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:10 that the good works we do are those prepared by God beforehand -- before our faith, knowing we would come to love Him, trust Him for salvation, and serve Him through those works. Those works meaning nothing salvation-wise. They mean everything temporally as evidence of our faith, and eternally as the products by which we are rewarded.

There is no difference between the belief the devils have the the belief only some on this forum advocate. They are both the same for neither one have any works and both are dead as long as they have no works.

You posted "It merely gives intellectual assent. The second actually arises from the agreement of mind, spirit, and soul of the Gospel truth."

Again, both are alike in that both are nothing more than 'mental thoughts' and nothing more. "Agreement of the mind" is nothing more than a "mental assent" of the mind.

===========

Seabass "I can also have a belief that "entrusts", that has a "conviction" that Christ died for the sins of mankind."

Vigilant_Warrior "If that belief leads to a true confession of your need for Christ as Savior because you realize you are otherwise a hopeless sinner, then certainly that is saving faith."

If I confess then it is not longer "belief only" but belief AND confession and confession is not just a mental assent of the mind but something one does, an action Rom 10:9,10; Mt 10:32,33.


The devils' belief only will not save them for it is dead being void of works. The devils ,or anyone else, will not be saved while in disobedient/unrighteousness then AFTER they are saved do obedient works. Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38, Rom 10:9,10; Rom 6:17,18 among many more verses have the order of obeying BEFORE salvation. Heb 5:9 say Christ is the author of salvation unto all them that obey, not unto all them that disobey.