“Because many of your posts aren’t just saying, “No infant baptism.” But “no baptism” at all.”
Who is suggesting to do that? Anyone?
Iscool wrote:
“No repentance...No baptism...”
Exactly! There is no reason to baptize someone who is not washed in the blood of Jesus. You cannot unite someone in His death and resurrection without their permission!
Where do the Apostles in scripture baptize ANYONE against their will? Where do they baptize an infant who is incapable of repenting? Can you cite a single verse?
Of course not! Water baptism FOLLOWS the baptism of Jesus. Apart from the Baptism of Jesus in the Holy Spirit, uniting us to Christ and to His death and resurrection, water baptism IS MEANINGLESS. To suggest someone who has not repented and who doesn’t have any concept of what repentance could mean should be baptized in water, and thus saved, is to resort to magic and ritual instead of submitting to God.
“When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
13 Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
17 learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow’s cause.
18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you shall eat the good of the land;
20 but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”
Israel could not be saved by physical birth either. Circumcision was meaningless for those who were hard of heart. Only repentance and faith could save the Israelite - or the “BELIEVER”. For no one can follow Christ if they do not believe Him...
You need to keep up with these thread posts vs. wasting my time having to give you basic info from the thread:
Iscool's posts
Post #165: No baptism
Post #164: WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM...
Post #164: WITHOUT BAPTISM!!!
Post #64: No baptism
Post #64: No baptism
Post #64: Again, no baptism
Post #64: Obviously, baptism wasn't profitable for Paul
If I read these 7 lines in three of Iscool's posts, and I was on the fence as to whether to get baptized or not, I'd take that it'd be so foreign to Scripture as to disregard it entirely.
And there was plenty of his posts I didn't cite that go beyond simply questioning infant baptism.
Exactly.
We find this concept you reference in NT passsages like John 8 where Jesus deals with the Pharisees and like John 1:
12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1)
And w/John 1:12, note that the underlying Greek word for "right" is essentially meaning "authority"...and this is similar to Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus cites His all authority on heaven & earth & proceeds to authorize His disciples to baptize in the Authoritative Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Secondly, with v. 13, note that I bold-faced the phrase agreeing with that concept...but note also the last part:
Why do many Evangelicals militate vs. John 1:13 by equating being "born of God" with human decisions when John plainly says "NO" to that? (Please answer)
And where do passsages like Romans 9 fit into your theology?
15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does NOT, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
What do you Evangelicals' decisional regenerators do anyway with those passages like John 1:12-13 & Rom. 9:15-16? Clip them with scissors from your Bibles?
If you were unbaptized and in a coma on your death bed, and your wife was desperate to have you baptized and did so...Then yes, you are strictly incapable of repenting...at that moment.
But I'm not sure why you would ascribe that "incapacity" as being around forever if one day you came out of that coma.
Lazarus in the tomb was "incapable" of repenting, right? Did that somehow forestall His resurrection?
I've got good news for you:
#1. Infants don't stay infants forever
#2. Even adults being baptized don't likely repent once-and-for all. What adults & infants have in common is future repentance.
Those who keep harping on repentance act as if:
(a) Little children whom they refuse to baptize aren't capable of repentance (sorry...not so...I've seen little children repent....so it's on YOU to explain why your church won't baptize them if "repentance" were your key hurdle)
(b) Infants won't ever get to stage (a)!
So do you accord more patience to natural seed -- what we call sperm -- to unite in womb fertilization and wait 9 months to see that baby than to the seed of baptism? More patience that the imperishable seed of God's Word?
May I remind you that without God's Word, baptism is nothing.
May I remind you both are linked together in Eph. 5:25-26?
May I remind you that in the same epistle where Peter says "baptism saves you" (1 Pet. 3:20) he mentions in chapter 1: 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.?
The living and enduring Word of God is likewise a seed!
What kind of gardener are you that you expect instant indicators from every seed you plant?
Any # of things listed as occurring in Scripture would have been meaningless for those hard of heart!
If the guy healed via Jesus putting mud on his eye had been hard-hearted, would have all been meaningless.
Had Samuel anointed a hard-hearted Saul with oil, it would have been meaningless and the HS would not have come upon him (1 Samuel).
If your church elders were applying James 5:14 to utilizing oil in a healing situation, but the person was hard-hearted, that, too could lead to a "meaningless" application of oil (tho not necessarily, for God may still have mercy/compassion on whom He will...see Rom. 9:15-16 as the James 5 emphasis includes how "the Lord is full of compassion and mercy" -- v. 11)
If an adult had a hard heart and was being baptized at your church in a kind of "going thru the motions" way...that too could eventually result in meaninglessness.
You see...based upon Scripture I am not locked in to your likely once-saved, always-saved notions.
You see...this is where my perception is that you don't even apply your arguments being used to other scenarios...and why I claim a high level of inconsistencies here...
Are you willing to sincerely address your OWN internal tensions here?
Or are you ONLY going to go on the attack?
First of all this is a strawman if you think I believe different from you on this.
You keep arguing as if I was Roman Catholic.
I don't believe water is magically "holy" ... although I recognize that ONE of the meanings of the word "holy" is similar to consecrated -- meaning "set apart" (for a holy purpose).
I am in complete agreement that the Word of God...and the operation of the Holy Spirit is necessary.
The REAL difference is that you don't seem to think that God can, in conjunction with His Spirit and His Word, use...
...water
And yet, have you thrown out the Siloam miracle because of Jesus using mud and water?
Have you railed against Samuel using oil -- and insinuated it was "meaningless" oil -- when he used it to anoint Saul?
Are you consistent?
Do you attack Samuel for having used oil?
Do you go on the attack against the Old Testament conclusion that in, with, and thru this oil (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1) that indeed the Spirit came upon Saul? (1 Sam. 16:13)
And here is even the bigger question?
Why do you assume all these things are the acts of mere men, vs. God?
We are clearly told in Saul's case that Samuel anointed him (1 Sam. 9:16; 10:1; 15:1)...yet what ALSO does Holy Scripture tell us?
The LORD did the anointing!!! (1 Sam. 15:17)
The Lord anointed Saul thru Samuel utilizing oil.
Why is that SUCH a shocker for Evangelicals, who supposedly adhere to God's supernatural power???
Why do you rail against God's power being made operative in anything natural?
What? Did you have problems with God using a natural rib to create Eve?
Are you going to lecture us on how "ribs" are "meaningless" for actual creative purposes?