Posted on 02/20/2015 4:41:37 AM PST by LeoMcNeil
Rob Bell is a progressive former mega-church pastor. He is also a heretic who, since giving up the mega-church pastoring gig, has been hanging out with the likes of Oprah Winfrey. Bell was part of the emergent church, which engaged in “conversations” and rejected historic Christianity. While the emergents like to pretend they’re new, hip and cool, the reality is they’re no different than the other progressive churches out there which have rejected historic Christianity. The difference between the emergent church and the pentecostal or baptist churches is only how they demonstrate their rejection of historic Christianity. Rather than rolling on the floor, the emergent church sips a Starbucks and has a “conversation” that looks remarkably like a sermon. Their conversation is distinctly post-modern, absolute truth is rejected.
Rob Bell was one of the leaders of the emergent church. Perhaps he still is. He gave up his church in supposedly conservative Grand Rapids, Michigan to hang out with Oprah and Hollywood Starlets out in Los Angeles. His most recent book argued there is no Hell and no one actually goes to Hell. These days he’s busy pushing homosexual marriage. He has argued that the church is moments away from embracing such a bastardization of marriage. Worse, he argues that the church shouldn’t rely on “2,000 year old letters” to form an opposition to homosexual conduct. If Christians cannot and should not rely on God’s word as contained in scripture, what exactly are we supposed to rely upon?
Bell of course argues we should rely upon personal experiences, in particular we should rely on the people placed before us. This is typical progressive nonsense, dripping in post-modernism. Bell’s argument really comes down to not believing in any truth whatsoever so we might as well be nice to the sexual perverts that may be in our lives. Of course being nice to such people is a truth, so that might get a little sticky at some point. Basically, if the wider culture embraces something Bell believes the church should follow. We shouldn’t look to scripture because that’s old. We must embrace the new and modern, even if it contains no truth. We want the church to be relevant after all.
The problem of course is that if we reject Paul’s 2,000 year old letters (to say nothing of the legal proclamations of Moses which are several thousand years older) why not reject the entire gospel of Jesus Christ? The gospels are just as old as Paul’s letters and they contain more foolishness to the world than Paul’s condemnation of homosexual acts. The gospels after all claim a virgin birth, a resurrection from the dead and an ascension into Heaven. They make the preposterous argument that some man named Jesus died for the sins of an elect. Not only that, this Jesus claims he’s God. What a silly, small minded, old fashioned thing to believe. Yet Bell doesn’t outright reject the gospel, the niceties of hippy Jesus give modern man the warm fuzzies.
Bell’s and the progressive and emergent church’s apostasy is clear. They reject scripture unless it suits their purposes, whatever they may be. There are plenty of Christian denominations which have been completely overtaken by progressive “higher criticism” and rejected everything relating to Christ’s birth and resurrection. Bell is well on his way to this, rejecting anything supernatural while keeping the stories about Christ being nice to wicked people. In doing so, they miss the entire point of those stories. But that doesn’t matter to the post-modern emergent church or to Rob Bell. These people really don’t believe in anything. They reject the Bible and they lie to people by offering a little bit of the Bible in the form of Christ’s niceties while rejecting everything else. That’s how Bell can embrace homosexual marriage despite God’s specific creation of marriage in the Garden of Eden between one man and one woman and multiple examples of homosexual conduct declared sin in scripture. In the end, Bell and any church or person who adopts such a position will do nothing but lead himself and others to Hell.
Like I said, you don’t have a proper understanding of the connection between the Old and New Testament covenants. Circumcision is forward looking, it looks to Christ. Baptism looks to the work of Christ which has already been done.
Your problem is that you view baptism as a meaningless ritual which is why you discount the several occasions when scripture says the entire household or family was baptized. You get so close when you cite 1 Cor. 7:14 because that passage teaches us that even the children of one believer are blessed. Paul is clearly teaching that even in families where only one parent is a believer, those children are entitled to admission into the covenant via baptism. You’re denying children Christ by denying them admission into God’s covenant.
Like I showed, you don’t have a proper understanding of the differences between the Old and New Testament covenant, even incredibly asserting "The old covenant isn’t different from the new covenant, it is only extended beyond Israel"!
Circumcision is forward looking, it looks to Christ. Baptism looks to the work of Christ which has already been done.
Indeed, that is not in contention, but shadows do not have complete correspondence to their fulfillment, and you continue to insist on ignoring them. Again, under the Old circumcision is stipulated for infants, which placed then within an physical nation of lost and saved, and which waged war by physical means, but circumcision was not contingent upon repentance and faith (infants and slaves had no choice), though obedience was required.
Baptism signifies being made by faith part of a spiritual nation only made up of believers, having passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6) and is never stipulated for infants, but repentance and faith are, with the only baptisms in which the state of the believers are mentioned being those who were morally cognizant and able to fulfill those conditions.
That is the plain teaching of Scripture, in contrast to the eisegesis of paedobaptists, leaving them to extrapolate infant baptisms out of a few simple statements of whole household baptisms, as if the Holy Spirit would not provide a manifest example for infant baptism while providing many examples of believers baptism. Yet which you incredibly must deny is not the plain teaching of scripture, in order to support your tradition.
Your problem is that you view baptism as a meaningless ritual which is why you discount the several occasions when scripture says the entire household or family was baptized.
I do not view baptism as a meaningless ritual any more than the Lord's supper or putting on a ring in a marriage, but as repentance and faith is the stated required condition, and the only examples we have of the morally cognizant condition of the baptized is that they were able to choose Christ, then baptizing infants leaves them wet, and does not signify that they have passed from death to life, being crucified with Christ and raised to walk in newness of life. And instead it can give them a false confidence that they are already children of God.
You get so close when you cite 1 Cor. 7:14 because that passage teaches us that even the children of one believer are blessed. Paul is clearly teaching that even in families where only one parent is a believer, those children are entitled to admission into the covenant via baptism. You’re denying children Christ by denying them admission into God’s covenant.
That is absurd, and is another example of how carelessly or willingly you compel Scripture to support your tradition! For this text neither says or infers baptism, and what it actually shows is that the family is sanctified by God even though they are not believers and baptized! For the unbelieving husband is under that umbrella of sanctification as are the children! Baptism is not here or in their closet.
And are infants are guiltless, which are not be condemned, then they do not need salvation, while as soon as "the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:16) then he can believe on Christ and be baptized. This needs to be emphasized, while it is those who give souls the false idea that they became part of the family of God via paedobaptism who are fostering their absence from God’s covenant.
Time to move on, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. (Hebrews 6:1) (Hebrews 6:1-2)
There’s a reason why Rob Bell rhymes with infidel.
Sorry, my friend, but you may have to rethink your "choice" filter you run everything thru...'Cause it just "ain't" there in the basic Gospels/Scriptures:
The Son's Witness to this:
16 You did NOT choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. (Jesus, John 15:16)
The Father's Witness to this (thru the Son):
"44 “NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:44)
The Spirit's Witness to this thru Paul:
3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and NO ONE one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)
Before the downtown LA Church of the Open Door closed down in 1985, its pastors had been J. Vernon McGee (21 years) ensued by Michael Cocoris.
Cocoris wrote in one of his books that he regretted preaching in effect "decision theology" -- essentially of making "choices" or "decisions" for Christ. It's actually quite bad theology. We can talk of "responses" to the Holy Spirit's promptings, but even as Cocoris & others have pointed out...the usually one NT passage cited for such "decision" theology is ripped out of context...
It's the passage from Revelation, "behold I stand at the door and knock"...and talks of opening the door to Christ. What people forget or neglect to apply is that this passage was written to one of the seven CHURCHES in Revelation.
(The other OT verse usually cited is Joshua's "choose this day whom you will serve" is likewise geared toward an "in-house" crowd...the 12 tribes...Joshua 24:1, 15)
The early Reformers realized how necessary it was for Jesus Himself to choose us; for the Father to draw us; and for the Holy Spirit to rebirth us, illuminate our minds (1 Cor. 2:10-12) and call Christ Lord because of one simple reality:
Spiritual death of human beings...
"As for you, you were DEAD in your transgressions and sins...GOD, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions... (Eph. 2:1, 4-5)
This is why we read Christ's words in Luke 9 to "let the dead bury the dead." (IoW, let spiritually dead bury the physically dead)
I'm sorry, my friend, but don't try to build any case on Lazarus resurrection in John 11 based upon either his...
...choice to walk out of the grave cave...
...or his "moral cognizance"...
You need to go back to basics re...
...the need to give GOD in Christ & God the Holy Spirit 100% credit & glory for New Life...
...instead of tipping the glory in favor of men & women having (finally) made the "right choice" based upon their acumen & "moral cognizance"...
It's not only NOT Biblical but places New Life & its power as initiating with man when the Bible CLEARLY teaches it's ALWAYS with God Himself!
Daniel, please don't pretend that you are not aware that this doesn't run both ways.
Your comment reflects how we could probably go to a fair # of Midwestern states and see baptized-as-infants living as if they were anything but baptized children of God.
And then I would promptly escort you to many a small town in the South...where perhaps 95% to 100% (well...maybe less these days)...but 25 years ago 95 to 100%...of the townsfolk have "made decisions for Christ" -- many of them perhaps MULTIPLE "decisions for Christ"
And then we could walk all around the bars or perhaps a strip joint on the edge of town that might also cater to truckers...and you'd see plenty of past "decision for Christ" men!
Infant baptism is no special "false confidence" issue -- anymore than what some phrase somebody has mouthed at some point in the past.
It goes both ways...and to somehow pretend it doesn't isn't very forthcoming on this subject.
(Not sure, Daniel, why you reference infants as "guiltless" in a Biblical world that recognizes original sin passed down generation to generation)
Even the Psalmist recognized infants were far from "guiltless" (see Psalm 51:5; 58:3) ...
I've had to take Mormons to task on this matter quite often...and I'd hope you'd be one who wouldn't be siding with the Lds on this matter.
I reject out of hand any notion that babies are born guiltless. They are born in sin and come forth from the womb lying and deceitful. There’s a reason why Christ had to be born of a virgin, he could not have the stain of original sin upon him which is passed from a father to his children.
This is the second time you've referenced in this thread something similar (post #36: Baptism signifies being in the spiritual community...)
There's several things I'm having trouble tracking with this line of thought in light of the actual passages we find early in Romans 6 & elsewhere:
* 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were
** were baptized into Christ Jesus
***were baptized
****into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Those issues include...
This is the same issue I have to constantly deal with the Mormons, & it's troubling to think you're reflecting more Mormon theology here than Biblical theology: And that is the ** phrase in Rom 6:3 above: "baptized into Christ Jesus..."
Do you know how many times on FR I've had to constantly tell Lds we are primarily baptized into Christ Jesus HIMSELF...and not simply into a church, a sect, a church body, a denomination, or an organization?
Yes, I know Paul mentions being "baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13)...
...but this "body" is more a "new ONE flesh" in very similar ways that a marriage is a "new ONE flesh"
...we're not so much baptized into one of XYZ spin-off denominations, but into a PERSON!
...I know we like to "spiritualize" things & talk as if this "body of Christ" is something primarily ethereal ...
...just like to tend to make marriage more about being a "couple" than how Jesus and Genesis describes it ("no longer two, but one (flesh)"...as if we don't know what the phrase "no longer" means...
...yet the PRIMARY NT emphasis is not to place the stress on how you've twice so far stressed being baptized into a "spiritual nation" -- a "spiritual community" -- because, frankly, to way too many evangelicals, baptism is merely a spiritual horizontal act initiated by men who are "choosing" to do so...
Sorry, Daniel. Scriptures such as the above and Galatians 3:27 puts the proper focus in place -- that we are baptized into a PERSON! Jesus Christ Himself!
...for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal. 3:27; cf. Col. 2:11-12)
The baptistries in Augustine's day were OUTSIDE the church buildings to remind people that one passed thru the waters of baptism into the church...vs. passing thru the church building waters as if we are dunked into some particular denomination.
You know, I think I know a reason why some Evangelicals might want to play that down, and it has to do with the real truly HISTORICAL participation in the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus Christ...and we know no mere "symbolic" tokenness can accomplish something so powerful...just as we know that forgiveness of sins, cleansing of sins, justification, salvation, rescue from judgment, regeneration/new birth, adopted sonship, the Gift of the Holy Spirit, etc. are ALL power narratives of the ACTUAL divine transactions that take place...and guess what? ALL of these are linked directly to baptism in the NT...and I will return to that below in #3...
You know when a Biblical writer repeats the exact same verbiage ... like when Isaiah does (Is. 41:13) about the "right hand"...or when Jesus starts off a key phrase with "verily, verily, I say unto you"...it means indeed "pay close attention":
And Paul carefully arranges the tense twice in Romans 6:3: ...were baptized into"
Why?
Because man is 100% passive when it comes to baptism (yes, I know these baptism verses in the Bible militate versus your apparent unBiblical "choice" theology).
See also:
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ..." (Gal. 3:26-27) [Not who "chose" baptism]
You see, the very essence of baptism is NOT self-administration! The summon to be baptized -- like in acts 2:38 -- isn't grammatically focused on the word "let" ... but on "be baptized"...Let's not turn what is a clear passivity of reception into some man-generated activity!
And why is to be baptized primarily a passive reception?
a. Because being baptized INTO A PERSON is a profound spiritual DIVINE act...no ONE of us has that power, authority, etc:
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 1:12-13)
Did you catch that? Did YOU decide to be born? NO? Oh, but you decided to be REBORN? (Oh. Yeah, good thing Lazarus decided to "signify" his new life by all that power & energy he showed walking out of his grave & having his grave-clothes shed!)
And yet John clearly says that rebirth isn't "of human decision"?
Tell us Daniel...why do you ignore John's clear words from John 1:12-13?
Well, all of this then is VERY CLOSELY tied into my third point...
That you keep using an extra word "signifies" that isn't to be found in all of these baptism verses (just like too many Evangelicals likewise attach the word "ordinance" to baptism -- even though that word isn't found attached to any of the baptism verses, either!)
Paul doesn't say baptism is some mere "horizontal sign" that we wave before the world...as if we were mere placard-holders in what goes on in baptism...
Paul cuts right to it...we were baptized into his death 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death...
This isn't just some flowery language drudged up. We HAVE been buried with Him...as we WERE baptized into His death...This is NOT anything that you or I can carry out!
God did that. We've become a 100% grace-based full-beneficiary recipient & hence receive full benefits of all Christ did for us as a free gift (Col. 2:12-15; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 3:21). And don't go stealing glory of powerful divine things that neither you, nor I, can do...
Is to forgive sins something only God does? (That's what Jesus indicated) [The forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism -- either directly in so many words...like Acts 2:38...or as a washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), or as a cleansing (Eph. 5:26), or as in sprinkling the hearts clean from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22).]
This cleansing -- as these verses show -- is clearly God's work, God's activity -- and HE has chosen to link baptism to that process:
But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:11)
We "were washed"...we didn't do some self-lice removal and self-flea removal...
Paul, also in Galatians 3, mentions how being "justified by faith" & becoming "sons of God" and being "baptized into Christ" are all interchangeable descriptions of Christian initiation. If baptism is merely some self-generated "inward act" done by mere men, what? Can we "justify" ourselves?
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit... (Titus 3:5) [see also 1 Peter 3:21]
Can we save ourselves, or is it purely an act of God?
Can we initiate adoption proceedings? Or is this an act of God that is linked to baptism? (Gal. 3:26)
Are we self-rescuers from judgment? Or is this something only God can do, and He has chosen to link this thru baptism? (1 Peter 3:20-21)
We are given a new nature. Is this something only God can do, and He has chosen to link this thru baptism? (See John 3:5 to go with Titus 3:5)
ALL: If you want to know perhaps the #1 untold distinction of how various Christians treat baptism, it lies in this very question:
Do you see to be baptized into Christ Jesus as an act of God, or as an act of man.
Those who choose the latter will come up with Biblical words -- yet unassociated biblically with baptism...like ...
...ordinance
...tokenism
...symbolism
...signifies
...witness
...an "self-administered" "outward act" on man's part to "demonstrate" -- as if we were mere demonstrators...placard-holders -- what God has previously done in giving us faith...
What these weasel words resist is that in the New Testament being baptized is more clearly id'd as an instrument of conversion -- not magical water...but as Ephesians 5:25-26 says:
...just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her BY the washing with water through the word...
The Acts' pattern is clear, whether its Pentecost, Paul's conversion, the Ethiopian eunuch, or the Samritans, or the Ephesian dozen in acts 10, or Cornelius, or the Philippian jailer and his family...the pattern is all uniform: baptism is part & parcel of the Gospel and people are power-deniers if they want to de-link baptism to the Holy Spirit as its direct Agent, or de-link baptism to New Life/Salvation, or de-link baptism to empowering of God's Word-in-action, or de-link baptism to forgiveness, or de-link baptism to justification, or de-link baptism from direct adoption into His family.
Those are ALL vertical aspects with full divine authority, full divine power enacted...they are not simply "horizontal" signs .... placards we wave around to show what God did thru OTHER means...
All of these divine actions are DIRECTLY linked to baptism!
Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself?
"19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19)
Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!
You see, what WE can't do...God does...thru us:
28 Then they asked him, “What must WE do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work OF GOD is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (Jesus, John 6; see also Phil. 2:12-13)
We can't historically participate with Christ's death either...that, too, is by mere nature beyond all adults...we can't be buried with Christ, either; also, beyond us if we rule out SUPERnature and only look at "nature"...yet, thru baptism, Paul says that's precisely what occurs! (See Romans 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; col. 2:11-12)
Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)
Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:
* David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6); "From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)
* Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)
* John the Baptist...
* Samuel
* Joseph
* Isaac
Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:
1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized! (Yet suddenly people do about turn on this subject matter if they are talking about teens being baptized, or the unbiblical Mormon-like "age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures)
So I guess since the baptism reductionists (those who reduce supernaturally being baptized to the mere man-made natural) claim nobody can presume anything about households, that all those household references to baptism must have been either completely childless...or at least presume that since no primary aged kids, no infants, no toddlers, no pre-teens, or not teens are SPECIFICALLY mentioned (see 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 11:14: 16:15, 33; 18:8)
2. With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. The ONLY argument re: baptism then was whether itshould be done in the early days (first week post-birth), or a little later...see Council of Carthage, 253 or 254 AD -- just 133 years after John's death. (Council of Carthage: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of god, especially infants...those newly born) -- 66 bishops said ... just single-digit generations after Jesus' ascension...DON'T HINDER children from "coming unto" HIM (exactly as Jesus said...don't be an ostacle...a blockade...to little children coming to Him)
Origen (185-254), WHOSE FATHER, GRANDFATHER & GREAT-GRANDFATHER were all Christians & who traveled widely & visited many of the churches founded by the apostles...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...
Cyprian (215-258) wrote about baptism being days after birth. hippolytus, Tertullian, Justin martyr, and Irenaus all wrote about infant baptism. 'Twas practiced everywhere in the early church with the possible exception of Eastern Syria. Hippolytus' order of service for baptism had wide circulation, was translated into various languages...
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."
Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.
You must wear out keyboards! Good thing we are rewarded according to the quality and effort of labor.
I will see what i can do latter after a church meeting with God's help. Now going out to move some old snow.
K, bro...
Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself? "19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19) Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!
Again this is a false dilemma, as you are imagining that an action done by God excludes any God-wrought response by man preceding it from being an act requiring moral cognizance, as well as making that work the instrumental cause of a subsequent work of God.
You hold that "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," and is directly linked to justification and adoption into His family New Life/Salvation, yet want to deny this act of being baptized as being a responsive work which infants cannot make, such the act of being baptized is one which God moves and enables one to do.
However, while God certain does move and enable one to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, yet choosing to believe and to be baptized is a stipulated required response by man. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37)
God certainly could move and enable an infant to believe, but there is no Scriptural teaching that He does this as a norm, but instead He calls all to repentance and faith as a prerequisite for baptism.
Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)
That analogy fails, as infants can choose food but are not manifest as culpable for sin, and able to realize their need for a savior, and choose Christ, by God's grace. Conversions in Scripture were preceded conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, and thus of seeking salvation.
Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:
*David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6);
Misappropriation: It says, "By thee have I been holden up from the womb," not choosing to rely in God.
*From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)
Besides actually saying, "Cast upon womb thou God mother's belly," (Psalms 22:10) the whose Psalm with its poetic language ("I am a worm" "many bulls have compassed me" "as a ravening and a roaring lion") speaks most directly of Christ, and need not literally say that David himself choose God at birth, but can infer that God was his God in caring for him, enabling him to have life and a future from birth, while for Christ as God then God was His God from everlasting, and at birth.
If David did choose God, then that would be an exception to the norm, and thus it is mentioned as is the case with multitude other exceptions
*Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)
So you think Timothy could read scripture as an infant, or is this another example of overreach?
*John the Baptist... You mean "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb," (Lk. 1:15) Which quite obviously is not the norm, which norm is what you must show.
* Samuel
For whom we are told, Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him. (1 Samuel 3:7)
Which somehow means he choose God as an infant? More carelessness or desperation.
Joseph
I cannot even guess what text you are referring to that shows Joseph choosing to believe in God as an infant. Because he had a dream after he could talk?
Isaac
Likewise an argument without a text.
Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:
1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized!
Wrong: For the vast majority of descriptions of baptisms are those of souls who repented and believed, manifesting moral cognizance, and thus exclude infants but can include teens, and even souls young enough to "morally "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:16)
..."age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures
Wrong: see below, which denotes a time of realization which was not present before. Nor is this age of accountability originally a Mormonic doctrine, but recognized long before that.
Deuteronomy 1:39 - Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.
Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Isaiah 7:16 - For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. Origen ...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...
Which, along with other traditions of men such held to, testifies to the problem of perpetuation of erroneous traditions due to making tradition equal with Scripture, even if some were unaware of it. Christmas today has centuries of tradition, and is effectively held as required observance, which any minister will realize if he attempt to walk in Scriptural leading in worship.
Cyprian
Who was a principle instrument in the Romanizing of the church:
Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,
The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second.
The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth...
Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.
With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...
[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...
...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."
That is a doubtful assertion as both your birth and death dates are disputed , and thus 86 years could refer to being from his conversion (and how one serves God is an infant leads to legends).
Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.
Along with perpetuating other extraScriptural traditions, which here presumes that the Holy Spirit did not think it important to include even one manifest example/description of an infant being baptized, while providing numerous others of believers being baptized, and requiring repentance and faith as conditions of it, unlike circumcision, which is required for infants.
God knows what He is doing, with in providing what we need and in His silence, which is to be respected, versus adding to His words.
Furthermore, the overall fruit of those who most preach paedobaptists is that of liberalism, in contrast to those who most preach it follows repentance and faith.
Once again you are overreacting in looking at what i did not say in a certain context and leaping to a conclusion because i did not say what needs to be said in a formal teaching on the subject. The Lord Jesus did not say everything that could be said on the subject of salvation when He told the rich young man to sell all and follow Him to be perfect.
Of course I know that being "baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13) means being baptized into a person, Christ, who places us into His body.
Because man is 100% passive when it comes to baptism (yes, I know these baptism verses in the Bible militate versus your apparent unBiblical "choice" theology).
Only by making "passive" refer to an act of man not being an act because he did it by God's grace. But which is the wrong way to deal with salvation being by faith without works, for as explained before, this does not mean man is comatose in conversion, though not merit of works was the cause.
Works done due to God's moving and enablement does not means that are not works, as all works that God will reward are a result of that, and yet they are called works, and under grace faith is recompensed in recognition of them. (Heb. 10:35; 1Cor. 3:8ff) .
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 1:12-13) Did you catch that? Did YOU decide to be born? NO? Oh, but you decided to be REBORN?
This is a superficial analysis, as analogies seldom have complete correspondence in every aspect, but only in the aspect they are invoked for, which in this case is who one is born of and by. That being of God and by God does not negate the FACT that human decision is involved, even if this choice is due to God's moving and enablement.
That you keep using an extra word "signifies" that isn't to be found in all of these baptism verses (just like too many Evangelicals likewise attach the word "ordinance" to baptism -- even though that word isn't found attached to any of the baptism verses, either!)
So now we cannot use any words which are descriptive of what Scripture teaches? So much for metaphorical. The clear fact is that Rm. 6 clearly signifies baptism as representing death and rebirth, but since you say it is wrong to use it then it must be dropped.
[The forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism
And where is the word "designated" found in all of these baptism verses? What Acts 3:28 says is if one repents and is baptized, which is a human decision, then he will be forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, though it is actually the faith behind the act which appropriates it. (Acts 10:43) And thus by telling them to so something that required that faith then they would assured have what it appropriated. God purifying their hearts by faith.(Acts 15:7-9)
We've become a 100% grace-based full-beneficiary recipient & hence receive full benefits of all Christ did for us as a free gift (Col. 2:12-15; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 3:21). And don't go stealing glory of powerful divine things that neither you, nor I, can do...
There is no stealing in teaching a act which is motivated and enabled by God is indeed an act, and a work, though not meriting justification.
ALL: If you want to know perhaps the #1 untold distinction of how various Christians treat baptism, it lies in this very question: Do you see to be baptized into Christ Jesus as an act of God, or as an act of man.
Baptism by the Spirit into the body, which is by the kind of faith which is expressed in water baptism but can happen before that act, is an act of God. The act of water baptism by a believer is an act done by man who is moved and enabled by God to do so in obedience to God, which confesses the faith which appropriates forgiveness and justification, just as Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. But who manifested that by offering Issac, which act "justified," validated, him as being a believer. .
If water baptism effects regeneration then it would be an operation of God via an act by man who does so bcz he is moved and enabled by God to do so. Thus even under your doctrine man is not passive in conversion, while in both cases the act of water baptism does not merit justification, though God blesses obedience.
Moreover, if you are going to exclude baptism as being a work under the premise that God moves and enables him to do so, the we must exclude all works which God does thru believers from being works, though God recognizes them as works and rewards them.
If baptism is merely some self-generated "inward act" done by mere men, what? Can we "justify" ourselves?
That is a strawman, as i never said or inferred that water baptism was any inward act, nor that man effects any, but that God moves and enables man to believe on the Lord Jesus, and which faith is confessed in baptism, but which act does not merit justification.
Even if "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," meaning baptism is the instrumental means by which one obtains forgiveness, yet this God-enabled act is still one which infants are not shown as being able to make, or need to.
The Acts' pattern is clear, whether its Pentecost, Paul's conversion, the Ethiopian eunuch, or the Samritans, or the Ephesian dozen in acts 10, or Cornelius, or the Philippian jailer and his family...the pattern is all uniform: baptism is part & parcel of the Gospel and people are power-deniers if they want to de-link baptism to the Holy Spirit as its direct Agent, or de-link baptism to New Life/Salvation, or de-link baptism to empowering of God's Word-in-action, or de-link baptism to forgiveness, or de-link baptism to justification, or de-link baptism from direct adoption into His family.
Then you have a contradiction which is remedied by understanding that it is the faith that baptism requires and expresses that appropriates justification, not an act.
For as Peter preached,
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
And as these souls manifested,
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (Acts 10:44-46)
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. (Acts 10:47-48)
True indeed, and there was not pretending that the latter was not a problem, while the point is that both are wrong. Glad you agree.
Sorry, my friend, but you may have to rethink your "choice" filter you run everything thru...'Cause it just "ain't" there in the basic Gospels/Scriptures: The Son's Witness to this: 16 You did NOT choose me, but I chose you..."44 “NO ONE can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them. NO ONE one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:3)
None of those are contrary to what i said, as all these texts refer to souls which could and would make choices, even though it was God who drew them, convicted them, opened their heart, and granted them repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) so that they chose what they otherwise could not and would not do.
But they all made choices, as God requires them to do in order to be saved.
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)
Meanwhile those who will not make that response, choosing to reject the even light they had and thus their foolish heart was darkened, (Rm. 1:21) will be lost.
You need to go back to basics re... ...the need to give GOD in Christ & God the Holy Spirit 100% credit & glory for New Life... ...instead of tipping the glory in favor of men & women having (finally) made the "right choice" based upon their acumen & "moral cognizance"...
Indeed God gets all the credit, as i just substantiated, and which an RC recently attacked me for, but it remains that man is not saved as a comatose soul, but as one who by the grace of God makes a response that otherwise he could not and would not make, versus having merited it by his response.
And it remains that repentance and faith are requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) which was the point.
Cocoris wrote in one of his books that he regretted preaching in effect "decision theology"
That is not at all what i said or was arguing or contrary to what i was, and coaxing sinner's prayers out of souls is unBiblical and a problem in this superficial society. The work of the evangelist is to be a preaching instrument of conviction so that sinners ask, "What shall we do," and yet a command to do something was given, God enabling and motivating. (Acts 2:37,38)
Then I accept you as a learned man.
Millions of the Jaredites are slain in battle—Shiz and Coriantumr assemble all the people to mortal combat—The Spirit of the Lord ceases to strive with them—The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed—Only Coriantumr remains.
1 And it came to pass when Coriantumr had recovered of his wounds, he began to remember the awords which Ether had spoken unto him.
2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly atwo millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.
3 He began to repent of the evil which he had done; he began to remember the words which had been spoken by the mouth of all the prophets, and he saw them that they were fulfilled thus far, every whit; and his soul amourned and refused to be bcomforted.
4 And it came to pass that he wrote an epistle unto Shiz, desiring him that he would spare the people, and he would give up the kingdom for the sake of the lives of the people.
5 And it came to pass that when Shiz had received his epistle he wrote an epistle unto Coriantumr, that if he would give himself up, that he might slay him with his own sword, that he would spare the lives of the people.
6 And it came to pass that the people repented not of their iniquity; and the people of Coriantumr were stirred up to anger against the people of Shiz; and the people of Shiz were stirred up to anger against the people of Coriantumr; wherefore, the people of Shiz did give battle unto the people of Coriantumr.
7 And when Coriantumr saw that he was about to fall he fled again before the people of Shiz.
8 And it came to pass that he came to the waters of Ripliancum, which, by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all; wherefore, when they came to these waters they pitched their tents; and Shiz also pitched his tents near unto them; and therefore on the morrow they did come to battle.
9 And it came to pass that they fought an exceedingly sore battle, in which Coriantumr was wounded again, and he fainted with the loss of blood.
10 And it came to pass that the armies of Coriantumr did press upon the armies of Shiz that they beat them, that they caused them to flee before them; and they did flee southward, and did pitch their tents in a place which was called Ogath.
11 And it came to pass that the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did ahide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred.
12 And it came to pass that they did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether.
13 And it came to pass that Ether did abehold all the doings of the people; and he beheld that the people who were for Coriantumr were gathered together to the army of Coriantumr; and the people who were for Shiz were gathered together to the army of Shiz.
14 Wherefore, they were for the space of four years gathering together the people, that they might get all who were upon the face of the land, and that they might receive all the strength which it was possible that they could receive.
15 And it came to pass that when they were all gathered together, every one to the army which he would, with their wives and their children—both men, women and children being armed with aweapons of war, having shields, and bbreastplates, and head-plates, and being clothed after the manner of war—they did march forth one against another to battle; and they fought all that day, and conquered not.
16 And it came to pass that when it was night they were weary, and retired to their camps; and after they had retired to their camps they took up a howling and a alamentation for the loss of the slain of their people; and so great were their cries, their howlings and lamentations, that they did rend the air exceedingly.
17 And it came to pass that on the morrow they did go again to battle, and great and terrible was that day; nevertheless, they conquered not, and when the night came again they did rend the air with their cries, and their howlings, and their mournings, for the loss of the slain of their people.
18 And it came to pass that Coriantumr wrote again an epistle unto Shiz, desiring that he would not come again to battle, but that he would take the kingdom, and spare the lives of the people.
19 But behold, the aSpirit of the Lord had ceased striving with them, and bSatan had full power over the chearts of the people; for they were given up unto the hardness of their hearts, and the blindness of their minds that they might be destroyed; wherefore they went again to battle.
20 And it came to pass that they fought all that day, and when the night came they slept upon their swords.
21 And on the morrow they fought even until the night came.
22 And when the night came they were adrunken with anger, even as a man who is drunken with wine; and they slept again upon their swords.
23 And on the morrow they fought again; and when the night came they had all fallen by the sword save it were fifty and two of the people of Coriantumr, and sixty and nine of the people of Shiz.
24 And it came to pass that they slept upon their swords that night, and on the morrow they fought again, and they contended in their might with their swords and with their shields, all that day.
25 And when the night came there were thirty and two of the people of Shiz, and twenty and seven of the people of Coriantumr.
26 And it came to pass that they ate and slept, and prepared for death on the morrow. And they were large and mighty men as to the strength of men.
27 And it came to pass that they fought for the space of three hours, and they fainted with the loss of blood.
28 And it came to pass that when the men of Coriantumr had received sufficient strength that they could walk, they were about to flee for their lives; but behold, Shiz arose, and also his men, and he swore in his wrath that he would slay Coriantumr or he would perish by the sword.
29 Wherefore, he did pursue them, and on the morrow he did overtake them; and they fought again with the sword. And it came to pass that when they had aall fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz, behold Shiz had fainted with the loss of blood.
30 And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz.
31 And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and afell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.
32 And it came to pass that aCoriantumr fell to the earth, and became as if he had no life.
33 And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he afinished his brecord; (and the chundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them.
34 Now the last words which are written by aEther are these: Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am bsaved in the kingdom of God. Amen.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/15
And yet the BOOK says...
Ether 14:22
And so swift and speedy was the war that there was none left to bury the dead, but they did march forth from the shedding of blood to the shedding of blood, leaving the bodies of both men, women, and children strewed upon the face of the land, to become a prey to the worms of the flesh.
Trinity: found in the Book of MORMON ----------- rejected in the Doctrines and Covenants
Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No. (Alma 11:28-29) ...and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44) ...doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21) ...praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7) ...power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, (Mosiah 15:3-5) ...of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them. (Ether 2:8) According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. (Section 121:32) And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God. And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them--Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths--then shall it be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (Section 132:18-20) Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. (Section 132:37)
"Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name." (3 Nephi 9:15)
"And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you. Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them--Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them. And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water. And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one...And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one." (3 Nephi 11:22-27, 36)
Do you have an actual point to make?
Your cut and paste nonsense doesn’t interest me.
“Then I accept you as a learned man.”
Again, do you have a point to make? A point to discuss?
At this point, my chair is more interesting...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.