Posted on 03/07/2015 12:04:48 PM PST by Colofornian
You did not discuss lack of imputation in your first post. Infants go to paradise immediately upon death-even the infant born of pagans. Of course no sin is imputed to them. The age at which imputation of sin occurs is left to God’s judgement. I think God will respect human good faith judgement on the issue. “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”
I know that many lifelong Christans have claimed to have committed themselves to the Lord at an early age, and even been baptized then; but I personally think it would be wiser for them to wait for the water baptism into discipleship until the point that they are rather freer of the motive to do things based on pleasing mommy and/or daddy, and are coming through the hormone hothouse transformation and into a responsible young adulthood where the decision is more likely both intellectually and heartwise secure.
In fact, I have seen others for which this early promise was not borne out into their adult life. So we ought to be very careful with this. Baptizing children is a pretty tricky proposition. It's not one in which we can blindfold God as to the reality of the child's spiritual state, and how He is going to deal with it. Infant baptism is a very foolish procedure, and has nothing to do with heaven or hell for the child.
But in fact, the doctrine of salvation and spiritual birth is attached to a saving irreversible faith, and not at all to the subsequent rite of public announcement of one's commitment to Christ, which is all and only that which the water baptism connotes.
By consistency...then ANY paid holiday...I assume then you’ve always rejected all or most paid holidays and told your boss you were working anyway
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
There's Matthew's version...
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
That's Luke's version...No babtism...
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Conversion without baptism...
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
No baptism...
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Again, no baptism...
Act 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Act 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance and Faith...Obviously baptism wasn't profitable for Paul...
There are some common things that are required for salvation...One is God's grace...The next is repentance (turning to Jesus), and the last is Faith (not in a religion)...
Without all three of those, baptizing a baby is a waste of perfectly good holy water...
The basic problem with this theology is there isn’t any convenient place where you begin to hold anybody morally accountable...and as any parent of a toddler in a tantrum knows...good luck with that!
That's one week (on the eighth day). Shame on you.
Will reply in greater depth later...but here’s the immediate problem in the 3 part “iscool” formula you laid out...you cited 3 essentials...grace...repentance...faith in Christ...you prior to that cited 6 sections of Scripture ...and the either direct or indirect implication was that since baptism happened to be missing from those cherry picked verses...that baptism isn’t somehow an essential...Well you gotta major problem then with the first part of your “Iscool” formula: NONE of those scriptures you cited mentioned “grace”...by your own logic grace is not an essential!
Religious holidays are the same as paid days off? I guess there is a BIG difference between Catholics and protestants.
My, oh my! And I thought that all Bible-believing Protestants believed the same thing from the plain words of the Bible.
You are correct of course...I knew that...indeed shame on me...thank you for your sharp eye...I think sometimes with babe’s I get into my proliferation mode where I rattle off “heartbeat at 3 weeks...brain waves at 40 days post conception”
...well I could post some non once saved always saved threads to ensure at least that everyone would study the Bible for themselves instead of letting Rome, Salt Lake City, their denominational HQS or their fave seminary manager that on their behalf
In fact, I became a Calvinist by reading Augustine. I didn't start reading Calvin until later.
From the Catholic POV: good article; thanks!
This is a denial of original sin and therefore a heinous error. It cannot be disputed that the sin of Adam has destroyed his progeny. I like a'Brekel's response to your verse, so I'll let him deal with you:
"Answer: Deut 24:16 is a law which God has given to man. From this we may not draw a conclusion as far as divine justice is concerned. The text refers to violations of the law and not to a breach of covenant. The one is not a necessary consequence of the other. The text refers to the sins of specific individuals. Adam, however, was the head of the covenant which was established in him with the entire human race. This sin was the sin of the entire human race, for outside of Adam and Eve there were no other human beings. The entire human race was comprehended in Adam, and thus that same human race bears the punishment of their own sin. Ezek 18:20 also speaks of specific sins of specific people, and is therefore not applicable to Adam and his descendants who are in covenant relationship with him. The text refers to adult children who do not follow the footsteps of their parents. God convinced them that they themselves were committing these sins, and thus would be punished for their own sins with the same manner of punishment. It is incontrovertible that God punishes children for the sins of their parents, as is to be observed in the flood, in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the children of Eli. God very expressly states the following about Himself: “... visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” (Exod 20:5).
“In fact, I became a Calvinist by reading Augustine.”
The anachronistic impossibility of that statement speaks for itself.
You must have missed his rather florid prayers to Mary, as well as the passage where he says it's a sin not to adore the Eucharist.
Which leads to an odd conundrum: since (I suppose) you think he's a gross heretic on those points, why would you listen to anything he said in regard to soteriology?
An unbelieving baby with water sprinkled on its head isn’t anything but a baby with a wet head.
Yet the scripture teaches that we are shaped in iniquity from the very womb:
Psa_51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
That a clean thing cannot come forth from an unclean thing:
Job_14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
That death and condemnation have passed down on all:
"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification." (Rom 5:15-16)
Why would God regard something as "innocent" when it is shaped in iniquity? Why would God declare something "clean" when it is born dead and unclean? Clearly, if infants did not have the condemnation of Adam's sin imputed to him or her, they could never die. The fact that they do die plainly shows their subjection to the penalty of sin, which is death. That is why it is said that no one can "see the Kingdom of heaven" unless they are born again. All are guilty of their sins, if not theirs own personally, then the sin of Adam which is not only imputed onto them, but which also results in their being born dead and depraved, "working iniquity" as soon as they are able.
This is why the nonsense about the "age of accountability" is the true lie, and why the children of believers have every right to be baptized, for they are not born innocent, but already subject to death due to their depravity and the sin of Adam.
Too many want to believe water baptism saves us from sin, rather than being immersed in the Holy Spirit by the Baptism of Jesus. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.”
” If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon’s portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn’t Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.
Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.”
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions/QA79#.TkaZaGNN-l4
Sure lets baptize them in the womb too, and make 2 year olds priests and pastors. Actually I like that idea for those who can’t understand the bible and yet claim to follow Jesus. All church leaders must be under the age of 8, brilliant!
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.