Posted on 03/07/2015 12:04:48 PM PST by Colofornian
Cyprian was not an apostle nor is what he wrote scripture.
Irenaeus was not an apostles nor is what he wrote scripture.
I understand you have a monomania with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I found this change of subject for you very refreshing and presumed that you might have been recently married or won the Lottery), but that’s not the topic. Let’s stay on topic. Try to focus.
The conclusion that a baby can sin inexorably leads to the Pedophiles Postulate: the infant asked for it.
Furthermore, it indicates the Satan wins and that God cares more for procedure, than faith and the scriptures end to end refute that. A willing heart...
* Acts 16:25-34
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
* Acts 11:14
Act 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Act 10:33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM...
* Acts 18:8
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
* Acts 16:15
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
The bible doesn't tell us about Lydia's family...But in view of the next two scriptures, there is no doubt how it went...
(Of course, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 would have had no "household" to baptize)
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
WITHOUT BAPTISM!!!
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
No repentance...No baptism...Children aren't required for either...
Next from post #143...
Exactly. Be baptized -- which the NT describes as a purely passive act that happens to us. (I can perhaps go into this in more detail on another post)
The bible says exactly the opposite than what you claim...
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
It was the Eunuch's decision to get baptized...He asked for it...The Eunuch could not have gotten baptized without walking down into the water...Not passive...Extremely active...
Note that the Scriptures don't say, "Repent and make 'a decision for Christ,' now do they?
Repenting IS making a decision for Jesus...
The Bible is not a one to one map of all events in history. It’s a summation with some description, but with much left out. They had the benefit of continuing revelation. The Church of Jesus Christ is a living church, at least for them it was. Further, what you’re reading is not what happened. They actually spoke directly with saints (believers) who taught the Gospel. You don’t and cannot know what exactly was taught or explained by simply reading the Bible.
This is good.
The Catholic Church fathers were inspired by God???
If you get to heaven, be sure to tell David that was your feedback to his inspired Word...then you can tell God next)
Everything you posted was meant to show overall concepts, and not specific detailed instructions.
(Yeah, like the "overall concept" of universal sin generationally handed down...otherwise what we have is the Stormprepper household learning sin from Mr. & Mrs. Stormprepper)
Colofornian demonstrates why a living prophet who is in communication with God is necessary. Living Prophets like what Rev 11 refers to.
SP, even Joseph Smith taught these concepts occasionally if you'd but pay attention to them:
"And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin...that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now." (D&C 84:49, 53)
In D&C 29:41, Smith admitted that the Garden of Eden sins led to spiritual death.
So what can come spiritually alive from that which is spiritually dead?
A FReeper posted this tidbit on a website last week:
William Webster, a former Catholic turned Evangelical, in his 1995 book The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, freely admits the unanimous position of the Church Fathers as to what is called “baptismal regeneration”:
“The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers....From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.”(Webster, page 95-96)
If you're so dead-set vs. baptism, maybe you should let Jesus know!
(His Great Commission for making disciples in Matt. 28 heavily built up both baptizing and teaching as THE way to make disciples).
I could go thru LOTS of Scriptures and conclude, "See! No 'make disciples' phrasing! See! No 'teaching the discipled to observe everything I have commanded'
I would hope others coming into a thread like this wouldn't conclude that Jesus & His Great Commission is being tossed under the bus.
And, btw, this kind of posting goes back as a throwback to Mr Rogers' post about how little the apostle Paul baptized.
I mean Jesus gave the 11 disciples -- and all who are in Christ who take that commission seriously -- a commission to make disciples (by) baptizing and teaching.
Would you and Mr Rogers really accuse the 11 disciples of directly disobeying Him?
Considering that one day you will likely see these disciples face-to-face and fellowship with them, are you really going to go on the record for heaven & earth to see that you don't think these disciples baptized as they went along...and made it a common practice of disciple-making?
And, Iscool, if your church is not making baptism a common part of your disciple-making, why not?
And if they are, would those your church is attempting to disciple be "inspired" to be baptized by all your posts against it?
Because many of your posts aren't just saying, "No infant baptism." But "no baptism" at all.
An author named Mueller in his book on "Christian Dogmatics" cites somebody who labels others as "traitors and miscreants who tear baptism apart." I don't think you fall into that category; But I would hope that you wouldn't give anybody pause to think otherwise by your attacks on baptism.
If infant baptism is the imperative that the article states, why did God not set that example at Jesus’ birth? God could have certainly set the timing of John The Baptist’s arrival to coincide with the Jesus’ birth. It was the event of His baptism at age 30 that ushered in His ministry. I tend to believe that Jesus, sinless and in no need of salvation or baptism, set the example and significance of baptism as the conscious act of a disciple in obedience to God’s command. An infant cannot make such a choice.
That's one of the reasons I'm not Catholic...
We have posted more than sufficient amounts of scripture to prove there is no (water) baptismal regeneration...
“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...
Matthew 3:15: ...as a way to fulfill all righteousness" (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
Well whose righteousness?
I doubt you & I would question Jesus' personal pre-baptismal righteousness.
So right away we know all of those other Scriptural reasons given for our baptisms don't apply to Jesus' baptism, right? Things like...
* regeneration (John 3:5; Titus 3:5)
* deliverance from death -- salvation (1 Pet. 3:21; Mark 16:16)
* justification (1 Cor. 6:11)
* conscience being delivered (Heb. 10:22)
* new heart (Eze 36:25-27)
* forgiveness/remission of sins (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 22:16)
* Cleansing (Eph. 5:25-26; Zech 13:1)
Most commentators focus on Jesus' reason for baptism was "identification with sinners"...The Righteous One identifying with the unrighteous
Identification with sinners -- not only with baptism but his identification as a condemned man on the cross -- was best done as an adult. (I mean, God could have had His infant Son, Jesus, crucified as well as satisfactory atonement, obviously God wanted all of this to play out in front of a more public audience)
Because many of your posts aren't just saying, "No infant baptism." But "no baptism" at all.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
I don't see any water baptism there, do you...
You don't seem to feel the need to respond to any scripture that's posted to you...You just continue to bombard us with the few scripture that seems to suit your purpose...
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?
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.