French court rules in favor of de-baptism

Using the law to deny that a historical event occurred.  Another example of the government and the law and unbelievers not understanding theology enough even to oppose it:

In France, an elderly man is fighting to make a formal break with the Catholic Church. He’s taken the church to court over its refusal to let him nullify his baptism, in a case that could have far-reaching effects.

Seventy-one-year-old Rene LeBouvier’s parents and his brother are buried in a churchyard in the tiny village of Fleury in northwest France. He himself was baptized in the Romanesque stone church and attended mass here as a boy. . . .

But his views began to change in the 1970s, when he was introduced to free thinkers. As he didn’t believe in God anymore, he thought it would be more honest to leave the church. So he wrote to his diocese and asked to be un-baptized. “They sent me a copy of my records, and in the margins next to my name, they wrote that I had chosen to leave the church,” he says.

That was in the year 2000. A decade later, LeBouvier wanted to go further. In between were the pedophile scandals and the pope preaching against condoms in AIDS-racked Africa, a position that LeBouvier calls “criminal.” Again, he asked the church to strike him from baptismal records. When the priest told him it wasn’t possible, he took the church to court.

Last October, a judge in Normandy ruled in his favor. The diocese has since appealed, and the case is pending.

“One can’t be de-baptized,” says Rev. Robert Kaslyn, dean of the School of Canon Law at the Catholic University of America.

Kaslyn says baptism changes one permanently before the church and God.

 “One could refuse the grace offered by God, the grace offered by the sacrament, refuse to participate,” he says, “but we would believe the individual has still been marked for God through the sacrament, and that individual at any point could return to the church.”

 French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish. Loup Desmond, who has followed the case for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, says he thinks it could set a legal precedent and open the way for more demands for de-baptism.

 “If the justice confirms that the name Rene LeBouvier has to disappear from the books, if it is confirmed, it can be a kind of jurisprudence in France,” he says.

Up to now, observers say the de-baptism trend has been marginal, but it’s growing. In neighboring Belgium, the Brussels Federation of Friends of Secular Morality reports that 2,000 people asked to be de-baptized in 2010. The newspaper Le Monde estimated that about 1,000 French people a year ask to have their baptisms annulled.

via Off The Record: A Quest For De-Baptism In France : NPR.

HT:  Mary

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The slightest knowledge of baptism would inform them that they can walk away from their baptism any time they want.

    One doesn’t need a court for that. I do it all the time.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    The slightest knowledge of baptism would inform them that they can walk away from their baptism any time they want.

    One doesn’t need a court for that. I do it all the time.

  • kenneth

    You know that de-baptism in theory can be debated in law courts but only God knows it’s effect. It is the double predestination problem in away. And it depends on the recipent of the baptism and the faith he has or does not have. An awsome thing to think about.

    In God’s eye he or she is potentially capable in Christ for redemptive favor right up to the end of life. If your an open theist the baptism just could become effective.

  • kenneth

    You know that de-baptism in theory can be debated in law courts but only God knows it’s effect. It is the double predestination problem in away. And it depends on the recipent of the baptism and the faith he has or does not have. An awsome thing to think about.

    In God’s eye he or she is potentially capable in Christ for redemptive favor right up to the end of life. If your an open theist the baptism just could become effective.

  • James Sarver

    While it is certainly true that the state (or even the church) cannot undo what God has done I don’t know that the point the RCC is trying to make is worth making. If the guy wants his name taken off the rolls then do it. It changes nothing. His baptism does not consist of his name on a list. If removing it satisfies the law what is the harm?

    I think this has more to do with the RC view that power/authority vest in the church and its offices rather than in the Word.

  • James Sarver

    While it is certainly true that the state (or even the church) cannot undo what God has done I don’t know that the point the RCC is trying to make is worth making. If the guy wants his name taken off the rolls then do it. It changes nothing. His baptism does not consist of his name on a list. If removing it satisfies the law what is the harm?

    I think this has more to do with the RC view that power/authority vest in the church and its offices rather than in the Word.

  • Eric Brown

    I don’t know — if Rome thinks it can annul a marriage, is it so off to think they ought to do the same for Baptism >=o)

  • Eric Brown

    I don’t know — if Rome thinks it can annul a marriage, is it so off to think they ought to do the same for Baptism >=o)

  • http://strangeherring.com Anthony Sacramone

    You can change your name, you can change your appearance, you can burn off your fingerprints, you can steal someone else’s identity. You can never change your status as one of the baptized, any more than you can be unborn from the womb of your mother. It is more indelible than your DNA.

    The state wants to reverse the irreversible and change the immutable because its lust for power, even over the Spirit of God, is unquenchable.

  • http://strangeherring.com Anthony Sacramone

    You can change your name, you can change your appearance, you can burn off your fingerprints, you can steal someone else’s identity. You can never change your status as one of the baptized, any more than you can be unborn from the womb of your mother. It is more indelible than your DNA.

    The state wants to reverse the irreversible and change the immutable because its lust for power, even over the Spirit of God, is unquenchable.

  • Dan Kempin

    In yet another way we are compelled to think through the distinction between the Church as “Una Sancta” and the Church as social institution. The implications for this distinction are impending.

    In other words, this is not a debate about baptism, but a struggle for authority via the “official records.”

  • Dan Kempin

    In yet another way we are compelled to think through the distinction between the Church as “Una Sancta” and the Church as social institution. The implications for this distinction are impending.

    In other words, this is not a debate about baptism, but a struggle for authority via the “official records.”

  • James Sarver

    Dan @6,

    Exactly right. Messr. LeBouvier and the French government (along with a good many Christians) do not believe Baptism “does” anything. This is all about a name on a list.

  • James Sarver

    Dan @6,

    Exactly right. Messr. LeBouvier and the French government (along with a good many Christians) do not believe Baptism “does” anything. This is all about a name on a list.

  • larry

    I wonder how the secular state “sees” the baptism?

    1. Worded Water that did/does something?
    2. A sign-Word that points to a reality somewhere else?
    3. Nothing since he doesn’t believe?

    If the later then there should be no hub bub about it. If number 2 then similarly nothing much its just a sign and there should be no hub bub about it.

    The reality is they do see it as number 1 that’s why they and he war against it. As Luther points out men fight against the Word because it IS the reality spoken of God, God’s Words unlike ours DO what they say.

    Here one sees the Hebrews 6:4 situation, God has forgiven his sin but if denies this then nothing is left for him. This is the essence of the unforgivable sin. As Luther said in a sermon late in life on John 3:16, “no one is condemned for not obeying Moses, but for denying the Son…these sins (against Moses) are trivial…” (paraphrased).

  • larry

    I wonder how the secular state “sees” the baptism?

    1. Worded Water that did/does something?
    2. A sign-Word that points to a reality somewhere else?
    3. Nothing since he doesn’t believe?

    If the later then there should be no hub bub about it. If number 2 then similarly nothing much its just a sign and there should be no hub bub about it.

    The reality is they do see it as number 1 that’s why they and he war against it. As Luther points out men fight against the Word because it IS the reality spoken of God, God’s Words unlike ours DO what they say.

    Here one sees the Hebrews 6:4 situation, God has forgiven his sin but if denies this then nothing is left for him. This is the essence of the unforgivable sin. As Luther said in a sermon late in life on John 3:16, “no one is condemned for not obeying Moses, but for denying the Son…these sins (against Moses) are trivial…” (paraphrased).

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The hilarity.

    First they try to pass laws that defy the natural laws, then they want laws to control the supernatural! good luck with that.

    Theatre of the absurd.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The hilarity.

    First they try to pass laws that defy the natural laws, then they want laws to control the supernatural! good luck with that.

    Theatre of the absurd.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Steve Martin, #1: “The slightest knowledge of baptism would inform them that they can walk away from their baptism any time they want.

    One doesn’t need a court for that. I do it all the time.”

    Hmmmmm. Suppose a person was baptized as a Lutheran when he/she was young, even as young as an infant. Or baptized as a young teen-ager.

    This baptized Lutheran then becomes an atheist/hindu/buddhist (take your non-Lutheran pick) and de facto rejects his/her baptism. (Or even announces a rejection of Christianity and the Sacraments therein). This baptized Lutheran dies an apostate. And then is in Hell for rejecting Christ.

    Conclusion: His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it? One can still go to Hell, after being baptized as a Lutheran, yes? Lutheran baptism doesn’t necessarily save, yes?

    Or no?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Steve Martin, #1: “The slightest knowledge of baptism would inform them that they can walk away from their baptism any time they want.

    One doesn’t need a court for that. I do it all the time.”

    Hmmmmm. Suppose a person was baptized as a Lutheran when he/she was young, even as young as an infant. Or baptized as a young teen-ager.

    This baptized Lutheran then becomes an atheist/hindu/buddhist (take your non-Lutheran pick) and de facto rejects his/her baptism. (Or even announces a rejection of Christianity and the Sacraments therein). This baptized Lutheran dies an apostate. And then is in Hell for rejecting Christ.

    Conclusion: His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it? One can still go to Hell, after being baptized as a Lutheran, yes? Lutheran baptism doesn’t necessarily save, yes?

    Or no?

  • #4 Kitty

    @8 Larry
    I would add a number four to your list:

    4. Affiliation with an organization which not only systematically raped children but then tried to cover up.

  • #4 Kitty

    @8 Larry
    I would add a number four to your list:

    4. Affiliation with an organization which not only systematically raped children but then tried to cover up.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “4. Affiliation with an organization which not only systematically raped children but then tried to cover up.”

    Public school?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “4. Affiliation with an organization which not only systematically raped children but then tried to cover up.”

    Public school?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    That gay priests raped kids tells you a lot about the Catholic Church but absolutely nothing about gays.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    That gay priests raped kids tells you a lot about the Catholic Church but absolutely nothing about gays.

  • kenneth

    Truth divides….. That is, yes one can certaintly lose salvation! It is as simple as this, the water and the Word must ge conjoined. Luther staked his life on that simplicity though it is profoundly confusing to try and comprehend such as it is+++

  • kenneth

    Truth divides….. That is, yes one can certaintly lose salvation! It is as simple as this, the water and the Word must ge conjoined. Luther staked his life on that simplicity though it is profoundly confusing to try and comprehend such as it is+++

  • kenneth

    s g, You know it really is the theatre of the absurd. Sartre would find the irony to much to bear. Perhaps that’s why he commited suicide. Or was that Camu?

  • kenneth

    s g, You know it really is the theatre of the absurd. Sartre would find the irony to much to bear. Perhaps that’s why he commited suicide. Or was that Camu?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I think the important point here is that the Catholic Church opened the door itself with the way it handeled Marriage annullments, for one, and the absolutely disasterous way the handled the plethora of scandals in the last number of years. This is the pigeons coming home to roost. One could yell and scream about the “secular state”, but after all, what else is a “secular state” going to do? Judement must begin where judgement must begin.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I think the important point here is that the Catholic Church opened the door itself with the way it handeled Marriage annullments, for one, and the absolutely disasterous way the handled the plethora of scandals in the last number of years. This is the pigeons coming home to roost. One could yell and scream about the “secular state”, but after all, what else is a “secular state” going to do? Judement must begin where judgement must begin.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    … Conclusion: His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it? One can still go to Hell, after being baptized as a Lutheran, yes? Lutheran baptism doesn’t necessarily save, yes?

    Kenneth: “yes one can certaintly lose salvation! It is as simple as this, the water and the Word must ge conjoined.”

    So the simple explanation is that at the end of life of a baptized Lutheran who died apostate, the water and the Word were/are no longer conjoined and the baptized Lutheran apostate is in Hell.

    Okay.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    … Conclusion: His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it? One can still go to Hell, after being baptized as a Lutheran, yes? Lutheran baptism doesn’t necessarily save, yes?

    Kenneth: “yes one can certaintly lose salvation! It is as simple as this, the water and the Word must ge conjoined.”

    So the simple explanation is that at the end of life of a baptized Lutheran who died apostate, the water and the Word were/are no longer conjoined and the baptized Lutheran apostate is in Hell.

    Okay.

  • Dennis Peskey

    To TU&D (#10) The concept of a “Lutheran” baptism is not correct; baptism is God’s work and can not be claimed by any single denomination. St. Paul’s writes, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5)

    Does Baptism save?
    Mark 16:16a: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”
    Peter (speaking in Act 2:38): “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”
    1 Pet 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this (the Flood), now saves you.”
    Rom 6:3: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (continue through verse 5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”
    Gal 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ.”
    Titus 3:5″ “He saved us, not by works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

    The words of St. Mark, St. Peter and St. Paul are clear, Baptism saves you. First and foremost, the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:18, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    Now, to address your question, “His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it?” This very question is born of the calvanist doctrine of “once saved, always saved” which Lutherans have consistently rejected. We reject this doctrine because it is unbiblical – nowhere can this be found in the Bible. In truth, the very opposite is recorded. In 2 Tim 2:12, “If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.”

    What is inherent in this question is a misunderstanding of human will after the fall. In our fallen state, the Old Adam remains an enemy of God and will reject His grace always. Baptisms daily drowns our Old Adam by contrition (sorrow) and repentance (faith). Our sinful Adam can only be drowned in baptismal waters – but it is a dangerous error to believe he dies.

    So long as we draw breath we retain the desire to deny Christ; this is the nature of our Old Adam. Both Peter and Judas choose to deny Christ, even though He warned both of them they were about to do this very thing. The difference comes when the Holy Spirit convicts us; do we follow Peter, who looking to Christ, realized what he had done, felt the weight of remorse and repented or do we follow Judas and look to ourselves where, having denied the Savior, will only find our Old Adam and the curse of the Law accusing.

    Jesus taught a most enlightening parable (we call the Prodigal Son) which speaks directly to this question. In Baptism, we are made heirs of the Father – we become his sons. Yet, we retain the ability to reject the blessings of the Father and go our own way to our folly. The prayer remains God’s mercy shows us our foolishness, convicts us of our sinful ways and we repent and return to the Lord as did the prodigal son. Does everyone repent – no. Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes. So can any one of us for it is only by God’s grace we are saved.

    God bestowed His grace upon us in Baptism. Reject Satan’s evil lies and remain in your baptismal grace through a daily washing of regeneration in the Lord’s word and promises. This is my prayer for all of God’s people.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    To TU&D (#10) The concept of a “Lutheran” baptism is not correct; baptism is God’s work and can not be claimed by any single denomination. St. Paul’s writes, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5)

    Does Baptism save?
    Mark 16:16a: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”
    Peter (speaking in Act 2:38): “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.”
    1 Pet 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this (the Flood), now saves you.”
    Rom 6:3: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? (continue through verse 5) For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”
    Gal 3:27: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ.”
    Titus 3:5″ “He saved us, not by works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”

    The words of St. Mark, St. Peter and St. Paul are clear, Baptism saves you. First and foremost, the words of Jesus in Matthew 28:18, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    Now, to address your question, “His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it?” This very question is born of the calvanist doctrine of “once saved, always saved” which Lutherans have consistently rejected. We reject this doctrine because it is unbiblical – nowhere can this be found in the Bible. In truth, the very opposite is recorded. In 2 Tim 2:12, “If we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us.”

    What is inherent in this question is a misunderstanding of human will after the fall. In our fallen state, the Old Adam remains an enemy of God and will reject His grace always. Baptisms daily drowns our Old Adam by contrition (sorrow) and repentance (faith). Our sinful Adam can only be drowned in baptismal waters – but it is a dangerous error to believe he dies.

    So long as we draw breath we retain the desire to deny Christ; this is the nature of our Old Adam. Both Peter and Judas choose to deny Christ, even though He warned both of them they were about to do this very thing. The difference comes when the Holy Spirit convicts us; do we follow Peter, who looking to Christ, realized what he had done, felt the weight of remorse and repented or do we follow Judas and look to ourselves where, having denied the Savior, will only find our Old Adam and the curse of the Law accusing.

    Jesus taught a most enlightening parable (we call the Prodigal Son) which speaks directly to this question. In Baptism, we are made heirs of the Father – we become his sons. Yet, we retain the ability to reject the blessings of the Father and go our own way to our folly. The prayer remains God’s mercy shows us our foolishness, convicts us of our sinful ways and we repent and return to the Lord as did the prodigal son. Does everyone repent – no. Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes. So can any one of us for it is only by God’s grace we are saved.

    God bestowed His grace upon us in Baptism. Reject Satan’s evil lies and remain in your baptismal grace through a daily washing of regeneration in the Lord’s word and promises. This is my prayer for all of God’s people.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Jon

    Doesn’t every baptized person renounce that baptism when he agrees to receive rebaptism in, for example, Calvary Chapel. Why aren’t you up in arms about that?

  • Jon

    Doesn’t every baptized person renounce that baptism when he agrees to receive rebaptism in, for example, Calvary Chapel. Why aren’t you up in arms about that?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey: “Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes.”

    Then this baptized, God-rejecting Lutheran who dies as a baptized God-rejecting Lutheran is in Hell, yes?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey: “Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes.”

    Then this baptized, God-rejecting Lutheran who dies as a baptized God-rejecting Lutheran is in Hell, yes?

  • Dennis Peskey

    TU&D (#20) God invites us to join him in his heavenly home, he does not command our presence. There are only two alternatives after death, heaven or hell. If we go to heaven, it is by God’s grace; if we end up in hell, it is by our choice. Or to answer your question directly, yes. When one rejects God – they go to hell. [note: the irony is God is present in hell as well. The reality is the God present in hell is full of wrath and does not display his mercy which has been rejected. Both Adam and Eve found out fairly early in life there is no place we can hide from God. With which God do you want to spend eternity?]
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    TU&D (#20) God invites us to join him in his heavenly home, he does not command our presence. There are only two alternatives after death, heaven or hell. If we go to heaven, it is by God’s grace; if we end up in hell, it is by our choice. Or to answer your question directly, yes. When one rejects God – they go to hell. [note: the irony is God is present in hell as well. The reality is the God present in hell is full of wrath and does not display his mercy which has been rejected. Both Adam and Eve found out fairly early in life there is no place we can hide from God. With which God do you want to spend eternity?]
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dan Kempin

    I disagree with those who think this is somehow grappling with theology. This is about dictating doctrine to the church.

  • Dan Kempin

    I disagree with those who think this is somehow grappling with theology. This is about dictating doctrine to the church.

  • Dan Kempin

    @#10, 20,

    What game are you trying to play here? Are you saying that baptism is insignificant? Does not save? Is something other than water baptism in the Name of God? If so, your quarrel is with scripture, not lutherans.

    I assume you also conclude that if someone were to trust in Jesus to save them, and then should fall away (God forbid!), the problem is that their “Jesus” didn’t save them. (I cringe even saying that sarcastically.)

    Come on! Baptism is God’s gift. That is why the scripture (not just those wacky lutherans) say that it saves. If one should reject the gift, it does not make the gift invalid.

  • Dan Kempin

    @#10, 20,

    What game are you trying to play here? Are you saying that baptism is insignificant? Does not save? Is something other than water baptism in the Name of God? If so, your quarrel is with scripture, not lutherans.

    I assume you also conclude that if someone were to trust in Jesus to save them, and then should fall away (God forbid!), the problem is that their “Jesus” didn’t save them. (I cringe even saying that sarcastically.)

    Come on! Baptism is God’s gift. That is why the scripture (not just those wacky lutherans) say that it saves. If one should reject the gift, it does not make the gift invalid.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey: “Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes.”

    Me: “Then this baptized, God-rejecting Lutheran who dies as a baptized God-rejecting Lutheran is in Hell, yes?

    Dennis Peskey: “Or to answer your question directly, yes.”

    Much thanks for the direct answer, Dennis. (And much thanks for the attendant explanations undergirding the direct answer too.)

    And so in these cases (hopefully, none to very few), their baptism didn’t save their souls. Baptism didn’t save.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey: “Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes.”

    Me: “Then this baptized, God-rejecting Lutheran who dies as a baptized God-rejecting Lutheran is in Hell, yes?

    Dennis Peskey: “Or to answer your question directly, yes.”

    Much thanks for the direct answer, Dennis. (And much thanks for the attendant explanations undergirding the direct answer too.)

    And so in these cases (hopefully, none to very few), their baptism didn’t save their souls. Baptism didn’t save.

  • cermak_rd

    To me, this looks like a battle about data retention rules. This gentleman probably does not believe his baptism carries any significance. What he wants is to get his name off the rolls of the church. Not notated, but off completely. Apparently he has a strong enough case that one judge agreed.

    In a secular nation like France, the right of freedom of religion resides in the individual not the religious institution in question.

  • cermak_rd

    To me, this looks like a battle about data retention rules. This gentleman probably does not believe his baptism carries any significance. What he wants is to get his name off the rolls of the church. Not notated, but off completely. Apparently he has a strong enough case that one judge agreed.

    In a secular nation like France, the right of freedom of religion resides in the individual not the religious institution in question.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    A child comes down with a terrible illness, which threatens to kill him soon if left untreated. He is taken to the hospital, where the doctor assesses the problem and prescribes a course of action, which is immediately acted on. It is successful. The illness is removed from the child and will not threaten him again. The doctor has saved his life. Later on, when that child is an old man, he commits suicide.

    TU&D at the funeral: “Well, now, the doctor didn’t really save his life, then, did he?”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    A child comes down with a terrible illness, which threatens to kill him soon if left untreated. He is taken to the hospital, where the doctor assesses the problem and prescribes a course of action, which is immediately acted on. It is successful. The illness is removed from the child and will not threaten him again. The doctor has saved his life. Later on, when that child is an old man, he commits suicide.

    TU&D at the funeral: “Well, now, the doctor didn’t really save his life, then, did he?”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    TU&D (@24): “Baptism didn’t save.”

    Peter: “baptism … now saves you.”

    As usual, we are being asked to decide between a man’s logic and what God tells us in his Word.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    TU&D (@24): “Baptism didn’t save.”

    Peter: “baptism … now saves you.”

    As usual, we are being asked to decide between a man’s logic and what God tells us in his Word.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, back to the actual topic …

    I’m not sure, Dan (@22) that this is really about “dictating doctrine”. Seems more like dictating praxis. I’m not saying I fully agree with the French judges here.

    But consider an analogous case in a remarkably different context. I send an email that is boorish and snide (who, me?). I later regret it, and delete it from my sent items folder. However, I know that my email provider has a policy of keeping copies of all emails, sent and received. They do this for technical reasons (backing up accidentally deleted emails), as well as legal ones.

    I ask them to delete their copy of my ill-considered email. They refuse. “You may regret it,” they say, “but nonetheless, you did send it. It is a historical fact. We need to keep that copy around.”

    “But,” I say, “it is my data, and I want to control how it is used.”

    Now, as I understand current American law, the email provider would actually be in the right here. But I do think it puts the situation in a bit of a different light, when considered like that, no?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, back to the actual topic …

    I’m not sure, Dan (@22) that this is really about “dictating doctrine”. Seems more like dictating praxis. I’m not saying I fully agree with the French judges here.

    But consider an analogous case in a remarkably different context. I send an email that is boorish and snide (who, me?). I later regret it, and delete it from my sent items folder. However, I know that my email provider has a policy of keeping copies of all emails, sent and received. They do this for technical reasons (backing up accidentally deleted emails), as well as legal ones.

    I ask them to delete their copy of my ill-considered email. They refuse. “You may regret it,” they say, “but nonetheless, you did send it. It is a historical fact. We need to keep that copy around.”

    “But,” I say, “it is my data, and I want to control how it is used.”

    Now, as I understand current American law, the email provider would actually be in the right here. But I do think it puts the situation in a bit of a different light, when considered like that, no?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey: “Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes.”

    Me: “Then this baptized, God-rejecting Lutheran who dies as a baptized God-rejecting Lutheran is in Hell, yes?

    Dennis Peskey: “Or to answer your question directly, yes.”

    Lutheran Dennis Peskey is a logical man appealing to what he understands God to be saying in His Word.

    Imagine that. Both/And. Both Logic and Logos. How wonderful!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey: “Can a baptized Lutheran reject God and His Word – yes.”

    Me: “Then this baptized, God-rejecting Lutheran who dies as a baptized God-rejecting Lutheran is in Hell, yes?

    Dennis Peskey: “Or to answer your question directly, yes.”

    Lutheran Dennis Peskey is a logical man appealing to what he understands God to be saying in His Word.

    Imagine that. Both/And. Both Logic and Logos. How wonderful!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I guess I’m not terribly sympathetic to the Catholic church’s position, either, is what I’m saying. What’s behind their insistence on not altering the record? What does that record mean to them, and how is it used? The man clearly wants to sever all ties with the church. In response, the church says, “Fine, we’ll record that you left, but …” But what?

    Not that I’m sympathetic to a court dictating how any entity, much less a church, keeps its records that have nothing to do with the court’s or state’s business, either.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I guess I’m not terribly sympathetic to the Catholic church’s position, either, is what I’m saying. What’s behind their insistence on not altering the record? What does that record mean to them, and how is it used? The man clearly wants to sever all ties with the church. In response, the church says, “Fine, we’ll record that you left, but …” But what?

    Not that I’m sympathetic to a court dictating how any entity, much less a church, keeps its records that have nothing to do with the court’s or state’s business, either.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dan Kempin, #23: “That is why the scripture (not just those wacky lutherans) say that it saves. “

    Just clarifying the outworking of the Lutheran theology of baptism. Given that there may be (or are) some baptized Lutherans in Hell, then their baptism didn’t save them, did it?

    Imagine this dialogue.

    Lutheran Pastor: “Baptism saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    “If one should reject the gift, it does not make the gift invalid.”

    Using your metaphor of baptism as a gift, it’s not that a baptized Lutheran God-rejector invalidates the gift, but rather that baptized Lutheran God-rejector rejects the gift, nor does he/she believe in the gift.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dan Kempin, #23: “That is why the scripture (not just those wacky lutherans) say that it saves. “

    Just clarifying the outworking of the Lutheran theology of baptism. Given that there may be (or are) some baptized Lutherans in Hell, then their baptism didn’t save them, did it?

    Imagine this dialogue.

    Lutheran Pastor: “Baptism saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    “If one should reject the gift, it does not make the gift invalid.”

    Using your metaphor of baptism as a gift, it’s not that a baptized Lutheran God-rejector invalidates the gift, but rather that baptized Lutheran God-rejector rejects the gift, nor does he/she believe in the gift.

  • Pingback: Baptism in Laymen’s terms | LW Theology

  • Pingback: Baptism in Laymen’s terms | LW Theology

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Let’s say someone does ritual X in Scientology, can he then go to court and get it annulled. Or can a Jewish guy who was circumcised sue to get his uh, um,…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Let’s say someone does ritual X in Scientology, can he then go to court and get it annulled. Or can a Jewish guy who was circumcised sue to get his uh, um,…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Now, now, sg, :)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Now, now, sg, :)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 19 Does Calvary Chapel teach that repentance must precede baptism? When I went to Baptist church in high school, they very clearly stated than they did not rebaptise. If a person was baptised Roman Catholic the day he was born, they accepted that even though they didn’t practice that themselves.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 19 Does Calvary Chapel teach that repentance must precede baptism? When I went to Baptist church in high school, they very clearly stated than they did not rebaptise. If a person was baptised Roman Catholic the day he was born, they accepted that even though they didn’t practice that themselves.

  • Dennis Peskey

    A brief note relative to Dr. Veith’s original post. I served a number of years as a Passport Acceptance clerk (technically, in service to the U.S. Dept. of State although I belonged to a seperate Federal agency).

    A primary document necessary for passport application was a certified birth certificate. But not every American was born in an area where births were recorded, hence they had no possibility of obtaining such documention.

    Where a situation such as this arose, in lieu of the certified birth certificate, the Dept. of State accepted a baptismal certificate as proof of American citizenship. This came up with a local teacher, recently retired, who was born in the outlands of Texas. No government nearby; no hospital; homebirthing ala away in a manager.

    After pressing the man hard for the needed documentation, I realized he could not produce the birth certificate. He became despondent fearing he was unable to qualify for a passport. I then asked him his religious affiliation; Roman Catholic he answered with a bit of bewilderment. I told him to have any relative or friend still living in his birth area to contact the local parish and ask the Padre for a copy of his baptismal certificate.

    While he didn’t fully understand the significance of his baptism relative to the Federal Government, he seemed more confounded that I knew he was baptized as an infant in a nearby church. He received the copy of his baptismal record within a week with a lovely note from his former priest. A month later he had his passport.

    Moral of the Story: The United States Government fully recognizes the serious nature of infant baptisms to certain christian denominations. This revisionist history of “de-baptism” is not only absurd but has ramifications of a historical nature as well. For the sake of French society let us pray they not proceed further down the course of revisionism. They’ve managed to lose most of their foundation during their revolution; don’t aggrevate a bad situation.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    A brief note relative to Dr. Veith’s original post. I served a number of years as a Passport Acceptance clerk (technically, in service to the U.S. Dept. of State although I belonged to a seperate Federal agency).

    A primary document necessary for passport application was a certified birth certificate. But not every American was born in an area where births were recorded, hence they had no possibility of obtaining such documention.

    Where a situation such as this arose, in lieu of the certified birth certificate, the Dept. of State accepted a baptismal certificate as proof of American citizenship. This came up with a local teacher, recently retired, who was born in the outlands of Texas. No government nearby; no hospital; homebirthing ala away in a manager.

    After pressing the man hard for the needed documentation, I realized he could not produce the birth certificate. He became despondent fearing he was unable to qualify for a passport. I then asked him his religious affiliation; Roman Catholic he answered with a bit of bewilderment. I told him to have any relative or friend still living in his birth area to contact the local parish and ask the Padre for a copy of his baptismal certificate.

    While he didn’t fully understand the significance of his baptism relative to the Federal Government, he seemed more confounded that I knew he was baptized as an infant in a nearby church. He received the copy of his baptismal record within a week with a lovely note from his former priest. A month later he had his passport.

    Moral of the Story: The United States Government fully recognizes the serious nature of infant baptisms to certain christian denominations. This revisionist history of “de-baptism” is not only absurd but has ramifications of a historical nature as well. For the sake of French society let us pray they not proceed further down the course of revisionism. They’ve managed to lose most of their foundation during their revolution; don’t aggrevate a bad situation.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    To sg (#32) Did you hear the sad tale of the newly installed Rabbi who went out of business his first day. He advertised his new circumcision practice with a half-off sale! Ouch (forgive me for I sin much)!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    To sg (#32) Did you hear the sad tale of the newly installed Rabbi who went out of business his first day. He advertised his new circumcision practice with a half-off sale! Ouch (forgive me for I sin much)!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dennis, you said (@35):

    Moral of the Story: The United States Government fully recognizes the serious nature of infant baptisms to certain christian denominations.

    I disagree. What the US government fully recognizes is that some people are born outside of a hospital, and in such cases, records from a reputable third party that testify to their birth dates may suffice. It is not a theological judgment that the government has made, but a practical one.

    And, for what it’s worth, I knew a guy in college who took advantage of this loophole to get himself a fake ID, suspecting (correctly, I believe), that the agents at the DMV would never bother to contact anyone at the out-of-state church he made up on his fake baptismal certificate.

    Regardless, if a man could somehow remove himself from a church’s baptism records, what is that to the government? It might negatively impact his ability to get a non-standard form of ID authentication, but if he wants to do that, well, why not?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dennis, you said (@35):

    Moral of the Story: The United States Government fully recognizes the serious nature of infant baptisms to certain christian denominations.

    I disagree. What the US government fully recognizes is that some people are born outside of a hospital, and in such cases, records from a reputable third party that testify to their birth dates may suffice. It is not a theological judgment that the government has made, but a practical one.

    And, for what it’s worth, I knew a guy in college who took advantage of this loophole to get himself a fake ID, suspecting (correctly, I believe), that the agents at the DMV would never bother to contact anyone at the out-of-state church he made up on his fake baptismal certificate.

    Regardless, if a man could somehow remove himself from a church’s baptism records, what is that to the government? It might negatively impact his ability to get a non-standard form of ID authentication, but if he wants to do that, well, why not?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    French court rules in favor of de-baptism

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?

    If a person is baptized, and the official record of it is removed, was the person baptized?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    French court rules in favor of de-baptism

    If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?

    If a person is baptized, and the official record of it is removed, was the person baptized?

  • Dennis Peskey

    to tODD (#37) “records from a reputable third party that testify to their birth dates may suffice.” To clarify what I meant by a “serious nature”, yes, records for reputable third parties may suffice. The difference being the quantity of records from reputable third parties which is required. Such records would include signed, notarized affidavit from parents, siblings, or other close relatives; early school records; other organizations which young children may be enrolled. If an applicant needs to pursue this route, I generally advised at least five such records be provided. Even then, it was not unusual for the State Department to call for additional documentation or clarification of provided documentation. Compare this to the ready acceptance of an infant baptismal record which is nearly equal to the certified birth certificate issued by counties or state governments and this is what I meant to convey by “serious nature”. The government recognizes the importance attached to an infant’s baptism by certain religious denominations – this does not imply agreement with the religious sacramental views or the effect of the baptism. The “practical” view of these certificates is no more than a recognition of the baptismal event to the church by our government. This is not to be construed as an endorsement of baptism by our government (wouldn’t that be an epiphany)!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    to tODD (#37) “records from a reputable third party that testify to their birth dates may suffice.” To clarify what I meant by a “serious nature”, yes, records for reputable third parties may suffice. The difference being the quantity of records from reputable third parties which is required. Such records would include signed, notarized affidavit from parents, siblings, or other close relatives; early school records; other organizations which young children may be enrolled. If an applicant needs to pursue this route, I generally advised at least five such records be provided. Even then, it was not unusual for the State Department to call for additional documentation or clarification of provided documentation. Compare this to the ready acceptance of an infant baptismal record which is nearly equal to the certified birth certificate issued by counties or state governments and this is what I meant to convey by “serious nature”. The government recognizes the importance attached to an infant’s baptism by certain religious denominations – this does not imply agreement with the religious sacramental views or the effect of the baptism. The “practical” view of these certificates is no more than a recognition of the baptismal event to the church by our government. This is not to be construed as an endorsement of baptism by our government (wouldn’t that be an epiphany)!
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dan Kempin

    Dennis, #35,

    You illustrate the point I raised at #6. If we continue to insist that the parish records are legitimate public records, then we open the door for the state to dictate how those records shall be kept.

    Church records WERE public records when the church was a dominant social institution in Europe.

    In ancient times (and in persecuted countries today) church records were decidedly NOT shared with the state, let alone the public.

    Where should we come down on this in our current context?

  • Dan Kempin

    Dennis, #35,

    You illustrate the point I raised at #6. If we continue to insist that the parish records are legitimate public records, then we open the door for the state to dictate how those records shall be kept.

    Church records WERE public records when the church was a dominant social institution in Europe.

    In ancient times (and in persecuted countries today) church records were decidedly NOT shared with the state, let alone the public.

    Where should we come down on this in our current context?

  • –helen

    My children were born in a state which provided “birth certificates” that listed neither father nor mother, just the hospital’s statement that John Doe was born at such and such a time and date.
    [This was supposedly done to prevent discrimination against those whose father would not be listed, for whatever reason.]

    In another state, the school district would not accept that bare bones “certificate”. Baptismal certificates were our regular “currency” for school, passport and any other serious ID.

  • –helen

    My children were born in a state which provided “birth certificates” that listed neither father nor mother, just the hospital’s statement that John Doe was born at such and such a time and date.
    [This was supposedly done to prevent discrimination against those whose father would not be listed, for whatever reason.]

    In another state, the school district would not accept that bare bones “certificate”. Baptismal certificates were our regular “currency” for school, passport and any other serious ID.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #28,

    But it IS dictating doctrine. A man says “unbaptize me.” The church says, “There is no such thing.” The state says, “You heard the man. You’d better start unbaptizing!”

    I grant that the RC church in particular asks for this by claiming authority in the civil realm and publishing their records, but they cannot deny something that did happen nor can they delete what God does. To alter the church record in this way would be less than ingenuous.

  • Dan Kempin

    tODD, #28,

    But it IS dictating doctrine. A man says “unbaptize me.” The church says, “There is no such thing.” The state says, “You heard the man. You’d better start unbaptizing!”

    I grant that the RC church in particular asks for this by claiming authority in the civil realm and publishing their records, but they cannot deny something that did happen nor can they delete what God does. To alter the church record in this way would be less than ingenuous.

  • Dan Kempin

    @#31,

    I’m not sure if you have a point or are just trying to poke the badgers.

    You didn’t answer any of my questions, but ok. Yes. Consider the analogy of a check. Suppose I wrote you a check for $10,000–say to pay off a foolish bet in a campaign debate. The check is good and the money is there. You, for whatever reason, decide not to cash the check. You would, obviously, never receive the money.

    And your conclusion, apparently, would be that it was a bad check, since it didn’t deliver the $10,000.

  • Dan Kempin

    @#31,

    I’m not sure if you have a point or are just trying to poke the badgers.

    You didn’t answer any of my questions, but ok. Yes. Consider the analogy of a check. Suppose I wrote you a check for $10,000–say to pay off a foolish bet in a campaign debate. The check is good and the money is there. You, for whatever reason, decide not to cash the check. You would, obviously, never receive the money.

    And your conclusion, apparently, would be that it was a bad check, since it didn’t deliver the $10,000.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dan Kempin, #43: “I’m not sure if you have a point or are just trying to poke the badgers.”

    Just clarifying the outworking of the Lutheran theology of baptism. Given that there may be (or are) some baptized Lutherans in Hell, then their baptism didn’t save them, did it?

    Imagine this dialogue.

    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dan Kempin, #43: “I’m not sure if you have a point or are just trying to poke the badgers.”

    Just clarifying the outworking of the Lutheran theology of baptism. Given that there may be (or are) some baptized Lutherans in Hell, then their baptism didn’t save them, did it?

    Imagine this dialogue.

    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Dan Kempin

    Imagine this dialogue . . .

    Truth Unites… and Divides: “Jesus Saves.”

    An unbeliever in hell: “Hnuh-uhh! He didn’t save me.”

  • Dan Kempin

    Imagine this dialogue . . .

    Truth Unites… and Divides: “Jesus Saves.”

    An unbeliever in hell: “Hnuh-uhh! He didn’t save me.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “Truth Unites… and Divides: “Jesus Saves.”

    An unbeliever in hell: “Hnuh-uhh! He didn’t save me.”

    I’m okay with that. Are you fine with this:

    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    “Truth Unites… and Divides: “Jesus Saves.”

    An unbeliever in hell: “Hnuh-uhh! He didn’t save me.”

    I’m okay with that. Are you fine with this:

    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • LC

    @46
    You’re OK with Jesus not saving? Yowza. Jesus just couldn’t save all those people in hell, eh?

    Fact is, Jesus did save them. He took away the sins of the world, as John says. Hell is full of forgiven sinners. They just didn’t believe it, so they didn’t receive the benefits of their forgiveness.

    It’s like those Japanese soldiers who hid in caves well after WWII was over. They hid in the caves for years because they thought there was still a war going on. They didn’t receive the benefits of the war being over. Now, was the war over? Yes. Does Jesus save? Yes. Does baptism save, through Jesus death? Yes.

  • LC

    @46
    You’re OK with Jesus not saving? Yowza. Jesus just couldn’t save all those people in hell, eh?

    Fact is, Jesus did save them. He took away the sins of the world, as John says. Hell is full of forgiven sinners. They just didn’t believe it, so they didn’t receive the benefits of their forgiveness.

    It’s like those Japanese soldiers who hid in caves well after WWII was over. They hid in the caves for years because they thought there was still a war going on. They didn’t receive the benefits of the war being over. Now, was the war over? Yes. Does Jesus save? Yes. Does baptism save, through Jesus death? Yes.

  • LC

    And ohbytheway, Paul talks precisely this way in Romans 3:1-8. Does our faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!

    God delivers precisely what He says He delivers in baptism. Baptism saves.

  • LC

    And ohbytheway, Paul talks precisely this way in Romans 3:1-8. Does our faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!

    God delivers precisely what He says He delivers in baptism. Baptism saves.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    AGAIN:
    and we Christians are doing WHAT!?
    turning the other cheek-how many ‘other cheeks do we have to turn!?
    If the guy does not want to be baptized -let him suffer the consequences!
    There-I’ve said it!
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ C-Christian Soldier

    AGAIN:
    and we Christians are doing WHAT!?
    turning the other cheek-how many ‘other cheeks do we have to turn!?
    If the guy does not want to be baptized -let him suffer the consequences!
    There-I’ve said it!
    C-CS

  • Dan Kempin

    @#46,

    I truly don’t understand your point.

    First, it’s not “lutheran pastors and lutheran laity” who say “baptism now saves you.” It’s the scripture. Big difference. Who cares what lutheran pastors say?

    Second, I’m not sure why you would call someone in hell “lutheran.” If they reject God, they are no longer Christian, let alone lutheran.

    So what is your point?

  • Dan Kempin

    @#46,

    I truly don’t understand your point.

    First, it’s not “lutheran pastors and lutheran laity” who say “baptism now saves you.” It’s the scripture. Big difference. Who cares what lutheran pastors say?

    Second, I’m not sure why you would call someone in hell “lutheran.” If they reject God, they are no longer Christian, let alone lutheran.

    So what is your point?

  • Grace

    Dan @ 50

    Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

    Remember Peter stated the above “Repent, and be baptized”. Peter also stated that which is posted below:

    The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

    To what baptism does this refer? It is not water baptism but the baptism of the HOLY Spirit. The baptism of the HOLY Spirit is real baptism, and water baptism is ritual baptism. I believe in water Baptism, and I believe immersion is the proper mode. However, the important thing here is to see that isn’t is the Baptism of the HOLY Spirit which puts you into the body of Believers. It is faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, HIS shed blood for us on the cross which brought the work of the HOLY Spirit into your life and regenerated you.

  • Grace

    Dan @ 50

    Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

    Remember Peter stated the above “Repent, and be baptized”. Peter also stated that which is posted below:

    The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

    To what baptism does this refer? It is not water baptism but the baptism of the HOLY Spirit. The baptism of the HOLY Spirit is real baptism, and water baptism is ritual baptism. I believe in water Baptism, and I believe immersion is the proper mode. However, the important thing here is to see that isn’t is the Baptism of the HOLY Spirit which puts you into the body of Believers. It is faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, HIS shed blood for us on the cross which brought the work of the HOLY Spirit into your life and regenerated you.

  • LC

    “Remember Peter stated the above “Repent, and be baptized”. Peter also stated that which is posted below:

    The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

    To what baptism does this refer? It is not water baptism but the baptism of the HOLY Spirit. The baptism of the HOLY Spirit is real baptism, and water baptism is ritual baptism. I believe in water Baptism, and I believe immersion is the proper mode. However, the important thing here is to see that isn’t is the Baptism of the HOLY Spirit which puts you into the body of Believers. It is faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, HIS shed blood for us on the cross which brought the work of the HOLY Spirit into your life and regenerated you.”

    Actually, 1 Peter 3:21 strengthens the case that water baptism saves. In other words, the washing of water in baptism doesn’t just wash away dirt from your body; it gives you a clean conscience toward God. See also Ephesians 5:26, Acts 22:16, and Titus 3:5.

  • LC

    “Remember Peter stated the above “Repent, and be baptized”. Peter also stated that which is posted below:

    The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21

    To what baptism does this refer? It is not water baptism but the baptism of the HOLY Spirit. The baptism of the HOLY Spirit is real baptism, and water baptism is ritual baptism. I believe in water Baptism, and I believe immersion is the proper mode. However, the important thing here is to see that isn’t is the Baptism of the HOLY Spirit which puts you into the body of Believers. It is faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, HIS shed blood for us on the cross which brought the work of the HOLY Spirit into your life and regenerated you.”

    Actually, 1 Peter 3:21 strengthens the case that water baptism saves. In other words, the washing of water in baptism doesn’t just wash away dirt from your body; it gives you a clean conscience toward God. See also Ephesians 5:26, Acts 22:16, and Titus 3:5.

  • Tom Moeller

    TU/D @ 31:
    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.”
    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    You are looking at the end results only. You do not credit the intervening actions… Baptism now saves. Baptism does save. Baptism did save.

    As a child full of faith I was saved in my Baptism. As a young man I gave no thought to God, Jesus or The Spirit. I had no saving faith. As an older fellow, I came to know saving faith in the promises of our merciful God. My Baptism always saves where there is saving faith that holds to God’s promises in Baptism.

  • Tom Moeller

    TU/D @ 31:
    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.”
    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    You are looking at the end results only. You do not credit the intervening actions… Baptism now saves. Baptism does save. Baptism did save.

    As a child full of faith I was saved in my Baptism. As a young man I gave no thought to God, Jesus or The Spirit. I had no saving faith. As an older fellow, I came to know saving faith in the promises of our merciful God. My Baptism always saves where there is saving faith that holds to God’s promises in Baptism.

  • Grace

    LC @ 52

    You need to go back toActs 2:38:

    Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

    Repentance is a hard thing to swallow for many people. They would rather do anything than repent.

    Go back to the passage in Acts 8.

    Belief FIRST, then Baptism –

    In the passage below, the eunuch requests to be baptized, but Philip asks the eunuch – “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” – that is the key, Philip wanted to know that the eunuch actually believed. Faith first then baptism.

    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

    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?

    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.

    38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

    39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8

    That is the answer, although many would rather take the word of someone, than the HOLY Scripture.

  • Grace

    LC @ 52

    You need to go back toActs 2:38:

    Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

    Repentance is a hard thing to swallow for many people. They would rather do anything than repent.

    Go back to the passage in Acts 8.

    Belief FIRST, then Baptism –

    In the passage below, the eunuch requests to be baptized, but Philip asks the eunuch – “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” – that is the key, Philip wanted to know that the eunuch actually believed. Faith first then baptism.

    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

    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?

    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.

    38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

    39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8

    That is the answer, although many would rather take the word of someone, than the HOLY Scripture.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 53

    Do you believe you need to “repent” and then “baptized”? or do you believe that to be “baptized” is enough? – - – if you don’t “repent” why did Peter make it clear that one needed to “repent” …. notice that was first mentioned in Acts 2:38

    Have you read in the Gospel, that Jesus stated we needed to repent, yet I hear little of it here. Why is that?

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

  • Grace

    Tom @ 53

    Do you believe you need to “repent” and then “baptized”? or do you believe that to be “baptized” is enough? – - – if you don’t “repent” why did Peter make it clear that one needed to “repent” …. notice that was first mentioned in Acts 2:38

    Have you read in the Gospel, that Jesus stated we needed to repent, yet I hear little of it here. Why is that?

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    So when are the sins remitted?

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    So when are the sins remitted?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace @ 55… Context! An infant does not repent and then is saved. He will repent the rest of his life as he walks in the faith. Peter was talking to non-believers who needed faith that bears the fruit of repentance and desires baptism. The order of Peter’s instruction is not the issue in salvation, but one might as well hold to the obvious for discussion sake… When you receive faith, your inclination is to repent of your sins and long for the forgiveness that Christ promised through baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
    Don’t think that the baptism saves apart from faith brought by the Holy Spirit through the Word.
    An aside: Note in 1 Peter 3:21 that the flood that showed God’s saving Grace, as well as his righteous judgement, saved Noah and pointed to the baptism that now (not before) saves for Christ’s sake.

    All that saves you are ingredients in a recipe of salvation where without faith they are just stuff and not the glorious, eternal salvation. Eat the ingredients of a cake one at a time and… yuck. Prepare them in faith and no finer creation will ever be tasted.
    The faith that brings one to God’s saving Grace is what orders and animates the Christian.

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace @ 55… Context! An infant does not repent and then is saved. He will repent the rest of his life as he walks in the faith. Peter was talking to non-believers who needed faith that bears the fruit of repentance and desires baptism. The order of Peter’s instruction is not the issue in salvation, but one might as well hold to the obvious for discussion sake… When you receive faith, your inclination is to repent of your sins and long for the forgiveness that Christ promised through baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
    Don’t think that the baptism saves apart from faith brought by the Holy Spirit through the Word.
    An aside: Note in 1 Peter 3:21 that the flood that showed God’s saving Grace, as well as his righteous judgement, saved Noah and pointed to the baptism that now (not before) saves for Christ’s sake.

    All that saves you are ingredients in a recipe of salvation where without faith they are just stuff and not the glorious, eternal salvation. Eat the ingredients of a cake one at a time and… yuck. Prepare them in faith and no finer creation will ever be tasted.
    The faith that brings one to God’s saving Grace is what orders and animates the Christian.

  • Darcy

    Removing his name from the records destroys the historical record of an event which happened. Apparently the French courts now have authority over history as well. As I recall, that didn’t work out very well for Comrade Stalin.

  • Darcy

    Removing his name from the records destroys the historical record of an event which happened. Apparently the French courts now have authority over history as well. As I recall, that didn’t work out very well for Comrade Stalin.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Would that I live long enough for the day when Grace reads more than just the select verses given to her?

    Her favorite, Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    What Grace does not include in the whole counsel of God; she does not “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matt 28:20) For the other readers who desire the full knowledge of God, continue reading the very next verse. Acts 2:39 “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

    For some ungodly reason, Grace drives a wedge between verse 38 “everyone of you” and verse 39 “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off.”

    The wedge comes in the form of misquoting Scripture – a favorite device of Satan. The lie will not accept the concluding phrase of verse 39 “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

    The eyes which proclaim this abomination proclaim Baptism as an ordinance of God, thereby denying His good and gracious will that all men be saved. They are adamant that their belief must proceed Baptism – baptism becomes nothing more than what they do according to a command of God.

    How could St. Peter be more clear, it is our Lord and God who calls everyone to himself. The faith they profess is not from God for it does not conform to His will. It is truly their faith, not born of the Holy Spirit and given to us as a gift from God.

    If you want a religion born of the Law, join with Peter and the other Apostles when they hinder the little children from coming to Jesus. To continue in this “faith”, you must avoid Matt 19:14, “and Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” By who’s authority do you dare rebuke parents from bringing children to the Baptismal font where the Word and water work adoption and salvation for the lost? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Baptism is God at work for us – it is not our work. If you’re uncomfortable with this Word, move to France. They’re not real keen on God either.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Would that I live long enough for the day when Grace reads more than just the select verses given to her?

    Her favorite, Acts 2:38, “And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    What Grace does not include in the whole counsel of God; she does not “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matt 28:20) For the other readers who desire the full knowledge of God, continue reading the very next verse. Acts 2:39 “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

    For some ungodly reason, Grace drives a wedge between verse 38 “everyone of you” and verse 39 “the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off.”

    The wedge comes in the form of misquoting Scripture – a favorite device of Satan. The lie will not accept the concluding phrase of verse 39 “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

    The eyes which proclaim this abomination proclaim Baptism as an ordinance of God, thereby denying His good and gracious will that all men be saved. They are adamant that their belief must proceed Baptism – baptism becomes nothing more than what they do according to a command of God.

    How could St. Peter be more clear, it is our Lord and God who calls everyone to himself. The faith they profess is not from God for it does not conform to His will. It is truly their faith, not born of the Holy Spirit and given to us as a gift from God.

    If you want a religion born of the Law, join with Peter and the other Apostles when they hinder the little children from coming to Jesus. To continue in this “faith”, you must avoid Matt 19:14, “and Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” By who’s authority do you dare rebuke parents from bringing children to the Baptismal font where the Word and water work adoption and salvation for the lost? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Baptism is God at work for us – it is not our work. If you’re uncomfortable with this Word, move to France. They’re not real keen on God either.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Grace

    Dennis @ 59

    You commented: – - If you want a religion born of the Law, join with Peter and the other Apostles when they hinder the little children from coming to Jesus. To continue in this “faith”, you must avoid Matt 19:14, “and Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” By who’s authority do you dare rebuke parents from bringing children to the Baptismal font where the Word and water work adoption and salvation for the lost?

    13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

    Verse 13 makes clear the children had been brought so that Jesus could put HIS hands on them and pray. That doesn’t mean Baptism, it means touching them and praying. The Scripture is crystal clear. It is man who chooses to change the clear meaning of God’s Word.

    Jesus Christ’s silence regarding Baptism of infants and children in this passage of Scripture is obvious, it didn’t happen “he laid his hands on them” he didn’t baptize them, nor did HE suggest that they receive Baptism. No where is it mentioned that Jesus suggested baptizing children. Usage of that passage of Scripture is distorted when you try to change the meaning from “laid his hands on them” to baptism.

  • Grace

    Dennis @ 59

    You commented: – - If you want a religion born of the Law, join with Peter and the other Apostles when they hinder the little children from coming to Jesus. To continue in this “faith”, you must avoid Matt 19:14, “and Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” By who’s authority do you dare rebuke parents from bringing children to the Baptismal font where the Word and water work adoption and salvation for the lost?

    13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

    Verse 13 makes clear the children had been brought so that Jesus could put HIS hands on them and pray. That doesn’t mean Baptism, it means touching them and praying. The Scripture is crystal clear. It is man who chooses to change the clear meaning of God’s Word.

    Jesus Christ’s silence regarding Baptism of infants and children in this passage of Scripture is obvious, it didn’t happen “he laid his hands on them” he didn’t baptize them, nor did HE suggest that they receive Baptism. No where is it mentioned that Jesus suggested baptizing children. Usage of that passage of Scripture is distorted when you try to change the meaning from “laid his hands on them” to baptism.

  • LC

    Jesus hadn’t instituted his baptism yet.

  • LC

    Jesus hadn’t instituted his baptism yet.

  • LC

    Oh, and Grace, while you’re drawing all of these commands from the descriptive passages of Scripture, and using the descriptive passages to contradict what the prescriptive passages say, lemme ask you a question.

    Does your church give communion to women? If so, why? There are no explicit commands in the Bible to give women communion, nor are there any clear examples of such. Should we then conclude that only men are to receive the Lord’s Supper?

  • LC

    Oh, and Grace, while you’re drawing all of these commands from the descriptive passages of Scripture, and using the descriptive passages to contradict what the prescriptive passages say, lemme ask you a question.

    Does your church give communion to women? If so, why? There are no explicit commands in the Bible to give women communion, nor are there any clear examples of such. Should we then conclude that only men are to receive the Lord’s Supper?

  • Grace

    LC @ 61

    “Jesus hadn’t instituted his baptism yet.”

    Yes he had -

    Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Matthew 3:13

  • Grace

    LC @ 61

    “Jesus hadn’t instituted his baptism yet.”

    Yes he had -

    Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Matthew 3:13

  • Grace

    LC @ 62

    “Does your church give communion to women? If so, why? There are no explicit commands in the Bible to give women communion, nor are there any clear examples of such. Should we then conclude that only men are to receive the Lord’s Supper?”

    26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26-29

    It is clear, there is no male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus, male and female alike can be baptized and partake of the LORD’s Supper.

  • Grace

    LC @ 62

    “Does your church give communion to women? If so, why? There are no explicit commands in the Bible to give women communion, nor are there any clear examples of such. Should we then conclude that only men are to receive the Lord’s Supper?”

    26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26-29

    It is clear, there is no male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus, male and female alike can be baptized and partake of the LORD’s Supper.

  • Grace

    LC

    26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    (NOTICE: “faith” in Jesus Christ)

    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    (NOTICE: “baptized” into Christ)

    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    (NOTICE: “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ”

    29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
    Galatians 3:26-29

  • Grace

    LC

    26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    (NOTICE: “faith” in Jesus Christ)

    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

    (NOTICE: “baptized” into Christ)

    28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    (NOTICE: “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ”

    29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
    Galatians 3:26-29

  • LC

    ““Jesus hadn’t instituted his baptism yet.”

    Yes he had -

    Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Matthew 3:13″

    That was John’s baptism. Christ’s baptism was instituted in Matt. 28. You can see that the two baptisms are different by reading Acts 18:24-19:7.

  • LC

    ““Jesus hadn’t instituted his baptism yet.”

    Yes he had -

    Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. Matthew 3:13″

    That was John’s baptism. Christ’s baptism was instituted in Matt. 28. You can see that the two baptisms are different by reading Acts 18:24-19:7.

  • LC

    Also, I’m glad to see that your church does give women communion, even though there aren’t any examples in the Bible of women receiving communion, nor are we explicitly commanded to do it. Your church has theological reasons to give women communion. It’s something you infer from the text, rather than seeing it in an example. Why not apply the same logic to infant baptism?

  • LC

    Also, I’m glad to see that your church does give women communion, even though there aren’t any examples in the Bible of women receiving communion, nor are we explicitly commanded to do it. Your church has theological reasons to give women communion. It’s something you infer from the text, rather than seeing it in an example. Why not apply the same logic to infant baptism?

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace, you’ve got to open up your mind to baptismal regeneration! It blew me away, and then turned me into a Lutheran – circumcised heart and all.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace, you’ve got to open up your mind to baptismal regeneration! It blew me away, and then turned me into a Lutheran – circumcised heart and all.

  • Grace

    LC @ 67

    ” Why not apply the same logic to infant baptism?”

    No place in Scripture does Christ tell anyone to baptize infants.

    For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Corinthians 6:10

    An infant isn’t able to believe, repent of their sins or confess, they are but babes. No one automatically receives Salvation without repentance, faith and belief in Christ.

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    John 14 :6

    Parents cannot circumvent or sidestep salvation by baptizing their children. Jesus is the way, no one receives Salvation because their parents had them baptized. They have had no opportunity to believe. This is a hard truth for those who have been taught that they were already saved, with no reason to repent, they were predestined, chosen, and that settles it in their mind. They often cite the fact that John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb, and therefore, children are able to understand before they are born, or after they are born.

  • Grace

    LC @ 67

    ” Why not apply the same logic to infant baptism?”

    No place in Scripture does Christ tell anyone to baptize infants.

    For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Corinthians 6:10

    An infant isn’t able to believe, repent of their sins or confess, they are but babes. No one automatically receives Salvation without repentance, faith and belief in Christ.

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    John 14 :6

    Parents cannot circumvent or sidestep salvation by baptizing their children. Jesus is the way, no one receives Salvation because their parents had them baptized. They have had no opportunity to believe. This is a hard truth for those who have been taught that they were already saved, with no reason to repent, they were predestined, chosen, and that settles it in their mind. They often cite the fact that John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb, and therefore, children are able to understand before they are born, or after they are born.

  • Grace

    Mark Veenman @ 68

    I do not believe in infant baptism, there is nothing Scriptural about it. I have searched the Bible, it isn’t there.

  • Grace

    Mark Veenman @ 68

    I do not believe in infant baptism, there is nothing Scriptural about it. I have searched the Bible, it isn’t there.

  • Med Student

    The Bible never states that infants cannot have faith. In fact, the opposite is true – David specifically states that “you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast.” Jesus said to let the little children (I believe the Greek term includes babies) come to Him, because to such as them belongs the kingdom of God.
    I was baptized, and therefore I was clothed with Christ (Gal). I was buried with Him into death (Rom). I was saved by baptism, not as the removal of dirt from the body, but as the appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Christ (I Peter). I believe that God means what he says in those verses. There are no qualifications given. To say that those verses don’t really mean what they say is awfully similar to the words of the serpent in Genesis “did God really say?” When I have doubts as to whether I’m really, truly saved, the certain words of Scripture give me comfort, because I know that God has really made me one of his heirs. I was baptized when I was a week old – that makes none of God’s promises to me invalid.

  • Med Student

    The Bible never states that infants cannot have faith. In fact, the opposite is true – David specifically states that “you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast.” Jesus said to let the little children (I believe the Greek term includes babies) come to Him, because to such as them belongs the kingdom of God.
    I was baptized, and therefore I was clothed with Christ (Gal). I was buried with Him into death (Rom). I was saved by baptism, not as the removal of dirt from the body, but as the appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Christ (I Peter). I believe that God means what he says in those verses. There are no qualifications given. To say that those verses don’t really mean what they say is awfully similar to the words of the serpent in Genesis “did God really say?” When I have doubts as to whether I’m really, truly saved, the certain words of Scripture give me comfort, because I know that God has really made me one of his heirs. I was baptized when I was a week old – that makes none of God’s promises to me invalid.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace: “An infant isn’t able to believe, repent of their sins or confess, they are but babes. No one automatically receives Salvation without repentance, faith and belief in Christ.”

    St. Mark: “But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Children, “παιδία”, includes infants.

    You can’t say that they can’t believe and that to infants belongs the kingdom of heaven.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace: “An infant isn’t able to believe, repent of their sins or confess, they are but babes. No one automatically receives Salvation without repentance, faith and belief in Christ.”

    St. Mark: “But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Children, “παιδία”, includes infants.

    You can’t say that they can’t believe and that to infants belongs the kingdom of heaven.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    That’s absurd

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    That’s absurd

  • Grace

    Mark Veenman @72

    – - You wrote: ““But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Children, “παιδία”, includes infants. “

    As I stated before @ 60

    13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

    NOTICE: Jesus “laid hands on them, he did not baptise the children.

    Verse 13 makes clear the children had been brought so that Jesus could put HIS hands on them and pray. That doesn’t mean Baptism, it means touching them and praying. The Scripture is crystal clear. It is man who chooses to change the clear meaning of God’s Word.

    Jesus Christ’s silence regarding Baptism of infants and children in this passage of Scripture is obvious, it didn’t happen “he laid his hands on them” he didn’t baptize them, nor did HE suggest that they receive Baptism. No where is it mentioned that Jesus suggested baptizing children. Usage of that passage of Scripture is distorted when you try to change the meaning from “laid his hands on them” to baptism.

  • Grace

    Mark Veenman @72

    – - You wrote: ““But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Children, “παιδία”, includes infants. “

    As I stated before @ 60

    13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

    NOTICE: Jesus “laid hands on them, he did not baptise the children.

    Verse 13 makes clear the children had been brought so that Jesus could put HIS hands on them and pray. That doesn’t mean Baptism, it means touching them and praying. The Scripture is crystal clear. It is man who chooses to change the clear meaning of God’s Word.

    Jesus Christ’s silence regarding Baptism of infants and children in this passage of Scripture is obvious, it didn’t happen “he laid his hands on them” he didn’t baptize them, nor did HE suggest that they receive Baptism. No where is it mentioned that Jesus suggested baptizing children. Usage of that passage of Scripture is distorted when you try to change the meaning from “laid his hands on them” to baptism.

  • Grace

    Med student @ 71

    - – YOU WROTE: “The Bible never states that infants cannot have faith. In fact, the opposite is true – David specifically states that “you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast.

    The entire Psalm 22 pertains to Christ’s infancy from his mother’s womb through his life and then death on the cross. It isn’t about David.

    This Psalm is called the Psalm of the Cross. It is named because it describes more accurately and minutely the crucifixion of Christ than does any other portion of the Word of God. It corresponds to the twenty-second chapter of Genesis and the fifty third chapter of Isaiah. There are many messianic psalms which are pictures of Christ. The first psalm is a portrait of Christ in His character who he is His life, His practice. But in Psalm 22 we have an X-ray which penetrates into His thoughts and into His inner life. In this psalm we see the anguish of His passion.

    My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Psalms 22:1

    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
    Matthew 27:46

    But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. Psalms 22:9

    (Christ Jesus being God the Son would understand, would know, even at His mother’s breasts who He was, after all he is Deity.)

    Read the entire 22nd chapter of Psalms, you will see that it is all about Christ’s life and death on the Cross.


    Whole Psalm. This is a kind of gem among the Psalms, and is peculiarly excellent and remarkable. It contains those deep, sublime, and heavy sufferings of Christ, when agonising in the midst of the terrors and pangs of divine wrath and death, which surpass all human thought and comprehension. I know not whether any Psalm throughout the whole book contains matter more weighty, or from which the hearts of the godly can so truly perceive those sighs and groans, inexpressible by man, which their Lord and Head, Jesus Christ, uttered when conflicting for us in the midst of death, and in the midst of the pains and terrors of hell. Wherefore this Psalm ought to be most highly prized by all who have any acquaintance with temptations of faith and spiritual conflicts. Martin Luther.

    - – YOU WROTE: “There are no qualifications given. To say that those verses don’t really mean what they say is awfully similar to the words of the serpent in Genesis “did God really say?”

    There is nothing “similar to what I posted to that of the “serpent” devil in Genesis. Your assumptions, and insinuations, without Scriptural proof, verge very closely of what you are veiling in your remarks to me, or others who do not agree with infant baptism.

  • Grace

    Med student @ 71

    - – YOU WROTE: “The Bible never states that infants cannot have faith. In fact, the opposite is true – David specifically states that “you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast.

    The entire Psalm 22 pertains to Christ’s infancy from his mother’s womb through his life and then death on the cross. It isn’t about David.

    This Psalm is called the Psalm of the Cross. It is named because it describes more accurately and minutely the crucifixion of Christ than does any other portion of the Word of God. It corresponds to the twenty-second chapter of Genesis and the fifty third chapter of Isaiah. There are many messianic psalms which are pictures of Christ. The first psalm is a portrait of Christ in His character who he is His life, His practice. But in Psalm 22 we have an X-ray which penetrates into His thoughts and into His inner life. In this psalm we see the anguish of His passion.

    My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Psalms 22:1

    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
    Matthew 27:46

    But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. Psalms 22:9

    (Christ Jesus being God the Son would understand, would know, even at His mother’s breasts who He was, after all he is Deity.)

    Read the entire 22nd chapter of Psalms, you will see that it is all about Christ’s life and death on the Cross.


    Whole Psalm. This is a kind of gem among the Psalms, and is peculiarly excellent and remarkable. It contains those deep, sublime, and heavy sufferings of Christ, when agonising in the midst of the terrors and pangs of divine wrath and death, which surpass all human thought and comprehension. I know not whether any Psalm throughout the whole book contains matter more weighty, or from which the hearts of the godly can so truly perceive those sighs and groans, inexpressible by man, which their Lord and Head, Jesus Christ, uttered when conflicting for us in the midst of death, and in the midst of the pains and terrors of hell. Wherefore this Psalm ought to be most highly prized by all who have any acquaintance with temptations of faith and spiritual conflicts. Martin Luther.

    - – YOU WROTE: “There are no qualifications given. To say that those verses don’t really mean what they say is awfully similar to the words of the serpent in Genesis “did God really say?”

    There is nothing “similar to what I posted to that of the “serpent” devil in Genesis. Your assumptions, and insinuations, without Scriptural proof, verge very closely of what you are veiling in your remarks to me, or others who do not agree with infant baptism.

  • Grace

    LC # 66

    –”That was John’s baptism. Christ’s baptism was instituted in Matt. 28. You can see that the two baptisms are different by reading Acts 18:24-19:7.”

    NO LC, it was in Matthew 3 – Where do you see Christ being Baptized in Matthew 28? You’re confusing Scripture.

    13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

    14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

    15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

    16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

    17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3

  • Grace

    LC # 66

    –”That was John’s baptism. Christ’s baptism was instituted in Matt. 28. You can see that the two baptisms are different by reading Acts 18:24-19:7.”

    NO LC, it was in Matthew 3 – Where do you see Christ being Baptized in Matthew 28? You’re confusing Scripture.

    13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

    14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

    15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

    16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

    17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 3

  • Med Student

    Grace, questioning what God says is exactly what people do when they claim that “baptism now saves you” doesn’t really mean that, or that “all who have been baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ.” There aren’t any qualifications there, including about age or reasoning ability. Claiming otherwise is to insinuate that God didn’t really mean what He said, just as the serpent insinuated that God didn’t really mean what He said about eating from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    As to Psalm 22, it is a messianic psalm, but that doesn’t mean that it only is messianic. John the Baptist clearly had faith even before he was born. Jesus specifically said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to little children – how is that possible if they can’t have faith? The fact that Jesus did not baptize these children doesn’t really mean anything significant because Jesus didn’t baptize anyone, and did not institute Christian baptism until after His resurrection. Arguing as you did in post 74 would imply that adults shouldn’t be baptized either, since Jesus clearly never baptized any adults.
    At any rate, I doubt I’ll change your mind, but as for me, I will continue to trust God’s promises to me, that I was clothed with Christ and buried with Him through my baptism.

  • Med Student

    Grace, questioning what God says is exactly what people do when they claim that “baptism now saves you” doesn’t really mean that, or that “all who have been baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ.” There aren’t any qualifications there, including about age or reasoning ability. Claiming otherwise is to insinuate that God didn’t really mean what He said, just as the serpent insinuated that God didn’t really mean what He said about eating from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
    As to Psalm 22, it is a messianic psalm, but that doesn’t mean that it only is messianic. John the Baptist clearly had faith even before he was born. Jesus specifically said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to little children – how is that possible if they can’t have faith? The fact that Jesus did not baptize these children doesn’t really mean anything significant because Jesus didn’t baptize anyone, and did not institute Christian baptism until after His resurrection. Arguing as you did in post 74 would imply that adults shouldn’t be baptized either, since Jesus clearly never baptized any adults.
    At any rate, I doubt I’ll change your mind, but as for me, I will continue to trust God’s promises to me, that I was clothed with Christ and buried with Him through my baptism.

  • Grace

    Med student

    For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Corinthians 6:10

    For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    Romans 10:10

    ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1 John 4:15

    An infant is not capable of confession, or to confess Jesus is the son of God, or to have godly sorrow.

  • Grace

    Med student

    For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 2 Corinthians 6:10

    For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
    Romans 10:10

    ‘Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 1 John 4:15

    An infant is not capable of confession, or to confess Jesus is the son of God, or to have godly sorrow.

  • LC

    Grace @ 69
    “No place in Scripture does Christ tell anyone to baptize infants.”

    Read the end of Matthew 28, where Christ says to baptize “all nations”. Infants are a part of “all nations.”

    Grace @ 76

    “NO LC, it was in Matthew 3 – Where do you see Christ being Baptized in Matthew 28? You’re confusing Scripture.”

    I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood what I meant by Christ “instituting” baptism. Christ was baptized in Matthew 3, yes — it was the baptism of John. But Christ institutes (that is, establishes) his baptism in Matthew 28, when he says to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His baptism unites you to Himself, through the power of His resurrection, as it says in Romans 6:3-5 and 1 Peter 3:21. This is the “one baptism” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians.

    Again, read Acts 18:24-19:7, to see that the two baptisms are different.

    And Grace, as far as infants not being capable of believing, see Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith is a gift from God, and that not of ourselves. It then follows if this faith has nothing to do with ourselves, and it’s a gift, then God can give it to whoever He wants, from a 45 year old adult to a 2 day old infant.

  • LC

    Grace @ 69
    “No place in Scripture does Christ tell anyone to baptize infants.”

    Read the end of Matthew 28, where Christ says to baptize “all nations”. Infants are a part of “all nations.”

    Grace @ 76

    “NO LC, it was in Matthew 3 – Where do you see Christ being Baptized in Matthew 28? You’re confusing Scripture.”

    I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood what I meant by Christ “instituting” baptism. Christ was baptized in Matthew 3, yes — it was the baptism of John. But Christ institutes (that is, establishes) his baptism in Matthew 28, when he says to baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. His baptism unites you to Himself, through the power of His resurrection, as it says in Romans 6:3-5 and 1 Peter 3:21. This is the “one baptism” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians.

    Again, read Acts 18:24-19:7, to see that the two baptisms are different.

    And Grace, as far as infants not being capable of believing, see Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith is a gift from God, and that not of ourselves. It then follows if this faith has nothing to do with ourselves, and it’s a gift, then God can give it to whoever He wants, from a 45 year old adult to a 2 day old infant.

  • Med Student

    Read Luke 18:15-17. Jesus Himself says that the kingdom of God can belong to infants. How can an infant have faith? How can any of us have faith? We are all dead in our trespasses and are naturally enemies of God. Faith is a gift from God, so that no one may boast. God can grant that gift to anyone, including infants, which according to Jesus’ words He clearly does . I’ve had faith since I was a week old. Do I remember that? Of course not. I believe what the Bible tells me about infants and His kingdom, and about what He did for me in my baptism.

  • Med Student

    Read Luke 18:15-17. Jesus Himself says that the kingdom of God can belong to infants. How can an infant have faith? How can any of us have faith? We are all dead in our trespasses and are naturally enemies of God. Faith is a gift from God, so that no one may boast. God can grant that gift to anyone, including infants, which according to Jesus’ words He clearly does . I’ve had faith since I was a week old. Do I remember that? Of course not. I believe what the Bible tells me about infants and His kingdom, and about what He did for me in my baptism.

  • #4 Kitty

    Apparently this isn’t a trend associated exclusively with the French. Bill Maher is seen here performing a “de-baptism” on television.

  • #4 Kitty

    Apparently this isn’t a trend associated exclusively with the French. Bill Maher is seen here performing a “de-baptism” on television.

  • Pete

    Grace @78 says, “An infant is not capable of confession, or to confess Jesus is the son of God, or to have godly sorrow.”

    Precisely! This is true of any unregenerate person – infant or otherwise. Only after “birth from above” is anyone capable of these things. And, as many comments above have pointed out, it is very hard to come away from a straightforward reading of scripture without associating this “second birth” with Christian baptism.

  • Pete

    Grace @78 says, “An infant is not capable of confession, or to confess Jesus is the son of God, or to have godly sorrow.”

    Precisely! This is true of any unregenerate person – infant or otherwise. Only after “birth from above” is anyone capable of these things. And, as many comments above have pointed out, it is very hard to come away from a straightforward reading of scripture without associating this “second birth” with Christian baptism.

  • Grace

    Baptism doesn’t save anyone who has not repented of their sins, be it an adult or an infant.

  • Grace

    Baptism doesn’t save anyone who has not repented of their sins, be it an adult or an infant.

  • Grace

    Read the entire passage from verse 22 to 36. Christ Jesus most assuredly Baptized. The question one might ask is: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HIDDEN, WHY DO some denominations hide this passage and skip over the obvious meaning? – Why would anyone want to hide the fact that Christ baptized? Think about it.

    22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    23 And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

    24 For John was not yet cast into prison.

    25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

    26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

    27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

    28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

    29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

    30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

    31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

    32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

    33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

    34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

    35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

    36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3

  • Grace

    Read the entire passage from verse 22 to 36. Christ Jesus most assuredly Baptized. The question one might ask is: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HIDDEN, WHY DO some denominations hide this passage and skip over the obvious meaning? – Why would anyone want to hide the fact that Christ baptized? Think about it.

    22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    23 And John also was baptizing in AEnon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

    24 For John was not yet cast into prison.

    25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.

    26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

    27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

    28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

    29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

    30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

    31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

    32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.

    33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

    34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

    35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

    36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3

  • Grace

    New International Version
    After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

    New Living Translation
    Then Jesus and his disciples left Jerusalem and went into the Judean countryside. Jesus spent some time with them there, baptizing people.

    English Standard Version
    After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and heremained there with them and was baptizing.

    New American Standard Bible
    After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    International Standard Version
    After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside. He spent some time there with them and began baptizing.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    After these things, Yeshua and his disciples came to the land of Judea, and he was employed there with them and he baptized.

    King James 2000 Bible
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    American King James Version
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    American Standard Version
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized.

    Darby Bible Translation
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he abode with them and baptised.

    English Revised Version
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples to the land of Judea, and there he did tarry with them, and was baptizing;

    ~~~
    Can you see, that Jesus “did tarry with them, and was baptizing.” – “Jesus spent some time with them there, baptizing people”

    Jesus indeed Baptize people. The question is, WHY do some of you deny that Christ Jesus Baptized?
    ~~~

  • Grace

    New International Version
    After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

    New Living Translation
    Then Jesus and his disciples left Jerusalem and went into the Judean countryside. Jesus spent some time with them there, baptizing people.

    English Standard Version
    After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and heremained there with them and was baptizing.

    New American Standard Bible
    After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    International Standard Version
    After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside. He spent some time there with them and began baptizing.

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    After these things, Yeshua and his disciples came to the land of Judea, and he was employed there with them and he baptized.

    King James 2000 Bible
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    American King James Version
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    American Standard Version
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptized.

    Darby Bible Translation
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he abode with them and baptised.

    English Revised Version
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

    Young’s Literal Translation
    After these things came Jesus and his disciples to the land of Judea, and there he did tarry with them, and was baptizing;

    ~~~
    Can you see, that Jesus “did tarry with them, and was baptizing.” – “Jesus spent some time with them there, baptizing people”

    Jesus indeed Baptize people. The question is, WHY do some of you deny that Christ Jesus Baptized?
    ~~~

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace: “Baptism doesn’t save anyone who has not repented of their sins”

    Author of Acts: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Acts 22:16 (ESV)

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace: “Baptism doesn’t save anyone who has not repented of their sins”

    Author of Acts: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” Acts 22:16 (ESV)

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace, you say that infants and children cannot have faith nor repent. Pointed question: how does God save infants as he claims that to such belong the kingdom of heaven? Unregenerated infants are damned due to original sin. Are you saying that all children are damned until they have the second double-portion anointing?

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace, you say that infants and children cannot have faith nor repent. Pointed question: how does God save infants as he claims that to such belong the kingdom of heaven? Unregenerated infants are damned due to original sin. Are you saying that all children are damned until they have the second double-portion anointing?

  • Med Student

    Grace, you are correct that Jesus and His disciples did baptize. I don’t know if this was the same as the Trinitarian baptism instituted before the ascension or not.
    Still, I do not see the part of Scripture where it says “baptism now saves you, unless you haven’t repented of your sins.” Or, “you were buried through baptism into death, unless you haven’t repented of your sins.” Or, “all you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ, except for the ones who haven’t repented.” I think I’ll go with what Scripture says about baptism. If all these things are indeed true of baptism, then God must grant faith and repentance through baptism, as He can also grant faith and repentance through the hearing of the Word.

  • Med Student

    Grace, you are correct that Jesus and His disciples did baptize. I don’t know if this was the same as the Trinitarian baptism instituted before the ascension or not.
    Still, I do not see the part of Scripture where it says “baptism now saves you, unless you haven’t repented of your sins.” Or, “you were buried through baptism into death, unless you haven’t repented of your sins.” Or, “all you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ, except for the ones who haven’t repented.” I think I’ll go with what Scripture says about baptism. If all these things are indeed true of baptism, then God must grant faith and repentance through baptism, as He can also grant faith and repentance through the hearing of the Word.

  • Grace

    Student @ 88

    “Grace, you are correct that Jesus and His disciples did baptize. I don’t know if this was the same as the Trinitarian baptism instituted before the ascension or not.”

    Your statement above in 88 contradicts what you stated earlier in 77.

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

    Repentance comes before baptism!

    You stated in post 77

    “The fact that Jesus did not baptize these children doesn’t really mean anything significant because Jesus didn’t baptize anyone, and did not institute Christian baptism until after His resurrection.

    The passages I gave in John 23 prove your statement above to be false.

  • Grace

    Student @ 88

    “Grace, you are correct that Jesus and His disciples did baptize. I don’t know if this was the same as the Trinitarian baptism instituted before the ascension or not.”

    Your statement above in 88 contradicts what you stated earlier in 77.

    Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38

    Repentance comes before baptism!

    You stated in post 77

    “The fact that Jesus did not baptize these children doesn’t really mean anything significant because Jesus didn’t baptize anyone, and did not institute Christian baptism until after His resurrection.

    The passages I gave in John 23 prove your statement above to be false.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Dealing with Grace has made me rethink the Roman position on pergatory. Oh that I wish I could pour concrete with the hardness shown in her heart.

    Grace showed up in post 51 claiming belief FIRST – then Baptism according to Acts 2:38, ergo, one must not Baptize infants according to St. Peter. In posting 59, I encouraged Grace to read one more verse, Acts 2:39 where “and your children” is included in the Baptismal command. No more would be hear from St. Peter.

    Grace’s apologia in post 60, “Jesus silence regarding baptism of infants.” Several posters tried to bring Grace to GRACE – to no avail. LC in post 79 even pointed to Matt 28:19 and Jesus saying to baptize ALL NATIONS. Now, either we must conclude infants are not included in ALL or they are not part of NATIONS. She didn’t reply – alas, there went Jesus and the Great Commission.

    Now, she redirects to John 3:22-36 claiming we assert Jesus did not baptize anyone. LOOK, LOOK, she cries, HE baptized! What Grace does not do is her own rebuke to LC in post 76, “You’re confusing Scripture.” In post 84, she admonished, “Read the entire passage from verse 22 to 36. Christ Jesus most assuredly Baptized. The question one might ask is: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HIDDEN, WHY DO some denominations hide this passage and skip over the obvious meaning?

    Grace – here is some advice prayerfully born of Christian love – try reading the entire Gospel, especially Chapter 4. For your edification, I’ll speak the first three verses, “1. Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples the John 2. (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), 3. he left Judea and departed again for Galilee.” Now, where did we get the idea Jesus did not baptize? Or are you now going to toss out St. John’s Gospel along with St. Peter, St. Mark, St Matthew etc. etc. etc.

    So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” What Grace espouses is a doctrine of man lacking any biblical authority – it is not from God nor is it his will. This is anathema. Repent before you’re left with only Judas went out and hanged himself – Go ye therefore and do likewise.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Dealing with Grace has made me rethink the Roman position on pergatory. Oh that I wish I could pour concrete with the hardness shown in her heart.

    Grace showed up in post 51 claiming belief FIRST – then Baptism according to Acts 2:38, ergo, one must not Baptize infants according to St. Peter. In posting 59, I encouraged Grace to read one more verse, Acts 2:39 where “and your children” is included in the Baptismal command. No more would be hear from St. Peter.

    Grace’s apologia in post 60, “Jesus silence regarding baptism of infants.” Several posters tried to bring Grace to GRACE – to no avail. LC in post 79 even pointed to Matt 28:19 and Jesus saying to baptize ALL NATIONS. Now, either we must conclude infants are not included in ALL or they are not part of NATIONS. She didn’t reply – alas, there went Jesus and the Great Commission.

    Now, she redirects to John 3:22-36 claiming we assert Jesus did not baptize anyone. LOOK, LOOK, she cries, HE baptized! What Grace does not do is her own rebuke to LC in post 76, “You’re confusing Scripture.” In post 84, she admonished, “Read the entire passage from verse 22 to 36. Christ Jesus most assuredly Baptized. The question one might ask is: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HIDDEN, WHY DO some denominations hide this passage and skip over the obvious meaning?

    Grace – here is some advice prayerfully born of Christian love – try reading the entire Gospel, especially Chapter 4. For your edification, I’ll speak the first three verses, “1. Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples the John 2. (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), 3. he left Judea and departed again for Galilee.” Now, where did we get the idea Jesus did not baptize? Or are you now going to toss out St. John’s Gospel along with St. Peter, St. Mark, St Matthew etc. etc. etc.

    So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” What Grace espouses is a doctrine of man lacking any biblical authority – it is not from God nor is it his will. This is anathema. Repent before you’re left with only Judas went out and hanged himself – Go ye therefore and do likewise.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Grace

    “but now are they holy.”

    But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

    And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

    For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Corinthians 7

    Believers in Christ, be they the father or mother – their children are holy. This should put to rest those who stress over their young ones, before they are old enough to understand, have faith, believe, repent and be baptized. The portion of Scripture which I cite above is often ignored. It isn’t just about those who seek to leave their spouse, it clearly gives a vivid picture that children born to Believers are holy.

  • Grace

    “but now are they holy.”

    But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

    And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

    For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1 Corinthians 7

    Believers in Christ, be they the father or mother – their children are holy. This should put to rest those who stress over their young ones, before they are old enough to understand, have faith, believe, repent and be baptized. The portion of Scripture which I cite above is often ignored. It isn’t just about those who seek to leave their spouse, it clearly gives a vivid picture that children born to Believers are holy.

  • Grace

    Dennis @ 90

    ” Now, where did we get the idea Jesus did not baptize?”

    From Med student @ 77

    “Jesus didn’t baptize anyone, and did not institute Christian baptism until after His resurrection.

    John 3:22 proves student to be wrong. This took place before Christ died on the cross and Resurrection.

  • Grace

    Dennis @ 90

    ” Now, where did we get the idea Jesus did not baptize?”

    From Med student @ 77

    “Jesus didn’t baptize anyone, and did not institute Christian baptism until after His resurrection.

    John 3:22 proves student to be wrong. This took place before Christ died on the cross and Resurrection.

  • Med Student

    I take back what I said in 88. Dennis correctly points out that John clarifies what he said in chapter 3 :22 with 4:2 – “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but only His disciples.” I hadn’t read the whole thing together before. So I stand by my previous statement – Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone, adult or otherwise. Thanks for pointing that out, Dennis.

  • Med Student

    I take back what I said in 88. Dennis correctly points out that John clarifies what he said in chapter 3 :22 with 4:2 – “Jesus Himself did not baptize, but only His disciples.” I hadn’t read the whole thing together before. So I stand by my previous statement – Jesus Himself did not baptize anyone, adult or otherwise. Thanks for pointing that out, Dennis.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Grace; You consistently deny the clear words of Scripture, take Scripture out of context and promote a false doctrine. We can have no koinonia – you are of a different spirit than I.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Grace; You consistently deny the clear words of Scripture, take Scripture out of context and promote a false doctrine. We can have no koinonia – you are of a different spirit than I.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Grace

    Dennis and student,

    If both of you bothered to study, and look at all the translations, you would notice parentheses used in every one regarding John 4:2. An editorial gloss is most often used when it can not be authenticated, therefore parentheses accompany the text as in John 4:2. They are often used as marginal notes.

    The link which might give some insight as to how this works is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosses_to_the_Bible

    Then one can skip to John 4:2 – in parenthesis.

    ~~~

    GOD’S WORD
    (Actually, Jesus was not baptizing people. His disciples were.)

    King James 2000 Bible
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    American King James Version
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    American Standard Version
    (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,)

    Darby Bible Translation
    (however, Jesus himself did not baptise, but his disciples),

    English Revised Version
    (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    World English Bible
    (although Jesus himself didn’t baptize, but his disciples),

    Young’s Literal Translation
    (though indeed Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples,)

  • Grace

    Dennis and student,

    If both of you bothered to study, and look at all the translations, you would notice parentheses used in every one regarding John 4:2. An editorial gloss is most often used when it can not be authenticated, therefore parentheses accompany the text as in John 4:2. They are often used as marginal notes.

    The link which might give some insight as to how this works is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glosses_to_the_Bible

    Then one can skip to John 4:2 – in parenthesis.

    ~~~

    GOD’S WORD
    (Actually, Jesus was not baptizing people. His disciples were.)

    King James 2000 Bible
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    American King James Version
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    American Standard Version
    (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,)

    Darby Bible Translation
    (however, Jesus himself did not baptise, but his disciples),

    English Revised Version
    (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    World English Bible
    (although Jesus himself didn’t baptize, but his disciples),

    Young’s Literal Translation
    (though indeed Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples,)

  • Grace

    According to you Dennis, and student,

    We can trash John 3:22 and John 4:1, both of which are clear that Christ baptized – - in favor of one verse in parentheses, which follows John 4:1.

    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 3:22

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

    2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    – - – verse two (2) contradicts verse one (1), in John 4, and the passage in John 3:22.

    Anyone can see it is a contradition in verse 2.

  • Grace

    According to you Dennis, and student,

    We can trash John 3:22 and John 4:1, both of which are clear that Christ baptized – - in favor of one verse in parentheses, which follows John 4:1.

    After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 3:22

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

    2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

    – - – verse two (2) contradicts verse one (1), in John 4, and the passage in John 3:22.

    Anyone can see it is a contradition in verse 2.

  • Med Student

    The ESV does not use parentheses to indicate passages whose translation is unclear or which may not appear in all manuscripts; it uses footnotes for this purposeful, and only footnotes. John 4:2 is not footnoted, ergo the passage is not in dispute. John put it is as a clarifying statement, which is usually the reason people use parentheses in writing. Clearly for some reason he thought it necessary to point out that Jesus’ disciples did some baptizing, but Jesus didn’t.

  • Med Student

    The ESV does not use parentheses to indicate passages whose translation is unclear or which may not appear in all manuscripts; it uses footnotes for this purposeful, and only footnotes. John 4:2 is not footnoted, ergo the passage is not in dispute. John put it is as a clarifying statement, which is usually the reason people use parentheses in writing. Clearly for some reason he thought it necessary to point out that Jesus’ disciples did some baptizing, but Jesus didn’t.

  • Med Student

    I’ll also point out that the NIV doesn’t even put that passage in parentheses (neither does the NRSV). Neither are there any indications in other translations via parentheses, footnotes, or otherwise, that this passage is in dispute. Your argument simply doesn’t hold up.

  • Med Student

    I’ll also point out that the NIV doesn’t even put that passage in parentheses (neither does the NRSV). Neither are there any indications in other translations via parentheses, footnotes, or otherwise, that this passage is in dispute. Your argument simply doesn’t hold up.

  • Grace

    student,

    If you believe that John believed what he said in John 4:2, then you have to grapple with John 3:22 – there is no disclaimer on that passage. This reveals that a scribe was using an “editorial gloss”

    The FACT remains verse 1 in John 4 is then contradicted by what is stated in parenthesis in verse 2. Are you saying John changed his mind, but forgot to delete verse 1? Then you have to ask yourself, did John just make up what transpired as was stated in verse John 3:22? I don’t believe any of it, this is nothing but an editorial gloss, that suits some denominations and their doctrine.

  • Grace

    student,

    If you believe that John believed what he said in John 4:2, then you have to grapple with John 3:22 – there is no disclaimer on that passage. This reveals that a scribe was using an “editorial gloss”

    The FACT remains verse 1 in John 4 is then contradicted by what is stated in parenthesis in verse 2. Are you saying John changed his mind, but forgot to delete verse 1? Then you have to ask yourself, did John just make up what transpired as was stated in verse John 3:22? I don’t believe any of it, this is nothing but an editorial gloss, that suits some denominations and their doctrine.

  • Grace

    student

    The NRSV and the NIV have been questioned many times over changes they made in the translations.

    Below is the latest example of those who change Scriptural texts.

    ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ Ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations

    By Hussein Hajji Wario | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Jan 27, 2012

    “A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that remove “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God” because these terms are offensive to Muslims.

    http://news.yahoo.com/father-son-ousted-trinity-bible-translations-003300519.html

  • Grace

    student

    The NRSV and the NIV have been questioned many times over changes they made in the translations.

    Below is the latest example of those who change Scriptural texts.

    ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ Ousted from the Trinity in New Bible Translations

    By Hussein Hajji Wario | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Fri, Jan 27, 2012

    “A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that remove “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God” because these terms are offensive to Muslims.

    http://news.yahoo.com/father-son-ousted-trinity-bible-translations-003300519.html

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Baptism doesn’t save anyone who has not repented of their sins, be it an adult or an infant.”

    Yeah, I used to think that, too. I even used to say to my husband when folks would bring a baby for baptism, “here comes another little repenter.” One of the things, other than scripture that I find pretty compelling is that Christians baptised infants from the beginning. I mean, why did the Church believe in infant baptism for, what, 1600 years, and then only a handful of folks argued that point after the Reformation opened the floodgates of heresy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Baptism doesn’t save anyone who has not repented of their sins, be it an adult or an infant.”

    Yeah, I used to think that, too. I even used to say to my husband when folks would bring a baby for baptism, “here comes another little repenter.” One of the things, other than scripture that I find pretty compelling is that Christians baptised infants from the beginning. I mean, why did the Church believe in infant baptism for, what, 1600 years, and then only a handful of folks argued that point after the Reformation opened the floodgates of heresy.

  • Grace

    sg @ 101

    :One of the things, other than scripture that I find pretty compelling is that Christians baptised infants from the beginning.”

    The Roman Catholic church baptizes infants. I don’t believe baptizing an infant because the RCC did so hundreds of years ago, should have anything to do with it.

  • Grace

    sg @ 101

    :One of the things, other than scripture that I find pretty compelling is that Christians baptised infants from the beginning.”

    The Roman Catholic church baptizes infants. I don’t believe baptizing an infant because the RCC did so hundreds of years ago, should have anything to do with it.

  • Med Student

    First of all, Grace, your article about how some Bible translators have been changing the text does not involve the actual translations I used as examples and is a complete straw man. There is no indication that certain denominations have conspired to add John 4:2 and then not include a footnote about it.
    Second of all, I see no contradictions in what John wrote. If a news story says something along the lines of “the president announced today…” but the actual announcement was made by the White House spokesperson, do you think that there was a contradiction involved there? You shouldn’t, since the actions of subordinates are often attributed to the leader. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to attribute baptism to Jesus while also saying He personally didn’t do it, but His disciples did under His authority. This is exactly what John does. I don’t see how that’s hard to grasp. Jesus’ disciples baptized under Jesus authority, but Jesus did not personally baptize. Pretty clear. Anyway, I’m done here. I’ve got lots of studying to do.

  • Med Student

    First of all, Grace, your article about how some Bible translators have been changing the text does not involve the actual translations I used as examples and is a complete straw man. There is no indication that certain denominations have conspired to add John 4:2 and then not include a footnote about it.
    Second of all, I see no contradictions in what John wrote. If a news story says something along the lines of “the president announced today…” but the actual announcement was made by the White House spokesperson, do you think that there was a contradiction involved there? You shouldn’t, since the actions of subordinates are often attributed to the leader. Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to attribute baptism to Jesus while also saying He personally didn’t do it, but His disciples did under His authority. This is exactly what John does. I don’t see how that’s hard to grasp. Jesus’ disciples baptized under Jesus authority, but Jesus did not personally baptize. Pretty clear. Anyway, I’m done here. I’ve got lots of studying to do.

  • Grace

    student 103

    YOU WROTE: “Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to attribute baptism to Jesus while also saying He personally didn’t do it, but His disciples did under His authority.”

    No it isn’t, for all the reasons I have already give. John 3:22 and John 4:1 is explicit – there is no wiggle room. John 4:2 is nothing but an “editorial gloss”

    As for your comparisons to the “White House” etc., don’t make me laugh. That’s nonsensical!

  • Grace

    student 103

    YOU WROTE: “Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to attribute baptism to Jesus while also saying He personally didn’t do it, but His disciples did under His authority.”

    No it isn’t, for all the reasons I have already give. John 3:22 and John 4:1 is explicit – there is no wiggle room. John 4:2 is nothing but an “editorial gloss”

    As for your comparisons to the “White House” etc., don’t make me laugh. That’s nonsensical!

  • Grace

    student 103

    YOU WROTE: “First of all, Grace, your article about how some Bible translators have been changing the text does not involve the actual translations I used as examples and is a complete straw man.”

    No they are not the ones you used. However there have been changes in one of those as well. You can research translations that have been re-translated, you might be very surprised at what you find. On the other hand, maybe you aren’t all that interested.

  • Grace

    student 103

    YOU WROTE: “First of all, Grace, your article about how some Bible translators have been changing the text does not involve the actual translations I used as examples and is a complete straw man.”

    No they are not the ones you used. However there have been changes in one of those as well. You can research translations that have been re-translated, you might be very surprised at what you find. On the other hand, maybe you aren’t all that interested.

  • Grace

    MY POST 104 should read:

    “No it isn’t, for all the reasons I have already give. John 3:22 and John 4:1 is explicit – there is no wiggle room. John 4:2 is nothing but an “editorial gloss” – it contradicts the other two, one of which is in the previous chapter.”

  • Grace

    MY POST 104 should read:

    “No it isn’t, for all the reasons I have already give. John 3:22 and John 4:1 is explicit – there is no wiggle room. John 4:2 is nothing but an “editorial gloss” – it contradicts the other two, one of which is in the previous chapter.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Roman Catholic church baptizes infants. I don’t believe baptizing an infant because the RCC did so hundreds of years ago, should have anything to do with it.”

    Well, it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church in the first, second, third century. It was just the Church. Until the break with the Orthodox, there was no Roman Catholic Church separate from the others. There was a bishop in Rome, but each area had a bishop. Damascus had a bishop, Antioch had a bishop, etc. However, they all baptised infants from the very beginning. It seems they got the practice from the first apostles themselves. So, if the first followers ever were baptising infants, it seems that baptising infants is a proper practice.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The Roman Catholic church baptizes infants. I don’t believe baptizing an infant because the RCC did so hundreds of years ago, should have anything to do with it.”

    Well, it wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church in the first, second, third century. It was just the Church. Until the break with the Orthodox, there was no Roman Catholic Church separate from the others. There was a bishop in Rome, but each area had a bishop. Damascus had a bishop, Antioch had a bishop, etc. However, they all baptised infants from the very beginning. It seems they got the practice from the first apostles themselves. So, if the first followers ever were baptising infants, it seems that baptising infants is a proper practice.

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace… I assume you are a baptized child of God. Let me ask you this question as a foundational understanding of the view of baptism you hold:
    Thinking back to your baptism and the events leading up to and immediately after (not years later, upon reflection…)

    Why were you baptized?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace… I assume you are a baptized child of God. Let me ask you this question as a foundational understanding of the view of baptism you hold:
    Thinking back to your baptism and the events leading up to and immediately after (not years later, upon reflection…)

    Why were you baptized?

  • Grace

    sg @107

    YOU WROTE:

    However, they all baptised infants from the very beginning. It seems they got the practice from the first apostles themselves. So, if the first followers ever were baptising infants, it seems that baptising infants is a proper practice.”

    Please give evidence of what you post above. Which “first apostles” – – - – - “first followers were
    baptising infants ? “

  • Grace

    sg @107

    YOU WROTE:

    However, they all baptised infants from the very beginning. It seems they got the practice from the first apostles themselves. So, if the first followers ever were baptising infants, it seems that baptising infants is a proper practice.”

    Please give evidence of what you post above. Which “first apostles” – – - – - “first followers were
    baptising infants ? “

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace@109
    The conversion of the jailer by Paul: Acts 16
    31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
    32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
    33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

    Oh! It doesn’t say there were any infants/children in the household… No good then.

    How about… more Acts 16
    14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
    15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

    Another household… no worries… The text never said there were children present so to ensure God’s word is correctly expressed, we shall declare, on our own initiative, that He meant to exclude children even though He never said He excludes children. That should do it. Gee! Where else can this technique be applied? I wonder what “is” means?

    Grace, is baptism done in obedience or received in faith?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace@109
    The conversion of the jailer by Paul: Acts 16
    31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
    32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
    33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

    Oh! It doesn’t say there were any infants/children in the household… No good then.

    How about… more Acts 16
    14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
    15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

    Another household… no worries… The text never said there were children present so to ensure God’s word is correctly expressed, we shall declare, on our own initiative, that He meant to exclude children even though He never said He excludes children. That should do it. Gee! Where else can this technique be applied? I wonder what “is” means?

    Grace, is baptism done in obedience or received in faith?

  • Mark Veenman

    The early church, on apostolic authority, also communed women. Bloody heretics…..

  • Mark Veenman

    The early church, on apostolic authority, also communed women. Bloody heretics…..

  • fws

    this is merely a separating of government record keeping from church record keeping. I hope the trend continues! I am pleased.

  • fws

    this is merely a separating of government record keeping from church record keeping. I hope the trend continues! I am pleased.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.” or “Baptism now saves you.”

    LC, #48: “Baptism Saves.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    Tom Moeller, #53: “You are looking at the end results only. You do not credit the intervening actions… Baptism now saves. Baptism does save. Baptism did save.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “That’s right. We are looking at the end results only. We were baptized and the end result is we are eternally miserable with our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy.”

    Tom Moelller, #53: “As a child full of faith I was saved in my Baptism. As a young man I gave no thought to God, Jesus or The Spirit. I had no saving faith. As an older fellow, I came to know saving faith in the promises of our merciful God. My Baptism always saves where there is saving faith that holds to God’s promises in Baptism.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “It’s good that you have saving faith. We did not have saving faith. We were baptized and we did not have saving faith. We are baptized and in eternal Hell.

    Our reality speaks thus to the mystery of the “gift” of baptism by this rudimentary fact to Lutheran teaching: Sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes it doesn’t.

    We are eternal witnesses and eternal examples of this. Our baptism was done by Lutheran ministers in the name of the Trinity. And we are eternally miserable in Hell. Our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutheran Pastors and Lutheran Laity: “Baptism saves you.” or “Baptism now saves you.”

    LC, #48: “Baptism Saves.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    Tom Moeller, #53: “You are looking at the end results only. You do not credit the intervening actions… Baptism now saves. Baptism does save. Baptism did save.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “That’s right. We are looking at the end results only. We were baptized and the end result is we are eternally miserable with our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy.”

    Tom Moelller, #53: “As a child full of faith I was saved in my Baptism. As a young man I gave no thought to God, Jesus or The Spirit. I had no saving faith. As an older fellow, I came to know saving faith in the promises of our merciful God. My Baptism always saves where there is saving faith that holds to God’s promises in Baptism.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “It’s good that you have saving faith. We did not have saving faith. We were baptized and we did not have saving faith. We are baptized and in eternal Hell.

    Our reality speaks thus to the mystery of the “gift” of baptism by this rudimentary fact to Lutheran teaching: Sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes it doesn’t.

    We are eternal witnesses and eternal examples of this. Our baptism was done by Lutheran ministers in the name of the Trinity. And we are eternally miserable in Hell. Our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Infant Baptism in Early Church History
    by Dennis Kastens

    From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

    The Early Church

    Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 – 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

    Irenaeus (130 – 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself – all. I say, who through him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

    Church Councils and Apologists

    Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 – 254) and Cyprian (215 – 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God….. especially infants. . . those newly born.” Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his (Commentary on Romans 5: 9: “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”

    Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

    To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: “If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema.”

    http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Infant Baptism in Early Church History
    by Dennis Kastens

    From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

    The Early Church

    Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3). Justin Martyr (100 – 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, “Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

    Irenaeus (130 – 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus “came to save all through means of Himself – all. I say, who through him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.”

    Church Councils and Apologists

    Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 – 254) and Cyprian (215 – 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: “We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God….. especially infants. . . those newly born.” Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his (Commentary on Romans 5: 9: “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”

    Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: “Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

    To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: “If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema.”

    http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar40.htm

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    LOL

    that should be 18:8

    not :8)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    LOL

    that should be 18:8

    not :8)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Well, the computer is thwarting me. I did not put that smiley in the text I quoted, and neither was it there in the original.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Well, the computer is thwarting me. I did not put that smiley in the text I quoted, and neither was it there in the original.

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: What in the world is your point. Are you making victims of the unfaitful?

    Swim away from a lifeboat and it is no longer a means of saving?

    Your “Lutherans in hell” announce their unbelief. The discussion as to salvation for them is over.

    Baptism always saves… Sometimes the saved don’t hang on and plunge to their death. Don’t blame baptism… Look to the devil and his tricks to destroy faith.

    “Our baptism was done by Lutheran ministers …” You are very misinformed. Baptism is by God, not man. You don’t seem to understand and seem unwilling to learn.
    Where or with whom do you find your comfort?

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: What in the world is your point. Are you making victims of the unfaitful?

    Swim away from a lifeboat and it is no longer a means of saving?

    Your “Lutherans in hell” announce their unbelief. The discussion as to salvation for them is over.

    Baptism always saves… Sometimes the saved don’t hang on and plunge to their death. Don’t blame baptism… Look to the devil and his tricks to destroy faith.

    “Our baptism was done by Lutheran ministers …” You are very misinformed. Baptism is by God, not man. You don’t seem to understand and seem unwilling to learn.
    Where or with whom do you find your comfort?

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: “Lutherans in Hell: “That’s right. We are looking at the end results only. We were baptized and the end result is we are eternally miserable with our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy.”

    This is just childish. My Dad gave me a new bicycle. I wrecked it. It is his fault it doesn’t work any more because he gave it to me.

    Pathetic.

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: “Lutherans in Hell: “That’s right. We are looking at the end results only. We were baptized and the end result is we are eternally miserable with our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy.”

    This is just childish. My Dad gave me a new bicycle. I wrecked it. It is his fault it doesn’t work any more because he gave it to me.

    Pathetic.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller: “What in the world is your point. … Baptism always saves…”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Baptism does NOT always save. We being in Hell testifies to that. The reality is that sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes baptism doesn’t save. Our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy didn’t save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller: “What in the world is your point. … Baptism always saves…”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Baptism does NOT always save. We being in Hell testifies to that. The reality is that sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes baptism doesn’t save. Our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy didn’t save us.”

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: Is there a confusion with “always saves” and “no longer saved?”
    If you can’t make that distinction your though process is inadequate to continue this discussion.

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: Is there a confusion with “always saves” and “no longer saved?”
    If you can’t make that distinction your though process is inadequate to continue this discussion.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller, #117: “Sometimes the saved don’t hang on and plunge to their death.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Your statement is better stated and more truly stated this way:

    ‘Sometimes the baptized don’t hang on and plunge to their death.’

    Hence, the true statements of “Our baptism didn’t save us” and “Baptism does NOT always save.””

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller, #117: “Sometimes the saved don’t hang on and plunge to their death.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Your statement is better stated and more truly stated this way:

    ‘Sometimes the baptized don’t hang on and plunge to their death.’

    Hence, the true statements of “Our baptism didn’t save us” and “Baptism does NOT always save.””

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: What do you believe baptism is? A work of man? A gift from God? Received in faith? A sign of obedience? What?

    Re-read the relevant passage in context and if you are willing to learn you will understand my point (1 Peter 3:20-22)

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: What do you believe baptism is? A work of man? A gift from God? Received in faith? A sign of obedience? What?

    Re-read the relevant passage in context and if you are willing to learn you will understand my point (1 Peter 3:20-22)

  • shell

    For those discussing John 4:2. According to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, there are no ancient manuscripts of John that do not have this verse or change it in any way. For those who favor the KJV and its textus receptus, it too includes the verse with no reservations. In short, every ancient manuscript and translation (even KJV) has John 4:2.

  • shell

    For those discussing John 4:2. According to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, there are no ancient manuscripts of John that do not have this verse or change it in any way. For those who favor the KJV and its textus receptus, it too includes the verse with no reservations. In short, every ancient manuscript and translation (even KJV) has John 4:2.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller,

    Do you completely agree with what the “Lutherans in Hell” have said in #121?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller,

    Do you completely agree with what the “Lutherans in Hell” have said in #121?

  • Grace

    shell @ 123

    “For those who favor the KJV and its textus receptus, it too includes the verse with no reservations. In short, every ancient manuscript and translation (even KJV) has John 4:2.”

    That’s right, it’s in the KJV and many other translations in parenthesis – it’s an editorial gloss. That’s why it’s in parenthesis.

  • Grace

    shell @ 123

    “For those who favor the KJV and its textus receptus, it too includes the verse with no reservations. In short, every ancient manuscript and translation (even KJV) has John 4:2.”

    That’s right, it’s in the KJV and many other translations in parenthesis – it’s an editorial gloss. That’s why it’s in parenthesis.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace,

    “Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant.”

    Notice this is extremely early in church history. Long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. The Apostle John surely was himself involved. The practice of insisting that believers not baptise their children who are too young to repent and rather wait for them to make their own decision is modern. While it may seem reasonable and logical that people must first repent, clearly that isn’t what our Lord taught nor what his Apostles and disciples practiced. The fact that it is hard for me to understand means I have to accept it on faith because my reason is inferior to what Jesus taught.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace,

    “Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant.”

    Notice this is extremely early in church history. Long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. The Apostle John surely was himself involved. The practice of insisting that believers not baptise their children who are too young to repent and rather wait for them to make their own decision is modern. While it may seem reasonable and logical that people must first repent, clearly that isn’t what our Lord taught nor what his Apostles and disciples practiced. The fact that it is hard for me to understand means I have to accept it on faith because my reason is inferior to what Jesus taught.

  • Grace

    sg @ 114

    You cite those who lived long after Christ died, their words are not in the Word of God. Although they often speak according to what they learned from the Apostle John, and many cases from his disciples, they are not ‘eye witnesses’ nor are they Paul who was chosen of the LORD and brought down on the Damascus road.

    I was saved at seven years old, that is most surey a child, I was baptized later. Both my parents were Believers in Jesus Christ. I was dedicated at the age of three weeks old. I believe that the passage of Scripture as stated earlier, post 91.

    For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean;<b but now are they holy.
    1 Corinthians 7:14

    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

    That is very much akin to “dedicating” ones child, however these children had the hands of God the Son on them physically. When Believers dedicate their children, they promise to rear them, to learn about Jesus Christ, within the church. The pastor prays and often holds the child, and asks that they be blessed.

    Notice when Jesus put HIS hands on the children, HE didn’t baptize them, nor did he suggest that they be baptized.

  • Grace

    sg @ 114

    You cite those who lived long after Christ died, their words are not in the Word of God. Although they often speak according to what they learned from the Apostle John, and many cases from his disciples, they are not ‘eye witnesses’ nor are they Paul who was chosen of the LORD and brought down on the Damascus road.

    I was saved at seven years old, that is most surey a child, I was baptized later. Both my parents were Believers in Jesus Christ. I was dedicated at the age of three weeks old. I believe that the passage of Scripture as stated earlier, post 91.

    For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean;<b but now are they holy.
    1 Corinthians 7:14

    14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Matthew 19

    That is very much akin to “dedicating” ones child, however these children had the hands of God the Son on them physically. When Believers dedicate their children, they promise to rear them, to learn about Jesus Christ, within the church. The pastor prays and often holds the child, and asks that they be blessed.

    Notice when Jesus put HIS hands on the children, HE didn’t baptize them, nor did he suggest that they be baptized.

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD asked “Do you completely agree with what the “Lutherans in Hell” have said in #121?”
    (interesting request to “completely” agree. your construction is that of a failed lawyer)

    It does not negate my statement where I said “saved” rather your “baptized.” I would agree with your statement based on my knowledge of baptism.
    But… I don’t know how you consider baptism as instituted by Christ. I asked and you haven’t answered (#122)
    If you were Roman Catholic and we discussed God’s Grace, I know we would be at odds in same terms. The Roman concept of God’s Grace is contrary to the plain, clear usage of Grace found in the Bible (doctrine of man) and is unacceptable.

    Can you and will you make the distinction I presented in #120?

    The analogy in # 118 was sharp and to your point. Do you have no response? Are you calling all to “Move along! Nothing to see here?”

    Will you re-read 1Peter 3:20-22 and be better informed before you continue to play Emperor with new clothes?

    You have no argument to support what ever your contention is (baptism doesn’t save?) so you resort to clever dialog and non-responsiveness. Is this your objective? To be argumentative? Are you in over your head and refusing the offer of a saving life ring?

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD asked “Do you completely agree with what the “Lutherans in Hell” have said in #121?”
    (interesting request to “completely” agree. your construction is that of a failed lawyer)

    It does not negate my statement where I said “saved” rather your “baptized.” I would agree with your statement based on my knowledge of baptism.
    But… I don’t know how you consider baptism as instituted by Christ. I asked and you haven’t answered (#122)
    If you were Roman Catholic and we discussed God’s Grace, I know we would be at odds in same terms. The Roman concept of God’s Grace is contrary to the plain, clear usage of Grace found in the Bible (doctrine of man) and is unacceptable.

    Can you and will you make the distinction I presented in #120?

    The analogy in # 118 was sharp and to your point. Do you have no response? Are you calling all to “Move along! Nothing to see here?”

    Will you re-read 1Peter 3:20-22 and be better informed before you continue to play Emperor with new clothes?

    You have no argument to support what ever your contention is (baptism doesn’t save?) so you resort to clever dialog and non-responsiveness. Is this your objective? To be argumentative? Are you in over your head and refusing the offer of a saving life ring?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace pointed out… “…when Jesus put HIS hands on the children, HE didn’t baptize them, nor did he suggest that they be baptized.”

    Grace you have to admit that Jesus never said “Don’t baptize the little children.”
    He did say baptize ALL NATIONS.
    Whole household were baptized in his name.

    Where does your overwhelming need to withhold God’s Grace from his children?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace pointed out… “…when Jesus put HIS hands on the children, HE didn’t baptize them, nor did he suggest that they be baptized.”

    Grace you have to admit that Jesus never said “Don’t baptize the little children.”
    He did say baptize ALL NATIONS.
    Whole household were baptized in his name.

    Where does your overwhelming need to withhold God’s Grace from his children?

  • Tom Moeller

    Where does your overwhelming need to withhold God’s Grace from his children come from?

  • Tom Moeller

    Where does your overwhelming need to withhold God’s Grace from his children come from?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You cite those who lived long after Christ died”

    The apostle, John? He was a contemporary of Christ. Where did John and Polycarp ever get the idea to baptise infants if not from the Jesus? Infant baptism was practiced from the beginning and the church fathers did not teach against it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You cite those who lived long after Christ died”

    The apostle, John? He was a contemporary of Christ. Where did John and Polycarp ever get the idea to baptise infants if not from the Jesus? Infant baptism was practiced from the beginning and the church fathers did not teach against it.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller, #117: “Sometimes the saved don’t hang on and plunge to their death.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Your statement is better stated and more truly stated this way:

    ‘Sometimes the baptized don’t hang on and plunge to their death.’

    Hence, the true statements of “Our baptism didn’t save us” and “Baptism does NOT always save.””

    Tom Moeller, #128: “I would agree with your statement based on my knowledge of baptism.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Thank you for agreeing with us that:

    (1) Our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy didn’t save us. And…

    (2) Baptism does NOT always save. We being in Hell are prima facie evidence of that.

    We hope this discussion brings clarity to the claims of “Baptism always saves” and “Baptism does NOT always save.””

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller, #117: “Sometimes the saved don’t hang on and plunge to their death.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Your statement is better stated and more truly stated this way:

    ‘Sometimes the baptized don’t hang on and plunge to their death.’

    Hence, the true statements of “Our baptism didn’t save us” and “Baptism does NOT always save.””

    Tom Moeller, #128: “I would agree with your statement based on my knowledge of baptism.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Thank you for agreeing with us that:

    (1) Our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy didn’t save us. And…

    (2) Baptism does NOT always save. We being in Hell are prima facie evidence of that.

    We hope this discussion brings clarity to the claims of “Baptism always saves” and “Baptism does NOT always save.””

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Lutherans in Hell” aka apostates from Christianity. May as well be Baptists in Hell, Catholics in Hell, etc. Apostates cannot accurately be termed, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. Rather, they are just apostates from Christianity.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Lutherans in Hell” aka apostates from Christianity. May as well be Baptists in Hell, Catholics in Hell, etc. Apostates cannot accurately be termed, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. Rather, they are just apostates from Christianity.

  • Grace

    Tom @ 129

    “Grace you have to admit that Jesus never said “Don’t baptize the little children.”
    He did say baptize ALL NATIONS.
    Whole household were baptized in his name.”

    Did Jesus tell them to baptize without belief in HIM? Do you think the Apostles understood that people needed to repent and believe first. OR, do you believe that the Apostles were to walk down and baptize anyone who walked by?

    Did Christ change his mind about repenting when HE stated:

    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:
    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28

    Teaching them would also include repentance.

    It’s this part of Scripture that is ignored:
    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

    Jesus stated:

    14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

    15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
    Mark 1

    “Where does your overwhelming need to withhold God’s Grace from his children?”

    We’ve gone over this dozens of times. We will most likely never agree. Jesus told everyone to repent.

    The book of John chapter 3 is often ignored, it clearly states one must be Born Again. Many Christian Believers state that they are Born Again Christians, I say the same thing myself, about my Salvation. No amount of pre-baptism will save anyone, until they believe, have faith in Christ, and repent and then become baptized.

    Baptism isn’t denied, it’s given after one believes in Jesus Christ.

    In the passage below, the eunuch requests to be baptized, but Philip asks the eunuch - “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” – that is the key, Philip wanted to know that the eunuch actually believed. Faith first then baptism.

    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
    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?
    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.
    38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
    39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8

  • Grace

    Tom @ 129

    “Grace you have to admit that Jesus never said “Don’t baptize the little children.”
    He did say baptize ALL NATIONS.
    Whole household were baptized in his name.”

    Did Jesus tell them to baptize without belief in HIM? Do you think the Apostles understood that people needed to repent and believe first. OR, do you believe that the Apostles were to walk down and baptize anyone who walked by?

    Did Christ change his mind about repenting when HE stated:

    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:
    20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28

    Teaching them would also include repentance.

    It’s this part of Scripture that is ignored:
    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

    Jesus stated:

    14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

    15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
    Mark 1

    “Where does your overwhelming need to withhold God’s Grace from his children?”

    We’ve gone over this dozens of times. We will most likely never agree. Jesus told everyone to repent.

    The book of John chapter 3 is often ignored, it clearly states one must be Born Again. Many Christian Believers state that they are Born Again Christians, I say the same thing myself, about my Salvation. No amount of pre-baptism will save anyone, until they believe, have faith in Christ, and repent and then become baptized.

    Baptism isn’t denied, it’s given after one believes in Jesus Christ.

    In the passage below, the eunuch requests to be baptized, but Philip asks the eunuch - “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” – that is the key, Philip wanted to know that the eunuch actually believed. Faith first then baptism.

    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
    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?
    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.
    38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
    39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts 8

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Did Jesus tell them to baptize without belief in HIM? Do you think the Apostles understood that people needed to repent and believe first. OR, do you believe that the Apostles were to walk down and baptize anyone who walked by?”

    This is a salient question in the sense that hypothetically I could baptise a kid whose parents let me babysit him. So, it is a fair question.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Did Jesus tell them to baptize without belief in HIM? Do you think the Apostles understood that people needed to repent and believe first. OR, do you believe that the Apostles were to walk down and baptize anyone who walked by?”

    This is a salient question in the sense that hypothetically I could baptise a kid whose parents let me babysit him. So, it is a fair question.

  • BW

    One must remember, Lutherans, don’t believe that baptism saves by the mere external doing of the act. Lutherans aren’t saying someone who is baptized, and then forgets about Christianity, but rather thinks, eh, if its true I was baptized so I’m covered, as though it were purchasing an insurance policy, is a Christian. Sounds more like someone who despises baptism and the gifts it brings by taking it utterly for granted, and not actually believing in the benefits of Christ did that are delivered through baptism.

    Baptism, which forgives sins and brings salvation, is a gift. Like any gift it is ever rejectable.

    A firefighter rescues people from a burning building. He gives them oxygen and blankets and cares for them. But one of them says, “To heck with your saving me. Who do you think you are!? I can save myself!” That person charges back into the flaming building just before it collapses. That is how it is with one who was baptized but ran away from the faith.

  • BW

    One must remember, Lutherans, don’t believe that baptism saves by the mere external doing of the act. Lutherans aren’t saying someone who is baptized, and then forgets about Christianity, but rather thinks, eh, if its true I was baptized so I’m covered, as though it were purchasing an insurance policy, is a Christian. Sounds more like someone who despises baptism and the gifts it brings by taking it utterly for granted, and not actually believing in the benefits of Christ did that are delivered through baptism.

    Baptism, which forgives sins and brings salvation, is a gift. Like any gift it is ever rejectable.

    A firefighter rescues people from a burning building. He gives them oxygen and blankets and cares for them. But one of them says, “To heck with your saving me. Who do you think you are!? I can save myself!” That person charges back into the flaming building just before it collapses. That is how it is with one who was baptized but ran away from the faith.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    BW, #136: “One must remember, Lutherans, don’t believe that baptism saves by the mere external doing of the act.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Some of us baptized Lutherans here in Hell did believe exactly that.

    Especially when we were informed that “Baptism now saves you” and “Baptism always saves.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    BW, #136: “One must remember, Lutherans, don’t believe that baptism saves by the mere external doing of the act.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Some of us baptized Lutherans here in Hell did believe exactly that.

    Especially when we were informed that “Baptism now saves you” and “Baptism always saves.”

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace and TUD are pounding the same tired arguments, not responding to cogent, thoughtful responses and teachings from the scriptures, in context and in accord with letting scripture interpret scripture.

    Grace and TUD will you confess that in your interpretation, baptism is a work of obedience and not a means of Grace that God bestows upon us for the forgiveness of sins? That will surely reduce the talking past one another.

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace and TUD are pounding the same tired arguments, not responding to cogent, thoughtful responses and teachings from the scriptures, in context and in accord with letting scripture interpret scripture.

    Grace and TUD will you confess that in your interpretation, baptism is a work of obedience and not a means of Grace that God bestows upon us for the forgiveness of sins? That will surely reduce the talking past one another.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, an atheist/agnostic said, I hope the LDS will baptise me when I am dead so on the of chance there is a heaven, I will get in and won’t have needed to abstain from alcohol and fun nor had to pay a tithe. LOL.

    TUD is conflating apostates with Lutherans, which is inaccurate.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, an atheist/agnostic said, I hope the LDS will baptise me when I am dead so on the of chance there is a heaven, I will get in and won’t have needed to abstain from alcohol and fun nor had to pay a tithe. LOL.

    TUD is conflating apostates with Lutherans, which is inaccurate.

  • Grace

    Tom @134

    Instead of grouping another individual with my comments, try and answer my post to you at 134. Add to that, passage regarding the Eunuch and his response BEFORE he was baptized. Did the Eunuch need to belive first?

  • Grace

    Tom @134

    Instead of grouping another individual with my comments, try and answer my post to you at 134. Add to that, passage regarding the Eunuch and his response BEFORE he was baptized. Did the Eunuch need to belive first?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller: “Baptism always saves.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Baptism does NOT always save. Our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy did not save us.

    Tom Moeller, will you retract your statement that “baptism always saves”? And agree instead that baptism does not always save? That will surely reduce the talking past one another.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Tom Moeller: “Baptism always saves.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Baptism does NOT always save. Our baptism in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy did not save us.

    Tom Moeller, will you retract your statement that “baptism always saves”? And agree instead that baptism does not always save? That will surely reduce the talking past one another.”

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD. Your Lutherans in hell is getting really offensive. Every time you try to make a point about salvation using the LinH gimmick, you just scream unbelief is their downfall. Read your own material and remember … unbelief condemns… baptism or not!

    Knock, knock!
    Anyone home?

    Is this really TUD in hell? Why would you advocate a salvation where the one saved doesn’t give a flip about being saved? This is sick and selfish. Is your concept of salvation a means of selfish gratification and when that response to God’s saving Grace fails… Blame God?!? Are you an atheist just stirring the pot because you have no hope? To whom does the credit belong… on whom does the blame rest?

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD. Your Lutherans in hell is getting really offensive. Every time you try to make a point about salvation using the LinH gimmick, you just scream unbelief is their downfall. Read your own material and remember … unbelief condemns… baptism or not!

    Knock, knock!
    Anyone home?

    Is this really TUD in hell? Why would you advocate a salvation where the one saved doesn’t give a flip about being saved? This is sick and selfish. Is your concept of salvation a means of selfish gratification and when that response to God’s saving Grace fails… Blame God?!? Are you an atheist just stirring the pot because you have no hope? To whom does the credit belong… on whom does the blame rest?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Baptism isn’t denied, it’s given after one believes in Jesus Christ.”

    Except that has never been the exclusive practice. While the 12 apostles were still living, they were baptising infants, like Polycarp.

    The SBC baptist church where I was baptised at the age of 15 clearly stated that they did not rebaptise, period. If a person was baptised and confessed belief in Christ as Savior, he could join the church.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Baptism isn’t denied, it’s given after one believes in Jesus Christ.”

    Except that has never been the exclusive practice. While the 12 apostles were still living, they were baptising infants, like Polycarp.

    The SBC baptist church where I was baptised at the age of 15 clearly stated that they did not rebaptise, period. If a person was baptised and confessed belief in Christ as Savior, he could join the church.

  • shell

    grace@125,
    Could you clarify for me, please, what an “editorial gloss” is?

  • shell

    grace@125,
    Could you clarify for me, please, what an “editorial gloss” is?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: Folks who keep saying that “Baptism now saves you” and/or “Baptism always saves” is really offensive. Our being in Hell is a testament to the falsity of these claims. False statements are offensive.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: Folks who keep saying that “Baptism now saves you” and/or “Baptism always saves” is really offensive. Our being in Hell is a testament to the falsity of these claims. False statements are offensive.”

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace. You answer your own questions so often and make the case against your own interests. “Did the Eunuch have to believe first (have faith)?”

    Why, yes. How else does one receive God’s Gracious gift of eternal life with him?

    Will you tell me an infant has no faith? Will you make yourself equal to God and see the heart of a child? I hope not.
    What is an infant if not sinful little being full of trust and faith?

    I would rather trust God to protect his children before I would trust you to determine if a child is worthy of God’s Grace.

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace. You answer your own questions so often and make the case against your own interests. “Did the Eunuch have to believe first (have faith)?”

    Why, yes. How else does one receive God’s Gracious gift of eternal life with him?

    Will you tell me an infant has no faith? Will you make yourself equal to God and see the heart of a child? I hope not.
    What is an infant if not sinful little being full of trust and faith?

    I would rather trust God to protect his children before I would trust you to determine if a child is worthy of God’s Grace.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, TUD, what is the point of baptism? Is it totally worthless? What is the point of railing against baptism as means of grace? Perhaps your disagreement isn’t so much with us as it is with the One who instituted baptism.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Okay, TUD, what is the point of baptism? Is it totally worthless? What is the point of railing against baptism as means of grace? Perhaps your disagreement isn’t so much with us as it is with the One who instituted baptism.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: “Another try.

    Will everyone agree (given the outworkings of Lutheran theology and the given reality) that:

    (1) Baptism does NOT always save.

    I.e., Sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes baptism does not save.

    Do all agree to that? Or is there anyone wanting to rail against this?”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: “Another try.

    Will everyone agree (given the outworkings of Lutheran theology and the given reality) that:

    (1) Baptism does NOT always save.

    I.e., Sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes baptism does not save.

    Do all agree to that? Or is there anyone wanting to rail against this?”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace, any comment on the Apostle John and his disciple Polycarp? Do you think that they set a bad example? What are we to make of their practice and promotion of infant baptism? Given that infant baptism was practiced by the first Apostles and taught and practiced by all of the Church for 1600 years and by almost all of the church thereafter, then what? Were the Apostles wrong in what they taught and the rest wrong for believing them, but the tiny handful in the modern era are correct in their modern interpretation of a few verses? Or are the LDS correct? I mean they have their own ideas which also conflict with 1st century teaching and practice. Were the Apostles wrong from the get go?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace, any comment on the Apostle John and his disciple Polycarp? Do you think that they set a bad example? What are we to make of their practice and promotion of infant baptism? Given that infant baptism was practiced by the first Apostles and taught and practiced by all of the Church for 1600 years and by almost all of the church thereafter, then what? Were the Apostles wrong in what they taught and the rest wrong for believing them, but the tiny handful in the modern era are correct in their modern interpretation of a few verses? Or are the LDS correct? I mean they have their own ideas which also conflict with 1st century teaching and practice. Were the Apostles wrong from the get go?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @147,

    Yes, please try again. Answer the following:

    What is the point of baptism?

    Is it totally worthless?

    Is it a means of grace?

    Is it a human work?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @147,

    Yes, please try again. Answer the following:

    What is the point of baptism?

    Is it totally worthless?

    Is it a means of grace?

    Is it a human work?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: “SG, do you agree that baptism does not always save?

    Do you understand that Lutherans have told many of us that “baptism now saves you,” and the fact of the matter is that our baptism didn’t save us? For the reality is that we are baptized Lutherans in Hell.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: “SG, do you agree that baptism does not always save?

    Do you understand that Lutherans have told many of us that “baptism now saves you,” and the fact of the matter is that our baptism didn’t save us? For the reality is that we are baptized Lutherans in Hell.

  • Dennis Peskey

    Dear Fellow Lutherans – and other Christians who actually read the Bible. If you’re interested in what Grace and TUD look like, check out this short youtube from a Lutheran Pastor:

    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    Dear Fellow Lutherans – and other Christians who actually read the Bible. If you’re interested in what Grace and TUD look like, check out this short youtube from a Lutheran Pastor:

    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD… Is it just me or are you trying to get a concession to an untruth so you won’t have to make a fool of yourself any longer?
    —————————————————————–
    (Luther’s Small Catechism…)
    What is Baptism?
    Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

    Which is that word of God?
    Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

    What does Baptism give or profit?
    It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

    Which are such words and promises of God?
    Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    How can water do such great things?
    It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

    What does such baptizing with water signify?
    It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

    Where is this written?
    St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    You are now in possesion of a valuable summary of scriptural doctrine of Baptism. Stop judging God and give thanks He has given the gift of Baptism to those who believe. Come out of the dark!

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD… Is it just me or are you trying to get a concession to an untruth so you won’t have to make a fool of yourself any longer?
    —————————————————————–
    (Luther’s Small Catechism…)
    What is Baptism?
    Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s Word.

    Which is that word of God?
    Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

    What does Baptism give or profit?
    It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

    Which are such words and promises of God?
    Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    How can water do such great things?
    It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

    What does such baptizing with water signify?
    It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

    Where is this written?
    St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    You are now in possesion of a valuable summary of scriptural doctrine of Baptism. Stop judging God and give thanks He has given the gift of Baptism to those who believe. Come out of the dark!

  • Grace

    sg @ 143

    “Except that has never been the exclusive practice. While the 12 apostles were still living, they were baptising infants, like Polycarp.”

    Give me clear Scripture where the Apostles were baptising infants?

  • Grace

    sg @ 143

    “Except that has never been the exclusive practice. While the 12 apostles were still living, they were baptising infants, like Polycarp.”

    Give me clear Scripture where the Apostles were baptising infants?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: “What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell? We were baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy and our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell: “What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell? We were baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy and our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD says: “Do you understand that Lutherans have told many of us that “baptism now saves you,” and the fact of the matter is that our baptism didn’t save us?”

    How dare you? Reject God if you wish. Salvation is a gift not a command. But, keep your sanctimonious ignorance to yourself.

    St. Paul, St. Peter, as instructed by Christ Jesus, have told you that Baptism saves! What is your malfunction?

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD says: “Do you understand that Lutherans have told many of us that “baptism now saves you,” and the fact of the matter is that our baptism didn’t save us?”

    How dare you? Reject God if you wish. Salvation is a gift not a command. But, keep your sanctimonious ignorance to yourself.

    St. Paul, St. Peter, as instructed by Christ Jesus, have told you that Baptism saves! What is your malfunction?

  • Grace

    shell @ 144

    “Could you clarify for me, please, what an “editorial gloss” is?”

    I have already gone over “editorial gloss” and “marginal notes” however you can read post # 95 and # 99.

  • Grace

    shell @ 144

    “Could you clarify for me, please, what an “editorial gloss” is?”

    I have already gone over “editorial gloss” and “marginal notes” however you can read post # 95 and # 99.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans: “Baptism now saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    Lutherans: “Baptism always saves.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Baptism does NOT always save.”

    Lutherans: “Does too!”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Does not.”

    Lutherans: “You’re wrong!”

    Lutherans in Hell: “You’re wrong!”

    Lutherans: “I give up.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “I give up too, then.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans: “Baptism now saves you.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Our baptism didn’t save us.”

    Lutherans: “Baptism always saves.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Baptism does NOT always save.”

    Lutherans: “Does too!”

    Lutherans in Hell: “Does not.”

    Lutherans: “You’re wrong!”

    Lutherans in Hell: “You’re wrong!”

    Lutherans: “I give up.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “I give up too, then.”

  • Grace

    sg @ 149

    YOU ASK:

    any comment on the Apostle John and his disciple Polycarp? Do you think that they set a bad example? What are we to make of their practice and promotion of infant baptism?

    AGAIN sg, where is it stated in the HOLY Scriptures that the Apostle John either practiced or promoted infant baptism?

  • Grace

    sg @ 149

    YOU ASK:

    any comment on the Apostle John and his disciple Polycarp? Do you think that they set a bad example? What are we to make of their practice and promotion of infant baptism?

    AGAIN sg, where is it stated in the HOLY Scriptures that the Apostle John either practiced or promoted infant baptism?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @154 So, do you think that the church historians are liars? They clearly state the practice. In the example I cited, they attribute it to the Apostle John whom we can assume was faithfully following Christ’s commands and that his practice was consistent with that of all the other Apostles. All you are left with for choices are 1) to deny that any of the households mentioned in scripture had any young children/infants, 2) That the early church fathers are lying about the practice of infant baptism by the Apostles and disciples, 3) that the Apostles or their disciples invented infant baptism in the first century. None of those are really likely or credible if we assume that the Apostles and disciples were faithful servants. I think we should assume that those early martyrs were indeed obedient unto death. It seems a bit fanciful that they were faithful in all other teaching and practice except infant baptism. The Bible does attest the faith of children even babies, so that is no impediment.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @154 So, do you think that the church historians are liars? They clearly state the practice. In the example I cited, they attribute it to the Apostle John whom we can assume was faithfully following Christ’s commands and that his practice was consistent with that of all the other Apostles. All you are left with for choices are 1) to deny that any of the households mentioned in scripture had any young children/infants, 2) That the early church fathers are lying about the practice of infant baptism by the Apostles and disciples, 3) that the Apostles or their disciples invented infant baptism in the first century. None of those are really likely or credible if we assume that the Apostles and disciples were faithful servants. I think we should assume that those early martyrs were indeed obedient unto death. It seems a bit fanciful that they were faithful in all other teaching and practice except infant baptism. The Bible does attest the faith of children even babies, so that is no impediment.

  • Grace

    sg @ 160

    So, do you think that the church historians are liars? They clearly state the practice. In the example I cited, they attribute it to the Apostle John whom we can assume was faithfully following Christ’s commands and that his practice was consistent with that of all the other Apostles.”

    Church historians? – since when did they become inerrant, infallible givers of the Word of God? We have only one, not a set of extra’s on the side, such as the Roman Church, who believes they have much proof of their beliefs, including their Pope, praying to Mary, etc, dating back to the Apostles.

    Not one word is mentioned in Scripture of infant baptism. Not a word.

  • Grace

    sg @ 160

    So, do you think that the church historians are liars? They clearly state the practice. In the example I cited, they attribute it to the Apostle John whom we can assume was faithfully following Christ’s commands and that his practice was consistent with that of all the other Apostles.”

    Church historians? – since when did they become inerrant, infallible givers of the Word of God? We have only one, not a set of extra’s on the side, such as the Roman Church, who believes they have much proof of their beliefs, including their Pope, praying to Mary, etc, dating back to the Apostles.

    Not one word is mentioned in Scripture of infant baptism. Not a word.

  • Grace

    We are not allowed to add to, or take away from the Word of God, yet the Roman Catholic Church and others do so, with many excuses.

    The Word of God is what we have, the Bible. Not a set of books that follow after, alongside, to be used to further doctrine which is not in the Bible.

  • Grace

    We are not allowed to add to, or take away from the Word of God, yet the Roman Catholic Church and others do so, with many excuses.

    The Word of God is what we have, the Bible. Not a set of books that follow after, alongside, to be used to further doctrine which is not in the Bible.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    So, going with options #1 and #3?

    Deny the evidence from scripture that certainly implies children in a household, and then just casually assume that the early church spontaneously invented infant baptism in the first century?

    Wow, that is pretty low opinion of the integrity of the early church and those who died for the faith.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    So, going with options #1 and #3?

    Deny the evidence from scripture that certainly implies children in a household, and then just casually assume that the early church spontaneously invented infant baptism in the first century?

    Wow, that is pretty low opinion of the integrity of the early church and those who died for the faith.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @162 Just to be clear the same folks you think are in error for baptising infants are the same ones who decided what to include in the Bible. They specifically chose what to include and reject from the canon.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @162 Just to be clear the same folks you think are in error for baptising infants are the same ones who decided what to include in the Bible. They specifically chose what to include and reject from the canon.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    So, why weren’t the church fathers in error when they compiled the Bible but they were in error when they baptised infants? And where did first century Christians ever get the idea to baptise infants anyway?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    So, why weren’t the church fathers in error when they compiled the Bible but they were in error when they baptised infants? And where did first century Christians ever get the idea to baptise infants anyway?

  • Grace

    sg

    Believe whatever you wish, you can cite those who were born after the Apostles died, as truth (the Roman Catholics do it) you can site those who knew the Apostles, however, infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible.

    Infant baptism is “tradition” just like many practices in the Roman Catholic Church. They believe just as you do.

  • Grace

    sg

    Believe whatever you wish, you can cite those who were born after the Apostles died, as truth (the Roman Catholics do it) you can site those who knew the Apostles, however, infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible.

    Infant baptism is “tradition” just like many practices in the Roman Catholic Church. They believe just as you do.

  • shell

    Grace@157,
    Do I understand correctly that you are saying that John 4:2 was inserted by a copyist and not originally written by John? If so, why would there be no manuscript of John’s Gospel without this verse? (As for the parentheses, I’m sure you know that such punctuations were not part of the original text but were added to our English translations.)

  • shell

    Grace@157,
    Do I understand correctly that you are saying that John 4:2 was inserted by a copyist and not originally written by John? If so, why would there be no manuscript of John’s Gospel without this verse? (As for the parentheses, I’m sure you know that such punctuations were not part of the original text but were added to our English translations.)

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace… “Not one word is mentioned in Scripture of infant baptism. Not a word. ”

    Nor Trinity. What’cha going to do here? Deny the Triune God?

    The doctrine of baptism for ALL is found in scriptures.
    Man’s obligation to judge the heart of a child comes from what passage of scripture? It is commended to deny the favor of God to children, where?
    Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the preaching of the Word. Ever say “God so loves you, that he gave his son to die for your sins” to a pregnant woman? Did the baby hear the Gospel?

    Come on Grace. Stop holding on so hard to a belief that makes you the gatekeeper of God’s forgiveness and justification for Christ’s sake. God will to whom He will. Step down and be faithful for the children as well.

    What does God see when He looks into the heart of a baptized infant? What will he see when he looks into the heart of the child denied baptism?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace… “Not one word is mentioned in Scripture of infant baptism. Not a word. ”

    Nor Trinity. What’cha going to do here? Deny the Triune God?

    The doctrine of baptism for ALL is found in scriptures.
    Man’s obligation to judge the heart of a child comes from what passage of scripture? It is commended to deny the favor of God to children, where?
    Faith comes by hearing and hearing through the preaching of the Word. Ever say “God so loves you, that he gave his son to die for your sins” to a pregnant woman? Did the baby hear the Gospel?

    Come on Grace. Stop holding on so hard to a belief that makes you the gatekeeper of God’s forgiveness and justification for Christ’s sake. God will to whom He will. Step down and be faithful for the children as well.

    What does God see when He looks into the heart of a baptized infant? What will he see when he looks into the heart of the child denied baptism?

  • Grace

    sg @ 164

    ust to be clear the same folks you think are in error for baptising infants are the same ones who decided what to include in the Bible. They specifically chose what to include and reject from the canon.”

    The New Testament was written in Greek – we don’t have the original documents, but we do have almost six thousand copies of the Greek manuscripts that were copied close to the originals in time. The interesting and MOST important part of these copies agree with each other and its almost one hundred percent (100%) accurate. The NT is just over being 99.5% pure textually —- taking it another step further there is about 1/2 of maybe 1% of all the manuscripts that don’t agree 100%. Most of the so called inaccuracies are nothing more than spelling errors, which in themselves are minor. It’s been pointed out many times that the errors are those which are, instead of the copy saying Jesus, instead says Jesus Christ. The documents have been proven to be accurate as that of the original manuscripts/documents – The Bible we have is the inerrant inspired Word of God.

    When the Bible is translated they don’t translate from one translation to another – they translate from the original language into our language – the translation is made from the original to whichever language the Bible is being translated, in other words it’s not done from Greek to English to French, to German – each translations is from the Greek manuscripts to whichever language the Bible will be translated into. The accuracy of the translations are trustworthy.

    When one realizes how miraculous the Old Testament is, and the findings of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, one begins to understand the POWER of GOD to keep HIS Word pure. Nothing has changed, it is what HE wants it to be.

    God did not send His Son to die for our sin, and then allow His Word to go adrift. Then again, look at the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ how HE proves the power of HIS Hand on the Word. Read the Old Testament and prophecy and its coming to fruition in the New Testament regarding the birth and death of the LORD Jesus Christ. It’s a fit, there isn’t a piece out of place. That’s the miracle, that’s what HE gave us so that we might know the TRUTH.

  • Grace

    sg @ 164

    ust to be clear the same folks you think are in error for baptising infants are the same ones who decided what to include in the Bible. They specifically chose what to include and reject from the canon.”

    The New Testament was written in Greek – we don’t have the original documents, but we do have almost six thousand copies of the Greek manuscripts that were copied close to the originals in time. The interesting and MOST important part of these copies agree with each other and its almost one hundred percent (100%) accurate. The NT is just over being 99.5% pure textually —- taking it another step further there is about 1/2 of maybe 1% of all the manuscripts that don’t agree 100%. Most of the so called inaccuracies are nothing more than spelling errors, which in themselves are minor. It’s been pointed out many times that the errors are those which are, instead of the copy saying Jesus, instead says Jesus Christ. The documents have been proven to be accurate as that of the original manuscripts/documents – The Bible we have is the inerrant inspired Word of God.

    When the Bible is translated they don’t translate from one translation to another – they translate from the original language into our language – the translation is made from the original to whichever language the Bible is being translated, in other words it’s not done from Greek to English to French, to German – each translations is from the Greek manuscripts to whichever language the Bible will be translated into. The accuracy of the translations are trustworthy.

    When one realizes how miraculous the Old Testament is, and the findings of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, one begins to understand the POWER of GOD to keep HIS Word pure. Nothing has changed, it is what HE wants it to be.

    God did not send His Son to die for our sin, and then allow His Word to go adrift. Then again, look at the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ how HE proves the power of HIS Hand on the Word. Read the Old Testament and prophecy and its coming to fruition in the New Testament regarding the birth and death of the LORD Jesus Christ. It’s a fit, there isn’t a piece out of place. That’s the miracle, that’s what HE gave us so that we might know the TRUTH.

  • Grace

    Tom Moeller @ 168

    “Nor Trinity. What’cha going to do here? Deny the Triune God?

    Oh Tom, there is a great deal mentined about the Trinity:

    How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
    Hebrews 9:14

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

    HE is the ROCK, HIS work is perfect: for HIS ways are judgement: a GOD of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Deuteronomy 32:4 Old Testament

    And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST. 1 Corinthians 10:4 New Testament

    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    John 14:9

    But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
    Hebrews 1:8

    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
    1 Timothy 3:16

    Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 1 Timothy 1:1

    And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
    1 John 5:20

  • Grace

    Tom Moeller @ 168

    “Nor Trinity. What’cha going to do here? Deny the Triune God?

    Oh Tom, there is a great deal mentined about the Trinity:

    How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
    Hebrews 9:14

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Acts 20:28

    HE is the ROCK, HIS work is perfect: for HIS ways are judgement: a GOD of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Deuteronomy 32:4 Old Testament

    And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was CHRIST. 1 Corinthians 10:4 New Testament

    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    John 14:9

    But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
    Hebrews 1:8

    And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
    1 Timothy 3:16

    Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 1 Timothy 1:1

    And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
    1 John 5:20

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace, other than you telling me there a great deal mentioned about the Trinity. I don’t see Trinity mentioned in your scripture texts at all. So it must be a man made tradition or maybe it is a doctrine taught in the Bible yet not explicitly mentioned (like infant baptism)?

    Beautiful text presentation for devining the doctrine of the Trinity. If only you could see the need for infant baptism after you have been shown again and again that that doctrine is taught in the Bible. (See #153 for help)

    Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    And in sin my mother conceived me. (Boy, do I need baptism asap!)

    So if faith comes from hearing the Gospel (Word of God) (Romans 10:17), does the pregnant woman reading Matthew, for example, to her unborn child give rise to the possibility the Holy Spirit will impart saving faith upon that child? St. Paul say yes. What say you?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace, other than you telling me there a great deal mentioned about the Trinity. I don’t see Trinity mentioned in your scripture texts at all. So it must be a man made tradition or maybe it is a doctrine taught in the Bible yet not explicitly mentioned (like infant baptism)?

    Beautiful text presentation for devining the doctrine of the Trinity. If only you could see the need for infant baptism after you have been shown again and again that that doctrine is taught in the Bible. (See #153 for help)

    Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
    And in sin my mother conceived me. (Boy, do I need baptism asap!)

    So if faith comes from hearing the Gospel (Word of God) (Romans 10:17), does the pregnant woman reading Matthew, for example, to her unborn child give rise to the possibility the Holy Spirit will impart saving faith upon that child? St. Paul say yes. What say you?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Show me the word “trinity” in scripture!!!

    It is not there.

    It is the traditional doctrine of the church. Just like infant baptism.

    So where does this tradition come from in the first century? Why were all of the Christians doing it in the first century? Who started it in the first century? Why was it universally practiced from the beginning? Who was around to institute it in the first century? The possibilities are not exactly endless. There were only a few Christians and they were all doing it. There wasn’t any dissent from it, rather they were openly practicing it and promoting it with assent from all the others. But if this was so unorthodox, why did no one dissent? If it was a break with correct practice, how come no one noticed or spoke against it? Just as baptism was universal, so was infant baptism. There was more agreement on infant baptism than there was on the trinity. Think council of Nicea.

    Honestly, I sympathize with those who have been taught that a profession of faith must precede baptism because I was in that camp for 30 years until I looked at it closely and learned that it was not an innovation of the Roman Church like celibacy of priests or something. It was the original practice from the beginning. Luther directly and harshly criticized Roman innovations. The truth is that depriving children of baptism is itself an innovation just like depriving priests marriage was an innovation. We all welcome those who come to faith as adults, but baptism is for remission of sins and we are born with sin. We all need to repent daily, so while repentance may precede baptism, it must follow it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Show me the word “trinity” in scripture!!!

    It is not there.

    It is the traditional doctrine of the church. Just like infant baptism.

    So where does this tradition come from in the first century? Why were all of the Christians doing it in the first century? Who started it in the first century? Why was it universally practiced from the beginning? Who was around to institute it in the first century? The possibilities are not exactly endless. There were only a few Christians and they were all doing it. There wasn’t any dissent from it, rather they were openly practicing it and promoting it with assent from all the others. But if this was so unorthodox, why did no one dissent? If it was a break with correct practice, how come no one noticed or spoke against it? Just as baptism was universal, so was infant baptism. There was more agreement on infant baptism than there was on the trinity. Think council of Nicea.

    Honestly, I sympathize with those who have been taught that a profession of faith must precede baptism because I was in that camp for 30 years until I looked at it closely and learned that it was not an innovation of the Roman Church like celibacy of priests or something. It was the original practice from the beginning. Luther directly and harshly criticized Roman innovations. The truth is that depriving children of baptism is itself an innovation just like depriving priests marriage was an innovation. We all welcome those who come to faith as adults, but baptism is for remission of sins and we are born with sin. We all need to repent daily, so while repentance may precede baptism, it must follow it.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @169

    I was not referring to the accuracy of the texts that were selected for inclusion in the Bible.

    I was referring to all of the texts that were rejected by the church fathers and not included.

    http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside.stm

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @169

    I was not referring to the accuracy of the texts that were selected for inclusion in the Bible.

    I was referring to all of the texts that were rejected by the church fathers and not included.

    http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/outside.stm

  • fws

    sg @ 172

    amen! besides it is all in scripture. baptism is a washing of regeneration and a renewing of the holy spirit. … baptism does also now save us….. by the answer of a clean conscience…..you were washed , you were sanctified….christ… cleansed the church… by water and the word….

  • fws

    sg @ 172

    amen! besides it is all in scripture. baptism is a washing of regeneration and a renewing of the holy spirit. … baptism does also now save us….. by the answer of a clean conscience…..you were washed , you were sanctified….christ… cleansed the church… by water and the word….

  • Grace

    Tom Moeller

    Your last post doesn’t merit a reply. You obviously haven’t a clue as to the difference in the word Trinity, which is clearly made in Scripture, and the ritual of Baptism, which NEVER mentions infants – two very different things.

  • Grace

    Tom Moeller

    Your last post doesn’t merit a reply. You obviously haven’t a clue as to the difference in the word Trinity, which is clearly made in Scripture, and the ritual of Baptism, which NEVER mentions infants – two very different things.

  • fws

    grace where is your practice of dedicating children found in the bible?

    how are infants saved? are they saved?

  • fws

    grace where is your practice of dedicating children found in the bible?

    how are infants saved? are they saved?

  • Grace

    sg @ 173

    “I was referring to all of the texts that were rejected by the church fathers and not included.”

    Have you never studied this before? I ask, because sending me to a website, which has hosted the material you find interesting is rather odd. Especially the denomination.

    The Women’s Division
    General Board of Global Ministries
    The United Methodist Church

    It appears you GOOGLED and this looked like it would pass!

  • Grace

    sg @ 173

    “I was referring to all of the texts that were rejected by the church fathers and not included.”

    Have you never studied this before? I ask, because sending me to a website, which has hosted the material you find interesting is rather odd. Especially the denomination.

    The Women’s Division
    General Board of Global Ministries
    The United Methodist Church

    It appears you GOOGLED and this looked like it would pass!

  • Grace

    fws,

    You won’t find “Dedication of infants” in the Bible. Promising to bring a child up to understand God’s holy word, and praying over the child by the pastor doesn’t save the child. The parent/parents are making a promise to God on what they will teach the child, and how they will be brought up.

  • Grace

    fws,

    You won’t find “Dedication of infants” in the Bible. Promising to bring a child up to understand God’s holy word, and praying over the child by the pastor doesn’t save the child. The parent/parents are making a promise to God on what they will teach the child, and how they will be brought up.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @177

    What is your point?

    Do you think that the Methodists are lying about the historical facts of the establishment of the Biblical canon?

    That page I googled tells what you could find anywhere on the topic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @177

    What is your point?

    Do you think that the Methodists are lying about the historical facts of the establishment of the Biblical canon?

    That page I googled tells what you could find anywhere on the topic.

  • Tom Moeller

    Oh, Grace. You call the gift of forgiveness of sins a ritual? Shame on you. You are denying the truth of scripture as it is shown to you in its fullness not in your little text proofing (weak).
    It is hard to kick against the goads, isn’t it.

    So Baptism is a ritual. Then it is a work by man. Fail. You have been duped by false teachers. I pray your eyes will open to the abounding comfort in ALL God’s promises made for YOU in the death and resurrection of his Son. What he said, do not denigrate to uphold your puny reasoning.

    I ask again for the third time!
    Do you judge babies to be unworthy of saving faith and God’s gift of forgiveness through baptism? Do you claim that the Gospel is for some and not others?

  • Tom Moeller

    Oh, Grace. You call the gift of forgiveness of sins a ritual? Shame on you. You are denying the truth of scripture as it is shown to you in its fullness not in your little text proofing (weak).
    It is hard to kick against the goads, isn’t it.

    So Baptism is a ritual. Then it is a work by man. Fail. You have been duped by false teachers. I pray your eyes will open to the abounding comfort in ALL God’s promises made for YOU in the death and resurrection of his Son. What he said, do not denigrate to uphold your puny reasoning.

    I ask again for the third time!
    Do you judge babies to be unworthy of saving faith and God’s gift of forgiveness through baptism? Do you claim that the Gospel is for some and not others?

  • Dennis Peskey

    During one of Martin Luther’s Table Talk sessions, he was asked, “What would you say if you die and find yourself in Hell?” Luther did not even have to think on this folly (being a good Lutheran himself). He firmly stated he would look satan directly in the eye and announce “I am baptized!” That was the assurance he placed on Baptism.

    The hard-hearted calvanists who reject infant Baptism or Baptism’s salvific nature must do so ever since Zwingli seperated the second person of the Trinity, Christ from the workings of the third person, the Holy Spirit. What we Lutherans rejoice over in Holy Communion, the forgiveness of sins, strengthening of faith and the intimate contact with Christ, our Savior is denied those who followed Zwingli, or his follower Calvin or all the other sheep lead astray up and to including our day.

    With the seperation of Christ from the Holy Spirit by Zwingli at Marburg, followed by Calvin locking Jesus up in heaven so He couldn’t get out to His people – well, how was one to be saved. By their faith – they believed. Now, Lutherans will use the same terms but we mean something far different in context. Our faith is a gift from our God; it is not of our own doing.

    Not so with these other two for they profess it’s their faith, their belief that saves them. Do they realize what is waiting for them. Mother Theresa, on her deathbed, lamented she did not think she had done enough to earn salvation. Such is the horror of works righteousness; one can never do enough to merit salvation.

    What’s waiting for these recalcitrant duo is satan for he surely will attend their deathbed. And he comes with his lie – are you sure you truly believed – did you really dedicate your life to a rabbi who lived so long ago? And if you think “G” can butcher the biblical Word, wait until you hear it from satan’s lips. They’ll have no sacramental promise to silence his lies for God’s not present in their baptisms. Afterall, it’s only what they do or were told to do.

    We can not succeed against this heresy anymore than Luther could convince Zwingli at Marburg in 1529. That’s how long this lie has been told and believed by people with itching ears. Perhaps we all should just pray Mark 9:24 “I believe, help my unbelief.” Even though Jesus was very near, this father realized so too was satan and his lies. May God have mercy on your souls and open your hearts to realize God is much bigger than you credit Him.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    During one of Martin Luther’s Table Talk sessions, he was asked, “What would you say if you die and find yourself in Hell?” Luther did not even have to think on this folly (being a good Lutheran himself). He firmly stated he would look satan directly in the eye and announce “I am baptized!” That was the assurance he placed on Baptism.

    The hard-hearted calvanists who reject infant Baptism or Baptism’s salvific nature must do so ever since Zwingli seperated the second person of the Trinity, Christ from the workings of the third person, the Holy Spirit. What we Lutherans rejoice over in Holy Communion, the forgiveness of sins, strengthening of faith and the intimate contact with Christ, our Savior is denied those who followed Zwingli, or his follower Calvin or all the other sheep lead astray up and to including our day.

    With the seperation of Christ from the Holy Spirit by Zwingli at Marburg, followed by Calvin locking Jesus up in heaven so He couldn’t get out to His people – well, how was one to be saved. By their faith – they believed. Now, Lutherans will use the same terms but we mean something far different in context. Our faith is a gift from our God; it is not of our own doing.

    Not so with these other two for they profess it’s their faith, their belief that saves them. Do they realize what is waiting for them. Mother Theresa, on her deathbed, lamented she did not think she had done enough to earn salvation. Such is the horror of works righteousness; one can never do enough to merit salvation.

    What’s waiting for these recalcitrant duo is satan for he surely will attend their deathbed. And he comes with his lie – are you sure you truly believed – did you really dedicate your life to a rabbi who lived so long ago? And if you think “G” can butcher the biblical Word, wait until you hear it from satan’s lips. They’ll have no sacramental promise to silence his lies for God’s not present in their baptisms. Afterall, it’s only what they do or were told to do.

    We can not succeed against this heresy anymore than Luther could convince Zwingli at Marburg in 1529. That’s how long this lie has been told and believed by people with itching ears. Perhaps we all should just pray Mark 9:24 “I believe, help my unbelief.” Even though Jesus was very near, this father realized so too was satan and his lies. May God have mercy on your souls and open your hearts to realize God is much bigger than you credit Him.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  • Tom Moeller

    Beautiful Dennis. Thank you.

  • Tom Moeller

    Beautiful Dennis. Thank you.

  • Grace

    Godhead Strong’s Greek

    theotes – theh-ot’-ace

    Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. Acts 17:29

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Romans 1:20

    For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Colossians 2:9

  • Grace

    Godhead Strong’s Greek

    theotes – theh-ot’-ace

    Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. Acts 17:29

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Romans 1:20

    For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Colossians 2:9

  • Grace

    POST 183 should have read:

    Godhead Strong’s Greek

    theotes – theh-ot’-ace

    divinity (abstractly):–godhead.

  • Grace

    POST 183 should have read:

    Godhead Strong’s Greek

    theotes – theh-ot’-ace

    divinity (abstractly):–godhead.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    In order for infant baptism to be a false practice, we have to accuse the apostles and disciples of being in error. These are the same ones who wrote the New Testament and discipled the church fathers who eventually established the canon. How then do we trust the scriptures written by these errorists? How do we trust the disciples who carried the early tradition and scriptures forward until they were established in the canon if they were just errorists? It just doesn’t work. It is the same problem of picking and choosing. We believe the apostles when we understand, but go with our own reason when we don’t understand. Perhaps they didn’t understand either. They just believed. The very scriptures themselves hang on God’s faithfulness to guide sinful men to bring forth the scriptures and tradition of the church.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    In order for infant baptism to be a false practice, we have to accuse the apostles and disciples of being in error. These are the same ones who wrote the New Testament and discipled the church fathers who eventually established the canon. How then do we trust the scriptures written by these errorists? How do we trust the disciples who carried the early tradition and scriptures forward until they were established in the canon if they were just errorists? It just doesn’t work. It is the same problem of picking and choosing. We believe the apostles when we understand, but go with our own reason when we don’t understand. Perhaps they didn’t understand either. They just believed. The very scriptures themselves hang on God’s faithfulness to guide sinful men to bring forth the scriptures and tradition of the church.

  • Grace

    sg 179

    It’s obvious that you haven’t studied this subject, your answer is whatever you googled. :lol:

  • Grace

    sg 179

    It’s obvious that you haven’t studied this subject, your answer is whatever you googled. :lol:

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey, #181: “During one of Martin Luther’s Table Talk sessions, he was asked, “What would you say if you die and find yourself in Hell?” Luther did not even have to think on this folly (being a good Lutheran himself). He firmly stated he would look satan directly in the eye and announce “I am baptized!” That was the assurance he placed on Baptism.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “We tried that a long time ago. We looked satan directly in the eye too, and announced: “I am baptized! We were baptized in the name of the Trinity! And baptized by Lutheran clergy!

    And satan said: “So? You’re still here as baptized Lutherans in Hell.””

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Dennis Peskey, #181: “During one of Martin Luther’s Table Talk sessions, he was asked, “What would you say if you die and find yourself in Hell?” Luther did not even have to think on this folly (being a good Lutheran himself). He firmly stated he would look satan directly in the eye and announce “I am baptized!” That was the assurance he placed on Baptism.”

    Lutherans in Hell: “We tried that a long time ago. We looked satan directly in the eye too, and announced: “I am baptized! We were baptized in the name of the Trinity! And baptized by Lutheran clergy!

    And satan said: “So? You’re still here as baptized Lutherans in Hell.””

  • Grace

    You can’t find it in the Bible, SO…… you look to someone who was not inspired, who was not part of what the Bible states, and then believe whatever they say. It isn’t Scriptural!

  • Grace

    You can’t find it in the Bible, SO…… you look to someone who was not inspired, who was not part of what the Bible states, and then believe whatever they say. It isn’t Scriptural!

  • Grace

    sg at 185

    Your argument is one of the poorest I have ever read.

    Infant baptism isn’t in the Bible!

  • Grace

    sg at 185

    Your argument is one of the poorest I have ever read.

    Infant baptism isn’t in the Bible!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Dedication of infants is an innovation. Very modern. The fact that they feel the need seems to indicate the desire of believers to pass on their faith to their children. Unfortunately their impulse is subverted by some 17th century rationalist innovators who suddenly insisted that the kingdom was no longer for such as these little ones because their own reason told them such a little one could not have faith or didn’t need his sin forgiven. Clearly no biblical basis for a dedication, but hey, innovators don’t need no scripture. They have their own human reason to trust in above God’s promise for them and their children.

    Hey did TUD ever figure out what the purpose of baptism is?

    What is the point of baptism?

    Is it totally worthless?

    Is it a means of grace?

    Is it a human work?

    Does TUD defer to Luther’s small catechism on the topic?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Dedication of infants is an innovation. Very modern. The fact that they feel the need seems to indicate the desire of believers to pass on their faith to their children. Unfortunately their impulse is subverted by some 17th century rationalist innovators who suddenly insisted that the kingdom was no longer for such as these little ones because their own reason told them such a little one could not have faith or didn’t need his sin forgiven. Clearly no biblical basis for a dedication, but hey, innovators don’t need no scripture. They have their own human reason to trust in above God’s promise for them and their children.

    Hey did TUD ever figure out what the purpose of baptism is?

    What is the point of baptism?

    Is it totally worthless?

    Is it a means of grace?

    Is it a human work?

    Does TUD defer to Luther’s small catechism on the topic?

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: You are disgusting. You are full of hate and lies. Take your trash talk away from here.

  • Tom Moeller

    TUD: You are disgusting. You are full of hate and lies. Take your trash talk away from here.

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace! Take off the blinders! You are brainwashed by doctrines of man. Jesus instituted baptism for All Nations! Stop calling your Savior a liar!

    Do you deny saving faith in infants and small children? Dare to answer!

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace! Take off the blinders! You are brainwashed by doctrines of man. Jesus instituted baptism for All Nations! Stop calling your Savior a liar!

    Do you deny saving faith in infants and small children? Dare to answer!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @190,

    Lutherans in Hell: “What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell? We were baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy and our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @190,

    Lutherans in Hell: “What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell? We were baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy and our baptism didn’t save us.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Infant baptism isn’t in the Bible!”

    Yes it is. You just deny it.

    From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18:8 and that practice has continued with each generation.

    We know that the practice was well established in the first century and considered right and proper for 16 centuries until innovators came along. We know the names and dates of those who argued against baptising infants. This is just plain history.

    We got it Grace. You don’t trust those disciples and church fathers from the first century who were in direct contact with the apostles. Rather you trust latter day innovators as having the truth that the Church somehow didn’t have in the first century.

    “Your argument is one of the poorest I have ever read.”

    What? Trust and obey?

    At least I’ve got an argument.

    What is your argument for doubting the church fathers who established the canon? Is it the same argument for trusting them to establish the church canon?

    You said they aren’t infallible. Okay, neither are you. So why not trust them? Why trust some guy from the 1600′s? If you say you are just going by the text, don’t forget that every one of the men who selected those texts did himself practice infant baptism as did everyone for as far back as is recorded.

    Also, do you think the Methodists are lying about the historical facts of how the canon was established?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Infant baptism isn’t in the Bible!”

    Yes it is. You just deny it.

    From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18:8 and that practice has continued with each generation.

    We know that the practice was well established in the first century and considered right and proper for 16 centuries until innovators came along. We know the names and dates of those who argued against baptising infants. This is just plain history.

    We got it Grace. You don’t trust those disciples and church fathers from the first century who were in direct contact with the apostles. Rather you trust latter day innovators as having the truth that the Church somehow didn’t have in the first century.

    “Your argument is one of the poorest I have ever read.”

    What? Trust and obey?

    At least I’ve got an argument.

    What is your argument for doubting the church fathers who established the canon? Is it the same argument for trusting them to establish the church canon?

    You said they aren’t infallible. Okay, neither are you. So why not trust them? Why trust some guy from the 1600′s? If you say you are just going by the text, don’t forget that every one of the men who selected those texts did himself practice infant baptism as did everyone for as far back as is recorded.

    Also, do you think the Methodists are lying about the historical facts of how the canon was established?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell?”

    There aren’t Lutherans in hell, nor Baptists, Catholics, etc. There are apostates, of course. You seem to be confusing believers with unbelievers.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell?”

    There aren’t Lutherans in hell, nor Baptists, Catholics, etc. There are apostates, of course. You seem to be confusing believers with unbelievers.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @195

    Lutherans in Hell: “We are Lutherans because we were baptized by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran parishes. And Lutherans and other folks referred to us as Lutherans. So we are baptized Lutherans in Hell. Please don’t be so pedantic.

    Anyways, what does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms, or in any of his writings, for that matter, about baptized people being in Hell? Anything at all?

    Wasn’t the Pope baptized during Martin Luther’s time? Did Martin Luther think or say that the baptized Pope was going to Hell?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @195

    Lutherans in Hell: “We are Lutherans because we were baptized by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran parishes. And Lutherans and other folks referred to us as Lutherans. So we are baptized Lutherans in Hell. Please don’t be so pedantic.

    Anyways, what does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms, or in any of his writings, for that matter, about baptized people being in Hell? Anything at all?

    Wasn’t the Pope baptized during Martin Luther’s time? Did Martin Luther think or say that the baptized Pope was going to Hell?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You can’t find it in the Bible, SO…… you look to someone who was not inspired, who was not part of what the Bible states, and then believe whatever they say. It isn’t Scriptural!”

    That is exactly what you are doing with Trinity. The word ain’t there. Those who established it as doctrine are the same as those who practiced and taught infant baptism.

    Why are Paul’s letters in the Bible? Because they were selected by those same men. Those men believed Paul’s letters were inspired, but wait, you said those men were not infallible. Uh oh. Maybe Paul’s letters shouldn’t be in there. After all the men who selected them were not infallible and were in error regarding infant baptism. We were made aware of their errors by men in the 1600′s. Uh um. So what makes them right?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “You can’t find it in the Bible, SO…… you look to someone who was not inspired, who was not part of what the Bible states, and then believe whatever they say. It isn’t Scriptural!”

    That is exactly what you are doing with Trinity. The word ain’t there. Those who established it as doctrine are the same as those who practiced and taught infant baptism.

    Why are Paul’s letters in the Bible? Because they were selected by those same men. Those men believed Paul’s letters were inspired, but wait, you said those men were not infallible. Uh oh. Maybe Paul’s letters shouldn’t be in there. After all the men who selected them were not infallible and were in error regarding infant baptism. We were made aware of their errors by men in the 1600′s. Uh um. So what makes them right?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    TUD , have you figured out the point of baptism yet?

    Is it totally worthless?

    Is it a means of grace?

    Is it a human work?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    TUD , have you figured out the point of baptism yet?

    Is it totally worthless?

    Is it a means of grace?

    Is it a human work?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell, #151: “SG, do you agree that baptism does not always save?

    Do you understand that Lutherans have told many of us that “baptism now saves you,” and the fact of the matter is that our baptism didn’t save us? For the reality is that we are baptized Lutherans in Hell.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutherans in Hell, #151: “SG, do you agree that baptism does not always save?

    Do you understand that Lutherans have told many of us that “baptism now saves you,” and the fact of the matter is that our baptism didn’t save us? For the reality is that we are baptized Lutherans in Hell.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    200 :D

    TUD, do you think all Lutherans are going to hell? What is your point? Do you know how to answer a question? I have asked you plenty of times and others have provided the text of the catechism. Basically you can’t tell us what you think baptism is for. We have stated our position. What is yours?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    200 :D

    TUD, do you think all Lutherans are going to hell? What is your point? Do you know how to answer a question? I have asked you plenty of times and others have provided the text of the catechism. Basically you can’t tell us what you think baptism is for. We have stated our position. What is yours?

  • Michael B.

    I’m surprised infant baptism is such a hot topic. I would think infant salvation and such things as the “age of accountability” would be far more interesting.

  • Michael B.

    I’m surprised infant baptism is such a hot topic. I would think infant salvation and such things as the “age of accountability” would be far more interesting.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Do you know what the – Godhead - means, as is mentioned in three placed in the Bible.

    Godhead Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    theotes – theh-ot’-ace

    divinity ( abstractly ) – godhead

    Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. Acts 17:29

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Romans 1:20
    For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Colossians 2:9

    Does this mean you don’t believe in the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, which is clearly spoken of in all the Scripture I posted @ 170.

    Trinity — isn’t found in the Bible but we use it to describe the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY Spirit.

    Atheism — isn’t used in the Bible but we use it to define those individuals who believe there is no God.

    Omnipotence — definition: all powerful this word is not in the Bible.

    Omniscience — definition: all knowing, again this isn’t found in the Bible.

    Omnipresence — definition: as being present everywhere again not found in the Bible.

    Because these terms are not found in the Bible does not negate their importance or correct Biblical use. I’m pointing this out to you in an attempt to show that there are terms which ARE used, which are CORRECT but are not found in the Bible, such as God the Son.

    Denominations — are not found in the Bible, but there certainly is proof in Revelation 1-3 regarding the seven churches, that there were indeed different ‘denominations’

    Baptism is found in the Bible, but it’s always spoken of those who are adults, those who believe in Jesus Christ. No infants are ever mentioned, not even one.

    Christ laid hands on the children, but He didn’t tell anyone to baptize them, and there is no mention of HIM Baptizing that either.

    Christ Jesuss did baptize it’s very clear in John 3:22 and John 4:1.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Do you know what the – Godhead - means, as is mentioned in three placed in the Bible.

    Godhead Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    theotes – theh-ot’-ace

    divinity ( abstractly ) – godhead

    Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. Acts 17:29

    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Romans 1:20
    For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Colossians 2:9

    Does this mean you don’t believe in the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, which is clearly spoken of in all the Scripture I posted @ 170.

    Trinity — isn’t found in the Bible but we use it to describe the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the HOLY Spirit.

    Atheism — isn’t used in the Bible but we use it to define those individuals who believe there is no God.

    Omnipotence — definition: all powerful this word is not in the Bible.

    Omniscience — definition: all knowing, again this isn’t found in the Bible.

    Omnipresence — definition: as being present everywhere again not found in the Bible.

    Because these terms are not found in the Bible does not negate their importance or correct Biblical use. I’m pointing this out to you in an attempt to show that there are terms which ARE used, which are CORRECT but are not found in the Bible, such as God the Son.

    Denominations — are not found in the Bible, but there certainly is proof in Revelation 1-3 regarding the seven churches, that there were indeed different ‘denominations’

    Baptism is found in the Bible, but it’s always spoken of those who are adults, those who believe in Jesus Christ. No infants are ever mentioned, not even one.

    Christ laid hands on the children, but He didn’t tell anyone to baptize them, and there is no mention of HIM Baptizing that either.

    Christ Jesuss did baptize it’s very clear in John 3:22 and John 4:1.

  • Grace

    My post 202, should read:

    “Christ laid hands on the children, but He didn’t tell anyone to baptize them, and there is no mention of HIM Baptizing them either, only “he laid his hands on them” Matthew 19:15

    Christ Jesus did baptize disciples, it’s very clear in John 3:22 and John 4:1.

  • Grace

    My post 202, should read:

    “Christ laid hands on the children, but He didn’t tell anyone to baptize them, and there is no mention of HIM Baptizing them either, only “he laid his hands on them” Matthew 19:15

    Christ Jesus did baptize disciples, it’s very clear in John 3:22 and John 4:1.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Baptism is found in the Bible, but it’s always spoken of those who are adults, those who believe in Jesus Christ. No infants are ever mentioned, not even one.”

    Huh, so the word ‘adult’ appears in conjunction with every use of the word ‘baptism’? Oh, wait, no, it doesn’t. So, we really don’t know the ages of these folks. Yeah, that is what we have been saying. Baptism is for everyone which is why the apostles and disciples baptised whole families and no mention is made that being only the adults because it wasn’t only the adults. Christians baptised people of all ages from the beginning.

    So, Grace, do you accuse the Methodists of lying about the establishment of the canon? You believe the scriptures. So, are the Methodists telling the truth about how we got the scriptures and who selected them? This is at least my third time to ask. Yes or No?

    Were the church fathers infallible in selecting the scriptures, just lucky, guided by the Holy Spirit? How is it they had such wonderful discernment that you trust their judgement in selecting the scriptures but you don’t trust them as they received and continued the practice of infant baptism?

    You keep quoting scripture. What is your opinion of the men who chose those scriptures and rejected others? Or are the Methodists lying about those men choosing which scriptures to include?

    Also, how did infant baptism get started in the first century? The only Christians in the first century had direct contact with the apostles or their disciples. How could they all get it wrong?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Baptism is found in the Bible, but it’s always spoken of those who are adults, those who believe in Jesus Christ. No infants are ever mentioned, not even one.”

    Huh, so the word ‘adult’ appears in conjunction with every use of the word ‘baptism’? Oh, wait, no, it doesn’t. So, we really don’t know the ages of these folks. Yeah, that is what we have been saying. Baptism is for everyone which is why the apostles and disciples baptised whole families and no mention is made that being only the adults because it wasn’t only the adults. Christians baptised people of all ages from the beginning.

    So, Grace, do you accuse the Methodists of lying about the establishment of the canon? You believe the scriptures. So, are the Methodists telling the truth about how we got the scriptures and who selected them? This is at least my third time to ask. Yes or No?

    Were the church fathers infallible in selecting the scriptures, just lucky, guided by the Holy Spirit? How is it they had such wonderful discernment that you trust their judgement in selecting the scriptures but you don’t trust them as they received and continued the practice of infant baptism?

    You keep quoting scripture. What is your opinion of the men who chose those scriptures and rejected others? Or are the Methodists lying about those men choosing which scriptures to include?

    Also, how did infant baptism get started in the first century? The only Christians in the first century had direct contact with the apostles or their disciples. How could they all get it wrong?

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace asserts: “Baptism is found in the Bible, but it’s always spoken of those who are adults, those who believe in Jesus Christ. No infants are ever mentioned, not even one.”

    That is a lie and you are busted! Shame on you.

    The baptism of infants is acknowledgement of Christ’s instruction to the apostles, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

    Do you exclude infants and children from the nations? Do you exclude infants and children from households?

    Do you claim to know the hearts of children? Answer Grace… Stop running away.

    Again I show you your error. It would be better to trust Jesus rather than your own reasoning. But maybe you don’t care and are here to shake the weak and turn the unsure. False teacher.

  • Tom Moeller

    Grace asserts: “Baptism is found in the Bible, but it’s always spoken of those who are adults, those who believe in Jesus Christ. No infants are ever mentioned, not even one.”

    That is a lie and you are busted! Shame on you.

    The baptism of infants is acknowledgement of Christ’s instruction to the apostles, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

    Do you exclude infants and children from the nations? Do you exclude infants and children from households?

    Do you claim to know the hearts of children? Answer Grace… Stop running away.

    Again I show you your error. It would be better to trust Jesus rather than your own reasoning. But maybe you don’t care and are here to shake the weak and turn the unsure. False teacher.

  • Grace

    Moeller – 205

    “Do you exclude infants and children from the nations? Do you exclude infants and children from households?”

    You have no proof of infant baptism, so you go to this level of mockery to make a point you don’t have? How many other nonsence questions are you going to ask?

    “Do you claim to know the hearts of children? Answer Grace… Stop running away.”

    No one is running away, you cannot accept the fact that infant baptism isn’t in the Bible. Children are another thing, I understood very well what having faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior at 7 years old, that is not an infant.

  • Grace

    Moeller – 205

    “Do you exclude infants and children from the nations? Do you exclude infants and children from households?”

    You have no proof of infant baptism, so you go to this level of mockery to make a point you don’t have? How many other nonsence questions are you going to ask?

    “Do you claim to know the hearts of children? Answer Grace… Stop running away.”

    No one is running away, you cannot accept the fact that infant baptism isn’t in the Bible. Children are another thing, I understood very well what having faith in Jesus Christ as my Savior at 7 years old, that is not an infant.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” infant baptism isn’t in the Bible.”

    Yes, it is. You just deny it. The church fathers were actually there at the time. That is how they received it, and why they continued it. Baptism is just baptism. There aren’t separate categories for different ages of people. All have sin and all need baptism.

    You have no proof that there were no infants in those households, so you go to this level of mockery to make a point you don’t have.

    We have the evidence of infant baptism from the first century. You have no reason from scripture to restrict baptism to adults or older children. They weren’t restricting it in the first century. No reason to believe they ever were. You certainly can’t find anything in scripture forbidding or restricting it. Repentance never ends, so even if someone repents before baptism, he will have to continue doing it till he dies. Also, profession of faith never ends either, so even if someone professes faith before he is baptised, he will have to continue until he dies.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” infant baptism isn’t in the Bible.”

    Yes, it is. You just deny it. The church fathers were actually there at the time. That is how they received it, and why they continued it. Baptism is just baptism. There aren’t separate categories for different ages of people. All have sin and all need baptism.

    You have no proof that there were no infants in those households, so you go to this level of mockery to make a point you don’t have.

    We have the evidence of infant baptism from the first century. You have no reason from scripture to restrict baptism to adults or older children. They weren’t restricting it in the first century. No reason to believe they ever were. You certainly can’t find anything in scripture forbidding or restricting it. Repentance never ends, so even if someone repents before baptism, he will have to continue doing it till he dies. Also, profession of faith never ends either, so even if someone professes faith before he is baptised, he will have to continue until he dies.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace, it is pretty obvious you have no argument. Your objection to infant baptism is the result of receiving false teaching. You reject the scriptural instances of whole households being baptised as evidence as well as rejecting the universal practice from the very beginning and continuing for all Christians for 1600 years. The only folks to reject it were very late and very few. Even now the overwhelming majority of Christians baptise infants.

    There cannot account for how the practice began in the first century if not by the apostles or disciples. You cannot account for trusting the same men’s judgement as to the validity of the scriptures but rejecting their judgement as to practice. You have no evidence. The record just doesn’t support what you claim. I have been where you are. I was wrong, too. I hope I wasn’t as rude.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Grace, it is pretty obvious you have no argument. Your objection to infant baptism is the result of receiving false teaching. You reject the scriptural instances of whole households being baptised as evidence as well as rejecting the universal practice from the very beginning and continuing for all Christians for 1600 years. The only folks to reject it were very late and very few. Even now the overwhelming majority of Christians baptise infants.

    There cannot account for how the practice began in the first century if not by the apostles or disciples. You cannot account for trusting the same men’s judgement as to the validity of the scriptures but rejecting their judgement as to practice. You have no evidence. The record just doesn’t support what you claim. I have been where you are. I was wrong, too. I hope I wasn’t as rude.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @200

    Lutherans in Hell: “Thankfully, not all baptized Lutherans are in Hell. We are a miserable, tormented lot. We want our numbers to be few. Our only point, as has been repeatedly made, is that baptism does NOT always save. For we have been baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches. And yet we are still in Hell. Our baptism did not save us.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    @200

    Lutherans in Hell: “Thankfully, not all baptized Lutherans are in Hell. We are a miserable, tormented lot. We want our numbers to be few. Our only point, as has been repeatedly made, is that baptism does NOT always save. For we have been baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches. And yet we are still in Hell. Our baptism did not save us.”

  • Joanne

    Grace,
    The fish that struggles is the fish that’s hooked. Lutheran doctrine atracks you like a moth to a flame. You want so badly for us to fully and finally convince you so you can let go of the teaching of the Dispensationists. If God wills, you will come back but not through adult squabbles about Bible passages. Unless you accept the Kingdom of God just as a suckling babe, you will never enter into it. Accept the Kingdom of God with the abilities of a suckling babe’s brain. Jesus says that’s how we all accept the Kingdom, with the brain of an infant who cannot even talk. It means he comes to us and brings us into his Kingdome before we can even think. It’s all mercy; I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. Great thinking like the Greek philosophers will get you nowhere, but the faith of a suckling babe will gain you the Kingdom of God. No one’s human knowledge leads them to forgiveness of sins. We wash our babies because they are dirty with sin and their brains are just perfect for accepting the Kingdom of God. It’s the adult brains that we have to work on to get them back to infant level.

  • Joanne

    Grace,
    The fish that struggles is the fish that’s hooked. Lutheran doctrine atracks you like a moth to a flame. You want so badly for us to fully and finally convince you so you can let go of the teaching of the Dispensationists. If God wills, you will come back but not through adult squabbles about Bible passages. Unless you accept the Kingdom of God just as a suckling babe, you will never enter into it. Accept the Kingdom of God with the abilities of a suckling babe’s brain. Jesus says that’s how we all accept the Kingdom, with the brain of an infant who cannot even talk. It means he comes to us and brings us into his Kingdome before we can even think. It’s all mercy; I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. Great thinking like the Greek philosophers will get you nowhere, but the faith of a suckling babe will gain you the Kingdom of God. No one’s human knowledge leads them to forgiveness of sins. We wash our babies because they are dirty with sin and their brains are just perfect for accepting the Kingdom of God. It’s the adult brains that we have to work on to get them back to infant level.

  • Grace

    sg @207

    “Yes, it is. You just deny it. The church fathers were actually there at the time. That is how they received it, and why they continued it. Baptism is just baptism. There aren’t separate categories for different ages of people. All have sin and all need baptism. “

    Which Apostles were eye witnesses to infant baptism? Apostles meaning Jesus Apostles including Paul. Chapter and verse. I will be waiting for a definitive answer. Not one you’ve contrived, to meet your doctrine.

    You go around in circeles sg, trying to prove that infant baptism is in Scripture when it isn’t. If you read the passage about the Eunuch, it’s clear that he was asked if he belived, and he answered he did believe, that’s when Philip agreed to baptize the Eunuch. A child couldn’t answer that question because they are not old enough to understand, meaning an infant cannot understand.

    Do you believe sg, that an infant is saved through baptism? If you do, it’s nothing more than a parent believing they have secured some sort of insurance for heaven.

    We are told that children who have a parent who is a Believer is holy, is that not enough, until the child is old enough to understand what he/she believes though teaching and Bible study?

  • Grace

    sg @207

    “Yes, it is. You just deny it. The church fathers were actually there at the time. That is how they received it, and why they continued it. Baptism is just baptism. There aren’t separate categories for different ages of people. All have sin and all need baptism. “

    Which Apostles were eye witnesses to infant baptism? Apostles meaning Jesus Apostles including Paul. Chapter and verse. I will be waiting for a definitive answer. Not one you’ve contrived, to meet your doctrine.

    You go around in circeles sg, trying to prove that infant baptism is in Scripture when it isn’t. If you read the passage about the Eunuch, it’s clear that he was asked if he belived, and he answered he did believe, that’s when Philip agreed to baptize the Eunuch. A child couldn’t answer that question because they are not old enough to understand, meaning an infant cannot understand.

    Do you believe sg, that an infant is saved through baptism? If you do, it’s nothing more than a parent believing they have secured some sort of insurance for heaven.

    We are told that children who have a parent who is a Believer is holy, is that not enough, until the child is old enough to understand what he/she believes though teaching and Bible study?

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 210

    “The fish that struggles is the fish that’s hooked. Lutheran doctrine atracks you like a moth to a flame. You want so badly for us to fully and finally convince you so you can let go of the teaching of the Dispensationists. If God wills, you will come back but not through adult squabbles about Bible passages.”

    There is no flame in Lutheran doctrine, nor am I any sort of moth.

    I’m sorry that you cannot go beyond the B of C or the Catechisms to study the Bible for yourself. You, automatically believe that anyone who does not believe in the books you study during Catechism and after, are looking for truth beyond the Bible. That is a fallacy, one which has absorbed not just the Lutherans but the Roman Church as well. They too, subscribe to their books apart from the Bible, ie; the importance of the Pope, his supreme importance upon this earth, praying to Mary, all of which cannot be substantiated in the Bible. But never mind, that means nothing to them, they are cradle RCC’s, who have never learned to study for themselves.

    “Replacement Theology” is another doctrine which the Reformed believe, but it isn’t true. How many actually search out the Bible in finding what really is written?

  • Grace

    Joanne @ 210

    “The fish that struggles is the fish that’s hooked. Lutheran doctrine atracks you like a moth to a flame. You want so badly for us to fully and finally convince you so you can let go of the teaching of the Dispensationists. If God wills, you will come back but not through adult squabbles about Bible passages.”

    There is no flame in Lutheran doctrine, nor am I any sort of moth.

    I’m sorry that you cannot go beyond the B of C or the Catechisms to study the Bible for yourself. You, automatically believe that anyone who does not believe in the books you study during Catechism and after, are looking for truth beyond the Bible. That is a fallacy, one which has absorbed not just the Lutherans but the Roman Church as well. They too, subscribe to their books apart from the Bible, ie; the importance of the Pope, his supreme importance upon this earth, praying to Mary, all of which cannot be substantiated in the Bible. But never mind, that means nothing to them, they are cradle RCC’s, who have never learned to study for themselves.

    “Replacement Theology” is another doctrine which the Reformed believe, but it isn’t true. How many actually search out the Bible in finding what really is written?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The church fathers studied the Bible for themselves. In fact they decided what would be in the Bible and what would not be in it. And they baptised infants. Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible.

    You go around in circles, Grace, insisting on scripture which we only have because those men said so. The same men who gave us infant baptism also gave us the scriptures.

    You can’t figure out how to call them liars or errorists on the one hand yet faithful enough to deliver us the scriptures on the other hand.

    You can’t figure out how it could be that all Christians at all times and in all place from the first apostles and disciples baptised infants but then 1600 years later the practice is suddenly erroneous.

    Go ahead and tell us how the faithful men who gave us the scriptures you claim to believe were so wrong in their practice of baptising infants. You can’t reconcile it, so you dance all around it. If your modern interpretation is correct, how come the church fathers don’t agree with you? Why did none of the church fathers see what you can see? How is it you are so much wiser and know so much more than they? They were actually there with the disciples and witnessed the actual practices. We weren’t. These are the same men who defended the faith against various heresies and some even died for the faith. They weren’t looking at a translation of a text 2000 years later. They witnessed the practices first hand.

    So, tell us, Grace, why did the Church in the first century baptise infants? Why?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The church fathers studied the Bible for themselves. In fact they decided what would be in the Bible and what would not be in it. And they baptised infants. Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible.

    You go around in circles, Grace, insisting on scripture which we only have because those men said so. The same men who gave us infant baptism also gave us the scriptures.

    You can’t figure out how to call them liars or errorists on the one hand yet faithful enough to deliver us the scriptures on the other hand.

    You can’t figure out how it could be that all Christians at all times and in all place from the first apostles and disciples baptised infants but then 1600 years later the practice is suddenly erroneous.

    Go ahead and tell us how the faithful men who gave us the scriptures you claim to believe were so wrong in their practice of baptising infants. You can’t reconcile it, so you dance all around it. If your modern interpretation is correct, how come the church fathers don’t agree with you? Why did none of the church fathers see what you can see? How is it you are so much wiser and know so much more than they? They were actually there with the disciples and witnessed the actual practices. We weren’t. These are the same men who defended the faith against various heresies and some even died for the faith. They weren’t looking at a translation of a text 2000 years later. They witnessed the practices first hand.

    So, tell us, Grace, why did the Church in the first century baptise infants? Why?

  • Grace

    sg

    “The church fathers studied the Bible for themselves. In fact they decided what would be in the Bible and what would not be in it. And they baptised infants. Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible.

    The LORD ordained what would be written, HE and HE alone preceded Scripture, and creation.

    The Word of God, as in the Bible, is inspired, inerrant and infallible, it’s not about “tradition” if it were, you would still be in the RCC following “tradition” for the rest of your life – church fathers were never in charge of what the Word of God would contain. The HOLY Spirit has led every Apostle to whom Christ appointed, including Paul… pen to paper what the LORD wanted us to know, the Gospels etc.

    When you start down the path of “tradition” it reeks of the Roman Catholic Church, who do not base their beliefs on God’s Word but “the tradition of men” -

  • Grace

    sg

    “The church fathers studied the Bible for themselves. In fact they decided what would be in the Bible and what would not be in it. And they baptised infants. Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible.

    The LORD ordained what would be written, HE and HE alone preceded Scripture, and creation.

    The Word of God, as in the Bible, is inspired, inerrant and infallible, it’s not about “tradition” if it were, you would still be in the RCC following “tradition” for the rest of your life – church fathers were never in charge of what the Word of God would contain. The HOLY Spirit has led every Apostle to whom Christ appointed, including Paul… pen to paper what the LORD wanted us to know, the Gospels etc.

    When you start down the path of “tradition” it reeks of the Roman Catholic Church, who do not base their beliefs on God’s Word but “the tradition of men” -

  • Joanne

    During the mystery of the washing of regeration, when the Word is added to the water, the Holy Spirit enters the water. When the water is applied to the infant, the Holy Spirit enters that baby and creates faith and causes that infant to accept the Kingdom of God. This baby is now saved by the Word of God and the washing of regeneration all performed by the Holy Spirit. The parents, the godparents, the pastor, and the whole congregation make a promise that day to raise up this child in the way it should go so that when it is grown it will not depart from it.

    If faith is not fed regularly with the Word and mysteries, it dies. However, these promisers take this todler to Sunday School and church every Sunday. Lutherans bring babies to the church service because we believe that babies need to hear sermons, the liturgy, and hymns sung just like adults do. And, especilly, the toddlers need to be in the Sunday Service to confess their sins and receive absolution just like everyone else.

    Faith that is not fed with the Word and mysteries will die, that’s why we have Lutherans in Hell. Their promisers failed them or they rejected the faith that the Holy Spirit gave them.

    Then we send that child to a Lutheran kindergarten, then a Lutheran grade school, and for 2 years during Lutheran junior high school the pastor teaches the child the catechism. Then by the rite of Confirmation the pastor certifies to the whole congregation that this child was taught what we promised to teach him at his baptism. Confirmation is when we declare that we have obeyed the Lord and raised this child in the way he should go.

    During catechism we teach and prepare the child for two other avenues of the Holy Spirit and faith. We teach the child the proper way to confess his sins to the pastor and to accept absolution from the pastor’s hand. We also then teach the child about the mystery of the altar where Jesus Christ offers us his body and blood every Sunday. Both of these are additional ways of feeding his faith.

    Then we send him to a Lutheran High School, then off to a Lutheran College/University. Ideally.

    Infant washing with water and the Holy Spirit does save us by putting faith in our hearts, and the grace of God in His mercy feeds that faith with His Word and Mysteries, and keeps it alive throughout our whole lives.

  • Joanne

    During the mystery of the washing of regeration, when the Word is added to the water, the Holy Spirit enters the water. When the water is applied to the infant, the Holy Spirit enters that baby and creates faith and causes that infant to accept the Kingdom of God. This baby is now saved by the Word of God and the washing of regeneration all performed by the Holy Spirit. The parents, the godparents, the pastor, and the whole congregation make a promise that day to raise up this child in the way it should go so that when it is grown it will not depart from it.

    If faith is not fed regularly with the Word and mysteries, it dies. However, these promisers take this todler to Sunday School and church every Sunday. Lutherans bring babies to the church service because we believe that babies need to hear sermons, the liturgy, and hymns sung just like adults do. And, especilly, the toddlers need to be in the Sunday Service to confess their sins and receive absolution just like everyone else.

    Faith that is not fed with the Word and mysteries will die, that’s why we have Lutherans in Hell. Their promisers failed them or they rejected the faith that the Holy Spirit gave them.

    Then we send that child to a Lutheran kindergarten, then a Lutheran grade school, and for 2 years during Lutheran junior high school the pastor teaches the child the catechism. Then by the rite of Confirmation the pastor certifies to the whole congregation that this child was taught what we promised to teach him at his baptism. Confirmation is when we declare that we have obeyed the Lord and raised this child in the way he should go.

    During catechism we teach and prepare the child for two other avenues of the Holy Spirit and faith. We teach the child the proper way to confess his sins to the pastor and to accept absolution from the pastor’s hand. We also then teach the child about the mystery of the altar where Jesus Christ offers us his body and blood every Sunday. Both of these are additional ways of feeding his faith.

    Then we send him to a Lutheran High School, then off to a Lutheran College/University. Ideally.

    Infant washing with water and the Holy Spirit does save us by putting faith in our hearts, and the grace of God in His mercy feeds that faith with His Word and Mysteries, and keeps it alive throughout our whole lives.

  • Grace

    sg,

    ASKS AGAIN:

    “So, tell us, Grace, why did the Church in the first century baptise infants? Why?”

    AGAIN: where does the Bible say that infants were baptized?

    ANSWER: there are no passages of Scripture. But then you bellieve as you state i post 113:

    "The church fathers studied the Bible for themselves. In fact they decided what would be in the Bible and what would not be in it. And they baptised infants. Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible."

    Where was the LORD when “tradition preceded Scripture” ? – Where was Christ when “tradition created the Bible” ?

  • Grace

    sg,

    ASKS AGAIN:

    “So, tell us, Grace, why did the Church in the first century baptise infants? Why?”

    AGAIN: where does the Bible say that infants were baptized?

    ANSWER: there are no passages of Scripture. But then you bellieve as you state i post 113:

    "The church fathers studied the Bible for themselves. In fact they decided what would be in the Bible and what would not be in it. And they baptised infants. Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible."

    Where was the LORD when “tradition preceded Scripture” ? – Where was Christ when “tradition created the Bible” ?

  • Grace

    sg Post 113

    “Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible.”

    Where was God the Father and God the Son when “tradition” was creating the Bible?

    sg, I don’t know when I’ve read anything that contradicts Scripture more than what you wrote above!

  • Grace

    sg Post 113

    “Tradition preceded scripture. Tradition created the Bible.”

    Where was God the Father and God the Son when “tradition” was creating the Bible?

    sg, I don’t know when I’ve read anything that contradicts Scripture more than what you wrote above!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Where was God the Father and God the Son when “tradition” was creating the Bible?”

    Inspiring the writers?

    I mean you do know that they wrote stuff down after it happened, right? I mean it is hard to tell about an event until after it happens. Tradition is what dictated what would be included in the Bible. Or are we back to not believing that the Bible was compiled from texts selected by those church fathers you can’t trust?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Where was God the Father and God the Son when “tradition” was creating the Bible?”

    Inspiring the writers?

    I mean you do know that they wrote stuff down after it happened, right? I mean it is hard to tell about an event until after it happens. Tradition is what dictated what would be included in the Bible. Or are we back to not believing that the Bible was compiled from texts selected by those church fathers you can’t trust?

  • Grace

    8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

    (This is most likely one of the most profound statements by Paul, directly pointing to Christ and no other.)

    9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    Colossians 2

    CHRIST, HE is the one to be followed, HE is part of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, God the HOLY Spirit. We are complete in HIM, there is no other, there is but one mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus.

  • Grace

    8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

    (This is most likely one of the most profound statements by Paul, directly pointing to Christ and no other.)

    9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

    Colossians 2

    CHRIST, HE is the one to be followed, HE is part of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, God the HOLY Spirit. We are complete in HIM, there is no other, there is but one mediator between God and man, and that is Christ Jesus.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t know when I’ve read anything that contradicts Scripture more than what you wrote above!”

    Absurd. Someone had to keep copying those texts else we wouldn’t have them. That is called tradition. Plenty of stuff was lost, but for the tradition of keeping what the church fathers believed was true and correct. The only reason we have the Bible is that the church fathers preserved it. The decided what to keep and what to toss. Their decisions were based on tradition. So either they were good Christians carrying on tradition or what? Infant baptisers? Oh wait, they were both.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t know when I’ve read anything that contradicts Scripture more than what you wrote above!”

    Absurd. Someone had to keep copying those texts else we wouldn’t have them. That is called tradition. Plenty of stuff was lost, but for the tradition of keeping what the church fathers believed was true and correct. The only reason we have the Bible is that the church fathers preserved it. The decided what to keep and what to toss. Their decisions were based on tradition. So either they were good Christians carrying on tradition or what? Infant baptisers? Oh wait, they were both.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The traditions of the church were instituted by Christ and continued by the apostles and their disciples. The are not traditions of men.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The traditions of the church were instituted by Christ and continued by the apostles and their disciples. The are not traditions of men.

  • Grace

    sg 221

    “The traditions of the church were instituted by Christ and continued by the apostles and their disciples. The are not traditions of men.”

    “Traditions” have nothing to do with it sg.

    Christ brought truth, HE did not bring “traditions” – His birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection had nothing to do with “tradition” – His ministry was very different from the Jewish Old Testament. Christ brought Salvation to all who believed in Him.

    As I’ve stated, you have confused yourself regarding “tradition of men” -

  • Grace

    sg 221

    “The traditions of the church were instituted by Christ and continued by the apostles and their disciples. The are not traditions of men.”

    “Traditions” have nothing to do with it sg.

    Christ brought truth, HE did not bring “traditions” – His birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection had nothing to do with “tradition” – His ministry was very different from the Jewish Old Testament. Christ brought Salvation to all who believed in Him.

    As I’ve stated, you have confused yourself regarding “tradition of men” -

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Prove from scripture that Christ commanded the New Testament be written and not just spoken. Oh wait, you can’t. The scriptures that Jesus refers to are the Old Testament. So, I guess we can toss the NT and label it a tradition of men. We can’t toss baptism or the Lord’s supper because they were commanded. Oh wait, the church fathers declared that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Uh oh, how can we trust their judgement. After all, they were baptising infants and claiming that they were doing it because it was the custom of the apostles. Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to pass judgement on the church fathers and their decisions by holding that some of their ideas were right like declaring certain texts inspired, but then have to turn around and worry they were either mistaken or lying when they claim that the apostles taught them to baptise infants.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Prove from scripture that Christ commanded the New Testament be written and not just spoken. Oh wait, you can’t. The scriptures that Jesus refers to are the Old Testament. So, I guess we can toss the NT and label it a tradition of men. We can’t toss baptism or the Lord’s supper because they were commanded. Oh wait, the church fathers declared that the writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Uh oh, how can we trust their judgement. After all, they were baptising infants and claiming that they were doing it because it was the custom of the apostles. Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to pass judgement on the church fathers and their decisions by holding that some of their ideas were right like declaring certain texts inspired, but then have to turn around and worry they were either mistaken or lying when they claim that the apostles taught them to baptise infants.

  • Grace

    sg @ 220

    Absurd. Someone had to keep copying those texts else we wouldn’t have them. That is called tradition.”

    No sg, that is not called “tradition” – it’s becoming very clear that you have no idea how the manuscripts were treated or copied, it had nothing to do with “tradition” –

    Is this the sort of stuff that’s taught in home-schooling today? Guessing, Googling, or bluffing your way through a discussion?

  • Grace

    sg @ 220

    Absurd. Someone had to keep copying those texts else we wouldn’t have them. That is called tradition.”

    No sg, that is not called “tradition” – it’s becoming very clear that you have no idea how the manuscripts were treated or copied, it had nothing to do with “tradition” –

    Is this the sort of stuff that’s taught in home-schooling today? Guessing, Googling, or bluffing your way through a discussion?

  • Joanne

    Well sg @221, I’m glad you finally said that, cause you have me worried there for a bit. I maintain that the tradition of the Apostles is the New Testament. Any traditions that they left out of the N.T., are like the rear view mirror on an Italian car, totally unnecessary.

  • Joanne

    Well sg @221, I’m glad you finally said that, cause you have me worried there for a bit. I maintain that the tradition of the Apostles is the New Testament. Any traditions that they left out of the N.T., are like the rear view mirror on an Italian car, totally unnecessary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    What do you think a tradition is? It is a practice, a custom. Christ commanded baptism and His holy supper. What, we don’t need to obey his commands? This is ridiculous. You are confused.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    What do you think a tradition is? It is a practice, a custom. Christ commanded baptism and His holy supper. What, we don’t need to obey his commands? This is ridiculous. You are confused.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Hi Joanne, you can always tell Grace is a Christian by her love, oh and peace, patience, joy, kindness, self control. Oh wait. No you can’t. If you don’t agree with her, it is non-stop insults and slander. Heck even the church fathers are suspect.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Hi Joanne, you can always tell Grace is a Christian by her love, oh and peace, patience, joy, kindness, self control. Oh wait. No you can’t. If you don’t agree with her, it is non-stop insults and slander. Heck even the church fathers are suspect.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    I used to have some trouble with infant baptism. I was worried that God was being mocked by the promise being given so easily to those who didn’t seem to take it seriously. “God must be protected against people who would take advantage of him.” Or so I thought. It took a couple of years of struggle and then I realized, “Who says I take it seriously enough? Do I know that?”

    I think this is the undercurrent: Those who believe that they are serious enough to have received God’s grace try to defend their religious experience against the unserious. Because if the unserious get the gift too, then what has the seriousness accomplished? Nothing. It turns to ash.

    God’s way of working is an affront. He gives away forgiveness as if it were worthless. The serious must defend him from this error. They must act as gatekeepers on his behalf so that the foolishness doesn’t get out of hand.

    I received a gift of grace when I realized that, in all my seriousness, I wasn’t worthy to receive anything from him. I was no better than the people I scorned. I am still bothered by those who have their kids baptized without having any intention to follow up on their promises, but I no longer try to defend God against them. Instead I pray for them and thank God for them. And I try to speak faith into their lives when I’ve the opportunity (not appealing to their will, but giving them the promise again in order to create faith.)

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    I used to have some trouble with infant baptism. I was worried that God was being mocked by the promise being given so easily to those who didn’t seem to take it seriously. “God must be protected against people who would take advantage of him.” Or so I thought. It took a couple of years of struggle and then I realized, “Who says I take it seriously enough? Do I know that?”

    I think this is the undercurrent: Those who believe that they are serious enough to have received God’s grace try to defend their religious experience against the unserious. Because if the unserious get the gift too, then what has the seriousness accomplished? Nothing. It turns to ash.

    God’s way of working is an affront. He gives away forgiveness as if it were worthless. The serious must defend him from this error. They must act as gatekeepers on his behalf so that the foolishness doesn’t get out of hand.

    I received a gift of grace when I realized that, in all my seriousness, I wasn’t worthy to receive anything from him. I was no better than the people I scorned. I am still bothered by those who have their kids baptized without having any intention to follow up on their promises, but I no longer try to defend God against them. Instead I pray for them and thank God for them. And I try to speak faith into their lives when I’ve the opportunity (not appealing to their will, but giving them the promise again in order to create faith.)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Guessing, Googling, or bluffing your way through a discussion?”

    Grace, you are the one guessing and bluffing. You have no answer for why you trust scriptures that were attested only by men that were baptising infants. Every man who voted to include those scriptures also believed in infant baptism, taught it and practiced it. As for googling. I can’t send you a book, so I send a link to share info like everyone else. I don’t see how providing links is offensive. Of course I don’t see how the church fathers can be in gross error while at once being trustworthy enough to attest which scriptures should be considered true and which not.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Guessing, Googling, or bluffing your way through a discussion?”

    Grace, you are the one guessing and bluffing. You have no answer for why you trust scriptures that were attested only by men that were baptising infants. Every man who voted to include those scriptures also believed in infant baptism, taught it and practiced it. As for googling. I can’t send you a book, so I send a link to share info like everyone else. I don’t see how providing links is offensive. Of course I don’t see how the church fathers can be in gross error while at once being trustworthy enough to attest which scriptures should be considered true and which not.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How lovely, WBP.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    How lovely, WBP.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    good night, all.

    Praying for you, Grace, that even if you can’t agree with someone, you could at least show some respect or kindness to your Christian brothers and sisters.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    good night, all.

    Praying for you, Grace, that even if you can’t agree with someone, you could at least show some respect or kindness to your Christian brothers and sisters.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace, in nearly one breath you say that one must be able to make a verbal confession of faith in order to baptized and saved, and then, citing the text in Corinthians, that “unbaptized children are saved by virtue of the believing parent’s faith.” The text actually says that the children (who says they were unbaptized?) AND the UNBELIEVING spouse are MADE HOLY by the believing spouse. Are you saying that the husband, despite his unbelief, is SAVED?! How do you read “are holy”? Corporately sanctified? Saved? Set apart?
    You can’t deal with original sin. The child is dead in its trespasses until regenerated, whether it’s born into a Christian household or not. It may well be set apart, but dead until regenerated in the waters of Holy Baptism. What, I ask, of Grace’s infants? How does God save them, Grace?

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    Grace, in nearly one breath you say that one must be able to make a verbal confession of faith in order to baptized and saved, and then, citing the text in Corinthians, that “unbaptized children are saved by virtue of the believing parent’s faith.” The text actually says that the children (who says they were unbaptized?) AND the UNBELIEVING spouse are MADE HOLY by the believing spouse. Are you saying that the husband, despite his unbelief, is SAVED?! How do you read “are holy”? Corporately sanctified? Saved? Set apart?
    You can’t deal with original sin. The child is dead in its trespasses until regenerated, whether it’s born into a Christian household or not. It may well be set apart, but dead until regenerated in the waters of Holy Baptism. What, I ask, of Grace’s infants? How does God save them, Grace?

  • Tom Moeller

    Zwingli and Calvin really did a number on the masses. Populist, rationalist claptrap mixed in with some really solid theology. Poision in the crepes. Ummm, so good… until…

    Rule & Norm:
    1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

    2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

    Fathers… witnesses. I’ll trust a witness over clever sophistry any day.

    Color me a saved, baptized child of God!
    Don’t deny this to anyone regardless of age, sex, race. Check and fix creeds at the gate… (JC)…heh.

  • Tom Moeller

    Zwingli and Calvin really did a number on the masses. Populist, rationalist claptrap mixed in with some really solid theology. Poision in the crepes. Ummm, so good… until…

    Rule & Norm:
    1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

    2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

    Fathers… witnesses. I’ll trust a witness over clever sophistry any day.

    Color me a saved, baptized child of God!
    Don’t deny this to anyone regardless of age, sex, race. Check and fix creeds at the gate… (JC)…heh.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Joanne, #215: “During the mystery of the washing of regeneration, when the Word is added to the water, the Holy Spirit enters the water. When the water is applied to the infant, the Holy Spirit enters that baby and creates faith and causes that infant to accept the Kingdom of God. This baby is now saved by the Word of God and the washing of regeneration all performed by the Holy Spirit.”

    Is this explanation in Scripture or is it a man-made explanation for a man-made tradition?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Joanne, #215: “During the mystery of the washing of regeneration, when the Word is added to the water, the Holy Spirit enters the water. When the water is applied to the infant, the Holy Spirit enters that baby and creates faith and causes that infant to accept the Kingdom of God. This baby is now saved by the Word of God and the washing of regeneration all performed by the Holy Spirit.”

    Is this explanation in Scripture or is it a man-made explanation for a man-made tradition?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    SG, #226: “Christ commanded baptism and His holy supper.”

    “Christ commanded baptism and His holy supper.”

    “CHRIST COMMANDED BAPTISM AND HIS HOLY SUPPER.”

    sg, you finally wrote something worthwhile. ’nuff said.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    SG, #226: “Christ commanded baptism and His holy supper.”

    “Christ commanded baptism and His holy supper.”

    “CHRIST COMMANDED BAPTISM AND HIS HOLY SUPPER.”

    sg, you finally wrote something worthwhile. ’nuff said.

  • Grace

    Mark Veenman 232

    “in nearly one breath you say that one must be able to make a verbal confession of faith in order to baptized and saved, and then, citing the text in Corinthians, that “unbaptized children are saved by virtue of the believing parent’s faith.” The text actually says that the children (who says they were unbaptized?) AND the UNBELIEVING spouse are MADE HOLY by the believing spouse. Are you saying that the husband, despite his unbelief, is SAVED?! How do you read “are holy”?”

    Mark, my post said nothing of the kind. You’ve concocted a story, plain and simple.

  • Grace

    Mark Veenman 232

    “in nearly one breath you say that one must be able to make a verbal confession of faith in order to baptized and saved, and then, citing the text in Corinthians, that “unbaptized children are saved by virtue of the believing parent’s faith.” The text actually says that the children (who says they were unbaptized?) AND the UNBELIEVING spouse are MADE HOLY by the believing spouse. Are you saying that the husband, despite his unbelief, is SAVED?! How do you read “are holy”?”

    Mark, my post said nothing of the kind. You’ve concocted a story, plain and simple.

  • larry

    As Luther points out the rejection of a thing does not negate its reality but in fact affirms it. The baptized Lutheran (whomever) does receive as the Word speaks in Acts 2 for example 1. The forgiveness of sins and 2. The Holy Spirit. Rejecting this as an atheist before baptism (as I did) or after merely points out its reality. I rejected BEING baptized because it was exactly what it said it was not because it was not what it said it was, which would be rejecting nothing. As Luther points out, people go to hell, i.e. “not saved”, because they reject the son, not because they violate Moses. The later concept of hell, because they violate Moses or some form of virtuousness called “law” broadly is really not the Christian hell spoken of in Scripture, but a pathetic pagan hell which simply does not exist.
    If one examines Calvin and Arminian doctrine its really nothing knew and comes from out of the scholastics and other schools of thought at the time (e.g. the mystics) that all functioned pre-reformation under the official umbrella of Rome. All that really happened post reformation was the lifting, officially, of the papal authority whereby these schools continued their lines of reasoning into error which find today in the schools of Arminianism and Calvinism most broadly and all variations there of.
    Both doctrinal schools ultimately hold out for the free will as manifest in the issue over the sacraments. Arminians overtly, Calvinist covertly, Arminians like their Roman scholastic sources held out for that “spark” via creation that gives them the ability to choose, Calvinist like their Roman mystic and Augustinian sources move this to the “post conversion can’t fall away position” and call it “the work of the Holy Spirit who now empowers the doing of the law via the free will, this is ultimately rooted in a false understanding of what the fall is (and ultimately what hell is for as above). That’s what “total depravity” is in Calvinistic thought/doctrine, the “love (i.e. law) compass”, as Paulson puts it, is “off the mark” and the Holy Spirit is needed to (post conversion) begin setting this straight. But “holy spirit” here is really covert for “free will” (Calvinist move it to the post conversion position and rename it HS). Thus, total depravity as begotten by the “fall” is the “love compass” out of tune and conversation goes like this, “you think man is bad, well we say depraved, nea, totally depraved”. They caveat, not as evil as he could be if not restrained or “utter depravity” but “totally depraved” in that all things of man affected. I.e. the extinct is “total”, and thus they think spoken different than Arminians by extinguishing that “residual created spark within man” by smearing the totality of the depravity to every part of a man. But the key is not its “totality” or extent but that it is the “love (law) compass” is off and this is thought to be the “fall of man” “his love has been altered in a evil way”. Thus, you hear of “the chief end of man is love God and enjoy Him forever”. This “total depravity” is not the “bondage of the will” of which Luther speaks. The fall as Luther identifies is a “trust issue” man no longer trusts the Word and God’s Worded things, but distrusts God and seeks other words, then trusts his faith and thus becomes his own God. This is the bondage of the will not “total depravity” ala Calvin.

    The fundamental of the fall as Paulson well points out that Luther is explaining that Scripture is explaining is that man first, man receives a Word from God and then questions, is mystified or offended by it (e.g. you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this is my body, this baptism saves you, etc…). Second, he imagines God is hiding something (trying to begin to see God in the nude via reason) better from him and thus goes searching for ‘other words’; “God cannot mean you will really die”, “Jesus must have meant ‘this represents’ or ‘this is a sign of’”, “the scriptures must mean a ‘spiritual baptism’ or some ‘inward reality baptism’ but not water”, etc…. Then man goes on to believe/trust his own believing/trusting as if these words were better than the promises from the Holy Spirit. In this way man becomes his own God. Luther ultimately saw Zwingli and the very issue of the LS as Zwingli returning to original sin (and Calvin by extension).

    That’s how its always done. One goes to the Word that incredibly against reason and experience says, “this is my body shed for the forgiveness of your sins”, “this baptism saves you”, then comes the words of the serpent in our own heads so to speak or doctrinally spoken from a heterodoxy, “now that’s not what that means it’s a “spiritual baptism” or sign pointing elsewhere (the other words). Reason disguised as faith then tempts faith away from the Word.

    So it’s not as if the Word of God fails or “is not” in baptism or the Lord’s Supper or absolution, it does not, but that men ultimately are condemned (which brings us full circle) not for violating Moses, but rejecting the Son. And they do this to hold out for “free will” and the law so that “my part” contributes to “my salvation” which gets back to original sin, what it is and what it is not. It’s a trust issue in the Word (bondage of the will to trust other words and itself) and not that the “love compass” is off. In fact “total depravity” (Calvin) or “original spark in man” (Arminian) is what original sin and thus bondage of the will IS, and what wrath “feel’s like”.

  • larry

    As Luther points out the rejection of a thing does not negate its reality but in fact affirms it. The baptized Lutheran (whomever) does receive as the Word speaks in Acts 2 for example 1. The forgiveness of sins and 2. The Holy Spirit. Rejecting this as an atheist before baptism (as I did) or after merely points out its reality. I rejected BEING baptized because it was exactly what it said it was not because it was not what it said it was, which would be rejecting nothing. As Luther points out, people go to hell, i.e. “not saved”, because they reject the son, not because they violate Moses. The later concept of hell, because they violate Moses or some form of virtuousness called “law” broadly is really not the Christian hell spoken of in Scripture, but a pathetic pagan hell which simply does not exist.
    If one examines Calvin and Arminian doctrine its really nothing knew and comes from out of the scholastics and other schools of thought at the time (e.g. the mystics) that all functioned pre-reformation under the official umbrella of Rome. All that really happened post reformation was the lifting, officially, of the papal authority whereby these schools continued their lines of reasoning into error which find today in the schools of Arminianism and Calvinism most broadly and all variations there of.
    Both doctrinal schools ultimately hold out for the free will as manifest in the issue over the sacraments. Arminians overtly, Calvinist covertly, Arminians like their Roman scholastic sources held out for that “spark” via creation that gives them the ability to choose, Calvinist like their Roman mystic and Augustinian sources move this to the “post conversion can’t fall away position” and call it “the work of the Holy Spirit who now empowers the doing of the law via the free will, this is ultimately rooted in a false understanding of what the fall is (and ultimately what hell is for as above). That’s what “total depravity” is in Calvinistic thought/doctrine, the “love (i.e. law) compass”, as Paulson puts it, is “off the mark” and the Holy Spirit is needed to (post conversion) begin setting this straight. But “holy spirit” here is really covert for “free will” (Calvinist move it to the post conversion position and rename it HS). Thus, total depravity as begotten by the “fall” is the “love compass” out of tune and conversation goes like this, “you think man is bad, well we say depraved, nea, totally depraved”. They caveat, not as evil as he could be if not restrained or “utter depravity” but “totally depraved” in that all things of man affected. I.e. the extinct is “total”, and thus they think spoken different than Arminians by extinguishing that “residual created spark within man” by smearing the totality of the depravity to every part of a man. But the key is not its “totality” or extent but that it is the “love (law) compass” is off and this is thought to be the “fall of man” “his love has been altered in a evil way”. Thus, you hear of “the chief end of man is love God and enjoy Him forever”. This “total depravity” is not the “bondage of the will” of which Luther speaks. The fall as Luther identifies is a “trust issue” man no longer trusts the Word and God’s Worded things, but distrusts God and seeks other words, then trusts his faith and thus becomes his own God. This is the bondage of the will not “total depravity” ala Calvin.

    The fundamental of the fall as Paulson well points out that Luther is explaining that Scripture is explaining is that man first, man receives a Word from God and then questions, is mystified or offended by it (e.g. you shall not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this is my body, this baptism saves you, etc…). Second, he imagines God is hiding something (trying to begin to see God in the nude via reason) better from him and thus goes searching for ‘other words’; “God cannot mean you will really die”, “Jesus must have meant ‘this represents’ or ‘this is a sign of’”, “the scriptures must mean a ‘spiritual baptism’ or some ‘inward reality baptism’ but not water”, etc…. Then man goes on to believe/trust his own believing/trusting as if these words were better than the promises from the Holy Spirit. In this way man becomes his own God. Luther ultimately saw Zwingli and the very issue of the LS as Zwingli returning to original sin (and Calvin by extension).

    That’s how its always done. One goes to the Word that incredibly against reason and experience says, “this is my body shed for the forgiveness of your sins”, “this baptism saves you”, then comes the words of the serpent in our own heads so to speak or doctrinally spoken from a heterodoxy, “now that’s not what that means it’s a “spiritual baptism” or sign pointing elsewhere (the other words). Reason disguised as faith then tempts faith away from the Word.

    So it’s not as if the Word of God fails or “is not” in baptism or the Lord’s Supper or absolution, it does not, but that men ultimately are condemned (which brings us full circle) not for violating Moses, but rejecting the Son. And they do this to hold out for “free will” and the law so that “my part” contributes to “my salvation” which gets back to original sin, what it is and what it is not. It’s a trust issue in the Word (bondage of the will to trust other words and itself) and not that the “love compass” is off. In fact “total depravity” (Calvin) or “original spark in man” (Arminian) is what original sin and thus bondage of the will IS, and what wrath “feel’s like”.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Joanne, #215: “Faith that is not fed with the Word and mysteries will die, that’s why we have Lutherans in Hell.

    Their promisers failed them or

    they rejected the faith that the Holy Spirit gave them.”

    Conclusion: The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God. Hence, there are baptized Lutherans in Hell.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Joanne, #215: “Faith that is not fed with the Word and mysteries will die, that’s why we have Lutherans in Hell.

    Their promisers failed them or

    they rejected the faith that the Holy Spirit gave them.”

    Conclusion: The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God. Hence, there are baptized Lutherans in Hell.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    TUD loves him some hell.
    TUD hates him some baptism.

    I’m the same way.
    Except I love God’s gift of baptism
    And hate hell.

    I wonder if TUD thinks I’m in or out?

    How many TUDs does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
    Two. One to screw it in. And the other to talk about Lutherans in hell.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    TUD loves him some hell.
    TUD hates him some baptism.

    I’m the same way.
    Except I love God’s gift of baptism
    And hate hell.

    I wonder if TUD thinks I’m in or out?

    How many TUDs does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
    Two. One to screw it in. And the other to talk about Lutherans in hell.

  • Grace

    I don’t agree with everything Truth Unites… and Divides posts. Having said that, I certainly don’t see your point in how you address him, you could use “Truth” or “Unities.” But to address him as TUD and Tuds, brings you down to another level. Perhaps we could start addressing you as Pickle! It seems rather appropriate after your little song and dance @ 239 :razz:

  • Grace

    I don’t agree with everything Truth Unites… and Divides posts. Having said that, I certainly don’t see your point in how you address him, you could use “Truth” or “Unities.” But to address him as TUD and Tuds, brings you down to another level. Perhaps we could start addressing you as Pickle! It seems rather appropriate after your little song and dance @ 239 :razz:

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Grace, wouldn’t the analogy be WBP? Which is in common usage in my usual haunts. But Pickle is fine if you like. As for bringing me down a level? That seems a bit gratuitous. But if descend I must…

    Perhaps the more important question is what did you think of the song and dance @ 239? I had invested my heart and seriousness @ 228, leaving me with only a bit of silliness. For the record, I don’t think it suffers in comparison with the rather repetitive TUD. But I guess I don’t take his argument seriously. He would be more convincing if he was the least bit interested in understanding where other people are coming from. But he’s not. He’s a one trick pony with a well-worn axe. Ho hum.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Grace, wouldn’t the analogy be WBP? Which is in common usage in my usual haunts. But Pickle is fine if you like. As for bringing me down a level? That seems a bit gratuitous. But if descend I must…

    Perhaps the more important question is what did you think of the song and dance @ 239? I had invested my heart and seriousness @ 228, leaving me with only a bit of silliness. For the record, I don’t think it suffers in comparison with the rather repetitive TUD. But I guess I don’t take his argument seriously. He would be more convincing if he was the least bit interested in understanding where other people are coming from. But he’s not. He’s a one trick pony with a well-worn axe. Ho hum.

  • Grace

    WBP

    Think about the situtation a bit more, it just might not be what you think it is.

  • Grace

    WBP

    Think about the situtation a bit more, it just might not be what you think it is.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Absolutely true. It may not be. For instance. TUD might actually be a strong defender of infant baptism who is trying to sharpen the arguments of those with whom he agrees. If this is true, then he’s practically begging for a robust defense of infant baptism. This then is what I would give him/her:

    This thread is filled with comments that speculate, that use the third person, singular and plural. These comments are speculative, most especially those of TUD. Theology doesn’t work that way. Theology works by direct address, second person. This is why God sends preachers, to deliver good news, “blessed are the feet of him who brings good news…” and “faith comes by hearing.” Faith is delivered by God to us via other people using direct address. So talking about hypothetical Lutherans in hell is just lousy theology. No, it isn’t even theology; it is morbid speculation.

    So if TUD is trying to get someone to taunt someone into identifying his arguments as pseudo-religious, speculative clap-trap, then I guess I’m more than happy to do it.

    Of course, there might be something else I’m not aware of. TUD might be desperately seeking reassurance. S/he might be in bondage to sin and doubt, hoping against hope that someone will provide him/her with an argument that will be convincing. Well, there is no argument that will be convincing. The will that is in bondage can be freed by Christ, but not by logic. Logic has the power condemn, but not to set free.

    TUD might just be having fun, yanking people’s doilies. Not my kind of hobby, but I suppose it’s possible.

    In any event, on the internet especially, it’s always difficult to know for sure. So it’s probably best to avoid nasty attacks and so on. Was I less than civil? Perhaps I could have done better, but I was hoping to break through the farce as I understood it.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Absolutely true. It may not be. For instance. TUD might actually be a strong defender of infant baptism who is trying to sharpen the arguments of those with whom he agrees. If this is true, then he’s practically begging for a robust defense of infant baptism. This then is what I would give him/her:

    This thread is filled with comments that speculate, that use the third person, singular and plural. These comments are speculative, most especially those of TUD. Theology doesn’t work that way. Theology works by direct address, second person. This is why God sends preachers, to deliver good news, “blessed are the feet of him who brings good news…” and “faith comes by hearing.” Faith is delivered by God to us via other people using direct address. So talking about hypothetical Lutherans in hell is just lousy theology. No, it isn’t even theology; it is morbid speculation.

    So if TUD is trying to get someone to taunt someone into identifying his arguments as pseudo-religious, speculative clap-trap, then I guess I’m more than happy to do it.

    Of course, there might be something else I’m not aware of. TUD might be desperately seeking reassurance. S/he might be in bondage to sin and doubt, hoping against hope that someone will provide him/her with an argument that will be convincing. Well, there is no argument that will be convincing. The will that is in bondage can be freed by Christ, but not by logic. Logic has the power condemn, but not to set free.

    TUD might just be having fun, yanking people’s doilies. Not my kind of hobby, but I suppose it’s possible.

    In any event, on the internet especially, it’s always difficult to know for sure. So it’s probably best to avoid nasty attacks and so on. Was I less than civil? Perhaps I could have done better, but I was hoping to break through the farce as I understood it.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Tom,
    As a former Calvinist, I applaud your connection of the terms rationalist and populist in your post above, and then going on to add the term spohistry. Why? Because that is exactly what happens when man tries to explain that of which he is clearly ignorant. It is the soteriological equivalent of transubstantionary argumentation – it attempts to explain the mysteries which were left outside the realm of or comprehension. True reason recognizes this, because it recognizes the limitations of human comprehension etc etc. This Calvin tried to breach, and the mess of predestinatory theology, and its pietistic cousin, Arminianism, followed.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Tom,
    As a former Calvinist, I applaud your connection of the terms rationalist and populist in your post above, and then going on to add the term spohistry. Why? Because that is exactly what happens when man tries to explain that of which he is clearly ignorant. It is the soteriological equivalent of transubstantionary argumentation – it attempts to explain the mysteries which were left outside the realm of or comprehension. True reason recognizes this, because it recognizes the limitations of human comprehension etc etc. This Calvin tried to breach, and the mess of predestinatory theology, and its pietistic cousin, Arminianism, followed.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Klasie Kraalogies, #244: “I applaud your connection the terms rationalist and populist in your post above, and then going on to add the term spohistry. Why? Because that is exactly what happens when man tries to explain that of which he is clearly ignorant.”

    That is exactly what happened in this explanation given earlier at #215:

    “During the mystery of the washing of regeration, when the Word is added to the water, the Holy Spirit enters the water. When the water is applied to the infant, the Holy Spirit enters that baby and creates faith and causes that infant to accept the Kingdom of God. This baby is now saved by the Word of God and the washing of regeneration all performed by the Holy Spirit.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Klasie Kraalogies, #244: “I applaud your connection the terms rationalist and populist in your post above, and then going on to add the term spohistry. Why? Because that is exactly what happens when man tries to explain that of which he is clearly ignorant.”

    That is exactly what happened in this explanation given earlier at #215:

    “During the mystery of the washing of regeration, when the Word is added to the water, the Holy Spirit enters the water. When the water is applied to the infant, the Holy Spirit enters that baby and creates faith and causes that infant to accept the Kingdom of God. This baby is now saved by the Word of God and the washing of regeneration all performed by the Holy Spirit.”

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    #215 is a pretty good summary of Titus 3.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    #215 is a pretty good summary of Titus 3.

  • LC

    @ WBP in 243

    That. was. awesome.

  • LC

    @ WBP in 243

    That. was. awesome.

  • Grace

    LC @ 247

    “@ WBP in 243 That. was. awesome.”

    Let Truth speak for himself!

  • Grace

    LC @ 247

    “@ WBP in 243 That. was. awesome.”

    Let Truth speak for himself!

  • Grace

    W.B. Picklesworth @ 243

    Are you capable of letting Truth Unites… and Divides speak for hinself or are you more inclined to, misrepresent what he stated? Guessing as to what wanted others to hear? – of course to your benefit …. but of course!!!!!

  • Grace

    W.B. Picklesworth @ 243

    Are you capable of letting Truth Unites… and Divides speak for hinself or are you more inclined to, misrepresent what he stated? Guessing as to what wanted others to hear? – of course to your benefit …. but of course!!!!!

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Mark Veenman, #68: “Grace, you’ve got to open up your mind to baptismal regeneration!”

    Mark Veenman, #215: “#215 is a pretty good summary of Titus 3.”

    Here’s a better understanding of Titus 3:

    “It is common when the discussion of baptismal regeneration comes up between Protestants and Catholics [and Lutherans], the Catholic [and Lutheran] is quick to point to Titus 3:5 to argue for baptismal regeneration. The assumption given is that this passage speaks so clearly and evenly about being regenerated by water of baptism that it becomes the hammer in the discussion. Trying to discuss passages that speak of regeneration being an act of God alone outside the context of ritual becomes irrelevant. It becomes, then, an example of arriving at one’s conclusion before proving it.

    As one who adheres to Sola Scriptura, it is my assertion that the text does not speak of baptismal regeneration, and that it is a tradition forced onto Titus 3:5. If we allow the text to define its own meaning, and allow it to speak on its own terms, then I believe that we will find an entirely different viewpoint than what the Catholic will hold to.

    Let us look into the surrounding context, then. Titus 3:4-7:

    But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

    He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

    so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

    When the entire sentence is read, one must wonder where the argument holds ground in the first place. For in the text, several things are certain:

    • God is the subject. He is doing the saving (v. 5)
    • God’s mercy is given as the motivation for the action
    • There is an explicit denial of human activity, as he has not saved us by works done in righteousness
    • The agency of the salvation is not of human origin, as both washing of regeneration and renewal have the Holy Spirit as the source
    • The means by which we received the Holy Spirit upon us was Jesus

    So, one has to wonder the basis upon which the Catholic [and Lutheran] feels justified to argue that baptism done by human accomplishes spiritual regeneration.

    The focal point of the argument seems to hinge upon a singular word, which carries with it a great deal of assumption and theological baggage. It is the word “washing.” Though it looks to be a verb, it is, in fact, a noun. The verb-like qualities often confuse people as to its meaning. We will deal with that term momentarily.

    (To be continued)

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Mark Veenman, #68: “Grace, you’ve got to open up your mind to baptismal regeneration!”

    Mark Veenman, #215: “#215 is a pretty good summary of Titus 3.”

    Here’s a better understanding of Titus 3:

    “It is common when the discussion of baptismal regeneration comes up between Protestants and Catholics [and Lutherans], the Catholic [and Lutheran] is quick to point to Titus 3:5 to argue for baptismal regeneration. The assumption given is that this passage speaks so clearly and evenly about being regenerated by water of baptism that it becomes the hammer in the discussion. Trying to discuss passages that speak of regeneration being an act of God alone outside the context of ritual becomes irrelevant. It becomes, then, an example of arriving at one’s conclusion before proving it.

    As one who adheres to Sola Scriptura, it is my assertion that the text does not speak of baptismal regeneration, and that it is a tradition forced onto Titus 3:5. If we allow the text to define its own meaning, and allow it to speak on its own terms, then I believe that we will find an entirely different viewpoint than what the Catholic will hold to.

    Let us look into the surrounding context, then. Titus 3:4-7:

    But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,

    He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

    so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

    When the entire sentence is read, one must wonder where the argument holds ground in the first place. For in the text, several things are certain:

    • God is the subject. He is doing the saving (v. 5)
    • God’s mercy is given as the motivation for the action
    • There is an explicit denial of human activity, as he has not saved us by works done in righteousness
    • The agency of the salvation is not of human origin, as both washing of regeneration and renewal have the Holy Spirit as the source
    • The means by which we received the Holy Spirit upon us was Jesus

    So, one has to wonder the basis upon which the Catholic [and Lutheran] feels justified to argue that baptism done by human accomplishes spiritual regeneration.

    The focal point of the argument seems to hinge upon a singular word, which carries with it a great deal of assumption and theological baggage. It is the word “washing.” Though it looks to be a verb, it is, in fact, a noun. The verb-like qualities often confuse people as to its meaning. We will deal with that term momentarily.

    (To be continued)

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    (continuing)

    Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

    It is important to note that at no point in this sentence are humans mentioned, nor is human activity ever the subject or means of any verb. But, humans are the objects of the main verb in this clause. He saved us. In looking into this passage, observing these things is important:

    • Who saved? God saved.
    • Saved whom? God saved us.
    • Why did he save? Because of his mercy.
    • By what means did he save? By the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Spirit.

    We observe from the very outset that human activity is explicitly denied in this passage. Certainly, if baptism were in view, we would see some reference to at least our obedience (if, perhaps someone wishes to separate obedience from an act of righteousness). There would at least be some reference to our activity. There is not, however. The phrase translated above as, “not on the basis of deeds” is a negation of human works. To further separate the work of salvation from human effort, Paul uses a strong adversative (grk. alla). Thus, a strong contrast is given here. It is not on the basis of works (not just any works, but those done in righteousness) but it is on the basis of his mercy. Thus, God was not motivated to save because of a work of man, even those deeds that are righteous (of which baptism is certainly one), but because of his mercy. Even still, baptism is not listed as a parallel activity, since the “washing” is not given as a separate function from the Holy Spirit. In other words, were one to be able to show that baptism does regenerate a person in other passages, it still does not affect the meaning of this passage. The meaning if this passage is that in every respect, we are saved by God, and not by any action on our part. It is entirely unilateral here. Therefore, even if a person baptized another, and regeneration happened at the same time, one could not say that the baptism performed in anyway resulted in regeneration. Otherwise, the meaning of the passage would be on its head, and the motivation for God to save would, indeed, we a work done in righteousness. If, truly, “all our righteousness is as filthy rags”, then even the greatest of our deeds does not merit eternal life. Surely, one could never make the case that anything less, or anything other than a righteous deed would be worthy of merit. But, Paul denies even the righteous deeds.

    A great deal of weight is placed upon the word “washing.” It is the Greek term loutron, which certainly bears that meaning. The idea of the word is a ritual cleansing, rather than simply a cleansing from dirt, though that meaning is there. The practice of ritual cleansing before service is not at all uncommon, as this was the rite the sons of Aaron were required to practice. Thus, many have gone through great lengths to somehow tie rituals of cleansing to loutron in this context. But, this is an example of what is often called “one-word exegesis”. This is another way of saying that the people are practicing eisegesis, or reading into the text their assumptions. Let me explain. A single word with no context has no meaning, since it has no defining parameters to limit its meaning. To put it another way, a word with no context bears every possible meaning that a dictionary might give it, including poetic and metaphoric usage. I have often used the word “fire” as an example. With no context, the word fire can be a command (Fire!) as in an execution, an exclamation (Fire!) as in the warning of a fire, it can mean passion ( heart of fire) or anger (heart of fire). Without context, it is simply impossible to know truly the meaning of a term.

    In this passage, there is no difference. Simply connecting the lexical meaning of loutron to ritual cleansing without observing what the context is telling us about that term is irresponsible exegesis. In the context, we must note that though the word is rich in meaning regarding ritual cleansing, and has been interpreted as baptism (being a Christian symbol of cleansing), loutron is the work of the Spirit, and not of men. In context (v. 1-3), Paul tells us that we need to be kind, respectful, and benevolent to others, “we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.” In contrast to that, God’s undeserved kindness and benevolence toward us resulted in our salvation. The sins and attributes that Paul uses to describe our lost state are grim, as Paul pulls no punches. But, works done in righteousness will not offset the ugliness of that sin. Therefore, in accordance with his mercy, he saved us, by pouring His Spirit upon us. He is the one who cleansed us, by His Spirit, as the passage clearly states.

    (To be continued)

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    (continuing)

    Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

    It is important to note that at no point in this sentence are humans mentioned, nor is human activity ever the subject or means of any verb. But, humans are the objects of the main verb in this clause. He saved us. In looking into this passage, observing these things is important:

    • Who saved? God saved.
    • Saved whom? God saved us.
    • Why did he save? Because of his mercy.
    • By what means did he save? By the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Spirit.

    We observe from the very outset that human activity is explicitly denied in this passage. Certainly, if baptism were in view, we would see some reference to at least our obedience (if, perhaps someone wishes to separate obedience from an act of righteousness). There would at least be some reference to our activity. There is not, however. The phrase translated above as, “not on the basis of deeds” is a negation of human works. To further separate the work of salvation from human effort, Paul uses a strong adversative (grk. alla). Thus, a strong contrast is given here. It is not on the basis of works (not just any works, but those done in righteousness) but it is on the basis of his mercy. Thus, God was not motivated to save because of a work of man, even those deeds that are righteous (of which baptism is certainly one), but because of his mercy. Even still, baptism is not listed as a parallel activity, since the “washing” is not given as a separate function from the Holy Spirit. In other words, were one to be able to show that baptism does regenerate a person in other passages, it still does not affect the meaning of this passage. The meaning if this passage is that in every respect, we are saved by God, and not by any action on our part. It is entirely unilateral here. Therefore, even if a person baptized another, and regeneration happened at the same time, one could not say that the baptism performed in anyway resulted in regeneration. Otherwise, the meaning of the passage would be on its head, and the motivation for God to save would, indeed, we a work done in righteousness. If, truly, “all our righteousness is as filthy rags”, then even the greatest of our deeds does not merit eternal life. Surely, one could never make the case that anything less, or anything other than a righteous deed would be worthy of merit. But, Paul denies even the righteous deeds.

    A great deal of weight is placed upon the word “washing.” It is the Greek term loutron, which certainly bears that meaning. The idea of the word is a ritual cleansing, rather than simply a cleansing from dirt, though that meaning is there. The practice of ritual cleansing before service is not at all uncommon, as this was the rite the sons of Aaron were required to practice. Thus, many have gone through great lengths to somehow tie rituals of cleansing to loutron in this context. But, this is an example of what is often called “one-word exegesis”. This is another way of saying that the people are practicing eisegesis, or reading into the text their assumptions. Let me explain. A single word with no context has no meaning, since it has no defining parameters to limit its meaning. To put it another way, a word with no context bears every possible meaning that a dictionary might give it, including poetic and metaphoric usage. I have often used the word “fire” as an example. With no context, the word fire can be a command (Fire!) as in an execution, an exclamation (Fire!) as in the warning of a fire, it can mean passion ( heart of fire) or anger (heart of fire). Without context, it is simply impossible to know truly the meaning of a term.

    In this passage, there is no difference. Simply connecting the lexical meaning of loutron to ritual cleansing without observing what the context is telling us about that term is irresponsible exegesis. In the context, we must note that though the word is rich in meaning regarding ritual cleansing, and has been interpreted as baptism (being a Christian symbol of cleansing), loutron is the work of the Spirit, and not of men. In context (v. 1-3), Paul tells us that we need to be kind, respectful, and benevolent to others, “we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.” In contrast to that, God’s undeserved kindness and benevolence toward us resulted in our salvation. The sins and attributes that Paul uses to describe our lost state are grim, as Paul pulls no punches. But, works done in righteousness will not offset the ugliness of that sin. Therefore, in accordance with his mercy, he saved us, by pouring His Spirit upon us. He is the one who cleansed us, by His Spirit, as the passage clearly states.

    (To be continued)

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    (concluding excerpt)


    Whom he poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ, our Savior.

    So, flowing into this next thought, having seen the meaning, we now see exactly the means of “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” Again, this next verse further denies human activity in that it is not the Spirit being poured out upon us in baptism, for it is not the work of man by which the Holy Spirit is poured out. God is the subject here. He poured out the Holy Spirit upon us. And, once again, neither man, nor the activity of man is the means of this activity, for it is Christ that is the means by which we have the Spirit.

    What we see, then, is that this passage is not speaking of water, or physical baptism. It is in fact using such language to refer to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is poured, not water, God does the pouring, not man, and water or ritual is not given as the means by which such is done, but either the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is the means, motivated by God’s mercy alone.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    (concluding excerpt)


    Whom he poured out richly upon us through Jesus Christ, our Savior.

    So, flowing into this next thought, having seen the meaning, we now see exactly the means of “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” Again, this next verse further denies human activity in that it is not the Spirit being poured out upon us in baptism, for it is not the work of man by which the Holy Spirit is poured out. God is the subject here. He poured out the Holy Spirit upon us. And, once again, neither man, nor the activity of man is the means of this activity, for it is Christ that is the means by which we have the Spirit.

    What we see, then, is that this passage is not speaking of water, or physical baptism. It is in fact using such language to refer to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is poured, not water, God does the pouring, not man, and water or ritual is not given as the means by which such is done, but either the Holy Spirit, or Jesus is the means, motivated by God’s mercy alone.”

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    TUD:
    Ergo, “water baptism” is a work of man. So you agree with the French court that it can be “undone”. That is the scriptural contention of the Church catholic: it cannot be undone because 1)there is no scriptural basis for undoing a baptism (of course you have to believe then that a baptism is valid because there is water and the spoken words) and 2)it is an act of God carried out through the arms and words of an ordained pastor who speaks His words.
    What’s clear is that the atheists and the anabaptists agree that baptism is forced on infants and is invalid because they didn’t make the choice to have it done. For you baptism is a work of man’s righteousness and you are imposing this belief on the text.

  • http://mark.veenman@gmail.com Mark Veenman

    TUD:
    Ergo, “water baptism” is a work of man. So you agree with the French court that it can be “undone”. That is the scriptural contention of the Church catholic: it cannot be undone because 1)there is no scriptural basis for undoing a baptism (of course you have to believe then that a baptism is valid because there is water and the spoken words) and 2)it is an act of God carried out through the arms and words of an ordained pastor who speaks His words.
    What’s clear is that the atheists and the anabaptists agree that baptism is forced on infants and is invalid because they didn’t make the choice to have it done. For you baptism is a work of man’s righteousness and you are imposing this belief on the text.

  • Tom Moeller

    Mark V: Said, “What’s clear is that the atheists and the anabaptists agree that baptism is forced on infants and is invalid because they didn’t make the choice to have it done.”

    That is a clarifying true statement.
    Take the opposite stance, not so much as affirming that the infant can make a choice, which man cannot say one way or another, but that baptism may well be at most efficatious simply because an infant will not choose to reject the gifts of baptism nor receive it with wrong motives. Woot!

  • Tom Moeller

    Mark V: Said, “What’s clear is that the atheists and the anabaptists agree that baptism is forced on infants and is invalid because they didn’t make the choice to have it done.”

    That is a clarifying true statement.
    Take the opposite stance, not so much as affirming that the infant can make a choice, which man cannot say one way or another, but that baptism may well be at most efficatious simply because an infant will not choose to reject the gifts of baptism nor receive it with wrong motives. Woot!

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    TUAD @ 245 – but Scripture does indeed say that Baptism now saves. And your side of the debate came up with other intellectual twisters, like parents’ faith saving kids (on what basis?), age of discernment? (Hello??? So, today I reached the age of discernment, so as I’m now culpable, I’ll go to hell when I day, whereas if I happened to die yesterday, I’d still be going to heaven – some Deity you worship!)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    TUAD @ 245 – but Scripture does indeed say that Baptism now saves. And your side of the debate came up with other intellectual twisters, like parents’ faith saving kids (on what basis?), age of discernment? (Hello??? So, today I reached the age of discernment, so as I’m now culpable, I’ll go to hell when I day, whereas if I happened to die yesterday, I’d still be going to heaven – some Deity you worship!)

  • Mark Veenman

    Well said, Klasie. There is only one thing worse than saying denying the saving efficacy of baptism: saying that its efficacy is predicated on the true faith of the parents. That is taught nowhere in scripture.

  • Mark Veenman

    Well said, Klasie. There is only one thing worse than saying denying the saving efficacy of baptism: saying that its efficacy is predicated on the true faith of the parents. That is taught nowhere in scripture.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    TUD makes some great points there! It is not any obedience of ours which saves, but God alone who does it. Yes, yes, yes! Baptism as a mere act of obedience is a pitiful thing. Good grief, a splashing of water, a short service, a commemorative candle. If we think this is some grand act of obedience that saves, then we are just being silly.

    No, the initiative is all on God’s part. It is his promise that saves, nothing of our obedience. We bring nothing to the font. In fact, we don’t even bring ourselves to the font. Here’s the thing (back to the second/third person thing,) for that baby being baptized, there has been no obedience, no act, no nothing. God has chosen, through events entirely beyond his control, to give a promise. This fits beautifully with so much of what TUD writes. If we shift the focus to the parents we miss the point entirely. We make it into an act of obedience. We make it into a matter of choice. No, it is election. And it is God who has done the electing, purely out of mercy.

    Now, having been baptized by no merit of their own, the one who is baptized can hold to this election rather than try to make some decision to come to God. Likewise, the one who is baptized doesn’t try to have to locate where this decision of God has happened in his life, “Has it happened?” “Did I receive God’s mercy that one time at camp? At the revival? Or do I just not know? Will I live my whole life long just hoping that maybe, perhaps, God will have mercy on me?” Goodness, it’s tough to have faith when there is only the subjective to cling to. And isn’t this where faith itself so often turns into the object of faith? “I believe x, y, and z vociferously, therefore I have faith, therefore God will have mercy on me, I hope (but I don’t know.”

    Actually, I have no idea that TUD believes any of these things at all, I’m just trying to work with the implications. In any event, I am thankful for his/her clear teaching that baptism is no work of obedience. No, but the pure mercy of God.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    TUD makes some great points there! It is not any obedience of ours which saves, but God alone who does it. Yes, yes, yes! Baptism as a mere act of obedience is a pitiful thing. Good grief, a splashing of water, a short service, a commemorative candle. If we think this is some grand act of obedience that saves, then we are just being silly.

    No, the initiative is all on God’s part. It is his promise that saves, nothing of our obedience. We bring nothing to the font. In fact, we don’t even bring ourselves to the font. Here’s the thing (back to the second/third person thing,) for that baby being baptized, there has been no obedience, no act, no nothing. God has chosen, through events entirely beyond his control, to give a promise. This fits beautifully with so much of what TUD writes. If we shift the focus to the parents we miss the point entirely. We make it into an act of obedience. We make it into a matter of choice. No, it is election. And it is God who has done the electing, purely out of mercy.

    Now, having been baptized by no merit of their own, the one who is baptized can hold to this election rather than try to make some decision to come to God. Likewise, the one who is baptized doesn’t try to have to locate where this decision of God has happened in his life, “Has it happened?” “Did I receive God’s mercy that one time at camp? At the revival? Or do I just not know? Will I live my whole life long just hoping that maybe, perhaps, God will have mercy on me?” Goodness, it’s tough to have faith when there is only the subjective to cling to. And isn’t this where faith itself so often turns into the object of faith? “I believe x, y, and z vociferously, therefore I have faith, therefore God will have mercy on me, I hope (but I don’t know.”

    Actually, I have no idea that TUD believes any of these things at all, I’m just trying to work with the implications. In any event, I am thankful for his/her clear teaching that baptism is no work of obedience. No, but the pure mercy of God.

  • kerner

    I haven’t really been reading this thread till today, but I just read most of it. Anyway, I think TU&D deservers an answer to his oft repeated question about what the Large Catechism says about baptism and its salvific nature. THe entire article is here:

    http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

    It’s not that long, TU&D, and it would be best to read the whole thing.

    But I’ll print a very short exerpt that gets to your other questions more directly:

    “30 Now, they are so mad as to separate faith, and that to which faith clings and is bound, though it be something external. Yea, it shall and must be something external, that it may be apprehended by the senses, and understood and thereby be brought into the heart, as indeed the entire Gospel is an external, verbal preaching. In short, what God does and works in us He proposes to work through such external ordinances. Wherever, therefore, He speaks, yea, in whichever direction or by whatever means He speaks, thither faith must look, and to that it must hold.”

    The point being, in Lutheran theology, baptism acts upon the heart in the same way as the preaching (or reading) of God’s Word.

    We know from Scripture:

    “14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
    “15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
    16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
    17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:15-17

    And we know:

    “4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4

    And also:

    “11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

    Even you would not deny (at least I think you wouldn’t) that the preaching of God’s Word is salvific. It “saves us” in the sense that God uses it to create faith in us. Yet, the compilation, writing down, copying, and preaching of “God’s Word” are all things the Church does or has done. If the Church did not do these things, no one would be saved, unless God chose to act on people’s hearts by some other means of His grace.

    But we also know that not everyone who hears God’s Word is saved. So should your colloquy go like this:

    Lutherans: Romans 10:17, Matthew 4:4, Isaiah 55:11

    People who heard God’s Word, but are yet in Hell: “Well, we heard God’s Word, and yet faith didn”t (ultimately) come to us; We aren’t made alive by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, so, QED God’s Word IS void.”

    Lutherans: “The reason you are in Hell is not because there was something “non-saving” about God’s Word. The Reason you are in Hell is because YOU rejected God’s Word (and, incidentally, rejected your baptisms, if you had any). God’s Word (and baptism) always saves, in the same way that gold is always gold. But you threw it away.”

    Maybe this is going to trigger an “AHA!!!” response from you, TU&D. But now that I’ve given you the most direct answer to your questions that I can give, will you answer me this?

    Do you believe that God uses the work of the Church (at the very least, the preaching of God’s Word, which IS and can only be, the work of the Church, His people) as a, no, THE, means of saving souls?

    And if God uses the work of His people as the means of saving others, why don’t you believe that baptism (which is clearly a work of the Church and commanded by God) is one of the means God uses to save people? Especially since God’s Word is very clear that “baptism saves”, and washes away sins, and buries and resurrects us with Christ, and puts Christ on us, etc.?

  • kerner

    I haven’t really been reading this thread till today, but I just read most of it. Anyway, I think TU&D deservers an answer to his oft repeated question about what the Large Catechism says about baptism and its salvific nature. THe entire article is here:

    http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

    It’s not that long, TU&D, and it would be best to read the whole thing.

    But I’ll print a very short exerpt that gets to your other questions more directly:

    “30 Now, they are so mad as to separate faith, and that to which faith clings and is bound, though it be something external. Yea, it shall and must be something external, that it may be apprehended by the senses, and understood and thereby be brought into the heart, as indeed the entire Gospel is an external, verbal preaching. In short, what God does and works in us He proposes to work through such external ordinances. Wherever, therefore, He speaks, yea, in whichever direction or by whatever means He speaks, thither faith must look, and to that it must hold.”

    The point being, in Lutheran theology, baptism acts upon the heart in the same way as the preaching (or reading) of God’s Word.

    We know from Scripture:

    “14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
    “15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
    16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
    17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:15-17

    And we know:

    “4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4

    And also:

    “11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

    Even you would not deny (at least I think you wouldn’t) that the preaching of God’s Word is salvific. It “saves us” in the sense that God uses it to create faith in us. Yet, the compilation, writing down, copying, and preaching of “God’s Word” are all things the Church does or has done. If the Church did not do these things, no one would be saved, unless God chose to act on people’s hearts by some other means of His grace.

    But we also know that not everyone who hears God’s Word is saved. So should your colloquy go like this:

    Lutherans: Romans 10:17, Matthew 4:4, Isaiah 55:11

    People who heard God’s Word, but are yet in Hell: “Well, we heard God’s Word, and yet faith didn”t (ultimately) come to us; We aren’t made alive by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, so, QED God’s Word IS void.”

    Lutherans: “The reason you are in Hell is not because there was something “non-saving” about God’s Word. The Reason you are in Hell is because YOU rejected God’s Word (and, incidentally, rejected your baptisms, if you had any). God’s Word (and baptism) always saves, in the same way that gold is always gold. But you threw it away.”

    Maybe this is going to trigger an “AHA!!!” response from you, TU&D. But now that I’ve given you the most direct answer to your questions that I can give, will you answer me this?

    Do you believe that God uses the work of the Church (at the very least, the preaching of God’s Word, which IS and can only be, the work of the Church, His people) as a, no, THE, means of saving souls?

    And if God uses the work of His people as the means of saving others, why don’t you believe that baptism (which is clearly a work of the Church and commanded by God) is one of the means God uses to save people? Especially since God’s Word is very clear that “baptism saves”, and washes away sins, and buries and resurrects us with Christ, and puts Christ on us, etc.?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Joanne, #215: “Faith that is not fed with the Word and mysteries will die, that’s why we have Lutherans in Hell.

    Their promisers failed them or

    they rejected the faith that the Holy Spirit gave them.

    Kerner, #258: “Lutherans: “The reason you are in Hell is not because there was something “non-saving” about God’s Word. The Reason you are in Hell is because YOU rejected God’s Word (and, incidentally, rejected your baptisms, if you had any). God’s Word (and baptism) always saves, in the same way that gold is always gold. But you threw it away.”

    Joanne, Kerner, here’s what you’re both concluding given your Lutheran theology:

    The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God in the baptisms given in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches.

    Agreed?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Joanne, #215: “Faith that is not fed with the Word and mysteries will die, that’s why we have Lutherans in Hell.

    Their promisers failed them or

    they rejected the faith that the Holy Spirit gave them.

    Kerner, #258: “Lutherans: “The reason you are in Hell is not because there was something “non-saving” about God’s Word. The Reason you are in Hell is because YOU rejected God’s Word (and, incidentally, rejected your baptisms, if you had any). God’s Word (and baptism) always saves, in the same way that gold is always gold. But you threw it away.”

    Joanne, Kerner, here’s what you’re both concluding given your Lutheran theology:

    The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God in the baptisms given in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches.

    Agreed?

  • Mark Veenman

    Tud
    This is Kuyper’s presumptive regeneration. You’re CRC, or I eat my socks.

  • Mark Veenman

    Tud
    This is Kuyper’s presumptive regeneration. You’re CRC, or I eat my socks.

  • kerner

    TU&D @259:

    Slow down there buckaroo. I just got done responding to you, but you haven’t responded to me.

    I asked you whether you agree that, while faith is a free gift of God, by His grace, the means that God has chosen to convey that grace is through the work of His people, eg. the preaching of God’s Word, which is something God’s people do. Well? What’s your answer?

    Once we establish whether God uses His people to go about conveying faith, by His grace, to the lost (or formerly lost), we can then discuss whether Scripture teaches that baptism is one of the things God’s people do that God uses as a means to accomplish that.

    After we’ve done all that, we can decide whether, having received all this “work” of God, a person can reject that “work” by his own will.

    I’ll narrow the field a little for you though. That a baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is what counts. It doesn’t matter whether it was in a Lutheran Church by a Lutheran clergyman. Mine wasn’t.

    We aren’t going to skip all those intervening steps. One thing at a time.

  • kerner

    TU&D @259:

    Slow down there buckaroo. I just got done responding to you, but you haven’t responded to me.

    I asked you whether you agree that, while faith is a free gift of God, by His grace, the means that God has chosen to convey that grace is through the work of His people, eg. the preaching of God’s Word, which is something God’s people do. Well? What’s your answer?

    Once we establish whether God uses His people to go about conveying faith, by His grace, to the lost (or formerly lost), we can then discuss whether Scripture teaches that baptism is one of the things God’s people do that God uses as a means to accomplish that.

    After we’ve done all that, we can decide whether, having received all this “work” of God, a person can reject that “work” by his own will.

    I’ll narrow the field a little for you though. That a baptism is in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is what counts. It doesn’t matter whether it was in a Lutheran Church by a Lutheran clergyman. Mine wasn’t.

    We aren’t going to skip all those intervening steps. One thing at a time.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    Answer #259, if you will. We can proceed from there. Thanks.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    Answer #259, if you will. We can proceed from there. Thanks.

  • kerner

    TU&D @262:

    It would be wrong for me to put that cart before the horse.

    Listen, you just spent three long posts (@250-252) on the subject of the source of our salvation. One of the concluding statements is:

    Again, this next verse further denies human activity in that it is not the Spirit being poured out upon us in baptism, for it is not the work of man by which the Holy Spirit is poured out. God is the subject here. He poured out the Holy Spirit upon us. And, once again, neither man, nor the activity of man is the means of this activity, for it is Christ that is the means by which we have the Spirit.

    If this is truly one of your underlying principles, it needs to be revised, because it is, at best, superficial and incomplete. And the reason you don’t want to answer my questions is that you know why the statement is wrong. Look again at Romans 10:14:

    “14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

    I’m sure we can both agree that God could have invented a system for conveying faith, the forgiveness of sins, the outpouring of His Holy Spirit, and all that Christianity is to people without human activity. He could speak to us all directly from a burning bush or His word could come to us like it did to the OT prophets. Or he could send his angels to write His Word in the sky. Or any number of ways.

    But God, for reasons known only to Him, chose to do otherwise. For the very great majority of believers, we heard about God the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God’s Word, as written and printed, or as verbally preached by The Church, God’s people, the Body of Christ. But writing and printing and preaching IS “the activity of man” in the limited sense that it is people who do it in God’s name. As the verse says: “How shall they hear without a preacher?” Well, God could make us hear without a preacher, but most of the time He sends a preacher.

    So, before we go any further, you need to admit this error. None of us here were saved without human activity. Of course it is God who, through no merit or work of ours, has saved us. But for each one of us, there was some other Christian whose activity God chose as a means to work through to get our salvation done.

    You know this to be true, and I believe you are afraid of this truth. Which, for a guy who goes by the name “Truth” is pretty ironic, don’t you think?

  • kerner

    TU&D @262:

    It would be wrong for me to put that cart before the horse.

    Listen, you just spent three long posts (@250-252) on the subject of the source of our salvation. One of the concluding statements is:

    Again, this next verse further denies human activity in that it is not the Spirit being poured out upon us in baptism, for it is not the work of man by which the Holy Spirit is poured out. God is the subject here. He poured out the Holy Spirit upon us. And, once again, neither man, nor the activity of man is the means of this activity, for it is Christ that is the means by which we have the Spirit.

    If this is truly one of your underlying principles, it needs to be revised, because it is, at best, superficial and incomplete. And the reason you don’t want to answer my questions is that you know why the statement is wrong. Look again at Romans 10:14:

    “14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

    I’m sure we can both agree that God could have invented a system for conveying faith, the forgiveness of sins, the outpouring of His Holy Spirit, and all that Christianity is to people without human activity. He could speak to us all directly from a burning bush or His word could come to us like it did to the OT prophets. Or he could send his angels to write His Word in the sky. Or any number of ways.

    But God, for reasons known only to Him, chose to do otherwise. For the very great majority of believers, we heard about God the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit from God’s Word, as written and printed, or as verbally preached by The Church, God’s people, the Body of Christ. But writing and printing and preaching IS “the activity of man” in the limited sense that it is people who do it in God’s name. As the verse says: “How shall they hear without a preacher?” Well, God could make us hear without a preacher, but most of the time He sends a preacher.

    So, before we go any further, you need to admit this error. None of us here were saved without human activity. Of course it is God who, through no merit or work of ours, has saved us. But for each one of us, there was some other Christian whose activity God chose as a means to work through to get our salvation done.

    You know this to be true, and I believe you are afraid of this truth. Which, for a guy who goes by the name “Truth” is pretty ironic, don’t you think?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    Answering “Yes, Agreed” or “No, Disagree” to #259 with supporting reasons would be helpful. Thanks.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    Answering “Yes, Agreed” or “No, Disagree” to #259 with supporting reasons would be helpful. Thanks.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    For you to answer my question:

    Does God save souls by means of the human activity, or “work” of His people?

    With a “Yes, agreed” or “No, disagree” would be helpful, too.

    You insist on others answering questions, but you won’t answer any yourself. You asked: ““What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell?” at least 3 times, @ 155, 193, 196. I saw that no one had directly answered you, so I did you the courtesy of spending a good deal of time on an answer. I also asked a couple of questions in return, but you have not answered any of them.

    I will not be cross examined here. If I answer one of your questions (which I have), you will answer one of mine (which you have not) before this conversation can continue. If you really want an answer to your question (which I will provide) you know what you have to do.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    For you to answer my question:

    Does God save souls by means of the human activity, or “work” of His people?

    With a “Yes, agreed” or “No, disagree” would be helpful, too.

    You insist on others answering questions, but you won’t answer any yourself. You asked: ““What does Martin Luther say in his Large or Small Catechisms about baptized Lutherans in Hell?” at least 3 times, @ 155, 193, 196. I saw that no one had directly answered you, so I did you the courtesy of spending a good deal of time on an answer. I also asked a couple of questions in return, but you have not answered any of them.

    I will not be cross examined here. If I answer one of your questions (which I have), you will answer one of mine (which you have not) before this conversation can continue. If you really want an answer to your question (which I will provide) you know what you have to do.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    It’s enjoyable interacting with you. God bless you.

    God elects to salvation those whom He sovereignly chooses, and using whatever variety of means He wants

    Pax..

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner,

    It’s enjoyable interacting with you. God bless you.

    God elects to salvation those whom He sovereignly chooses, and using whatever variety of means He wants

    Pax..

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Does God keep promises?

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Does God keep promises?

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Thanks for the answer. God does indeed use whatever means He wants. On the other hand, after St. Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus, every Christian conversion I am aware of has involved human activity on the part of people who were already saved.

    This is NOT to say that salvation is the work of man, and certainly not, not NOT the work of the person being converted. It is simply to acknowledge that the Church, which is called the Body of Christ, participates in carrying out Christ’s work on earth. That God chooses to involve us, His people, in his work is not a sign of some inherant merit on our part but is rather one more manifestation of His grace and mercy, without which we could do nothing pleasing to Him.

    It will take a little time to answer your question, as you ask for reasons. And like you, I am wary of adopting the terminology of the other side in this debate. Stand by.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Thanks for the answer. God does indeed use whatever means He wants. On the other hand, after St. Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus, every Christian conversion I am aware of has involved human activity on the part of people who were already saved.

    This is NOT to say that salvation is the work of man, and certainly not, not NOT the work of the person being converted. It is simply to acknowledge that the Church, which is called the Body of Christ, participates in carrying out Christ’s work on earth. That God chooses to involve us, His people, in his work is not a sign of some inherant merit on our part but is rather one more manifestation of His grace and mercy, without which we could do nothing pleasing to Him.

    It will take a little time to answer your question, as you ask for reasons. And like you, I am wary of adopting the terminology of the other side in this debate. Stand by.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    I promised you an answer, and now I am slow to give it. Sorry, but I have a lot on my plate professionally today.

    You asked:

    The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God in the baptisms given in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches.

    Agreed?

    If you are asking whether it is possible for a human being to reject the Holy Spirit of the Sovereign God who loves that pereson and wants the person to be saved so much that God became human and died for that person, and that said rejection (and consequent damnation) is the product of that person’s sinful will, and not God’s choice, then yes, I agree.

    My reasons are:

    John 3:16: “16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

    Romans 11:32: “32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    2 Peter 3:9: ” 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ”

    1 Timothy 2:3-5: ” 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.”

    So, here we have a SOvereign God who gave Himself for all men and wants them all to be saved. Yet, some of those same people are in Hell. How did that happen? Well:

    Matthew 23:37: 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”

    And this seems possible even after people wh have been exposed to and have accepted the Sovereign God’s Word:

    Matthew 13:18-23 ” 18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22 The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23 But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

    At lest the 2nd and 3rd groups have received the Word of the Sovereign God who wants to save them, and then reject it. Another verse that indicates that this can be done is:

    1 Timothy 1: 18-20 “18 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. ”

    So, a person can “wreck” his faith, which is a vessel he is already travelling on.

    There are more verses on this point but I have run out of time. The point is, that people atre responsible for their rejection of God, and sometimes even those who have been received the Holy Spirit do that.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    I promised you an answer, and now I am slow to give it. Sorry, but I have a lot on my plate professionally today.

    You asked:

    The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God in the baptisms given in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches.

    Agreed?

    If you are asking whether it is possible for a human being to reject the Holy Spirit of the Sovereign God who loves that pereson and wants the person to be saved so much that God became human and died for that person, and that said rejection (and consequent damnation) is the product of that person’s sinful will, and not God’s choice, then yes, I agree.

    My reasons are:

    John 3:16: “16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

    Romans 11:32: “32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    2 Peter 3:9: ” 9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ”

    1 Timothy 2:3-5: ” 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.”

    So, here we have a SOvereign God who gave Himself for all men and wants them all to be saved. Yet, some of those same people are in Hell. How did that happen? Well:

    Matthew 23:37: 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”

    And this seems possible even after people wh have been exposed to and have accepted the Sovereign God’s Word:

    Matthew 13:18-23 ” 18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. 22 The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. 23 But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

    At lest the 2nd and 3rd groups have received the Word of the Sovereign God who wants to save them, and then reject it. Another verse that indicates that this can be done is:

    1 Timothy 1: 18-20 “18 Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme. ”

    So, a person can “wreck” his faith, which is a vessel he is already travelling on.

    There are more verses on this point but I have run out of time. The point is, that people atre responsible for their rejection of God, and sometimes even those who have been received the Holy Spirit do that.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner: “If you are asking whether it is possible for a human being to reject the Holy Spirit of the Sovereign God who loves that pereson and wants the person to be saved so much that God became human and died for that person, and that said rejection (and consequent damnation) is the product of that person’s sinful will, and not God’s choice, then yes, I agree.”

    That’s not what I was asking. This is what I was asking:

    “Kerner, here’s what you’re concluding given your Lutheran theology:

    The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God in the baptisms given in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches.

    Agreed?”

    You would stipulate that Lutheran dogma does teach that people baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches have received the Holy Spirit. So then should some of these baptized Lutherans end up in Hell, then you’re stipulating that the work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God/Holy Spirit in the baptisms given to them in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches. And that this work of man overriding the work of God accounts for those baptized Lutherans who are in Hell.

    Agreed?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner: “If you are asking whether it is possible for a human being to reject the Holy Spirit of the Sovereign God who loves that pereson and wants the person to be saved so much that God became human and died for that person, and that said rejection (and consequent damnation) is the product of that person’s sinful will, and not God’s choice, then yes, I agree.”

    That’s not what I was asking. This is what I was asking:

    “Kerner, here’s what you’re concluding given your Lutheran theology:

    The work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God in the baptisms given in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches.

    Agreed?”

    You would stipulate that Lutheran dogma does teach that people baptized in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches have received the Holy Spirit. So then should some of these baptized Lutherans end up in Hell, then you’re stipulating that the work of man/men (meaning both men and women) can and sometimes does override the work of God/Holy Spirit in the baptisms given to them in the name of the Trinity by Lutheran clergy in Lutheran churches. And that this work of man overriding the work of God accounts for those baptized Lutherans who are in Hell.

    Agreed?

  • kerner

    I don’t have time to thoroughly analyse your exact words for levels of meaning I don’t mean to convey, but I think so. But, What is the big deal about limiting this to Lutherans baptized in Lutheran churches by Lutheran clergy? Whatever Lutheran theology says about baptism, I think it applies to all trinitarian baptisms in any Christian church by any clergy, or even a layman. Including your church, which you ahve not identified, but which I presume confesses the trinity. One of the things that bothers me about agreeing with what you are saying is that you insist on being very narrow and specific. This is the language of someone trying to set a verbal trap rather than someone trying to understand a concept. So let’s assume I bite and agree. What would be the consequence of that?

  • kerner

    I don’t have time to thoroughly analyse your exact words for levels of meaning I don’t mean to convey, but I think so. But, What is the big deal about limiting this to Lutherans baptized in Lutheran churches by Lutheran clergy? Whatever Lutheran theology says about baptism, I think it applies to all trinitarian baptisms in any Christian church by any clergy, or even a layman. Including your church, which you ahve not identified, but which I presume confesses the trinity. One of the things that bothers me about agreeing with what you are saying is that you insist on being very narrow and specific. This is the language of someone trying to set a verbal trap rather than someone trying to understand a concept. So let’s assume I bite and agree. What would be the consequence of that?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner: “What would be the consequence of that?”

    (Working within Lutheran theology) Given that you stipulate that the work of man can, and sometimes does, over-ride the work of the Holy Spirit in their baptism, with the end result of some of them becoming baptized Lutherans in Hell, the important consequence is that it is not accurate for Lutherans to proclaim:

    (1) “Baptism always saves.” Or

    (2) “Baptism now saves you [forever and ever].”

    Why then is it important to observe the inaccuracy in these Lutheran proclamations? Because it sometimes produces false assurance of eternal salvation in some baptized Lutherans.

    (Given Lutheran dogma) The most true and accurate thing to proclaim is something like the following dialogue:

    Honest Lutheran: “Sometimes baptism saves you, and sometimes it doesn’t save you.”

    Baptismal Candidate or Parents of Baptismal Candidate: “What do you mean?”

    Honest Lutheran: “It is possible for you to ultimately reject the Holy Spirit and the promises of God in your baptism, which will then nullify the work of the Holy Spirit, and which will result in you being in Hell. Of course, we pray and hope that doesn’t happen, and so we have catechism and confirmation.”

    Baptismal Candidate or Parents of Baptismal Candidate: “Are you being lovingly honest with me?”

    Honest Lutheran: “Yes. It’s not easy, but I think it’s best to be lovingly honest with you.”

    Baptismal Candidate or Parents of Baptismal Candidate: “Thanks. So my “work” can nullify God’s work in this baptism I’ll be receiving. May it never come to that, but what you’re really saying is that I ultimately have power/decision over whether I am saved in the end. I.e., It could happen that I, for whatever reason and however it happens, can nullify the work of the Holy Spirit and of God’s promises in this baptism and then end up in Hell. Is that right?”

    Honest Lutheran: “Yes. I can’t say for sure, but I think it’s reasonable to conclude that there are baptized Lutherans in Hell in which that happened.”

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Kerner: “What would be the consequence of that?”

    (Working within Lutheran theology) Given that you stipulate that the work of man can, and sometimes does, over-ride the work of the Holy Spirit in their baptism, with the end result of some of them becoming baptized Lutherans in Hell, the important consequence is that it is not accurate for Lutherans to proclaim:

    (1) “Baptism always saves.” Or

    (2) “Baptism now saves you [forever and ever].”

    Why then is it important to observe the inaccuracy in these Lutheran proclamations? Because it sometimes produces false assurance of eternal salvation in some baptized Lutherans.

    (Given Lutheran dogma) The most true and accurate thing to proclaim is something like the following dialogue:

    Honest Lutheran: “Sometimes baptism saves you, and sometimes it doesn’t save you.”

    Baptismal Candidate or Parents of Baptismal Candidate: “What do you mean?”

    Honest Lutheran: “It is possible for you to ultimately reject the Holy Spirit and the promises of God in your baptism, which will then nullify the work of the Holy Spirit, and which will result in you being in Hell. Of course, we pray and hope that doesn’t happen, and so we have catechism and confirmation.”

    Baptismal Candidate or Parents of Baptismal Candidate: “Are you being lovingly honest with me?”

    Honest Lutheran: “Yes. It’s not easy, but I think it’s best to be lovingly honest with you.”

    Baptismal Candidate or Parents of Baptismal Candidate: “Thanks. So my “work” can nullify God’s work in this baptism I’ll be receiving. May it never come to that, but what you’re really saying is that I ultimately have power/decision over whether I am saved in the end. I.e., It could happen that I, for whatever reason and however it happens, can nullify the work of the Holy Spirit and of God’s promises in this baptism and then end up in Hell. Is that right?”

    Honest Lutheran: “Yes. I can’t say for sure, but I think it’s reasonable to conclude that there are baptized Lutherans in Hell in which that happened.”

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Well. I have to admit, that didn’t hurt as much as I thought it would. And I don’t know whether anyone is rading this thread anymore.

    But your statement: “what you’re really saying is that I ultimately have power/decision over whether I am saved in the end” is close, but not quite accurate. But you are correct f you think that the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is closely tied to the Lutheran doctrine of election. The Lutheran doctrine is that the lost are responsible for their lost condition, whereas in the case of the saved, it is only the power and grace of God that creates achieves that end. It’s paradoxical, I know, But you can read the whole doctrine here:

    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php

    I don’t think what Lutherans actually say, that you are critical of, is the result of dishonesty, but more a function of the complex and paradoxical (and lengthy) nature of the Lutheran doctrine of election,. Also there is the focus of these discussions, and the way people usually talk. Example:

    CHRISTIANS COMING UPON A MAN SWIMING IN THE OPEN OCEAN:

    Lutheran: (Throwing donut shaped object) This life preserver, which God has made, will save you from drowning.

    Baptists and Reformed Christians: No it won’t? We only throw the life preserver because God commands it. It doesn’t save him, God saves him and his faith in God saves him.

    Lutheran: Well. God’s Word commands us to throw him the life preserver. But God’s Word also says it is one of the means by which God saves him. If he doesn’t believe in God, he will reject the Life preserver and drown. And this is even a life preserver that sticks to him without him actually grabbing it. Its a free gift. The drowning man doesn’t do anything.

    Baptists and Reformed Christians: You are just encouraging the man to have faith in an external thing, and that is works, not faith. You shouldn’t say that the life preserver saves him.

    Lutheran:

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Well. I have to admit, that didn’t hurt as much as I thought it would. And I don’t know whether anyone is rading this thread anymore.

    But your statement: “what you’re really saying is that I ultimately have power/decision over whether I am saved in the end” is close, but not quite accurate. But you are correct f you think that the Lutheran doctrine of baptism is closely tied to the Lutheran doctrine of election. The Lutheran doctrine is that the lost are responsible for their lost condition, whereas in the case of the saved, it is only the power and grace of God that creates achieves that end. It’s paradoxical, I know, But you can read the whole doctrine here:

    http://bookofconcord.org/sd-election.php

    I don’t think what Lutherans actually say, that you are critical of, is the result of dishonesty, but more a function of the complex and paradoxical (and lengthy) nature of the Lutheran doctrine of election,. Also there is the focus of these discussions, and the way people usually talk. Example:

    CHRISTIANS COMING UPON A MAN SWIMING IN THE OPEN OCEAN:

    Lutheran: (Throwing donut shaped object) This life preserver, which God has made, will save you from drowning.

    Baptists and Reformed Christians: No it won’t? We only throw the life preserver because God commands it. It doesn’t save him, God saves him and his faith in God saves him.

    Lutheran: Well. God’s Word commands us to throw him the life preserver. But God’s Word also says it is one of the means by which God saves him. If he doesn’t believe in God, he will reject the Life preserver and drown. And this is even a life preserver that sticks to him without him actually grabbing it. Its a free gift. The drowning man doesn’t do anything.

    Baptists and Reformed Christians: You are just encouraging the man to have faith in an external thing, and that is works, not faith. You shouldn’t say that the life preserver saves him.

    Lutheran:

  • kerner

    Lutheran: Well, I wouldn’t, but God’s Word says that it does, and I don’t want to re-write God’s Word just to avoid disagreeing with you.

    Baptists and reformed: The life preserver doesn’t save him>

    Lutheran: Does too!

    Baptists and Reformed: Does not!

    Lutheran: Does too!

    Baptists and Reformed: Does not!

    Lutheran: Does too!

    Baptists and Reformed: Does not!

    Lutheran: Does too!

    TU&D: Hey, don’t you teach that this guy can still drown if he throws awy the life preserver?

    Lutheran: Well, yeah.

    TU&D:

  • kerner

    Lutheran: Well, I wouldn’t, but God’s Word says that it does, and I don’t want to re-write God’s Word just to avoid disagreeing with you.

    Baptists and reformed: The life preserver doesn’t save him>

    Lutheran: Does too!

    Baptists and Reformed: Does not!

    Lutheran: Does too!

    Baptists and Reformed: Does not!

    Lutheran: Does too!

    Baptists and Reformed: Does not!

    Lutheran: Does too!

    TU&D: Hey, don’t you teach that this guy can still drown if he throws awy the life preserver?

    Lutheran: Well, yeah.

    TU&D:

  • kerner

    TU&D: Then the honest thing to do would be to say, ““It is possible for you to ultimately reject the Holy Spiritt and the promises of God in your life preserver, which will then nullify the work of the Holy Spirit, and which will result in you drowning in Hell. Of course, we pray and hope that doesn’t happen, and so we have catechism and confirmation.”

    Lutheran: First of all, we do say that, during catechism and Bible study and sermons as well. And of course, it is written in our Lutheran doctrinal books, which he could read. But is it really necessary to mention it every time we discuss Life preservers? I mean, isn’t it pretty obvious that if this guy manages to disconnect himself from the life preserver and reject it, that it will no longer keep him afloat, despite the fact that he once was connected to it?

    TU&D I think there are drowned Lutherans who thought that very thing.

    Lutheran: Well, maybe, but the other reason I didn’t mention it just now is that all these other Christians were arguing that the life preserver isn’t a means by which God saves this this guy in the first place. And they’re wrong, so I was responding to them. Besides, right now I’m just focusing of getting the life preserver to this guy in the first place.

    TU&D: All the same…

    Lutheran: OK, OK, so I’ll try to mention it more often.

  • kerner

    TU&D: Then the honest thing to do would be to say, ““It is possible for you to ultimately reject the Holy Spiritt and the promises of God in your life preserver, which will then nullify the work of the Holy Spirit, and which will result in you drowning in Hell. Of course, we pray and hope that doesn’t happen, and so we have catechism and confirmation.”

    Lutheran: First of all, we do say that, during catechism and Bible study and sermons as well. And of course, it is written in our Lutheran doctrinal books, which he could read. But is it really necessary to mention it every time we discuss Life preservers? I mean, isn’t it pretty obvious that if this guy manages to disconnect himself from the life preserver and reject it, that it will no longer keep him afloat, despite the fact that he once was connected to it?

    TU&D I think there are drowned Lutherans who thought that very thing.

    Lutheran: Well, maybe, but the other reason I didn’t mention it just now is that all these other Christians were arguing that the life preserver isn’t a means by which God saves this this guy in the first place. And they’re wrong, so I was responding to them. Besides, right now I’m just focusing of getting the life preserver to this guy in the first place.

    TU&D: All the same…

    Lutheran: OK, OK, so I’ll try to mention it more often.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Kerner, you wonder whether anyone is still reading. I’ve been continuing to check because this conversation is fascinating and because it’s a matter that has always remained just a little bit fuzzy for me.

    Oddly enough, I’ve found myself sympathizing with TUD’s argument. Not the speculative nature of it, which is troublesome, but the persistent pecking at the chink in the Lutheran theological armor, “Did God really mean it?” Is God just giving us a means to salvation at baptism? Or is he actually electing us, giving us faith and a promise that will endure?

    I’ve come to understand it as the latter, though this has difficulties: Mark says, “who believes and is baptized” not just “is baptized.” On the other hand, we cannot produce faith, but only receive it.

    Perhaps that is where this discussion runs aground. It seeks to make or defend a theological framework, but ultimately, theology is for proclamation (as Forde wrote.) By withholding the promise, (which TUD would presumably support in order to guard a system) we refrain from producing faith in others by the power of declaring God’s word. So what we gain in intellectual consistency, we lose in mission.

    In any event, I’ve appreciated the conversation and I thank you for continuing it.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Kerner, you wonder whether anyone is still reading. I’ve been continuing to check because this conversation is fascinating and because it’s a matter that has always remained just a little bit fuzzy for me.

    Oddly enough, I’ve found myself sympathizing with TUD’s argument. Not the speculative nature of it, which is troublesome, but the persistent pecking at the chink in the Lutheran theological armor, “Did God really mean it?” Is God just giving us a means to salvation at baptism? Or is he actually electing us, giving us faith and a promise that will endure?

    I’ve come to understand it as the latter, though this has difficulties: Mark says, “who believes and is baptized” not just “is baptized.” On the other hand, we cannot produce faith, but only receive it.

    Perhaps that is where this discussion runs aground. It seeks to make or defend a theological framework, but ultimately, theology is for proclamation (as Forde wrote.) By withholding the promise, (which TUD would presumably support in order to guard a system) we refrain from producing faith in others by the power of declaring God’s word. So what we gain in intellectual consistency, we lose in mission.

    In any event, I’ve appreciated the conversation and I thank you for continuing it.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    TUD, and I thank you too. I confess that I was rude earlier in this thread, but I came to appreciate your comments more as I realized that you weren’t just being an ass.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    TUD, and I thank you too. I confess that I was rude earlier in this thread, but I came to appreciate your comments more as I realized that you weren’t just being an ass.

  • kerner

    W.B. Picklesworth:

    You said:

    “Is God just giving us a means to salvation at baptism? Or is he actually electing us, giving us faith and a promise that will endure?

    I’ve come to understand it as the latter…”

    I don’t disagree with you. But I think that the real tough paradox is with the Lutheran doctrine of election. Saying that baptism is part of the process by which God elects us is the easy part. I believe the harder part is coming to grips with what election actually means, which i linked to @273.

    If you read the whole thing you can see that Lutheran theology includes the concept of apostacy, that is, people who believe and receive the Holy Spirit, but still fall away. Of course, we hope and believe that most of those who wander away are only prodigals who will eventually return to the Holy Spirit and faith. But what about those who have been baptised and confessed Christ, but later repudiate the faith and never come back? TU&D’s question is a fair one.

  • kerner

    W.B. Picklesworth:

    You said:

    “Is God just giving us a means to salvation at baptism? Or is he actually electing us, giving us faith and a promise that will endure?

    I’ve come to understand it as the latter…”

    I don’t disagree with you. But I think that the real tough paradox is with the Lutheran doctrine of election. Saying that baptism is part of the process by which God elects us is the easy part. I believe the harder part is coming to grips with what election actually means, which i linked to @273.

    If you read the whole thing you can see that Lutheran theology includes the concept of apostacy, that is, people who believe and receive the Holy Spirit, but still fall away. Of course, we hope and believe that most of those who wander away are only prodigals who will eventually return to the Holy Spirit and faith. But what about those who have been baptised and confessed Christ, but later repudiate the faith and never come back? TU&D’s question is a fair one.

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Getting back to an earlier issue, @266 you said:

    “God elects to salvation those whom He sovereignly chooses, and using whatever variety of means He wants”.

    So, Can’t baptism be one of those means? Why or why not?

  • kerner

    TU&D:

    Getting back to an earlier issue, @266 you said:

    “God elects to salvation those whom He sovereignly chooses, and using whatever variety of means He wants”.

    So, Can’t baptism be one of those means? Why or why not?

  • LC

    I am still reading, kerner and WBP. As one who is new to Lutheran theology, I appreciate both of your posts. Keep going. And yes, I appreciate your posts as well, TUD.

  • LC

    I am still reading, kerner and WBP. As one who is new to Lutheran theology, I appreciate both of your posts. Keep going. And yes, I appreciate your posts as well, TUD.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Kerner,

    I suppose I should be more comfortable with paradox than I sometimes am!

    In any event, I baptized my daughter this morning. And I gave her the promise without caveat. And as she grows I will continue giving it to her, “You have been chosen by God. You are his beloved. You have been forgiven. Come what may, he will be faithful to his promises, always sheltering you in the shadow of his wings.” I delight in this. To say something different to appease “logic” would be to tell her something untrue altogether and this I will not do.

    LC, I’m glad you’re enjoying this too.

  • W.B. Picklesworth

    Kerner,

    I suppose I should be more comfortable with paradox than I sometimes am!

    In any event, I baptized my daughter this morning. And I gave her the promise without caveat. And as she grows I will continue giving it to her, “You have been chosen by God. You are his beloved. You have been forgiven. Come what may, he will be faithful to his promises, always sheltering you in the shadow of his wings.” I delight in this. To say something different to appease “logic” would be to tell her something untrue altogether and this I will not do.

    LC, I’m glad you’re enjoying this too.

  • kerner

    W.B. Picklesworth:

    Amen!

    Remember that God chooses to involve His people in his work. Without God’s Word, baptism is is like any other bath. Expose you children to God’s Word whenever you can. Go to the Lord’s Supper whenever you can. It is not for nothing that the Pastor prays: “May this strengthen and preserve you in the true faith…” for so it does. Isn’t it ironic that the reformed and baptists say that the Lord’s supper “is a rememberance” but deny that it actually has any power to help you remember? But God’s Word is the essential component of both sacraments.

  • kerner

    W.B. Picklesworth:

    Amen!

    Remember that God chooses to involve His people in his work. Without God’s Word, baptism is is like any other bath. Expose you children to God’s Word whenever you can. Go to the Lord’s Supper whenever you can. It is not for nothing that the Pastor prays: “May this strengthen and preserve you in the true faith…” for so it does. Isn’t it ironic that the reformed and baptists say that the Lord’s supper “is a rememberance” but deny that it actually has any power to help you remember? But God’s Word is the essential component of both sacraments.

  • Pingback: Debaptism: reversing the crazy

  • Pingback: Debaptism: reversing the crazy

  • Pat

    Wondering whether Jesus was ever christened, and whether God requires that sacrament for salvation or recognition of birth?

  • Pat

    Wondering whether Jesus was ever christened, and whether God requires that sacrament for salvation or recognition of birth?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Yes, Jesus was baptized. See Matthew 3:13-17:

    13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,[b] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son,[c] with whom I am well pleased.”

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Yes, Jesus was baptized. See Matthew 3:13-17:

    13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,[b] and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son,[c] with whom I am well pleased.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X