Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Christianity

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-28-2011, 11:12 PM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,209
Default

I'll be back to this thread later buddy, got some work to catch up on!
__________________


Please consider England in your prayers!

http://www.intercessuk.org/iuk3/
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-28-2011, 11:21 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

baptizing infants imho, would be equivalent to giving them communion.....

by the logic you are using, i must respectfully point out, we could do anything and call it a "rite into the covenant"

that's not hardly fair or biblical


doing something then claiming there is no specific scripture against it is backwards, i think we need a command TO do something, not come up with something and justify it by not having a command against it

but if you take only one thing from my post , let it be this..... you cannot impute Christ's righteousness on anyone else, baby or otherwise Christ is the only one who can impute His Righteousness aqnything else is not freewill.... also if we can impute His Righteousness on others, than what is keeping us from doing it for anyone we don't want to go to hell?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-29-2011, 02:09 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamt View Post
baptizing infants imho, would be equivalent to giving them communion.....
Not really ...

Quote:
by the logic you are using, i must respectfully point out, we could do anything and call it a "rite into the covenant"

that's not hardly fair or biblical
That's not what I said, but how where do you draw the inference in what I said about Abraham exactly?


Quote:
doing something then claiming there is no specific scripture against it is backwards, i think we need a command TO do something, not come up with something and justify it by not having a command against it
Well, to be fair I never implied that if it isn't written it automatically becomes standard practice. I only mention that it isn't written that infant baptism is excluded because adult baptism proponents can't claim it is against scripture by specifically citing scripture.

Quote:
but if you take only one thing from my post , let it be this..... you cannot impute Christ's righteousness on anyone else, baby or otherwise Christ is the only one who can impute His Righteousness aqnything else is not freewill.... also if we can impute His Righteousness on others, than what is keeping us from doing it for anyone we don't want to go to hell?
Well, again, I don't think I implied that you can ... what I said was Abraham brought these children into a covenant and "flagged" them essentially. It doesn't make them righteous, but it does mean they are specially noted due directly to the behalf of the caretaker.
__________________


Please consider England in your prayers!

http://www.intercessuk.org/iuk3/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-29-2011, 03:55 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
An infant is incapable of making a profession of faith.
I think you're onto something here Chris

Quote:
First what is it? Baptism in the ancient was much like an altar call is today. Once one makes a profession of faith they followed that with a public profession and baptism. Phillip and the Eunuch is a great example. After Peters sermon was another.
Baptism is making a covenant with God. Without it, there is no covenant with God. Therefore, un-baptized children haven't been "flagged" yet ... but that isn't there fault, and this is why I believe it is legitimate to "stand up for" the child as an intersceder.

Quote:
If Paul baptized kids I would need to see the verse. Vizion you said Paul baptized households which is true. The Philipian Jailer was an example. However it does not mention infants or kids for that matter.
Right, but that doesn't mean there weren't kids either. The word "entire" is a very, VERY big word and it could absolutley have encompassed a wide berth of ages inside thos family.

Quote:
What it does say however is that he p[reached they believed and were baptized, Acts 16:31-34 So in this case it is clear that it was a believers baptism. I would need to see a verse that in its hermeneutic context shows any infant baptism. Then we can discuss it in more detail. I am u aware of any such verse but there are countless verses that show believers baptisms. Hope this helps sir.
Well, you're right that no verse indicating infant baptism exists, but its exactly why I defer to the covenant of circumsicion on the child's behalf. We have no context to show discontinuity, therefore we assume that continuity can be carried over.

If God so loved the world and Jesus commanded us to baptize "all nations" and to "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" AND the Bible does not specifically exclude infants being baptized then where is the evidence to suggest its not right? Also, back to Paul ... remember he was talking about 5 households being baptized, not 1, FIVE. Its a lot to assume - and especially back then before birth control existed that none of these 5 households had children among them. ..
__________________


Please consider England in your prayers!

http://www.intercessuk.org/iuk3/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-29-2011, 07:53 AM
Vizion's Avatar
Vizion Vizion is offline
Hughes fanboy
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
No such thing. Children are still born under the curse of sin, so they are still guilty and deserving of judgement. Think of sin like a disease that's passed on to every child in the world at the moment of conception, then you can start to understand why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to break the cycle of that disease.

The Bible never explicitly states what happens to children if they die. However when judgement was pronounced upon a civilization in the Old Testament, children were ALWAYS included in the judgement:

Ezekiel 9:5-6
To the others He said in my hearing, “Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

Isaiah 13:13-16 (emphasis added)
Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the LORD of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger.
It shall be as the hunted gazelle,
And as a sheep that no man takes up;
Every man will turn to his own people,
And everyone will flee to his own land.
Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.

Children are not innocent.

In fact, I would argue that the younger a child is, the more of a picture of the "pure" sin nature they display. This is why newborns have the "I want it now!" mentality... all the time.

Anyways, this is a side issue. As for the topic of infant baptism, it's is absolutely not a form of salvation. It might be a form of dedication, but it should never be seen as a substitute for salvation. That child still needs to come to Christ on his/her own or they will go to Hell.

In fact, that's what I would consider the greatest danger of infant baptism is that it could give the parents and/or the child a false sense of security when it comes to his or her eternal destiny.
I actually regret saying that children are innocent, but I guess I meant in a pure-sense compared to adults - should have clarified that.

And not sure if you misunderstood that I didn't mean baptism is equal to salvation.
__________________


Please consider England in your prayers!

http://www.intercessuk.org/iuk3/
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-29-2011, 01:42 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
No such thing. Children are still born under the curse of sin, so they are still guilty and deserving of judgement. Think of sin like a disease that's passed on to every child in the world at the moment of conception, then you can start to understand why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to break the cycle of that disease.

The Bible never explicitly states what happens to children if they die. However when judgement was pronounced upon a civilization in the Old Testament, children were ALWAYS included in the judgement:

Ezekiel 9:5-6
To the others He said in my hearing, “Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

Isaiah 13:13-16 (emphasis added)
Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the LORD of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger.
It shall be as the hunted gazelle,
And as a sheep that no man takes up;
Every man will turn to his own people,
And everyone will flee to his own land.
Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.

Children are not innocent.

In fact, I would argue that the younger a child is, the more of a picture of the "pure" sin nature they display. This is why newborns have the "I want it now!" mentality... all the time.

Anyways, this is a side issue. As for the topic of infant baptism, it's is absolutely not a form of salvation. It might be a form of dedication, but it should never be seen as a substitute for salvation. That child still needs to come to Christ on his/her own or they will go to Hell.

In fact, that's what I would consider the greatest danger of infant baptism is that it could give the parents and/or the child a false sense of security when it comes to his or her eternal destiny.

Also agree with your comment, Nate! But, I also agree with Vizion's statement as well in the sense that I believe if an infant dies, that the Lord is merciful and gracious to take that infant home because the infant is incapable of grasping the concept of salvation. Would you agree?

Last edited by CAVEMAN; 12-29-2011 at 01:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-29-2011, 02:37 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVEMAN View Post
Also agree with your comment, Nate! But, I also agree with Vizion's statement as well in the sense that I believe if an infant dies, that the Lord is merciful and gracious to take that infant home because the infant is incapable of grasping the concept of salvation. Would you agree?
Yes. But not because the infant is not deserving of judgment. It's purely out of GOD's mercy.

For instance, just because GOD killed every infant and child inside Sodom and Gomorrah, doesn't mean that those kids went to Hell. Earthly judgment is not necessarily an indication of eternal destiny.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-29-2011, 03:21 PM
CAVEMAN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Yes. But not because the infant is not deserving of judgment. It's purely out of GOD's mercy.

For instance, just because GOD killed every infant and child inside Sodom and Gomorrah, doesn't mean that those kids went to Hell. Earthly judgment is not necessarily an indication of eternal destiny.
Agreed! I have 4 children and have witnessed first hand the sin curse which was present in their infancy.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-29-2011, 06:18 PM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizion View Post
I think you're onto something here Chris

Baptism is making a covenant with God. Without it, there is no covenant with God. Therefore, un-baptized children haven't been "flagged" yet ... but that isn't there fault, and this is why I believe it is legitimate to "stand up for" the child as an intersceder. Got to keep in context of its historical use if we are to stay in the realm of proper hermeneutic. this is a modern day definition of baptism. e cannot infer our personal understanding onto scripture. We must read it as the original readers would have. That being said it was an act that occured after a public profession of faith. So back to the fact am infant cannot make such a profession

Right, but that doesn't mean there weren't kids either. The word "entire" is a very, VERY big word and it could absolutley have encompassed a wide berth of ages inside thos family. Actually in the greek it is not household is a pretty generic term. But either way we cannot create a doctrine based on inference we must have a direct command. Anything else is merely Dogma

Well, you're right that no verse indicating infant baptism exists, but its exactly why I defer to the covenant of circumsicion on the child's behalf. We have no context to show discontinuity, therefore we assume that continuity can be carried over. Circumcision was an OT covenant and was more about health as was the diterary laws. In fact the 8th day when they were to be circumcised even has significance. Science tells us that is the day the blood clots right and is the safest. We must be careful to compare OT ritual with NT beliefs. This is what the Judizers did and Paul and Peter made clears was not the case any longer.

If God so loved the world and Jesus commanded us to baptize "all nations" and to "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" AND the Bible does not specifically exclude infants being baptized then where is the evidence to suggest its not right? Also, back to Paul ... remember he was talking about 5 households being baptized, not 1, FIVE. Its a lot to assume - and especially back then before birth control existed that none of these 5 households had children among them. ..Chilren are nt infants. I confessed Christ at 4 years old. An infant cannot even talk. The bible is clear baptism is for believers.
Sorry I am not computer savy enough to block the quotes like you brother. My reply is in red above.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.