Can infant baptism be Scriptural?

ascund,

bmerr here. Repentance is commanded of all men by God, is it not? If God has commanded it, then man can comply with it. If not, why not?

The Corinthians were able to depart from iniquity (1 Cor 6:9-11).

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

You have the task of explaining how one can be saved without repenting of sins. The Bible plainly shows that repentance is a prerequisite for salvation. It's not something done after one is justified by "faith only", which is something else the Bible flatly denies.

I still think you are the one in error by trying to separate justification and sanctification.

And as for context indicating that Jesus was speaking only of national Israel, we need to look at the Bible's teaching on repentance, and see what it says about it. Then we can get a better understanding of what Jesus meant in Luke 13.

I don't understand your thing for making so much of the Bible only applicable to national Israel.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

This is an oxymoron as God's "elect" would already be saved.

Creating man is a work done by God, thus any responsibility given to us by God (having faith in Him) is inherantly melted together. All men have the ability to have faith, and ALL men are commanded to have faith in God's Son. God's "elect" aren't given some cosmic "saving faith" to use while He witholds this from the rest of mankind. </font>[/QUOTE]You must be blind! </font>[/QUOTE]Physically...no. To reformed theology?...yes.

 

webdog,

bmerr here. The subject of the elect came up awhile ago, and if I remember right, (I may not), DHK made a very good observation on the topic.

Whoever it was, they basically said (they had Scripture to make the case), that Christ is the elect of God, therefore, all those who are in Christ are the elect as well.

If he reads this, he may re-post it. I'm pretty sure it was DHK, because I think he got mad when I made a further point that he didn't like.

Just a thought.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

God does command all to repent. But God never put the COC in the place of God to judge who has repented and who has not. That is where you err, and grievously err. It is heresy.
Let me give you a couple of examples.

1. My parents are Roman Catholic. To my knowledge they have not trusted Christ as their Saviour. They are not saved. They are as unsaved as the heathen in Africa. Yet, morally and righteously they live better lives than the average born again Christian. They put most Christians to shame. Their good works are many. They give to charities. They are hospitable and kind. They go out of their way to help others, even strangers. If they weren't unsaved they would be model Christians. What I am saying is that good works is not an indicator of repentance. God looks at the heart, but the COC looks at the outward appearance. It is a false teaching.

2. More importantly, I know how you would judge and condemn my wife which is really pitiful. You see she was raised a Bible Presbyterian. The Presbyterians baptize infants, and thus she was baptized as an infant. We know and believe that is unscriptural because an infant cannot have faith. But at the age of 7 she realize her sinful condition and her mother led her to the Lord. She knows that at that age she was saved, born again by the Spirit of God. At that age she received forgiveness of sins, eternal life, and was born into the family of God. But she was not baptized because in the Presbyterian Church she had already been baptized as an infant.
Was she then saved Bmerr? You answer this!
Then, when she married me some 15 years later, she became a Baptist and was baptized Scripturally, for we reject infant baptism as baptism at all. You must be saved first and then be baptized as a step of obedience after salvation. We, of course, accepted her testimony of salvation, and then proceeded to baptize her by immersion. Was she saved at 7? Was she not saved for the intervening 15 years? Was she only saved when she was immersed 15 years later? Or is she still not saved because she has not been baptized in the COC church by a COC minister? Is that it Bmerr?
BTW, growing up in a Christian family and receiving Christ a young age there was no visible change in her life. Only she knew and God knew of the inward change in her life. Others really could not tell. Repentance was there, but most would have never known. She had grown up in a Christian family, always submissive to her parents. What was there to change? How would you judge if she had repented or not? This is the COC fallacy. You judge by outward appearance. God judges by the heart which man cannot see. You pretend to take the place of God. That is heresy. You are not God, and cannot see the heart. You do not always know when repentance has taken place. That is your big mistake.

I quoted pertinent Scripture so that you could see the error of your way. But you don't want to see it. Repentance is judged only according to COC legalistic submission, not according to God's judgement, which you have no idea of. You are not God, neither is your Cambellite cult.

Repentance is not tied to baptism, as I demonstrated in the testimony of my wife. I myself was not baptized until two years after I was saved. Previously your exact words to me were: "You are not saved sir." You in as much condemned me to hell, something that only God has the power to do. You put yourself in the place of God. How arrogant! Are you omnipresent and omniscient? You act like it.

Yes, but the change of action is not according to COC theology, the theology of a cult. The change is according to God, not you. You cannot judge the inner workings of the heart. Only God can do that. Why do you continue to put yourself in the place of God?

I agree with that.
DHK

 

Keep in mind that I am not defending infant baptism. Yes, it can be defenced biblically if one follows covenant theology and ties infant baptist to circumcision in the Old Covenant. It is the promise to raise the child in the teachings of God. It does not remove any sin, nor does it produce a means of grace unto salvation. It is no more sacredotal than is immersion of a twice-born believer. Many Baptists practice a similar service minus the sprinkling. They have the children brought forward by the parents and they present all before God with the promise to bring them up in the teachings of the Lord.

In the Anglican communion, infant baptism is sacramental, in that original sin is washed away. I could quote all the scripture used, but I won't at this time. It is interesting to note two things: Anglicans originally immersed infants and adults, and they do practice immersion of adult believers on the mission field. This is not a general practice and not all will do it unless requested by the candidate.

I know that most here will not accept the interpretation of scripture by, say Presbyterians or Anglicans, but be not deceived, these people are not unbelievers trying to deceive the world. They do accept and believe the Bible as the word of the living God. Sometimes we tread to heavily upon good people of honest report.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That is a good point Jim. I understand the theology behind the Bible Presbyterian in particular. They believe in covenantal theology where, as you say, baptism takes the place of circumcision.
Yet in spite of their theology they are very evangelestic. They are committed to carrying out the Great Commission. Amd as we do, they believe in the fundamentals of the faith.
DHK

 

Thanks DHK (I think).

I don't quite know what you mean by "in spite of their theology..." Historically, Presbyterians have always been very evangelistic and mission minded. Evangelism Explosion is a good example - used throughout the world to share the Gospel - was started by Presbyterians.

 

Did I judge whether or not someone had repented? I must have missed that part. Repentance isn't all that hard to recognize. Watch this:

- If an adulterer repents, he stops committing adultery.

- If a horse thief repents, he gives back the horse.

- If a blasphemer repents, he stops blaspheming.

Do I need to go on? When one repents, he makes a change in his mind about the way he's conducted his life, and determines to live differently. As a result, his behavior must change. If it doesn't, what has he done? Has he repented? No, he hasn't.

Now, what if his behavior changes overall, but he slips up now and then, and occasionally exhibits his "old ways"? Does this mean he never repented? No. It means he stumbled. A stumble does not equate to turning around and going the opposite direction.

I'm sorry to hear about your parents. They do indeed sound like a nice couple. I would agree that they are lost.

To say that their good works does not indicate repentance is true.

I would say that for them, repentance would be more their turning from Catholicism to Christ as a way of salvation. As you said, their behavior hardly needs improvement, but their faith is misplaced.

You know that I have been warned by the administrator about answering questions like this. However, since you have demanded an answer, I will give one. The administrator will please understand that a moderator (DHK) has demanded an answer to this question.

No, she wasn't. I say this, not because it is my opinion, but because the NT does not show that salvation is given as you described.

I would ask the administrator to again see that DHK has asked a question and demanded an answer.

Sir, the Bible does not require one to be baptized by a chruch of Christ minister. There are, to my knowledge, no restrictions on the right to baptize. For some reason, denominationalists seem to have the idea that only the "pastor" can perform the "unnecessary" duty of baptizing people. I don't know why this is the case.

Also, the Bible tells us that it is in being baptized for the remission of sins that one is added to the church by the Lord. Or, if you meant that the baptism would have to be in the baptistry of a chruch of Christ's building, no, anywhere there is sufficient water for immersion is fine.

I'd say the change would be in her recognizing her need for Christ, and turning to Him by following the pattern of salvation found in the NT.

One does not need to sink to the depths that I did in order to repent. The greater one's life is dominated by sin, the more noticeable one's repentance will be.

Jesus said that the heart was the origin of a man's actions (Mat 12:33-37). A tree is known by its' fruit. God will judge according to men's deeds (2 Cor 5:10).

This is the second time you have falsely accused me of this. And you continue to imply that I am a heretic. I'm asking you to stop it. Show the same courtesy you demand for yourself.

Does anyone else see the rank hypocrisy here?

You quoted the part of the verse that you thought made your point. I gave the rest of it, and you didn't like it. I'm sorry.

Now you've done it! You're claiming to know my heart! How can you say I have no idea of God's judgement? Are you God? I just may have to file a complaint.

And there you go calling me a cultist again .

I'm sorry, sir, but the testimony of your wife is not my authority. God's word is, and it says that repentance is tied to baptism with regard to the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). No disrespect to you wife, but I'll take God's word over hers, if you don't mind.

I'm not even getting into that again. Diane got pretty mad at me last time, and sent me a nasty-gram. Anyway, you do the same thing to me, except nobody minds that, do they?

See, you did it again.

Nice to agree with you on something!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

And if a liar repents? Then what?
Would you like some Scripture on that?

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
--You are a liar, Bmerr. Those are not my words; but God's Words; Please take no offence and don't complain against any attack. It is not an attack; it is an application of God's Word.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
--What happens to liars Bmerr??
Again, I am only quoting Scripture here.

And if a liar repents, what then?
Are you so sure now, that this "rocket science" of yours is so easy to determine who has repented and who has not. You set yourself in the place of God if you say that you have the authority to proclaim who has repented and who has not. That is arrogant and heretical. Only God knows the heart.

So then, faith in Christ cannot be judged by good works can it? Neither can repentance. If a person is living a good life already how are you (as god) able to tell if they have repented or not? You are arrogantly playing the position of God.
[qb]

Your "caveat" has been duly noted.
I have just taken time to reread the rest of your post a second time before I continue to answer this part of your post. Your basic problem is that you think you can tell when a person has repented and when he hasn't. No matter how many times I tell you that that is an impossible task for you to do, you ignore me. I have given you examples from both sides of the equation: (i.e. Unsaved parents, and saved wife), yet you judge according to their works anyway. You cannot do that. Only God knows the heart. Listen to Scripture:

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--Who can know it? Certainly not Bmerr!! So why are pretending to do what God said you cannot do! You cannot do it. God said that you cannot know the heart. God said: "The Lord (and only the Lord) knows them that are his." You're artificial means of determing who has repented and who has not will not work in this world. God does not judge according to outward appearances as man judges.
[quote\]I would ask the administrator to again see that DHK has asked a question and demanded an answer.[/quote]
Duly hoted.

It is the case because I have in my possession the statement of faith of a Church of Christ that was posted here sometime ago that specifically says that there is no salvation outside the COC, and that their baptism must come from a recognized COC minister. I assume from your statement that COC churches must vary somewhat from church to church.
DHK

 

We have been over that before. That is not what the Bible teaches you. There are dozens of people on this board that are able to aptly explain that to you, but you close your ears and do not listen. In that area you are simply unteachable. You refuse to believe what the Bible teaches. Salvation comes by faith in Christ, and by faith alone. Baptism has never been part of salvation, and never will be. The Bible does not change.

I have heard of some COC churces teaching something like that.

The pattern of salvation is only one pattern:
Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved.
It does not say believe and be baptized. It simply says believe.
Call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It does not say Call and be baptized; it simply says Call.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
It does not say whosoever believes and is baptized; it simply says whosoever believes.
And literally there are hundreds of verses that say the same thing. The great weight of verses in the Bible say the same thing: That faith in Christ bring salvation; that a man is justified by faith and faith alone. That works do not have anything with salvation, including the work of salvation. But you continue to reject the plain teaching of the Word of God.

How true this is, and this ought to be a humble admission by you that repentance is something that is between a person and God, not always noticeable and discernable by man. You are not God, and cannot say which man has repented and which man has. So why pretend to.

Jesus made a general statement. It was more a statement of bearing fruit. The believer is a "fruit-inspector, not a judge of the heart. Only God can do that. You can judge fruit, but you can't see what is in the midst of the fruit. Sometimes the apple has a rotten core, and yet it looks perfectly good on the outside. The same is true of a banana, and many other fruits. You don't know the heart. Only Christ does. You can only see the outward appearance, and do your best to judge by what fruit you do see. You will not be perfect in your judgements, because you are fallible. You will make mistakes, many of them.

Perhaps not a heretic, unless you continue to do so after being warned so many times. Don't judge the heart. You can't judge my heart, my parents heart, my wife's heart. And yet you have. That is heresy. You have judged them according to works and not according to the Bible (even though you claim to have judged them according to the Bible; you have not). Thus it appears you have a works-based salvation which indeed is heretical.

If the shoe fits wear it. A legalistic system of works-based salvation is heresy. Baptismal regeneration is heresy. To judge the heart of someone else, and to put yourself in the place of God in doing so is heresy.

How am I judging your heart. I judge you according you your works, and who you have chosen to associate with, and their statement of faith. All along in this thread you have been judging people according to their works according to Cambellite theology. Why should you be offended when I point out the truth?

Whether you call it Cambellism or the Church of Christ, either way it is a cult. I challenge you to look in any reputable book of cults.

You are not judging according to the Bible, but your opinion of what the Bible says, or what you are forced to say what the COC says the Bible says. Either way it is heresy. As I have already mentioned there are plenty of well educated scholars on this board who are willing to educate you on the meaning of Acts 2:38 but your mind is closed and already made up. You remain unteachable. And thus you will remain judging people's hearts to be unsaved when the opposite is true, a job that only God can do. Thus you have put yourself in the position of God, which is heresy.

Nobody minds because of the reasons I espoused above. You do espouse heresy and yet you cannot see it. Your mind is closed and unteachable. On the basis on one verse in the Scripture which you have pulled out of context you are content to call people unsaved. Is that justifiable? Does if fit in with the rest of Scripture? No it does not! One Scripture does not go against the grain of hundreds of other Scripture all throughout the Bible which teach the exact opposite. Therefore that in itself tells you that your interpretation of that one Scripture is wrong, for the Bible does not contradict itself.

Take up my challenge. Look into any reputable book on cults and see if the church of Christ is a cult or not. Try here and see: www.carm.org
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Just briefly, there is a difference between the church of Christ and the International churches of Christ. That bunch is a cult. No argument there.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

DHK:
Quote/
It is the case because I have in my possession the statement of faith of a Church of Christ that was posted here sometime ago that specifically says that there is no salvation outside the COC, and that their baptism must come from a recognized COC minister. I assume from your statement that COC churches must vary somewhat from church to church. Quote/

I have in my possession a statement that says the church of Christ has no such statememt of faith.

 

Frank and Bmerr,
I take you at your word. I am sure that what was posted before must have been from the International churches of Christ, as Bmerr pointed out. In this area you disagree, but I believe in most other areas you are in agreement (such as in baptismal regeneration). Am I correct in assuming such. If not, tell me some of the major differences.
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. I had a little time, so I went to the CARM site and checked out the ICOC. If that's what you thought mman, Frank, and I were a part of, it's no wonder you opposed us so militantly!

They seem to be like many religious organizations, in that they get some things right, and are completely off their nut on others. I had heard of them before, but having read a bit about them, I'd stay far from them, myself.

As far as variances in doctrine among churches of Christ, it's a sad fact that many congregations have been corrupted by denominational doctrines and practices. There is really only one doctrine from God. If you look at places where the doctrine of God is spoken of, it's always singular, while the dotrines of men are always plural.

Those congregations that depart from the doctrine of Christ have not God (2 John 9-11). Some tend to bind what God has not bound, (called "anti's") and others tend to loose what God has not loosed (called liberals).

I don't know what "the line" is where fellowship with Christ is lost, or where a congregation ceases to be a church of Christ. Someone else may have some insight on that.

Similarities between the ICOC and the church of Christ would simply be things found in the Bible, and would include the essentiality of baptism, the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, Deity of Christ, etc.

Differences would be things like "baptism must be in a CoC building", only one congregation per town, sin lists, micromanagement of member's lives by the elders, etc.

In short, it's a case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Any group is capable of teaching truth, and most do teach some truth, (even the ICOC). The fact that this group or that teaches ________, is not a reason for me to reject that particular teaching. Doctrine must be accepted or rejected based on whether or not it is found in the Bible.

Anyway, I hope some light has been shed on where mman, Frank, and myself are, and where you (and perhaps others) thought we were. Completely understandable mistake. No harm done.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr,
Tnanks for replying. Basically then, you have the same basic doctrine but are far less legalistic than the ICOC. Would that be a relatively fair assessment?
DHK

 

DHK,

bmerr here. Without looking further into the ICOC, I'd stop short of even that. I'd go as far as to say that there are some areas where they teach truth, but quite a few where they are in error. There are at least some similarities in doctrine.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Greetings

Is a group a cult because they claim to teach God's Word?

Or -

Is a group a cult because they deny Christ in some way?


I think the latter is the cult. How then do cult's deny Christ?

The obvious ones deny Him as True God. This is the quest for the "historic Jesus" campaign.

There re many subtle ways of denying Christ. Some claim to worship Jesus but deny His ministries. For example,

Jesus is the Lord, but He cannot save to the uttermost.

Jesus is Lord, but I must prove myself!

Jesus is Lord, but I can unadopt myself!

Jesus is Lord, but justification depends on my righteousness.

Jesus is Lord, but I must have obedienct faith.

Jesus is Lord, but without baptism you aren't saved.

Jesus is Lord, but you must have the Lord's Supper every Sunday.

and countless other Christ-denying applications.

So who is a cult?
LAO