Featured The Baptism debate

Dear Christian brothers and sisters, curious unbelievers:

While the pastors and theologians debate "hermeneutics" and "sorteriology", let us, the laypeople, look at some passages of Scripture in their simple, literal interpretation.


Luke 18:15-16

King James Version (KJV)


15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

We see in these passages from the Book of Luke how much our Lord loved infants and little children, "Suffer little children to come unto me".

With so much love and compassion for little children, isn't it odd that Christ, in the Baptist view of things, would leave no manner in which infants and little children can come to him spiritually?

In the version of the Baptist faith that I grew up in, all infants and small children who died were covered by a blanket pardon of innocence--they would automatically go to heaven, whether they were children of Christians or children of unbelievers.

Little children are covered by this blanket pardon until they reach an Age of Accountability, an unspecificed age at which they suddenly can discern good from evil. At that moment, their innocence is removed and they are required to make a decison for Christ, or against Christ. If they do not choose for Christ, repent, and ask Christ into their hearts to be their Lord and Savior, and are killed two minutes later, they will burn in hell for all eternity.

Is there any Scriptural support for this belief? Not in the New Testament. Supporters of this view reach back to the Old Testament, and use statements by King David about his recently deceased infant as support for this position.

Don't you think that Christ, who so loved little children, would have established some better way for little children to "come to him" than this very scripturally tenuous theory? Would Christ really let your children have just a split second chance to "accept Him" when their period of innocence expires and they reach the Age of Accountability? Would He be so merciless that he only gives them that one split second chance and then their eternal destiny was constantly in peril from any car racing down the street, any accidental fall, etc. which could snuff out their lives in a second. and send them hurteling to hell?

Don't you think He would have established a much more loving way to save your children?

I will continue this thought later today.

God bless!

 

You simply replace one error with another, and you use the same text to support it! The bible is clear that we are saved by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and nothing else, eph 2:8-9 and not by works.

 

Finally you at least agree to that!

Yes and what faith is that?

The type of faith that leads to obedience. Which is the whole point of the book of Romans! Yes if I had faith that leads to obedience I am blessed by having my sins forgiven!!!! But remember Chapter 4 Paul is dealing specifically with those Jewish Christians who believe they have something to boast about having been circumcised. Paul isn't questioning they ability to do good deeds but relying on their circumcision which wasn't what saved Abraham because he was considered righteous by his faith which lead him to obedience.

 

I haven't ignored anything about that passage rather I put it in the context for which it had always been meant. Just read the book of Romans for crying out loud!!!! Its clear. Look the whole point of the book of Romans is cited in Romans 1 and Romans 16 where Romans 1 says

where Romans 16 says

Where in Romans Paul is specifically speaking to those jews who rely on their circumcision

and

but it really has no value because

because in reality

so whats the point of being a Jew then in the view of Christianity?

Nope because everyone are sinners. Therefore what needs to bring us to obedience is Faith not circumcision

Does this mean all we have to do is have some belief with out obedience? No!

For instance look at Abraham if the issue of circumcision were the point then that would have saved him but scriptures say that Abraham believed God.

Because if it was about circumcision and the law then God would owe Abraham

But no, its about faith

Because even king David testifies

not because God owed that man because but because of God's grace. But then does this grace only apply to the Jews? No.

At no point in this discourse does Paul Change types of faith. He still talking about that faith which leads to obedience and in Romans 4 that faith is what the Jews should have who rely on the law and their circumcision! And its clear thats what he means because he says in Romans 6

This faith doesn't do away with Gods requirement for obedience or right living it upholds it. Even as Paul said in Chapter 3 he upholds the Law but you can't acheive that by being circumcised only by faith which leads to obedience.

Its clear the faith he's talking about is the faith that leads to obedience. The context is clear!!!

 

I've been honest the whole time.

I thought I made that issue clear from the begining in our discussion of Romans. The faith that leads to obedience which I consider right living. Obedience to apostolic doctrine leads to that of course. But I think I was clear. Faith that Leads to Obedience is that circumcision of heart which Paul is speaking about

What is absurd is that you refuse to understand Romans 4 in the context of what Paul is talking about. You try to single it out from the context of Paul's dialogue and make it mean something not entirely what Paul means. And you refuse to acknowldedge his disputation with those who hold their Jewishness and adherance to their Jewish identifiers.

All of the points I've made are the context of the text. It is you who create a predetermined set of Doctrine and then apply scripture to it regardless of the context of the passages.

This is a straw man as I had dealt with that passage and provided a proper exegesis of the entire context of the Book of Romans up to chapter 6. What is true is that in your attempt to discredit what I've said you act as if I hadn't dealt with it. Again you are that man in my experience who puts his fingers into his ears and screams "I will not listen" Which if that is your defence fine. But at leasts be honest about it.

My approach has always been to honor scriptures and place them in the context in which they were written.

I have not been dishonest in scholarship as I'm not currently writing a thesis or am I in College. I have given you my sources and still you call me dishonest. Sir the one dishonest here is you.

Politics have nothing to dow with anything I've said in regard to scripture and certainly to point out the plain reading of a text does not equate to superficial.

What you have done as you always do when presented with facts that don't agree with your assesment is to insult the person who disagrees with you. You cease to debate and go directly to Ad hominem attacks. As you think that some how validates your position. When in fact like a school yard bully who riducules others to make himself look better you end up not looking better but revealing your true intent. Being a bully.

 

Not true, but don't want to argue about it.

 

(continued from my previous comments above)

In Christianity today there seems to be three dominant belief systems regarding the Safety/Salvation of children and infants:

Arminian Christians (Free-will Baptists and others): all infants and young children are under a blanket protection from God's judgement. Some believe these children do not have original sin, others of this group believe they do have original sin, but God does not hold them accountable for this original sin until they reach an age of understanding Good from Evil, referred to as "The Age of Accountability". So if a child in this age group dies, God will take him/her to heaven. This will occur regardless of the status of the parents, Christian or non-Christian.

Once the child reaches the Age of Accountability and realizes that he is a sinner, he must make a choice: Repent and accept Christ as his personal Savior or reject Christ. If he refuses to accept Christ or even delays to make a decision, he is in mortal danger, because if he dies in this state, he will be sent to hell to burn for all eternity.

Calvinist/Reformed Christians (Presbyterians, Reformed Baptist): this group of Christians usually do not believe in an Age of Accountability because they do not believe that the sinner has a free will to make a decision about his eternal destiny. God has either chosen to save you or he has chosen to send you to hell.

Therefore some of these Christians may baptize their infants, but the purpose of Baptism is not regenerational, only convenantal. Baptism is a sign only, but it does bring the child into the family of the church. If the child is one of the Elect, he/she will make a public profession of his/her faith in Christ sometime later in life demonstrating to all he/she is one of the "chosen".

If an infant/child of Calvinists dies before being able to make a public profession of faith, his status is essentially in limbo. His parents will never know (in this life at least) if their child went to heaven or hell.

orthodox Christians (Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox)
These Christians believe that the salvation status of the parents significantly influences the salvation status of the children.

Most orthodox Christians believe that the children of Christians are "safe" until they are baptized at which time they are saved.

In other times, some orthodox Christians insisted that if a baby of Christian parents died, without being baptized, then the baby was lost, and would go to hell. Lutherans at least, and I would bet most other orthodox Christians, currently believe that if the baby dies before the Christian parents can baptize him, or if the baby was miscarried, the child is safe and will go to heaven.

So where in the New Testament do any of these three groups of Christians have explicit references regarding infants/young children that support their stated positions?

Nowhere.

Each group bases their belief on verses that they believe infer that their position is correct.

Continued...

Wittenberger
www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

 

(continued from my previous comments above)

So, as we saw in my last comments, neither Arminians, Calvinists/Reformed, or orthodox Christians can provide scripture verses that explicitly prove their position on Infant Safety/Salvation.
Isn’t it strange that Christ does not explicitly discuss this subject in the Gospels? We saw in the Gospel of Luke how much He loved little children.
Isn’t it also strange that none of the writers of the epistles explicitly discuss this subject? Would the Apostles and other early Christians really encourage people to convert to the new faith/religion without giving them ANY information regarding the salvation status of their children? Wouldn’t that be one of the first questions that any parent would ask if considering conversion to another religion??

But there is no explicit discussion of this subject anywhere in the New Testament. Why?

Orthodox Christians (Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglo-Catholics) believe that the reason that there is no explicit mention in the New Testament of this topic, is that the paradigm of salvation did not change!

The only changes between the Old and New Covenant were that the sacrifice changed: no longer a lamb, now the Lamb of God. The means of atonement changed: from faith and the Law, to faith in Christ alone. And the sign of the Covenant changed: from circumcision to baptism.

What was the paradigm in the Old Testament? A male child born to Jewish parents was given the sign of the covenant on the 8th day of life. He was taught the Law and to love God while growing up in the home, so that when he was an adult he would keep the law and maintain his faith in God.

Did this child have to undergo a conversion experience when he reached an Age of Accountability? There is no evidence in Scripture of this.

Could this circumcised Jewish child, grow up and blaspheme God, break all His commandments, live a life of sin, and still expect to make it into Paradise just because of his circumcision? Highly unlikely.

No, the Jewish male child was brought into the Covenant at his circumcision. As he grew, he eventually expressed faith in God, and like Abraham, God counted this faith as righteousness. Could this child have ignored God’s command to be circumcised and still have faith, and therefore, have eternal life? Very unlikely. He would have been “cut off”.

One other point: people in the Middle East during the Biblical times were not in the habit of converting individually. If the head of the household converted to a new religion, the entire household, including wives, children, servants and slaves converted. (Abraham is a perfect example.)

So when the Apostles are preaching to the Jews calling on them to convert to the new faith, the idea that the head of the household would convert alone, and that the rest of his household each had to make an individual decision would have been unheard of! If such an individual conversion was really necessary, the Apostles would have had to explain this in great detail.

But, there is no such detailed discussion recorded in Scripture.

So orthodox Christians believe that when Peter said to the crowd in Acts 2:38 “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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” that Peter was promising the forgiveness of sins for them AND their children if they, the head of the household converted.

What other scriptural evidence is there of this?

(to be continued below)

 

So the RCC would take perseverance view, while baptists the preservation way?

 

Well, I'll make it easy for you. I don't believe in either one.

 

couple more concepts that have been held on children!

God foreknows IF they would have accepted jesus if allowed to be adults, if was presented Gospel, so bases salvation on that

God has decide to Elect in Christ ALL under age of accountibility, as infants/mentally challened etc!