1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Baptism debate

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Jul 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    You try to use Luke 1:41 and your own logic to defend false manmade doctrines! Do the scriptures say John the Baptist was baptized when he leaped in his mother’s womb? So now, what good is your logic and manmade beliefs? They are no good, for they go against the Word of God.
    Again, this is before baptism or circumcision, you have no defense! You speak about a prophet of God before baptism or anything, and you think this proves water baptism to infants!
    I believe in the written Word of God, the written Word of God speaks of John the Baptist being filled with the Holy spirit from his mother’s womb, so why would I not believe that!
    According to the false Catholic teachings, they try to use scripture to go against other scriptures; they use their own logic, which is no logic. Was John the Baptist baptized while in his mother’s womb? NO. Was John the Baptist circumcised while in his mother’s womb? NO. So stop trying to use those scriptures to defend your false beliefs.
    John the Baptist was a man sent from God, John 1:6.
    32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house

    Do infants have the word of the Lord spoke to them? No.
     
    #101 Moriah, Jul 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2012
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Well, I will be hog tied! He called you "sister" and you never denied it.
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    He INCONSISTENLY does not demand baptism to be saved. I say INCONSISTENTLY because he could have no other logical reason for the baptism of infants as he believes actual salvation is imparted through baptism because the word is spoken then.

    However, why couldn't the Word be spoken to them without baptism and God save them.

    Moreover, look at his sole example in John the Baptist. John was made to understand and filled IN THE WOMB not in circumcision or baptism!!!!

    His doctrine is not merely unbiblical but completely irrational and inconsistent with itself.
     
  4. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    What can I do about people calling me anything? What difference does it make overall to me? You call me many things out of my name, what I can do about it.
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Well sister, I will try to be more of a gentleman because I did not know I was dealing with a lady.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    All I hear is silence from you?
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    All I hear is silence from you? Cat got your tongue my friend?
     
  8. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    You yourself are making a very big assumption: that infants cannot believe. It is God who gives belief and repentance. He can give it to whomever he choses. He creates the belief and repentance, not you by your maturity and intelligence.

    See my comments above regarding John the Baptist. God can do some really miraculous things in infants, my friend![/QUOTE]

    He can -- because He is God. But God doesn't operate at the behest of man; He cannot be summoned by man pronouncing a formula over an infant and applying water to same. "The Spirit bloweth where it listeth", not where man listeth that it should blow!

    And in case you missed it, this article destroys every argument for infant baptism: http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html
     
  9. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent point! Paedobaptists like to quote this scripture as support for infant baptism, but they conveniently leave off the last part, "and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.", because it totally destroys their argument.

    So, a literal reading and interpreting of the scripture by the paedobaptist, or a total mangling of it? Obviously the latter.
     
  10. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you and Lutherans are denying your professed belief that scripture is the final authority and not tradition because your view of baptism can be substantiated ONLY by tradition and nothing else, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits.

    Neither the Bible nor the earliest churches know anything of infant baptism. As the stream got further from its source -- the apostles and their writings -- superstition crept in, and people started baptizing their infants. Superstition, fear, and ignorance created infant baptism -- nothing else.
     
  11. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    You miss the point: Lutherans believe that God alone saves...without your help. He can save you as adult. He can save you as a young child. He can save you as an infant.

    God can save during infant baptism AND He can save, if He chooses, while an infant is in the womb.

    The point is: God can save whenever He wants to. He doesn't need to wait for an adult to make a free-will decision and He doesn't need to wait for baptism to save a infant.

    The reason we bring our children to baptism is that God has commanded us to do it.

    God can save whenever He wants.

    You Arminian Baptists/evangelicals believe that God needs your assistance to save you. He needs your "decision".

    That is a doctrine of works which you got from Mother Rome!

    The example of John the Baptist is proof that your doctrine is false. Many of you say that John was a "special case".

    John the Baptist was either God or a man. If he was a man he was born with original sin, that required atonement. The Bible says that he was filled with the Holy Spirit when he left his mother's womb. That means that God had already saved him, at that moment that he left the womb, and at that instant gave him, as an infant, repentance, belief, and faith.

    Without faith, belief and repentance there can be no atonement. There is no way John could receive the Holy Spirit unless God had already made him righteous.

    God has and does save infants. He gives them the faith, belief and repentance. Just because they can't tell you they believe, doesn't mean that God can make it happen.

    Just because the infant John the Baptist couldn't tell anyone he was filled with the Holy Spirit, and just because it wasn't logically or rational to believe that an infant could have the Holy Ghost, does that mean that it wasn't true?

    No. The case of John the Baptist blows the Baptist/evangelical doctrine that God can only save adults to smithereens!
     
  12. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I have never heard of of a Baptists who doesn't believe in original sin. I grew up fundamentalist Baptist. We believed that infants were sinner, we just believed, that if they died, God did not hold them accountable. What branch of Baptist are you?

    Second, John the Baptist was either a man, subject to all the same conditions for salvation as every other person who has ever walked on earth or he was a god. Which one was it. There is no such thing as "something special inbetween God and man."
     
  13. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would bet your position on original sin is an outlier among even Baptists, my friend.
     
  14. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481

    You misunderstood my words. I do believe in original sin. I simply said that Christ removed the eternal consequences (not temporal) of the Adamic sin so that no person stands in judgement for the individual act of Adam but only for his own works - Jn. 1:29 - He simply removed the LEGAL eternal consequences for that individual act of Adam without removing its temporal consequences.

    You mean that it is NORMAL for "every other person who has ever walked on earth" to understand the gospel and be filled with the Spirit IN THE MOTHER'S WOMB???

    Don't you think you are being a tad bit irrational? How can you possibly compare John to the NORM! Is every person the fulfillment of the return of Elijah?????
     
    #114 The Biblicist, Jul 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2012
  15. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is illogical to you because you believe that man has to "do" somethng in order to be saved. You don't seem to believe that God can accomplish salvation all by himself, without man's assistance.

    The reason we believe that God saves in baptism is because he says so. He can save whenever he wants, without our decision to be baptized or your decision to make a "decision" for Christ.

    Bottom line my Baptist/evangelical friends: We can continue arguing this point for YEARS, and never get anywhere.

    If Mormonism and JW's were so easy to discredit from Scripture why are tehey growing in leaps and bounds? It is because they have created a false doctrine and found an answer "from the Bible" on every possible rebuttal trinitarian Christians can throw at them. Does that mean they are right?

    No, of course not!

    Orthodox Christians, such as Lutherans, can base our belief system not only in "our" inerpretation of Scirpture but also with historical evidence from statements from early Christians. That is how I know our doctrine is correct.

    You Baptists and evangelicals have no more proof than the Mormons and
    JW's to support your beliefs:

    You believe that your interpretation is correct and you believe that God (the Holy Spirit) tells you that you are correct.

    The Mormons and the JW's believe the exact same thing. None of you have any concrete evidence to prove your position!

    Show me one early Christian who states that the only purpose of baptism is an adult "profession of faith" ONLY and I will convert tomorrow!

    Sorry, Biblicist, but I don't accept your revisionist history and conspiracy theories. If there were "Baptists" during the first six centuries after Christ there would be some record of it somewhere, even if it is on the wall of a cave!

    Wittenberger
    www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com
     
  16. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW: Lutherans believe that Baptists and evangelicals believe false doctrines, but we still consider you Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Lutherans believe Mormons and JW's are cults, their baptisms are not in the name of the Trinity, they are not Christians.
     
  17. Moriah

    Moriah New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,540
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not about just making stuff up. The Bible says do not go beyond what is written, do not lean to the left or to the right, and do not add or subtract.
    God tells us how He saves us and when. God says for us to believe and repent. God who knows our heart will give us the Holy Spirit when He accepts us, those who obey. See Acts 5:32 and 15:8.
    We are to do what God says to do. God does not tell us to do infant baptisms.

    That is not true.

    I am none of those titles.
    I do not believe God needs my assistance. I have to obey God.

    What are you saying?

    John the Baptist was sent from God.
    Infants cannot understand, nor can they say they believe and repent.
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    That is not what Paul says about election to salvation in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14/Rom. 10:14-17. He says we are chosen to sallvation "THROUGH....belief of the truth" and that the effectual call is through the gospel (v. 14; 1 Thes. 1:4-5) which is accompanied by "assurance" of salvation.

    I don't believe it is an argument as there is nothing provided in scripture to make it an argument - no command - no example - nothing for infant baptism.

    You have to completely ignore my response about John the Baptist in order to sustain an appearance of argument.
     
  19. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    (See my first answer above, within your quote, in red)

    No, it surely does not. No Baptist and no evangelical believes that God can only save adults. You really should stop posting untruths.

    I don't brand myself as an evangelical, but, concerning what I have said, I believe believers' baptism proponents would agree that for those who are mature enough to understand, faith is required for salvation; for those who are not, if they should die, God saves them all. In any case, water baptism in NT times was reserved for those who had been regenerated as evidenced by their profession of faith. Water baptism did not produce the regeneration in them, nor did it produce regeneration later in infants when people started baptizing them out of superstition, fear, and ignorance. Man cannot control or summon God by word or ritual. The Spirit blows where it wills, not where man wills that it should blow!

    You have absolutely no ground to stand on with your views about infant baptism, as has been shown. Even what you said about John the Baptist destroys your own argument concerning infant baptism because whatever God did for him in the womb, it certainly was not by water baptism! And do you suppose that John the Baptist would have been saved if he had not continued to follow God?

    You are one confused individual. Earlier you were making unfounded charges against Baptists as you were calling them Calvinists; now you are doing the same as you are calling them Arminians! You have failed in your arguments and posted untruths in both cases!

    What is blown to smithereens is the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism and that a ritual and incantation can cause the Spirit to move simply by virtue of the words and actions of men. Want to talk works-base salvation? There you have it in a nutshell. Baptists are about as far away from "Mother Rome" as it's possible to get. Magisterial Protestants are not, in many areas, as can be clearly seen.

    One more point: The very early "Didache" talks about baptism but does not mention infant baptism; that silence is deafening. This is one proof of the truth of what I said and the Quakers originally said: The stream is purest at the source; the further you get from the source, the more corrupted and polluted the stream becomes. Infant baptism is a prime example. It arose because of superstition, fear, ignorance, and a wrong view of original sin. It did not exist in the NT or the earliest Christian communities; it's only foundation is the tradition of men, as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, and a Catholic priest and archaeologist proved.
     
    #119 Michael Wrenn, Jul 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2012
  20. Wittenberger

    Wittenberger New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have put your hands to your ears and refuse to even listen to what I am saying. How can I debate you?

    The bible does not implicitly endorse infant baptism. The Bible does not implicitly forbid it, either.

    The point is that John the Baptist is an example where God gave the Holy Spirit to an infant, without waiting for that infant to become an adult and make a decision to believe.

    Your side insists that ALL men, OT and NT, must first believe and repent as older children or adults before God considers them righteous or saved.

    John the Baptist is proof that your insistence that ALL men follow YOUR patter of salvation is not correct. Just saying that John the Baptist was special case does not change the fact, unless you believe that John the Baptist was a God: he still needed faith and repentance before being declared righteous and receiving the Holy Spirit.

    The only way that could happen is if God gave the infant John the Baptist faith, belief and repentance at his birth, thereby declaring him righteous.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...