Featured An Ongoing Study/Debate of the New Testament

To claim infants are saved "IN" the act of baptism is to claim they are saved "BY" the act of baptism or otherwise you would never restrict their salvation WITHIN the boundaries of baptism. Hence, your "HOW" is also your "WHEN."

Adults are spritually blind and spiritually deaf and spiritually dead and so adluts are regenerated IN ORDER TO believe - likewise with dying infants.

Our disagreement is over the elected means that obtains salvation or "way" of salvaiton. I believe the Bible has but ONE way to be saved while you believe there are at least THREE ways.

1. Pre-Circumcision or non-Circumcision Canaanite infants death - without circumcision, without baptism but "through sanctification of the Spirit (regeneration) AND belief of the truth (made believers).

2. Circumcision dying infants - remission of sins/regeneration obtained "in" circumcision.

3. Baptized dying infants - remission of sins/regeneration obtain "in" baptism.


At the very minimum you have two WAYS of salvation for those who live to adulthood.

1. Infant baptism - given the promise of salvation confirmed later in actual regeneration/faith.

2. Non-infant baptized elect - remission of sins/regeneration/justification received "in" baptism.

The Bible simply does not offer these options but the means is built in with the salvation "to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth."



I believe the elected means is spelled out in the words "chosen to salvation THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" which is the same in all elect. However, what you have is OPTIONAL means applicable to some and not others in obtaining the same salvation.

 

The Bible is logical and it does fit together in a neat passage because God is not "the author of confusion." The only place it does not fit is in the mind of a heretic or a confused mind.

A paradox is not a contradiction but only an APPARENT contradiction (not a real one) that further study and insight reveals to be perfectly logical within the framework of its proper context.

Much of the Bible is a "paradox" to the LOST! Much of it is a paradox to the MISLED and poorly instructed believer. You are advocating the position of the lost and the deceived by insisting they need not STUDY or SEEK the truth but merely accept the paradoxes instead of trying to make sense of them!

Because Lutherans are uneducated in the Bible teaching they fail to comprehend the Biblical distinction between the "PROFESSED" Christian versus the REAL Christian (1 Jn. 2:19). The REAL Christian can never be lost - Jn. 5:24; 6:37-40; 10:27-30; etc. The PROFESSED Christian may be lost or saved depending on the genuiness of their spiritual state.

All four soils "received the seed" as a matter of PROFESSION. Only the fourth soul is a genuine regenerated heart and the variety of output proves not all Christians manifest it to the same extent in progressive sanctification.

 

So you believe some dying infants are in hell? Since you do not believe all dying infants are "elect" then obviusly some are in hell. This is where my representative application by Christ in Romans 5:12-21 kicks in and where "sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound" as it covers all dying infants as elect in Christ saving them the same way as those who continue to live.

Hence, circumcision and/or baptism does not provide the "promise" for all infants since that promise is only given to the "elect" and only the elect have been "chosen in him" as there is no salvation OUTSIDE of Christ, hence no such "promise" exists OUTSIDE of Christ. Therefore, who makes the determination which infant baptism serves as "the promise" of salvation since no such "promise" exists outside of election to salvation?????

Do you have any of the elect infants DYING before circumcision or baptism? If so, then don't you have TWO ways of salvation. One way where remission of sins; regeneration; justification is received WITHOUT circucmsion and baptism whereas another way received "IN" or IN CONNECTION WITH circumcision and baptism???

You believe there are THREE DIFFENENT WAYS to recieve salvation. You have some of the elect receiving only "the promise" of salvation THROUGH baptism while others receiving it "IN" baptism and others receiving it without baptism whatsoever (theif on the cross, etc.).

The Scriptures have it only ONE WAY - "through sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" plus minus nothing for ALL the elect.

You do not believe in strictly "justification by faith without" but Justification by faith with baptism and sometimes without baptism."

 

In regard to eternal judgement there is only one basis for judgement presented in the scriptures and it is presented in the Old as well as the New Testament repeatedly and that is all who stand in that day before that judgement will be judged "according to his works."

Dying infants have no such basis for judgment. They have only the representative actions of one man - Adam - as a possible basis for eternal judgement. Yet that basis is NEVER mentioned in regard to judgement day.

Second, in the Old Testament Judgement of Korah and all his family God did not send the "infants" of Korah's family alive down into "sheol" hell. Instead, the infants were not judged and at least some of them grew up and became beleivers and wrote some of the Psalms.

Why is it that only those members of Korah's family sent down into Sheol were those capable of being judged on the basis of personal merit or "according to their works" while infants were not sent down to Sheol but were savd from it and many went on to be writers of the Psalms?

The infants were equally family members as those who perished but God spared them and not the rest of the family of Korah.

My view is this is a type of eternal judgment. All who were sent alive down into sheol fit the principle "according to their works" in regard to personal ability. All his other family members were old enough to discern between good and evil manifested in their own personal works.

Just as Adam represented dying infants and living infants by his own act bringing condemnation upon all, I believe Christ represented all who could not represent themselves apart from Adam's act and thus they were saved just as they were condemned so that where sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound by Christ's representative work. This does not mean the dying infants were saved differently but rather none will be condemned solely by Adam's personal action but ultimate condemnation is determined "according to his own works."

 

I believe what the Bible says. Let's consider it:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

There is only one simple sentence with a subject and a verb. Everything else revolves around it.

You are saved.
That is the heart and soul of this verse.

"By grace" This is a prepositional phrase modifying the verb. It tells us how we are saved. We are saved by the grace of God that Christ offered us on the cross. The payment was made by Him.
Thus, "By grace are you saved."

"Through faith" This is another prepositional phrase modifying the verb "are saved." We are saved by faith, and faith alone. Paul told the jailer "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." We are saved by faith. "Through faith are you saved."

"and that not of yourselves" There is nothing you can do of yourself to attain salvation. It is by the grace of God and by faith in that grace and that is all. You cannot merit salvation. There is nothing you can do. It is not of yourself. "Salvation is not of oneself."

"It is the gift of God." What is the gift of God? Salvation is the gift of God. This is the subject all throughout. It is a gift to be received, freely received, without any strings attached, without works, for it is not of yourself.
"Salvation is the gift of God."

"not of works" Salvation cannot be obtained by works. If it could there would be no need for Christ to die on the cross. If your works merited salvation in any way it would be an insult to Christ, a slap in his face. It would be like saying that his blood was insufficient; that he failed on the cross and that you had to come along and help him to get you into heaven, because he could not possibly get you there himself. It is a blasphemous doctrine.
"Salvation is not of works."

"Lest any man should boast." Abraham could not boast in his works. Why? Righteousness was imputed on him by God simply because he believed, and for no other reason. Read Romans 4:1-5. If it were by works then you would be "boasting" in heaven for all eternity about what you had done to get to heaven, and then heaven would not be heaven at all, would it?
"Salvation is not for those who boast of their works."

 

I am not answering for DHK but merely pointing out that "faith" in justification is simply receiving salvation as finished without your works. Justifying faith merely RESTS on the declaration that all work for salvation has been FINISHED and thus no cooperation or participation or action is necessary to receive the promise or can be done to receive the promise. See Romans 4:21.

So there is no partly dependence upon God or self but total dependence on God but simply acceptance it is FINISHED with nothing you can do or must do but receive it as such - finished - thus faith is an empty hand that merely receives salvation but never participates in obtaining salvation because all the work is FINISHED.

The difference between faith and faithfulness (works) is found in the distinction made in the following sentence:

"I believed in Christ and therefore I will be faithful to Christ."

Faith is resting "IN" what Christ did for you - His works. Faithfulness is what you dor for Him - your works. That is why "it is of faith that it might by BY GRACE."

 

Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God.
Faith is confidence in the Word of another, and in this case confidence in the Word of God, specifically the gospel.
It is not given by God. Demonstrate that faith is given by God.
God made us in his image and likeness with a will to choose. The choice is ours whether to accept or reject Christ. We are not robots controlled by God with faith injected in us and thus directed by God to choose. We choose.

 

No, we disagree about HOW one is saved.

1. Election is only "TO" salvation but it is not salvation - 2 Thes. 2:13a

2. Salvation is THROUGH sanctification of the Spirit AND belief of the truth, the truth of the gospel - 2 Thes. 2:13-14 as the effectual calling occurred in connection with the gospel (2 The. 2:14).

However, you ADD to these divine MEANS whereby the elect are saved. You add circumcision and baptism as ADDITIONAL means when you claim that "IN" baptism regeneration/remission of sins/justification.

More alarming is that these are OPTIONAL means which you admit that God may or may not use to save some elect as opposed to other elect.

Bottom line, you do not believe the gospel ALONE is the power of God unto salvation but something MAY be added - circumcision/baptism to convey salvation.

This does not harmonize with the contrast that Paul makes between the gospel and circumcision/baptism in 1 Cor. 1:17-18; Acts 15:1-10;etc.

Baptism is as much a "good" work or act of obedience to God's commandments, as circumcision and Paul denies that circumcision is connected with actual literal justification by faith but is a POST-salvation "sign" or symbol. So is baptism - a POST-salvational sign.

What we disagree about is that it is the gospel used in both infants and adults that is "the power of God unto salvation" - 1 Cor. 1:17-18. I believe the word of creation or the creative word to regenerate the elect is the gospel empowered by God (1 Thes. 1:4-5; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23,25; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 4:6; etc.).

The chosen means for "sanctication of the Spirit AND belief of the truth" is the Gospel (2 Thes. 2:14) alone - not external ordinances - but the internalization of the gospel by the power of God.

Your position is so full of contradictions. First, you deny that baptism conveys salvation to the elect. Second, you demand salvation is conferred to infants in baptism. Third, you affirm that baptism gives only "the promise" of salvation which later must be confirmed by personal faith and hence, there is no faith in baptism in the first place.

 

You have reversed the order above and that not only perverts the Word of God but leads to false conclusions. The order is:

1. Repent
2. Those who repent be baptized
3. Then the promise

This is plainly a lie, a distortion of God's Word, a complete falsehood as no such command can be found in scripture - nowhere!

Matthew 28:19 does not provide such a command! Remember, evangelization is the subject of going in Matthew 28:19a and this is made plain and clear in Mark 16:15.

The command is evanglize all nations not baptize all nations. Gospel BEFORE baptism and thus faith BEFORE baptism (Mk. 16:16). No other order can be found in the New Testament but that is exactly what you are trying to teach is the order in the New Testament when you make that false application to the Great Commission which is what the rest of the New Testament obeyed.

 

We are all sinners by both birth and chose!

Those saved by God are those predestined by Him, chosen beforehand to be found in christ, and that will happen once they receive jesus by the faith God enables them to possess...

God opens their hearts/minds to be able to do that, and their natural inclinations are now for jesus...

once saved, God seals them with/by Holy Spirit, and they have new nature...

Anchored by the Will of God, NOT their will!

 

However, that is your major problem. You don't believe that God gives faith to all infants baptized but only elect infants and even then you believe it must be confirmed by a profession of REPENTANCE and faith later. Thus no faith was actually given in baptism and therefore there can be no regeneration/remission of sins or justification actually conveyed IN baptism for ANYONE at ANYTIME!

Why? Because there can be no remission of sins, no justification and no regeneration apart from actual repentance/faith and that demands knoweldge of God as "faith" without understanding given in conjunction with it is oxymoronic. Your doctrine of confirmation demands it never occurred as no baptized infant confesses the knowledge of God without HUMAN instruction. My doctrine says dying infants are given faith with understanding as even John the Baptist leaped with "joy" at the announcement of the birth of Christ demanding some extent of understanding occurred.

Yet ALL those in covenant relationship (from the least to the greatest) with God KNOW God experientially by direct revelation and do not need HUMAN INSTRUCTION to know God - Jeremiah 31:34; Heb. 8:8-10 as it comes by direct revelation - Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:15.