Featured Baptismal regeneration

I am not a paedobaptist, but you did not mention why Protestant paedobaptists baptize infants. They do not baptize them for remission of sins, they baptize them because they believe that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and it is to be applied to all family members within the local, visible church. They still believe that salvation is by grace through faith and that an infant still needs to be converted. Ergo, they do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

Unlike the free will-sovereignty issue, I believe we agree on this one. I know in the church I grew up in the justification for sprinkling infants was not exactly regeneration, but in effect it was similar. They believed that a covenant relationship between parent and child imparted salvation until what they called being accountable. Usually around 12 or so, one would start attending what was called a communicants class. My take on that is there is no NT justification for what is being called a covenant child-parent relationship. If there was such a thing, it could not impart salvation. Only Jesus Christ and His work on the cross saves by grace through faith. There is no Biblical reason to sprinkle infants. You could take your pet cat and sprinkle it and both would know the same thing about the Gospel, nothing.

Sometimes those who use the proper mode, ie immersion, also have regenerational Baptism, the most famous denomination being the Church of Christ. In essence they have turned the Gospel into a works Gospel. So its not just the sprinkling that is in error.

The only Biblical standard is by immersion, after salvation, as a symbol of the death, burial an resurrection of Jesus Christ and your newness of life. Other denominations are all over the map, from sprinkling, to sprinkling infants, to saving power in the baptism.

 

Then you have a serious problem. When God works even through fallible humans his work is perfect. Our imperfection does not negate His sovereignty or His power. If you believe man and his sin is more powerful than God than you have, as I said, serious issues.

See the Bible is not just a book. Those who refer to it as such have a very, very low view of His word. It is more than a book it is the very revelation of God. It is what He intends for us to know about Him. It is His expression of Himself in written form.

Those people like yourself who have little faith in His word cannot know their God as God has intended. It is just impossible. Your understanding of God will always be weak and your faith will always be a trouble for you. It is sad.

I believe God and all of His words. I believe His revelation of Himself as He has revealed it. I do not have to question any of His word because I do not question any of His word. It is all reliable and trustworthy. It is all true and there is nothing in it that is not true.

 

You are being rather hypocritical here aren't you Michael? You ascribe strong language to me such as raising the Bible to the level of Deity ( an accusation of Bible worship no less). Which is fine, but when I express my strong views on your position I am a Punk and I have slandered you? If your standard for what is a punk and slander is true what does that say about your post to me? Is it not equally slanderous? Are you not equally a punk?

I would suggest that if you have trouble debating and even in the midst of it the sharing of strong views then you should avoid it a long with the name calling.

 

Amen :thumbs:

I would say many Padeo's do also, silently.

 

:thumbs: Amen, I will agree with all of the above, but only if you are referring to the original scrolls, we can not declare the copies as totally inspired because of the few minor errors in it. YHWH is perfect.

 

Rebel, relax and have a couple glasses of wine :love2::1_grouphug:

 

No heathens can be part of the New Testament Church, you don't know which babies are the predestined elect. Padeobaptism is foolishness.

 

Then why believe anything it says? The whole book, if it can err, may all be an err. None of it is trust worthy. How do we discern what is fact and what is fiction(the err)?

 

Do any originals still exist? I think they are all copies of the original. The Hebrew and greek texts of today are just copies. Even if the originals did exist how would we know which was the original? If modern translations err, then we have no hope of knowing the truth. Granted, I would not be using a paraphrase bible(the message, etc...) But when it comes to the more word for word tranlastions (NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV), Id we believe the Bible err's, we are not guaranteed truth from the Bible.

*Just realized you stated inspired not err

2 Timothy says all scripture is God breathed. What scripture, what text? The Jews were not carrying around the original text. The text they had differed slightly from copy to copy. The Septuagint was a translation. If there was an issue with it, why didn't Christ, Paul or Peter call it out? Why would 2 Timothy 3:16 exist, if the scripture they had(which was all copies and/or translations) was not God breathed?

 

I agree with you take. The New Covenant/Covenant of Christ is a covenant of believers, not an ethic people like the previous. One was born into the Abrahamic covenant. One is born-again into the new covenant. So you get the seal after enter into the covenant. Abrahamic covenant = birth(8days old). New covenant =spiritual birth(saved by grace).

 

Do you understand what our Presbyterians brethren believe in regards to infant baptism? You and I are agreed that baptized infants are not part of the Church. Presbyterians do not believe in an exclusive regenerate church membership. They believe baptized infants are covenant children. They are sanctified through their believing parents and are part of the New Covenant community. They see a parallel with covenant Israel. Just because a male child was circumcised does not mean the child was a believer by faith (c.f. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, Gen. 15:6). In the Presbyterian schema the baptized infant must still come to faith in Christ. The problem, as I see it, is that Presbyterians stray into presumptive regeneration. They have a hard time distinguishing between the application of the sign and an actual profession of faith at a later date. To be sure even children raised in Baptist homes may present that problem. My daughter never made the typical profession of faith. She was raised under the teaching of the Word of God and never displayed anything but an obedient attitude. I have complete confidence in her salvation because she confesses Christ. She has told me, "Dad, I believe in Christ, I just never remember not believing." Still, she was not baptized until she was able to articulate her faith in Christ.

 

Reformed, I think it's time for us who see their deceptions, to expose Padeobaptism once and for all and get rid of the relic of Popery. We need to question them further when they make statements saying their children are covenant children, what exactly does that mean, what are those covenant children a part of???? Can you see the deception, and there are many more.
Our scriptures teach us that only those who's hearts are circumcised are part of the Church the body of Christ, a circumcision made without hands, not a man made water ritual.

 

:thumbs::applause::applause::thumbs:

 

LOL funny :laugh: We will keep an eye on him.