ECT Where did we get the idea of the need for infant baptism?

[genuineoriginal]

Where did that thinking originate? Is it necessary? Is it a decree of God?

Infant baptism originated with the writings of Augustine of Hippo when Augustine was creating the heresy of Original Sin.
Because Augustine's heresy was accepted by the Church of Rome and by Calvin, infant baptism gained wide support in many Christian denominations.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course we don't deify anyone, CR. Schaeffer's position is one of many. Take it or leave it.

Please don't major on my using the word "deify". I wrote so much more that needs be pondered.

I have some of Schaefers books. I like Schaefer. He was a good pilosopher. He made some good points but I doubt God intended him to make it a religious doctrine.

 

[dreadknought]

LOL

YHWH isn't mocked, child neglecter.

 

[Cross Reference]

Infant baptism originated with the writings of Augustine of Hippo when Augustine was creating the heresy of Original Sin.
Because Augustine's heresy was accepted by the Church of Rome and by Calvin, infant baptism gained wide support in many Christian denominations.

Finally someone nails it to be nothing more than a religious "opinion"! Thank you, go.

 

[Cross Reference]

Infant baptism originated with the writings of Augustine of Hippo when Augustine was creating the heresy of Original Sin.
Because Augustine's heresy was accepted by the Church of Rome and by Calvin, infant baptism gained wide support in many Christian denominations.

Both men now deified by both churches.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I know where it goes and to paraphrase Van Til: "If it doesn't lead to God, don't waste your time".

If this is your conclusion, then you did not read and think about the content or you are just up to your usual wave offs of anything requiring substantive time commitments. Which is it?

You and yours only make them complex.

No. The topic is complex in and of itself. My pointers distill the complexity such that the average person may digest the complexities.

Horton's material is saturated with Scriptural arguments.

R. Scott Clark's defense of paedo baptism is a thorough treatment of the necessary and logical consequences of the teachings of Scripture.

Schaeffer's is a well done pastoral treatment for the layman.

With your resistance to dig deeper, you are just kicking at the goads and it is not going unnoticed.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

What is your experience with Francis Schaeffer? I see he has an active Institute with blogs and books, etc. Years ago, I thought him an amazing man.

In joy, we serve our Lord, this day,

CB

Schaeffer's How Should We Then Live is something we all should read, view (video series) and study. Schaeffer was given to rationalism more than to my liking, but one who is studied in the domain can separate the wheat from the chaff.

AMR

 

[Word based mystic]

If you are calvinistic in philosophy why would you bother to baptize anybody or pray for any situation. Eliminate evangelists and the co-laboring principles shared in scripture. If all is predestined it matters not. the calvinistic philosophy is the most difficult objection to overcome with logical and intelligent atheists. Hopefully someone here can open a thread so i can discuss The Words birthing of the universe and how when He the Word limited his omniscience for the purpose of creating angels and humans without violating the Fatherly love character of God.

 

[Cross Reference]

If this is your conclusion, then you did not read and think about the content or you are just up to your usual wave offs of anything requiring substantive time commitments. Which is it?

Both and one more __ I know where they wind up.

No. The topic is complex in and of itself. My pointers distill the complexity such that the average person may digest the complexities.

Sorry, I don't agree, Not if one understands AND accepts what the scriptures teach about innocence which, BtW, I have mentioned innumerable times you have wilfully ignored re babies. And to what end do you hope one will find themselves agreeing with you after "digesting your distilled complexities"? For what reason? Obviously, you believe I am a heretic so you can't be hoping anyone would disagree with you.

Horton's material is saturated with Scriptural arguments.

R. Scott Clark's defense of paedo baptism is a thorough treatment of the necessary and logical consequences of the teachings of Scripture.

Schaeffer's is a well done pastoral treatment for the layman.

With your resistance to dig deeper, you are just kicking at the goads and it is not going unnoticed.

AMR

No resistance from me, AMR. Don't you think that you are being just bit audacious by your pretentious-patronizing? Your comment to CB speaks volumes about your lack of objectivity and incapableness to be so:

". . . .Schaeffer was given to rationalism more than to my liking, but one who is studied in the domain can separate the wheat from the chaff."

His "rationalism" is what, more than you like, you say?? What reason would you have to write such a thing except you have a degree of resistance against anyone who is? Because Schaefer isn't quite irrational enough to satisfy your taste's, your doctrine, but, simply because he lived in the domain he is qualified? What domain might that be, AMR __ Calvinism? If so, in that regard you will indeed find agreement with me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Both and one more __ I know where they wind up.

You really need to lay off the "__"

Sorry, I don't agree, Not if one understands AND accepts what the scriptures teach about innocence which...

Naturally anyone denying all are born in original sin, in Adam, would adopt such a thing. That is how you come to the odd views that the pagan in the jungle has a free pass to glory just because no one came along and presented the good news to him. Good for the savage that the church ignored the Scriptural mandates to the contrary. I think not.

No resistance from me, AMR. Don't you think that you are being just bit audacious by your pretentious-patronizing? Your comment to CB speaks volumes about your lack of objectivity and incapableness to be so:

". . . .Schaeffer was given to rationalism more than to my liking, but one who is studied in the domain can separate the wheat from the chaff."

His "rationalism" is what, more than you like, you say...

Er, I was asked an opinion and proffered one. While you can inject yourself into the matter uninvited, if you can speak to the specifics of what I have observed from my study of the man, then please do so. I will wait while you run along and "Google" something appropriate. Otherwise, this is but a coy attempt to claim studied knowledge of that wherein you speak, evidence notwithstanding, of course. Pretension indeed! Just sayin'. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

You really need to lay off the "__"

Naturally anyone denying all are born in original sin, in Adam, would adopt such a thing. That is how you come to the odd views that the pagan in the jungle has a free pass to glory just because no one came along and presented the good news to him. Good for the savage that the church ignored the Scriptural mandates to the contrary. I think not.

Er, I was asked an opinion and proffered one. While you can inject yourself into the matter uninvited, if you can speak to the specifics of what I have observed from my study of the man, then please do so. I will wait while you run along and "Google" something appropriate. Otherwise, this is but a coy attempt to claim studied knowledge of that wherein you speak, evidence notwithstanding, of course. Pretension indeed! Just sayin'. :AMR:

AMR

Look for my reply first thing in the AM. I don't have enough patience for doing it now.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Look for my reply first thing in the AM. I don't have enough patience time to Google a response for doing it now.

Fixed it for you, CR.

See the fun you can have once you master all the various vBulletin tags when quoting another? :AMR:

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Fixed it for you, CR.

See the fun you can have once you master all the various vBulletin tags when quoting another? :AMR:

AMR

David used these words in explaining himself to God:
Psalm 51:4–5 (KJV)
4* Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in thy sight:
That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest,
And be clear when thou judgest.
5* Behold, I was shapen in iniquity;
And in sin did my mother conceive me.

I feel sure that, given his relationship with God, God would have corrected him if he was in error or incomplete in his understanding of the facts of His relationship with fallen man.. So with that brief explanation of how life is initiated, we can see he didn’t mean to imply he was born in sin by stating he was only conceived in sin. By implication I believe we can conclude this from David: 'I was conceived in the sin, born innocent but into a world under the penalty of Adam’s transgression from which no man can reconcile'. Let’s read these words from Jesus that support what I am saying:

“Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me” [no issues of unconquered vanity].*“But that the world may know that I love the Father” [by my example of obedience to His written word as being the reason for my victory because “. . as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. .“ John 14:30–31 (KJV)

Preparation for keeping that one commandment is the responsibility of the parents when grooming the child for entering his age of accountability with the hope that he still be found innocent when passing through it into his adulthood. I would say, by the example of Adam, it is an impossibility unless one is born-again from above. No man can withstand the wiles of Satan without the power given him from above.


Vanity, the uninvited issue that when entertained instantly brought about a state of relational death to Adam which sealed the problem to his progeny with no advocate to plead his case with God. The words of Jesus above speak to that as being the truth: “the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me”. This same prince God warned Cain of by these words to him: “If thou doest well,” [in overcoming vanity] “shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Genesis 4:7 (KJV) This admonition by God was prophetic and purposed to extend beyond the life of Cain to all of the progeny of fallen man. The desire of Satan is for the life of every man, woman and child on earth innocent or guilty, it doesn’t matter. By these words of God given Cain that he should overcome sin, were intended by God for every future man born of woman to take to his heart.

God’s first attempt at helping men to overcome vanity was by his direct hand in their affairs. In the failure of this method that “grieved him at his heart,” Genesis 6:6 (KJV teaches us several things, one of which is the strength of the will of man that God gave him. Why is this except God must have, for HIS PROGENY, the heart of a man that his soul could be proven to be perfect for that which He had created him. I.e., to rule and reign with him from the very Godhead. Jesus would “prove” to be the first __ and He would have many brothers.

By Jesus, vanity can now be dealt with irrespective of one's innocence or guilt. Temptation is the tool allowed by God for the purpose of not only proving such a man in his innocence, but also for fallen man, the integrity of his heart upon hearing the word of God. Jesus used these words to the Disciples that make my point: “You didn’t choose me, I chose you”. (Jn 15:16)

Integrity is what God is after in man and Adam’s transgression or the penalty for it never stripped mankind of his capability to respond to God. If that was true it would have meant man was made reprobate by God by decree without remedy even God could not reverse.

 

[Cross Reference]

You really need to lay off the "__"

Why?

Naturally anyone denying all are born in original sin, in Adam, would adopt such a thing. That is how you come to the odd views that the pagan in the jungle has a free pass to glory just because no one came along and presented the good news to him. Good for the savage that the church ignored the Scriptural mandates to the contrary. I think not.

You presume much from my reasoning. Question: Does the Bible really deal with "origin sin" as you suppose or are you allowing yourself to be carried along by someone else's opinion? I believe the latter for reasons I have previously made known to you.

Er, I was asked an opinion and proffered one. While you can inject yourself into the matter uninvited, if you can speak to the specifics of what I have observed from my study of the man, then please do so. I will wait while you run along and "Google" something appropriate. Otherwise, this is but a coy attempt to claim studied knowledge of that wherein you speak, evidence notwithstanding, of course. Pretension indeed! Just sayin'. :AMR:

AMR

Er, couldn't restrain myself. A "vanity "thing, I suppose. . . :yoshi:

Btw, AMR, Why would you not suppose God would not have more regard for my Yak shepherd friend who never heard of Jesus Christ or his neighbor who tenderly cares for his one cow, who show more love for their animals than most Christians who claims the name of Christ do, even for one another? Something wrong with that picture, doncha think? Do you think you just might be missing something in the salvation message?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Btw, AMR, Why would you not suppose God would not have more regard for my Yak shepherd friend who never heard of Jesus Christ or his neighbor who tenderly cares for his one cow, who show more love for their animals than most Christians who claims the name of Christ do, even for one another? Something wrong with that picture, doncha think? Do you think you just might be missing something in the salvation message?

As I implied previously, the implications of your lachrymose view is contrary to Scripture.

Such a view would imply, contrary to Romans 1, unregenerate man genuinely possesses motives that are not seen as hateful of God, that your neighbor who failed to be as wise as you were, simply was not "good enough" to choose as you so chose, should be pardoned by the One who is holy and Who struck down a man (Uzza) who, merely in a misguided attempt to prevent the ark from touching the very dirt God created, thinking he was doing something "good". Yours are the humanistic notions of Who God is that leads to grievous error.

In simple summary, those that are not believers hate God with their every thought, word, and deed and deserve nothing but His righteous judgment. Even these persons acts of civil goodness, helping the old lady across the road, giving to charity, etc., are performed for the wrong motives.

Likewise, if you deny original sin of all in Adam, then yours is the sort of slippery slope one finds oneself upon. Said denial is contrary to Christendom's orthodoxy in its communal understanding of the sin of Adam and its consequences-- we sin because we are sinners, and not that we are sinners because we sin. Feel free to count yourself outside the camp, but be wary of the enticement of being in the minority, for it appeals to one's vanity and tickles one's itching ears.

The "salvation message" is clear. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The details of exactly what "all" means here is the matter at hand that you are ignoring.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Laughable all, AMR but, I will reply, by God 's Grace. ____ Stay tuned.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Laughable all, AMR but, I will reply, by God 's Grace. ____ Stay tuned.

By all means, do. It seems the last word is something you insist upon.

Er, couldn't restrain myself. A "vanity "thing, I suppose. . . :yoshi:

Indeed, that.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

As I implied previously, the implications of your lachrymose view is contrary to Scripture.

Prove it ___ by you properly exegeting scripture of your own accord. I want to read what you are given to believe from them and why, and not someone else's biased opinion you simply agree with. In other words, stand on you own scriptural gleanings and I will read them as I have done this one.

Such a view would imply, contrary to Romans 1, unregenerate man genuinely possesses motives that are not seen as hateful of God, that your neighbor who failed to be as wise as you were, simply was not "good enough" to choose as you so chose, should be pardoned by the One who is holy and Who struck down a man (Uzza) who, merely in a misguided attempt to prevent the ark from touching the very dirt God created, thinking he was doing something "good". Yours are the humanistic notions of Who God is that leads to grievous error.

I am truly amazed you would chose Romans 1 to use to support your bias when it speaks of men who knew God but fell from His grace by not wanting to retain Him any longer in their thinking and to such a the degree God would decree them over to reprobation He could not reverse.

I

n simple summary, those that are not believers hate God with their every thought, word, and deed and deserve nothing but His righteous judgment. Even these persons acts of civil goodness, helping the old lady across the road, giving to charity, etc., are performed for the wrong motives.

And of course you know that for a certainty?? Does not the scriptures teach that men will be judged by their deeds?

Likewise, if you deny original sin of all in Adam, then yours is the sort of slippery slope one finds oneself upon. Said denial is contrary to Christendom's orthodoxy in its communal understanding of the sin of Adam and its consequences-- we sin because we are sinners, and not that we are sinners because we sin. Feel free to count yourself outside the camp, but be wary of the enticement of being in the minority, for it appeals to one's vanity and tickles one's itching ears.

Couple of things here: 1. I don't care about Christendom's man-made creeds and, otherwise, reasoning born of their religious intellect and not of the Holy Spirit. 2. Original sin was that which was found in Lucifer, not Adam who merely opened the door for it to effect the "blood" of all mankind by yielding to the power of the pull of vanity he was subjected to for the purpose of overcoming in his own strength God would have aided if Adam had asked for His wisdom and guidance, However, like you, he felt no need to do that sort of thing because he thought he was "above it all". Adam's attitude and disposition would often be in evidenced in many later accounts of men with like minds.

The "salvation message" is clear. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The details of exactly what "all" means here is the matter at hand that you are ignoring.

Not in the least am I ignoring anything as you must wilfully ignore to protect you bias.

. . . . and it doesn't go unnoticed by this reader. My remaining question is to ask you, why you chose such a spiritual path that will not accomplish what you are given to believe will __ and that from man, not God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Couple of things here: 1. I don't care about Christendom's man-made creeds and, otherwise, reasoning born of their religious intellect and not of the Holy Spirit.

Says the man stating a creed that he has no care of creeds. :AMR:

"...I want to say first of all is that it is a time that men speak disparagingly of creeds. You hear it on every side, 'I believe in religion but I don't care anything about theology. I love flowers but I don't care anything for botany. Let's have a religion without any dogma.' Men take great credit to themselves in these utterances that they are free from the enslavement to dogmas. You must not take these people too seriously. They either don't know what they are talking about, or else know what they say is utterly unworthy of human respect."

- B. H. Carroll


AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Says the man stating a creed that he has no care of creeds. :AMR:

"...I want to say first of all is that it is a time that men speak disparagingly of creeds. You hear it on every side, 'I believe in religion but I don't care anything about theology. I love flowers but I don't care anything for botany. Let's have a religion without any dogma.' Men take great credit to themselves in these utterances that they are free from the enslavement to dogmas. You must not take these people too seriously. They either don't know what they are talking about, or else know what they say is utterly unworthy of human respect."

- B. H. Carroll


AMR

Wrong! I believe strongly in good insightful theology and couldn't care a wit for religion, especially, man-made. Tell that to ol' B.H.

Now, what you you deem more important of the two or maybe you can't answer?