Cruciform
New member
Already answered (Post #29).
ECT Where did we get the idea of the need for infant baptism?
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
Cross Reference
New member
Amen! That had its origin with Hannah when dedicating Samuel and that is where the RCC got its idea of the need for infant baptism __ though they will never admit it.
Word based mystic
New member
Cruciform.
in the infant baptism your scriptures used and translations implied to the subject are
Speculative and presumptive. Speculative and presumptive conclusions are at best questionable.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved."
I could use the same presumptions to imply Jesus words as being specifically progressive and not an accident.
Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin
believing and repenting (first) is a progressive on purpose theme.
You have switched them in essence to prove a point that is speculative at best.
you stated this Col. 2:12 - "in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ" but you excluded the full context of the scripture which gives you a full context of (through your faith) infants do not exercise their faith at this point and saying that a parents faith or (priests) faith can bypass the repent and or believe portion of scripture is incredibly presumptive. Jesus is the door not the priests faith.
collosians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Your quote "There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments." is interesting.
God is bound by His Word. Yet (your) priestly sacraments incorporated by your philosophy of the priest being a layer between man accessing God or the priest bypassing the faith and repentance necessity of a childs conscious faith and repentance action is fluid God not being bound by his own sacraments that he put in place???????. Sacraments placed by God verified and confirmed by scripture is similar in nature to Gods spoken word. If there are exceptions and no binding in heaven and earth than the sacrament is in question as to being instituted by God.
your speculative assumption from the following scripture is addition to the scripture Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. (This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.)
we are conceived in the iniquity of sin gives a basic truth about our nature. It does not magically support your presumptive interpretation that a priest can transition a child until they believe or repent for themselves. That Is a God process of judging a person that dies before the opportunity to repent and believe.
Kind of like implying the priests activity and decisions can damn or bring salvation by a earthly and sensual process/ceremony.
You quote "Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason."
another presumptive process in your assessment of what Jesus (meant to really say)
I could also imply that the disciples trying to control the access to Jesus is similar to Your priests activity of being another layer of accessing God or having to go through the priests to access grace. As to your assumption that it (obviously implies/demonstrates) that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason is quite a stretch. The rest of the scripture brings context to the basic theme read closely "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
you quoted Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
this actually helps to discount your argument/contention.
This shows that a person can believe there is a God and do a ceremony but that person may not have ever become Born again like you said (birthed from above)
matthew 7:23 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
in order to do the things above the scripture says you have to believe and that all things are possible for those who believe. so these above believed and activated supernatural events without being born again (witchcraft)
The key is in the above scripture is "I never knew you" We are known when we become born again.
you quoted and summarized "Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults."
This actually once again discounts your argument. circumcision allowed you to be part of israel (but did not assure your salvation in the after life) It is the same with the church and members that are in the church. they might be a part of a fellowship and take communion and do confession (confess your sins one to another). But the membership and part of fellowship does not assure born again salvation.
I could break down your presumptions/assumptive doctrine more but I have to go to work.
in the infant baptism your scriptures used and translations implied to the subject are
Speculative and presumptive. Speculative and presumptive conclusions are at best questionable.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved."
I could use the same presumptions to imply Jesus words as being specifically progressive and not an accident.
Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin
believing and repenting (first) is a progressive on purpose theme.
You have switched them in essence to prove a point that is speculative at best.
you stated this Col. 2:12 - "in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ" but you excluded the full context of the scripture which gives you a full context of (through your faith) infants do not exercise their faith at this point and saying that a parents faith or (priests) faith can bypass the repent and or believe portion of scripture is incredibly presumptive. Jesus is the door not the priests faith.
collosians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Your quote "There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments." is interesting.
God is bound by His Word. Yet (your) priestly sacraments incorporated by your philosophy of the priest being a layer between man accessing God or the priest bypassing the faith and repentance necessity of a childs conscious faith and repentance action is fluid God not being bound by his own sacraments that he put in place???????. Sacraments placed by God verified and confirmed by scripture is similar in nature to Gods spoken word. If there are exceptions and no binding in heaven and earth than the sacrament is in question as to being instituted by God.
your speculative assumption from the following scripture is addition to the scripture Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. (This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.)
we are conceived in the iniquity of sin gives a basic truth about our nature. It does not magically support your presumptive interpretation that a priest can transition a child until they believe or repent for themselves. That Is a God process of judging a person that dies before the opportunity to repent and believe.
Kind of like implying the priests activity and decisions can damn or bring salvation by a earthly and sensual process/ceremony.
You quote "Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason."
another presumptive process in your assessment of what Jesus (meant to really say)
I could also imply that the disciples trying to control the access to Jesus is similar to Your priests activity of being another layer of accessing God or having to go through the priests to access grace. As to your assumption that it (obviously implies/demonstrates) that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason is quite a stretch. The rest of the scripture brings context to the basic theme read closely "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
you quoted Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
this actually helps to discount your argument/contention.
This shows that a person can believe there is a God and do a ceremony but that person may not have ever become Born again like you said (birthed from above)
matthew 7:23 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
in order to do the things above the scripture says you have to believe and that all things are possible for those who believe. so these above believed and activated supernatural events without being born again (witchcraft)
The key is in the above scripture is "I never knew you" We are known when we become born again.
you quoted and summarized "Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults."
This actually once again discounts your argument. circumcision allowed you to be part of israel (but did not assure your salvation in the after life) It is the same with the church and members that are in the church. they might be a part of a fellowship and take communion and do confession (confess your sins one to another). But the membership and part of fellowship does not assure born again salvation.
I could break down your presumptions/assumptive doctrine more but I have to go to work.
Cross Reference
New member
To Cruciform.
in the infant baptism your scriptures used and translations implied to the subject are Speculative and presumptive. Speculative and presumptive conclusions are at best questionable.
I could use the same presumptions to imply Jesus words as being specifically progressive and not an accident.
believing and repenting (first) is a progressive on purpose theme.
You have switched them in essence to prove a point that is speculative at best.
you stated this Col. 2:12 -but you excluded the full context of the scripture which gives you a full context of (through your faith) infants do not exercise their faith at this point and saying that a parents faith or (priests) faith can bypass the repent and or believe portion of scripture is incredibly presumptive. Jesus is the door not the priests faith.
interesting.
God is bound by His Word. Yet (your) priestly sacraments incorporated by your philosophy of the priest being a layer between man accessing God or the priest bypassing the faith and repentance necessity of a childs conscious faith and repentance action is fluid God not being bound by his own sacraments that he put in place???????. Sacraments placed by God verified and confirmed by scripture is similar in nature to Gods spoken word. If there are exceptions and no binding in heaven and earth than the sacrament is in question as to being instituted by God.
your speculative assumption from the following scripture is addition to the scripture Psalm 51:5 -we are conceived in the iniquity of sin gives a basic truth about our nature. It does not magically support your presumptive interpretation that a priest can transition a child until they believe or repent for themselves. That Is a God process of judging a person that dies before the opportunity to repent and believe.
Kind of like implying the priests activity and decisions can damn or bring salvation by a earthly and sensual process/ceremony.
You quote "Luke 18:15 –
another presumptive process in your assessment of what Jesus (meant to really say)
I could also imply that the disciples trying to control the access to Jesus is similar to Your priests activity of being another layer of accessing God or having to go through the priests to access grace. As to your assumption that it (obviously implies/demonstrates) that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason is quite a stretch. The rest of the scripture brings context to the basic theme read closely "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
you quoted Mark 16:16 -But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
this actually helps to discount your argument/contention.
This shows that a person can believe there is a God and do a ceremony but that person may not have ever become Born again like you said (birthed from above)
matthew 7:23
in order to do the things above the scripture says you have to believe and that all things are possible for those who believe. so these above believed and activated supernatural events without being born again (witchcraft)
The key is in the above scripture is "I never knew you" We are known when we become born again.
you quoted and summarized "Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 -
This actually once again discounts your argument. circumcision allowed you to be part of israel (but did not assure your salvation in the after life) It is the same with the church and members that are in the church. they might be a part of a fellowship and take communion and do confession (confess your sins one to another). But the membership and part of fellowship does not assure born again salvation.
I could break down your presumptions/assumptive doctrine more but I have to go to work.
___________________________
Not intending to be "presumptive" but hoping to be a help for clarities sake, WBM. . . Cross.
Well Stated. Would like to read your 'long version' . .
Word based mystic
New member
still learning how to navigate, post and quote others. Also when i am in a hurry i tend to run on my sentences.
Cross Reference
New member
No worries. My interest transcends any of that when it is "good stuff"... . .
Cross Reference
New member
You have to know, AMR, reading philosophy is boring. I have to believe that is the reason for some to have majored in it __ to use it as a tool against truth.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It helps to recognize philosophy versus Biblical explanations, too. So if you assumed the links I provided on the matter of the Biblical warrant for paedo-baptism was philosophy, you are likely confused.
I find it odd that when you pose questions on topics requiring substantive study you wave off pointers to thorough treatments of the same with this sort of back-handed slap, referring instead Happy Meal McTheology nuggets. On serious matters, that simply will not do for me.
Maybe digesting meat in small bites will help here:
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-1/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-2/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-3/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-4/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-5/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-6/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/04/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-7/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/04/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-8/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/04/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-9/
AMR
Cross Reference
New member
When it is opinion written out as such it is usually rooted in unbelief due to lack of insight that a pseudo-understanding is a handi-tool to conceal such a thing. Seminaries charge big bucks for such training.
Well, we all have our shortcomings, don't we?
Maybe digesting meat in small bites will help here:
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-1/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-2/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-3/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-4/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-5/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/03/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-6/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/04/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-7/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/04/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-8/
http://heidelblog.net/2009/04/a-reformed-defense-of-paedobaptism-9/
AMR[/QUOTE]
I would you that read my threads and post your 'facts' against what you might believe to be untrue rather than refer me/others to your 'pontifications' that are to be accepted by all as, 'undeniable facts'.. . . . .Personally, there is too much bread in your meat loaf, AMR. I don't like bread in my meat loaf. . . .
dreadknought
New member
Wow, the pot just called the kettle black. You don't read CR, you look for an excuse for your hypothesis. You have to be a dirty sock.
Cross Reference
New member
Do you even know what I am referring to, DK?
dreadknought
New member
Acts 2. A promise for the Body of Christ.
Cross Reference
New member
Cruciform
New member
Only according to the assumptions and opinions that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Cross Reference
New member
<Here we go with Crucy's same-o-same-o "#@">
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you have quibbles with material that presents a cogent defense of the paedo position, interact with it and see where the discussion goes. As it is you only make my the point of my observation of your unwillingness to dig a wee bit deeper about complex topics. Why not try standing on the shoulders of others that have come before us versus assuming we just all know so much more, or are somehow more indwelt by the Spirit now than others?
BTW, you are slowly getting the hang of quoting others. That said, you dropped an opening quote tag in your response to me above. Go back, select "Edit" and add the [quote] tag immediately before my "I find it odd..." in your response, then select "Save". Just sayin'.
AMR
Cross Reference
New member
I know where it goes and to paraphrase Van Til: "If it doesn't lead to God, don't waste your time".
You and yours only make them complex. What's more, YOU NEED to make them complex to protect and advance your high Calvin doctrine. With me and I hope with others, that they see it in that light. What's more, most all who put forth such "complex opinions" you embrace, were NOT spirit filled/led Christians __ nor could they be if cecessionists. That was my reason for my thread: "Which understanding lends itself to your theology?"
Thank you for helping me be clear in what I write, even if is slow. I trust it will help make it more difficult for those who choose to misrepresent my words.
heir
TOL Subscriber
You have to ask yourself why we would need remission of sins when we've been forgiven all trespasses Colossians 2:13 KJV
:think:
heir
TOL Subscriber
Cross Reference
New member
Why does he or anyone believe Francis Schaefer on every issue; on any issue?? Why would he even want to and in doing so speaks of deifying him? What does Schaefer present that should be etched in stone on any subject? There is not one author in my library I would deem having perfect understanding. Good insight?, perhaps, but never complete and usually expressed as opinion that should never be considered the last word. The RCC does that sort of thing. They own that territory.
What happened to insightful understanding by the Holy Spirit, the scriptures plus nothing, and that possible only by a relationship? I'll tell you __ easy philosophical believism preached and taught that the Holy Spirit cannot be taken as given unless it is first filtered through the intellectual minds which dismiss His existence as given and explained by Jesus Christ Who is the same yesterday, today, and forever and now equivocated into a non-existence. .
Did I not say reasoning out infant baptism would be determined by what your doctrine postulates?