A household may include infants, and it may not include them. It cannot, then, give evidence on this point. In such a case, the extent of the baptism must be determined by the commission. Nay, if I were assured that there were infants in every one of the households, I should with equal confidence deny that they were baptized. According to the commission, they could not be baptized; and such phraseology always admits exceptions, with respect to those known to be excluded from the thing spoken of. When I say that such a man and his family dined with me, I am known not to include infants. In like manner, as the baptism of the commission cannot possibly extend to infants, even if they had been present in the families, they are not included among the baptized....
.."One that ruleth well his own house," 1 Tim. iii. 4. The nature of the thing asserted, determines it to apply to adults only, or at least to children capable of government. Newly born infants are excluded. I require no more, in repelling the objection from the households. As the ruling of a house cannot apply to infants newly born, so the baptizing of a house cannot refer to any in the house but such as come under the commission. Common sense every day makes the necessary limitations in such indefinite forms of speech...
DanUSA wrote: You despise the "leader of the team of the KJV" even though the man you judged could no longer depend himself, yet you EMBRACE WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND AND STRENGTH the Antichrist, the man of sin, the harlot Babylon the great the murderous church of Rome by embracing, defending, and fighting for the modern fake bibles -- The Codex Vaticanus manufactured by the Antichrist library, the pope; and the Codex sinaiticus came from the harlot church of Rome - a convent if you well. Unlike the "team leader" you are judging, the Harlot Church of Rome and its head the Pope the antichrist
A diatribe from a man who couldn't produce biblical proof for his silly notion that a person can be saved and yet lost for one sin (and we're not talking about the sin against the Holy Ghost). Impressive isn't it, the hypocrisy of the man!
John Yurich USA wrote: There is nothing unscriptural about Infant Baptism since it is just a dedication of infants to Jesus just as Adult Baptism is just a dedication of adults to Jesus. Infant Dedication and Infant Baptism are the same since both are just dedications of infants to Jesus.
Pontificating again on issues that are way over your head! You need to be converted first in order to understand anything spiritual. So stop this silliness at once!
objective wrote: "The testimony of the early church fathers is unanimously in favor of paedobaptism..
â€śBaptism related to the death of Christ; the water answers to the grave; the immersion represents our dying with him; the emersion our rising with himâ€ť Apostolic Constitutions
â€śWe represent our Lordâ€™s sufferings and resurrection by baptism in a poolâ€ť Justin Martyr
â€śWe are immersed in water; let down into the water and dipped.â€ť Tertullian
â€śHe who is immersed in water and baptized, is surrounded with water on all sidesâ€ť Cyril of Jerusalem
â€śBy three immersions, we represent the death of Christ. The bodies of those that are baptized are, as it were, buried in the waterâ€ť Basil the Great
â€śComing to the water, we conceal ourselves in it, as the Savior concealed himself in the earthâ€ť Gregory Nyssen
â€śOn the great Sabbath of the Easter festival, the 16th day of April 404, Chrysostom, with the assistance of the clergy of his own church, baptized by immersion in Constantinople about three thousand catechumensâ€ť Chrysostomâ€™s Ep. Ad. â€śInnocentâ€ť
"The total concealment in water fitly represents Christâ€™s death and burialâ€ť Dionysius
Bible Lost?! Keep the Lies coming Presby. More rope to hang yourself by.
The Edinburg Encyclopedia, gives the following accounts of sprinkling:â€” "The first law to sanction aspersion as a mode of baptism, was by Pope Stephen II , A.D. 753. But it was not till the year 1311, that a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country,(Scotland,) however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI., (about 1550,) immersion was commonly observed." But during the reign of the Catholic Mary, who succeeded to the throne on the death of Edward, 1553, persecution drove many of the Protestants from their homes, not a few of whom, especially the Scotch, found an asylum in Geneva, where, under the influence of John Calvin, they imbibed a preference for sprinkling. " These Scottish exiles," says the last quoted author, " who had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin ; and returning to their own country, with John Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established church."
You see by this that Calvin was the new Pope of the Reformed churches!
John UK wrote: -----However, we went into this business in great depth some time ago concerning the value of the atonement, and I came down on the same side as Ingleesi, who said that the atoning value of the cross was infinite because of the eternal nature of the Person who was both Priest and Sacrifice. Maybe that is Amyraldy, I don't know. What I do know for sure is that God was doing something very specific in the atonement - saving his people from their sins.
Your last sentence is spot on. I understand what you are trying to say about the death of Christ being of infinite value, but I don't believe that DOG people have ever meant by this that the saving efficacy of his death extends to everyone. All it has ever meant is that had God decided to save the entire human race nothing more would have been required of Christ as the mediator, prophet, priest and king.
John UK wrote: Observe: Romans 5:6 KJV 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Let me think now. What are the alternatives? The Saviour died to save all ungodly men and therefore died for all ungodly men? Or the Saviour died to save some ungodly men and therefore died for some ungodly men? -----
John, forgive me, but I think you are reading too much into the text.
The verse starts "For when WE were...." what follows is therefore restricted in application to the "WE". Look at the following verses they all confirm the "WE" application. IOW what God has done for those he saves. Certainly before we are saved we are ungodly (v6), sinners (v8), and enemies (v10). We could therefore equally say he died for sinners, and for his enemies! But to extend this to all sinners, all his enemies would entail a penal sacrifice for them.
Reading your post one would think that you have turned Amyraldian! But maybe I am not understanding you aright.
John UK wrote: Okay, well you try convincing the insensible ungodly sinners that Christ died for the ungodly, namely them, and you will get some short shrift from such. Such as, "Who are you calling ungodly?" and "Well I'm not a sinner." But maybe you have not done any evangelism yet? I recommend it, it really hones your theology, when you meet real sinners in the flesh, and hear what they have to say.
Do you not believe John that those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved? If so, then since by your own admission not all the ungodly are saved, how could he have died for all the ungodly?! Not so long ago you were speaking of Christ's death being a vicarious death. If he really stood in the place of all the ungodly, why would they be punished when their surety has taken their punishment for them?
John UK wrote: Aye Mike, it's too tricky for us to attempt to answer, lest we slip down the Rockies and are never seen again. One thing is certain, which is that there is hope for the ungodly when they come to realise they are ungodly. Until then, nothing.
Your explanation is somewhat different to the text. The text simply said Christ died for the ungodly, not those who realise themselves to be ungodly. That is the line the hypers take to restrict their message to "sensible" sinners!
St. Paul wrote: "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." -1 Corinthians 11:2
The Greek word is paradosis, "a giving over," either by word of mouth or in writing; then that which is given over, i.e. tradition, the teaching that is handed down from one to another.
The word is used by Paul when referring to his personal Christian teachings to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Corinthians 11:2 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). In this sense the word in the singular is better translated "instruction," signifying the body of teaching delivered by the apostle to the church at Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 3:6). But Paul in the other two passages uses it in the plural, meaning the separate instructions which he delivered to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica.
It was after all the apostles who were led into all the truth and the ongoing Christian church was to remain faithful to apostolic doctrine.
No "tradition" here in the RCC sense viz. made up nonsense with no Scriptural foundation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob wrote: What versions did satan use during the 20th and 21 century to promote; The denial of divine inspiration? Women as pastors? Homosexual clergy? The purpouse diven church? The Emergent movement? Socialism? Anti KJV? Whatever prferences you may have Jim; you are a terrible logician.
I think it is your logic that is errant. What bible were the Judaizers using? Or the Pharisees, or the Saducees? Or all the false teachers that contended with Paul and the other apostles?
Not once do we read in the NT that they had the wrong bible!!
Satan does not need a false bible. He can easily pervert the truth!