SteveR wrote: Hey, I have a soft spot for Baptists. Because without reading the Bible 10-30 times through, I would believe the same as you. If I were to lean on my own understanding, and what the world tries to tell me, I too would say its up to the believer. But that's not the testimony of Scripture. I feel Blessed the greatest of Saints agree with me and not with those arrogant enough to call the greatest of Saints heretics. Especially one that that thinks Zech 11 terminated the Abrahamic Covenant
Well the men who gave you this belief as you said above are just men and are fallible. I will stick closely to the bible so there is no room for false interpretations. Just as you have named men who agree with you there is a dozen more great saints that don't. I'm also not saying you can't christen your child but let them profess that they are born again into the body of Christ. They are two entirely different things and two entirely different pictures.
Well like you said that communion is a picture of the work that Christ has done for us in picture so is baptism. So as one should only take communion if they themselves confess faith in God(because this is an accurate picture of the accepting of Jesus that the Lords supper symbolizes). So should baptism be allowed by the professing that the Holy Spirit has done a work in them. Do you see the parallel that I am eluding to? I only think communion should be taken when it correctly reflects the power that is behind these outward actions. Believers shouldn't have believers baptism replaced with infant baptism neither should a baby be fed a communion without the presence of the actual spiritual work this is suppose to be confessing outwardly present. If you do away with believers baptism because of infant christening you are doing an injustice of showing the power behind baptism and the power that this is an outward symbol of where the believer rises from the water in newness of life symbolizing the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Just as one shouldn't be baptized in believers baptism if this work is not present(the work of the Holy Spirit). Neither should infant christening replace baptism as this work is of the Holy Spirit is not being represented. James Thomas love those verses
I like what MS said there has been man adding to the Word of God since the beginning of time Cain added to what God commanded and wanted to worship his own way(he should have followed the word) . I believe the best way is to follow the bible to the letter when given a command by God. If the bible gives a clear example of believers baptism in the example of the Ethiopian then I will follow that model. Man has been messing up Gods command since day one. What can we loose by following the clear model set forth of believers baptism? Should we cut out this clear example set forth in the bible on baptism and replace it with infant baptism denying a believer to publicly confess his own faith in Christ and be baptized. I think the better word for infant baptism is christening(like many denominations call it). Baptism is suppose to be a picture of the covenant of Grace through Faith and the remission of sins by the resurrection of Christ, and the confession of the believer himself that he has died to his old way of life and has Risen with Christ in newness of life. How does infant baptism correctly display this picture? There is no confession of oneself for Christ and to die of the old life and have the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in his life SteveR which this is a picture of.
Lurker wrote: Hey brother, I'm about to head out for the day but I'll say this...... In the first covenant it was possible to be in covenant with God yet not a child of promise (as was Ishmael by means of circumcision of the flesh) but not so in the NC economy. Jesus came as the first covenant and ascended to the Father as the NC. In this age one must be "In Christ" to be in covenant with God and no unbeliever will ever be in Christ. Look this text up to see that God broke the first covenant which was in Jesus before Calvary..... to establish the second: Zech 11:4-14 Don't give any place for SteveR's infant baptism heresy.
Thanks for the verses I am going to read them now(always enjoy refreshing on the topic at hand). I also believe that the first covenant is gone like you said. I am about to do some work now as well. Hope you have a great day.
Lurker wrote: SteveR believes like the Presbies that infant baptism brings the infant into covenant with God. That's why he said it's possible to be in covenant yet not saved. Heresy.
Hey Lurker nice to hear from you, hope all is going well with you brother. Infant baptism in my eyes reminds me a lot of the old covenant of circumcision that the parents did. I believe the new covenant is by Grace through faith and not of works(baptism). Like you have said. I don't see how one can be in covenant with God and be damned and without faith this much is true. Yes ladybug I brought up Constantine to show the wide variance of beliefs in early recorded church history. Like your comment as well Ladybug. I also like your comment SteveR I like how we can discuss such manners without either of us getting upset.
Why is it wrote: That Christians have absolute control over what they see on the Internet, which is what we are using, but put them in front of s tv and they are completely helpless to exercise any control of the content that they watch?
Not all Christians don't have control. Me and my household have things we definitely won't watch(sex, horror, demonic content, lewdness and so forth) it may put a damper on your Netflix options but hey. I think the issue should be what is wrong with the Christian who watches horrible shows/movies.
SteveR wrote: Birth Control and Planned Parenthood weren't around 2000 years ago, they and their servants had lots and lots of kids. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nazianz, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all testify that early Christians Baptized their infants. That's right, before the NT Canon, Before a Scriptura could be Sola'd, infants were Baptized by authentic Christians. Thus the burden is on YOU to prove those households didn't have children
I don't mind if someone baptized their children as there confession of faith like I said below but when does anyone confess Jesus as their personal Savior if they can't have believers baptism(if the parents baptized them already)? Yes you are right since 200a.d. There has been proof of baptizing babies. Was this ever talked about in the council of Nicea(I don't know do you)? Constantine was part of that council and was baptized on his deathbed. If you want to call infant baptism Christening like many denominations I think that is a good word for this practice.
SteveR and OPC if Stephanus, Lydia and the jailers households didn't have infants I don't think there is much scriptural evidence to baptize infants. The whole practice of infant baptism is based on the assumption that these households had children. I think it is up to you if you want to baptize your family(I would not), but to stop someone from believers baptism which is clearly set forth in scripture on the basis of a baptism that was a confession from the parents only, does not typify the picture of the covenant of Grace that is through personal faith. Just as a parent can't have faith for a child neither should a parent make a profession of faith for a child, the Lord decides who will be in his covenant by the circumcision of the heart. Rom2:29 I believe a lot can be seen when you look at this verse in the parallel it can be seen to infant baptism. Jews of the old covenant circumcised there children committing them to the Lord in covenant. In this verse he is doing away with all these outward displays of belief as were set forth previously and points to the new covenant which is by faith to the individual and should also be made by the individual only when a mirroring of the inner work of the Holy Spirit has happened. Could you show me from the Bible otherwise.
Thank you as well GSMontana, must be nice being in Montana at this time of the year. It is way too hot in Southern CA. Dave glad to see your back posting again, learned a new word just today(grog). I don't know too much about Presbyterians was hoping to learn more. I hope that we can continue this conversation SteveR and OPC.
Yes MS only God can make one come to Him. No matter how clear the error is only God can open one's eyes to this. It might seem so clear to us but others just can't see. Thank you Penelope for the link. GSMontana if this is a problem that John Y has with fellowship with what he believes is the body of Christ( if when at a Catholic Church he doesn't like fellowship) then this is another question John Y you should ask God to shed light on. I always enjoy your posts GSmontana I myself love fellowship with all my brother and sisters in Christ( that's why I come here). I enjoy reading everyone's posts. I read a lot more threads then I comment on.
Yes you are 100 percent right MS we can have a hundred visitors to to building and the Church hasn't grown one member to the body of Christ. We only have the hope that God will speak to the listener in an effectual call. No matter what we say God is the only one who can make the increase. I do worry for you John Y because I see the clear error you are in being a Catholic and all. I do hope you ask God sincerely to shed light on your errors in all ways. I try to do this myself often. I try to reach out to you John Y because that is what I am commanded to do with all that are not in the true faith and I'm sorry to tell you but John Y you are in error. I hope you will rely on Gods Word alone and see the error of your ways. I feel that like others have said that I should let that be know. This doesn't mean however I will stop appealing for you to see the error of your ways. I will also pray for you John Y.
Hey John UK, I also try to just follow the bible alone as well. If you follow the bible alone it won't leave any room for man made errors. Hey John Y I wish you lived nearby I would offer to take you to Church with me.
Yes I hold to both views on baptism this is why I believe that both baptisms are correct. I do believe the more powerful display of baptism is the believers baptism which clearly is a picture of being a born again Christian. One baptism is a declaration of the family and the other is the declaration of the believer. Just as faith is needed for believers baptism so should it be the declaration of the believer to say he has died with Christ and is raised with him in newness of life. These two baptisms are totally different but I believe in both, but one shouldn't replace the other. Does infant baptism clearly typify the covenant which is by faith through the finished work of Christ. Does infant baptism typify the new covenant of grace or more the old covenant of circumcision which is done by the parents? Just as saving faith depends on personal faith(individually God given) so should believers baptism typify a personal confession of faith. If a infant is baptized and doesn't come to Christ there is nothing that holds the Child to the declaration made by there parents. In infant baptism model no one is confessing Jesus as THEIR person savior.
Ok, I figured you were from your stance on paedobaptism. I do enjoy listening/reading what many would call Presbyterian writers like Calvin and Knox. But I believe more in the biblical model of baptism which is an outward symbol of faith like in the case of the Ethiopian, I just don't see how infant baptism can correctly symbolize what baptism is suppose to be, which is an outward expression of faith when it is not a declaration made by the one that is baptized to do so. Even Calvin said paedobaptism was a public declaration, just don't see how it correctly displays the covenant that is by faith alone when done at infancy. I also do not find any scripture that confirms this practice. If you baptize infants as a way of committing a child to Christ that is fine as long as you allow for believers baptism as well. I know many on here will probably be on me about that I said infant baptism should be allowed at all, but I'm telling you what I believe.
OPC wrote: As Passover has become The Lord's Supper (or Communion), so circumcision which brought a child into the covanent established with Abrahama, now baptism brings one into covanent with Christ. Neither save(d) you, only brought you under the covanent. Many believe child baptism is used to save a child - no indeed it does not; that is a Catholic lie from the Pit. On the contrary, again, it merely brings a child under the covanental relationship their family is in. Circumscision didn't save the child, but identified them as a tribal member of the Isrealites and God's chosen people. The shadow, and now the reality.
Romans 2:28-29King James Version (KJV)
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
I like a lot of what you said OPC but I think this verse is also relevant in this idea of the covenant that now exists which is through faith alone. I was more referring to the covenant that now exists.