Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread
Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,103 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 07:25 PM
Quote:
 
No, people are not so simple. But I can sit down and talk in mutual respect with people with profound differences.


You couldn't prove that by this thread... in fact, the very reason I was so careful to spell it out as clearly as possible that I was not trying to ridicule anyone's religion, and that I did not want it to descend into personal attacks, and wanted it to stay a civil discussion about our different religious beliefs was because I already knew from observing you in the past that the instant anyone says anything that disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church you instantly jump into a combative and sarcastic mode.

Sure Larry -- I'm sure you do see it that way.
Quote:
 

Interesting comment Moonbat made about moving the goalposts, however. If people were to actually go back and notice some of the things you've argued they would see that you have moved the goalposts numerous times now.


Our agreement was to show evidence for our respective points of view from Scripture alone. It took you a little while and a bit of cajoling to finally do it, but at least you are actually making scriptural arguments now.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
May 26 2011, 07:34 PM
kai tois teknois = "for your children." It doesn't mean "for your children above a certain age," it means "for your children" - i.e., all of them.

Dewey-- my reading of teknon/tekna is from the Greek "tekein" meaning to be brought forth as in birth (Luke 1:57: te de Elisabet eplesthe ho chronos tou tekein auten kai egennesen uion) and that teknon generally means "that which is born" in the sense of offspring. Also, that paidion also can mean a new born infant (Luke 1:59: kai egeneto en te ogdeo hemera elthon peritemein to paidion) Is that correct?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
IT, my sources say that it originates in the verb tikto - to engender, to bear/carry. The primary definition of the word is "the offspring of human parents; a child," without specific reference to the sex of the child. It occasionally was used to reference someone who was not genetically related, but whom one held dear. Paidion was sometimes used to refer to a newborn infant, and sometimes to simply denote a "dear or beloved child."
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
None of these ideas stand up to the weight of reason or what we know about first century Jewish social life or any textual evidence. But still you must INSIST on them.



What doesn't stand up to the weight of reason is your insistence that we interpret one part of scripture in a manner that contradicts the rest of scripture.


Quote:
 
Your mistake is thinking that Jesus can't make Christians out of infants and children through the faith of their parents and simple baptism into the community.


You're correct - I would *never* make such a mistake as to think that a parent can "make a Christian" out of their infants. That would contradict scripture in a major way. And since I've already made it clear that I have no problem with you having a little kodak moment via baptizing your infant in a christening ceremony, I have no choice but to see your insistence that I give it more importance than that as being due to your Catholic belief that in doing so you have saved the infant's soul - which is what the Catholic Church teaches, which you deny one minute and comfirm the next, and which is the crux of this debate from the getgo.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dewey
May 26 2011, 07:34 PM
kai tois teknois = "for your children." It doesn't mean "for your children above a certain age," it means "for your children" - i.e., all of them.

Again, Larry, you are espousing a theology of believers-only baptism (credobaptism). As asked before, can you make a scriptural argument that shows that baptism is exclusively a sign of a believer's decision to repent and follow Jesus? And can you offer a scriptural argument that baptism excludes children of any age under the age of reason, whether infant or not? And as also asked before, what about your mentally disabled cousin - should he be baptized, or is it a purely symbolic act, through which God really does nothing, and which does God not want your cousin and and others like him to be part of? I keep asking these questions, and not seeing any answers - and I'm really looking.
Since I've done that twice already, what say you go back and read instead of asking me to answer you all over again.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry, are you aware that the majority of Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - accept the appropriateness of infant baptism, and that it is not merely a symbolic act of a person's decision to follow Christ? Are you aware that the original Protestant Reformers - that bunch of "Sola Scriptura" and "ad fontes" Christians who justified every single position they put forth on scripture - all held to the correctness of infant baptism, and that it wasn't until the "Radical Reformation" that believers-only baptism was espoused by some faith traditions? Are you also aware that some of these traditions believe that this baptism actually conveys salvation to the child, while other traditions believe that baptism is entrance into God's covenant people, just as circumcision did for Jews, but that it does not convey salvation? Is it just the salvation issue that you disagree with, or is it infant baptism in general?
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
No Larry - while you are at least referencing scripture now, the texts you've offered up do not answer my questions. Carefully read the questions, and carefully read the scriptures that you've offered, and you'll see that the scriptures do not really answer the questions.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1138


Quote:
 
While there is no documentation of infant baptism in Acts 2, some allege that Acts 2:39 proves the necessity of infant baptism (e.g., Lenski, 1961, p. 110; Barnes, 1972, p. 54). Acts 2:39 reads: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (emp. added). This immediately follows Acts 2:38, which reads: “Then Peter said unto them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ ” The phrase “to all who are afar off ” implies that Gentiles would have the opportunity and obligation to submit to baptism for the remission of sins (see Coffman, 1977, p. 57; Lenski, 1961, p. 110). But what did Peter mean when he said “the promise is to you and to your children”? Did he command infants to be baptized?

When Peter said, “the promise is to you and to your children,” he was not speaking specifically about infants or implying that young children needed to respond to the commands of Acts 2:38. Peter’s presentation was designed for the people who shared responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ (verse 36), a group that certainly did not include children. Peter assured his listeners that the promise of salvation was not limited to them, but would be available to every future generation. Albert Barnes commented on the “promise” of Acts 2:39:

Similar promises occur in Isaiah 44:3, “I will pour my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring;” and in Isaiah 59:21, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever.” In these and similar places their descendants or posterity are denoted. It does not refer merely to children as children... (1972, p. 54, emp. in orig.).

Luke intended the reader to understand “children” to mean “descendants” in Acts 13:33, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that the same meaning is present in Acts 2:39. One meaning of teknois, the Greek word translated “children” in Acts 2:39, is “descendants” (Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, 1979, p. 994). Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker suggest that teknois does denote “descendants” in Acts 2:39. This interpretation fits in the context of Peter’s discussion concerning the fulfillment of prophecy: Joel prophesied that everyone who called upon the name of the Lord would be saved (Joel 2:32), and Peter affirmed that the blessings associated with conversion would be available not only to those in his hearing, but also to the members of every subsequent generation who obeyed (see Longenecker, 1981, p. 285).

The idea that God cares for all people in every generation, and desires that all be saved, is not unique to Peter’s comments in Acts 2:39. God said to Israel, “ ‘As for Me,’ says the Lord, ‘this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,’ says the Lord, ‘from this time and forevermore’ ” (Isaiah 59:21). The message of concern for future generations is evident in the New Testament as well. The text of 2 Peter 3:9 reveals that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

If Peter’s use of the word “children” did include a reference to the children who were in his audience, Peter did not command the children to be baptized. Nor did Peter imply that Joel, Isaiah, or David prophesied concerning infant baptism (see McGarvey, 1863, p. 44). Peter simply said that the “promise” was partially for the children. Of what promise did Peter speak? In the context of Peter’s presentation on Pentecost, it appears that the promise was salvation through Christ, but nowhere did it imply the necessity of infant baptism (see Longenecker, 1981, p. 285; De Welt, 1967, p. 49; Reese, 1983, p. 79). Wayne Jackson observed:

Peter affirmed that the divine promise (of salvation with its accompanying gift of the Spirit) would be available to future generations (expressed by the phrase “your children”). Contrary to the assertions of some (cf. Lenski, 110), there is no support here for infant baptism. Prof. Howard Marshall of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) declared that to use this passage in support of infant baptism is to “press it unduly” (81). Babies can neither believe nor repent, hence, are not valid candidates for immersion (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Hackett renders the phrase “unto your descendants” (cf. Acts 13:3) [2000, p. 28, parenthetical comment in orig.].

Not every gift given to children is intended for children to possess and enjoy at the time the gift is given. Instead, gifts often are intended to be used by recipients after they mature. In such cases, the gifts will be ready when the children are ready for them. Peter said that the gift of salvation is available to all those who were called by God (Acts 2:39)—and God calls people by His Gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14). But people who cannot yet understand the Gospel cannot believe in Christ and obey the Gospel (Romans 10:13-16). Furthermore, infants cannot repent of wrongdoing or decide to cease sinning, because they cannot choose to do wrong. Peter commanded the members of his audience to repent, so the applicability of his message was not to infants. Only those who can believe and repent can be included in the “children” of Acts 2:39, because the “promise” was conditioned on belief and repentance (see McGarvey, n.d., p. 40).

As children grow up, they learn the difference between right and wrong, and, eventually, they reach an age when they have the ability to choose sin. All mature humans sin at some point (Romans 3:23). It is at that time that we need to have our sins washed away by Christ’s blood—we need to be baptized, but not when we are infants.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Coffman, James Burton (1977), Commentary on Acts (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

De Welt, Don (1967 reprint), Acts Made Actual (Joplin, MO: College Press).

Jackson, Wayne (2000), The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Courier).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Longenecker, Richard N. (1981), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, F.E. Gaebelein, Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

McGarvey, J.W. (1863), Original Commentary on Acts (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth), ninth edition.

McGarvey, J.W. (no date), Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Reese, Gareth L. (1983 reprint), New Testament History: Acts (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dewey
May 26 2011, 08:39 PM
Larry, are you aware that the majority of Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant - accept the appropriateness of infant baptism, and that it is not merely a symbolic act of a person's decision to follow Christ? Are you aware that the original Protestant Reformers - that bunch of "Sola Scriptura" and "ad fontes" Christians who justified every single position they put forth on scripture - all held to the correctness of infant baptism, and that it wasn't until the "Radical Reformation" that believers-only baptism was espoused by some faith traditions? Are you also aware that some of these traditions believe that this baptism actually conveys salvation to the child, while other traditions believe that baptism is entrance into God's covenant people, just as circumcision did for Jews, but that it does not convey salvation?
I'm aware that *you* think that is the case, and I'm also aware of the fact that you are, in fact, incorrect.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dewey
May 26 2011, 08:42 PM
No Larry - while you are at least referencing scripture now, the texts you've offered up do not answer my questions. Carefully read the questions, and carefully read the scriptures that you've offered, and you'll see that the scriptures do not really answer the questions.
Yes, they answer your questions. You just don't like the answers.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 08:18 PM
Quote:
 
None of these ideas stand up to the weight of reason or what we know about first century Jewish social life or any textual evidence. But still you must INSIST on them.



What doesn't stand up to the weight of reason is your insistence that we interpret one part of scripture in a manner that contradicts the rest of scripture.
You're wrong again -- I gave you a whole list of scriptures to make my case.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Your mistake is thinking that Jesus can't make Christians out of infants and children through the faith of their parents and simple baptism into the community.


You're correct - I would *never* make such a mistake as to think that a parent can "make a Christian" out of their infants. That would contradict scripture in a major way. And since I've already made it clear that I have no problem with you having a little kodak moment via baptizing your infant in a christening ceremony, I have no choice but to see your insistence that I give it more importance than that as being due to your Catholic belief that in doing so you have saved the infant's soul - which is what the Catholic Church teaches, which you deny one minute and comfirm the next, and which is the crux of this debate from the getgo.

Here you go again with that reading comprehension problem.

I write "mistake is thinking that Jesus can't make Christians out of infants and children" and you respond with "a parent" instead of Jesus. You really need to work on that. As I said, if you can't even get my few English words correct within an hour after I wrote them, why should I think you are competent to correctly read scripture written in a foreign language that you don't even read when it was written 2000 years ago? You are not exactly building any confidence in your interpretive ability here.

And BTW, by the logic of that "little Kodak moment" (I am not surprised that you need to use such dismissive language for people intent on raising their children as Christians), you are saying I am not a baptized Christian.

1) Infant baptism on your account is completely wrong. The infant CANNOT be baptized. It is a non event. it is like pouring water on a rock or a lizard. Even though the child is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the words and command of Jesus, the child is NOT brought into the Kingdom of God. The child is NOT made a Christian. The child DOES NOT receive the Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit according to the Gospel of Larry "does not blow where it will" contrary to the words of Jesus). Is that correct?

2) So NO ONE who was baptized as an infant and has lived their whole life as a "Christian" ever really was one. They were never baptized. They never were incorporated into the Body of Christ. The Gospel of Larry trumps the Gospel of Jesus once again.

3) So NO Catholic or Orthodox or Anglican or Presbyterian or Lutherans or Methodists or United Church of Christ or Armenian Apostolics or Copts or Syro Malabar or Maronite or Melchites etc baptised as an infant is even Christian -- they were never baptized. They never received the Holy Spirit. They never were washed of their sins. They never were incorporated into the Body of Christ. The Gospel of Larry insists on this point.

4) And of course Ivorythumper and Musicasacra were never baptized and are not Christian and they are not members of the Body of Christ. Larry has said so.

So you are insisting that I am not a true baptized Christian. Is that correct?

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I write "mistake is thinking that Jesus can't make Christians out of infants and children" and you respond with "a parent" instead of Jesus. You really need to work on that. As I said, if you can't even get my few English words correct within an hour after I wrote them, why should I think you are competent to correctly read scripture written in a foreign language that you don't even read when it was written 2000 years ago? You are not exactly building any confidence in your interpretive ability here.


I wasn't addressing that specific statement by you. I was addressing the one you've been making for two days now, and that you made just prior to that one, that parents can make this decision for their baby. Keep up, and lose the stupid games.


Quote:
 
And BTW, by the logic of that "little Kodak moment" (I am not surprised that you need to use such dismissive language for people intent on raising their children as Christians), you are saying I am not a baptized Christian.

1) Infant baptism on your account is completely wrong. The infant CANNOT be baptized. It is a non event. it is like pouring water on a rock or a lizard. Even though the child is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the words and command of Jesus, the child is NOT brought into the Kingdom of God. The child is NOT made a Christian. The child DOES NOT receive the Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit according to the Gospel of Larry "does not blow where it will" contrary to the words of Jesus). Is that correct?


Whether you are a Christian is a separate thing from whether you've been baptized. Being baptized isn't what makes you a Christian. You must first repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord. To do that you had to be of an age where you could make that decision yourself. If you've made that choice, then you are a Christian. If you were baptized as an infant, you might want to get baptized again, since you got the cart before the horse. Every single reference to baptism in scripture - every one of them - makes it clear that first you must repent, THEN be baptized.





Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quotes from a few famous theologians concerning infant baptism:


LUTHER—
“It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles.”

ERASMUS—
“It is nowhere expressed in apostolic writings that they baptized children.”

OLSHAUSEN—
“There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children, in the age of the apostles, nor can any necessity for it be deduced from the nature of baptism.”

GEORGE EDUARD STEITZ,—SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCY.—Art. Bapt.—
“There is no trace of infant baptism in the New Testament.”

A. T. BLEDSOE, LL. D.—
“It is an article of our faith (Methodist Episcopal), that the baptism of young children (infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ. But yet, with all our searching, we have been unable to find in the New Testament a single express declaration or word in favor of infant baptism” (Southern Review, Vol. 14). And this same writer says: “Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion, especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by controversialists.”

H. A. W. MEYER, Th. D. (called “the prince of exegetes”).—
“The baptism of the children, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance...”

NEANDER—
“Baptism, at first, was administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected. There does not appear any reason for deriving infant baptism from an apostolic institution; and the recognition of it, which followed somewhat later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis” (Church History).

GEORGE HODGES—
“The recipients of baptism seem originally to have been persons of mature life. The command, ‘Go, teach all nations, and baptize them,’ and the two conditions, ‘Repent and be baptized,’ and ‘He that believeth and is baptized,’ indicate adults” (The Episcopal Church, It’s Faith and Order, p. 51).

A. C. MCGIFFERT—
“Whether infants were baptized in the apostolic age, we have no means of determining” (History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, p. 54’).

ROBERT RAINY, in treating the period A. D. 98-180—
“Baptism presupposed some Christian instruction, and was preceded by fasting. It signified the forgiveness of past sins, and was a visible point of departure of the new life under Christian influences and with the inspiration of Christian purposes and aims” (Ancient Catholic Church, p. 75).

HARNACK, in dealing with the post-apostolic period—
“There is no sure trace of infant-baptism in the epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition” (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, p. 20).

H. M. GWATKIN—
“We have good evidence that infant-baptism is no direct institution either of the Lord Himself or of His apostles. There is no trace of it in the New Testament” (Early Church History to 313, Vol. 1, p. 250).

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 09:44 PM
Quotes from a few famous theologians concerning infant baptism:

PSST... Larry ... remember we were only going to talk from the Scriptures? Have you already forgotten that? Or are you now reneging on that agreement?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
John 3:3: Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God."

How are we born again?
John 3:1-7: There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"

There are two births: physical birth, and spiritual birth.

Being "born again" is being "saved".

How are we "saved"?
Acts 16:31 ""Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved"
Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.”


What is necessary for salvation?
FAITH ALONE (Read the book of John, and Acts)


Baptism is a "work" - what does the Bible say about being saved by our "works"?

"For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Titus 3:5—“Not by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which WE HAVE DONE, but according to His mercy He saved us.”

2 Timothy 1:9—“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS.”

Romans 3:28—“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.”


So compare what scripture says with what the Roman Catholic Church says:

Scripture says we must be born again spiritually to be saved, and unless we are born again we will not see the kingdom of God. Scripture says to be born again we must repent of our sins, and it is not by any works we do, but purely by God's grace that we are saved. Every single verse in the Bible dealing with the subject of being baptized says you are to repent, and THEN be baptized. Obviously, it is the act of repenting that is to be done in order to receive salvation, not the act of baptism.

The Roman Catholic Church says this:
"Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

This sacrament signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God." [Sections 1213, 1215]

Baptism is necessary for salvation [Section 1257].


Thus, the Roman Catholic version of receiving salvation is to do works (baptism), that it is baptism that saves you, the purpose being to make you a "member of Christ and incorporate you into the Church".

One can either believe scripture, or the Roman Catholic Church. You cannot believe both. Salvation is by FAITH ALONE, not by works. Baptism is a "work", faith does not require works, Repentance is placed before baptism; and when one has repented he is already saved. Therefore, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Since it is not necessary for salvation, and an infant cannot have faith, or repent, it is not necessary to baptize an infant, and as I have shown by the list of famous theologians down through history, there is nothing in scripture to support the notion of infant baptism.




Edited by Larry, May 26 2011, 10:45 PM.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 09:40 PM
Quote:
 
I write "mistake is thinking that Jesus can't make Christians out of infants and children" and you respond with "a parent" instead of Jesus. You really need to work on that. As I said, if you can't even get my few English words correct within an hour after I wrote them, why should I think you are competent to correctly read scripture written in a foreign language that you don't even read when it was written 2000 years ago? You are not exactly building any confidence in your interpretive ability here.


I wasn't addressing that specific statement by you. I was addressing the one you've been making for two days now, and that you made just prior to that one, that parents can make this decision for their baby. Keep up, and lose the stupid games.
Nope -- I have consistently said that Jesus makes us Christians. You cannot seem to acknowledge that so you keep changing words and trying to claim them as my thoughts. You are really just doing the Zimmerian Dialectic (TM) again. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion you need to actually work with the other person's words and obvious meaning.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
And BTW, by the logic of that "little Kodak moment" (I am not surprised that you need to use such dismissive language for people intent on raising their children as Christians), you are saying I am not a baptized Christian.

1) Infant baptism on your account is completely wrong. The infant CANNOT be baptized. It is a non event. it is like pouring water on a rock or a lizard. Even though the child is baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the words and command of Jesus, the child is NOT brought into the Kingdom of God. The child is NOT made a Christian. The child DOES NOT receive the Holy Spirit. (The Holy Spirit according to the Gospel of Larry "does not blow where it will" contrary to the words of Jesus). Is that correct?


Whether you are a Christian is a separate thing from whether you've been baptized. Being baptized isn't what makes you a Christian. You must first repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord. To do that you had to be of an age where you could make that decision yourself. If you've made that choice, then you are a Christian. If you were baptized as an infant, you might want to get baptized again, since you got the cart before the horse. Every single reference to baptism in scripture - every one of them - makes it clear that first you must repent, THEN be baptized.





There is only one baptism according to the Bible. According to the Gospel of Larry I should get baptized again. I'll stick with the Bible. You can stick with the Gospel of Larry.

And once again the Gospel of Larry (Every single reference to baptism in scripture - every one of them - makes it clear that first you must repent, THEN be baptized ) is wrong.

Matthew 28: Jesus says go and baptize. He does not tell them only to baptize those who repent, but those who become disciples. The Gospel of Larry is wrong about this.

Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Says nothing about repentence. Once again the Gospel of Larry is wrong.

Acts 8: the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer. Says nothing about repentance. Also "Simon himself believed and was baptized." -- yet a few passages later we see that he was baptized without having repented. So once again the Gospel of Larry is wrong.

Acts 8; Phillip and the Ethopian. No discussion of repentance. The Gospel of Jesus trumps the Gospel of Larry once again.

Acts 16:15: The Baptism of Lydia and her household -- no discussion of repentance here either.

Acts 16:31ff: The Baptism of the Jailer and his household -- no discussion of repentance here either.

Romans 6 -- there's some stuff in there about not sinning after being baptized, which implies repentance, so I'll give you a point.

1 Cor 10: Paul makes a direct connection between baptism and Red Sea (earlier you scoffed at the connection between Genesis and baptism) -- nothing about repentance. The Jews leaving Egypt were not repenting but crossing over into a new relationship -- another word you scoffed at -- with God. Just as the Christian through baptism has a new relationship with God. So far, the Gospel of Larry is not doing too well with your statement Every single reference to baptism in scripture - every one of them - makes it clear that first you must repent, THEN be baptized

1 Cor 12;12-14: Baptism is meant to bring us into the Body of Christ. Nothing about repentance here either.

Gal 3:26 - 29: Baptism is meant to free us from the old covenant and into the new covenant that we become sons and daughters of God and heirs of the Kingdom by baptism in Christ. No talk about repentance.

Colossians 2:11-13 -- baptism is likened to circumcision. No talk about repentance, but there is something about sin, so I'll give you a point.

1 Peter 3:20-22 :Baptism is likened to Noah's ark, and we are cleansed of sin -- no specific talk of repentance but I'll give you a point for a general talk about sin.

Of course the Catholic Church and Ivorythumper concur that repenting of sins (a life long process) is central to living the Christian life, and especially for adults is necessary as a precondition for baptism in Jesus which actually does cleanse of sins, makes us new creations in Christ, makes us heirs to the Kingdom, incorporates us into the Body of Christ, frees us of sins bondage, and makes us Christians.

But it is obvious from the numerous Scriptures I share with you that the Gospel of Larry is not true to the Gospel of Jesus, claiming: Every single reference to baptism in scripture - every one of them - makes it clear that first you must repent, THEN be baptized


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
"Baptism is a "work" - what does the Bible say about being saved by our "works"?"


Baptism is a gratutitous work of Jesus. In the Gospel of Larry you have to actually do a work -- repent -- in order to be saved. That repentance is a work of the individual. Baptism is a work of Jesus. He's the one who saves us, not us by our repentance. Repenting opens our hearts to Jesus who saves us.

Or if you are now changing the Gospel of Larry to talk about having faith -- that too is a work. We are not saved by having faith. having faith makes us open to the gift of salvation.

Or if you change it to belief -- we are not save by our belief. We are saved by Jesus. the belief is a conversion of the mind to Christ, to allow us to receive his salvation. All these other things are works in their own way, but necessary for preparing the soul to be fully mature Christian. Which infants and children also grow into over time.

Of course, faith without works is dead -- as St James tells us, so you can't entirely discard the necessity of actually loving other people.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Nope -- I have consistently said that Jesus makes us Christians. You cannot seem to acknowledge that so you keep changing words and trying to claim them as my thoughts. You are really just doing the Zimmerian Dialectic (TM) again. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion you need to actually work with the other person's words and obvious meaning.


What does it mean to you to be a "Christian"?


Matthew 28:19, 20:Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (see above post for the list of things he commanded - repent, accept, believe)

Quote:
 
Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Says nothing about repentence. Once again the Gospel of Larry is wrong.


No, once again IT doesn't understand the gospel of the Bible. "Whoever believes" (first) (repents) (becomes born again) THEN is baptized. It even goes on to say that if you don't believe you will be condemned, proving my point again, and showing that you aren't listening to the Bible.

Quote:
 
Acts 8: the baptism of Simon the Sorcerer. Says nothing about repentance. Also "Simon himself believed and was baptized." -- yet a few passages later we see that he was baptized without having repented. So once again the Gospel of Larry is wrong.


Acts 8:12,13: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Please note that first they believed, THEN they were baptized. Also please not that believing entails repenting) "Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." (please not that simone believed FIRST (part of believing is to then repent) THEN was baptized)

Quote:
 
yet a few passages later we see that he was baptized without having repented.


Yes, but you obviously didn't bother to understand what the outcome of it all was. Peter saw that Simon had not believed at all, but had only claimed he did in order to hang around and learn the "magic" he saw Peter performing. When he offered Peter money to teach him a particular bit of "magic", Peter saw that Simon had not been sincere. Note that Simon had already been baptized, yet what did Peter tell Simon he had to do in order to be right with God? Did he tell Simon he'd have to be baptized again? No - he told him to REPENT.

Quote:
 
Acts 8; Phillip and the Ethopian. No discussion of repentance. The Gospel of Jesus trumps the Gospel of Larry once again.


The Ethiopian begged Phillip to baptize him. What did Phillip tell him? That FIRST, HE HAD TO BELIEVE. Obviously baptism wasn't the important thing for salvation, believing was - totally consistent with what I've already said. Believing and repenting go hand in hand. Baptism is an outward expression of an inner change, and it is NOT baptism that brings about salvation, as this verse so clearly proves. So it isn't a case of "The Gospel of Larry", it's a case of "The Blindness of IT".

Quote:
 
Acts 16:31ff: The Baptism of the Jailer and his household -- no discussion of repentance here either.


First believe (which also entails repentance) THEN baptism. Once again, it isn't baptism that saved him, it was FAITH AND FAITH ALONE, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.

I would go on addressing each of your points, but there really no need. You're grasping at straws. Every verse you gave trying to claim it was "The Gospel According to Larry" only further proves my point, and disproves yours, and the Catholic Church's teaching. Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Baptism is a gratutitous work of Jesus.


Baptism is the act of one man shoving another man under water. Unless one is a Catholic, in which case you don't even get that right, and just fling a little water in their face.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
In the Gospel of Larry you have to actually do a work -- repent -- in order to be saved. That repentance is a work of the individual. Baptism is a work of Jesus. He's the one who saves us, not us by our repentance. Repenting opens our hearts to Jesus who saves us.


You know.. I read that several times, and I just cannot believe how utterly confused you are. Repentance is not a "work", and no one has even remotely suggested that we save ourselves. Of course repenting opens our hearts and then Jesus saves us. Good grief, guy. You just agreed with what I have been telling you all along, and can't even see it - YOU repent, JESUS saves you - THEN you make an outward act of that inward change.

You just admitted that it is not baptism that saves us, but the belief and repentance of the person, which opens them up to allowing Jesus to save them .... BY THEIR FAITH. Not by baptism.

We can now end this discussion, since you have now quite eloquently stated that it is not baptism that saves us, and therefore the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on the matter.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Larry
May 26 2011, 11:25 PM
Quote:
 
Baptism is a gratutitous work of Jesus.


Baptism is the act of one man shoving another man under water. Unless one is a Catholic, in which case you don't even get that right, and just fling a little water in their face.
Larry
circa last week
it was not my intention of insulting anyone, or mocking their religion


I sense some inconsistency.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I sense some inconsistency.


Please don't. I was just trying to stop IT from moving the goal posts again. We have been discussing water baptism for pages now, and when he began grasping at straws he tried to switch things around and talk about something else.

I thought your own statement of faith was excellent, direct and to the point. You have it right. I am not and never have said that Catholics aren't Christians, or that there is something wrong with their faith. I have been discussing the flaws in the Church's theology, if it will make the Catholics here feel better I'm more than happy to start a thread discussing the flaws of Protestant theology - because Protestants have problems too..

So peace, brother.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Alright, no worries. The last time we had one of these threads I said something about how I do appreciate the discussions until so long as they don't descend into flamethrowing. I'm not participating much here since I don't feel I have all that much to add, but I am keeping up and reading y'all's posts. :wave:
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Larry
May 26 2011, 11:32 PM


We can now end this discussion, since you have now quite eloquently stated that it is not baptism that saves us, and therefore the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on the matter.
The Catholic Church has never said that baptism saves us -- and that only God saves us and objectively through baptism. It is only the Gospel of Larry claiming what the Catholic Church said, when I have shown from their own writings that the Gospel of Larry is wrong.

And the Gospel of Larry is wrong suggesting anyone get baptised again when Scripture is clear that there is only one baptism. Huge problem there.

And the Gospel of Larry is wrong is stating that in baptism "THEN you make an outward act of that inward change." -- when it is clear that Christ's sovereign actions through baptism do a whole number of other things for us. The outward act in the Gospel of Larry is basically meaningless --- it s a Kodak moment of some one dunking you. It does nothing necessary for salvation. So why do it? Out of blind obedience? How legalistic...

And the Gospel of Larry is against Scripture in claiming without support that the ancient Jewish custom of dedicating their children to God on the 8th day did not apply to the Christians to be baptized, even though in the early Church there was still debate about people having to be circumcised as adults! Paul even had Timothy circumcised!! Incredible. no positive teaching that children should not be dedicated to God any more -- it just happened mysteriously and suddenly in the apocryphal Liber laurentius.

And in the Gospel of Larry, infants and children cannot be Christians, so that whole "let the children come unto me" is not really possible in the Gospel of Larry. Huge problem. Anti-scriptural and against the weight of everything we know about first century palestinian Jewish family life and cultural norms.

So we can end on that note.

Good night.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The Catholic Church has never said that baptism saves us -- and that only God saves us and objectively through baptism.


Quote:
 
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."


http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp
"Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons."



IT, you are all over the map. You ignore the plain and obvious teachings of scripture and refer to Catholic teaching, placing more importance on the teachings of your church than you do scripture.

Quote:
 
And the Gospel of Larry is wrong is stating that in baptism "THEN you make an outward act of that inward change."


I have shown you that EVERY TIME it is belief and repentance, THEN baptism.

Quote:
 
The outward act in the Gospel of Larry is basically meaningless --- it s a Kodak moment of some one dunking you. It does nothing necessary for salvation. So why do it? Out of blind obedience? How legalistic...


There you go moving the goal posts again. I never said it was "basically meaningless", nor did I say it was just a "kodak moment". I said baptizing an INFANT was nothing more than a kodak moment, because until you believe and repent you can't be baptized. I showed you scripture to prove that point to you. An infant cannot believe and repent. An adult can, so that is a totally different issue than the one we've been discussing, yet you are so eager to defend the Roman Catholic Church that you willfully (because I refuse to believe you're that dense) switch back and forth between those two issues in order to "win" a point.

Infant baptism was never part of the early church. I gave you a long list of highly regarded theologians down through history who stated that fact quite clearly. That has nothing to do with the subject of baptism for someone capable of making a decision.

One of the biggest flaws in the Catholic teaching about baptism is that you condemn everyone to hell who isn't a member of the Roman Catholic Church, every mentally handicapped person, every native in Borneo, and every human being who lived before the year 0. What a tiny little god you have, to set up such a legalistic requirement that one be baptized a Roman Catholic the minute he is born or he will not make it to heaven. My God is bigger than that.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply