Infant baptism

[Guest shiloh357]

Every person, regardless of their physical age, once they are able to comprehend the gospel and their need for recieving Yeshua become accountable at that time.

Children who have not reached the point where they are able to make that decision are not yet held accountable and are held in innocence.

Sorry, Shiloh, but I emphatically[/] disagree. No way. There isn't a bit of Scripture to back this up. This has been fed to Christians for ages, as a "feelgood" doctrine IMO. It is directly contrary to Scripture. No offense, but I feel strongly that this stuff needs to be challenged and refuted because it's serious.

Actually my position is quite defensible. I am anxious to see your refutation, though. My position is far more defensible than believing that baptizing an infant has salvific properties.

[Khristeeanos]

Every person, regardless of their physical age, once they are able to comprehend the gospel and their need for recieving Yeshua become accountable at that time.

Children who have not reached the point where they are able to make that decision are not yet held accountable and are held in innocence.

Sorry, Shiloh, but I emphatically[/] disagree. No way. There isn't a bit of Scripture to back this up. This has been fed to Christians for ages, as a "feelgood" doctrine IMO. It is directly contrary to Scripture. No offense, but I feel strongly that this stuff needs to be challenged and refuted because it's serious.

WIP,

If you feel that Shilo made a statement that flies in the face of Scripture, then it would be nice for you to provide at least one verse/passage that supports your position.

I already posted a verse that says children are innocent of sin.

Deuteronomy 1:39 I believe it was.

[johnP]

shiloh357.

No the church is not true Israel, and that passage does not help you.

Is that the opinion of all that disagree with me or not that would be nice to know.

Do others stand by and let this pass because they agree with you or disagree with me?

May be I've made an assumption.

You misrepresent what I say. And to include Israel is not off topic it is relevant.

Since Esau was so innocent may be you would explain why God hated him before he did right or wrong? Romans 9:13.

johnp.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357.

No the church is not true Israel, and that passage does not help you.

Is that the opinion of all that disagree with me or not that would be nice to know.

Do others stand by and let this pass because they agree with you or disagree with me?

May be I've made an assumption.

You misrepresent what I say. And to include Israel is not off topic it is relevant.

Since Esau was so innocent may be you would explain why God hated him before he did right or wrong? Romans 9:13.

johnp.

Romans Chapters 9-11 all pertain to Israel after the flesh. The passage you quoted is saying that not all Jews who are of the flesh are "Israel" but rather it is those Jews who have accepted the Messiah are the true leaders of Israel. He is not saying that Israel has been replaced by another "Israel" (the church). Nowhere is the church called "spiritual Israel" or, "the true Israel" in Scripture. That false notion has been penciled by Christians who are not reading what Paul is actually saying and the issue he is actually addressing.

As far as God "hating" Esau is concerned...

The word for hate in the Greek in Rom 9:13 is miseo and does not carry the full force of positive hatred in the Greek as the word "hate" does in English. God is addressing Jacob and Esau in a spiritual context in relation to the covenant of promise. All He is saying is that as far as the covenant is concerned He prefers Jacob over Esau. He is not claiming "hatred" for Esau in the absolute sense. The verb miseo is also used Luke 14:26 about hating one's parents if they come between you and Christ. He is not talking about literally "hating" your parents, but rather preferring Christ to your parents.

[Work in Progress]

Every person, regardless of their physical age, once they are able to comprehend the gospel and their need for recieving Yeshua become accountable at that time.

Children who have not reached the point where they are able to make that decision are not yet held accountable and are held in innocence.

Sorry, Shiloh, but I emphatically[/] disagree. No way. There isn't a bit of Scripture to back this up. This has been fed to Christians for ages, as a "feelgood" doctrine IMO. It is directly contrary to Scripture. No offense, but I feel strongly that this stuff needs to be challenged and refuted because it's serious.

Actually my position is quite defensible. I am anxious to see your refutation, though. My position is far more defensible than believing that baptizing an infant has salvific properties.

Shiloh, I have said a dozen times on this board that baptizing an infant does not "save" them or guarantee any sort of Salvation or make them a Christian. I don't know how else I can say it. The desire for others to put that on the baby baptizers is frustrating and inexplicable, as it's been stated over and over. I can only guess that that is all they have in their argument. Having even that basic point ignored and being accused of it in spite of saying otherwise, I don't see how the rest of it can be discussed. But I will continue to say that there is no such thing in Scripture as some "age of accountability" and " inherant innocence" of any human being.

[Orr v'emet]

Shiloh, I have said a dozen times on this board that baptizing an infant does not "save" them or guarantee any sort of Salvation or make them a Christian.

We realize that you haven't said this but there are some here that have so it's not something that we are "putting that on baby baptizers"...some have put it on themselves. We are not grouping all of you together. To do it as a dedication of your child to the Lord as another shared, there is nothing at all wrong with that. To say that your child will be saved because it's parents are and because they have been baptized is unscriptural.

[johnP]

shiloh357.

I have not said that Israel has been replaced. Where did Israel come from? One man called Abraham the Father of the faith. One man does not constitute a nation but he does constitute the Israel of those who believe. What you say is a false notion is the true Israel and existed before the community of Israel.

I have not said Israel has been replaced. You made that up for some reason. You said I was into replacement theology. May be you were hasty. I bothered to go and find out about it. I asked you a civil question and you ignore it. Based on that website I gave you the address for I am not into replacement theology.

As far as God "hating" Esau is concerned...

And now you change what the translators have rendered. So now we have new light do we? Romans 9:13 (revised) Just as it is written: "Jacob I preferred, but Esau I did not."

Is that better for you?

Children who have not reached the point where they are able to make that decision are not yet held accountable and are held in innocence.

I shall act on the basis that you wrote this shiloh357. Forgive me if I am wrong.

No one is innocent. If any were innocent then they would be protected by God. As it is God disposes of any He sees fit to.

At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them--men, women and children. We left no survivors. Duet 2:34.

We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city--men, women and children. Duet 3:6.

And this, God told Moses that He would harden Pharaoh's heart. He then told Moses to tell Pharaoh to free the people and then God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not. Then God killed every firstborn in the land. Children included. Because He preferred the Jews and did not prefer the Egyptians? No but to reveal His glory.

Children are not innocent. They are not free from sin only innocent to the ways of the world as babies so it seems.

The word for hate in the Greek in Rom 9:13 is miseo and does not carry the full force of positive hatred in the Greek as the word "hate" does in English.

3404 miseo mis-eh'-o from a primary misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension, to love less:--hate(-ful).

Not the full weight? To detest, to hate and to love less. You do not cover your bases.

johnp.

[johnP]

shiloh357.

Posted: Oct 11 2004, 01:24 PM

I believe Israel is a type of the Church but I do NOT believe that the church replaces Israel.

Look at this! Out of your own mouth. The type is of course never the reality. It always shadows the real thing.

You. Posted: Oct 11 2004, 12:14 PM

Which promises in the OT apply to babies being immersed in water? Don't give me circumcision verses. Circumcision does not apply here.

Me.

None. Why should I give you circumcision verses? Why do they not apply?

You.

Neither are salvfific. One is performed on a Jewish child when He is born into the covenant of Abrhaham. The other is performed when one is spiritually born into the New Covenant. One does not replace the other, but they do correspond.

There's the type again. Circumcision done in the flesh is a sign, or type, the reality happens in the heart.

Since being born again involves the reality what need is there for an outward sign? The old regulations stipulated circumcision but the new one does not.

Posted: Oct 11 2004, 02:32 PM

No, I have not left Scripture. I am showing that there are better men than you and I...

Better men than you and me? Are there really? Elijah was a man just like us and Charles Spurgeon is better than him is he? Strange thing to say. Why bring a Baptist to support you I wonder?

johnp.

[Orr v'emet]

Why bring a Baptist to support you I wonder?

Hey!!!! What's wrong with baptists?????

[johnP]

KMB.

In attempts not to hijack another thread I am starting a new topic at the request of my Bro. Leonard. In another thread I commented that the only purpose that infant baptism served was to get a baby wet. Harsh words? Perhaps. I will admit my ignorance on the subject. I'm wondering what the purpose of infant baptism is and what scriptural support there is on the subject, if any.

Seems I hijacked it. Sorry.

In another thread I commented that the only purpose that infant baptism served was to get a baby wet. Harsh words?

Harsh words?

I think so. I think that if a person follows their conscience then what they do is between them and God.

I will admit my ignorance on the subject. I'm wondering what the purpose of infant baptism is and what scriptural support there is on the subject, if any.

I will admit my ignorance on the subject though things are clearing. There is no scriptural support for it but there is also no direct evidence against it.

That whole households are baptised leaves an assumption but the assumption cannot be disproved. There may have been children among them. We assume there were none to a point but go beyond to the study of scripture. Baptism comes after regeneration and is not meant as a sign of joining the Church. Just to refresh my stand and to get things onto an even keel I believe baptism is a show put on by God to all that watch to remind us of the death and resurrection of Christ. It reminds the spirit world of their destiny and reveals the glory of God.

This is a new thought that came to me recently and I want to test it against my peers. This I am doing. The children of believers are, the ones that are saved, I said it was not absolute but general and I gave Eli as an example, saved by God because He elected them as individuals in the same way He chooses everybody saved. That Christians give birth is an act of God firstly. Who He gives the child to is an act of God in the care He has over His chosen children. That is the reason that I say a Christian's child is part of the promise. They are the elect and many Christians are used to gather the flock. When a Christian sister gives birth she is almost certainly giving birth to a member of the Royal Priesthood. This is a great honour. There are no shirt tails to hang on because God calls them His people and they are born of those He chooses.

How's that?

Hey!!!! What's wrong with baptists?????

I've just spent a week with about 5,000 of them where do you want me to start?

johnp.