The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant Baptism Question

That's false. Now it's getting to be an old lie. I get my truth from Gods word.......I take into account writings from christians throughout the ages. However, none are infallible as only the bible is. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

Of course they are members of the kingdom. Where do you get the idea that kingdom membership precludes the ability to either sin or even fall away (apostacize) form that kingdom?

[color:"0000FF"]Genesis 17:11-14 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.[/color]

Notice that it says that the one who is uncircumcized is "cut off" from among my people. In fact, nothing in th verses above mention at all the idea that in order to enter the kingdom, one must exercise faith.

When one makes a covenant, the lesser always makes covenant with the greater. In this case, the sinner with God, and enters into a covenantal relationship with God. How is it that you would state that one could be circumcized, enter into relationship with God, and not be part of the kingdom?

Furthermore, St. Paul addresses the issue of salvation and eternal life in Romans 2: 5 - 10 where he states that [color:"FF0000"]eveny man will be judged according to his deeds....those who have done good unto eternal life and those who have done evil unto eternal torment.[/color]

Entering the covenantal family which is the kingdom of God is one thing. But receiving eternal life is something altogether different. The problem you have as a Protestant is that you have mixed together two items of faith -- salvation and eternal life -- which are distinctly different and separate according to the covenantal family paradigm.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Fine. Show me your proof that the Reformed doctrines existed in AD 100. AD 200. AD 300.


So do I. Obviously one of us has a mistaken idea of what the Bible teaches. And since there is no evidence that Reformed doctrines were taugh prior to 1517.....well.....


In other words, you read them to find out places where they agree with your interpretation, right? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The writings of the Early Fathers show us very clearly [color:"FF0000"]how the scriptures were interpreted in the first century onward[/color] When you have the majority of believers in those centuries all holding to a specific doctrinal teaching (such as baptismal regeneration) and you find no opposition to that teaching in the form of councils, synods, etc. then you must know that there simply were no other teachings.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

I would say that regeneration is not what circumcision did. It made one a part of the kingdom of God.

The word "regeneration" is only found in two verses in the NT:

[color:"0000FF"]Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;[/color]

Now, the question you have to ask is this. WHAT is it that is being regenerated? Is it the individual, or is it the Creation of God as a corporate entity? I would favor the latter. I see very little evidence which points to the idea of individual regeneration.

Let me check out something in Kittle's real quick:

Okay. Very interesting. The word for regeneration is

paliggenesia.

Do you see the root word "genesis" in there? I think that the word "regeneration" ties in with Christ being the Last Adam and the world being "re-genesised" in terms of the covenant being restored between God and man so that mankind can once again be part of the divine family and communio personarum.

If I seemed to indicate that I believe that circumcision regenerated a person I apologize. That was not my intention. Jesus Christ regenerates -- both in the corporate sense of making the family of man one with the family of God again, and then individually as each person is entered into that covenantal relationship with God because there is no longer any separation between God and man.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Is it required to be believed by council(aren't those your requirements?) for it to be true? NO! Is it required to have been dealt with in depth prior to 1500 for it to be scriptural? Again, NO! Yet, once again so you will drop your false assertion.......



Now please stop spouting this error. Thank you.


I don't need synods, councils or popes. God gave us His Word and it doesn't give authority to any of these. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> It is truth, all other men being fallible and their writings as well.


God bless,

william

A very simple request, sir.

SHOW ME THE PROOF!

Nothing to it......IF you have proof. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


That's not the point. The Word of God didn't even exist in the first century as a finished canon. And the writings of the Early Fathers show what was believed of the epistles that were in circumlation at that time.

The isue was paedobaptism....why do you keep throwing quotes at me on predestination?

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Doesn't matter if the books had been "canonized" or not. The truths within them remain the same.


Because you keep asserting that nobody prior tom 1500 put forth those beliefs. I take into consideration what the ECF's wrote but do not consider it infallible. Their writings are not canon.


God bless,

william

Granted that the writings of the ECFs give us what was believed among them during the period in which they lived. However, anyone even remotely acquainted with those writings knows that there were differences, some great, among them as well. There is therefore no basis for one to rely upon them as a source of absolute truth. What is shown by their writings is that there was taking place during there time that which was even present during the time which Paul wrote his Epistles; i.e., false teachers would bring in heresies within the Church and lead even many astray. (cf. 1Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20) Peter also warned of such things to come when he wrote:

2 Peter 2:1 (ASV) "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Was not Arius a member in "good standing" when he denied the doctrine of the Trinity? What of Origen's objectionable hermeneutical method and Marcion's rejection of many of the New Testament books? Again, the writings of the ECFs are an interesting study and they do provide an insight into how dogma was being developed. But they are hardly an infallible or even in some cases, a reliable source upon which to find the propositional truths of the inspired written Word of God. Doubtless, one could find evidence for even the most bizarre belief in the writings of those men in order to substantiate it and which is totally contrary to sound biblical teaching.

So, what are we left with? That blessed doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", whereby a true child of God by the indwelling Spirit is able to come to know the truth and of which truth they are set free. And those who do come to know the truth are said to be but a remnant. That there were and will continue to be false teachers who bring in their damnable heresies who will represent the majority of the whole is something which testifies against Rome and its empty claim that they are the guardians of the truth.

In His Grace,

Well all the demanding for evidence of Reformed doctrine and practices reminded me of a discussion on another forum where someone demanded the same proof. He made the assertion then that Constantine was the one who instituted the practice of infant baptism. Well that discussion made me go back, dig out old notebooks, and textbooks from an era long long ago-- in another kingdom far far away-- Due West of nowhere, and I posted it for them--Forgive me for my laziness, but I will cut and paste from that forum and drop it into here. This is scripture verse, where I see 'Covenantal practices' and also early writings from some writers... BTW some of these writers were heretics (IMHO ), but the fact that they recorded such events or made mention of them will hopefully provide evidence of what we are looking for.

Hopefully I am not 'pontificating' but attempting to add some scriptural as well as historical evidence on the table-- which I see precious little of sometimes in 'apologetics'.

Quick reply to Constantine being the one to introduce paedo-baptism.

That is an old ana-baptist argument. Constantine was ruler from 306-337 AD.

First: lets discuss in scripture where we see Households being baptized:

1.) Acts 16:14-15 -- "One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she AND HER HOUSEHOLD had been baptized, she offered us an invitation ...."

2.) Acts 16:30-33 --"Then he (the jailer) brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they (Paul & Silas) said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD will be saved.' So they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night (midnight, v. 25) and bathed their wounds; then he and ALL HIS FAMILY were baptized at once."

3.) Acts 18:8 --"Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized."

4.) See also Acts 10:24-27 & 10:44-48 where Peter Baptizes the entire family of Cornelius.

NOW-- from literary works, we read the Church Father St. Hippolytus of Rome in 215 AD ( almost a century prior to Constantine):

"And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).

Now Hippolytus was a student of Irenaeus of Lyon who wrote:
"For He came to save all through Himself --all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e., Baptized] -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 -- c. AD 180)

Irenaeus was Polycarp's disciple, and Polycarp was the Apostle Johns disciple.

I could put more quotes up here from different Church fathers, but there are some whose theological views, even on infant baptism, I do not agree with.

All of this is merely to show you that it WAS OCCURRING prior to Constantine, and that the early church did practice infant baptism.

I think I disagree with Irenaeus-- I think he was off center just a bit in his theology.. in fact it seems to me his view on baptism is that it is the act which inducts one in to the Kingdom of God.

But it shows historically where infant baptism was occurring.

Now OC you said that in a covenant, the lesser is the one who 'makes' the covenant with the greater.

False. The lesser is never in a position to barter, cajole, or contract. It is always the greater who is in the position, and it is always the greater who generates the covenant, and then offers it to the lesser. IN this case, God made a covenant with man. God invites those whom he wills into his covenant-- God enables them to fulfill his covenant for His glory. God is the Originator, the author, the perfecter, and the finisher of our Faith, as well as his Covenant with His elect. He is the Captain of our Salvation...

You mention Germany's tumble into immorality, because: 'well if we are saved, then what does it matter how we live" ( read your bible in Romans .. Paul addresses the same question to the Romans who posed the same question... start in chapter 6. Lastly your summation of the reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is misrepresented by the phrase: "Once saved, always saved". If you insist on using that phrase.. qualify it: "Once truly saved by God ( and the elect are unknown ) , Once always saved by God". Actually-- I believe Calvin said in regards to the perseverance issue: He that endures to the end shall be saved. Thats how Reformed theology views that.

One add on: Calvin believed immersion to be the proper method, but made allowances for other methods such as sprinkling.

“Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed . . . or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church” (Institutes, 1975 ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, II, 524.)

OK I'll shut up for a while.

Just a point here AS There are two (or more) types of covenants One is such that is made between equals example is Genesis 21:22-31 with Abraham and Abimelech. Then there is the Suzerain covenant which a ruler places upon his people see Ezekiel 17:12-14 which is what you were describing.

I agree. Once again I am guilty of imprecise wording <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

You would think, after 55 years on this earth in the same English speaking country that I might have at least gotten some handle on the language and its use.

The lesser makes the covenant with the greater, [color:"FF0000"]BUT IT IS ALWAYS THE GREATER WHO INSTITUTES IT AND MAKES THE OFFER TO THE LESSER![/color]

Spot on, old bean!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Okay. Fair dinkum.

So then....how are we assured that the right epistles were ommitd from the finished canon? How are we assured that what St. Paul wrote has the ring of truth?

And more to the point, how do we know which of several interpretations of the scriptures is the correct one?

For instance, there are Reformed Baptists here, as well as Lutherans, and some other types of believers. The Baptists believe that baptism is a sign of belief by which the world receives the testimony of our faith in Christ. The Lutherans, if I understand correctly, believe that baptism regenerates.

So which is correct and how do we know?

And it is this way for a dozen other doctrines of the Faith as well, isn't it?

Quite a quandry, wouldn't you say?

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

This is a valid question, but one which is not in keeping with the topic of discussion here, which is "Infant Baptism". This is deserving of its own thread, which I will leave to you to start if you are so inclined, i.e., "Sola Scriptura".

Having said that I do not wish to simply dismiss the question out of hand so I'll give you a very brief answer in this way:

1) The Scriptures are sufficient in and of themselves to reveal all that God has determined to reveal in them to men. (2Tim 3:16, 17)

2) The Scriptures cannot be rightly understood and/or applied without the Spirit of God working in conjunction with them, Who dwells in those whom He has given new life. (1Jh 2:27)

3) The Scriptures can be rightly understood if studied with right use of reason as opposed to suddenly coming to the truth through some existential experience.

So, how are we to come to the truth when so many claim to have that truth and this "truth" is contradictory to that of another? I think John Knox's words to Mary Queen of Scots is worthy of consideration:

You shall believe God who speaks plainly in his Word. Further than the Word teaches you shall not believe the one or the other. The Word of God is plain in itself. If there is any obscurity anywhere, the Holy Spirit, who is never contrary to himself, explains it more clearly in other places. No one can remain in doubt, save those who remain obstinately ignorant. (William Croft Dickinson, ed., John Knox's History of the Reformation, Volume Two [New York: Philosophical Library, Inc.], p. 18 - modernized English from the original

What Knox was affirming to her was what we Protestants and the Early Church Fathers also held firmly, namely the principle of the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture.

While many of us value tradition and the writings of those who have gone before us, our ultimate authority resides not in those things but in the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God alone, aka: Sola Scriptura. And as a point of interest, anticipating your objection and the necessity of the authority of the church of Rome with its authoritative "Oral Traditions", when we read the Scriptures we do not find one example where the Lord Christ or the Apostles appeal to "tradition". What we do find is that they appeal to the "sacred writings"; the Scriptures alone. In countless confrontations and disputations with the Pharisees, Sadducees, Judaizers, Gnostics, etc., Jesus and the Apostles always and everywhere appeal to Scripture. In fact, the Lord Christ myriad times rebuked the elders of His day for their use and/or misuse of tradition; setting it over the authority of the inspired Word of God. (cf. Mk 7:8, 9; et al)

The fact that modern Christianity has swallowed the lies of post-Modernism with its claim that all truth is relative is no argument against the fact that the Church has for nearly 2000 years accepted what I've written above as the standard.

In His Grace,

Lutherans and Romanists have differing views concerning the meaning of Baptismal Regeneration. Lutherans do not depart from the analogy of faith. Baptism never regenerates apart from faith. Nor is the salvic grace of baptism tied to one moment in time. We look forward to our baptism and return to our baptism by faith alone throughout our entire life. So those who come believing (regenerate) to baptism, those who don't believe (unregenerate) until after baptism, and those who are regenerated in baptism all receive the washing of regeneration in Holy Baptism by faith alone not by the outward act.


Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII