The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Babies, toddlers and the mentally retarded

Frustration has nothing to do with it, spreading false doctrine does (2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Th 2:8-12, etc.). What you refer to as frustration is probably (at least from my part and I am sure Pilgrim's as well) the knowledge that sooner or later you will have to confront the sin and the sinner, which is not fun, but necessary. Please look at Speratus' 767 posts for yourself. In many, if not most, of them you will not only find error, but the continuous defense and teaching of “false doctrine” that is destructive to the Christian faith. His defense of error is “normally” not with Scripture, but with a certain “teachings” and other “unsupported” comments that he purports as truth.

As you know “generally” a heretic/heresy (there are different types in Scripture: (1) Acts 15:5; which simply means a party or sect, or what we call a denomination, (2) 1 Cor 11:19; “internal” groups which threaten the harmony and unity of the church, (3) 2 Pet 2:1, damnable heresies, etc.) is a person who dissents from the doctrine of an established church, or in this case an established forum. This forum has specific guidelines that emphatically state it is Reformed—which Speratus knows (Forum Guidelines)! Though this forum is very gracious and allows the discussion of other views, it does not allow the propagation (teaching) of “false doctrine,” which Speratus continually attempts to spread. This dissention causes disunity and spreads a false gospel.

Many attempt to defend such individuals because they think they are being mistreated and can be evangelized. While I agree that some initial mercy should be displayed to bring them to repentance, the Scripture says that they should be rejected after the 1st and 2nd admonition (Tit 3:9-11). Speratus has been warned before.

Yup. I can't remember to whom I was replying but that'll do.

Speratus said:Who does the believing, us or God?

Tom

Joe

I agree with you that Speratus has gone against the Highway guidelines. But I will say that what he has said so far is in keeping with Lutheran dogma. That includes Luther and almost all Lutherans I have either been in discussion with or read.

So I would have to say that any Lutheran who comes to this board and is consistent with their dogma, by the fault will eventually go against the guidelines of the Highway.

Tom

There are times Speratus disagrees with Lutheran Doctrine. There are also other Lutherans on this board that have been able to communicate without teaching heresy and who conform to the Word, etc. They argue from the Scripture and not from some document they esteem above the Scripture. There is a difference in both attitude and submission to the Word of God. So, this is not about being a Lutheran or not being a Lutheran (several of which I am friends with), but rather the defense and teachings of heretical doctrines.

Tom, if Luther was still alive could he teach "some" things at "your" church (if the decision was yours)? Would you give the same invitation to Speratus?

If Luther could speak at my Church, I would want to know what he was speaking on. If he said baptismal regeneration, if I had anything to do with it, he would not be able to preach.
In the case of Speratus, I would not allow him to speak at my Church.
In the words of one Lutheran I know "all true Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration". Yes there are some Lutherans that don't just rely on their Church confessions, but it is my experience that when it comes to subjects like baptismal regeneration, their understanding of the Scripture is esogesis (sp?), not exegesis.

I’m sorry for the pessimism when it comes to Lutherans, but unfortunately I have not had a lot of good experiences when it comes to Lutherans. Perhaps a Lutheran on this board can change that.

Tom

This is for all of us. Seems like if the major concern was bad doctrine he's snuck in some division too while you were looking the other way. Either do something about it (I.e., ban him) or put up with it and quit arguing because its divisive and probably worse for the community than exposing errors every other day. At least with the latter there's SOME learning that goes on.

We have no intention of banning him . . . at this time! This does not mean we condone his sometimes questionable behaviour, find his manner of arguing his point(s) of doctrine cogent or even adequate, which they surely are not, nor do we approve of his views, most of which are outside the realm of biblical Calvinism.

In His Grace,

There is nothing meritorious about the act of Baptism. The minister sins when he pours out the baptismal water. The efficacy of Baptism is from the word of God which is in and with the water and faith which trusts the word of God in the water.




My apologies for opening up something outside the scope of this thread. This was discussed in the thread "Justification and the Effectual Call".


My point is not that "all babies" are not elect. My point is that elect children dying in infancy are justified by faith as are all other elect persons. This is easily proven: Heb. 11:6, e.g..


My sins were washed away in the blood of Jesus. Rev. 1:5.

speratus,

You, like Rome are faced with an insurmountable and indefensible problem if you believe, which you apparently do, that regeneration takes place in baptism. On the one hand you say that the Word in and through baptism regenerates the recipient. On the other hand you say that justification is by faith alone. Okay.... you aren't following this? Since faith is the fruit of regeneration, then all who undergo baptism, being regenerated are given faith, then by logically necessity, all who are baptized are saved, they having faith. If, however, you want to deny that all who are regenerated in baptism aren't saved, then you are faced with the odious problem that regenerated persons are subject to condemnation. Since you seem to want to make baptism an instrumental cause of regeneration, there is no way around this.

This entire line of reasoning can't apply to "infants dying in infancy" because they are not subjected to baptism. Thus it is a moot point. We agree that "elect infants dying in infancy" are saved, no less so than any who are part of the elect.

Do you have a BIBLICAL argument for your defense? I'm not interested one iota in some quote from one of your favorite authors or from a Lutheran Confession. What I desire is to see you prove from the SOLE and FINAL authority which those of us who profess to be followers of Christ are subject to; the infallible written Word of the Living God.

In His Grace,

The "regenerate" and "believing" apprehend the forgiveness of sins in baptism by faith alone not "ex opera operato."




Actually I agree completely with the WCF article on baptism; however, as you might have surmised, I am member of the Churches of the Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) and subscribe to the Book of Concord.

Your whole argument is based on an unproven assumption: If baptism is a washing of regeneration, all baptized are regenerated. That's like saying that everyone who "hears" the gospel "hears" the gospel. The word preached in baptism does not profit the unbelieving and unregenerate not being mixed with faith. Heb. 4:2.

You agree with it insofar as you completely misunderstand it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />

But your reply is based upon something I never wrote nor hold to. No wonder you are so mixed up. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> My assumption was based upon YOUR apparent view that baptism is an instrumental cause of regeneration, or perhaps more accurately, that the Word is effectual in regeneration in conjunction with baptism. What I clearly pointed out was that IF that is your view, then of necessity, since regeneration includes the creation of faith, then those who are regenerated in baptism are infallibly saved . . . UNLESS you also believe that one can be regenerated and not be infallibly saved, which opens up all kinds of other problems.

So, why not READ more carefully and THINK <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" /> before you respond next time. The question is, what do YOU believe takes place in baptism, without regard to the age of the recipient, unless it matters in your view? And again, I do not want a quote from some other author or a Lutheran Confession to evidence your view, but rather a quote from the infallible written Word. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Age is irrelevant. The calling of the Holy Spirit to regeneration and faith through baptism is solely at the pleasure of God not according to any intellectual capacity within man. "The promise is you and to your children." Acts 2:38, 39.

If God is pleased to justify an infant or adult at the moment of his baptism, He will perform it. Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16. If God is pleased to justify an infant or an adult through the preached word before or after baptism, He will perform it. Rom. 10:17; John 17:20. The reception of the washing of regeneration in Holy Baptism is not tied to the moment of administration of the water. 1 Cor. 6:11; Gal. 3:26, 27; Eph. 5:25, 26; Mark 16:16.

The moment an unbaptized infant or an adult becomes regenerate (justification by faith), he desires baptism. Acts 8:35-38. Mark 10:13-15; John 3: 5,6. The unregenerate and unbelieving despise baptism. Luke 7:20.

The moment a baptized infant or adult becomes regenerate (justification by faith), he is immediately returned to his baptism wherein all his sins are washed away in the blood of Christ. Titus 3:5; Rev. 7:14; Rom. 6:3; 1 Peter 3:21.