Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Solo]

The Holy Spirit moves as the Holy Spirit wills, not as man wills. The Holy Spirit opens the eyes of those who hear the Word of God so that they can make a choice, to believe or not to believe. Those who believe are born again. Baptizing infants does nothing for their salvation. In fact, in most cases, it keeps them in darkness believing a lie.

• 5 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. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. John 3:5-8

Jesus clearly teaches that those who do not come to the light because they love darkness instead, remain condemned. Infants are not able to come to the light, nor choose to reject the light and remain in darkness. Infant baptism is a false teaching, and it cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.

• 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:18-21

Again, no where in Scripture are there any infants baptized. All who are baptized are those who made a conscious act of belief upon the Word of God. I was baptized as an infant and was on my way straight to hell, until I heard the Word of God and believed at which time I was born again. I was then baptized scripturally into the body of Christ. All who have reached the age of knowing the truth and have been baptized as infants are on their way to hell until they are born again.

 

[Drew]

John preached a 'Baptism' OF repentance.

Now, IF it were simply God at work, there would be NO REASON for the preaching.

I do not follow you here. I have tried to be careful to say that the key agent in baptism is God - that baptism is in overwhelming measure a work of God. I never intended to represent that there is not an issue of humans obeying the call to baptism. And in the case of infants, it is the parents who are responsible to obey. But I still maintain that the act of baptism itself is one where the transforming agent is God. So it does not matter whether the person is 3 months old or 50 years old or 100.

I believe that the preaching IS God AT work THROUGH the preaching of John. And that the preaching was NEEDED in order to ALLOW The Spirit to affect the hearts of those that were ABLE to HEAR what John had to SAY.

You are, of course, free to believe this. But I see no scriptural evidence that the person baptized needs to understand what is going on to benefit from baptism.

You continually state that I am offering that 'Baptism' is a 'work of men'. I believe JUST the opposite in fact. That MEN simply sprinkling or dunking others in water has NO EFFECT whatsoever OUTSIDE of The Holy Spirit. ALL that the water ITSELF is ABLE to DO is WET ONE.

I agree with you here. The act of dunking, without setting it in the appropriate context of the action of God, does nothing. But this is not an argument against infant baptism. To make that case, you have give scriptural evidence that the person being baptized needs to understand what is going on in order for the Holy Spirit to act. I am not sure where you get that idea.

You seem to implicitly discount that the possiblity that the parents, acting on behalf of their children, cannot appeal to God to act in the "dunking".

Are you sure that you are not "stuck" in the overly "individual-centric" modes of post-enlightenment western thinking?

Now, what about the scripture that I offered that PLAINLY STATES that 'repentance' comes BEFORE Baptism?

What?

I have already asked you for this scripture and you have not responded

Just tell me the reference.

What scripture - just tell me the reference - makes any case that repentence comes before baptism.

And I will say yet again, the statement "repent and be baptized" does not imply temporal sequence - it is not the same as "repent then be baptized".

 

[Cornelius]

I am not backtracking, since I never said what you attribute to me - that I believe in the false teachings of the Mormons, or am associated with them because there are points of common belief. You are free to look over my statements again, which have not been edited.

I merely said all religions, including Mormons, teach SOME truth. I did not delineate anything more specific than that, such as the belief in baptism of the dead, which I specifically said I did not believe. This means I do not agree with them on this doctrine, correct? Where have I said I agreed with a Mormon doctrine that is "false"? Can you be more specific? Or is this just some little campaign of smoke and mirrors to redirect the conversation so you don't have to address the topic?

Relax Fran, I told you I am not going to follow this up. You are off the hook.

Please give me a verse, in context, that says we are not to add anything to the Bible. I am not talking about adding to the prophesies of Revelation, mind you.

Well then I cannot help you can I ? You have just separated a book from the whole and declared it is the only one you cannot add to. That in itself tells me you have a need to add to the rest of the Word of God. I know you do and you are very brave. I am too scared....eternity is a very long time.

This is just an ironic twist that you provide, and don't even realize it. You subscribe to a contradicting and ANTI-Biblical axiom and try to impose it upon me without any Scriptural warrant. And you whine about infant baptism because it doesn't fit your particular scheme - but have offered NOTHING to prove why infant baptism is not allowed?

You (and the reader) must realize that you base your doctrine on the chance that infants were present when the "household" were baptized. Please note that there is in reality no proof of this. Your doctrine relies on reading something INTO the scriptures. Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

So it does not say that the household were all believers, so I am going to say that all the unbelievers in her house were also baptized and they are now also going to go to heaven, because they went into the water.

You cannot say that is not true, because it just says, the "household". So I am going to read into it whatever I want to. The unbelievers were also baptized in her household.

Baptism is a spiritual healing. It is the forgiveness of sins.

No its not, it is the outward testimony of the believer that he has indeed died to self and been resurrected with Christ. Something an infant is incapable of.

The "born of water" that Jesus speaks about is not baptism.

God has the ability to forgive the sins of whom He wills and can make whatever requirements He desires - as long as His mercy and justice are satisfied.

Not true: God cannot go against His WORD. His Word is ABOVE His nature, character and authority (name) (which includes his justice and mercy) Psa 138:2 ...... For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

This is not so different from you or me.

We can have a boy who breaks a window. We, as their father, have the option of punishing the child as we desire, even to the point of forgiving without REQUIRING any sort of apology. We are not bound by an outside force to hold our child to a specific punishment, or when to forgive the infraction.

Again not true: God IS bound by His Word. He requires repentance and confession of sin, before He forgives:1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

NO confession = NO forgiveness.

God is the same way. He can forgive whom He wills and He sets the requirements. THUS, if He decides to forgive sins or heal people based upon the actions of another person, WHO THE HECK ARE YOU to say otherwise? Any biblical warrant for this or are you jealous of the graciousness of God???

Wrong again: He is bound by the Word and cannot break it. You are personally responsible.
Look at it again. WHO has to confess before there is forgiveness ? WE and OUR.......here it is again:

Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Notice there is no action involved regarding another person. Its "WE" and "OUR" no proxy.

I am giving you Scripture here Fran not my opinion.

Unfortunately for you, you have not offered any sort of biblical proof of anything yet...

Look again..........

Being in denial is not an offering of proof, nor is merely saying "there is only heaven or hell in the afterlife". These are not proofs of anything. They are merely statements. As it turns out, speculative or false statements. They are unconvincing and do not advance the thread's topic.

Luckily they are not just statements, they are solidly founded in the Word.

 

[Drew]

You (and the reader) must realize that you base your doctrine on the chance that infants were present when the "household" were baptized. Please note that there is in reality no proof of this.

I have repeatedly asked for a response to my Romans 6 argument.

And you have repeatedly not provided one.

Please do not imply that the case for infant baptism depends only on the "household texts".

You simply have not engaged my Romans 6 argument which undercuts one of the main pillars of the "do not baptize infants" position - the notion that repentence precedes baptism.

No its not, it is the outward testimony of the believer that he has indeed died to self and been resurrected with Christ. Something an infant is incapable of.

Please defend this statement.

It will be interesting to see how you accomplish that since Paul clearly sees baptism as achieving something more than simply an "outward testimony":

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life

Note how error often occurs. It often occurs with slight bendings of words into different meanings. So here we have Paul saying that we were "buried with Jesus through baptism" and yet this gets morphed into "baptism is a testimony of something that has already happened".

This is not what Paul is saying. He is saying that baptism is the mode or means by which we are "buried with Him". Paul is not saying baptism is a testimony - he is saying that it effects real transformation.

 

[Drew]

So it does not say that the household were all believers, so I am going to say that all the unbelievers in her house were also baptized and they are now also going to go to heaven, because they went into the water.

I believe this is a strawman - Fran has been quite clear that he does not equate baptism with "going to heaven".

The "born of water" that Jesus speaks about is not baptism.

Why? Please give the reader an actual reason to believe you. In the absence of a compelling reason to think otherwise, we quite naturally see this as an allusion to baptism.

 

[Cornelius]

Cornelius wrote:"So it does not say that the household were all believers, so I am going to say that all the unbelievers in her house were also baptized and they are now also going to go to heaven, because they went into the water."

I believe this is a strawman - Fran has been quite clear that he does not equate baptism with "going to heaven".

I am doing the same thing you guys are doing. Why are you allowed to read into the Word and I am not allowed to do the same ?

The "born of water" that Jesus speaks about is not baptism.

Why? Please give the reader an actual reason to believe you. In the absence of a compelling reason to think otherwise, we quite naturally see this as an allusion to baptism.

Would you believe me if I told you. Guess not, but here goes.

First, it does mention baptism.
Second, the mention of "water" does not automatically mean baptism.
Thirdly the real meaning would be shown BY baptism, but is not baptism. I know , it sounds like a riddle, which I suppose it is in a way. God made it that way.

The "water" is the Word.Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,


So here goes : You come to God after the preaching of the Word (Water) that "water" is what puts your flesh (old man) to death and that Word (water) is what cleanses you from your sins. That is the REAL baptism. Its when the water of the Word washes you. Its the TRUTH that washes you from the LIE. It sets you free.You are born again through this water (Word) You cannot be born again without the Word (water). That is something at least that any real Christian will understand. You NEED the Word of God to be reborn. You need the water of the Word for rebirth.

This is the higher truth, which is symbolized by the real water in the real baptism which your eyes can see, when a believer enters the water.

Jesus is talking about this birth. You cannot enter heaven without this birth of the water of the Word, and the Spirit of God is the One who does this for us. He too uses the Word to accomplish this.

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

I'll ask again.

So YOU believe that we can BAPTIZE without the consent or understanding of the one we are Baptising and that is ENOUGH to 'bring God into their lives'?

John's Baptism WAS one of repentance and BAPTISM. For there is NO REASON for one to CHOOSE to be Baptised UNTIL they have COME TO REPENTANCE. Until they have been convicted in their hearts, WHAT would LEAD them to Baptism?

Do you honestly BELIEVE that those that were Baptised at the time of John simply jumped into the water with him without ANY encouragement OTHER THAN HIS words? And IF it is simply a matter of FOLLOWING what some MAN tells us, HOW are we to obtain ANYTHING Holy?

I am certainly confused as to the beliefs that you offer.

I have been CALLED by The Spirit and I KNOW God and His Son. So, to tell me that a mere 'man-made' ritual is able to offer what has been given ME, is BEYOND my capacity in understanding. And the FIRST step WAS repentance. I opened my heart and BEGGED to be forgiven. That was the FIRST STEP. I had been Baptised, (in an attempt to FIT IN), MANY years BEFORE the event that I speak of, and it had little if ANY effect on my 'walk'. It was when I TRULY had my EYES opened that I was able to GIVE UP the flesh and accept the Spirit. And from that point on, all that I THOUGHT I KNEW, was replaced with 'something DIFFERENT'.

So, please accept that MOST every thing I speak is, and EVERYTHING I speak, has been, influenced by a source 'greater than ME'. The understanding that I offer is NOT MY OWN. For IF it was of ME, it would CERTAINLY be 'different' than that I offer. For MY understanding was VOID of ANYTHING to do with God or His Son. Since being able to 'let go', ALMOST every BIT of understanding that I EVER HAD has been REPLACED. And NOT OF MY ACCORD.

So, you and Fran can fault me all you choose as to 'not understanding'. And so far as MOST of what the two of you offer, you are CORRECT, I DON'T understand HOW you CAME by such understanding. And how it is ABLE to differ so MUCH from that which has been offered ME. Drew, Fran, I am NO BODY SPECIAL. I have simply BOWED to the will of God through His Son. That, along with prayer and study has brought me to where I find myself NOW. And guys, I can tell you this as well:

I was ONCE utterly miserable in life. I had EVERYTHING that a man could desire and was STILL utterly mirable. Lost and unable to ADMIT it to myself or anyone else. The outside appearance of "Mike" what that HE HAD IT ALL and couldn't get ENOUGH. But the truth was I was LITERALLY DYING INSIDE. I KNEW I was missing SOMETHING and just couldn't resign myself to what I KNEW it was.

Since 'letting go of MYSELF', I have found contentment that I would NEVER have believed possible BEFORE. Do I do 'back flips of joy each and every day' followed by songs of joy every moment? NOPE. I still have my ups and downs. But NOTHING as DOWN as I CONTINUALLY EXISTED before. Since, I have been able to find peace and tranquility in the MOST SIMPLE OF THINGS. Things that I would NEVER have even recognized as existing before.

Now, THIS is what I would offer others: That their lives CAN be transformed into that which is in HARMONY with that which 'created us'. That we CAN learn the LOVE of God through Christ and we can SHARE this love with God and each other. We NEED NO LAW to follow for this to BE manifest in our lives. We NEED no MEN to tell us WHAT to do to PLEASE GOD. ALL we need is to SUBMIT to the will of God through Jesus Christ and the rest will be 'taken care of FOR US'. Do we 'lay down' and just WAIT for these type changes to 'take place'? NO WAY. We revel in the gifts that we have been offered and we do EVERYTHING we CAN to share them with others.

But FIRST, and I mean FIRST, we MUST find and accept the TRUTH. Otherwise, all that is UNTRUE that we HOLD ON TO is ONLY going to 'get in the way'. KEEP us from experiencing ALL that is offered.

So, I KNOW that repentance comes BEFORE any Baptism that MATTERS. God works in myterious ways but He also works in ways that He has PLAINLY offered in instruction. It is THIS EXACT instruction that I debate dailiy here on the forums. For the Word is OUR INSTRUCTION. Not in 'man-made' rituals, but in the LEARNING to PLEASE God and others. But IF we start with a 'false' conception of God or HIs Son, then we CANNOT learn the TRUTH that we NEED to KNOW in order to experience that which we have been PROMISED.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

I am doing the same thing you guys are doing. Why are you allowed to read into the Word and I am not allowed to do the same ?

I do not follow you. Your post implied that Fran believed that all those who are baptized wind up in heaven. I believe he does not hold so such a position. That is all I am saying.

Would you believe me if I told you. Guess not, but here goes.

First, it does mention baptism.
Second, the mention of "water" does not automatically mean baptism.

Maybe so but there have to compelling reasons to not understand the statement at its face value - as a rather allusion to the act of water baptism.

Thirdly the real meaning would be shown BY baptism, but is not baptism. I know , it sounds like a riddle, which I suppose it is in a way. God made it that way.

It does not sound like a riddle, it sounfd like you disagreeing with Paul. I have already shown by Paul's own words that he does not, repeat does not, understand baptism to be merely a testimony.

The "water" is the Word.Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

I do not think you are in tune with the scriptural meaning of the concept of the "word". Here is the text in the NIV:

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

You seem to read this text as suggesting that the reference to "washing with water" must be a kind of metaphor and the real issue is the "word" - in a sense of being disconnected from the physicality of the water - making the church clean. You read "word" as "preaching" or something like it

This is not the Biblical model of the concept of the "word". Instead, the term "word" (i.e. as in "God's word") refers to something far more concrete. God merely speaks and material reality is created (Genesis). Or consider this from Isaiah:

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed

When God "speaks" - when his "word" goes forth, that going forth of the word is effectively an act of creation - it is not merely "passing information" as in a model of the concept of "word" where it is simply a message of salvation that you need to respond to.

So when Paul refers to the washing with the word, he can legitimately be seen as talking about literal baptism since God's word is not merly "information" - it constructs reality.

I think that Paul is here referring to God's word as embodied in the real act of water baptism. There is a lot more that could be said here, but I hope you see where I am coming from.

It is easy to see "word" as abstract information that has no connection to the physicality of reality. However, that is how words work for us. For God, things are different. Jesus is referred to as the word. Is Jesus simply abstract information? No.

I think the phrase "washing with water through the word" refers to God's word manifesting itself in the physical world to give water the power to achieve His purposes.

In Genesis, God speaks and His purposes are realized in material reality.

In Isaiah, God speaks and His purposes are realized in material reality.

In Ephesians 5, I think Paul is referring to God's ability to use real material reality - water - to be the means by which His purposes are achieved in the act of baptism.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I'll ask again.

I am not going to answer you until you tell me the reference for the text that you continue to claim places reprentence prior to baptism.

I have repeatedly asked you for this text - it is only fair that you provide it.

 

[Cornelius]

I think the phrase "washing with water through the word" refers to God's word manifesting itself in the physical world to give water the power to achieve His purposes.

I told you that you will not understand it. Why is it that Christians are incapable of understanding the spirit of the Word. Why do you guys always just take it to the material or "letter" level. You are doing just the same thing that the disciples did when they walked away from Jesus after He said "eat my flesh" . They too could only see the letter and missed the spirit (true meaning). I know, I know, you also going to tell me that the biscuit becomes real flesh. Things never change, just the people do. Just different people,making the same mistakes.

I have posted so many years on the Internet and I have learned, that God can truly prevent some people from seeing the spirit in the Word. I do not know why He does that, but He does. He told His disciples: Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the rest in parables; that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. This is still true.

I am sorry, but we are not going to get anywhere with this.

C

 

[francisdesales]

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

You seem to read this text as suggesting that the reference to "washing with water" must be a kind of metaphor and the real issue is the "word" - in a sense of being disconnected from the physicality of the water - making the church clean. You read "word" as "preaching" or something like it

This is not the Biblical model of the concept of the "word". Instead, the term "word" (i.e. as in "God's word") refers to something far more concrete. God merely speaks and material reality is created (Genesis). Or consider this from Isaiah:

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.

13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed

When God "speaks" - when his "word" goes forth, that going forth of the word is effectively an act of creation - it is not merely "passing information" as in a model of the concept of "word" where it is simply a message of salvation that you need to respond to.

So when Paul refers to the washing with the word, he can legitimately be seen as talking about literal baptism since God's word is not merly "information" - it constructs reality.

I think that Paul is here referring to God's word as embodied in the real act of water baptism. There is a lot more that could be said here, but I hope you see where I am coming from.

It is easy to see "word" as abstract information that has no connection to the physicality of reality. However, that is how words work for us. For God, things are different. Jesus is referred to as the word. Is Jesus simply abstract information? No.

I think the phrase "washing with water through the word" refers to God's word manifesting itself in the physical world to give water the power to achieve His purposes.

In Genesis, God speaks and His purposes are realized in material reality.

In Isaiah, God speaks and His purposes are realized in material reality.

In Ephesians 5, I think Paul is referring to God's ability to use real material reality - water - to be the means by which His purposes are achieved in the act of baptism.

Outstanding post. The "WORD" is not the Bible, nor the preached gospel. It is THE WORD that is begotten from the Father eternally, the same Word from John 1:1. This Word has taken on flesh. God has now become VISIBLE! We can KNOW God HERE in OUR WORLD, down in the weeds. This WORD is a creative Word that gives NEW BIRTHS, gives eternal life that begins even now. And since God is now in the flesh, He is now seen via signs and symbols today, we see these "born from above" moments in the visible waters of Baptism. THROUGH the Word of God, God CONTINUES to create. Just during Genesis 1 - God spoke, and it was so. And God's Spirit hovered over the waters, just as He does today over the Baptismal font.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

I'll ask again.

I am not going to answer you until you tell me the reference for the text that you continue to claim places reprentence prior to baptism.

I have repeatedly asked you for this text - it is only fair that you provide it.

Ok Drew,

I directed you BACK to the scriptures that I offered TWO pages ago. But since you seem insistant, here they are again:

Drew,

Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Here we have the offering that John preached the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE. Not Baptism THEN repentance, but the Baptism OF Repentance.

Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Ah, repent and BELIEVE the gospel.

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

call sinners to repentance.

Mark 6:12
And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Preached repentance.

Luke 5:32
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

sinners TO repentance

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Repentance and remission of sins. Note the ORDER.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now, it doesn't GET any CLEARER than THIS. Repent and BE Baptised for the remission of sins. You can attempt to 'twist these words AROUND', but the TRUTH is that they are offered IN THIS ORDER for a PURPOSE.

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

Repent and BE converted.

Now, you have made it PERFECTLY CLEAR that you couldn't care LESS what the Word offers. That you have CHOSEN to believe what you have CHOSEN to believe REGARDLESS of scripture. And instead of addressing that TRUTH as offered, you would choose to insist that Romans offers 'something different'. I have read the three or four chapters in reference and have found NOTHING that refutes what is ACTUALLY offered up IN Word.

There is NO REASON to be Baptised UNTIL one comes to the truth that it is FOR the remission of sins. So that we may die and be 'born again' JUST as Christ.

While YOU would offer that this is NOT SO, I believe that you are a MAJORITY of ONE in this matter. And I believe that if this is the BEST that you can DO as concerns the Baptism of Infants, then you will be 'hard pressed' to convince ANYONE of your reasoning.

While Fran may well defend your position, all it does is prove that you two will go to practically ANY lengths, regardless of TRUTH, to defend each other. And guys, this offers NOTHING so far as PROOF of ANYTHING except your loyalty to BELIEF whether it's right or WRONG.

Blessings,

MEC

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Cornelius]

Outstanding post. The "WORD" is not the Bible, nor the preached gospel.

Regards

I rest my case.

 

[francisdesales]

Outstanding post. The "WORD" is not the Bible, nor the preached gospel.

Regards

I rest my case.

The "WORD" is the Son of God, Who was with God in the beginning and was God. Not letters in a book!

No wonder you are so confused.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

NO, no wonder YOU are so confused. For the Word IS The Word OF God. You say that the Word IS Jesus Christ as if the two were synonymous. That many have learned to BELIEVE this does NOT MAKE IT SO. Christ PLAINLY offered that the Word was GIVEN Him of The Father, and the Father IS GOD. So, the Word is the Word OF God GIVEN to Christ to bring to US.

You cannot take THREE LINES OF SCRIPTURE and use ONLY THOSE to produce DOCTRINE. ALL must CONFORM to ANY doctrine or it is FALSE DOCTRINE. I have PLAINLY shown that the first three verses of John CANNOT mean what SO MANY have been LED to believe they mean. For they would then CONTRADICT MORE than they agree with. Under such circumstances, the interpretation MUST be WRONG.

The Word IS The Word OF God. If it was GIVEN Christ, there was a TIME when Christ DID NOT POSSESS IT. It's REALLY that simple. For one CANNOT already HAVE that which is GIVEN by ANOTHER.

The Word is NOT synonymous with Jesus Christ. Word CAN be offered as a description of HIS purpose in that He was SENT by the Father WITH IT to GIVE IT TO US. Therefore Christ is no DOUBT a 'representative OF The Word'. But The Word IS THe Word of GOD. Always HAS BEEN and ALWAYS WILL BE.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

I told you that you will not understand it. Why is it that Christians are incapable of understanding the spirit of the Word.

This is rhetoric, not serious argument. I could equally well level the same critique at you.

Why do you guys always just take it to the material or "letter" level. You are doing just the same thing that the disciples did when they walked away from Jesus after He said "eat my flesh" . They too could only see the letter and missed the spirit (true meaning). I know, I know, you also going to tell me that the biscuit becomes real flesh. Things never change, just the people do. Just different people,making the same mistakes.

You are not actually engaging the argument. You are simply declaring that you have the "right interpretation".

Now let's be fair. I addressed the Ephesians text and provided an actual argument, based on Scriptural precedent, that God's "word" creates material reality - it is not merely "information" or even "the whispering of the Spirit". To the extent that my argument succeeds, we can easily take the phrase "washing with water through the word" as a desription of God's "word" being manifested by the reality of physical water. And so we can legitimately see Paul as referring to actual water baptism here.

You need to do more than simply say "Drew, you are wrong" - you need to make an actual case.

I have posted so many years on the Internet and I have learned, that God can truly prevent some people from seeing the spirit in the Word. I do not know why He does that, but He does. He told His disciples: Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to the rest in parables; that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. This is still true.

This is simply a fancy of way of saying "I am right and you are wrong". I trust the reader is sophisticated enough to not reach a conclusion by such an appeal.

And, even though this has been pointed out several times to you - you have not engaged my Romans 6 argument. Now that is something that the reader can draw a conclusion from.

 

[francisdesales]

NO, no wonder YOU are so confused.

This is what happens when you "butt in" to the conversation without understanding what we are talking about...

I was addressing Cornelius on the "WORD" being the Word of God, not letters in a book.

Do you have problems with that?

Try to keep our converstations on this topic in its proper place. You are dragging our discussions from other threads here, when I was not speaking to you, nor does my comment to Cornelius have anything to do with our conversations elsewhere.

 

[Drew]

Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Here we have the offering that John preached the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE. Not Baptism THEN repentance, but the Baptism OF Repentance.

I have already answered this. I will not repeat a clear answer already provided. The conclusion: this text does not support the sequence of repentance then baptism.

Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Ah, repent and BELIEVE the gospel.

This text does not even address the matter of baptism, but I think I know where you are going.

And where does it say "repent then believe the gospel"?

Nowhere, of course. And, in fact, the scriptures teach that it is the proclamation of the gospel that is the power that enables repentance. So, if anything, believing the gospel precedes repentance.

No thinking reader will buy the argument that the phrase "do A and B" is necessarily equivalent to "do A then B"

Consider these:

"take care of that cold and go see the doctor"

If we use your mode of interpretation, we only go see the doctor once we have spent several days taking care of ourselves. Is that the intent? Of course not.

"study hard and get the assistance of a tutor"

If we use your mode of interpretation, we only go see tutor once we have spent several days studying hard. Is that the intent? Of course not.

There is nothing in this text that suggest repent then be batized. So you are clearly reading that in.

 

[Drew]

Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Ah, repent and BELIEVE the gospel.

Same responase as before:

1. The issue here is not the relation of repentence to baptism (which is what I challenged you on), it is the relation of repentance to the preaching of the gospel. So my challenge remains - tell us one text - just one - where repentance is clearly shown as being prior to baptism.

2. In any event, the statmeent "do A and B" is not equivalent to "do A then B".

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

call sinners to repentance.

How is this related to baptism? Did I ever deny the need to repent? Of course not.

Still looking for a text that has repentence set prior to baptism.

 

[Drew]

Mark 6:12
And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Preached repentance.

Luke 5:32
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

sinners TO repentance

Again - where is the relation to baptism?

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Repentance and remission of sins. Note the ORDER.

What order?

The use of the word "and' simply does not confer ordering in time.

Now you seem to think otherwise.

So I dare you to publically assert that the statement "do A and B" means "do A then B".

You know that we will be able to come up with many counterexamples. Such as this one:

"On my vacation I am going fishing and hiking".

Am I committing to hiking only after fishing? Of course not.