Infant Immersion
- Thread starter Doug Brents
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Once again you admit that you believe "that infant baptism is not biblical and we both agree that baptism plays a role in ones salvation".
So why should I or anyone else go along with what is not Biblical???????? Compromising and going along with error only encourages more and more error.
You post "So I don't really understand what you mean by others having to compromise."
You have said I should compromise with infant baptism. As such I would have to compromise about Original sin among other things. My point has been instead of compromising with error try and teach people out of error. This is not just about Catholicism. If one compromises with the "T" in TULIP one will have to compromise with the "ULIP" also.
The necessity of water baptism for believers has been part of the church of Christ since Acts 2 until today and always will be. I do not know who John Marks Hicks is but I do know some universities (Pepperdine, Abilene, etc) have been overrun with false teachers. Water baptism may not be necessary among those who left the church of Christ but it is and always will be necessary among Christ's church.
BINGO!! There is the word I have been waiting for..."legalistic".
Who is legalistic? What is legalistic? Generally those that throw the word around make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Where is the word legalistic found in the Bible?
Now we are getting to heart of the problem with the mindset you have towards me.
A little history on the word 'legalism" and its MIS-uses:
focusmagazine.org
From above link: (my emp)
"In spite of this shortage of actual historical documents, it has long been assumed that the Pharisees were legalists. But there are two very important questions that go along with this. First, just exactly how do we know that the Pharisees were legalists? [We will leave this matter alone for now; discussing it would take us far from the point I am wishing to make.] The second question is even more important: just what is legalism in the first place? This question turns out to be difficult to answer.
Legalism seems to be like a poem – no one can seem to define it, but everyone thinks they know it when they see it. However, it may surprise you to know that the English word “legalism” itself was not coined until 1645. Even more importantly, there is no Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible that means “legalism.” This latter fact is seldom appreciated. In all of the debates that Paul had with Judaizing teachers, in all the responses he had to their teachings, not once did he ever call them “legalists.” Why not? Because of the simple reason that every Jew – including Jesus, Paul, the Pharisees, and the Judaizers – believed that a person’s works, his deeds, his obedience to God, was without doubt part of a right relationship with God. Within Judaism, that was never at issue. No Jew in that day and age debated whether or not “works” were part of being right with God. Everyone agreed that they were."
"It was only after Martin Luther came up with his doctrine of “faith only” (which he, mistakenly, attributed to the apostle Paul) that the modern idea of “legalism” was born. Ever since that time, it has been common to refer to people who emphasize obedience to God in deeds (works) which are demanded by God’s word as “legalists.” But, as I pointed out above, in the days of Jesus and the apostles, whether or not people should actually obey God with deeds of righteousness was never an issue. One of the implications of this fact is that it is not accurate (it is, specifically, anachronistic) to describe Paul’s debate with the Judaizers as a debate over legalism. It simply was not part of the problem. They didn’t even have a word for it!"
In spite of the non-biblical foundation of the term, the word “legalist” is still thrown around quite liberally in religious discussions. Protestant evangelicals routinely refer to Roman Catholics as legalists. Liberal evangelicals routinely refer to conservative evangelicals as legalists. Some folks in denominational churches have called members of the Lord’s church “legalists,” and even within our fellowship I have heard some Christians refer to other Christians as legalists. In each of these scenarios, the term “legalist” has been applied simply because someone was emphasizing that we ought to be doing what God says we should do, to the chagrin of someone else."
Someone might say that legalism is the idea that a person can be right with God simply on the basis of obeying God’s “rules.” Usually, this is said in some kind of context where faith is being presented as the only way to be right with God in the gospel. The legalist, therefore, is supposedly the person who believes that faith (“only”; defined as a mental activity) is not enough to save a person, but that such a person must also do certain things in order to be right with God. However, note this conversation: “They [in this context, Jews] said to Him, ‘What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’” (John 6.28-29). Unless I have seriously misunderstood this passage, Jesus said that having faith is doing what God requires (“working the works of God”). Faith is, if you will, one of God’s “rules.” So is the person who believes in God being a legalist for doing so? I hardly think that’s what people who use the term “legalist” would say.
So what is legalism? Is legalism a matter of being “too strict” about God’s demands? If so, where in the Bible is the list of things about which we should be strict and the things we can be lax about? Who decides when someone is being too strict? Or is legalism a failure to talk enough about the internal qualities a Christian must have, and talking too much about external obedience? If so, where in the Bible is the passage that tells me how much emphasis on external good deeds is too much? How can I measure when I have not emphasized the internal requirements of God “enough”? Am I a legalist simply because I don’t say it to another’s satisfaction? The fact is that both a right heart and good deeds are required before God. “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds” (Jer 17.10)."
"Or, is legalism the idea that “external” works, by themselves, will earn a person enough merit to get to heaven? I have to admit, I have never (in the thousands of pages of theological literature I have read in my lifetime) seen it defined that way, and I don’t believe I have ever met anyone who actually believes that. If no one defines it this way and no one believes it when stated that way, then the term “legalist” is nothing other than a straw-man, a caricature that has no correspondence to a real person or an actual doctrine."
"One modern scholar has put it this way: “…the term only has meaning within the context of a prior decision as to the relationship between faith and human response. … In Christian theology, the meaning of legalism varies with the soteriology of the individual user and his or her tradition” (K. Yinger, “Defining Legalism” Andrews University Seminary Studies 46 (2008) 91-108; at 96-97). Let’s put that into common English: the term “legalism” is so imprecise that it means nothing. It means whatever the person who is using the term thinks it means, or wants it to mean. But that’s not how communication is accomplished. We communicate when we both use words that we understand in the same way. When someone uses a word (like “legalism”) in a way that they alone define, then they are not actually communicating anything."
"Very often, I suspect that the charge of legalism, when it is hurled at us by denominational folks, simply means “you think that a person has to do something to be right with God, something more than just believing in Jesus.” In other words, “legalism” often means that I do not believe in the denominational doctrine of “faith only.” Even when Christians accuse each other of being legalists, the term turns out to be empty. Christians are sometimes accused (by other Christians) of legalism who are doing nothing other than being conscientious about obedience, just more so than the person who charges them with legalism. So the charge of legalism thus simply means “you are paying more attention to that particular aspect of obedience than I do.”
To put it plainly, when someone says “you’re a legalist,” all it really means is “you do not conform to my idea of how Christianity saves us.” I suppose, then, that I’m a legalist. Whatever that means."
Defining "Legalism"
https://focusmagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Defining-legalism.mp3 One of the more interesting issues in modern biblical scholarship is the attempt to attain a better understanding of the Jews of the first century, the Jews with whom Jesus and Paul dealt. In spite of the fact that...
focusmagazine.org
From above link: (my emp)
"In spite of this shortage of actual historical documents, it has long been assumed that the Pharisees were legalists. But there are two very important questions that go along with this. First, just exactly how do we know that the Pharisees were legalists? [We will leave this matter alone for now; discussing it would take us far from the point I am wishing to make.] The second question is even more important: just what is legalism in the first place? This question turns out to be difficult to answer.
Legalism seems to be like a poem – no one can seem to define it, but everyone thinks they know it when they see it. However, it may surprise you to know that the English word “legalism” itself was not coined until 1645. Even more importantly, there is no Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible that means “legalism.” This latter fact is seldom appreciated. In all of the debates that Paul had with Judaizing teachers, in all the responses he had to their teachings, not once did he ever call them “legalists.” Why not? Because of the simple reason that every Jew – including Jesus, Paul, the Pharisees, and the Judaizers – believed that a person’s works, his deeds, his obedience to God, was without doubt part of a right relationship with God. Within Judaism, that was never at issue. No Jew in that day and age debated whether or not “works” were part of being right with God. Everyone agreed that they were."
"It was only after Martin Luther came up with his doctrine of “faith only” (which he, mistakenly, attributed to the apostle Paul) that the modern idea of “legalism” was born. Ever since that time, it has been common to refer to people who emphasize obedience to God in deeds (works) which are demanded by God’s word as “legalists.” But, as I pointed out above, in the days of Jesus and the apostles, whether or not people should actually obey God with deeds of righteousness was never an issue. One of the implications of this fact is that it is not accurate (it is, specifically, anachronistic) to describe Paul’s debate with the Judaizers as a debate over legalism. It simply was not part of the problem. They didn’t even have a word for it!"
In spite of the non-biblical foundation of the term, the word “legalist” is still thrown around quite liberally in religious discussions. Protestant evangelicals routinely refer to Roman Catholics as legalists. Liberal evangelicals routinely refer to conservative evangelicals as legalists. Some folks in denominational churches have called members of the Lord’s church “legalists,” and even within our fellowship I have heard some Christians refer to other Christians as legalists. In each of these scenarios, the term “legalist” has been applied simply because someone was emphasizing that we ought to be doing what God says we should do, to the chagrin of someone else."
Someone might say that legalism is the idea that a person can be right with God simply on the basis of obeying God’s “rules.” Usually, this is said in some kind of context where faith is being presented as the only way to be right with God in the gospel. The legalist, therefore, is supposedly the person who believes that faith (“only”; defined as a mental activity) is not enough to save a person, but that such a person must also do certain things in order to be right with God. However, note this conversation: “They [in this context, Jews] said to Him, ‘What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent’” (John 6.28-29). Unless I have seriously misunderstood this passage, Jesus said that having faith is doing what God requires (“working the works of God”). Faith is, if you will, one of God’s “rules.” So is the person who believes in God being a legalist for doing so? I hardly think that’s what people who use the term “legalist” would say.
So what is legalism? Is legalism a matter of being “too strict” about God’s demands? If so, where in the Bible is the list of things about which we should be strict and the things we can be lax about? Who decides when someone is being too strict? Or is legalism a failure to talk enough about the internal qualities a Christian must have, and talking too much about external obedience? If so, where in the Bible is the passage that tells me how much emphasis on external good deeds is too much? How can I measure when I have not emphasized the internal requirements of God “enough”? Am I a legalist simply because I don’t say it to another’s satisfaction? The fact is that both a right heart and good deeds are required before God. “I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds” (Jer 17.10)."
"Or, is legalism the idea that “external” works, by themselves, will earn a person enough merit to get to heaven? I have to admit, I have never (in the thousands of pages of theological literature I have read in my lifetime) seen it defined that way, and I don’t believe I have ever met anyone who actually believes that. If no one defines it this way and no one believes it when stated that way, then the term “legalist” is nothing other than a straw-man, a caricature that has no correspondence to a real person or an actual doctrine."
"One modern scholar has put it this way: “…the term only has meaning within the context of a prior decision as to the relationship between faith and human response. … In Christian theology, the meaning of legalism varies with the soteriology of the individual user and his or her tradition” (K. Yinger, “Defining Legalism” Andrews University Seminary Studies 46 (2008) 91-108; at 96-97). Let’s put that into common English: the term “legalism” is so imprecise that it means nothing. It means whatever the person who is using the term thinks it means, or wants it to mean. But that’s not how communication is accomplished. We communicate when we both use words that we understand in the same way. When someone uses a word (like “legalism”) in a way that they alone define, then they are not actually communicating anything."
"Very often, I suspect that the charge of legalism, when it is hurled at us by denominational folks, simply means “you think that a person has to do something to be right with God, something more than just believing in Jesus.” In other words, “legalism” often means that I do not believe in the denominational doctrine of “faith only.” Even when Christians accuse each other of being legalists, the term turns out to be empty. Christians are sometimes accused (by other Christians) of legalism who are doing nothing other than being conscientious about obedience, just more so than the person who charges them with legalism. So the charge of legalism thus simply means “you are paying more attention to that particular aspect of obedience than I do.”
To put it plainly, when someone says “you’re a legalist,” all it really means is “you do not conform to my idea of how Christianity saves us.” I suppose, then, that I’m a legalist. Whatever that means."
In short, the charge of legalism is an invalid, straw man argument to promote compromise, to promote the "go along to get along" mentality.
Necessary for salvation? No. As a means of associating your salvation with the death, burial and rsurrection of Christ...public confession...yes.
In Acts 2:37 it appears that they were saved after hearing the message..."37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart,"...Cut to the heart....they were born again...
Verse 38 shows the public confession. Demonstrated the change of the heart that was just cut.
The necessity of water baptism for believers has been part of the church of Christ since Acts 2 until today and always will be...
Please pardon my interjection, brothers. Are we certain about the "... always will be," part?
I mean, c'mon.
It has not even entered into the minds of men what God has planned for they who love Him. Are we sure it involves H2O? All things created shall pass away, is this not the case?
What do we think; should I be? }
Sweeping overstatement much, do we?
Please pardon my interjection, brothers. Are we certain about the "... always will be," part?
I mean, c'mon.
It has not even entered into the minds of men what God has planned for they who love Him. Are we sure it involves H2O? All things created shall pass away, is this not the case?
What do we think; should I be? }
Earnest,
I have never denied either. I simply believe that love covers a multitude of sins especially when it is an unwillful sin because unwillful sin does not lead to death.
hmmm.... let me ponder your reply..
It is easy to believe that which we have been taught and build cases to support our view. You have heard it said, love the sinner, hate the sin. I do not see compromise in that statement. In reality, I see the doctrine of Baptism as promoted by some sects within the churches of Christ as destructive heresy. When a doctrine promotes the destruction of ones faith and condemns another based on a very narrow view void of love, it's something I hate.
John Mark Hicks is the professor of theology at Lipscomb. He has written several books and remains an active member within the churches of a Christ. Have you considered perhaps that they are not false teachers. Have you ever considered that others with a different view may hold the correct view, and that the “necessity” as you say is derived from an incomplete view. Tell me, does your church have Sunday school? If so, according to my wife’s grandfather and great grandfather, your church is not biblical and is in serious error to which is attributed to false teachers and your soul is at stake. And what of communion? Is Christ divided? I think not. As a result, teachers teach that we can partake of communion using many cups because scripture is clear that only one cup is authorized. Do you not agree? Your salvation is at stake brother. I could continue listing item after item, but as scripture states, we will know them by their fruits (referencing Galatians 5).
The churches of Christ are shrinking. They were once the fastest growing denominations in the country. Today, they are dying a slow death mostly from the infighting.
My apologies, I generally don’t like to use labels for the sake of ambiguity.
Perhaps this gal was a member of a church of Christ where a woman was oppressed and not allowed to speak. Perhaps she was taught that only those within the church of Christ were saved and the baptist, Methodists, Nazarenes, and all other denominations were all going to hell because they were all in error. And perhaps, on the other hand she was just a change agent, a false reacher who for biblical reasons was excommunicated. Honestly, I don’t know so I cannot say. Perhaps every reason I wrote about her is wrong. But what I do know, is that those teachings within the churches of Christ are in error and it is those teachings I label legalistic.
I have the utmost respect for you. your demeanor is respectable as is your wealth of biblical knowledge and the wisdom you bring to this site is commendable. I understand your point of view on this matter, and although we do not share the same perspective, I understand that you love the Lord and are serving the brotherhood as you've been anointed.
Grace and Peace.
Love does not make error right. Those in error will be lost even though Jesus loves them for ALL sin either willful or unwillful causes one to be lost. Ignorance is no excuse. Even the Gentiles who did not have God's word written down for them as the Jews were "without excuse".
Have you considered John Marks Hicks is teaching falsely about water baptism? What does he have to offer to "prove" water baptism is not necessary? Over the years I have debated with Baptists (an others) who have "degrees' and claim water baptism is not essential. Hopefully he can offer better arguments then they for all their arguments have been debunked many times over. One of the most well known Baptist commentators is AT Robertson. Compare what Robinson has to say about "for remission of sins" in Mt 26:28 to the exact same phrase in Acts 2:38. What Robinson says about Acts 2:38 is one of the most perverse handling of God's word one can read in any commentary. Hopefully Mr Hicks arguments are better.
Nothing wrong with Sunday schools in and of themselves. They are separated from worship services where the whole congregation comes together to worship God.
It makes no difference if one cup or many cups are used, no one has ever shown otherwise. Many cups are more sanitary than all drinking from one cup. The word "cup" as used in the context is used as a figure of speech (one thing put for another) where "cup" actually refers to the contents of the cup. Just as in Lk 16:31 where "Moses and the prophets" are put in place of the WRITINGS of Moses and the prophets. By Luke 16:31 "Moses and the prophets" had obviously long been dead.
Mt 26:
27 - And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29 - But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
In v27 He is not telling them to literally drink the cup itself but drink the contents of the cup. The "fruit of the vine" is the content and "fruit of the vine" is the "this" which is the "it" which refers to the "cup".
Luke 22:17 "And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide** it among yourselves:"
Again, He is not speaking about literally dividing the cup itself but the divide the CONTENTS of the cup. Hence the CONTENTS would have been divided into separate cups.
**the word "divide" from Thayer (my emp)
"1. to cleave asunder, cut in pieces: ζῶα διαμερισθέντα namely, by the butcher, Plato, legg. 8, p. 849 d.; according to a use peculiar to Luke in the passive, to be divided into opposing parts, to be at variance, in dissension: ἐπί τινα, against one, Luke 11:17f; ἐπί τινι, Luke 12:52f.
They could have drank from one cup but the language ("divide") shows pouring the cup's content into parts into their own cups is the better fit.
"Lastly you post " the baptist, Methodists, Nazarenes, and all other denominations were all going to hell because they were all in error."
Jn 17:17 God's word is truth and truth NEVER contradicts itself, God is not the Author of confusion. How can all these groups contradict each other and all be right? It is IMPOSSIBLE and ILLOGICAL. For Mr Hicks to claim they can all be in truth while contradicting each other is antithetical to truth, an attack against truth which is an attack against the Bible since the Bible is truth. With all his degrees, does MR Hicks understand the implication of the number "one" (EPh 4:4-5) there being one body and one faith? Or does he try and find ways to upend mathematical truths also?
Water baptism and it being commanded is in the Bible was taught and practiced by the first century church until today. Christ's baptism of the great commission (Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15-16) had humans administering water baptism (Acts 8:38). This baptism is how disciples are made and it lasts till the end of time. Hence water baptism being taught and practiced is how Christianity continues to be perpetuated thru time until the end of the world.
Regeneration, the new birth, happens when one is water baptized. Hence belief and confession are UNTO salvation Rom 10:10.
I agree
So, your saying that anyone in error, regardless if it their sin is willful or unwillful is lost. I find this statement utterly amazing. What your saying then is that you are without sin and without error. What happens if you are in error and don't realize it until your death? Are you then sentanced to hell?
I ponder if this line of thinking is what caused my late Father in Law so much doubt if he was saved or not the last few weeks of his life. He was born and raised within the church of Christ. Never missed a service as long as the doors were opened. Gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the church in his lifetime.
Within the context of that passage, which is pretty broad, I agree.
And this takes me back to the beginning of our discussion which you don't seem to want to give a direct answer.
Is God's Justice and Rightousness on full display when a believer who has dedicated his / her life to serving the Lord destine to eternal damnation because they were erroneously baptized as an infant and not as an adult.
As far as the nenowned church of Christ author and Professor of Theology, it's best you read his writings first hand as it seems you may be reading more into where he stands than he does. If you got all of what you've written about him from me, then please disregard every word I have said about Me. Hicks as I do not want his good name smeared on account of my words.
Now, let's get back to the matter. The Onus is on you to show from scripture that if one is not baptized as an adult, then that person is eternally lost.
I cannot find those that are in error, false doctrine will be saved anyway even if it is done in ignorance, 2 John 1:9-10. Even those that know not God (ignorant of God) will be lost 2 Thess 1:8.
One can know the truth, Jn 8:32; it can be understood Eph 3:4. Whether one accepts the truth or accepts falsehoods as truth is up to the individual. I cannot speak for your father in law or others but only for myself. I am confident in my faith and in what I believe and will not be driven like the wind with every teaching that comes from all the various groups. Going along with contradiction I can then KNOW for certain I am wrong.
Yes, if I am wrong in what I believe I will be lost.
One reason I spend time on forums as this one is to not only carry out the great commission but to see what other people believe and to have my beliefs be challenged. Out of the many years and many forums I have participated on I have yet to have anyone to come even remotely close proving to me water baptism is not essential...hence I continue and will continue to believe it. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21 et al are simple enough for even someone like me to understand and I am far from being the 'sharpest knife in the drawer'.
I do not know Mr Hicks but if he teaches water baptism is not essential he certainly would not be considered renowned among the churches of Christ nor would he ever be invited to teach/preach were I attend.
Water baptism being essential to salvation is a 2000 year old settled issue.
Have you always been right?
Please answer this.
Is God's Justice and Rightousness on full display when a believer who has dedicated his / her life to serving the Lord destine to eternal damnation because they were erroneously baptized as an infant and not as an adult.
Would you mind if I answered this as well?
Yes, God's justice and righteousness are on display when, as you say, someone who "dedicated his life to serving the Lord" but is destined to eternal damnation because they did not obey the Gospel. Matt 7:21-23 tells us that there will be some at Judgement who did miracles in God's name, and sincerely thought they were doing the work of the Lord, but He will say, "I NEVER knew you." Not that He knew them once and they fell away. No, He never knew them. Yet they had fruit that you and I would have thought was proof positive that they were destined for Heaven.
I agree that God's Justice and Rightousness is on display in regard to those spoken about in Matthew 7 because those in Mathew 7 were not doing the work of our Lord. Instead, their reward was in the fruit they harvested for themselves.
One could apply this principal to adult baptism if one was taught adult baptism in error.
By their fruits we will know them. If a person baptized as an infant, not understanding adult baptism as we do exhibits the fruits of the spirit as well as the fruit associated with repentance, and in their mind they believe they are living out the gospel in servitude to our Lord, is God's Justice and Rightousness on display when they are condemned to hell for eternity?
If yes, on what basis?