Christian Forums

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 17:25:19

QuoteSo, God's mercy is different than his redemption?  Is that difference nominal (in name only, superficial) or essential (radically and utterly different)?  And what is that difference?

This first one is the most important so we will deal with it in most detail.

It is an essential difference.

This, as I will show, a very dangerous, and indeed an heretical assertion.  As your words below bear out, you are asserting more than one essence to God.  That is a problem, as I will show.

Quote from: Circuitridingpreacher on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 17:25:19The mercy of God is extended to all in this lifetime, even the lost, whereas salvation of a soul for eternity depends entirely on redemption. The lost get rain, food, air, life, children, work, etc. and because "all have sinned

Quote from: stevehut on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 18:47:32


I didn't criticize the practice of infant baptism.  I simply said that adult/teen converts tend to stick around longer.  That has been my case all along.

If you have evidence to the contrary (and you've claimed that you do), I will be happy to see it.

You have seen it, but you are unwilling to admit it because then you have to admit you're wrong.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 13:45:45
You have seen it, but you are unwilling to admit it because then you have to admit you're wrong.

Well, this wouldn't be the first time that I'm clueless.   

So again, just show me the quote, and I will shut up and go away forever. 

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39I'll criticize infant baptism... it has not merit.. no biblical merit.

Actually, there's tons of biblical merit.  You just don't/won't see it.  But we've seen how selectively and mistakenly you read things.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39Jesus was not baptized until he was grown... able to make that choice.

Actually, Jesus' baptism wasn't the same sort of baptism we undergo, though our baptism is derived from his.  His was unique, a metaphysical identification with sinful humanity AND a revelation of his Person and the Holy Trinity.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39He said "suffer the children to come unto me"... children big enough to know him and to move towards him in action... don't tell them NO.

Sorry, wrong again.  You don't know your Scriptures.  Please read Luke 18:15 the "children" being brought to him, the ones he said not to hinder their coming?  Infants--babies still nursing.  The Greek is brephe.
Luke 1:41,44: St. John the Baptist, while still in the womb, recognized the voice of Mary, the Mother of the Lord, and recognized the presence of God incarnate, and Elizabeth, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said her baby was joyful at the greeting of Mary, "leaped for joy in my womb."

That'll get you started on some verses that contradict what you're saying.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39Infant baptism is not according to biblical instruction to "repent and be baptized"... such infants can't repent, they have yet to form opinions on any matter.  Baptism is an act of obedience to an instruction given... infants cannot act at all. 

Hmmm.  Infants cannot act at all?  Well, except that they can initiate suckling on their own.  They can wave their arms, and legs, cry, look around, smile, well, heck, a lot of things.

Also, tell me, if infants cannot sin, then what do they need to repent of?  Why is it necessary for someone to repent when they haven't sinned?

But, all of us need baptism not just for personal moral guilt, but because baptism saves us also from mortal death.  And babies need saved from that, for sure.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39The man in the Bible who was saved and baptized, and his household.. probably did not have any infants at that time, there is no proof that he did.

Probably?  That's the best you got?  And the argument from ignorance is invalid and irrational.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39Joseph and Mary... dedicated Jesus, as was the custom for the Jews, but Jesus at the age of knowledge did get baptized by request...  infants can't request anything... ceptin to eat or be changed. 

You don't understand circumcision.  Jesus wasn't "dedictated," he was incorporated into the people of God/Israel by the rite of circumcision at eight days old, long before he had a choice as to whether he wanted to be part of God's covenant people or not.  And although girls weren't circumcised (they, of course, lack the necessary biology to be circumcised), they too were incorporated into the covenant people of God with the same sacrifices as were boys--long before they, too, were able to choose.

No, for thousands of years, babies have been incorporated into the covenant people of God long before they had any choice in the matter.

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 31, 2008 - 20:03:39Infant baptism is just not a biblical principle... not for merit of discussion.  Nice custom, but totally moot to salvation. 

Well, except that baptism is the New Testament fulfillment of circumcision and circumcision was done on infants.  QED.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 13:54:57

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 13:45:45
You have seen it, but you are unwilling to admit it because then you have to admit you're wrong.

Well, this wouldn't be the first time that I'm clueless.  

So again, just show me the quote, and I will shut up and go away forever. 

No you won't, because, unless you're lying and you haven't read the excerpt I linked to, you have read and you still aren't shutting up about it.

Dude: it's simple: evangelicals have a retention problem.  Retention has nothing  to do with infant baptism.

"You don't understand circumcision.  Jesus wasn't "dedicated," he was incorporated into the people of God/Israel by the rite of circumcision at eight days old, long before he had a choice as to whether he wanted to be part of God's covenant people or not.  And although girls weren't circumcised (they, of course, lack the necessary biology to be circumcised), they too were incorporated into the covenant people of God with the same sacrifices as were boys--long before they, too, were able to choose."

It's plain to see that you don't know much or understand the Jewish nation or the faith they walked. 

They were born into and taught, they were not "incorporated" into the covenant God made with their fathers...   You twist a mean game... but it's still a game that isn't true. 

Jewish children were born Jewish... you compare that to Catholics who infant baptize... it's not the same, you are not born a Catholic, you are born a male or a female, with a race, and your parents decide to raise you to be a Catholic, that is not the same as being born Jewish. Not even close.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:00:39
Dude: it's simple: evangelicals have a retention problem. 

Dude, for about the tenth time, I have admitted this all along.

So just cut and paste the excerpt for me, and you will be rid of me.  Now, wouldn't that make your life infinitely more pleasant?

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 13:59:21
1- Jesus' baptism wasn't the same sort of baptism we undergo, though our baptism is derived from his.  

2- Infants cannot act at all?  Well, except that they can initiate suckling on their own.  They can wave their arms, and legs, cry, look around, smile, well, heck, a lot of things.

3- Also, tell me, if infants cannot sin, then what do they need to repent of?  Why is it necessary for someone to repent when they haven't sinned?

4- (Ken) The man in the Bible who was saved and baptized, and his household.. probably did not have any infants at that time, there is no proof that he did.

5- No, for thousands of years, babies have been incorporated into the covenant people of God long before they had any choice in the matter.

Alright, I just can't help myself...

1- Yup.  (Romans 6)

2- Yup.  That's called instinct, reflex, response to stimuli.  Not acts of faith.

3- Perfect argument against infant baptism!     Peter told the people to repent, then to get baptized. 

4- (Ken) Better argument: In the case of the Jailer, it says that his "household" was baptized after they received instruction from Paul and believed.   Can a newborn do either of those?   

5- Yup.     When God commanded Abe to circumcise Izzy, it was as an act of Dad's faith, not the kid's.  Very different from baptism, which calls upon us to act out of our own faith.

Healy, I have the whole book in front of me right now!  Almost done.

Show me the quote.

Quote from: kensington on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:12:22Jewish children were born Jewish... you compare that to Catholics who infant baptize... it's not the same, you are not born a Catholic, you are born a male or a female, with a race, and your parents decide to raise you to be a Catholic, that is not the same as being born Jewish. Not even close.

If Jews were born Jewish, then why circumcision?  And have you read what happened when parents refused to circumcise their sons?

No, it's clear *you* haven't read the Torah.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:38:21
If Jews were born Jewish, then why circumcision? 

Perhaps because God commanded it?   

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:32:382- Yup.  That's called instinct, reflex, response to stimuli.  Not acts of faith.

That distinction was not made in the post to which I was referring.

But, in actual fact, infants *do* make acts of faith.  Refer again to St. John the Baptist in the womb and to Jesus' words about infants' faith.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:32:383- Perfect argument against infant baptism!     Peter told the people to repent, then to get baptized. 

It's not an argument against baptism, unless you totally ignore what St. Paul says are the purposes of baptism in Romans 5-6.  In other words, it is not biblical to limit baptism only to the washing away of moral guilt (personal sin).  Baptism is also about the salvation from mortality (Romans 6), and infants need that as much as anyone.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:32:384- (Ken) Better argument: In the case of the Jailer, it says that his "household" was baptized after they received instruction from Paul and believed.   Can a newborn do either of those? 

Yes, infants and toddler receive instruction all the time about various matters--in ways appropriate to their development.

In the Orthodox Church our infants and toddlers know and recognize pictures of Jesus, know and recognize what prayer is and when it's taking place, and can comprehend in ways appropriate to their development that Jesus loves them. I see it all the time, and my daughters exhibited such awareness from their earliest days.

But let's stipulate your point for the sake of argument only: at what precise point has enough instruction been given and how do you know?

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:32:385- Yup.     When God commanded Abe to circumcise Izzy, it was as an act of Dad's faith, not the kid's.  Very different from baptism, which calls upon us to act out of our own faith.

Well, for one thing you can't bcv me that personal individual faith is *required* for baptism to be valid.

But I don't disagree with your principle.  And, in fact, the infants I've witnessed being baptized *do* exhibit faith--in ways appropriate to their age and development.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:44:25

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:38:21
If Jews were born Jewish, then why circumcision? 

Perhaps because God commanded it?  

And why did God command it?

Because, um, being God's covenant people isn't predicated wholly on being ethnically Jewish.  At least that's what St. Paul says.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:46:18
It's not an argument against baptism, unless you totally ignore what St. Paul says are the purposes of baptism in Romans 5-6.

Um, the context of my post was about repentance.  Which a newborn can't do.  And Paul preached repentance as much as anyone.  When he wrote to the Romans, I somehow don't think he conveniently forgot (or repudiated) stuff that he told to others.  Whatever he told each church, they still had to repent along with their baptism.

And did you find that quote?  My offer still stands...

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:46:18
Well, for one thing you can't bcv me that personal individual faith is *required* for baptism to be valid.

Oh, that's easy.

Mark 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Acts 18:  Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

Colossians 2: having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Acts 2:  Those who accepted his message were baptized

Acts 8: But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized

Acts 8:  Simon himself believed and was baptized.

Sorry, none of those citations are *requirements*--yes, they're indicative narratives, but as any good hermeneutician will know an indicative does not an imperative make.

But, once again, you're assuming infants can't/don't have faith.  But Jesus was so persuaded that even infants have faith (Luke 18), that he told us our faith needed to be as theirs.

And further, infants can't repent because they have nothing of which to repent.

  Do you all ever stop?

Ok, All I'm asking is ... do you all ever  --like sneaking into a back bedroom with your new lover --- do you ever just take a break and lay on your bed and open  ----like sunbathing --- to a few moments to basking in the Presence of God?

Do you ever still your mind?   Don't answer me - it is rhetorical.

Have you ever taken one single solitary message, instruction from God/ Jesus and followed it for a week to a TEE... At every breath?

Say ---for one week -actually only sought  the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven... To trust Him
completely in every aspect of your life... Whether you don't know what to wear to a party - or don't know how to discipline your child or you don't know whether to eat that second piece of cake ----have you really practiced relying singularly on our Lord's instruction to seek first His Kingdom.

I am so sick of all your words, words, words. Aren't you?

Thank you for indulging me my plea,
Elaine

Elaine:

Although it may not look like it, I spend much more time off line in prayer and spiritual reading and discussions among friends, and especially spending time with my daughters.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 15:34:14
Sorry, none of those citations are *requirements*

So the words of Jesus don't count?  (Mark 16)

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 15:34:14
And further, infants can't repent because they have nothing of which to repent.

My point exactly.     The infallible papa commanded repentance before baptism. Unless it's hidden somewhere in the nuances of the koine, I don't see a footnote to make an exception.

Again, you fail to fully understand the significance of baptism.

Infants need baptism not because they have personal sins to wash away, but because they need saved from mortality (Romans 6).

Adults need baptism to be saved from both mortality and from personal sins.

It's really very elementary.

Even a baby can understand it.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 15:59:55

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 15:34:14
Sorry, none of those citations are *requirements*

So the words of Jesus don't count?  (Mark 16)

That's a fallacious jump.  I never said Jesus' words don't count.  But you always like to distort other people's words.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 15:27:39

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 14:46:18
Well, for one thing you can't bcv me that personal individual faith is *required* for baptism to be valid.

Oh, that's easy.

Mark 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved.

Healy, this is what you said about my quotes, including the one above:

Sorry, none of those citations are *requirements*--yes, they're indicative narratives, but as any good hermeneutician will know an indicative does not an imperative make.

The commands of Christ are not imperatives? 

The text cited in Mark is not a command.  It's simple grammar.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 17:02:08
The text cited in Mark is not a command.  It's simple grammar.

Look again.  It's a part of the Great Commission, which as a whole is both a command and a practical instruction on how to carry it out. 

Which, incidentally, is one of the passages that the Catholic Catechism uses to emphasize the importance of baptism.

Which, incidentally, happens to be one part of Catholic doctrine that I do agree with.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 17:07:14Look again.  It's a part of the Great Commission, which as a whole is both a command and a practical instruction on how to carry it out. 

You're straying from the point again, Steve.  The issue at hand is whether Scripture commands as a requirement belief before baptism.  There is no direct evidence of such.

Now, again, I don't want to be mistaken: yes, I think faith is necessary for Christian baptism.  But I'm making a particular point regarding what Scripture *actually says.*  And you have yet to disprove that point with direct evidence from Scripture.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 17:07:14Which, incidentally, is one of the passages that the Catholic Catechism uses to emphasize the importance of baptism.

Which, incidentally, happens to be one part of Catholic doctrine that I do agree with.

As do I.  But you are having difficulty sticking to the point at hand--as you seem to have a propensity to do.

Good enough, Healy.

Then show that quote, and I'll be outta here.   

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 17:22:29
Now, again, I don't want to be mistaken: yes, I think faith is necessary for Christian baptism. 

And yet, just like me, you do so without scriptural support.  Very interesting.

And even more strangely, you advocate for the baptizing of people without faith.   

QED, bro.

I have given up posting on this particular thread. I don't think we ever change anyone's opinion in these things but at least the mental exercise is good for us. But this time around the exchange has gotten a little mean-spirited at times.


For years I have wondered if the Orthodox church could be the One True Church that has all the answers. I like the idea that its history goes waaaaaay back, not just to Cane Ridge or the Declaration and Address. I thought that somewhere within it could be the simple primitive church that all good restorationists search for. Reading Healy's posts has dashed that idea. Instead of a simple religion based on what 8 men wrote in the NT he says I have to give heed to hundreds of years of writing by the church fathers. Instead of interpreting the scripture in my native language and drawing conclusions he shows us the Orthodox church uses specialized terms and fancy words that are beyond the understanding of the farmer in the pew. I could have gotten into incense and beards on preachers and bass singers that can go way down.

Somewhere out there is there a religion where 5 of us get together with a Bible and we all agree that, "You be the elder, you be the deacon, you be the preacher, you take up the collection and you do announcements and we all use the rules of English to interpret the scriptures"?

Until I find that one I will stick with my CoC congregation where we try hard to get it right, we don't use fancy terms, we use but are slightly suspicious of commentaries, and we all get along without calling each other names.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 18:20:39And even more strangely, you advocate for the baptizing of people without faith. 

You contradict yourself in the same post.  That takes some talent.

You quote me as saying faith is necessary for Christian baptism, so you can' turn around and assert that I advocate baptizing people without faith.  Everyone I advocate for baptizing has faith--according to their own age and development.

You just don't believe Jesus when he says infants have the sort of faith we're to have.

Too bad for you.

Quote from: Snargles on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 18:37:00I could have gotten into incense and beards on preachers and bass singers that can go way down.

If this was your attraction to the Orthodox Church, it's good that you're not ready to commit to it yet.

Further, if your rejection of the Orthodox Church is based on internet message boards, while I regret whatever inadvertent offense I must have given you based on your words, well, if you can be turned away so easily with so little provocation, then it's a good thing you don't want to commit; you're not ready yet.

The Orthodox Faith, while it is full and rich and deeper than the sharpest intellect, is also very simple and basic.  Yes, given my academic training and my own personal study of my Faith, as well as to the tendencies of my personality, I do tend to speak from some technical vantage points.

But I also happen to think that if you read what I write, I appeal to Scripture far more than I do to the Fathers, and when I appeal to the Fathers I use the earliest possible references I can.

I'm sorry you've been put off by some things I've written, but I also don't think you're being fair.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 19:35:47
You quote me as saying faith is necessary for Christian baptism, so you can' turn around and assert that I advocate baptizing people without faith. 

Not a contradiction on my part, Healy.

You agreed with me that faith is necessary for baptism.

But in both Cath and Ortho churches, about 95% of all baptisms are given to people without faith.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 19:49:16But in both Cath and Ortho churches, about 95% of all baptisms are given to people without faith.

Well, you're contradicting Jesus and the Scriptures, which teach that such persons in those baptisms have faith.

But hey, if you want to argue with Jesus, go ahead.  You won't win.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Nov 01, 2008 - 20:32:18
Well, you're contradicting Jesus and the Scriptures, which teach that such persons in those baptisms have faith.

You mean where he said "Suffer the children to come to me?"

I believe those children in question were walking on foot, on their own power.  Not fresh from the womb.

I tire of repeating myself:

See Luke 18:15--they're called infants (brephe, sucklings).