I’m not talking about Israel, per se, Dokimas. What I am saying is that Baptists must prove that God has ceased to enter into covenant with the children of believers. Since God has always entered into covenant with covenant children, Baptists have to demonstrate that since the coming of Christ, He no longer does so.
They can’t, Lion. Because then they are forced to argue that for millennia, there was a small sect of “true” Christians out there that didn’t baptize infants that didn’t manifest themselves until 16th century Germany with the anabaptists. Of course, that assertion would be untenable, evidence wise.
well said, sir!Or… maybe they could start Baptizing those babies
Sorry Dokimas, I hadn’t read that before I posted but I can see where you are coming from a bit; at least you are being honest about the CC always baptising infants.
DoKimas, Have you read any thing that the Church Father had to say about Baptism
Psalm 116:5-6 “How kind the Lord is! How good he is! So merciful, this Godof ours! The Lord protects those of childlike faith.” Sounds pretty nice to me.
I hope so. It is a grave sin that they refuse to give their children the grace of Holy Baptism.Or… maybe they could start Baptizing those babies
Yes. It seems to me that this is mostly fiction. Why in the world would Joseph have gone to England to preserve the teachings of the Apostles? Who was he going to preserve it among… a couple hundred Picts? lol
I was just thinking about your statement and then realised that if those in the early Church were doing something that went against apostolic tradition where are the documents and writtings admonishing infant baptism? There would have been a huge hooplah especially in the early days and there would have been plenty of letters back and forth against this “heresy”.
You are the one claiming that children cannot have faith in Christ, rev. Not me. Jesus would disagree, since he indicated that those little ones believed in Him.
So it is your claim that babies are sinless? I thought you said it wasn’t?
Does this mention anything about unbelievers?
Does this mention anything about unbelievers?
I never said parents can believe for an infant. When they are baptized, they believe for themselves.
You left out the “this promise is to you and your children” part.
You’re so right! Why leave that most important part? Maybe because it would show that those children need to be baptised?
This promise means in the future not the here and now. Just like saying I promise you {to a child} that I will buy you a car when you start to drive. In the future.
Amen to that. But we all know Peter couldn’t have meant that, because Peter knew that since science shows children cannot have faith, as defined by anabaptistic rationalists, it would be impossible that God could save an infant through the grace of faith, so he would ust save them anyway because of the “age of accountability.”
Where is there ANYTHING in that passage about it being in the future? The promise IS to your children. Not WILL be to your children once they are old enough to answer an altar call.
Matthew 18:1-5: At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Infants do not commit actual sins. They are sinners, however. They are imputed with Adam’s guilt. Or they wouldn’t die.
No, I didn’t. I asked you to show me a verse that says unbelievers, who don’t have faith in Christ, will be saved.
No. I don’t remember learning to walk, either. It doesn’t mean I didn’t. I also don’t remember having faith. But I did. Because I was baptized.
38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
We now resort to sarcasm. When you can have a conversation without the use of sarcasm then we will continue the discussion. Don’t try to say its not sarcasm when you use the rolleyes symbol. I have not treated you in such a manner. I have been respectful to you and have not said anything against your denomination. But you on the other hand have to result to the anabaptistic rationalists thing. Have a good day sir.Amen to that. But we all know Peter couldn’t have meant that, because Peter knew that since science shows children cannot have faith, as defined by anabaptistic rationalists, it would be impossible that God could save an infant through the grace of faith, so he would ust save them anyway because of the “age of accountability.”
If you were living at the time of these Early Fathers, what bible would you be using to point to them and prove them wrong in their writings? How would you come against these ECF’s. Were these ECF’s ignorant of what teaching was passed on down to them by the Apostles? And who taught the Apostles?