So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[PRmerger]

And yet that is how the “households” ended up being baptized.

Well, by preaching to the parents, yes.

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. *For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. *His praise is not from man but from God.

(Romans 2:25-29)

Yes. A great apologia for mortal vs venial sin.

As well as a refutation of OSAS.

Yes, believers can intercede on behalf of others. Parents can intercede on behalf of children. The Bible is full of examples of God saving the children of believers because of the faith of the parents. Yet, this principle embedded in Scripture does not require or necessitate that parents engage in infant baptism.

So we are agreed, then, that the faith of others can be applied to individuals?

 

[PRmerger]

No. God has no grandchildren. By this I mean, the New Testament Church is never presented as a “covenant community” of believers and their unbelieving children and other relatives. The only covenant community is the church itself, the assembly of the redeemed and those called out of the world and consecrated to God.

But you are disturbed, it seems, by an implication that would be equally applicable to any infant.

And the above does not address that.

Surely you believe that infants are affected, spiritually, physically–in all matters, actually–by the decisions of their parents, yes?

 

[ltwin]

Well, by preaching to the parents, yes.

So, when “household” is used in reference to baptism it always includes infant baptism, but when “household” is used in regards to rejoicing and or hearing the Word preached then it does not have to include infants? That seems to be a selective interpretation.

So we are agreed, then, that the faith of others can be applied to individuals?

I wouldn’t say that the faith of one person can be applied to another. Through faith, the righteousness of Christ is applied to those who believe on him. I don’t think that any individual can do what Christ does.

I do believe that righteous people acting in faith can stand in the gap (Ezekiel 22:30) and that their prayers have great power (James 5:16).

 

[ltwin]

But you are disturbed, it seems, by an implication that would be equally applicable to any infant.

And the above does not address that.

Surely you believe that infants are affected, spiritually, physically–in all matters, actually–by the decisions of their parents, yes?

“Affected?” Yes. But, my parents cannot make me a Christian. I will not be able to make my children Christians either. You cannot inherit faith.

 

[PRmerger]

So, when “household” is used in reference to baptism it always includes infant baptism, but when “household” is used in regards to rejoicing and or hearing the Word preached then it does not have to include infants? That seems to be a selective interpretation.

Well, only in the sense that the preaching wasn’t heard aurally by the infants (in any meaningful way, anyway). But it was “received” by the infants, to be sure.

But they certainly were not excluded. Unless you think the mothers and nursemaids holding these infants were not permitted to hear the preaching?

Similarly, these infants received baptism.

I wouldn’t say that the faith of one person can be applied to another.

That would contradict Scripture, then.

For the man lowered on a mat was clearly healed because the faith of his friends was applied to him.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

 

[PRmerger]

“Affected?” Yes. But, my parents cannot make me a Christian. I will not be able to make my children Christians either. You cannot inherit faith.

So what then of the 2 yr old toddler?

What is his status before he accepts Christ as his personal Lord and Savior?

 

[PRmerger]

“Affected?” Yes. But, my parents cannot make me a Christian. I will not be able to make my children Christians either. You cannot inherit faith.

I am very interested in the implications of this.

If no one is a Christian until he professes his faith in Christ, then are non-Christians admitted into heaven?

Or are infants/toddlers/the developmentally challenged and delayed sent to hell because they have not professed a faith in Jesus?

 

[ltwin]

I am very interested in the implications of this.

If no one is a Christian until he professes his faith in Christ, then are non-Christians admitted into heaven?

Or are infants/toddlers/the developmentally challenged and delayed sent to hell because they have not professed a faith in Jesus?

I think I’ve made it clear what I believe about infants and the developmentally challenged on this thread. I don’t believe they are sent to hell because they are too young/incapable to believe/profess faith in Christ. Neither do I believe they are sent to hell because they were not baptized.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe they are sent to hell because they are too young/incapable to believe/profess faith in Christ. Neither do I believe they are sent to hell because they were not baptized.

Then you believe they are sent to heaven. That is the only position I can logically conclude you must have.

And that, contemporaneous with your claim that they aren’t Christian, means, necessarily, that you believe this: You do not need to be a Christian to enter heaven.

 

[sallybutler]

I think I’ve made it clear what I believe about infants and the developmentally challenged on this thread. I don’t believe they are sent to hell because they are too young/incapable to believe/profess faith in Christ. Neither do I believe they are sent to hell because they were not baptized.

So what happens to the person who hears the Word, accepts Christ, but never gets Baptized? Jesus says you must be baptized.

 

[ltwin]

Well, only in the sense that the preaching wasn’t heard aurally by the infants (in any meaningful way, anyway). But it was “received” by the infants, to be sure.

What does “receive” even mean in this context?

But they certainly were not excluded. Unless you think the mothers and nursemaids holding these infants were not permitted to hear the preaching?

No. The difference being that the mothers and nursemaids could understand and respond. The infants could not.

That would contradict Scripture, then.

For the man lowered on a mat was clearly healed because the faith of his friends was applied to him.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

But I don’t read this as saying that the paralytic man had no faith at all. The way I read these passages, the paralytic himself is included in the “their.” Obviously, this is an instance where the man himself could not get to Jesus, but the faith of his friends made it possible. I doubt they just picked the man up and carried him to Jesus against his will.

So what then of the 2 yr old toddler?

What is his status before he accepts Christ as his personal Lord and Savior?

Christ died for all mankind, children included. If a child (or even a grown individual who is developmentally challenged) is unable to believe, then the child is unable to commit the sin of unbelief, unable to reject Christ. In such a situation, I believe the grace of God covers infants.

 

[ltwin]

So what happens to the person who hears the Word, accepts Christ, but never gets Baptized? Jesus says you must be baptized.

Baptism is not what saves you. It is a command of Jesus, and if we love Jesus, we will obey his commands. Any person who has accepted Christ should want to be baptized in imitation of Jesus, whom they claim to follow.

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism is not what saves you

This, too, is contradicted by Scripture.

The inspired writer, St. Peter, tells us that “baptism saves you now” 1 Peter 3:21

 

[ltwin]

Then you believe they are sent to heaven. That is the only position I can logically conclude you must have.

And that, contemporaneous with your claim that they aren’t Christian, means, necessarily, that you believe this: You do not need to be a Christian to enter heaven.

If someone is in heaven, then they are regenerated, saved. Their parents did not make them Christians. Infants who are saved are saved because of God’s grace, not the decision of their parents to “make” them Christians through infant baptism.

 

[benhur]

John 3:30?

I don’t think so.

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:30[/BIBLEDRB]

You don’t have your Bible dictionary handy, but surely you have your Bible handy, yes?

What verse is it again that says that baptism is not “for regeneration or for bestowing of the spirit/new birth”?/QUOTESorry verse 25 then their arose a question between some of johns disciples and the jews about purifying. How Jesus whom John baptized also baptized and all men come to him.vs26

 

[benhur]

Source for this in Scripture, please! Book, chapter and verse.

John 3:25’26. Talks of baptism and purifying.

 

[PRmerger]

What does “receive” even mean in this context?

They were present, and were not asked to leave because there was going to be a believer’s baptism. Thus, they received the preaching.

Unless you believe they were excluded from the preaching, as well as excluded from the baptisms?

Book, chapter and verse for this, please, if that is your position.

No. The difference being that the mothers and nursemaids could understand and respond. The infants could not.

This is quite consonant with Catholicism. No one is positing that the infants could understand and respond to the preaching.

But I don’t read this as saying that the paralytic man had no faith at all. The way I read these passages, the paralytic himself is included in the “their.” Obviously, this is an instance where the man himself could not get to Jesus, but the faith of his friends made it possible. I doubt they just picked the man up and carried him to Jesus against his will.

Well, we don’t know, do we?

This appears to be a case where a non-Catholic is permitted to believe something that’s not in the Bible–the “Where Scripture is silent, we are permitted to believe it”.

But then there are other places where Scripture is silent* the paradigm espoused by many non-Catholics is, “Where Scripture is silent, you are not permitted to believe this”. (here, read: praying the rosary, the IC, purgatory, etc etc etc).

*Actually in the majority of cases, Scripture makes no pronouncement whatsoever. That’s why we have a Magisterium so we won’t be left orphans.

Christ died for all mankind, children included.

Amen! Very Catholic, this!

If a child (or even a grown individual who is developmentally challenged) is unable to believe, then the child is unable to commit the sin of unbelief, unable to reject Christ. In such a situation, I believe the grace of God covers infants.

Book, chapter and verse for this, please.

Also, would this cover those who are invincibly ignorant, too, such as Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc etc?

 

[PRmerger]

If someone is in heaven, then they are regenerated, saved.

At what point did they become regenerated?

Were they already born that way?

Their parents did not make them Christians. Infants who are saved are saved because of God’s grace, not the decision of their parents to “make” them Christians through infant baptism.

So then you believe that non-Christians get to heaven without any saving faith.

 

[PRmerger]

John 3:30?

I don’t think so.

[BIBLEDRB]John 3:30[/BIBLEDRB]

You don’t have your Bible dictionary handy, but surely you have your Bible handy, yes?

What verse is it again that says that baptism is not “for regeneration or for bestowing of the spirit/new birth”?[/QUOTESorry verse 25 then their arose a question between some of johns disciples and the jews about purifying. How Jesus whom John baptized also baptized and all men come to him.vs26

I am not understanding your posting–it is too messy, benhur.

Would you mind telling us what verse says that baptism is not for regeneration or for bestowing of the spirit/new birth?
[/quote]

 

[benhur]

Believed in Jesus, benhur? Before he heard the gospel?

How did he do this?

Did you see what you just did? You added to the Bible right there!

Have no idea what you are talking about.if you are confused why do you judge ? Read my statement again. Then read the entire Cornelius account with discernment about just when did Cornelius believe the old covenant, the new covenant, when was he regenerated when did he receive the gift of the HS, when when was he water baptized…iam proposing quite a catholic thing and yet your catholic box is not letting read the text plainly…I say you can do this,read it more openly for just as surely as you do not put god in box with Mary’s immaculate conception ( she was cleansed by the blood in foreknowledge/ application) do not so either with Cornelius.