/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>840646

One is not deprived of anything by being a layman.

>>840664

Babies aren't deprived by being unbaptized

>>840669

Of course not, I was trying to point out your false assumption that clergy receive something laymen do not. I meant classes who cannot be leaders like children and women are not denied of Grace because of it. Clergy are not more graceful by the mere fact of being clergy, while baptism and communion are gifts that are life-giving.

>>840670

I was just arguing to the absurd

>>840671

I think you failed on that, since laymen are not less graceful than leaders.

>>840672

The disconnect is here is that we disagree on the relation of the sacraments to grace. You probably know I affirm the priesthood of all believers

If babies need to be baptized then that implies aborted babies need that too. This implies that then God won't allow them into Heaven without a simple ritual that then implies God isn't looking at the heart, but other factors.

All of this together means, God would not be good. Therefore, infant baptism isn't necessary.

There's an age of accountability and it's different for each one of us. So, there you go.

>>840674

All believers are priests, but children are not even proper laymen? How ridiculous.

>>840686

You're not understanding the meaning of the term

The Bible teaches that whole households were baptised:

>1 Corinthians 1:16

And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

>Acts 16:15

And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

>Acts 16:33

And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

And the Bible, logically, connects households with children:

>Genesis 18:19

For I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him.

>Genesis 36:6

And Esau took his wives and his sons and daughters, and every soul of his house, and his substance, and cattle, and all that he was able to acquire in the land of Chanaan: and went into another country, and departed from his brother Jacob.

Jesus taught that every man must be baptised to be saved:

>John 3:5

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The language here makes no distinctions or exceptions; Jesus' statement is universally applicable. The necessity to receive water baptism is therefore universal. Every man necessarily includes infants. It logically follows that infants should be baptised.

We also have the writings of the Church fathers:

>Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”

>Origen, Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”

>Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2,5 [A.D. 253]

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.”

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another.”

>Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7,28 [A.D. 388]

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!”

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated.”

>>840710

Nothing you said from the Bible logically connects to infant baptism.

>>840711

Whole households were baptised.

Households contain children and infants.

Therefore children and infants were baptised.

All persons must be baptised to enter the kingdom of heaven.

All persons contains all children and all infants.

Therefore all children and all infants must be baptised to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Both of these arguments are valid, because negating their conclusions contradicts their respective premises, and are sound, because all of their premises are true.

Your claim that nothing I referenced from the Bible connecting logically to infant baptism is false, and likely stems from the assault that the Christian position imparts on your heretical foundations.

>>840712

>Households contain children and infants.

This is an assumption, making the argument a non sequitur.

>All persons must be baptised to enter the kingdom of heaven.

False. See thief on the cross and John 3:16.

>>840713

>The Good Thief

The Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection. For that reason, the Good Thief constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. In fact, when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to hell. As Catholics know, no one entered heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection. On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into hell, as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the hell of the damned, but to the place in hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the Just of the Old Testament, who could not enter heaven until after the Saviour came.

>1 Peter 3:18-20

Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her: "Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Our Lord had not yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 2 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place Paradise because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.

>John 3:16

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

This verse is removed from its context when taken to justify a Protestant position. For in the same chapter of the Evangelist we read:

>John 3:36

He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that disobeys the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

To believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation means that you must also obey Him; to be saved through faith in Jesus you must do what He says. As the Evangelist continues:

>John 8:51

Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.

And as Matthew the Evangelist writes:

>Matthew 19:17

But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Belief in Jesus unto salvation always means and presupposes doing and observing what Jesus commanded. This renders the heretical notions of "Faith Alone" and "Once Saved, Always Saved" absurd. It also forces one to accept John 3:5, and the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

>>840715

>>840715

None of those references of the Church fathers mention baptism, much less deny its importance. Polycarp himself was baptised as an infant. And Clement of Rome wrote on the Necessity of Baptism:

>Clement of Rome, Recognitions, Book VI, Chapter 8-9

"But now I lead you to understanding by the same paths. For you see that all things are produced from waters. But water was made at first by the Only-begotten; and the Almighty God is the head of the Only-begotten, by whom we come to the Father in such order as we have stated above. But when you have come to the Father you will learn that this is His will, that you be born anew by means of waters, which were first created. For he who is regenerated by water, having filled up the measure of good works, is made heir of Him by whom he has been regenerated in incorruption. Wherefore, with prepared minds, approach as sons to a father, that your sins may be washed away, and it may be proved before God that ignorance was their sole cause. For if, after the learning of these things, you remain in unbelief, the cause of your destruction will be imputed to yourselves, and not to ignorance. And do you suppose that you can have hope towards God, even if you cultivate all piety and all righteousness, but do not receive baptism. Yea rather, he will be worthy or greater punishment, who does good works not well; for merit accrues to men from good works, but only if they be done as God commands. Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God's, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will.

But you will perhaps say, What does the baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God? In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet testified to us with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation. For whether you be righteous or unrighteous, baptism is necessary for you in every respect: for the righteous, that perfection may be accomplished in him, and he may be born again to God; for the unrighteous, that pardon may be vouchsafed him of the sins which he has committed in ignorance. Therefore all should hasten to be born again to God without delay, because the end of every one's life is uncertain."

From the last words of Clement here, the earliest moment of being born again to God through the Sacrament of Baptism would be infancy.

>>840724

>paradise is hell

Absurd

>This verse is removed from its context when taken to justify a Protestant position. For in the same chapter…

Protestantism isn't antinomian. Credobaptism isn't either.

>>840725

>None of those references of the Church fathers mention baptism, much less deny its importance

All of them deny the contribution of the work of baptism regarding the inheritance of salvation.

>>840728

Paradise is an intermediate place for the departed souls of the righteous awaiting resurrection. This is why Jesus says 'Paradise' not 'Heaven.'

By definition, Protestantism is antinomian.

>All of them deny the contribution of the work of baptism regarding the inheritance of salvation.

As I already proved: Belief in Jesus unto salvation always means and presupposes doing and observing what Jesus commanded. And Jesus commanded that all persons be born again through the Sacrament of Baptism.

>>840729

>By definition, Protestantism is antinomian.

Thanks for making this easy then

Could you start trip or name posting?

>>840643

You better believe it!

>>840724

Stop being autistic. The Good Thief is saved because it was the will of the Father, we baptize ourselves because it is the will of the Father, that is all that matters and the one thing necessary.

>>840756

As I already said here: >>840724

>John 3:36

He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that disobeys the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

To believe in Jesus Christ unto salvation means that you must also obey Him; to be saved through faith in Jesus you must do what He says. As the Evangelist continues:

>John 8:51

Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.

And as Matthew the Evangelist writes:

>Matthew 19:17

But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Belief in Jesus unto salvation always means and presupposes doing and observing what Jesus commanded. Belief is contingent on baptism, but it does not follow, as you suggest, that baptism is contingent on belief.

>The rest of what you posted are outside manmade arguments, which are fallible.

This begs the question, and is not a proof of the falsity of an argument.

>1 Peter 3:21

Baptism is said to be of the like form with the water by which Noe was saved, because the one was a figure of the other. As much as to say, that baptism has not its efficacy, in order to salvation, from its washing away any bodily filth or dirt; but from its purging the conscience from sin.

Your position is contrary to the very people that collated the Bible; your position requires that people produced doctrine contrary to their own belief. Such a requirement is absurd for it would then not be the doctrine of those people.

Here’s a though. If a saved woman gives birth to a child, is that child not baptized in placental fluid. If the child’s understanding of Christ has no bearing on the baptism why not just consider the birth a baptism. We are born through water. A baptism is rebirth into Christ. A saved woman has the Holy Spirit in her. Is that child not automatically saved.

Just a thought that’s rattling in my mind.

>>840767

>Belief is contingent on baptism, but it does not follow, as you suggest, that baptism is contingent on belief.

No, you've got it backwards. Baptism is contingent on belief. Those that believed were then baptized. See Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:36,37,38. If they didn't believe first then it wasn't obedience, it was just flicking water on an unbeliever.

>This begs the question, and is not a proof of the falsity of an argument.

In the case of clear scripture such as Acts 2:41-42 and Acts 8:37 contradicting fallible authority, it is.

>but from its purging the conscience from sin.

No version of 1 Peter 3:21 says purging in that verse, especially not the received version of Scripture.

> 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

>Your position is contrary to the very people that collated the Bible;

God did that. His word has existed from eternity past (Psalm 119:160) and has been revealed in due time (Hebrews 1:1-3). The people you are referring to added apocrypha. They didn't collate anything, but actually, failed to discern the true scriptures by adding apocrypha. Also, I could say the fact you turn to rely on this proves Scripture does not support you; hence in order to subvert it, you attempt to turn to manmade writings to wrest them for your own purposes as God's word proves too difficult for you. Yet what did the Apostle John say? If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. (1 John 5:9)

>your position requires that people produced doctrine contrary to their own belief.

God produced Scripture, in fact, He inspired it and providentially preserved it to this day despite the efforts of false prophets to corrupt it with apocrypha and other alterations and claim credit where they have none. It's a succession of false prophets who falsify things like baptism, making a mockery of it, standing in rebellion against the true church, while presenting themselves to be a false version of it.

>Such a requirement is absurd for it would then not be the doctrine of those people.

True because they didn't produce it. In fact, if anything they tried to destroy it, but failed. That's why we still have the real version, which is not the Catholic version with its additions and removals. The next best thing they could do was try to spread false versions, which is what Cath versions of the bible are. For instance, it adds the word "again" to John 3:5 a verse we earlier mentioned. The original Greek New Testament does not agree with that version of John 3:5, it agrees with the received KJV version. Many more examples can be drawn that all show the same thing; the Latin and LXX versions were and are corrupted from the still-preserved original language received version of the word of God.

Finally, your point about entire households being baptized says as much as the fact entire households were said to have believed. The same households, in fact: Acts 16:34 and 1 Corinthians 16:15. In other words, we have as many as those that believed were baptized, and not those that didn't gladly receive the word.

>>840767

I should also say that regarding John 3:36, John 8:51 and Matthew 19:17 you'll see no objections raised from me, it's all true. Romans 2:8 tells us to "obey the truth," and not to obey unrighteousness. And as belief is the descriptive moment one is saved and born again, becoming a saved believer by grace through faith, every work that follows is contingent upon that first belief, which comes before all else.

As it says in Ephesians 1:12-14

> 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

> 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

> 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Indeed, baptism is compared to circumcision (Colossians 2:11), and the old rite was performed in the old law after birth in the flesh; so that baptism, in the law of Christ therefore, is performed after being born again of the Spirit, which is when a person first believes after hearing the word of God. Baptism has to come after this, it is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21) and it follows after being saved and believing the word of God, not before it. Just as in the old law, the child was not circumcized before being born but (eight days) after, so in the law of Christ the believer is baptized after being born again, which is where they hear and gladly receive the word of God and believe on Christ.

>>840792

>>840803

>In the case of clear scripture such as Acts 2:41-42 and Acts 8:37 contradicting fallible authority, it is.

This is, again, begging the question.

>Acts 8:37

If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.

The Scripture many times mentions only one disposition, as here belief, when others equally necessary are not expressed, viz., a sorrow for sins, a firm hope, and the love of God. Moreover, believing with the whole heart signifies a belief of every thing necessary for salvation.

Belief is contingent on baptism. For belief always presupposes observing the commands of Jesus Christ. One could not be said to believe if they did not observe His commands, and He commands baptism. Hence, as you yourself said, all those that believed were baptised; for they could not believe if they were not baptised. The Holy Spirit descended and came upon Christ Himself only after His baptism (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9-10; Luke 3:21-22), as Justin Martyr recognises:

>Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 88:3

When Jesus went down in the water, fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when he came up from the water, the Holy Spirit came upon him. The apostles of our Christ wrote this.

John 3:3 uses the same word γεννηθῇ (gennethe) as John 3:5, and follows it with ἄνωθεν (anothen). But Jesus, when questioned by Nicodemus, clarifies his first statement by his second, and translators use 'again' so that the relationship between the verses is made clear. And so they read:

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.

Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

You keep begging the question in your reasoning.

I agree that God inspired Scripture, but you are not applying your reasoning of the 'fallibility of manmade arguments' to your own argument of the "corruption and apocrypha" of the Catholic Church.

You have no method by which you can "discern the true scriptures from apocrypha" without circularity. And you must necessarily refuse to acknowledge the historical development of the Biblical canon.

>Standing in rebellion against the true church

Protestantism, by its very name, is rebellion.

bible itself says baptism is the new circumcision and if infants had to be circumcised in the old covenant there is nothing in the new saying otherwise.

>>840810

>bible itself says baptism is the new circumcision

book, chapter and verse please

>>840811

>Colossians 2:11-12

In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.

Baptism is the new and greater circumcision.

>>840808

>Belief is contingent on baptism.

The Scripture you just cited says the opposite. It says that he may be baptised if he believes. It does not say he will believe only after he is baptised. You quoted the scripture here and then stated the opposite in this case.

Acts 8:36-38

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

>Hence, as you yourself said, all those that believed were baptised; for they could not believe if they were not baptised.

Yes I agree so if you place water on a unbeliever, they are not therefore baptised according to what the word of God says. It seems you have agreed to that fact now. All people remain unbaptised until after they have first believed, and then, only then, they can be actually baptised.

So as explained in Acts 2:41-42 the first step is hearing, then belief, and thirdly baptism into the church. Ephesians 1:12-14 covers the fact that belief comes before works or anything else. And baptism thereof is voluntary and by bodily immersion.

Anything else, is like what the Arians did, it was invalid. I wouldn't want to go against how God prescribes it via his Word, even if some fancy people with lots of worldly influence want to say otherwise. We should not be swayed by fancy clothes and worldly possessions when the word of God is in front of us.

>The Holy Spirit descended and came upon Christ Himself only after His baptism (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9-10; Luke 3:21-22),

And? I'm not seeing your point here unless you're an adoptionist.

>But Jesus, when questioned by Nicodemus, clarifies his first statement by his second, and translators use 'again' so that the relationship between the verses is made clear.

No, some people added the extra word to support their misinterpretation of John 3:5, which they consistently quote out of its context, choosing to leave out the next verse.

>You keep begging the question in your reasoning.

I am acting under the faith that the word of God is true. If you think that is an unreasonable assumption, then you are free to admit to us if you have doubts about God's word being true. Otherwise it's not begging the question because it is backed up by exactly the word of God.

>You have no method by which you can "discern the true scriptures from apocrypha" without circularity.

Ok let's deal with this. Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John chapter eight said the following "He that is of God hears God's words", and if this is true it means it is possible for those whom God wills to discern what is His word and what is fallacy and false prophecy. This is also how the word of God about our Lord Jesus Christ spread in the first place, because so many recognized that truth. You might as well be asking and wondering the reason why someone is a believing Christian. It's because they have recognized the word of God as being of the authority of the Creator and Lord. That's how any of this got started in the first place.

It wasn't just a human invention. God himself inspired the words, and gave those that are of God the ability to hear his words. As He says also equivalently in John 10:27. If you don't believe what Jesus said to be true, then of course it's not going to make sense and will appear to be begging the question. Yet the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. In the previous chapter to this he also said that "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." So to them that perish it all seems to be circular reasoning, but really it's not. It's just they don't understand nor perceive how God is working and it appears like foolishness to them who are disbelievers.

>And you must necessarily refuse to acknowledge the historical development of the Biblical canon.

There's nothing to acknowledge, it's just a false history devoid of the truth of God's word, the word which says that He has inspired it and He always acted in ways to preserve it, through his instruments on this earth. If you don't even have faith that God has the ability to do this, that is to do what He said in his Word, then of course it's going to seem illogical to the natural man (i.e. 1 Cor. 2:14) that only reasons using their own natural understanding, that is devoiding themselves of receiving guidance from God.

No

t. John Knox

>>840820

>John 8:47

He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.

>John 10:26-27

But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.

1 John 4:6-7

We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

As I keep saying: Belief in Jesus unto salvation always means and presupposes doing and observing what Jesus commanded. Belief is contingent on baptism; Baptism is prior to belief, and belief is prior to salvation.

And as I already said: The Scripture many times mentions only one disposition, as here belief, when others equally necessary are not expressed, viz., a sorrow for sins, a firm hope, and the love of God. Moreover, believing with the whole heart signifies a belief of every thing necessary for salvation.

Reread what I wrote, "They could not believe if they were not baptised", this maintains the Catholic position that belief is contingent on baptism.

>If you don't believe what Jesus said to be true, then of course it's not going to make sense and will appear to be begging the question.

This is not what is meant by 'begging the question'.

You justify your presuppositions by reference to the same presuppositions.

>No, some people added the extra word to support their misinterpretation of John 3:5, which they consistently quote out of its context, choosing to leave out the next verse.

Now you are being uncharitable, or conspiratorial, to the translators or denying the Catholic interpretation of Scripture.

More interestingly, you have no way of justifying any interpretation as being in error, as you have no authority that can maintain its interpretation.

>He has inspired it and He always acted in ways to preserve it, through His instruments on this earth.

I agree, and His instrument is the Catholic Church.

>>840827

>Reread what I wrote, "They could not believe if they were not baptised", this maintains the Catholic position that belief is contingent on baptism.

Ok, but that's nowhere in scripture and goes against it in Acts 8:36,37,38 and Acts 2:41-42. Belief is what happens first, that's why in Acts 8:37 the eunuch says I BELIEVE and then in Acts 8:38, which is chronologically after, he is baptized.

You see that right, or are you reading every passage backwards right now? Are you reading verse 38 before verse 37 and going in reverse order? I don't see how much plainer this can get, yet you just don't care what Scripture says and draw opposite conclusions from it while trying to pretend (in order to deceive people) that's the conclusion.

>You justify your presuppositions by reference to the same presuppositions.

The word of God is true. You call that a presupposition and object to it, creating a flurry of words to mask the fact that you don't accept the supposition that the Bible is true.

>More interestingly, you have no way of justifying any interpretation as being in error, as you have no authority that can maintain its interpretation.

The Greek New Testament doesn't have it, actually. That's how this was all exposed to begin with. Can't really argue with the facts when they're right in front of you. That's why nobody accepts that corrupt version of John 3:5 or expects anyone to keep it.

>I agree

So then nobody compiled the Bible. Glad we agree on this. God himself authored his word and preserved his word, so nobody can claim to have given it their authority. I'm glad you agree with me that there is no "historical development of canon" then. That part is settled.

Now the idea that antichrist was used to preserve the Scripture is not exactly correct, at least not directly, as they were the ones who tried to burn and destroy it back when that was still a plausible idea. It turns out in the end that they failed at replacing the true Holy Bible with their falsified so-called catholic version though. Now, as a Plan B, they are just in the business of creating/using multiple different versions to attempt to get people to stop using the received version, which they failed to erase earlier. So with that in mind it's a long shot to credit them with preserving it since after all the same group tried to burn and destroy it. Although maybe indirectly God used all of this to help preserve His Word, despite it being opposite to their intentions, I wouldn't leave that out of the question.

>>840910

Belief, that is observing the commandments of Jesus Christ, is contingent on baptism.

For we read in the same chapter of the Acts of the Apostles:

>Acts 8:14-15

Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.

Though these men and women had received the sacrament of baptism, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

>Acts 8:16-17

For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Then the Apostles administered the sacrament of confirmation, by imposition of hands, and prayer; and these men and women thereby received the Holy Spirit. That is, they received the plenitude of grace and those spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit only after they had received the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.

And we read earlier:

>Acts 8:12

But when they had believed Philip preaching of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also; and being baptized, he adhered to Philip.

Simon possesses the disposition of belief, receives from the Apostles the sacraments of baptism ad confirmation, but he does not receive the Holy Spirit. He does not possess the other dispositions necessary for salvation.

Returning to verses 36-38, the eunuch "believing with all his heart" possessed these other dispositions necessary for salvation, and hence received the Holy Spirit as the men and women did also (v. 16-17).

>The Word of God is true.

Of course. And this is not what is meant by 'begging the question'.

>Creating a flurry of words to mask the fact that you don't accept the supposition that the Bible is true.

You are being uncharitable by your insults, and by your refusal to treat my argument reasonably.

>That's why nobody accepts that corrupt version of John 3:5 or expects anyone to keep it.

This is specious reasoning; the Catholic Church has maintained the true position throughout, as can be read in the writings of, for instance, Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Cyril of Alexandria.

>So then nobody compiled the Bible.

You are again being uncharitable, now by your misrepresentation of what has already been said.

Your last paragraph falls back into conspiratorial thinking. More importantly, it falls into the same lack of foundation I wrote on earlier: you have no method by which you may point to a particular translation of the Holy Bible and call it necessarily true, whereas the Catholic Church does have such a method.

>>840928

>Then the Apostles administered the sacrament of confirmation, by imposition of hands, and prayer; and these men and women thereby received the Holy Spirit.

Having the Holy Spirit come upon them, is not the same thing as hearing the word of God and believing. After believing and being baptized, the miraculous sign of the Holy Ghost falling upon them via the apostles as mentioned in Acts 8:16.

This miraculous sign of the Holy Ghost is a sign that pertains to the ministry of the apostles according to the Gospel of Mark.

Mark 16

> 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

> 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

These signs are not the same thing as hearing the word of God and believing, as we see in Acts 2 where people spoke in tongues, and elsewhere; they occurred due to the ministry of the apostles, we don't see signs such as speaking in tongues today because those signs pertained to the apostles, as a sign of confirmation of their authority.

It even says in Acts 8:14 that they had "received" the word of God already before mentioning they were baptized. There's an extra vindication of the fact that only those who gladly receive the word are baptized (Acts 2:41) although we didn't even need it. Having sign gifts could come later after that.

>Simon possesses the disposition of belief, receives from the Apostles the sacraments of baptism ad confirmation

Exactly right. So the order of events is very clear.

>Returning to verses 36-38, the eunuch "believing with all his heart" possessed these other dispositions necessary for salvation, and hence received the Holy Spirit as the men and women did also

You mean to say he was baptized according to verse 37. If you read Acts 8 verses 36-38, the actual scripture passage talks about baptism there, although you didn't mention it here for some reason. It mentions baptism there, so I'm not sure how that got left out of your sentence that I just quoted.

>Of course. And this is not what is meant by 'begging the question'.

Sure it is.

>by your refusal to treat my argument reasonably.

When you say that I'm begging the question you mean none other than that I am treating the inspired word of God as true. This is what is being objected to. The fact you can't or won't provide any other explanation for what you mean, but simply say "this is not what is meant," only solidifies this fact. The fact is solidified that you cannot explain otherwise what is indeed meant, because what is objected to is none other than what I have already explained. If you had anything else meant by it, you could have easily explained and elaborated what it is by now. But you choose not to. Very well then. Nothing further needs to be said.

And I'm sorry if it is unfavorable to you, but if you'd like to actually respond then please by all means.

>This is specious reasoning

It's just a true fact, nobody actually expects you to use that corrupted version of the verse. Everyone, even Catholicism, uses Bibles that have the original, non-altered verse that does not say "again" in it. Nobody can consistently say that John 3:5, as it is in the Greek, with "born" and not "born again," that this is not exactly the true and correct reading. They have to affirm that it is. This is facts; from this it may also be concluded that therefore the altered version necessarily is false as there cannot be multiple versions.

>Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Cyril of Alexandria.

Am I talking to them or to you right now? I could just as well claim the same faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and of his apostles, and that is what I do, I believe everything that is written in the Old Testament and New Testament concerning our Lord. Ephesians 4:5, One Lord, one faith, one baptism. So please study the Scriptures for yourself to see whether these things are so. I have noted Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 2:41-42 already so please take those passages for their true and proper authority as supporting all of the things regarding believing first and then being baptized. Only those who gladly received the word were baptized in Acts 2:41, not all. We've noted that.

St. John has said,

>"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

- 1 John 5:9-10

(cont'd)

>You are again being uncharitable, now by your misrepresentation of what has already been said.

You agreed that God used his instruments on this earth to preserve his word until this very day. So if that's the case, we cannot state that there is a "historical development of canon." It was decided from the beginning, then. It stands on God's authority, there was no "historical development" or authority of men behind it. However, there has been attempts to take credit away from God for it, and attribute it to themselves; yet we see that apocryphal versions could never outlast the original inspired word if God was the one behind preserving it. If we entrusted a group of men to preserve it, they would fail, and men have failed in the past just as they have failed to alter it or to successfully create a fake version of it many times. Those will all fall away, but the word that I'm reading will endure through eternity. It's also self-evidently God's word, which is why we believe it and not any false religion or apocryphal version. John 8:47.

>you have no method by which you may point to a particular translation of the Holy Bible and call it necessarily true

He that is of God hears God's words. It's John 8:47, that's why people believe his word to begin with, that's how all of this got started. You might as well ask someone why someone is a believing Christian. It's because they heard and believed the truth. That one truth is self-evidently God's word, standing above all lies by its merits. The one truth genuinely outshines all of the apocryphal versions by virtue of its pure glory and brightness.

And we show that then, by bringing his word to light wherever we can.

>So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

- Romans 10:17

>>840933

I shall come at this from another angle, that you might be shown. Saint Paul writes:

>Galatians 3:2

This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Now, the hearing of the faith is necessary but not sufficient alone to receive the Holy Spirit. For then Simon would have received the Spirit and he did not.

It is written in the Acts of the Apostles:

>Acts 19: 2-6

And he said to them [the disciples at Ephesus]: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Now, the same word for disciple, μαθητὰς, is used to describe these Ephesian disciples as is used to describe the disciples of Christ. So, learning and practicing the doctrine of Scripture is necessary but not sufficient alone to receive the Holy Spirit. For then the Ephesian disciples would have received the Holy Spirit prior to their baptism and confirmation. And belief is necessary but not sufficient alone to receive the Holy Spirit. Again, for then the Ephesian disciples would have received the Holy Spirit prior to their baptism and confirmation.

This is confirmed by:

>Ephesians 1:13-14

In whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your salvation;), in whom also believing, you were signed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is the pledge of our inheritance, unto the redemption of acquisition, unto the praise of His glory.

That is, confirmation that hearing the word of truth, and the disposition of belief alone, which are both necessary for salvation, were not sufficient alone for salvation; for the Ephesians were neither baptised nor had received the Holy Spirit. To wit, the Ephesians only received the Holy Spirit after learning and practicing the doctrine of Scripture, and after receiving the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.

Now, as I have said repeatedly: Scripture many times mentions only one disposition, when others are equally necessary for salvation. And what is in Scripture supports this position. Hence belief, as used in Acts 8:36-38, must indicate the Eunuch's possession of all those dispositions necessary for salvation, and not the disposition of faith alone.

Your circularity in argument centres upon John 8:47 as follows:

I hear God's words.

Therefore I am of God.

Therefore I hear God's words.

Or, in its other, equally fallacious form:

I am of God.

Therefore I hear God's words.

Therefore I am of God.

Regardless. this argument "begs the question" because it is not a proof that you hear God's words nor that you are of God. Especially given that, were they asked, every Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox, would claim they were of God and heard the words of God, and this is obviously absurd; for each of these groups claim that the others are not of God and do not hear the words of God.

>>841101

In the next part of John 8:47 he was also able to infallibly conclude that those who did not hear his words were therefore not of God. If they had been of God, they would have heard His words there. He was able to conclude they were not of God because they did not hear His words as He spoke them.

> 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

> 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

> 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

>>840976

And lastly, as a minor side point to the above main points. If baptism was required to precede sign gifts, when why does baptism happen afterward in Acts 10?

Acts 10:44-48

>While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

>And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

>For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

>Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

>And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

>>841097

The first 2/3 of my post served to show that many elements were necessary but none were sufficient alone for receiving the Holy Spirit, and that receiving baptism and the Holy Spirit are necessary for belief, in the broader sense of which I have already written.

It also served to demonstrate that, as I have already said, Scripture many times mentions only one disposition, when others are equally necessary for salvation. And hence, that the use of 'belief' in Acts 8:36-38 must signify the possession of those other dispositions, and not the disposition of 'belief' alone.

>>841101

>>841108

My point being to show one example of the circularity of your position; I can also show the same with:

>The rest of what you posted are outside man-made arguments, which are fallible.

Fallible arguments are man-made.

Therefore Man-made arguments are fallible.

Therefore fallible arguments are man-made.

Therefore man-made arguments are false.

Therefore fallible arguments are false.

The circularity of this argument is apparent, as is the procession from fallibility to falsity.

Repeating the claim as you do here, >>841101, that you are of God without argument, only maintains the circularity of which I already spoke here, >>840976. This suggests that you cannot provide an answer to justify your claim to be of God and hear God's words over the same claims of a Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, or another Protestant.

>>841113

Nowhere have I said that baptism is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit, but it is necessary for belief, in the broader sense. And belief, in the narrow sense, is in no way necessary for baptism.

Do non baptists conflate water baptism and spirit baptism? Does every occurrence of "baptism" refer to baptism by water in your reading?

>>841136

>This suggests that you cannot provide an answer to justify your claim to be of God and hear God's words over the same claims of a Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, or another Protestant.

Is the text not true? If it is, then what is your objection? The context would seem to be that he is claiming the bible is true, and one who is of God will proclaim it to be the word of God. Your response therefore seems to be that anyone, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant can proclaim scripture to be the word of God, and implicitly asking us which one is correct. My answer is that all three are correct, because scripture is the word of God. Are you claiming differently?

>>840669

They are though, they are deprived of the covenant sign and all the benefits that come with that even though they are members of the same covenant with God.

Genesis 17:9-11

<And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you."

Colossians 2:11-12

<In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

In Colossians 2 Paul explicitly states what could be ascertained by implication elsewhere namely that baptism is the continuation of the sacrament of circumcision under the new covenant, by calling it "the circumcision of Christ". As the selfsame sacrament, the commands which were applied to circumcision under the old law apply to baptism today unless they are countermanded. Therefore, since we have the positive proof that God commanded the sign to be applied to our children, the Baptists must supply a positive proof that it is to be otherwise, or else concede the debate.

>>841144

I agree that Scripture is the Word of God, but I take umbrage with the use of John 8:47 as a proof of some interpretation of Scripture. For all Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants claim to "be of God" and all claim to "hear the words of God."

But if they all equally heard the words of God then there would be no difference between the position of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the species of Protestantism - they would all have the same interpretation of Scripture.

As Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the species of Protestantism do not have the same interpretation of Scripture, it follows that they do not equally, or some at all, hear the words of God.

And it follows from this that they are not equally "of God."

But from this alone, we have no method by which we might determine which group is God, or is most of God.

>>841146

No he doesn't because the circumcision of Christ is not baptism

>>841139

Water baptism? All things are permeated by the Spirit, you can't run away from it.

>>841151

He proceeds to describe the circumcision of Christ after he brings it up. He identifies it as baptism. This is expressed by the words "having been"

>>841147

>I take umbrage with the use of John 8:47 as a proof of some interpretation of Scripture

I would take umbrage with that as well but I did not see that when I read your conversation. I saw you attempting to undermine the authority of scripture in order to inflate the authority of your church. You said

>You have no method by which you can "discern the true scriptures from apocrypha" without circularity.

And that is when John 8:47 came in.

>But if they all equally heard the words of God then there would be no difference between the position of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the species of Protestantism - they would all have the same interpretation of Scripture.

The words "hear" here merely means "recognize", as the sheep recognize the voice of the shepard. The text explains how individual Christians specifically know that scripture is the word of God, namely through divinely implanted instinct. It does not state that unbelievers can not know that scripture is the word of God, nor does it claim that true believers will always have exactly the same interpretations of the word of God. When someone says that the bible is the word of God, that is always correct, regardless of the particular errors of the one saying it.

>we might determine which group is God, or is most of God.

We neither can nor may determine who is of God. It belongs to God alone to judge the hearts of man. What we may do is judge teachings and actions, and we must do so by the standard which God left to us, His most holy scripture.

>>841158

>>840816

it is not water baptism

>>841154

are you being cute or do you not make a distinction

>>841167

Being cute isn't part of my lingo. Are you asking if I'm joking? I am not.

I tried understanding your distinction through Google but I believe I failed. Though one of it said that 'spiritual baptism' is like a decision preceeding an act and 'water baptism' is the act, or something of Cartesian sort.

The problem is I simply don't see actions as preceed by hidden machinations in the mind. I also believe most people in history didn't.

>>841170

https://www.gotquestions.org/Spirit-baptism.html

>>841146

>Therefore, since we have the positive proof that God commanded the sign to be applied to our children, the Baptists must supply a positive proof that it is to be otherwise, or else concede the debate.

Already anticipated and answered beforehand in the second part here: >>840803

This order is again iterated by St. Paul in Ephesians 1.

> 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

> 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

> 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

In short, no. I mean, you could, but it wouldn't accomplish anything. In order for a baptism to mean anything, the person being baptized has to understand what it is they're accepting. Baptism is a sign of conversion, and of willing and knowing acceptance of Jesus as Lord. You can't do that if you haven't reached the age of reason.

https://bible.org/article/believers-baptism

>>841195

This argument already got torn apart by the Catholic, Baptist.

>>841210

Baptism is for the remission of sin and concupiscence. And your thinking also got torn apart above.

>>841210

Children understand the things of God better than us.

>>841215

1 Corinthians 14:20

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

>>840678

Or you should let God be God without your bro science. Was baptism made for us or we for baptism? Just because God binds us by saying that we should get baptized, doesn't mean that he binds himself with this rule. He is autonomous. Therefor I think that God would save an unborn child, but a smart ass dweeb trying to larp him by creating his own rules will most likely get sent to the oven. Or as you might know - hell is closed from the inside not the outside. Either way, good luck Anon, God bless you and protect you.

>>841218

Read the entire Bible, stop purposefully equivocating senses of a term to fit your narrative. What is next? A kid is a child goat? Unless one becomes as a child, he shall not enter the Kingdom. Yet you bar those more fitting than you from baptism and communion, going against Christ's call.

>>840643

No.

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.

<Repent, and be baptized

You have to first repent, you can't do that as a baby who doesn't know anything

Acts 8

>36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

<what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

>>841159

It's true that baptism isn't the circumcision of the heart. But it also isn't the adoption as sons, regeneration, justification or the imputation of sins to Christ on the cross and righteousness to the believer. But all these things are ascribed to baptism in this passage. This is because baptism points back to the new circumcision just as its predecessor circumcision pointed ahead to the same object.

>>841195

As I told the Romanist, we can not and may not judge the heart of any man. How will you determine who has and has not been born again in order to avoid baptizing a secret unbeliever? You neither can nor may. For this reason we do not baptize on the basis of the salvation of the believer, but on their membership in the visible church of Jesus Christ, which the children of believers possess. Whether they have converted to the Church or were born into it, we presume their regeneration. There is nothing preventing God from giving the new birth to an infant, He is free to do so, John the Baptist was even born again in the womb (Luke 1:41). Christ commanded us to baptize all nations, we are not permitted to decrease that scope.

>>841256

Protestant takes 'and' as 'then.'

>>841158

The Baptist is clearly using John 8:47 to try and justify his position.

>>841278

Not a protestant. You catholics really need a perma ban from this board, you're not even Chrisitan and you are contrary to the Word of God.

>>841281

I'm sure it looks that way through heretical eyes.

>>841416

I am offended. You completely ignored everything I said and posted what appears to be some generalized template that you typed up before hand to dismiss any counter-argument you could imagine as if you were distributing pamphlets to random passers-by. You clearly didn't read my post, since you repeated the exact same points almost verbatim without even acknowledging my response to them. I would love to discuss this with you brother, but there's no point in even pretending we are having a conversation if you will not interact with my points.

So, as for what little is new in this e-pamphlet of a post:

>And I don't care if you're the most powerful figurehead on earth, it still doesn't enable you to change the rite.

>I don't care if you are literally the world emperor, you still can't change the word of God. You still can't change these things.

It's worth repeating something I said earlier in the thread. As has already been established (and not disputed), baptism is the continuation of and same sacrament as circumcision, but under the new law. God did explicitly command us to apply this sacrament to our children. This command has never been abrogated. Hence, not only are we not changing the rite, nor compelling others to an act of obedience, but you are the ones who are trying to change what God ordained, and are actually committing disobedience by refusing to baptize your children as He commanded.

>>841462

I empathize with your offense

If there waa a male that was circumcised prior to Christ and found faith in Christ after, he would still be called to be baptised. This is because we are all new children of the new covenant, and it is a spiritual circumcision that circumcise the our new babe of a spirit. Even a full grown man who is new in his faith would be consider a child.

>>841256

Knowledge does not precede action. Saying 'I know how to solve this equation, I just can't do it' is completely senseless.

>>841462

>I am offended. You completely ignored everything I said and posted what appears to be some generalized template

This is a complete and utter lie.

You said it's true baptism isn't the circumcision of the heart. I said it's fair to draw that parallel. That is a response. I then explained why it is fair to draw that parallel.

You asked how will you determine who has and has not been born again. I said "let a man examine himself" as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:28. That is a direct answer. I said if someone has indeed been baptized in the way spelled out in the New Testament, then there is no danger in what you alleged.

You said you wanted to baptized based on someone's pre-existing membership. I responded that persons are baptized INTO the church (i.e. 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:27). That is a direct response to your allegation otherwise which implies people possess members before this.

You mentioned Luke 1:41, but that is not a passage that deals with baptism. I directly responded to the use of this when I said "We've looked at multiple passages dealing directly with baptism, and nothing so far has been presented to overturn any of these facts." This includes Luke 1:41, which is not about baptism. So this is a DIRECT response to the use of Luke 1:41.

No rather, what you just wrote in THIS reply is a complete ignoring of everything <<I>> said, and appears to be generalized, as a matter of fact. Because you have not responded to any of the points I made in my reply, which I have just reiterated again especially for you specifically right here. You refuse to interacts with these points by feigning that I haven't dealt with them already.

However, I am not offended, because Charity suffereth long, and is kind. I wish you well.

>baptism is the continuation of and same sacrament as circumcision, but under the new law.

Yes, see the first part of the pose you just reponded to explaining that under the new law one is born again first and the new rite which is compared to circumcision comes after this.

>God did explicitly command us to apply this sacrament to our children

To those who are born again.

>Hence, not only are we not changing the rite

I was done by immersion upon profession since Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:37, later it was changed.

>nor compelling others to an act of obedience

True, because sprinkling is not an act of obedience nor is it baptism, which IS an act of obedience according to 1 Peter 3:21 as already discussed.

>>841544

Sorry if I cut too straightforwardly to the point there. It is just kind of hard to know how to respond when someone ignores your points and simultaneously says you ignore theirs when it is demonstrably not true simply by reading the actual post. As I already explained, starting here, >>840803

being born again is what precedes the "circumcision made without hands" as it is called in Colossians 2:11. I don't understand how anyone can miss that point so many times >>841416

then act under the assumption it wasn't answered, c.f. >>841462

Everyone historically agrees that baptism had always been by immersion on the conditions as laid out fully (cf. Acts 8:37) in Scripture from the early centuries until some people (note: not everyone) started changing it along the way, turning it into dripping water from the hands onto an infant due to the misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration. It's obvious what it started out as, and this only makes plain who compromised in order to have their state church, playing to superstitions over following Scripture, and so on.

>>841544

>This is a complete and utter lie.

I will take that as the declaration of your intention not to act in good faith. Do not be surprised if I do not reply again, and rethink yourself.

>You said it's true baptism isn't the circumcision of the heart. I said it's fair to draw that parallel. That is a response. I then explained why it is fair to draw that parallel.

This is incoherent, please try again

>You asked how will you determine who has and has not been born again

And you completely ignored that question and instead reiterated almost verbatim the exact same thing that prompted the question. That is not a lie, it is a fact, and it is blatant to anyone with eyes.

>That is a direct answer

No it is not. It is not a valid answer to that question at all. If you truly cannot see why, allow me to spell it out for you: if you want to say that the basis of baptism is the new birth and not membership in the church, then you will need to determine if someone really is a Christian or if they are a false brother. "They said so" isn't good enough because people can lie, and you seem slow so I'll point out that this is only a problem for you and not for me because I do not pretend regeneration is the basis of baptism, only visible church membership. So it does not matter if a man examines himself because the one who needs to determine his status in this scenario is not him, it's the one baptizing him. Nor may you take the stance that his lie is on him, since that is my position and not yours. You have taken the stance that such visible church membership is not sufficient, a person must be actually regenerate to be baptized, and therefore our children cannot be baptized even though they are brought up in the church since we presume they are not regenerate (for some reason). So by the standard you have adopted, you are in error when you baptize a false believer since they were not born again.

>I responded that persons are baptized INTO the church

If you intended that part of your rambling to have been interpreted as a response directly to something I had said, then maybe you should have said as much instead of burying it in the rest of the morass. As for your point, I'm not sure what it is. Yes, baptism is part of the process of becoming a Christian. Are you suggesting we should not raise our children to be Christian? I fail to see how else it could possibly be relevant.

>You mentioned Luke 1:41, but that is not a passage that deals with baptism

Which is just as well since I did not apply it directly to baptism. Based on the lack of even a pretended rebuttal I will consider it undisputed that children can be born again well before they can speak.

>>841544

>this is a DIRECT response to the use of Luke 1:41

Now *that* is a lie

>No rather, what you just wrote in THIS reply is a complete ignoring of everything <<I>> said

It is true that I ignored most of your post. That is because the vast majority of it was simply repetition of things I had already replied to and there was no response whatsoever to those replies so they were still valid.

>Yes, see the first part of the pose you just reponded to explaining that under the new law one is born again first and the new rite which is compared to circumcision comes after this.

This is an example of said repetition and therefore invalid. I will ignore this and continue to consider my points to be undisputed until they are actually rebutted.

>To those who are born again.

Where does scripture say "baptize those who are born again"? I remember where it said to baptize all nations, but I cannot recall where it said that.

>I was done by immersion

I'm sure it was also done in day time or at night time, in this lake or that river. None of these aspects are actually part of the sacrament, nor were they ever.

>sprinkling is not an act of obedience nor is it baptism

This is unscriptural. As long as washing occurs in the way prescribed by scripture, it is baptism. The bible never says otherwise. Whether the water is sprinkled, poured or is dipped into is irrelevant.

>>841545

>being born again is what precedes the "circumcision made without hands"

No, Anon, being born again is the circumcision without hands.

>Everyone historically agrees that baptism had always been by immersion on the conditions as laid out fully (cf. Acts 8:37) in Scripture from the early centuries until some people (note: not everyone) started changing it along the way, turning it into dripping water from the hands onto an infant due to the misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration

Everyone? Who is "everyone"? The truth is that immersion was merely the preferred method in the very early church and there is no evidence it was the only way even they did it (in fact there is evidence to the contrary, if I recall correctly the Didache mentions pouring when immersion is for any reason impossible) and there is little doubt pouring and perhaps sprinkling gained prominence well before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

>and this only makes plain who compromised in order to have their state church

An utterly ridiculous and entirely ahistorical conspiracy theory

>>841549

>None of these aspects are actually part of the sacrament, nor were they ever.

Baptizo literally means to immerse

>>841548

>No it is not. It is not a valid answer to that question at all.

Anon, if someone is to examine themselves and follow the New Testament down to the last word then they will be baptized Scripturally according to the word of God.

>As for your point, I'm not sure what it is.

If you say that someone possesses church membership and this is the basis for being baptized, what sense does it make when we know Scripture says one is baptized into the church. If A (baptised into the church) is required first before B (being in the church), it cannot be that B (being in the church) is the basis for doing A.

I am sorry if you don't understand this.

>I will ignore this and continue to consider my points to be undisputed until they are actually rebutted.

You are choosing to ignore the post that came first and then considering the points that were subsequently posted against it to be undisputed? Very well, anon. That leaves me with nothing else to say. May the Lord bless you and keep you according to whatever His will shall be.

>Where does scripture say "baptize those who are born again"?

>I remember where it said to baptize all nations, but I cannot recall where it said that.

Actually, anon the Scripture exactly says this:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

So He, that is, the Lord, places the teaching and believing first. If you don't believe me, read the passages in Matthew and Mark for confirmation.

Also, in Acts 2:38 the Apostle Peter speaking by inspiration of God says Repent and be baptized, rather than just be baptized. I know this is what happened as well because it was those who gladly received the word (via Acts 2:41) which are those who are baptized.

>Whether the water is sprinkled, poured or is dipped into is irrelevant.

It's not me you're arguing with, anon. I humbly and honestly wish you the best.

>No, Anon, being born again is the circumcision without hands.

Oh, you're right. My mistake. I know what you said is true due to Romans 2:29

>But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

And I think this is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:16, and Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:4 as well. So my mistake on that statement.

>Everyone? Who is "everyone"?

Everyone is in this case, those who agree that baptism has always been done by immersion. Equally, nobody is pretending there was a point at which it ever hasn't been done this purely Scriptural way.

Thanks be to God who gave me breath, and praise Jesus Christ my Master and Creator forever.

>The bible never says otherwise. Whether the water is sprinkled, poured or is dipped into is irrelevant.

I would suggest considering the following passage:

Colossians 2:12

> 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

—

>and there is little doubt pouring and perhaps sprinkling gained prominence well before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

A person could run around placing water on every single child in existence, yet it wouldn't obviate the need for the regenerate believer to follow the command to be baptized. That's where the church of regenerate believers and saints which is able to administer this command has a part of necessity in achieving this, which is why it is so important that the church never gave way to the world on this very point. And as Jesus said at the very end of the Gospel, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

>>841559

It doesn't have to. It can mean simply 'to wash', see https://biblehub.com/greek/907.htm and for specific examples Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4.

>>841582

>Anon, if someone is to examine themselves and follow the New Testament down to the last word then they will be baptized Scripturally according to the word of God.

You have failed to answer the question or contest the point, it is therefore now to be considered undisputed that regeneration is not the basis of baptism.

>If you say that someone possesses church membership and this is the basis for being baptized, what sense does it make when we know Scripture says one is baptized into the church. If A (baptised into the church) is required first before B (being in the church), it cannot be that B (being in the church) is the basis for doing A.

The visible church is not an institution it is the body of Christ on earth and the sum total of all the Christians in the world. It is called visible because it is specifically this church as known to us, in contrast to the invisible church which is known to God alone, though they are the same church from two different perspectives (human and divine). Baptism doesn't save someone, which is why a believer is considered a saved Christian before they are baptized. What places a convert in the visible church is not baptism, but their confession of the name of Jesus Christ (note that true believers are placed in the invisible church even before this by their faith). However, when scripture describes baptism being "into" the church, it is referring to the visible church nonetheless. This is because baptism, just like faith and confession of faith, is part of the conversion process. That whole process is viewed and treated as one thing by the New Testament.

>You are choosing to ignore the post that came first and then considering the points that were subsequently posted against it to be undisputed

Yes I am choosing and will choose to ignore already refuted argumentation that is merely being repeated since it is invalid argumentation and if you cannot make a valid rebuttal (even if the rebuttal is wrong does not automatically make it invalid) then the point is undisputed as you have failed to dispute it.

>Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

>Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

>He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

Perhaps you should get your eyes checked. There is no mention of regeneration here

>So He, that is, the Lord, places the teaching and believing first

Firstly, He is listing commands, not giving a temporal order in which these things are to be done. Secondly, the object of "teach" and "baptizing" is not individuals who have confessed Christ, it is all nations. This is the really where Baptists go awry, is that the reason the authors of the New Testament were not Baptists is they were not individualists. They didn't see households and nations as mere collections of individuals, they saw them as real singular bodies. This is why when you read the verse your modern individualistic worldview translates the word "nations" into "individuals", when what is actually written says that nations themselves are to be made disciples of and baptized. We are to convert nations. There is such a thing as a Christian nation. Now, that's not to say that everyone within a Christian nation is Christian or that we should baptize the openly unrepentant, but it does mean that the children of those Christians are to be baptized, since the nation itself is being made Christian.

>Also, in Acts 2:38 the Apostle Peter speaking by inspiration of God says Repent and be baptized, rather than just be baptized

Yes, and he was not speaking to the children of Christians, he was speaking to unconverted Jews. Do you think we just give out free baptisms to random unbelieving adults, no Jesus necessary?

>It's not me you're arguing with

Clearly

>Everyone is in this case, those who agree that baptism has always been done by immersion.

Ok, so when you said "everyone", you actually meant only the people who agree with you. Got it

>>841601

Yes I did. Did you?

<2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; in the middle and the 1 aorist passive to wash oneself, bathe

<baptize, wash.

<From a derivative of bapto; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. Fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism –Baptist, baptize, wash.

>>841712

The operative word here is "literally"

Do you object to the phrase "baptizo literally means to immerse"? (I immerse, technically)

>>841713

I object to it in the context in which it was spoken.