Interesting Baptism Issue

Luke · 10-03-2002, 03:16 PM

Congratulations...you have successfully proven Calvinism by posting Romans 11. Too bad it was Dispensationalism that was in question...

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-03-2002, 03:34 PM

Not so, read the first few verses

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. "

"28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes"
God hasnt cast them off.

Better yet, how do you get around the fact that God is Immutable in dispensationalism?

Dispensationalism almost works, if you narrow your view to the western world and forget about God's chosen people, The Jews.

Now this is where it comes to the issues we disagree on. The temple was destroyed 3 times so did God cast off his people and take them back twice and then say nope, never again in your view? God chose them, He cant change, circumcission was his sign to Israel, still is, He doesnt change, Baptism is his sign to Beleivers. (Rom 6:4) Oh and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Its commanded you know This wasnt addressed either. and by the way Ridleysown, Id apreciate some scripture that proves im dipsy in my view. Id appreciate you paedobaptists using scripture in a rebuttal not insults.

brown07 · 10-03-2002, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Id appreciate you paedobaptists using scripture in a rebuttal not insults.

None of you have successfully dealt with the load of scripture that I posted on the parallels between circumcision and baptism. That's what we've been waiting on. No one has adequately demonstrated that they are different.

*Waits with hands on hips and taps his foot*

**Ridley's Own** · 10-03-2002, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
They were saved pre baptism.

And? Who's arguing baptismal regeneration? That's not the point of the thread. If you want, I can start one, but otherwise, lets keep the responses relevant to the question at hand.

I would also note that this still offers to problem to the paedobaptist. It really shouldn't be surprising that the converts of the NT were adults, as there were no Christians prior to this era to be 'cradle Christians."

Quote:

These were in the thread and obviously counter scripture and I thought needed to be addressed. Thay aren't, but the problems were on this thread so I thought a rebuttal on this thread would be appropriate.

Who's arguing we're not saved by faith? Certainly not me, and certainly not any paedobaptist here. Please refrain from strawmaning people's arguments.

[quote][b]Wrong-o See Point 1 and following.

Quote:

Umm I dont think Im off here, unless Romans is wrong. Now this is where it comes to the issues we disagree on. The temple was destroyed 3 times so did God cast off his people and take them back twice and then say nope, never again in your view?

Unless they're in the Church, they're not chosen. God transfered the covenant FROM the Jews TO the Church. Go back and re-read your Chap. 11 in context. Esp. the parts that it talks about cutting them off.

Quote:

God chose them, He cant change, circumcission was his sign to Israel, still is, He doesnt change, Baptism is his sign to Beleivers. (Rom 6:4) Oh and pray for the peace of Jerusalem. Its commanded you know

Well, you've managed to trap yourself into a bad position here. If the Jews are still God's chosen people, and they can fulfill the requirements of the OT (which they can't, not without a Temple), then you're saying that people can be saved through the works of the Law; something Galatians is rather emphatically against.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-03-2002, 04:05 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These were in the thread and obviously counter scripture and I thought needed to be addressed. Thay aren't, but the problems were on this thread so I thought a rebuttal on this thread would be appropriate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's arguing we're not saved by faith? Certainly not me, and certainly not any paedobaptist here. Please refrain from strawmaning people's arguments.

page 2 or 3 I think. this wasnt a strawman, dig back its there.

"

Well, you've managed to trap yourself into a bad position here. If the Jews are still God's chosen people, and they can fulfill the requirements of the OT (which they can't, not without a Temple), then you're saying that people can be saved through the works of the Law; something Galatians is rather emphatically against."

um no wait heres my strawman. No the Jews were never saved by keeping the Law. Abraham beleived God and it was credited to him for righteousness. Hebrews 11 states they were saved by faith. No problem

"Unless they're in the Church, they're not chosen. God transfered the covenant FROM the Jews TO the Church. Go back and re-read your Chap. 11 in context. Esp. the parts that it talks about cutting them off."
What about verse 1? They are not cut off.

"
None of you have successfully dealt with the load of scripture that I posted on the parallels between circumcision and baptism. That's what we've been waiting on. No one has adequately demonstrated that they are different.

"
Now I want to say noone has demonstrated they are the same and frankly you might want to take that back if you read Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
if they are the same Baptizm would be a sin that would revert you to obedience to the law. Just a thought

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-03-2002, 04:08 PM

"Unless they're in the Church, they're not chosen. "

"26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes."
I think you cant argue this one

**Ridley's Own** · 10-03-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
page 2 or 3 I think. this wasnt a strawman, dig back its there.

Nope. I looked. No one made that argument.

Quote:

um no wait heres my strawman. No the Jews were never saved by keeping the Law. Abraham beleived God and it was credited to him for righteousness. Hebrews 11 states they were saved by faith. No problem.

How are Jews now, who do not know Christ being saved? Galatians is very, very clear on this, as is Christ himself in John 14. If they do not know CHrist, they are not saved. Period, no matter what their ethnic background.

Quote:

What about verse 1? They are not cut off.

Read the rest of the chapter.

Quote:

Now I want to say noone has demonstrated they are the same and frankly you might want to take that back if you read Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
if they are the same Baptizm would be a sin that would revert you to obedience to the law. Just a thought

Nice use of non-contextual exegesis there. The Judaizers (to whom Paul was writing) were arguing that gentile converts must follow the OT law as well as the commands of Christ. That is a problem, but baptism as the continuing sign of the covenant is in no way in conflict with Gal. 5:2. How you arrive at that I'm not clear.

Quote:

Unless they're in the Church, they're not chosen. "

"26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes."
I think you cant argue this one

Without the Book and Chapter, its difficult to say what this is talking about... Though I'm going to go out on a limb, and argue that in this context, "Israel" is in reference to the Church.

SoccerAaron · 10-03-2002, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happygrrl

There IS an age of accountability and I can back it up with scripture. It's in the New Testament. I don't have the scripture reference right now... but I will find it.

Still looking I see.

Take all the time you want.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-03-2002, 04:59 PM

If they are the same sign of the covenant why would one be commanded and the other an act of following the law for salvation, thats my point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless they're in the Church, they're not chosen. "

"26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes."
I think you cant argue this one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without the Book and Chapter, its difficult to say what this is talking about... Though I'm going to go out on a limb, and argue that in this context, "Israel" is in reference to the Church

Romans 11 and ifyou think its the church, nope, its in contrast to the church. read it please.

"Now I want to say noone has demonstrated they are the same and frankly you might want to take that back if you read Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
if they are the same Baptizm would be a sin that would revert you to obedience to the law. Just a thought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice use of non-contextual exegesis there. The Judaizers (to whom Paul was writing) were arguing that gentile converts must follow the OT law as well as the commands of Christ. That is a problem, but baptism as the continuing sign of the covenant is in no way in conflict with Gal. 5:2. How you arrive at that I'm not clear."
Im saying they are different, as proven by a text that they are not synonymous. One was a sign of God's everlasting covenant to Abraham, which (God doesnt change, no ones had the guts to challenge this, yet it rules out dispensationalism cold.)

Ridleysown, in your view what is the purpose of infant baptism?

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-03-2002, 05:18 PM

"That's not accurate. It is my belief that all members of the covenant go to heaven. Those who at some point reject Christ are now covenant breakers who are cut off from the covenant and removed from the covenant family. So, if someone is born to believers, they are in the covenant family. Baptism is given as a seal of this covenant. If they later reject Christ (either outright or in their heart) they are cut off from the covenant until they repent and are regenerated.

And none who are not part of the covenant will go to heaven. Whenever anyone becomes a believer, they are adopted into God's covenant family (whether or not the seal has been given). Therefore, to say that there are some who are not in the covenant who will go to heaven is to say that there are some who do not believe who will go to heaven."

For by parents am I saved through works, but those none of my own, salvation is the gift of a covenant comunity, of their works, lest I should boast perhaps?

Its by God's grace through faith end of story

brown07 · 10-03-2002, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Its by God's grace through faith end of story

Don't pretend that I deny salvation by grace through faith. That is an affront to everything I stand for and I don't appreciate it.

Membership in the covenant is contingent on faith. Faith makes you a member of the covenant. Lack of faith cuts you off.

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-03-2002, 05:38 PM

But the Abrahamic covenant was to Abraham, not the church. The Abrahamic covenant was dependant on heritage alone. Children are not regenerated by an act of their parents. This would be a salvation based on works. (Ezekiel 18) Its not by your parents actions that you are saved or condemned. Even if you die as an infant.

Luke · 10-03-2002, 06:24 PM

(BillSPrestonEsq)
But the Abrahamic covenant was to Abraham, not the church. The Abrahamic covenant was dependant on heritage alone.

(Luke)
"It is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7)

(BillSPrestonEsq)
Children are not regenerated by an act of their parents. This would be a salvation based on works. (Ezekiel 18) Its not by your parents actions that you are saved or condemned. Even if you die as an infant.

(Luke)
You have successfully beaten that point to death. Of course, nobody has argued for it yet.

12,000 posts

**Athanasius** · 10-03-2002, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Luke
12,000 posts

Dang, dude...you're my hero! Congrats!

Luke · 10-03-2002, 06:28 PM

(BillSPrestonEsq)
For by parents am I saved through works, but those none of my own, salvation is the gift of a covenant comunity, of their works, lest I should boast perhaps?

Its by God's grace through faith end of story

(Luke)
Is there a reason why you continue to pretend that we believe in baptismal regeneration? Nobody on this thread has argued for that yet, and we have stated this to you (and you replied to said statements). None of us (brown07, Ridley, me) are arguing for baptismal regeneration.

So why don't we stick to the topic (infant baptism) instead of constantly going down a rabbit trail? Or is baptismal regeneration the only topic that you can successfully refute, so you want to refute infant baptism using guilt by association? Because that's what you're beginning to sound like.