Is it possible to lose salvation?

[Christian Soldier]

All I did was to post scripture CS.
Can you not even support, biblically, what you believe to be true?

It's rather sad that you believe scripture to be demonic.
I believe this is blashphemy --- attributing to God the works of Satan.
and what could be more God-like than the NT?

It's so not Christianly of you to threaten me with hellfire for posting scripture.
Maybe this is why YOU never post any - fear of hellfire?

When one cannot respond properly...they move to personal attacks.

I'll post my entire reply to you again...
IF you should care to respond WITH SCRIPTURE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We must have faith first in order to believe.

WHOSOEVER believes WILL be saved.

We are saved BY FAITH.
Ephesians 2:8
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

We receive the gift of salvation because of God's grace...through faith.


Paul teaches that we are to repent in order to be saved.
Acts 2:38
38And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.


John 1:12
12But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

First we receive Jesus...
Believe in His name

AND THEN
We become children of God.

THIS is the order for salvation.

The above is NOT what the OT or the NT teaches.
The bible teaches that we are to SEEK God: (of course while we are dead in our sins).

Matthew 6:33
33But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.


Hebrews 11:6
6And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.


Jeremiah 29:13
13You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.

Let's look at your verse: (exactly as YOU posted it)


2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God has chosen us from the beginning....
FOR SALVATION THROUGH SANCTIFICATION....

God called us THROUGH THE GOSPEL - THE GOOD NEWS....
so that we may gain the glory of Jesus Christ.

God does not choose WHO....
but He did predestinate for:
METHOD
or
PURPOSE

We will be saved THROUGH SANCTIFICATION....
THIS has been predestinated.

Because God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of Him.

1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

No, you didn't just quote scripture. You actually committed blasphemy, by twisting what God said, up side down and making Him a liar. His Word states that salvation is "by grace". You reject that and claim that salvation is by "your faith". Reading that made me very angry, so you can imagine how angry God is with you, if a sinner like me is angry how much more is the Holy God.

I urge you to repent, if you blasphemed against God in ignorance. If not then there's no point as you are then already condemned.

 

[Christian Soldier]

1 Tim 2:4 If GOD's desire is for all to be saved then why would GOD choose who isn't ?
Eph 1:13 .. after that ye heard the word of truth...ye were sealed --- Why would GOD CHOOSE who will hear ??
1 Cor 15:1-4 the Gospel by which believers ARE saved -- Again, if GOD's desire is for ALL to be saved then why would He choose who isn't ?

There is are several huge problems with your interpretation of those verses.

1. You haven't identified who the "all" refers to in 1 Tim 2:4 does it refer to "all jews" or does it refer to "all Sub Saharan Africans" or "all Pigmies" or "all Chinese"???? please explain.....

Eph 1:13 is none of your business to ask God, why He didn't choose those you would choose. You have no say in who God choses, so be careful not to provoke the wrath of God.

1 Cor 2:4 God never choose to condemn those He didn't elect onto salvation. They condemn themselves by sinning against God, so they deserve everything that's coming to them.

 

[Christian Soldier]

I am unaware of any verses that teach Paul is one of the 12
Paul is part of the MYSTERY that was never known of prior to Christ appearing to Ananias Acts 9:15

Paul's "Mystery" - doctrine.org

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the secrets of God (1 Corinthians 4.1). Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of…

doctrine.org

Thanks, but I have no time for mysticism. The mystics have nothing to offer me

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1 Tim 2:4 If GOD's desire is for all to be saved then why would GOD choose who isn't ?
Eph 1:13 .. after that ye heard the word of truth...ye were sealed --- Why would GOD CHOOSE who will hear ??
1 Cor 15:1-4 the Gospel by which believers ARE saved -- Again, if GOD's desire is for ALL to be saved then why would He choose who isn't ?

Your error is that you think That God chooses who won't be saved! The opposite is true! God chooses who will be saved.

All of mankind is lost! As Paul wrote there is none righteous- no not one! So all are lost.

Paul also wrote that those in the flesh (human nature) cannot please God! Without God changing a heart, no one would ever get saved!

 

[PinSeeker]

...I definitely do not believe babies are born without sin.

Well, they may not have actually sinned yet at some point after they are born, but the propensity for them to sin, the state of their heart, even from birth, is such that they will, without fail, sin outwardly. I think you agree, but it is this propensity to sin, the natural state of their heart ~ the fact that they are by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 2:3, that's the issue. So, in this sense, you're right, babies are not "born without sin." The clearer way to say that is, they are not born with a sinless heart, and it's the heart that God is concerned with... the heart is what leads the person to outwardly sin, so he or she is already guilty... from birth... regardless whether he or she has outwardly sinned or not.

But there is not one biblical warrnat to baptize infants.

Oh, um, warrant. <smile> Well, so what you're saying is that there is explicit command exhortation to baptize infants, and to that, I would say, "Yes, there is." <smile> Peter, in Acts 2:39, exhorts the "men of Jerusalem" to repent and be baptized, and he said that "the promise..." ~ of which baptism is the outward sign to us for/of ~ "...is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." There is no prerequisite, no eligibility age or ability or action specified by Peter for anyone to meet, therefore excluding no one, including infants, from receiving this outward sign of the promise. So, yes, once again, those households of those men presumably contained infants; it would be... unreasonable, if not ridiculous... to think otherwise. And actually, to refuse to baptize infants and not do so amounts to denying them the promise of God, which... we should not do. <smile>

This outward sign, this water baptism that we confer, is not salvific, not saving, not effectual unto salvation. In the case of infants, we are baptizing them into our covenant community, and trusting, in faith, that God will work in their hearts and give them His Spirit ~ Who will baptize with water and fire; it is this baptism by the Holy Spirit that is effectual to and actually confers salvation upon the person ~ at the time of His choosing.

Here are the questions from the pastor that parents of infants must answer in the affirmative when their babies are baptized take:

• Do you acknowledge your child’s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?
• Do you claim God’s covenant promises in (his or her) behalf, and do you look in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ for (his or her) salvation, as you do for your own?
• Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavor to set before (him or her) a godly example, that you will pray with and for (him or her), that you will teach (him or her) the doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring (him or her) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

And following this, here then is the question for the congregation:

• Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child?

Now, when those infants do get to an age where they can make a credible profession of faith in Christ and do so, then... at least in, well, Reformed Protestant churches... then they become communing members... because they then have acted on their own faith and repented and believed and we have outward evidence that God has worked in their heart and brought them to Himself, that they are born again of the Spirit and have been baptized by water and fire by the Spirit. They don't have to be baptized again ~ as if their water baptism in their infancy was ineffective or "didn't take" ~ and should not be.

At the very least, Ronald, there is no warrant for such... overly strident... disagreement. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Oh, um, warrant. <smile> Well, so what you're saying is that there is explicit command exhortation to baptize infants, and to that, I would say, "Yes, there is." <smile> Peter, in Acts 2:39, exhorts the "men of Jerusalem" to repent and be baptized, and he said that "the promise..." ~ of which baptism is the outward sign to us for/of ~ "...is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." There is no prerequisite, no eligibility age or ability or action specified by Peter for anyone to meet, therefore excluding no one, including infants, from receiving this outward sign of the promise. So, yes, once again, those households of those men presumably contained infants; it would be... unreasonable, if not ridiculous... to think otherwise. And actually, to refuse to baptize infants and not do so amounts to denying them the promise of God, which... we should not do. <smile>

The rpomise is not baptism. You are falsely equating baptism with the promise which was spoken earlier.

Here are the questions from the pastor that parents of infants must answer in the affirmative when their babies are baptized take:

• Do you acknowledge your child’s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?
• Do you claim God’s covenant promises in (his or her) behalf, and do you look in faith to the Lord Jesus Christ for (his or her) salvation, as you do for your own?
• Do you now unreservedly dedicate your child to God, and promise, in humble reliance upon divine grace, that you will endeavor to set before (him or her) a godly example, that you will pray with and for (him or her), that you will teach (him or her) the doctrines of our holy religion, and that you will strive, by all the means of God’s appointment, to bring (him or her) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

And following this, here then is the question for the congregation:

• Do you as a congregation undertake the responsibility of assisting the parents in the Christian nurture of this child?

Now, when those infants do get to an age where they can make a credible profession of faith in Christ and do so, then... at least in, well, Reformed Protestant churches... then they become communing members... because they then have acted on their own faith and repented and believed and we have outward evidence that God has worked in their heart and brought them to Himself, that they are born again of the Spirit and have been baptized by water and fire by the Spirit. They don't have to be baptized again ~ as if their water baptism in their infancy was ineffective or "didn't take" ~ and should not be.

At the very least, Ronald, there is no warrant for such... overly strident... disagreement. <smile>

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

Well we ask those same questions when we dedicate children to the Lord. Jesus and the Apostles all said believe and be bap[tized, not be baptized and hope they will believe afterwards. Belief comes with the ability to understand.

 

[PinSeeker]

Your error is that you think That God chooses who won't be saved! The opposite is true! God chooses who will be saved.

Right...

Your error is that you think That God chooses who won't be saved!

He doesn't explicitly do so, no. However... <> Let me put it to you this way, Ronald. If you make a choice between one thing and another, choosing the one thing, then don't you, by elimination, actively not choose the other, and in effect make a choice concerning that other thing? Well, yes, you do...

God does the same thing, regarding who His elect are, and thus who will be saved. As Paul says in Romans 9, God does in fact say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Both actions are actions of God, things He actively did/does. And in the larger sense, says God "(has) mercy on whom (He has) mercy, and I (has) compassion on whom (He has) compassion,” and "has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." And then Paul says God has "(made) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use" and "has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles..."

I get that it may seem and/or be hard for us to accept, but God is God...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

The promise is not baptism.

I didn't say it was. Baptism is an outward sign ~ given to us by God; a sacrament, in that case, like the Lord's Supper (communion) ~ of the promise that God has made, which is to be the God of the parents and their children. So in that sense it is much like the rainbow that was given to Noah as a sign, given by God, "of the covenant between Him and the earth... the sign of the covenant that (He has) established between (Him) and all flesh that is on the earth." These are God's covenant promises: God promises to "...establish (His) covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house" (Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7; Acts 16:31).

You are falsely equating baptism with the promise which was spoken earlier.

So no, I'm doing no such thing.

Well we ask those same questions when we dedicate children to the Lord.

You ask questions like them to the children, who are of a certain age... or even adults. I mean that's good; we do, too, if they haven't been baptized yet. But in the case of infants, those questions are asked of the parents.

Jesus and the Apostles all said believe and be baptized, not be baptized and hope they will believe afterwards.

Again, they said that to the men, who, as the head of their households, were to cascade that down to their whole households, and in the case of baptism, the exhortation was to administer the sign of the promise to their entire households, which again in most cases included infants.

Belief comes with the ability to understand.

That's true in the human sense, but in the same sense as the discussion about the sinful nature and natural state of the heart is not necessarily true from God's perspective. He may change the disposition of one's heart at any age ~ which we can see in Luke's account of Mary going to see Elizabeth when both Jesus and John were in their respective wombs, before either of them was born; John leapt in Elizabeth's womb and already had a changed heart. The heart is what matters, Ronald, not outward evidence of belief. If one's heart is changed by God, then belief will inevitably ~ although maybe at some later time, of course ~ follow.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[rvmb]

Your error is that you think That God chooses who won't be saved! The opposite is true! God chooses who will be saved.

All of mankind is lost! As Paul wrote there is none righteous- no not one! So all are lost.

Paul also wrote that those in the flesh (human nature) cannot please God! Without God changing a heart, no one would ever get saved!

""All of mankind is lost! ""
Until they place their trust in the Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 15:1-4 Gospel.
""God chooses who will be saved.""
""Without God changing a heart, no one would ever get saved!""
GOD's desire is for all to be saved 1 Tim 2:4 yet He chooses who will be saved <<< based on FOREKNOWLEDGE ???
FOREKNOWLEDGE - GOD probably chooses not to change some hearts since He knows that even if it was changed they would still refuse or reject the Gospel and by UNDERSTANDING THEN REJECTING the Gospel their eternity would be MUCH MUCH worse compared to never having had the chance to hear & understand the Gospel.

 

[rvmb]

As I stated in my previous post...
NO Christian I know believes we are saved by works.


What I asked is this:
WHAT is the GOOD NEWS in the gospel IF God chooses whom He will?
HOW do I pronounce to ANYONE that they can be saved by the death of Jesus if they so choose?

Seems to me that the good news, in reformed theology, in ONLY for those that God chooses to be saved.
Instead, the NT teaches that ANYONE can be saved.

John 3:16
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.


Acts 16:31
31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,




Could you please post the verse I used for your above statement.
If you're referring to the fact that we must obey God...I will stand by that and so will any other Christian.
Are you stating that we should not obey God??

John 3:36
36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."


But why is any exhortation NECESSARY IF it is God who has predestinated you for salvation and that it is HE who will see to it that you persevere till the end??

An exhortation to remain steadfast in the faith is ONLY NECESSARY if it is by MY obedience to Jesus that I can remain saved....IF I do not fall into a life of sin as Paul states several times.

1 Corinthians 6:5-10
5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between * his brethren,
6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why * not rather be wronged? Why * not rather be defrauded?
8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.



I don't know who Jacob Arminius is.
I did look him up but lost interest.

I follow Jesus of Nazareth.
HE brought the good news of salvation to all men who will believe in HIM.
He went to the cross to die for atonement of our sins.
He was resurrected to show that He was truly God.

Everyone who claims to be Christian should be following THIS Person.

Paul writes what the conditions are :)
Titus 3:5, Eph 2:8-9, Gal 2:16, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Rom 5:1

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Right...


He doesn't explicitly do so, no. However... <> Let me put it to you this way, Ronald. If you make a choice between one thing and another, choosing the one thing, then don't you, by elimination, actively not choose the other, and in effect make a choice concerning that other thing? Well, yes, you do...

God does the same thing, regarding who His elect are, and thus who will be saved. As Paul says in Romans 9, God does in fact say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Both actions are actions of God, things He actively did/does. And in the larger sense, says God "(has) mercy on whom (He has) mercy, and I (has) compassion on whom (He has) compassion,” and "has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." And then Paul says God has "(made) out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use" and "has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles..."

I get that it may seem and/or be hard for us to accept, but God is God...

Grace and peace to you.

No! All are lost! God does not choose who will be lost. All are lost by default. He just chooses whom He will have mercy on. Remember He is under no obligation to save anyone.

And the Jacob/Esau passage? that is a Hebraism. It simply means He chose Jacob, but did not choose Esau. Jews even say this today. go to a restaurant. One will say "I love a hamburger, but hate a hot dog". It doesn't mean they hate it, but that they do not choose it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You ask questions like them to the children, who are of a certain age... or even adults. I mean that's good; we do, too, if they haven't been baptized yet. But in the case of infants, those questions are asked of the parents.

At a dedication, not a baptism. You need to understand that when households were baptized, that did not include children who had not reached of age yet. In a Jewish home that would be when one was Bar or Bat Mitzvahs.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

""All of mankind is lost! ""
Until they place their trust in the Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 15:1-4 Gospel.
""God chooses who will be saved.""
""Without God changing a heart, no one would ever get saved!""
GOD's desire is for all to be saved 1 Tim 2:4 yet He chooses who will be saved <<< based on FOREKNOWLEDGE ???
FOREKNOWLEDGE - GOD probably chooses not to change some hearts since He knows that even if it was changed they would still refuse or reject the Gospel and by UNDERSTANDING THEN REJECTING the Gospel their eternity would be MUCH MUCH worse compared to never having had the chance to hear & understand the Gospel.

Foreknowledge is not God knowing in advance if we will freely choose Him or not as the free will argument goes. Foreknowledge is "pro-ginosko" where we get out word prognosis from.

It is knowledge through pre-planning. A doctor can give a prognosis, because they will know what they are going to do and what the outcome will be, based on preplanning. It is not God knowing what a person will choose, though He knows what people choose.

 

[PinSeeker]

No!

<chuckles>

All are lost!

I've said that, Ronald. Yes, I agree.

God does not choose who will be lost.

Effectively ~ by not choosing them to be saved ~ he does. But, right, He does not outwardly choose who will be lost.

All are lost by default.

Well, because of their natural proclivity to sin... so sinfulness. Right. So, none are deserving of salvation, and actually very deserving of the opposite, so in that sense, lost, yes.

He just chooses whom He will have mercy on. Remember He is under no obligation to save anyone.

Yes, right. He would be absolutely just in saving no one. Right.

And the Jacob/Esau passage? that is a Hebraism. It simply means He chose Jacob, but did not choose Esau.

Right, and by extension, He chose those whom He chose, with regard to His elect, and did not choose others. Right.

At a dedication, not a baptism.

A baptism is a dedication, Ronald. It's a sacrament, and as such a dedication:

• of the self to God for those who are able to make that dedication on their own (if they have not previously been baptized)

or:​

• of the baby to God by the parents on behalf of babies who are not yet able to make that dedication on their own

In both cases, it is a public declaration of submission to God, and an outward, observable sign of the promise that God has worked or will work in the heart of the receiver, and has drawn or will draw that person to Himself in His time. Either way, it is done in faith.

...when households were baptized, that did not include children who had not reached of age yet.

This is not true. There is nothing to back that up in Scripture. Some, and possibly many, may have thought this way, but no matter. "You and all your children" means exactly that... all your children. The promise is for all, and that includes infants. So we are not to withhold the sign of the promise that God has given us from any of them, even infants. Abraham did not, in the days when circumcision was the outward sign of God's promise. And we should not, with regard to water baptism, which has been the case ever since the first century and the days of the Apostles and the early church.

In a Jewish home that would be when one was Bar or Bat Mitzvahs.

<chuckles> Bat/Bar Mitzvahs, Ronald, are Jewish ceremonies that mark a Jewish girl's/boy's transition to adulthood at age 13, symbolizing his acceptance of religious responsibilities and community membership. The Protestant equivalent is ~ or should be, in the case of many churches ~ accepting of people of any age as communing members of their church, and this would be at the point that they do come to believe in and publicly acknowledge Christ as their Savior.

Grace and peace to you, Ronald.

 

[rvmb]

Foreknowledge is not God knowing in advance if we will freely choose Him or not as the free will argument goes. Foreknowledge is "pro-ginosko" where we get out word prognosis from.

It is knowledge through pre-planning. A doctor can give a prognosis, because they will know what they are going to do and what the outcome will be, based on preplanning. It is not God knowing what a person will choose, though He knows what people choose.

-- GOD allows a conception knowing that given every chance a person will not accept the Gospel.
-- GOD allows a conception with the sole plan to send them to hell
Which of those are supported by these verses ?
1 Tim 2v4 - Who will have all men to be saved
2 Pet 3v9 - not willing that any should perish

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul writes what the conditions are :)
Titus 3:5, Eph 2:8-9, Gal 2:16, Rom 3:28, Rom 4:5, Rom 5:1

So do you disqualify the rest of scripture?
Plus, how about actually posting the scripture??

So, without looking up your verses since I don't have a photographic memory and
which you SHOULD have posted them....


Can we remove the following verses from scripture?


Matthew 7:21
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.


Matthew 7:23
23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'


Matthew 7:26-27
26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell -and great was its fall."


That's only in Matthew.
Plenty more.

(And THAT is how scripture is posted BTW.)



If you require more....I'm willing.

 

[rvmb]

""So do you disqualify the rest of scripture?""
Like Acts 9:10-15, Acts 15:6-25 Rom 11:13, Rom 15:16, Gal 2:7-9 please list ANY verse that teach the 12 had the same Christ given authority to teach Salvation to the Gal 3:28 believers as Paul does.
Just the verses please :)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

of the baby to God by the parents on behalf of babies who are not yet able to make that dedication on their own

Show a verse from Scripture that says babies should be baptized.

This is not true. There is nothing to back that up in Scripture. Some, and possibly many, may have thought this way, but no matter. "You and all your children" means exactly that... all your children. The promise is for all, and that includes infants. So we are not to withhold the sign of the promise that God has given us from any of them, even infants. Abraham did not, in the days when circumcision was the outward sign of God's promise. And we should not, with regard to water baptism, which has been the case ever since the first century and the days of the Apostles and the early church.

Acts 2 with all your children was not about baptism. History has shown that households were those considered adult. In a jewish home that was after the bar or bat mitzvah. I already posted the historical proof. Look it upi yourself and see. Look at the first century mindset apart from your 21st century thinking.

 

[PinSeeker]

Show a verse from Scripture that says babies should be baptized.

I pointed you to Colossians 2:11-12, where Paul is very clear that in the early church, baptism had replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant.

Acts 2 with all your children was not about baptism.

Well, it was about the promise of God, and baptism (formerly circumcision, as I said above) is the sign and seal of the covenant. And that was true in the first century, as Peter's sermon was in about ~ give or take a few years, 40 A.D.. So, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins... the promise is for you and for your children." You can't get away from this, Ronald. You can't.

History has shown that households were those considered adult.

Nope. Hey, I have a son and daughter, and although they are no longer infants, they were a part of my household at their respective births. So, no, that was never true... never did households only consist of adults (considered or otherwise). 'All' meant all then, and it still does.

In a jewish home that was after the bar or bat mitzvah. I already posted the historical proof.

There is no correlation between the "mitzvahs"... <smile> and baptism. At the very least, that has to be true because Jewish households still circumcise, and that occurs... in infancy, to this day; the ceremony is called brit milah and is the covenant circumcision, and as such is the one-to-one correlation with Christian baptism... it is the sign of the Jewish people’s covnant with God.

Look at the first century mindset apart from your 21st century thinking.

I would say the exact same to you, Ronald.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[rvmb]

Show a verse from Scripture that says babies should be baptized.

Acts 2 with all your children was not about baptism. History has shown that households were those considered adult. In a jewish home that was after the bar or bat mitzvah. I already posted the historical proof. Look it upi yourself and see. Look at the first century mindset apart from your 21st century thinking.

Though Paul does not teach that water baptism is a JUSTIFICATION requirement I think baptizing a child is a wonderful way of bringing glory to GOD :)