Passover vs Eucharist

[Philip James]

Our children have their own Free Will, do they not? There's no guarantee your kids will follow your faith, baptized or not.

Do you want the most formative years of your child's life walked in darkness? Or do you want the Light of Christ in their hearts as they grow...

Frankly, i think its almost child abuse for Christian parents to deny this gift to their children..

Peace!

 

[Renniks]

Do you want the most formative years of your child's life walked in darkness? Or do you want the Light of Christ in their hearts as they grow...

Frankly, i think its almost child abuse for Christian parents to deny this gift to their children..

Peace!

That's why you teach them the Bible. Teach them to pray. Take them to corporate worship. That's how they grow. Infant baptism is irrelevant to thier spiritual growth.

 

[Philip James]

That's why you teach them the Bible. Teach them to pray. Take them to corporate worship. That's how they grow. Infant baptism is irrelevant to thier spiritual growth.

The gift of the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to their spiritual growth?

Wow.. Just wow...

 

[Renniks]

The gift of the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to their spiritual growth?

Wow.. Just wow...

That gift only comes through salvation, which only comes when they have faith. An infant isn't capable of making that decision.

 

[Philip James]

That gift only comes through salvation, which only comes when they have faith. An infant isn't capable of making that decision.

Do you not understand that faith is a gift from God? Why wait to ask that gift for your children?

For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.

 

[Fred Eans]

The two are completely different. The two were brought to bare in different time frames. Passover was instituted during the Exodus for the Hebrews. Communion, is for any believer who comes to God through the Son after His sacrifice; whether they be Gentile or “Jew”.

 

[Renniks]

Do you not understand that faith is a gift from God? Why wait to ask that gift for your children?

For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.

Ah, so now you are a Calvinist? If faith is a gift from God, which it isn't, it would still not be a gift you could not refuse. If it were, not one could be commended for having faith. Might want to read the faith chapter. Now, you keep quoting one verse fragment, as if it confirms what you claim, but all it confirms is that the promise of salvation is for all. That says nothing about who will respond to the call.

 

[Philip James]

If faith is a gift from God, which it isn't, it would still not be a gift you could not refuse

Who confers distinction upon you? What do you possess that you have not received? But if you have received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?

I am truly flabbergasted by those who follow a god that is powerless to illuminate their children...

Far better to trust the One who is faithful and true, who hears the prayers of His people...

I thank you Renniks for the discussion.
Please pray for me, as I will you.

Peace be with you!

 

[Renniks]

Who confers distinction upon you? What do you possess that you have not received? But if you have received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?

Exactly, you have to receive it. Many refuse. And many of those were baptized as infants, but they become atheists or buddist or pagan or what have you. That water did nothing for their faith because faith is a choice and it's a choice we have to keep making, not just a one-time thing.
Of course, God can illuminate our children if they do not harden their hearts against him. But, the Holy Spirit is not the mafia, He does not make us offers we can't refuse.

 

[Marymog]

The weight of scripture is important. You never base a doctrine on a vague statement. You have given one verse that you claim says baptism saves and it is not conclusive. I can give you 100 saying belief is what saves, no doubt involved. Baptism is a sign, a testimony, not the cause of salvation. Dunking babies just makes wet baby's.

What you call a “vague” statement in FACT says “baptism now saves you”. That is NOT vague and was not vague to 1st century Christians because they believed baptism saves. Protestantism, 1500 years LATER twisted that “vague” passage from Scripture to fit what they believe instead of what has been taught for 2,000 years.

Since baptism saves, just like scripture says, we have been “dunking babies” for 2,000 years. The only Early Church historical documents we have concerning the baptism of babies show they were trying to decide if they should be baptized BEFORE their 8th day of birth. Scripture and Christian history is against what you have chosen to believe.....which is a 500 year teaching of SOME men since even your own Protestant brethren disagree with you. Martin Luther, the catalyst for the Protest movement, even believed that baptism saves. What you believe is a teaching of men that disagreed with the original reformer: Reformers of the reformation!! How do you justify that?

Christians believe that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death and that we were buried with him through baptism into death in order that we too may live a new life. We also believe that those of us that were baptized into Christ have clothed ourselves with Christ. Why don’t you believe that?

 

[Marymog]

I'll go with scripture, thanks. I can read the early church Father's anytime I want.

What you are going with are the 500 year teachings of the Protestant revolution. Why?

Or did you come up with the theory that baptism does not save? Either way, you believe the teachings of yourself OR men of the Reformation.

Why do you disregard the teachings of the men who lived closest to the time of Christ and accept the teachings of men who lived 1500 years later? I don’t understand!!!

 

[Renniks]

Martin Luther, the catalyst for the Protest movement, even believed that baptism saves. What you believe is a teaching of men that disagreed with the original reformer: Reformers of the reformation!! How do you justify that?

I don't follow Luther. He was still very Catholic about some things. I follow what I find in scripture.

 

[Renniks]

Christians believe that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death and that we were buried with him through baptism into death in order that we too may live a new life. We also believe that those of us that were baptized into Christ have clothed ourselves with Christ. Why don’t you believe that?

This is only true if one is a believer obviously. Does a baptized pagan become less of a pagan? Being baptized into Christ means one has received Christ. An infant cannot receive what he doesn't even know exists. Clothing your self is an action verb.

"put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."

" you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,"

It's something we do in our hearts first, the water is only an outward sign of what we have done, that is humble ourselves to receive him.

The very verse you quote confirms what I said, if you quote the whole thing.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

No faith equals no reason to be baptized. An infant can't be said to have faith in what he can't understand. And what about the people who believe that infant baptism saved them and then go out and live for the devil? They are under a delusion that could cost them their soul.

 

[Renniks]

What you are going with are the 500 year teachings of the Protestant revolution. Why?

Or did you come up with the theory that baptism does not save? Either way, you believe the teachings of yourself OR men of the Reformation.

Why do you disregard the teachings of the men who lived closest to the time of Christ and accept the teachings of men who lived 1500 years later? I don’t understand!!!

"according to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if [baptism itself] is not necessary—that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? For they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition…. They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation! (de baptismo, ch. xviii) (Tertullian )
The work, de baptismo (Concerning Baptism) was written, evidently between 200 and 206. In it Tertullian questions the wisdom of giving baptism to infants.
The first explicit witness to infant baptism does not assume that it is a given, but argues against it.

 

[Grailhunter]

Which was just the universal church originally, meaning all who are believers.

Define "originally" lol

 

[Marymog]

I don't follow Luther. He was still very Catholic about some things. I follow what I find in scripture.

Oh....I see. You follow YOU and what YOU believe to be true?

It is fascinating that YOU are right on this matter and the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, which was read as Scripture in the Early Church, is wrong.

Clement, a student of the Apostle Peter, is wrong but YOU are right.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, is wrong but YOU are right.

Simply fascinating....

 

[Marymog]

This is only true if one is a believer obviously. Does a baptized pagan become less of a pagan? Being baptized into Christ means one has received Christ. An infant cannot receive what he doesn't even know exists. Clothing your self is an action verb.

"put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."

" you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,"

It's something we do in our hearts first, the water is only an outward sign of what we have done, that is humble ourselves to receive him.

The very verse you quote confirms what I said, if you quote the whole thing.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

No faith equals no reason to be baptized. An infant can't be said to have faith in what he can't understand. And what about the people who believe that infant baptism saved them and then go out and live for the devil? They are under a delusion that could cost them their soul.

Keep twisting kiddo....it is to your own destruction according to Scripture.

 

[Renniks]

Keep twisting kiddo....it is to your own destruction according to Scripture.

Lol, no answers? How many people are out there thinking they have their fire insurance because they were dunked as babies? We can only pray they find a Bible believing friend to correct this wrong theology.

 

[Marymog]

"according to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if [baptism itself] is not necessary—that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? For they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition…. They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation! (de baptismo, ch. xviii) (Tertullian )
The work, de baptismo (Concerning Baptism) was written, evidently between 200 and 206. In it Tertullian questions the wisdom of giving baptism to infants.
The first explicit witness to infant baptism does not assume that it is a given, but argues against it.

Hi Renniks,

Tertullian did have many teachings that were deemed biblical by The Church. Do you agree with everything he taught?

Also, why do you quote Tertullian and LIKE his teaching on infant baptism but ignore his teaching on how "baptism saves you"?

“Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none”. Tertullian, chapter 12, Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Lol, no answers? How many people are out there thinking they have their fire insurance because they were dunked as babies? We can only pray they find a Bible believing friend to correct this wrong theology.

PREVIOUS POST: This is only true if one is a believer obviously. Does a baptized pagan become less of a pagan? Being baptized into Christ means one has received Christ. An infant cannot receive what he doesn't even know exists. Clothing your self is an action verb.

"put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."

" you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,"

It's something we do in our hearts first, the water is only an outward sign of what we have done, that is humble ourselves to receive him.

The very verse you quote confirms what I said, if you quote the whole thing.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

No faith equals no reason to be baptized. An infant can't be said to have faith in what he can't understand. And what about the people who believe that infant baptism saved them and then go out and live for the devil? They are under a delusion that could cost them their soul.

Hi Renniks,

I have plenty of "answers" regarding infant baptism. And I won't do any twisting of Scripture to make it fit what I personally believe:

Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children”

I also baptized the household of Stephanas.......he and all his household were baptized. (infants make up a household)

Now they were bringing even infants to him......”Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven”

Col. 2:11–12 equates circumcision with baptism. When were children circumcised in Jesus time Renniks??

You have a theory that "an infant cannot receive what he doesn't even know exists" therefore infants can't receive Christ thru baptism. Where does Scripture say that one has to know that He exists to receive Him thru baptism? Can a mentally challenged person receive Christ thru baptism?

Curious Mary

PS....The very verse I quoted does NOT confirm what you said if the whole verse is quoted. Quoting the entire verse ADDS faith. It isn't one or the other: faith or baptism. It is faith AND baptism!!!!

You may feel comfortable pitting Scripture against Scripture and saying only one passage can be right. I don't feel comfortable doing that.