Catholics

Discussions surrounding the various other faiths who deviate from mainstream Christian doctrine such as LDS and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1684
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#151

Post by FFC » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:32 pm

Fortigurn wrote:
Byblos wrote:Jesus himself said to let the children come to him for the kingdom of God is theirs. That's one of the bases justifying infant baptism.
Where does he say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs'? Why do you have to scratch and scrape around for verses from which you infer arguments from which you can further infer arguments for infant baptism?

It's because the Bible doesn't teach it.
But it doesn't say they just go to the grave either.

Mar 10:13 ¶ And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].


Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.


Mar 10:16 And he took them up in his arms, put [his] hands upon them, and blessed them.

If one of the prerequisites to entering the kingdom is childlike faith then isn't it ironic that a child himself can't enter.

But I'm off topic here...and besides baptism doesn't save anybody young or old anyway.
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom

Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#152

Post by Fortigurn » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:19 pm

FFC wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Byblos wrote:Jesus himself said to let the children come to him for the kingdom of God is theirs. That's one of the bases justifying infant baptism.
Where does he say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs'? Why do you have to scratch and scrape around for verses from which you infer arguments from which you can further infer arguments for infant baptism?

It's because the Bible doesn't teach it.
But it doesn't say they just go to the grave either.
Hmmm.

Look particularly at Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 below:
Psalm 6:
5 For no one mentions your name in the realm of death, In Sheol who gives you thanks?

Psalm 115:
17 The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any of those who descend into the silence of death.

Ecclesiastes 3:
19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same; as one dies, so dies the other. Both have the same breath; there is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting.
20 Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and both return to dust.

Ecclesiastes 9:
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything; they have no further reward—and even the memory of them is forgotten.
6 The things they loved, as well as the things they hated and envied, all perished long ago; and they no longer have a part in anything that is done on earth.

10 Whatever you find to do with your hands, do it with all your might; because there is neither work nor plan nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place where you will eventually go.

John 3:
13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.
I believe this is also very clear:
Ecclesiastes 6:
3 Even if a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years — even if he lives a long, long time, but cannot enjoy his prosperity — even if he were to live forever — I would say, “A stillborn child is better off than he is!”
4 Though the stillborn child came into the world for no reason and departed into darkness, though its name is shrouded in darkness,
5 though it never saw the light of day nor knew anything, yet it has more rest than that man —
6 if he should live a thousand years twice, yet does not enjoy his prosperity. For both of them die!
That's not exactly heaven, is it? That's the grave.
If one of the prerequisites to entering the kingdom is childlike faith then isn't it ironic that a child himself can't enter.
Any child can enter if they understand the gospel, believe, repent of their sins, and have faith. Of course, you might have difficulty getting a 6 month old baby to come to grips with this, but I suppose you could try. Getting them to repent of their sins would be interesting.
But I'm off topic here...and besides baptism doesn't save anybody young or old anyway.
No it doesn't. But God looks favourably on those who obey His commandments, and unfavourably on those who wilfully disobey them.

User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#153

Post by puritan lad » Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:46 am

Fortigurn wrote:No, I argue that since the apostles repeatedly taught that it is necessary for true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith, then a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.
Where does it teach this?
The negative evidence against it is the absence of any infants being baptised.
This is presumptuous and irrelevant. There were 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost. On what basis do you assume that all 3,000 were professing adults, epecially in light of the clear teaching of Scripture concerning household baptisms?

At what age should a person be baptized? If God had an age requirement for baptism, why is it not explicitly given to us in Scripture?

The Bible teaches for ALL to be baptized. Your task is to show that infants were to be excluded from this commandment, ie. all must be baptized, on the condition that they reach a certain age. Good Luck...

BTW. Should women be allowed to take Communion? Why or why not?
By the way, have you read the Didache? Had the Christian community apostasized so completley by the end of the 1st century that they had abandoned the apostolic sprinkling of infants?
I have, though I haven't researched it in the area of baptism. Why do you consider the Didache to be superior to Irenaeus, who writes that Christ "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men." (Against Heresies II 22:4). If infants are born again, then on what basis will you deny them baptism? Paul says that the children of believers are "holy", viewed differently from the "unclean" children of pagans (1 Cor. 7:14). Why will you deny holy children baptism?

BTW, the Bible is clear regarding eternity in either Heaven or Hell, as I have already proven.

See The Lost Doctrine of Eternal Hell
Fortigurn wrote:Well your version of Christianity doesn't differ that much from theirs anyway. And yes, I've read many Puritan works, I have over 50 of them in my personal library.
If you can't tell the differences between Catholicism and Puritanism, you'd better read them again.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#154

Post by Fortigurn » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:04 am

puritan lad wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:No, I argue that since the apostles repeatedly taught that it is necessary for true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith, then a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.
Where does it teach this?
I already gave a list of quotes.
This is presumptuous and irrelevant.
It is neither. If you had any positive evidence for infant baptism, you would provide it. We both know there isn't any.
There were 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost. On what basis do you assume that all 3,000 were professing adults, epecially in light of the clear teaching of Scripture concerning household baptisms?
On the basis of the passages I gave, including Peter's own words, which included the word 'Repent'.

You have it backwards. You want to start with the texts which say nothing about which specific individuals were baptized, and then use them as the controls to interpret the texts which describe the conditions on which people are baptized. This is not a legitimate hermeneutic.
At what age should a person be baptized? If God had an age requirement for baptism, why is it not explicitly given to us in Scripture?

The Bible teaches for ALL to be baptized. Your task is to show that infants were to be excluded from this commandment, ie. all must be baptized, on the condition that they reach a certain age. Good Luck...
If you read my posts, you will find that I do not believe in the 'age of accountability'. If you read my posts, you will find that my position is that anyone who can learn the gospel, believe, and repent may be baptized.
BTW. Should women be allowed to take Communion? Why or why not?
Yes, if they are baptized. As to why, because as sisters in Christ they are part of the body of Christ.
I have, though I haven't researched it in the area of baptism.
I suggest you do. It's very clear on the subject. A lengthy public confession of faith had to be given, and the baptismal candidate had to express a knowledge of and belief in the gospel, as well as fast for three days prior.
Why do you consider the Didache to be superior to Irenaeus, who writes that Christ "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men." (Against Heresies II 22:4).
Largely because Irenaeus is about 100 years later. By the way, I think we can both see that Irenaeus says nothing about baptism there.
If infants are born again, then on what basis will you deny them baptism?
Do please show me in Scripture where we are told that infants are born again. I find it most interesting that Puritans usually want to tell us that infants are sinful and evil from the moment they are born, and yet you want to tell me that they are 'born again'.

I have found it interesting that Puritans were divided over exactly what baptism actually meant for infants:
I know most of our divines do make the principal end and effect of all the sacraments to be obsignation, and all sacraments to be merely obsignatory signs; and consequently the ablution of infants from original sin, is only conditional and expectative, of which they have no benefit, till they believe and repent; I cannot easily assent hereunto.

Samuel Ward, from a letter to James Ussher, Bishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland (May 25, 1630)
Source.
Paul says that the children of believers are "holy", viewed differently from the "unclean" children of pagans (1 Cor. 7:14). Why will you deny holy children baptism?
Paul says that the children of believers who are married to unbelievers are 'holy' in the sense of being legitimate children (as opposed to illegitmate children).

He says nothing about the children of believers being 'holy' as distinct from 'unclean' children of pagans (which he doesn't even mention). Read it in context, please.
BTW, the Bible is clear regarding eternity in either Heaven or Hell, as I have already proven.
I noted with no particular surprise the complete absence of any passages of Scripture which say that people go to heaven when they die. I also noted with no particular surprise a repeated appeal to later Christian writers and even later creeds (especially from the Reformed theologians).

You did quote a lot of verses from the Bible saying that there will be an eternal punishment on the wicked (I agree), but none which said anything about that eternal punishment being the burning of immortal souls in 'hell'.

You rightly objected to purgatory and universalism, but you didn't actually deal with the subject of proving that hell is a place to which immortal souls go to be burned forever.

You rightly identified sheol as the grave, but failed to find any passages which speak of it being a place of flaming punishment for the wicked, and omitted to mention the fact that sheol is also referred to as the place where everyone ends up (the grave).

You noted that sheol is paired with 'destruction' in Proverbs 27:20, but moved on hurriedly before drawing the natural conclusion (sheol is a place of destruction), claiming that 'destruction' here is simply the name of an angel.

In your search for post-mortem flames, you went to Revelation, where you predictably committed the traditional error of insisting that the lake of fire is hell (not realising of course that Revelation 20:14 says that hell is thrown into the lake of fire, proving that the lake of fire is not hell).

You correctly identified Gehenna in the New Testament as the constantly burning fires of the Jerusalem rubbish heap, but then went further than the Bible does and claimed that this was in fact 'hell' (when you had already given the true meaning).

You attempted to argue that Tartarus is nothing but hell (the place of everlasting fire), but failed to realise not only that Tartarus had no such meaning in Greek (though you did recognise that it was the 'lowest depths' of the earth in some Greek writings), but also that in LXX Job it is used as a term for the lowest parts of the sea (the exact opposite of hell, in fact). So you were able to provide no evidence whatever (Biblical or otherwise), that Tartarus is hell either.
If you can't tell the differences between Catholicism and Puritanism, you'd better read them again.
Of course I can. I didn't say I couldn't. I suggest you read my post again.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5963
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 139 times

#155

Post by Byblos » Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:58 am

Fortigurn wrote:
Byblos wrote:Jesus himself said to let the children come to him for the kingdom of God is theirs. That's one of the bases justifying infant baptism.


Where does he say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs'? Why do you have to scratch and scrape around for verses from which you infer arguments from which you can further infer arguments for infant baptism?

It's because the Bible doesn't teach it.

Luke 18:16 (NIV) wrote:16 Then Jesus called for the children and said to the disciples, “Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children.

Luke 18:16 (NASB) wrote:16But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Luke 18:16 (ESV) wrote:16But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 (KJV) wrote:16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


But I'm sure you have a lexical, grammatical, whatever reason to say why the above translations don't mean what they plainly say.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#156

Post by puritan lad » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 am

I already gave a list of quotes.
You gave nothing that said that "true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith". You simply assumed this.
It is neither. If you had any positive evidence for infant baptism, you would provide it. We both know there isn't any.
And if you had any positive evidence against infant baptism, you would provide it. We both know that there isn't any. (Two can play this stupid game.)
If you read my posts, you will find that I do not believe in the 'age of accountability'. If you read my posts, you will find that my position is that anyone who can learn the gospel, believe, and repent may be baptized.
I said nothing about a "age of accountability" though that's the logical conclusion of your position. I am well aware of your position. However, there is nothing in the Bible that says that all who have been baptized need to have repented (though with adults, I'll agree that there needs to be a profession of faith). If such a passage existed, you would provide it.

Colossians 2:11-13 makes if clear that Baptism is the NT Circumcision, and this was the position of the early church. Infants were circumcised in the OT. Why can they not be baptized in the NT?
BTW. Should women be allowed to take Communion? Why or why not?
Yes, if they are baptized. As to why, because as sisters in Christ they are part of the body of Christ.
Can you give me a specific example in the Bible where a woman was admitted to the Lord's Supper? If not, hiopefully you can see that your argument from silence concerning infant baptism is simply that, and nothing more...
Do please show me in Scripture where we are told that infants are born again. I find it most interesting that Puritans usually want to tell us that infants are sinful and evil from the moment they are born, and yet you want to tell me that they are 'born again'.
How about John 3:3? Infants are sinful and evil, even before that are born (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3). This is why they must be born again. That is the only way they can get to heaven, like David's infant did? Do you want to go in that direction?

Are you conceding that the Bible does not forbid infant baptism?
He [Paul} says nothing about the children of believers being 'holy' as distinct from 'unclean' children of pagans (which he doesn't even mention). Read it in context, please.
Read it again.

"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14)

Pretty clear to me...
I noted with no particular surprise the complete absence of any passages of Scripture which say that people go to heaven when they die.
We return to God (Eccl. 12:7; 2 Cor. 5:8), where Christ is now (John 14:2-3), just like Elijah did (2 Kings 2:11). The kingdom of heaven is promised to "the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3), and "those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" (Matthew 5:10-12, 20). Those who claim Christ as Lord but practice lawlessness will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mattheww 7:21-23). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are there now (Matthew 8:11). There are plenty more, but this is a nice start.
You did quote a lot of verses from the Bible saying that there will be an eternal punishment on the wicked (I agree), but none which said anything about that eternal punishment being the burning of immortal souls in 'hell'.
I beg to differ. The Rich man was in Hell (Hades - not the grave) when he was being tormented in fire. (And if you try and make this allegorical, be prepared to defend your allegory or don't bother).
You rightly objected to purgatory and universalism, but you didn't actually deal with the subject of proving that hell is a place to which immortal souls go to be burned forever.
I just did above. There are others, but we'll take them one at a time

You rightly identified sheol as the grave, but failed to find any passages which speak of it being a place of flaming punishment for the wicked, and omitted to mention the fact that sheol is also referred to as the place where everyone ends up (the grave).

See above (again)...
You noted that sheol is paired with 'destruction' in Proverbs 27:20, but moved on hurriedly before drawing the natural conclusion (sheol is a place of destruction), claiming that 'destruction' here is simply the name of an angel.
See hades (Sheol) above...
In your search for post-mortem flames, you went to Revelation, where you predictably committed the traditional error of insisting that the lake of fire is hell (not realising of course that Revelation 20:14 says that hell is thrown into the lake of fire, proving that the lake of fire is not hell).
See above. The Rich man was burning in Hades. He and Hades will both be thrown into the lake of fire at the final judgement (and the church has ALWAYS taught this, as you saw in my article.)
You correctly identified Gehenna in the New Testament as the constantly burning fires of the Jerusalem rubbish heap, but then went further than the Bible does and claimed that this was in fact 'hell' (when you had already given the true meaning).
I gave the meaning it was derived from. Jesus was not referring to the valley of Hinnom. He was referring to eternal punishment, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-44)
You attempted to argue that Tartarus is nothing but hell (the place of everlasting fire), but failed to realise not only that Tartarus had no such meaning in Greek (though you did recognise that it was the 'lowest depths' of the earth in some Greek writings), but also that in LXX Job it is used as a term for the lowest parts of the sea (the exact opposite of hell, in fact). So you were able to provide no evidence whatever (Biblical or otherwise), that Tartarus is hell either.
Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) was recognized by Greek mythology (Homer's Odyssey 11:575 and Plato's Gorgias) as a place for eternal judgment.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#157

Post by Fortigurn » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:38 am

Byblos wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Byblos wrote:Jesus himself said to let the children come to him for the kingdom of God is theirs. That's one of the bases justifying infant baptism.


Where does he say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs'? Why do you have to scratch and scrape around for verses from which you infer arguments from which you can further infer arguments for infant baptism?

It's because the Bible doesn't teach it.

Luke 18:16 (NIV) wrote:16 Then Jesus called for the children and said to the disciples, “Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children.

Luke 18:16 (NASB) wrote:16But Jesus called for them, saying, "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Luke 18:16 (ESV) wrote:16But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Luke 18:16 (KJV) wrote:16But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


But I'm sure you have a lexical, grammatical, whatever reason to say why the above translations don't mean what they plainly say.
I don't have to do any such thing. None of them say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs', as you claimed. None of them say that infants will enter the Kingdom of God.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5963
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 139 times

#158

Post by Byblos » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:43 am

Fortigurn wrote:I don't have to do any such thing. None of them say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs', as you claimed. None of them say that infants will enter the Kingdom of God.
I know English is not my native language but I could swear I remember getting an A in English Lit.

What do you think they say?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Turgonian
Senior Member
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:44 pm
Christian: No
Location: the Netherlands
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#159

Post by Turgonian » Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:26 pm

puritan lad wrote:I beg to differ. The Rich man was in Hell (Hades - not the grave) when he was being tormented in fire. (And if you try and make this allegorical, be prepared to defend your allegory or don't bother).
You know I agree with you in the main, but I can explain why I'd make this allegorical. (You can defend infant baptism much better than I can, so no comments there.)
From the very long article here:
Glenn Miller wrote:Notice that this picture of a dead man in some intermediate post-death, pre-resurrection state ('Hades' here), is in "torment" (but cf. 2 Peter 2.8: "for by what he[Lot] saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds"), but is able to carry on a very subdued conversation with Abraham. There is no screaming (or even weeping/gnashing, in this case), and the only request he makes is for a simple 'fingertip' of water for his thirst. There is fire, but it doesn't seem to burn him--it only makes him thirsty/warm. His "quality of life" is equated to the quality of life that the beggar Lazarus had during his lifetime (e.g. lack of getting all of his basic needs met in community). He carries on a reasonable argument with Abraham about his brothers, without alternating the sentences with shrieks and screams of pain. This would be quite a disappointment to Dante...
About infant baptism -- of course people were asked if they believed and repented. Obviously non-believing families were not going to be baptized. But when the pater familias believed, he was baptized with his household.
Fortigurn, what evidence do I have for the emphasis on community? Simply, Ancient Israel was a collectivist society.
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)

User avatar
puritan lad
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1491
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#160

Post by puritan lad » Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Turgonian,

I'll agree that it is a parable. But is must have some element of truth, ot the parable would lead one to a false conclusion.

The rich man plainly said that he was being tormented in a flame (Luke 16:24). I haven't seen flames in very many graves, and even if I did, those bodies that occupied the graves wouldn't care very much.

The point I want to make from this parable (and other places) is that sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) are used quite often to refer to the abode of damned souls, not just the grave, but Hell. And it was in Hell that Lazarus was being tormented.
"To suppose that whatever God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect." - JOHN OWEN

//covenant-theology.blogspot.com
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com/

FFC
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1684
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:11 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#161

Post by FFC » Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:01 pm

puritan lad wrote:Turgonian,

I'll agree that it is a parable. But is must have some element of truth, ot the parable would lead one to a false conclusion.

The rich man plainly said that he was being tormented in a flame (Luke 16:24). I haven't seen flames in very many graves, and even if I did, those bodies that occupied the graves wouldn't care very much.

The point I want to make from this parable (and other places) is that sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) are used quite often to refer to the abode of damned souls, not just the grave, but Hell. And it was in Hell that Lazarus was being tormented.
I agree PL, Jesus indicated that there would be conscious suffering after death...and also seemed to indicate that a person's estate on earth had nothing to do with their fates after death.
"Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible." - Corrie Ten Boom

Act 9:6
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#162

Post by Fortigurn » Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:39 pm

Byblos wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:I don't have to do any such thing. None of them say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs', as you claimed. None of them say that infants will enter the Kingdom of God.
I know English is not my native language but I could swear I remember getting an A in English Lit.

What do you think they say?
They say 'of such is the Kingdom of God'. See Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 for clarification.

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#163

Post by Fortigurn » Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:42 pm

Turgonian wrote:About infant baptism -- of course people were asked if they believed and repented. Obviously non-believing families were not going to be baptized. But when the pater familias believed, he was baptized with his household.
You haven't provided any evidence that the belief of the pater familias was considered sufficient for the baptism of those who did not believe.
Fortigurn, what evidence do I have for the emphasis on community? Simply, Ancient Israel was a collectivist society.
I didn't ask you to prove that 'Ancient Israel' had an emphasis on community (and when we come to the New Testament we are not talking about 'Ancient Israel', and we are also talking about a lot of Gentiles).

I asked you to prove that the 1st century society had no concept of the individual, and that people were therefore baptized simply on the grounds of the belief of the head of the household, without the necessity of personal belief or faith themselves.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5963
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 95 times
Been liked: 139 times

#164

Post by Byblos » Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:24 pm

Fortigurn wrote:
Byblos wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:I don't have to do any such thing. None of them say 'for the kingdom of God is theirs', as you claimed. None of them say that infants will enter the Kingdom of God.


I know English is not my native language but I could swear I remember getting an A in English Lit.

What do you think they say?


They say 'of such is the Kingdom of God'. See Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 for clarification.


Don't know what your point is. 'of such' includes the 'of such' it references, i.e. children themselves. Otherwise the comparison is meaningless and contradictory.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#165

Post by Fortigurn » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:47 am

puritan lad wrote:
I already gave a list of quotes.
You gave nothing that said that "true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith". You simply assumed this.
I see. Exactly what do those quotes mean then?
And if you had any positive evidence against infant baptism, you would provide it. We both know that there isn't any. (Two can play this stupid game.)
But I have given positive evidence against it. I have given:

* Evidence that baptism requires repentance and faith

* Evidence that adults were baptized subsequent to confession

You would only need a single instance in the Bible of infant baptism to ruin my case, but you cannot find any. You would only need a single instance of the apostles teaching that infants are to be baptized, or that belief in the gospel, repentance and faith are unnecessary for baptism.

But overwhelmingly we find the opposite. We find all the evidence for faith and repentance preceding valid baptism, and no evidence for anyone being validly baptized without faith or repentance.
I said nothing about a "age of accountability" though that's the logical conclusion of your position. I am well aware of your position.
When why all those questions about which age children can be baptized at?
However, there is nothing in the Bible that says that all who have been baptized need to have repented...
What do you think those quotes mean? When Peter said 'Repent and be baptized', did he really mean 'Some of you have to repent and be baptized, but some of you don't, and actually the whole thing's pretty optional'?
...(though with adults, I'll agree that there needs to be a profession of faith).
On what basis do you acknowledge this is the case with adults, but insist that baptism does not require this of infants? Which passages can you provide which say that knowledge of the gospel, repentance and faith, are unnecessary for baptism? Where in the Bible is a distinction drawn between infants being baptized and adults, the way you distinguish between them?
If such a passage existed, you would provide it.
I gave you several.

Colossians 2:11-13 makes if clear that Baptism is the NT Circumcision, and this was the position of the early church. Infants were circumcised in the OT. Why can they not be baptized in the NT?[/quote]

You're comitting a logical fallacy here. Circumcision is representative of the same things which baptism is representative. That does not mean that those being baptized should be baptized under the same circumstances as those who were circumsized. We are told no such thing.

In any case, if you were right then only male babies would be baptized, and on the eighth day. But you don't want to believe that baptism 'is the NT Circumcision', you just want to pick and choose.

The circumstances of baptism are clearly distinguished from those of circumcision in all those passages in which men and women were baptized, and in which baptism was dependent on repentance and faith.
Can you give me a specific example in the Bible where a woman was admitted to the Lord's Supper?
Sure, Acts 2:44-46, and if you want to get really specific 1 Corinthians 11.
If not, hiopefully you can see that your argument from silence concerning infant baptism is simply that, and nothing more...
But I am not making an argument from silence. I have not argued 'infant baptism is wrong because there are no records of infants being baptized in the Bible'. I have pointed out that this is negative evidence, but I have also provided the positive evidence against the case.
How about John 3:3?
Where does that say anything about infants being born again?
Infants are sinful and evil, even before that are born (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3). This is why they must be born again.
I didn't ask you to show me that they need to be born again, I asked you to show me in the Bible where they are born again. Where are all the passages speaking of 'born again infants', and how they get that way?

By the way, you're wresting those two passages, neither of which say that infants 'are sinful and evil, even before they are born'. The Bible says very plainly that sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), that sin is not imputed where there is no law (Romans 5:13), and that where there is no law there is no transgression (Romans 4:14). God does not condemn as transgressors those who have never known or transgressed His law.
That is the only way they can get to heaven, like David's infant did? Do you want to go in that direction?
Please show me where we are told that David's infant went to heaven. David went to where his infant went, and Peter tells us clearly that David did not go to heaven. The infant went into the darkness and silence of the grave, as Job says stillborns do.
Are you conceding that the Bible does not forbid infant baptism?
Not in the least.
Read it again.

"For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14)
I asked you to read it in context, and you deliberately posted it out of context.

I said Paul says nothing about the children of believers being 'holy' as distinct from 'unclean' children of pagans (which he doesn't even mention). Yo have just proved this.

Here it is in context:
1 Corinthians 7:
12 To the rest I say—I, not the Lord—if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her.
13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace.
* Verses 12-13: The context is a believer married to an unbeliever (not, as you claimed 'the children of believers'), and what that entails for the family members

* Verses 12-14: If Christian husbands and wives are married to unbelievers, they should not separate from them, if their spouse is prepared to live with them

* Verse 14: Because the marriage is considered legitimate by virtue of the unbeliever being married to the believer, and the children are considered legitimate by virtue of being the children of at least one believer

* Verse 14: If it were not the case, your children would be illegitimate (not 'your children would burn in hell'), the issue is whether or not the children are considered legitimate, not saved

* Verse 15: But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let them walk

There is absolutely nothing there about infants being considered 'born again' or 'saved' by virtue of being the children of believers. In any case, you were telling me a moment ago that infants are 'sinful and evil, even before that are born', and now you're telling me these ones are holy and born again. If they've been born again, what's the point of baptizing them?
We return to God (Eccl. 12:7; 2 Cor. 5:8), where Christ is now (John 14:2-3), just like Elijah did (2 Kings 2:11).
Firstly, Ecclesiastes says that the life breath returns to God (not 'us'), and the Bible is clear on the fact that the life breath of all flesh returns to God (Job 34:14-15, Ecclesiastes 3:19-20).

Secondly, 2 Corinthians 5:8 does not say that when we die we 'return to God' (how could you 'return' to a place where you weren't to start with, except in a highly figurative way?).

Thirdly, 2 Kings 2:11 says that Elijah was taken away into the sky in a whirlwind, but does not say that he ascended bodily into the place where God dwells. The sons of the prophets were certain that he had been taken away somewhere by God, but said nothing of him going to the heaven where God dwells (and neither did Elisha). Furthermore, Elijah sent a letter to king Jehoram years afterwards, so he was plainly still alive and on the earth (2 Chronicles 21:12).

Of course your biggest problem here is that Elijah was very much alive at this time, whereas you are trying to prove that people go to heaven when they die. You are also trying to prove that immortal souls go to heaven, not entire bodies (but your belife in the physical assumption of Elijah sounds very much like the Catholic belief in the physical assumption of Mary).
The kingdom of heaven is promised to "the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3), and "those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake" (Matthew 5:10-12, 20). Those who claim Christ as Lord but practice lawlessness will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Mattheww 7:21-23).
This is all true, but you're supposed to be showing me immortal souls going to heaven when our bodies die. All these passages speak of the Kingdom of heaven, which is most certainly not heaven.

Another problem for you is that entry into the Kingdom of heaven takes place at the return of Christ, not before.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are there now (Matthew 8:11).
Really?
Matthew 8:
11 I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,
Where does it say they are there now?
The Rich man was in Hell (Hades - not the grave) when he was being tormented in fire. (And if you try and make this allegorical, be prepared to defend your allegory or don't bother).
As an aside, since hADES can mean 'the grave', you cannot assume that when it is used it means 'hell'. In this case it doesn't mean 'hell' either, because hell is a later Christian invention. What we have here is a standard Pharisean belief in a place where all souls go to (which is why Abraham is right here too). He's just in the uncomfortable part.

Yes it's a parable, and I agree with you on that. Yes, it must contain an element of truth or it would lead people astray. In this case it most certainly does contain an element of truth.

Christ would have shocked his audience by telling them this parable, because he turned their beliefs in judgment completely upside down (the Pharisees believed the beggar would suffer, and the rich man would be rewarded). I'll leave it to you to figure out the lesson from there.
See above (again)...
I looked above and saw no quotes where sheol is said to be the place of eternal fire for the immortal souls of the wicked. Where are they?
See hades (Sheol) above...
I'm sorry, what does that mean?
The Rich man was burning in Hades. He and Hades will both be thrown into the lake of fire at the final judgement...
Well now this is getting very confusing. Your aticle says that the lake of fire is hell. Now you're saying that the rich man and hades will both be thrown into the lake of fire. For what purpose? To burn? He's already burning. And how do you throw a metaphysical location like hell into a lake of fire? Where is this lake of fire? Is it real fire?
...(and the church has ALWAYS taught this, as you saw in my article.)
No I didn't see that actually, sorry. Perhaps a few more quotes would have worked.
You correctly identified Gehenna in the New Testament as the constantly burning fires of the Jerusalem rubbish heap, but then went further than the Bible does and claimed that this was in fact 'hell' (when you had already given the true meaning).
I gave the meaning it was derived from. Jesus was not referring to the valley of Hinnom. He was referring to eternal punishment, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-44)

Can you please prove that Christ was not referring to the valley of Hinom, when he actually used the word which means exactly that? Yes it's eternal punishment (the punishment lasts forever), but it is not eternal torment. It is eternal destruction, for Christ tells us that Gehenna is the place where body and soul are destroyed (Matthew 10:28).

This makes perfect sense from an anihilationist perspective, where Gehenna is the place where the bodies of the condemned were burned, but no sense from your theological perspective, in which hell is not a place of destruction but the place where souls are carefully preserved for eternity, burning forever and never being destroyed (much like the bush Moses saw).

Oh, and by the way, Isaiah 34:8-10; 66:24 (undying worms and unquenchable fires).
Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) was recognized by Greek mythology (Homer's Odyssey 11:575 and Plato's Gorgias) as a place for eternal judgment.
I'm afraid we're reading the Bible here, not 'Greek mythology'. Please tell me honestly, which are the relevant proximate texts for understanding New Testament usage of the word:

* Homer's Odyssey and Plato's Gorgias (texts written in Greece 500-600 years prior to the New Testament era)

* The LXX (texts written by Jews 300 years prior to the New Testament era, and used by the New Testament writers)

Seriously, which are the relevant texts?

Post Reply