puritan lad wrote:All they say is that adults repented and were baptized. You ignore the fact that their entire households were baptized, and nothing is said of their repentance.
As I have said, you are interpreting the texts backwards. First we must find out the conditions for baptism. Then we can determine who met them. You are assuming
certain conditions for baptism from silence (or rather a lack
of conditions for baptism), and then attempting to interpret these explicit statements as something other than what they say.
It does not say that "true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith". Those are your words only.
When Christ says 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and he who believes not will be condemned', how do you interpret that?
When Peter (answering 'What must we do?'), answers 'Repent and be baptized', how do you interpret that?
Why is that so hard for you to understand? When one became a believer in the Bible, the entire household was in Covenant with God. In the OT, they were circumcised. In the NT, they were baptized.
Now do you have any scriptures that tell us that infants should not be baptized?
Yes, I gave them to you.
It 's a legitimate question. You claim that infants should not be baptized. How about a 1-year old? 2? 3? What's the magical age? How come the Bible doesn't mention the age.
I have already been through this. It is not dependent on age, it is dependent on faith in Christ and repentance. If your 3 month old has faith in Christ, believes the gospel and repents, then baptize them straight away, I won't complain.
Peter means exactly what he said.
Great, so the answer to 'What must we do?' is 'Repent and be baptized'.
Did he make a mistake when he baptized Simon Magus?
No, because Simon believed. Are you suggeting that Simon was baptized without belief or repentance?
Peter did not say that "all who are baptized must have repented", or else the apostles would not have practiced household baptism.
When the question is 'What must
we do?', and the answer is 'Repent and be baptized', then how can you say that baptism does not require repentance?
And again you're making your argument from silence that these households contained members who did not believe.
Adults...and their households.
Here's the problem - the passages speaking of households do not distinguish between infants and adults. They say nothing of infants at all. So I ask again, 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 circumcision represents the same things that baptism does, on what basis do you allow infants one and not the other?
Just because it represents the same thing (the cutting off of the flesh), does not mean that it is carried out in the same way.
It is NT Circumcision. In the NT, it is applied to females as well, and I'm sure you are aware of.
Of course it's applied to females, which defeats your argument that it is the replacement of baptism.
Where are the women Fortigurn? I don't see them. Please give a specific quote.
I gave you a specific quote (Acts 2:44-46, all who believed). If you can't find the women in 1 Corinthians 11 you'd be the first commentator who can't (hint, start in verse 3).
Are you sure that there were no infants in the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), or is that merely your assumption.
I am sure, because both Christ and the apostles taught that baptism is dependent on belief and repentance. Then there's the family of Cornelius, and the household of Crispus.
It the Bible required a confession of faith for all members of a household before baptism, why does it not specifically say so?
It requires a belief for each individual who is baptized. When Christ says 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved, and he who believes not will be condemned', how do you interpret that?
When Peter (answering 'What must we do?'), answers 'Repent and be baptized', how do you interpret that?
You need to show me where they can't be born again.
Actually you're asking me to prove a negative, which is invalid. Not only that, but you haven't answered the question (of course, you can't). When you claim that infants can be born again, the onus is on you to prove your claim.
No one can be born again unless they believe the gospel. If an infant believes the gospel, then of course they can be born again. You just have to show all the infants in the Bible who believed the gospel.
How do they get that way? The same way as everyone else, by the election of a sovereign God.
Scripture please that 'the election of a sovereign God' is what saves, and not faith in Christ.
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
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.
Pretty clear to me...
Pretty clear to me also - those who are under the Law
are guilty. This agrees with every verse I quoted (and I note you discussed none of them).
Note: Paul was writing this to gentiles (Romans), in case you are wondering.
Yes he was. The Law didn't apply to them of course, as Christians and Romans.
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (John 5:28-29)
Ok, that shows people are judged when they are resurrected
at the return of Christ, which is certainly what I believe (you don't, you believe they are already judged when they die).
But this does not answer my question. 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.
* 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
Illegimate??? The couple is married. The Bible says that are "holy" (hagios), not "legitimate". They are legimate as long as the parents are married.
They are legitimate as long as the marriage is considered legitimate by God. The issue under question (as I showed), was whether or not the converted believer was still considered legitimately married to the spouse who remained an unbeliever, and Paul says yes and the children are regarded as legitimate also.
Note the key statement - if it were not the case,(if your children were not 'holy'), 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.
How many years later?
Seven years, if I'm not mistaken.
Why was Elijah "plainly still alive and on the earth" when the letter reached Jehoram?
Because there's no mail service from heaven to earth.
Another problem for you is that entry into the Kingdom of heaven takes place at the return of Christ, not before.
Says the Bible
t's pretty clear what the Bible says. The Spirit returns to God until the resurrection. God doesn't want our breath.
The life breath
returns to God until the resurrection. The life breath is in all flesh (including the animals). It is the 'breath of the spirit of life', it is not our oxygen. I've already shown that it goes to God at the death of all men (good or evil), and all animals, and it is certainly not an 'immortal soul'.
Hell has ALWAYS been the teaching of the church. You, of all people, should know that.
I believe you'll find that the teaching of the early Christians on the subject of what happens after death, as well as the issue of eschatological judgment, was far more diverses than you might think.
"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the Truth of the resurrection and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls when they die are taken to heaven: do not imagine that they are Christians; just as one, if he would rightly consider it would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of the Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews, but are only called Jews, worshipping God with the lips, as God declared, but the heart was far from Him.
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.'
Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 80
'Souls are not immortal, I do not say that all souls will die. Those of the pious will remain [after death] in a certain better place, and those of the unholy and wicked in a worse, all expecting the time of judgment.
In this manner, those which are worthy to appear before God never die; but the others are tormented so long as God wills that they should exist and be tormented. Whatever does or ever will exist in dependence on the will of God, is of a perishable nature, and can be annihilated so as to exist no longer. God alone is self-existent, and by his own nature imperishable, and therefore he is God; but all other things are begotten and corruptible. For which reason souls (of the wicked) both suffer punishment and die.'
Dialogue with Trypho
Some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the prearranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption. They thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, not admitting the salvation of their flesh, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens.
For they do not choose to understand, that if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in whom they profess to believe, did not rise again upon the third day; but immediately upon His expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on high, leaving His body to the earth.
But the case was, that for three days He dwelt in the place where the dead were, as the prophet says concerning Him: "And the Lord remembered His dead saints who slept formerly in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them, to rescue and save them." And the Lord Himself says, "As Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth."
Against Heresies, Book V
But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained.
Hades is a place in the created system, rude, a locality beneath the earth, in which the light of the world does not shine; and as the sun does not shine in this locality, there must necessarily be perpetual darkness there.
The righteous will obtain the incorruptible and unfading Kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous...
Thus far, then, on the subject of Hades, in which the souls of all are detained until the time God has determined; and then He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves.'
Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe
It's late, but there's more. You cannot asset a monolithic believe in the modern doctrine of hell (as it stands today), in the early church.
And there is no fire in any grave I've ever seen, but there was in Hell (Hades) tormenting the rich man (and not because he was rich, but that is another debate).
I am not arguing that there is any fire in any grave. Certainly the Jews to whom that parable belonged believed that there was a place of firey torment, but it was in the same place as they believed everyone
went - 'Hades' the underworld, not the later Christian 'hell'.
I guess Judas will be relieved to find out that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 26:24.
Er, what has Matthew 26:24 to do with anihilation?
Annihilationism was the invention of Arnobius is the 4th Century, amazingly about the time Arius started his "Jesus is not God" nonsense. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun, even with heresies.
Christ beat Arnobius to it - he tells us that Gehenna is the place where body and soul are destroyed
(Matthew 10:28). I guess that makes him the first heretic. But of course there were anihilationists prior to that (look at the Scriptural quotes in that presentation of mine, and do some reading on early Jewish beliefs).
Besides, eternal punishment and eternal torment are the same thing.
No they are not. A punishment can have an eternal effect.
This is why your fellow Arian Cultists like the JW's...
I am not an Arian.
The point is that Jews and Greeks both believed in a place of eternal punishment, thus Peter, John, and Jesus would have been purposely deceiving them if it were not so.
Could you explain how the first part of your sentence relates to the second? I see nothing but a non sequitur here.
You also fail to realise that 'the Jews' believed all kinds of things (there was no monolithic Jewish belief system in the 1st century), as did the Greeks. Some Jews belived in immortal souls like you do, some belived in anihilationism, and some didn't even believe in any kind of afterlife.
It was the same with the Greeks.
So back to the question. Please tell me honestly, which are the relevant proximate texts for understanding New Testament usage of the word 'tartarus':
* 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)