Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Infant Baptism, and a Few Oddments Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 90 04:59:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 126 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >> >An infant can't make a decision if it wants to enter >>into the Christian community, or not. Such decision must be made by a >>person who has reached the age of accountability, and can decide for her >>or himself. > >Neither can an adult unbeliever make such a decision, for he is 'dead >in his transgressions and sins' (Ephesians 2). Conversion is no less >miraculous in the adult than it is in an infant. It might be more >miraculous, because the adult has had plenty of time to harden his >heart. > Your premise, if it would be true, would remove anything on our part which would have anything to do with our salvation. Meaning that predestination would be in effect, meaning that God would predestine us for either salvation or to condemnation. I believe that you are being carried away with your logic and you push ideas and concepts to their logical conclusion, where they get distorted. It is one thing to say that we are saved by the grace of God, and another that we have no role to play in it at all. Based on your logic, if I will be condemned to go to hell, it is not my fault at all. It is God's fault because he didn't save me. The truth is that God does reach out with tender mercies towards all of us, however, the decision to accept or not is ours. This is the basis upon which I said that an infant can't make a decision if he or she wants to belong to a particular denomination, or if he or she wants to be a Christian or not. Free agency is one of the very basic principles which is in effect on both in heaven and on earth. Denying free agency is one of the most evil part of Satans plan. Without free agency we are reduced to a thing, and it denies that we have been called to be joint heirs with Christ. >>I believe that there is a contradiction in saying on one hand that infant >>baptism is not really a requirement, and on the other hand to say that it >>is a commandment of God. > >I may have made a mistake or a mistatement. Baptism is a requirement, >but the real requirement is faith. If someone has faith but dies before >he has the opportunity to receive baptism, I believe he is saved. My basis >for this is Christ's statement to the believing thief on the cross, "Today, >you will be with me in paradise." On the other hand, if someone says he >has faith but claims not to need or want baptism, then I say he has no true >faith, and is rejecting Christ's command. > I do not disagree with your statement. To baptize someone who has no faith in Christ is like baptizing a bag of beens. However, you have ignored my comments and pertaining scriptures that the thief didn't go to heaven. He went where Christ went "today". The scripture explicitly states that Jesus did't go to his Father. Peter explained that he went into the spirit world to preach the gospel. The bottom line is that the thief went to heaven is on of the many para scriptures which we believe in, which is in fact not true at all. I also agree with your statement that if a person has faith in Jesus Christ will be baptised. The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. 2. Second, repentance. 3. Third, baptism with water. 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The order is important. We can't speak of repentance with out faith in the Lord Jesus christ before faith, we cant speak of baptism before faith and repentance, etc. >To try to make baptism an absolute requirement which can be satisfied by >baptizing the dead is legalistic, unscriptural, and absurd. > >>Mark 16:16 >>---------- >>"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not >>shall be damned." > >Note that Christ did not say here, 'he that believeth not or is not baptized >shall be damned.' > > >David H. Wagner I don't know why you are saying that baptism for the dead is unscriptural. Paul didn't find it unscriptural, why do we? In fact Paul used it to support the idea of resurrection when he said: I Corint 15:29 -------------- "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" If you would say that it is not taught or believed by most Christians today, it would be correct. Only the LDS church teach it and practise it. You need to remember that the N.T. is not a manual of discipline, which tells us in great detail of the ordinaces of the early Christian church. This is one reason why we need revelation that things which got lost may be restored. This is what Peter had in mind when he said the following: Acts 3:21 ========= "Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" Peter, the apostle, and eye witness of Jesus Christ, who received the keys to bind or to loose on the earth, looks forward to the restoration of *all* things. As far as Mark16:16 is concerned, the reason it is not said that those who believe not *and are not baptized* shall be damned, because baptism is worthless without faith. Those who have no faith are alredy condemned, and baptism does absolutly nothing for their salvation (please refer back to my comments regarding the priciples of the gospel of Jesus Christ). On the otherhand, it is not enough to believe, one also must be baptised. With brotherly love, Frank