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?
