Evidence for God from Science

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:Yes it is and you claimed that a negative cannot be proven, to which I've logically shown how that statement is nonsense, ergo a response to it is unnecessary. If you disagree, please show me the proof that shows my statement to be untrue (oops, there I go again).

What you have proved is that you don't understand what 'proving a negative' means. That doesn't really concern me, and if you don't believe that proving a negative is a logical fallacy then that doesn't concern me either. I'm not about to waste time on that.

Again, try to follow this time. Your statement of fact has been proven to be nonsense. Your whole argument hinges on that statement (that a negative cannot be proven). Either you prove it to be true or you don't have a leg to stand on. You don't want to waste your time then stop arguing.

Byblos wrote:Again, try to follow this time. Your statement of fact has been proven to be nonsense. Your whole argument hinges on that statement (that a negative cannot be proven). Either you prove it to be true or you don't have a leg to stand on. You don't want to waste your time then stop arguing.

I gave you a link to several explanations of 'proving a negative' and 'negative proof'. I see you haven't read them yet. Please do.

Whether or not you believe that proving a negative is a logical fallacy is irrelevant. This does not exculpate you from the onus of proving that infants were present and baptized.

My whole argument rests on the Scriptural evidence that those who were baptized were required to make a confession of faith, which an infant cannot do.

Furthermore, the post-apostolic Christian community required those being baptized to make a lengthy confession of faith in public, and fast for three days prior to baptism. An infant cannot do this (and there is no record of them making any exceptions).

Please see the Didache (late 1st century).

Now when are you going to present evidence for your claim that infants were baptized by the apostolic Christian community?

It is my reading of the dialogue here that the tone of the discussion veers away from the Discussion Guidelines that advocate an attitude of respect and regard for others. I personally find some of the responses to be abrasive, and the dialogue to be going around in circles.

Taking to task the way things are done in the major Christian denominations seems to me rather futile. There are pros and cons for infant baptism, and in many cases where infant baptism is practised, there is a follow-up with Confirmation where the person concerned, at an older age, makes a declaration of faith before the church congregation and confirms the baptismal vows made earlier on his behalf. However, I see no respectful inquiry regarding this matter in recent posts to this thread.

If someone disagrees with the way something is done in a particular denomination, they are entitled to do so, but I find something in me reacting to the attitude that seems to be coming through in this current dialogue. Fortigurn (or anyone, for that matter) providing a Scriptural basis to denounce infant baptism is not going to change anything in Catholicism - nor in Anglicanism, nor in any of the protestant denominations that performs infant baptisms. Not every Christian has been baptised as an adult and they are no less Christian, nor unsaved, because of it.
The abrasiveness of some of the responses here makes me wonder what exactly is the real agenda behind this recent dialogue.

Judah wrote:The abrasiveness of some of the responses here makes me wonder what exactly is the real agenda behind this recent dialogue.

The agenda is this, set by the original poster:

Where and what is the passage that Christians and Catholics disagree on, about the keys to heaven, and what are some opinions?

That's what we're discussing. I agree the tone could be lifted.

Fortigurn wrote:

Judah wrote:The abrasiveness of some of the responses here makes me wonder what exactly is the real agenda behind this recent dialogue.

The agenda is this, set by the original poster:

Where and what is the passage that Christians and Catholics disagree on, about the keys to heaven, and what are some opinions?

That's what we're discussing. I agree the tone could be lifted.

Good response, Fortigurn.

Although I am not Roman Catholic, and I do have difficulty with some of the doctrine that the RCC espouses, I have always found myself given helpful information by our posters here when seeking to understand how something has come to be believed. Seeking answers is best done in the spirit of humility and openess with a willingness to understand the other. Any abrasiveness and antagonism is usually counter-productive to learning, often discouraging the possibility of a shift from some point of view, and not worthy of Christians posting to this board.

As a moderator here I would like to see the tone of this dialogue lifted, too. Let's do that from now on. Thanks.

Infant baptism replaced the circumcision.

I've been baptized as an infant in a Protestant church. It is a sign of belonging to the community and being included in God's covenant, which He has set up not just with individual persons, but with communities. Baptism is a sign that God will have mercy even upon the newborn. 'Before they called, I answered.'

I know you can't prove a negative, but it's a far bigger assumption to think that no children were present in the 'households', in a society where everyone had children if they could help it, and the community view was always very strong.

Turgonian wrote:Infant baptism replaced the circumcision.

So it's only for males, to be carried out on the 8th day?

I know you can't prove a negative, but it's a far bigger assumption to think that no children were present in the 'households', in a society where everyone had children if they could help it, and the community view was always very strong.

It isn't, because Scripture is clear on belief and faith being prerequisites of baptism.

It is so clear that the Roman Catholics (and also I believe the Lutherans), have to claim that infant sprinkling involves a supernatural act on the behalf of God to grant the infant belief and faith before they are mentally capable of it.

Where is Scripture 'clear' on that?

What I see is that, once the representative (the father) of the family believes, the whole household is baptized. They had no word for 'individualism' yet, only for 'community'.

Turgonian wrote:Where is Scripture 'clear' on that?

Acts 2:
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?”
38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:
12 But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:
35 So Philip started speaking, and beginning with this scripture90 proclaimed the good news about Jesus to him.
36 Now as they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water! What is to stop me from being baptized?”

Acts 10:
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message.
45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit131 had been poured out even on the Gentiles,
46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,
47 “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”

Mark 16:
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Do you believe that belief in the gospel and faith in Christ is necessary for salvation?

What I see is that, once the representative (the father) of the family believes, the whole household is baptized.

Where does the Bible say that?

They had no word for 'individualism' yet, only for 'community'.

What evidence do you have for this?

Fortigurn,

Your scriptures are all non sequiturs. You assume that, because all adult baptisms were of those who profess the faith, that all baptisms are the result of a professed faith. It is true that the Bible teaches to "repent and be baptized". It does not teach that all who are baptized have repented. In fact, we have the example of Simon Magus who was baptized and yet was unregenerate.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded that his hearers "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost." He then adds, "for this promise is for you and your children". Baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, and we hold that the children of believers are heirs to that Covenant of Grace. Therefore, I'll turn the tables here a little in this debate. The baptism of believers and their families is commanded in scripture. Your task is to show where the Bible excludes infants. If you deny that infants can be born again, then you must explain how they get to heaven.

I'm not defending Catholicism, as I have my own issues with their teachings, particularly with Indulgences, Purgatory, and Penance. But when they are right, they are right.

puritan lad wrote:Fortigurn,

Your scriptures are all non sequiturs. You assume that, because all adult baptisms were of those who profess the faith, that all baptisms are the result of a professed faith.

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.

It is true that the Bible teaches to "repent and be baptized". It does not teach that all who are baptized have repented.

I agree. But it does teach that for a baptism to be true and valid, repentance and belief must precede it.

In fact, we have the example of Simon Magus who was baptized and yet was unregenerate.

Well it does say that Simon believed, but I'll let that slide because it doesn't affect my point.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded that his hearers "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost." He then adds, "for this promise is for you and your children".

You're shooting yourself in the foot here, since the promise is receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit subsequent to repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.

Baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, and we hold that the children of believers are heirs to that Covenant of Grace.

Yes I know you do, but that's not what the Bible says.

Therefore, I'll turn the tables here a little in this debate. The baptism of believers and their families is commanded in scripture.

Well this is a little disingenuous. What we have is a couple of records of believers and their families being commanded to be baptized. We have evidence that the gospel was preached on those occasions. We have no evidence that those who did not believe it and did not repent were baptized along with those who do.

We also have clear teaching in Scripture that a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.

Your task is to show where the Bible excludes infants.

We've been through this before. The negative evidence against it is the absence of any infants being baptised. The positive evidence against it is the clear teaching that a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.

It would be very easy for you to disprove my case. You would only have to find a single example of infants being baptized in the Bible. Alternatively, you could provide all the examples of the baptism of those who never believed, and never repented.

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?

If you deny that infants can be born again, then you must explain how they get to heaven.

They don't get to heaven.

I'm not defending Catholicism, as I have my own issues with their teachings, particularly with Indulgences, Purgatory, and Penance. But when they are right, they are right.

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.

Fortigurn wrote:They (infants) don't get to heaven.

Wow, where do they go?

The account of David dead infant comes to mind.

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

If the child wasn't in heaven, where was David planning to go to be with him?

FFC wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:They (infants) don't get to heaven.

Wow, where do they go?

The account of David dead infant comes to mind.

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

If the child wasn't in heaven, where was David planning to go to be with him?

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.

FFC wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:They (infants) don't get to heaven.

Wow, where do they go?

Into the grave.

The account of David dead infant comes to mind.

2 Sam 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

If the child wasn't in heaven, where was David planning to go to be with him?

Into the grave.

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.