Two Reformed Baptist arguments against paedobaptism refuted

[TER]

Wizardwatson, I only asked what church you're from to find out what you believe. As and Orthodox Christian, it is very simple to learn what I believe (at least, how I ought to believe). The Scriptures, the Ecumenical Council, the writings of the Christian Saints. In fact, pick up any Orthodox Catacheism, and you have a very good idea of what I believe. I simply am trying to know your position to see if we share in mind what the truth of the faith which was handed down by Christ to His Apostles, and by them those they layed hands on and ordained by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

For example, this idea that the Father is the form of man and has a created body, where did you learn this stuff?

[TER]

Who inteprets what Ignatius wrote?

The mysterious 'Biblical Christians' through the centuries you claim existed but can never remember one name.

[Sola_Fide]

The mysterious 'Biblical Christians' never seem to demonstrate ever existed.

It's really a serious question, TER. What's your answer to it?

You say the "church fathers" interpret the Bible. Well, who interprets them?

[TER]

It's really a serious question, TER. What's your answer to it?

You say the "church fathers" interpret the Bible. Well, who interprets them?

The Church, that is, who give the Amen and the agreement and consent of the rest of the Church, namely, the laity.

[Sola_Fide]

The Church, that is, who give the Amen and the agreement and consent of the rest of the Church, namely, the laity.

The church interprets the church? Then how can you ever know when the church is in error?

[William Tell]

It's really a serious question, TER. What's your answer to it?

You say the "church fathers" interpret the Bible. Well, who interprets them?

I guess we're supposed to be able to understand the church fathers, but not the Bible. Or something.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's really a serious question, TER. What's your answer to it?

You say the "church fathers" interpret the Bible. Well, who interprets them?

Aside from Augustine, which of the Fathers is complicated enough to need interpreting? Here's links to loads of their works: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

[heavenlyboy34]

I guess we're supposed to be able to understand the church fathers, but not the Bible. Or something.

You should understand both! The Church Fathers add clarity to scripture.

[Sola_Fide]

I guess we're supposed to be able to understand the church fathers, but not the Bible. Or something.

TER's answer was very eye-opening. He said the church interprets the church. Well, if that is the case, how can the church ever know if someone among them said something erroneous? They couldn't.

[Terry1]

The church interprets the church? Then how can you ever know when the church is in error?

And there you have it---which church has the correct interpretation--it's all a matter of doctrine. Who's right and who's wrong and just who interprets that?

[heavenlyboy34]

TER's answer was very eye-opening. He said the church interprets the church. Well, if that is the case, how can the church ever know if someone among them said something erroneous? They couldn't.

The Laity is responsible for this.

In the Orthodox Church, the laity are the people of God and are responsible for preserving the integrity of the faith as much as the bishops. The example for this that is often given is that of bishops being refused entrance to their cities after the Council of Florence until they recanted of their signatures. The laity refused to accept that the Council's decisions were in accord with the Orthodox faith.


The laity are called to live by the same Christian moral standards as the clergy. They both are expected to participate in all the worship services and keep the various days and seasons of fasting and feasting. The clergy are the sacred priesthood, where the laity are among the royal priesthood. The clergy cannot conduct formal worship services without the participation of the laity, and the laity can not perform the same services without the clergy to lead them. Each play a very important role in the liturgical and administrative life of the Church.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Laity

To this day, the laity must approve of major decisions (such as budget increases) by their parish's leadership before they are enacted.

[Christian Liberty]

No.

So you've all agreed to disagree then, but you all belong to the same church?

The true church is made up of those who believe the gospel. Believing in or rejecting infant baptism, while important, isn't necessary for salvation. So in that sense, yes, both believers in infant baptism and those who reject it are part of the universal church.

In terms of denomination, I'm a member of a Baptist church. As I am a PK (of a baptist pastor) and live with my family, I don't anticipate switching actual churches anytime soon, but I'd identify more as Presbyterian theologically at this point.



I only started this thread to discuss some stuff I learned recently, not to judge anyone.

TER's answer was very eye-opening. He said the church interprets the church. Well, if that is the case, how can the church ever know if someone among them said something erroneous? They couldn't.

I hear you. I have a question, though. Do you have an opinon on my infant baptism argument mentioned in the OP? I have a longer version of it (I wrote a paper for theology class) but this was the really short nutshell. Do you have any thoughts on it?

[Christian Liberty]

But that's a straw man. There is no BOBO theory that anyone actually holds. That thread quotes someone (who is himself an evangelical) using that language to caricature other evangelicals.

I can tell you that the two arguments I mentioned were ones that were actually presented to me in real life, and that were the last ones I wound up disagreeing with That said, you might have a better argument yourself. I'm not disagreeing with that possibility.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How do you know that the people recording scripture didn't misinterpret what God said?

[wizardwatson]

Wizardwatson, I only asked what church you're from to find out what you believe. As and Orthodox Christian, it is very simple to learn what I believe (at least, how I ought to believe). The Scriptures, the Ecumenical Council, the writings of the Christian Saints. In fact, pick up any Orthodox Catacheism, and you have a very good idea of what I believe. I simply am trying to know your position to see if we share in mind what the truth of the faith which was handed down by Christ to His Apostles, and by them those they layed hands on and ordained by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

For example, this idea that the Father is the form of man and has a created body, where did you learn this stuff?

How is the Father going to have his day of wrath as spoken of in Revelation without taking human form? How is he going to take his revenge and "repay them to their face" without showing up in person? How is He going to "mock them when their fear cometh" without being there?

All of your Church Fathers have explained away plain verses with intellectual hogwash. It says quite plainly that the Terrible Day of the Lord will come in numerous places. When the Father walks the earth it will be in vengeance and justice.

And how will he get here you ask? He will be born.

Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Seems pretty simple. But I'm sure your church Father's have a good explanation for how this verse is a lie. And Jesus isn't the Prince of Peace he's the King. If you read the verses after you can see that the government is established upon the throne of David. Which probably means that the Father will be born in that bloodline. So he's a "prince" in the sense that he really is, or could be the king, but since the Father will also father the man-child Jesus for his return, He takes only the title "Prince" of peace. He's humble like that.

Does it really surprise you, TER, that at the end of all things all your church Father's will be shown to be full of crap? I mean, how is the Father supposed to surprise everyone if everyone believes he is going to come? Obviously it was necessary to encode the truth and send "a strong delusion". Only by being very watchful as Christ commanded would you see these things. If you assume your precious church father's already knew everything and just go by faith in them instead of diligently seeking and watching, you will be surprised just like everyone else.

Look at how beautifully our God has prepared His arrival on this God-forsaken earth. Not only does everyone believe that most of the prophecy is "symbolic", not only do false Christians here in Babylon think they are God's chosen people and will be raptured, but they don't even believe the Father is real.

Christ is the only begotten son of God, but technically speaking Christ wasn't "begotten" the first time around. Being born a virgin, which was an explicit prophecy, means that Mary and God didn't do what the "begetting" entails. But some verses in the bible which are old, are actually not entirely true until the future. John 3:16 is one of them. When the Father returns, if he isn't here already, he will do the hanky panky to make Jesus come back. Of course, likely the world won't see Jesus because it says in Revelation that He goes up to heaven as a child. My guess is for some hard-core training so that he can kick the $#@! out of Satan's armies.

Just remember you heard it here first.

Do I get the RPF heretic award for this post?

Don't get too bent out of shape over all this. After all, it's just a story. Important thing is loving one's neighbor and all that. Besides I'm the last person you should believe. Plus I change my mind often. Hell, I had a huge snafu over the identity of someone else that I was completely wrong about. Plus I'm slightly on the delusional side from time to time. Plus I have a hard time following all these moral precepts. Plus I rant about how marriage shouldn't be toyed with and yet I'm in the middle of a divorce. Plus I'm on a limited government website and I work for the tax departement. Go figure.

Anyway, I guess I just like puzzles.

[TER]

You still haven't answered who taught you this idea that God the Father has a human form. Is this something you taught yourself? How many in your church share in this belief?

I am asking because this is certainly not something professed by any Christian that I know of. Are you a new prophet? Did an angel reveal this to you like Joseph Smith claimed?

[wizardwatson]

You still haven't answered who taught you this idea that God the Father has a human form. Is this something you taught yourself? How many in your church share in this belief?

I am asking because this is certainly not something professed by any Christian that I know of. Are you a new prophet? Did an angel reveal this to you like Joseph Smith claimed?

Doesn't God walk in the Garden of Eden? That I learned as a child reading those picture bible books you find in doctor's offices.

Doesn't God talk to Moses and doesn't Moses see Him except for His face?

Here you go more bible study for you:

Exodus 33:17-23

And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. 18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory. 19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. 20 AND HE SAID, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Now I'm a little slow, but maybe you can tell me what your church fathers think.....but it seems to me that God did in fact walk by but only didn't show Moses His face. Am I right or wrong?

Or was Moses lying to us like you think Joseph Smith was? Because when Moses wrote "AND HE SAID" He's quoting God. Or are you going to side with Westboro Baptist Church and claim that every appearance of God in human form was actually Jesus? (One of the many problems I have with them)

Am I having a bipolar manic episode whenever I think I'm reading quite plain passages?

[Christian Liberty]

How do you know that the people recording scripture didn't misinterpret what God said?

THis is a thread about Christian doctrine. There isn't any reason for someone who rejects the Bible to post in it. I suppose debate about tradition is unavoidable, though I'd rather just discuss the Biblical argument. But, let's not derail with talking about why Christianity is true. Let's just assume that, for a Christian thread.

[ClydeCoulter]

THis is a thread about Christian doctrine. There isn't any reason for someone who rejects the Bible to post in it. I suppose debate about tradition is unavoidable, though I'd rather just discuss the Biblical argument. But, let's not derail with talking about why Christianity is true. Let's just assume that, for a Christian thread.

Or that the lying pen of the scribes didn't "change things" a bit, a jot and a tittle?

[wizardwatson]

Or that the lying pen of the scribes didn't "change things" a bit, a jot and a tittle?

The scribes and pharisses are the one's who interpret. The one's TER blasphemously refers to as the "church Fathers".

The bible is encoded with many mysteries. But it is also quite plain-spoken in most places. What the scribes and pharisees and church frackers have done is weaved a tangled web wherein they misinterpret the mysteries to refute what was plainly said. That has been going on since the beginning, and there's many places in the bible where the Pharisses try to do this to Jesus himself.

It's plain that baptism is for the repentant. It's absurd to think that repentance would be granted to a baby. How is a baby going to be conscious of sin when no opportunities for that sin to manifest as an offense are even possible? Is a baby going to be conscious that he's gluttonous on his mother's milk or something?

RE

TARD

ED

[Christian Liberty]

Psalms 22:9.

Now, why don't you repent of limiting God?

[wizardwatson]

Psalms 22:9.

Now, why don't you repent of limiting God?

So that verse to you means that babies can repent? Because David is being poetic about God's love for children?

David says "you gave me hope at my mother's breasts" therefore babies are conscious of sin?

And who's limiting God? Not me. TER is the one who claims he has no arms and legs which the scripture clearly shows. I am representing David's sentiment that God shelters babies and doesn't cast them into hell because some false scripture denying "church Father" didn't sprinkle some tap water on his forehead so they can increase their revenue stream.

But at least you tried to use some scripture. More than I can say for most of the people around here.

[Christian Liberty]

So that verse to you means that babies can repent? Because David is being poetic about God's love for children?

David says "you gave me hope at my mother's breasts" therefore babies are conscious of sin?

And who's limiting God? Not me. TER is the one who claims he has no arms and legs which the scripture clearly shows. I am representing David's sentiment that God shelters babies and doesn't cast them into hell because some false scripture denying "church Father" didn't sprinkle some tap water on his forehead so they can increase their revenue stream.

But at least you tried to use some scripture. More than I can say for most of the people around here.

I'm a bit disappointed that this conversation has devolved to a debate between EOs who defend paedobaptism based on tradition, and baptists who reject said tradition. No discussion of the BIBLICAL argument for paedobaptism.

[wizardwatson]

I'm a bit disappointed that this conversation has devolved to a debate between EOs who defend paedobaptism based on tradition, and baptists who reject said tradition. No discussion of the BIBLICAL argument for paedobaptism.

It seems I have to argue with myself.

The only relevant scripture you posted to the topic at hand is Luke 18:15-17. You didn't actually post it, just referenced, I will do it for you:

Luke 18:15-17 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But 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. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Why did Jesus say this? You might say to me, "see David? Jesus wanted to forgive them too." But that's not what the likely reason is. The main reason for the scripture itself is so Jesus can point out how they represent the likeness of those in the Kingdom of God. The fact that everyone thought Jesus touching them meant something doesn't mean it did.

But the disciples trying to prevent the children from coming could be for a couple reasons. (Read commentaries on online bibles, there's various interpretations) One reason is because people were constantly bugging Jesus. But Jesus gave them special passes. Another reason is that Jesus just got done talking about how it's good if you don't marry and have no family ties, so surrounding him with kids maybe they were a little hesitant about. People's kids were assumed to "not be in the church" so what business do they have with Jesus? Another commentary says that people knew church was for grown ups (see my commentary about repentance being for adults) so what could Jesus give to them? They didn't need healed or forgiven so why bother him?

NONE of the commentaries say that Jesus was saying "suffer the little children" because they should be baptized and be members of church.

That's absurd.

So even if you attacked me with the most relevant scripture you posted, it still is nothing that supports infant baptism.

I posted scripture where baptism was qualified with repentance. The person whose words I used were the words of the man who baptized Jesus himself. And your most powerful scripture is just showing Jesus doesn't have a problem touching babies? Why don't you start with the verses about what baptism is meant for and work from there?

[RJB]

I'm a bit disappointed that this conversation has devolved to a debate between EOs who defend paedobaptism based on tradition, and baptists who reject said tradition. No discussion of the BIBLICAL argument for paedobaptism.

When there aren't any verses in the Bible that specifically forbid it or specifically allow it, this is the logical progression of the discussion. Especially when there are only 2 or 3 verses that either side can use to back up their argument.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

THis is a thread about Christian doctrine. There isn't any reason for someone who rejects the Bible to post in it.

I don't reject the bible. It's a legitimate question, especially in the context of the discussion on interpretation.

But, let's not derail with talking about why Christianity is true.

It's not derailing and it's not assuming Christianity is not true. People were discussing levels of interpretation. I simply discussed a different level in the context of that discussion. If you don't want to address, then don't address. Skipping over a post is akin to changing the channel.

[Christian Liberty]

The point is that even infants are considered a part of the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 7:14 gives us greater clarity on it. A child is considered holy because of the believing parent. Does this automatically mean they go to heaven? No, of course not. But it is clear that they are able to believe, and that Jesus was confident enough that that particular infant did that he said "as such are the kingdom of heaven."

Add in the fact that infants were ALWAYS covenentally included in the OT, and denial of infant baptism doesn't make much sense.

[Christian Liberty]

When there aren't any verses in the Bible that specifically forbid it or specifically allow it, this is the logical progression of the discussion. Especially when there are only 2 or 3 verses that either side can use to back up their argument.

I suppose I understand that. I'm not so much annoyed that you guys decided to start doing that as I am that anti-tradition baptists decided to try and refute you guys and totally ignore my argument. Oh well. I'm hoping Sola will address the OP eventually.

[Christian Liberty]

Bump for Sola_Fide.

[Sola_Fide]

Bump for Sola_Fide.

I probably wouldn't be able to help much. I have a baptistic leaning of course, but I'm not good with the counter arguments and things like that. Sorry!