A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism
March 26th, 2008
(By Matt Waymeyer)
Editor’s Note: The following is from the introduction of the newly released A Biblical Critique of Infant Baptism by Matt Waymeyer (The Woodlands, Tex: Kress Christian Publications, 2008), which can be purchased either through Amazon or KCP.
* * * * *
The birth of a baby brings indescribable joy and excitement, as well as a delightful anticipation of what the future holds for the little one. For some Christian parents, however, it also brings a measure of apprehension, for it raises the unsettling question of infant baptism. Should we have our baby baptized? Or is baptism only for those who profess faith in Christ? The question is a significant one, and with godly theologians on both sides of the issue, how can the average believer possibly decide?
Shortly after I was married thirteen years ago, I read my first article in defense of infant baptism. I had spent the previous year happily attending a Presbyterian church where I had grown in my appreciation for reformed theologians and the contribution they had made to my understanding of the doctrines of grace. It only seemed natural that the next step would be to embrace infant baptism, and now, with children hopefully on the way soon, the time to begin my study had arrived.
As I began to read the article, I was secretly hoping to be convinced. Some of my closest friends at the time had made the leap—or at least were in the process—and they seemed hopeful that I too would complete my own personal reformation. In addition, it seemed easier to categorize myself as a Presbyterian than as the theological hybrid I found myself becoming. And besides, how could the church have been wrong on this one for so long?
As I continued to read, however, I found myself less than convinced. I like to think of myself—as most believers do—as being committed to the Scriptures, and as I looked at the biblical arguments presented in the article, I just wasn’t seeing it. I went on to read everything I could get my hands on in favor of infant baptism. In fact, I read hundreds of pages in defense of paedobaptism before reading a single paragraph against it. I was trying to be open-minded, but as I said, I just wasn’t seeing it. And to put it simply, I still don’t.
The purpose of this book is to set forth the reasons I have come to reject infant baptism. You might think of it as an opportunity to eavesdrop on my thoughts on the issue as I’ve wrestled with it over the past decade. I do not offer these arguments in a spirit of antagonism or contempt toward my paedobaptist brothers and sisters. To the contrary, even now as I write, I am reminded of how deeply indebted I am to several dear friends who differ with me on this issue—indebted for their love and commitment to me in very specific ways during times of great personal need. Furthermore, without intending to undermine the significance of the issue of baptism, I should mention that I consider my paedobaptist friends to be precious comrades in the battle for truth in areas of theology more critical than this one.
With that said, I offer six reasons that I reject infant baptism, each of which will be explained in its own chapter. My prayer is that they will be received not as the latest round of artillery in a battle between enemies, but rather as an earnest attempt to strive toward like-mindedness among brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ. May the Lord bless each of us as we apply ourselves to the common goal of conforming our thoughts and lives to the truth of His Word.
* * * * *
Over the next several days, we will be posting additional excerpts from Matt’s helpful book.
This sounds like my own experience. I was raised Presbyterian and was taught that infant baptism was the biblical mode. As I began to read arguments for infant baptism I became less and less convinced until finally finding it necessary to join a Baptist church so I could be baptized as a believer and be in a church where I would not be expected to have potential future children (potential when I made the switch, but I have two delightful girls now) baptized.
I remain quite willing (and in some ways I even desire) to be convinced but I don’t expect it to happen. I have a lot of respect for the PCA denomination I grew up in and I miss many things about it. But baptism being a matter of practice and not just conscience, it is impossible to be a “good” Presbyterian and not have one’s children baptized. It would be especially difficult (okay, impossible) to be a Presbyterian pastor who does not agree with infant baptism.
So Baptist I will remain, until that great day when God sets us all straight and denominations are no more.
I look forward to this series. In a nutshell, however, it’s probably because it is not commanded, recommended, nor practiced anywhere in the scripture. I reject things imposed on me all the time for the same reasons.
I look forward to this discussion and as a Presbyterian who believes in baptizing households (including children of believing parents) I hope to be able to add and refute this man’s objections to the practice.
David M. – On the contrary, we Presbyterians baptize infants of believing parents because it is commanded.
Genesis 17:9-11
(9) God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
(10) “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
(11) “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
Circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament. To make a long explanation short, baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the new covenant for a few reasons: 1) there are no longer any rituals in the church of God requiring the shedding of blood (sacrifice of the lamb in Passover – the Lord’s Supper has replaced the passover, cutting of the foreskin in cirucmcision is replaced by the sprinkling of water in baptism); 2) the covenant has been extended to include women – since women couldn’t receive circumcision.
The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XXVIII, paragraph IV states:
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
Also, look up the Scriptural footnotes on this (especially if you study the Colossians passage you will see that baptism has replaced circumcision.):
[11] MAR 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ACT 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
[12] GEN 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. COL 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. ROM 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 1CO 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. MAR 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 16 And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them. LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
Also, notice that in Acts repeatedly it says the the “promise” (referring to God being a God to you and your children after you through 1000 generations) is to you and your children. This is language directly from Gen 17 where God then commanded Abraham to give both him and his household the sign of the covenant. So, if you can prove that these things are untrue, the Presbyterian stance falls.
Bradley C.,
You need to read Adonirum Judson’s book, On Christian Baptism. Coming from a paedobaptist upbringing and early Christian ministry, he takes those passages you mention and proves that they do not support paedobaptism.
That sounds like the stiched-together, now-you-don’t-see-it, now-you-do approach that Seventh Day Adventists used to (attempt to) justify a mandatory Saturday sabbath. I tend to lean toward the perspicuity of scripture. Infant baptism isn’t the same as the deity of Christ, where you can see it pretty plainly.
Bradley,
Where in all those texts did a mandate to baptize infants materialize? Didn’t the Acts 2:39 passage you referenced say that the promise is to those that are called? The mandate was to repent and be baptized? How can a newborn repent? I thought that the Presbyterians believed in the effectual call of God to salvation? That does not occur at birth.
Anyways, the whole baptism replacing circumcision and the Lord’s supper replacing the Passover sounds like trying to put new wine into old wineskins.
Respectfully,
Keith B.
This is a very important topic of discussion and I would like to ask you guys for the very best works available. It is a subject that has personally haunted me. I left the Catholic Church, and rejected infant baptism simply because it was a catholic tradition that I did not see clearly in the Bible. But then when I began to read Reformed writings- I embraced (by God’s grace) The Doctrines of Grace. However I soon realized that many of my favorite authors and teachers were advocates of infant baptism! I was shocked, and thought that maybe there was something I was missing. So as I looked a bit into it, I noticed that the arguments seemed a bit loose, and somewhat weak, and ultimately I was not fully convinced. So I would like to get my hands on a few DIFINITIVE works on Baptism. Any suggestions?
Keith and Bradley,
While I do not believe Baptism replaces circumcision, I do believe the Lord’s Supper in a real sense replaces Passover. It is a very different ceremony but it signifies the same thing. At the original Passover the Jews sacrificed a lamb so that their firstborn would be spared. The lamb paid the price for them. Christ became our Passover lamb and through the institution of the Lord’s Supper made the connection quite clear. We no longer sacrifice a lamb because the lamb has been sacrificed for us. We no longer hold the Passover feast, but we do hold communion to signify the ultimate fulfillment of the ancient practice.
But no such correspondence is ever made between Baptism and circumcision. The one did not replace the other.
Even if one could demonstrate the correspondence exists, that baptism is the New Testament form of circumcision, that still does not mean baptism should be extended to circumcision. A simple way to demonstrate this is with the Lord’s Supper itself.
If communion replaces the Passover ritual (which I believe it does) we should at least recognize that communion is vastly different. Defenders of infant baptism try to force similarities between circumcision and baptism that they do not also try to force on communion and the Passover.
Children who do not profess faith are not given the elements at the Lord’s Supper. Children who were part of the covenant community of Israel did participate in the Passover. Some might extend the elements to children who have not professed faith, but such should not normally be found in a Presbyterian service where the table is open for those who are members in good standing of an evangelical church. Membership in a PCA church requires a profession of faith, so PCA churches limit participation of communion to those who profess faith even though the corresponding Old Testament practice included children.
Children who do not profess faith should not be baptized. Children who were born into the community of Israel were circumcised. Presbyterians will disagree with me on this point, but if we recognize that participation in the Lord’s Supper has changed, why can’t we recognize that participation in Baptism has also changed?
Paul,
Are you looking for “diffinitive works” from a baptistic or pedeo-baptistic perspective?
If the former, let me suggest the book that these articles are taken from. Let me also suggest Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, part 6, chapter 49.
Also, for more personal stories about becoming a Baptist, perhaps the best book on the topic is Why I am a Baptist .
I hope that helps,
Jesse
The book “Why I am a Baptist” in the last comment should have been hyperlinked here.
Thanks alot. Yes, I was looking for the “Baptistic” view. I will definitely look into Wayne Grudem. Thanks for the link.
The doctrine of paedobaptism appears to be a logical outworking of the Covenantal theological system. That’s why I find it inconsistent that Reformed Baptists want to be Covenantal in their theology, yet reject infant baptism.
First you must determine if the Covenantal system is true to Scripture (and the Westminster Confession approaches Scripture from a Covenantal position). If paedobaptism is not biblical, then this means that at least part of the Covenantal system is not biblical (notice I didn’t all).
To be part of the Abrahamic (after the flesh) and the Moseic covenants, one had to be circumcised. To be a part of the New Covenant, one has to be…baptised? No, one must be born again (John 3). If you have not been born again, you are not part of the body of Christ. You may be a church member, you may belong to a godly family, but you are not a Christian.
A common fallacy in the baptism debate, I believe, is that there is a need to choose between EITHER paedobaptism OR believer baptism. I have come to conclude that each is a TRADITION that is not contrary to Scripture. I’ve gone back and forth numerous times, finding each position lacking in arguments to sway me permanently.
The bible spells out circumcision exactly; a male, on the eighth day, in the foreskin. Not so with baptism. How old is the subject to be specifically? The bible doesn’t say. Sprinkling, pouring or immersing? The bible isn’t specific. I think God did this purposefully so that the numerous people groups that would be reached could develop their own traditions. I’m glad that Waymeyer had such trouble coming to the paedobaptist view even after hearing all the arguments. That’s what happened to me. I’m also glad for the same thing regarding the believer baptist view. That’s what happened to me.
I think it would help the church tremendously if each side put forth their way as tradition that is allowed by Scripture and simultaneously refrained from condemning the other side as unbiblical. That way we could accept each other and not be so sectarian.
Within the last 6 months or so, and more so recently, I’ve come to learn about a concern called “Decisional Regeneration” and how that could possibly, and unnecessarily, increase the number of false converts. Another related idea to that is “Baptismal Regeneration” which could happen at any age, but seems vastly more pronounced with faith traditions such as the RC’s, Eastern Orthodox, and the Presbyterians. In short, infant baptisms could lead to false believers because of their inherent belief that their baptism is sufficient evidence to show that they’ve been regenerated.
A case in point is the rapidly disintegrating denomination called The Episcopalian Church which is a province within the global Anglican Communion. The liberal revisionists keep citing with fanatic fervor that they are Christians because of the “Baptismal Covenant” which is either in they’re Prayer Book or their offical Canons. And they use that baptism wedge as full claim to any and all ecclesiastical offices. Any active GLBT’er who’s been baptized can be a warden, rector, suffragan bishop, and even a diocesan bishop.
That might not be the best example, but I’m trying to illustrate that there is some potential relationship between Infant Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration which leads to the problem of False Converts.
Naturally, I shall readily concede that CredoBaptism could also lead to False Converts too. But it’s more enhanced with Infant Baptism.
Also, what I’ve just argued is not really a Scriptural argument either, per se. Just a noting of some of the bad fruit that has arisen from Infant Baptism which leads many people to the belief in Baptismal Regeneration.
Lastly, I’ve read that infant baptism was used in previous centuries as part of a state church arrangement. And that there were benefits to the state to have as many citizens baptized as possible. Thus infant baptism was highly encouraged. Again, not a biblical argument.
And although I’m a Reform guy, I’m still interested in what the Early Church Fathers thought of infant baptism. My guess is that they supported it, but I don’t regard the Early Church Fathers as infallible. A number of them espoused heresies.
Steve Scott said:
“The Bible spells out circumcision exactly…not so with baptism. How old is the subject to be specifically? The bible doesn’t say.”
While the Bible does not give a specific age, the Bible is very specific with regard to an age-related prerequisite for baptism: belief.
One very specific example is the Ethiopian eunuch’s question about baptism and Philip’s response,
“Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” (Acts 8:36-37a NKJV)
This the reason for the term “believer’s baptism.” One must believe prior to being baptized. One must be of sufficient age to believe (which varies from person to person) thus excluding infants as candidates for baptism. The Bible is very clear on this issue, whether it be in the sequence of the Great Commission or in the examples of those being baptized in the New Testament (cf. Acts 8:12; 10:47; 16:14-15,40; 16:32-34; 18:8 and several others.)
To say that “God did this purposefully” (was inexact about requisites for baptism) seems to fail to consider all that God has revealed on the subject.
There is much ground for unity with paedobaptists who hold to a biblical understanding of the gospel. But baptism is an act of worship and God desires to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. The truth regarding the mode of baptism must be considered, and though it may seem harsh, the reality is that God is pleased when baptism is carried out in truth–the manner in which He prescribed it.
2 Samuel 6 is one of the strongest examples of God’s concern for methodology in all of Scripture. Transporting what was likely a very heavy Ark of the Covenant on an ox cart probably seemed like a good way to get it from point A to point B. But one of the things we learn from that episode is that methodology matters to God–He wants things done His way.
Grace and peace.
Jon Denney said:
“While the Bible does not give a specific age, the Bible is very specific with regard to an age-related prerequisite for baptism: belief.”
I disagree with this statement. Your example of the Ethiopian eunuch is a PERSONAL one. He was told, “if YOU believe, YOU may.” To apply his experience to all of humanity is a bit of a stretch, I believe.
As to “fail[ing] to consider all that God has revealed on the subject”, I’ve read and studied each side for over a decade, held to each position several times, changed positions several times, pretty much heard it all. Neither side is either conclusive in its own arguments, nor conclusive in dismissing the other side’s arguments.
Steve,
“Sprinkling, pouring or immersing? The bible isn’t specific.”
It is pretty specific. The word baptize is a transliteration of the Greek verb baptizo. It’s worth noting that the literal translation of baptizo is “to immerse”.
Here are some of the offered translations by the BDAG, the best Greek lexicon out there: “plunge, dip, wash, baptize”. Sprinkling and pouring don’t really accomplish this.
As for unity of faith, I believe we should be united even with certain doctrinal divisions. Baptism should not prevent Christians from having fellowship with one another. But I don’t think we should act as though one can decide for himself about baptism. I believe Scripture gives enough evidence about the requirements of baptism that each believer should make up his mind on the subject.
I do like what John Piper once tried to do at his church – admitting to membership individuals who were convinced that infant baptism is biblical. He said his goal was to have the doors of the church open as wide as the doors to the kingdom. In the end his church did not make that move but I think it would be good to see more churches go in that direction. That said, pastors should only be required to do what their conscience dictates. Piper would not, for instance, baptize infants.
R.C. Sproul teaches that Scripture interprets Scripture. Although he is on the side of infant baptism, which I disagree with, his statement couldn’t be more true.
In this care, scripture is more than clear that belief always preceeds baptism. It is very unclear, if not totally lacking, on support for infant baptism.
To say that God purposely is causing confusion on this so that different cultures can develop their own traditions is concerning. God’s word must be handled with precision, to learn the exact intent of it’s Author.
“I’ve read and studied each side for over a decade, held to each position several times, changed positions several times, pretty much heard it all. Neither side is either conclusive in its own arguments, nor conclusive in dismissing the other side’s arguments.”
Wow, so we should stop trying to get to the bottom of this because you don’t think there is one?
Wouldn’t it have been better to say “I’ve studied this and am still not sure what to believe, I guess I’d better I’ll study some more.”
The 2 camps on baptism contradict each other. Both can’t be right. Do we not have a responsibility to study until we have arrived at a suitable conclusion?
Mike & Daryl,
We’re talking about an ordinance here. Basic Christianity. “To say that God purposely is causing confusion on this so that different cultures can develop their own traditions is concerning.” I never said that God was causing confusion. Rather, I think it is man who is.
“Wouldn’t it have been better to say ‘I’ve studied this and am still not sure what to believe, I guess I’d better I’ll study some more.’”…”The 2 camps on baptism contradict each other. Both can’t be right. Do we not have a responsibility to study until we have arrived at a suitable conclusion?” Well, I have arrived at a suitable conclusion. People should be baptised in water. I will accept both views.
The Great Commission links baptism not to conversion, but to discipleship. It’s funny that credo-baptists adamantly refrain from having their children baptized, yet disciple them in every other conceivable way. Personally, I have three small unbaptized children only because I go to a baptistic church. If I ended up at the Presbyterian church down the road, I wouldn’t hesitate to have them baptized. I don’t see it as affecting my discipling of them.
Steve,
A collection of thoughts…
My children are not yet baptized, yet I am also attempting to disciple them. While I now know (as far as one can know) that they are among the elect, but until I heard a profession of faith from them (which I have, from 4 of the 5), I didn’t know that. I don’t see the irony in your statement “It’s funny that credo-baptists adamantly refrain from having their children baptized, yet disciple them in every other conceivable way.” No credo-baptist (I don’t think) would say that their children are Christian prior to them professing Christ. How could they?
So the big issue I have in your post is the line “People should be baptised in water.” No, Christians should be baptized in water. And we can’t call our kids Christians until we hear it from them.
Strictly speaking, I can teach them, bit I don’t believe that discipling can’t occur before a profession of faith.
Salvation is not guaranteed by virtue of physical descent and so I see it as both unscriptural and irresponsible to have them baptized as infants. (Not the only reason of course)
(Incidentally, I don’t think it’s up to me to have them baptized, but rather it’s the responsibility of the church to baptized them upon recieving a credible profession of faith. They are not baptized into my family, they are baptized into the visible body of Christ. I don’t see that being my decision.)
“bit I don’t believe that discipling can’t occur”
that should be “…but I don’t believe that discipling can occurr…”
The question I would have is, why reject infant baptism? The Bible commands baptism, yet makes no mention of any age limit.
Does your church let women take communion? Why or why not? The Bible doesn’t specifically allow this.
Are the children of believers holy, or are they like the unclean pagan?
Puritan Lad,
In my understanding the Bible says “Repent and be baptized”. Badies can’t repent. Women, of course, can. (Kinda feels funny to even write that last bit…:) )
Children of believers are not necessarily believers. I don’t see that the Bible ever says they are and, in fact, experience can confirm that not all children of believers actually believe.
I don’t see it as rejecting infant baptism, I see it as never even considering it in the first place because I don’t thin kthe Bible considers it either.
Jesus said : ” Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved , but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
How can a baby believe ? No reason to baptize a baby.
Peter commanded on the day of Pentecost , ” Repent and be baptized , every one of you , in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven. How can a baby repent ? What sin or sins have they committed ? They are born innocent. Jeus said they belong to the kingdom of heaven . Matt . 19 : 14 .
Ray B.,
There is a solid arguement against infant baptism, but that’s not it. The reason a baby can’t repent isn’t because they have no sin and so are innocent, it’s because they aren’t with it enough to be able to repent. (They can’t even talk…!)
Even babies are stained with sin, we’re condemned by Adam’s sin long before we do anything, what we do is simply live out our condemnation, just as a we, as believers, live out our salvation, not contribute to it.
Daryl ,
Everything I said is valid and very good arguments. Not only is the baby not able to verbally repent or confess any belief , there is not one law of God that any baby has broken .
Chris Roberts,
How pray tell does one immerse one’s finger in the palm of one’s hand full of blood? I ask this for the translators of the LXX used the verb that you have told us means to immerse. I say this as someone who sees immersion as the preferred method of baptism, but that your lexical argument does not settle the issue.
David
Still not giving up, eh Ray?
I caution you Daryl. Ray has already taken me and another brother to task on the doctrines of grace in two separate 200-comment threads here at Pulpit. He stays consistent and goes all the way back to deny original sin. Personally, I’d love to see if you can make any more headway than I did, but I thought you should be properly forewarned.
Ray B.
But that’s just it, there IS a law of God that every baby has broken. Every baby, like you and I, broke God’s law in the Garden, in Adam. And so they, like you and I, are born condemned already.
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are already sinners. From day one.
Ray B said: “How can a baby believe ? No reason to baptize a baby.” John the Baptist had no problem believing from his mother’s womb upon Mary’s prophesy. My point is that it’s not commanded to baptize infants, only not commanded to not baptize them.
It helps me to consider synergism and monergism and then determine if an act reflects one or the other.
Grateful for this series: very edifying. God is so good.
Thanks for the heads up Mike. I’ll take a pass…
There is not one verse that teaches about a baby inheriting sin from Adam . That only comes from an augustinian / calvinistic intrepretation. It is reading into any text to prove babies inherit sin. And yes I have been in this discussion in another conversation but not one passage was brought forth to prove the point except from a calvinistic viewpoint.
Ray B….you are correct on the first sentence. There is not one verse that teaches about a baby inheriting “sin” from Adam. Not one.
Sin “nature” being inherited, however, is taught throughout the Bible. In Adam, in sin, in the flesh, children of the night or darkness, children of Satan, vessels of wrath, etc….such words reflect the nature of those having a “void” of the Spirit and mind of Christ…from conception and brought forth at birth(like David Psalms 51:5…”in sin”, not because of personal sins of David or others) unless regenerated as the Lord wills. Those regenerated would be those in Christ, in righteousness, in the Spirit, children of the day or light, children of God, vessels of mercy, etc. If Augustine or Calvin or anyone else agreed/agrees or disagreed/disagrees ~ so be it. Follow only those that follow Jesus and what He says and means.
The plumb of absolute truth is the Word of God by which commentary words of Augustine and Calvin…or me and everyone…must be measured. The onus is on the person that believes in a neutral nature or delayed sin nature either or both activated at some age of accountability and/or by sin to prove it from Scripture ~ if that is what you believe, Ray ~ though I’m not looking for you to be able to do so.
Joyce,
Thank you for your post. I have in other discussions mentioned that the verse from David in Psalm 51 is not a universal statement. He is lamenting his own sin. If he had used the plural , actually the Holy Spirit had inspired David to write , us , we or we all , etc. then ok. But he is only commenting about his own sins. He was saying because of the sins he had committed that surely he was a sinner from birth. Not all babies . They belong to the kingdom of heaven .
What sin did David commit before he was born, Ray?
Mike ,
The point is , did David write a universal truth ? No. He did not sin before birth , he was lamenting his sins as an adult. But again where is the universal , everybody is born a sinner , everyone inherits sin , found in the verse ? It is not.
The following is from here, which is a reasonable discussion of infant’s and children’s standing before God.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/age_of_accountability.html
In discussing who would get into the Promised Land, the verses quoted below make it clear that only those under the age of 20 years would get in, because they did not know right from wrong. God, therefore, did not hold them accountable. Those
20 years and older were held accountable. God is speaking here. He declares that those under age 20 did not know right from wrong. May we presume by implication that God is saying that those age 20 and over either did know or should have known right from wrong? This distinction is based on age, not on regenerate vs. not regenerate.
Numbers 14:22-29; Numbers 32:11 kjv
22Because all those men which … have not hearkened to my voice; … 23Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers … 29Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward which have murmured against me. … 11Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me …
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither [those younger than age 20], and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
The subjects are getting quite complicated. I think we need to keep infant baptism and infant salvation separate because there is NO link there. Just as their is NO link between our salvation and baptism in terms on justification.
I think we can all agree that all babies are born as sinners (Rm. 5:1-19), and not “good”.
Election , not baptism, is the key in this. All babies are saved, just as any of us were saved, by grace. The “innocent” child is not innocent in terms of his nature, and therefore requires an act of justification initiated by God.
Regardless of baptism “Every infant or child who dies before reaching a condition of moral culpability goes instantly to heaven at death” – John MacArthur, “Safe in the Arms of God” — Good book for clarity.
The argument, “you cannot show me one verse that says that babies are sinners” is a very weak argument. I have never been shown a verse that says that babies are without sin. In fact, when the Bible says that ALL are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, that means that by default, NO HUMAN BEING is without sin. There is not one human being on this earth that can claim to have been sinless at one time. If we say that we (or someone else for that matter) are without sin, we have made God a liar. A key verse for this discussion is Romans 9:10-13
:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;
:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
God had rejected Esau even before he was born and “had done either good or evil.” Would God in His justice have rejected a perfectly sinless person? Not only did God reject Esau before he was born, the verse says that He HATED Esau before he was born. Esau did not have a sinless nature, and obviously, Jacob didn’t either. The argument that babies are sinless because God repeatedly calls them innocent does not stand up against verses like this. Obviously, Esau was not innocent or God would not have hated Him. This hate was not based on anything that Esau had physically done, hence the words “before they were born and had done neither good nor evil.” It was based on God’s purpose of election, or in the words of the verse, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” This choosing and rejecting was not based on works good or evil, it was based on God’s purpose according to election and nothing else.
I agree with the quote about any baby or child that dies going instantly to heaven. They are innocent. As another post has pointed out from scripture, the babies and children not knowing good from evil. Innocent , not inheriting sin.
Ray,
Innocent does not mean that they do not inherit a sin nature. In fact, innocent does not even mean that they are not guilty. Look at this verse Psa 106:38 “And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.” By innocent, this verse is saying that these children were undeserving of such inhumane treatment, according to Gill’s commentary. You have no biblical support for your view that babies are sinless. As I have already shown you, if babies are sinless, they cannot go to heaven. 1) Only one who is saved has the ability to go to heaven. 2) Christ’s death is the only way to salvation. 3) Christ only died for sinners. These three biblical truths prove your view to be false. If point one is true, then if a baby goes to heaven, then that baby must be saved. If point two is also true, then that baby must have been saved through Christ’s death. If point three is also true, then that baby must have been a sinner. There is no way around this. The fact is, if you are not a sinner, then Christ did not die for you. Therefore, since Christ did not die for you, you cannot be saved, since salvation is only through Christ’s death. Therefore, since you cannot be saved, you cannot go to heaven. If you are not a sinner, then you cannot go to heaven.
Daniel,
Just to play devil’s advocate…what do you do with “Do this and you shall live”
Mike ,
The point is , did David write a universal truth ? No. He did not sin before birth , he was lamenting his sins as an adult. But again where is the universal , everybody is born a sinner , everyone inherits sin , found in the verse ? It is not.
No… the point is David said he was sinful from birth. If you want to assert that this is an extraordinary case and applied only to him, you have to show why his statement is outstanding. If David’s saying that he was sinful in his mother’s womb applies only to him, what sin did David commit in his mother’s womb that sets him apart from other people who weren’t sinful from their mother’s womb.
Don’t avoid the issue. Deal with the text.
Btw, I added my last name because I’ve noticed at least two other Mikes recently. I was formerly “Mike” with no hyperlink. Daniel, it was you and I who’ve been talking with Ray about this for a while. Just wanted to be clear.
Christ died for sinners. Yet babies are not sinners. Jesus said they belong to the kingdom of heaven. They are innocent until they have particiapted in sin. All have sinned is written to those who could comprehend sin. They are the ones who have sinned , they are those included in all have sinned. Not the sinless babies who have not sinned.
Ray B.
So…”there is no one righteous, no not one” doesn’t mean no one, it only means “of all those within the sound of my voice who understand what I just said, of that group no one is righteous”
So, hypothetically, anyone who doesn’t realize that what they’ve done/are is sinful gets a free pass?So theoretically at least, someone could get to heaven without Jesus, if they started out perfect, theoretically they could grow up and die perfect. (It doesn’t require that it’s ever happened, only that, in theory, it could)
So, the child who says “no” without quite understanding that God says “obey your parents” is OK?
Just trying to make sense of your arguement.
Also this…
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
Notice he doesn’t say that ‘all will sin’ but that “all sinned”. So death has come to all those not yet alive because they too sinned in Adam.
See the trouble is, if you read it as something other than “all sinned in Adam” you have to read it as ’sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all the men who committed a sin at the same time that Adam committed his sin because all who were alive and sinned when Adam sinned, sinned’.
You have to do that because, there were no other people alive when Adam sinned so death could not’ve come to all men, ’cause there weren’t any.
To fit your unorthodox (unChristian) ideas, Paul would have to have said ‘all men would sin’ or ‘will sin’ or some other such thing.
It is clear, all sinned. Past tense. We all sinned back then, through Adam.
One last point. If Adam’s sin didn’t make you sinful (that is, if his sin isn’t creditted to you) then Jesus’ death can’t save you. Paul is clear in Romans 5 that the two must go hand in hand.
Romans 5:18-19
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
See, he doesn’t say that through one transgression the possiblity of condemnation came to all men, he said, through one transgression condemnation actually came to all men. (There’s the condemned at birth verse you were asking for). And likewise Paul makes a direct connection between Adam’s sin and Christ’s gift. That is, the only way that Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to you is because Adam’s sin was also first imputed to you.
So…Ray, if Adam’s sin didn’t condemn you, then neither does Christ’s death and resurrection save you. You can’t have it both ways because Paul argues Christ’s imputed righteousness on the basis of Adam’s imputed condemnation.
Clear?
Jesus’ death doesn’t save him, Daryl. His faith does. Then his faith activates Jesus’ death.
It’s actually quite comforting to read your last comment, because they’re the same arguments I made earlier on. It’s refreshing that you could be unaware of those comments, deal only with the text (e.g., past tense sinned, not will sin), and come up with the same result.
“Jesus’ death doesn’t save him, Daryl. His faith does. Then his faith activates Jesus’ death.”
Sounds like the Transformers or something. Bizarre.
You’d think Jesus would get tired of his death being re-activated so many times. Does that mean salvation kinda works like sourdough bread does? Just keep a little bit for later so you can re-activate it when you’ve temporarily lost your salvation.
Let him rest on that throne in peace already!!!
Christ has died for all those who have participated or will participate in sin. Not for those who have not sinned . Again, the babies have not sinned. But has died for those who are old enough to understand sin. Romans 5 speaks to those who understand about sin , death , the cross , righteousness , grace and all the themes in the chapter. A baby cannot. Once , again , they belong to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said it , not anyone else.
“Romans 5 speaks to those who understand about sin , death , the cross , righteousness , grace and all the themes in the chapter.”
I’ve documented my case and you’ve not responded to it, but I’m a generous guy, I’m sure you’ve carefully documented this, so fill me in, on what basis do you say it?
Christ has died for all those who have participated or will participate in sin. Not for those who have not sinned . Again, the babies have not sinned.
LoL!
So… when people are babies, Christ didn’t die for them. Once they are no longer babies (an arbitrary distinction, btw), THEN Christ died for them.
You have Christ not dying for and then dying for the same people… just later on in their lives.
What’s that verse about not crucifying again the Son of God and putting Him to open shame?
Ray,
You said, “Christ died for sinners. Yet babies are not sinners.”
So you believe that babies cannot be saved and go to heaven?
You also said, “Jesus said they belong to the kingdom of heaven. They are innocent until they have particiapted in sin.”
These two statements are not connected in any way. I belong to the kingdom of heaven, but does that mean that I am without sin?
You also said, “All have sinned is written to those who could comprehend sin. They are the ones who have sinned , they are those included in all have sinned. Not the sinless babies who have not sinned.”
The audience of this verse is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who this verse was written TO, because it was written ABOUT everyone. The verse tells us who is included in all have sinned. AAAALLLLL. Even babies are included in ALL. If they are humans, then this verse is talking about them, because it says ALL. There are no sinless babies, because this verse says that ALL have sinned. It doesn’t say most have sinned, or all adults have sinned. It says ALL have sinned. There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE! Not even one baby.
Ray,
You said, “Christ has died for all those who have participated or will participate in sin. Not for those who have not sinned .”
There is absolutely no one in the category of those who have not sinned.
Also, whether they belong to the kingdom of heaven or not is irrelevant. One can belong to the kingdom of heaven and still be a sinner.
Mike,
You said, “Jesus’ death doesn’t save him, Daryl. His faith does. Then his faith activates Jesus’ death.”
So are you saying that Christ’s work wasn’t finished at the cross, but instead, was only begun? In that case, shouldn’t Christ, when dying on the cross, have said, “IT IS BEGUN”?
Daryl,
You asked, “what do you do with “Do this and you shall live”
I don’t do anything with it. I leave it as it is. If we repent and believe in Christ, we shall live. That verse does not say anything about who can repent, who will repent, or what must happen before one can repent. The explicit teaching is that if we repent, we will live. Far too many people draw inferences from verses like this, and end up saying that they teach that anyone can do this. However, this is not explicit teaching, and is denied by explicit teaching elsewhere.
Daniel,
I’m afraid you’re misunderstanding. The quotes you pulled from Mike & I were intended for, and directed at Ray B.
That statement from Mike is a description of Ray B. believes, not Mike. And my question was one for Ray B. to answer given his belief system, not a question I am grappling with.
(No worries, but next time…read all the comments to get a feel for the conversation…
)
Yeah… I was just being facetious Daniel. I appreciate the check though. I would definitely want you to call me on something like that.
Daryl and Mike,
I figured that your statements were directed at Ray B., as were my responses. Just making sure
No worries.
At what point or time did the baies participate in sin ? It says all have sinned. Meaning an active participation sin. Nothing is in the verse to teach anything about inheriting sin. But if I follow the logic of Calvinism that all have sinned meaning inherited sin , then no worry for the same chapter of Romans 5 teaches all will be saved , verse 18. The logic of Calvinism then collapes because how can there be the perticular election of some and condemnation of others if all have sinned and then all will be saved ? Rather confusing. If all have sinned , then by all means baptize the babies , because they are lost. But then how can they believe , confess and understand being buried with Jesus and being raised with Him ? Very confusing.
If all have sinned , then by all means baptize the babies , because they are lost.
So baptism saves people?
Realize that this is exactly the opposite of why paedobaptists baptize infants. It’s exactly why Catholics baptize infants. I guess it never dawned on me before, but most of what you say, Ray, is more consistent with catholicism than evangelicalism. Are you a Catholic?
You keep jumping around. Every time one of us makes a point, you don’t respond to the point… you just jump to another empty argument. This only demonstrates that your reasoning collapses each time.
I’ve offered to explain to you exegetically why the “all” in all have sinned refers to all people, and yet why the “all” in all will be saved refers only to the elect. But you have refused to participate actively and honestly in those conversations too. Why don’t you just give it up and admit you’re out for a quarrel? You’re not convincing anyone, as anyone with a half a brain recognizes that you’re advocating Pelagian heresy. So what is it you hope to gain by being so dishonest in your interactions with us?
I had hoped in this blog to have some honest discussion but every time I give a position in opposition to what some say , there is either criticism ,scarcasm or insults. And I told I am not being honest or my logic is flawed, etc. That is ok though. I have only wanted to discuss these matters. I am not trying to be argumentative just to argue, but to give another side or to ask questions. I am not questioning anyone else in their motives.
Ray B.
Simple question…where does Paul indicate that “all have sinned” only refers to those of a certain age/mental capacity.
Where are sinners defined in that way?
Yeah, but then when we give you responses to your arguments, you don’t deal with them. You haven’t explained what David’s extraordinary sin was to make Ps 51:5 refer only to him. You haven’t talked about why all have sinned means only those who could understand in Romans 3. And on the other thread, when I’ve tried to instruct you about the difference in “all” in the Romans 5 passage, you jump ship and tell me you don’t follow the statements I’m making.
You ask for Scripture, but you don’t want it. You have this idea that there are no consequences for words, arguments, and ideas. If the Bible says that sin entered the world through Adam, we have to ask what that means. What implications does that have for reality? What does it say about humanity? You refuse to answer any of those questions. When Romans 5 says that ALL have sinnED, you don’t deal with the fact that all means everyone — that there’s no disclaimer that says (only those who can understand this) — and that “have sinned” is past tense, the Gk aorist referring to a single point in time.
When we present you with these things, we get no response. You just move on to a different unfounded and empty objection. That’s called dishonesty. It’s called not dealing with the consequences of ideas. Either refute what we are saying, concede that you were wrong and we were right. Don’t just abandon ship and then tell us we haven’t met the burden of proof.
Ray,
You said, “Rather confusing. If all have sinned , then by all means baptize the babies , because they are lost. But then how can they believe , confess and understand being buried with Jesus and being raised with Him ?”
This is only confusing to you because you are presupposing that salvation is up to man. Babies cannot believe, confess, or understand. Do you know what this means? It means that if a baby is saved, it is saved not based on their acceptance of Christ, but on Christ’s choosing of them in spite of their sin nature. If you would not come to this problem with a presupposition, you would easily see what is going on.
You said, “At what point or time did the baies participate in sin ? It says all have sinned. Meaning an active participation sin.”
It does not mean active participation in sin. The verse says, “for all have sinned.” This verse is including all people past, present, and future, yet it uses the word sinned in the past tense. This can only mean that they participated in Adam’s sin (not physically), as is stated in other verses such as “in Adam all sinned” (again past tense).
I have answered. I read back through my posts and did answer questions, so to accuse me of being dishonest is wrong.
Ray B.,
Making unsupported assertions, and discrediting others arguements with further unsupported assertion is no answering, at least not honestly.
Go back through, address the arguements with arguements, point by point as to why the arguements we’ve given are unscriptural…then we’ll listen.
Until then your arguements amount to “did not…did too…did not…did too”
Daryl
I have. You just do not agree. I have been very honest.
In response to the Psalm 51 passage I said it is not a universal statement. It is not . That is my honest answer. About Romans 5 I have said it is participation in sin and not inherited sin. That is my honest answer. I have said Jesus said that the children belong to the knigdom of heaven. He said that, I did not. Therefore my conclusion is that they are innocent. That is my honest answer. If the all in Romans 5 , verse 12 means inherited sin , then the all in verse 18 means all are saved if you are going to use all in vesrs 12 to mean universal for all time , then use it also in verse 18 to mean universal as well , to be consistent. I can accept the elect being those in verse 18, the corporate elect chosen before the foundation of the world , those who obey being those who are chosen to be the elect before the foundation of the world. But there is not consistency when you make one to be universal but the other the unconditional elect and the rest the arbitarily chosen to be damned including certain babies. That is my honest answer. You may not agree. Fine. But to say I am dishonest is very wrong . And the responses to me have been did to , did not , etc. Not all my questions have been answered but I have not slandered anyone .And I am a Christian , a follower of Jesus Christ , a disciple of Jesus and believe in the total inerrancy and sufficiency of the word. I am neither Protestant or Catholic. Or Calvinist or Armenian. To God goes all the praise . We must submit to Him and His will And from my own indidviual study of the word it is a free choice.
Ray,
You said, “In response to the Psalm 51 passage I said it is not a universal statement. It is not . That is my honest answer.”
This response epidemises what I have said concerning your responses. You have not explained why you believe that it is not a universal statement. In that verse, what would lead you to believe that David is the only human that was born in sin?
You said, “About Romans 5 I have said it is participation in sin and not inherited sin. That is my honest answer.”
Again, the verse says that all have sinned. The fact that “sinned” is in the past tense denies the possibility of interpreting it the way you do. You have given no reply as to why the word “sinned” is in the past tense.
You said, “I have said Jesus said that the children belong to the knigdom of heaven. He said that, I did not. Therefore my conclusion is that they are innocent. That is my honest answer.”
I do not see the connection between belonging to the kingdom of heaven and being innocent. For instance, I belong to the kingdom of heaven, yet I am by no means innocent. (By saying this, I am not admitting that Jesus was actually saying that children belong to the kingdom of heaven, I am saying that even if that was what He was saying it does not prove that children are innocent.)
You said, “If the all in Romans 5 , verse 12 means inherited sin , then the all in verse 18 means all are saved if you are going to use all in vesrs 12 to mean universal for all time , then use it also in verse 18 to mean universal as well , to be consistent.”
This passage in Romans 5 is teaching the doctrine of imputation. It says that since one man sinned, judgement came upon all men. It then says that in the same way that judgement came upon all men, so also (in the same way, meaning by imputation) the free gift came upon all men. The means that Christ used to impute His righteousness to us is the same means by which we inherited a sin nature through Adam. That means that if we did not inherit a sin nature, then we also cannot obtain Christ’s nature, since they were imputed the same way. By denying that we are born with a sin nature, you are also denying that we can have Christ’s nature. Notice also that the free gift is what came to all men in verse 18, then in verse 19 righteousness came upon MANY (not all). “All” have been offered the free gift of salvation, but “many” shall be made righteous. This definition of all, therefore, does not require that “all” will be saved, but it does require that the free gift has been offered to all (this, however, does not say who is able to accept it). Also, only “many” will be made righteous. Not “all” will be made righteous. Here is what Matthew Henry said:
“There is a free gift come upon all men, that is, it is made and offered promiscuously to all. The salvation wrought is a common salvation; the proposals are general, the tender free; whoever will may come, and take of these waters of life. This free gift is to all believers, upon their believing, unto justification of life. It is not only a justification that frees from death, but that entitles to life.”
You said, “I can accept the elect being those in verse 18, the corporate elect chosen before the foundation of the world , those who obey being those who are chosen to be the elect before the foundation of the world. But there is not consistency when you make one to be universal but the other the unconditional elect and the rest the arbitarily chosen to be damned including certain babies. That is my honest answer.”
I have already explained to you the ridiculousness of saying that those who obey are those who are the elect. It is those who are the elect who obey. The election came first, so it should be put first in the order. Election is not determined by whether or not we obey. It is the other way around. Whether or not we are the elect determines whether or not we will obey. You have not responded to my analogy of the game in which I choose some to be on my team. I will restate that analogy here, so that you can respond to it, and refute it if necessary.
I am playing a game. To start this game, I choose, out of a crowd of people, some of them to be on my team. Without telling anyone who I picked, I write their names down on a piece of paper. When it comes time to divide the teams, all those whose names I wrote down come over to my side. To say that we become the elect when we accept Christ would be like saying, in my analogy, that those who came over to my side became the ones I had chosen when they chose to come over to my side. They did not become the chosen (the elect in biblical terms) when they came over to my side. They had already been chosen. In that way, the act of choosing was not conditional upon whether they would come to my side, because that fact (who would come to my side) was decided when I wrote down their names, or elected them so to speak. Do you see the error in the belief that we “become” the elect upon our acceptance of Christ? That is denying the very essance of what it means to be elected.
Ya know.. I just noticed something…
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
None of us have addressed this latest fallacy… but Jesus in this passage does NOT say that children belong to the kingdom of heaven. First of all, it says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, not the other way around.
But secondly, and most importantly, Jesus does not say that the kingdom belongs to children. He says that the kingdom belongs to those who are like these children in some way. So children are not de facto Christians because of this statement. That dismisses any notion of Jesus saying children are innocent.
So then we must ask ourselves (see… the implications of ideas), what does Jesus mean when He says “such as these.” Well, I submit that it’s the idea of a childlike reliance upon One other than oneself. It’s an acknowledgment of insufficiency of self and the sufficiency of our Father. And not only the sufficiency, but the pleasantness and beauty of our Father, as is demonstrated by the children’s desire to come to Christ.
The passage says that the children were brought so that Jesus might lay hands on them and pray over them. In that text there is implicitly the notion that these children were aware of the fact that something was wrong with them (physical or spiritual) and believed that whatever they were missing, Jesus had. And nothing in themselves hindered them from coming to Jesus and believing that He had the resources to give them what they needed. That is childlike, saving faith. The kingdom of heaven belongs to people of all ages with faith like that (such as these).
Like ducks in a barrel…
One more thing…
The parallel passages in Mark and Luke both record a following statement from Jesus that further supports what I just said there and refutes Ray’s interpretation of the Matthew passage. They’re identical in both accounts, so I’ll only write one.
“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
Concerning ” The kingdom belongs to such as these… and saying even Christians are in the kingdom…exactly..you have to be born again to enter the kingdom..you have to be innocent in the sense of being coverd by the blood , for all who have participated in sin. When it comes to the babies , who are included in such as these…they are innocent but have not participated in sin. Psalm 51.. I have already posted that the word “us” or “we” is not in the text , therefore it is not a universal , all are guilty via inheritance from Adam verse. Paul mentions a time of innocence for his life before he knew the law in Romans 7 : 7 – 12 . In verses 7 – 24 Paul writes about the struggle of anyone trying to be saved by the law. Those with the ability to understand the law. Then the good news of verse 25 .
you have to be born again to enter the kingdom..you have to be innocent in the sense of being coverd by the blood , for all who have participated in sin.
1. Do babies have to be born again to enter the kingdom?
2. Do 5 year olds have to be born again to enter the kingdom?
3. Do 10 year olds have to be born again to enter the kingdom?
Psalm 51.. I have already posted that the word “us” or “we” is not in the text , therefore it is not a universal
That’s a start. So then I ask you: What was David’s sin from his mother’s womb? I ask you to answer especially in the light of Psalm 58:3: “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.”
Paul mentions a time of innocence for his life before he knew the law in Romans 7 : 7 – 12.
This is patently false. Paul is not advocating that one is innocent before one knows the law. Ignorance is not the same as innocence. This is just being unfaithful to the rest of the Bible — even the rest of Paul! If you make the assertion you make here, it’s of logical necessity that you commit to the fact that those who haven’t heard the law are innocent before God.
In verses 7 – 24 Paul writes about the struggle of anyone trying to be saved by the law. Those with the ability to understand the law. Then the good news of verse 25.
Paul is writing about the struggle of a mature Christian believer who struggles with the fact that his inner man has been renewed, but whose flesh is still carnal and a slave to its human nature. He’s not writing about a pre-Christian experience, as evidenced by the overwhelming use of personal pronouns (I and me) and present tense verbs. Not one verb in vv. 14-23 is in any other tense than the present. The one verb in the entire passage (vv. 14-25) that’s not in the present isn’t even in the past (i.e., looking back to when Paul was an unbeliever), it’s in the future! It’s looking forward to GLORIFICATION, not JUSTIFICATION.
Don’t forget to answer my questions above.
Ray,
My point was that “innocent” does not carry with it the fact that one does not have a sin nature. Notice the verse does not say that these belong to the kingdom of heaven. It does not even say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to these. It says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to SUCH AS these. Christians are in heaven because they are SUCH AS these in the sense that they have a childlike faith. The passage is speaking of humility.
You said, “exactly..you have to be born again to enter the kingdom..you have to be innocent in the sense of being coverd by the blood”
You have already admitted that Christ did not die for a baby that dies. If this is true, then they CANNOT be covered by the blood, because the blood was not for them.
You said, “Paul mentions a time of innocence for his life before he knew the law”
The text never says that Paul was innocent. You have accused me of adding my words to the scripture, but you have added quite a few. Paul does not mention a time in his life in which he was innocent. In this passage, Paul is describing his own attempt to keep the law, and shows his inadequacy. In the Pilgrims Progress, this passage of scripture was the one used by Bunyan to describe mount Sinai. Mr. Worldly Wiseman had sent Pilgrim to the city of morality with the hopes that by keeping the law (going to see legality and civility) he would be able to get rid of his burden. On his way there, he approaches a certain high hill that he fears will fall and crush him, and suddenly the burden becomes heavier. This passage in the Pilgrim’s Progress was based on that very passage in Romans. Paul was showing in that passage that the works of the law are not sufficient to save a man. He was by no means showing that he was innocent at one time.
Mike ,
I posted a legthy response and then forgot to hit submit. So here is a brief response due to time constraint and nothing else.
No to all three questions. Children are included in the such as these. And the context is Matt. 19 not Matt. 18 , and it, 18 , does speak about humility.
Psalm 51- David did not sin from birth but lamented his own sin. But whatever interpretation you put to the passage, I was saying, it is not a universal statement that says all inherit sin.
Paul is not writing about a mature Christian in chapter 7 but the struggle of anyone trying to live under the law. In chapter 7 he writes about being unspiritual , sold as slave to sin, nothing good lives in me , sin living in me, cannot do good. The Chrisatian is no longer obligated to the flesh but by the Spirit puts to death the misdeeds of the body, Chapter 8 : 12 and 13. The Father, His Son and the Holy Spiirit all live within us. Believers , no longer give our bodies as instruments of wickedness but as instruments of righteousness. Tempted, yes. Do Chritians sin ?Yes , and then we confess , walk in the light and the blood of Jesus continues cleanse. But Paul is writng in Romans 7 about the futility of anyone trying to be saved or live under the law. It , the law , has no power to save and sanctify.
Psalm 58 : 3. Hebrew poetry. An imprecatory psalm where David is asking for God to make the wicked to vanish. In verse 10 he writes about how the righteous will be glad when they are avenged. If you take verse 3 to be a statement about all being born sinners and totally depraved then in light of verse 10 then some are born righteous and continue totally good since there is a contrast.
Daniel ,
Here is what I meant , those who have participated , engaged in sin must be born again , covered by the blood to enter the kingdom of heaven. Babies do not , they are innocent, never having sinned . Jesus said they belong to the kingdom , they are included in such as these. When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus about being born again , He was teaching someone who had participated in sin , but had not inherited sin.
Ray,
So do you believe that babies do not have to be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven? Just answer yes or no.
Ray,
Don’t have time now, but let me let you in on a little something.
Here’s how discussion doesn’t work:
Side A makes a point.
Side B makes a point.
Side A makes a point.
Side B makes a point.
Et cetera.
It’s supposed to work like this:
Side A makes a point.
Side B disagrees with Side A’s point and engages with Side A’s point, explaining why it’s not valid. THEN Side B offers an alternative explanation.
Side A demonstrates why Side B’s critique of Side A’s point is not valid and/or disagrees with Side B’s alternative explanation and engages with Side B’s alternative explanation, explaining why it’s not valid.
Here’s something (form Side B) that is invalid in discussion/debate/argumentation.
Side A: “I think red is the best color. It’s the color of passion. It evokes emotion. It catches your eye.”
Side B: “Red is not the best color. Blue is the best color. Blue a cool color, the color of sublimity. It makes you calm.”
The appropriate response from Side B would be:
“I don’t think red is the best color. Although it’s the color of passion and emotions, passion and emotions aren’t all that great of things. It gets you all riled up and restless. Blue is the best color. Blue a cool color, the color of sublimity. It makes you calm.”
That’s what I mean about arguing honestly. You can’t just talk past people. You have to engage what they’re saying. If I say that Paul’s writing about a mature believer who still struggles with sin (because in his FLESH dwells no good thing, not in HIM dwells no good thing) because of all the present tense verbs, it’s dishonest for you to ignore that point and make another point. You have to first explain why all the present tense verbs are there and yet it’s speaking about past events. Or, as will be much more fruitful, you’ll admit that that’s a point that is outside your scheme, you can’t explain it, and that if we’re going to follow orthodox hermeneutics (grammatical-historical), Paul must be talking about a mature believer.
Study this before discussion continues.
Daniel ,
Read my last post.
Ray,
Come on Ray. You don’t really believe that, do you? I am giving you a chance to tell me that that is not really what you meant. If you did not mean to say that babies do not have to be born again, then say no. If that is what you meant, then say yes.
Daniel,
He not only believes that babies don’t have to be born again… he believes that 10 year olds don’t have to be born again.
Ray, at what age do we have to become born again?
But then, of course Jesus said: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
I have biblically answered your questions. I have already had some comments not allowed because of repetition.
I have posted with a biblical explantion about Psalm 51 , Psalm 58, Romans 7 , Romans 5 , and about being born again.
Without exception. , every time I have a long post it gets moderated and at times has interferred with the flow of the discussion.
Ray,
I am not asking you to respond with a long post. All I am asking you to do is to say yes, that is what I believe, or no, that is not what I believe.
Ray,
Notice in the verse that Mike quoted (Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God) it does not say “unless one is born again, or is sinless, he cannot see the kingdom of God. There is no possible way to enter the kingdom of heaven than to be born again.
All I know is what Jesus said in Matt. 19, he said the children belong to the kingdom of heaven. He knew they had not sinned . Those who must be born again are those who have sinned.Most children will eventually sin because they live in a world where sin is so dominate. Those who die are automatically saved. They belong to the kingdom of heaven. Anyone who sins must be born again to be saved . If a baby must be born again then at what point ? Do they need to at conception ? You would think so if you believe all babies inherit sin even at the moment of conception. Then that is why some advocate infant baptism. But baptism is for those who have sinned and then can believe and repent , Mark 16 : 16 , Acts 2 : 38 . Baptism is essential for salvation , again Mark 16 ;16 and I Peter 3 : 21. Babies are saved because Jesus said they were and they have not participated in sin. And baptism is not a work of merit. It is a response of obedeint faith to the finished work of Jesus on the cross.
Ray,
At this point, I have not even read the rest of your post, but I had to respond to these comments: “Those who must be born again are those who have sinned.”
Christ says that unless someone is born again, they will not enter the kingdom of God. Christ did not give any exeptions. Nowhere did He say, “if you are sinless then you do not have to be born again.” In fact, He never said that there even was anyone who was sinless. You already admitted to me (in another discussion) that the only way to go to heaven is to be saved.
You said, “All I know is what Jesus said in Matt. 19, he said the children belong to the kingdom of heaven.”
Here is the verse from Matt. 19 in several different translations.
Contemporary English Version: But Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and don’t try to stop them! People who are like these children belong to God’s kingdom.”
Good News Bible: Jesus said, “Let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
International Standard Version: Jesus, however, said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away. For the kingdom of heaven belongs to people like these.”
Gills commentary says this: “for of such is the kingdom of heaven; that is, as the Syriac renders it, “who are as these” or as the Persic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders it, “who have been humble as these little children”: and it is as if our Lord should say, do not drive away these children from my person and presence; they are lively emblems of the proper subjects of a Gospel church state, and of such that shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: by these I may instruct and point out to you, what converted persons should be, who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above; that they are, or ought to be, like such children, harmless and inoffensive; free from rancour and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority.”
Now I got to this quote: “Most children will eventually sin because they live in a world where sin is so dominate.”
MOST CHILDREN WILL EVENTUALLY SIN??? What do you mean most? How about ALL!
You said, “If a baby must be born again then at what point ?”
You forget, God is the one that chooses man. God can save an infant even though that infant has not repented, but the infant must still be born again. The point is, if an infant is born again, then salvation is ALL of God.
You said, “Baptism is essential for salvation”
Here are the two verses you cited.
Mar 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” If baptism is essential to salvation, then why isn’t it mentioned every single time the way of salvation is presented? Am I to assume that you are saying that one cannot be saved until he is baptized?
Notice it says “he that believeth not shall be damned.” It does not say “he that is baptized not shall be damned.”
I agree with your analysis of baptism, “baptism is not a work of merit. It is a response of obedeint faith to the finished work of Jesus on the cross.” That, however, is about all I agree with from your post.
Daniel ,
Jesus did say he who believes and is baptized will be saved. It is there. If a person does not believe then they would never obey the gospel in being immersed for the forgiveness of sins. And yes , you must be baptized to be saved. It is what Jesus said . Peter wrote that it saves by the resurrection of Jesus in I Peter3 : 21. Baptism does now save you.
No matter how many translations you give me, the children are included in those who belong to the kingdom.
Some babies will die , therefore they will never sin .
When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus , He was speaking to a man who had sinned , not a baby and about innocent babies. No reason for a baby to be born again . There is no sin with them.
Ray,
You said, “No matter how many translations you give me, the children are included in those who belong to the kingdom.”
Ray, please respond to the argument that I gave you. The verse does not say that children belong to the kingdom of heaven; it says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Since the context of this verse is humility, it is obvious that Christ was saying that unless His disciples humble themselves as a little child, they will not see the kingdom of heaven. Christ is saying that little children are humble, but He never said that they were sinless.
You said, “Baptism does now save you.”
You said earlier that “baptism is not a work of merit. It is a response of obedeint faith to the finished work of Jesus on the cross.” That would make it a work of merit. If something that we do, whether an act of obedience or an act of rebellion, can obtain salvation for us, then salvation is of works. If we can obtain salvation by being baptized, then salvation is of baptism rather than of God’s grace. Nothing that we can do can earn our salvation. Not baptism or anything else. Christ did not say that repentance plus baptism saves you. He never ever said that anything apart from His work on the cross could save you.
You said, “Peter wrote that it saves by the resurrection of Jesus in 1Pe 3:21
Here is 1 Peter 3:21. “The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
This very same verse that you believe says that baptism saves us, actually says the very opposite. It says, in different words, “baptism now saves us, NOT IN THE SENSE OF PUTTING AWAY THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, but as a profession to God.” Peter even says that baptism does not save us in the ultimate sense of the word “salvation” but rather in the sense of a profession. The word “save” has many different meanings in the Bible. You cannot interpret that word in the full spiritual sense of the word “salvation” every time the word occurs. Let’s look at some examples. “A woman is saved in childbearing.” Should we interpret this verse to mean that salvation can be obtained by having a child? No, absolutely not. We should look at the verse in first Peter the same way, especially since he even explains what he means by “saves.”
You said, “When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus , He was speaking to a man who had sinned.”
That is true, but it is irrelevant whom He was speaking TO, because He was speaking ABOUT everyone. Unless a man is born again, he will not see the kingdom of heaven. He was not simply speaking ABOUT Nicodemus; He was speaking TO him ABOUT everyone. We could turn the verse around, and it would mean the same thing. “No man will see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” You cannot say that this criterion excludes infants.
Ray,
Trust me, babies sin. When my daughter puts her son in bed and he cries for her to pick him up but nothing is wrong, he is lying. He is saying, I am not ok, but he is. His nature is deception. When he plays with his sister, snatches a toy out of her hand, he is sinning. He is performing his nature. I could go on and on. Just sit in a nursery for a while.
Ray,
I have to confess that I believe I have done you wrong in continuing the conversation the way that I have. So I’ll now say the following:
Over these past few months, you have said a lot of things that are out of accord with Christianity (i.e., the Bible).
- You have denied that salvation is an act that is all-of-God and none-of-man.
- You have denied that it depends not on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
- You have denied the doctrine of original sin — that the human race was in Adam and sinned in his loins and so fell, and became guilty of sin and judgment.
- You have since then denied the clear teaching of the Lord Jesus, saying that not everyone has to be born again to enter the kingdom.
- You have affirmed that the purpose of baptism is for the cleansing of sin, and not simply an outward symbol of profession of an inner reality.
- You have most recently denied that salvation is by faith alone, and have advocated baptismal regeneration, another doctrine repudiated by the historic church.
- For each of these errors, you have been presented sound, biblical correction and instruction, and you have refused to receive it. You haven’t demonstrated a teachable spirit, but have hated instruction. You have, on multiple occasions, ripped Scripture from its context and have done violence to God’s Word in order to support your own conjured-up positions.
Now, I want to say right now that I hope you hear no anger or bitterness in my words. I profess to you that there is none of that in what I just wrote. I also hope that you get beyond your knee-jerk reaction of screaming, “Insults! Insults!” and see that I am in no way insulting you as I say these things. There is no personal attack — only a statement of the facts.
Now, having said all that, and based on those things above, my only honest conclusion is that though you profess His name, you do not know the Christ revealed in the Bible. I realize that is a strong and severe statement. I don’t make it lightly, smugly, or without consideration. But I would be not only remiss but disobedient to refuse to say it to you.
Based on this conclusion, I recognize that to engage you in theological debate was wrong. My goal was to correct your theology. But a correction of theology is not what brings the salvation of God. What I should have been doing — and what I will do this last time — is preaching the Gospel to you.
My heart’s desire, Ray, is that you would humble yourself before God and accept this instruction. You make statements about being a Christian for years, yet you’ve denied fundamental teaching and refused instruction. The Savior you describe is not the Savior of the Bible. The humanity you envision is not the humanity of the Bible. The sin you talk about being present in the world is not how the Bible describes sin.
The reality of life, Ray, is that there is a Holy God in Heaven who is the Creator of all things. He is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. And because of the judgment that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of that glory — that perfect Light — we have no part with Him. When Adam sinned, all of humanity fell from the state that we enjoyed with God; the state of exercising a free will in the interests of God and the true life that Adam and Even enjoyed with Him was lost. In Adam, we died. In him, we have all sinned. And so all of humanity has absolutely no claim to heaven because there is no darkness with a God who is perfectly Light.
And we have no hope of getting perfect. We can’t do enough good or right things to receive God’s favor, because no matter what we do now, we can’t undo the sin that is in us. But the hope of the world — the Great, Glorious News of the Gospel — is that there was One born into the human race who was God Himself. The Son of God, Jesus, was not born in the sin of Adam, He Himself being God. Yet He was a man, born of a woman, and lived as a human being for over 30 years. In all of those years, He met every requirement, fulfilled all the commands, and satisfied God the Father with His perfect obedience. He started out as Light, and remained Light forever.
Then, He freely laid down His perfect life before God the Father to be a perfect sacrifice for the sins of people who would believe in Him. God did not pass over our sin, or pat us on the head and say “Aw, it’s OK.” Rather, through the miracle of imputation, God imputed our sin to Christ, and then punished him fully for every sin of every believer throughout history on the cross. On the cross, God exercised His unrestrained wrath on His beloved Son, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. And that’s the other side of imputation. Christ’s righteous life that fulfilled God’s standard and pleased Him in every way is now imputed to all those who receive Christ by grace through faith alone. And the sin that we had no hope of getting rid of is fully taken care of by Christ’s sacrificed. It’s not passed over; it’s fully punished. Being so, those who believe can never suffer the penalty for their sins, because Christ has paid that penalty.
And that, Ray, the forgiveness of the sin you’ve borne since you’re conception and couldn’t get rid of by professed faith, baptism, and going to church — is available to you! Though we died in Adam, we may have life in Christ! But we must acknowledge our total sinfulness, thus our need and entire dependence on Christ’s righteousness to save us from our condemnation.
It’s my conviction based on all of the above that this hasn’t happened for you. I pray that it does. Don’t get to the day of judgment expecting to be welcomed by Jesus only to see someone different than you expect and hear, “I never knew you.” This is the day of salvation. Repent of your wickedness, especially in your denial of your wickedness, and trust Him. I beg you to do this.
Mike ,
No I am not offended . But you are vey wrong about me. I have looked to Jesus for salvation and have totally trusted in His blood to cleanse me from my sins .
Ray,
Mike’s point was that since you believe that man is basically good (by that I mean without a natural bent to sin), there is no need for a savior. Without a sin nature man would not need Christ to pay their penalty, because they are good enough themselves. By your own admission, babies do not go to heaven because Christ died for them, they go to heaven because of their own sinlessness. Christ did not need to live a sinless life if it is possible for man to do that. The point is, your beliefs necessarily end at a point where Christ’s death was needless. You must first realize that it is utterly impossible for man to go to heaven without first being cleansed by the precious blood of Christ. This goes for infants to. This means that salvation is all of God, because He can and does cleanse infants who cannot even trust Him as savior. The only way that an infant, or anyone else for that matter, can go to heaven is through Christ’s sinlessness, not their own.
Daniel ,
The context of Matt. 19 is not about humility. That is in Matt. 18. The children are included in ” to such as these . ” The children are innocent. If they have to be born again , then when ? Since faith in Christ is essential for salvation then when does a baby express faith ? When do they confess ? When do they repent of their sins ?
Jesus said that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. You said : “He never said anything apart from his work on the crossJesus could save you.” Then what do you do with Mark 16 : 16 ? And I have already posted about the next statement about who does not believe But what does he say in the first part of the verse. He does not say he who believes only will be saved but He said he who believes and is baptized will be saved.
I Peter 3 : 21 – ” and this water symobolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The verse says nothing about baptism being a work of merit. It is the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It is obeying what Jesus said in Mark 16: 16 . There is nothing in scripture that ever says baptism is a work of merit. In Acts 2 : 38 it is for the forgiveness of sins. In Acts 22 :16 it is to wash away sins. In Romans 6 : 3 and 4 it is to be buried with Christ and raised with Him. In Galatians 3 : 27 it is to be united with Christ. In Col. 2 : 12 it is to be” buried with Him and raised with Him through your faith in the power of God . “
Ray,
You said, “If they have to be born again , then when ?”
Every human being must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. That means that even a newborn must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.
You said, “Since faith in Christ is essential for salvation then when does a baby express faith ? When do they confess ? When do they repent of their sins ?”
Again, you are assuming that salvation is based upon man’s acceptence rather than upon God’s choosing. A baby cannot express faith, but a baby must still be born again. Spiritual birth is not obtained by him who wills, but is given by God who hath mercy on whom He will have mercy. Infants cannot repent of their sins. That means that for them to go to heaven, a miracle by God is required to give them spiritual birth (as it is with adults).
You said, “He does not say he who believes only will be saved but He said he who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
However, only those who do not believe will be damned. It is not those who are not baptized that will be damned, it is those who do not believe.
You said, “But what does he say in the first part of the verse.”
Yes, but what does it say in the second part of the verse?
You said, “The verse says nothing about baptism being a work of merit. It is the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It is obeying what Jesus said in Mark 16: 16 . There is nothing in scripture that ever says baptism is a work of merit.”
I could almost laugh as I read what you have said. You are defeating your own argument. If baptism is not a work of merit, then it cannot save you. If baptism is a work of merit, then it can save you. This is just funny to hear you try to defend your argument by refuting it. By saying that baptism is not a work of merit, you are saying that baptism cannot save you.
Daniel .
You know that a number of times I have said Jesus died for our sins. Where we differ is on infants and inheriting sin. There is a difference that I have explained several times.
Daniel ,
I also laugh because what you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing. You will not accept what Jesus said about in Mark 16 : 16 and you cannot give one scripture on when a baby is to be born again. If our response is not necessary for salvation , then why all the scriptures about belief , repentance , confession and all those I gave you on baptism. And not one of those said anything about baptism being a work of merit.
Ray B.
Anything that we do in order to be saved is by definition as a work. Paul is clear in Timothy and Galatians that both faith and repentance are gifts from God.
Baptism, on the other hand, is something we do. Ergo, if it is required for salvation, it is a work of merit.
Ray,
You said, “And not one of those said anything about baptism being a work of merit.”
Exactly what I keep telling you! Baptism cannot save us. It is not a work of merit.
You said, “You will not accept what Jesus said about in Mark 16 : 16″
Here is Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Apparently, you did not read what I said about this verse. I do indeed accept what Jesus said in this verse, but He did not say what you think He said. You do not accept the second half of that verse. I will go ahead and resay what I have said, since you did not see it.
Only those who do not believe will be damned. It is not those who are not baptized that will be damned, it is those who do not believe. What about the thief on the cross? Was he baptized? No. Did he go to heaven? Yes. Is baptism necessary for salvation? No.
Ray,
I’m just wondering if you would tell me what church you go to.
Ray,
You said, “Where we differ is on infants and inheriting sin.”
Even if babies were completely sinless (which is not possible, but even if they were) they would have to be born again, because Christ said that unless we are born again we will not see the kingdom of heaven.
You said, “and you cannot give one scripture on when a baby is to be born again.”
Yes I can. “Joh 3:3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Unless we meet condition A (we are born again) then we will not have condition B (see the kingdom of God). Age is irrelevant, because the condition is universal, meaning that it extends to all people, of all nations, of all ages. If anyone does not meet the condition of being born again, then they will not see the kingdom of heaven.
You said, “If our response is not necessary for salvation , then why all the scriptures about belief , repentance , confession and all those I gave you on baptism.”
Our response is necessary, but even our response is a work of God. Don’t you see, every aspect of salvation is God’s work. None of it is our work. I never said that our response was not necessary, I said that God can and does save infants even though they are incapable of responding. And what is just as amazing, Ray, is that He saves us even though we, at one time, were incapable of responding. God regenerates us, thereby giving us an ability that we otherwise would not have had: the ability to respond to Him. God can save whomever He wants to save, without their help. God doesn’t need our consent to draw us to Himself. Spiritual birth is not something that we are capable of obtaining, and this is proven by the fact that infants can go to heaven.
Daniel ,
I did read what you said but did you read what I said about the second part ? No matter what , Jesus said it is belief and then baptism and then salvation. The thief on the cross died before Jesus died and died under the old covenant. And he would not be able to be buried with Jesus and raised. Jesus while on earth had power to forgive. But after He was raised and before he ascended He gave the command about beleif and baptism. It takes nothing away from faith and grace. Baptism is when a person reaches out and accepts the free gift of forgiveness. That is why Peter said baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Yes , baptism is essential for salvation . John 3 : 3 has nothing to do with inherited sin. And the children , Jesus said , belong to the kingdom of heaven.
Mike ,
I worship and work with a non -denominational body of believers. And you ?
Daryl ,
To call baptism a work of merit is human language . It is not the language of scripture. Jesus said belief and baptism and then salvation in Mark 16 : 16 .
I wasn’t asking for a denomination. I was asking for the name of your church. Would you be willing to share that information?
Ray,
You said, “That is why Peter said baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.”
But he did not say that. He said “repent and be baptized for…” Baptism cannot save you, only Christ’s blood can save you. I am truly surprised to hear you say that Christ’s blood is not necessary for salvation. If baptism can save you, then we can just be baptized and live however we want.
You said, “No matter what , Jesus said it is belief and then baptism and then salvation.”
What about all the times Jesus said it is belief then salvation? Why are there so many times that Jesus completely leaves out baptism? If baptism is necessary for salvation, then don’t you think Jesus would have mentioned it every time He showed the way of salvation? Jesus said it is belief then salvation then baptism. Baptism is not a condition for salvation. The ONLY condition for salvation is faith (a gift from God). If baptism can save you, then salvation is of works. Baptism is something that we do; nothing that we do can save us; therefore, baptism cannot save us.
Ray, you said previously that baptism is a profession of faith. Here are your words, “baptism is not a work of merit. It is a response of obedeint faith to the finished work of Jesus on the cross.” If baptism is an act of obedience to Christ, then it cannot save us. Here is what I mean: We know that faith without works is dead. We also know that works, with or without faith, cannot save us. Christ commanded us to be baptized, but He also commanded many other things such as loving the brethren, taking communion, and obeying the Spirit of the law. However, even obeying all these things will not save us. Just because Christ commanded us to do all these things does not mean that they will save us. In fact, Christ commanded us to do all these things AFTER we were saved. Does participation in communion save us? No. Does any form of obedience (except faith) save us? No. So if baptism is a form of obedience, then can it save us? NO!
Daniel ,
All Jesus ever had to do was say one thing and it is autthoritative.He once told some that unless they repented they would perish. Then that means it is necessary to repent. I have posted what Jesus said in Mark 16 : 16. Those are His words. It makes no difference how many times He said something. One time or several times. When the Son speaks , His word must be obeyed. He said baptism was essentail for salvation.
Mike ,
I am not part of a denomination. That is of man. Men have started the denominations. None of them are metioned in the scriptures. I worship with those who do not want to use human titles . Where do you worship?
Ray,
Again… I haven’t asked for your denomination. Please read my questions again. I’m asking for the name of your church and the city and state it’s located in. That’s all. If you were to say Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, I would have no idea what denomination it was or wasn’t. That’s all I’m looking for. Just say if you’re willing to give me that information or not.
If you really want to know my church’s name, and aren’t just being a baby about this, give me your email address, and I’ll email it to you.
Ray B,
Blogs aren’t mentioned in Scriptures either…that’s a bad arguement.
Ray,
You said, “All Jesus ever had to do was say one thing and it is autthoritative. He once told some that unless they repented they would perish. Then that means it is necessary to repent.”
I agree.
I have posted what Jesus said in Mark 16 : 16. Those are His words. It makes no difference how many times He said something. One time or several times. When the Son speaks , His word must be obeyed. He said baptism was essentail for salvation.”
I agree that it does not matter how many times it is mentioned, but when you are saying that something is necessary for salvation based on the implicit meaning of one verse, that is quite shaky, and should have the support of other scripture.
Christ did not say that baptism was essential for salvation, you did. You are building a theology around the implicit meaning of one verse, while that same theology is denied by the silence of other verses describing the way of salvation. If Christ says that unless we repent we will perish, then it is true. If Christ says that all we have to do to be saved is believe, then it is true. If Christ says that faith is the ONLY means to salvation, then baptism cannot save us, as that would be another means besides faith. Therefore, your interpretation of Mark 16:16 is not even a possible interpretation. That interpretation cannot be correct, because it says that there is more than one means to salvation. Clear Biblical teaching says that there is only one way to be saved, and baptism is not it.
Daniel ,
I have posted many other passages that support what Jesus said about baptism in Mark. I gave you several from Acts, Rom.Gal Col. and then I Peter 3;21. You can deny it all you want but the scriptures speak loud and clear about baptism being essentail to salvation.Especially what Jesus said , not me. He said it was belief and baptism in Mark 16 : 16 . Only quoted Him.
Daryl ,
It is a great argument because men have tried for so long to deny the necessity of baptism for salvation by coming up with the human idea of baptism being a work of merit. The wording is not found in the New Testament , that is to say , that baptism is a work of merit.
Uhh… Ray?
Ray,
Did you just ignore what I said? Here it is again.
If Christ says that faith is the ONLY means to salvation, then baptism cannot save us, as that would be another means besides faith. Therefore, your interpretation of Mark 16:16 is not even a possible interpretation. That interpretation cannot be correct, because it says that there is more than one means to salvation. Clear Biblical teaching says that there is only one way to be saved, and baptism is not it.
There is only one way to salvation, Ray. I would have thought you would at least agree on this point.
Daniel ,
Have you read what I said ? But most important what the Lord said. He said belief and baptism.I have never denied the necessity of faith. But there is not one scripture that says faith alone. That comes from the teaching of men. I already mentioned repentance form the Lord. He said faith in Him was essential to salvation. He said baptism was essential to salvation. He said it , baptism is necessary to be saved. Your debate is not with me , it is with Jesus Christ and His words.
Ray,
You said, “Your debate is not with me , it is with Jesus Christ and His words.”
You have not shown that those were indeed Christ’s words (or at least the intent of His words), so until you do, my debate is indeed with you.
You said, “But there is not one scripture that says faith alone.”
You have now denied the very foundation of your own belief. If salvation is not by faith alone, then salvation is of works. There is no way around that. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. There is only one way to be saved. Works cannot save us, Ray. The Bible is clear on that point.
Daniel , Again , it is you that keeps on bringing up salvation by works, not me. Jesus commanded baptism in Mark 16 : 16 as essentail to salvation and you can dance all around it , but it is there. And he never defined it as a work of merit. Salavation is through Jesus , by faith , by His blood , through grace, and repentance , obedience , confession , and baptism . Scriptures back up all I have said. Caling baptism a work of merit is a human ploy to deny baptism as a part of the plan of salvation.
Ray,
You said, “Daniel , Again , it is you that keeps on bringing up salvation by works, not me.”
I beg to differ. You are the one that is saying that baptism saves a person. You are saying that salvation is of works, because you are saying that baptism (which is a work) saves a person. I do not believe that salvation is or works, but you do. You believe that baptism saves, so you believe that salvation can be obtained by baptism, so you believe that salvation is obtained by a work, so you believe that salvation is of works.
You said, “Jesus commanded baptism in Mark 16 : 16 as essentail to salvation and you can dance all around it , but it is there.”
Ray, just answer what I have said, and do not go into all this again. I have given you an answer to that verse; you just don’t want to deal with what I have said.
You said, “And he never defined it as a work of merit.”
I KNOW! And that means that baptism cannot save you. If baptism is not a work of merit, then it cannot save you.
You said, “Salavation is through Jesus , by faith , by His blood , through grace, and repentance , obedience , confession , and baptism . Scriptures back up all I have said.”
Salvation cannot be obtained by anything we do, but only by what God does. Obedience cannot save us, because if it could, then we would be able to earn our salvation by works. However, scripture says (and you know it) that salvation is not of works, which means, not of things that we do. Salvation is not obtained by obedience.
You said, “Caling baptism a work of merit is a human ploy to deny baptism as a part of the plan of salvation.”
So stop calling baptism a work of merit. IT IS NOT. IT CANNOT SAVE YOU!
Ray,
Let us go all the way back to this: define for me a work of merit. What is your definition of a work of merit?
Daniel ,
You said to stop calling baptism a work of merit. Exactly . I never have called it a work of merit . You have.
You equate obedience ( Heb. 5 : 9 ) with a work of merit. Jesus said that if we love Him we will obey Him (John 14 : 23 ) and then He and the Father will dwell with those who obey. A work of merit is where someone says by their own effort they will be saved. It is saying I will be my own savior. I do not need the blood of Jesus . I will trust in myself to be saved. But anyone who is baptized is taking a step of faith( Col 2 : 12 ) in trusting that obeying the gospel( Rom. 6 : 17 ) brings forgivenss of sins ( Acts 2 : 38 ). The failure to obey the gospel will bring eternal punishment ( 2 Thess. 1: 8 and 9 ). In baptism a person does obey the gospel , and it is by faith. Baptism is an act of obedient faith. It is a trust in the blood of Jesus.
I have given you answers to Mark 16 : 16 several times and have fully explained the verse. And it has not been my interpretation but only what Jesus said. You do not want to deal with what Jesus said.
Ray, can you just let me know whether you’ll tell me the name of your church or not? This way I won’t have to keep checking back.
Mike ,
Please , I have tried to tell you, that I worship with those who do not use a name.We worship God and study the scriptures.
Ok… sorry… I just want to be clear. Are you telling me that you go to a church that doesn’t have a name? Or you go to a home church? Or… you don’t really go to church?
Ray,
You said, “You equate obedience ( Heb. 5 : 9 ) with a work of merit.”
It is a work of merit if it merits salvation. Anything that we do that can earn salvation is a work of merit. If baptism is something that we do that can earn salvation, then baptism is a work of merit. I never said baptism was a work of merit. Throughout this whole discussion I have been trying to show you how baptism is not a work of merit. If baptism saves, then it is a work of merit. Baptism is not a work of merit, therefore, baptism cannot save.
You said, “Jesus said that if we love Him we will obey Him (John 14 : 23 ) and then He and the Father will dwell with those who obey.”
In John 14:23 Christ is saying that obedience is the natural outflow of true love for Christ. If we really love Christ, we will obey Him. However, the love came before the obedience. Our obedience cannot save us. Only faith in the finished work of Christ can save us.
You said, “A work of merit is where someone says by their own effort they will be saved.”
Exactly! If something that we do by our own effort can save us, then it is a work of merit. So if anything at all that we do by our own effort can earn salvation, then it is a work of merit. Since baptism is something that we do by our own effort, if it can save us, then it is a work of merit.
You said, “But anyone who is baptized is taking a step of faith( Col 2 : 12 ) in trusting that obeying the gospel( Rom. 6 : 17 ) brings forgivenss of sins ( Acts 2 : 38 ).”
Here is what Gill’s comentary says about Acts 2:38:
“for the remission of sins; not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by immersion: the encouragement to it follows,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from Act_2:42 they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles; see Act_19:5.”
You said, “In baptism a person does obey the gospel , and it is by faith. Baptism is an act of obedient faith.”
True, but the faith was already there. Faith is what saves.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
We are saved by God’s grace alone, not by a work of merit, which we have defined as “anything that we do of our own effort to earn salvation.” So if baptism saves, then it is a work of merit, since baptism would be something that we do of our own effort to earn salvation. So since baptism would be a work of merit, then, since salvation is not obtained by works of merit, then baptism cannot save us.
You said, “I have given you answers to Mark 16 : 16 several times and have fully explained the verse. And it has not been my interpretation but only what Jesus said. You do not want to deal with what Jesus said.”
Ray, I’ll say it again: it is only those who do not believe that will be damned. It is not those who are not baptized that will be damned, but those who do not believe. This is what the verse says. Answer this statement.
Ray,
By the way, Mike just wants to get the information on your church. So please give him the name of your church, and all the other information that you can. He is not asking for your denomination, just the name of your church. If your church has no name, then give him some other information. Put it this way: What would you tell someone who was interested in coming to your church, and wondered what was the name of your church?
There is an unbiblical distinction that… well… I guess I should say non-Calvinists make when it comes to works and faith. They create this totally unbiblical category of “non-meritorious works.” Arminians who aren’t heretics usually just put faith in that category; that is, they call faith a non-meritorious work that is required for salvation. Under their scheme, they can’t say that faith is required for salvation and yet isn’t granted by God. So yes it’s a work, but it’s a “non-meritorious work.”
But there is no such thing as a non-meritorious work. It’s an entirely self-contradictory concept.
But let’s for a second just say it wasn’t. Let’s entertain the absolutely absurd notion that there can be things such as non-meritorious works. Ephesians 2 says that salvation is “not by works, so that no one may boast.” Now, “works” there must include all kinds of works. It doesn’t say, “Salvation is not by meritorious works;” it says “works” period. So salvation is neither by meritorious works nor non-meritorious works. This is yet another text of Scripture that demonstrates Ray’s heresy.
Daniel ,
Those who do not believe will be damned. If a person does not believe then they would never obey the gospel. They will never look to Jesus for salvation. I have already said all this earlier. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved. That is what Jesus said . I will stay with Jesus. And with the apostle Peter , I Peter 3 : 21 and what is said about salvation and baptism. I am still waiting for the passage that teaches baptism as a work of merit. Not Gill or human logic , just the word of God. But that passage will not be presented because it does not exist.
I’m waiting for the passage that teaches that a work can be not “of merit.”
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works [of merit or otherwise], his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
…
Is this blessing then on the circumcised (or baptized), or on the uncircumcised (or non-baptized) also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised (or baptized), or uncircumcised (or not baptized)? Not while circumcised (or baptized), but while uncircumcised (or not baptized); and he received the sign of circumcision (or baptism), a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised (or not baptized, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised (or without being baptized), that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
—-
Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised (baptized) according to the custom of Moses (Ray B.), you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise (baptize) them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses (the law of Ray B.).” The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice (election, btw) among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving (irresistible grace) them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith (not by faith + something else, but faith alone). Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” –> Implied: not through circumcision or baptism.
You’re preaching a different Gospel, Ray. Repent and believe, sir.
Mike ,
I have always taught the gospel : the death , burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for anyone to be saved. I Cor . 15 : 1- 5 . There is the response to it also. Faith is essential . John 3 : 16 . Repentance is required.
Acts 2 : 38 . Confession . Romans 10 : 9 and 10 . Baptism.
I Peter 3 : 21 . And we are saved because of..Grace. Titus 2 : 11 . Blood of Jesus .Heb. 10 : 12-14. His sacrifice. Heb. 10 : 27. And a mulititude of other verses. No, I do not teach a different gospel. The whole will of God must be taught. I will stand with what the scriptures teach in the total message of salvation , not just part of it. Again , you are wrong about me.
Then all of historic Christianity is wrong about you too.
If I’d like to visit your church, what would you tell me its called, and where would you tell me it meets?
Ray,
I agree that the whole will of God must be taught. I am not saying that you should teach half of the gospel, but you are teaching MORE than that. Christ commands us to be baptized as a sign or profession of our inward baptism, not as a condition to it. You are on the right track on the topic of baptism, as it is important, it is just not as important as faith.
You said, “Those who do not believe will be damned. If a person does not believe then they would never obey the gospel. They will never look to Jesus for salvation. I have already said all this earlier. Those who believe and are baptized will be saved.”
That is what the verse teaches. But it is the believing that saves, not the baptism.
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
You said, “And with the apostle Peter , I Peter 3 : 21 and what is said about salvation and baptism.”
I have already explained this verse for you, but I will say it again so you have another chance to respond.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
The key to this verse resides in the parenthetical element. Baptism does not save in the sense that it does not put away the filth of the flesh (it does not cleanse us from sin), but rather in the sense that baptism is the answer (profession) of a good conscience toward God.
You said, “I am still waiting for the passage that teaches baptism as a work of merit…But that passage will not be presented because it does not exist.”
You are correct, you will not find a verse that teaches that baptism is a work of merit. That means that it is not. Therefore, since it is not a work of merit, it cannot save. By saying baptism is a work of merit, we would be saying that baptism saves. Also the other way around, by saying that baptism saves, we would be saying that baptism is a work of merit. However, baptism is not a work of merit, so it cannot save.
You said, “Not Gill or human logic , just the word of God.”
That is where you are fall into error. In order to hold to your belief you must deny logic, and disregard the extensive study of the comentaters (whom I might remind you, are a bit more learned than you are).
Daniel ,
Where in the scripture does it say that ” Christ commands to be baptized as a sign or profession of our inward baptism .” ? Where is that scripture or scriptures ? What inward baptism?
Jesus said : Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved and whoever does not believe will be condemned. He said it was belief and baptism and then salvation. But when you do not beleive you will be condemned. It is what He said. It is there. That is why I will stay with the words of Jesus.
And I have already explained I Peter 3 : 21 to you. It says baptism saves. I will stay with what scripture teaches.
Ray,
You asked, “Where in the scripture does it say that ” Christ commands to be baptized as a sign or profession of our inward baptism .” ?”
Rom 6:3-4 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Baptism is a representation of our burial and ressurection with Christ. It is not, in itself, that burial and ressurection, but is a representation of it.
You said, “What inward baptism?”
I am not saying that the Bible uses that exact way of putting it, I am saying that, in a sense, baptism is the outward profession of inward coversion.
You said, “Jesus said : Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved and whoever does not believe will be condemned. He said it was belief and baptism and then salvation. But when you do not beleive you will be condemned. It is what He said. It is there. That is why I will stay with the words of Jesus.”
You have not shown how that is what is meant by this verse. I have given you scriptures that say that salvation is by faith/belief alone (Rom 10:9, Eph 2:8-9). You have not answered those verses. Please do so. Until you do, do not assume that Christ says that baptism is necessary for salvation. If these two verses indeed say that faith/belief is all that is necessary for salvation, then your view is wrong. So unless you can show that these two verses do not say that, then you must abandon your view.
You said, “And I have already explained I Peter 3 : 21 to you. It says baptism saves. I will stay with what scripture teaches.”
I commend you for desiring to stay with what the scriptures say, but you have not shown that what you believe is really what scriptures say. I have given you my view of 1 Pt. 3:21, please respond to what I have said. Reasserting your position does not show the validity of your view. I will say again what I have said before, so that you have another chance to refute it.
The key to this verse resides in the parenthetical element. Baptism does not save in the sense that it does not put away the filth of the flesh (it does not cleanse us from sin), but rather in the sense that baptism is the answer (profession) of a good conscience toward God. This very verse that you use to support your view actually denies it. It ACTUALLY SAYS that baptism does not save in the sense of putting away that filth of the flesh (spiritual salvation). The verse itself actually says that. Therefore, baptism does not save in a spiritual sense.
If the above paragraph is false, then my view of baptism is false. If it is true, however, then your view is false.
Daniel ,
If I am following what you say , then it does not matter what Jesus said. I have said on many posts that faith is essential to salvation. No argument with Romans 10 or Eph. 2 but neither one says faith alone. The only time faith alone is used is in James 2 and it is to say that you are not justified by faith alone. When I read what those who believe in the solos of the reformation , I want to ask, which one of the solos? If it is all of them , then why say only for each one ? If is by His sacrifice alone , then that leaves the door open for universalism . If it is by faith alone , then what happens to repentance? Eliminate repentance when Jesus commanded repentance ? Where then do you fit in confession ? Found in that same Romans 10 chapter . And even if you say it is all supernatural in the response because no one can really make a choice , then still which one does the Lord want or better said which one is He going to supernaturally coerce one of the elect to do to be saved ? Is it by grace alone ? Then no need for the cross. God can in His sovereign will forgive whoever He wants to forgive , if it is by grace alone. He can freely forgive can He not if if He can also choose who He will save and who He chooses to cast into hell ?
Where does it say “baptism is an outward profession of an inward conversion”. Where is that biblical language ? It is not the language of Romans 6.
I Peter 3 : 20 and 21 . “In it only a few poeple , eight in all , were saved through water , and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” It says very clearly , ” baptism that now saves you ” . It is not about taking a bath for the removal of dirt from our physical body. It is not a sanitation , physical health issue ; it is the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It is obeying the gospel. It is obeying the command of Jesus from Mark 16 : 16. It is spiritual salvation.Thank you for discussing this with me because it has convinced me more than ever that baptism is also a part of the plan of salvation along with the atonement, grace, His blood , faith , repentance , and confession. I cannot leave out any of God’s word when it comes to salvation. I dare not pick and choose just certain verses and leave out the rest. And not one thing said about any of it being a work of merit.
Ray,
You said, “I Peter 3 : 20 and 21 . “In it only a few poeple , eight in all , were saved through water , and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.” It says very clearly , ” baptism that now saves you ” . It is not about taking a bath for the removal of dirt from our physical body. It is not a sanitation , physical health issue ; it is the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”
Exactly. But a pledge of good conscience does not save. Baptism does not save in a spiritual sense, as the verse itself explains. Our obedience does not save, but rather, our obedience is the natural outflow of true salvation, as James explains. Salvation is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. This is what James is saying. James is not saying that we are justified by works, he is saying that faith without works is dead, being alone. Works are not necessary for salvation, as salvation is not of works; however, works show that we do indeed have faith. “Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” This is what I mean when I say that baptism, as an act of obedience, is a sign of faith. Acts of obedience reveal faith, but they are not a precondition to faith.
You said, “It is obeying the command of Jesus from Mark 16 : 16. It is spiritual salvation.”
Ray, spiritual salvation is not obtained by works. Scripture is clear about that. If our works, such as baptism and other acts of obedience, could save us, then the Bible is untrue. WORKS CAN NOT SAVE US!
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Acts of obedience can not save us. Not baptism, not confession, not repentance; no act of obedience is necessary for salvation. This does not mean that acts of obedience are unimportant, it just means that they cannot save. Faith without works is dead, but faith saves, not works.
Another question: If baptism is necessary for salvation, then what about those who believe and die before they have a chance to be baptized?
Daniel ,
Confession is not necessary ? The chapter you gave for faith in Romans 10 also in the same chapter says ,in verse 10 that belief brings justification and ” with your mouth that you confess and are saved . ” I will just stay with the total will of God when it comes to salvation.
Ray,
You’re being very uncritical in your thinking. When the reformers cried, “Faith alone,” they obviously didn’t mean that a confession of that faith was unnecessary, or that there was no obligation to be baptized, or no necessity to prove their faith by the evidence of good works. James’s point that faith without works is dead simply means that faith without works isn’t really faith. Faith without confession isn’t really faith.
As for the 5 sola’s, you’re being very uncritical in your thinking here as well. Here’s what they meant: Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone, according to the Scriptures alone. It’s by nothing other than grace (not the will of man). It’s through nothing other than faith (not by works). That faith can be in nothing else than Christ (not ourselves or other gods or popes or our merits). This is so because God alone is to get the glory for the act of salvation (and in any other scheme, man gets at least some of it). And all of this is according to the Scriptures alone. The Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice, sufficient to instruct us on these matters. So yes… there can be 5 “alones” because they all represent a different relationship.
Still not giving me your church name, huh?
Mike ,
I am very familiar with the history of the reformation. My point being , if salvation is by faith alone then does that eliminate ,confession , repentance etc. ? The scripture says no. They are all a part of the the total will of God in salvation. Those who began the reformation were refuting the unfortunate doctrines of men that did not emphasize individuals trusting in Jesus for salvation. That is different from confession, repentance and baptism in whcih a person still is trusting in Jesus for salvation even in confession, repentance and baptism. And I have yet to find a passage that teaches where any of those are a work of merit. They all are expressions of trust in Jesus. Just as faith is an expression of trust. But never have I found a verse that says faith alone, grace alone, repentance alone , confession alone, baptism alone. Yes sometimes faith is empahsized in a certain passage. But the words faith alone are never mentioned except in the James passage. There are passages where all that is mentioned is repentance or baptism or obedience. All need to be tsught. And the context of passagaes are essential . When Paul mentions faith in Roamns 3 or 5 he is refuting those who were truting in the law . Fine but Paul never said faith alone. In the beginning of Romans and the conclusion of Romans he writes about the obedience of faith. When anyone obeys , it out of faith. Abraham beleived God but out of that faith he obeyed. All of the chapter in Hebrews 11 speaks about those who out of faith obeyed. Obedience does not deny grace, the cross and the blood of Jesus. Heb. 5 : 9 teaches that Jesus is the source of salvation for all who obey. So when someone obeys the Lord and His command to be baptized as He said in Mark 16 : 16 , it is an expression of faith. To believe like they did in Acts 2 : 38 that to obey the gospel would mean the forgiveness of sins , now that was and still is an act of faith. Not a work of merit that says I will trust in my self and in my goodness, or the works of the law but will simply trust that when the gospel is obeyed then my sins will be forgiven. In baptism a person is trusting in the blood of Jesus. And as to historical Christianity , baptism as essential to salvation was not an issue in the early church. 2 Thess . 1 : 8 teaches that those who do not obey the gospel will be punished.
Daniel
Obeying the commands of Jesus is not the same as the works of the law. Obedience to the commands of Jesus are expressions of faith. Whenever anyone obeys a command of Jesus either for salvation or sanctification that person is fully trusting in Jesus. The scripture does not call repentance . confession and baptism a work of the law. Neither are they called works of merit in the scriptures.
Daniel ,
In I Peter 3: 21, what does it mean ” baptism that now saves you also ” ? When a person is baptized they are clearing the conscience in obeying the command of Mark 16 : 16 and a whole host of other passages. They no longer have to feel the sense of guilt. Sins have been forgiven and washed away. Acts 2 : 38 and Acts 22 : 16 . And nnone of those passages mention works of merit or works of the law or trusting in self to be saved.
Ray,
From your last comment to me it seems like we agree on at least one thing: The obedience that comes as a response to faith is necessary to validate professed faith. We do have to be baptized. It’s a command of Christ. Obeying Christ is the evidence of being saved by faith.
But obeying is not the basis of salvation. Believing is the basis of salvation. Once one has believed, they are saved. Works will follow. If they don’t, it proves that their profession of faith is phony (Mt 7:21-23). But when they do follow, they don’t save us. We’re already saved. They only testify to the fact that we’re already saved.
Nobody can obey the commands of Christ without having believed the Gospel. And nobody can believe the Gospel without being born again.
Pre-Salvation | Salvation | Post-Salvation
Dead –> Born again –> Faith –> | Obedience
My diagram didn’t work because the spaces weren’t recorded.
My point was that obedience comes after salvation (after regeneration and faith) because no one has the resources to obey apart from Christ.
And THAT is because the only thing that is acceptable to God is Himself. Without Christ, we don’t have any way to please the Father.
Ray,
You said, “Confession is not necessary ?”
I did not say that acts of obedience are not necessary, I said that they cannot save us.
Acts of obedience are very important, and you are correct in saying that they need to be proclaimed as important. But acts of obedience can not save us. If our acts of obedience could save us then they would be works of merit.
You said, “In I Peter 3: 21, what does it mean ” baptism that now saves you also ” ? When a person is baptized they are clearing the conscience in obeying the command of Mark 16 : 16 and a whole host of other passages. They no longer have to feel the sense of guilt. Sins have been forgiven and washed away.”
Baptism does not wash our sins away, but rather symbolizes the fact that our sins are washed away. 1 Peter 3:21 says that baptism does not wash our sins away (does not save in the sense of putting away the filth of the flesh), instead, it says that baptism is a profession of a clear conscience toward God.
You said, “The scripture does not call repentance . confession and baptism a work of the law. Neither are they called works of merit in the scriptures.”
YOU ARE RIGHT! The Bible does not say that acts of obedience are works of merit. Do you know what that means? It means that acts of obedience can not save us. You yourself defined a work of merit as “something that we do of our own effort to earn salvation.” If acts of obedience are things that we do of our own effort to earn salvation, then they are works of merit. The fact that they are not works of merit (which you agree with) shows that they cannot save. Acts of obedience are things that we do of our own effort, so if they could save us then they would be works of merit. For acts of obedience not to be works of merit, they would have to meet at least one of two requirements. The first would be that they are not things that we do of our own effort. If acts of obedience are not of our own effort, then the option is there that they could save us and yet not be works of merit. The second option would be that they do not save us. If acts of obedience could not save, then they would not be works of merit. So you have two options: 1) acts of obedience do not save 2) acts of obedience are not of our own effort. These are the only two options available if acts of obedience are not to be considered works of merit. Tell me which one you believe.
Daniel ,
Obedience is involved in salvation beecuse Jesus said whoever believs and is baptized will be saved. He said in Matt. 7 : 21 – 23 that doing the will of the Father is essential to salvation. 2 Thess. 1 : 8 and 9 teaches that those who do not obey the gospel will be punished . None of what I said includes anything about works of merit.
This discussion has greatly helped me to more fully see and understand how the whole will of God is important when it comes to salvation.
Ray,
The problem remains that you’re confusing the issue. The statement, “Obedience is necessary for salvation” is potentially very confusing. It’s a true statement, but you’re understanding it differently than the Bible teaches it. Obedience is necessary, because it is the EVIDENCE of already being saved. Another way to say it is that: Obedience is necessary, but is not sufficient, for salvation. That is… obedience doesn’t save. Faith saves. When one does not obey, they give evidence that they are not saved by faith.
That’s what Jesus means in Matthew 7. He’s not saying that works are how we get saved, because those men in Matthew 7 did in fact do a bunch of works (prophesied, cast out demons, performed miracles). But they didn’t do the work of God: “Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29). So the point is that works are necessary, but impossible for one not already saved. Therefore, works don’t save you — only faith saves you. Absence of works shows that there is no faith.
You talk about disobedience of the Gospel in 2 Thess 1. This too refers to not BELIEVING, not not working. To understand that better, we have to ask, “What would it mean to obey the Gospel?” What’s the command that we get? “Repent and believe.” Whoever believes will not be condemned, whoever does not believe is condmened already (John 3:16-18). So disobedience of the gospel isn’t disobedience of works. Disobedience of the gospel is UNBELIEF.
The next thing I would like you to do is to stop using this phrase works of merit. There is no such thing as a work that has no merit. If you work, you are owed something. That’s the definition of work, Rom 4:4: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.” So when one works, he “is due” (Rom 4:4) something. That means he’s earned something. His works have merited something. Any work is a work of merit. It’s redundant even to say work of merit. And to use the same measure you measure with, I challenge you to show me where in the Scriptures the phrase “work of merit” or “work of non-merit” shows up. I’ll even be more generous. I challenge you to show where the Scriptures even imply that there can be such a thing as a non-meritorious work.
I really hope you try. If you do, let me show the consequences of that activity on your argument.
If there is no such thing as a work of non-merit (I’ll just call it a nonmeritorious work from now on, cuz it’s less awkward), then that means all works have to be meritorious. That means if you think baptism saves, or other obedience saves, you believe that salvation is earned. Now, I realize you’re not gonna come out and admit that, because you know that’s wrong when you hear it. But if you can’t show me that the Scriptures teach a concept called “nonmeritorious works” then all works are meritorious, and men earn their salvation.
How does the Calvinist explain this, since a Calvinist surely believes in Lordship salvation, i.e., that obedience must be evident in the life of a Christian? The Calvinist says, “Yes, good works are necessary.” But we also say that good works are impossible before salvation. So no one will ever do anything and be saved based on their doing that thing. It’s only by faith — and even God gives faith as a gift! And that also is how we explain all works being meritorious. All works are indeed meritorious, but the truth is that we do not do any works at all. For for it is God who is at work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Phil 2:13).
So whenever a Christian does something good (because only Christians can do good, since whatever is not from faith is sin, Rom 14:23, and all our righteous deeds are as filthy rags, Is 64:6)– Whenever a Christian does something good, it’s because GOD HIMSELF performs that good work. It seems like I decide to get baptized in obedience to the commands of Scripture (AFTER I’ve believed and have been saved), but really, God works that desire (both to will) in me to act in obedience (and to work).
So… all works are meritorious. But all good works are done by God in the Christian. So God deserves the credit… and He gets all the glory. Unregenerate man does nothing good (Rom 3:10-18, Is 64:6), and even regenerate man does nothing good in his flesh (Rom 7:18) that is not wrought by the Spirit. And if it is wrought by the Spirit, it is God who is doing the work. To say any different, Ray, is to rob God of His glory, and is to exalt man to a place he does not have. It is idolatry, because it is bringing Christ down from His throne and forcing Him to at least share it with unworthy man. It’s self-glorification, and that is heresy.
I know you keep telling me that I’m wrong about you being “still in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity” (Acts 8:23). But to date you’ve denied the sovereignty of God in salvation, denied Sola Fide, denied the doctrine of original sin, denied that everyone who is saved must be born again, have advocated baptismal regeneration, and as far as I can tell are not involved in a local church. These are all core, essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Centuries of Christians have all denied that a person who believes what you do believes in the same God of the Bible. To persist and call yourself a Christian is to disregard 2000 years of what Christian men (starting with the Apostles) have taught about what a Christian is. If you’re saying that 2000 years of Christianity is wrong, and you’re right, then I’d say your problems go from the spiritual to the mental as well. The Church has never taught the theology you’re advocating.
So I beg you, Ray, to do three things.
1) Deal with the statements I’ve made. Take what I say, highlight it, press Ctrl+C, paste it into the box, press Ctrl+V, and then deal with the actual words I’ve written. Answer the specific questions I’ve asked.
2) If you deal honestly with what I’ve written, you must come to the conclusion that I am “right about you,” as you say, and that you need to recognize that you’re a human being who is sinful by nature… who is by nature a child of wrath. You need to believe that no works you could do could ever change that. And you need to believe in the Jesus who exists and justifies the UNGODLY who are ENEMIES and HELPLESS (Rom 5) and not the “Jesus” you’ve invented who just helps able-bodied people get a little bit better.
3) Unless you #2, I kindly ask you to please stop posting. To anyone who is reading, you’re really making a fool of yourself in showing the way you “reason” and use Scripture. But beyong that, you’re really dishonoring Christ by the way you are maligning His words. I don’t want to sound super-pious and high-and-mighty… so that’s not why I’m saying this and please don’t hear me saying it that way… but for me to not say this is to be arrogant; it’s to be silent when I know God is not silent. But it just hurts me to see the Scriptures handled and twisted so badly. Every one of your objections has been met with Biblical responses and refutations, yet you refuse to accept any of them, and you just move on to something new. Please stop, for your own good and for the sake of Christ.
That last part wasn’t supposed to be bold… sorry. I forgot to close the tag.
Ray,
You keep trying to explain to me how works that save us are not works that merit salvation. You said baptism saves, but it is not a work that merits salvation. You said acts of obedience save, but you said that they are not works of merit. I’ll say it again: If baptism merits (obtains) salvation, then it is a work of merit. As I said before, the only way that we could say that acts of obedience are not works of merit is if 1) they are not of our own effort, or 2) they do not merit salvation. THESE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS!
Mike ,
In the first place you are being very self-righteous to me and have constantly insulted me, been scarcastic and have accused of many things which are not at all true. I have only tried to have a discussion . It is not me that says obedience is a work of merit or other things. You and others have used those words. Your interpretations are not right either. You have yet to show me one clear scripture that teaches that all children are born sinners. You have given me your Augustinian/Calvinistic interpretatin and I have refuted you with sound scriptural answers. You have yet to give me even one scripture that taches any of the commands to obey are a work of merit. It is your langauge , not the language of scripture. I have given a number of scriptures about obedience and have given the scriptures and if you have decided that Mark 16 : 16 is some kind of a merit work passage , then that is your choice. And when the scripture says that those who do not obey the gosepl will be punished and you do not accept what it clearly says ,but try to expalin it away to accomodate your Augustiain/Calvinistic interpretations then that is also your choice. But stop being so high and mighty and act like you are so super spiritual and make unfounded very false accusations of me.
Daniel ,
I will say it again : Defining obedience, as a work of merit is your langauge, not the language of scripture.
Ray,
Press Ctrl+F and enter the words “work of merit” and see who said that first. Neither Daniel nor I would have ever thought to say the term “work of merit” because it’s redundant. YOU have introduced the category of works of merit vs. works of non-merit. You obviously believe that works can be non-meritorious. Where in Scripture is THAT language?
All babies are born sinners is clear in the language of Romans 5:12-21. Calvinists, Augustinianas, AND Arminians alike all agree on that. It seems to be obvious to them that when you just quote the Scripture, they see that all of humanity actually sinned in Adam, and so is guilty of Adam’s sin. The human race fell, and so men are born in sin, and are by nature children of wrath. I’m not even using my own language. I’m not even interpreting it. I’m just writing Eph 2:3. You’re problem is that you have decided what you need to get Scripture to mean. So when someone quotes a verse that illustrates their point (Rom 5:12-21, Ps 51, Eph 2), we have to explain the actual intent of the Scripture to get around your false assumptions.
You perceive arrogance in me — even though I labored to tell you that I’m not looking down on you, or treating you wrongly — because you think that to be saved is something you do. If I accuse you of not being saved, you hear that as: “You didn’t do something. It’s your fault. Your works are imperfect.” My whole point is that I’m not saved because “I got it,” or because “I obeyed.” I’m saved by the grace of God. And as long as you deny that that’s how one is saved, you will never cry out to him in your need, and so will never be saved. That’s just the truth. There’s no animosity. There’s no arrogance. There’s no high-and-mightiness. I’m none of those things. I have no reason to be arrogant, and I’m certainly not high nor mighty. If I’m angry with you, it’s because of how you’re perverting the Word of God and dishonoring Him in His own name.
And you still didn’t respond to what I’ve said my previous post in the way I’ve asked. Still no honest interaction. Still just straw men and red herrings and ad hominems.
Also,
Please produce one instance in which I’ve insulted you. You have all of the words I’ve written write here. Quote one.
Ray,
I have tried to show you how you do indeed believe that acts of obedience are works of merit. Unless you believe that acts of obedience are either not of our own effort or that they cannot earn salvation, then you believe that acts of obedience are works of merit. You say that baptism saves, so you believe that baptism is a work of merit. If baptism is not a work of merit, then it either is not of our own effort, or it does not obtain salvation. Again, these are the only two options. I agree that the Bible does not alow for works of merit. You SAY that acts of obedience are not works of merit because you know that the Bible would clearly deny that. However, your BELIEF says that acts of obedience are indeed works of merit. You just refuse to see that connection because it would prove that your view is unbiblical.
Mike and Daniel ,
You still have not given me one scripture that says obedience is a work of merit. And the reason is because it does not exist. Not your logic but just one scripture. It does not exist.
This all started when I said that Jesus said you must be baptized to be saved. And what Peter said in I Peter 3 : 21 . Neither one of you will deal with what is said . You try to expalin both passages away from the very clear teaching. Do whatever you decide to do. I will not exclude what the Lord has commanded about salvation. And it has nothing to do with works of merit but just a submission to the will of God. Not everyone believes that Romans 5 : 12 – 21 teaches that babies are born sinners. Also not everyone believes what you teach about Psalm 51 and Eph. 2. And I have responded to tell you how you have missed the intent of the passages. And Mike when you tell me how I am perveting the word then yes you are hurling insults at me and when you tell me I am being foolsih then yes you are being haughty and self righteous. Before today all I wanted to do was to just discuss the issues but when personal attacks begin then the only conclusion I can come to is that your anger is because you do not have any real arguments. Go on ahead , respond all you want to. Say all you want to . I am through.
Ray,
You have completely misunderstood what I’m doing. When I say you’re perverting the Word, I’m not saying that because I don’t like you, or because I’m trying to take shots at you. I’m saying it because it’s true. And if it’s true that you’re doing that, it’s unloving for me to watch you persist in sin and not say anything about it. The same goes for my saying that you’re being foolish. There’s no animosity in my “voice” there. I guess that’s why it’s difficult to understand, since we’re on the computer and not speaking with tone, rhythm, gesture, and all those suprasegmental and nonverbal aspects of communication. But I’m telling the truth in Christ, I’m not lying, my conscience bearing witness in the Holy Spirit, that I am not angry or bitter or malicious in my severe, yet not-uncalled-for, comments. Every time I’ve said something severe I’ve acknowledged that it was severe, and that you shouldn’t take it maliciously. You’ve ignored that. It’s unfortunate, but I can’t do anything about it except reassure you that that’s not what was going on.
But it’s wrong to say that if I say you’re acting foolishly then I’m automatically haughty and self-righteous. What if you really are acting foolishly? Don’t I have a responsibility to tell you, regardless of anything about me at all? I mean… was Solomon haughty and self-righteous when he talked about foolish people in Proverbs? Or Paul? Or Jesus? No, of course not. Did they people they called foolish think they were. I’ll bet they did. Doesn’t make them right. Not one bit.
You still have not given me one scripture that says obedience is a work of merit. And the reason is because it does not exist. Not your logic but just one scripture. It does not exist.
You still have not given us one scripture that says obedience is a work of non-merit. And the reason is because it does not exist. Not your logic but just one scripture. It does not exist.
I’ll say this one more time. You, Ray, not Daniel nor I, but YOU started talking about works of merit. Again, if you do an Edit, Find and punch in the word “merit” you’ll see that you were the first person to bring that up. I’m not saying you ever said obedience was a work of merit. I’m saying that by using the phrase “work of merit,” you automatically acknowledge that there’s some kind of work that has no merit. I’m asking you to defend that biblically. And then you’re getting angry and crying “Foul!” And refusing to deal with the passages I quoted (Rom 4:4, Phil 2:13, Is 64:8, etc.). You sure you’re not the one who’s getting angry because you have no real arguments?
And that’s hysterical that you’d accuse me of that. I challenge you to produce one question that you’ve asked me, that I did not engage fully with, and provide an answer to. Every single ludicrous objection you’ve raised, I’ve dealt with — usually while quoting what you just said above my response, a courteousy you have not granted either of us.
Not everyone believes that Romans 5 : 12 – 21 teaches that babies are born sinners. Also not everyone believes what you teach about Psalm 51 and Eph. 2.
Obviously not, but I never said that EVERYONE believes that. I said that Calvinists and Arminians believe that. The only other view is what has been known as Pelagianism since the 400s AD. These are just definitions, Ray. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe the doctrine of Original Sin. A Pelagian doesn’t. There are no other categorise. The definition of a Pelagian is one who denies original sin. Pelagius was a heretic. The entire historic Christian church has refused fellowship to anyone with that belief. How can you ignore 1600 years of what Christianity has defined it self as? It’s just irresponsible.
I’m just gonna go through this one more time.
Romans 5:12-21 teaches that all people (now that’s EVERYONE) sinnED (in the past tense) at a specific point in time. It teaches that that specific point in time in which we sinned was the moment when Adam sinned. We were “in Adam” (Cf. 1Cor 15:22) when he sinned, and so are guilty along with him. The rest of the passage, along with 1 Cor 15:22, teaches we DIED in Adam.
So man, by nature, is dead. That’s also taught in Ephesians 2. It says that by nature, humans are born as children of wrath. Which means we’re destined for destruction because of our deadness which we purchased by our sin in Adam.
David confirms the truth of the depravity of humanity even from the womb in Psalm 51. You say he’s only talking about himself, but you have to prove that. You have to demonstrate what could have possibly made David’s sin different than ours. You haven’t done that, and can’t do that. So that shows that his statement about being sinful from the womb applies to all humanity. Psalm 58 also says that wicked goes astray from birth, and that he’s a liar by nature.
Romans 3 teaches that all have sinnED — again a universal ALL, and again in the past tense. Not all will eventually sin. All have already sinned. When did a 1 second-old baby sin? In Adam, in the Garden, round about 6,000 years ago.
Your unscriptural maxims have forced you to logically deny that children have to be born again. Jesus said that you cannot enter the kingdom of God without being born again. Whether you’re 5 mins old or 55 years old, if you’re not born again, no kingdom for you.
When you tell me that I’ve “missed the intent of those passages,” you don’t show me how what you say is right. You just assert that it’s right. But if you just read the passage, understand “all” means all, “sinned” is in the past tense, and that “dead” means dead, you understand that all humans are born in sin.
Ray,
You said, “You still have not given me one scripture that says obedience is a work of merit.”
Ray, you are the one saying that acts of obedience are works of merit. The following statements are all equal.
Acts of obedience obtain salvation
Acts of obedience are works that merit salvation
Acts of obedience are works of merit
You believe that acts of obedience obtain salvation, so you also believe that acts of obedience are works of merit. I should not even say that this is the “conclusion” of what you are saying, because this is not even a derivative of your belief, this is the ESSANCE of your belief. Saying that acts of obedience are works of merit is not where your beliefs will lead, because it is what your beliefs are. I do not see why you are not understanding this. If you believe that acts of obedience merit salvation, then explain to me why you say that they are not works of merit. The fact that you are saying that acts of obedience (which obtain salvation) are not works of merit (which are acts of obedience that obtain salvation) is self-contradictory. That is like saying that works of merit are not works of merit. If an act of obedience earns salvation, then it is a work of merit. The Bible says that we are not saved by works of merit, so you are trying to avoid defining acts of obedience that way, for obvious reasons. However, you cannot just avoid the term without also avoiding the definition. You say that acts of obedience are not works of merit, yet you also say that acts of obedience accomplish the same thing that works of merit would accomplish.
Here is your explanation of a work of merit: A work of merit is anything that we do of our own effort to earn salvation. You say that acts of obedience are not works of merit, yet you say that they are things that we do of our own effort to earn salvation. You cannot avoid the term without avoiding the definition. Therefore, to avoid the term, acts of obedience will also have to avoid the definition. So lets see how your view of acts of obedience measures up to the definition of works of merit.
According to your definition of a work of merit, there are three qualifications that something must meet before being defined as a work of merit. These are the following:
1) It is something that we do
2) It is of our own effort
3) It earns salvation
If an act of obedience meets these three qualifications, then it can, and must, be defined as a work of merit, since this is the definition of a work of merit. So now, let us examine your view of baptism, as an act of obedience, in light of these three qualifications.
You can not deny that baptism meets the first two qualifications, because baptism is indeed something that we do, and it is of our own effort. (If you disagree that acts of obedience are of our own effort, then welcome to Calvinism) You also say that baptism earns salvation. BY YOUR OWN WORDS AND DEFINITIONS baptism is a work of merit. Unless we say that baptism does not meet one of these qualifications, then we must alow that baptism is a work of merit. I say that baptism is not a work of merit, because it does not meet the third qualification of a work of merit. You say that baptism is not a work of merit even though it meets all three qualifications (by your own words). You will now say to me, “I don’t want to hear your logic, just give me one verse.” That is all fine, but how far are you going to get in your understanding of the scriptures by denying logic? I have given you a somewhat lengthy logical reason why baptism cannot save, and that is because if it could save, it would meet all the requirements for being a work of merit, and we know that the Bible says that we are not saved by works of merit. So, interestingly enough, the fact that baptism saves would make it impossible that baptism could save.
This questions is a little elementary, perhaps, but may prove enlightening: Does God punish depravity, or does He punish sin? And if God punishes sin and not depravity, then what must be present before the first sin can occur?
Assume that I am born with a depraved nature, a propensity to sin – inherited from Adam (as a Zygote? Blastocyst? Embryo? Fetus? Newborn? Toddler?). Does my depraved nature condemn me, or is it my sin that condemns me? I hear that I am born totally depraved. I tend to say so what unless you can show me that God punishes a depraved nature (the potential for sin) rather than punishes the actual sin. To say that I am born with the propensity to sin (meaning I will sin) is not the same thing as saying that I was born a sinner (meaning I have already sinned).
So what that I am born depraved, with a propensity to sin. I think reasonable people will agree that at the moment of birth I have not yet sinned. And what constitutes my first sin? The Bible says that, without the Law, there is no sin. So – do I have to be able to understand the Law first before I can sin? If sin is defined as disobeying God, can I disobey/sin when I don’t know that God’s Law exists, much less what it says (say, at the age of 6 months)? What does the Bible teach about this? Is there not some sufficient mental capacity required before I can be found guilty of (a) knowing God’s law and (b) intentionally disobeying it?
Consider again – from my post above dated 30 March 2008:
“Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither [those younger than age 20], and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.” Deuteronomy 1:39
These are words spoken by God. They refer to children. God says nothing about whether He thinks these kids have depraved natures. He also says nothing about whether they have been sinning from birth. But God does say He will not hold the children accountable because they had no knowledge between good and evil. (Just as Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until after they had sinned.)
My point has not concluded with the final paragraph above. There is a second part to what I wrote above that should continue in a second posting (I split it because of the length). The second part has not posted; submitting it again yields the error message duplicate – I think you already said that. If it doesn’t show up eventually, I will re-post it later.
So what that I am born depraved, with a propensity to sin. I think reasonable people will agree that at the moment of birth I have not yet sinned.
No. Reasonable people will most certainly disagree. You have to understand that all of humanity sinned in Adam. Your first sin out of the womb is not what condemns you. Your first sin in the loins of Adam in the Garden is what condemns you.
Moreover, depravity is not just a bent in our nature to sin — a problem that will eventually work itself out. It is already actively sinning. The idea of total depravity is that every part of us is affected by our natural sinfulness. So just the state of being depraved is an act of offense toward a holy God. We, by default, do not glorify God as He ought to be glorified, and so we
provoke God and deserve His wrath.
Your argument from Deuteronomy is entirely misapplied. We’re not talking about salvation, or the kingdom. We’re talking about going into Canaan. God spares the children as well as a few others, but only according to His grace. To say that this mimics salvation is like saying Moses went to hell because God didn’t let him into Canaan. These are apples and oranges.
Richard,
As far as the verse in Deuteronomy, unless you are willing to go as far as to say that twenty year olds are not accountable for their sin, then I would not use this verse as a support for your view (not to mention the fact that it doesn’t support your view).
We are punished because of both our sin nature and our sin. We are punished because of our sin nature because our sin nature separates us from God and makes us totally incapable of doing good. We are punished because of our sin because…well because we are punished for our sin. We are born both with a sin nature and the accountablility for Adam’s sin. In Adam all sinned. Adam, as the head or representative of the human race, sinned. Just as Christ’s righteousness was imputed to those for whom He died (and I am not trying to start that discussion), so also Adam’s sinfulness was imputed to all the human race. We are punished for our part in Adam’s sin in the sense that we have a sin nature because of it. In Adam all died. We are punished for Adam’s sin because we carry the sin nature passed down to us. We are punished for our individual sins individually, and we are punished for Adam’s sin corporately. From the womb we are estranged from God. Our very separation would ensure eternal damnation. It does not take a deliberate act of sin to separate us from God. Were it not for grace, we would be punished for our very separation. However, God is able to overcome the gap between us and Him, and is able to save us out of our sinful state.
All that being said, our topic is infant baptism. I am not sure how your post fits in with that topic.