[James Hutchins]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

I would very much appreciate your prayer, and I hope I will be healed, but I know my affliction is not because of my position on baptism, which is based on the grammatical-historical method of interpreting Scripture. I will also be praying for you, that the Lord will open your eyes to understand His Word.

Hi Pim. I am sure your deafness is not your fault.
Babies are born full of sin and as such, heaping more misery on them is pointless. However, if a parent or other relation has angered God, what a better fitting punishment than to damage a baby. I suspect with a little reflection, you'll be able to identify the person that is angering Him, most likely a person that speaks ill of God outside of Church at a Bar or Bordello. I suspect your mother as women as so weak and poor thinkers.
I think with enough prayer and time, God will grant you the gift of hearing, probably after the person who wronged Him is suffering the well deserved torments of Hell.
I have to ask you a question. Being an American, born and Bred in the US of A, I have never heard of a name such as yours except in eurpoean tales of sodomy. You might want to consider asking Jesus to change it.
In any case, welcome to our little spot of peace and sharing on the Republican Internet.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Sadly, neither of these men are a good representative for Australia, and Steve Irwin is already burning in hell. Probably the most godly Australian I know would be Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

I hear you there. Ham is a godly and wise man. He is truly a great apologist for the Young Earth Creation movement.

I have decided I like you, Pim.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

God has predestined us Calvinists to baptise infants, and since predestination overrides free will, we can't help ourselves.

Look! It's me! Not buying it!

Try again. Upon what Scriptural basis do you baptize infants, knowing full well that it is an utterly meaningless exercise, as a predestined-for-Heaven unbaptized infant would go to Heaven, and a predestined-for-Hell baptized infant would go to Hell?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Look! It's me! Not buying it!

Try again. Upon what Scriptural basis do you baptize infants, knowing full well that it is an utterly meaningless exercise, as a predestined-for-Heaven unbaptized infant would go to Heaven, and a predestined-for-Hell baptized infant would go to Hell?

Ah yes, you again. I enjoy our discussions on pedobaptism. You have been very persistent in your desire to understand my position. Clearly, the Lord is drawing you, and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek the truth.

Rev Rodimer, there are a plethora of verses supporting infant baptism. Acts 10:47-48 — the household of Cornelius was baptised. Acts 16:15 — the household of Lydia was baptised. Acts 16:33 — the household of the Philpian jailer was baptised. I Cor 1:16 — Paul baptised the household of Stephanas.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in an earlier post, baptism replaces circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Circumcision was a sign a God's covenant with his chosen people, Israel. The children of the people of Israel were required to be circumcised (pedocircumcision), and proselytes were required to be circumcised (credocircumcision). But when Jesus ascended and the Holy Spirit descended, baptism replaced circumcision. For when the Holy Spirit fell on the apostles at Pentecost, Peter said, "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. For the promise is unto you, AND TO YOUR CHILDREN." A promise from God is a covenant. Under this new covenant, the children of God's chosen people, his church, were to be baptised as a sign of the promise.

Baptists are notoriously weak on covenant theology. They do not understand how covenants work. First, let me say that the Bible gives parents complete control over their children. They can cut off bits of their children's genitalia (Gen 17:10-11) and kill them (Deut 21:18-21). Parents therefore have the ability to enter into covenants on their children's behalf, and God can punish the children for breaking the covenant even if they were ignorant of it. This still applies under the New Covenant in the church era. Parents enter their children into covenant with God through baptism, and if they break covenant when they grow up, He will destroy them.

If this is not enough to convince you, let me quote from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which is based on the Bible and written in the same language as the KJV:

Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.

How much clearer can you get?

In truth, I think God has allowed Baptists to stumble at this point to keep them from getting too proud. They have got it right on so many points, yet this is the thorn in their flesh. But when Jesus returns, he will correct all false doctrines. I look forward to the day when you and I stand before the throne of Christ as pedobaptistic Calvinists.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

If this is not enough to convince you, let me quote from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which is based on the Bible and written in the same language as the KJV:

Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.

How much clearer can you get?

Catholics say the same. Are you calling them Bible-believing Christians now?

Once again, please explain how pedobaptism is justified and meaningful, when you know that it is of no effect whatsoever and does not confer salvation.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

I hope I'm not intruding into your conversation but noticed in my morning Bible reading that only male babies were to be circumcised (including babies purchased Genesis 17:12).

Parents therefore have the ability to enter into covenants on their children's behalf, and God can punish the children for breaking the covenant even if they were ignorant of it.

Genesis 17:14 And the vncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskinne is not circumcised, that soule shall be cut off from his people: hee hath broken my couenant.
©1611

God is quite clear here that should the owners of any male baby decide not to have the thing circumcised it is the baby who has broken the covenant. Circumcision is not required for the covenant to be binding on the baby. If the anathematised baby subsequently became involved in some other religious practice, naturally it should be killed. God is always so clear and we are so lucky to know His Perfect Love, even for infants.



The other examples cited refer to the (masculine) house, as in "The House of Usher" rather than to a direct kinship group [which had already been defined in Genesis 17]. The "house" appears in verse32 but not in verse33 which reflects the usage in Ephesians 3 v.s. and although the difference is slight, it is there and if anyone wished to obsess over slight differences in the text I am happy to post Scripture. Obviously I will not be expressing any opinions - and I am most certainly NOT OBSESSIONAL. That is why I am a Baptist.

we are not cast aside, solitary forlorn and wretched . . . . . . Praise Him!

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Catholics say the same. Are you calling them Bible-believing Christians now?

Once again, please explain how pedobaptism is justified and meaningful, when you know that it is of no effect whatsoever and does not confer salvation.

Rev Rodimer,

Of course Catholics are NOT Bible-believing Christians! Their Bible has too many books in it. My denomination, Presbyterians, were among the first to tell the Pope where to go, back in the 16th century.

You seem to think that only those who consciously experience Baptism gain any benefit from it. This is because for Baptists baptism is merely a carnal experience. For pedobaptists it is a spiritual one, conveying the full blessings of the sacrament.

Furthermore, I challenge you to come up with a Scripture that expressly prohibits infant baptism. If you are going to reject 2,000 years of tradition, the burden of proof is on you.

[Noah Sole]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

You seem to think that only those who consciously experience Baptism gain any benefit from it. This is because for Baptists baptism is merely a carnal experience. For pedobaptists it is a spiritual one, conveying the full blessings of the sacrament.

Furthermore, I challenge you to come up with a Scripture that expressly prohibits infant baptism. If you are going to reject 2,000 years of tradition, the burden of proof is on you.

Brother Pim I would refer you to Mark:

Mark 16:15-18
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.

We see that the prerequisites for being saved are to be able to believe and to be baptised. The baptism of an infant does not save them because they are incapable of belief, therefore the baptism is as futile and pointless as baptising a pigeon. To be saved a person would need to be baptised (or re-baptised!) when they are capable of belief, which renders the infant baptism irrelevant.

YIC

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Their Bible has too many books in it.

Well, Pim the KJV 1611 actually has the entire Apocrypha in it and not just the Deuterocanon that the papists have.

Of course, very few Bibles you pick up from your local Christian bookseller have a KJV with the Apocrypha in it. It also has a note in front of it saying that it is not canon.

My denomination, Presbyterians, were among the first to tell the Pope where to go, back in the 16th century.

You sure were.

You seem to think that only those who consciously experience Baptism gain any benefit from it. This is because for Baptists baptism is merely a carnal experience. For pedobaptists it is a spiritual one, conveying the full blessings of the sacrament.

Would you agree that it doesn't do anything? Infant baptism?

I figured you would drop that line, but now I'm curious. In light of that we mostly agree as we are mostly Particular Baptists of the "primitive" tradition. We agree on the five points, but I'm surprised to read that you Presbies do the infant baptism.

"The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists as a fact."

It's an appeal to tradition. It isn't scripturally sound. I suppose you could do it, but it can't have any effect as an infant is too young to accept Christ.

Furthermore, I challenge you to come up with a Scripture that expressly prohibits infant baptism. If you are going to reject 2,000 years of tradition, the burden of proof is on you.

The same appeal to tradition of the Catholics. "It's there they have been doing it a long time, so let's keep up the tradition."

You're not the one telling the papists where they can go any more, are you? Now you're holding hands with them and dancing down the aisle of tradition together.

Isn't that nice?

Besides, we're predestinationists. We know God will save only the Elect. If He wanted someone to make it to the age of reason and consent to be Baptized in His name, don't you think He is capable of doing that?

No rituals of a small creature that can't reason or confess Christ is going to change God's mind. You might as well baptize your dog for all the good it will do you.

In Christ,

Levi

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

I hope I'm not intruding into your conversation but noticed in my morning Bible reading that only male babies were to be circumcised (including babies purchased Genesis 17:12).

Genesis 17:14 And the vncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskinne is not circumcised, that soule shall be cut off from his people: hee hath broken my couenant.
©1611

God is quite clear here that should the owners of any male baby decide not to have the thing circumcised it is the baby who has broken the covenant. Circumcision is not required for the covenant to be binding on the baby. If the anathematised baby subsequently became involved in some other religious practice, naturally it should be killed. God is always so clear and we are so lucky to know His Perfect Love, even for infants.



The other examples cited refer to the (masculine) house, as in "The House of Usher" rather than to a direct kinship group [which had already been defined in Genesis 17]. The "house" appears in verse32 but not in verse33 which reflects the usage in Ephesians 3 v.s. and although the difference is slight, it is there and if anyone wished to obsess over slight differences in the text I am happy to post Scripture. Obviously I will not be expressing any opinions - and I am most certainly NOT OBSESSIONAL. That is why I am a Baptist.

we are not cast aside, solitary forlorn and wretched . . . . . . Praise Him!

MitzaLizalor,

Thank you for weighing in with your well-though-out response.

You are correct in saying that circumcision in the OT applied only to males. The main reason for this is that God wanted to distinguish the Jews from the Muslims, who circumcise their girls so that they can experience no sexual pleasure. But when Christ came, he broke down the barriers of the Old Covenant and created a new one that extended its blessings and freedom and liberty to females also, provided they be in submission to their husbands and fathers.

You also quote Gen17:14. I had never thought about this passage in this light before, so I am afraid you have sinned: you have taught me, which Paul (and God) expressly forbid in I Tim 2:12. I am sure that this was unintentional. So I want to go away to think and pray about it, and when you are ready, you can come back to me and repent, and I will probably forgive you. It would grieve me deeply if I had to bring two or three witnesses against you in accordance with Matthew 18, one of my favourite passages.

Yet Gen 17:14 proves my point anyway. In light of this passage and given that baptism replaces circumcision, were an infant not baptised, he would be breaking covenant with God. But he would be breaking covenant with God because both of his parents were Christians — that is to say, in covenant with God — just as an uncircumcised Hebrew child would be breaking covenant because his parents were Jews — that is, God's chosen, covenant people. As I said earlier, this passage is new to me and God, through your words, has shown me a new way of looking at baptism. I hope that by now you are starting to feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

As to your definition of "household" in the passages I quoted, I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I know that I am new to this forum, and you are obviously one of its senior members, but I thought that according to forum rules, the only acceptable method of interpreting the Bible was to give it to a child and ask them what they think it means (aka the grammatical-historical method of exegesis). I can tell you that if you showed these passages to any child in my church, they would say that "household" included children.

I also extend my challenge to Rev Rodimer to you: if you could quote me any passage that expressly forbids the baptism of infants, I would be eternally grateful.

Sola Scriptura,

Pim.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Brother Pim I would refer you to Mark:

Mark 16:15-18
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.

We see that the prerequisites for being saved are to be able to believe and to be baptised. The baptism of an infant does not save them because they are incapable of belief, therefore the baptism is as futile and pointless as baptising a pigeon. To be saved a person would need to be baptised (or re-baptised!) when they are capable of belief, which renders the infant baptism irrelevant.

YIC

Good to hear from you again, Brother Noah.

First let me say I am glad you acknowledge this part of Mark as Scripture, unlike many of the heretics who say that Mark ends at verse 8.

I also believe in this passage without reservation. To be saved, one must believe and be baptised. I have never said that baptism guarantees the salvation of a child. A baptised child must come to faith when he is older. A baptised pigeon will never come to faith. I would say that this passage is about the prerequisites for salvation rather than the prerequisites for baptism. It does not expressly forbid the baptism of infants and does not outweigh the passages supporting infant baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Pim.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Well, Pim the KJV 1611 actually has the entire Apocrypha in it and not just the Deuterocanon that the papists have.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was completely unaware of this. I have never seen a KJV Bible with apocrypha in it. But of course the RC's acknowledge too many books in their cannon, which is what I meant.

Would you agree that it doesn't do anything? Infant baptism?

No. I believe it is a spiritual experience that conveys the blessings of the sacrament. It is a sign of the covenant which the infant's parent have entered into with God. It is a way of setting the infant apart.

It's an appeal to tradition.... The same appeal to tradition of the Catholics. "It's there they have been doing it a long time, so let's keep up the tradition."

You're not the one telling the papists where they can go any more, are you? Now you're holding hands with them and dancing down the aisle of tradition together.

You seem to think that because the Catholics do it, that makes it wrong. Would abolish the Lord's Supper just because the Catholics do it?

Besides, we're predestinationists. We know God will save only the Elect. If He wanted someone to make it to the age of reason and consent to be Baptized in His name, don't you think He is capable of doing that?

We're predestinationists too, and I have already stated in one of my earlier posts that if God wanted a child to come to salvation, he could simply foreordain that the child should live long enough to understand and receive the Gospel.

No rituals of a small creature that can't reason or confess Christ is going to change God's mind.

Amen, brother.

You might as well baptize your dog for all the good it will do you.

That wouldn't do you any good; a dog will never come to faith in Christ.

It isn't scripturally sound.

Really? I've been doing nothing but quoting Scripture.

I suppose you could do it.

Thank you. I will.

[Christianzionist]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

How are conversion efforts in Austria coming along with the abos?

What are they, by the way?


They look alot like our American negroes only slightly more despicable.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yeyJK9E4I4

Do they lust after white women the same way our coloreds do?

Do you have civilized anti-miscegenation laws in place to ensure that the proliferation of Mulattoes is kept in check?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

How are conversion efforts in Austria coming along with the abos?

What are they, by the way?


They look alot like our American negroes only slightly more despicable.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yeyJK9E4I4

Do they lust after white women the same way our coloreds do?

Do you have civilized anti-miscegenation laws in place to ensure that the proliferation of Mulattoes is kept in check?

Conversion efforts among what we now have to call "Indigenous Australians", to be politically correct, are coming along fine. You will be pleased to know that my denomination, the Confessional Presbyterian Church has an Aboriginal congregation out in a small country town that I'm sure you've never heard of.

As to what they are... well, no one really knows. But they are far more despicable than negroes. Earlier this year they attempted to assassinate the Australian Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, because all Aboriginal women are really ugly, Aboriginal men are forced to rape white women to meet their needs.

We used to have a White Australia Policy, but that was abolished when the Communists came in.

[Christianzionist]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Clearly a long lost tribe of hammites, cursed by God to roam to the forsaken Island of Austria.

I wonder if under that brillo tuft you can still find the mark of Cain. clearly God hates these people which is why He burnt them.