[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

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.

Really?

4,000 years ago, God wanted to distinguish Jews from Muslims.

Do tell, how long has Islam existed?

Also, your statement that God instituted circumcision only for a means of identification clearly rules out your previous assertion that infant baptism replaces infant circumcision. Nobody can tell that an infant has been baptized by looking at him; therefore, he is not identified or set apart.

As for Scripture expressly forbidding pedobaptism, there is none. However, that's not what I've been asking you. I've been asking you why you do it when you realize it has no effect whatsoever upon the child's outcomes (Heaven or Hell), and when you also realize it is utterly meaningless to the infant, who can't understand what's happening or commit to Christ.

It is of no effect, and does not even perform the "setting apart" function of circumcision.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

It does not expressly forbid the baptism of infants and does not outweigh the passages supporting infant baptism.

Please name for me an instance of an infant baptism in the Bible.

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.

So it's the NT equivalent of circumcision in your eyes.

We believe that only faith leads to salvation and baptism is a symbol of a person knowingly and willingly professing that faith. It is our way of dying with Him and being born again.

An infant cannot have faith.

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?

Do you chew up and spit the communion wafers into a baby's mouth and shove wine down its gullet too?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Really?

4,000 years ago, God wanted to distinguish Jews from Muslims.

God foreknew that there would one day be Muslims.

Also, your statement that God instituted circumcision only for a means of identification clearly rules out your previous assertion that infant baptism replaces infant circumcision. Nobody can tell that an infant has been baptized by looking at him; therefore, he is not identified or set apart.

Neither can you tell that someone has been circumcised just by looking at him. I have never been abroad, but apparently f you walk down the streets of Baghdad, you won't find Muslims walking around with their circumcised penises hanging out. Circumcision, like baptism, is a private and personal sign that is edifying for the few people who get to witness the event.

As for Scripture expressly forbidding pedobaptism, there is none.

Thank you for finally admitting this. It's been like pulling teeth.

However, that's not what I've been asking you. I've been asking you why you do it when you realize it has no effect whatsoever upon the child's outcomes (Heaven or Hell), and when you also realize it is utterly meaningless to the infant, who can't understand what's happening or commit to Christ.

We do it because Scripture supports it. I don't know about you Baptists, but if the Bible tells us to do something, we Presbyterians do it without worrying about extraneous matters like how it may or may not affect other people.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

We do it because Scripture supports it. I don't know about you Baptists, but if the Bible tells us to do something, we Presbyterians do it without worrying about extraneous matters like how it may or may not affect other people.

Do you Baptize people against their will as well?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Please name for me an instance of an infant baptism in the Bible.

I can name four instances of infant baptism from the Bible: Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and I Cor 1:16. The Apostle Peter tells us that the promise baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit is is "unto you [believers], AND TO YOUR CHILDREN" (Acts 2:39).

So it's the NT equivalent of circumcision in your eyes.

Yes, it is. After asking the Lord to remove your Baptist-tinted glasses, read Col 2:11-12.

We believe that only faith leads to salvation and baptism is a symbol of a person knowingly and willingly professing that faith. It is our way of dying with Him and being born again.

That's an interesting perspective, given the passages quoted above. What do you do, cut these verses out of your 1611 KJV with a pair of scissors just because they don't fit in with your view?

An infant cannot have faith.

I agree.

Do you chew up and spit the communion wafers into a baby's mouth and shove wine down its gullet too?

Of course not! But we would if the Bible told us to.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Do you Baptize people against their will as well?

We baptise infants against their will but not adults.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

I can name four instances of infant baptism from the Bible: Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and I Cor 1:16.

None of those mention infant baptism. Sorry, Pim. Just supposition that there may have possibly been an infant within those many people.

The Apostle Peter tells us that the promise baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit is is "unto you [believers], AND TO YOUR CHILDREN" (Acts 2:39).

And then what happened?

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

They that received. Not people who could not make that decision.

Yes, it is. After asking the Lord to remove your Baptist-tinted glasses, read Col 2:11-12.

Thank you for proving my point with those verses. Praise Jesus! Now, what is "the circumcision made without hands?"

"By putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" If a child is born into a sinful state, how can he put away the sins of the flesh without the ability to even control his bowel movements?

Here is another double barrel of scripture for you.

Acts 19:2-5 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here we have a group of believers who were already baptized, but in the wrong name. They had to do it again once they heard of Jesus and believed in Him.

Of course not! But we would if the Bible told us to.

Why not? They are both done by believers both communion and baptism. Why don't you force babies to take communion too?

We baptise infants against their will but not adults.

Why not?

Could it be that one has to be baptized of his or her own accord in conjunction with God's calling to Grace?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

None of those mention infant baptism. Sorry, Pim. Just supposition that there may have possibly been an infant within those many people.

Do you think it likely that out of those four families, there were no children among them?

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

They that received. Not people who could not make that decision.

If this verse is taken in context — that is, with verse 39 in mind — then they that received AND THEIR CHILDREN would have been baptised.

Thank you for proving my point with those verses. Praise Jesus! Now, what is "the circumcision made without hands?"

"By putting off the body of the sins of the flesh" If a child is born into a sinful state, how can he put away the sins of the flesh without the ability to even control his bowel movements?

So you still maintain that baptism does NOT replace circumcision? What kind of exegetical gymnastics do you have to perform to come to that conclusion? But I understand why you wouldn't want to admit that baptism replaces circumcision, for if it did, you would be hard pressed to explain why infants should not be baptised.

Here is another double barrel of scripture for you.

Acts 19:2-5 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here we have a group of believers who were already baptized, but in the wrong name. They had to do it again once they heard of Jesus and believed in Him.

We baptise infants in the name of Jesus.

Why not? They are both done by believers both communion and baptism. Why don't you force babies to take communion too?

Because the Bible is very clear that we must not partake of His Supper in an unworthy manner. Only believers who walk worthily of their calling may partake. Scripture is crystal clear on the matter.

Why not?

Could it be that one has to be baptized of his or her own accord in conjunction with God's calling to Grace?

No. It's because children are under the control of their parents, whereas adults are not. An adult may be baptised onlyif he truly believes and has never been baptised before.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

God foreknew that there would one day be Muslims.

So, God wanted to distinguish Christians from Muslims, so instituted circumcision, then eliminated it, all centuries before Islam was invented, so not a single Christian bound by circumcision was still alive when the first Muslims existed.

That is quite possibly the most improbable thing I've ever read on this forum. Congratulations on sinking to a new low of ridiculosity.

I see no reason to take anything you say seriously after this nonsense.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

I am just a simple lumberjack, not a pastor or a theologian, but God has put this question on my heart: why would someone go to a church divided on the issue of homosexuality, namely the Presbyterian church, seeking salvation? Is it really just because they want to force infants to undergo a baptism they can't understand?

Or is there some other motive?

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Do you think it likely that out of those four families, there were no children among them?

Do you think it likely that there were any bobble headed infants? You can only hope so. It's what you hang the entirety of the tradition on that there may have possibly been babies.

So you still maintain that baptism does NOT replace circumcision? What kind of exegetical gymnastics do you have to perform to come to that conclusion? But I understand why you wouldn't want to admit that baptism replaces circumcision, for if it did, you would be hard pressed to explain why infants should not be baptised.

No, because Paul tells us that the circumcision made without hands is inward. It comes from the heart. It cannot be performed on one without the free will to accept it.

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

We baptise infants in the name of Jesus.

And it has to be redone as they cannot accept or receive it without hearing of Jesus.

Because the Bible is very clear that we must not partake of His Supper in an unworthy manner. Only believers who walk worthily of their calling may partake. Scripture is crystal clear on the matter.

Can an infant repent of his evil? Of course not. It's the exact same thing. Giving the Lord's Supper to an infant is just as much of an abomination as baptism.

Acts 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 you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

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.

The promise is open to your children and all as long as they repent and are called by God.

No. It's because children are under the control of their parents, whereas adults are not. An adult may be baptised onlyif he truly believes and has never been baptised before.

So a servant who lives under your roof could be compelled to be baptized? The servant is "under control" too.

In some of the verses you pointed to earlier:
Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and I Cor 1:16, this is precisely what could be happening according to your logic.

Also, why not baptize before children are even born in case of a miscarriage?

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

I am just a simple lumberjack, not a pastor or a theologian, but God has put this question on my heart: why would someone go to a church divided on the issue of homosexuality, namely the Presbyterian church, seeking salvation? Is it really just because they want to force infants to undergo a baptism they can't understand?

Or is there some other motive?

I am from the Confessional Presbyterian Church of Australia, and we are in no way associated with the Presbyterian Church of America or the Church of Scotland. We are not divided on homosexuality. It is evil.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

So, God wanted to distinguish Christians from Muslims, so instituted circumcision, then eliminated it, all centuries before Islam was invented, so not a single Christian bound by circumcision was still alive when the first Muslims existed.

That is quite possibly the most improbable thing I've ever read on this forum. Congratulations on sinking to a new low of ridiculosity.

I see no reason to take anything you say seriously after this nonsense.

Are you saying that God didn't foreknow that there would be Muslims?

And let me expand on my answer. God made the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, the father of the Hebrews and the Arabs, who would later become Muslim. There are still Jews and Arabs alive today, and they are distinguished from each other by the way they practice circumcision. And since baptism replaces circumcision, we Christians are still bound by a form of circumcision today.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Are you saying that God didn't foreknow that there would be Muslims?

Of course He did. He also knew He would abolish circumcision hundreds of years before the invention of Islamofascism.

And let me expand on my answer. God made the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, the father of the Hebrews and the Arabs, who would later become Muslim. There are still Jews and Arabs alive today, and they are distinguished from each other by the way they practice circumcision. And since baptism replaces circumcision, we Christians are still bound by a form of circumcision today.

Except both Jews and Muslims are hellbound. So what's the point of distinguishing via circumcision? And, as you have pointed out yourself, how can anyone tell (short of looking down a man's pants)?

Ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Do you think it likely that there were any bobble headed infants?

There may not have been any "bobble headed" infants. But that still lends support to my point. Even if there were older children, they would have been baptised too because their head of household had entered into covenant with God.

To maintain your view, you have to assume that out of those four household baptisms there were 1) no "bobble headed" babies and 2) that any older children who were baptised had willingly received the Gospel. I can hear the thin ice of your theology beginning to crack.

No, because Paul tells us that the circumcision made without hands is inward. It comes from the heart.

Because of this, we believe that true baptism is inward, not only a physical act.

It cannot be performed on one without the free will to accept it.

Free will! Free will! You are starting to sound like an Arminian theologian. Have you heard of Herman Hanko, who said, "A Baptist is only inconsistently a Calvinist"?

So a servant who lives under your roof could be compelled to be baptized? The servant is "under control" too.

In some of the verses you pointed to earlier:
Acts 10:47-48, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and I Cor 1:16, this is precisely what could be happening according to your logic.

Yes, a servant could be compelled to be baptised. If any of these households owned servants or slaves, which is possible given the time period, then they would have been baptised too. "Household" would certainly include servants. If the head of household enters into covenant with God, the whole household enters into covenant with God.

But since servitude is no longer practiced today, I could not think of any scenario where it would be proper to compel an adult to be baptised.

Also, why not baptize before children are even born in case of a miscarriage?

How could one baptise an unborn baby? Not only is the fact of baptism important, the mode is as well. We know from Scripture that sprinkling or pouring is the mode that God has set forth. So how could a baby in the womb be baptised?