[James Hutchins]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

It is all understandable and there is no need for concern. I find that our feeble attempts to understand the Mind of God are all but futile - we can do no more than follow his Revealed Word - surely this cannot fail.

I fully concurr with these wise words. Understanding the mind of God is completely impossible. We would have a better chance of understanding the mind of a cock roach or even a woman sooner!

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

It is all understandable and there is no need for concern. I find that our feeble attempts to understand the Mind of God are all but futile - we can do no more than follow his Revealed Word - surely this cannot fail.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

This borders on heresy! The Holy Spirit entered Mary.

Do you not think that Baptism allows the acceptance of The Holy Spirit to enter the Soul?

An unborn child has a soul.

Baptism of the unborn is therefore possible... However, the question now arises, "Can a fetus accept Christ?"

Many leading theologians believe that the soul of the father is carried in the seed and that the Soul is perfectly formed to accept the Holy Spirit.

At this, you might expect me to accept pedobaptism - I cannot. The baptee must show to men of discernment that the understanding is there and can only do that when of an age.

I hope this will be the last of what is sounding very much like Calvinism/Presbyterianism both of which are for the deluded.

Mr Bathfire, I wrote this some time ago when I was new to the forum. After several months here at Landover I have learned that some of my views, especially those on Baptism, although sincerely held, were in error. I am always open to learning new things from True Chrisitans.

In His grip,
PP

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

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?

This borders on heresy! The Holy Spirit entered Mary.

Do you not think that Baptism allows the acceptance of The Holy Spirit to enter the Soul?

An unborn child has a soul.

Baptism of the unborn is therefore possible... However, the question now arises, "Can a fetus accept Christ?"

Many leading theologians believe that the soul of the father is carried in the seed and that the Soul is perfectly formed to accept the Holy Spirit.

At this, you might expect me to accept pedobaptism - I cannot. The baptee must show to men of discernment that the understanding is there and can only do that when of an age.

I hope this will be the last of what is sounding very much like Calvinism/Presbyterianism both of which are for the deluded.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

Joining this forum has been a real learning experience for me.

That's why we are here, friend.

[Levi Jones]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

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"?

You got me on that one. Of course there is no free will, but God's calling of His elect. However, one can only repent of his sinful nature if he understands it.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Greetings from Down Under

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

I'm glad we can agree on something.

Except both Jews and Muslims are hellbound.

True, both are hell bound. That's two things we agree on.

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)?

Well, when you put it that way, my view does sound rather silly. You will be pleased to know that I have since consulted Calvin's commentary on Genesis and realised the error of my ways. Circumcision was given to distinguish the Jews from the nations around them, who were not Muslims at the time.

I can admit when I'm wrong. Joining this forum has been a real learning experience for me.

[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?

[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

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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.