Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Protestant7777

Debate - Protestant vs Catholic

Recommended Posts

Here’s a recent debate between the protestant calvinist radio show personality Matt Slick and a traditional Catholic. Its two part videos. So who do all of you believe did the best job at presenting biblical truth?

Here’s the 1st video to the beginning of the debate…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq-FXeXhIKw&t=556s

And here is the 2nd part of that debate....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCH3qQ8h2t8&t=2188s

Edited by Protestant7777
Needed to narrow it down

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

I don't have time to view the videos, sorry, but a question, do some Protestants practice baptismal regeneration? For example, Lutherans? How does the Lutheran baptism differ from Catholics?

Share this post


Link to post

From my understanding, they do believe in baptismal regeneration. However, I could be wrong about that because I've never asked any Lutheran what they believe with regards to baptism. Perhaps a Lutheran in this forum can answer your question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Protestant7777 said:

From my understanding, they do believe in baptismal regeneration. However, I could be wrong about that because I've never asked any Lutheran what they believe with regards to baptism. Perhaps a Lutheran in this forum can answer your question.

Yes, we do believe in baptismal regeneration. I don't have the Book of Concord, but I do have Augsburg Confession and Luther's Large Cathecism. The statement about baptism in the AC is very short and doesn't include regeneration, but I think Luther's teaching in Large Cathecism includes the idea of baptismal regeneration.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration of infants but also believers baptism of adults. (they expect with adults regeneration takes place in the hearing of the Gospel).

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/21/2019 at 4:58 PM, Solas said:

Yes Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration of infants but also believers baptism of adults. (they expect with adults regeneration takes place in the hearing of the Gospel).

What do you mean by baptismal regeneration?

How could an infant be regenerated?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
47 minutes ago, GodsGrace said:

What do you mean by baptismal regeneration?

How could an infant be regenerated?

The above link is more from the perspective of Reformed on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, GodsGrace said:

What do you mean by baptismal regeneration?

How could an infant be regenerated?

I was just stating what Lutherans believed. I'm not saying that's what I hold to. They believe God's Word is powerful in creating faith and capable of regenerating a soul irrespective of age or ability to reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 hour ago, Solas said:

I was just stating what Lutherans believed. I'm not saying that's what I hold to. They believe God's Word is powerful in creating faith and capable of regenerating a soul irrespective of age or ability to reason.

Here's a good article, there's a lot of history surrounding baptismal regeneration. Here's the historical belief of the Latin church fathers:

 

1.3. The Latin Fathers

 

15. The fate of unbaptised infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. Pelagius questioned whether St. Paul's letter to the Romans really taught that all human beings sinned “in Adam” (Rom 5:12) and that concupiscence, suffering, and death were a consequence of the Fall.[22] Since he denied that Adam's sin was transmitted to his descendants, he regarded newborn infants as innocent. Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally guilty of sin.[23]

 

16. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.[24] He appealed to the Lord's precept, John 3:5, and to the Church's liturgical practice. Why are little children brought to the baptismal font, especially infants in danger of death, if not to assure them entrance into the Kingdom of God? Why are they subjected to exorcisms and exsufflations if they do not have to be delivered from the devil?[25] Why are they born again if they do not need to be made new? Liturgical practice confirms the Church's belief that all inherit Adam's sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13).[26]There is only one Baptism, the same for infants and adults, and it is for the forgiveness of sins.[27] If little children are baptized, then, it is because they are sinners. Although they clearly are not guilty of personal sin, according to Romans 5:12 (in the Latin translation available to Augustine), they have sinned “in Adam”.[28] “Why did Christ die for them if they are not guilty?”[29] All need Christ as their Saviour.

 

17. In Augustine's judgement, Pelagius undermined belief in Jesus Christ, the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5), and in the need for the saving grace he won for us on the Cross. Christ came to save sinners. He is the “Great Physician” who offers even infants the medicine of Baptism to save them from the inherited sin of Adam.[30]The sole remedy for the sin of Adam, passed on to everyone through human generation, is Baptism. Those who are not baptized cannot enter the Kingdom of God. At the judgement, those who do not enter the Kingdom (Mt 25:34) will be condemned to hell (Mt 25:41). There is no “middle ground” between heaven and hell. “There is no middle place left, where you can put babies”.[31] Anyone “who is not with Christ must be with the devil”.[32]

 

18. God is just. If he condemns unbaptised children to hell, it is because they are sinners. Although these infants are punished in hell, they will suffer only the “mildest condemnation” (“mitissima poena”),[33] “the lightest punishment of all”,[34] for there are diverse punishments in proportion to the guilt of the sinner.[35]These infants were unable to help themselves, but there is no injustice in their condemnation because all belong to “the same mass”, the mass destined for perdition. God does no injustice to those who are not elected, for all deserve hell.[36] Why is it that some are vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? Augustine admits that he “cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation”. He can only exclaim with St. Paul: “How inscrutable [God's] judgments, and untraceable his ways!”[37] Rather than condemn divine authority, he gives a restrictive interpretation of God's universal salvific will..[38] The Church believes that if anyone is redeemed, it is only by God's unmerited mercy; but if anyone is condemned, it is by his well-merited judgment. We shall discover the justice of God's will in the next world.[39]

 

19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”.[40] It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”.[41] This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

 

20. So great was Augustine's authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.[42]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Solas said:

I was just stating what Lutherans believed. I'm not saying that's what I hold to. They believe God's Word is powerful in creating faith and capable of regenerating a soul irrespective of age or ability to reason.

Hi Solas,,,

I'm hoping to be on the forum for quite some time....

so this is the only reason I'm responding...so that we could get to know each other.

 

Now...Here are my two questions again:

What do you mean by baptismal regeneration?

How could an infant be regenerated?

 

And you replied:

I was just stating what Lutherans believed. I'm not saying that's what I hold to. They believe God's Word is powerful in creating faith and capable of regenerating a soul irrespective of age or ability to reason.

 

See?  I still don't know the answer to my questions.

Would you care to try again?

If you'd rather not,,,that's OK too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, William said:

Here's a good article, there's a lot of history surrounding baptismal regeneration. Here's the historical belief of the Latin church fathers:

 

1.3. The Latin Fathers

 

15. The fate of unbaptised infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. Pelagius questioned whether St. Paul's letter to the Romans really taught that all human beings sinned “in Adam” (Rom 5:12) and that concupiscence, suffering, and death were a consequence of the Fall.[22] Since he denied that Adam's sin was transmitted to his descendants, he regarded newborn infants as innocent. Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally guilty of sin.[23]

 

16. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.[24] He appealed to the Lord's precept, John 3:5, and to the Church's liturgical practice. Why are little children brought to the baptismal font, especially infants in danger of death, if not to assure them entrance into the Kingdom of God? Why are they subjected to exorcisms and exsufflations if they do not have to be delivered from the devil?[25] Why are they born again if they do not need to be made new? Liturgical practice confirms the Church's belief that all inherit Adam's sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13).[26]There is only one Baptism, the same for infants and adults, and it is for the forgiveness of sins.[27] If little children are baptized, then, it is because they are sinners. Although they clearly are not guilty of personal sin, according to Romans 5:12 (in the Latin translation available to Augustine), they have sinned “in Adam”.[28] “Why did Christ die for them if they are not guilty?”[29] All need Christ as their Saviour.

 

17. In Augustine's judgement, Pelagius undermined belief in Jesus Christ, the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5), and in the need for the saving grace he won for us on the Cross. Christ came to save sinners. He is the “Great Physician” who offers even infants the medicine of Baptism to save them from the inherited sin of Adam.[30]The sole remedy for the sin of Adam, passed on to everyone through human generation, is Baptism. Those who are not baptized cannot enter the Kingdom of God. At the judgement, those who do not enter the Kingdom (Mt 25:34) will be condemned to hell (Mt 25:41). There is no “middle ground” between heaven and hell. “There is no middle place left, where you can put babies”.[31] Anyone “who is not with Christ must be with the devil”.[32]

 

18. God is just. If he condemns unbaptised children to hell, it is because they are sinners. Although these infants are punished in hell, they will suffer only the “mildest condemnation” (“mitissima poena”),[33] “the lightest punishment of all”,[34] for there are diverse punishments in proportion to the guilt of the sinner.[35]These infants were unable to help themselves, but there is no injustice in their condemnation because all belong to “the same mass”, the mass destined for perdition. God does no injustice to those who are not elected, for all deserve hell.[36] Why is it that some are vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? Augustine admits that he “cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation”. He can only exclaim with St. Paul: “How inscrutable [God's] judgments, and untraceable his ways!”[37] Rather than condemn divine authority, he gives a restrictive interpretation of God's universal salvific will..[38] The Church believes that if anyone is redeemed, it is only by God's unmerited mercy; but if anyone is condemned, it is by his well-merited judgment. We shall discover the justice of God's will in the next world.[39]

 

19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”.[40] It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”.[41] This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

 

20. So great was Augustine's authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.[42]

 

 

Hi W,

 

You sure do know a lot about Augustine...!

Did you know that the catholic church has changed its position on the above?

What it states now, officially from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that we entrust these infants to God's mercy.  It no longer states that they are lost.  Unofficially, they believe unbaptized children (or adult believers) go to heaven.

 

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

 

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

16 hours ago, William said:

The above link is more from the perspective of Reformed on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

I'm not very good with links.

I like to learn from persons.

I'll look through it.

I also asked another poster what B.R. meant,,,

I like to know what the particular poster believes...sometimes we get messed up with language....

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
47 minutes ago, GodsGrace said:

Did you know that the catholic church has changed its position on the above?

What it states now, officially from the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that we entrust these infants to God's mercy.  It no longer states that they are lost.  Unofficially, they believe unbaptized children (or adult believers) go to heaven.

Yes, which brings further questioning of the standard of authority by which the Catholic church stands by.

 

47 minutes ago, GodsGrace said:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

As Reformed I will say and emphasize the sin nature of the natural man. Without Election no infant is heavenward. All men are conceived in sin.

 

Let me ask you a sincere question as you touch upon a topic which is sure to stir emotion. Granted that God is Omniscient and completely Just. Here's my question, whether heaven or hell, justice or mercy, wrath or grace towards another on judgment day "can" you praise God and Glorify Him? If God condemned an infant Hitler based on his foreknowledge though this hypothetical infant had not yet committed an act of sin but only conceived in the desire to sin would you praise Him? Likewise, for those infants which apart from God's election and regeneration which may be sent to hell on his "foreknowledge" alone of the depraved nature, knowing that the natural man himself will perish in sin can you praise Him?

 

Are you going to be like the 4 and 20 elders or are you going to object to God as the perfect Judge? Now I'm basing my question and emphasizing a flaw in semi-pelagianism theology. If infants are conceived "neutral" then that is full blown Pelagianism. However, if God Elects individuals and fore-ordains the circumstances which may bring death to the Elect in infancy or after conception do you agree that they are in God's hands?

 

Also a further complication. If all people after conception are born "innocent" rather than in original sin or having a depraved nature or inability then that suggests that people are heavenward but lose their salvation. Abortionist are actually doing infants a favor by murdering children which raises the question is infant sacrifice moral. While not the argument it is a consequence.

 

My question is equally emotional. Are you in complete subjection to God's sovereignty? Is God worthy to make these decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, William said:

Yes, which brings further questioning of the standard of authority by which the Catholic church stands by.

 

As Reformed I will say and emphasize the sin nature of the natural man. Without Election no infant is heavenward. All men are conceived in sin.

 

Let me ask you a sincere question as you touch upon a topic which is sure to steer emotion. Granted that God is Omniscient and completely Just. Here's my question, whether heaven or hell, justice or mercy, wrath or grace towards another on judgment day "can" you praise God and Glorify Him? If God condemned an infant Hitler based on his foreknowledge though this hypothetical infant had not yet committed an act of sin but only conceived in the desire to sin would you praise Him? Likewise, for those infants which apart from God's election and regeneration which may be sent to hell on his "foreknowledge" alone of the depraved nature, knowing that the natural man himself will perish in sin can you praise Him?

 

Are you going to be like the 4 and 20 elders or are you going to object to God as the perfect Judge? Now I'm basing my question and emphasizing a flaw in semi-pelagianism theology. If infants are conceived "neutral" then that is full blown Pelagianism. However, if God Elects individuals and fore-ordains the circumstances which may bring death to the Elect in infancy or after conception do you agree that they are in God's hands?

 

Also a further complication. If all people after conception are born "innocent" rather than in original sin or having a depraved nature or inability then that suggests that people are heavenward but lose their salvation. Abortionist are actually doing infants a favor by murdering children which raises the question is infant sacrifice moral. While not the argument it is a consequence.

 

My question is equally emotional. Are you in complete subjection to God's sovereignty? Is God worthy to make these decisions?

I have to get back to this because it's very serious and I have to get dinner going!!!  What could be more serious than that???? LOL

 

Will be back in a bit....

Edited by GodsGrace

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, William said:

Yes, which brings further questioning of the standard of authority by which the Catholic church stands by.

 

As Reformed I will say and emphasize the sin nature of the natural man. Without Election no infant is heavenward. All men are conceived in sin.

 

Let me ask you a sincere question as you touch upon a topic which is sure to stir emotion. Granted that God is Omniscient and completely Just. Here's my question, whether heaven or hell, justice or mercy, wrath or grace towards another on judgment day "can" you praise God and Glorify Him? If God condemned an infant Hitler based on his foreknowledge though this hypothetical infant had not yet committed an act of sin but only conceived in the desire to sin would you praise Him? Likewise, for those infants which apart from God's election and regeneration which may be sent to hell on his "foreknowledge" alone of the depraved nature, knowing that the natural man himself will perish in sin can you praise Him?

 

Are you going to be like the 4 and 20 elders or are you going to object to God as the perfect Judge? Now I'm basing my question and emphasizing a flaw in semi-pelagianism theology. If infants are conceived "neutral" then that is full blown Pelagianism. However, if God Elects individuals and fore-ordains the circumstances which may bring death to the Elect in infancy or after conception do you agree that they are in God's hands?

 

Also a further complication. If all people after conception are born "innocent" rather than in original sin or having a depraved nature or inability then that suggests that people are heavenward but lose their salvation. Abortionist are actually doing infants a favor by murdering children which raises the question is infant sacrifice moral. While not the argument it is a consequence.

 

My question is equally emotional. Are you in complete subjection to God's sovereignty? Is God worthy to make these decisions?

I just lost my whole reply to you!!

 

How do I get it back?

:classic_sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

I have no idea why that may happen. If you lose your reply you only need click on the editor and it should have saved or cached your post. However, you made the above post which suggests to me that either you accidentally cleared the editor or some network connection may be the culprit. Of course a network connection issue could be between you and the server and anywhere in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, William said:

I have no idea why that may happen. If you lose your reply you only need click on the editor and it should have saved or cached your post. However, you made the above post which suggests to me that either you accidentally cleared the editor or some network connection may be the culprit. Of course a network connection issue could be between you and the server and anywhere in between.

Where's the editor??

Edited by GodsGrace

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, William said:

Yes, which brings further questioning of the standard of authority by which the Catholic church stands by.

 

(it happened again....clicked on QUOTE and it did NOT go to this page; I had to look for it)

 

I understand what you mean by the above.  What the CC will tell you is that revelation is ongoing but doctrine cannot be changed.  Now, to ME this seems like doctrine (about unbaptized babies)...but what do I know?

 

Please remember that I'm not catholic but only know the doctrine.

Quote

 

As Reformed I will say and emphasize the sin nature of the natural man. Without Election no infant is heavenward. All men are conceived in sin.

 

I also believe in the sin nature...I just don't believe in total depravity....

Total depravity means there is NO good in  man...how do you explain that even atheists do good deeds?  

Quote

 

Let me ask you a sincere question as you touch upon a topic which is sure to steer emotion. Granted that God is Omniscient and completely Just. Here's my question, whether heaven or hell, justice or mercy, wrath or grace towards another on judgment day "can" you praise God and Glorify Him? If God condemned an infant Hitler based on his foreknowledge though this hypothetical infant had not yet committed an act of sin but only conceived in the desire to sin would you praise Him? Likewise, for those infants which apart from God's election and regeneration which may be sent to hell on his "foreknowledge" alone of the depraved nature, knowing that the natural man himself will perish in sin can you praise Him?

 

Just to make clear that I do not discuss biblical matters with emotion but with the knowledge that I have.  I'd be lying to say that I NEVER get emotional,,,but it's very rare and usually about how another member is reacting to me.

God is omniscient

God is just

I can glorify God if I see this justice, mercy and love in Him...

If I cannot see it -- I don't need to wait till judgement day....I'd stop having respect for Him right now.

 

As to the infant Hitler....I see your point.  What you're saying is that the infant would not have committed any sins yet,,,but would have if he'd grown to adulthood.  

 

This is an interesting question and one I haven't thought of.

The question really is:  Does God see only to the point of history,,,or does He go beyond it?  IOW,,, Does He see only to the BIRTH of this infant Hitler,,,or does He actually take the infant's history beyond the birth and then his death?

 

I'm going to have to digest this a minute and think about it.  I'm not sure this question could have an answer.

 

I do understand that you've come to have an answer....

I think there's a thread about this on another site...wish I could remember where.

Quote

 

Are you going to be like the 4 and 20 elders or are you going to object to God as the perfect Judge? Now I'm basing my question and emphasizing a flaw in semi-pelagianism theology. If infants are conceived "neutral" then that is full blown Pelagianism. However, if God Elects individuals and fore-ordains the circumstances which may bring death to the Elect in infancy or after conception do you agree that they are in God's hands?

 

God is the perfect judge...but it has to be based on HIS attributes:

Goodness

Mercy

Justice

 

You keep speaking about justice, but what about His mercy and His love?

I could post many verses...I don't think you need them.

 

Also, you're speaking about semi-pelagianism....I go by scripture,,,I'm not very familiar with all these persons you bring up.

 

Here's how I understand it:

 

We are born with the effects of the fall....the "sin nature"  some call it the flesh.

We are not born with any personally imputed sin.

 

Before Augustine,,,,adults were baptized for the forgiveness of sins up till that point.  Babies were baptized so as to not let them miss out on the privilege of becoming members of the Christian family.   I could get you proof of this, but too busy right now.  It comes from the ECFs.  Augustine changed these beliefs.

 

AFTER Augustine and his Original Sin theories....it became NECESSARY for infants to be baptized.  I don't agree with this...I agree with the ECFs.  They had it right...NOT Augustine.

 

Quote

 

Also a further complication. If all people after conception are born "innocent" rather than in original sin or having a depraved nature or inability then that suggests that people are heavenward but lose their salvation. Abortionist are actually doing infants a favor by murdering children which raises the question is infant sacrifice moral. While not the argument it is a consequence.

 

Persons are born with the sin nature....not a depraved nature ...depraved means they have no good in them at all.

 

Persons are not. thus, born innocent.  When we're born we're lost and are going to hell.  We have to repent and go the other way toward God.  This happens, however, at the age of reason.  NOT when we're infants or children.

Jesus said Suffer the children to come to me....And that the Kingdom of God is such as these.....why would He have said that if some of them were lost?

Mathew 19:14

Quote

 

My question is equally emotional. Are you in complete subjection to God's sovereignty? Is God worthy to make these decisions?

Oh yes.

God is sovereign.

God will have HIS way...

But that does not take away our free will.

 

 

 

I FOUND IT!!!

(but I don't know how....)

 

Edited by GodsGrace

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
On 3/15/2019 at 10:53 AM, GodsGrace said:

Total depravity means there is NO good in  man...how do you explain that even atheists do good deeds?  

That is a misconception. Total depravity doesn't suggest that man cannot do good in the eyes of other men, but that every member of a man is affected by sin and man's works are like a filthy rag before our Holy God. God doesn't only judge a deed but the intent and motive of a man's heart in performing the deed! Total depravity is sometimes theologically called total inability which recognizes man's inability to meet the requirements of God in holiness and righteousness as conveyed in the Law.

 

If you haven't noticed Calvinism places an extremely high emphasis on the relationship between man and God recognizing the Lord's Holiness. Only then can we fully appreciate the mediator (the Father is not approachable but by Christ). The teaching of the Gospel through Calvinism buckles a man's knees and prostrates them before our holy God. Only then can we appreciate His Grace. Law and Gospel!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
51 minutes ago, GodsGrace said:

You keep speaking about justice, but what about His mercy and His love?

If God is only love and despite His justice then there is no need for Jesus. Jesus propritiates those he atones for to appease God's wrath.

 

 God is love but love is not God. We have our own human conception of love but if God decides to demonstrate wrath to Cananite children or infants even in the womb of Canaanite women, my question is whether you'll judge God according to our human conception of love? Or like the 4 and 20 elders praise God and glorify Him when his wrath comes down upon man? Even God's wrath brings glory from the saints.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/14/2019 at 11:11 PM, William said:

16. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.[24] He appealed to the Lord's precept, John 3:5, and to the Church's liturgical practice.

This is why I'm not keen on the Church Fathers unless their names are Paul. Peter, James, John or even Moses, Isaiah, David etc. (I tread very carefully when reading the 'Fathers', and definitely don't look to them as the last word of interpretation.)

 

John 3:5-6 KJV
[5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

 

I would argue that even if paedobaptism fulfills the 'water' part of vs 5 (I would argue it is the water of the Word), for the infant, it still doesn't guarantee being 'born of the Spirit'. 

Edited by Solas
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/15/2019 at 9:32 AM, GodsGrace said:

Hi Solas,,,

I'm hoping to be on the forum for quite some time....

so this is the only reason I'm responding...so that we could get to know each other.

 

Now...Here are my two questions again:

What do you mean by baptismal regeneration?

How could an infant be regenerated?

 

And you replied:

I was just stating what Lutherans believed. I'm not saying that's what I hold to. They believe God's Word is powerful in creating faith and capable of regenerating a soul irrespective of age or ability to reason.

 

See?  I still don't know the answer to my questions.

Would you care to try again?

If you'd rather not,,,that's OK too.

 

 

Having been a confessional Lutheran and not a Methodist or Roman Catholic, I could only give you my understanding of what they held concerning Baptismal Regeneration. Did you have a specific question regarding my explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/17/2019 at 6:11 AM, Solas said:

Having been a confessional Lutheran and not a Methodist or Roman Catholic, I could only give you my understanding of what they held concerning Baptismal Regeneration. Did you have a specific question regarding my explanation?

I happen to know how Catholics teach about batpism.

I wanted to know what you believed,,,but it's OK.

See you around for other stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, GodsGrace said:

I happen to know how Catholics teach about batpism.

I wanted to know what you believed,,,but it's OK.

See you around for other stuff!

My take on baptism means little. It is what the Bible says on the topic of Baptism.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
17 hours ago, Solas said:

My take on baptism means little. It is what the Bible says on the topic of Baptism.

Of course it matters, especially in the Great Commission in way of Evangelism. While I appreciate what you're stating (Sola Scriptura) I think God'sGrace was attempting to encourage more dialogue and deepen our own individual personal understanding. 

 

Some people base their theological understanding from an isolated verse, some with surrounding context, and while others attempt to understand a verse in both immediate and broader context yet Systematic theology attempts to answer a question using the entirety of Scripture for a given subject.

 

IOW ask the question "what is baptism" and we're bound to get different answers based on the various principles and methods of interpretation held by various theological schools of thought.

 

From what you shared already Solas my view aligns with yours. However, I can understand "how" from Scripture some come to baptismal regeneration. While I think the doctrine has error for the exact same reason as you do (grace is not so annexed to water that it cannot occur without or is guaranteed with), I find baptismal regeneration as plausible as credo-baptism both of which I can come to based on different principles and methods of interpretation. Being a former credo-baptist I abandoned the doctrine for the Reformed view of covenant and household baptism which I think is more aligned to what the author of Scripture intended to convey. Point being is I could glean the truth from other perspectives, but it wasn't until I moved to see (perceive) from the Reformed perspective that the question, "what is baptism" was clarified to the point that other perspectives in contrast were blurry once revisited.

 

Reminds me of the first time I found out I needed glasses. By coincidinky I tried on my daughter's glasses and was AMAZED! I could see from far away. Now that I've been wearing glasses a year I can't go without them. I have a hard time believing I went so long without. Hermeneutical lenses are like that as they are meant to correct our sight but sometimes we'll never know how clear the objects of truth in other doctrines are unless we move to other theological camps to see from their perspective. 

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, William said:

Of course it matters, especially in the Great Commission in way of Evangelism. While I appreciate what you're stating (Sola Scriptura) I think God'sGrace was attempting to encourage more dialogue and deepen our own individual personal understanding. 

This was William's initial response to my statement...

16 hours ago, Solas said:

My take on baptism means little. It is what the Bible says on the topic of Baptism.

  I am not about to pit my opinion of baptism against what God's Word teaches. 

29 minutes ago, William said:

Some people base their theological understanding from an isolated verse, some with surrounding context, and while others attempt to understand a verse in both immediate and broader context yet. Systematic theology of course attempts to answer a question using the entirety of Scripture for a given subject.

  I would call that good hermeneutics, rather than systematic theology.

30 minutes ago, William said:

IOW ask the question "what is baptism" and we're bound to get different answers based on the various principles and methods of interpretation held by various theological schools of thought.

 

True, but we are to still continue to seek out the Author's intended meaning...not other's opinions. (That has been my main point)

31 minutes ago, William said:

From what you shared already Solas my view aligns with yours. However, I can understand "how" from Scripture some come to baptismal regeneration. While I think the doctrine has error for the exact same reason as you do (grace is not so annexed to water that it cannot occur without or is guaranteed with), I find baptismal regeneration as plausible as credo-baptism both of which I can come to based on different principles and methods of interpretation.

I try not to get into debates over baptism and the Lord's Supper (I had been part of a Church split over 'when' the Elements actually became the True Body and Blood, i.e. was it during the words of institution? the actual partaking? and/or whether faith was required. This was hammered out over the entire Book of Concord, and the split was ugly...never again). I have my opinion and that is all it is. I don't want anyone leaning on it.

32 minutes ago, William said:

Being a former credo-baptist I abandoned the doctrine for the Reformed view of covenant and household baptism which I think is more aligned to what the author of Scripture intended to convey. Point being is I could glean the truth from other perspectives, but it wasn't until I moved to see (perceive) from the Reformed perspective that the question, "what is baptism" was clarified to the point that other perspectives in contrast were blurry once revisited.

After all the denominations I have been through I guess my perspective is that of the Bereans...

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Act 17:11)
 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...