The imagination comment was borderline inflammatory....careful. :) Randy Jerry wrote: > Randy, > > No, we probably will never agree on these points. > >>>> I will stand with the grammatical-historical understanding of >>>> scripture in it's context and then review how saints throughout >>>> history have viewed this to make sure I'm not coming up with >>>> anything new. > > And I say let the Bible speak and carry the issue. What you call "the > grammatical-historical understanding of scripture in it's context " > ... and "how saints throughout history have viewed this" is nothing > but religious tradition. There is no teaching or example given in the > Bible of an infant being baptized. Imagination does not equal Holy Writ. > > Jerry > "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles > among the people" (Acts 6:8). > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <shieldwolf@...> > To: <pastorsforum@...> > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:19 PM > Subject: Re: [PastorsForum] Talk about ouster a pastor - affiliated w/ > SBC]] > > >> We're going to disagree on this. I will stand with the >> grammatical-historical understanding of scripture in it's context and >> then >> review how saints throughout history have viewed this to make sure >> I'm not >> coming up with anything new. >> >> Without faith it is impossible to please God. >> >> Faith is gift of God. >> >> We simply will not agree on this >> >> Blessings, >> Randy >> >> >>> Randy, >>> >>>>>> If Faith is a gift from God that brings salvation, infants MUST >>>>>> be able >>>>>> to >>> have it. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11). So >>> infants cannot have it, they go to Hell. Simple enough. To say >>> that God >>> cannot touch the will of an infant--why? He can touch the will of >>> Balaam's Ass. He can create the universe. He as God can come as a >>> man, >>> but somehow He is unable to have a relationship with a child? I >>> don't buy >>> that dog food. I just don't, and I believe the scriptures teach >>> that HE >>> CAN. >>> >>> Jerry> The simple problem is,... there is no passage of Scripture that >>> teaches what you say here. There is no example of any infant being >>> saved, >>> baptized, or God saying that he is in the family of God because he was >>> sprinkled. Read the New Testament in Greek or English, ... such is >>> not in >>> the Bible. Imagination does not equal Holy Writ. >>> >>> Jerry> Sure, God did something remarkable with Balaam's donkey, ... but >>> God's law is that people are saved by believing the gospel, not by a >>> few >>> drops of water on the forehead. God chose to save them that believe and >>> faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Men are >>> saved by >>> the >>> foolishness of preaching. >>> >>>>>>> David had faith at his mother's breast. Timothy knew the >>>>>>> scriptures >>>>>>> from infancy, also when Jesus used >>> Paidia and took the infants in his arms and blessed them, he gave >>> them a >>> spiritual blessing and not a box of pampers, so infants can receive >>> spiritual blessings. >>> >>> Jerry> Excuse me??? There is no verse of Scripture that states David >>> was >>> saved because he nursed from his mother's breast. Timothy was taught >>> the >>> word of God as he was able to hear and understand it. The >>> Scriptures made >>> him wise unto salvation, yet Timothy had to trust Christ with personal >>> faith >>> in order to be saved, just like every adult has to believe on the Lord. >>> Jesus laid hands on the children to bless them, but no Bible verse says >>> that >>> children were regenerated by the laying on of hands. Laying on of >>> hands >>> is >>> a foundational doctrine of Christ. It is seen all through the Bible to >>> impart spiritual blessing, anointing, the Power of the Holy Spirit, and >>> healing. Yet the ministry of laying on of hands is never shown to >>> be for >>> getting people saved if they do not believe in Christ. >>> >>> Jerry> GOD HAS NO GRANDCHILDREN!!! He only has sons and daughter >>> who are >>> born again by personal trust in Christ as the Living Savior. >>> >>> Jerry >>> "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles >>> among >>> the people" (Acts 6:8). >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <shieldwolf@...> >>> To: <pastorsforum@...> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:35 PM >>> Subject: Re: [PastorsForum] Talk about ouster a pastor - affiliated w/ >>> SBC]] >>> >>> >>>> Actually Clinton got it from Zwingli. Zwingli argued with Luther that >>>> "is" didn't really have to mean "is," so Clinton was merely >>>> reaffirming >>>> his Anabaptist heritage. <wink back at ya> >>>> >>>> OK, here's the detail of my working through this on my own since you >>>> asked, but only because you asked. It is not intended to convince >>>> anyone, >>>> but is merely a collection of my walking through this some 14 years >>>> ago: >>>> >>>> If Faith is a gift from God that brings salvation, infants MUST be >>>> able >>>> to >>>> have it. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11). So >>>> infants cannot have it, they go to Hell. Simple enough. To say that >>>> God >>>> cannot touch the will of an infant--why? He can touch the will of >>>> Balaam's Ass. He can create the universe. He as God can come as a >>>> man, >>>> but somehow He is unable to have a relationship with a child? I don't >>>> buy >>>> that dog food. I just don't, and I believe the scriptures teach >>>> that HE >>>> CAN. >>>> >>>> The biggest reasons for my change: David had faith at his mother's >>>> breast. Timothy knew the scriptures from infancy, also when Jesus >>>> used >>>> Paidia and took the infants in his arms and blessed them, he gave >>>> them a >>>> spiritual blessing and not a box of pampers, so infants can receive >>>> spiritual blessings. How does one receive a spiritual blessing? >>>> Is it >>>> not through faith? Are we to become as intellectual adults to >>>> enter the >>>> Kingdom or as receptive small children (e.g. toddler-infants)? >>>> >>>> Then as far as baptism is concerned: Is it God acting on man or a man >>>> acting for God? If you believe the prior you take my position. If >>>> you >>>> believe the latter, you don't. >>>> >>>> Other kickers: The Jewish understanding "for you and for your >>>> children" >>>> also the use of the term "household" in Acts and what that would have >>>> included. And finally the understanding and practice not just of the >>>> church fathers, but the church itself until the 1520's. "Professor's >>>> baptsim only" is of recent origin in the church (dispensationalism >>>> even >>>> more recent). The only nay-sayer was Tertullian and he wanted you to >>>> wait >>>> for baptism as long as you could so you could use it "to cover as much >>>> sin >>>> as possible" from his perspective. He was pretty much slammed down to >>>> the >>>> mat by about everybody. >>>> >>>> There was also the Jewish understanding at the time of baptism in >>>> general >>>> and what that meant in the first century as it relates to "households, >>>> too." >>>> >>>> Finally, Luther's "Concerning Rebaptism" was the treatise that was the >>>> final >>>> convincing for me. Is it all about me and having "faith in my >>>> faith" or >>>> is it all about God and trusting that He is True when Christ says >>>> through >>>> the mouth of the Pastor "I baptize you in the name of the Father >>>> and of >>>> the Son and of the Holy Spirit"? >>>> >>>> Bottom line: Is baptism an act of man or an act of God? How you >>>> answer >>>> that determines how you view who should be baptized and when. >>>> >>>> I appreciate those who don't understand the sacrament as I do but >>>> still >>>> practice it. The folk I have problems with are your extreme >>>> dispensationalists that claim baptism was for a different dispensation >>>> and >>>> not for today. >>>> >>>> I do wish you all well and I realize I'm probably the only one on the >>>> list >>>> who has this view and that is OK. I again say this only to relate my >>>> own >>>> journey. >>>> >>>> Blessings, >>>> Randy >>>> >>>> >>>>> I thought that was Bill Clinton who >>>>> didn't know what "is" was. *wink >>>>> He got it from Luther? >>>>> >>>>> Randy, I was a Presbyterian who studied >>>>> and went the other direction, into the >>>>> river. In seminary I almost went in >>>>> three times forward (Grace Brethren ya >>>>> know). >>>>> >>>>>> From what you have written, am I right >>>>> in thinking that the strongest evidence >>>>> which convinced you was the church >>>>> fathers? >>>>> >>>>> Also, when you say that "infants can >>>>> have faith" by that do you mean saving >>>>> faith? >>>>> (I'll lure you gently into a discussion >>>>> even though you try to resist. Common >>>>> sense does not always reign). >>>>> >>>>> Jimbo >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: <shieldwolf@...> >>>>> To: <pastorsforum@...> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:39 PM >>>>> Subject: [PastorsForum] Talk about >>>>> ouster a pastor - affiliated w/ SBC] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I really don't think it's a good idea to >>>>> discuss this on this list. We >>>>> all have our various opinions and we are >>>>> not going to convince anyone one >>>>> way or another. >>>>> >>>>> It's not a duck and run. I get tired of >>>>> trying to explain to people who >>>>> simply twist and proof-text >>>>> scripture---that is what >>>>> neo-fundamentalists >>>>> do. I know. I used to be one. You >>>>> explain scripture in it's >>>>> historical/grammatical context and then >>>>> they twist it around to say >>>>> whatever they want anyway. It's just >>>>> like talking to a hard-core liberal. >>>>> You're further ahead to go into the >>>>> back yard and pound nails into 2"x4"s >>>>> with your forehead. >>>>> >>>>> I searched the NT scriptures in Greek, >>>>> studied the early church fathers >>>>> and read varying positions on baptism >>>>> for 9 months before jumping off the >>>>> "Baptist" ship. In my own family I have >>>>> found it wiser to simply state >>>>> that we disagree and not get into a >>>>> slugfest which does nothing to build >>>>> up the Kingdom but merely is what some >>>>> psychologists call >>>>> "right-fighting." It's all about "being >>>>> right about everything." I used >>>>> to do that, too. Then one day my wife >>>>> told me to stop doing that with her >>>>> father concerning his dispensationalism. >>>>> She pointed out that for him, >>>>> knowing how every little thing fit >>>>> together was a comfort and since it was >>>>> not a primary point of doctrine to just >>>>> leave it alone (she tends to have >>>>> far more sense than I do). >>>>> >>>>> Since you seem to think I seldom do any >>>>> Bible study, from my perspective: >>>>> >>>>> Base scriptures for my position that >>>>> infants can have faith and that >>>>> baptism is also for them: >>>>> Psalm 51:5 >>>>> Psalm 8:2 >>>>> Psalm 22:9 >>>>> Mark 10:14 >>>>> Col 2:11-12 >>>>> Titus 3:5 >>>>> Acts 2:38,39 >>>>> Acts 16:15 and 33 >>>>> Eph 4:5 >>>>> 1 Ptr 3:21 >>>>> 2Tim 3:15 >>>>> >>>>> These are the core for my own >>>>> conclusions. Surely there are others, >>>>> but >>>>> I'm talking about influences that came >>>>> readily to mind. >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, closely look at the way >>>>> the early church fathers understood >>>>> these passages--especially those within >>>>> the first 100-200 years since >>>>> Christ's death. One of things I find >>>>> amazing is how "magically" the >>>>> church suddenly stopped teaching the >>>>> truth as soon as the Apostle John >>>>> died and then didn't start teaching it >>>>> again until the mid 1500's. I >>>>> realize Broadbent in his Pilgrim Church >>>>> tried to prove otherwise and say >>>>> there was a thread of "Baptists" from >>>>> the early church, but actual >>>>> students of history realize that the >>>>> stretches he makes would make Obama's >>>>> Pastor's comments about the US >>>>> government seem valid. >>>>> >>>>> If one really has a strong desire to go >>>>> into looking at it in detail from >>>>> a Lutheran perspective there is a great >>>>> source of information at >>>>> http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2590 >>>>> which presents >>>>> scripture, history, theology, and a >>>>> great pastoral perspective on our view >>>>> of Baptism. I say "our view" because >>>>> everyone one of us believes we have >>>>> the "Biblical view" so to call it the >>>>> "Biblical view" is just to inflame >>>>> others who disagree. >>>>> >>>>> Again, I really don't think it's a good >>>>> idea to discuss this on this list. >>>>> We all have our various opinions and we >>>>> are not going to convince anyone >>>>> one way or another. It's like when >>>>> Luther tried to explain to Zwingli >>>>> that "is always is is." Let's just >>>>> smile, nod, and move along. >>>>> >>>>> Blessings, >>>>> Randy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Duck and Run - Duck and Run >>>>>> >>>>>> Randy you love that don't you? >>>>>> >>>>>> You make a statement - then when >>>>>> called upon it - you duck and run - >>>>>> rather >>>>>> than going to scripture to support >>>>>> your hypothesis - you run to extent >>>>>> material that is non-inspired for >>>>>> proof text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Going to scripture is never a waste of >>>>>> my time - just those who love to >>>>>> duck >>>>>> and run. As to what I believe - show >>>>>> me internal evidence from the NT just >>>>>> one person who never made a profession >>>>>> of faith for believers baptism and >>>>>> I >>>>>> am willing to change my position. Show >>>>>> me one place in the NT where the >>>>>> heretical RC sprinkling is performed >>>>>> and I will change my position. >>>>>> >>>>>> Miguel >>>>>> >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> RANDY WROTE: >>> Look, I'm not going >>>>>> to get into this. It's a waste of my >>>>>> time and yours. >>>>>> I tried to engage in decent >>>>>> discussions on that other list and it >>>>>> didn't >>>>>> fly >>>>>> because I don't lock-step to the >>>>>> neo-fundametalist drum. You will >>>>>> believe >>>>>> what you believe not matter what data >>>>>> is presented nor how it is presented >>>>>> and that is fine. God has a big >>>>>> enough kingdom that He can use us both >>>>>> and >>>>>> we're family so we are stuck with each >>>>>> other. >>>>>> >>>>>> To subscribe, send a message to: >>>>>> pastorsforum-join@... >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to: >>>>>> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe, send a message to: >>>>> pastorsforum-join@... >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to: >>>>> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>>>> Checked by AVG. >>>>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: >>>>> 269.22.9/1365 - Release Date: 4/8/2008 >>>>> 7:30 AM >>>>> >>>>> To subscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-join@... >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to: >>>>> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> To subscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-join@... >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to: >>>> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... >>>> >>> >>> To subscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-join@... >>> >>> To unsubscribe, send a message to: >>> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... >>> >>> >> >> To subscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-join@... >> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to: >> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... >> > > To subscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-join@... > > To unsubscribe, send a message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > >