I don't know from where it came. I'm sure the person who posted it thinks it is good theology.
It's not. It's fatally flawed. There is no forgiveness in Baptism. None for infants. In fact an adult that is Baptised comes forgiven. I have no idea where that theology come from except from some weird teaching. I know that it is a widely held Lutheran and Catholic belief. The problem is, it's just wrong and unbiblical.
Let me pose a question the exposes the fallacy of the idea that Baptism is inherent in forgiveness.
If a baby is still born, aborted, an embryo destroyed for stem cell research or dies moments after a mother gives birth, does that child go to heaven or hell. For what sin? How are they condemned?
Jesus was born in the same way as a man. In every way. What if Herod had succeeded in killing him, heaven or hell?
Is a baby born and dying shortly thereafter sinless or not? Is there grounds for the devils accusations against him or her?
AND, the lambs book of life. Show me a scripture anywhere in the word of God that refutes this statement of fact:
Every human from the time of conception, every one's name is written in the Lambs book of Life.
The only way our name can be expunged from the lambs book of life is for the devil (the accuser of the brethren) to succeed in accusing us and that the advocate with the Father has no answer since we didn't look to him for salvation.
The evangelical idea that upon coming to Jesus our names are written in the lambs book of life has no basis in scriptural evidence whatsoever.
The Catholic/Lutheran practice of a priest or pastor racing across town to baptise some newborn facing imminent death to save him or her from the fires of Hell is without any basis in Scripture.
I read carefully, and I hope you do too, the whole treatise pasted and posted by the ANON in the prior post on baptism.
You really have to stretch scripture to the point of exasperation to make much of that post fit any form of Biblical Exegetics.
Now, once more, IF a good solid Lutheran or Catholic couple with full somber realization of their responsibilities as parents and with sponsors to hold them accountable want to baptize their baby as a means of grace (like Dedication) then they are welcome to do so. Then perhaps at some later time that child will be wooed by the Holy Spirit to come into relationship with the Living Christ and be saved. And perhaps by means of that dedication confirm the validity of the baptism they once relied upon. MAYBE then it will work.
That hasn't been my experience. I'm not against the practice of infant Baptism, I'm against empty tradition. I very much have imprinted upon my soul the image in the first GodFather where a mobster is having his baby baptised while at the same time a murder is being committed in his name.
No one is committing murder for the most part in baptism, but it is treated far more lightly than I wish it were.
SO, to whomever posted some official position of traditional churches on baptisms. I reject the practice of much of that because it relies mostly on human assumptions (which you admit to) or trying to prove a thing by it's negatives. For example, we are told to go and Baptise all nations.
Extrapolation of that into infant baptism is a far reach.
I admit, much of the denominational church still does this. Catholics still do it. Even Pentecostals in many places still do it.
I just wish they would throw away the doctrinal statements and ask what my friend Barry's friend Harry always asks, "what does the text say". An honest examination with a clear mind will show this practice to be wanting of scriptural depth.
Maybe the baptism of babies if that is the cultural and traditional desire of parents (mostly of Grandparents with the assumption that it somehow is a fire insurance policy) were instituted with the same gravity as dedication with the same spiritual expectations and go ahead and sprinkle them too.
Hopefully it will mean that at some point in the future, revelation will come. Till then my purpose here is not to destroy anyone's faith in Jesus, I just want you to come to him for his own truth and not the teachings however true or false of any denomination, including the IPHC, Assembly of God or even Faith Center.
You are accountable for the truth you know. Now you know more truth. You are more accountable. That's a good thing. God wants you to come to him in Spirit and in Truth. Finding the Truth is not your Church's, Pastor or Priests responsibility. It's yours. I don't want to hurt you, I just want you to think right and stand on firm ground, not sinking sand.
20 comments:
What do you mean "what if Herod had succeeded in killing him?" Are you that insane. Jesus could only die when the time was right! Not a moment sooner. How could you honestly have thought that one up? That does bother me. I just think that some of the things that come out of your mouth are out of left field.
Struggle,
Of course I know what you say is right.
I know he could only die when the kairos moment came.
BUT,
We all look at the sinless life of Jesus as an example. He was of course perfect. What if??
Look up the word hypothetical.
I'm trying create a benchmark of condemnation capacity. It has to do with the Devil's success or lack of it to condemn us all before God and the core question, does baptism have anything to do with forgiveness of sin.
HI, Struggle2Strength insinuates something that rasied a question regarding your earlier post, "The Devil always Overplays his Hand." I that prior post, you wrote this:
"He [the devil] killed Jesus and facilitated the invasion of hell, release of the captives, forgiveness of sin and the first fruit resurrection of the dead. It says in the word that if they (the demonic) had known, they would not have slain the Lord of Glory."
My Questions for you, if you please, just so that I can get a better understanding of all this:
What verse or verses in the Bible does it say that the devil killed Jesus? And,
What verse or verses in the Bible does it say that had the demonic known that they killed Jesus, they would not have done so?
I appreciate it.
Jon
I am wondering about what you have stated regarding how & when a person's name is written in the bool of life. You write: "Show me a scripture anywhere in the word of God that refutes this statement of fact: "Every human from the time of conception, every one's name is written in the Lambs book of Life."
In each Scripture reference I read, nowhere does it say that 'from the time of conception, every one's name is written in the Lambs book of Life.'
See Ps 69:20; Phil 4:13; and Rev 3:5, Rev 17:8, Rev 20:12, Rev 20:15, Rev 21:27.
I am questioning that which you have said, in regard to when every human's name is written in the book of life. I cannot find anywhere that everyone's name is written at conception (and removed if the devil somehow gets to you).
Please reply.
Jon Mills
I married and catholic man in a catholic church being non catholic. I hear a collective *gasp* from catholics. Along with it came some promises and some trappings I did not believe in namely one, infant baptism.
Along came our three darling offspring and off to the generic local catholic church we went, members in name only to sooth my mother in laws fears. Yes it is fear. Our children we baptised in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
I then had a dedication service in my own church with whom I had relationship with. I was dead serious about both. God showed up both times moving me to tears. I actually was shocked about the catholic church visitation.
I also believe in adult immersion baptism. I was baptized as an adult. I was pretty mad at my mom and dad for not baptizing me as an infant, I mistakinly thought that was how one got saved. In my quest to get baptized I got saved.
Then I was sprinkled. It was a light hearted affair.
Many years later I learned of Holy Spirit baptism and so I was baptized with fire. Hands down life was different and still is. Immediately after I was baptized in the Holy Spirit all alone in my home, I had a fire in me to get immersed. I had to convince someone to do that.
I will testify I came out of the baptismal waters in which I was held down too long LOL! a compeletely different person, and am to this day.
In a weird spiritual way God honors that which you do to honor him.
I hold fast to adult baptism though, knowing the reality of the encounters with God I had. I also teach my children that they too need to become baptized by immersion. Something profound happens at that. I cannot deny it, even after denying it years ago. I will not have them miss out on what God has for them.
Blessings!
Jon, OK, You asked for an answer.
I of course researched every passage you gave.
Your Psalm passage was wrong. I read the whole psalm and it said what I say:
Psalm 69:28
28May they be blotted out of the book of life
And may they not be recorded with the righteous.
This is a Psalm of David about his enemies which included Saul.
David believed as I do people can be blotted out, when were they written in is the question.
The Philippians passage has no relevance. I thought perhaps you mispoke as you did with the psalm passage. But in reading all of Chapter 4 I find nothing related. Read it again and help me figure out what you were refering to.
ALL of the references from Revelation refer to peoples who's names are found or not found in the Lambs book of life and when they were entered.
NOT WHEN THEY WERE ENTERED.
So, my thesis is still intact. I continue to challenge anyone who wants to look to find a verse that refutes the premise that our names are in the book of life from conception.
I'll wait.
I researched & listed everywhere that the 'book of life' phrase was listed in both the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible.
From all of these passages that mention the book of life, nowhere does it say that 'Every human's' name is written in the book of life 'from the time of conception.'
It may be or it may not be written in at every human's conception. However, God is silent on when this even occurs. But adding things to the Bible is not what we are supposed to be doing.
What about my question as to your stating that the devil killed Jesus? I also cannot find that anywhere in the Bible.
Jon
Jon asks,
"He [the devil] killed Jesus and facilitated the invasion of hell, release of the captives, forgiveness of sin and the first fruit resurrection of the dead. It says in the word that if they (the demonic) had known, they would not have slain the Lord of Glory."
My Questions for you, if you please, just so that I can get a better understanding of all this:
What verse or verses in the Bible does it say that the devil killed Jesus? And,
What verse or verses in the Bible does it say that had the demonic known that they killed Jesus, they would not have done so?.
OK, get your Bible out, this is all scripture and really good stuff. I hate the Devil.
Colossions 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
SO, who were those powers and authorities?
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12.
And what did they do or not do?
1 Corinthians2:6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Who is the God of this age, the god of this world?
2 Corinthians 4:4
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
From gotquestions.org
The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age” [NKJV]) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the mind-set expressed by the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His areas of influence also encompass the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.
Similar titles are found elsewhere in Scripture concerning Satan. Satan is called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is called the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These titles, and many more attributed to Satan throughout Scripture, signify his capabilities. To say, for example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in it.
It's a good question Jon.
One other thing. Not theological, but in the movie, The Passion, when Jesus has died on the cross there is a moment when the Devil sees what he has done and he understands what's about to happen, in that moment the devil falls down and screams a scream of terror. He is defeated and knows it. The camera pans up quickly. Our last glimpse of Satan is at the foot of the cross having been made a public spectacle.
He overplayed his hand.
Jon
Just to be clear on adding or taking away from the Bible and in particular, the book of Revelation:
It says:
“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” Rev 22:18-19, NASB
My concern is not adding, but taking away. I am concerned with people (not you Jon) but those who would parse the scripture to remove or nullify things that challenge denominational teachings.
We must be careful to observe the whole counsel of God.
I don't think I have added anything.
I am going to wait and ask people to get out their Strong's concordance and look up every where the words RECORDED, BOOK, LIFE, etc.
Search the Scriptures and prove me false.
I'm not adding or subtracting. I'm saying what the word says.
I WILL prove it out soon. I just want to challenge anyone who sees themselves as a Bible Scholar to attack my position with scripture and not church doctrine.
It is the school of the word when you take a Bible and ask, what does the text say.
Where in the Bible does it say that there is NO forgiveness in baptism (ala your statement,Gene?)? The action of submitting to a pouring of water, or immersing in it, does not in itself save, of course. We do that hundreds of times, and more. But when there is a WORD of God that tells us to do this, and the Word is connected to that use of water, and God promises through it an entrance into the Father-Son-Holy Spirit (Mt.28), and when it says that "Baptism does now save us", and when it says, "saved, by the washing of regeneration"and when it says that the church is cleansed by Christ "with the washing of water by the word", and when it speaks of being baptized and washing away your sins, what do I understand from that but that somehow God ties forgiveness of sins with the God-given directions of the use of water. Of course it is CHRIST that forgives, water alone doesn't. Yet, this water with the Word of God offers the blessing of what God says He offers. The blessings that Christ won for us are offered through a means. A message has forgiveness! that message is the Good News. How can a MESSAGE forgive? Only because it is the Good News of CHRIST!. Baptism is the instrument of the same grace. No, one does not depend on his action of being baptized, nor does one depend on his action of hearing or reading the Good news (the Gospel)-----It is always SOLUS CHRISTUS... not sola baptismos...nor sola scriptura .
But Jesus said 'baptize and teach". if there's baptizing, there should be teaching...if there's teaching, ,there should be baptizing. Some people are so set against baptism of children because there are so many parents who neglect the teaching and they see the sad results. there are so many against baptism of children because they see baptism only as an act of obedience to a 'command' and strip the sacrament of all grace and blessing and promise. Some can't see why God should promise grace to a child who after all, 'can't do anything' Some get baptized again because they say, "I don't remember what happened to me". Well, Jesus declares being in the kingdom is like being born (from above).I don't remember being born, but because of it I have life! Some people who despise baptism of children, I think are like disciples that 'shooed away' the parents who were bringing little children to Jesus,("what great things can KIDS DO to enter the kingdom?") and Jesus blessed them, and so much as said, "you big guys better realize that YOU can DO NOTHING yourselves!, for OF SUCH (as little chidren) is the kingdom of God").Jesus severely rebuked those adults. Let us not despise baptism of children. let us not despise baptism. Let us not despise one another. One can be saved without baptism...many probably will be in heaven who were not baptize. Some will not who were baptized. It is CHrist alone who saves, and that Christ offers grace, even to little children . Harold A. H.
While I do not see myself as a Biblical scholar, I have read my Bible several times in my life. As a reasonable person, I cannot discern from the words of the Bible that 'Every human's' name is written in the book of life 'from the time of conception.' That concept just isn't in there, and that is why I believe that you have added your idea of what the words say, which we are not to do.
Regarding your statement that the devil killed Jesus: To make my point again, I do not believe that the Bible states anywhere, that 'the devil killed Jesus.'
You listed 1 Cor 2:8-10" "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"—
10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. "
The text here is referring to the rulers on earth at the time of Jesus' death. The Bible does not refer here to the 'god of this age' or to the 'god of this world,' or the devil. Taken in context with the subsequent verses {as one must do}: no eye has seen, nor mind has conceived...for those that love him. It clearly cannot refer to the devil, but to real people on earth at the time of Jesus' death.
So to make my point again, I do not believe that the Bible states anywhere, that 'the devil killed Jesus,' as you have stated.
While concordances are helpful in discerning the word, Storng's Concordance does not concur with your idea that the devil killed Jesus.
This is why I believe that your interpretations on these 2 issues appear to me to be additions to the Bible.
Jon
Harold
Here is a definition you are familiar with:
1) deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation
a) deliverance from the molestation of enemies
b) in an ethical sense, that which concludes to the souls safety or salvation
1) of Messianic salvation
2) salvation as the present possession of all true Christians
3) future salvation, the sum of benefits and blessings which the Christians, redeemed from all earthly ills, will enjoy after the visible return of Christ from heaven in the consummated and eternal kingdom of God.
++++
Fourfold salvation: saved from the penalty, power, presence and most importantly the pleasure of sin. A.W. Pink
Now, here it the most interesting thing. I believe and by experience will testify that Baptism SAVED me. If you read Kelly's testimony you will see the same thing. I was preserved, protected, delivered from molestation of the devil, kept safe and a fulfillment of the heavenly mandate.
My adult baptism. Not my infant baptism. I was molested by the devil plenty before I believed yet I was baptised. That's why the biblical order is important.
Perhaps in deference to my long dead parents there may have been an active grace in saving by baptism. I don't know. I do know that for most people I know Baptism was a line in the sand drawn and I died to sin rising again in new life. That dramatic event is imprinted on my to this moment. Same for my wife.
But Baptism doesn't forgive SIN. It saves you. Preserves etc read above.
Big difference between being saved and preserved and the act of being forgiven.
NOW, I agree with your last part. There will be those not baptised in heaven and those baptised, perhaps even as an adult and a child both who will end up in hell after turning their back on Jesus.
I don't despise it. I think you understand what I do despise. God does offer grace to little Children, calling it baptism makes baptism less than the full deal (in my humble and pretty well based Biblical opinion).
I have attended some Baptisms of Babies that were powerful and meaningful and I believe they had the desired spiritual effect and impact. Unfortunately it was in a catholic church. The priest was a friend of mine. I stood with him as he baptized this naked little boy in a huge bowl of water in front of us. It was moving and the passion was tangible. I was part of it even though I wasn't a catholic. There are some open catholic churches. I embraced that baby's baptism.
I wish we could do that in our church. I wish all churches would take Baptism as seriously as they did.
I only despise tradition and ceremony for it's own sake and not for the child's.
JON Mills says,
I cannot discern from the words of the Bible that 'Every human's' name is written in the book of life 'from the time of conception.'
OK, I'm not going to argue with you. You can believe what you will. I know of what I speak and I'm hoping someone will try to prove me wrong on either issue. I'm up for this.
Just saying you don't agree without foundation is just contradiction, not argument.
I'm waiting for a good sound foundational argument that says something other than what I have postulated.
Anyone, Someone, Anyone??
Oh, and the only source material accepted in the word of God. Books and confessions of a church here or there doesn't matter in this.
I'm trying to get back to the core document and see if we can figure this deal out. Jon, you are welcome, but just saying you don't agree is not argument.
Dear Sir, I am not "Just saying {I} don't agree without foundation." Nor am I just contradicting you or being argumentative without 'foundation.'
The 'good sound foundational argument that says something other than what {you} have postulated' has already been written, it is the 'only source material' as you say, it is the Word of God.
In a prior post, to make your point on the two issues I have raised, you brought up Strong's Concordance and you brought up the Passion movie.
From the divine Source of the Bible only, nowhere does it say that 'Every human's' name is written in the book of life 'from the time of conception.'
And from this divine Source only, nowhere does it say that the devil killed Jesus.
You may dismiss me by saying my argument is not 'foundational,' but again, here's where we disagree. Call it contradiction, call it argument, call it disagreement, which it is! However, my position is definitely foundational Biblical contradiction, and mine will always be a purely foundational Biblical argument to that which I see is not in the Bible.
To put it in your terms, 'Just saying you don't agree without foundation is just contradiction, not argument.'
My disagreement/contradiction/argumentwith you is made WITH foundation - the Bible. Yes, I am contradicting your ideas, but my contradiction is made WITH foundation. I do have argument about your view of what the Bible says, but my argument is made WITH foundation. I do disagree with you and state that the devil did not kill Jesus, and we cannot be sure when our name is written in the book of life because the Bible is silent on that, but my disagreement is made WITH foundation, the Bible. Without any additions or subtractions.
It's not necessarily a bad thing to be contradictory, argumentative, or disagreeing with one whose ideas appear to be extra-Biblical, when those contentions are made from a Biblical foundation, from which my 'contradictions' to you are firmly grounded.
Jon
This conversation with Jon has deteriorated to meaninglessness.
And, frankly gross lack of a willingness to wrestle with the Word of God for Truth.
He doesn't agree. OK. I get that.
Not why. Just don't agree.
So, Jon, unless you have something to add, I'll leave this alone.
Jon and Gene:
WHO killed Jesus? I believe that the early Christians knew, when they prayed,as it says in Acts 4, "Indeed,Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed. They did what Your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." and Rom. 8, 32-"Who (God) indeed spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all". It is an interesting word, "deliver up",in Greek, 'paradidomi'. Judas "delivered" Jesus to the police in the garden, the police delivered Jesus to the high priest, the high priest to Pilate, Pilate to Herod, Herod back to Pilate, and Pilate"delivered Him to the soldiers to be crucified", but Rom. 8:32 says, that GOD DELIVERED HIM UP FOR US ALL!....... God be praised for the 'mystery' of our salvation, now revealed to us in the Word............ Harold H.
Harold,
This is what the text says:
From Peter's first sermon in Acts 2:23-24:
"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and
foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him
to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him
from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because
it was impossible for death to keep it's hold on him."
And Paul's words about the cross from Colossians 2:14,15
"Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that
was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away,
nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and
authorities, he made a public spectacle of them triumphing
over them by the cross."
I agree that God knew, and delivered him up. Its in the creed.
BUT,
The question is, WHO KILLED HIM?
Does God ever use evil people, even the Devil to accomplish his purposes? Job, the Assyrians
Peter said: "wicked men, put him
to death by nailing him to the cross"
Did God Deliver Him Up to make the conquest over death and Hell transformational (a spectacle)? I think he did. Using the Devil to Kill Jesus was rubbing the Devil's face in it all. Otherwise the Devil could say as he said about Job, Yes BUT. When God used the Devil to kill Jesus all that argument was silenced. AND if he had known he wouldn't have done it.
I don't think you have said anything that I don't already maintain; that evil intents placed in the hearts of evil men by and evil devil nailed Jesus to the Cross.
That it accomplished the Will of God is not the question. Of course it was his purpose to offer the sinless lamb of God in full propitiation for our sin.
It's just that the question was asked, where did I get the idea the Devil Killed Jesus. From the texts above and others that support it.
BUT, Harold, I was hoping against hope like Abraham, that you would take me to task with the question of the Book of Life.
I have great arguments with evangelicals and their altar calls and saying "Now that you have prayed the sinners prayer, you name was just written in the Book of Life". No it wasn't. It was already there.
In a way this is a soft endorsement of infant baptism, just not for the forgiveness of sins or being born again. Sealed unto salvation perhaps.
It's an interesting discussion that needs to have all the traditions of men stripped away and examine it from the witness of the Word alone.
This goes back to the first 2 comments. The fact of the matter is that with Jesus there is no "what if" about it. If you have a what if he died before the time was right then your not trusting in the power of God Himself.
Post a Comment