Calvinists: Defend your idea that God burns babies in hell forever

[TER]

And even so, with regards to the heresies of the early centuries, even they, the Arians, the Docetists and ALL THE REST (except perhaps for the Gnostics), infant baptism was performed. They did not have everything right, but they at least had that right.

 

[erowe1]

The VAST majority of Christians who considered themselves to be so for the first three centuries on and afterwards were baptized members of ONE CHURCH which St. Paul alluded to and all the Apostles preached about.

Not just the vast majority, but 100% of them were. As am I.

 

[erowe1]

And even so, with regards to the heresies of the early centuries, even they, the Arians, the Docetists and ALL THE REST (except perhaps for the Gnostics), infant baptism was performed. They did not have everything right, but they at least had that right.

The Arians weren't until later.

But the Docetists? What Docetists are you talking about? Certainly not those of the second century.

 

[TER]

Personally, if someone doesn't want to baptize their baby, then that is their decision. If they wish to wait until they have reached puberty or some certain age until they baptize them, after baptism I do not deny the power of the Holy Spirit or their real transformation.

But to sit there and make up history and deny obvious proofs (which above all is the unanimous and consistent witness of the Church), that should be called out.

 

[erowe1]

What you are saying is that you don't want to believe he indeed is referring to infant baptism because it might mean other doctrines you follow might also be against the Apostolic faith. So you do your mental gymnastics in order to justify your beliefs.

He doesn't mention baptism.

You can't say he's talking about infant baptism there unless you already assume he must have believed in it. But if you do that, then you can't go to this passage and use it as evidence that he did.

 

[eduardo89]

He doesn't mention baptism.

You can't say he's talking about infant baptism there unless you already assume he must have believed in it. But if you do that, then you can't go to this passage and use it as evidence that he did.

Unless there is another way in which an infant can be reborn in Christ, then yes, he must be referring to baptism.

So if he doesn't mean baptism, what does he mean, in your opinion?

 

[TER]

Not just the vast majority, but 100% of them were. As am I.

And what is your creed? State it so that I can know if we are in the same Church.

 

[TER]

Erowe, why does it bother you that infants are baptized? Is it because a man in the 18th century said they shouldn't?

 

[erowe1]

And what is your creed? State it so that I can know if we are in the same Church.

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. And he was buried, and he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.

 

[erowe1]

Erowe, why does it bother you that infants are baptized? Is it because a man in the 18th century said they shouldn't?

When did I say anything about being bothered?

In this thread I have been making historical arguments dispassionately.

As for being a revisionist, please research this topic, reading up to date historical scholarly research. There are plenty of books about it. You'll find that nothing I'm saying is at all outside the mainstream.

 

[TER]

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. And he was buried, and he rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.

A good creed, but the Arians believed that too. Were you in the same Church as the Arians?

 

[erowe1]

Unless there is another way in which an infant can be reborn in Christ, then yes, he must be referring to baptism.

So if he doesn't mean baptism, what does he mean, in your opinion?

He means saved by the work of Christ. He's not talking about baptism or any other ritual.

Again, he makes no mention of baptism.

Would you make this same argument about every other Christian reference to new life in Christ? That just by mentioning that they must mean water baptism?

 

[erowe1]

A good creed, but the Arians believed that too. Were you in the same Church as the Arians?

I don't know. I tend to think not. But I'm not the one who will judge them. If they had saving faith in Jesus Christ, then they belong to his Church. And neither you nor I nor any other human who has ever lived, apart from Jesus himself, have the authority to say otherwise.

 

[TER]

When did I say anything about being bothered?

In this thread I have been making historical arguments dispassionately.

As for being a revisionist, please research this topic, reading up to date historical scholarly research. There are plenty of books about it. You'll find that nothing I'm saying is at all outside the mainstream.

Goodnight erowe. Keep up the mental gymnastics. You can be proud that you have become a pro at it.

 

[erowe1]

Goodnight erowe. Keep up the mental gymnastics. You can be proud that you have become a pro at it.

OK. If you really are as interested in history as you claim, get back to me after you check this out some more.

If not, then take the plank out of your own eye.

 

[TER]

OK. If you really are as interested in history as you claim, get back to me after you check this out some more.

If not, then take the plank out of your own eye.

It is you who ignores and manipulates history and makes the saints and Church Fathers to be liars so that your interpretation can be right. Get back to me when you stop putting your mind above the mind of Christ and His Body, the Church.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think Iranneus actually did believe in it, but he was probably one of the first http://www.christian-history.org/infant-baptism.html

 

[erowe1]

I think Iranneus actually did believe in it, but he was probably one of the first http://www.christian-history.org/infant-baptism.html

It's not impossible. But without any other evidence of it that early, nothing he says is enough to prove it existed yet.

I think it was probably going on by the time of Tertullian, a generation later.

FF: Do you think "born again" in John 3:3 is talking about water baptism? Personally, I don't.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know. I tend to think not. But I'm not the one who will judge them. If they had saving faith in Jesus Christ, then they belong to his Church. And neither you nor I nor any other human who has ever lived, apart from Jesus himself, have the authority to say otherwise.

Paul seemed to think he did with regards to the Judaizers.

Galatians 1:8-9

 

[Christian Liberty]

There also this:



How do you explain away that?

Or what about this, from the 2nd century:

St. Justin Martyr:

Most likely wishful thinking on his part.