You make a lot of great points about what is or what isn't "traditions of men."
I just have to ask, would praying for someone while sitting in the dentist chair getting prepped for a crown be considered a tradition of men?
Sorry, I had to ask and I'm just trying to share a little humor here. There's not much of that anymore and it seems like we can use a little humor every now and then.
Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. ( Proverbs 22:28)
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
With these two verses; it is clear that there were distinct areas allotted for the nations from the beginning which God established.
It would appear that at least a type and pattern of the children of Israel was in this plan; even though this would have been apparently before the flood. This principle it would seem from Proverbs was to be more or less continued after the flood when sadly once again nations were corrupted rapidly worshipping idols and performing child sacrifice as a common ritual. The Lord did have Melchizedek as an early Godly priest who was mysteriously outside the genealogy of the rest of Israel but so great that Abraham himself tithed to him.
Many in the West today are ignorant on history; and aren't aware how often we as "Colonialists" redefined the boundaries in the Middle East; although it is one of the talking points today. Naturally the main focus of support for Hamas is insane for several reasons; as they don't want a "2 State Solution" and indeed they were the biproduct of displacement from Arab groups in the past; and of course surrounding nations such as Egypt most recently don't want them in the past. The point on that subject relates to this topic in that God did establish Israel and it's borders in it's covenant; as offended as many may be if Israel has land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan; its actual boundaries scripturally extend all the way to the Euphrates and would encompass much or all of Jordan; and parts of other nations in that area today.
Issues in this regard have fostered centuries of conflict between Russia and surrounding nations; and China vs Japan as 2 examples. History repeats itself ( Ecclesiastes 1:9).
To finish up. There are many things practiced in the Christian church over the centuries, some are ancient and some are recent, that are not delineated in Scripture and most of these are seen as a matter of individual conscience or conviction. So when people disagree on a matter such as these we are to be charitable and not judgmental.
Whether or not to accept infant baptism is one of those matters.
So from my end, I will be charitable to you and not judgmental in things we differ on that are not ESSENTIAL doctrines of the faith.
I hope you will understand where I am coming from in this response to you. God's blessing to you always.
Yeah I can't remember exactly; but someone said that an entire unit came back without casualties and those at home in church were praying for them daily (may have been a charismatic type church).
I am sorry if I sound less than enthusiastic as to my view on the past; I feel that things need to be brought out that may have made things worse than they had to be; nonetheless because of His grace the whole world wasn't destroyed at that time.
I suppose to go back in detail at this point to explore all this may not be all that edifying. There are things such as the licentiousness especially in England but also I have no doubt occured with our soldiers when on tour of duty that allowed for more collateral damage. Pearl Harbor was something apparently that could have been warned against; and we were said on one or more occasions to have provoked Germany to attack. Of course we could also look to the stubbornness of German Jews who held out for months or years when they had the opportunity to leave because they thought it never could happen there.
And such a situation may be coming to pass in our nation. I have been warning that if we really defeat and throw out the untold multitudes of terrorists and criminals that are now within our borders that there will be a great loss of life. Just look at the casualties from the Mexican drug cartel and the government in recent years (I know I mentioned that the other day).
Yes; Gigi I suppose I can be desperately trying to find ways to cope; to prepare or somehow be more ready for what is to come.
Ultimately the Lord is in control; I'll admit knowing we are in a sinking ship is very difficult to deal with but also I'm a realist.
Is it wrong to be realistic about how horrible thing are going to get? Yes; I'll admit if we don't focus on His Spirit it is; it is just mind boggling to me how many professing Christians aren't spiritually up in arms when the casualties are mounting around us.
I didn't realize that this reply of yours was to me.
I must say that what offends me is when people comment as you have concerning me in a way that is judgmental when you really do not know me or what God knows in my heart.
I understand that you think we all should seek what the Bible says on matters. I agree with that. However, the Bible nowhere says that if a matter is not explicitly set forth in Scripture we are to reject it as a "tradition of men". There was a whole lot more spoken and preached and practiced by the apostles that are not recorded in Scriptures. But some of these have been spoken about by believers close in time to the apostles and with knowledge of what was practiced. This is where historical information come in to help us to understand matters that are not explained, condemned, or commanded in the Scriptures.
For example, the use of organs, pianos and other instruments were not mentioned in Scripture, but are used in worship services now. Therefore, such use can be considered a new tradition. Is it wrong to practice this tradition since we are not instructed to do this in Scripture? Is it a" tradition of men" that we should reject?
Or, the matter of the Lord's Supper in the church. In the first century it was celebrated with a full meal, but most churches do not include a full meal with this ordinance today. So, is changing the way the Supper is performed and celebrated now a "tradition of men" that we should reject?
How about personal Bible study. In the early church people did not have copies of the Bible to study and that continued for 1500 years or so. Is it a "tradition of men" to engage in personal or even home-group studies and therefore be rejected because it is not commanded in the Scriptures?
Then again, what about children's Sunday School classes. These are a very recent practice in the church and was not commanded or practiced in the early church according to the Scriptures. isn't this a tradition of men?....
In conclusion; we might say that the extreme of idealism and patriotism brought vigor and strength to be what otherwise would be cannon fodder. Much newsreels and literature continued to raise the themes of patriotism; and on both sides there were caricatures exaggerating whoever the enemy was; whether racist images of what was perceived as "Jews"; or of the big 3 dictators (Hitler; Hirohito and Mousselini). There are; of course well known conspiracy theories about those who fomented both of these wars and the final war to come. National pride as it stood then was universal; whether by force or free will no one dreamed about living in a world such as envisioned today in our country of open borders in which those who stand for their country are made to feel ashamed.
That being said; we need to look beyond the exterior venire of our past and realize that the spirit of the age dominated. There was an idealism in external beauty as seen with the idolization of hollywood stars; and an ignorance of the evils of racism that truly discriminated against the black population. The Japanese internment in our nation was a sad episode in our past; especially in the light of those who volunteered to fight for our country. Nonetheless; the economic expansion and blessings of our country in general came to pass; certainly in a large part to many who married and were fruitful to multiply as was the plan in Genesis. We can't dwell on the past; but see how patient God was and how many generations He allowed these benefits to our citizens.
As we stand today; we don't know how much time we have until He comes or if any day now we will suffer a major attack and life will suddenly change. Let us fight the good fight daily ( 1 Tim. 6:12) and continue to persevere until the end. We are losing hundreds of thousands every year to drugs; gun violence and suicide so our situation is even more dire than the deaths we suffered in WW2. ( 1 Peter 5:8
I prayed for you this morning when at the dentist having a tooth prepped for a crown. instead of focusing on the procedure and any discomfort I may feel, I focused on praying for those I know who have asked for prayer, like you. I knew that the time spent in the chair was short and your pain is ongoing, so I will continue to pray for you.
It would seem; with the lines blurring between good and evil (or more precisely; who the friends or the enemy is); today's drone type warfare and proxy wars and the hesitation since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to start a nuclear war (and in the same logic to directly start a large invasion or saturation bombing campaign such as Hitler's "blitzkrieg" which would trigger a nuclear apocalypse; we may not have such a large scale world war until the wars preceding and related to Armageddon. This of course doesn't guarantee this being a logical conclusion; but if wrong it would mean the Lord is going to tarry MUCH longer than it appears today. It would take decades to have any sort of society near "normal" as we see today; and indeed Jesus stated it would be like the times of Noah; or Sodom when destruction comes. ( Matt. 24:37 see also Luke).
In World War 2 itself; but not isolated to that event we saw how the actions of a few may have saved the day. I am not taking the time now to do the research; but I have heard that much prayer happened when England was down to its last plane or last few when being heavily assaulted by the German bombing runs. There were also things that I said in my last post that made the situation worse; namely Roosevelt sending those attempting to escape the concentration camps back to Germany; and the racism that peaked in our country in the 1930s to name two.
In terms of finding meaning; we can look to films such as "Unbroken" to see how Christ can allow forgiveness to our enemies; as well as the Corrie Ten Boom story of being with her sister who died eventually; and her narrative explaining how she praised God for the flea infested camp she was in because the guards didn't come in to beat them and they could study the Word together.
When looking at the madness of dictators we can see foreshadowing of the Antichrist and his campaign commencing in trying to fight Christ. (Ps.2 REV 19
Listened to Reagan's speech on D-Day 1984 where he said something like: those who fight a war to liberate differ markedly from those who fight a war to conquer.
The allied forces were fighting WWII to liberate. They were just in going to war and landing at Normandy. The men that disembarked were heroic and selfless in their taking to the beaches under German fire. That victory by allied forces was an event that turned the tide for liberation from the dictator Hitler and his plan to conquer all of Europe for his evil reich.
I heard today also of a bill introduced to have a month of celebration/acknowledgement/ honoring all American who have fallen in battle. Hope it happens since this is such a worthy thing to do (as opposed to say-gay pride month)
Those of that generation not only fought the war, but those at home were praying en masse on D-day. Wish our country was more like that now.
On June 6, 1944 the Allied armies began their land invasion from the shores of Normandy. This would involve in large part the American and British and signal their first "en masse" intrusion to force the Germans to retreat. In truth the first major resistance for the Germans was the Russians who stalemated their original expansion east just short of Moscow at the end of 1941 and continuing into 1943 when they started the inevitable push westward; expanding in 1944. In the meantime; those such as my now deceased father in law were involved with the slow incursion on the "boot" of Italy; where interestingly Hitler's ally and codictator ended being more of a pain for Hitler; and also the mass killings in that part of Europe never took the ferocity and numbers to the camps as the rest of Europe. Mussolini met his fate first; then later just less than a year after Normandy; did Hitler at the end of April, 1944 when Berlin was sacked despite his maniacal efforts to resist to the last child that could fight.
Of course on the Japanese front a similar plan would have been an option which was eventually tabled due to the high casualty rates predicted with the 2 atom bombs dropped. If the land invasion happened instead the fight probably would have gone well into 1946.
There is much that can be said about the war; in terms of it being something that got our country out of the depression (which a lot of wars are about; money). World War 2 itself was the last war that was "officially" approved through Congress; unlike any conflicts since. It seemed we knew who was good and who was evil in this event; but truth be told there were those complicit to the evil that occured even in this country and especially with the Japanese things were much more complex than they appeared in regard to the animosity and religious fervor for the Japanese leader and differing fanaticism between the army and navy.
15...The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
18 And the nations were(WILL BE) angry, and GOD's WRATH is come ... and should destroy them which destroy the earth.
The message above was written around 95AD to be LITERALLY fulfilled in the future( Revelation 1:1) , and now, even now, from now on, the prophecy will LITERALLY be executed, for GOD is wrathed against all nations and they will be destroyed, include the current Israel, and only and only will be saved a remnant of Israel- Micah 7:18-20, in fact only 144K will be saved- Revelation 7:1-8. And the others?
The others? Matthew 23:33-35
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers (why serpents? why generation of vipers? The answer is in John 8:44.Take a look), how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The Word is GOD, GOD Himself, self-executing, understand?
It's significant that Paul Owen has to rely on such speculative reasoning in order to argue for infant baptism in the earliest centuries. It's not as if baptism and the issues related to it aren't discussed much in the earliest sources. They're discussed often in the gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Yet, the first explicit reference to the concept of infant baptism is found in Tertullian, who is writing against it.
It's also significant that Paul has so far chosen to ignore large portions of the evidence I've cited, including my citation of David Wright and his discussion of the conclusions of modern scholarship. Even in discussing the little evidence he's addressed so far, Paul has made some comments that aren't consistent with his original article. He claims that Tertullian and others who didn't want to baptize infants differed from Baptists in their motivations. But they wouldn't have to have all of the same motives as Baptists in order to be inconsistent with Paul's concept of the catholicity of infant baptism.
I wanted to post this earlier but couldn't get away from work.
It's very hard to get anything definite when researching the early church.
We have to go with what is in front of us as they did and that's the written word.
I also believe in a certain age of accountability and that differ between individuals.
The reason for such a thing as an age of accountability is because one would have to have a clear and mature understanding of they have a sin nature that is incurable. And that we are in need of a savior and you can not add to the grace provided.
So, in doing so a child should feel the need to repent.
If there is a 5 year old child that can understand and make the decision for salvation then there is also a 5 year old child that can go to hell.
"'And dipped himself,' says the Scripture, 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragments, 34)
If Paul only intends this passage as another example of Irenaeus' belief in baptismal regeneration, then I have no objection. However, if Paul is suggesting that the reference to "new-born babes" is about infant baptism, then I reject that suggestion. Irenaeus is addressing Christians in general. Christians are born again. Regeneration is like becoming a spiritual infant, being born spiritually. This passage says nothing about infant baptism.
Nothing Paul Owen has cited from Irenaeus leads to the conclusion that he believed in infant baptism. To the contrary, it appears that Irenaeus believed in universal infant salvation, like other church fathers of the second century. Thus, the concern some later fathers had for baptizing infants in order to ensure their salvation apparently wouldn't have been a concern to Irenaeus. And when we look at the many passages in Irenaeus that explicitly address baptism, the baptism of infants is never mentioned. So, Paul has attempted to arrive at a conclusion of infant baptism by an indirect means, but, as I've shown above, the argument is inconclusive. There's no logical requirement that infants be baptized in order to be regenerated, and there are passages in Irenaeus in which he discusses infant salvation without any involvement of baptism.
But we can take this a step further. Irenaeus is one of the fathers who commented on the issue of infant salvation, so we can examine those passages to see if he mentions infant baptism as part of the process. Irenaeus writes:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
And elsewhere, concerning the Slaughter of the Innocents:
"For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David." (Against Heresies, 3:16:4)
Irenaeus doesn't limit his comments in the first passage to children of believers, he says nothing of baptism, and he says nothing of the Bethlehem children being saved only because they had been circumcised. It seems that Irenaeus believed that all children who die in infancy are saved because of "innocence". There's no need to assume infant baptism in order to explain why Irenaeus would refer to Christ regenerating infants.
In the first passage Paul cites, Irenaeus is addressing the claim that Jesus' public ministry lasted for only one year. This is from the well known section in Irenaeus where he incorrectly asserts that Jesus lived to be over 40 years old. Irenaeus is explaining that Jesus lived through every stage of life, including old age, which would result in His public ministry having lasted more than one year. Jesus experienced every stage of life, from infancy to old age, in order to save people from all age groups. The immediate context says nothing of the baptism of these people. Paul includes baptism by means of combining this passage in Irenaeus with what Irenaeus says elsewhere about baptism. But there's an assumption he's making in combining the two.
Would a belief in baptismal regeneration as normative require that every person regenerated is regenerated through baptism? No, advocates of baptismal regeneration will acknowledge some exceptions, such as the thief on the cross. Paul's assumption that Irenaeus believed that infants are born again through infant baptism is therefore possible, but unproven, at this point in the argument. Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw explain:
"It is rather pretentious to insist on substituting the notion of baptism every time a writer uses the term 'regeneration' unless the context clearly relates to baptism as such....[this passage in Irenaeus] merely tells us that the redeeming work of Christ extends to whatever person....The passage does not speak about the age when people were baptized." (Baptism In The Early Church [Webster, New York: Carey Publications, 2004], pp. 53, 55)
Paul Owen posted an article today arguing that the second century church father Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. None of the passages Paul cites refer to infant baptism, but Paul assumes that the practice is implied. In past responses to Paul, I've given some examples of Christians of the patristic era opposing his claims about infant baptism, and I've cited the patristic scholar David Wright commenting on the subject. Even if Irenaeus had believed in infant baptism, Paul's original assertions would still be false. But does the evidence suggest that Irenaeus believed in infant baptism?
Paul writes:
"In his treatise Against Heresies (II.22.4) he [Irenaeus] writes: 'He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.' Irenaeus clearly believed that 'infants' in the Church were 'born again' to God, the same as children, youths and adults."
And:
"Like all other Catholic Christians, he believed that the new birth was received through water baptism: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Against Heresies, III.17.1). Cf. also Irenaeus: 'As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes' (cited by J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 164)."
Sometimes; in my experience I don't know which is worse; the inevitable struggle with difficulties daily; or the annoying knowledge that the enemy is using the same old tactic over and over and over again and how predictable it tends to be.
That may be reflecting badly on my own weaknesses that are causing me to struggle more than I should; so I can't speak
for everyone else here; nonetheless I have a strong suspicion that someone here can relate to that observation.
People wildly shouting or shooting off fireworks when we are trying to sleep; neighbors having conflicts; problems with relatives; and other chaos in our lives may not appear to be persecution in one sense but the enemy as I like to call him is an "equal opportunity destroyer". Having any confidence at all in today's society especially that there can be some solace in anything going on in this life tends to be fruitless. Again; I may be biased having to live alone for years after my spouse had an affair and I had to divorce; feeling that I was missing out on what normal families experience. It is easy to harbor bitterness; but I can say that first the Lord has His reasoning and certainly has matured me in the last 10 years; and also that my ex wife has lost out on what the Lord had purposed for our marriage in the first place; as well as opportunities for us to grow and have an influence on others in witnessing to others. I thought I would mention this once again; briefly since many have their biggest struggles at home. Probably would be better to address seperately as to verses to maintain a strong marriage although I feel I am not the best person to discuss it with my own failures. Nonetheless; Satan's attempt to affect me with uncontrollable anger has been dealt with through Biblical counselling in the book of James and much prayer about 5 or 6 years ago and I would recommend that others would avail sound counselling in the church.
They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-
Other parts of this passage mention torture and wandering as nomads. It is fairly clear that when people are put to severe physical suffering and or death directly because of their profession of faith that persecution is occurring. When we look to the individuals who are exiled or made homeless because of either being directly evicted or put in a position of poverty because of their faith (even related to a caste system so encompassing anyone not in the elite status) it can be less clear. Some of this seems like "collateral damage"; and if we look at more subtle things such as verbal abuse and harassment on the job it may be even less clear. No doubt having a work ethic to work "heartily unto the Lord" (Coossians 3:23); to work as unto the Lord and to be above reproach thus not agreeing to use illegal means to promote the econonic status also can have fallout. Of course we must be diligent not to be robbing from our employer's time in having conversations that cause us to deviate from the work at hand; such much normally be reserved for break or after work hours; although there are times when in my own situation I have had to emphasize that I'd better clock out when being alone with one individual on my past job discussing theology. A lot; of course would depend on how complex the task is; there have been one or two times I can think of specifically when working in a warehouse; for instance when the whole production line jammed and there was literally nothing else to do at that time but usually there is some mundane task we can do to fill in for these moments.
Jesus promised that all who were Godly in Christ Jesus would be persecuted ( 2 Tim. 3:12; John 15:20). The origin and SOURCE of this situation is nearly always Satan's minions.
Thank you, Jesus shamed the leaders of Jerusalem about traditions, Matthew 15:3 and we are told in Colossians 2:8. My understanding is when we believe in our heart that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to salvation we are justified by God's grace, Romans 3:24 and being baptized is being obedient to God's word, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: We then start the road to sanctification by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Titus 3:5.
Jesus Christ has done everything necessary for our salvation and all we do we do in is name including being baptized, Colossians 3:17. He paid the penalty that our sins deserved by His sacrificial death on the cross. His death satisfied God's justice and turned away His wrath from us. God calls us but we must answer we must believe and be obedient to Him to be chosen, Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
When we are baptized in the Name of Jesus we have put on Christ, Galatians 3:27. Being baptized is obedience, Ephesians 2:102 Thessalonians 1:8, every believer who has opportunity will be baptized in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is the result of salvation, not the means to it.
Our obedience strengthens our faith, obedience shows our love for God, and our obedience to God's word is essential and it is not works. Those who are obedient are imitators of Christ and are willingly submitting to the authority, His will, and the word of God.
I do think that the Lord's Supper is open to all who have a professing faith in Jesus, are old enough to attest to this faith, and who live a life that is turned towards God and his ways. This does not mean that one needs to be sinless in one's life, but one who confesses their sin and seeks forgiveness and hates that they have sinned. This person should partake of the Lord's Supper because it is an "Encapsulated gospel" sign. It is the acceptance and celebration of the New Covenant of the shed blood and broken body of Jesus unto death for our sins. So, those who acknowledge that this is true and for them can partake of the Communion. Those who don't should be excluded.
As to your son's waywardness, like my own sons, I pray for them to return to Jesus in faith as you are praying for your son. I know that God loves our sons and yours more than we ever could and that He is able to work in their lives 24/7 and we cannot.
So, as parents, it is painful when we see our kids turn from the Lord and walk in the ways of the world, especially when they once embraced the Lord as children and teens. In today's church society, this is all too common. I wish the church was more effective in helping children of believers continue to keep the faith as they become adults. Our society is so different than when I grew up in the 60's and 70's when there was much more people of faith surrounding us in our neighborhoods and schools. But even then, many who grew up in church did not continue. I do not know what the answer is to this problematic trend, but I do desire to be persistent in prayer to those I know who have gone wayward like my own sons.
God is so good and knows our sons through ad through. I ask Him to enlighten their hearts again with the gospel and shed His grace upon their souls. I will keep your son in my prayers, too.
Also Jaz, I do not believe that one s saved by baptism. I believe that the elect will be regenerated by God and enabled to believe, and they will put their faith in Jesus either right away or sometime in their life at the time appointed by God.
If I had them baptized as infants, I would have done so by faith that God had or would regenerate them according to His election (that no one truly knows the eternal will of God) and I would bring them up in the faith as I did when they were not baptized, being sure that they heard the gospel. I believe. whether they were baptized as infants or by their choice, that the gospel presented is the power of God unto salvation. So, God would use the hearing of the gospel message to bring them to faith in Jesus.
Hello Jaz, We did not have our sons baptized as infants. We thought that they would choose to be baptized sometime in their childhood/teen years by their own choice since we were bringing them up in the faith and in a church environment. But they did not choose that as of yet. I continue to pray for them to return to the faith they had in Jesus as children and young teens/
Question. Can an infant take part in Lord's Supper? It is not possible, is it? When they grow and become children, can they take part? Assuming that they haven't given their heart to Jesus, can they still have Holly Communion? In 1 Corinthians it says that if one participates in Lord's Supper and have unrepentant sins then they are judged. So you see that also practical issues emmerge with baby baptism. It is not the baptism that protects our children. It is our prayers and teachings. As you said the children of the saints are holy. My son was born in the faith, he was actually a present from God to my wife, He attended the church untill he was about 14, he was regenerated and was baptized in the Spirit but not in water. God's grace was surely upon him. And then he made his revolution and abandoned the faith. But I see that he still has brakes in his brains. He knows God and his commandments so he avoids doing sins (not fully but at least not the heavy ones) and stlll prays but he is also attracted to the world. We are prayind for him and we know that God protects him and eventually he will come back. But it is true that God allows people to be taught by life itself like the prodigal son. Some have to end up eating pig's food to wake up and return. So lets keep praying for our children They will definitely come back to the Lord sometime, sooner or later..
I guess we differ on when regeneration happens. I believe one needs to be regenerated (which God does in one by grace alone) in which one is )given the capacity to believe. I believe that without God regenerating a person, that person cannot believe because they are dead in sin and depraved and not inclined to seek Him or obey Him.
As to the people you mentioned. It is true that ma y who have been baptized as infants fall away from their belief in the gospel which they have heard at least in the readings during church services. Just because someone has been baptized does not equate to them being regenerated. They are to separate works, one is what God (regenerate) and the other is what a person chooses (baptism). In churches that baptize infants, children, and adults it is common to speak the gospel over the person before they are baptized because it is the power of God for salvation ( Romans 1:16) and your quote from 1 Peter..
As parents we cannot know of God's work of regeneration in our children, whether they are baptized as infants or as older teens at that time. We will know by fruitful living over time that demonstrate this has occurred in the past. Baptism does not save a person, but it is a sign and a seal that places one into the body of believers. So Christian parents baptize infants and children because they are holy due to the believing faith of their parents and therefore covenantal members of God's people.
We cannot know if one is elect or not. That is God's determination. Churches are full of both those who are elect and those who are not. It can be hard to tell one from another.
And it is true that many who were baptized, whether as infants, children, teens or adults, who stray from faith in Jesus and live lives that are in opposition to God despite being baptized by their parents' choice or their own. This is quite evident. And as long as they are alive, there is still hope that they will come to Jesus in faith. So we pray.
Question. Is baptism any good if one does not believe in Jesus? I am living in a country where 95% of all the population have been baptized Greek Ortodox christians. It a custom and a trandition here. I believe in Italy and Spain a huge percentage of people have been baptized as Roman Catholic christians. So what? Is that any good? The prisons here are full of baptized people. People outside swear, steal, murder, rape, etc and they are all baptized when infants. Do they carry on them the grace of God? Has their baptism has done any good to them? I don't think so. They all know a few about Jesus and His life and teachings and that is all.
Can a person be regenerated as an infant? Lets leave it to the scripture to tell us. 1 Peter 2:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." Which is that incorruptible seed that the verse talks about? The answer is given in 1 Peter 24-25, "24 For all flesh is as grass, ...:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." It is the word of God, the gospel, that was preached to us.
In the parable of the Sower and the seed it is the seed that goes inside the good soil(all last 3 cases, never mind that some fall away afterwards). There is no other way. David and John the Baptist were people of the OT, that were never regenerated. Regeneration is not something that we do as people, it is something that God does. When? After we have heard the gospel and have believed and repented and decided to live a new holly life. So God regenerate us so that we become new people, and also become His children, and also through regeneration we are given His grace to obey His commandmenta and change our character in similarity to Jesus. Next step we are baptized, which means that we bury our old self and raise as new people to start a new life. This is how it goes.
You make a lot of great points about what is or what isn't "traditions of men."
I just have to ask, would praying for someone while sitting in the dentist chair getting prepped for a crown be considered a tradition of men?
Sorry, I had to ask and I'm just trying to share a little humor here. There's not much of that anymore and it seems like we can use a little humor every now and then.
Blessings!
Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
With these two verses; it is clear that there were distinct areas allotted for the nations from the beginning which God established.
It would appear that at least a type and pattern of the children of Israel was in this plan; even though this would have been apparently before the flood. This principle it would seem from Proverbs was to be more or less continued after the flood when sadly once again nations were corrupted rapidly worshipping idols and performing child sacrifice as a common ritual. The Lord did have Melchizedek as an early Godly priest who was mysteriously outside the genealogy of the rest of Israel but so great that Abraham himself tithed to him.
Many in the West today are ignorant on history; and aren't aware how often we as "Colonialists" redefined the boundaries in the Middle East; although it is one of the talking points today. Naturally the main focus of support for Hamas is insane for several reasons; as they don't want a "2 State Solution" and indeed they were the biproduct of displacement from Arab groups in the past; and of course surrounding nations such as Egypt most recently don't want them in the past. The point on that subject relates to this topic in that God did establish Israel and it's borders in it's covenant; as offended as many may be if Israel has land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan; its actual boundaries scripturally extend all the way to the Euphrates and would encompass much or all of Jordan; and parts of other nations in that area today.
Issues in this regard have fostered centuries of conflict between Russia and surrounding nations; and China vs Japan as 2 examples. History repeats itself ( Ecclesiastes 1:9).
To finish up. There are many things practiced in the Christian church over the centuries, some are ancient and some are recent, that are not delineated in Scripture and most of these are seen as a matter of individual conscience or conviction. So when people disagree on a matter such as these we are to be charitable and not judgmental.
Whether or not to accept infant baptism is one of those matters.
So from my end, I will be charitable to you and not judgmental in things we differ on that are not ESSENTIAL doctrines of the faith.
I hope you will understand where I am coming from in this response to you. God's blessing to you always.
I am sorry if I sound less than enthusiastic as to my view on the past; I feel that things need to be brought out that may have made things worse than they had to be; nonetheless because of His grace the whole world wasn't destroyed at that time.
I suppose to go back in detail at this point to explore all this may not be all that edifying. There are things such as the licentiousness especially in England but also I have no doubt occured with our soldiers when on tour of duty that allowed for more collateral damage. Pearl Harbor was something apparently that could have been warned against; and we were said on one or more occasions to have provoked Germany to attack. Of course we could also look to the stubbornness of German Jews who held out for months or years when they had the opportunity to leave because they thought it never could happen there.
And such a situation may be coming to pass in our nation. I have been warning that if we really defeat and throw out the untold multitudes of terrorists and criminals that are now within our borders that there will be a great loss of life. Just look at the casualties from the Mexican drug cartel and the government in recent years (I know I mentioned that the other day).
Yes; Gigi I suppose I can be desperately trying to find ways to cope; to prepare or somehow be more ready for what is to come.
Ultimately the Lord is in control; I'll admit knowing we are in a sinking ship is very difficult to deal with but also I'm a realist.
Is it wrong to be realistic about how horrible thing are going to get? Yes; I'll admit if we don't focus on His Spirit it is; it is just mind boggling to me how many professing Christians aren't spiritually up in arms when the casualties are mounting around us.
Sorry to rant.
Agape; RP
I didn't realize that this reply of yours was to me.
I must say that what offends me is when people comment as you have concerning me in a way that is judgmental when you really do not know me or what God knows in my heart.
I understand that you think we all should seek what the Bible says on matters. I agree with that. However, the Bible nowhere says that if a matter is not explicitly set forth in Scripture we are to reject it as a "tradition of men". There was a whole lot more spoken and preached and practiced by the apostles that are not recorded in Scriptures. But some of these have been spoken about by believers close in time to the apostles and with knowledge of what was practiced. This is where historical information come in to help us to understand matters that are not explained, condemned, or commanded in the Scriptures.
For example, the use of organs, pianos and other instruments were not mentioned in Scripture, but are used in worship services now. Therefore, such use can be considered a new tradition. Is it wrong to practice this tradition since we are not instructed to do this in Scripture? Is it a" tradition of men" that we should reject?
Or, the matter of the Lord's Supper in the church. In the first century it was celebrated with a full meal, but most churches do not include a full meal with this ordinance today. So, is changing the way the Supper is performed and celebrated now a "tradition of men" that we should reject?
How about personal Bible study. In the early church people did not have copies of the Bible to study and that continued for 1500 years or so. Is it a "tradition of men" to engage in personal or even home-group studies and therefore be rejected because it is not commanded in the Scriptures?
Then again, what about children's Sunday School classes. These are a very recent practice in the church and was not commanded or practiced in the early church according to the Scriptures. isn't this a tradition of men?....
In conclusion; we might say that the extreme of idealism and patriotism brought vigor and strength to be what otherwise would be cannon fodder. Much newsreels and literature continued to raise the themes of patriotism; and on both sides there were caricatures exaggerating whoever the enemy was; whether racist images of what was perceived as "Jews"; or of the big 3 dictators (Hitler; Hirohito and Mousselini). There are; of course well known conspiracy theories about those who fomented both of these wars and the final war to come. National pride as it stood then was universal; whether by force or free will no one dreamed about living in a world such as envisioned today in our country of open borders in which those who stand for their country are made to feel ashamed.
That being said; we need to look beyond the exterior venire of our past and realize that the spirit of the age dominated. There was an idealism in external beauty as seen with the idolization of hollywood stars; and an ignorance of the evils of racism that truly discriminated against the black population. The Japanese internment in our nation was a sad episode in our past; especially in the light of those who volunteered to fight for our country. Nonetheless; the economic expansion and blessings of our country in general came to pass; certainly in a large part to many who married and were fruitful to multiply as was the plan in Genesis. We can't dwell on the past; but see how patient God was and how many generations He allowed these benefits to our citizens.
As we stand today; we don't know how much time we have until He comes or if any day now we will suffer a major attack and life will suddenly change. Let us fight the good fight daily ( 1 Tim. 6:12) and continue to persevere until the end. We are losing hundreds of thousands every year to drugs; gun violence and suicide so our situation is even more dire than the deaths we suffered in WW2. ( 1 Peter 5:8
I prayed for you this morning when at the dentist having a tooth prepped for a crown. instead of focusing on the procedure and any discomfort I may feel, I focused on praying for those I know who have asked for prayer, like you. I knew that the time spent in the chair was short and your pain is ongoing, so I will continue to pray for you.
It would seem; with the lines blurring between good and evil (or more precisely; who the friends or the enemy is); today's drone type warfare and proxy wars and the hesitation since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to start a nuclear war (and in the same logic to directly start a large invasion or saturation bombing campaign such as Hitler's "blitzkrieg" which would trigger a nuclear apocalypse; we may not have such a large scale world war until the wars preceding and related to Armageddon. This of course doesn't guarantee this being a logical conclusion; but if wrong it would mean the Lord is going to tarry MUCH longer than it appears today. It would take decades to have any sort of society near "normal" as we see today; and indeed Jesus stated it would be like the times of Noah; or Sodom when destruction comes. ( Matt. 24:37 see also Luke).
In World War 2 itself; but not isolated to that event we saw how the actions of a few may have saved the day. I am not taking the time now to do the research; but I have heard that much prayer happened when England was down to its last plane or last few when being heavily assaulted by the German bombing runs. There were also things that I said in my last post that made the situation worse; namely Roosevelt sending those attempting to escape the concentration camps back to Germany; and the racism that peaked in our country in the 1930s to name two.
In terms of finding meaning; we can look to films such as "Unbroken" to see how Christ can allow forgiveness to our enemies; as well as the Corrie Ten Boom story of being with her sister who died eventually; and her narrative explaining how she praised God for the flea infested camp she was in because the guards didn't come in to beat them and they could study the Word together.
When looking at the madness of dictators we can see foreshadowing of the Antichrist and his campaign commencing in trying to fight Christ. (Ps.2 REV 19
I am happy to pray for your family and mother-in-law.
Listened to Reagan's speech on D-Day 1984 where he said something like: those who fight a war to liberate differ markedly from those who fight a war to conquer.
The allied forces were fighting WWII to liberate. They were just in going to war and landing at Normandy. The men that disembarked were heroic and selfless in their taking to the beaches under German fire. That victory by allied forces was an event that turned the tide for liberation from the dictator Hitler and his plan to conquer all of Europe for his evil reich.
I heard today also of a bill introduced to have a month of celebration/acknowledgement/ honoring all American who have fallen in battle. Hope it happens since this is such a worthy thing to do (as opposed to say-gay pride month)
Those of that generation not only fought the war, but those at home were praying en masse on D-day. Wish our country was more like that now.
On June 6, 1944 the Allied armies began their land invasion from the shores of Normandy. This would involve in large part the American and British and signal their first "en masse" intrusion to force the Germans to retreat. In truth the first major resistance for the Germans was the Russians who stalemated their original expansion east just short of Moscow at the end of 1941 and continuing into 1943 when they started the inevitable push westward; expanding in 1944. In the meantime; those such as my now deceased father in law were involved with the slow incursion on the "boot" of Italy; where interestingly Hitler's ally and codictator ended being more of a pain for Hitler; and also the mass killings in that part of Europe never took the ferocity and numbers to the camps as the rest of Europe. Mussolini met his fate first; then later just less than a year after Normandy; did Hitler at the end of April, 1944 when Berlin was sacked despite his maniacal efforts to resist to the last child that could fight.
Of course on the Japanese front a similar plan would have been an option which was eventually tabled due to the high casualty rates predicted with the 2 atom bombs dropped. If the land invasion happened instead the fight probably would have gone well into 1946.
There is much that can be said about the war; in terms of it being something that got our country out of the depression (which a lot of wars are about; money). World War 2 itself was the last war that was "officially" approved through Congress; unlike any conflicts since. It seemed we knew who was good and who was evil in this event; but truth be told there were those complicit to the evil that occured even in this country and especially with the Japanese things were much more complex than they appeared in regard to the animosity and religious fervor for the Japanese leader and differing fanaticism between the army and navy.
15...The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
18 And the nations were(WILL BE) angry, and GOD's WRATH is come ... and should destroy them which destroy the earth.
The message above was written around 95AD to be LITERALLY fulfilled in the future( Revelation 1:1) , and now, even now, from now on, the prophecy will LITERALLY be executed, for GOD is wrathed against all nations and they will be destroyed, include the current Israel, and only and only will be saved a remnant of Israel- Micah 7:18-20, in fact only 144K will be saved- Revelation 7:1-8. And the others?
The others? Matthew 23:33-35
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers (why serpents? why generation of vipers? The answer is in John 8:44.Take a look), how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
The Word is GOD, GOD Himself, self-executing, understand?
Get ready
I don't believe God gives the ability to one to respond to the Gospel without his foreknowledge.
God knows who is going to come to him.
To believe you can baptize an infant so he can receive salvation later is no different than paying a down-payment on it.
God judges our motives and he shares his glory with no man.
God bless.
Part 5.
It's significant that Paul Owen has to rely on such speculative reasoning in order to argue for infant baptism in the earliest centuries. It's not as if baptism and the issues related to it aren't discussed much in the earliest sources. They're discussed often in the gospels, Acts, the writings of Paul, The Didache, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, etc. Yet, the first explicit reference to the concept of infant baptism is found in Tertullian, who is writing against it.
It's also significant that Paul has so far chosen to ignore large portions of the evidence I've cited, including my citation of David Wright and his discussion of the conclusions of modern scholarship. Even in discussing the little evidence he's addressed so far, Paul has made some comments that aren't consistent with his original article. He claims that Tertullian and others who didn't want to baptize infants differed from Baptists in their motivations. But they wouldn't have to have all of the same motives as Baptists in order to be inconsistent with Paul's concept of the catholicity of infant baptism.
I wanted to post this earlier but couldn't get away from work.
It's very hard to get anything definite when researching the early church.
We have to go with what is in front of us as they did and that's the written word.
I also believe in a certain age of accountability and that differ between individuals.
The reason for such a thing as an age of accountability is because one would have to have a clear and mature understanding of they have a sin nature that is incurable. And that we are in need of a savior and you can not add to the grace provided.
So, in doing so a child should feel the need to repent.
If there is a 5 year old child that can understand and make the decision for salvation then there is also a 5 year old child that can go to hell.
God bless and good night for now.
Part 4.
Paul also cites the following from Irenaeus:
"'And dipped himself,' says the Scripture, 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" (Fragments, 34)
If Paul only intends this passage as another example of Irenaeus' belief in baptismal regeneration, then I have no objection. However, if Paul is suggesting that the reference to "new-born babes" is about infant baptism, then I reject that suggestion. Irenaeus is addressing Christians in general. Christians are born again. Regeneration is like becoming a spiritual infant, being born spiritually. This passage says nothing about infant baptism.
Nothing Paul Owen has cited from Irenaeus leads to the conclusion that he believed in infant baptism. To the contrary, it appears that Irenaeus believed in universal infant salvation, like other church fathers of the second century. Thus, the concern some later fathers had for baptizing infants in order to ensure their salvation apparently wouldn't have been a concern to Irenaeus. And when we look at the many passages in Irenaeus that explicitly address baptism, the baptism of infants is never mentioned. So, Paul has attempted to arrive at a conclusion of infant baptism by an indirect means, but, as I've shown above, the argument is inconclusive. There's no logical requirement that infants be baptized in order to be regenerated, and there are passages in Irenaeus in which he discusses infant salvation without any involvement of baptism.
See Part 5.
Part 3.
But we can take this a step further. Irenaeus is one of the fathers who commented on the issue of infant salvation, so we can examine those passages to see if he mentions infant baptism as part of the process. Irenaeus writes:
"And again, who are they that have been saved and received the inheritance? Those, doubtless, who do believe God, and who have continued in His love; as did Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun, and innocent children, who have had no sense of evil." (Against Heresies, 4:28:3)
And elsewhere, concerning the Slaughter of the Innocents:
"For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom; He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for the sake of Christ, who was born in Bethlehem of Judah, in the city of David." (Against Heresies, 3:16:4)
Irenaeus doesn't limit his comments in the first passage to children of believers, he says nothing of baptism, and he says nothing of the Bethlehem children being saved only because they had been circumcised. It seems that Irenaeus believed that all children who die in infancy are saved because of "innocence". There's no need to assume infant baptism in order to explain why Irenaeus would refer to Christ regenerating infants.
See Part 4.
Part 2.
In the first passage Paul cites, Irenaeus is addressing the claim that Jesus' public ministry lasted for only one year. This is from the well known section in Irenaeus where he incorrectly asserts that Jesus lived to be over 40 years old. Irenaeus is explaining that Jesus lived through every stage of life, including old age, which would result in His public ministry having lasted more than one year. Jesus experienced every stage of life, from infancy to old age, in order to save people from all age groups. The immediate context says nothing of the baptism of these people. Paul includes baptism by means of combining this passage in Irenaeus with what Irenaeus says elsewhere about baptism. But there's an assumption he's making in combining the two.
Would a belief in baptismal regeneration as normative require that every person regenerated is regenerated through baptism? No, advocates of baptismal regeneration will acknowledge some exceptions, such as the thief on the cross. Paul's assumption that Irenaeus believed that infants are born again through infant baptism is therefore possible, but unproven, at this point in the argument. Hendrick Stander and Johannes Louw explain:
"It is rather pretentious to insist on substituting the notion of baptism every time a writer uses the term 'regeneration' unless the context clearly relates to baptism as such....[this passage in Irenaeus] merely tells us that the redeeming work of Christ extends to whatever person....The passage does not speak about the age when people were baptized." (Baptism In The Early Church [Webster, New York: Carey Publications, 2004], pp. 53, 55)
See Part 3.
Part 1.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Paul Owen posted an article today arguing that the second century church father Irenaeus believed in infant baptism. None of the passages Paul cites refer to infant baptism, but Paul assumes that the practice is implied. In past responses to Paul, I've given some examples of Christians of the patristic era opposing his claims about infant baptism, and I've cited the patristic scholar David Wright commenting on the subject. Even if Irenaeus had believed in infant baptism, Paul's original assertions would still be false. But does the evidence suggest that Irenaeus believed in infant baptism?
Paul writes:
"In his treatise Against Heresies (II.22.4) he [Irenaeus] writes: 'He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.' Irenaeus clearly believed that 'infants' in the Church were 'born again' to God, the same as children, youths and adults."
And:
"Like all other Catholic Christians, he believed that the new birth was received through water baptism: 'And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' (Against Heresies, III.17.1). Cf. also Irenaeus: 'As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes' (cited by J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 164)."
See part 2.
Sometimes; in my experience I don't know which is worse; the inevitable struggle with difficulties daily; or the annoying knowledge that the enemy is using the same old tactic over and over and over again and how predictable it tends to be.
That may be reflecting badly on my own weaknesses that are causing me to struggle more than I should; so I can't speak
for everyone else here; nonetheless I have a strong suspicion that someone here can relate to that observation.
People wildly shouting or shooting off fireworks when we are trying to sleep; neighbors having conflicts; problems with relatives; and other chaos in our lives may not appear to be persecution in one sense but the enemy as I like to call him is an "equal opportunity destroyer". Having any confidence at all in today's society especially that there can be some solace in anything going on in this life tends to be fruitless. Again; I may be biased having to live alone for years after my spouse had an affair and I had to divorce; feeling that I was missing out on what normal families experience. It is easy to harbor bitterness; but I can say that first the Lord has His reasoning and certainly has matured me in the last 10 years; and also that my ex wife has lost out on what the Lord had purposed for our marriage in the first place; as well as opportunities for us to grow and have an influence on others in witnessing to others. I thought I would mention this once again; briefly since many have their biggest struggles at home. Probably would be better to address seperately as to verses to maintain a strong marriage although I feel I am not the best person to discuss it with my own failures. Nonetheless; Satan's attempt to affect me with uncontrollable anger has been dealt with through Biblical counselling in the book of James and much prayer about 5 or 6 years ago and I would recommend that others would avail sound counselling in the church.
Hebrews 11:37
They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated-
Other parts of this passage mention torture and wandering as nomads. It is fairly clear that when people are put to severe physical suffering and or death directly because of their profession of faith that persecution is occurring. When we look to the individuals who are exiled or made homeless because of either being directly evicted or put in a position of poverty because of their faith (even related to a caste system so encompassing anyone not in the elite status) it can be less clear. Some of this seems like "collateral damage"; and if we look at more subtle things such as verbal abuse and harassment on the job it may be even less clear. No doubt having a work ethic to work "heartily unto the Lord" (Coossians 3:23); to work as unto the Lord and to be above reproach thus not agreeing to use illegal means to promote the econonic status also can have fallout. Of course we must be diligent not to be robbing from our employer's time in having conversations that cause us to deviate from the work at hand; such much normally be reserved for break or after work hours; although there are times when in my own situation I have had to emphasize that I'd better clock out when being alone with one individual on my past job discussing theology. A lot; of course would depend on how complex the task is; there have been one or two times I can think of specifically when working in a warehouse; for instance when the whole production line jammed and there was literally nothing else to do at that time but usually there is some mundane task we can do to fill in for these moments.
Jesus promised that all who were Godly in Christ Jesus would be persecuted ( 2 Tim. 3:12; John 15:20). The origin and SOURCE of this situation is nearly always Satan's minions.
Thank you, Jesus shamed the leaders of Jerusalem about traditions, Matthew 15:3 and we are told in Colossians 2:8. My understanding is when we believe in our heart that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to salvation we are justified by God's grace, Romans 3:24 and being baptized is being obedient to God's word, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: We then start the road to sanctification by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, Titus 3:5.
Jesus Christ has done everything necessary for our salvation and all we do we do in is name including being baptized, Colossians 3:17. He paid the penalty that our sins deserved by His sacrificial death on the cross. His death satisfied God's justice and turned away His wrath from us. God calls us but we must answer we must believe and be obedient to Him to be chosen, Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
When we are baptized in the Name of Jesus we have put on Christ, Galatians 3:27. Being baptized is obedience, Ephesians 2:10 2 Thessalonians 1:8, every believer who has opportunity will be baptized in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is the result of salvation, not the means to it.
Our obedience strengthens our faith, obedience shows our love for God, and our obedience to God's word is essential and it is not works. Those who are obedient are imitators of Christ and are willingly submitting to the authority, His will, and the word of God.
God bless,
RLW
I do think that the Lord's Supper is open to all who have a professing faith in Jesus, are old enough to attest to this faith, and who live a life that is turned towards God and his ways. This does not mean that one needs to be sinless in one's life, but one who confesses their sin and seeks forgiveness and hates that they have sinned. This person should partake of the Lord's Supper because it is an "Encapsulated gospel" sign. It is the acceptance and celebration of the New Covenant of the shed blood and broken body of Jesus unto death for our sins. So, those who acknowledge that this is true and for them can partake of the Communion. Those who don't should be excluded.
As to your son's waywardness, like my own sons, I pray for them to return to Jesus in faith as you are praying for your son. I know that God loves our sons and yours more than we ever could and that He is able to work in their lives 24/7 and we cannot.
So, as parents, it is painful when we see our kids turn from the Lord and walk in the ways of the world, especially when they once embraced the Lord as children and teens. In today's church society, this is all too common. I wish the church was more effective in helping children of believers continue to keep the faith as they become adults. Our society is so different than when I grew up in the 60's and 70's when there was much more people of faith surrounding us in our neighborhoods and schools. But even then, many who grew up in church did not continue. I do not know what the answer is to this problematic trend, but I do desire to be persistent in prayer to those I know who have gone wayward like my own sons.
God is so good and knows our sons through ad through. I ask Him to enlighten their hearts again with the gospel and shed His grace upon their souls. I will keep your son in my prayers, too.
If I had them baptized as infants, I would have done so by faith that God had or would regenerate them according to His election (that no one truly knows the eternal will of God) and I would bring them up in the faith as I did when they were not baptized, being sure that they heard the gospel. I believe. whether they were baptized as infants or by their choice, that the gospel presented is the power of God unto salvation. So, God would use the hearing of the gospel message to bring them to faith in Jesus.
Question. Can an infant take part in Lord's Supper? It is not possible, is it? When they grow and become children, can they take part? Assuming that they haven't given their heart to Jesus, can they still have Holly Communion? In 1 Corinthians it says that if one participates in Lord's Supper and have unrepentant sins then they are judged. So you see that also practical issues emmerge with baby baptism. It is not the baptism that protects our children. It is our prayers and teachings. As you said the children of the saints are holy. My son was born in the faith, he was actually a present from God to my wife, He attended the church untill he was about 14, he was regenerated and was baptized in the Spirit but not in water. God's grace was surely upon him. And then he made his revolution and abandoned the faith. But I see that he still has brakes in his brains. He knows God and his commandments so he avoids doing sins (not fully but at least not the heavy ones) and stlll prays but he is also attracted to the world. We are prayind for him and we know that God protects him and eventually he will come back. But it is true that God allows people to be taught by life itself like the prodigal son. Some have to end up eating pig's food to wake up and return. So lets keep praying for our children They will definitely come back to the Lord sometime, sooner or later..
Blessings.
I guess we differ on when regeneration happens. I believe one needs to be regenerated (which God does in one by grace alone) in which one is )given the capacity to believe. I believe that without God regenerating a person, that person cannot believe because they are dead in sin and depraved and not inclined to seek Him or obey Him.
As to the people you mentioned. It is true that ma y who have been baptized as infants fall away from their belief in the gospel which they have heard at least in the readings during church services. Just because someone has been baptized does not equate to them being regenerated. They are to separate works, one is what God (regenerate) and the other is what a person chooses (baptism). In churches that baptize infants, children, and adults it is common to speak the gospel over the person before they are baptized because it is the power of God for salvation ( Romans 1:16) and your quote from 1 Peter..
As parents we cannot know of God's work of regeneration in our children, whether they are baptized as infants or as older teens at that time. We will know by fruitful living over time that demonstrate this has occurred in the past. Baptism does not save a person, but it is a sign and a seal that places one into the body of believers. So Christian parents baptize infants and children because they are holy due to the believing faith of their parents and therefore covenantal members of God's people.
We cannot know if one is elect or not. That is God's determination. Churches are full of both those who are elect and those who are not. It can be hard to tell one from another.
And it is true that many who were baptized, whether as infants, children, teens or adults, who stray from faith in Jesus and live lives that are in opposition to God despite being baptized by their parents' choice or their own. This is quite evident. And as long as they are alive, there is still hope that they will come to Jesus in faith. So we pray.
Question. Is baptism any good if one does not believe in Jesus? I am living in a country where 95% of all the population have been baptized Greek Ortodox christians. It a custom and a trandition here. I believe in Italy and Spain a huge percentage of people have been baptized as Roman Catholic christians. So what? Is that any good? The prisons here are full of baptized people. People outside swear, steal, murder, rape, etc and they are all baptized when infants. Do they carry on them the grace of God? Has their baptism has done any good to them? I don't think so. They all know a few about Jesus and His life and teachings and that is all.
Can a person be regenerated as an infant? Lets leave it to the scripture to tell us. 1 Peter 2:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." Which is that incorruptible seed that the verse talks about? The answer is given in 1 Peter 24-25, "24 For all flesh is as grass, ...:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." It is the word of God, the gospel, that was preached to us.
In the parable of the Sower and the seed it is the seed that goes inside the good soil(all last 3 cases, never mind that some fall away afterwards). There is no other way. David and John the Baptist were people of the OT, that were never regenerated. Regeneration is not something that we do as people, it is something that God does. When? After we have heard the gospel and have believed and repented and decided to live a new holly life. So God regenerate us so that we become new people, and also become His children, and also through regeneration we are given His grace to obey His commandmenta and change our character in similarity to Jesus. Next step we are baptized, which means that we bury our old self and raise as new people to start a new life. This is how it goes.