(former baptist) Infant Baptism (URGENT)

[Faithandblood]

:prayer: :pray:
I have been carefully praying, studying, and reading about infant/ child baptism. I never gave much mind to it since I was a believer in believer's baptism (after coming to faith i.e. the anabaptist) At best you could dedicate the child. I am missing something...
A child baptized is saved? I understand fully that salvation is by grace alone, and that the age of accountability is an offshoot of goodworks. that it is just as impossible for a child to choose to believe as an adult choosing.
Are there children who after being baptized, lose salvation? Fall away? If not, could we baptize all children? How does this relate to security of the believer? For surely, I would assume, that there are those who were baptized, that in their older age stepped away. If I am wrong please let me know. I need help with infant baptism. This is urgent for I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter who has not been baptized yet for we did not find it needed yet. :help: :help: :help:

[SPALATIN]

:prayer: :pray:
I have been carefully praying, studying, and reading about infant/ child baptism. I never gave much mind to it since I was a believer in believer's baptism (after coming to faith i.e. the anabaptist) At best you could dedicate the child. I am missing something...
A child baptized is saved? I understand fully that salvation is by grace alone, and that the age of accountability is an offshoot of goodworks. that it is just as impossible for a child to choose to believe as an adult choosing.
Are there children who after being baptized, lose salvation? Fall away? If not, could we baptize all children? How does this relate to security of the believer? For surely, I would assume, that there are those who were baptized, that in their older age stepped away. If I am wrong please let me know. I need help with infant baptism. This is urgent for I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter who has not been baptized yet for we did not find it needed yet. :help: :help: :help:

Your questions have often been asked and we always seem to answer them the same way. A child can turn his/her back on Baptism and reject what God has given through his Son. Baptism is not a "get out of jail free" card. When we act on our own for our own selfish interests we are always capable of continuing on in that direction. Only by the Holy Spirit are we capable of returning to God. We do not believe nor endorse "once saved always saved" The child, once baptized should be brought up to attend church regularly and at a time when they do have the ability to learn and understand what God has done for them through his Jesus Christ, be confirmed in her faith and then she will be able to partake in the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour through the sacrament of Holy Communion.

If you consider for a moment that Baptism is not something we do for ourselves, but rather something God does. Baptism is to drown the Old Adam in us and thereby be born from above as Christ tells Nicodemus he must be. Baptism is a state of being rather than a state of doing..

Martin Luther, in his small catechism wrote this as the meaning of the third article of the Apostles Creed.

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true."

Salvation is a gift to us from God the Father and we receive that gift through Baptism because of the price the Son paid to redeem our souls from the devil. We do not choose God of our own will. It is by the Holy Spirit that we even can proclaim to have received him. If one looks at Baptism in this way, why not have your child baptized and at least know that should something happen tomorrow and she should join her Savior in heaven that she would indeed be there.

If Baptism were not necessary, would the Apostle Peter and Apostle Paul have mentioned it whenever they were asked "what must I do to be saved?"

[Jim47]

Baptzim is one of the means of grace, and should never be ignored, Why? Because Jesus commanded that we be baptized. We are brought to faith through The Holy Spirit, and God uses baptizim as a means to create faith in the heart of a little child or an unbeliever. If only you could see my 2 little grand daughters you would have no doubts.

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


The apostle John also teaches the importance of baptizim.


Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Jn 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

There are many questions and answers on WELS web site. Below is a link.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1519&cuQA_qaID=1&cuTopic_topicID=53

[LilLamb219]

You've been given great advice so far!

Jesus told how disciples were to be made and those 2 things go together...baptism and teaching. You can't just have one without the other. So, when babies are baptized, most churches have a cradle call type of monthly mailing to parents to encourage them to teach them about God and to also encourage the parents to bring the children to services.

Even though I would love for all children to be baptized, it falls under the honor thy parent commandment as to who is responsible. I'm not the parent of all the other children, so I do not have that responsibility to baptize them. Besides, like I said above, teaching must go with baptism.

You're worried about your daughter. It sounds as if you're truly understanding that God is at work in baptism to want to know more about this :)

[Edial]

:prayer: :pray:
I have been carefully praying, studying, and reading about infant/ child baptism. I never gave much mind to it since I was a believer in believer's baptism (after coming to faith i.e. the anabaptist) At best you could dedicate the child. I am missing something...
A child baptized is saved? I understand fully that salvation is by grace alone, and that the age of accountability is an offshoot of goodworks. that it is just as impossible for a child to choose to believe as an adult choosing.
Are there children who after being baptized, lose salvation? Fall away? If not, could we baptize all children? How does this relate to security of the believer? For surely, I would assume, that there are those who were baptized, that in their older age stepped away. If I am wrong please let me know. I need help with infant baptism. This is urgent for I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter who has not been baptized yet for we did not find it needed yet. :help: :help: :help:
Former Baptist here.

Here is my understanding of it.

In many ways it is like a dedication of a child that Baptists hold to, but not completely.
There is much more to it and most of which we do not fully understand. :)

The grace of God is placed upon a child when he/she is baptized. Why?
Because the parents asked God for it and God gives grace upon people whose caretakers ask for it.
If the child has no parents, any caretaker can have the child baptised.
If the child dies after that before reaching the understanding of things - child goes to heaven, since he/she dies under the grace of God.

I see the Infant Baptism as an instillment of God's grace that leads one to heaven.

When the child grows up, that child might reject God "by faith" and lose that grace that was imparted.

Or, the child might receive Christ by faith, and be justified in the eyes of God.
You see, justification is by faith. :)

Now, there is an in-house debate whether a child could have faith or not.
I do not get involved in that, since we do not usually know this as a rule.

To reach that point of justification by faith could take a short time or a long time or to be immediate at the Baptism.

To know whether one is justified or not, is another matter.
There are tests for that. :)

Yet once one is justified by God one cannot be un-justified, or lose salvation.

But prior to that, salvation could be lost.

Salvation and justification however, are often synonymous in the Scriptures, but not all the time.
And that difference often escapes some, yet that difference makes a "world of difference" in understanding a bit more the complex methodology of salvation.
... which in itself is not that complext to understand at all. :)

Look at salvation from the literal perspective - a lifetime process of God leading a person to himself, then justifing that person and finally sanctifying him.
That start from Baptism and ends at death, with a point of justification someplace in the midst of it.

Yes, Baptise your child.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

Now, there is an in-house debate whether a child could have faith or not.
I do not get involved in that, since we do not usually know this as a rule.

Scriptures show where children have faith, one example being John the Baptist in the womb jumping for joy when Mary (pregnant with our Lord and Savior at the time) comes near. Even Jesus spoke of little ones who believed in Him. So, yes, children/infants can have faith. How do they get it? God's Word which could be "heard" or given to them by Word and water.

[Edial]

Scriptures show where children have faith, one example being John the Baptist in the womb jumping for joy when Mary (pregnant with our Lord and Savior at the time) comes near. Even Jesus spoke of little ones who believed in Him. So, yes, children/infants can have faith. How do they get it? God's Word which could be "heard" or given to them by Word and water.
Might be true. I do not disagree.
We just do not know (at least I do not) that all children believe.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

We pray that God grants them faith in baptism just as He has given us the gift of faith. We teach the children also because it goes hand in hand with baptism. We look to God to work faith in our children and that His Word will not return to Him empty.

[Edial]

We pray that God grants them faith in baptism just as He has given us the gift of faith. We teach the children also because it goes hand in hand with baptism. We look to God to work faith in our children and that His Word will not return to Him empty.
I do not understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that all that are baptised have faith?
But many who are baptized grow up faithless.
Do you realize how many atheists are there in the former USSR who were baptized? :)

But if one gets faith, how could a presense of faith alone save?
One must believe, confess in order to be saved.

If one has faith yet is fails confessing Jesus Christ ...

JN 12:42 Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.

But regardless, let's drop the topic of whether all children have faith when baptised.

Even if we agree on that, we'll start on whether faith must be confessed to be saved.

I say yes. You said no, at another thread, if I am not mistaked.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

But if one gets faith, how could a presense of faith alone save?
One must believe, confess in order to be saved.

A presense of faith of course saves alone without our having to DO something else as there is no requirement on our part for salvation. God gives us the gift of faith so we may believe. Those who can physically confess out loud will want to when they have faith. There are those who cannot physically confess out loud, but that doesn't mean we can toss them aside and say they do not have faith.

Lutherans don't put requirements on people for salvation such as WE must do this or WE must do that or we're just not saved. God gifts us with faith and we do believe or we reject, it's that simple. Confessing our faith is an outcome not a requirement.

[SPALATIN]

Edial,

Why are you arguing with LilLamb? What's the point? Just so you can say that you are correct. What she said is very true, if scripture gives us a picture like that of John the Baptist jumping in the womb as soon as he heard the voice of Mary isn't that good enough evidence for you? Just stop the arguing and quit trying to show that you are right. It negates what others have told this man and you just cloud up the picture with your doubts.

If you don't know Lutheran theology well enough you shouldn't get into the discussion.

[Edial]

Edial,

Why are you arguing with LilLamb? What's the point? Just so you can say that you are correct. What she said is very true, if scripture gives us a picture like that of John the Baptist jumping in the womb as soon as he heard the voice of Mary isn't that good enough evidence for you? Just stop the arguing and quit trying to show that you are right. It negates what others have told this man and you just cloud up the picture with your doubts.

If you don't know Lutheran theology well enough you shouldn't get into the discussion.
Scott, with all due respect, please back off.

As I presented I do not wish to agrue concerning children having faith or not.
I said, "It might be so".
If John was filled with Holy Spirit in the belly of his mother, it does not necessarily mean that all children have faith.

Also, if you think that I am here to "be right", please reconsider, since the fact that you and I do not agree on many issues does not necessarily support your presumption.

Also, it is not my intention to "cloud up picture with doubts".
It is my intent however, to clear up the clouds with Scriptures.

The poster has a question whteher to baptize his child.
I presented my view.

Ed

[LilLamb219]

Ed, you may have presented your view, but the OP was asking for the Lutheran view and yours is just a little different at times from what Lutherans confess.

[ctay]

Acts 2:37-39 (King James Version)



37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

[MORTANIUS]

I know of some people who claim that infant baptism shouldn't be permitted because the Holy Bible does not explicitly state it, and by this same standard, it does not forbid it either.

The Holy Bible does however give us an understanding that infant baptism is permissable.

Circumcission was performed on non-consenting infants on behalf of the parents and they were not intellectually aware or old enough to make a conscious choice about God or even having awareness of belonging to the group of Chosen People. The parents decided for the well being of their infants.

Likewise, Baptism is performed on infants. From the Holy Bible we may understand that Baptism is a substitute to Circumscission, and in turn recognize that infants are not to be excluded from baptism. Of course, the following Scriptural passage I will include was aimed at adults (and perhaps children) but as it stands, circumscission was a practice applied to infants and adults, and so baptism is regarded for both as well.

Colossians 2:11-12
"In him you were also circumcised withe the circumscision made without hands, by putting off the body the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumscision of Christ, buried with him in baptism."

Then we must also regard another passage that establish a connection between infant baptism and the Holy Bible.

Acts 2:38-39
"Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar..."

These are but two examples, and are presented for those who are looking for a form of Biblical indication of baptism being applied to this question of infant baptism.

I could present a much more and concise Lutheran answer to this question, but many people seem to have already done this.

I hope the answers contained here have helped.

May the Lord Bless and Keep you.

[SPALATIN]

Scott, with all due respect, please back off.

As I presented I do not wish to agrue concerning children having faith or not.
I said, "It might be so".
If John was filled with Holy Spirit in the belly of his mother, it does not necessarily mean that all children have faith.

Also, if you think that I am here to "be right", please reconsider, since the fact that you and I do not agree on many issues does not necessarily support your presumption.

Also, it is not my intention to "cloud up picture with doubts".
It is my intent however, to clear up the clouds with Scriptures.

The poster has a question whteher to baptize his child.
I presented my view.

Ed

Ed,

By no means will I back off from this. This person asked for a Lutheran view point. You did not give him one but what you believe. you are not an expert on Lutheranism then again I don't claim to be either, but I know the Lutheran point of view better than you do and that is what I gave him. You don't like it? Tough! I am not here to please you and when I see you giving your own personal point of view when that is not what is requested I will call you on it. I wasn't being rude about it but was telling you to be the one to back off.

Now you have forced me to be a little more gruff. You don't like it report me to the Mods. It isn't the first time I have been in trouble with them, but I think you will find that I did not break any rule here and I challenge you to find one that I did break.

God's Blessings
Scott Strohkirch a.k.a Spalatin.

[Protoevangel]

Ed,

By no means will I back off from this. This person asked for a Lutheran view point. You did not give him one but what you believe. you are not an expert on Lutheranism then again I don't claim to be either, but I know the Lutheran point of view better than you do and that is what I gave him. You don't like it? Tough! I am not here to please you and when I see you giving your own personal point of view when that is not what is requested I will call you on it. I wasn't being rude about it but was telling you to be the one to back off.

Now you have forced me to be a little more gruff. You don't like it report me to the Mods. It isn't the first time I have been in trouble with them, but I think you will find that I did not break any rule here and I challenge you to find one that I did break.

God's Blessings
Scott Strohkirch a.k.a Spalatin.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SPALATIN again.

[Edial]

Ed,

By no means will I back off from this. This person asked for a Lutheran view point. You did not give him one but what you believe. you are not an expert on Lutheranism then again I don't claim to be either, ...
And how did my view differ from yours concerning that topic in the context of Lutheranism, especially in the light that you claim not to be an expert at it?

...but I know the Lutheran point of view better than you do and that is what I gave him. You don't like it? Tough!
I do not have a problem when someone is confronting me. It is healthy.
What I did have a problem with is that you appeared to have addressed a certain disharmony or "clouds of doubts" that I appeared to have spread concerning the topic.
I did not.
I advised the guy to go ahead with Baptizing his child with all the Lord's blessings - a very Lutheran view, especially from a Baptist.

...I am not here to please you and when I see you giving your own personal point of view when that is not what is requested I will call you on it.

I do not have a problem to be called on it and I am not looking for others to please me.

How exactly my view is contradicted by the Scriptures or the Confessions?


I wasn't being rude about it but was telling you to be the one to back off.

Now you have forced me to be a little more gruff. You don't like it report me to the Mods. It isn't the first time I have been in trouble with them, but I think you will find that I did not break any rule here and I challenge you to find one that I did break.

God's Blessings
Scott Strohkirch a.k.a Spalatin.
Scott, I still did not read the rules myself. :)
I use common sense while navigating.

I reported to Mods a couple of Calvinists that were nasty and arrogant.

I sometimes state openly in a post for a Mod to interfere when things get a bit too far.

It is also healthy to get in trouble with Mods here and there. Never killed anyone. :) (As long as it is within limits, of course).

Beauty of the Lutherans is that they can could be gruff and then forget the whole thing that is on a personal level.

You and I will not agree on many things.
However, I think that the Scriptures, Sacraments and the Confessions ahould be things that unite us.

I'll buy you beer if you buy me tomato juice.

Ed. :)

[C.F.W. Walther]

Ed if you are a baptist as you claim a very Lutheran view, especially from a Baptist. then why are you giving your view on a Lutheran forum board which is for Lutherans only and people that want clarification on our views------not baptist views!!

Here is Luther's view, which BTW is "our" position, and not the Baptist position of baptism.





From Luther’s Large Catechism on Infant Baptism.Now, if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian.
Further, we are not primarily concerned whether the baptized person believes or not, for in the latter case Baptism does not become invalid. This, perhaps, is a rather subtle point, but it is based upon what I have already said, that Baptism is simply water and God’s Word in and with each other; that is, when the Word accompanies the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking. For my faith does not constitute Baptism but receives it. Baptism does not become invalid even if it is wrongly received or used, for it is bound not to our faith but to the Word.
We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I--in short, all men--may err and deceive, but God’s Word cannot err.
Therefore only presumptuous persons draw the conclusion that where there is no true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Likewise I might argue, "If I have no faith, then Christ is nothing." Or again, "If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and magistrates are nothing." Baptism doth now save us 1Peter 3:21.





:scratch:

[MORTANIUS]

Ed if you are a baptist as you claim then why are you giving your view on a Lutheran forum board which is for Lutherans only and people that want clarification on our views------not baptist views!!

Here is Luther's view, which BTW is "our" position, and not the Baptist position of baptism.






From Luther’s Large Catechism on Infant Baptism.Now, if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian.
Further, we are not primarily concerned whether the baptized person believes or not, for in the latter case Baptism does not become invalid. This, perhaps, is a rather subtle point, but it is based upon what I have already said, that Baptism is simply water and God’s Word in and with each other; that is, when the Word accompanies the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking. For my faith does not constitute Baptism but receives it. Baptism does not become invalid even if it is wrongly received or used, for it is bound not to our faith but to the Word.
We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I--in short, all men--may err and deceive, but God’s Word cannot err.
Therefore only presumptuous persons draw the conclusion that where there is no true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Likewise I might argue, "If I have no faith, then Christ is nothing." Or again, "If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and magistrates are nothing." Baptism doth now save us 1Peter 3:21.





:scratch:





I say let anyone express 'their' views - meanwhile we will continue to express our Lord Jesus Christ's views. ;)

[Edial]

Ed if you are a baptist as you claim then why are you giving your view on a Lutheran forum board which is for Lutherans only and people that want clarification on our views------not baptist views!!

Here is Luther's view, which BTW is "our" position, and not the Baptist position of baptism.







From Luther’s Large Catechism on Infant Baptism.Now, if God did not accept the Baptism of infants, he would not have given any of them the Holy Spirit nor any part of him; in short, all this time down to the present day no man on earth could have been a Christian.
Further, we are not primarily concerned whether the baptized person believes or not, for in the latter case Baptism does not become invalid. This, perhaps, is a rather subtle point, but it is based upon what I have already said, that Baptism is simply water and God’s Word in and with each other; that is, when the Word accompanies the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be lacking. For my faith does not constitute Baptism but receives it. Baptism does not become invalid even if it is wrongly received or used, for it is bound not to our faith but to the Word.
We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I--in short, all men--may err and deceive, but God’s Word cannot err.
Therefore only presumptuous persons draw the conclusion that where there is no true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Likewise I might argue, "If I have no faith, then Christ is nothing." Or again, "If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and magistrates are nothing." Baptism doth now save us 1Peter 3:21.





:scratch:






You know Radidio, do you know what frustrates me?
It is not rudeness, not carelessness, not thoughtlessness.
It is when one presents something that is somehow complex and another looks at it, blinks, and replies with a quote of the Confessions that completely is off the mark.

Instead of asking questions and trying to understand what one says - I get this.

Let me assure you, what I said is not in disagreement with the quote.

Now, I do not expect you to agree with this last sentence. Why? Because you have not asked me even ONE question to clarify what I said. Not ONE.

So, you do not seem to be interested in what is stated, just in the fact that it appears to be different from what you are used to.

You also grabbed a "from a Baptist" and made a "theology" out of it, although in another post I wrote "a former Baptist".
I find such an attitude a turn-off, especially since all know that Baptists do not accept the concept of Infant Baptism.

I know quite well that I am not popular around here, which in itself means little to me.

But this is not a popularity contest, especially when it comes to Christ.

You deal with "our" position and be content. Good luck.

But unless you can show me that what I say is contrdicted by the Confessions, keep your "our position" as your personal position.

Ed

[Edial]

I say let anyone express 'their' views - meanwhile we will continue to express our Lord Jesus Christ's views. ;)
The "wink" smiley definitely expresses the meaning of what you are saying.

So, good luck with "our view".

Ed

[Faithandblood]

Ok...
I am thankful for all the wonderful and spiritfilled advice and clearing up of scripture for me. All of you, I humbly thank!
I did not intend on this being an angry debate.
Let all we say be grace filled and of course salted.
That is not towards any specifically.

Again in the Name of Jesus the Christ, thanks
Charles

[Protoevangel]

Ok...
I am thankful for all the wonderful and spiritfilled advice and clearing up of scripture for me. All of you, I humbly thank!
I did not intend on this being an angry debate.
Let all we say be grace filled and of course salted.
That is not towards any specifically.

Again in the Name of Jesus the Christ, thanks
Charles

Don't worry about it Charles.

We're Lutherans. If something can be debated, you will bet we'll debate about it. We always seem to find our way back to the pub where the brotherhood flows as full and heady as the beer (or the tomato juice and tea for our non-drinking friends.)

You are welcome here any time! Don't let our roundness scare you off.

[LilLamb219]

Angry? I don't know, maybe some people got angry.

Debate? Well, when something false filters in, of course we're going to correct as that is what we're supposed to do instead of letting our brothers continue on in error. :)

[C.F.W. Walther]

You know Radidio, do you know what frustrates me?
It is not rudeness, not carelessness, not thoughtlessness.
It is when one presents something that is somehow complex and another looks at it, blinks, and replies with a quote of the Confessions that completely is off the mark.

Instead of asking questions and trying to understand what one says - I get this.

Let me assure you, what I said is not in disagreement with the quote.

Now, I do not expect you to agree with this last sentence. Why? Because you have not asked me even ONE question to clarify what I said. Not ONE.

So, you do not seem to be interested in what is stated, just in the fact that it appears to be different from what you are used to.

You also grabbed a "from a Baptist" and made a "theology" out of it, although in another post I wrote "a former Baptist".
I find such an attitude a turn-off, especially since all know that Baptists do not accept the concept of Infant Baptism.

I know quite well that I am not popular around here, which in itself means little to me.

But this is not a popularity contest, especially when it comes to Christ.

You deal with "our" position and be content. Good luck.

But unless you can show me that what I say is contrdicted by the Confessions, keep your "our position" as your personal position.

Ed


Well Ed I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway. I didn't mean to but sometimes I just see you trying to explain something that has no meaning to us. Not that we don't understand but that it's not that important to us. It's not our view so it isn't relevent and it gets us how you want to keep reiterating the subject long after it's dead.

I see you constantly repeating that you are Lutheran but sometimes your explanations don't pan out and as I tell my bible class if you are going to be a Lutheran then be one and not a smattering of many other denoms. I have former penetecostal and AoG in the class and if I don't get rather forward with them they have a tendency to want take over the class with their ideas that arn't Lutheran.

[Edial]

Well Ed I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway. I didn't mean to but sometimes I just see you trying to explain something that has no meaning to us. Not that we don't understand but that it's not that important to us. It's not our view so it isn't relevent and it gets us how you want to keep reiterating the subject long after it's dead.

I see you constantly repeating that you are Lutheran but sometimes your explanations don't pan out and as I tell my bible class if you are going to be a Lutheran then be one and not a smattering of many other denoms. I have former penetecostal and AoG in the class and if I don't get rather forward with them they have a tendency to want take over the class with their ideas that arn't Lutheran.
And I do understand what you are saying.
Yet I disagree with you.

Isn't one a Lutheran due to the Scriptures and the Confessions?

If there is more to it, I am not a Lutheran.

If it is it, then "our view" is exactly what it means, a view that developed traditionally, outside of the Scriptures and the Confessions.

I am a former atheist whose understanding of Christianity is Christ, as defined in the Scriptures.
In the context of Christianity, is there more to it than the Scriptures in following Christ?

If there is, why one would want to leave atheism?

I'll tell you a secret, conversion of an atheist is ONLY effective when ONLY the Scriptures are there.
And Christianity from a religious concept is ONLY attractive to an atheist, when sincere and revolutionary love is detected, not the mushy or a disciplinary type.

So, since you are saying that you understand what I am saying, why a debate, which points to personal views that are either new or developed over time?

Is this Lutheranism?

If it is, why would someone want to belong to it outside of feeling accepted?

And if one's need is to be accepted, why wasn't Christ accepted?

And if Christ wasn't accepted, why stress "us" and "our view" without supporting this with Scriptures and the Confessions?

[SPALATIN]

And I do understand what you are saying.
Yet I disagree with you.

Isn't one a Lutheran due to the Scriptures and the Confessions?

If there is more to it, I am not a Lutheran.

If it is it, then "our view" is exactly what it means, a view that developed traditionally, outside of the Scriptures and the Confessions.

I am a former atheist whose understanding of Christianity is Christ, as defined in the Scriptures.
In the context of Christianity, is there more to it than the Scriptures in following Christ?

If there is, why one would want to leave atheism?

I'll tell you a secret, conversion of an atheist is ONLY effective when ONLY the Scriptures are there.
And Christianity from a religious concept is ONLY attractive to an atheist, when sincere and revolutionary love is detected, not the mushy or a disciplinary type.

So, since you are saying that you understand what I am saying, why a debate, which points to personal views that are either new or developed over time?

Is this Lutheranism?

If it is, why would someone want to belong to it outside of feeling accepted?

And if one's need is to be accepted, why wasn't Christ accepted?

And if Christ wasn't accepted, why stress "us" and "our view" without supporting this with Scriptures and the Confessions?

Ed,

What you say is true. I will admit that much. The man who started this thread wasn't looking for insight beyond that of what the confessions said. You added your own personal slant to it and this did put doubt out there. We hold to the evidence that LilLamb spoke of in that John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when he heard the voice of Mary before she even made her announcement that she was with child.

If the person had asked for personal opinions than what you said would have been fine. Sometimes we need only give enough information and not ALL the information.

Scott

[Edial]

Ed,

What you say is true. I will admit that much. The man who started this thread wasn't looking for insight beyond that of what the confessions said. You added your own personal slant to it and this did put doubt out there. We hold to the evidence that LilLamb spoke of in that John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when he heard the voice of Mary before she even made her announcement that she was with child.

If the person had asked for personal opinions than what you said would have been fine. Sometimes we need only give enough information and not ALL the information.

Scott
Then you might want to look at this a bit more objectively.

This what I said -
Now, there is an in-house debate whether a child could have faith or not.
I do not get involved in that, since we do not usually know this as a rule.

And she appended to it concerning the quotes that you mentioned.
My intent was not to open that up.

Well, despite of my reservations, I did get involved, especially after others took that further.

It got personal and there indeed was some pent up aggravation that was revealed.

I do not agree that you and others are innocent in this outside of just offending, since this and some other posts could be interpreted that Edial made them lose their cool.

And if only information that is needed to be given out is to be given out, speak to LilLamb219 who opened it up and please address yourself also.

Ed

[MORTANIUS]

The "wink" smiley definitely expresses the meaning of what you are saying.

So, good luck with "our view".

Ed

Please don't take this so personal. Is it understanding or argument that you seek?

[Edial]

Please don't take this so personal. Is it understanding or argument that you seek?
But isn't that the question that I am asking?

And why do you think that understanding comes only one way?
I freely was saying that I look for understanding via the Scriptures and the Confessions.

[MORTANIUS]

But isn't that the question that I am asking?

And why do you think that understanding comes only one way?
I freely was saying that I look for understanding via the Scriptures and the Confessions.

Fair enough, and I hope I did not come across as confrontational towards you.

I think everyone here needs one of these -->:groupray:

[SPALATIN]

Then you might want to look at this a bit more objectively.

This what I said -
Now, there is an in-house debate whether a child could have faith or not.
I do not get involved in that, since we do not usually know this as a rule.

And she appended to it concerning the quotes that you mentioned.
My intent was not to open that up.

Well, despite of my reservations, I did get involved, especially after others took that further.

It got personal and there indeed was some pent up aggravation that was revealed.

I do not agree that you and others are innocent in this outside of just offending, since this and some other posts could be interpreted that Edial made them lose their cool.

And if only information that is needed to be given out is to be given out, speak to LilLamb219 who opened it up and please address yourself also.

Ed
Ed,
I apologize for my part. I could have handled it better than I did. Please forgive me.

[Edial]

Ed,
I apologize for my part. I could have handled it better than I did. Please forgive me.
No problem.

If I myself would be innocent of all things, I would not need Christ. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Fair enough, and I hope I did not come across as confrontational towards you.

I think everyone here needs one of these -->:groupray:
That would be interesting.

Did anyone ever organize a group prayer before at this forum?

Since we cannot partake of the Sacrament together at the same time due to distance, prayer could be another method.

[C.F.W. Walther]

The Scriptures teach that the things that God gives to us through His means of grace (the Gospel and the sacraments) are to be received by faith that they may become personally our own. Just as rejection of the proclaimed verbal Gospel places one in great spiritual peril, so also rejection of God's sacred gift and act of Baptism places one in spiritual danger. Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15). Martin Luther says it so well in his small catechism , "What benefits does Baptism give? It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."

[Jim47]

The Scriptures teach that the things that God gives to us through His means of grace (the Gospel and the sacraments) are to be received by faith that they may become personally our own. Just as rejection of the proclaimed verbal Gospel places one in great spiritual peril, so also rejection of God's sacred gift and act of Baptism places one in spiritual danger. Jesus said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15). Martin Luther says it so well in his small catechism , "What benefits does Baptism give? It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare."



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[LilLamb219]

Ditto on the triple thumbs up! :)

[Kotton]

A story that has helped some understand:

Jeffery was 10 years old and today he was going to court. He was very excited. You see Jeffery had spent his first 7 years living with his bio-parents who were drug abusers. Three years ago he had been removed from the home by "welfare" and he had spent the past 2 1/2 years with the Wilson family. Three and 1/2 months ago his bio-parents had been killed when their meth lab blew up. Today was adoption day. The Wilson's wanted him to be their son!

At court the Judge talked to Blanch and Ted Wilson, the lawyers were there. Then the Judge asked Jeff " do you want to be adopted".. Jeff's eager "YES PLEASE!" could be heard all the way down the hall in the court room The Judge signed the paper, then the Judge signed a second paper, this one for Jeff's 6 month old baby brother, Sandy,(who had been spared from the explosion of the meth lab.) who the Wilson also wanted to adopt. Sandy was sound asleep in Blanche's arms. Soon the new family went home.

Now Jeff knew exactly what was happening. He knew how bad it had been and how much different his new parents and new home were. He gave his concent to the adoption. Sandy, would not remember much about the past 6 months. He would only know the love and attention of a wonderful family. He had not been asked for his concent. He would not know what it was to not be a Wilson. But both boys were now equally, sons and heirs.

Would it be possible that one or both could go astray. Could one boy someday reject the Wilsons, refuse to go to family gatherings and return all the gifts sent by their parents. Indeed it is possible, though not likely. They could reject their heritage, but no one could legally now deny them the rights of being "the Wilson boys."

Adoption, like Baptism is something done for us, not because we deserve it, but because we are loved. It can be with or without our active participation, but it changes our life. We are now sons(daughters) and heirs. We can latter reject what is offered, and thus miss out on the benefits, but those benefits now belong to us as sons. One moves from having no "rights" to having it all with the possiblity of stupidely rejecting what is freely given. One can not fall out of the Father's hand, nor can anyone steal us out of His love. However, we can walk out. If we do Our Father entreats us and desires that we return. He , however gives us free will. He will not force us to accept our inheritance.

[MORTANIUS]

That would be interesting.

Did anyone ever organize a group prayer before at this forum?

Since we cannot partake of the Sacrament together at the same time due to distance, prayer could be another method.

Interesting that you should say that about the Sacrament. In receiving the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, people all over the world are in Communion with the Lord regardless of distance.

Praying together is again possible over great distances. When two or more people are in agreement with something and pray together, the Heavenly Father listens.

:thumbsup: May the Lord Bless and Keep you.

[Edial]

Interesting that you should say that about the Sacrament. In receiving the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, people all over the world are in Communion with the Lord regardless of distance.

Praying together is again possible over great distances. When two or more people are in agreement with something and pray together, the Heavenly Father listens.

:thumbsup: May the Lord Bless and Keep you.
Well, I might not be as spiritual as the theology dictates, but a prayer at the forum while we type with the computer "ink" would appeal to me more in the context of a personal relationship to God with a group of others that type in the same thread with the same ink.

Thanks,
Ed

[MORTANIUS]

Our Thoughts, hand written paper, computer monitor etc. is not what makes anything 'spiritual'.

It is only our Faith that makes prayer worthwhile.