WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Do you even read the passages posted or cited in posts? Obviously not, because I already posted the relevant passage. Gal 4:1 says that even though the heir is the owner of everything (or will be when his father dies), when he is a child he is no better than a slave.

But when the child comes of age, he moves from being equal with the servants and slaves to being the master of everything in the house.

But read the passages you posted. A deacon must manage both his children AND his household (two separate things). The elder must manage his household and also keep his children under control. A household leader (father, husband, "man of the house") is required to provide for everything and everyone that is under his care, including the servants, children, animals, buildings, etc. But that does not make the servants equal with the master, nor does it make the children part of the "household".

Gal. 4:1-7 deals with the ATONEMENT and the BENEFITS of Christ's redeeming death such as being free from the slavery of sin, being adopted as sons, and have an inheritance in heaven. You interpret this grand passage naturalistically. Baptists must explain away "household" baptisms in any way possible....even if doing injustice to the text. This passage does not indicate children are NOT apart of the nuclear family.

 

[Doug Brents]

Gal. 4:1-7 deals with the ATONEMENT and the BENEFITS of Christ's redeeming death such as being free from the slavery of sin, being adopted as sons, and have an inheritance in heaven. You interpret this grand passage naturalistically. Baptists must explain away "household" baptisms in any way possible....even if doing injustice to the text. This passage does not indicate children are NOT apart of the nuclear family.

I didn't say they are not part of the family. But they are not part of the "household" that was baptized/saved. Baptism is completely ineffectual for those who do not believe. Belief, understanding of the need for a savior, understanding of who Jesus is and what He accomplished, is mandatory for baptism to have any value whatsoever. Infants do not have this understanding. It is not that anyone needs to "explain away" anything. What is required is that you explain how someone who does not and cannot understand their need for a savior can be affected by baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Infants do not have this understanding.

John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb...filled the the Holy Spirit.
Jeremiah was filled with the spirit before he was born.
King David said God made him trust in Him upon his mother's breast (Ps. 22:19).
Infants and breast feeding children sang God's praises (Mt. 21:14-16). Jesus Himself confirms this by quoting Psalm 8 And Jesus *said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies You have prepared praise for Yourself’?”

Since faith is a GIFT of God, He can give it to anyone he chooses regardless of age. To deny this is to deny God is omnipotent. There is a certain amount of works righteousness in Baptist theology....believing something in mankind must be present in order to have faith....before God gives them faith....a fully functioning intellectual capacity.

If one has to ‘understand’ before being baptism, then what is this absolute, non-negotiable ‘something’ that must be understood?
And where is this non-negotiable something content for children found in Scripture?
And even if we could establish a non negotiable something, who among us will decide if it is properly understood?”

 

[Doug Brents]

John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb...filled the the Holy Spirit.
Jeremiah was filled with the spirit before he was born.
King David said God made him trust in Him upon his mother's breast (Ps. 22:19).
Infants and breast feeding children sang God's praises (Mt. 21:14-16). Jesus Himself confirms this by quoting Psalm 8 And Jesus *said to them, “Yes; have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies You have prepared praise for Yourself’?”

Since faith is a GIFT of God,

Here is part of your error: Faith is not the gift of God. Salvation is the gift of God, and it is received through our faith.

He can give it to anyone he chooses regardless of age. To deny this is to deny God is omnipotent.

Certainly God is omnipotent, But is is also clear in Scripture that God usually does things through man, rather than do things Himself. Even when the things He does cannot possibly be done by man, He requires man's involvement. And the involvement of man is what faith is.

If one has to ‘understand’ before being baptism, then what is this absolute, non-negotiable ‘something’ that must be understood?

One must believe in Jesus as God, and in His sacrifice for our sins.
But to understand that, we must also understand our sin and our need for a savior.

And where is this non-negotiable something content for children found in Scripture?

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16).
"Repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19)
And as noted by someone on another forum, there are 211 more passages that link belief/faith with salvation.

And even if we could establish a non negotiable something, who among us will decide if it is properly understood?”

It is properly understood when the person exhibits their faith in Christ through obedience to what He commands (Heb 5:9, James 2:20, 22, 24, 26).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16).
"Repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord" (Acts 3:19)
And as noted by someone on another forum, there are 211 more passages that link belief/faith with salvation.

Typical Baptist playbook....go to all the passages of Scripture which DO NOT TEACH BAPTISM AND/OR DO NOT MENTION CHILDREN....then extrapolate Baptist assumptions and presuppositions into it. Bad hermenuetics. Contrariwise, for example, if I were to teach a class on Election, I would go to Eph. 1 and 2 and Romans 9; I would not start my study with the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

It seems to me the best starting point to determine if the NT allows children to be baptized is to go to the passages of Scripture that teach baptism and mention children. Do they allow the practice? We only have two such texts in the NT....the Great Commission and Acts 2:38-39. I shall only deal with Acts in this post.

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Here we have two categories of individuals to be baptized. Adults who must repent and children who do not have to. And in the case of infants....it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to repent. Scriptures are replete with commands that only apply to adults....Helping widows, giving alms, feeding the poor, preaching the word, defending the faith, studying scripture do not apply to infants, broke bread, praying, shared their belongings, selling their possessions, and distributed the proceeds to those in need, confessing the faith and repenting. These are activities that infants of believing parents clearly could not participate in.

So why do Paedobaptists baptize infants who CAN NOT repent? It is the promises that are attached to baptism...the forgiveness of sins an the gift of the HS. Most Baptists have real difficulty here as they believe baptism contains no promises....it is purely man's work.

The promises attached to baptism are extremely important those that baptize infants as as baptism is seen as an instrument for the remedy of original sin....all born with imputed guilt. The promise of the "forgiveness of sins" destroys the curse and "gift of the HS" brings Christ and faith to the infant. Pure monergism.

Here we have to make another distinction on the topic of Original Sin....Paedobaptists go in the direction Original sin is a condition one is born into whereas Credobaptists go in the direction of Original Sin is an act of the will. And there is no reconciling these two positions....one is going to be on one side or the other...or on the other hand one can stick their head in the sand...and not decide. Understanding paedobaptism begins with understanding the fall....in one direction infant baptism.....in the other direction, the belief in the Age of Accountability.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

One must believe in Jesus as God, and in His sacrifice for our sins.
But to understand that, we must also understand our sin and our need for a savior.

No Trinity, No Creation, No Resurrection, No Hope, No Judgment, No Prayer. No Eternal life, No going to be with Jesus after death? No need in hearing God's word? No Church? No Lord's Prayer. No Baptism. No Lord's Supper. No ten Commandments. Your listing to too minimalistic for my liking. There is tremendous person to person variability what must be taught children with your listing.

Scripture gives no guidance in what is to be taught to children. But what about historical guidance? What about teaching children the content of the Creeds! The content of the Christian religion is all there in each of the articles which is closer to my listing than yours. The Nicene Creed is the summation of the Christian Faith here at CF.

What about a new Christian who has children? How do new convert adults teach the content of Scripture to their children. We use historical guidance here also. What about a Catechism? Martin Luther wrote his Small Catechism for just such purpose in which the sub-title states: As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.

 

[Doug Brents]

Typical Baptist playbook....go to all the passages of Scripture which DO NOT TEACH BAPTISM AND/OR DO NOT MENTION CHILDREN....then extrapolate Baptist assumptions and presuppositions into it. Bad hermenuetics. Contrariwise, for example, if I were to teach a class on Election, I would go to Eph. 1 and 2 and Romans 9; I would not start my study with the genealogies of Matthew and Luke.

This discussion is not about baptism (although that IS the point at which we are saved). This discussion is about whether or not children can, or even need to, be saved.

When we study salvation, we begin with all the verses that discuss salvation. Then we narrow that down to just the verses that talk about salvation from sin. Then we search those verse to find the requirements we must meet in order to receive the gift of salvation. The first and most frequently mentioned requirement is belief/faith. Faith/belief is the foundation upon which all other requirements for salvation rest. If we do not believe, doing all the other things mentioned in Scripture in relation to salvation are meaningless. But when we believe the other things have value.

It seems to me the best starting point to determine if the NT allows children to be baptized is to go to the passages of Scripture that teach baptism and mention children. Do they allow the practice? We only have two such texts in the NT....the Great Commission and Acts 2:38-39. I shall only deal with Acts in this post.

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Here we have two categories of individuals to be baptized. Adults who must repent and children who do not have to. And in the case of infants....it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to repent. Scriptures are replete with commands that only apply to adults....Helping widows, giving alms, feeding the poor, preaching the word, defending the faith, studying scripture do not apply to infants, broke bread, praying, shared their belongings, selling their possessions, and distributed the proceeds to those in need, confessing the faith and repenting. These are activities that infants of believing parents clearly could not participate in.

You seemed, in previous posts, to be arguing in favor of infant baptism. But now you are demonstrating that it is not only not necessary, but completely pointless and ineffectual.

But you are correct in this post, baptism is only for adults; only for people who have faith; only for people who understand that they are lost in sin with no hope to save themselves. Salvation, which is received during water baptism requires belief, repentance, and verbal confession of Jesus as Lord.

So why do Paedobaptists baptize infants who CAN NOT repent? It is the promises that are attached to baptism...the forgiveness of sins an the gift of the HS. Most Baptists have real difficulty here as they believe baptism contains no promises....it is purely man's work.

The promises attached to baptism are extremely important those that baptize infants as as baptism is seen as an instrument for the remedy of original sin....all born with imputed guilt. The promise of the "forgiveness of sins" destroys the curse and "gift of the HS" brings Christ to the infant. Pure monergism.

There is no imputed guilt of the original sin in infants. Children are born with a nature that causes them to sin, but I do not believe that they are not born lost.

No Trinity, No Creation, No Resurrection, No Hope, No Judgment, No Prayer. No Eternal life, No going to be with Jesus after death? No need in hearing God's word? No Church? No Lord's Prayer. No Baptism. No Lord's Supper. No ten Commandments. Your listing to too minimalistic for my liking. There is tremendous person to person variability what must be taught children with your listing.

Most of the things you list here are either included as details in "belief in Christ" or are not necessary to receive salvation.
Believing in the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit is part of belief in Jesus. If you don't believe He is who He said He was, then you don't really believe in Him.
Believing in Creation is part of belief in the Bible as the Word of God. If you don't believe in Creation, then you don't believe God's Word is without error or conflict, and so don't really believe in God.
Belief in the resurrection is central to belief in Jesus. As 1 Cor 15:17 says, if you don't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, then your faith is in vain and there is no salvation.
Everyone will go through Judgement, the righteous will be on the right (having already been in Heaven for the wedding celebration of the Church to Christ (Rev 19:11-20:7), and the unrighteous will be on the left and be sent to Hell. But everyone will be there for Judgement.
Eternal life is the reward we are saved to experience. You don't have to believe that it is there, but it is the hope we have.
There is no belief in Christ without hearing the Word of God preached (Rom 10:14).
The "Lord's Prayer" is not a special prayer we must recite. It is a pattern, a principle of prayer that we should emulate.
The Lord's Supper is not for the lost. It is only for those who understand Christ and the Church, because eating and drinking it without proper understanding results in further condemnation.
The ten commandments are part of the Old Covenant, and have no validity in the New Covenant.

Scripture gives no guidance in what is to be taught to children. But what about historical guidance? What about teaching children the content of the Creeds! The content of the Christian religion is all there in each of the articles which is closer to my listing than yours. The Nicene Creed is the summation of the Christian Faith here at CF.

There is no "creed" mentioned or listed in Scripture. I have never read all of the nicene creed (having never heard of it until the last couple of years), but I probably know and believe most all of what it teaches. Teaching some creed is teaching the Word of God second hand. It is better to go to the source, not someone else's interpretation of the source.

What about a new Christian who has children? How do new convert adults teach the content of Scripture to their children. We use historical guidance here also.

New Christ followers are still babes in Christ, and so still need to be fed themselves. So the teacher who brought them to Christ (or someone who supports the teacher) should still be there to continue deepening the roots of the new Christ follower and his/her children. You do not send children to feed, educate, and lead other children. Nor should you send babes in Christ to feed, educate, and lead those who are not yet in Christ to Him.

What about a Catechism? Martin Luther wrote his Small Catechism for just such purpose in which the sub-title states: As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.

Having never really studied any "catchism", I cannot speak to the value or benefit of such a thing. But having read a little bit of one just now, again I find that the best answers are in Scripture, not in someone else's interpretation of what they think of what the Scripture says. The answers in some catchism may or may not be consistent with what Scripture teaches.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This discussion is about whether or not children can, or even need to, be saved.

There is no imputed guilt of the original sin in infants. Children are born with a nature that causes them to sin, but I do not believe that they are not born lost.

All infants born as Adam's descendants are born faithless. This is a transgression of the First Commandment which is a violation of the will of God (I John 3:4). In this sense, the adult heathen is on the same playing field as an infant....faithless.

Scriptures state...."whatever is not from faith is sin" Romans 14:23 and "without faith it is impossible to please God."

If there were any incompatibles of Scripture faithlessness or unbelief against "no other gods" is it.

Infants are guilty from the get go.

And this is where baptism comes in....the promises of the forgiveness of sins destroying the curse and the gift the HS which gives faith. Original sin and baptism are inextricably linked together

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The ten commandments are part of the Old Covenant, and have no validity in the New Covenant.

All the Ten Commandments except "graven images" and "Sabbath day keeping" are reiterated in the New Testament. They are morally binding on all NT Christians. You are DEAD wrong here my friend.

Adults who must repent and children who do not have to. And in the case of infants....it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to repent.

Non responsive. The Scriptural statement in Acts 2:39 "this promise is to YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN" is one of the most ignored by Credobaptists....they refuse to comment on it. And refusing to comment on it is on par with "explaining away infant baptism." Of course, this verse is the basis for household baptism of children, but many credos dismiss this fact.

 

[Doug Brents]

All infants born as Adam's descendants are born faithless. This is a transgression of the First Commandment which is a violation of the will of God (I John 3:4). In this sense, the adult heathen is on the same playing field as an infant....faithless.

Scriptures state...."whatever is not from faith is sin" Romans 14:23 and "without faith it is impossible to please God."

If there were any incompatibles of Scripture faithlessness or unbelief against "no other gods" is it.

Infants are guilty from the get go.

I can see where you are coming from, but don't agree with your conclusion. Children have the greatest faith of all. Children are born with an innate trust and reliance on their parents, and this is the very nature of faith. God commands us to become trusting and faith-filled like children are.

And this is where baptism comes in....the promises of the forgiveness of sins destroying the curse and the gift the HS which gives faith. Original sin and baptism are inextricably linked together

Original sin condemned everyone in that it caused our sinful nature, and brought death and corruption into the natural world, but no child is guilty of the parent's sin. He may be punished for the parent's sin, but he is not guilty of the sin his parent sinned.

All the Ten Commandments except "graven images" and "Sabbath day keeping" are reiterated in the New Testament. They are morally binding on all NT Christians. You are DEAD wrong here my friend.

The graven images commandment is also given in the NT. But it is not the ten commandments from the OT that are valid or morally binding on NT Christ followers. It is the reiteration in the NT that makes it binding on the NT Christ follower, which is why keeping the sabbath is not a requirement of the NT Christ follower.

Non responsive. The Scriptural statement in Acts 2:39 "this promise is to YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN" is one of the most ignored by Credobaptists....they refuse to comment on it.

The promise is to your, and to your children when they can themselves repent, and confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized as believing adults (or even youths). But an infant cannot believe, because they do not comprehend their own sinfulness.