Quotes (923).

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that infants are forgiven of original sin when a priest pours water over the baby in the sacrament of baptism. There are two serious problems with this practice. First, there is no occurrence of infant baptism in the New Testament, and second, one must believe in Jesus in order to be forgiven. Clearly a baby cannot respond in faith to the Gospel and thus be forgiven.

-          Mike Gendron

43 thoughts on “Quotes (923).

  1. Theodore A. Jones says:

    Infant baptizm is a practice of many other churches and is not confined to just a RC religious practice. But it is the practice in and of itself that is forbidden. Regardless of the religious reason stated to justify this type of religious practice this does not negate God’s statement “Do not practice the customs of the Egyptians.” “It is not ours to reason why” for if we do we die. Do not tempt God by putting him to the test.

  2. Terry says:

    Theodore… I see at least 2 places where infants were baptized:
    Acts 16:15
    And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
    Acts 16:33
    And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
    Where, exactly is it forbidden?

  3. Terry,

    This is actually reading into Scripture what is not there. This in no way teaches that infants were baptized. It says a household, but does not define the household composition. Secondly, this does not get around the clear teaching of Scripture that baptism comes ONLY after salvation. Salvation ONLY comes as a person is able to confess and repent of their sins, and acknowledges by faith the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour. To do otherwise is to put the cart well down the road before the horse even gets out of the stable.

    The Catholic religion gets into further trouble when they see baptism as a sacrament (or means whereby grace is obtained). This is the reason for the sacraments as held to by Rome. Each stage allows for another stage of salvation for in the Catholic system there is no salvation by grace through faith alone. Baptism gets rid of original sin. Confirmation then “weds” the child to the church. The Eucharist permits the continuing sacrifice of Jesus Christ over and over each week. And less, we think that Catholics are like us. Their own teaching makes it clear that for a person to be a believer, they must partake of the sacraments. Rome teaches that the sacraments are the means of salvation AND necessary for salvation.

    TJM

  4. Chris Hohnholz says:

    Terry – it only says household, not infants. To assume that means “there must have been babies” is merely that, an assumption. The model shown us throughout the NT is a believer professes faith, then is baptized. Nowhere do we see baptism as a means by which children are somehow ushered into the faith.

  5. Male infants, under the Old Covenant, didn’t have the ability to believe either, but they were brought into His covenant through circumcision. Throughout redemptive history, we see God’s special regard for the family unit (i.e., Noah and his family, etc.). John the Baptist leaped in his mother’s womb when regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Clearly, our awesome, loving God wants us to be inclusive of our offspring as part of His wonderful family.

  6. Dennis, that is true, but that circumcision did not save them. They had to believe by faith in the coming Messiah. Secondly, John the Baptist was separated to the call of ministry in some supernatural way, but Scripture nowhere indicates that he was regenerated unto salvation while still an infant in his mother’s womb. Yes, we are to desire the salvation of our offspring. And yes, it is also true that God commands all to repent which would include our children. But to suggest or teach as the Roman Catholic religion does that sprinkling of water on the forehead of an infant confers salvation upon them is taught nowhere in the Scriptures. It is also good to remember that while the Church is under a new covenant, they are not the same as Old Testament Israel. If there was a correlation, then we would only be seeking to baptize male infants and not both male and female. Finally, we cannot possibly give consideration to our offspring as part of God’s family until they have placed their faith in Christ alone for salvation. Nobody comes to faith in Christ in any a different manner than another. There is only one way to the cross and baptism is not it.

  7. LUKE1732 says:

    Chris Hohnholz says: The model shown us throughout the NT is a believer professes faith, then is baptized.

    Matthew 28:19 says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

    No mention of professing any faith. True disciples grow into faith by being baptized and then observing all of Jesus’ commandments, like the scripture says.

  8. Theodore A. Jones says:

    RE: “thejunglemissionary”
    “Salvation only comes as a person is able to confess and repent of their sins” Beg to differ. According to Acts 18:24-26 & Acts 19:1-7 repenting of sins, plural, is a conjecture of salvation that is a basis for denying the gift of the Holy Spirit which is why this teaching of salvation by John the Baptist preceeded Jesus’ crucifixion. If it were true that the gift of the Holy Spirit were to have been granted on the basis of repenting of sins there would have been no reasonalble reason for Jesus’ crucifixion to have had perfected the only Way the individual must have the faith to use to be forgiven of all past sins. The crucifixion of Jesus has narrowed it down to the Way of faith of obeying God by repenting of one sin in order to be forgiven of all past sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as proof that you have had the faith to obey God by doing what he says is right.
    RE: Terry
    “Where does it say exactly that it forbidden?” Lev. 18:3 “You MUST not do as they do in Egypt”
    According to the Encyclopedia of Religion infant baptism is a religious practice of ancient Egypt and the encyclopedia asserts that infant baptism originated in Egypt. I would not continue to put
    God to the test if infant baptism is a religious practice you endorse or practice for it maybe pushing luck.

  9. LUKE1732 says:

    Theodore,

    Don’t read the Bible one verse at a time. Leviticus 18:3 introduces a section of around 25 verses that describe in detail which Egyptian behaviors are not to be imitated. Baptism isn’t mentioned at all. Unless you’re saying that Lev. 18:3 says that we’re prohibited from doing absolutely everything that the Egyptians ever did…

  10. Terry says:

    In response to…
    thejunglemissionary…
    “This is actually reading into Scripture what is not there. This in no way teaches that infants were baptized.” I didn’t say this is teaching infant baptism, I just pointed to two passages that indicate households/families, which includes kids/infants, were baptised…
    “ It says a household, but does not define the household composition.” …So what are you trying to say?
    “ Secondly, this does not get around the clear teaching of Scripture that baptism comes ONLY after salvation. Salvation ONLY comes as a person is able to confess and repent of their sins, and acknowledges by faith the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour. To do otherwise is to put the cart well down the road before the horse even gets out of the stable” I agree if you are talking about believers baptism, you can have it no other way… but if you are talking about covenantal baptism, that’s different
    Chris Hohnholz says:
    “Terry – it only says household, not infants. To assume that means “there must have been babies” is merely that, an assumption.” To assume that there wasn’t is merely that, an assumption… most of the families I have visited have more than just mom and dad, and back then, loads of kids was the norm (no television )
    “The model shown us throughout the NT is a believer professes faith, then is baptized. Nowhere do we see baptism as a means by which children are somehow ushered into the faith.” Agreed, I did not mention anything about the kids being “ushered into the faith” after being baptized… I just think they were baptized… what that meant to them I don’t really know, but to assume they weren’t is just that, an assumption.
    Dennis J. Fischer: Couldn’t have said it better myself
    Theodore A. Jones
    “RE: Terry
    “Where does it say exactly that it forbidden?” Lev. 18:3 “You MUST not do as they do in Egypt”
    According to the Encyclopedia of Religion infant baptism is a religious practice of ancient Egypt and the encyclopedia asserts that infant baptism originated in Egypt. I would not continue to put God to the test if infant baptism is a religious practice you endorse or practice for it maybe pushing luck.” Brother Theo… I don’t believe in luck, thanks. According to ancient near east historical records it was also used in ratifying covenants’… crazy that, I guess it depended on where you lived as to what it meant… interesting…

    All I’m trying to get across is that infant baptism is VERY diferent from believers baptism, we should all know that… it’s an apples/oranges thing, so read up on convenantal baptism, then you might get an idea of what it means, then think hard on what the early Christians did with the everlasting covenant that was instituted by God to Abraham… an argument from silence does make a great case for covenantal – infant baptism is all I’m saying….

    Thank you LUKE1732 for reading in context… I didn’t even look it up.

    By the way everyone, I see this as an iron sharpening iron thing, we all get back to sacred scripture!

    God bless you all :^)

  11. Theodore, do you believe that repenting of one’s faith at the moment of salvation is ONLY to cover “past sins”? Secondly, do you believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit can be rejected by a person today? Finally, do you believe that one must work for their salvation in anyway or to remain saved?

    Terry, thanks for your response. First, this passage does not indicate kids/infants were baptized and to infer such is to mishandle Scripture. The word is the word for full baptism, not sprinkle, and is a clear reference to believer’s baptism.

    Second, the household composition comment does not indicate that the “household” contained kids/children. 1 Cor. 1 is a chapter that defines the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul makes it clear that he came to preach that gospel and no other. In this passage, he indicates that he baptized (plunge under, fully immerse) a small handful of people including the “household” of Stephanus. If anybody had an ample opportunity to speak about the importance of baptism under the new covenant, Paul would have done so. However, he made it clear that he did NOT come to baptize. If “covenantal” baptism was to be observed, there is certainly not one scrap of evidence in Scripture to indicate that this is the case.

    Third, yes, they may have had lots of children, but after awhile, parents become too old to have children. The household size dwindles. To assume that every household mentioned in Scripture had a baby/infant/toddler/child is to assume a great deal. Each passage mentioning baptism reveals that the Scriptures were taught and salvation came to the house. Infants/toddlers do not have the capability of placing their faith in Christ.

    Fourth, there would have been no reason to baptize kids/infants for inclusion in some kind of covenant when the covenant was clearly defined. While circumcision was a sign of the old covenant with Israel, baptism is not so for the church. One is NOT baptized and then considered to be included in the new covenant. This only takes place when a person places their faith in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, repents and confesses their sins. Baptism is but a sign (not a sacrament) to show as a testimony to the world what Christ has done in creating a new creation.

    Fifth, as you are mentioning history, early church history shows that infant baptism was not practiced until it is mentioned in vague references around 200 A.D. The only clear references indicate that it became rarely used or known until closer to 300 A.D. If early church history was to be an indicator, and if the following of baptism into a covenantal relationship was so important, I believe history would have revealed such. The Jews were nothing but meticulous when it came to recording their history, and it would not be a stretch to think that Jews who became Christians would have done the same.

    Finally, you state “an argument from silence does make a great case for covenantal – infant baptism” then conclude with “we all get back to sacred scripture!” I would prefer to stick with the last comment than the first for silence does NOT make a great case for establishing church doctrine or practice.

    TJM

  12. Theodore, you said you see places in the new testament where infants where baptised, which puzzles me because even a stalwart of infant baptism can see no reference to it in the New Testament for example to quote B.B. Warfield: “The warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament , but in the Old Testament.”

    or church historian and advocate of infant baptism Geoffrey Bromiley, “We are left with no direct New Testament precept or precedent, no definite ruling can be given in the matter of baptizing or not baptizing infants, parents are not disobeying any clear cut command if they withhold baptism from their children, since no direct mandate of infant baptism exists, no absolute rule of infant baptism should be imposed on a congregation.”

    or what about two reformers

    Zwingli: “Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done, If however I were to terminate the practice, then I fear that I would lose my prebend [stipend], if we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion, for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practiced.”

    Luther: “There is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that one might justify the introduction of infant baptism at the time of the early Christians after the apostolic period.

    just thinking that if even giants in the faith who where practitioners of infant baptism can see no truth of infant baptism the new testament do we really claim to have a deeper understanding??

    in Christ

    Andy

  13. Theodore A. Jones says:

    Theodore A. Jones has NEVER said that he sees places in the OT or NT which support the contrary doctrine and practice of infant baptism.

  14. Theodore A. Jones says:

    Junglemissionary
    Have business to attend to, will answer you upon return. In the mean time do what you can to discredit this statement. “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13

  15. pam says:

    Aside from baptism, let me say that we are saved by grace, thru faith, which is a gift from God. Without being regenerated(saved) first, no one will repent. Once the Holy Spirit quickens and makes alive then a person is convicted of sin and repents. God does it all. The elect always respond because God decreed it before the foundation of the world and wrote their names in the Lambs book of Life. It sounds like some have the cart before the horse.

  16. Theodore A. Jones says:

    Yes those who think they are saved before they hear the message do indeed ride in a cart that preceeds the horse. For no person’s name will be written in the Lambs book of Life unless they first hear and obey the message. But some have been predestinated by God to disobey the message, ref. 1Pt. 2:8b, because of thinking it is they who have already been saved and distain the message.

  17. Dear Theodore,

    please accept my sincere apology for any offence caused, i was thinking Terry and typed your name instead.

    so the same above only to Terry this time.

    sorry yet again

    yours in Christ

    Andy from Belfast

  18. Hi,

    Rome doesn’t know its own mind on unbaptised babies, so any junior Apologist for Roman Catholicism should be very, very slow to pontificate on what Rome teaches”

    VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were “serious” grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.
    Theologians said the move was highly significant — both for what it says about Benedict’s willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church’s views on heaven, hell and original sin — the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.
    Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.
    “If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,” said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.
    “Baptism does not exist to wipe away the “stain” of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church,” he said.

    Augustine started the “ball” rolling! Calvin & Luther kicked it down the field & then the “game” was on!

    A TEXT out of CONTEXT is a PRETEXT! Those who quoted Acts 16:33 FORGOT to quote the CONTEXT – Acts 16:16-34! If they had they would have seen what is says in verses 30-33:

    Acts 16:30-33
    (ERV)
    30 Then he brought them outside and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?”

    31 They said to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved—you and all who live in your house.” 32 So Paul and Silas told the message of the Lord to the jailer and all the people who lived in his house. 33 It was late at night, but the jailer took Paul and Silas and washed their wounds. Then the jailer and all his people were baptized.

  19. pam says:

    In thinking about the last statement in the post, that a baby cannot respond in faith to the Gospel and be forgiven, then I would say that you are implying that all infants, small children, and the mentally incompetent die and go to hell.
    Now, if you believe in predestination and election, then at least some of them may experience the grace and mercy of God and be saved. Otherwise, it sounds like they are all lost. And I am not trying to make an argument for infant baptism or the Roman church (God saved me out of that 25 years ago).
    Like I said, just thinkin’.

  20. Leonardo,

    Your comments are no longer welcome here at DefCon. Spewing your rhetoric, and your rampant hatred of the Jews and true Biblical Christianity will not be tolerated. I would recommend you find another site to troll, because you just overstayed your welcome!

    Pam,

    I stated that a baby cannot respond in faith to the gospel because they do not have the mental reasoning to be able to do so. However, this in no way implies that all infants, small children, or the mentally incompetent die and go to hell. Yes, I do believe in predestination and election unto salvation, but there are some areas that cannot be completely discerned from Scripture. In those areas, I have to leave it in the hands of God. Praise the Lord that you were saved out of Rome. Our prayer is that many more will find the truth as well before it is too late.

  21. Theodore A. Jones says:

    There is only one perfected and mandated Way each person must have the faith to use to escape from the penalty of eternal death. This Way is the faith of confessing directly to God that you are truly sorry Jesus’ life was lost by bloodshed when he was crucifiied and be baptized into this confession for the forgiveness of your past sins. The reason you are only forgiven of past sins is because by a change that has been made to the law after Jesus’ crucifixion it is a violation of the law for anyone who refuses to give this confession to God. No person can has or will be forgiven of their sins without obeying God this Way.

  22. Obedience is a result of being regenerated {born again-John 3:3}, not a means of being saved. Faith is a gift given by God, as is everything that is necessary for our complete redemption. {See Ephesians 2:8-9} Salvation is God’s gift, given to those He chooses…the elect.
    Forgiveness is not based on our works, forgiveness is only through believing in and trusting in Jesus Christ and what He’s done as God the Father poured out His wrath on His Son, treating Him as though He committed every sin the elect committed, atoning for those sins and being the propitiation for them. God the Father declares the born again believer justified, which is a legal term meaning ‘declared righteous’. The basis for this justification is what Christ has done, not what we do, for there is nothing we could ever do to satisfy God’s absolute hatred at our sins. The regenerate are forgiven of all sins, otherwise, the work of Christ would not be finished if it were only for past sins {He declared it to be finished in John 19:30}; thus we have 1 John 1:9. Many denominations teach you must do something, such as be baptized, or partake of the sacraments, to be just and right with the Lord. Martin Luther is a prime example, as a monk he fasted, prayed, beat his body to subdue the flesh, was adamant about doing penance; until he discovered that the accepted understanding of justification was horribly wrong. He’d studied his Latin Vulgate bible, basing the meaning of justification on the Latin word which defines justification as ‘a process through which the individual becomes intrinsically holy’. When he came across the Greek term and its meaning {keep in mind, the Bible was written in Greek}, ‘a declaration made by God’, he realized the horrific error of what he’d been taught. There was no process, no ritual, no work, nothing to be done to be declared right by God; Christ had done it all. Those God saves are the ones He declares right.

  23. Theodore A. Jones says:

    “It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
    There is one MAJOR factorial problem with your conjecture of predestination. Every naturally born person has been prioir to being naturally born declared by God NOT to be a child of God. This is a fact that is impossible for you or anyone else to get around. All the naturally born, Jew or Gentile alike, are none other than the children of the Devil and MUST be born again of God to become children of God. The crucifixion of Jesus has only perfected the Way you MUST have the faith to use. But if you will not, which is actually what you have been predestinted for, you nor anyone else will make it.

  24. Theodore, I am afraid that your understanding of salvation is flawed in that you add to what the Scriptures do not teach, namely, that baptism saves. Baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Salvation is based on the finished work of Christ on the cross. It is not based on what we can or cannot do. If salvation was based on baptism, then the person doing the baptizing would be able to refuse salvation to a person seeking to be baptized. Sorry, not what the Scriptures teach. Baptism is ONLY an outward profession of an inward possession. It is in NO way a sacrament whereby grace is obtained. Same is true with communion. It is NOT a sacrament whereby grace is obtained for the partaker.

  25. Theodore,

    Being predestined for salvation {Romans 8:29-30} does not mean being born without sin, that is not what I said nor am I implying such. God chose, before the foundations of the world, a people for Himself that He would, in His timing, call out of darkness into light.
    This is also from Romans, chapter 3 ‘because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.’ This verse reveals the purpose of the law, it reveals our sin. If keeping the law was all it took to be declared righteous, what was the point of the cross? Obedience to God’s law comes after regeneration and is evidence of it. In believing you must be obedient to be declared righteous, you are reading into the text as well as trusting in your own abilities.

    http://defendingcontending.com/2011/06/14/they-just-dont-get-it/

    You also believe this ‘The crucifixion of Jesus has only perfected the Way you MUST have the faith to use’…I correct you, the crucifixion of Christ is the ONLY way to eternal life. He was the propitiation for sin, He was the only acceptable sacrifice. Having faith is not humanly possible, which is what Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.’ In these verses ‘grace, saved, faith’ are all gifts given by God, you cannot and do not have the ability to believe or have faith in God apart from Him gifting you with that faith. Having faith means to trust in Christ completely, understanding what God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit have done in bringing sinners into the kingdom of God. There are 3 key elements to biblical faith; knowledge, belief, trust. Trusting in Christ means believing what He did on the was sufficient in and of itself, for when He cried ‘It is finished’, He Himself declared His work sufficient because He had come to do the will of His Father, and His crucifixion and resurrection were the ‘grand finale’ of that work.

  26. Theodore A. Jones says:

    “The law was added so that the trespass might increase.” Rom. 5:20
    Re: junglemiss. It is necessary to be baptized into the confession one makes in regard to the sin of Jesus’ crucifixion. The only accpetable confession God will entertain as correct is the individual who has the faith to confess directly to him that he is sorry Jesus’ life was LOST by bloodshed when he was crucified. No one will be declared righteous by God by making anyother confession in regard to Jesus’ crucifixion.

  27. What about the thief on the cross Theodore? He entered into paradise without being baptized -“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise” luke 23:43. This verse discredits your faulty belief.

    All you are giving us is your opinion, and faulty teaching. You pluck verses out of context and misinterpret them, which is why you do not get what is being said here. You defend a tradition, and use random verses in doing so. You violate Ephesians 2:8-9 and rob God of glory by trying to work your way into His favor, which is why the latter of Ephesians 2: 8-9 was written by the Holy Spirit, ‘not of works, lest any man should boast’.

    You have no desire for truth, and we have no desire for propaganda.

  28. pam says:

    Theodore, Jesus did not lose His life, He laid it down willingly for those He and the Father determined ,before the foundation of the world, they would have mercy on and give eternal life to,based on God’s love, not you. Scripture says that none choose God. So in order for some to be saved and the blood of Jesus to be effective, they chose who would receive mercy. It was not an attempt to save, based on whether some would choose.You have to be made spiritually alive first and then, by the power of God, you believe and repent of your sin. God does not save you based on your sorrow for sin, That is a natural result of and evidence of your salvation. You are saved by grace, and if it is by works, then it is no longer grace. Baptism is a sign. just as circumcision was for Israel. In ancient times, covenants were cut in blood. The covenant between God and Abraham was already established, in blood so circumcision was a sign of promise in the flesh that these were covenant people.
    Your understanding of Scripture is faulty because you are mixing the old and the new. Some of God’s instructions were for Israel only. We can learn from all of that but Paul enlarges on what all of this means for those of the Body of Christ in his letters. Study Scripture in context or you will find confusion.
    Hope this helps.
    Peace.

  29. Theodore,
    The only way to God’s kingdom is solely through the finished work of Christ, for instance, He says in John 11:25-26, ‘Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” What is He asking us to believe/trust/have faith in? His finished work {the resurrection and the life}, His atonement for sins, He satisfied God’s wrath at sin. There had to be a sacrifice for sin, and no human being could satisfy God’s wrath at sin, our deeds are unacceptable, as Isaiah 64 makes clear, ‘For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.’

    This is from Isaiah 53, “He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.’ This speaks of Christ as the sin-bearer, with the promise of healing {being restored back to a right standing with God} because of His sacrifice.

    What about the Old Testament saints? David, who was an adulterer and murderer, and yet, he was a ‘man after God’s own heart’. Or Moses, who killed the Egyptian, or Lot, who offered his own daughters to the pack of wolves outside his door? How did these men find favor with God, there is no record of them being baptized, certainly their ‘deeds’ were questionable. The reason they found favor is because God had declared them ‘righteous’, again, the legal term is in view here. They were in right standing before the Lord because of what Christ would do for them on the cross.

    Most complicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ by adding ‘works’ to it, that is not the Gospel at all. Believing in what Christ has done and not trusting in your ‘filthy rags’ is what the true Gospel means. Trust in what God the Son has done, and nothing else.

  30. Theodore, as has already been stated, you have a faulty understanding of the Scriptures. The wrath of God was poured out upon His only begotten Son because He (Jesus Christ) became the sin-bearer for the sins of mankind. There are only two options before man today. Either one is accepted for salvation based SOLELY on the finished work of Christ on the cross of Calvary, OR you die in your sins and will spend eternity in hell paying the penalty for those sins. There is NO other way to be considered a new creation in Christ apart from knowing the propitiation for our sins was in Jesus Christ alone. So, to use your phrase in reverse, Yes, the ONLY people who will enter the kingdom of heaven will do so based on the murder of the Lamb of God. There is NO other way. To think there is any other way is to be damned.

  31. Theodore,

    Where is your verse from God’s word stating YOU must have faith?

    Again, read Ephesians 2:8-9, ‘For by GRACE are you saved, through faith, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is a GIFT of God, NOT AS A RESULT of WORKS, so that NO MAN MAY BOAST’.

    I emphasized key words in those verses because you are not comprehending, and honestly will not unless God opens your understanding. To continue to rely on works will damn your soul to hell. May we all lift you in prayer.

  32. Ray says:

    Equating the rite of circumcision under the old covenant with infant baptism under the new covenant is not something that is founded in scripture , Romans 2:29 could not be clearer on this ;

    But he is a Jew , which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit , and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men , but of God.

    Clearly, circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham , but it was only a sign of the seal of the covenant, which even in Abrahams time , was circumcision of the heart. The heart [ no pun intended] of the issue of circumcision is found in Ezekiel 36:26

    A new heart also I will give you, and a new Spirit will I put with in you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

    There is nothing vague and uncertain about circumcision as we should understand it, whereas as Ishmael and countless other Jews were circumcised and not saved, circumcision under the new covenant is an assurance of salvation and a continuance of Gods work in the believer.
    Unfortunately , infant baptism was some thing that the Reformers carried over from Romanism that should have been left there.

  33. Ray says:

    Theodore
    When one bases their entire soteriology on a single verse , then it behoves that person to fully understand the implications of that verse. Firstly , no one is saved except by grace, if the law had been sufficient to save souls , then Christ’s death would not have been necessary. Secondly, the redemptive work that Jesus achieved on the cross is a finished work for all sin for all time [ for the elect], otherwise , no one stands justified before God.
    Now take a look at that verse from Romans 2:13 , directly , it is addressing the means of justification , and yes , hearers only of the law are not justified, but then, only those who have kept the law completely are justified , and that leaves only one man , Jesus Christ. So what this verse is saying is that only in Christ are we justified. Christ has obeyed the law on our behalf!!.
    Does our obedience to the law warrant our justification , no way!!!. It is only through faith , by grace , that we are justified. Sadly , your works gospel is ” another ” gospel that does disservice to the sacrifice that Jesus paid on our behalf, it is not a gospel that saves , but one that condemns

  34. pam says:

    So, Theodore, who’s back are you riding into the Kingdom on? Your’s? Anyone who depends on their own effort is doomed. Read Isa.53 and you will see the plan of God for His Son. God is the one who smote(killed) Him(vs.4) and vs.10 says it was the will of God to crush Him. God had a plan to save some of humanity thru the payment in blood of His divine blood. Without the shedding of blood there is no redemption of sin. God is just and someone had to pay for those sins and only divine blood would suffice. The blood of bulls and goats never took away sin.
    Jesus laid down His life, it was not taken from Him. Those who enter the Kingdom, do it by relying on that finished work. John 3, Nicodemus couldn’t understand how to enter the Kingdom. He thought, as a Pharisee, he entered by works. Jesus told Him in vs14 how it would happen, how He would be lifted up on a cross. Any believer should be humbled by that, realizing it was our sin that put Him there.
    So, there is no other way. It had to happen. It was God’s plan. I would be interested to hear where you are getting your theology. I think you are misreading Acts 2 and Peter’s sermon to ISRAEL.
    I know that in the Book of Acts, Peter was calling the nation of Israel to repent for physically killing the Messiah so that He would return and set up the Kingdom, which they, from the Scriptures knew would be literal and earthly, with Messiah as the King.The whole nation was called to do that but the entire nation didn’t. Some did, and they asked Peter what they needed to do to be saved. Peter had just finished telling them what they had participated in and who Jesus was. He also was telling them about what was going to happen in the last days when Jesus would return and what was happening at that time, as well(the pouring out of the Spirit). All of which was prophesied for THE last days, which were, at that point, beginning. Those who believed what he was saying did repent(Jesus had prayed for them on the cross: Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.) He was praying for the people there because they had been mislead by the religious leaders. Those wicked leaders did what they did, willingly and at the same time, God used them to fulfill His purpose. But the whole nation did not repent and so Jesus has not returned. But when He does, at the end of the Tribulation(the time of JACOB’S trouble), then the nation that is again being tried and tested, will see Him and cry out, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord” and they will be saved, as Peter said in Acts2:21.
    Anyway, that is why, like I said before, you must study Scripture in context or you will get it all confused.
    Peace.
    pam

  35. It would seem you have resorted to name calling and insults, which breaks the rules of engagement, specifically #3 and #4. Prayerfully, the team at DefCon will act on this accordingly.

    As for your misinterpretation of Scripture, no one is taken aback by your response.
    God slaughtered His Son as He spent His wrath on Christ, He was the propitiation for sin, atoning for all the sins of the elect. No one accused God of sin, giving Scripture verbatim is what has transpired here. You misconstrue what God has clearly stated in His word because you do not understand His word. God is not some ‘celestial being’, He is Spirit – “”God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24

    I believe your time here is just about finished

  36. Pip says:

    Hi thejunglemissionary,

    In reading the comments I came on one by someone called Leonardo de la Paor, who seemed to have given a good comment, but that you didn’t like.

    What part of his comment did you find fault with? I would dearly like to know.

  37. Pip,

    I am uncertain as to which one of the many that he tried to post that you are referring to. He has been banned from posting here due to his spewing rhetoric and hatred against the Jews and against Biblical Christianity. It is one thing to post a comment, but it is another to use somebody else’s blogsite to spread hatred and show a flagrant disregard for our Rules of Engagement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s