Continuation from parts 1 and 2.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Co50 Part 1

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Cpf2 Part 2

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005

Answers

Ok, back to the point..

Can anyone provide a verse that supports the belief of baptizing babies so they'll be saved?

-- temple (jahsmine@netzero.com), March 09, 2005.

You better believe it rod. I laughed so hard--that is--until I had to start cleaning it up :(

Those two were like twins...and they are so close--even today. For some reason, that little boy always trusted her..heheh. They are young adults now..20 and 22 years old and still best friends.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2005.

No temple,

There is no Scripture verses that tell us to baptise babies for their salvation.

The Bible tells us that salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2005.

There is no Bible verse that says anything about the ages of people being baptized, except for several verses that describe whole families, including children, being baptized together. However, history and the writings of the early Church Fathers reveal that baptism of babies was the norm from the earliset days of Christianity. The Bible does tell us that no-one enters the kingdom without Baptism; and Jesus said that the kingdom belongs to little children. So obviously little children, in order to be in possession of the kingdom, must be eligible for that which is necessary to enter the kingdom.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 10, 2005.

"Show me a verse that supports your belief of babies not going to heaven if theyre not baptised..?" - temple

That post was directed towards Faith01 as I was trying to get her to re-think her beliefs. I don't belive baptism justifies anyone in the eyes of God.

"emotions or Traditions do not blind Calvinist, but Calvinist are blind to emotions and Traditions." - rod

Well there you go... Rod's Logic at it finest... we 'aren't blinded by traditons but we are blinded by traditions' at the same time??? Rod's Logic 101...

"Would a Just Merciful God punish the whole mankind, from an innocent birth, for Adam and Eve's sin?" - temple

Yes, though we are not "innocent" in the eyes of God.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

Actually, Daivd. I was bringing focus to the awkwardness of your original comment. Calvinist reject specific things. In other words, they blind themselves to those Traditions. Your logic is flawed if you are going to use my argument to edify yours. I'm just making corrective comments about yours. The fact remains that Calvinism makes the attempts to top God in regards to the reasons why Man was created as he was, who was not an evil creation. My definate assertion is that Free Will is the driving force of good and evil in us poor mortals. It isn't that we "are evil". Why would God create an evil Man? Such a creature would show that God too was "evil". That is not the case. If that is true, I shall become Agnostic. How's that for logic?

.................

-- rod (elreyrord@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.

Did somebody delete my comments to David about Calvinism?

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.

"Why would God create an evil Man? " - rod

I don't know why you ask me such things that I don't believe.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

Post them again rod, I think you might be in the wrong thread.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

I've been looking for that thread. I can't find it.

I didn't say you believed it, David. The Calvinist do, though.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.

Whew! I went ahead and cancelled my therapy session. I found that thread and post:

"The Calvinistic eye is not blinded by emotions or traditions. "-- David.

I agree! emotions or Traditions do not blind Calvinist, but Calvinist are blind to emotions and Traditions. It might be the Calvinism doing the blinding.

.................. Do you see the logic in your phrasing?

........... ..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.

"emotions or Traditions do not blind Calvinist, but Calvinist are blind to emotions and Traditions. It might be the Calvinism doing the blinding." - roddy

Hello, I think you need to go back to Logic 101. Either that, or I need to go back to English 101 because I clearly see two statements that contradict each other being used as an argument. Perhaps you'd care to explain how a Calvinist is blinded by 'traditions' but is not blinded by traditions at the same time?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 11, 2005.

Syntax.

"Perhaps you'd care to explain how a Calvinist is blinded by 'traditions' but is not blinded by traditions at the same time? "-- David.

You stated that emotions and tradition can do the blinding. I asserted that it wasn't that at all. I asserted that Calvinism is blind and, therefore, cannot see emotions and traditions, making emotions and traditions incapable of doing the blinding. For, if they could see, they would have the chance to adopt those teachings of Traditions. Calvinism prefers to remain blind and view Man differently from those Traditions--Free Will.

So, it isn't what you meant to say, but that's what came out, David. You meant to say that emotions and traditions cloud the mind;therefore, Calvinism does not recognize those emotions and traditions as determining factors of doctrine/theology. Or, that Calvinism can see, but rejects what is already there.

.............. ..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.

It could also mean that Calvinism is not blinded by emotions and traditions. In other words, Calvinism may accept emotions and traditions, but not deviate from doctrine/theology. For example, we celebrate "Birthdays" as a tradition and emotional event. Eventhough we celebrate, it doesn't change the fact that we've had only one "birthday". We must accurately realize that we celebrate the anniversary of our births. The concept exists even if the action has been distorted. Which brings us to the root of your argument:

Those Traditions can become distorted. The ultimate distortion is the abandonment of them completely. The compass goes off and false doctrines/theologies become the accepted practice.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.

Paul,

TRhe Bible may not mention ages--I assume you are right about that- but certainly the Bible speaks of their faith first, then the desire for baptism. We see examples of adults being baptised as well. So we at least can understand that babies are not being baptised in any of these biblical examples.

I would assume that since faith comes first--that even the Scripture that mentions a whole family being baptised--wasn't talking about any infants. I could have my entire family baptised too--and it would not include any infants.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 11, 2005.