Infant Baptism

[John]

Is infant baptism legitimate?

My reading of the new testament suggests that baptism should be after
belief, and although I was baptised as a baby I chose to be baptised
again once I became a Christian. I don't consider my infant baptism to
be valid.

So as not to confuse, I'm agnostic now.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/11/2021 23:51, John wrote:

> Is infant baptism legitimate?

That is a complicated question. Much depends on your view of the church.
Protestants typically view the church as the congregation of those
"called out" (which is based on the Greek) and who have responded to
Christ's invitation. On that basis, the only legitimate baptisms are of
those who believe and are then baptised.

However the Catholic view (and Orthodox, I believe) is that the church
consists of the entire community of believers which, on the basis of
ancient Israel, includes infants and children below the years of
discretion. Just as a Jew undergoes circumcision at 8 days old and is
thereafter part of the community of Israel, so a Christian undergoes
baptism as soon as possible after birth and is thereafter a part of the
Christian community.

I can see the argument that if God was willing to have babies
circumcised, it must be acceptable to have babies baptised. On the other
hand, the church is not a nation and is not linked to race or heritage.
It is, very definitely, a body of those who have responded to Christ's
invitation. I therefore tend towards the Protestant view and regard
infant baptism as questionable.

I think you were right to be baptised as an adult, but if someone
sincerely adopts the traditional view it is not my place to condemn him.

> So as not to confuse, I'm agnostic now.

Which rather underlines the point that the church is made up of those
who have accepted (and continue to accept) God's salvation, not of those
whose parents were Christians.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Timreason]

On 26/11/2021 23:51, John wrote:

Well, I also believe that believer's baptism is the ideal model, and
like you I had an adult believer's baptism even though I had been
'Christened' as a baby. It's one of the few areas where I am more
'Protestant' than my 'High Church' Anglo-Catholic leanings would suggest.

As Kendall points out, the majority of Christians do accept infant
baptism as valid. I also accept such baptisms as valid (with regard to
salvation), but not, IMO, the ideal.

I was for a brief time a Baptist, before I reverted to Anglican. They
held the view that 'One Baptism' in the Creed means that only one
baptism is sufficient, rather than that only one baptism is permitted.
IOW that means there is nothing barring a person from having a second
baptism if they had already been 'Christened' as a baby.

So that's my view. As I'd been 'Christened', I don't believe my adult
baptism was essential for my salvation, but I do see it as an act of
obedience to Christ.

Tim.

[John]

On 27/11/2021 09:33, Timreason wrote:

> So that's my view. As I'd been 'Christened', I don't believe my adult
> baptism was essential for my salvation, but I do see it as an act of
> obedience to Christ.

And I think that hits the nail on the head. I think I've recounted
before about a friend who, some time after becoming a Christian, became
convinced he needed to be baptised. So much so that he rang the Pastor
and asked him round to baptise him in the bath!

[Mike Davis]

On 27/11/2021 04:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/11/2021 23:51, John wrote:
>
>> Is infant baptism legitimate?
>
> That is a complicated question. Much depends on your view of the church.
> Protestants typically view the church as the congregation of those
> "called out" (which is based on the Greek) and who have responded to
> Christ's invitation. On that basis, the only legitimate baptisms are of
> those who believe and are then baptised.
>
> However the Catholic view (and Orthodox, I believe) is that the church
> consists of the entire community of believers which, on the basis of
> ancient Israel, includes infants and children below the years of
> discretion. Just as a Jew undergoes circumcision at 8 days old and is
> thereafter part of the community of Israel, so a Christian undergoes
> baptism as soon as possible after birth and is thereafter a part of the
> Christian community.

I think that's a reasonable presentation of one of the reasons for
infant baptism, but you may like to remember that it involves the
Christian 'community' who take on the responsibility of bringing the
children up as Christians. The parents, first, who have presented their
infant for Baptism, and the Godparents who have solemnly undertaken to
help and ensure the parents in their duty.

>
> I can see the argument that if God was willing to have babies
> circumcised, it must be acceptable to have babies baptised. On the other
> hand, the church is not a nation and is not linked to race or heritage.
> It is, very definitely, a body of those who have responded to Christ's
> invitation. I therefore tend towards the Protestant view and regard
> infant baptism as questionable.

Another point is that those Churches (including the Anglican Church by
the way) who practise infant baptism also offer the maturing child
'Confirmation' which was set up so that the young person can give their
own assent to the vows made for them. The key element of Confirmation is
that they are open to the power & gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, I see very little evidence that this is properly taught
in practise (as opposed to 'in theory') in those Churches.

>
> I think you were right to be baptised as an adult, but if someone
> sincerely adopts the traditional view it is not my place to condemn him.
>
>> So as not to confuse, I'm agnostic now.
>
> Which rather underlines the point that the church is made up of those
> who have accepted (and continue to accept) God's salvation, not of those
> whose parents were Christians.

Indeed, all that parents (and Godparents) can do is to leave the final
decision to the individual and God.

Baptism is desirable because it demonstrates the intention of the
individual to accept eternal life, but - of course - the relationship
between the individual and God is something they have to work out
between themselves, for ever!

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[John]

On 27/11/2021 04:37, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 26/11/2021 23:51, John wrote:
>
>> Is infant baptism legitimate?

> I can see the argument that if God was willing to have babies
> circumcised, it must be acceptable to have babies baptised. On the other
> hand, the church is not a nation and is not linked to race or heritage.
> It is, very definitely, a body of those who have responded to Christ's
> invitation. I therefore tend towards the Protestant view and regard
> infant baptism as questionable.
>
> I think you were right to be baptised as an adult, but if someone
> sincerely adopts the traditional view it is not my place to condemn him.

Fair point. I wonder though why the Church (presumably RC) changed it
from being baptised as an adult to being baptised as a baby.

Other than a rite into the church it doesn't seem to hold any special
significance (to me) although am I right in thinking that in the RC a
baby needs to be baptised in order to receive eternal life should they
die before they can make their own decision to repent and believe.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/11/2021 13:31, Mike Davis wrote:

> I think that's a reasonable presentation of one of the reasons for
> infant baptism, but you may like to remember that it involves the
> Christian 'community' who take on the responsibility of bringing the
> children up as Christians. The parents, first, who have presented their
> infant for Baptism, and the Godparents who have solemnly undertaken to
> help and ensure the parents in their duty.

Those who practice adult baptism usually have a "dedication" ceremony
for newborns, in which similar commitments are made by parents, friends
and the whole church. I think it is a good practice.

> Another point is that those Churches (including the Anglican Church by
> the way) who practise infant baptism also offer the maturing child
> 'Confirmation' which was set up so that the young person can give their
> own assent to the vows made for them. The key element of Confirmation is
> that they are open to the power & gifts of the Holy Spirit.
> Unfortunately, I see very little evidence that this is properly taught
> in practise (as opposed to 'in theory') in those Churches.

Which is, pretty much, an acknowledgement that baptist churches are
correct in requiring a personal commitment as a condition of church
membership. It is *not* enough to have been christened as a baby; the
individual needs to accept the commitment for himself.

> Baptism is desirable because it demonstrates the intention of the
> individual to accept eternal life, but - of course - the relationship
> between the individual and God is something they have to work out
> between themselves, for ever!

I'm interested in the fact that you don't claim that baptism, ex opera,
produces an ontological change in the one baptised. I forgot to mention
it, but my understanding is that Catholics in particular insist that
baptism is the essential step by which Original Sin is removed from the
one baptised.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/11/2021 13:38, John wrote:

> Fair point. I wonder though why the Church (presumably RC) changed it
> from being baptised as an adult to being baptised as a baby.

Because they were heavily influenced by the Jewish idea of circumcision.
Indeed, it is debatable whether infant baptism is mentioned in the book
of Acts, where several times it is stated that "X was baptised and his
house(hold)". It is, I think, pushing the bounds of credibility to claim
that every one of those individuals only had adult children in his
household!

> Other than a rite into the church it doesn't seem to hold any special
> significance (to me) although am I right in thinking that in the RC a
> baby needs to be baptised in order to receive eternal life should they
> die before they can make their own decision to repent and believe.

Yes, that is something I forgot to mention. It is claimed that baptism
removes Original Sin, thereby making it easier for the individual to
live a holy life and, of course, making it possible for an infant to be
saved if he dies young. Those who are not baptised end up in Limbo.

It is an interesting idea, but I believe that Original Sin is removed
when we commit ourselves to Christ (and baptism is usually part of that
process) but is not counted against those too young to be baptised.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/11/2021 13:30, John wrote:

> And I think that hits the nail on the head. I think I've recounted
> before about a friend who, some time after becoming a Christian, became
> convinced he needed to be baptised.  So much so that he rang the Pastor
> and asked him round to baptise him in the bath!

Interesting yarn. Personally I would have refused (unless there was some
emergency) and insisted on baptism either in church or in a lake or sea
and - most important - publicly. One of the purposes of baptism, in my
view, is to testify before men and angels that we are withdrawing from
the devil's kingdom and placing ourselves in God's kingdom in response
to His invitation.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/11/2021 09:33, Timreason wrote:

> I was for a brief time a Baptist, before I reverted to Anglican. They
> held the view that 'One Baptism' in the Creed means that only one
> baptism is sufficient, rather than that only one baptism is permitted.
> IOW that means there is nothing barring a person from having a second
> baptism if they had already been 'Christened' as a baby.

Interesting, whereas I understand it to mean that there is only one
correct form of baptism - baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy
Ghost. The method and time of baptism are less important.

[steve hague]

When I came to faith, I called the pastor of my wife's church, a man who
I considered a friend, and asked how soon could he baptise me. It was a
few days later in the swimming pool of the local leisure centre. It
doesn't get more public than that.
Steve Hague

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 05:03, steve hague wrote:

> When I came to faith, I called the pastor of my wife's church, a man who
> I considered a friend, and asked how soon could he baptise me. It was a
> few days later in the swimming pool of the local leisure centre. It
> doesn't get more public than that.

While the pool was open for swimming?

I've seen one baptism in a public swimming pool and it took place at a
time when the pool was usually closed, so the church had it all to
themselves.

[Timreason]

Oh, yes I hadn't thought of it that way. For me, the ceremony is a
reflection of what God has done. Our Earthly image of a heavenly action
by God.

Thus, it is what God has done that matters, and God's action is done
once, for all who are in Christ. AFAIK all Christian baptism ceremonies
state "Father, Son and Holy Ghost (or Spirit)", since that's the formula
given in the Bible.

There was, in the New Testament, a distinction made here between the
baptisms performed by John the Baptist, and those performed later, I
think. But John also baptised Christ.

Tim.

[John]

On 27/11/2021 21:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/11/2021 13:38, John wrote:
>
>> Fair point. I wonder though why the Church (presumably RC) changed it
>> from being baptised as an adult to being baptised as a baby.
>
> Because they were heavily influenced by the Jewish idea of circumcision.
> Indeed, it is debatable whether infant baptism is mentioned in the book
> of Acts, where several times it is stated that "X was baptised and his
> house(hold)". It is, I think, pushing the bounds of credibility to claim
> that every one of those individuals only had adult children in his
> household!

I'm not convinced it was an extension of the Jewish practice of
circumcision. In Acts 15 Peter scotches that idea imo. (verses 1 and
10-11 especially)

Also in Juaism it was only the male that was affected.

>> Other than a rite into the church it doesn't seem to hold any special
>> significance (to me) although am I right in thinking that in the RC a
>> baby needs to be baptised in order to receive eternal life should they
>> die before they can make their own decision to repent and believe.
>
> Yes, that is something I forgot to mention. It is claimed that baptism
> removes Original Sin, thereby making it easier for the individual to
> live a holy life and, of course, making it possible for an infant to be
> saved if he dies young. Those who are not baptised end up in Limbo.
>
> It is an interesting idea, but I believe that Original Sin is removed
> when we commit ourselves to Christ (and baptism is usually part of that
> process) but is not counted against those too young to be baptised.

I'm not a believer in original sin (and just missed Jason's thread on
it) but yes, if OS is true then I would agree with you.

[John]

On 27/11/2021 21:27, Kendall K. Down wrote:

What about the Ephiopian Jew?

[John]

On 27/11/2021 21:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:

Intersting you should say that. Only in Mathew 28 mentions about being
baptised in the name of all 3. Everywhere else it's baptise in the name
of Jesus.

[steve hague]

Yes, it was open for swimming. There quite a few surprised swimmers who
wondered why applause broke out from the public gallery at the point
when my head surfaced. Similarly my wife was baptised in a public
swimming pool in Penzance a few months earlier.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 27/11/2021 21:19, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/11/2021 13:31, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> I think that's a reasonable presentation of one of the reasons for
>> infant baptism, but you may like to remember that it involves the
>> Christian 'community' who take on the responsibility of bringing the
>> children up as Christians. The parents, first, who have presented
>> their infant for Baptism, and the Godparents who have solemnly
>> undertaken to help and ensure the parents in their duty.
>
> Those who practice adult baptism usually have a "dedication" ceremony
> for newborns, in which similar commitments are made by parents, friends
> and the whole church. I think it is a good practice.
>
>> Another point is that those Churches (including the Anglican Church by
>> the way) who practise infant baptism also offer the maturing child
>> 'Confirmation' which was set up so that the young person can give
>> their own assent to the vows made for them. The key element of
>> Confirmation is that they are open to the power & gifts of the Holy
>> Spirit. Unfortunately, I see very little evidence that this is
>> properly taught in practise (as opposed to 'in theory') in those
>> Churches.
>
> Which is, pretty much, an acknowledgement that baptist churches are
> correct in requiring a personal commitment as a condition of church
> membership. It is *not* enough to have been christened as a baby; the
> individual needs to accept the commitment for himself.

(To point 2) Absolutely! (To point 1) Baptism is only the initiation to
Christian life - *each day* requires a Christian to re-dedicate themself
to the Lordship of Christ in their life. But 'we' don't require them to
be 're-baptised' every day. I (personally) don't object to the Baptist's
approach, but that initial commitment is sufficient, or we spend too
much time looking at ourselves and not enough at the Lord.

>
>> Baptism is desirable because it demonstrates the intention of the
>> individual to accept eternal life, but - of course - the relationship
>> between the individual and God is something they have to work out
>> between themselves, for ever!
>
> I'm interested in the fact that you don't claim that baptism, ex opera,
> produces an ontological change in the one baptised. I forgot to mention
> it, but my understanding is that Catholics in particular insist that
> baptism is the essential step by which Original Sin is removed from the
> one baptised.

Yes, that is the RC position (and the reason why 'one Baptism is
enough'), but we have more issues in our life than 'original sin', which
need to be laid before the Lord on a daily basis.

[Mike Davis]

On 27/11/2021 21:23, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 27/11/2021 13:38, John wrote:
>
>> Fair point. I wonder though why the Church (presumably RC) changed it
>> from being baptised as an adult to being baptised as a baby.
>
> Because they were heavily influenced by the Jewish idea of circumcision.
> Indeed, it is debatable whether infant baptism is mentioned in the book
> of Acts, where several times it is stated that "X was baptised and his
> house(hold)". It is, I think, pushing the bounds of credibility to claim
> that every one of those individuals only had adult children in his
> household!
>
>> Other than a rite into the church it doesn't seem to hold any special
>> significance (to me) although am I right in thinking that in the RC a
>> baby needs to be baptised in order to receive eternal life should they
>> die before they can make their own decision to repent and believe.
>
> Yes, that is something I forgot to mention. It is claimed that baptism
> removes Original Sin, thereby making it easier for the individual to
> live a holy life and, of course, making it possible for an infant to be
> saved if he dies young. Those who are not baptised end up in Limbo.

The fact that Baptism removes OS is *why* the RCC claims it cannot be
repeated, as thereafter all stain of sin is that of the individual.

I'm sorry, but 'Limbo' is NOT a place (not any part of formal Catholic
teaching AFAICS*) - it means 'margin/al' and exists as a 'footnote' in
texts speculating on the destiny of unbaptised infants. I grant you that
it is a reason why infants are Baptised, but the basis of that also
stems from the Jewish 40 day ceremony of Circumcism to receive male
offspring into the Jewish community.

*See CCC 1252, which also mentions the early practice of the 'whole
household' being baptised.

>
> It is an interesting idea, but I believe that Original Sin is removed
> when we commit ourselves to Christ (and baptism is usually part of that
> process) but is not counted against those too young to be baptised.

That 'but' is exactly why the RCC recommends infant Baptism.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

Great story, Steve.

Yes we NEED public witness as Christians. "He who had drowned is now
alive! Bless the Lord!!"

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

Acts 19: 1-7
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior
and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them,
“Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[a] you believed?”

They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the
people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On
hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When
Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they
spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

.. Makes the clear distinction between baptism for forgiveness of sins
and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Hence the Church's
insistence on the Trinitarian formula.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mark Goodge]

That was public, surely. There's no indication that he was travelling
alone, and a man of his status would normally have had a significant
retinue. So they would have been witnesses to his baptism.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

A church I went to a while ago, when I lived in the area, used to hire
the local swimming pool for baptisms as we didn't have a baptistry in
our building. We'd do the baptisms first, and then everyone who wanted
to could have a free swim!

Unfortunately, the local authority decided to rebuild the leisure
centre, so we had to go elsewhere (as waiting a few years for the new
pool wasn't really an option). Fortunately, we had a good relationship
with our nearest neighbouring church, a Congregational Church, so we
switched to borrowing their building for baptisms. It did mean we
couldn't do them on a Sunday morning, because obviously we couldn't use
their building at a time when their own regular service was taking
place. But the convenience (and the fact that they let us use it for
free) meant that we didn't go back to the pool even after it reopened.

My current church has a baptistry, which, when not full of water, is
used as storage for the parent and toddler group that takes place during
the week. Which has the consequence that every baptism service takes
place with a pile of children's toys stacked against the wall of the
church where the chairs usually live when not in use.

Mark

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 16:05, Mike Davis wrote:

> (To point 2) Absolutely! (To point 1) Baptism is only the initiation to
> Christian life - *each day* requires a Christian to re-dedicate themself
> to the Lordship of Christ in their life. But 'we' don't require them to
> be 're-baptised' every day. I (personally) don't object to the Baptist's
> approach, but that initial commitment is sufficient, or we spend too
> much time looking at ourselves and not enough at the Lord.

A bit difficult to talk of personal commitment when you are two or three
days old.

>> I'm interested in the fact that you don't claim that baptism, ex
>> opera, produces an ontological change in the one baptised. I forgot to
>> mention it, but my understanding is that Catholics in particular
>> insist that baptism is the essential step by which Original Sin is
>> removed from the one baptised.

> Yes, that is the RC position (and the reason why 'one Baptism is
> enough'), but we have more issues in our life than 'original sin', which
> need to be laid before the Lord on a daily basis.

I agree with your second statement, but if the RC position is correct
regarding Original Sin, then surely baptism is the essential first step?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 10:23, John wrote:

> I'm not convinced it was an extension of the Jewish practice of
> circumcision.  In Acts 15 Peter scotches that idea imo.  (verses 1 and
> 10-11 especially)

James, actually. He definitely comes down on the side of circumcision
not being necessary. It was in later times that baptism was viewed as
parallel to the rite of circumcision - Jews circumcise, we baptise.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 15:41, steve hague wrote:

> Yes, it was open for swimming. There quite a few surprised swimmers who
> wondered why applause broke out from the public gallery at the point
> when my head surfaced. Similarly my wife was baptised in a public
> swimming pool in Penzance a few months earlier.

Interesting. And they weren't surprised by prayers and hymn-singing?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 16:23, Mike Davis wrote:

> I'm sorry, but 'Limbo' is NOT a place (not any part of formal Catholic
> teaching AFAICS*) - it means 'margin/al' and exists as a 'footnote' in
> texts speculating on the destiny of unbaptised infants.

Well, it certainly wasn't John Calvin or Martin Luther who came up with
the idea.

You might be interested in this quote from "The Catechism Simply
Explained" by Canon Cafferata, 1897.

=========
The Fifth Article
62. What is the fifth article of the Creed?
A The fifth article of the Creed is, "He descended into hell, the
third day He rose again from the dead."
63. What do you mean by the words, ”He descended into hell?
By the words "He descended into hell" I mean that, as soon as
Christ was dead, His blessed soul went down into that part of hell
called limbo.

This is a most important article to understand, because it tells us
about the existence of a third state in the next world. Protestants, you
know, say that there are only two places or states in the next world —
heaven and hell — and, therefore, when a person dies I suppose they must
believe that his soul goes either straight to heaven or straight to
hell. We Catholics believe that there are three places or states in the
next world — heaven, hell and purgatory. Of purgatory proper we shall
speak later on. Here we have to consider the existence of some third
state before the time of our Lord's coming on earth.

You will remember that I spoke to you about the fall of Adam and Eve.
After their fall the gates of heaven were closed against them and their
posterity and were only opened again by the death of Jesus Christ upon
the cross. This, as we all know, happened many thousand of years after
the creation of our first parents, and of course, many, many millions of
people lived and died during those years. The wicked were lost in hell;
but where did the good go to? God could not send them to hell, and you
must remember the gates of heaven were closed, so they must of necessity
have gone to some other place where God kept them until our Lord came to
redeem them. This place was limbo and it was into this place that our
Lord's blessed Soul descended immediately after His death on the cross.
He went there to comfort the souls of the just and to tell them that
they were redeemed. Besides, our Lord Himself spoke of this third state
or place. When the good thief said to Him, as He was dying on the cross,
"Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," He answered,
"Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise ."
That Paradise could not mean heaven, for our Lord did not ascend there
till the day of the Ascension; it must, therefore, have meant the place
whither Jesus descended immediately after His death. You will now be
able to understand the next two questions of the Catechism.
64. What do you mean by limbo?
By limbo I mean a place of rest, where the souls of the just who
died before Christ were detained.
The word "limbo means a "border" or "fringe, here it means some
place or state on the outside or outskirts of hell.
65. Why were the souls of the just detained in limbo?
The souls of the just were detained in limbo because they could not
go up to the kingdom of heaven until Christ had opened it for them.

So you see that from the time of Adam's fall there were three
distinct places or states of souls in the next world. If this third
place was a reality then, why cannot it be a reality now if there is a
necessity for it? We shall see later on that there is.
===========

I trust that you are not one of those wicked Protestants who thinks
there are only two states in the afterlife!

> I grant you that
> it is a reason why infants are Baptised, but the basis of that also
> stems from the Jewish 40 day ceremony of Circumcism to receive male
> offspring into the Jewish community.

Jewish circumcision was on the eighth day. I think you are getting
confused with "dedication".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 10:33, John wrote:

> What about the Ephiopian Jew?

A clear case of special circumstances - Philip would never see him again.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 09:14, Timreason wrote:

> Thus, it is what God has done that matters, and God's action is done
> once, for all who are in Christ. AFAIK all Christian baptism ceremonies
> state "Father, Son and Holy Ghost (or Spirit)", since that's the formula
> given in the Bible.

One reason why I question whether JWs are Christian! (There are a subset
of Christians who baptise only in the name of Jesus. There is support
for it in Acts, but I regard it with suspicion.)

> There was, in the New Testament, a distinction made here between the
> baptisms performed by John the Baptist, and those performed later, I
> think. But John also baptised Christ.

John did not baptise in either the name of Jesus (obviously) or that of
the Trinity (even more obviously!) His baptism was clearly valid - as
you say, he baptised Jesus - but the early church viewed it was
insufficient, which is why St Paul re-baptised the believers in Ephesus.

Notice that I use the term "re-baptise"; if the believers in Ephesus had
received a valid baptism yet were baptised again, then I believe that
re-baptismm is possible. Reasons for re-baptism might include new and
greater "light" (the reason for the re-baptism in Ephesus) or major sin
or apostasy of which the person now repents.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 10:45, John wrote:

> Intersting you should say that.  Only in Mathew 28 mentions about being
> baptised in the name of all 3.  Everywhere else it's baptise in the name
> of Jesus.

Indeed, though Matthew appears to be the words of Christ Himself,
whereas the practice in Acts may be either misreported[1] or before
Jesus' command was properly understood.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: That is, the baptisms were in the name of the Trinity, but the
important thing was that the name of Jesus was included; John's baptism,
for all I know, was in the name of God and His Spirit.

[Mike Davis]

Thanks for that. I still maintain that this was only a way of expressing
doubt about the destination of those unable to make their own decisions.
My understanding that this is not the formal teaching of the RCC, (and
the fact that it does not appear in the latest edition of the Catechism
seems to confirm this).

The 'limbo' Cafferata describes is a place where the souls of the just
awaited release until Christ's atonement was complete.

> I trust that you are not one of those wicked Protestants who thinks
> there are only two states in the afterlife!

:-) I think that (think of the parable of the talents) that there's a
place for everyone according to how they were able to accept and respond
to God's grace in this life.

>> I grant you that it is a reason why infants are Baptised, but the
>> basis of that also stems from the Jewish 40 day ceremony of Circumcism
>> to receive male offspring into the Jewish community.
>
> Jewish circumcision was on the eighth day. I think you are getting
> confused with "dedication".

Doh! In fact I was concatenating the two - but my point was that of
integrating the infant into the religious community.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[John]

On 28/11/2021 16:23, Mike Davis wrote:

> The fact that Baptism removes OS is *why* the RCC claims it cannot be
> repeated, as thereafter all stain of sin is that of the individual.

Baptism, as far as the bible is concerned, was never about removing
original sin.

If the baptisee is baptised as an infant, but doesn't attend the church
and lives a life of debauchery until one day it hits him that he needs
to be a Christian and then repents of his sin and then gets baptised,
that to me would be the real baptism.

As an infant it wasn't my choice, as an adult it was.

A question. If someone wsn't baptised, say they became a Salvationist as
an adult, but as the SA doesn't believe in Baptism they don't get
baptised. Given your belief that baptism does remove OS, would that
person go to the other place?

[John]

I hadn't thought of that! 'A quick re-read says he ordered the chariot
to be stopped, so there must have been a "driver" at the very least.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/11/2021 01:53, John wrote:

> I hadn't thought of that!  'A quick re-read says he ordered the chariot
> to be stopped, so there must have been a "driver" at the very least.

Indeed. Given the man's status and the huge distance involved in his
journey, I agree with Mark that there would have been a substantial
entourage - cooks, tent erectors, guards, laundrymen (or women), people
to look after the horses, perhaps even a chariot repair man!

Given that in many other cases a person was baptised "and his house",
one wonders whether any of these other people were also baptised at the
same time!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/11/2021 01:36, John wrote:

> Baptism, as far as the bible is concerned, was never about removing
> original sin.

I think I am correct in saying that the term "original sin" does not
occur in the Bible. The *concept* of original sin is hinted at in
various places.

The idea that baptism removes Original Sin is, indeed, not explicitly
stated in the Bible.

> A question. If someone wsn't baptised, say they became a Salvationist as
> an adult, but as the SA doesn't believe in Baptism they don't get
> baptised.  Given your belief that baptism does remove OS, would that
> person go to the other place?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The cleansing from Original Sin is a Catholic
idea, not mine. My understanding of *Catholic* theology is that such a
person would be on a sticky wicket - though God is sovereign and can do
whatever He wishes.

*My* understanding is that we should be baptised and if someone knows
this but refuses to be baptised, he would be in the situation of the
guest without a wedding garment - though his rejection would be on the
basis of deliberate disobedience rather than lack of baptism.

If someone did not know this - ie. he was a committed Salvationist -
then the lack of baptism, though regrettable, would not keep him out of
heaven.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/11/2021 22:21, Mike Davis wrote:

> Thanks for that. I still maintain that this was only a way of expressing
> doubt about the destination of those unable to make their own decisions.
> My understanding that this is not the formal teaching of the RCC, (and
> the fact that it does not appear in the latest edition of the Catechism
> seems to confirm this).

Well, it's good to know that the Catholic church is becoming more
Protestant. We're not wrong about *every*thing, you know.

> The 'limbo' Cafferata describes is a place where the souls of the just
> awaited release until Christ's atonement was complete.

Yes - though traditional teaching describes that place as "Hades".

> :-) I think that (think of the parable of the talents) that there's a
> place for everyone according to how they were able to accept and respond
> to God's grace in this life.

You need to re-read the parable of the talents (as well as the rules of
circumcision).

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall
be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

So yes, there *is* a place for everyone, it's just that for some that
place is hell.

> Doh! In fact I was concatenating the two - but my point was that of
> integrating the infant into the religious community.

The "registering" which Jesus experienced on the 40th day or the
dedication in the temple, was placing His name and the names of His
parents in the temple records - genealogy was important for the Jews.
Any "dedicating" was by happenstance from Simeon and Anna.

The offering mentioned in Luke was for the mother, not for the child,
and marked *her* readmission to the community after childbirth. (See
Leviticus 12.)

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <so0ovn$am1$4...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:31:52 +0000:

> On 28/11/2021 10:23, John wrote:
>
>> I'm not convinced it was an extension of the Jewish practice of
>> circumcision.  In Acts 15 Peter scotches that idea imo.  (verses 1
>> and 10-11 especially)
>
> James, actually. He definitely comes down on the side of circumcision
> not being necessary.

Only for the gentiles. "Observant Jews should stay observant" seems to
have been James' motto otherwise.

> It was in later times that baptism was viewed as
> parallel to the rite of circumcision - Jews circumcise, we baptise.

I'm told the local-language church here has a practice of "dedication"
for 8-day old babies in lieu of baptism.

[Timreason]

Thanks for that.

Tim.

[Timreason]

On 28/11/2021 16:32, Mike Davis wrote:
> Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the
> people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”  On
> hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.  When
> Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they
> spoke in tongues and prophesied.  There were about twelve men in all.
>
> .. Makes the clear distinction between baptism for forgiveness of sins
> and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Hence the Church's
> insistence on the Trinitarian formula.
>
> Mike

Thanks for that.

Tim.

[John]

On 29/11/2021 05:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 01:36, John wrote:


>> A question. If someone wsn't baptised, say they became a Salvationist
>> as an adult, but as the SA doesn't believe in Baptism they don't get
>> baptised.  Given your belief that baptism does remove OS, would that
>> person go to the other place?
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear. The cleansing from Original Sin is a Catholic
> idea, not mine. My understanding of *Catholic* theology is that such a
> person would be on a sticky wicket - though God is sovereign and can do
> whatever He wishes.

I was replying to Mikes post, so was asking about the Catholic position.
Thanks for your input though.

> *My* understanding is that we should be baptised and if someone knows
> this but refuses to be baptised, he would be in the situation of the
> guest without a wedding garment - though his rejection would be on the
> basis of deliberate disobedience rather than lack of baptism.
>
> If someone did not know this - ie. he was a committed Salvationist -
> then the lack of baptism, though regrettable, would not keep him out of
> heaven.

I do agree. Had I not discovered the charismatic movement, it is
doubtful I would have been baptised as an adult. (Am I right in
thinking it is they and the Baptists where this is high on the agenda
for new Christians? I know you have a SDA background, is it something
practiced there as well?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/11/2021 06:02, Madhu wrote:

> Only for the gentiles. "Observant Jews should stay observant" seems to
> have been James' motto otherwise.

Very true - but I believe that that was because circumcision was
regarded as a cultural thing rather than as something necessary for
salvation - even for Jews.

> I'm told the local-language church here has a practice of "dedication"
> for 8-day old babies in lieu of baptism.

Good.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 29/11/2021 11:05, John wrote:

> I do agree. Had I not discovered the charismatic movement, it is
> doubtful I would have been baptised as an adult.  (Am I right in
> thinking it is they and the Baptists where this is high on the agenda
> for new Christians?  I know you have a SDA background, is it something
> practiced there as well?

Encouraged. If someone wishes to join the SDA church they are strongly
encouraged to be baptised again, on the grounds that they have
discovered "new light", just like the people in Ephesus, and so
rebaptism is appropriate.

However if the person strongly wishes not to be rebaptised, they are
still accepted, provided the first baptism was as an adult and by
immersion. Infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling/affusion is not
recognised.

[John]

Thanks Ken.

[Mike Davis]

On 29/11/2021 01:36, John wrote:

> On 28/11/2021 16:23, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> The fact that Baptism removes OS is *why* the RCC claims it cannot be
>> repeated, as thereafter all stain of sin is that of the individual.
>
> Baptism, as far as the bible is concerned, was never about removing
> original sin.

That's a fair point - I'll try to respond to that later. (Although, we
do accept, don't we that 'OS' is removed when we submit to Christ?)

> If the baptisee is baptised as an infant, but doesn't attend the church
> and lives a life of debauchery until one day it hits him that he needs
> to be a Christian and then repents of his sin and then gets baptised,
> that to me would be the real baptism.

Indeed - or we could say that's when the fruits of (the original)
Baptism are released.

>
> As an infant it wasn't my choice, as an adult it was.

That's been my point thoughout.

> A question. If someone wsn't baptised, say they became a Salvationist as
> an adult, but as the SA doesn't believe in Baptism they don't get
> baptised.  Given your belief that baptism does remove OS, would that
> person go to the other place?

I have no doubt that when a person makes a commitment to Jesus, that
when their conversion journey starts.

That raises another issue. People sometimes say to Catholics "Are you
saved?" meaning "Have you accepted Jesus into your life?"

My reply is, "I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved!"

Because:
1. Jesus has done enough to save me (but that doesn't mean I'll go to
heaven,
2. I need to co-operate with God's grace in the power of the Spirit, to
live this life as God intended, &
3. I will be saved as long as I do not decide to reject that offer of
salvific grace.

And I think that applies to every Christian.

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/11/2021 18:06, Mike Davis wrote:

> That's a fair point - I'll try to respond to that later. (Although, we
> do accept, don't we that 'OS' is removed when we submit to Christ?)

It depends on your view of Original Sin. Is it something like a coating
of tar that needs scrubbing off with kerosine?

Personally I view it as a status, which changes when we accept Christ.

> That raises another issue. People sometimes say to Catholics "Are you
> saved?" meaning "Have you accepted Jesus into your life?"
> My reply is, "I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved!"

Don't worry; Catholics aren't the only ones to get asked that question.
I like your answer, but I usually just say "Yes".

[Jason]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:06:03 +0000, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 29/11/2021 01:36, John wrote:
>> On 28/11/2021 16:23, Mike Davis wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that Baptism removes OS is *why* the RCC claims it cannot be
>>> repeated, as thereafter all stain of sin is that of the individual.
>>
>> Baptism, as far as the bible is concerned, was never about removing
>> original sin.
>
> That's a fair point - I'll try to respond to that later. (Although, we
> do accept, don't we that 'OS' is removed when we submit to Christ?)

This is an interesting question, back on the topic of OS. If a baptism,
(or indeed 'submitting to Christ') engenders some actual change (e.g. the
removal of OS), then is there an idea that this cannot be undone? (c.f.
once-saved-always-saved)? Or can you somehow be re-infused with OS? Or
do you never suffer from OS again, 'just' your own manifold sins?

[Jason]

That's interesting, so new members in the SDA would be encouraged to be
re-baptised even if they had had an adult baptism already in (say) the
Baptist church? I don't know very much about different denominations,
but is that not fairly unusual?

Does "rebaptism" in this sense have a "lesser" eternal effect than the
original baptism (e.g. is it more like reasserting your marriage vows,
which has some symbolic value but does not change your marital status)?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/11/2021 21:33, Jason wrote:

> That's interesting, so new members in the SDA would be encouraged to be
> re-baptised even if they had had an adult baptism already in (say) the
> Baptist church? I don't know very much about different denominations,
> but is that not fairly unusual?

It is unusual but not unique. (Please note that I was asked a specific
question regarding the SDA, not necessarily my beliefs.)

> Does "rebaptism" in this sense have a "lesser" eternal effect than the
> original baptism (e.g. is it more like reasserting your marriage vows,
> which has some symbolic value but does not change your marital status)?

That is a good analogy, though I think some in the SDA would regard the
re-baptism as the only real one, being delivered by the only true
church. (See my comment in brackets above.)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 30/11/2021 21:39, Jason wrote:

> This is an interesting question, back on the topic of OS. If a baptism,
> (or indeed 'submitting to Christ') engenders some actual change (e.g. the
> removal of OS), then is there an idea that this cannot be undone? (c.f.
> once-saved-always-saved)? Or can you somehow be re-infused with OS? Or
> do you never suffer from OS again, 'just' your own manifold sins?

My understanding of Catholic theology is that it does indeed verge on
the "once saved always saved". That is why Mafia criminals are not
regarded as outside the church - and, indeed, why Protestants are such a
problem, because anyone who changes from Catholic to Protestant is
still, really, a member of the Catholic church, just a heretical one.
Those born and brought up as Protestants are not Christians at all!

Canon Cafferata has this to say:

===============
Protestantism is not and cannot be a religion, because it is simply a
denial of or a protestation against, a religion which already existed.
It is a system which teaches a certain number of the truths revealed by
Jesus Christ, but rejects others.
================

That is not to say that every Catholic *will* be saved, but Purgatory
provides a way in for those such as the Mafia. Hell is reserved for
those who - eg - reject the pope's authority rather than those who
commit grave moral wrongs.

[Mike Davis]

On 30/11/2021 21:39, Jason wrote:

OS is the 'fallen' state of humanity, ie. that we are all born with. I
don't think we can be re-infected with it, but we could argue that any
'tendency to sin' thereafter, still shows that we are not absolutely
free. However, I believe that we will be judged on our *own* sins.

This is why (from an RC perspective) acknowledging them and admitting
them before God, and repenting of them, is essential.

Q. Can God forgive unrepented sins?
A1. Yes, of course.
A2. But will God wrench them from the sinners character if s/he hangs
onto them?

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 01/12/2021 05:03, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 30/11/2021 21:39, Jason wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting question, back on the topic of OS.  If a baptism,
>> (or indeed 'submitting to Christ') engenders some actual change (e.g. the
>> removal of OS), then is there an idea that this cannot be undone? (c.f.
>> once-saved-always-saved)?  Or can you somehow be re-infused with OS?  Or
>> do you never suffer from OS again, 'just' your own manifold sins?
>
> My understanding of Catholic theology is that it does indeed verge on
> the "once saved always saved".

That's totally wrong, Kendall. You, IIRC, decry 'the practise of
confession' in the RCC, the emphasis on emulating the Saints, and the
need to live a holy life.

> That is why Mafia criminals are not
> regarded as outside the church

You've been reading to much pulp fiction, I suggest.

- and, indeed, why Protestants are such a
> problem, because anyone who changes from Catholic to Protestant is
> still, really, a member of the Catholic church, just a heretical one.
> Those born and brought up as Protestants are not Christians at all!

Total rubbish!

> Canon Cafferata has this to say:
> ===============
> Protestantism is not and cannot be a religion, because it is simply a
> denial of or a protestation against, a religion which already existed.
> It is a system which teaches a certain number of the truths revealed by
> Jesus Christ, but rejects others.
> ================

I find that an interesting exercise in semantics, but it's not theology
is it? It was written some 130 years ago, and you may wish to recall
that it was written in his explanation of the old Catechism.

If you wish to quote from the Catholic Catechism, just use the late
C20th version:-
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Especially the bit from 811 to 822
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

I suggest you also read a bit of Saint John Henry Newman, who seems to
have been a contemporary of your Canon Cafferata.

Or even ALL the Vatican II document, Decree on Eucumenism: "Unitatis
redintegratio"
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

> That is not to say that every Catholic *will* be saved, but Purgatory
> provides a way in for those such as the Mafia. Hell is reserved for
> those who - eg - reject the pope's authority rather than those who
> commit grave moral wrongs.

You write such ignorant tripe, sometimes, Kendall!

..But we are still both saved by the Grace of God!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Jason]

Fair enough, thanks for that; there are obviously many disagreements
regarding infant baptism, but this isn't a view I had come across before.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/12/2021 13:58, Mike Davis wrote:

> That's totally wrong, Kendall. You, IIRC, decry 'the practise of
> confession' in the RCC, the emphasis on emulating the Saints, and the
> need to live a holy life.

Strange, then, that the Mafia are, by and large, regular church-goers.

> You've been reading to much pulp fiction, I suggest.

Have any Mafia been excommunicated?

>> Those born and brought up as Protestants are not Christians at all!

> Total rubbish!

I agree.

> I find that an interesting exercise in semantics, but it's not theology
> is it? It was written some 130 years ago, and you may wish to recall
> that it was written in his explanation of the old Catechism.

There is a list of imprimateurs and nihil obstats in the front of his
work, so he clearly wasn't out of the mainstream.

> You write such ignorant tripe, sometimes, Kendall!
> ..But we are still both saved by the Grace of God!

Another quote from our friend Cafferata:

===========
Protestants look upon us as very bigoted because we say that no one
outside the Catholic Church can be saved. But this is nevertheless quite
true. A person must be baptised to be saved. If a person has been really
baptised it matters not by whom (see 258) that person belongs to the
Catholic Church, which is the true Church of Christ. Now if that person
never wilfully denies what he knows to be the truth of God and,
moreover, never wilfully breaks any of the great commandments of God,
that person will be saved, no matter what denomination he may have
belonged to, because by his baptism he has become a child of God and
therefore belongs to the Catholic Church, and he has never wilfully lost
God's grace and love by wilful heresy and mortal sin.
==========

Nice to know that I've been a Catholic all along.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/12/2021 13:25, Mike Davis wrote:

> Q. Can God forgive unrepented sins?
> A1. Yes, of course.

Yes, in that God can do whatever He pleases. I would not, however, wish
to minimise the fact that He is (I think) unlikely to do so.

> A2. But will God wrench them from the sinners character if s/he hangs
> onto them?

No, because to do so would be to transgress the freewill He has given us.

[Jason]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:14:17 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 01/12/2021 13:25, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Q. Can God forgive unrepented sins?
>> A1. Yes, of course.
>
> Yes, in that God can do whatever He pleases. I would not, however, wish
> to minimise the fact that He is (I think) unlikely to do so.

I would agree 100% with the first part, God can do whatever he wants. I
don't know if I agree with the second. God has set out his plan for us,
his ideal, and he knows what is best for us. We should of course repent
of our sins as we become aware of them.

However, I personally think 'unlikely' is too strong a word, as we can
imagine myriad circumstances where God will act with justice and mercy
(e.g. on this thread regarding infants). We know what we *should* do, so
in that sense we are without excuse, but there is a wideness in God's
mercy...

>> A2. But will God wrench them from the sinners character if s/he hangs
>> onto them?
>
> No, because to do so would be to transgress the freewill He has given
> us.

I would agree that God will not force the issue, but I feel this isn't an
accurate picture of what it will be like at the judgement seat. I think
it will be more like Thomas in the upper room, full of doubt and unbelief
even after spending all that time with Jesus and his close friends.
However, when finally confronted with the living reality of Jesus,
exclaimed "My Lord and my God".

[Kendall K. Down]

On 02/12/2021 12:05, Jason wrote:

> However, I personally think 'unlikely' is too strong a word, as we can
> imagine myriad circumstances where God will act with justice and mercy
> (e.g. on this thread regarding infants). We know what we *should* do, so
> in that sense we are without excuse, but there is a wideness in God's
> mercy...

I'm afraid that I don't agree with the "infants are innocent and so will
be saved" idea. The children of evil parents are more likely to grow up
evil themselves - and that despite the best efforts of well-meaning
individuals.

Kellogg (he of the cornflakes) believed very strongly that it was
nurture, not nature, and to demonstrate the truth of his ideas
deliberately adopted the child of a prostitute. Despite everything, the
girl turned out bad. (Mind you, that may tell us something about Kellogg
as a parent; it's not as if he had other children with whom to compare
his child rearing methods.)

> I would agree that God will not force the issue, but I feel this isn't an
> accurate picture of what it will be like at the judgement seat. I think
> it will be more like Thomas in the upper room, full of doubt and unbelief
> even after spending all that time with Jesus and his close friends.
> However, when finally confronted with the living reality of Jesus,
> exclaimed "My Lord and my God".

Thomas had his doubts, but he was basically on the right side. You
didn't get Jesus appearing to Caiaphas and presenting him with
overwhelming proof.

[Jason]

On Thu, 02 Dec 2021 20:44:24 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 02/12/2021 12:05, Jason wrote:
>
>> However, I personally think 'unlikely' is too strong a word, as we can
>> imagine myriad circumstances where God will act with justice and mercy
>> (e.g. on this thread regarding infants). We know what we *should* do,
>> so in that sense we are without excuse, but there is a wideness in
>> God's mercy...
>
> I'm afraid that I don't agree with the "infants are innocent and so will
> be saved" idea. The children of evil parents are more likely to grow up
> evil themselves - and that despite the best efforts of well-meaning
> individuals.

You are basically saying that *everyone* who dies before a certain age
(e.g. they are mentally able to acknowledge, repent, and ask forgiveness
for their sins) they are condemned.

> Kellogg (he of the cornflakes) believed very strongly that it was
> nurture, not nature, and to demonstrate the truth of his ideas
> deliberately adopted the child of a prostitute. Despite everything, the
> girl turned out bad. (Mind you, that may tell us something about Kellogg
> as a parent; it's not as if he had other children with whom to compare
> his child rearing methods.)

I don't know this story and in any case am reluctant to draw conclusions
from one anecdote. Perhaps you are suggesting that 'badness' is genetic,
and if you have bad parents you're doomed whatever you try to do (and
presumably vice-versa).

>> I would agree that God will not force the issue, but I feel this isn't
>> an accurate picture of what it will be like at the judgement seat. I
>> think it will be more like Thomas in the upper room, full of doubt and
>> unbelief even after spending all that time with Jesus and his close
>> friends. However, when finally confronted with the living reality of
>> Jesus, exclaimed "My Lord and my God".
>
> Thomas had his doubts, but he was basically on the right side. You
> didn't get Jesus appearing to Caiaphas and presenting him with
> overwhelming proof.

Perhaps you can remind me of the chapter-and-verse where it talks about
(the absence of) supernatural visitations and the eternal destiny of
Caiaphas?

I'm certainly not going to suggest that Thomas' doubt-and-unbelief was
any better or worse than yours, mine, or anyone else that ever existed.
He had spent a great deal of time with the living human Jesus, which is a
privilege that not many us can claim, and yet *still* did not believe.

Do you think then that being 'basically on the right side' is good enough
for God?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/12/2021 17:14, Jason wrote:

>> I'm afraid that I don't agree with the "infants are innocent and so will
>> be saved" idea. The children of evil parents are more likely to grow up
>> evil themselves - and that despite the best efforts of well-meaning
>> individuals.

> You are basically saying that *everyone* who dies before a certain age
> (e.g. they are mentally able to acknowledge, repent, and ask forgiveness
> for their sins) they are condemned.

Actually, no. 1 Corinthians 7 St Paul says that the believing wife or
husband results in salvation for the children, so I would say that the
children of believers, who die before they can be baptised etc, will be
saved. The children of unbelievers are not so privileged.

> I don't know this story and in any case am reluctant to draw conclusions
> from one anecdote. Perhaps you are suggesting that 'badness' is genetic,
> and if you have bad parents you're doomed whatever you try to do (and
> presumably vice-versa).

Your fate is not fixed, but you will have a harder (or easier) row to
hoe depending on your genes.

> Perhaps you can remind me of the chapter-and-verse where it talks about
> (the absence of) supernatural visitations and the eternal destiny of
> Caiaphas?

No, but I can point you to the chapter and verse where it talks about
another man who was knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus.

> I'm certainly not going to suggest that Thomas' doubt-and-unbelief was
> any better or worse than yours, mine, or anyone else that ever existed.
> He had spent a great deal of time with the living human Jesus, which is a
> privilege that not many us can claim, and yet *still* did not believe.

I can sympathise with Thomas. He was being asked to believe the
physically impossible. Now you may say that he had seen Jesus raise the
dead and so should have believed (or at least been willing to believe),
but that is the point. *Jesus* was there to raise the dead, but now
Jesus was Himself dead, so who raised Him?

If the conjuror cuts open an orange and reveals the ace of spades you
are not nearly as mystified as you would be if, at home, without any
conjurer's present, you cut open an orange and discovered an ace of spades!

> Do you think then that being 'basically on the right side' is good enough
> for God?

Good enough for salvation? Probably not. Good enough to be given extra
evidence or extra opportunities? Probably yes.

[steve hague]

>
>> Perhaps you can remind me of the chapter-and-verse where it talks about
>> (the absence of) supernatural visitations and the eternal destiny of
>> Caiaphas?
>
> No, but I can point you to the chapter and verse where it talks about
> another man who was knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus.
>

I confess to having the same image in my head, but if you can give
chapter and verse which mentions a horse, I would be surprised and pleased.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 03/12/2021 20:39, Kendall K. Down wrote:

[snip]

>
> No, but I can point you to the chapter and verse where it talks about
> another man who was knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus.
>

I doubt if you can. ;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[John]

It was a bit of an ass comment to be fair

[Timreason]

On 04/12/2021 13:03, Mike Davis wrote:

Probably he wasn't:

https://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/was-paul-knocked-off-his-high-horse-on.html

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/12/2021 06:31, steve hague wrote:

> I confess to having the same image in my head, but if you can give
> chapter and verse which mentions a horse, I would be surprised and pleased.

Yeah, all right. Figure of speech. I'll stick to elephants in future.

[John]

Oops, I was thinking of Jesus riding into Jurusalem. Sorry Ken, wasn't
meant to be derogatory to you.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/12/2021 23:09, John wrote:

> Oops, I was thinking of Jesus riding into Jurusalem. Sorry Ken, wasn't
> meant to be derogatory to you.

Nothing for which to apologise - and Paul's conveyance was as likely to
be a donkey as a horse (and more likely than elephant or camel).