Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the concept is.

Now are you going to show me a single infant that was baptized and while you are at it can you show me sprinkling?

---

My Pastor said the "concept" is in there, so it must be, right? Calvin thought so, as well. Did you know he supported infant baptism?

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it [baptism] without open violation of the will of God" (Inst.4, 16, 8).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it [baptism] without open violation of the will of God" (Inst.4, 16, 8).

---

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

Can you find any verses in the NT that show that infants were baptized via sprinkling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

---

What?! I thought Calvin was a Master at exegesis! :)

Quote:

---

Can you find any verses in the NT that show that infants were baptized via sprinkling?

---

Okay, you made me drag out my Ins***ute books. I was curious as to what scriptures Calvin used (because I knew his belief was based on the Bible, somehow). He wrote several pages on this subject and referenced scripture, as he went along. It was a building process (his mind was like a steel trap - very logical).

He starts out with the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17:14) and claims Christians are still under covenant with the Lord, just that it's a New Covenant. Interesting, because LDS make that same claim. Accordingly, he claims that Jewish sons were called "holy seed". the outward sign of which was circumcision. Children of Christians, therefore, being under the New Covenant, were to bear the outward sign of baptism.

He goes into a LOT of detail. If you're interested, the Ins***utes are online and you can access this, yourself.

He, then, proceeds to reference Matt 19:13-15, about Christ telling his disciples to allow the little children to come unto him. He has a lot to say about this (more than I want to post). Also, Luke 18:15, Matt 19:14, Mark 10:13. In the next section (Section 8) he explains that the Bible is NOT silent on infant baptism. He says infants are not excluded when there is mention of a whole family being baptized, so he is surmizing that they are to be "included". Calvin can certainly make a good argument, you have to give him that, on just about all counts. It's so funny to read him, though, because he includes personal remarks and is not above namecalling. :)

He makes a comparison to women and the Last Supper. He said, if we were to take only that (the original Last Supper) into consideration, we would have to come to the conclusion that women were not allowed to partake (which was not the case).

He makes a pretty elaborate argument, and you really have to read it all, to get the proper context and all.

Decalogue, I am sorry for going off topic but sometimes things are said that I must respond to as was the case with BigJulie. Hope you will forgive me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

If you're interested, the Ins***utes are online and you can access this, yourself.

---

Why go online when I have his book on my bookshelf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

He, then, proceeds to reference Matt 19:13-15, about Christ telling his disciples to allow the little children to come unto him

---

Does this mean infant baptism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

In the next section (Section 8) he explains that the Bible is NOT silent on infant baptism.

---

Then give me a verse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I think you all have done very well in explaining your views.

It is a sort of exercise in futility, on boards like this, I agree. I don't really take it too seriously. It's all delusion, doncha know. :D

---

Oh yes, ALL SMOKE and MIRRORS! JS being the HEAD of the delusion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neverending

Decalogue, I am sorry for going off topic but sometimes things are said that I must respond to as was the case with BigJulie. Hope you will forgive me.

---

neverending ... Hey --- YOU are not the problem :) .

My "beef" is that since Jill has other "fish-to-fry" and a family also , the Thread ***le / topic that she set up and made a "sticky" of is being intentionally taken off course by people that get away with wasting much bandwidth. They ( the mormons & friend-of-mormonism ) think they must defend the lying adulterers who founded Mormonism , and for them , that means insulting Christian Pastors/Theologians/Commentators/Reformers/Bible Translators , and the teachings of the Holy Bible. { Just like the "angel" told J.S. in that grove of trees . btw :rolleyes: }.

Can't you hear the serpent's hiss whenever you read stuff by the defenders of Mormonism ?
Harsh words from me ...? Nope . Read Genesis chapter 3 folks. The enemy of our souls will do anything to get us from trusting in the Divinely inspired Holy Bible.

The Devil himself is the one that whispered in Joseph Smith's ear , and as we can see by the pro-Mormon / anti-christian posters on this Thread ... he is still active. Turn over to 2 Corinthians chapter 11 verses 14,15. He appears as an "angel of light". Turn over to 1 Peter chapter 5 verse 8. He prowls about like a roaring lion ... Some folks mistakenly ***ume that the devil is in Hell right now. Wrong ! That comes later on folks when The Lord God has him tossed into the final Lake of Fire .

ONLY the devil and his ***ociates could come up with the wicked sex-based religion of mormonism wherein a God-being has sexual relations with one of the earth girls ( Mary of Nazareth ) and produces a physical "son". And then IF you buy into that wicked religion and go along with their stolen Freemasonry temple oaths and secrets ... you can someday have your own planet and start populating that planet with your wife ( wives) . :eek:

It is the Mormons and friend-of-mormons ( and possibly Romney campaign staffers ? ) who intentionally bring up other names ( such as Libby did ) , and is continuing to do - by turning this thread into a rabbit trail about Calvin and other topics.
All interesting topics - to be sure , BUT you'll notice that Libby does not post her comments over in the "Protestantism" sub-section under the "Christianity" section names .

When told by me that she needs to repent and get right with God , through bowing to the real Jesus Christ and following him alone ... she got upset. If she was a real Bible-believing , Blood-bought , born-again Christian , then she would would have apologized for defending Mormonism , and the vile religion of Mitt Romney. Instead , she has to cast doubts upon a man (men ) who actually could read greek , hebrew , latin and could properly preach (exegete ) a sermon which pointed people to Jesus Christ and the unmerited grace of our Heavenly Father.

Again people --- This website is very lightly moderated because as I said before ; Jill has other things to do. Other websites with full-time Moderators would have "warned" , then "suspended" for 2 weeks , and then later "banned" posters like BigJulie and Snow Patrol and Libby and Sir and others because they either intentionally go waaaayyyy off track or lie about facts-already-in-evidence.

I say again to any Mormons out there in internet land : I do not hate well-meaning , good average Mormon folks. Many of my own family are Mormons , and I'm a descedant of Handcart pioneers. The Tabernacle Choir makes great music with their voices and that wonderful organ , BUT - that does NOT mean that Mormonism is a CHRIST-ian religion . Christians are people that trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation from the sin we inherited from Adam & Eve.

Please read "The Maze of Mormonism" by Walter Martin , and "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" by The Tanners , and also "Mormonism: Hope or Dispair" by John L. Smith. Listen to the message about the Maze of Mormonism under the "Blog talk radio" section of the main page of the website. Please. Eternity is a looooong time to be wrong.

Mormonism is rooted in the speeches/teachings/recorded discourses of Joseph Smith and his chief deputy Brigham Young. If any L.D.S. or friend of L.D.S. on this website denies what those 2 guys taught and did ... all the while saying that they were and are "prophets-of-God" ... , well then it is a small wonder why there is sooo much prescription "tranquilizers" used in Utah , and the teenage suicide rate is sooo high in Mormon-land... Many L.D.S. members know the religion is a lie , but they will lose their ***s and/or business contracts if they leave Mormonism.

It is a works based religion , and if any mormon really starts examining the real religion and history of Smith & Young , and they Territory of Desseret , and the history of Nauvoo , Illinois and Missouri , and the Mountain Meadows M***acre , and the Temple blood oaths against the U.S. Government , well , probably they would be on Tranquilizers also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why go online when I have his book on my bookshelf?

---

Well, then, go to that book and read the verses and how he defends infant baptism (instead of asking me). :)

Btw, Billy, I am not defending infant baptism. I don't believe water baptism is necessary, at all. I'm just saying that it CAN be defended biblically. Obviously, you disagree, but that doesn't take away from the fact that people (even scholars) do it, and believe that they are defending with the Bible. Same with other issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, then, go to that book and read the verses and how he defends infant baptism (instead of asking me). :)

---

Because there aren't any verses that speak about infant baptism. That is the whole point I was trying to make when we were speaking about the Catholic church. The same goes with sprinkling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Because there aren't any verses that speak about infant baptism. That is the whole point I was trying to make when we were speaking about the Catholic church. The same goes with sprinkling.

---

Yes, I knew you wanted to make that point, but my point is that people do, indeed, make biblical arguments, even if baptism of infants is not, specifically, mentioned (although, Calvin makes the argument that it IS mentioned in verses that cite "family baptisms"). People make all kinds of biblical arguments by inference, and the Trinity is probably the prime example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I knew you wanted to make that point, but my point is that people do, indeed, make biblical arguments, even if baptism of infants is not, specifically, mentioned (although, Calvin makes the argument that it IS mentioned in verses that cite "family baptisms"). People make all kinds of biblical arguments by inference, and the Trinity is probably the prime example.

---

That is why I don't rely on extra Biblical writings for theology. If I don't have any support from the Bible then I can't hold to that opinion. This goes for things such as; infant baptism, sprinkling, Mary being a co-redemtrix, ***hing for the NT church, Melchizedek priesthood among NT men etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is why I don't rely on extra Biblical writings for theology.

---

Everyone relies on extra-biblical writings for theology, Billy. That's why you have so many different interpretations and denominations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Everyone relies on extra-biblical writings for theology, Billy.

---

OK give me one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

OK give me one.

---

Are you not the proud owner of a copy of The Ins***utes?

Calvinism (and all of the churches based on Calvin's theology - Reformed, Presbyterian, etc)
Wesleyianism
Lutheran
Catholicism
Baptists (John Smyth)

All denominations have their roots in someone's interpretation of the Bible. Those commentaries/interpretations are "extra-biblical")

I am off to the hospital. One of my cousin's is dying of lung cancer and I have been sitting with him.

Later.

Decalogue,
THANK YOU for such a well thought out post and for trying to explain what so many of us (the Christians) here on WM have been saying and saying for far to long. I've been out of Mormonism for 30 years and yes, I lost much in leaving; my relationship with my parents for starters and a lifelong friend who blamed me for why our friendship ended. In due respect, I never discussed religion with her because I knew it would only lead to an argument but I was the bad guy.
It would be wonderful of these LDS members here would take time to listen to WM or read his book (books) get a hold of the Tanner's book too for I can attest to the fact that the Tanner's book along with one other was what nailed everything down for me and I knew that God wanted me out of Mormonism. Course I had had my doubts before reading any book when going through the temple to be married but had no way to speak out about it for I had made blood oaths to not speak about what goes in within the temple. It is nothing but an old boys club for those who will pay their dues (10% of their income) to get their special card to enter into that secret place. I don't care what kind of spin they try to put onto their religion, it is NOT Christian.

"In May of 2000 the United Methodists' national convention declared that that the Mormon Church has "some radical differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of God; the nature, origin, and purpose of Jesus Christ; and the nature and way of salvation." The United Methodists objected to the LDS notion that the Mormon deity is a "gendered, married and procreating god" with "a body of flesh and bones." The Methodists noted that Mormonism is not at all a monotheistic religion but rather one that "more closely resembles a tri-theistic or possibly a polytheistic faith."
The 2.8 million-member Presbyterian Church U.S.A. worked five years on a statement that outlined the differences between it and the LDS Church. In this document it claimed that the Mormon Church was a "a new and emerging religion that expresses allegiance to Jesus Christ in terms used within the Christian tradition" even though it is not "within the historical apostolic tradition of the Christian Church of which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a part." The document also stated that Mormons who become Presbyterians must be re-baptized and that Presbyterians "should not hesitate" to share the gospel with the Mormon people.
Now I doubt that few people would cl***ify either the United Methodists or the Presbyterian U.S.A. of being a group of narrow-minded conservatives.
It should also be noted that the Missouri Synod of Lutherans has also published material in the past that declares Mormon doctrine as non-Christian. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America lists Mormonism as a cult along with Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christian Science movement. Even the Roman Catholic apologetic group Catholic Answers has carried articles claiming Mormonism is not Christian. Now, I know some Mormon might say, "But wouldn't Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have problems with your Protestant views?" I am sure they would. But that really sidesteps the issue. In 1998 BYU professor Robert Millet responded to the objections of the Southern Baptist Convention by saying that those who condemn Mormon theology as not being Christian should at least understand the doctrine. Are we really to believe that Methodists, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and several Protestant theologians and scholars really have no clue as to what Mormon doctrine really entails? If that is the case then Mormonism is really more esoteric (and therefore un-Christian) than first realized". (http://www.mrm.org/is-mormonism-christian)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

OK give me one.

---

The Athanasian creed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

The Athanasian creed.

---

I don't rely on that for my theology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then give me a verse.

---

John Calvin: Infant Baptism
by Rev. Bryn MacPhail


Calvin's leading premise in his argumentation in favour infant baptism is that baptism is parallel to circumcision from the first covenant and the differences that exist between them exist in externals only(Inst.4, 16, 3). When comparing circumcision with baptism Calvin ***erts that we must "diligently" consider what is common to both, and what they have apart from us. Calvin maintains that the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming the covenant is common, namely regeneration(Inst.4, 16, 6). According to Calvin, "only the manner of confirmation is different"(Inst.4, 16, 6). What was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. The function of baptism is the same as the function of circumcision. It is,

"God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation"(Ex.20:6; Inst.4, 16, 9).

Calvin is essentially saying that although "God's sign" has changed(circumcision to baptism) the promise remains the same. Therefore, any attempt to ***ail infant baptism must be viewed as an attack on the commandment of circumcision.
Differences Between Circumcision and Baptism Are Falsely Alleged
In Calvin's day there was a vocal minority called the "Anabaptists" who had a myriad of objections to the baptizing of infants. John Calvin, however, is rather convincing in his refutation of these objections.

Some Anabaptists in Calvin's day argued that circumcision could not be equated with infant baptism because circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were purely carnal(Inst.4, 16, 10). Calvin counters by claiming that if we regard circumcision as a literal sign, "we must estimate baptism to be the same"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin bases this ***ertion on Colossians, chapter two, where Paul makes neither more spiritual than the other. Paul says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ"(Col.2:11). Paul afterwards adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ"(Col.2:12). Calvin sees this to mean nothing except that "the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin believes that the apostle Paul is demonstrating that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.

One of the more reasonable and biblical objections to infant baptism is made by those who regard baptism as a sacrament of repentance and faith. These advocates of believer's baptism avow that baptism must be preceded by faith and repentance(Inst.4, 16, 23). These people argue that since this is not possible in the infancy stage, "we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Calvin refutes "these darts" by directing our attention to the testimonies of Scripture that show that circumcision was also a sign of repentance(Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). If God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, as Calvin argues, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism. Although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, "they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at GodÕs ins***ution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).

Calvin believes that infants, regarding baptism, have to be put in "another category"(Inst.4, 16, 23). Calvin reasons this from the fact that in ancient times anyone who joined in religious fellowship with Israel had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before he could be marked with circumcision(Inst.4, 16, 23). This was because he was of foreign nationality, with whom the covenant had been made.

Abraham and Isaac exemplify this difference between adults and children. Many opponents of infant baptism point to the fact that in the life of Abraham, the Lord does not command Abraham to be circumcised until after he shows faith in the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Subsequently, those who embrace the Christian faith as adults are not allowed baptism unless they first have faith and repentance. On the other hand, Calvin declares that any infant who derives their origin from Christians, "have been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant" and therefore are expected to be received into baptism(Inst.4, 16, 24).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

John Calvin: Infant Baptism
by Rev. Bryn MacPhail


Calvin's leading premise in his argumentation in favour infant baptism is that baptism is parallel to circumcision from the first covenant and the differences that exist between them exist in externals only(Inst.4, 16, 3). When comparing circumcision with baptism Calvin ***erts that we must "diligently" consider what is common to both, and what they have apart from us. Calvin maintains that the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming the covenant is common, namely regeneration(Inst.4, 16, 6). According to Calvin, "only the manner of confirmation is different"(Inst.4, 16, 6). What was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. The function of baptism is the same as the function of circumcision. It is,

"God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation"(Ex.20:6; Inst.4, 16, 9).

Calvin is essentially saying that although "God's sign" has changed(circumcision to baptism) the promise remains the same. Therefore, any attempt to ***ail infant baptism must be viewed as an attack on the commandment of circumcision.
Differences Between Circumcision and Baptism Are Falsely Alleged
In Calvin's day there was a vocal minority called the "Anabaptists" who had a myriad of objections to the baptizing of infants. John Calvin, however, is rather convincing in his refutation of these objections.

Some Anabaptists in Calvin's day argued that circumcision could not be equated with infant baptism because circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were purely carnal(Inst.4, 16, 10). Calvin counters by claiming that if we regard circumcision as a literal sign, "we must estimate baptism to be the same"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin bases this ***ertion on Colossians, chapter two, where Paul makes neither more spiritual than the other. Paul says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ"(Col.2:11). Paul afterwards adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ"(Col.2:12). Calvin sees this to mean nothing except that "the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin believes that the apostle Paul is demonstrating that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.

One of the more reasonable and biblical objections to infant baptism is made by those who regard baptism as a sacrament of repentance and faith. These advocates of believer's baptism avow that baptism must be preceded by faith and repentance(Inst.4, 16, 23). These people argue that since this is not possible in the infancy stage, "we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Calvin refutes "these darts" by directing our attention to the testimonies of Scripture that show that circumcision was also a sign of repentance(Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). If God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, as Calvin argues, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism. Although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, "they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at GodÕs ins***ution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).

Calvin believes that infants, regarding baptism, have to be put in "another category"(Inst.4, 16, 23). Calvin reasons this from the fact that in ancient times anyone who joined in religious fellowship with Israel had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before he could be marked with circumcision(Inst.4, 16, 23). This was because he was of foreign nationality, with whom the covenant had been made.

Abraham and Isaac exemplify this difference between adults and children. Many opponents of infant baptism point to the fact that in the life of Abraham, the Lord does not command Abraham to be circumcised until after he shows faith in the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Subsequently, those who embrace the Christian faith as adults are not allowed baptism unless they first have faith and repentance. On the other hand, Calvin declares that any infant who derives their origin from Christians, "have been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant" and therefore are expected to be received into baptism(Inst.4, 16, 24).

---

Can you give me a specific verse so we can look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then give me a verse.

---

On Infant Baptism
Before bringing together all that has been said and applying it to infant baptism, it is
appropriate to examine briefly Calvin’s basis for infant baptism and the peculiarities of baptism
when applied to infants instead of adults.
In his Ins***utes, Calvin offers two biblical lines of defense for the practice of baptizing
the children of believers: the covenant, and Christ’s own dealings with children and infants.
Calvin understands that the covenant God made with Abraham and his children is still in force.
The sign and seal of that covenant under the old administration was circumcision, but under the
new administration the same covenant has a new sign and seal, that is, baptism. Calvin
consistently reasons by ****ogy between circumcision and baptism.6 Calvin considers it
“incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office
among us [New Covenant believers]” (4.16.4). While God does not specifically command New
Covenant believers to baptize their children, he did explicitly command Old Covenant believers
to circumcise theirs. Further, Calvin sees that New Covenant as a magnification and extreme
growth of the grace of God. If our children were included in the covenant graces of God under
the Old Covenant and were given the sign of that covenant, how much more under the New
Covenant should they be included and given the sign of the covenant. Calvin reasons that “if the
4 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (22 vols.; Repr., Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998), 21:319 (Eph 5:26).
Calvin warns that we should not seek the efficacy of the sacrament in the sacrament itself. This was mentioned
above, but bears repeating: the blessings of the sacraments are not found in the sacraments but in Christ alone.
Calvin understands that the Holy Spirit invisibly and internally ministers Christ and his benefits to us though the
visible and external ministry of the sacraments.
5 Ibid., 20:70 (1 Cor 1:13).
6 Calvin uses this ****ogy quite effectively in defense of the practice of infant baptism against the
Anabaptists; see 4.16.20 for a powerful example.
WRS Journal 14:1 (February 2007) 25-30
4
covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians that
under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews” (4.16.5). For Calvin, baptism
does not bring the infant into the covenant, but baptism is given to the infant because of the
child’s status in the covenant. Thus, he makes bold to say that “baptism is properly administered
to infants as something owed to them” (4.16.5).7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

On Infant Baptism
Before bringing together all that has been said and applying it to infant baptism, it is
appropriate to examine briefly Calvin’s basis for infant baptism and the peculiarities of baptism
when applied to infants instead of adults.
In his Ins***utes, Calvin offers two biblical lines of defense for the practice of baptizing
the children of believers: the covenant, and Christ’s own dealings with children and infants.
Calvin understands that the covenant God made with Abraham and his children is still in force.
The sign and seal of that covenant under the old administration was circumcision, but under the
new administration the same covenant has a new sign and seal, that is, baptism. Calvin
consistently reasons by ****ogy between circumcision and baptism.6 Calvin considers it
“incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office
among us [New Covenant believers]” (4.16.4). While God does not specifically command New
Covenant believers to baptize their children, he did explicitly command Old Covenant believers
to circumcise theirs. Further, Calvin sees that New Covenant as a magnification and extreme
growth of the grace of God. If our children were included in the covenant graces of God under
the Old Covenant and were given the sign of that covenant, how much more under the New
Covenant should they be included and given the sign of the covenant. Calvin reasons that “if the
4 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (22 vols.; Repr., Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998), 21:319 (Eph 5:26).
Calvin warns that we should not seek the efficacy of the sacrament in the sacrament itself. This was mentioned
above, but bears repeating: the blessings of the sacraments are not found in the sacraments but in Christ alone.
Calvin understands that the Holy Spirit invisibly and internally ministers Christ and his benefits to us though the
visible and external ministry of the sacraments.
5 Ibid., 20:70 (1 Cor 1:13).
6 Calvin uses this ****ogy quite effectively in defense of the practice of infant baptism against the
Anabaptists; see 4.16.20 for a powerful example.
WRS Journal 14:1 (February 2007) 25-30
4
covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians that
under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews” (4.16.5). For Calvin, baptism
does not bring the infant into the covenant, but baptism is given to the infant because of the
child’s status in the covenant. Thus, he makes bold to say that “baptism is properly administered
to infants as something owed to them” (4.16.5).7

---

So I guess you are bot going to give a verse so we fan look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

I don't rely on that for my theology.

---

Some do. The language of the creed is very specific concerning it's message:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

Can you find any verses in the NT that show that infants were baptized via sprinkling?

---

Can you find any verses in the NT that describes a baptism for ANY infant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

---

But yet--you have no doubt that all infants are sinners???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

But yet--you have no doubt that all infants are sinners???

---

Yep that is what Romans states.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Can you find any verses in the NT that describes a baptism for ANY infant?

---

I certainly can't and that is why I say it is not Bblical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Btw, Billy, I am not defending infant baptism. I don't believe water baptism is necessary, at all. I'm just saying that it CAN be defended biblically. Obviously, you disagree, but that doesn't take away from the fact that people (even scholars) do it, and believe that they are defending with the Bible. Same with other issues.

---

Libby,
What does infant baptism have to do with Mitt Romney? Can you not stay on topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theway

Not true... you made it clear before that you called me Richard because you thought i was using a sock puppet. I have no respect for someone who can not admit to their mistakes.


There you go... in using that broad brush you just included the LDS Church. When can I expect my discount Christian card?

---

theway! There are NO DISCOUNT CARDS, that's something you should take up with Pres. Monson with buying your way into your temple.
I again must repeat myself, LDS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN! You can tell me til you're blue in the face that you are but, again and I'm not the only one who has told you, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT JESUS NOR EVEN THE RIGHT GOD! Will you admit that your Jesus was a created being? Will you admit that your god wasn't always god but was once a man as you but he progressed to attaining his godhood? IF you answer YES to these two questions then as I said, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!

Oh, and I don't give a rats behind if you have respect for me or not! And now you are again sounding like Richard and I again will tell you that I called you that BECAUSE you respond to my comments just like he did. Has that now sunk into your head? I told you too that I am sorry if I offended you but that went right over your head too. I can't help it if you sound like a poster that I've had run ins with on another posting board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theway

I'm sorry I must have missed that definition of a Christian. Can I please get the official version of it, instead of your critic rant? No offense, but your opinion carries no credibility, seeing as though you have been consistently wrong on so many things, like my name ever being Richard.

---

And your rants have no credibility in my opinion so where does that leave our discussion? Thrown out the window I suppose. And you have been consistently WRONG on so many things too. I don't need to explain myself again and again. Either you understand why I called you Richard or not. Subject in now closed! And this whole thread has gotten so off topic it's pathetic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

How about you answer my other question first. How do you know that every word in the Bible is from God?

---

Libby,
Because Jesus said this: "Heaven and earth shall p*** away, but my words shall not p*** away" (Matt. 24:35).

What do these words mean to you? Was Jesus lying when he said these words? His word IS the Bible! His word still stands and has for millenia but I guess what Jesus said means nothing to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neverending

Libby,
What does infant baptism have to do with Mitt Romney? Can you not stay on topic?

---

Why don't you ask Billy? I believe he started this line of questioning.

If you guys don't want to read off topic stuff, just scroll on by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Why don't you ask Billy? I believe he started this line of questioning.

---

It all started with your post below

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

They are absolutely alike in the way I said they are alike...religions established on the, supposed, inspired teachings/revelations/interpretations of man. Not saying Calvin gave revelation, but he did teach/interpret scripture (just as Joseph Smith did) and he had his own unique spin, very different from what the Roman Catholics had been teaching for centuries, before that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

It all started with your post below

---

I started out speaking very generally about biblical interpretation. I think you are the one who started the baptism questions. (I haven't really gone back to look). Doesn't matter, really. We have both been participating in the discussion and I don't see anything wrong with that. Threads almost always go off topic, eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libby

Threads almost always go off topic, eventually.

---

That is true and usually after the 4th or 5th post of the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is true and usually after the 4th or 5th post of the thread.

---

Yep.... :)