tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post3333391465923349445..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Paedo-Communion and the Federal VisionTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-78434437716821448992011-06-22T21:07:42.079+01:002011-06-22T21:07:42.079+01:00"This post is in context of Christian beliefs..."This post is in context of Christian beliefs rather than what ones personal opinion"<br /><br />Well, the O.P. is about the truth, not simply "Christian beliefs."<br /><br />"That being said, historically Christianity has ALWAYS been Holy Traditions/Holy Scriptures inseperable."<br /><br />People sometimes claim this. But, of course, the O.P. relies on Scripture. Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-81245772846810718022011-06-22T20:48:08.042+01:002011-06-22T20:48:08.042+01:00This post is in context of Christian beliefs rathe...This post is in context of Christian beliefs rather than what ones personal opinion <br /><br />That being said, historically Christianity has ALWAYS been Holy Traditions/Holy Scriptures inseperable.<br /><br />In fact,the books chosen by His Apostoic Church were done so in the 4th century from HOLY TRADITIONS prior to that time.<br /><br />No way, Christianity was never ever "bible only&Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-2982343167134342862011-06-05T04:26:03.568+01:002011-06-05T04:26:03.568+01:00Yes. I know how people rejoice with one another. ...Yes. I know how people rejoice with one another. I'm not sure how one believes "with" someone else. It seems so individualistic. But perhaps that's how the sentence should be read.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-53726789214343194442011-06-05T04:09:27.639+01:002011-06-05T04:09:27.639+01:00I was thinking of the jailor in Acts 16
33 And he...I was thinking of the jailor in Acts 16<br /><br />33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; <b>and was baptized, he and all his</b>, straightway.<br />34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, <b>believing in God with all his house.</b><br /><br />Many times I have heard the baby-sprinklers say that infants were Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-41612006384070853032011-06-05T04:00:54.238+01:002011-06-05T04:00:54.238+01:00The closest would be this:
1 Corinthians 16:15-16...The closest would be this:<br /><br />1 Corinthians 16:15-16 <br />I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. <br /><br />(assuming that it is the same Stephanus, which I suppose is Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-3241058854678536852011-06-04T23:25:22.081+01:002011-06-04T23:25:22.081+01:00"Again, respectfully, I don't see where i..."Again, respectfully, I don't see where it says that the household of Stephanas believed."<br /><br />In Acts. "And he believed with his whole house."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42608306010783173612011-06-04T23:09:49.049+01:002011-06-04T23:09:49.049+01:00Since Scripture is Supreme as a rule of faith in m...<i>Since Scripture is Supreme as a rule of faith in matters of doctrine. Whereas tradition is neither infallible nor equal in authority to Scripture. So called " tradition " can error and has in the past. I can quote a church father who taught Jesus died at age 50 and claimed it was passed down tradition yet we clearly know that view and claim is incorrect.</i><br /><br />Yes, of courseTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-33423407490527470712011-06-04T23:09:45.313+01:002011-06-04T23:09:45.313+01:001 Corinthians 1:14-16
I thank God that I baptize...1 Corinthians 1:14-16 <br />I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. <br /><br />Again, respectfully, I don't see where it says that the household of Stephanas believed.<br /><br /><i>Unbelievers were not baptized Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-20309515082933385142011-06-04T23:09:26.115+01:002011-06-04T23:09:26.115+01:00It must be pointed out the early church fathers ar...<i>It must be pointed out the early church fathers are not apostles.</i><br /><br />Granted. Also, in anticipation, I grant that many errors are very old errors.<br /><br /><i>Water baptism and the Lord's Supper are for those who are regenerate and not the unregenerate.</i><br /><br />a) Actually, the Lord's supper is <i>not</i> necessarily for all the regenerate.<br /><br />b) We admit Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-84265315082230875682011-06-04T23:08:43.656+01:002011-06-04T23:08:43.656+01:00ChaferDTS:
"The bible quote of "repent ...ChaferDTS:<br /><br /><i>"The bible quote of "repent and be baptized" was in the context of ADULTS because they were the first to accept Christianity."<br /><br />The passage makes no such distinction between adults and children. That's reading in to the text what is not there. The context is the contrast between believers and unbelievers. Your opinions are subject to the Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-6300512573436051012011-06-04T19:05:30.227+01:002011-06-04T19:05:30.227+01:00"This has historically continued for 2,000 ye..."This has historically continued for 2,000 years within EASTERN Christianity. There are multiple verses in the NT saying "entire households were baptized". "<br /><br />In those cases the passages themselves shows the entire household came to faith in Jesus Christ. Unbelievers were not baptized in those passages. Acts 2:42 and Acts 16:34 expressly has all of the household as Chafer DTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06128689713330849677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-18391476674821980532011-06-04T19:04:29.691+01:002011-06-04T19:04:29.691+01:00"The bible quote of "repent and be bapti..."The bible quote of "repent and be baptized" was in the context of ADULTS because they were the first to accept Christianity. "<br /><br />The passage makes no such distinction between adults and children. That's reading in to the text what is not there. The context is the contrast between believers and unbelievers. Your opinions are subject to the correction Supreme Chafer DTShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06128689713330849677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-9169210822255886442011-06-03T20:44:09.163+01:002011-06-03T20:44:09.163+01:00The bible quote of "repent and be baptized&qu...The bible quote of "repent and be baptized" was in the context of ADULTS because they were the first to accept Christianity. Thereafter their children (infants)continued the tradition of Holy Baptism, Holy Chrismation and Holy Eucharist immediately following each other. This has historically continued for 2,000 years within EASTERN Christianity. There are multiple verses in the NT Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-50523324777031461632011-04-30T03:59:07.394+01:002011-04-30T03:59:07.394+01:00But a warning can only be given to someone who can...But a warning can only be given to someone who can comprehend warnings. "He that eateth without discerning the Lord's body eateth damnation to himself" cannot apply to infants, since they are not ignoring the significance of the Lord's supper as an adult who ate without discerning would be. As infants they have no idea what's going on. All they know is that their parents Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-87741799284030161462011-04-28T13:26:48.532+01:002011-04-28T13:26:48.532+01:00"If one sacrament can be given without faith ..."If one sacrament can be given without faith why not both?"<br /><br />There is a severe warning against those who eat without discerning the Lord's body.<br /><br />There is no similar warning against those who obey the command to be baptized before obeying the command to repent.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-78652830064885494152011-04-28T06:15:03.087+01:002011-04-28T06:15:03.087+01:00Since you believe in infant baptism its pretty sil...Since you believe in infant baptism its pretty silly to not have infant communion. If one sacrament can be given without faith why not both? Acts 2:38 says "Repent and be baptized..." did the infants repent before or when they were baptized? Obviously not. So infant baptism is just as invalid as infant communion. I would rather the Federal Visionists stay with the ban on infant Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com