tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6984861.post115639841854298017..comments2023-10-12T03:10:09.276-07:00Comments on emerging thought...: Review: Heretics Guide to Eternity (pt 2)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08894632401827590745noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6984861.post-1156445605929163862006-08-24T11:53:00.000-07:002006-08-24T11:53:00.000-07:00A couple counterpoints iggy, First of all, lookin...A couple counterpoints iggy,<BR/><BR/> First of all, looking at scripture collectively we see that baptism is a means of salvation (although not necessarily the only way). This is attested to by Christ when he says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Some people get hung up on the ordering of believe and baptized, but my point is that in this verse and numerous others baptism and salvation are linked. The most specific verse attesting to the salvific nature of baptism would be 1Peter 3:20-21 which states:<BR/> "God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That states it pretty clearly.<BR/> Throw into the mix that the vast majority of the early church leaders performed infant baptism and that the first case of a child being intentionally withheld from baptism doesn't appear until the 4th century and i think you have a pretty good case for salvific infant baptism.<BR/> Secondly, it seems strange that you would throw out the idea of salvific baptism for lack of biblical evidence but then claim a sort of "age of accountability" based upon cognitive ability which has even less in the way of direct Biblical support. I also am a bit perplexed that someone who has spent so much time rallying against the dangers of propositional truth would then base so much of our salvation upon a narrow definition of reasoning (not to mention that asserting that the developmentally disabled are unable to be depraved is insulting and paints the disabled as the cherubim imbeciles, an image that disability rights groups have been trying to eliminate for years. Trust me, developmentally disabled people can be just as depraved as you or I). Let me put it this way. An infant does not cognitively understand love, but would you say that your child does not know that you love them? A gentleman by the name of Hoffman puts it this way, <BR/> "The child is capable of a “primal trust,” and, where this is not developed but held back, it sustains severe personality damage. This “primal trust” is not first developed through heard or understood articulated words, but in a personal mode which is other than verbal and which can indeed dispense with the verbal dimension. A child “knows” that it is loved and whom it can trust long before it can understand the words, “I love you."<BR/> So if we can say that a child can know love and love in return despite their developmental stage, then it follows that they can also be selfish and seek their own needs above those of others. All you really need to sin is to be self aware and to be aware of someone else (namely God) and to chose yourself.<BR/> I won't say much on the immutability of God, but I will point out that what you have said is a rather human way of looking at things and i don't quite follow how the change in God's creation necessarily means that God changes.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, that's all for now.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dan<BR/><BR/>P.S. I wrote an paper on infant baptism that lays out my beliefs pretty well and give a bunch more evidence for it. If you'd like I could send you a copy.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11059925235073563712noreply@blogger.com