the meaning of Baptism

[Imalive]

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes.

Hey lol so... who decides babies can't be baptized because they don't get it.

https://www.boredpanda.com/woman-remember-every-day-rebecca-sharrock/

 

[MennoSota]

We're commanded by Jesus to baptize all nations. yes or no

No

We are commanded to go to all nations. We are commanded to make disciples in those nations. When one of God's elect is chosen we are commanded to baptize them. We are also commanded to teach these followers all that Jesus said.
So...No...we don't just baptize liberally with no concern for whether God has chosen to save them. If that is what you think, then go to your pool, start splashing and crying out, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You, by your reading of the text would be fulfilling the great commission. (But, I don't think you'll do that. Why? You don't really believe your view?)

 

[Imalive]

I find it a good idea. I'm going to the pool.

 

[Imalive]

People think that babies are dumb, but look at John the baptist. In the whomb he jumps up when Mary and Jesus come in. As an adult w a fantastic evolved brain: Are You the one?

 

[MennoSota]

Friend, I by no means meant to convey or imply YOU say such - I'm just picking up on what's been posted in these 78 PAGES of stuff - the defenses for withholding the Calls of Jesus from some people.

We have lots of commands. And I think that generally, it's a bad rubric to assume that they don't apply UNLESS each possible case is spelled out. "Thou shalt not kill" does not need to list every person ever to live to apply to them, we shouldn't say "but it's okay to kill slaves because it doesn't say we can't kill slaves." Get my point? Follow?

ONE of the arguments here is that we are not to apply the Great Commission ("Go.... baptize.... teach.....") to those under the age of X or under the IQ of X because the verse doesn't say "And this applies to those under the age of X and IQ of X." I'm disagreeing with that whole persistent, stubborn argument here. I'm disagreeing that we can't follow the Commands of Jesus if we can't prove they will result in them being in heaven. I'm disagreeing with the very persistent argument that Scripture STATES that we can't apply the Great Commission unless and until they can document they are born again, regenerate, justified believers. It seems to ME there are a LOT of prohibitions, limitations, denials being forced onto the Calls of Jesus - and I'm noting their arguments are based on what they ADD or SUBTRACT from those Calls, not from what Jesus actually said/commanded/called us to do.
Follow? Make sense? I NEVER ask anyone to agree with me (well, sometimes I like those who work for me to agree, lol) but I succeed if I'm at least kinda understood.





But some ARE saying it's okay to prohibit the commands of Jesus to SOME because THEY don't think they should be so blessed. That IS the discussion here.

And it's also true that no one is saying that our loving or giving or going or baptizing or teaching saves anyone or even mandates that they will be saved. We've had a number of conversations on that.




.

Josiah, you are attempting to force God to do something He never promised he would do.
Over these 78 pages you have never shown us where God promises he will save an infant when you baptize that infant.
You have never explained why, if the transitive properties of infant baptism equal salvation, the same properties of baptism don't work for all humans.
Why not go to the pool and splash the unsuspecting crowds in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Why not be consistent with all ages?

 

[MennoSota]

People think that babies are dumb, but look at John the baptist. In the whomb he jumps up when Mary and Jesus come in. As an adult w a fantastic evolved brain: Are You the one?

In that verse, it is his Mother, Elizabeth, that is filled with the Spirit. There is nothing said, in that verse, about John being filled with the Spirit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Luke 1:15 ► New International Version - for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.

 

[Josiah]

Reply to post #798 Ok, but I think youre point about you disagree that we shouldnt love, shouldnt care, shouldnt share, etc., has gotten REALLY over-worked

Okay, but that IS the issue. If we are going to discuss the issue we have to discuss that point. Should the Commands of God be loaded with lots of exceptions and exclusions of whole classes/groups of people by adding it (with invisible words) to what Jesus said? The whole basis of the "can't baptize babies" argument is that the Call to go... teach... baptize excludes those under the age of X. I'm disagreeing with the premise.... and disagreeing every time that premise is demanded.

Put it another way. There is a command to love. Is it appropriate to add ".... but not blondes!" The premise of our discussion is that that IS appropriate, that we can edit the Commands of Jesus with invisible words to exclude whole classes of people. That's the apologetic being promoted (they don't apply it to blondes but to children but it's the SAME PREMISE, the same argument, the same apologetic).

God says, "Thou shalt not kill." Is it appropriate for a slave owner to dogmatically insist slaves are excluded from this because the verse doesn't specifically, verbatim state: "And this includes slaves?" Yet that IS the apologetic, the very persistent argument for denying children Baptism. Every time that argument is raised, yup - I disagree with it. And yeah, that has been going on for some EIGHTY PAGES!

Ppl dont need to keep being told to stop doing something theyre not doing in the first place

Like when people post - over and over and over and over, page after page - that water doesn't save anyone? Yup, no one claims it does. Or those who state - over and over and over and over - that some who have been baptize aren't believers? Yup, some persist in stating points no one has made in the first place.

Is there anyone in this thread that has posted that its wrong to love, care, give, do those things, etc., that you keep listing?

Again, the issue here is whether Commands of God should be arbitrarily limited by inserting such into the text; in other words, is it appropriate to insist "Go.... baptize.... teach..... BUT you CANNOT do so for those under the age of X." The Command has been limited with a whole class of people exempted.

You're absolutely right, friend. Everyone sees the point when we speak of many other Commands - but then they don't see when they do it to the Great Commission. Hands go over ears "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" Then they repeat identical premise they just condemned. Over and over and over.

If so, then maybe its time to name names, so we can ALL approach the person directly, and gently correct them from scripture to restore them, and ask them to please stop using this thread to teach ppl that its wrong to love, etc.

There are several here in this thread who have argued that we may severely limit the commands of God, may modify the words of Jesus so as to exclude whole classes of people from His Commands.

In fact, I havent seen anyone say that its wrong to water-baptize others, only that its wrong to INSIST on water-baptism as a necessary requirement FOR (i.e. IN ORDER TO RECEIVE) salvation.

Friend, no one has said that.

Many of us (me included) have stated (many times over these pages) that that is NOT the case. How many times must it be stated that no person, no denomination, no one ever has said that? Why attack a stance no one ever has made?



Thank you!


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

double post, sorry

 

[Josiah]

In that verse, it is his Mother, Elizabeth, that is filled with the Spirit. There is nothing said, in that verse, about John being filled with the Spirit.

See Luke 1:15

See Luke 1:41. Note that John the Baptist - NOT YET BORN - leaped in his mother's womb, this is said to be an act of the unborn John the Baptist, NOT Elizabeth. It doesn't say "And Elizabeth's womb leaped" it says "the baby leaped."

See Luke 1:43. The UNBORNED John the Baptist's act of leaping is specifically said to be an act of faith in direct response to Jesus (also not yet born).


Yes, God is not forbidden to give faith to those under the age of X.... God is not rendered impotent when faced with those under the age of X. God is not that small, that limited, that incapable. And as I posted to you before (a few times, but yes, I know, you said you don't always read what's posted to you) God can give faith without means (as here) - it's never a good idea to tell God what He is inept to do - but God has NOT told us: "DO NOTHING!" He has told us to go..... baptize..... teach...... Does such ALWAYS result in their going to heaven? Of course not. Does that make it forbidden to do as God has commanded? Of course not.

No Scripture states, "Keep the little children away from Jesus until they reach the age of X." Nope, see Matthew 19:14.

No Scripture states, "Go... baptize.... teach.... but thou art forbidden to do so until they attain the age of X and IQ of X and first document their regeneration and justification.' You severely limited the command, you radically changed it.

Over these 78 pages you have never shown us where God promises he will save an infant when you baptize that infant.

Because I never said God so promises. I don't need to substantiate things I NEVER said and don't believe. Especially when I have stated - over and over - that there is no such promise.




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/christi...arguments-for-and-against-infant-baptism/amp/

 

[Lamb]

No

We are commanded to go to all nations. We are commanded to make disciples in those nations. When one of God's elect is chosen we are commanded to baptize them. We are also commanded to teach these followers all that Jesus said.
So...No...we don't just baptize liberally with no concern for whether God has chosen to save them. If that is what you think, then go to your pool, start splashing and crying out, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You, by your reading of the text would be fulfilling the great commission. (But, I don't think you'll do that. Why? You don't really believe your view?)

Why do you keep separating baptism and teaching? Or baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit?

 

[MennoSota]

See Luke 1:15

See Luke 1:41. Note that John the Baptist - NOT YET BORN - leaped in his mother's womb, this is said to be an act of the unborn John the Baptist, NOT Elizabeth. It doesn't say "And Elizabeth's womb leaped" it says "the baby leaped."

See Luke 1:43. The UNBORNED John the Baptist's act of leaping is specifically said to be an act of faith in direct response to Jesus (also not yet born).


Yes, God is not forbidden to give faith to those under the age of X.... God is not rendered impotent when faced with those under the age of X. God is not that small, that limited, that incapable. And as I posted to you before (a few times, but yes, I know, you said you don't always read what's posted to you) God can give faith without means (as here) - it's never a good idea to tell God what He is inept to do - but God has NOT told us: "DO NOTHING!" He has told us to go..... baptize..... teach...... Does such ALWAYS result in their going to heaven? Of course not. Does that make it forbidden to do as God has commanded? Of course not.

No Scripture states, "Keep the little children away from Jesus until they reach the age of X." Nope, see Matthew 19:14.

No Scripture states, "Go... baptize.... teach.... but thou art forbidden to do so until they attain the age of X and IQ of X and first document their regeneration and justification.' You severely limited the command, you radically changed it.



Thank you.


- Josiah

Who was filled with the Spirit? Was it John or Elizabeth?
If you have a wife and children you know that infants can move a lot in the womb. Look at the text because you are reading into the text something that the text itself does not say. We must let the Bible stand with what it says, not what we wish it said.

Luke 1
[41]At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Once again your age of X argument is a red herring and of no importance in our conversation. You are free to create an argument that no one has brought up, but please acknowledge that you are the only one making that claim.

 

[MennoSota]

Why do you keep separating baptism and teaching? Or baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit?

Because the text separates them. What does the text say?
Matthew 28:19-20
[19]Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[20]Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Nowhere is it implied that all actions are one and the same.
Why do you force the text to merge baptism and teaching?

 

[Josiah]

See Luke 1:15

See Luke 1:41. Note that John the Baptist - NOT YET BORN - leaped in his mother's womb, this is said to be an act of the unborn John the Baptist, NOT Elizabeth. It doesn't say "And Elizabeth's womb leaped" it says "the baby leaped."

See Luke 1:43. The UNBORNED John the Baptist's act of leaping is specifically said to be an act of faith in direct response to Jesus (also not yet born).


Yes, God is not forbidden to give faith to those under the age of X.... God is not rendered impotent when faced with those under the age of X. God is not that small, that limited, that incapable. And as I posted to you before (a few times, but yes, I know, you said you don't always read what's posted to you) God can give faith without means (as here) - it's never a good idea to tell God what He is inept to do - but God has NOT told us: "DO NOTHING!" He has told us to go..... baptize..... teach...... Does such ALWAYS result in their going to heaven? Of course not. Does that make it forbidden to do as God has commanded? Of course not.

No Scripture states, "Keep the little children away from Jesus until they reach the age of X." Nope, see Matthew 19:14.

No Scripture states, "Go... baptize.... teach.... but thou art forbidden to do so until they attain the age of X and IQ of X and first document their regeneration and justification.' You severely limited the command, you radically changed it.



.

Who was filled with the Spirit? Was it John or Elizabeth?

Both. See Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41. The Bible specifically, verbatim says BOTH were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Yes, JOHN's act was an act of faith. From one with faith. Yes, John wasn't even born yet (so likely had not yet attained your magical but never disclosed age of X). God is not impotent to give faith to those under your magical age of X.



See Matthew 19:14 It doesn't way, "Keep the children away from baptism and teaching."

See Ephesians 4:5 It doesn't say there are TWO baptisms - one involving water but no Holy Spirit, the other involving the Holy Spirit but no water. How many Baptisms does the Bible state there are?




.

 

[Imalive]

Who was filled with the Spirit? Was it John or Elizabeth?
If you have a wife and children you know that infants can move a lot in the womb. Look at the text because you are reading into the text something that the text itself does not say. We must let the Bible stand with what it says, not what we wish it said.

Luke 1
[41]At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Once again your age of X argument is a red herring and of no importance in our conversation. You are free to create an argument that no one has brought up, but please acknowledge that you are the only one making that claim.

MoreCoffee gave the text.
John the baptist didn't get baptised as a baby though. Neither did Jesus. And I doubt that any baby is always filled w the Holy Spirit in the whomb. It's possible that one is, but how do you know?

 

[MennoSota]

Because I never said God so promises. I don't need to substantiate things I NEVER said and don't believe. Especially when I have stated - over and over - that there is no such promise.

Thank you.

- Josiah

Great! Then there is ZERO purpose for infant baptism! Infant baptism isn't for the infant. It's all for the parent and community coming to the ceremony.
Nothing mystical happens in the infant baptism and there is ZERO salvic regeneration taking place. Do you agree?

 

[Josiah]

I doubt that any baby is always filled w the Holy Spirit in the whomb. It's possible that one is, but how do you know?

... but destroyed is the whole premise that those under the age of X cannot believe and thus cannot be the object of "Go.... baptize.... teach....." The whole premise that those under the age of X cannot be given the Holy Spirit.


I agree, we cannot KNOW. A good reason to not dogmatically insist, "They CAN'T." And I'm never comfortable with the whole argument of what God is impotent to do... I think this example of John the Baptist is just one of many that show we should not dogmatically tell God what He cannot do, I think it shows that God is NOT inept and incapable of giving His Spirit and the Gift of Faith to those under the magical (but never disclosed) age of X.

 

[Josiah]

Great! Then there is ZERO purpose for infant baptism! Infant baptism isn't for the infant. It's all for the parent and community coming to the ceremony.
Nothing mystical happens in the infant baptism and there is ZERO salvic regeneration taking place. Do you agree?

Absurd. Come on, you don't believe that.

We should not say no to the Commands of God simply because we can't GUARENTEE that as a result someone is going to heaven. That's just absurd.

You seem to accept the inseparable and equal other part of The Great Commission, to teach. But is EVERY PERSON who has ever heard the Gospel promised to go to heaven? Of course not. Therefore, by your apologetic, we are forbidden to teach people. Come on! That's just absurd and you don't believe that. You seem to accept The Great Commandment, to love, but is every person who is loved THEREFORE PROMISED to go the heaven? Of course not. Your whole premise is absurd and something you don't believe.


You continue to ignore and simply bypass the obvious. You all insist those under the age of X can't believe, can't have the Holy Spirit and yet we've given you Luke 1:15 and Luke 1:41 but you just dismiss it. You insist that you all just accept Matthew 28:19-20 "AS IS" with "NOTHING added or deleted" and then prove (dramatically!) in black and white, that to support your view you have to ADD a bunch of stuff, in fact you have to ADD every single point of yours because it's not what Jesus said. But you just evade this and bypass the obvious.

You continue to insist we shouldn't go beyond what Scripture STATES but when asked where Scripture STATES your points, you ignore it - every time - for over 80 pages now. Where is the verse, "But thou shalt NOT baptize and teach those under the age of X!" "Those under the age of X cannot be given faith or the Holy Spirit!" "The Great Commission is a waste of time and can't accomplish anything!" You keep saying you only go by what the Bible states.... okay..... but you persistently refuse to give the references to Scriptures that state what you do. And you have to hugely change what the Bible does say to support your limitations.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Both. See Luke 1:15, Luke 1:41. The Bible specifically, verbatim says BOTH were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Luke 1:15, Zechariah is told that John will be filled with the Spirit before his birth. Luke 1:41 does not say anything about John being filled with the Spirit.
Do all parents receive angelic revelation declaring their child is Spirit filled in the womb? Does that give them license to baptize the child at birth? Was John the Baptist baptized at birth? Was John the Baptist ever baptized himself?

Yes, JOHN's act was an act of faith. From one with faith. Yes, John wasn't even born yet (so likely had not yet attained your magical but never disclosed age of X). God is not impotent to give faith to those under your magical age of X.

Saving faith is not an act. Faith is a gift from God. Does the Bible tell us that all children are born with the gift of faith? (Think Ephesians 2:1-10 before answering.)
You are forcing a very specific incident upon God and demanding that all baptized infants are like John the Baptist. What text give you that authority?

See Matthew 19:14 It doesn't way, "Keep the children away from baptism and teaching."

Where do we see the term baptism in this text? Where do we see that failure to baptize keeps the children from the Kingdom?

See Ephesians 4:5 It doesn't say there are TWO baptisms - one involving water but no Holy Spirit, the other involving the Holy Spirit but no water. How many Baptisms does the Bible state there are?

One baptism.
Where is the word "water" added in Ephesians 4:5? Did I miss the word water? Perhaps it's written in invisible ink? Could it be you are forcing the text?
Into what/whom does the Spirit of God immerse us? Is it water or is it Christ Jesus? Why are you forcing two baptisms, Josiah?