Would I be admitted?

[Albion]

Joh_3:22
After these things
came Jesus and His disciples
into the land of Judaea;

and there He tarried with them,
and baptized.

But per John 4:2 ... "although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." So it looks like he was not doing it himself, if that matters. At least not on that occasion.

 

[Arsenios]

But per John 4:2 ... "although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." So it looks like he was not doing it himself, if that matters. At least not on that occasion.

I was hoping Menno would press this point...

Because it shows Biblically that
When the Apostles are Baptizing
It is Christ Who is Baptizing...

Christ is the Baptizer when the Apostolic Church Baptizes...

Thank-you for pressing the point...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

I was hoping Menno would press this point...

Because it shows Biblically that
When the Apostles are Baptizing
It is Christ Who is Baptizing...

Christ is the Baptizer when the Apostolic Church Baptizes...

Thank-you for pressing the point...


Arsenios

I agree very much with your point, but not with the limitation and restriction you place on it.


When any Christian administers the Sacrament, Christ is the One blessing.... The one administering need not be an Apostle or a specific, individual, singular denomination (as if a denomination CAN baptize anyone)




.

 

[Arsenios]

I agree very much with your point, but not with the limitation and restriction you place on it.
When any Christian administers the Sacrament, Christ is the One blessing.... The one administering need not be an Apostle or a specific, individual, singular denomination (as if a denomination CAN baptize anyone)

Well, Christ sent only His Apostles to disciple all the nations, baptizing them and teaching them...

Christ's disciples ARE the Body of Christ...

They baptize INTO that Body those seeking entry into it in repentance from sin...

Where your point gets sketchy these days is that anyone who reads the Bible and claims to be thereby a Christian can claim warrant to baptize...

Do you agree with me that Christian Baptism is the fulfillment of OT Circumcision?
That those Baptized into Christ do not need Circumcision?

We do know that those experiencing the Holy Spirit still need Baptism,
As the Cornelius party's Baptism abundantly illustrates...


Arsenios

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

In Post #74 ImaginaryDay2 questioned my thought expressed in Post #72 (Once again, I suggest that the hoops through which Baby Baptisers find themselves having to jump, should act as triggers to other Readers – triggers for them to question the foundations on which those particular doctrines and practices are based.).

He then presented a number of references apparently pertaining to water baptism (but two of which may in fact not so pertain, marked as [?]): John 3:5 [?]; Acts 2:38; Acts 16:33; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4a; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:11-12; Titus 3:4-6 [?]; 1 Peter 3:21.

He then stated: No hoops, just scriptural study., the implication being that the above verses provide unequivocal support for the baptism of babies.

But do they?

The problem lies not with the presented reference themselves, but with the interpretations that are superimposed upon them.

Let’s explore the situation by asking a progressive series of questions. Precise answers to these questions (as opposed to the often imprecise answers that have been issued by some Posters in the past [but not by ImaginaryDay2 from memory]) – precise answers will help us determine with a high degree of accuracy, both the benefits that are understood to accrue to babies when they are baptised, and the Scriptural basis for those individually documented benefits.

==============================================================================================

To start the ball rolling, it would be sensible to establish just who (the types of people) were being baptised by the apostles (as understood by the Baby Baptisers). That will then guide us with respect to the questions to follow.

(The situation in apostolic times was not that different from that in Jakarta, Indonesia, when I lived there. Properties in the rich areas had family accommodation for live-in servants. Those servants were often husband-and-wife teams (as where I was renting a room), and sometimes a servant family included children.)

So, an apostle or other good-news-bringer is invited to present his revolutionary message to a household. It is reasonable to assume that any and all servants would be invited to the presentation. So, in the general case, there would end up being: adults who accepted the message; adults who rejected the message; infants associated with a family in which there was at least one believer; infants associated with a family in which there was no believer.

==============================================================================================

Therefore, the first question is: which of the following groups of people was it apostolic practice to baptise in a household:
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
- People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both?

Once the precise, unequivocal answer is received for that question, we can then move on to the next question in sequence.

I invite ImaginaryDay2 to take the front running in supplying the requested information for us.

==============================================================================================

 

[Albion]

Therefore, the first question is: which of the following groups of people was it apostolic practice to baptise in a household:

X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
X- People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both

- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their minor children.







.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

==============================================================================================

In Post #74 ImaginaryDay2 questioned my thought expressed in Post #72 (Once again, I suggest that the hoops through which Baby Baptisers find themselves having to jump, should act as triggers to other Readers – triggers for them to question the foundations on which those particular doctrines and practices are based.).

He then presented a number of references apparently pertaining to water baptism (but two of which may in fact not so pertain, marked as [?]): John 3:5 [?]; Acts 2:38; Acts 16:33; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-4a; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:11-12; Titus 3:4-6 [?]; 1 Peter 3:21.

He then stated: No hoops, just scriptural study., the implication being that the above verses provide unequivocal support for the baptism of babies.

But do they?

The problem lies not with the presented reference themselves, but with the interpretations that are superimposed upon them.

Let’s explore the situation by asking a progressive series of questions. Precise answers to these questions (as opposed to the often imprecise answers that have been issued by some Posters in the past [but not by ImaginaryDay2 from memory]) – precise answers will help us determine with a high degree of accuracy, both the benefits that are understood to accrue to babies when they are baptised, and the Scriptural basis for those individually documented benefits.

==============================================================================================

To start the ball rolling, it would be sensible to establish just who (the types of people) were being baptised by the apostles (as understood by the Baby Baptisers). That will then guide us with respect to the questions to follow.

(The situation in apostolic times was not that different from that in Jakarta, Indonesia, when I lived there. Properties in the rich areas had family accommodation for live-in servants. Those servants were often husband-and-wife teams (as where I was renting a room), and sometimes a servant family included children.)

So, an apostle or other good-news-bringer is invited to present his revolutionary message to a household. It is reasonable to assume that any and all servants would be invited to the presentation. So, in the general case, there would end up being: adults who accepted the message; adults who rejected the message; infants associated with a family in which there was at least one believer; infants associated with a family in which there was no believer.

==============================================================================================

Therefore, the first question is: which of the following groups of people was it apostolic practice to baptise in a household:
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
- People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both?

Once the precise, unequivocal answer is received for that question, we can then move on to the next question in sequence.

I invite ImaginaryDay2 to take the front running in supplying the requested information for us.

==============================================================================================

Since I'm not sure what other "requested information" you're looking for, other than an answer to the question, I would answer as scripture advises us - and as as I've already answered:

"And he (Paul) took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 16:33 - see commentary below)

[Quote="Expositor's Greek Testament - Acts 16:33 - emphasis mine]It may of course be said that the expression evidently implies the same persons who are instructed in Acts 16:32, but it cannot be said that the phrase may not include any other members of the household.
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/egt/acts/16.htm[/quote]

Given that - the Apostolic example suggests that the ones baptised are those hearing/believing the word, along with "all their house". "All their house" can suggest family members of age, guests, servants, etc. - anyone who has heard/believed the word -as well as infants. time I've spent in devoted study of this topic cannot be summarized in a few short paragraphs, and for that I apologize. I'm afraid that's about as succinct as I can be. I would suggest the same that was suggested to me - study of the subject and the nuances involved in (what appears to be) a simple memorial outward observance.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #85, Me:

Therefore, the first question is: which of the following groups of people was it apostolic practice to baptise in a household:
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
- People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both?

Poat #86, Albion:

X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
X- People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both

- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their minor children.

==============================================================================================

So, children that are adopted at a tender age are unfit as candidates for infant baptism, and must miss out on all the benefits that (supposedly) accrue from being subject to that rite.

Really?

Do other CH members of pedobaptist persuasion agree with that?

Does God have a set against adopted children? Are they to be denied tender-age benefits that natural descendants can receive?

==============================================================================================

Discussion, please.

Until this matter is cleared up, there is no point progressing to the next question.

Based on what authority is the decision to be made?

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

Brother ImaginaryDay2, do you know if you'd be accepted or not yet?

 

[Albion]

So, children that are adopted at a tender age are unfit as candidates for infant baptism, and must miss out on all the benefits that (supposedly) accrue from being subject to that rite.

Really?

Certainly not. And they were included, not excluded, by the wording of the reply you are now disputing.

Do other CH members of pedobaptist persuasion agree with that?

(Note: In the following, I treat agreement with "that" as referring to my statement above)

They will have to answer for themselves, but the answer is yes, so far as the churches which are not of the Anabaptist tradition are concerned.









.

 

[Josiah]

So, children that are adopted at a tender age are unfit as candidates for infant baptism, and must miss out on all the benefits that (supposedly) accrue from being subject to that rite.

Really?

Friend, you have the positions reversed.

It is the ANTI-paedobaptism folks who scream all the "DON'T! CAN'T! FORBIDDEN!" It's the ANTI-paedobaptism folks who invented all those limitations, restrictions and denials in the 16th Century. It's the ANTI-paedobaptism group who dogmatically insist that if some sub-set of humans is not specifically stated as included in something, ergo they are excluded...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Brother ImaginaryDay2, do you know if you'd be accepted or not yet?

I've no clue

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

It is always obvious when my finger is approaching a sore point. Readers might have noticed.

There is always an attempt to muddy the water somehow.

Consider the following:

==============================================================================================

In Post #85, one of the options was deliberately worded to include both natural and adopted children:

- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or

In Post #86, Albion responded in a way that implied that adopted children were excluded:

…
X- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
…
- People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their minor children.
...

In Post #88, I asked that the issue be clarified:

So, children that are adopted at a tender age are unfit as candidates for infant baptism, and must miss out on all the benefits that (supposedly) accrue from being subject to that rite.
Really?
Do other CH members of pedobaptist persuasion agree with that?
Does God have a set against adopted children? Are they to be denied tender-age benefits that natural descendants can receive?

And that prompted the following reply in Post #90, which states that adopted infants are not excluded – (exactly what the statement of mine that Albion originally disputed, plainly indicated):

Certainly not. And they were included, not excluded, by the wording of the reply you are now disputing.

==============================================================================================

Readers may rightly wonder what sore point needed the protection of the illogical digression.

I will address ImaginaryDay2’s welcome response (Post #87) shortly. (Further digressions permitting.)

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

So, children that are adopted at a tender age are unfit as candidates for infant baptism, and must miss out on all the benefits that (supposedly) accrue from being subject to that rite.

Really?

Certainly not. And they were included, not excluded, by the wording of the reply you are now disputing.

Agreed with the above response.

Do other CH members of pedobaptist persuasion agree with that?

For what reason would anyone agree with what you suggested?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've no clue

I thought that would be the case. You could send an email asking the local Baptist pastor what he would advise if you were to seek membership in either his church or a similar Baptist church elsewhere but that might be more trouble than the questions deserves.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

This whole situation is getting better and better. (As a diversion, that is. Readers take note. And ask yourselves why it seems so necessary.)

To recap:
- In Post #85 I suggested that adopted children and natural children were equally eligible for infant baptism (“their legal infants”);
- In Post #86 Albion invalidated that suggestion, and substituted “their minor children”;
- In Post #88 I asked if other pedobaptists agreed with Albion’s apparent exclusion of adopted infants;
- In Post #90 Albion then stated that adopted children are not excluded – exactly what my original statement that he invalidated, had stated;
- In Post #94 ImaginaryDay2 appeared to attribute the exclusion of adopted children, to me.

==============================================================================================

Could it really be considered inappropriate, if Readers thought they detected a closing of ranks – in defence of something seen to be under potential threat?


Now back to the questions. Maybe that “something” above will identify itself as we go.

And we will directly answer ImaginaryDay2’s question from Post #1 (“...would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?”)

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

- In Post #94 ImaginaryDay2 appeared to attribute the exclusion of adopted children, to me.

The suggestion was made by you.

Could it really be considered inappropriate, if Readers thought they detected a closing of ranks – in defence of something seen to be under potential threat?

What do you suppose is that is so "under threat" that some need to "close ranks"?

Maybe that “something” above will identify itself as we go.

I hope so. As of now you've kept it a mystery. I'm on the edge of my seat (or lounging back on it, to be more precise )

And we will directly answer ImaginaryDay2’s question from Post #1 (“...would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?”)

That'd be nice

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

In Post #1 ImaginaryDay2 told us his baptismal history (sprinkled or something similar as an infant using the trinitarian formula in the Presbyterian Church, then baptised as a believer in the name of Jesus alone by a church that did not believe in the Trinity.)

He then asked would he be welcomed into membership within mainline baptist churches.

Based on my association with a Baptist church over a number of years, the answer is No. For three reasons.

1. The Baptist tradition is to baptise only people that the Baptist church considers to be believers.

2. The Baptist church recognises only baptism by full immersion.

Therefore, ImaginaryDay2’s first baptism is considered null and void.

3. Generally speaking, the Baptist church recognises only (full immersion) baptisms performed using the trinitarian formula. That is common to most churches. In fact, in recent years in more than one part of the world, groups of churches agreed to recognise each other’s baptisms, as long as they continued to use the trinitarian formula.

So ImaginaryDay2 is out of luck there, too.

==============================================================================================

By way of contrast, the well-documented Apostolic practice was to baptise in the name of Jesus alone. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:36,48; Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3)

And as previously pointed out by a poster named visionary, Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI, and recognised as one of the greatest Roman Catholic scholars [I could not find that scholar reference a few minutes ago when I looked for it again, but I have seen it]) admitted that the trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 was not in fact stated by Jesus, but was a later addition to the text (that is, a deliberate corruption).

==============================================================================================

Now we’ll see how many people will try to twist what I’ve said, to mean something else.

But perhaps they won’t try after all, now that I’m preempting that attack.

It is obvious that I was not questioning the doctrine of the Trinity. (Readers will have noticed that my questions regarding doctrine and practice (and requests for supporting Scripture), pertain to post-Nicene theological developments.) It is abundantly clear that I was merely pointing out (as is my custom) that the churches of Christendom should follow Inspired Apostolic Practice, and asking (indirectly): Upon what basis (now known to be valid or invalid) do those churches deliberately not do so? And: What does God think of that?


Because he has mentioned no third baptism, are we to assume that ImaginaryDay2 was welcomed into the Lutheran church on the basis of his first baptism?

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

Because he has mentioned no third baptism, are we to assume that ImaginaryDay2 was welcomed into the Lutheran church on the basis of his first baptism?

==============================================================================================

Holy scripture tells us that there is one baptism not several.

Ephesians 4:1-6 1 I, therefore, the prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live worthily of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.​

 

[Albion]

- In Post #90 Albion then stated that adopted children are not excluded – exactly what my original statement that he invalidated, had stated;

People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers (and no-one else); or
People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus their legal infants; or
People who made a reasoned, personal decision to become believers, plus those people who decided not to become believers; or
People who made the decision to become believers, plus people who decided not to become believers, plus the legal infants of both

Albion made no such statement! As usual, you debate against yourself.

But as to the claim itself, my linguistically challenged friend, do us the favor of pointing to which one of your choices above includes -- "exactly" or otherwise -- minor children who are not infants such as four or five-year-olds. <_< These are the most common members of a typical first century household that the New Testament tells us were baptized.











.