Water Baptism

[MennoSota]

When the Lord says "born of water and the Spirit" he is referencing baptism even if you pretend otherwise. John 3:5You do not know the scriptures so you err in what you write in your posts. The Lord teaches through the letter of saint Peter that water is most definitely involved in salvation. 1Peter 3:21You do not know the gospel well enough to understand that what you are saying is absurd. The faithful are saved by grace and baptism is a means by which grace is conveyed John 3:5; Romans 6:3-5

Since you have no biblical evidence from observation, your personal opinions are empty of substance.

There is no pretending that baptism is never addressed or inferred in John 3:5. Neither Nicodemus nor Jesus made any mention of it. This means that the theory is created by men with an agenda to force an unsupported dogma on the text.

Based upon the evidence, your claim that I do not know the scriptures is interesting. Being that you simply go to a catechism or a favorite commentary for your response, it does not mark you as the well versed person you imagine yourself to be.

Clearly you will lean on the crutch of your church until death do you part. Be aware that God destroys crutches.

 

[MennoSota]

And 1,300 million Catholics. Maybe 300 million orthodox, and another 50 or so million Oriental Orthodox. It gets so complicated when theology is based on demographics.

So...1.3 billion going to hell while nominally clinging to the church and dying in their trespasses and sins. What weeping you should exhibit for your church, MC.

 

[Josiah]

The Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, because of their radical synergism, invented the Baptism dogma that is echoed by a few Protestants today.


Anti-Paedobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (although that age is not revealed); no underage baptisms. They have not one Scripture however that states this invention.


Credobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savi0or; must choose Jesus first. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Immersion Only: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water; no other mode permitted. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Elect Only: This very recent invention comes from Calvinist Anabaptists: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless and until they prove they are among the few for whom Jesus died. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Baptism Does Nothing: That Baptism is SO stressed in the NT and a part of the Great Commission because it does and accomplishes nothing (it is forbidden in so many cases because of this). They have not one Scripture that states this invention and there are numerous that suggest otherwise.


.

Are 43 million Baptists "a few"?

Yes. It's 1.87% of Christians. It was 0% before the late 16th Century when those radical synergistic Anabaptists invented all these prohibitions and denials.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, but with regard to the issue being discussed, you would have to add 2 billion other Christians of various denominations who share the Lutheran POV, whereas there are far fewer to add to the Baptist side.

2 billion with a Lutheran POV?
Only if you recognize the majority of Lutherans as following the social gospel, which has no connection to the body of Christ.
Just call them 2 billion dead person's on the path to hell.
Luther Seminary in St Paul is spitting out church leaders who deny the deity of Christ like it's a PEZ dispenser. The number of dead Lutheran churches in Minnesota is staggering and MN leads the nation in Lutheran membership.
So, your claim of 2 billion with a Lutheran POV is worthy of weeping not rejoicing.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, but with regard to the issue being discussed, you would have to add 2 billion other Christians of various denominations who share the Lutheran POV, whereas there are far fewer to add to the Baptist side.

Actually, there are 484 million Christians who oppose "infant baptism". So your support is heavily Catholic in origin and you likely have more serious doctrinal differences with them (or maybe not, I don't know much about the Anglican church except they have very formal services). Subtracting the 1.285 billion Catholics, there are 651 million non-Catholics that support "infant baptism". The statement that only a "few" Protestants oppose infant baptism was very misleading. A 57% to 43% split is hardly a "few".

 

[atpollard]

Yes. It's 1.87% of Christians. It was 0% before the late 16th Century when those radical synergistic Anabaptists invented all these prohibitions and denials.
.

Reread YOUR post.

"by a few Protestants today."

 

[Arsenios]

I'm speaking beyond just water, the act in these rituals is to be full submerged into them, to believe, to repent, to receive, ALL under His Name, now I ask if you have literally been baptised in Fire?? So that can't be literal can it? There must be a meaning beyond that.

Historic Christian Baptism is with Fire, and not a campfire... The Holy Fire of Christ... It does not burn the one being Baptized... Nor is it normally visible...

And yes, there are many meanings to "fire" that therefrom derive: Temptations, passions, trials, tribulations, heartbreak, and on and on...

Just as there is a meaning beyond water.

Beyond, yet including, for Christ was Baptized by John in the Jordan...

We are speaking rituals

We are speaking of the manner of one entering INTO Christ - How it happens, and it begins with repentance, which is a Type of Baptism by tears...

and it was a custom for Jews who wished to become rabies to be dipped in water, which is what Jesus HAD to do,

I do not think so... He would have then been baptized by the Rabbinic Priesthood, and they rejected him...

but now we are baptised in Jesus, the use of water is community ritual aka Tradition

We are Baptized BY Jesus, INTO Christ Anointed...
Nothing about "community ritual"...
The Baptism of Jesus is anything but traditional by Jewish standards...
It is normally a WITNESSED Mystery of Initiation INTO Christ...

and I find no fault in that, seeing water is abundant I can baptise others on my own like the bible says,...

Sand was MORE abundant...

You are not saying that the Bible tells us that we can all Baptize anyone we want into Christ on our own, are you?

So why do we NEED to have a priest baptise when we are told to ALL baptise each other?

When are we told to baptize each other?

I really don't care for the show they put on but when they do it,

It is not a show - It is the Christ prescribed Mystery of Initiation of a penitent INTO Christ's Holy Body...

we should do it as soon as the person believes and asked to be baptised.

That belief and request need the establishment of resolve...

In the early Church, Baptism normally came some 3 years after one had committed himself to Christ...

Easy come, easy go, and tent evangelizations a year later may find 3-4 out of the thousands "converted" still committed...

I believe in the believers baptism, but as soon as I hear someone say "I believe! i want to be baptised" I will find water and do it one the spot,

I hope you stay there to do follow up...

There is such a thing as patience...

I respect the tradition I just know that water does nothing for a someone who has no idea what's going on...

Confession of sin is needed - I have a friend who concealed his sin and got Baptized into Christ in the Russian Church...
He became delusional and was sent to a state psychiatric facility and completed his confession to psychiatrists...
They called the State Police who investigated him...
And he left the Orthodox Faith and is now in the Latin Church...

There is no such thing as a merely water Baptism into Christ...

That baptism was John's unto confession and repentance...

they aren't going to hell if they aren't baptised as an infant,

They are pretty much guaranteed the heavenly realm, being without sin...

they may be stinky though, so bathe them lol

Unpunished children are the very BANE of adult living!!


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

The Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, because of their radical synergism, invented the Baptism dogma that is echoed by a few Protestants today.


Anti-Paedobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (although that age is not revealed); no underage baptisms. They have not one Scripture however that states this invention.


Credobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savi0or; must choose Jesus first. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Immersion Only: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water; no other mode permitted. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Elect Only: This very recent invention comes from Calvinist Anabaptists: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless and until they prove they are among the few for whom Jesus died. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Baptism Does Nothing: That Baptism is SO stressed in the NTand a part of the Great Commission because it does and accomplishes nothing (it is forbidden in so many cases because of this). They have not one Scripture that states this invention and there are numerous that suggest otherwise.

Actually, there are 484 million Christians who oppose "infant baptism"

That would be 21% (so still few) It would have been 0% before the late 16th Century when those radical synergistic Anabaptists invented all these prohibitions and denials. But I question the 484 million. There are Baptist, Mormons and most Pentecostals, but 484 million? And remember, Calvin fully embraced infant baptism as do the vast majority of Calvinists like you. My wife was baptized in a Reformed church when she was one week old. By pouring.


And we are still waiting for the Scriptures: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)." The Anti-Paedobaptism stance you claim 21% of Christians today embrace (but none before these radical synergistic Anabaptists invented that dogma).

Reread YOUR post. "by a few Protestants today."

Valid point. It's true, not all Anti-Paedobaptists are Protestant, Mormons are also Anti-Paedobaptists. The LDS is one of the larger Anti-Padeobaptist groups and they do not regard themselves as Protestant. Now, read the above.





.

 

[Arsenios]

2 billion with a Lutheran POV?
Only if you recognize the majority of Lutherans as following the social gospel, which has no connection to the body of Christ.
Just call them 2 billion dead person's on the path to hell.
Luther Seminary in St Paul is spitting out church leaders who deny the deity of Christ like it's a PEZ dispenser. The number of dead Lutheran churches in Minnesota is staggering and MN leads the nation in Lutheran membership.
So, your claim of 2 billion with a Lutheran POV is worthy of weeping not rejoicing.

My mother was a Minnesota Lutheran...

You have Minnesota Muslims now...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

My mother was a Minnesota Lutheran...

You have Minnesota Muslims now...


Arsenios

And the Muslims are more devout than the Lutherans. Sadly, both are following the wide path.
May God intervene.

 

[Albion]

Actually, there are 484 million Christians who oppose "infant baptism". So your support is heavily Catholic in origin and you likely have more serious doctrinal differences with them (or maybe not, I don't know much about the Anglican church except they have very formal services). Subtracting the 1.285 billion Catholics, there are 651 million non-Catholics that support "infant baptism". The statement that only a "few" Protestants oppose infant baptism was very misleading. A 57% to 43% split is hardly a "few".

Your reasoning and your figures are both off. To begin with, this is not simply a question of how many Roman Catholics there are. But neither can you simply dismiss the largest Christian church in the world from your computations for some unknown reason that has nothing to do with baptizing or not baptizing infants!

In addition to them, there are about a half billion Eastern Christians. Then there are more Anglicans (115 million) than Lutherans (whose membership figures were previously cited), plus other Protestants such as Presbyterians and Reformed, Methodists, and others.

Far from being the 57-43 split you imagine, the split is more like 80%-20% in favor of the churches and people who baptize infants.

Finally, you seem incensed by the word "few," which did not appear in my post. I said that the number of anti-paedobaptists is "far fewer" than the number of those who baptize infants...and that is entirely true. 43 million Baptists (to use your figures) plus some smaller groups like Pentecostals, Restorationists, and various fundamentalists IS "far fewer" than the number baptizing infants. That's 43 million Baptists plus, out of a total of more than 2 billion Christians in the world.








.

 

[atpollard]

We are speaking of the manner of one entering INTO Christ - How it happens, and it begins with repentance, which is a Type of Baptism by tears...
Arsenios

Big thumbs up ... I like typologies and that is one worthy of chewing on for a while. :thumbsup:

 

[atpollard]

Your reasoning and your figures are both off. To begin with, this is not simply a question of how many Roman Catholics there are. But neither can you simply dismiss the largest Christian church in the world from your computations for some unknown reason ...

The reasining is not "unknown", you are simply not following along.

Josiah quoted a vague statistical reference to "a few modern Protestants" and I was attempting to quantify "modern Protestants" to verify or disprove his claim that it was only a "few" Protestants. Catholics do not count as Protestants; that should be self-evident. ALL Catholics practice "infant baptism", so while 80% of Christians practice infant baptism, only 57% of Protestants practice infant baptism. So for the statement "a few modern Protestants", Josiah is characterizing 43% of "modern Protestants" as a 'few modern Protestants'. A 3:2 ratio of modern Protestants should not properly be called "a few".

Frankly, given the disparity in numbers, all "Protestants" should be considered "a few" compared to Catholics and if a 3:2 ratio is the criteria for dismissing doctrine, then we should all venerate the Bishop of Rome and pray to Mary as more than half of all Christians do.

 

[MennoSota]

Your reasoning and your figures are both off. To begin with, this is not simply a question of how many Roman Catholics there are. But neither can you simply dismiss the largest Christian church in the world from your computations for some unknown reason that has nothing to do with baptizing or not baptizing infants!

In addition to them, there are about a half billion Eastern Christians. Then there are more Anglicans (115 million) than Lutherans (whose membership figures were previously cited), plus other Protestants such as Presbyterians and Reformed, Methodists, and others.

Far from being the 57-43 split you imagine, the split is more like 80%-20% in favor of the churches and people who baptize infants.

Finally, you seem incensed by the word "few," which did not appear in my post. I said that the number of anti-paedobaptists is "far fewer" than the number of those who baptize infants...and that is entirely true. 43 million Baptists (to use your figures) plus some smaller groups like Pentecostals, Restorationists, and various fundamentalists IS "far fewer" than the number baptizing infants. That's 43 million Baptists plus, out of a total of more than 2 billion Christians in the world.








.

Of course the split is higher. What unsaved, godless, person wouldn't take getting to heaven via infant baptism over faith shown by repentance and obedience to a holy God?
Get to heaven by a bit of water being tossed on me? Sign me up. I'll get all my bases covered and then live for myself like all the other godless people.

 

[atpollard]

Finally, you seem incensed by the word "few," which did not appear in my post. I said that the number of anti-paedobaptists is "far fewer" than the number of those who baptize infants...and that is entirely true. 43 million Baptists (to use your figures) plus some smaller groups like Pentecostals, Restorationists, and various fundamentalists IS "far fewer" than the number baptizing infants. That's 43 million Baptists plus, out of a total of more than 2 billion Christians in the world.

OK, I'll engage your post as your post rather than your jumping in on a point I was making about some sloppy statistics.

Why are there more Christians who baptize infants?

 

[Josiah]

The Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, because of their radical synergism, invented the Baptism dogma that is echoed by a few Protestants today.


Anti-Paedobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X (although that age is not revealed); no underage baptisms. They have not one Scripture however that states this invention.


Credobaptism: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savi0or; must choose Jesus first. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Immersion Only: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely immersed under water; no other mode permitted. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Elect Only: This very recent invention comes from Calvinist Anabaptists: That we are forbidden to baptize any unless and until they prove they are among the few for whom Jesus died. They have not one Scripture that states this invention.


Baptism Does Nothing: That Baptism is SO stressed in the NT and a part of the Great Commission because it does and accomplishes nothing (it is forbidden in so many cases because of this). They have not one Scripture that states this invention and there are numerous that suggest otherwise.


.

Josiah quoted a vague statistical reference to "a few modern Protestants"

Yes, and I immediately yielded the point; there ARE non-Protestants who embrace these Anabaptist prohibitions and denials, too. Among them are the Mormons (LDS), J.W.'s, Oneness Pentecostals, and some others.

But such groups aside, my point was valid: it is generally a few Protestants that echo these Anabaptist inventions. You claim it's as high as 20%, okay, I doubt that, but it's still a clear minority.

Protestants who embrace Infant Baptism include all the major Protestant groups: Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed (except for a small subset of them).

But you jumping all over percentages doesn't change the reality: You have nothing in Scripture that states ANY of the prohibitions, restrictions and denials that these radical synergistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century (even if Baptists, Mormons, JW's, Oneness Pentecostals and a small subset of Reformed folks echo it).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why are there more Christians who baptize infants?

That's not an easy question to answer well. There is a simple superficial answer that is "there are more because it is a much older position and more people are born into it because it has been around for so long" which amounts to "tradition" in either a positive sense (holy tradition) or a negative sense (traditions of men) depending on which side of the fence you happen to argue from. But like nearly everything in religion and philosophy there is a lot more than the superficial in a good answer. And I am not so sure I can do a good answer justice. How about you, can you give a good answer that does justice to the subject from your own perspective and without setting fire to the other side of the fence? I think it is not very easy unless one feels very mild tempered and rational and has a lot of good information to share.

 

[atpollard]

You have nothing in Scripture that states ANY of the prohibitions, restrictions and denials ... (insults redacted).

There are no prohibitions, there are commands that you choose to ignore ...

"make disciples" and "baptizing" [Matthew 28:19]
Did you make them disciples when they were being baptized?

"Repent" and "be baptized" [Acts 2:38]
Did they repent before they were baptized?

"received his word were baptized" [Acts 2:41]
Did they receive his word before they were baptized?

"believed" and "baptized" [Acts 8:12]
Do those baptized believe?

"What prevents me from being baptized?” (asking) [Acts 8:36]
Have they asked to be baptized?

"praying" [Acts 9:11) and "baptized" [Acts 9:18]
Have those being baptized prayed?

"You know of Jesus" [Acts 10:38] and "Holy Spirit fell" and "listening to the message" [Acts 10:44] and "baptized" [Acts 10:48]
Do those being baptized know Jesus and have they listened to the message?

"the Lord opened her heart" and "respond to the things spoken" and "baptized" [Acts 16:14-15]
Has the Lord opened the heart of the person being baptized so they could respond to the things spoken?

"Believe" and "the word of the Lord" and "baptized" [Acts 16:31-33]
Do those being baptized believe the word of the Lord?

"believed" and "baptized" [Acts 18:8]
Do those being baptized already believe?

If you really want to discuss this, feel free to pick a verse and a command where you would like to start and we can discuss what scripture says and what our respective churches do. If you just want to ignore scripture and rant at me about 16th Century Anabaptists, then I will wash my hands of you as just a troll looking to provoke a response with no real desire to discuss anything.

 

[atpollard]

How about you ...

I’d like to wait and see what Albion might have to say before I share my thoughts.

 

[Josiah]

There are no prohibitions, there are commands that you choose to ignore ...

Then quote the commands: "Thou must baptize but ONLY if the person hath first celebrated their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is.") The Anti-Paedbaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptists invented that you echo.

Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first hath proven that they hath accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior." The Credobaptism dogma the synergistic Anabaptist invented that you echo.

Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if they first prove that they are among the few for whom Jesus died." The invention of Calvinist Anabaptists.

Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize but ONLY if every cell of their body is fully covered by water." The "immersion only" dogma of the Anabaptists that you echo.

Quote the command: "Thou shalt baptize because it doth absolutely nothing which it why it is so important and stressed so much."




.