Water Baptism

[Albion]

As a side note, we are playing into the anti-paedobaptist line by agreeing always to speak of infants. While infants are baptized in all the historic Christian churches, the opponents of infant baptism will baptize an eight year old (to use an actual example; I have no doubt that seven year olds have also been baptized there).

So the question is this--

Where does the Bible instruct us to baptize eight year olds but not six or seven year olds? And what is the difference between them when it comes to making a commitment to Christ?

 

[MoreCoffee]

As a side note, we are playing into the anti-paedobaptist line by agreeing always to speak of infants. While infants are baptized in all the historic Christian churches, the opponents of infant baptism will baptize an eight year old (to use an actual example; I have no doubt that seven year olds have also been baptized there).

So the question is this--

Where does the Bible instruct us to baptize eight year olds but not six or seven year olds? And what is the difference between them when it comes to making a commitment to Christ?

Yep, but I am sure I said that with fewer words already

 

[atpollard]

So many words and so little supporting scripture.

So I am left with the same option that I have always been faced, to either honor all of the things Holy Scripture describes as being associated with baptism (like the person being baptized also hearing and believing) or abandoning that for VERY LONG HELD traditions. I acknowledge the antiquity of your traditions, but cannot bring myself to reject the actual inspired word for any tradition.

 

[atpollard]

So the question is this--

Where does the Bible instruct us to baptize eight year olds but not six or seven year olds? And what is the difference between them when it comes to making a commitment to Christ?

It doesn’t.

It never says to ‘not baptize’ anyone. That is the point that I cannot get Josiah to accept. Baptist do not claim scripture FORBIDS baptism under condition ‘X’. Scripture describes baptism occurring under condition ‘Y’, so anytime you have ‘Y’ you should have a baptism.

Baptism is associated in scripture with hearing the word and believing and repenting. Baptism is not associated in scripture with people who have never heard of Jesus, or who do not believe in Jesus or who reject the suggestion that they need to repent.

Where does any particular infant fall between those extremes?
Where does any particular 6 year old fall between those two extremes?
Where does any particular 8 year old fall between those two extremes?
... For that matter, where does any particular 30 year old fall between those two extremes?

It is not about age, it is about the command to hear and believe and repent and be baptized.

 

[Albion]

Yep, but I am sure I said that with fewer words already

Probably. And not just you.

However, with so many attempts being sidestepped, I thought it might take us being more specific--on all the aspects of this issue.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So many words and so little supporting scripture.

So I am left with the same option that I have always been faced, to either honor all of the things Holy Scripture describes as being associated with baptism (like the person being baptized also hearing and believing) or abandoning that for VERY LONG HELD traditions. I acknowledge the antiquity of your traditions, but cannot bring myself to reject the actual inspired word for any tradition.

I included a passage of scripture that illustrated the theme I drew your attention to. The passage was

[Act 18:8] Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house. And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptised.​

And then I observed that Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe with both hearing and faith appropriate to their age and as they grow in maturity they hear and believe with hearing and faith appropriate to their age until they reach sufficient maturity to choose between receiving what they hear and believe and decide if is credible or not on their own cognisance.

Albion noted that some Baptists baptise children at ages as low as 8 years and possibly younger yet do not regard that as inappropriate because they see and understand that those children hear and believe the gospel with hearing and faith appropriate to their age.

What more do you want?

 

[atpollard]

I cannot speak for Lutheran babies nor for Lutheran adults but I will offer this observation regarding Catholic infants.

Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe with both hearing and faith appropriate to their age and as they grow in maturity they hear and believe with hearing and faith appropriate to their age until they reach sufficient maturity to choose between receiving what they hear and believe and decide if is credible or not on their own cognisance.

What does it mean for someone (a baptized infant in this case) to “believe” until the are sufficiently mature to “choose” if they believe or not?
Is being IN CHRIST something that comes and goes?

 

[Albion]

It doesn’t.

It never says to ‘not baptize’ anyone.

That's what we thought, too.

That is the point that I cannot get Josiah to accept. Baptist do not claim scripture FORBIDS baptism under condition ‘X’. Scripture describes baptism occurring under condition ‘Y’, so anytime you have ‘Y’ you should have a baptism.

Very poor reasoning there. If anytime that it says to baptize...you therefore do baptize, it is not saying that the example given of a baptism is the only situation under which a baptism should or can take place! That was probably the main point I was trying to make to you in my previous post.

Baptism is associated in scripture with hearing the word and believing and repenting.

In a world in which almost every living person was a non-believer, of course those are going to be the examples given. We do not force baptism on non-believers.

And when someone went out to make converts, do you think they would aim to speak to children rather than adults?? No. But the fact that they approached adults, as the logical candidates, says nothing about everyone else.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does it mean for someone (a baptized infant in this case) to “believe” until the are sufficiently mature to “choose” if they believe or not?
Is being IN CHRIST something that comes and goes?

It means pretty much the same thing that is meant for anybody of any age that is baptised and who decides at each stage of life if they want to continue in the faith and practise of Christ's church. Continuing to believe and practise one's faith in Jesus Christ is a life long calling and each and every person who is baptised makes decisions all through their life about continuing or not in the faith and life of faith that they took up at the time of their baptism.

 

[atpollard]

I included a passage of scripture that illustrated the theme I drew your attention to. The passage was

[Act 18:8] Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house. And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptised.​

And then I observed that Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe with both hearing and faith appropriate to their age and as they grow in maturity they hear and believe with hearing and faith appropriate to their age until they reach sufficient maturity to choose between receiving what they hear and believe and decide if is credible or not on their own cognisance.

Albion noted that some Baptists baptise children at ages as low as 8 years and possibly younger yet do not regard that as inappropriate because they see and understand that those children hear and believe the gospel with hearing and faith appropriate to their age.

What more do you want?

Respectfully, the verse was from my post which you quoted and states that Crispus believed and his entire household believed. Thus scripture states that ALL who were baptized from the house of Crispus also believed. What the verse does not say, is the age of the members of Crispus household.

What you wrote added no additional scriptures.

“Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe” is your opinion, not evidence or proof. [sorry]
What Albion noted reinforces my point, it is about the scripture linking “believe” to “baptism” and not about age.

What I would really like is a scripture that clearly indicates an infant being baptized, so the inspired word of God could absolutely settle the issue one and for all time that infants should be baptized and God grants “belief” to baptized infants. I have never been able to locate such a verse myself. What I will settle for is some scriptural evidence that an infant can hear the word of God and believe it (which seems to be the general guidelines for baptism). Even scientific evidence suggesting cognitive development in early childhood development would be more that “personal opinions”.

What I got (from multiple posters) was a LOT of personal opinions.
Which is not really “Christian Theology”.

 

[atpollard]

... says nothing about everyone else.

That’s the Baptist point.
We baptize how we know to do it from scripture, not what scripture says nothing about.

There are LOTS of examples of people who heard the word and were baptized, so we preach the word to people (of all ages) before they are baptized.
There are LOTS of examples of people who believed the word and were baptized, so we wait until someone claims to believe before they are baptized.
There are LOTS of examples of people who repented and were baptized, so we call on people to repent before they are baptized.
There are NO examples of baptisms involving people who never heard the Gospel, “unbelievers” or the “unrepentant”, so we do not baptize anyone who has never heard, does not claim to believe, or is unrepentant.
There are references to “Households”, but scripture is silent on ages in all cases (so we make no assumptions about age) and clear that some entire households heard and believed, so we stand by the often presented example of hearing and believing going hand in hand with baptism.

Arguments about what Scripture does not say do not change what it does say, so the burden of proof is on others to explain why they baptize people who have not heard and believed, when scripture calls people to hear and believe and repent and they will receive the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing their inheritance.

 

[atpollard]

Nope.

While some Baptists try to make this case, it simply isn't true. And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years.

The Didache, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. Now, why doesn't he know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else knew this for 1500 years, they suddenly know the meaning of the word?

What the Didache actually says:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Since these ECF knew both Greek and the command of scripture perfectly and we must follow what they say, Lutherans do use “living water” (that means a running stream or river) unless there is no living water in your geographic region, don’t they? And your infants are fasting 24 hours before baptism, right?


If not, then why the selective use of this.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Respectfully, the verse was from my post which you quoted and states that Crispus believed and his entire household believed. Thus scripture states that ALL who were baptized from the house of Crispus also believed. What the verse does not say, is the age of the members of Crispus household.

What you wrote added no additional scriptures.

Why do you want additional scriptures when you've asked for scriptures and the one in your post illustrates the inclusion of a household in belief & baptism as expressed by one member (Crispus in this case) what is deficient about that passage as an example for faith and baptism for everyone in the house at whatever level is appropriate for the persons in the house at whatever age they were.

The idea that wife, son, daughter, servant, adult and infant alike all were baptised because all believed with Crispus is the point isn't it? That is what the passage implies is it not?

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles. And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptised. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people. And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things. And he drove them from the tribunal.
(Acts 18:1-16)​

Each person believed with faith appropriate to their understanding. If there were infants in the house they believed because the passage teaches that the whole house believed.

Is it not the case that you are assuming that infants in particular cannot believe? Isn't that the core of your argument; specifically that infants below some age at which they can give what is alleged to be a credible profession of faith are, in your opinion, incapable of believing the gospel? My response to that thought is

"why? why assume that infants cannot believe with faith appropriate to their age when we all accept that children who express faith at very tender years are expressing real faith and if at some later stage in life that faith matures into a lively Christian walk with God then we all rejoice and if it does not then we all pray that, God willing, it shall some day." ​

There are other passages that mention household faith/baptism as well as this one so why assume that children were not there? Catholics do not assume that anyone baptised automatically becomes irreversibly committed to Christ and irreversibly saved. Catholics accept that everyone who is baptised becomes a Christian by baptism and at every stage of life thereafter they may choose to accept or reject what they received in baptism.

“Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe” is your opinion, not evidence or proof. [sorry]
What Albion noted reinforces my point, it is about the scripture linking “believe” to “baptism” and not about age.

.

What I would really like is a scripture that clearly indicates an infant being baptized

I do not want to be unfair but I cannot help but think that you're asking for the same thing in principle that Josiah wanted. You ask for a verse that you know is not there just like he asks for verses that he knows do not exist - verses commanding that infants not be baptised or that only people at or above some specific age may be baptised. You and I know, and God willing have the honesty to admit, that no such verses exist and therefore the matter is a matter decided by other factors. For you the factors appear to be belief that some level of cognitive maturity is needed to believe and for me the factors are that baptism and belief always go together and that belief is always expressed in ways appropriate to the abilities of the person who is baptised and believes.

I think of baptism as being rightly given to all who apply for it either on their own behalf or on behalf of the children. I think that children are rightly included in the new covenant just as they were in the old covenant. I receive baptism as appropriate for adult believers and their seed (their children) because that is how God deals with people in the old covenant and how saint Peter talks about the new covenant in the sermon that he preached on Pentecost day. But you see it differently.

I do not expect you to change your mind nor to accept my beliefs. You ought not to expect that I will change my mind and accept your beliefs. If all we can do is debate about the matter by talking past each other then we have no right to expect any change of any kind because we would not be communicating. So let's make an attempt to talk to and with one another. Even if we never change our minds we can at least try to understand why the other believes as they do.

, so the inspired word of God could absolutely settle the issue one and for all time that infants should be baptized and God grants “belief” to baptized infants. I have never been able to locate such a verse myself. What I will settle for is some scriptural evidence that an infant can hear the word of God and believe it (which seems to be the general guidelines for baptism). Even scientific evidence suggesting cognitive development in early childhood development would be more that “personal opinions”.

What I got was a LOT of personal opinions.
Which is not really “Christian Theology”.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 18:8

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

This verse shows belief first, then baptize. We see his entire household believes. We do not observe anything beyond this in the verse.
Acts 16:30-33

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

In this passage we observe Paul telling the Phillippian jailer to believe and be saved. We do not see, "be baptized to be saved." The entire household is told to believe.
We observe that the jailer and his family are baptized. We don't read his whole household was baptized. We have no information about the ages of his family. What we know is to be saved they must believe.

 

[Josiah]

I have some spare time, so I will meet you part way and answer ONE of your questions (with scripture as requested) then wait for you to respond to mine

While some Baptists try to make this case, it simply isn't true. And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC
typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years.

The Didache, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. Now, why doesn't he know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else knew this for 1500 years, they suddenly know the meaning of the word? Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OT equal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century).

NOW IT IS MY TURN Act 18 :8 NASB 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized. So Crispus believed and was baptized. Do Lutheran infants believe?

God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him. See Matthew 18:6, etc., etc. Note the word "mikron" literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.


But of course, this verse doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.

Do all the members of Lutheran households believe?

We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.

Have Lutheran infants BELIEVED and gotten Baptized?

Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."




Now, where are these prohibitions, denials and mandates that are the dogma you echo stated in Scripture?

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath reached their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

What the Didache says:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before

I'm addressing your apologetic that the word "baptize" in GREEK means and mandates full immersion in water... and that's your defense of the Anabaptist invention of "immersion ONLY."


Yes. The Didache was written IN GREEK about 100 AD. By one who knew and spoke and wrote in GREEK... within a century of the NT. And obviously, the author didn't know that word "baptize" in Greek mandates to IMMERSE entirely under water as the Anabaptists claim to have discovered. It seems no one who knew Greek, who spoke Greek, who wrote in Greek knew what these German speaking Anabaptists 1500 years later suddenly discovered: that the word MEANS and MANDATES full immersion under water. The Greek speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church STILL don't know that's what the word means; but these tiny number of German speaking Anabaptist - who didn't speak Greek, didn't know Greek, dogmatically KNEW it. Can you explain?




.

 

[Albion]

That’s the Baptist point.
We baptize how we know to do it from scripture, not what scripture says nothing about.

Are you simply intent upon being coy? What you have described here is the opposite of what you folks do, as I showed in my previous post.

There are references to “Households”, but scripture is silent on ages in all cases (so we make no assumptions about age) and clear that some entire households heard and believed, so we stand by the often presented example of hearing and believing going hand in hand with baptism.

No, you don't. And that is a good example. What you do is ”read into” Scripture something that you just admitted is not there--the age of the candidate!






.

 

[pinacled]

How many days did noach patiently wait for comfort?

 

[MennoSota]

While some Baptists try to make this case, it simply isn't true. And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC
typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years.

The Didache, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. Now, why doesn't he know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else knew this for 1500 years, they suddenly know the meaning of the word? Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OT equal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century).







God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him. See Matthew 18:6, etc., etc. Note the word "mikron" literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century.


But of course, this verse doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.








We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.








Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."




Now, where are these prohibitions, denials and mandates that are the dogma you echo stated in Scripture?

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath reached their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"






I'm addressing your apologetic that the word "baptize" in GREEK means and mandates full immersion in water... and that's your defense of the Anabaptist invention of "immersion ONLY."


Yes. The Didache was written IN GREEK about 100 AD. By one who knew and spoke and wrote in GREEK... within a century of the NT. And obviously, the author didn't know that word "baptize" in Greek mandates to IMMERSE entirely under water as the Anabaptists claim to have discovered. It seems no one who knew Greek, who spoke Greek, who wrote in Greek knew what these German speaking Anabaptists 1500 years later suddenly discovered: that the word MEANS and MANDATES full immersion under water. The Greek speaking members of the Greek Orthodox Church STILL don't know that's what the word means; but these tiny number of German speaking Anabaptist - who didn't speak Greek, didn't know Greek, dogmatically KNEW it. Can you explain?




.

I believed at age 4. I could tell you the gospel at that age. Had my parents asked me to be baptized at that age, I could have. Why? Because I believed.
I have no doubt a 4 year old can have faith. I am a testament to this.
However, before that, I was dead in my trespasses and sins. I did not know God as my Savior.
Josiah, the passage in Matthew 18 does not support infant baptism, no matter how you twist the verse.
I accept you are applying a normative principle to infant baptism by stating that there is no verse that says one cannot baptize an infant. I would hope you will accept that there is no verse in scripture where persons who did not believe first were baptized.

Matthew 18:1-6
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

How old do you think the child is who believes in Jesus? Is s/he 6 months, 12 months or 18 months old? Could they express their faith to you and tell you of their repentance of sin?

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 18:8

This verse shows belief first, then baptize. We see his entire household believes. We do not observe anything beyond this in the verse.
Acts 16:30-33

In this passage we observe Paul telling the Phillippian jailer to believe and be saved. We do not see, "be baptized to be saved." The entire household is told to believe.
We observe that the jailer and his family are baptized. We don't read his whole household was baptized. We have no information about the ages of his family. What we know is to be saved they must believe.

Are you simply intent upon being coy? That's the opposite of what you do, as I showed in my previous post.



No, you don't. And that is a good example. What you do is ”read into” Scripture something that you just admitted is not there--the age of the candidate!

In the above passage, do I read into the passage the age of those baptized?
No.
I read that you must believe to be saved and after such belief, baptism takes place.
Have you seen a 6 month old express belief? How about a 12 month or 18 month child? 24 months?
We don't know the ages of those who were baptized. We know that you must believe to be saved. We know that every baptism presented in the book of Acts is given to believers.
So, what is the earliest confession of belief you have heard from a child? I'm curious. I was 4 years old.

 

[atpollard]

How many days did noach patiently wait for comfort?

120 years while surrounded by an evil generation, then 150 days until the boat came to rest on a mountain top, ten and a half months from the start of the flood until he left the Ark. He had to wait another 350 years until he found ultimate comfort in the arms of God.