Water Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

Sorry, I was busy being insulted by Josiah and shouting back at him. :argue:
It was exhausting. :stress:

Is this also the topic where I had promised my response to why there are more "infant baptizers" than "non-baptizers"?

I will respond to your post later today ... thanks for the remind.

I understand the temptation to shout at Josiah

Resist it, it is not very productive even when it is fun.

:scared:

 

[MennoSota]

I have most certainly seen 3 year olds embracing the Faith in which they participated from Baptism at 40 days...
Are you arguing that children should be kept out of the Faith until they reach the "Age of Reason"??
I mean, why would you want to raise your children outside the Faith Christ discipled...
"Suffer the children to come unto Me..."

Mark 10:14 - KJV –
But when Jesus saw (5631) it, he was much displeased (5656),
and said (5627) unto them, "Suffer (5628) the little children to come (5738) unto me,
and forbid (5720) them not:
for of such is (5748) the kingdom of God.

The disciples were keeping the LITTLE children children away from Christ Who IS the Kingdom of Heaven...
Just as you are doing...
And He was VERY displeased with them...
And He instructed them by REBUKING them...

He who has ears to hear, let him here...


Arsenios

I am simply pointing out that salvation is by believing. I observe that in every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized. We don't see the inverse. We don't see baptism first, followed by belief later.
Since there is no evidence for baptism first, followed by belief, I follow the example set before us in scripture. I don't invert what I observe.
As to the scripture you quote; it has nothing to do with water baptism so I have no idea why you posted it. There is no Christian who would keep a child from hearing the word of God.

 

[Josiah]

I am simply pointing out that salvation is by believing.

No one disagrees with that.


What we're disagreeing with is what you are saying:


+ Recipients of Baptism must have attained the age of X (and you won't tell us what age that is) no "under the age of X Baptisms! The Anti-Paedobaptism dogma you echo.

+ Recipients of Baptism must first prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.

+ Recipients of Baptism must first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. (the Credobaptism dogma you echo)

+ Recipients of Baptism must be fully immersed under water (administrating by pouring or dipping etc. is specifically forbidden) (The Immersion Only invention of the Anabaptists you echo)

+ That every baptism in the Bible was of those over the age of X who had first proven they are among those Jesus died for, had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and were baptized by full immersion under water."

+ That the word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES chronological order but only and exclusively if we are speaking of Baptism and nowhere else.

+ God is impotent to give faith to little ones (so Jesus perhaps misspoke or maybe was misquoted in Matthew 18:6)

+ Unbelief causes people to leap for joy at the presence of Jesus, believers don't do that.


We're disagreeing with the baptism inventions of those radically synergistic Anabaptists that you echo.


THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISAGREEING WITH.


No one in this thread is disagreeing with a single word in Scripture. We're disagreeing with YOU as you echo the Anabaptist inventions you echo, and the apologetics you suggest.

I observe that in every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized.

See, that's what is frustrating: You just keep parroting the same claim..... entirely, wholly, absolutely uninterested and uncaring as to whether it's true. I've asked you to show this is true of all in the households mentioned in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 but you will not. See, I have to wonder if you actually KNOW your claim isn't true but......


And you have been asked (by several) if this is a rubric you yourself accept and follow: that we can't do anything that is not illustrated as done in the Bible. But you refuse to acknowledge this, you just ignore it. You just keep posting on the internet (which of course is never once illustrated as done in the Bible, impossible for you to observe this in the Book of Acts) that we aren't to do anything not done in the Book of Acts. Do you limit everything in Baptism to what is observed in Acts (where no Gentile administers it, there are no baptism tanks, there are no blondes being baptized), do you do everything with Communion only in ways observed in the Book of Acts (no grape juice, no leavened bread, no giving to women or kids, not even clear a Gentile ever received it)? No. This ENTIRE APOLOGETIC is something you yourself repudiate. Odd to constantly rely on a point you yourself clearly repudiate and reject. Again, you ignore this (understandably).


You constantly state we are to scrap anything not stated in the Bible but rather is a tradition of some denomination. Okay, I understand your demand. But you won't give any Scripture that states ANY of your points, not one. ALL YOU DO is perfectly parrot the tradition invented by a tiny few German Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (along with some silly arguments you can't and so don't defend or support).




.








.

 

[MennoSota]

No one disagrees with that.


What we're disagreeing with is what you (and atpollard) are saying:


+ Recipients of Baptism must have attained the age of X (and you won't tell us what age that is) no "under the age of X Baptisms! The Anti-Paedobaptism dogma you echo.

+ Recipients of Baptism must first prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.

+ Recipients of Baptism must first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. (the Credobaptism dogma you echo)

+ Recipients of Baptism must be fully immersed under water (administrating by pouring or dipping etc. is specifically forbidden) (The Immersion Only invention of the Anabaptists you echo)

+ That every baptism in the Bible was of those over the age of X who had first proven they are among those Jesus died for, had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and were baptized by full immersion under water."

+ That the word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES chronological order but only and exclusively if we are speaking of Baptism and nowhere else.

+ God is impotent to give faith to little ones (so Jesus perhaps misspoke or maybe was misquoted in Matthew 18:6)

+ Unbelief causes people to leap for joy at the presence of Jesus, believers don't do that.


We're disagreeing with the baptism inventions of those radically synergistic Anabaptists that you echo.


THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DISAGREEING WITH.







See, that's what is frustrating: You just keep parroting the same claim..... entirely, wholly, absolutely uninterested and uncaring as to whether it's true. I've asked you to show this is true of all in the households mentioned in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 but you will not. See, I have to wonder if you actually KNOW your claim isn't true but......

And you have been asked (by several) if this is a rubric you yourself accept: that we can't do anything that is not illustrated in the Bible. But you refuse to acknowledge this. You just keep posting on the internet (which of course is never once illustrated as done in the Bible, impossible for you to observe this in the Book of Acts. Do you limit everything in Baptist to what is observed in Acts (where no Gentile administers it, there are no baptism tanks, there are no blondes being baptized), do you do everything with Communion only in ways observed in the Book of Acts (no grape juice, no leavened bread, no giving to women or kids, not even clear a Gentile ever received it)? No. This ENTIRE APOLOGETIC is something you yourself repudiate.


You constantly state we are to scrap anything not stated in the Bible but rather is a tradition of some denomination. Okay, I understand your demand. But you won't give any Scripture that states ANY of your points, not one. ALL YOU DO is perfectly parrot the tradition invented by a tiny few German Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (along with some silly arguments you can't and so don't defend or support).




.








.

We have never said what you claim. Josiah, you have deluded yourself. You have created a crutch simply because you have no biblical support upon which to lean.
Everyone rejects your "Age of X" theory. You are the ONLY ONE who thinks it exists.
I would laugh it it wasn't so sad to watch you cling to this as your only hope.

 

[atpollard]

I observe that in every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized.

See, that's what is frustrating: You just keep parroting the same claim..... entirely, wholly, absolutely uninterested and uncaring as to whether it's true. I've asked you to show this is true of all in the households mentioned in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 but you will not. See, I have to wonder if you actually KNOW your claim isn't true but......

Rather than proving EVERY person who was baptized first believed, why don't you save us all a lot of time and show us just ONE person in scripture who was baptized while not believing.

[Act 16:15, 32-33 NASB] 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. ... 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that [very] hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his [household.]
No mention of any unbelievers getting baptized here ... just talk about how Paul fist shares the word of the Lord with all who are in a house before he baptizes them. I wonder if that is so they have a chance to believe?

[1Co 1:16 NASB] 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
No mention of any unbelievers getting baptized here ... but Paul probably shared the word with them, too, and we do know that the "household of Stephanas" were all active in ministry:[1Co 16:15 NASB] 15 Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),

 

[Josiah]

Rather than proving EVERY person who was baptized first believed, why don't you save us all a lot of time and show us just ONE person in scripture who was baptized while not believing.

I'm not the one claiming that:

1. We are forbidden to baptize unless the recipient FIRST (in chronological order) proves they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; I'm not the one echoing the Anabaptist invention of "Credobaptism"

2. I'm not the one claiming that "every baptism in the Bible was of persons who first attained their Xth birthday, first proved they were among the unnamed persons for whom Jesus died, first proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. It's not up to me to prove this claim to be true, I've never agreed that it is true.

3. I'm not the one with the mandate that we can't do what is not illustrated as having been done in the Bible and only can do what IS illustrated in the Bible (which is why I'm okay posting on the internet).

Act 16:15," he was baptized, he and all his household" [1Co 1:16 " Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other." No mention of any unbelievers getting baptized here ...

No one has claimed that they were any unbelievers, the claim is that all in these were over the age of X, had proven they were among those for whom Jesus died, had proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and were fully immersed under water. MY point is: Nope. It nowhere so indicates. The claim is false. The apologetic is that we are forbidden to do what is not illustrated as done in the Bible and that we cannot do what is not illustrated in the Bible, and because (the apologetic goes) all the baptisms in the Book of Acts were of those over the age of x, of those who first proved Jesus died for THEM, of those who first proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, THUS we must do likewise and cannot do otherwise. Here's the obvious problem: 1) That's wrong (as you've admitted), that cannot be shown from Scripture and 2) It's a silly rubric that they themselves repudiate and don't follow, an argument they themselves reject as absurd.


And I'm NOT the one questioning if those under the age of X are incapable of being given faith (I referenced Matthew 18:6), I'm NOT the one indicating that leaping for joy at the presence of Jesus is proof of unbelief and something a believer can't do.

See Matthew 18:6. What does Jesus say to your question of whether little ones can be given faith.

.

No.

I understand


Matthew 18:6 speaks to your enteral question of whether infants can believe, whether God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of X. I simply answer that with a verbatim quote from Jesus, but at best you ignored it (perhaps even mocked it ???). Note the word "mikron" ("Little ones" ESV) literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the undisclosed 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 big limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, whose invented dogma on this you promote.

are you really attempting to argue that the meaning of a Greek word has no bearing on the meaning of that Greek word because Church Tradition knows better?

No.


I'm arguing that the Greeks who speak/spoke Greek probably know the meaning better than some German speaking 16th Century Anabaptists who corrected them.


I noted (and you agreed) that the the Didache (from about 100 AD) written in Greek by someone who spoke Greek to people who knew Greek STATES it's okay to baptize by POURING. You acknowledged that reality. And I asked (but you ignored), how is it that this Greek author, writing only a few decades after Jesus established Baptism, didn't know that the word means and mandates FULL IMMERSION IN WATER? In fact, no Greek (to this day) seems to know that; the Greek Orthodox Church has never fully immersed people in baptism. How did this German speaking Anabaptist know what NO ONE in 15 centuries knew, including those (who unlike them) speak Greek? You ignored it. As you did Matthew 18:6.

And I gave you several Scriptures where the word is used and yet OBVIOUSLY does not mean and mandate "To fully immerse under water." You ignored that, as well. And I gave you an OT
verse where the LXX translates the word by "baptizo" and it is "sprinkle." But you ignored that.

No, it states that Crispus believed. It states that Crispus household believed. It states that all of the Corinthians that were getting baptized believed. It states that everyone mentioned of the many, many people that were getting baptized all believed.

Yeah. There is that Baptist CLAIM that "every baptism in the Bible was of......." Help me. Please embolden for me in each of the following records of baptisms Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 that.,,,

1. Each baptized had attained their Xth birthday.
2. Each in the household had first proven they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Each in the household had first proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.
4. Each in the household was fully immersed under water.


I don't know why you keep refusing to discuss all those baptisms in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1 Corinthians 1:16 . The claim is that "EVERY baptism was to those over the age of X who first proved that Jesus died for them and that they had chosen Jesus as their Savior." I've only asked where does it state that all those in these households had met those "mandates" that the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century?

You ASSUME that all household members do not have to believe to be baptized. You ASSUME that one person can believe for another.

No. I never posted that.


As you know, here's what I actually said: "We do NOT believe that we must ASSUME anything whatsoever about all households..... 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."

When Baptists insist, "all the baptisms in the Bible are of those over that age of X who first proved they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died and first gave proof that they chose Jesus as their personal Savior" they are assuming a LOT about the members of the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16. I stated that I am NOT assuming ANYTHING about them, the list of assumptions (all baseless) are on the part of the Baptists.


I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 were over or under or over the age of X (Anabaptists do).

I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 had previously proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior (Anabaptist dogmatically INSIST that is the case)

I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 had previously proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. (Anabaptists do)

I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 were fully immersed under water (Anabaptists do.)

I simply note that the claim - repeated over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and by Baptists - that "every baptism recorded in the Bible was of one over the age of X who first had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." The claim is wrong. False.


And I have noted it's an absurd point. The same people echoing that false claim are the ones who show we are not restricted to doing what is illustrated as done in the Bible (you and MennoSota prove it by posting on the internet; I'm guessing if I came to your church on a Sunday morning, the vast majority of what I'd see is never illustrated as having been done in the Bible). It's a SILLY, REJECTED apologetic - and it's not even true.

I simply presuppose that when scripture says they believed and were baptized that it means that they both believed and were baptized

Me, too. Everyone does.


But it doesn't state what you do: that FIRST the person must show that Jesus died for them and that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior - THEN, AFTER THAT, IN CHRONOLOGY sequence, THEN they are released from the biblical prohibition and may be baptized (but only by full immersion). I reject the Baptist apologetic that the Greek word "kai" MANDATES CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE, but only and exclusively if we are talking about Baptism (and nowhere else). I reject that, used to try to prove the "Credobaptism" invention of the Anabaptists. It's false. The word simply connects. It means "and" it does not mean "AFTER THAT...."



.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Just for the record, the reason that I didn't respond to your post when you first made it was not because I had no response or because I was ignoring it ... rather, I had an 'a-ha' moment and finally realized how impossibly far apart our thinking is on this and any response I made would be a minefield of controversial words and ideas. I wasn't sure I wanted to risk lighting a conflagration. Even if you and I discuss this calmly, I have little doubt that more volatile opinions will be drawn to the glow of our exchange ... likely to pour a little petrol on the fire.

So here goes ... everything:

Taking a step back to look at what "saved" means, we will immediately run into the question of "can someone loose their salvation?" I have no desire to debate the issue here, so let me just say that Particular Baptists (like me) view verses like John 6:44b as a promise that Jesus will save all those that God draws. I do not ask you to embrace my interpretation, but to merely accept that it IS my interpretation. So from the Particular Baptist perspective, God the father foreknew me before the foundation of the world and drew me to God the Son. God the Son forgives my sins and seals me with God the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that God (the Trinity) will finish what God has started. Since Faith and Grace and Salvation are all a gift from God, no one can take that away.

Fast forward to Baptism. Baptism is our act of obedience after God has called is and we have believed. We then respond to our new understanding with repentance and baptism. Baptism is only once and repentance is ongoing ... as many times as I fall down, I repent and try again, falling down less than before.

So when I read in scripture that an entire household believed and was baptized, that implies (TO ME) that every member of that household heard (you can't believe what you never heard) and believed (Faith, a gift from God) and were baptized in obedience to the instructions of places like Acts 2:38 and were now forever IN CHRIST and part of His Body.

Obviously, starting from the simple fact that a Catholic believes someone can walk away from God's grace, means that all of my conclusions are nonsense from your starting perspective. Just as all of your conclusions seem like nonsense from my starting perspective.

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?

In light of the above, I see the fact that ALL believed and were baptized as indicating ALL were old enough to hear and believe and they were baptized BECAUSE they heard and believed. I see the story as containing nothing contrary to Particular Baptist understanding of salvation. I would question whether an infant (say 2 months old) can physically hear and comprehend in order to understand. Without understanding, there can be no belief, so there is simply no way to know if that child will eventually believe and want to follow Jesus or will find the Gospel to be foolishness. It seems careless to hold a ceremony of repentance and admittance into the Body of Christ to someone who may or may not be "drawn" by the Father.

(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.

Yes. IF there were infants, then the passage says that those infants believed. That would imply and lead me to conclude that the infants in my church could believe, too.
IF there were NO infants, then the passage says that everyone in the household was old enough to hear and believe, which would force me to conclude that my church should wait until people are old enough to hear and believe before we baptize them.
Unfortunately for me, the scripture is silent on the question of the presence or absence of infants in the household, so either option is possible.

 

[atpollard]

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.

The underlined verse is the reason I was reluctant to respond. Few things generate more heat and less light than discussions about LOOSING vs NOT LOOSING salvation. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me that this was the issue at the core of Baptist vs Catholic baptism. If one is only momentarily saved and free to walk away at any time, then there is no harm in lining up an infant at the starting line and praying they finish the race. If one is eternally chosen by God and destined to finish the race that God has preordained you will finish, then throwing a "Holy Spirit" party before someone even believes that Jesus is their Savior seems premature.

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 can easily see how it appeared that way, but you misunderstand my motives. You asked what I wanted. The truth is that NOTHING would make me happier than if God had clearly settled this matter in Scripture in a verse so unambiguous that the question would never have been asked. My first choice would be for a Gospel account of Jesus stopping to baptize a woman and her infant after his resurrection. Then I could point to that story and know that children of all ages should be baptized and that our children can receive all of the promises of being IN CHRIST from their earliest moments. If that is not God's plan, then my second choice would be for Paul or John to strongly rebuke some church for baptizing children followed by an explanation of what God expects. I am not a big fan of ambiguity.

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 question the ability of anyone to "apply" for any part of salvation on another person's behalf. I can't believe for you. I can't repent for you. I can't hear the gospel for you. I can't choose Christ for you. I can't love God for you. I can't be obedient for you. These all seem like things that are strictly between the person and their God.

Having said that, I agree that children are included in the new covenant, just like in the old covenant. In the old covenant boys got circumcised, but what do old covenant girls do? Are Jewish baby girls any less part of the covenant because they were not circumcised?
If Jesus is the Bridegroom, then what part of the Covenant is the Church ... the Bride!

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." [1Co 7:14 NIV]​

No mention of baptism, your children are 'holy' (set apart for the New Covenant) just because they are your children.

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.

I can accept that as a welcome change from arguing.
Just let me know if I misinterpreted any of YOUR beliefs or if any of my explanations of MY beliefs were unclear.

 

[atpollard]

I'm not the one claiming that:

1. We are forbidden to baptize unless the recipient FIRST (in chronological order) proves they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; I'm not the one echoing the Anabaptist invention of "Credobaptism"

2. I'm not the one claiming that "every baptism in the Bible was of persons who first attained their Xth birthday, first proved they were among the unnamed persons for whom Jesus died, first proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. It's not up to me to prove this claim to be true, I've never agreed that it is true.

3. I'm not the one with the mandate that we can't do what is not illustrated as having been done in the Bible and only can do what IS illustrated in the Bible (which is why I'm okay posting on the internet).

Yes you are, and you are the ONLY person making that claim.
MennoSota just said "I observe that in every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized."

 

[MoreCoffee]

I question the ability of anyone to "apply" for any part of salvation on another person's behalf.

Josiah has been saying that no one can apply for anything pertaining to salvation - not on their own behalf nor on behalf of anyone else. I bring that up because it is an interesting idea with which I thought you would likely agree.

I can't believe for you. I can't repent for you. I can't hear the gospel for you. I can't choose Christ for you. I can't love God for you. I can't be obedient for you. These all seem like things that are strictly between the person and their God.

I am inclined to think that Parents (and any other full time guardian) can believe for their children. They pray for them and teach them and encourage them in those beliefs. Certainly it is true that faithful parents who teach their children the faith have children who express faith in their minority. And while it is true that some who expressed faith in Jesus as a child express doubt and rebellion as a teen and some as adults too the truth is that in their young years children really do absorb the beliefs taught to them by their parents.

Having said that, I agree that children are included in the new covenant, just like in the old covenant. In the old covenant boys got circumcised, but what do old covenant girls do? Are Jewish baby girls any less part of the covenant because they were not circumcised?

Circumcision was for boys for obvious anatomical reasons and girls were not circumcised for obvious anatomical reasons; there may have been a cultural difference in the way families valued boys and girls - giving boys greater importance as they grow into men and decide the faith of their household while girls were to be married to men and take whatever faith the man they married decided was the faith of the house.

If Jesus is the Bridegroom, then what part of the Covenant is the Church ... the Bride!

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." [1Co 7:14 NIV]​

No mention of baptism, your children are 'holy' (set apart for the New Covenant) just because they are your children.

I'd be inclined to think of being holy as being baptised since baptism cleanses from sins and unites to Christ with the contrast being unclean because unbaptised. But I am confident that you see it differently. Nevertheless I wanted to point out how profound is the difference in the way holy scripture is read and understood between a Catholic Christians and a Baptist such as yourself.

I can accept that as a welcome change from arguing.
Just let me know if I misinterpreted any of YOUR beliefs or if any of my explanations of MY beliefs were unclear.

As long as you express your own beliefs and I mine we'll do fine. But when I tell you or you tell me what the other believes (and even worse what the other really believes) then we leave discussion and enter pointless name calling territory. I dislike that territory because it brings out the worst in everybody.

 

[Arsenios]

As to the scripture you quote;
it has nothing to do with water baptism so I have no idea why you posted it.
There is no Christian who would keep a child from hearing the word of God.

Do you bring your 3 year olds to services?

Or do you put them in nurseries?

Or in Sunday school?

You see, if you prevent a little child from being Baptized INTO Christ,
Then you are disobeying Christ...
Children are not consensually Baptized...
At 40 days, they usually complain loudly...

They did so at circumcision in the OT too...
More loudly, I should think...
Another difference in the Covenants...

OT circumcized...
NT Baptizes into Christ...

Both with children...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Do you bring your 3 year olds to services?

Or do you put them in nurseries?

Or in Sunday school?

You see, if you prevent a little child from being Baptized INTO Christ,
Then you are disobeying Christ...
Children are not consensually Baptized...
At 40 days, they usually complain loudly...

They did so at circumcision in the OT too...
More loudly, I should think...
Another difference in the Covenants...

OT circumcized...
NT Baptizes into Christ...

Both with children...


Arsenios

Your mystical magic aside.
Baptism is given to those who God has given faith. Neither you, nor I, nor any human can place a person into Christ by water baptizing them. Frankly, your teaching comes across as occultist.
Nowhere does Jesus say, "baptize the infants so they will be placed into me."
Nowhere is baptism of infants taught as the Christian substitute for circumcision.
Please, for God's sake, stop outright lying and preaching demonic teachings that are pointing children toward hell.
Goodness, Arsenios, your version of Christianity is anathema to the word of God.

 

[Albion]

I'm not the one claiming that:

1. We are forbidden to baptize unless the recipient FIRST (in chronological order) proves they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; I'm not the one echoing the Anabaptist invention of "Credobaptism"

Yes you are, and you are the ONLY person making that claim.

How bizarre that statement seems to me!

You have repeatedly asserted that unless a person is of the age range you prefer, he should not be baptized, period.

That is exactly the claim of yours that Josiah made reference to, and I have done so as well.

You do not think that infants or six-year-olds can believe, therefore you refuse baptism to them. That is an age-relate matter, and you have created a requirement that is not to be found in the Bible. Even though we all know that people who are adults are eligible for baptism, there is nothing in scripture that excludes the young. You have simply invented it in the same way as saying that because all the people who are identified in Scripture as receiving baptism upon a verbal profession of faith means that a deaf mute adult must not be baptized. Its ridiculous and illogical but it is also unScriptural.

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.

 

[atpollard]

How bizarre that statement is!

You have repeatedly asserted that unless a person is of the age you prefer, he should not be baptized, period.

That is exactly the claim of yours that Josiah made reference to, and I have done so as well.

One more time, and for the record:

Peter said "Repent, and each of you be baptized" [Act 2:38] so I say that each person to be baptized should also repent and there should be no baptism of people who have not repented. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Jesus said "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" [Mar 16:16] so I say that belief and baptism should go together. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Luke records that "when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized" [Act 8:12] so I say that being baptized comes after believing. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]
Luke also records that many of the Corinthians "when they heard were believing and being baptized" [Act 18:8] so I believe that since they all heard and believed as the cause of their getting baptized, that all who are baptized should hear and believe. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

You are the ones with two sets of standards: For an adult (whatever age that is) you expect them to believe for themselves, and for a child (whatever age that is) you allow the parents to believe for them.
Baptists have no age, we see and uphold a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone that would be a part of the Body of Christ.

 

[MennoSota]

One more time, and for the record:

Peter said "Repent, and each of you be baptized" [Act 2:38] so I say that each person to be baptized should also repent and there should be no baptism of people who have not repented. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Jesus said "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" [Mar 16:16] so I say that belief and baptism should go together. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Luke records that "when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized" [Act 8:12] so I say that being baptized comes after believing. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]
Luke also records that many of the Corinthians "when they heard were believing and being baptized" [Act 18:8] so I believe that since they all heard and believed as the cause of their getting baptized, that all who are baptized should hear and believe. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

You are the ones with two sets of standards: For an adult (whatever age that is) you expect them to believe for themselves, and for a child (whatever age that is) you allow the parents to believe for them.
Baptists have no age, we see and uphold a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone that would be a part of the Body of Christ.

You have hit the nail on the head.

 

[atpollard]

I hope you don't mind if I engage. don't think I can be quite as PASSIONATE as MennoSota, but I do have a few thoughts and some questions.

Do you bring your 3 year olds to services?
Or do you put them in nurseries?
Or in Sunday school?

First, a quick observation ... service, nurseries and Sunday school have nothing to do with baptism. Would you forbid an unbaptized child from attending your service? Of course not. However it is related to the verse you and Meno were discussing on "little ones" coming to Jesus.

Thoughts:

• Even churches with children in the service often provide a glass room for women with crying babies.
• At their best, a Sunday School allows teaching at an age appropriate comprehension level. (teaching to match their "faith")
• At their worst, Sunday School warehouses children and insulates them from their faith ... small wonder they eventually leave the church.
• The best part of children in service is they experience the reality of their parents faith and learn by watching and participation.
• The worst part of children in service is the service (sermons) often exceed their attention span.

You see, if you prevent a little child from being Baptized INTO Christ,
Then you are disobeying Christ...
Children are not consensually Baptized...
At 40 days, they usually complain loudly...

They did so at circumcision in the OT too...
More loudly, I should think...
Another difference in the Covenants...

OT circumcized...
NT Baptizes into Christ...

Both with children...

Arsenios

In the OT, girls were not circumcised (for obvious reasons). My question is this: Was a Hebrew girl any less under the covenant because she was not physically marked?

It stems from this verse ...

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." [1Co 7:14 NASB]​

Scenario:
A brand new believing pregnant wife is married to an unbelieving husband that refuses to allow his unborn child to be baptized. The mother is concerned that without baptism, her child will not be under the New Covenant and the protection of God.
From the above verse, I would be comfortable telling her that God has sanctified her child through her, even without baptism.

Would you advise her to defy her husband and baptize the child in secret, or do you agree that the water is not ESSENTIAL?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Peter said "Repent, and each of you be baptized" [Act 2:38] so I say that each person to be baptized should also repent and there should be no baptism of people who have not repented.

The Scripture - as you prove - does NOT say what you do. Just read what you posted! I invite you to READ the Scriptures you quote


It is SO ironic to me that both you and MennoSota quote Scripture that flat-out show your claims are baseless and NOT what Scripture says. Like shooting yourself in the foot.

If there is no mention of age, then why the prohibition of baptism prior to the never-disclosed age of X

Correct. There goes the centerpiece of the Anabaptist dogma of ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM (the word means: "Against Child Baptisms" - entirely about CHILDREN, the singular focus is CHILDREN, humans under a certain age,age is the issue in "paedo"


Now, I realize those radical synergistic Anabaptists insisted that little ones CANNOT believe (and modern Baptists echo this) but I tried to just quote Jesus in Matthew 18:6 but you posted you didn't want to discuss that verse and MennoSota just ignored it, but again, it's an AGE issue. We have the Baptists on one side and it seems Jesus on the other in Matthew 18:6. I chose to not give an opinion but just quote Jesus. I tried to quote Luke 1:44 where John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb, yet unborn, so I'm GUESSING under the age of X) "leaped for joy" at the presence of Jesus but MennoSato argued that joy at the presence of Jesus is something unbelievers have and not believers and thus shows John had no faith.

Jesus said "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" [Mar 16:16] so I say that belief and baptism should go together.

Everyone does.


But I invite to actually READ what you posted. READ the verse you yourself reference. It doesn't say what you do, it doesn't state, "FIRST one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom I will die then after that all must prove that first they have chosen me as their personal Savior, then after that, after all that has been accomplished, then the prohibition of baptism is lifted and they may be baptized." READ the verse. It by no means says that you do.

And remember, the koine Greek word "kai" means "and" It is the most general, non-specific connective word in the language. It does not mean "then after in chronological sequence" must less dogmatically mandate that.

Luke records that "when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized" [Act 8:12]

Okay, so we have an example of one who first believed. But try actually READING the verse, my friend, I invite you to read the verse you reference. Obviously, undeniably, it doesn't say what you do. It doesn't say, "FIRST one must prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died and after that they must prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and then after all that has been done, the prohibition of baptism is lifted and you may baptize them." It just gives an example of someone who believed and then was baptized. If I posted, "I purchased a house when I was 28 years old." that would not dogmatically mandate that it is forbidden to buy a house before or after that age (or at all) it simply would be what happened in my case.

And again, I reject the rubric that we must do what is exampled in the Bible (like women bathing on roofs while nieghbors watch) and equally we cannot do what is not exampled in the Bible (like posting on the internet). You reject this rubric, too. You don't follow this rubric yourself. So since you REJECT it. you can't use it (at least with any credibility)

Acts 18:8 all who are baptized should hear and believe.

Everyone agrees. Actually, I've fully and completely agreed with every single word in every single Scripture you and MennoSota have quoted.


And obviously, the verse doesn't say what you do. Not at all. It doesn't say, "Thou art commanded to FIRST prove thou art among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died then after that thou must prove that thou hath chosen Jesus as your personal Savior then after that, the prohibition to baptize is lifted and thou canst be baptized."

Remember: Kai is THE MOST general, nonspecific connective word there is in Greek. It means "and" it does not mean "Then after." The apologetic of the Anabaptists that the word "kai" DOGMATICALLY MANDATES chronological sequence but only and exclusively when we are speaking of baptism and in no other case" is absurd. And wrong.

MennoSota just said "I observe that in every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized."

Are you saying he is wrong or he is right?


I DO notice he's now careful to limit it to Acts so as to avoid 1 Corinthians 1:16 (I'm sure you noted that, too). But we still have Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. He has yet to prove that everyone who a part of the "oikos" and was baptized FIRST attained the never-disclosed age of X, then after that, proved they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then after that the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were baptized. For his claim to be true, he does need to show that or his claim is simply not true. Now, I agree we can't prove all of them had blonde hair or were over 6 feet tall but then we don't have any dogma requirements about such things.

And then he needs to show us why a rubric HE doesn't accept or follow (he REJECTS it and does NOT follow it) is nonetheless not only valid but one all must follow.








.

 

[Albion]

One more time, and for the record:

Peter said "Repent, and each of you be baptized" [Act 2:38] so I say that each person to be baptized should also repent and there should be no baptism of people who have not repented. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Well, of course you have added an age qualification, no matter how much you protest. Otherwise there would not have been so much complaining and denouncing OF infant baptism. And we know what infant means. It is not age neutral LOL

That aside, let is think about what Peter said. First, he was addressing certain people. He was speaking to potential candidates for baptism. Everything referred to their own situation. You are attempting to argue that they apply to every other living human, which makes no sense at all. No more than if he had said to these people, Let us go to the bank of the river by that big Acacia tree and do the baptisms...so you insist that no baptism today is valid unless performed under an Acacia tree.

Second, you say that there is no age qualification. Let us test your fidelity to that concept.

We may ask about people in a gathering. Twenty year olds? Fourteen year olds? Ten year olds? Five year olds? For you to hold to your belief, you would have to baptize all of them since, as you said, no age qualification--just so long as they said that they were sorry and did accept Jesus as their Lord, which is it possible all of them would say. They certainly could say that.

Somehow, though, I think that you would NOT actually baptize all of them. Am I right?

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]






The Scripture - as you prove - does NOT say what you do. Just read what you posted! I invite you to READ the Scriptures you quote


It is SO ironic to me that both you and MennoSota quote Scripture that flat-out show your claims are baseless and NOT what Scripture says. Like shooting yourself in the foot.








Correct. There goes the centerpiece of the Anabaptist dogma of ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM (the word means: "Against Child Baptisms" - entirely about CHILDREN, the singular focus is CHILDREN, humans under a certain age,age is the issue in "paedo"


Now, I realize those radical synergistic Anabaptists insisted that little ones CANNOT believe (and modern Baptists echo this) but I tried to just quote Jesus in Matthew 18:6 but you posted you didn't want to discuss that verse and MennoSota just ignored it, but again, it's an AGE issue. We have the Baptists on one side and it seems Jesus on the other in Matthew 18:6. I chose to not give an opinion but just quote Jesus. I tried to quote Luke 1:44 where John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb, yet unborn, so I'm GUESSING under the age of X) "leaped for joy" at the presence of Jesus but MennoSato argued that joy at the presence of Jesus is something unbelievers have and not believers and thus shows John had no faith.










Everyone does.


But I invite to actually READ what you posted. READ the verse you yourself reference. It doesn't say what you do, it doesn't state, "FIRST one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom I will die then after that all must prove that first they have chosen me as their personal Savior, then after that, after all that has been accomplished, then the prohibition of baptism is lifted and they may be baptized." READ the verse. It by no means says that you do.

And remember, the koine Greek word "kai" means "and" It is the most general, non-specific connective word in the language. It does not mean "then after in chronological sequence" must less dogmatically mandate that.









Okay, so we have an example of one who first believed. But try actually READING the verse, my friend, I invite you to read the verse you reference. Obviously, undeniably, it doesn't say what you do. It doesn't say, "FIRST one must prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died and after that they must prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and then after all that has been done, the prohibition of baptism is lifted and you may baptize them." It just gives an example of someone who believed and then was baptized. If I posted, "I purchased a house when I was 28 years old." that would not dogmatically mandate that it is forbidden to buy a house before or after that age (or at all) it simply would be what happened in my case.

And again, I reject the rubric that we must do what is exampled in the Bible (like women bathing on roofs while nieghbors watch) and equally we cannot do what is not exampled in the Bible (like posting on the internet). You reject this rubric, too. You don't follow this rubric yourself. So since you REJECT it. you can't use it (at least with any credibility)







Everyone agrees. Actually, I've fully and completely agreed with every single word in every single Scripture you and MennoSota have quoted.


And obviously, the verse doesn't say what you do. Not at all. It doesn't say, "Thou art commanded to FIRST prove thou art among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died then after that thou must prove that thou hath chosen Jesus as your personal Savior then after that, the prohibition to baptize is lifted and thou canst be baptized."

Remember: Kai is THE MOST general, nonspecific connective word there is in Greek. It means "and" it does not mean "Then after." The apologetic of the Anabaptists that the word "kai" DOGMATICALLY MANDATES chronological sequence but only and exclusively when we are speaking of baptism and in no other case" is absurd. And wrong.








Are you saying he is wrong or he is right?


I DO notice he's now careful to limit it to Acts so as to avoid 1 Corinthians 1:16 (I'm sure you noted that, too). But we still have Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. He has yet to prove that everyone who a part of the "oikos" and was baptized FIRST attained the never-disclosed age of X, then after that, proved they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then after that the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were baptized. For his claim to be true, he does need to show that or his claim is simply not true. Now, I agree we can't prove all of them had blonde hair or were over 6 feet tall but then we don't have any dogma requirements about such things.

And then he needs to show us why a rubric HE doesn't accept or follow (he REJECTS it and does NOT follow it) is nonetheless not only valid but one all must follow.








.

Bring on 1 Corinthians, Josiah. There is no place in Acts, the epistles, or Revelation where we see an unbeliever being baptized. Nor do we see someone being baptized because another family member has faith for that person.
We just don't find it anywhere in the text. You can or should admit this.
What you do is speculate based upon inferences you have made regarding three very nebulous verses that provide no proof of infant baptism. I find such shotty interpretation to be curious at best and hellish at worst. How many Lutheran, EOC and Roman Catholic church members do you suppose are in hell at this moment, having clung to their infant baptism and confirmation class as their ticket to heaven? Why would you promote a baldfaced lie to your church members and then imagine God would declare "well done, good and faithful servant"?
If you wish to push your infants toward hell with the false teaching of infant baptism as a means of salvation, then go ahead. I am not responsible for the false sense of security that sent them to hell with a smile and a blessing. You get to own that before God.

 

[Albion]

Bring on 1 Corinthians, Josiah. There is no place in Acts, the epistles, or Revelation where we see an unbeliever being baptized. Nor do we see someone being baptized because another family member has faith for that person.
We just don't find it anywhere in the text. You can or should admit this.

It does not pertain to the topic under discussion, however.