If paedobaptism were taught...

[Andrew]

Is there ever one instance in scripture where a person is baptized and then repents?

Nope.

 

[user1234]

2 infants...
A: Gets water baptised
B: Does not get water baptised
Both die in an accident at age 2.
Are both (or either) heaven-bound?
Why or why not, and what does the water have to do with it?

-OR-

A: Grows up but never professes faith in Jesus...never believes in Him.
B: Grows up, at age 25 comes to faith in Jesus, believes in His death for his sins, His resurrection for his justification. Never gets water-baptised for whatever reason.
Both die in an accident at age 50.
Are both (or either) heaven-bound? Why or why not? What does the water have to do with it?

 

[Lamb]

2 infants...
A: Gets water baptised
B: Does not get water baptised
Both die in an accident at age 2.
Are both (or either) heaven-bound?
Why or why not, and what does the water have to do with it?

-OR-

A: Grows up but never professes faith in Jesus...never believes in Him.
B: Grows up, at age 25 comes to faith in Jesus, believes in His death for his sins, His resurrection for his justification. Never gets water-baptised for whatever reason.
Both die in an accident at age 50.
Are both (or either) heaven-bound? Why or why not? What does the water have to do with it?

It's nice to see you again, Snerfle!

Baptism isn't a sure thing if a person rejects the faith God gives them whether that person is a baby or an adult.

 

[user1234]

It's nice to see you again, Snerfle!

Baptism isn't a sure thing if a person rejects the faith God gives them whether that person is a baby or an adult.

Hi, again and thx and right back atcha!
Can you explain what you mean by 'baptism being a 'sure thing'?
(and just to be clear, we're talking about water-baptism, right?)

ALSO...what do you mean by 'rejects the 'FAITH' God gives them as a baby or adult'?
Do you mean 'reject', as in 'deliberately not receive' the gift of salvation?
Can a baby reject God's salvation?

ALSO, my earlier questions still stand...what does water have to do with the ppl in my scenario going to heaven? (or not)
Do both babies go?
And does the non-water-baptised adult go?
What does the water have to do with the heaven or hell destination of the 2 babies and the adult?

ALSO, since you say that the adult that rejected salvation is not heaven-bound, then that nullifies any efficacy of his baptism as an infant. So then what is the purpose of infant baptism? Is it only efficacious until the child becomes a certain age X and can make his own decision, or is it for the parents testimony, or purely symbolic?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION]


Here's the issue....


In the late 16th Century, some Anabaptists invented a series of BRAND NEW DOGMAS that had never even been thought of by any Christians for 1500 + years.
One of those is the sole, exclusive issue of this thread. It is called "ANTI - PAEDOBAPTISM."

"ANTI" means against..

"PAEDO" is a very general, non-specific word for a child. It can refer to anyone under the age of 18 or 20, but most often refers to one who has not yet reached puberty. But it's very non-specific. There are other words for certain age groupings; this is the most general, non-specific

The Dogma is this: It is dogmatically forbidden to permit baptism to any under a certain unknowable age.

The sole, singular issue is AGE. Before that age is reached, Baptism must be forbidden (dogmatically). Of course, Baptists will not ever tell you what age that is (because the Bible does not), so it is dogmatically forbidden to permit baptism to any who has not yet attained an age that they don't know what is.


Here's the problem:


Nowhere does the Bible say a WORD about age in relation to baptism. These Anabaptists admitted they had NOT ONE Scripture that states this dogmatic prohibition based on age. They invented a dogma NOT because of ANY verse in the Bible (they were honest enough to admit this - few Baptists today are). Yes, we are told to baptize. The issue is: Where is the verse that says "But thou art forbidden to permit baptism to any who hath not yet attained the age of.... well..... you won't be told?" Where is that verse? What verse did EVERY CHRISTIAN for over 1500 years never notice that states, "Thou canst NOT permit baptism to any under a not-disclosed age?"

 

[Lamb]

Hi, again and thx and right back atcha! ��
Can you explain what you mean by 'baptism being a 'sure thing'?
(and just to be clear, we're talking about water-baptism, right?)

There is only one baptism that our Lord commanded for the disciples to go out and do...Matthew 28:19 and that was always with water. Acts 2 also tells us that in our baptisms we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so there is only ONE baptism.

ALSO...what do you mean by 'rejects the 'FAITH' God gives them as a baby or adult'?
Do you mean 'reject', as in 'deliberately not receive' the gift of salvation?

We receive faith as a gift from God when He gives it according to His will. But man has proven that he can throw away that faith given to Him. That's what I mean.

Can a baby reject God's salvation?

Scripture does not say.

ALSO, my earlier questions still stand...what does water have to do with the ppl in my scenario going to heaven? (or not)
Do both babies go?

Heaven is obtained the same way by everyone...by grace through faith and not by works. In baptism, God gives faith because His Word is attached to the waters of baptism. So do the people in your scenario have faith?

And does the non-water-baptised adult go?

Does that person have faith? Believers should want to be baptized.

What does the water have to do with the heaven or hell destination of the 2 babies and the adult?

Water is what God chose to use as a way to make disciples. He attached His Word as promises in that the benefits of the cross are given to man in baptism.

ALSO, since you say that the adult that rejected salvation is not heaven-bound, then that nullifies any efficacy of his baptism as an infant. So then what is the purpose of infant baptism? Is it only efficacious until the child becomes a certain age X and can make his own decision, or is it for the parents testimony, or purely symbolic?

God does not do baptism wrong so baptism is not nullified for the man who rejects salvation. The purpose of infant baptism is that Jesus gave the authority for baptism and in it we all receive the benefits of the cross. There is no mysterious age X, that's a man-made concept.

 

[Arsenios]

2 infants...
A: Gets water baptised
B: Does not get water baptised
Both die in an accident at age 2.
Are both (or either) heaven-bound?
Why or why not, and what does the water have to do with it?

One is, and one is not...

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was Baptized in the Waters of the Jordan...

We who follow Him are Baptized into Him as He was Baptized by John the Baptist...

The one Baptized INTO Christ is IN Christ Who IS the Kingdom of Heaven...

The one not is not yet IN Christ...

For the Bible tells us we are Baptized INTO Christ...

-OR-

A: Grows up but never professes faith in Jesus...never believes in Him.
B: Grows up, at age 25 comes to faith in Jesus, believes in His death for his sins, His resurrection for his justification. Never gets water-baptised for whatever reason.
Both die in an accident at age 50.
Are both (or either) heaven-bound? Why or why not? What does the water have to do with it?

In this life, the faithless one is in Christ, may God have Mercy on him...
The one faithful is in this life NOT in Christ, and God will have Mercy on him...

Salvation in this life is living IN Christ...
Entry INTO Christ is by being Baptized INTO Christ...
The 11/12 were Commanded BY Christ to Baptize ALL the Nations INTO Christ...
Christ was Baptized in the WATERs of the Jordan...
We are following Christ and HIS Baptism...

Which Baptism are YOU following?


Arsenios

 

[vince284]

I’ve been brought up a Baptist as far back as I can remember. I have never heard of “age-X”. I’ve heard of knowingly receiving Faith and then following in the ordinance of baptism and that can come at any age – who is to say when an individual comes to faith. Many Baptist churches have a dialog with the person to ascertain whether they know what they are claiming. I’ve seen little kids and I’ve seen old people get baptized. I’ve never seen anyone denied. But, I’ve seen many people get baptized again because they claim they didn’t know what they were doing the first time (I guess they were following the crowd), at whatever age that would have been.

 

[Josiah]

I’ve been brought up a Baptist as far back as I can remember. I have never heard of “age-X”. I’ve heard of knowingly receiving Faith and then following in the ordinance of baptism and that can come at any age – who is to say when an individual comes to faith. Many Baptist churches have a dialog with the person to ascertain whether they know what they are claiming. I’ve seen little kids and I’ve seen old people get baptized. I’ve never seen anyone denied. But, I’ve seen many people get baptized again because they claim they didn’t know what they were doing the first time (I guess they were following the crowd), at whatever age that would have been.

CREDOBAPTISM is another of the new dogmas invented by the Anabaptists. It's not the one being discussed here. IMO, that one is also unfounded - but that's another discussion for another day and thread.


ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM is the dogma that we are forbidden to permit baptism to any under a certain unknown age. Again, "PAEDO" is a very non-specific term for an age group of humans.... it can mean any under 18 or 20, but more often for those not yet attaining puberty. The very title of the dogma means, "Baptism is forbidden to those who are still Paedos." The sole, exclusive issue is AGE, the sole issue of the term "PAEDO" is age. Of course, as you note, the Anabaptists (and modern Baptists) are very illusive about just what AGE that is, after which baptism is no longer prohibited. The Anabaptists who invented this dogma in the late 16th Century never indicated that the Bible teaches this although many modern Baptists insist that it does. I agree with you that CREDOBAPTISM gets far more attention among modern Baptists today (as does IMMERSION ONLY BAPTISM), but it's not the topic of this thread (there are threads on that Baptist invention here at CH but you may have to dig for them)


I can refer you to the traditional/orthodox view (I have a whole thread on this here at CH) but that's beyond the realm permitted in this thread. THIS thread is solely about one issue: Does the Bible state that one must attain a certain (unknown) age before the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted?




.

 

[vince284]

I can refer you to the traditional/orthodox view (I have a whole thread on this here at CH) but that's beyond the realm permitted in this thread. THIS thread is solely about one issue: Does the Bible state that one must attain a certain (unknown) age before the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted?




.

I guess I wrote too much, my point was from a personal experience perspective that I was brought up Baptist and that I have never seen anyone denied baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

I’ve been brought up a Baptist as far back as I can remember. I have never heard of “age-X”. I’ve heard of knowingly receiving Faith and then following in the ordinance of baptism and that can come at any age – who is to say when an individual comes to faith. Many Baptist churches have a dialog with the person to ascertain whether they know what they are claiming. I’ve seen little kids and I’ve seen old people get baptized. I’ve never seen anyone denied. But, I’ve seen many people get baptized again because they claim they didn’t know what they were doing the first time (I guess they were following the crowd), at whatever age that would have been.

There is no "age of X." That is a make believe story created by Josiah in order to hold on to his own fantasy belief that the Bible teaches the practice of infant baptism. Josiah reads his infant baptism dogma into the phrase "entire household" in Acts 16. His only argument against believers baptism is that there is no explicit policy or law expressed in the Bible, which for him means that all forms of baptism are permissible since there is no law against it. He fails to acknowledge the slippery slope of heresy that opens up when using that method of biblical interpretation. Instead he just goes on and on, ad nauseum, about anabaptists...despite being openly shown to be wrong. Better to just leave Josiah be.

 

[Arsenios]

There is no "age of X."
His only argument against believers baptism is that
there is no explicit policy or law expressed in the Bible

So if there is no Biblical warrant - eg no explicit policy or law expressed in the Bible - for Believers only Baptism...
If there is no minimum age for Baptizing members of believers' households...
How can you claim the Bible for your belief in Believers-only Baptism, denying entry of infants into Christ?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

There is no "age of X."

Thanks for that clear repudiation of your dogma.

If there is no age of X then there is no such thing as Anti-Paedobaptism and no rejection of Paedobaptism.

his own fantasy belief that the Bible teaches the practice of infant baptism.

Joining you in rejecting any AGE issue simply means there is no dogma about age. So why do you mention "infant" anything? "Infant" is a small subset of Paedo. Since you insist that age is not an issue, then stop making it an issue and cease any mention of "infant" or "adult" anything.

Josiah reads his infant baptism dogma into the phrase "entire household" in Acts 16.

You have us reversed.


It is YOU that has dogmatically insisted - over and and over - foundationally (your entire apologetic HINGES on this ONE point) that the word "household" (oikos) CANNOT include those under the age of X. That's YOUR insistence; I've called it silly and unfounded. YOU are the one going on and on about who IS and IS NOT included in the word "household." Your entire apologetic HINGES on your silly, baseless claim that "households" cannot include any under the age of X thus everyone baptized in them MUST have been over the age of X.


Your whole point is that EVERY Baptism that happens to be recorded in the Bible is of one over the age of X who has FIRST in chronological time publicly proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and repented of their sins, then AFTER all that has been performed, only AFTER that are they baptized and ERGO we are mandated to do that and only that. "EVERY SINGLE BAPTISM" that happens to be recorded in the Bible followed this, you dogmatically insist. Well... a lot of them were these "... and their household" baptisms, so your entire apologetic is that it is a dogmatic fact that households can only include those over the age of X, those who first have proven they chose Jesus as their personal SAvior and repented of their sins, because you agree that "whole households" were baptized.


I have NEVER joined you in your silly assumptions about these households. I don't know if everyone in every one of these households was over the age of X or not, if they were all males or not, if they were all over six feet tall or not, if they were all Baptists or Methodist or not, if they all spoke fluent Latin.... the only thing I know is that they were humans and they were baptized - and so are among the "all baptisms" of which you speak. AND of course it is YOU who insist that we are NOT limited to doing only what was done in examples in the Bible (you prove it every time you post on the internet, you prove it by perhaps 90% of everything your church does) so you yourself reject your whole premise.


The Anabaptists - because of their very radical synergism - invited the Baptist Dogmas you parrot, NOT because of ANY Scripture about Baptism (they were honest about that, you aren't) but because they felt those under an unknown age could not perform the works necessary for God to be gracious to them.


Those who do not join the Anabaptists in this new dogma of exclusion do so for the same reason that we don't exclude African Americans from "Thou shalt not kill." TRUE - the Bible never states, "and this includes African Americans" but it also never says "Oh, but you are dogmatically prohibited to apply this to African Americans." TRUE - there's not one example of the life of an African American being defended as recorded in the Bible, but there's also not one example of one being killed and we're told that's okay because the Commanded specifically excludes them.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

So if there is no Biblical warrant - eg no explicit policy or law expressed in the Bible - for Believers only Baptism...
If there is no minimum age for Baptizing members of believers' households...
How can you claim the Bible for your belief in Believers-only Baptism, denying entry of infants into Christ?


Arsenios

I look at each baptism presented in the Bible and I follow its lead.
What I don't do is follow the lead of former pagan gentiles who came generations later and created a dogma from thin air.

 

[MennoSota]

Thanks for that clear repudiation of your dogma.

If there is no age of X then there is no such thing as Anti-Paedobaptism and no rejection of Paedobaptism.





Joining you in rejecting any AGE issue simply means there is no dogma about age. So why do you mention "infant" anything? "Infant" is a small subset of Paedo. Since you insist that age is not an issue, then stop making it an issue and cease any mention of "infant" or "adult" anything.







You have us reversed.


It is YOU that has dogmatically insisted - over and and over - foundationally (your entire apologetic HINGES on this ONE point) that the word "household" (oikos) CANNOT include those under the age of X. That's YOUR insistence; I've called it silly and unfounded. YOU are the one going on and on about who IS and IS NOT included in the word "household." Your entire apologetic HINGES on your silly, baseless claim that "households" cannot include any under the age of X thus everyone baptized in them MUST have been over the age of X.


Your whole point is that EVERY Baptism that happens to be recorded in the Bible is of one over the age of X who has FIRST in chronological time publicly proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and repented of their sins, then AFTER all that has been performed, only AFTER that are they baptized and ERGO we are mandated to do that and only that. "EVERY SINGLE BAPTISM" that happens to be recorded in the Bible followed this, you dogmatically insist. Well... a lot of them were these "... and their household" baptisms, so your entire apologetic is that it is a dogmatic fact that households can only include those over the age of X, those who first have proven they chose Jesus as their personal SAvior and repented of their sins, because you agree that "whole households" were baptized.


I have NEVER joined you in your silly assumptions about these households. I don't know if everyone in every one of these households was over the age of X or not, if they were all males or not, if they were all over six feet tall or not, if they were all Baptists or Methodist or not, if they all spoke fluent Latin.... the only thing I know is that they were humans and they were baptized - and so are among the "all baptisms" of which you speak. AND of course it is YOU who insist that we are NOT limited to doing only what was done in examples in the Bible (you prove it every time you post on the internet, you prove it by perhaps 90% of everything your church does) so you yourself reject your whole premise.


The Anabaptists - because of their very radical synergism - invited the Baptist Dogmas you parrot, NOT because of ANY Scripture about Baptism (they were honest about that, you aren't) but because they felt those under an unknown age could not perform the works necessary for God to be gracious to them.


Those who do not join the Anabaptists in this new dogma of exclusion do so for the same reason that we don't exclude African Americans from "Thou shalt not kill." TRUE - the Bible never states, "and this includes African Americans" but it also never says "Oh, but you are dogmatically prohibited to apply this to African Americans." TRUE - there's not one example of the life of an African American being defended as recorded in the Bible, but there's also not one example of one being killed and we're told that's okay because the Commanded specifically excludes them.



- Josiah




.

It cannot be my dogma when it is your coined phrase.

I follow the pattern of scripture while refraining from following the dogmas of former pagan gentiles who came generations after the Apostles and created the myth of infant baptism.

 

[Josiah]

... infant baptism.

Stop arguing ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM if your position is not ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM. You constantly defend the 16th Century Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism. Parroting this invention is a constant mantra of yours.


It's just you reject your own apologetic. You CLAIM every baptism in the Bible was of one over the age of X and o every "and their household" baptism HAD to be over the age opf X because it's impossible for a house to have any under the age of X)... you CLAIM we cannot do what we not shown to be the practice every time in the Bible, yet YOU YOURSELF do LOTS of things never once done in the Bible (much less, every time). You are obsessed with parroting this ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM invention of the radically synergistic Anabaptist, but you just keep using the say two ABSURD points - the first simply false (absurd to insist NO house is capable of having anyone under the age of X in them) and the second you yourself completely reject (you prove it every time you post on the 'net), I suspect your church proves it every Sunday.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Stop arguing ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM if your position is not ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM. You constantly defend the 16th Century Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism. Parroting this invention is a constant mantra of yours.


It's just you reject your own apologetic. You CLAIM every baptism in the Bible was of one over the age of X and o every "and their household" baptism HAD to be over the age opf X because it's impossible for a house to have any under the age of X)... you CLAIM we cannot do what we not shown to be the practice every time in the Bible, yet YOU YOURSELF do LOTS of things never once done in the Bible (much less, every time). You are obsessed with parroting this ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM invention of the radically synergistic Anabaptist, but you just keep using the say two ABSURD points - the first simply false (absurd to insist NO house is capable of having anyone under the age of X in them) and the second you yourself completely reject (you prove it every time you post on the 'net), I suspect your church proves it every Sunday.




.

The thread is...if paedobaptism were taught in scripture, I would believe it.
So far you have provided zero evidence from scripture. Thus...your argument is empty.

 

[Bluezone777]

The great commission... Mathew 28:16-20

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

While the age of the person to be baptized is not referenced directly but it requires the person to be made a disciple and then to proceed to teach them to observe all that Jesus has commanded you after being baptized. How exactly do you expect to make an infant a disciple and how are you going to teach them anything that Jesus commanded when they can't even speak or understand any language of any kind?

The conditions set forth by Jesus don't point to a specific age when someone can be baptized but it does rule out infants simply because they cannot be made a disciple or be taught the commands of Jesus which are required of all who are to be baptized.

 

[user1234]

There is only one baptism that our Lord commanded for the disciples to go out and do...Matthew 28:19 and that was always with water. Acts 2 also tells us that in our baptisms we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit so there is only ONE baptism.

~ I don't really know how to do the neato isolating of paragraphs/quotes, so I will just try to insert my comments in-between and hope ppl can understand me, and I apologize if I confuse anyone with my lack of technical expertise.

~There is water-baptism, and there is baptism of the Holy Ghost and with fire.
Also, there is not a set-in-stone formula re: water-baptism...Sometimes we see ppl believe and THEN get water-baptized and THEN receive the Holy Ghost ...
Other times we see ppl who have already received the Holy Ghost and THEN get water-baptized, ... and still other times it seems to be a spontaneous event.
~Ephesians 4:5 is often misunderstood. It's not saying that there is only one baptism...'water'...
The context is unity in the body, just as there is unity in the Godhead.
For all saved believers, there is one Spirit, the Holy Spirit; one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ; one faith, the saving faith once delivered to the saints; one baptism, the spiritual baptism into Christ...our salvation sealed and secured in Him for all eternity; one God and Father of all, Him being above all and through all and in all members of the one body of Christ.
It's not a reference to the many, various individual water-baptisms.



Lamm: We receive faith as a gift from God when He gives it according to His will. But man has proven that he can throw away that faith given to Him. That's what I mean.
~A truly saved person can't ultimately throw away their salvation, though some might lose 'faith', if you mean confidence, temporarily, at times, due to any number of reasons, but mainly due to getting away from the Word and therefore not being spiritually fed.



Lamm: Scripture does not say.
~It was a rhetorical question...of COURSE an infant can't reject God's salvation. That would have to be a deliberate, well-reasoned decision made by a person mature and capable of such reason.




Lamm: Heaven is obtained the same way by everyone...by grace through faith and not by works. In baptism, God gives faith because His Word is attached to the waters of baptism. So do the people in your scenario have faith?
~Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, not by the symbolic ritual or ceremony of water-baptism.
~I did explain how one person believed on Jesus and one didn't, however, your conclusion as to which one goes to heaven, and why, is rather astonishing.




Lamm: Does that person have faith? Believers should want to be baptized.
~But what if they are not water-baptized...? ... ...




Lamm: Water is what God chose to use as a way to make disciples. He attached His Word as promises in that the benefits of the cross are given to man in baptism.
~No, rather we receive the 'benefits of the cross' (i.e. salvation, eternal life, etc.) by believing on Jesus, not by water.



Lamm: God does not do baptism wrong so baptism is not nullified for the man who rejects salvation. The purpose of infant baptism is that Jesus gave the authority for baptism and in it we all receive the benefits of the cross. There is no mysterious age X, that's a man-made concept.

~That is most astonishing, and completely foreign and opposite from what scripture teaches.
So you're saying "once water-baptised, always saved'?!
That because a person was water-baptized as an infant, their place is secured in heaven, even though they never believed in Jesus? But a person who believed in Jesus does not get heaven because he was never water-baptized?!
Please say it ain't so...that would be a works-based salvation and a false gospel. Can you please explain why you believe that water-baptism secures salvation for an unbeliever, while faith in Jesus without water-baptism, does not?
Thank you for your reply. †

 

[Andrew]

Im sure the early Christians baptised new born and warned them about the world and to teach them about salvation through Jesus, much different than today, they get baptised and the parents should be walking them through life with God but im not sure it's the same anymore. We need to get back to how early christians thought about baptism