Accretions

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well we know infants aren't soldiers. (Lu 3:14)
In other words, no, we do not know the ages of anybody who, according to the Bible, was the recipient of baptism. That being the case, why should the church arbitrarily set one for children?

People can baptize/dedicate children all they want to, my beef is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Very well, but that's an aspect of sacramental theology that isn't what we've been discussing here, right?

Again, what happened to sola scriptura?
I'm far from denying it. What I was saying there was that the way the church, the first generations of Christians, interpreted Christ's directive to make converts of all nations and baptize them, appears to have left the church in doubt concerning some of the details--and now we argue over the details.

The only way for us to decide is to go by Scripture, not to ignore or minimize it! So, it looks like you understood my point to be saying exactly the opposite of what I actually meant to say!

And if we DO go by Scripture, we will decide to baptize people without regard to their age (as certainly was the approach taken in the first century and for which we have several Bible references that speak of entire households being baptized upon the decision of the head of the household).

Any other way wouldn't make sense, anyhow. To think that in that day and age, the children in the family were going to be asked to make their own decisions on which religion to belong to is ridiculous. Even today, that would be seen as peculiar.

THE Scriptures given are usually quite 'iffy', (e.g. 'households') leaving more questions than answers.
It's only the "Credobaptists" of recent centuries who feel the need to question it. And that's because it's the strongest Scriptural indicator of the correctness of infant baptism.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again, what happened to sola scriptura?


Well, it never states a prohibition against baptizing those under the age of Who-Knows and who have not first proven they have saving faith. Those Baptist dogmas have no support whatsoever in the Bible.




.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is Baptism ONLY an "outward sign of a personal decision?"
Is Baptism ONLY a "symbol"
Is Baptism inert?




The Anabaptists Claims and Inventions:


In the 16th Century, the synergistic Anabaptists overturned 1500 years of Christian faith by inventing a new dogma that baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that accomplishes nothing. They stressed that it is ONLY a symbol (even comparing it to foot washing). They invented an entirely new and never before heard of concept that "Baptism is visible, outward proof of the person choosing Jesus as their personal Savior, etc., etc." They repudiated and denounced every baptism in history and of every non-Anabaptist because this view was found nowhere but among the Anabaptist.

Additionally, they invented several new prohibitions/mandates on the practice of Baptism:
1) A certain never-disclosed AGE must first be attained by the recipient ("Anti-Paedobaptism - no baptisms for those under the age of Who-Knows),
2) The recipient must first adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior ("Credobaptism"),
3) The recipient must first prove they have adequately repented of all their sins,
4) The recipient must have every part of their body entirely and fully immersed under water (Immersion Only Baptism).

THIS thread is not about those prohibitions/mandates that they invented. There are already threads on these new inventions, but this is about their theology: Baptism is ONLY an OUTWARD symbol of inner good works performed by the recipient. Inert. Like foot washing. It was a radical idea, a brand new one, reversing 1500 years of universal Christianity.



What does SCRIPTURE say?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual. IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distinctive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... worthless, not used by God. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some... Just click on them to get the verse words.


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


Verses that state Baptism is inert, merely a symbol, that it is an "outward sign of an inner decision."

Crickets.



A couple of quick notes: Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."

I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication.

And equally significant is that we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual ritual; only a symbol.


Baptism in the Bible

We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different.



What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more.

And not one that says Baptism is inert, just a symbol, "an outward sign of a personal decision," none that state it's just like foot washing.

My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians for nearly 1600 years .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.


I am NOT saying this is a "slam dunk".... any more than say the Trinity is a "slam dunk." . I'm only saying the suggestion of both Scripture and history is quite solidly on the historic side, and we simply find NOTHING in Scripture or history that supports the Anabaptist reinvention (nor did they even claim such). I wonder, too, about the argument that "it is OBVIOUS by the words in Scripture that Baptism in just a outward symbol of personal accomplishments and good works by the person." IF it's obvious, where are those Scriptures? And why did no one notice that for over 1500 years, if it's "OBVIOUS?"

I welcome Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished.




Thank you.


- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
In the 16th Century, the synergistic Anabaptists overturned 1500 years of Christian faith by inventing a new dogma that baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that accomplishes nothing. They stressed that it is ONLY a symbol (even comparing it to foot washing). They invented an entirely new and never before heard of concept that "Baptism is visible, outward proof of the person choosing Jesus as their personal Savior, etc., etc." They repudiated and denounced every baptism in history and of every non-Anabaptist because this view was found nowhere but among the Anabaptist. et. al
isn't this an appeal to history/tradition?

My point is being made by a litany of Church Father's quotes.

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."
I wonder where, from scripture, Irenaeus comes up with 'that baptism which is regeneration to God'?
I never was baptized until about 30 months after regeneration.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
isn't this an appeal to history/tradition?

It's a notation that no one - not one Christian - held to these Anabaptist dogmas and prohibitions - not for over 1500 years. IF it's so clear in Scripture, you DO have to wonder how not one Christian saw that.

But of course, it's not only missing in Christianity but it's missing in Scripture. Did you miss that? Not one word about baptism being prohibited for those under the age of Who-Knows. Not one word about Baptism being prohibited for those who did not yet prove they had saving faith. Not one word about Baptism being just an inert symbol.




.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's a notation that no one - not one Christian - held to these Anabaptist dogmas and prohibitions - not for over 1500 years. IF it's so clear in Scripture, you DO have to wonder how not one Christian saw that.

But of course, it's not only missing in Christianity but it's missing in Scripture. Did you miss that? Not one word about baptism being prohibited for those under the age of Who-Knows. Not one word about Baptism being prohibited for those who did not yet prove they had saving faith. Not one word about Baptism being just an inert symbol..
Well, that's true enough. All the other 'slants' on this subject aside, it's the case that baptizing adults exclusively and seeing Baptism as being only a gesture on our part--the Baptist view--are not to be found anywhere in the Bible. And yet, the churchmen who stand by those beliefs will say, to the last man, that they are guided by Scripture Alone!
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's a notation that no one - not one Christian - held to these Anabaptist dogmas and prohibitions - not for over 1500 years. IF it's so clear in Scripture, you DO have to wonder how not one Christian saw that.
I guess I'm not following, what notation? What's clear in Scripture? Certainly not infant baptism.
But of course, it's not only missing in Christianity but it's missing in Scripture. Did you miss that? Not one word about baptism being prohibited for those under the age of Who-Knows. Not one word about Baptism being prohibited for those who did not yet prove they had saving faith. Not one word about Baptism being just an inert symbol.
Right, it's missing in Scripture, so why do we get so dogmatic about infant baptism by resorting to non apostolic authority?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What's clear in Scripture?

The Anabaptist inventions in the 16th Century are not found in Scripture. NOTHING whatsoever that teaches
1) Baptism is ONLY an inert symbol, an outward sign of an inner decision.
2) Baptism is prohibited for those under the age of Who-Knows.
3) Baptism is prohibited for those who have not first proven they have saving faith.
4) Baptism must involve every cell of the body being immersed in water.

NONE of that is remotely found in Scripture. Or anywhere before the 16th Century.


so why do we get so dogmatic about infant baptism ?

See post 23



.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Anabaptist inventions in the 16th Century are not found in Scripture. NOTHING whatsoever that teaches
1) Baptism is ONLY an inert symbol, an outward sign of an inner decision.
2) Baptism is prohibited for those under the age of Who-Knows.
3) Baptism is prohibited for those who have not first proven they have saving faith.
4) Baptism must involve every cell of the body being immersed in water.

NONE of that is remotely found in Scripture. Or anywhere before the 16th Century.




See post 23



.
Again, I don’t hold so tenaciously to baptizing adults as some hold to baptizing infants, especially when it comes to expecting regeneration from the application.
It doesn’t much matter how old a practice is but rather how true.
Justification by faith alone seemed to be missing in the writings of the ECF as well. Do you want to chuck that too?
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Right, it's missing in Scripture, so why do we get so dogmatic about infant baptism by resorting to non apostolic authority?
I get the feeling that you have decided to pay no attention to any explanation that doesn't agree with what you already believed before the discussion started. Our authority in this case IS, yes IS, Holy Scripture, and we've pointed that out repeatedly.

I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is, therefore, when the other person, the one who asked for answers, responds to the answers as though what was written in them never appeared. :(
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again, I don’t hold so tenaciously to baptizing adults as some hold to baptizing infants, especially when it comes to expecting regeneration from the application.
That seems like an odd statement. The only reason that any Christian might be seen as holding "tenaciously" to the practice of baptizing children is because of the constant attacks that Anabaptists and fundamentalists make against the baptizing of children. By comparison, almost every denomination supports the idea of baptizing adults, so there is no controversy about doing that.
 

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I guess here's where we have to ask what those false doctrines are, but the bigger point remains that your assessment is just one personal opinion among tens or hundreds of thousands of others just like it.

By the way, what church do you belong to or attend? Knowing that would make the discussion a lot easier.
I currently do not attend any Church meetings or hold to any denomination. God willing, this Spring I plan to publicly broadcast the gospel and the need for all Trinitarians to be Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. I'm waiting for the winter to be over so we can baptized in nearby lakes.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I currently do not attend any Church meetings or hold to any denomination. God willing, this Spring I plan to publicly broadcast the gospel and the need for all Trinitarians to be Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
 

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Not in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
The name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is Lord Jesus
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Again, what happened to sola scriptura?
I said that the church settled the issue. I didn't say that the church settled the issue without paying any mind to what Scripture has to say about it.

As we here have already shown, if Scripture is one's guide, then the baptism of children is proper, since Scripture nowhere indicates that there is any age requirement for being baptized and there are several references to whole households being baptized on the decision made by the head of the house, meaning that children were included.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is Lord Jesus
Then you are not a Trinitarian, despite having claimed that you are one.

To be clearer, why would you think that the Father's name is 'Jesus' and the Holy Ghost's name is 'Jesus,' even though Jesus was an Earthly name given to the person born of Mary near Bethlehem? If not, that is, because you hold that the baby was all three--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--at once?

Is it simply that (as discussed earlier) you mistakenly think that coming "in the name of" means that the one being referred to literally bears that name as his own?
 
Last edited:

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Then you are not a Trinitarian, despite having claimed that you are one.
Yes, I am a Trinitarian and I am also a retired old man. So you folks have a great day while I go attend to the wife's honey do list.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I said that the church settled the issue. I didn't say that the church settled the issue without paying any mind to what Scripture has to say about it.
Ok, so it’s Scripture plus tradition?
As we here have already shown, if Scripture is one's guide, then the baptism of children is proper, since Scripture nowhere indicates that there is any age requirement for being baptized and there are several references to whole households being baptized on the decision made by the head of the house, meaning that children were included.
I don’t believe I mentioned an age requirement, but there is this…

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
 

prism

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2022
Messages
711
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I get the feeling that you have decided to pay no attention to any explanation that doesn't agree with what you already believed before the discussion started. Our authority in this case IS, yes IS, Holy Scripture, and we've pointed that out repeatedly.

I hope you can appreciate how frustrating it is, therefore, when the other person, the one who asked for answers, responds to the answers as though what was written in them never appeared. :(
I’m sorry if I sound like a biblicist, but I see no other rule/authority when it comes to spiritual matters.
Since I don’t see I.B. in Scripture, I can only view it as another Gospel…especially concerning regeneration.
 
Top Bottom