Accretions

[Albion]

Ok, so it’s Scripture plus tradition?

Nope. Is it an argument from tradition whenever someone studies the Bible and makes a decision based upon its contents? Of course not.

But you are now saying that because the people who were the closest in time to the writing of the New Testament reached a decision with that information in mind...then that's supposed by you to be a blind acceptance of something purely on the basis of custom.

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.

There's no age mentioned there. Were you intending to prove my point for me?

 

[Albion]

I’m sorry if I sound like a biblicist, but I see no other rule/authority when it comes to spiritual matters.

If so, why is it that you reject the references to Scripture when it's me or Lamb or Josiah or the Christians of antiquity--rather than you--making a decision on the basis of Scripture?

To me, doing such a thing seems indefensible.

 

[prism]

Nope. Is it an argument from tradition whenever someone studies the Bible and makes a decision based upon its contents? Of course not.

But you are now saying that because the people who were the closest in time to the writing of the New Testament reached a decision with that information in mind...then that's supposed by you to be a blind acceptance of something purely on the basis of custom.

But you did say, "The Church settled the issue" (39), that to me is appealing to 'Scripture plus'. Even the Church Fathers had disagreements among themselves concerning infant baptism. It wasn't til about the 3rd century that the practice became widespread.

here's no age mentioned there. Were you intending to prove my point for me?

No my point is in v.37. How would we know if an infant 'believes with all their heart'? (That was the condition Philip placed on the Ethiopian.)

 

[prism]

If so, why is it that you reject the references to Scripture when it's me or Lamb or Josiah or the Christians of antiquity--rather than you--making a decision on the basis of Scripture?

To me, doing such a thing seems indefensible.

I wouldn't reject clear Scripture on the matter, and you would think it would be clear if it's a matter of salvation as infant baptism alleges with baptismal regeneration.

 

[Albion]

But you did say, "The Church settled the issue" (39), that to me is appealing to 'Scripture plus'.

Well, you were mistaken.

When I wrote that the Church settled the issue, I meant that the Church settled the issue. It did not mean that the Church did so on the basis of something more persuasive than Scripture.

. Even the Church Fathers had disagreements among themselves concerning infant baptism. It wasn't til about the 3rd century that the practice became widespread.

I noted, in my first reply (I think it was) made during this discussion, that A LOT which deals with the how, and when, and to whom, as well as the meaning of the Baptismal ceremony itself, was in flux during the first years of the Christian era.

But that situation applies to many other issues as well. In time, this was settled. That, however, doesn't mean that infant baptism wasn't practiced in those days, and your use of the words "became widespread"--instead of changed or started--, etc. says as much.

 

[Albion]

No my point is in v.37. How would we know if an infant 'believes with all their heart'? (That was the condition Philip placed on the Ethiopian.)

Was Philip speaking to an infant there? If not, you are misapplying the meaning of that verse.

 

[prism]

Well, you were mistaken.

When I wrote that the Church settled the issue, I meant that the Church settled the issue. It did not mean that the Church did so on the basis of something more persuasive than Scripture.

Which clear Scripture?

But that situation applies to many other issues as well. In time, this was settled. That, however, doesn't mean that infant baptism wasn't practiced in those days, and your use of the words "became widespread"--instead of changed or started--, etc. says as much.

I know it was practiced early on as the archaeologist's spade has uncovered what is believed to be baptismal fonts for infants.
But Scripture please.

 

[prism]

Was Philip speaking to an infant there? If not, you are misapplying the meaning of that verse.

No, he was speaking to an Eunich. Unless infants can ride chariots etc...

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

...obviously not an infant.

 

[Albion]

No, he was speaking to an Eunich. Unless infants can ride chariots etc...

Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

...obviously not an infant.

In other words, the verses that you cited and in which Philp speaks about Baptism don't tell us anything, one way or the other, about baptizing infants. The words he spoke to this adult were meant for the eunuch and his situation.

(" 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.")

But Scripture please.

See Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31,33; Acts 18:8; and 1 Corinthians 1:14.

 

[prism]

In other words, the verses (36 and 37) that you cited and in which Philp speaks about Baptism don't tell us anything about baptizing infants. The words he spoke to this adult were meant for him and his situation.

(" 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.")


See Acts 16:15, Acts 16:31,33; Acts 18:8; and 1 Corinthians 1:14.

Unless you can produce a clear passage from Scripture supporting infant baptism, I have nothing more to say. This thread is about accretions and imho that is one of them.

 

[Albion]

I'm familiar with the routine by now. First, pose as a polite inquirer with an open mind. Then request Scripture verses when the explanations given don't verify the inquirer's beliefs. And then, after several verses are produced that clearly answer the question under discussion, pretend in reply that the person who agreed to help had failed to comply or else had come up empty!

And all of this is because the word of God in Scripture countered the inquirer's preconceived opinions rather than substantiate them.

So you and I have done what can be done here, and I hope you have a good rest of your day.

 

[prism]

I'm familiar with the routine by now. First, pose as a polite inquirer with an open mind. Then request Scripture verses when the explanations given don't verify the inquirer's beliefs. And then, after several verses are produced that clearly answer the question under discussion, pretend in reply that the person who agreed to help had failed to comply or else had come up empty!

And all of this is because the word of God in Scripture countered the inquirer's preconceived opinions rather than substantiate them.

So you and I have done what can be done here, and I hope you have a good rest of your day.

I’m still waiting on a clear verse supporting infant baptism, or at least your clearest verse…that’s what can be done.
Looking back at these three pages, not once have you given Scriptural support…just logic and Church history.
If I’m wrong, please list the post number.

 

[Lamb]

I’m still waiting on a clear verse supporting infant baptism, or at least your clearest verse…that’s what can be done.
Looking back at these three pages, not once have you given Scriptural support…just logic and Church history.
If I’m wrong, please list the post number.

This verse shows it's for the children.

Acts 2:38-39 “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Josiah]

If "accretion" means added after Jesus then the Bible itself is an example of accretion.


.

 

[Albion]

If "accretion" means added after Jesus then the Bible itself is an example of accretion.
.

That would be true, but we're also dealing with a moving target here. The issue was supposed to be whether or not certain doctrines or practices amounted to "accretions," i.e. innovations coming later in time than the Apostolic Age.

But when it's shown that some contenders--infant baptism for example--are not in that category, the scramble to hold onto the original claim starts and we then are then told by the critics that the practice became the norm later on or that it became widespread at some later time, either of which means that the item wasn't an "accretion" after all.

 

[prism]

This verse shows it's for the children.

Acts 2:38-39 “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

So do we toss out ‘sola fide’ and add water baptism? Maybe Rome was correct after all?

 

[Albion]

So do we toss out ‘sola fide’ and add water baptism? Maybe Rome was correct after all?

Sola Fide in no way conflicts with the sacrament of Baptism, and none of this has anything in particular to do with Rome.

 

[prism]

Sola Fide in no way conflicts with the sacrament of Baptism, and none of this has anything in particular to do with Rome.

I suppose it can be argued that the concept of ‘sacrament’ is an accretion as well.

At the Council of Trent (1545–63), the Roman Catholic Church formally fixed the number of sacraments at seven: baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, holy orders, matrimony, and anointing of the sick. brittanica.com

It is interesting that God’s Word is not included as a sacrament, but then with Rome, ‘faith’ is not required with a Sacrament as they have their own concept of ‘ex opere operato’

“Ex opere operato is a Latin phrase meaning "from the work performed" and, in reference to sacraments, signifies that they derive their efficacy, not from the minister or recipient (which would mean that they derive it ex opere operantis, meaning "from the agent's activity"), but from the sacrament considered independently of the merits of the minister or the recipient. According to the ex opere operato interpretation of the sacraments, any positive effect comes not from their worthiness or faith but from the sacrament as an instrument of God.[1]” -Wiki

Lutherans recognize two sacraments whereas Luther included Penance (Confession and Absolution).

I suppose ‘ex opere operato’ would come in handy with infant baptism as it’s efficacy is in the rite itself.

 

[Albion]

I suppose it can be argued that the concept of ‘sacrament’ is an accretion as well.

No, but WHICH ceremonies count as sacraments is a matter of accretion.

Two observances are unmistakable in the New Testament, but over time some churches/denominations added others until we got to the famous "seven sacraments" that Catholics recognize.

It is interesting that God’s Word is not included as a sacrament, but then with Rome, ‘faith’ is not required with a Sacrament as they have their own concept of ‘ex opere operato’

The reason is that a sacrament isn't just good advice or a moral precept.

It is a ceremony/act/observance that uses physical elements in order to convey a spiritual meaning, was commissioned by Christ himself, is expected of all church members, and which forgives sin (or reassures the recipient of it), and gives Grace.

 

[prism]

The reason is that a sacrament isn't just good advice or a moral precept.

It is a ceremony/act/observance that uses physical elements in order to convey a spiritual meaning, was commissioned by Christ himself, is expected of all church members, and which forgives sin (or reassures the recipient of it), and gives Grace.

Whatever meaning it conveys, that meaning must be explained with words, so we’re back to God’s Word except there is no ceremony involved but there is a blessing attached to the intake of it.