Infant Baptism

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
baptism and repentance go hand in hand also . i have observed that repentance of sin is not a popular concept - you close an entire thread the topic was disliked so much .. so why would i be surprised that here also THAT PART of the topic is constantly resisted .

Are you sure you want to air your dirty laundry publicly? You're not being very honest as to who closed your thread or why. Please stop.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Are you sure you want to air your dirty laundry publicly? You're not being very honest as to who closed your thread or why. Please stop.

nothing to hide ..air away.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,199
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Baptism and repentance go hand in hand also . i have observed that repentance of sin is not a popular concept - you close an entire thread the topic was disliked so much .. so why would i be surprised that here also THAT PART of the topic is constantly resisted .

I love the lord Jesus .. thus i desire at all times to honour his word . he said "if you love me you will obey me .
so if by his spirit he says - repent and be baptised .. then i will preach repent and be baptised .

since a baby cannot repent .. there is no point baptising them as they cannot KNOW .. their will is not engaged their faith not activated .

if we baptise babies without their will or knowledge .. why should we not then increase error and baptise the dead also ? do any of you non Catholics agree with baptising the dead ?

if not why not ?-since by your carnal reasoning it is ok to baptise a person without their will of knowledge .

and i note a certain point has been ignored .. when a person sincerely repents ,the lord seals their new life in him with the promised holy Spirit . Just as in the book of acts .. they receive the holy Spirit made evident by tongues at the time of that occurring .

So we receive this "seal" from God acknowledging his life in us when repentance is sincere of heart .

I suspect many debating the topic here have not had that occur .. which begs the question, why not ?

What organisation teaches the things you teach or is the above doctrine unique to yourself?
 

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
nothing to hide ..air away.

I'd like to let members know that your thread was not closed by me as you claim and it was not because someone didn't like the topic. Stop being deceitful because it makes you look bad in the end and I'm saying this as a staff member when I insist that you need to stop.
 

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
This comes from the LCMS website:

Infants are included in "all nations" who are to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). Certainly they were included in Peter's Pentecost exhortation in Acts 2:38, 39: "Repent and be baptized everyone one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins....The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off–for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Whole households, everyone in the family, were baptized in the beginning of New Testament times, which in all probability included infants (Acts 16:15 and 33). [The "household" formula used here by Luke has Old Testament precedent, with special reference also to small children, as for example in 1 Sam. 22:16, 19; see Joachim Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 22-23.] In Romans 6, the Holy Spirit tells us in the Word that in Baptism we have been united with Jesus' death and resurrection–regenerated, dying to sin and rising to new life. That happens to infants when baptized (Gal. 3:27). "For as many of you who have been baptized have put on Christ." Baptism through the Word creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants. Infants can have faith. In Mark 10:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." The Greek word in this text is "paidia" which means babes in arms. Infants can belong to the kingdom of God. "From the lips of children and infants, You have ordained praise...." Psalm 8:2. "Yet You brought me out of the womb, You made me trust in You even at my mother's breast" Psalm 22:9.

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at Pentecost to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted, the Church has baptized babies. Polycarp (69-155 AD), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) of the next generation, about the year 150 AD, states in his Dialog with Trypho The Jew that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament." Irenaeus (130-200 AD) writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus came to save all through means of Himself &mdash all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254 AD) and Cyprian (215-258 AD), and at the Council of Carthage in 254 where the 66 bishops stated: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God ... especially infants ... those newly born." Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: "For this also it was that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants." Origen also wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins." Cyprian's reply to a bishop who wrote to him regarding the baptism of infants stated: "Should we wait until the 8th day as did the Jews in the circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born."

Augustine (354-430 AD) wrote in De Genesi Ad Literam, 10:39 declared, "The custom of our mother Church in baptizing infants must not be counted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the Apostles." Augustine further states: "... the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ. In 517 AD, 10 rules of discipline were framed for the Church in Spain. The fifth rule states that "... in case infants were ill ... if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born...such was to be done." (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, London, Thomas Knott, 1790, p.269)

This pattern of baptizing infants remained in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bona fide opponent to infant Baptism was the heretic Tertullian (160-215 AD) who de facto denied original sin. Then in the 1520s the Christian Church experienced opposition specifically to infant Baptism under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence. Thomas' opposition was then embraced by a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch Anabaptists. This brought about strong warning and renunciation by the Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ's command in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age. Historical excerpts are from "Infant Baptism in Early Church History," by Dr. Dennis Kastens in Issues Etc. Journal, Spring 1997, Vol. 2, No. 3.



Beginning with the Anabaptist movement in the late 16th Century, this practice came to be challenged by a few Christians - and continues to be, especially by SOME "Evangelicals" especially in the USA.


Thoughts?


- Josiah





.


back to the issue at hand....





.
 

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Which early church fathers promoted the non-infant baptism? I don't know that I have come across any that would prove what these moderns are insisting is the way Jesus wanted. If the other way had been the normal practice wouldn't there be more documentation as proof?
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to let members know that your thread was not closed by me as you claim and it was not because someone didn't like the topic. Stop being deceitful because it makes you look bad in the end and I'm saying this as a staff member when I insist that you need to stop.

I did not mean you personally..closed it lol.
I mean you... "Christianity haven" .
And it was after a false accusation .
You openly complained about a generic analogy i used which referred to your(being anyones)spouse. And how we would not accept unfaithful behaviour from them some say its ok to behave unfaithfully to God.
After that.. Bang thread was closed.

Just saying. Im not being decietful, as God is my witness. As a staff member pmme next time. For iwill speak honestly about absolutley everything as i recall it
.i dont care what members think.i only care about what God knows.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
What organisation teaches the things you teach or is the above doctrine unique to yourself?

Im not teaching what you replied to ..im displaying the error it can and does lead to.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Which early church fathers promoted the non-infant baptism? I don't know that I have come across any that would prove what these moderns are insisting is the way Jesus wanted. If the other way had been the normal practice wouldn't there be more documentation as proof?

None.
And none of the apostles instigate it either.

We dont build doctrine or theology based on what man does but upon what the word of God says.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,199
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Im not teaching what you replied to ..im displaying the error it can and does lead to.

I rejoice if you're not teaching credo-baptism. What are you teaching about baptism?
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
back to the issue at hand....





.

The text in your op.. Contains dishonesty.
It states an assumption as if it were a fact.
Ie-Whole household were baptised.
Is not nor and has never been proof that babies were submersed in the waters of baptism .
Nor does it say they wearnt.

So the support of doing so is based on an assumtion dishonestly presented as a fact. The fact it.. The bible does not say they baptized babies.

The rest of the gospel you claim to know yet ignore.
If you baptize a baby..who then grows older,practices sin and does not repent are they saved? No. So the point of baptising them was?what?

And if you say you can baptise a baby without thier knowledge and without thier will... Then do you support baptizing the dead ?if not -why not?
 

Romanos

God is good.
Executive Administrator
Community Team
Supporting Member
Joined
May 12, 2015
Messages
3,588
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If anyone has any questions regarding moderation, they need to be addressed with a Staff Member via PM or with an Administrator in the Member/Admin Center, not in a public thread.

Romanos
Executive Admin
 

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Baptism is for the living and not the dead and don't you know scripture states it?
 

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
T
It states an assumption as if it were a fact.


The new tradition of prohibiting infants from baptism is based on several ASSUMPTIONS that Scripture never says - as you have so powerfully proven. Your assumption that all the members of Lydia's household FIRST celebrated their X birthday, FIRST repented with buckets of tears, FIRST attained a certain IQ and educational level, FIRST said the sinner's prayer and responded to an altar call.... THEN, only after that, permitted themselves to be baptized. You have NOTHING to support the claim that all the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT are of persons who FIRST believed, FIRST repented, FIRST reached a certain age and only THEN permitted themselves to be baptized.

And you ASSUME that the single, isolated verse you quote repeatedly misspeaks: it says "Repent AND be baptized" but you insist that's wrong, what it should say is "Repent THEN be baptized."

And you ASSUME that we can't do anything unless there are examples of that that happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT (and yet you are posting on the internet proving you yourself don't believe your own foundational premise).


Scripture says to baptize. It's a command directly from Jesus. In the late 16th Century, a few (well, it started with just one wackydoodle German) came up with a new invention: BUT NOT THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF X!!!! As you prove, this new tradition is entirely unfounded in Scripture. Scripture says nothing about "BUT NOT....." For the past 500 years (25% of Christian history), a tiny few Christians have put up a wall that Scripture never does: and as you so well illustrate, with nothing in Scripture to support it.




.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,199
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The text in your op.. Contains dishonesty.
It states an assumption as if it were a fact.
Ie - whole household were baptised.
Is not nor and has never been proof that babies were submersed in the waters of baptism .

...

Holy scripture does not teach baptism by submersion.
 

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
Holy scripture does not teach baptism by submersion.


OR...

Prohibition for any who have not yet celebrated their "X" birthday (whatever year "X" is).

Prohibition for any who have not specifically consented

Prohibition for any who have not yet wept buckets of tears in repentance

Prohibition for any who have an IQ under "X" or who have not mentally learned "X, Y, Z"

The partial prohibition of Jesus' command to baptize, this new tradition of a tiny few Christians, that one 16th Century Anabaptist invented, is without support.




.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,283
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Should we perhaps just throw out the whole chruchg as it seems as if there is objection to everything even the most sacred of rites
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,199
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Should we perhaps just throw out the whole church as it seems as if there is objection to everything even the most sacred of rites

I too have wondered why those who throw out the rite of baptism and its biblical meanings and substitute submersion as a public testimony of their commitment to faith in Jesus Christ do not complete the process and throw out everything. If baptism means less than the holy scriptures say it means and the rite of baptism can be replaced by an invented ceremony then why not do the same with the Lord supper and marriage and holy orders and anointing of the sick and confirmation and reconciliation to God and his people? I guess that is what many have done. Many groups and some denominations have neither the Lord's supper nor any of the rites of the Christian faith except for the words and forms of baptism even though its meaning is lost and the ceremony is a little like a ruin from past times. But I do thank God that they have meetings and the form of baptism and a form of communion even though its substance and meaning are missing. And I thank God that the faith of those in such bodies is so full and so strong even though there is error mixed in with it.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The new tradition of prohibiting infants from baptism is based on several ASSUMPTIONS that Scripture never says - as you have so powerfully proven. Your assumption that all the members of Lydia's household FIRST celebrated their X birthday, FIRST repented with buckets of tears, FIRST attained a certain IQ and educational level, FIRST said the sinner's prayer and responded to an altar call.... THEN, only after that, permitted themselves to be baptized. You have NOTHING to support the claim that all the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT are of persons who FIRST believed, FIRST repented, FIRST reached a certain age and only THEN permitted themselves to be baptized.

And you ASSUME that the single, isolated verse you quote repeatedly misspeaks: it says "Repent AND be baptized" but you insist that's wrong, what it should say is "Repent THEN be baptized."

And you ASSUME that we can't do anything unless there are examples of that that happen to be recorded in the pages of the NT (and yet you are posting on the internet proving you yourself don't believe your own foundational premise).


Scripture says to baptize. It's a command directly from Jesus. In the late 16th Century, a few (well, it started with just one wackydoodle German) came up with a new invention: BUT NOT THOSE UNDER THE AGE OF X!!!! As you prove, this new tradition is entirely unfounded in Scripture. Scripture says nothing about "BUT NOT....." For the past 500 years (25% of Christian history), a tiny few Christians have put up a wall that Scripture never does: and as you so well illustrate, with nothing in Scripture to support it.




.

what new tradition of prohibiting it .. no one had prohibited it .

oh and the entire Gospel involves repentance its not an isolated thing lol -you've tried that one .still doesn't work sorry there is no salvation without repentance .
 
Top Bottom