Infant Baptism

[Josiah]

..! haha of course it is -thats my point thank you for backing me up on that .

"Living" applies after conception.... we don't start "living" as we celebrate birthday number "x."

Yes, I agree, we are to baptize people (and "people" means living) - but I'm still trying to find the commands, "But NOT - repeat NOT - unless that person has attained the age of X!" Or, "But NOT - repeat NOT - unless that person first has recited 'the sinner's prayer' and come forward at an altar call!" Or "But NOT - repeat NOT - unless that person has first wept buckets of tears in repentance." I'm trying to find the substantiation for this new tradition of a tiny minority of Christians of forbidding baptism to those under the age of "X" (whatever age that is, none will say).




.

 

[Josiah]

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

This entire thread is about the new tradition of a few Christians of withholding baptism from those under the age of X.

You've tried to substantiate this new, rare custom of forbidding it by insisting that the word "and" mandates chronological order and thus "repent and be baptized" should be replaced with "repent and THEN be baptized." But then you agreed that actually "and" mandates no such thing - or even remotely implies it.

Some have tried to substantiate this new, rare tradition by insisting we can't give people things unless they FIRST give their consent. But they've all agreed that's not actually the case.




.

 

[Alithis]

Holy scripture does not teach baptism by submersion.

Start a thread on the meaning of the word baptism -but i know where you wil go with it already ..

to baptizo .. to dip ..also used in a reference to the pharisees washing hands hands before eating .. this other reference is used with attempt to justify pouring or sprinkling -the problem is .when the term baptizo is used as a reference to the burial and resurrection of the lord Jesus it immediately annulled this use of the word . for no one is "buried " by sprinkling .

and israel were not sprinkled by the red sea .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Start a thread on the meaning of the word baptism ...

Why? This thread is already about the meaning of baptism that is why it is called Infant Baptism.

 

[Alithis]

This entire thread is about the new tradition of a few Christians of withholding baptism from those under the age of X.

You've tried to substantiate this new, rare custom of forbidding it by insisting that the word "and" mandates chronological order and thus "repent and be baptized" should be replaced with "repent and THEN be baptized." But then you agreed that actually "and" mandates no such thing - or even remotely implies it.

Some have tried to substantiate this new, rare tradition by insisting we can't give people things unless they FIRST give their consent. But they've all agreed that's not actually the case.




.

what would "you" have me preach? .. what the word of God clearly plainly states .. or what you desire to be preached ?

answer my question.. do you support baptizing the dead ? - if not- why not .?

 

[Josiah]

answer my question.. do you support baptizing the dead ? - if not- why not .?

One who is dead is no longer a person. I would not baptize a former human anymore than I would a former cat. However, that is simply a diversion since this thread is not about any new tradition of withholding baptize from any former species. Unless you hold that we don't become a person until we celebrate a certain birthday or that infants are not human or alive, your point is irrelevant.

This entire thread is about the new tradition of a few Christians of withholding baptism from persons under the age of "X."

You've tried to substantiate this new tradition of withhold it by insisting that the word "and" mandates chronological order and thus "repent and be baptized" should be replaced with "repent and THEN be baptized." But then you agreed that actually "and" mandates no such thing - or even remotely implies it. There goes that argument.

Some have tried to substantiate this new, rare tradition by insisting we can't give people things unless they FIRST give their consent. But they've all agreed that's not actually the case; there goes that argument.




.

 

[psalms 91]

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.

Hate to tell you but there is error in every church none has escaped it

 

[Lamb]

Hate to tell you but there is error in every church none has escaped it

That's not a reason to stick with heresies though.

Tradition isn't the root of our beliefs, but if we see that our beliefs aren't in line with what others believed for hundreds of years then we really need to determine if those beliefs are biblical. Infant baptism WAS the norm. Those who don't believe it are the ones who need to take another look at their belief system origins.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hate to tell you but there is error in every church none has escaped it

I do not agree with that claim. I do, however, agree that every denomination has error in its teaching and none has escaped it.

 

[Pelikan]

The only argument to be made, falsely, is the continuation of old covenant and circumcision.

I agree that it can't hurt but I do believe credobaptism is about obedience and Biblical.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The only argument to be made, falsely, is the continuation of old covenant and circumcision.

I agree that it can't hurt but I do believe credobaptism is about obedience and Biblical.

Credo-baptism as the only form of baptism offered and approved by a denomination is an error. It's an error because it diminishes baptism. It refuses to acknowledge baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16) and it refuses to acknowledge baptism as effecting union with Christ (Romans 6:2-3) and the role of baptism in salvation (Mark 16:16; 1Pet 3:21). Credo-baptism as one form of the rite of baptism appropriate for people who have reached sufficient maturity to understand and acknowledge the teaching of Christ is practised by all of the ancient churches.

 

[Josiah]

This thread is about paedobaptism. Credobaptism is another subject for another thread.

But I agree with you: Placing a wall of prohibition against either children or those who have not yet proclaimed "the sinner's prayer" are both without biblical support. And both run counter to solid, ecumenical practice since at least 100 AD.

 

[psalms 91]

This thread is about paedobaptism. Credobaptism is another subject for another thread.

But I agree with you: Placing a wall of prohibition against either children or those who have not yet proclaimed "the sinner's prayer" are both without biblical support. And both run counter to solid, ecumenical practice since at least 100 AD.

How about John the Baptist? SDid he not have people repent before they were baptized?

 

[Josiah]

How about John the Baptist? SDid he not have people repent before they were baptized?

He was performing the JEWISH "Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." That's the technical name for a JEWISH rite. The text even specifically CALLS it by it's JEWISH technical name. Christianity hadn't begun yet.


We all agree we are told to baptize. We are told to "be baptized" (it's always PASSIVE from the perspective of the receiver!). Want we need is something to support the new (just the last 500 years), very tiny minority view that this command (so important in Scripture) this very new tradition that PROHIBITS this command for those under the age of X, this new tradition of a very few that some are FORBIDDEN to BE baptized, that we must neglect the command and reject some. No one thought of this for over 1500 years until one German Anabaptism invented this up in the late 16th Century. Thing is: to date, no one has been able to find this prohibition in Scripture, this command to withhold this from those under the age of "X."


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

"Living" applies after conception.... we don't start "living" as we celebrate birthday number "x."

Yes, I agree, we are to baptize people (and "people" means living) - but I'm still trying to find the commands, "But NOT - repeat NOT - unless that person has attained the age of X!" Or, "But NOT - repeat NOT - unless that person first has recited 'the sinner's prayer' and come forward at an altar call!" Or "But NOT - repeat NOT - unless that person has first wept buckets of tears in repentance." I'm trying to find the substantiation for this new tradition of a tiny minority of Christians of forbidding baptism to those under the age of "X" (whatever age that is, none will say).




.

so why should we not baptize those who have died ? did YOU not say we are to baptize all nations -that is the verse you use to justify baptizing babies (without their knowledge or will) where does it say in the scripture "only baptize living people "- after all you say we can baptize a baby without its knowledge or will . so why not a dead person without their knowledge or will ?

you see when you establish a tradition that is not based on clear direct unambiguous scripture you open the way for further error - for by the same carnal reason that says baptism babies without their will or knowledge and therefore with out their repentance - one can establish the baptism of the dead upon the exact same foundation. and you cannot say either a wrong by your reasoning . for it is by your reasoning that the false doctrine of baptizing the dead is also upheld .
if you declare one as ok.. you automatically declare the other is ok ..all because you based your foundation on carnal tradition and not the word of God which does not state that either is ok . repentance and baptism go hand in hand .neither an unknowing baby nor an unknowing dead man can repent and make the choice to be baptized .

 

[Alithis]

He was performing the JEWISH "Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." That's the technical name for a JEWISH rite. The text even specifically CALLS it by it's JEWISH technical name. Christianity hadn't begun yet.


We all agree we are told to baptize. We are told to "be baptized" (it's always PASSIVE from the perspective of the receiver!). Want we need is something to support the new (just the last 500 years), very tiny minority view that this command (so important in Scripture) this very new tradition that PROHIBITS this command for those under the age of X, this new tradition of a very few that some are FORBIDDEN to BE baptized, that we must neglect the command and reject some. No one thought of this for over 1500 years until one German Anabaptism invented this up in the late 16th Century. Thing is: to date, no one has been able to find this prohibition in Scripture, this command to withhold this from those under the age of "X."


I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah

the choice to obey and be baptized is not passive .. did Philip take the eunuch into the water and baptize him? nope ..the eunuch "asked for it to be done " ..not passive . done deal .

 

[Alithis]

That's not a reason to stick with heresies though.

Tradition isn't the root of our beliefs, but if we see that our beliefs aren't in line with what others believed for hundreds of years then we really need to determine if those beliefs are biblical. Infant baptism WAS the norm. Those who don't believe it are the ones who need to take another look at their belief system origins.

now now , shall we maintain this dishonesty.. ? there is equally no evidence in scripture that it was the norm to immerse babies in baptism .just as i cannot say it was not done in the book of acts . therefore i do not back up what i say by what is NOT written . neither can you . it is simply not being honest to say "it was the norm when it is never stated so in the book of acts "
just because carnal men began it some time and many did it later on does not make it truth . it just makes it tradition and we know darn well that traditions do not establish truth .

 

[TurtleHare]

the choice to obey and be baptized is not passive .. did Philip take the eunuch into the water and baptize him? nope ..the eunuch "asked for it to be done " ..not passive . done deal .

Who is running the verb is something that's a great tool to remember when reading scripture. Did the Eunuch do anything in baptism? No, he didn't but God's Word did the work and washed away his sins and giving him the gift of the Holy Spirit because that's what the bible tells us that baptism does. Standing there while someone pours water over you isn't doing anything.

 

[Josiah]

now now , shall we maintain this dishonesty.. ? there is equally no evidence in scripture that it was the norm to immerse babies in baptism .just as i cannot say it was not done in the book of acts . therefore i do not back up what i say by what is NOT written . neither can you . it is simply not being honest to say "it was the norm when it is never stated so in the book of acts "
just because carnal men began it some time and many did it later on does not make it truth . it just makes it tradition and we know darn well that traditions do not establish truth .

This thread is not about ANY mode of administering ANY rite, blessing, function or action. It's about the new tradition of a very few that we are to withhold baptism from those under the age of X.

NO one is saying that a person cannot be dunked. There is a tradition of a few that a person may not be sprinkled (or any mode of administration other than full immersion). Since this new tradition holds a position ("baptism MUST be administered by imersion"), they therefore have the full and exclusive "burden of proof."





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

the choice to obey and be baptized is not passive ...

Infants are not passive when baptised.