Infant Baptism

[Josiah]

My post quotes scripture .

I'm waiting for the Scripture that says what you do:

"Thou mayest NOT baptize those under the age of X"

Your simply rejecting scripture because it does not agree with your traditions.

That's exactly what you are doing. You hold to this new tradition of a small minority of Christians - that baptism is to be withheld from those under the age of X - but as you document, you have NOTHING in Scripture that so says. So you reject all the commands to Baptize because they don't contain the new tradition you are holding to, they simply don't agree with your tradition.

It says what it says

.... Baptize. Here's what you've documented it never says, "But ONLY if said receiver has first celebrated their "Xth" birthday!!!" "But ONLY if said receiver has first attained the age of X!" "But ONLY if said receiver has FIRST weapt buckets of tears in repentance!!!" "But ONLY if said receiver has chanted the sinner's prayer and come forward for an altar call!!!" Scripture doesn't say that..... your new, small tradition does.

i will stand on what the word of God plainly states.

I see. Then quote these verbatim words from Scripture:

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X" (when you quote the verse, we'll FINALLY know what age "X" is!!!)
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any under any conditions unless and until they have celebrated their "Xth" birthday!!!!!"
"Thou art prohibited from baptizing any unless they first have wept 6 quarts of tears in repentance!!!!"
"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless and untill they have chanted the sinner's prayer, adequately participated in an altar call, and proven they have valid faith in Christ!"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any if you think they might benefit from it!"




.

 

[Josiah]

tut tut dishonesty again.. the known tradition of baptising babies originates from rome some few HUNDRED years after the book of acts .

Just plain FALSE. READ the opening post.

The new tradition of withholding baptism from those under the never-disclosed age of X is the new one. It started with an Anabaptist German wackadoodle in the late 16th Century, your tradition is not yet 500 years old. We can document infant baptism as the practice from at least the year 69 AD (still within the period when most the Apostles were still alive), and we know it was the universal practice until that German wackadoodle came alone.

But you claim you don't go by tradition. You claim you go ONLY by the literal, verbatim words of Scripture. Thus we are waiting for this verse you found that NO ONE before this wackadoodle German Anabaptist ever noticed, this verse that states, "But thou are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X."




.

 

[visionary]

Age of accountability is important. If the believer is a child that can acknowledge their belief and the importance to their faith baptism is, then like Peter did, you baptize them. Infants on the other hand are more of a dedication on the parent's part than acknowledgement on the infant's part regarding believing and be baptized.

 

[TurtleHare]

Age of accountability is a man made idea and based upon a different Gospel that babies are automatically saved without the usual "by grace through faith" that our bible declares to be the only one and true Gospel.

Age accountability relies on men to decide when someone should be baptized instead of allowing God to do his job in baptism. Where God's Word is also is the Holy Spirit and we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit brings man into faith with the Word so why wait for baptism depending on man instead where it isn't even told to do that in scripture? Jesus didn't tell the disciples they had to wait for an age of accountability when he sent them out.

 

[visionary]

Age of accountability is a man made idea and based upon a different Gospel that babies are automatically saved without the usual "by grace through faith" that our bible declares to be the only one and true Gospel.

Age accountability relies on men to decide when someone should be baptized instead of allowing God to do his job in baptism. Where God's Word is also is the Holy Spirit and we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit brings man into faith with the Word so why wait for baptism depending on man instead where it isn't even told to do that in scripture? Jesus didn't tell the disciples they had to wait for an age of accountability when he sent them out.

"by grace through faith" is showing accountability. Faith takes knowledge. Grace comes by faith. By the way, in Judaism, 13 is the age of accountability. So Yeshua sending out 30+ aged men were well within the confines of the term. That conversation that Yeshua had as a child with the rabbis at the temple when He was a boy, showed the knowledge as He entered into the age of accountability in the eyes of the believers of His time.

 

[Alithis]

I'm waiting for the Scripture that says what you do:

"Thou mayest NOT baptize those under the age of X"






That's exactly what you are doing. You hold to this new tradition of a small minority of Christians - that baptism is to be withheld from those under the age of X - but as you document, you have NOTHING in Scripture that so says. So you reject all the commands to Baptize because they don't contain the new tradition you are holding to, they simply don't agree with your tradition.






.... Baptize. Here's what you've documented it never says, "But ONLY if said receiver has first celebrated their "Xth" birthday!!!" "But ONLY if said receiver has first attained the age of X!" "But ONLY if said receiver has FIRST weapt buckets of tears in repentance!!!" "But ONLY if said receiver has chanted the sinner's prayer and come forward for an altar call!!!" Scripture doesn't say that..... your new, small tradition does.






I see. Then quote these verbatim words from Scripture:

"Thou art forbidden to baptize any under the age of X" (when you quote the verse, we'll FINALLY know what age "X" is!!!)
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any under any conditions unless and until they have celebrated their "Xth" birthday!!!!!"
"Thou art prohibited from baptizing any unless they first have wept 6 quarts of tears in repentance!!!!"
"Thou art forbidden to baptize any unless and untill they have chanted the sinner's prayer, adequately participated in an altar call, and proven they have valid faith in Christ!"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any if you think they might benefit from it!"




.

im going to be harsh . -do you find it difficult to read ?

i have never said "thou mayest not do it "i have never said it is to be withheld i have not said any of these things in this post ..
i have said -dont lie to the recipient of actions outside thier knowledge and will .

all else i have ever said is only what the bible clearly states . unlike you i have not added to it with tradition nor attempted to superimpose that tradition over the word of God .

to add to my own words - ,i don't consider the sinner's prayer to be" repentance" it is merely a declaration of it and some people declare it falsely .-proven by the fact they continue in the practice of sin and show they have not actually repented and are only feigning repentance .But God knows the heart .

 

[Alithis]

"by grace through faith" is showing accountability. Faith takes knowledge. Grace comes by faith. By the way, in Judaism, 13 is the age of accountability. So Yeshua sending out 30+ aged men were well within the confines of the term. That conversation that Yeshua had as a child with the rabbis at the temple when He was a boy, showed the knowledge as He entered into the age of accountability in the eyes of the believers of His time.

yup
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


i do love scripture ..it never contradicts.

 

[Alithis]

John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb when Mary greeted Elizabeth. Luke 1:41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped for joy in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."

There's much more to a baby's connection to God that you don't know about but God does.

absolutely nothing to do with baptism in water

 

[Alithis]

Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptised will be saved.” (Mark 16:15-16) Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that “we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4; 4:25)

thanks ,,you keep presenting wonderful verses strengthening the point that baptising babies is nothing more then a ritual of dedication by the parents and nothing to to do with their salvation by faith

for you have quoted- "He who believes and is baptised will be saved." at what point has the baby believed and confessed that belief from the heart ? well they haven't .so when they know to do so they will ,like all others need to do so .

'and as has so often been pointed out .. the scripture never ever lists it in the reverse .. in neve says .. be baptised ..first .. repent later . it cant because baptism is an act of obedience and to cease from disobedience one must repent .

 

[Lamb]

absolutely nothing to do with baptism in water

Do you remember how the conversation went??? It's very difficult to communicate with someone who isn't following his own responses and understanding when someone replies back. I'll let you read up.

 

[Lamb]

17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.


i do love scripture ..it never contradicts.

YES. Thank you for mentioning that since I already did so. In baptism there is the water and Word as mentioned by myself and others. I do love scripture too and find that only man contradicts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

thanks ...

It was a pleasure to present what the holy scriptures say about the meaning of baptism and thus to show why baptism is properly applied to the children of believing parent(s).

 

[Alithis]

Do you remember how the conversation went??? It's very difficult to communicate with someone who isn't following his own responses and understanding when someone replies back. I'll let you read up.

The reply with quote is a helpful feature.
But regardless.... The topic of john the baptist in the womb has no bearing on infant baptism.

 

[Alithis]

YES. Thank you for mentioning that since I already did so. In baptism there is the water and Word as mentioned by myself and others. I do love scripture too and find that only man contradicts.

Are you referring to "the washing of the waters of the word"?
If so whats the link to water baptism ?i mean really.. Folks are almost sounding desperate.
If you (being any one) cant find where it states clear unambiguous text instructing us to baptise babies without thier knowledge or thier will, without being able to hear the word of god and thus repent.
Then please present that scripture.
If not.. Stop trying to drag Gods word through the mincer of carnal tradition to get it to conform to that carnal tradition.

Its not in scripture because its not in scripture. You cant make it appear there.

 

[Alithis]

It was a pleasure to present what the holy scriptures say about the meaning of baptism and thus to show why baptism is properly applied to the children of believing parent(s).

That would be nice.. But you didnt ..and you know it.

 

[Pedrito]

I note that Josiah is still promulgating the invalid “age X” argument.

I further note that none of his religious compatriots have counselled him to stop using it. Not publicly anyway.

Which simply demonstrates that they must all recognise the absolute need to keep using that dishonest diversionary tactic in defence of their cherished doctrine and practice.

And while it was not MoreCoffee's place to offer advice to an individual from a different communion, he could have acknowledged the inappropriateness of the “age X” argument in a general way.

Could he not?

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #111 on Page 12, I pointed out how MoreCoffee in his Post #104 on Page 11 had unwittingly argued against his own position – that of defending infant baptism as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In reply, in Post #124 (Page 13) MoreCoffee asked:

Given your stated views can you tell us what baptism means? What is its significance? Why baptise? Why be baptised?

I assume that MoreCoffee, because of his participation in predominantly protestant forums for some time, already knows the answers.

(And I assume by “your stated views” MoreCoffee was referring to my simply pointing out the discrepancies and deficiencies in the arguments presented by those supporting the baptism of infants.)

However, I will present a reasonably thorough, if somewhat summarised, explanation, for those who may be simply following and supporting the ideas of their own organisation (church, denomination), whatever that organisation and its views may be.

Continued ...

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued

In Post #111 on Page 12, I pointed out how MoreCoffee in his Post #104 on Page 11 had unwittingly argued against his own position – that of defending infant baptism as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In reply, in Post #124 (Page 13) MoreCoffee asked:

Given your stated views can you tell us what baptism means? What is its significance? Why baptise? Why be baptised?

When God established His theocratic religious covenant with Israel (which paralleled, but was was distinct from, the land covenant), ethnic male descendants of Jacob were included in that covenant by the rite of circumcision. Circumcision gave them access to the rites and privileges on offer within that covenant. Females had automatic access rights through their fathers.

Gentiles could be grafted into that covenant by circumcision (if male), the offering of a sacrifice, and the act of being baptised. We know this detail from reliable Jewish sources. Females made their own independent affirmations. Children were accorded membership via their parents' affirmation. The general term proselyte is used of them.

Ethnic male descendants of Jacob were included in the land covenant also, by the rite of circumcision. Proselytes were not.

The baptism was by total immersion, and pictured the ending of the old life and the commencement of a new. That was understood by those of sentient age. The people being being exhorted by John the Baptist to be baptised, understood that they were being instructed by John to deem themselves as far away from God as were the Gentiles, and to leave their old ways behind and dedicate themselves to God in newness of life. The act of being baptised was an outward declaration of that inward acknowledgement.

Jesus' baptism thus takes on new light. By means of John's baptism, Jesus publicly acknowledged His inward commitment (consecration, if you prefer) to the mission that God had sent him to Earth to undertake. Jesus formally accepted that mission, and took on His new, totally dedicated life that would end in his becoming the sacrificial Lamb of God. God was well pleased by Jesus' acceptance of His mission, and God gave Him the holy spirit in response.

God inspired the epistle writer John to state that we (if we claim that we abide in him) should walk even as Jesus walked. (1 John 2:6) People supporting the concept of “believer's baptism” see that perspective of baptism as most closely conforming to John's exhortation. They see baptism as being a formal acknowledgement of an internal decision to dedicate one's life to God, a decision that can only be undertaken as an act of will. The Bible also indicates that that step is irrevocable, has attendant dangers, and should be undertaken only after carefully weighing the relative potential benefits and dangers. That is often overlooked.


Continued ...

 

[Lamb]

The reply with quote is a helpful feature.
But regardless.... The topic of john the baptist in the womb has no bearing on infant baptism.

It was used by both of us...but that was pages ago so it's hard to keep track. No problem.

You missed the connection I was making between babies being able to have faith and that's what some of you are complaining about, that they can't be believers. Yet, Jesus and scriptures tell us that babies can have faith. Just because you don't know what's going on in their heads doesn't mean God is just as ignorant. He is the Almighty who can do great things. His WORD is what changes us and His Word is in with the waters of baptism. He put his promises in baptism and His Word is there. His Word does not return to him empty. His Word causes change and gives faith.

 

[Pedrito]

… Continued

In Post #111 on Page 12, I pointed out how MoreCoffee in his Post #104 on Page 11 had unwittingly argued against his own position – that of defending infant baptism as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church.

In reply, in Post #124 (Page 13) MoreCoffee asked:

Given your stated views can you tell us what baptism means? What is its significance? Why baptise? Why be baptised?

… Continued

Of course, the Catholic Church has its own particular interpretations regarding baptism and personal dedication to God, as does the Lutheran Church, for example. Neither of those two churches gives general recognition to baptism performed by other churches. (But each has done deals with its own particular selection of other churches.)

I don't recall the Scriptures recording deals done between particular churches, to mutually recognise each others' baptisms, and to reject the baptisms performed by other churches not included in those agreements. Did I miss something?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And another consideration.

Many churches, unlike the apostles, baptise faith-expressers (of whatever age) only after they have sat through denominational instruction classes. Thus those people are mis-taught regarding what baptism really means – they end up believing, even if only subconsciously, that loyalty to the organisation is a valid expression (in some cases, the highest expression) of loyalty to God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intense denominational loyalty is widespread, easy to identify, and I would suggest, displeasing to God.

It is related to a distortion of true apostolic baptism, whatever form that distortion happens to take.

Continued ...