Infant Baptism

[Full O Beans]

It says "baptism saves you" and you say "baptism saves nobody" that's pretty direct contradiction.

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
(1 Peter 3:21 NASB)

There's no contradiction.

 

[Full O Beans]

Aren't all the verses you quoted specifically addressed to people who are adults? Not really relevant to infants.

Matthew 28:19-20 teaches that those who administer baptism are to teach. Well every Church that baptises infants teaches them too.

The other passages you've cited are either not relevant to baptism or are addressed to adults. Most of the passages are addressed to men but not many Christians would exclude women from baptism so the principle is not to restrict baptism (or anything else) to precisely and exactly the cases explicitly mentioned in holy scripture. We baptise women, we baptise infants and so forth.

Correct...not relevant to infants. They need to grow to the point where they can grasp the truth of the gospel and recognize their sinfulness and repent and receive Jesus their personal Saviour and Lord.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Correct...not relevant to infants. They need to grow to the point where they can grasp the truth of the gospel and recognize their sinfulness and repent and receive Jesus their personal Saviour and Lord.

Can you cite a passage that says to baptise women?

 

[Full O Beans]

Can you cite a passage that says to baptise women?

It's not necessary. The word is for all humanity.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's not necessary. The word is for all humanity.

Are you sure? What passages teach that?

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's no contradiction.

That's true. 1 Peter 3:21 teaches that baptism saves and that does not contradict any other passages in holy scripture that teach on baptism. Acts 22:16 teaches that baptism washes away sins. Romans 6:1-14 teaches that baptism separates one from sins and ought to result in a godly life. And John 3:1-5 teaches that baptism is needed to enter the kingdom of God. Mark 16:16 teaches that believing together with baptism leads to salvation.

 

[Full O Beans]

Are you sure? What passages teach that?

Baiting? Please tell us how the gospel message could possibly be that God sent His only begotten Son so that only half the world could be saved.

 

[Full O Beans]

That's true. 1 Peter 3:21 teaches that baptism saves and that does not contradict any other passages in holy scripture that teach on baptism. Acts 22:16 teaches that baptism washes away sins. Romans 6:1-14 teaches that baptism separates one from sins and ought to result in a godly life. And John 3:1-5 teaches that baptism is needed to enter the kingdom of God. Mark 16:16 teaches that believing together with baptism leads to salvation.

People are saved without being baptized. People die and are received by God who have not yet been baptized.

 

[MoreCoffee]

People are saved without being baptized. People die and are received by God who have not yet been baptized.

Where does holy scripture say that?

 

[Full O Beans]

Where does holy scripture say that?

People die. Christians die without having submitted to baptism. We are saved by faith...not by works. Baptism is a work.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baiting? Please tell us how the gospel message could possibly be that God sent His only begotten Son so that only half the world could be saved.

You didn't cite a passage that says women are to be baptised. You also said that the word is for all humanity as a reason for scripture not teaching that women are to be baptised and now say that "People are saved without being baptised. People die and are received by God who have not yet been baptised." but you give no scripture to back your claims.

Okay

Infants are to be baptised if the infant's parent(s) ask for the same reason that women are to be baptised if they ask. There's no bible passage commanding that women be baptised nor is there one commanding that infants be baptised yet the general teaching of holy scripture is that grace is given to adult and infant, man and woman, slave and free without any prerequisite because it is grace and grace is not earned.

 

[Full O Beans]

You didn't cite a passage that says women are to be baptised. You also said that the word is for all humanity as a reason for scripture not teaching that women are to be baptised and now say that "People are saved without being baptised. People die and are received by God who have not yet been baptised." but you give no scripture to back your claims.

LOL! I don't have to cite scripture, when the Lord tells us that He loved the whole world that He sent His Son to die for us. He tells us that we are saved through faith by His great free gift of grace, and not of anything we do ourselves, lest anyone should boast.

Ephesians 2:8-9
God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.

God is economical. He doesn't have to be any more detailed than that.

Okay

Infants are to be baptised if the infant's parent(s) ask for the same reason that women are to be baptised if they ask. There's no bible passage commanding that women be baptised nor is there one commanding that infants be baptised yet the general teaching of holy scripture is that grace is given to adult and infant, man and woman, slave and free without any prerequisite because it is grace and grace is not earned.

If an infant's parents ask for their baby to be baptized, a man or woman of God should teach them the truth that their baby is secure in the Lord, and to obey God's word in raising the child to love Jesus, so that when he is older, he will commit his life to the Lord Jesus Christ for himself, just like everyone else needs to do---and then teach the newly saved people about baptism so that they will seek it and obey God in it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So you say, how about proving from holy scripture that infants are forbidden baptism. It is your view that infants are forbidden isn't it? Surely the holy scriptures say this clearly and precisely so that nobody would make a mistake and baptise their whole household including the children? Surely holy scripture says that infants are forbidden baptism so that nobody would misunderstand saint Peter when he said "And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:38-39) Do you think that the Lord our God does not call infants to him? Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14)

Infants can't repent, so the part that comes after(baptism) would be unneeded. Right? According to Peter?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Don't you claim to base your doctrine on what the holy scriptures actually say? Yet here you are contradicting what Psalm 51 says. I quoted it for you but you either ignored it or are pretending it doesn't say "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me". Your opinion about babies is not what we're asking for. We want what the holy scriptures say and teach. Opinions like yours about babies being innocent are sweet and sentimental but not in accord with what the holy scriptures say.


More opinion, how about you show us where the holy scriptures actually teach that God does not condemn those who lack understanding? Are you telling us that being unaware is an excuse?

A baby isn't accountable for being born into iniquity, or it a parents sin. All are responsible for their own sin. If a baby can grasp right from wrong and actively choose wrong, then they would need to repent and be baptised of the spirit, then water baptism would be understandable.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So you say but where do the holy scriptures say "babies are innocent"? I can't find any such verse in the bible, can you? As far as I can tell it's just a sentimental opinion. It isn't an explicit teaching of the holy scriptures. It's just a bit of sentimental cooing at babies.

Well, we know that the law is written on our hearts, and as Christians we should follow God's word. But a baby wouldn't know those things would they? If we know of sin, then we should be able to identify it in an infant. So what sins do infants all commit?



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Heretics mocked the Lord, it's walking in a tradition that ought to be shameful but it isn't to heretics.

Irony?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Jesus said that "I assure you that whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it." (Mark 10:15). Evidently the Lord has confidence in infants and their ability to enter the kingdom of God as well as serve as a model for the faithful.

Receiving Faith in like manner to a child has nothing to do with infant baptism. An old man has contempt, spite, anger, jealousy, and is sour.

A child usually isn't.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Who moved what goal post? Are you speaking of Mr. Thomas Muenzer, who in the 16th Century inventing the new practice of withholding baptism from those under the age of X?



The sole issue here (and the only one I've thus discussed) is Mr. Thomas Muenzer's invention in the 16th Century of anti-paedobaptism, dogmatically insisting that the Bible states we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X and thus are to withhold it from those under that age, this overturning the view from 69 AD at the very latest, the universal view of every Christian for some 1,500 years, that we are not forbidden in Scripture from baptizing those who have not yet celebrated "X" number of birthdays since their birth.

Some insist that Scripture states that a person must REPENT before we are permitted to allow baptism - but they can't seem to find any verse that remotely says that.
Some insist that Scripture states that a person must BELIEVE before we are permitted to allow baptism - but they can't seem to find any verse that remotely says that.
Some insist that Scripture states that a person must CONSENT to this before we are permitted to allow baptism - but they can't seem to find any verse that remotely says that.

Then some insist that we aren't to follow the teaching of Scripture but rather the examples that happened to be recorded in Scripture - problem is, they can't show that only those over the age of X were baptized and those under that age were forbidden (and of course, they then go on to document that they don't believe or apply their own rubric - that we can only do what is exampled in Scripture).


This German layman in the 16th Century invented this new tradition, one now followed by a very small percentage of Christians (but common in American "Evangelicalism" today). We're discussing his protest, his denial of the old (from at last 69 AD at the latest) universal practice of NOT withholding it from those under the age of X.



Thank you.


Pax



- Josiah



.

Actually made me laugh that time. Peace



Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Would someone please quote the verse that states, "essential belief on the part of the receiver is mandated before we can permit such to be baptized?" If such is stated in Scripture, as claimed, then please quote that Scripture.

So far, no one has produce this verse. Maybe it doesn't exist and that's why?




.

It does mention spiritual baptism, them water, the n blood. Seems sequential to me.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Pedrito]

This thread has become repetitively boring.

Let's see if we can liven it up a bit.

Why don't we determine which organisations can be trusted to be truthful, and their representations therefore trusted?

MoreCoffee in Post #289 stated:

The priests, deacons, bishops and all others who rightly administer baptism within the Catholic Church will not knowingly re-baptise any person who has already received baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...greement-signed-by-catholic-and-reformed.html

An agreement was signed in the USA on 29 January 2013, by representatives of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America, Roman Catholic Church and United Church of Christ., to commonly recognise each other's baptisms. The report noted that the agreement pertained within the USA only, and that such agreements were unusual outside the USA.

Prior to the agreement, those Protestant churches had recognised Roman Catholic baptism, but not the other way around.

Now, if we look at the Catholic Answers web page http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-baptism-if-protestantism-has-no-valid-priest, we find information similar to that offered by MoreCoffee.

If the Catholic Answers statements are true, then there would have been no need at all for any recognition agreement.

In fact, the web site https://www.catholic.org.au/acbc-me...handbook-1/1389-recognition-of-baptism-1/file actually lists the non-Catholic churches which have their baptisms formally recognised by the Catholic Church in Australia, and for most, the actual year in which that recognition was given.

An interesting list follows.

The second Vatican Council (1962 – international) formally recognised baptism in the Eastern (Orthodox) churches by declaring that they “still possess true sacraments”.

1969 (Australian Catholic Bishops) – Anglican Church baptism recognised.
1973 (Australian Catholic Bishops) – Presbyterian Church baptism recognised.
1973 (Australian Catholic Bishops) – Methodist Church baptism recognised.
1976 (Australian Catholic Bishops) – Lutheran Church baptism recognised. Joint statement in 1977.
1979 (Australian Catholic Bishops) – Uniting Church baptism recognised.
1980 (Australian Catholic Bishops) – Congregational Church baptism recognised.

Later agreements followed in 2004 and 2007. (Lack of space precludes their expansion here. Interested parties can look at the web page and then search for others to obtain more detail.)

And these particular recognitions etc. are confined to Australia. Other countries have differing standards.

If the statement from MoreCoffe (which I understand was honestly based on official Catholic sources), and the companion statements in the web pages above are true, why was there any need for formal recognition and signed agreements? The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

And if anyone wishes to claim they are not mutually exclusive, the obvious question would be: then why did it take the Catholic Church so long (how many hundreds of years?) to extend formal recognition? And why bother now?

In truth, no matter how much might be the referring back to historical figures like Augustine, the further question remains: did the Roman Catholic Church actually recognise baptism carried out before, during and after the Reformation period by say, Lutheran and Anglican churches and other churches whose members were being tortured and slaughtered for their faith?

I think not.

Thus once again we see grand inconsistency within the representations made by the Roman Catholic Church. And we see individual portions of that inconsistent whole, promulgated by its adherents, either innocently or otherwise, to suit individual situations.

And therefore I suspect we can strike the Roman Catholic Church off the list of churches that claim trustworthiness.

For consistency, maybe I should strike some others off too.