Infant Baptism

[Pedrito]

How about a little humour?

In Post #285 I offered a tongue-in-cheek idea that people could repetitively ask the same questions even after valid, pointed answers had been given. And then pointed out that it had already been happening.

In response, MoreCoffee in Post #286 stated good-humouredly:

A sterling idea. Humour me. What does baptism DO?

What does baptism MEAN?

MoreCoffee may consider himself sterlingly pre-humoured.

 

[Pedrito]

More inconsistency.

In Posts #335, Josiah gave a little more information (rather awkwardly stated) relating to his contention regarding churches not baptising people (infants, children, whatever) below age X:

Thus, protesting the universal practice of all Christians since 69 AD at the very, very latest of NOT restricting God's command based on not yet attained the (never disclosed) age of X.

Never disclosed?

All a mum and dad have to do in church Y is ask for their child to be baptised when born, then at age 1, then at age 2, etc. until their request is accepted. Then age X for that church will be known.

And I suspect word would spread quickly, and the hitherto secret would be out.

Once again, Josiah has shown his arguments to be contrived and untrustworthy. And because his religious team mates have supported his contentions (by at least not reining him in as I helpfully suggested they should), they as a whole have shown their church to be untrustworthy.

So I suggest that the Lutheran Church could well be struck off the list of trustworthy churches as well.


Should I keep going and add to the list?

Perhaps instead I should show why the whole infant baptism argument is rather pointless.

Or maybe both.


Would that liven things up a bit?

 

[Lamb]

Why are you creating a tangent?

Create another thread, don't try to distract in this one with trustworthiness.

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:


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.

 

[Josiah]

Thus, protesting the universal practice of all Christians since 69 AD at the very, very latest of NOT restricting God's command based on not yet attained the (never disclosed) age of X.

More inconsistency. Never disclosed?

All a mum and dad have to do in church Y is ask for their child to be baptised when born, then at age 1, then at age 2, etc. until their request is accepted. Then age X for that church will be known.

I see. Then just state the age at which protestors of paedobaptism say then is okay to permit baptism. I've not found any - from Mr. Thomas Muenzer (who started this protest) through any posting in this thread - have willing to state that what age Scripture DOES permit this and no longer disallows any to receive baptism. Is it 9 months? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years? 5 years? How many birthdays must one celebrate before they may receive baptism? JUST STATE THE AGE.

Once again, Josiah has shown his arguments to be contrived and untrustworthy.

Actually, I've only made one point: Mr Thomas Muenzer invented this new (but rare) tradition that baptism must be withheld from any under the age of X (and NO, he NEVER did disclose what age that is). This has become known as the "anti-paedobaptism" tradition, the tradition of denying/withholding infant baptism. Supposedly, after 1500 years of no one noticing it, he supposedly found this verse in the Bible that states one must first attain the age of X before they may be baptized! His followers on this insist this verse (even verses) exist - but to date, none will quote it for us. Several have said they would but they have not (so far)..... indeed, several have proven Scripture says no such thing.


Yes, the tradition of NOT withholding Baptism to those under the age of X goes back AT LEAST to 69 AD when we know even infant baptism was practiced. Within the time when most of the Apostles were still alive, the time when the NT was being written. That (paedobaptism) was the UNIVERSAL practice of ALL Christians until this guy came along in the Sixteenth Century claiming there's a verse that says we must first attain the age of X and thus rejecting paedobaptism (infant baptism), permitting baptism for children and infants. This thread is entirely, solely about this new, rare tradition: withholding baptism to those under the age of X. And that's been my only topic.



Yes, in stead of just quoting the Scripture that states we must withhold baptism to those under the age of X, we get a LOT of incredibly contrived (and equally unbiblical) DIVERSIONS. Unable to support the new tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer (withholding baptism for those under the age of X), unable to quote any Scirptures to support their prohibition, they just change the subject. Yes, there is a passionate attempt to divert, hijack the discussion to SOMETHING ELSE. Problem is: all the diversions are also baseless.

+ That Scripture states one must BELIEVE first and only after that be permitted to be baptized (they then prove they have NOTHING that so states, no such restriction exists).....

+ That Scripture states one must first REPENT buckets of tears first and only after that be permitted to be baptized (they then prove they have NOTHING that so states, no such restriction exists.....

+ That Scripture states that one must give CONSENT and only after that be permitted to be baptized ( they then prove they have NOTHING that so states, no such restriction exists (and they don't believe or follow this anyway).....

+ That Scripture states we are not to follow the commands of Scripture but rather the EXAMPLES of Scripture, not permitted to do anything not exampled in Scripture ( but they then prove they have NOTHING that states that only those over the age of X were baptized in the examples recorded in Scripture (and then state they don't believe or follow this point anyway).

All attempts to change the subject to things equally unsubstantiated, things they themselves PROVE Scripture never states, and often points they themselves don't believe or practice anyway.

It would be one thing to say that baptizing, preaching, evangelism, etc. MAY not result in faith and/or salvation, it's a very different matter that THUS it is not permitted and must ergo be withheld and forbidden.




Thank you.


Pax






.

 

[Full O Beans]

There is no age requirement for baptism. The word of God says to believe and be baptized. It follows that one must believe first and then be baptized. It is according to the individual's faith. No one can HAVE an unaware person without faith baptized. It is according to the will of the one who has come to faith and then chooses to be baptized.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is no age requirement for baptism. The word of God says to believe and be baptized. It follows that one must believe first and then be baptized. It is according to the individual's faith. No one can HAVE an unaware person without faith baptized. It is according to the will of the one who has come to faith and then chooses to be baptized.

Okay, infants believe and are baptised. QED

 

[Full O Beans]

Okay, infants believe and are baptised. QED

Infants cannot believe and understand that they are sinners who need saving. Until that point, they are innocent. They cannot choose baptism.

No one has the right to baptize anyone who is not aware. You cannot receive faith or salvation by osmosis. It's a personal choice.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Infants cannot believe and understand that they are sinners who need saving. Until that point, they are innocent. They cannot choose baptism.

No one has the right to baptize anyone who is not aware. You cannot receive faith or salvation by osmosis. It's a personal choice.

Bah humbug! Of course they can. Jesus said they do.

 

[Josiah]

It follows that

Okay, infants believe and are baptised. QED

Finally (it took 57 pages!).... the admission.

They have NOTHING in Scripture that states we must withhold baptism from those under the age of X, NOTHING to support their new (rare) tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer of withholding baptism to those under the age of X (paedobaptism), rejecting the universal practice of all Christians since 69 AD at the very latest. It's THEIR NEW OPINION, not Scripture. Finally, the admission. After 57 pages of claiming Scripture states we are disallowed to baptize those under the age of X (which, notice, none would disclose). Nope, now the admission all their pages and pages of CLAIMS have been wrong: Scripture doesn't disallow this, THEIR new OPINION does.



Read post # 564 above.



- Josiah




,

 

[Full O Beans]

Bah humbug! Of course they can. Jesus said they do.

No, He didn't.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, He didn't.

I'm not going to play the did so, did not ... game with you. I posted the passage from holy scripture before. I've lost interest in what you will accept or reject from holy scripture. Do as you please. The case is supported and documented. No further proof is needed. If you you intend is to say "no, he didn't" then you may as well not bother. It's a waste of words.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:13-14)

QED

 

[Full O Beans]

Jesus was speaking about little children, that we must lead them to Him. He loves them! But He has never said one word about baptizing babies or children who do not understand the gospel message and cannot realize that they are sinners in need of a Saviour. When they do, we hope they will receive Jesus and God's great gift of grace, but until then, our job is to tell them about Jesus and model Him before them----not baptize them. There is no reason for it!

Twisting and stretching scripture to fit religious ideas is wrong.

There is nothing in scripture that teaches infant baptism. That ideation comes from religion and religious minds. Jesus has nothing to do with religiosity.

Know the word. Know the truth.

 

[psalms 91]

Jesus was speaking about little children, that we must lead them to Him. He loves them! But He has never said one word about baptizing babies or children who do not understand the gospel message and cannot realize that they are sinners in need of a Saviour. When they do, we hope they will receive Jesus and God's great gift of grace, but until then, our job is to tell them about Jesus and model Him before them----not baptize them. There is no reason for it!

Twisting and stretching scripture to fit religious ideas is wrong.

Yup it is and you cna see a lot of it anywhere

 

[Full O Beans]

Yup it is and you cna see a lot of it anywhere

I agree, bill.

 

[Josiah]

It is true that Scripture only states to baptize. It doesn't specifically state, "and this includes little children." But then it also doesn't say "and this includes married people." "And this includes Americans." "And this includes Methodists." "And this includes Koreans." "And this includes Native Americans." And of course, we have no clear examples in the Bible of baptisms of married persons, Americans, Methodists or Koreans - yet are those here rebuking, denying, forbidding those from receiving baptism because Scripture doesn't specifically INCLUDE them? If it's true that we can't permit baptism to any groups THAT AREN'T SPECIALLY INCLUDED and where we don't have SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of being included in the NT, then I'm sure you don't baptize Americans or those with red or blond hair. It's just a silly argument - which the protestors THEMSELVES don't agree with and don't follow ( so there's no reason for us to).


It is claimed that Mr. Thomas Muenzer, who invented this new tradition of withholding baptism from those under the age of X in the 16th Century, did so because he found the verse(s) that stated we must withhold baptism specifically from those under the age of X. It has been claimed - for 58 pages now - that SCRIPTURE states we must withhold baptism from those under the age of X, that paedobaptism is against Scripture. But to date, no one has gotten around to quoting this supposed verse that singles out those under the age of X from the command. No one yet has given this supposed verse that made Mr. Thomas Muenzer correct to deny the older tradition (from 69 AD at the very latest - a time when most Apostles were still alive, a time when the NT was just being written), the tradition that ALL Christians affirmed for 1500 years before Mr. Thomas Muenzer found this verse that none here will quote, this verse that proves those under the age of X must be denied baptism.



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[Full O Beans]

Very young children and babies are not required to be baptized because they do not meet the requirements of faith, belief in Jesus, and of repentance of sin. Ultimately, a baby cannot choose to seek baptism for himself. We as believers all must have received salvation through faith to believe in Jesus Christ, and must have repented of our sins, and must have learned from godly teachers about the doctrine of baptism and must have chosen to pursue it for ourselves. Claiming a baby has the awareness and development to do all these things is just outlandish...and is a lie.

We are called to baptize converts...people who desire to follow the Lord Jesus and to obey God by taking the step of baptism, publically confessing their faith in Christ and identifying with His death, burial and resurrection by being fully immersed in water.

A young child or baby cannot choose this. Baptism is a personal act of obedience.

You can't confer obedience to a command or faith or salvation on anyone!

Know the word.

 

[TurtleHare]

Matthew 21:16 and Psalm 8:2 both state infants CAN have faith. Manmade stipulations and other conditions are new as Josiah keeps bringing up and Jesus never forbid it only man who wants proof of something first instead of relying on God to do what He promises.

 

[Full O Beans]

Matthew 21:16 and Psalm 8:2 both state infants CAN have faith. Manmade stipulations and other conditions are new as Josiah keeps bringing up and Jesus never forbid it only man who wants proof of something first instead of relying on God to do what He promises.

Please give us an example of an infant or nursing baby that has spoken of the strength of God and has silenced the enemies of God. If there is such in your church, then ask him if he is a believer and if he wishes to be baptized.

It is man made doctrine that was created to quell the fear in people that their dying children would somehow go to eternal punishment, thinking erroneously that baptism saves---rather than being told the truth that in Christ, our innocent babies and young children are welcome in the kingdom of God, as Jesus has said.

You cannot DO ANYTHING to save someone else, least of all baptize anyone. It is a personal choice, based on one's revelation of the word of God and its truth.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus' instructions to the disciples was straightforward "baptizing and teaching". God's Word is in both baptism and teaching. Your insistence that first someone must do or say something before baptism can happen is NOT within scripture and added later as the OP has stated repeatedly. Yours is the newer tradition.

God can and does baptize babies. He gives them the gift of faith. God works wonders even through the waters only because HE put His Word there. Yet, those who deny infant baptism ignore God's Word and Jesus' simple instructions to the disciples on how to make more disciples by "baptizing and teaching."

 

[Full O Beans]

Jesus' instructions to the disciples was straightforward "baptizing and teaching". God's Word is in both baptism and teaching. Your insistence that first someone must do or say something before baptism can happen is NOT within scripture and added later as the OP has stated repeatedly. Yours is the newer tradition.

God can and does baptize babies. He gives them the gift of faith. God works wonders even through the waters only because HE put His Word there. Yet, those who deny infant baptism ignore God's Word and Jesus' simple instructions to the disciples on how to make more disciples by "baptizing and teaching."

Jesus' instructions are to make disciples. We make disciples by teaching them the truth about salvation, and then when they receive the gospel gladly, we baptize them. Simple. That is how it has been since the beginning. There is no deviation toward baptizing unaware babies who are incapable of declaring themselves sinners, or of repenting.

Water is water. Don't mysticize it.