Infant Baptism

[Josiah]

It's been stressed that the only rules that matter are those STATED IN SCRIPTURE. All others that aren't so stated are therefore, "wrong, condemnable and makes the person religious."

So, it's really pretty easy. Take just a few of the long, long, long ever-growing list of baptism rules you and other anti-paedobaptism folks here have demanded.

GOTTA be X years old before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA weep X buckets of tears in repentances before one may be permitted to be baptized
GOTTA correctly recite the sinner's prayer and state outloud, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA get the recipients formal consent before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA have proof they are a sinner and not righteous before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove they can hear and are not deaf before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove that the recipient is aware of X before such a one may be permitted to be baptized.

Just a few, just a handful of the plethora of baptism rules that have demanded just in this thread. There's more that have been demanded, but let's just go with those baptism rules.

Now, where does SCRIPTURE STATE each of those?
Because if Scirpture doesn't specifically STATE those baptism rules, then, according to you, we are mandated to regard them as false, condemnable and making the rule-maker "religious."
Just quote the verse(s) for just these of the plethora of baptism rules that have been mandated here:

"Thou mayest NOT baptize under under the age of X, thou must withhold baptism until they FIRST attaineth unto that age"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously wept bitterly in repentance and must withhold it until such"
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any who hath not previously proven their faith and proclaimeth unto all, "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord" and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any until such a person hath given unto all their consent for such and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless it be proven they have good hearing and art not deaf and must withhold it otherwise."
"Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they first proveth that they are not righteous or innocent but rather art a horrible sinner, and must withhold it otherwise."
You know, something like that. SCRIPTURE STATING THAT BAPTISM RULE.


It's been how many pages now? Perhaps you need more time. Can you tell us about how much more time you might need before you quote the verse(s) STATING these specific BAPTISM RULES?



Thank you.


- Josiah

Giving you time to get around to this.....


- Josiah

 

[Alithis]

Giving you time to get around to this.....


- Josiah

yeah we did already its getting old

one thing is obvious here .. the word of god says one thing

and you say another ..you attempt to impose your own rules .

i'l stick to the word of God thanks all the same .

after peter preached and those who heard him said .. what shall we do .. peter then told them the correct response to the Gospel .. he said "repent and be baptised for the remission of sin and you will receive the Holy Ghost " - that what it says ..so thats what we wil do .

so all your many posts have not changed the word of God one iota ,nor ever will .

 

[Josiah]

so all your many posts have not changed the word of God one iota ,nor ever will .

I agree.

But so far, we're left with your long, long, long, ever-growing list of BAPTISM RULES with nothing - nothing at all - absolutely nothing - from Scripture that states even one of them. Nothing. AND then your insistence that if a rule is not stated in Scripture, we must consider it wrong, condemnable and making the rule-maker "religious."

IF you have the verse where each of your many BAPTISM RULES are echoed but just haven't had time to quote them - let us know.



.

 

[Alithis]

I agree.

But so far, we're left with your long, long, long, ever-growing list of BAPTISM RULES with nothing - nothing at all - absolutely nothing - from Scripture that states even one of them. Nothing. AND then your insistence that if a rule is not stated in Scripture, we must consider it wrong, condemnable and making the rule-maker "religious."

IF you have the verse where each of your many BAPTISM RULES are echoed but just haven't had time to quote them - let us know.



.

i have not imposed any rules ..They are in your imagination .
i have said -"if you tell a person that you sprinkle with water as a baby that they are saved because you sprinkled water on thier head -then you lie to that person "


one thing is obvious here .. the word of God says one thing

and you say another ..you attempt to impose your own rules .

i'll stick to the word of God thanks all the same .

after peter preached and those who heard him said .. what shall we do .. peter then told them the correct response to the Gospel .. he said "repent and be baptised for the remission of sin and you will receive the Holy Ghost " - that what it says ..so thats what we wil do .

so all your many posts have not changed the word of God one iota ,nor ever will .

 

[popsthebuilder]

True enough...

BUT where does the Bible specifically state that you may baptize or teach MARRIED people! Where, WHERE does it STATE that???!!!!!!! It does NOT! And can you DOCUMENT and PROVE from the written words of God in the Bible that there were MARRIED people baptized in the Bible, CAN YOU FIND EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF A MARRIED PERSON BEING BAPTIZED IN THE BIBLE! No, you cannot. Don't lie, you CANNOT. So, it is wrong and false and unbiblical and blasphemy and stupid to baptize married people! NOTHING in the Bible says to do that! NOTHING in the Bible shows Jesus or the Apostles doing that! It therefore MUST be denied and forbidden! You MUST withhold it from any and not permit this to happen!

Come on! Pay attention to the BIBLE!



- Josiah (being terribly sarcastic - most unusual for him but nothin' else works, lol). :wink:



.

I thought marriage was a unity of two people under God. Surely they wound be baptised beforehand. How can two be married, by the high priest if they haven't even declared their faith in him?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Full O Beans]

Married people who have both received Jesus Christ as Saviour at the same time or nearly the same time, actually do get baptized at the same occasion, often.

It is a personal choice to obey the command to be baptized because of one's personal faith in a personal Saviour for personal salvation.

 

[Josiah]

True enough...

BUT where does the Bible specifically state that you may baptize or teach MARRIED people! Where, WHERE does it STATE that???!!!!!!! It does NOT! And can you DOCUMENT and PROVE from the written words of God in the Bible that there were MARRIED people baptized in the Bible, CAN YOU FIND EVEN ONE EXAMPLE OF A MARRIED PERSON BEING BAPTIZED IN THE BIBLE! No, you cannot. Don't lie, you CANNOT. So, it is wrong and false and unbiblical and blasphemy and stupid to baptize married people! NOTHING in the Bible says to do that! NOTHING in the Bible shows Jesus or the Apostles doing that! It therefore MUST be denied and forbidden! You MUST withhold it from any and not permit this to happen!

Come on! Pay attention to the BIBLE!



- Josiah (being terribly sarcastic - most unusual for him but nothin' else works, lol).



.

I thought marriage was a unity of two people under God. Surely they wound be baptised beforehand. How can two be married, by the high priest if they haven't even declared their faith in him?

The point has been this long, ever-growing list of baptism rules that these anti-paedobaptism folks keep creating. While at the same time stressing that any rule not specifically stated in the Bible is ergo wrong, condemnable and makes the rule-maker "religious."


MANY such new baptism rules have been mandated just in this thread alone. Among them....

GOTTA be X years old before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA weep X buckets of tears in repentances before one may be permitted to be baptized
GOTTA correctly recite the sinner's prayer and state outloud, "Jesus is my Lord and Savior" before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA get the recipients formal consent before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA have proof they are a sinner and not righteous before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove they can hear and are not deaf before one may be permitted to be baptized.
GOTTA prove that the recipient is aware of X before such a one may be permitted to be baptized.

But of course, there is their persistent point that ANY baptism rule NOT clearly stated in Scripture is ergo wrong, condemnable and makes the rule-maker "religious."
And as we've witnessed, in 70 pages, none of them have yet to find any Scripture stating any of these new baptism rules.


Then, it was stated that we are forbidden to baptism ANY unless we are specifically TOLD we may baptize that group. I simply noted that there's NOTHING in Scripture that states we may baptize married people (and yet I suspect in anti-paedobaptist churches, married people ARE permitted!). Of course, there's also NO clear examples of a married person being baptized. But this seems not to be a problem - it doesn't matter if we are never once told to baptize certain people, it doesn't matter if there is even one example of such being baptized in the Bible, nope, doesn't matter at all. BUT we may not baptize any unless we are specifically commanded to baptize that group AND we can find many examples of such in the Bible. We can't baptize those under the age of X because there is no specific MANDATE to do so STATED in the Bible or any obvious, clear examples of such being baptize in the Bible - BUT it's okay to baptize married people even though there is no specific MANDATE to do so STATED in the Bible or any obvious, clear examples of such being baptized in the Bible.


But I think perhaps it's wise to take the strong, persistent advise of these anti-paedobaptism followers of Mr. Thomas Muenzer: If a baptism rule is not specifically stated in SCRIPTURE then we should regard such a rule as false, condemnable and making the rule-maker "religious." Now, maybe in 70 pages of posts these followers of this new, small tradition just haven't had time to QUOTE Scripture STATING the baptism rules they've been creating and stressing (some are listed above). So, we're trying to be patient, waiting for those quotes. But so far....




Happy Valentine's Day



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You're partly right Josiah. Exclusive Credo-Baptists do have non-biblical requirements for baptism. Among them are:

1. One absolutely must give a credible profession of faith prior to receiving baptism
2. One must be submerged for the baptism to be legitimate
3. One's sins are not washed away by baptism
4. One is not saved by baptism
5. One is not born from above by baptism
6. Baptism is symbolic only of the last three points
7. As far as one's salvation is concerned baptism plays no vital role
8. Baptism is one's public profession before witnesses of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ

There are other things too and various groups have differing additional requirements while a few may remove one or several of the ones listed above.

 

[Lamb]

You're partly right Josiah. Exclusive Credo-Baptists do have non-biblical requirements for baptism. Among them are:

1. One absolutely must give a credible profession of faith prior to receiving baptism
2. One must be submerged for the baptism to be legitimate
3. One's sins are not washed away by baptism
4. One is not saved by baptism
5. One is not born from above by baptism
6. Baptism is symbolic only of the last three points
7. As far as one's salvation is concerned baptism plays no vital role
8. Baptism is one's public profession before witnesses of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ

There are other things too and various groups have differing additional requirements while a few may remove one or several of the ones listed above.

Do you notice how they've turned it into baptism being about them instead of for them as Jesus wanted? They don't have God in baptism. They don't have His Word. They don't have the Holy Spirit in baptism. It's like they ignore every verse that pertains to baptism and turn it into something that isn't in scripture ---outward sign of an inward expression...nowhere is that found in scripture. There isn't a single verse that states that at all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you notice how they've turned it into baptism being about them instead of for them as Jesus wanted? They don't have God in baptism. They don't have His Word. They don't have the Holy Spirit in baptism. It's like they ignore every verse that pertains to baptism and turn it into something that isn't in scripture ---outward sign of an inward expression...nowhere is that found in scripture. There isn't a single verse that states that at all.

All of the sacraments have a visible sign of a grace given but the main thrust of exclusive credo-baptist teaching is that sacraments are merely symbols and that they convey no graces that are not already conveyed by the Holy Spirit through sermons and scripture and prayer etcetera. Exclusive credo-baptism makes much of the new testament testimony to baptism and the Lord's supper into metaphors about sermons and bible reading etcetera.

 

[Lamb]

Do you believe God works through means?

That's why I started this thread.

 

[Full O Beans]

Do you notice how they've turned it into baptism being about them instead of for them as Jesus wanted? They don't have God in baptism. They don't have His Word. They don't have the Holy Spirit in baptism. It's like they ignore every verse that pertains to baptism and turn it into something that isn't in scripture ---outward sign of an inward expression...nowhere is that found in scripture. There isn't a single verse that states that at all.

What incredible lies.

 

[Lamb]

What incredible lies.

Back it up with scripture then instead of just calling "lies" whenever you feel like it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What incredible lies.

Back it up with scripture then instead of just calling "lies" whenever you feel like it.

The reason why there's no scripture in the accusation is that there is no scripture that teaches the core doctrines of exclusive credo-baptism. While on the other hand there is an abundance of holy scripture passages that teach that baptism does in fact DO something, such as wash away sins (Acts 22:16) and save (1 Peter 3:21) and incorporate into the body of Christ (1Cor 12:13) and bring about death to self and resurrection into the life of Christ (Romans 6:1-14). There is of course more and many scriptures too which teach of baptism's necessity (under normal circumstances) yet strangely those who insist on baptism by submersion upon making a credible profession of faith also deny that baptism is necessary except perhaps as an act of obedience. But since many who teach exclusive credo-baptism also teach various forms of "once saved always saved" and that salvation happens at the time when one first acquires saving faith (which must be acquired BEFORE baptism) then baptism even as an act of obedience has no role in salvation in their theology. That is very different from what the Lord said about baptism in John 3:1-5.

 

[Lamb]

I was going to pull parts from this amazing article and rewrite, but the author did such a thorough job that I'll pull quotes instead:
http://wittenbergtrail.org/forum/topics/lutheran-responses-to

God uses Baptism to put His Name on us (see Matthew 28:19). God uses Baptism to give us “new birth,” that is, faith in Christ (see John 3:5 and Titus 3:5). God uses Baptism to give us forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2:28 and 22:16; Ephesians 5:26). God uses Baptism to connect us to the death and resurrection of Jesus (see Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:11-12). God uses Baptism to clothe us with Christ (see Galatians 3:27). God uses Baptism to save us by the power of Jesus’ death and resurrection (see 1st Peter 3:18 & 21).

The first objection is: “But we’re saved by Jesus, not by our work of Baptism!” This objection wrongly thinks that Baptism is a human work. If that were the case, then Baptism could not save us. However, Scripture teaches that Baptism DOES save us (see 1st Peter 3:21) because Baptism is GOD’S WORK! In addition, this objection fails to understand that Baptism is one of the means God uses to give us the salvation of Christ. In other words, Jesus ACCOMPLISHED our salvation by His life, death and resurrection for us. However, this salvation is GIVEN and DELIVERED to us through God’s “means of grace” – and one such “means of grace” is Holy Baptism! (See Acts 2:38-39 and Titus 3:5)

The second objection is: “But infants are not sinners! Therefore, Baptism is not for infants because Baptism is for those who have consciously sinned.” On the contrary, Scripture clearly teaches that we are sinners from the time of our conception (see Psalm 51:5) because we inherit a sinful nature from Adam (see Romans 5:12). The fact that infants die is God’s sign that they are sinners (see 1st Corinthians 15:22). We sin BECAUSE we are sinners, and we have this condition even as infants and little children (see Genesis 8:21 and John 3:6). Also, Romans 3:23 clearly shows that ALL have sinned and need the salvation that Jesus gives.

The third objection is: “But infants can’t have faith!” First, Scripture clearly teaches that infants and children CAN have faith. In Psalm 8:2 we see that infants can give praise to God. In Psalm 22:9 we see that David trusted in the Lord when he was a breast-feeding infant. In Matthew 18:6 Jesus teaches that “little ones” can believe in Him. Jesus is speaking about the “child” mentioned in Matthew 18:2. The Greek word for child is “paidion” which can also refer to infants. For example, the plural form of “paidion” is used in Matthew 2:16 for the children who were 2 years old and younger. Also, in Luke 18:15-17 we see that Jesus uses babies as examples of sincere faith. The Greek word for babies is “brephos” which means infant. In addition, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb (Luke 1:15 & 39-45). The fact is that Jesus holds up infants as ultimate examples of faith (Matthew 18:5-6 and Luke 18:16-17).

The fifth objection is: “The Bible never says that we should baptize infants!” First of all, the entire Old Testament assumes that infants were always part of the salvation acts of God. For example, God gave Abraham the ritual of circumcision as an outward sign that the Savior would come from his family line (see Genesis 12:1-3 and Galatians 3:6-9). The sign of circumcision was given to infant boys when they were only 8 days old! In Colossians 2:11-13 the Apostle Paul shows that circumcision has been replaced with Baptism through which Christ Himself works to give spiritual life to those who are dead in sin. The Jews who became Christians would have assumed that Baptism was for infants because infants had also received the Old Testament ritual of circumcision. In addition, the infants and children of Israel participated in many of the Old Testament rituals (the Passover, the Sabbath, the Day of Atonement, etc.). The infants and children of Israel were included in the high priest’s blessing which God used to put His Name on His people (see Numbers 6:22-27; also Matthew 28:19). The infants and children of Israel took part in the crossing of the Red Sea which was a picture of the New Testament gift of Baptism (see 1st Corinthians 10:1-4).

 

[Alithis]

twisty turny dishonesty //
the opposition is simply this ..- if you tell a person .who has not become aware of sin, not repented ,not acknowledged faith in God
(all of which come about through the preaching of the Gospel ) that they are saved because you sprinkled water on thier head as a baby - then you lie to that person .
all the rules your all adding re simply a desperate misrepresentation .

The plain direct scriptures show the command .. in acts chapter two.when the people asked in regard to being saved the answer was clearly given ."repent and be baptised " .and the lord jesus said "repentance for the forgiveness of sin is to be preached "

this is scripture .i presented it at the beginning if the thread .. its been rejected ,denied ,dissected .ignored by some.. but there it is .. still there still scripture .

 

[MoreCoffee]

What incredible lies.

twisty turny dishonesty ...

And still not a single verse of holy scripture to back up your doctrines and refute those I put forward from the holy scriptures, passages that teach that baptism does in fact DO something, such as wash away sins (Acts 22:16) and save (1 Peter 3:21) and incorporate into the body of Christ (1Cor 12:13) and bring about death to self and resurrection into the life of Christ (Romans 6:1-14). There is of course more and many scriptures too which teach of baptism's necessity (under normal circumstances) yet strangely those who insist on baptism by submersion upon making a credible profession of faith also deny that baptism is necessary except perhaps as an act of obedience. But since many who teach exclusive credo-baptism also teach various forms of "once saved always saved" and that salvation happens at the time when one first acquires saving faith (which must be acquired BEFORE baptism) then baptism even as an act of obedience has no role in salvation in their theology. That is very different from what the Lord said about baptism in John 3:1-5.

 

[Lamb]

twisty turny dishonesty //
the opposition is simply this ..- if you tell a person .who has not become aware of sin, not repented ,not acknowledged faith in God
(all of which come about through the preaching of the Gospel ) that they are saved because you sprinkled water on thier head as a baby - then you lie to that person .
all the rules your all adding re simply a desperate misrepresentation .

The plain direct scriptures show the command .. in acts chapter two.when the people asked in regard to being saved the answer was clearly given ."repent and be baptised " .and the lord jesus said "repentance for the forgiveness of sin is to be preached "

this is scripture .i presented it at the beginning if the thread .. its been rejected ,denied ,dissected .ignored by some.. but there it is .. still there still scripture .

You forget that it's God's Word that is at work, don't you? That's what is missing from your idea of baptism. Once you see God at work, you'll be amazed at His good mercy.

 

[psalms 91]

When Jesus got baptised why did the dove come down? Was it becuase He got dunked or was it because of what was inside Him and all He had overcome. I dont think it was because He got wet

 

[Alithis]

the opposition is simply this ..- if you tell a person .who has not become aware of sin, not repented ,not acknowledged faith in God
(all of which come about through the preaching of the Gospel ) that they are saved because you sprinkled water on thier head as a baby - then you lie to that person .
all the rules your all adding re simply a desperate misrepresentation .

The plain direct scriptures show the command .. in acts chapter two.when the people asked in regard to being saved the answer was clearly given ."repent and be baptised " .and the lord jesus said "repentance for the forgiveness of sin is to be preached "

this is scripturegeorge .i presented it at the beginning if the thread .. its been rejected ,denied ,dissected .ignored by some.. but there it is .. still there still scripture .