Infant Baptism

[psalms 91]

Man can fall from faith whether he received it as an infant or later on in life as scripture tells us. Baptism gives faith. Teaching keeps us in faith. Why? Because BOTH Baptism and teaching have God's Word.

OK that I can agree with as I also believe that children below the age of accountability have Gods protection as well, just not sureabout the baptising

 

[Full O Beans]

Man can fall from faith whether he received it as an infant or later on in life as scripture tells us. Baptism gives faith. Teaching keeps us in faith. Why? Because BOTH Baptism and teaching have God's Word.

Holy Spirit ministers faith to us by the word of truth---not baptism.

Romans 10:17 AMP
So faith comes from hearing [what is told], and what is heard comes by the [preaching of the] message concerning Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They are not just "nice verses". They speak the unambiguous truth, completely related to the topic, and cuts the head off the argument that babies are to be baptized. It's useless and does nothing but get them wet. Not one person can confer salvation to anyone by doing something akin to a work.

Oh yes, they do speak an unambiguous truth; namely that the blood of the new covenant is in the chalice that Jesus handed to his disciples and that blood was the Lord's. But that is about the holy Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins rather than baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Yes, they both deal with forgiveness - baptism and the Lord's supper - but they are different sacraments. We're talking about baptism here and specifically infant baptism.

 

[Full O Beans]

Oh yes, they do speak an unambiguous truth; namely that the blood of the new covenant is in the chalice that Jesus handed to his disciples and that blood was the Lord's. But that is about the holy Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins rather than baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Yes, they both deal with forgiveness - baptism and the Lord's supper - but they are different sacraments. We're talking about baptism here and specifically infant baptism.

Baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. It is those who are saved already who are commanded to be baptized. People can be saved and still not be baptized.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. It is those who are saved already who are commanded to be baptized. People can be saved and still not be baptized.

You keep saying that but the bible says the opposite in 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-14, John 3:1-5 and numerous other passages. Of course I'll leave you to have the last word on it if you wish.

 

[Full O Beans]

You keep saying that but the bible says the opposite in 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-14, John 3:1-5 and numerous other passages. Of course I'll leave you to have the last word on it if you wish.

John 3 makes no mention of baptism. Jesus wasn't talking about that at all. None of the other verses teach what you espouse. More study for you, for where you encounter the odd single verse that may say something different, a person needs to look at the entire volume of scripture to determine what the real truth of the matter is. So, the odd verse that SEEMS to say something else---doesn't. You cannot build a doctrine on one verse.

 

[Lamb]

You keep saying that but the bible says the opposite in 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:1-14, John 3:1-5 and numerous other passages. Of course I'll leave you to have the last word on it if you wish.

All those verses we keep quoting and they've been believed about baptism since early Christianity which is the point of Josiah's thread to begin with. It's modern thinking that has turned away from what baptism was initially. He's asked for verses to prove otherwise for a long time now.

 

[Full O Beans]

All those verses we keep quoting and they've been believed about baptism since early Christianity which is the point of Josiah's thread to begin with. It's modern thinking that has turned away from what baptism was initially. He's asked for verses to prove otherwise for a long time now.

These verses have been twisted to suit a later, false teaching, and not what was established from the beginning.

 

[Lamb]

These verses have been twisted to suit a later, false teaching, and not what was established from the beginning.

Please read the OP again?

 

[Full O Beans]

Please read the OP again?

Yep. Again, this doctrine is not original to the first churches, but came along much later, when Roman Catholicism reared its head in the fourth century.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The above verse settles it that the man who believes in Christ is not condemned, whether or not he has been baptized. It also settles that the reason a man is condemned is "because he hath not believed." Salvation is settled by belief in Christ, and only by that. BELIEVING DOES NOT INCLUDE BAPTISM

 

[Lamb]

Yep. Again, this doctrine is not original to the first churches, but came along much later, when Roman Catholicism reared its head in the fourth century.

The OP gave proof to show you that infant baptism did not begin with Roman Catholics.

 

[Full O Beans]

The OP gave proof to show you that infant baptism did not begin with Roman Catholics.

I don't believe that denominational hype. It did not begin with the first churches established by Jesus Christ through His beloved apostles, and that is enough for me. It is a later doctrine of men.

 

[Full O Beans]

Well, that's proof that you aren't reading the thread or member responses...my post 715

http://wittenbergtrail.org/forum/top...n-responses-to

Let's hear it in your own words instead of the east c&p of others'.

 

[Full O Beans]

I think it means "For the remission of sins" just as it says. I don't quite understand why your views about baptism always need to change what the holy scriptures say so that you can advance what they "really mean". Does your denomination have its own translation that changes it to "because .." instead of saying "For the remission of sins"?

I change nothing, but wholly believe what God's word teaches by the elucidation of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[Alithis]

I don't believe that denominational hype. It did not begin with the first churches established by Jesus Christ through His beloved apostles, and that is enough for me. It is a later doctrine of men.

i agree .. no such "proof " has been presented as the proof sought is from the scriptures -the practice is not taught in the scriptures .

 

[Alithis]

Oh yes, they do speak an unambiguous truth; namely that the blood of the new covenant is in the chalice that Jesus handed to his disciples and that blood was the Lord's. But that is about the holy Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins rather than baptism and the forgiveness of sins. Yes, they both deal with forgiveness - baptism and the Lord's supper - but they are different sacraments. We're talking about baptism here and specifically infant baptism.

more dissecting the word of God into ambiguous meaningless in an attempt to force the word of god to conform to a carnal tradition not directly taught in the scriptures .

 

[Alithis]

Man can fall from faith whether he received it as an infant or later on in life as scripture tells us. Baptism gives faith. Teaching keeps us in faith. Why? Because BOTH Baptism and teaching have God's Word.

whats the scriptural basis for this ... faith is activated by the hearing of the gospel .life experience displays to me that m,any many (id be bold to say "most) people i have met that were sprinkled (which is not baptism any way ) display no true faith in the lord JEsus what so ever . but they think they are ok because they have been told a lie , being that they are saved because they were sprinkled .. the lord will hold to account those who teach such things . his word has not changed .

 

[Full O Beans]

whats the scriptural basis for this ... faith is activated by the hearing of the gospel .life experience displays to me that m,any many (id be bold to say "most) people i have met that were sprinkled (which is not baptism any way ) display no true faith in the lord JEsus what so ever . but they think they are ok because they have been told a lie , being that they are saved because they were sprinkled .. the lord will hold to account those who teach such things . his word has not changed .

Yes, such people have absorbed a most dangerous and despicable distortion of the simple truth. It's religion, not relationship.

 

[Josiah]

The OP gave proof to show you that infant baptism did not begin with Roman Catholics.

This baptism rule of withholding baptism to those under the age of X started with Mr. Thomas Munzer in the 16th Century.

The earlier, universal tradition of NO baptism rule of disallowing it until the receiver has celebrated at least X birthdays dates to AT LEAST 69 AD. LONG before the RC Denomination came into existence.

The insistence of the anti-paedobaptism crowd, the inventers of this new Baptism Rule, is that we must reject any baptism rule that is not clearly stated in SCRIPTURE. Ironically, none of them (yet) has quoted the Scripture stating this new baptism rule of theirs, that we MUST NOT permit baptism for any under the age of X. Therefore, unless they just haven't had time yet to quote this baptism rule stated in Scripture, we have no choice but to reject it, that's what they insist we must do. Maybe we should do as they suggest.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

This baptism rule of withholding baptism to those under the age of X started with Mr. Thomas Munzer in the 16th Century.

You've been told that, but it isn't the truth.



.