By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed ...

[tango]

If consent isn't required why don't we gather up a few big strong Christians, grab people who walk near large bodies of water and baptise them whether they like it or not? At some point a lack of consent creates absurd situations.

A further thought, if consent isn't required why did Jesus let the rich young man walk away when he declined to give up his wealth? He could have overpowered him and baptised him anyway, no? Why didn't he go round baptising the Pharisees rather than talking with them?

 

[Brighten04]

But I said no such thing nor do I believe any such thing nor does my Church teach any such thing. The conclusion created in your post is what's absurd because no Christian denomination and no Christian Church teaches, as far as I am aware, that unbaptised unbelieving adults ought to be knowingly baptised by any lawfully ordained pastor.

It is what you said. But here you said unbelievers should not be knowingly baptized by an ordained pastor. Make up your mind and plainly state what you believe to be true. You sound wishy washy to me.

 

[Brighten04]

If consent isn't required why don't we gather up a few big strong Christians, grab people who walk near large bodies of water and baptise them whether they like it or not? At some point a lack of consent creates absurd situations.

Well dunking someone in water against their will id called assault here in the USA.

 

[Brighten04]

What Scripture says one was "consent" before they may be baptized? Does the command state, "Go and ask people if they consent to being baptized and taught?"

Do babies consent to becoming citizens? Does it offend you that they never are? Does a baby consent to being given life? Does a baby consent to having air? Is it "ludicrous" for them to be blessed, given something - without their "consent?"

???

There is no scripture that says go and force baptism on anyone either. All of the baptisms in scripture were done on believers. Scripture does not show babies being baptized. You cannot show one scripture where an unbeliever is baptized, no not one.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It is what you said...

If it were what I said then why did you have to write "Do you know how this sounds?" Clearly I didn't say it so you invented it.

 

[Lamb]

Who is to know whether or not a baby has faith? God's Word is preached before the baptism, throughout the baptism and is with the waters in baptism. It's God's Word that gives faith and he hasn't denied it to infants according to Jesus' words in scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Who is to know whether or not a baby has faith? God's Word is preached before the baptism, throughout the baptism and is with the waters in baptism. It's God's Word that gives faith and he hasn't denied it to infants according to Jesus' words in scripture.

The Church knows that the family of the infant has faith and promises to bring up the child in the nurture and admonition of the LORD and that's enough to justify baptising all family members in fulfilment of the covenant promises given to the faithful in holy scripture (Acts 2:39).

 

[Brighten04]

If it were what I said then why did you have to write "Do you know how this sounds?" Clearly I didn't say it so you invented it.

S0, should people who do not believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ be baptized? I just want to be clear.

 

[tango]

The Church knows that the family of the infant has faith and promises to bring up the child in the nurture and admonition of the LORD and that's enough to justify baptising all family members in fulfilment of the covenant promises given to the faithful in holy scripture (Acts 2:39).

So what should happen when the child abandons the church completely, as some do, without ever coming into a faith of their own?

 

[Brighten04]

Who is to know whether or not a baby has faith? God's Word is preached before the baptism, throughout the baptism and is with the waters in baptism. It's God's Word that gives faith and he hasn't denied it to infants according to Jesus' words in scripture.

,

You just cannot admit that you may be wrong. But there is nothing wrong with re-examining what you believe. In fact,doing so will strengthen your faith, not weaken it. It is possible for believers to believe in the wrong thing. Here is a case from scripture of that very thing.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

 

[Josiah]

There is no scripture that says go and force baptism on anyone either.

Thus, your admission that you have nothing to support this new prohibition of infants for baptism....

What "consent" is mandated before a person is given life? Do the parents (and God!) just GIVE it, without consent? Do babies consent to birth? Do babies consent to citizenship? Do babies consent to being given air to breath? Since they don't consent to this, do you think they are thus prohibited from being given such?

All of the baptisms in scripture were done on believers.

Prove that all the members of Lydia's household were FIRST believers and that they all proactively CONSENTED to baptism. See Acts 16:15. Unless you can prove all the members of the household FIRST believed, FIRST consented - then your statement is false. You may ASSUME that they were.... you may ASSUME they were not, but "assume" is not proving, you assuming it is not Scripture teaching it.... it's you, not Scripture. IMO, you are proving that the tiny minority of Christians in the past 500 years have nothing in Scripture to support their new prohibition.

Scripture does not show babies being baptized.

I disagree with your substitution of tradition for teaching. IMO, the whole rubic you are promoting is absurd. You are mandating that TRADITION (what you ASSUME was done and not done) "trumps" what Scripture actually says (and doesn't say), that we can do ONLY what is exampled in the pages of Scripture. Since you hold to that premise (we can't do things if we can't find examples of it in Scripture), then why are you posting on the internet?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Stravinsk]

There's a lot of heresy around nowadays. I guess there always has been but now it seems that there are many who profess faith in Jesus Christ but believe heresies and these people attend meetings in churches and denominations that have (in former times) a reputation for orthodoxy on the major doctrines of the faith. There are people who:

• express doubts about the importance of doctrine
• voice the opinion that theology will not form a part of the matter upon which one is judged at the last judgement
• say that belief in the Holy Trinity is not 'essential for salvation'
• and that a proper understanding of the incarnation is too academic and too obscure to be expected of the man (or woman) sitting in the pew

Some want to enjoy 'church services' and be 'fed' at them but do not seem very concerned about what is taught in the 'church services' that they attend they say that they are looking for a place where their family can feel at home and where the greeting is warm and the children are catered for with an assortment of activities suitable for their ages. Some want seeker friendly services. Some want contemporary music and contemporary (and relevant) messages. A few want a good liturgy.

Where is this leading? Will the folk who say these sorts of things and desire these qualities in the meetings that they attend face a harsh judgement from God or is that unimportant?

I have no church and no children and thus no desire for my personal wants or needs to be considered in any one communal worship place. I neither see the need to rely on a pastor to "feed" me Scripture when I can read it for myself. More broadly, I further see no need to rely on the traditions of any church or so called authority figure within any of those groups of religious people to define or interpret the Bible. In short, I make no demands or even requests from churches.

I hold doctrines that are alien to nearly all churches, except for a very few. Thus, if the majority's opinion has any sway, insofar as those doctrines are concerned, I am guilty of believing heresy.

And yet, I do believe in the importance of and the teachings of Yeshua as depicted in Matthew and John.

I do not personally believe that one "church", or group of believers who share a name related to what is called Christianity have the whole, complete and unadulterated truth. Not the Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, SeventhDayAdventists or anyone else.

Why would people in my general position (as it relates to specific doctrines that vary between churches) be a problem for you?

 

[Brighten04]

What "consent" is mandated before a person is given life? Do the parents (and God!) just GIVE it, without consent? Do babies consent to birth? Do babies consent to citizenship? Do babies consent to being given air to breath? Since they don't consent to this, do you think they are thus prohibited from being given such?

I did not consent to any of this, but I did consent to be baptized. It was my faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ that caused me to consent in faith. And your argument is irrelevant when it comes to faith. You see, when we are born in the flesh, we have functions that are automatic, that you don't even have to think about. Breathing is a natural function. Our Father gives breath to the righteous and the unrighteous alike. He also gives salvation but He has attached belief to salvation.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Notice he did not say that anyone who gets baptized.

Prove that all the members of Lydia's household were FIRST believers and that they all proactively CONSENTED to baptism. See Acts 16:15. Unless you can prove all the members of the household FIRST believed, FIRST consented - then your statement is false. You may ASSUME that they were.... you may ASSUME they were not, but "assume" is not proving, you assuming it is not Scripture teaching it.... it's you, not Scripture. IMO, you are proving that the tiny minority of Christians in the past 500 years have nothing in Scripture to support their new prohibition.

Your supposed point of argument is moot because you cannot prove that all of the members of Lydia's household were not believers and did not give their consent to be baptized. You cannot prove that there were infants in Lydia's household because the scripture does not say.You brother are making an unscriptural assumption that there were infants in that household. I asked you to show in scripture where any unbelievers were baptized. You have not been able to show it. So, so who is false according to scripture. I would willingly agree with you, but only if you can show me from scripture wher baptism is not an act of the believer's faith.

I disagree with your substitution of tradition for teaching. IMO, the whole rubic you are promoting is absurd. You are mandating that TRADITION (what you ASSUME was done and not done) "trumps" what Scripture actually says (and doesn't say), that we can do ONLY what is exampled in the pages of Scripture. Since you hold to that premise (we can't do things if we can't find examples of it in Scripture), then why are you posting on the internet?

As I said on the other thread( see this is why we do not need all of these threads on baptism) You can do anything you want to do by tradition. I really could care less if someone wanted to baptize their infant. But, that child will have to come to faith himself, he must believe in Jesus himself, he must have his own faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus castigated the religious leaders of His day saying

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

So, since you take the position that you don't have to do things the way scripture says, then you are like unto the scribes, pharisees and sadducees touting you hundreds of "church" tradition over the everlasting Word of the Living God. Well all I have to say about that is...have at it.

And by the way. I post on the internet for because I want to.

 

[Josiah]

I did not consent to any of this

Then you do not hold that consent by a baby is necessary before they can be given things. There goes the "consent" argument.

Your supposed point of argument is moot because you cannot prove that all of the members of Lydia's household were not believers and did not give their consent to be baptized.

Friend, thus your point is wrong. It is NOT true that the Bible indicates that ALL who were given baptism FIRST repented, FIRST consented. You seem aware that the statement you made is actually false. Yes, we can ASSUME that there were babies in "her household" or that there were not - but either way, it's our ASSUMING, not what Scripture records or states. Yes, we can ASSUME that no one in her household first consented.... or we can ASSUME that all of them did... but both are ASSUMPTIONS, Scripture says no such thing. Thus, your bold statement that all the EXAMPLES of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the 27 books of the NT were of people who FIRST believed and FIRST consent is not correct. It's wrong, it's false. Acts 16:15 indicates no such thing, for example.

And .... your premise: that we may not do things unless we see it exampled in the pages of the NT, is a premise you yourself reject so why should we accept it? You are posting on the internet but there is not one example of posting on the internet in the Bible. I'd bet your church does LOTS of things that are NEVER exampled in the Bible and yet you do them. So since you don't accept that rubric (we can only do what we see illustrated in the Bible), why should we accept it? Since you reject it, IMO you can't use it as a defense for this new tradition of prohibiting baptism from infants.

You brother are making an unscriptural assumption that there were infants in that household.

You, brother, as you admit, are making an unscriptural ASSUMPTION that there were only persons over the age of "X" in that household.... that they all first believed.... that they all consented. You have NOTHING in the text (Acts 16:15) that so indicates: you are ASSUMING it, it's YOUR "stuff" and not Scripture's teaching, it's YOUR opinion. Thus, your statement that all the examples of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible were of consenting, believing adults is simply..... false, wrong.

I asked you to show in scripture where any unbelievers were baptized.

It's irrelevant. Can you show me where in the Bible blond hair, blue eyed Germans are baptized in the Bible? Where baptism tanks behind the altar were used? Where Gentiles do the baptizing? Where we have youth pastors and youth groups? Powerpoint and church websites were used? Can you show me examples of VBS, Bible colleges, seminaries in the Bible? Can you show me where posting on the internet is exampled in the Bible? Can you show me where passing around little glasses of grape juice and pieces of white bread for Communion is exampled in the Bible? See.... I strongly suspect that you do NOT limit yourself or your church to ONLY doing what happens to be exampled in the Bible - so you don't accept the argument that we can only do what happens to be exampled in the pages of the NT. Since you don't accept that rubric, it's not valid for you to mandate that we do. Your very use of the internet proves you do not limit things to what happens to be exampled in the pages of the NT.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Brighten04]

Then you do not hold that consent by a baby is necessary before they can be given things. There goes the "consent" argument.

How many times do I have to say it. Wet your baby if it makes you feel better. But, until that child comes to Lord Jesus by his own faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, your faith will do him no good. And this so called argument of yours is nonsense.

I want to know something. Were you baptized as an infant?

Yes, we can ASSUME that no one in her household first consented.... or we can ASSUME that all of them did... but both are ASSUMPTIONS, Scripture says no such thing. Thus, your bold statement that all the EXAMPLES of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the 27 books of the NT
were of people who FIRST believed and FIRST consent is not correct. It's wrong, it's false. Acts 16:15 indicates no such thing, for example.

My bold statement will remain as long as you cannot show by scripture where people were baptized though they were unbelievers. What did the Apostles forcibly baptize people against their desire? And why would someone who did not believe even want to be baptized? Baptism is an act of faith.

And .... your premise: that we may not do things unless we see it exampled in the pages of the NT
, is a premise you yourself reject so why should we accept it? You are posting on the internet but there is not one example of posting on the internet in the Bible. I'd bet your church does LOTS of things that are NEVER exampled in the Bible and yet you do them. So since you don't accept that rubric (we can only do what we see illustrated in the Bible), why should we accept it? Since you reject it, IMO you can't use it as a defense for this new tradition of prohibiting baptism from infants.

I repeat. you can do whatever you want according to "church" tradition.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.KJV

Colossian 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception [pseudo-intellectual babble], according to the tradition [and musings] of mere men, following the elementary principles of this world, rather than following [the truth—the teachings of] Christ. AMP

Colossians 2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:ASV

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Do not stand on another person's faith. Stand on your own faith. That is what is going to stand in the end.

 

[Josiah]

My bold statement will remain as long as you cannot show by scripture where people were baptized though they were unbelievers. What did the Apostles forcibly baptize people against their desire? And why would someone who did not believe even want to be baptized? Baptism is an act of faith.

1. You cannot show that all the examples of baptism in the Bible were to folks who FIRST believed and/or who FIRST celebrated their "X" birthday and/or who FIRST repented and/or who FIRST consented. See Acts 16:15, can you document that ANY of that applied to the members of the household?

2. I don't know why you insist that we can only do things if we can find examples of that which happen to be recorded in the NT. If that matters, why are you posting on the internet? Why would you baptize a Korean? Why have baptism tanks? Youth pastors and youth groups? Church powerpoint, bulletins, websites? Why pass Communion around with little glasses filled with grape juice and cut up pieces of white bread?

3. I don't know why your point about consent matters.... you already stated you are NOT opposed to giving to infants and children things they did not consent to, so you don't agree that consent is mandated before we can give something to them. Did your children consent to life before life was given to them? Did they consent to citizenship before it was given to them? Did they consent to having air before that was given?

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.KJV

Does that apply to the very new tradition of a small minority of Christians to not baptize infants? Especially based on a lot of philosphies and positions they themselves don't accept (such as babies must CONSENT to things or it's forbidden to give it to them.... that we can only do things if we find it exampled in the pages of the NT)? Arguments they know aren't true and don't follow themselves?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Brighten04]

1. You cannot show that all the examples of baptism in the Bible were to folks who FIRST believed and/or who FIRST celebrated their "X" birthday and/or who FIRST repented and/or who FIRST consented. See Acts 16:15, can you document that ANY of that applied to the members of the household?

I have shown it . You have not sowh where unbelievers were in Lydia's household that were baptized.

2. I don't know why you insist that we can only do things if we can find examples of that which happen to be recorded in the NT
. If that matters, why are you posting on the internet? Why would you baptize a Korean? Why have baptism tanks? Youth pastors and youth groups? Church powerpoint, bulletins, websites? Why pass Communion around with little glasses filled with grape juice and cut up pieces of white bread?

For the third time. You can do anything you want to do according to "church" tradition. Any believer can and should be baptized as baptism is an act of one's faith.Believers are from every tribe, tongue and nation. Again, I post on the internet because I want to. I can choose for myself. No one else chooses for me.

3. I don't know why your point about consent matters.... you already stated you are NOT opposed to giving to infants and children things they did not consent to, so you don't agree that consent is mandated before we can give something to them. Did your children consent to life before life was given to them? Did they consent to citizenship before it was given to them? Did they consent to having air before that was given?

My children did not choose to be born, but they did choose to be baptized since this is the argument. They exercised their own faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ, not mine or my husband's. One has to choose Jesus of their own free will.God has chosen the entire human race. But one must believe for one's self.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I fail to understand why you are making the case for the baptism of unbelievers. You did not answer me when I asked you if you were baptized as an infant. If you were, then you have a decision to make. But,
Romans 14:5b Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The ball is in your court.

Acts 21:14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

And thus I cease, but, in love, I will be praying for you.

 

[Josiah]

I have shown it .

I respectfully disagree. You have not even tried to document that all the members of Lydia's household: Had celebrated their X birthday and/or had consented to their baptism and/or had previously repented of any sin and/or had already come to faith. Thus your claim that all the examples of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT document, these things happened prior to the baptism is not shown.... much less that the Bible teaches these things must be in place first.

Your premise is that we are to do ONLY what is exampled in the NT (an odd position for you to take since you reject it). Then you state that all the examples of baptism in the Bible were to persons who PRIOR gave their consent, celebrated their "X" birthday and were already believers. I gave you Acts 16:15 and asked you to document that all those in Lydia's household had 1) given their prior consent, 2) celebrated their X birthday, 3) were previously believers. You never even ATTEMPTED to do that. No, friend, you have not shown that.

baptism is an act of one's faith.

Please quote the Scripture that so states.

No one else chooses for me

So, you chose physical life? You chose to be a US citizen? Never has anyone simply given you something in love? You must give your prior consent before something can be given to you?

If you did not CHOOSE to come to life, do you condemn God and your parents from giving you that life, without your prior consent?

My children did not choose to be born

But you've stressed it's wrong to give something without the prior consent of the receiver. Did you err? Have you given your children anything (from conception until now) that they did not specifically prior consent to? Is that something that should be forbidden? Have you ever taken children to church without their prior consent? To school? To the doctor or dentist? Have you ever given them a gift or perhaps a hug without their prior consent?

one must believe for one's self.

Take that point to the baptists - who stress that children are saved via their PARENTS faith, until they reach the mysterious age of X when suddenly it no longer is their parent's faith that saves them. I've always found that argument quite unbiblical.

I will be praying for you.

For what, specifically?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Brighton (and others) -

Disagreements happen among Christians..... brothers..... friends... family....

I disagree that we are forbidden from giving baptism to children, infants. Especially when that's dogmatic.

BUT (and I suddenly feel the need to convey this in words)..... THAT does not mean I in any way or to any degree or in any sense.... embrace you less. Or consider us less brothers/sisters in the Lord, equally a part of the Body of Christ.

It concerns me when disagreement becomes... emotional, divisive. Equally, it concerns me when disagreement causes relativism and an abandonment of what one holds as true. Disagreement should be permitted..... hatred, hurt, not.

I like this site.... I like this community (small as it still is). In part because I think HERE is where it is okay to disagree without that impacting at all our love, embrace, respect for each other.

Just saying....




- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So what should happen when the child abandons the church completely, as some do, without ever coming into a faith of their own?

A person who was baptised after professing faith and who ceases to believe and a baptised person who never comes to personal faith reach the same place. Both ought to be called to repentance. Both ought to return to faith. If such a person does not return to the faith then their fate is explained in holy scripture "he that does not believe shall he condemned."(Mark 16:16)