the meaning of Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

Also meanwhile in Russia

 

[Imalive]

Also meanwhile in Russia

Yes but they even put them in the ice water lol.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8wCk8_A440

 

[Lamb]

Why would you baptize a non-Christian, which is what an infant is. If you are going to follow that precedent then go to the beach or the pool and start splashing!

I'm not the one baptizing...that would be God doing that.

This promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:39)

 

[Josiah]

Nice try. A 15 year old can fully show that s/he has been redeemed.

.... still waiting for the Scripture, "Thou art forbidden to baptize and teach until one has attained the age of X and first documents that they are a Christian." I just can't find that verse. What I find is, "Go.... baptize.... teach." "Baptism now saves you." "My Word does not return void but accomplished all that I desire."

Every instance of baptism in the Bible comes after the person has been made alive in Christ.

Wrong.

For example, we have a person AND HER HOUSEHOLD being baptized. Nowhere does the Bible state, "And everyone in that household who was baptized had already celebrated their X birthday and had documented to all that they were already a Christian and spiritually alive." Nope. Your claim is baseless and wrong.

And irrelevant. As you agree. You don't believe that may only do as we find examples in the Bible, I need only one thing to know you don't believe your own point: You are posting on the internet. And even if you insist "This applies ONLY to Baptism and to NOTHING else" then you still don't believe your own point: I doubt the only Baptisms you consider valid are performed by a Hebrew male and performed in the Near East or in Greece.



- Josiah


.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus said unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. He spoke the truth. Without baptism a person cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Ever see a child be born physically, MC? Ever seen a woman's water burst?

The passage in John 3 illustrates that just as you had nothing to do with your physical conception and birth, so you have nothing to do with your Spiritual conception and birth.
You have no control over these things.
The passage doesn't even refer to baptism.
Thank you for showing us all how you abuse the use of scripture in order to create a prooftext from thin air as your argument. Your use of scripture is just awful, MC. Just awful.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm not the one baptizing...that would be God doing that.

This promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:39)

So...God comes down in the form of your pastor and baptizes the infant? Is that your argument?
The passage in Acts has nothing to do with infant baptism. You are grabbing a verse and twisting it to fit your pretext, out of context.
It amazes me to see the poor use of scripture on this topic.

 

[MennoSota]

.... still waiting for the Scripture, "Thou art forbidden to baptize and teach until one has attained the age of X and first documents that they are a Christian." I just can't find that verse. What I find is, "Go.... baptize.... teach." "Baptism now saves you." "My Word does not return void but accomplished all that I desire."







Wrong.

For example, we have a person AND HER HOUSEHOLD being baptized. Nowhere does the Bible state, "And everyone in that household who was baptized had already celebrated their X birthday and had documented to all that they were already a Christian and spiritually alive." Nope. Your claim is baseless and wrong.

And irrelevant. As you agree. You don't believe that may only do as we find examples in the Bible, I need only one thing to know you don't believe your own point: You are posting on the internet. And even if you insist "This applies ONLY to Baptism and to NOTHING else" then you still don't believe your own point: I doubt the only Baptisms you consider valid are performed by a Hebrew male and performed in the Near East or in Greece.



- Josiah


.

Again, you are the only one making this about age.
I am rightly stating that you never once see a non-believer being baptized. You always see a confession of faith and a desire to show that the person has been made alive in Christ.
Josiah, how would a new born confess their faith in Christ? How would a newborn show that they had been made alive in Christ?
The answer is: They can not!
You are baptizing an unrepentant sinner and declaring their sins to be atoned for by virtue of their baptism. Yet, nowhere do you find that teaching in scripture.
You would never grab an unrepentant sinner off the street and baptize them, then tell them their sins are atoned for by virtue of water being sprinkled on them. How is it that you dare to preach a false gospel regarding infants?

 

[Josiah]

I am rightly stating that you never once see a non-believer being baptized.

Actually, I see it often....

But it's certainly not true in the Bible. Just one example, I have repeatedly asked you for the verse that states that all who were baptized "in her household" had attained the age of X and had given documentation that they first were spiritually alive and a Christian. You've ignored this because you know it says NOTHING of the sort.

And I reject your rubric that we are to ignore the Commands and teachings of Scripture - and instead look to the EXAMPLES of things that happen to be recorded in Scripture as the norm. I reject your whole premise and epistemology. By your premise, you should not be posting on the internet. By your premise, you should reject any baptism not performed by a Hebrew male and done in some body of water in the Holy Lands, Turkey or Greece. And of course, you'd reject any church using electricity or baptizing in a spa behind some curtain in a church or using powerpoint or having youth groups. You'd reject passing around Communion in little plastic cups with Welch's Grape Juice and a plate of cut up Webers White Bread. But you don't accept your own premise, you reject your own argument: it's pretty likely your church does LOTS of things never once exampled in Scripture. And you aren't forbidding all that.

You always see a confession of faith and a desire to show that the person has been made alive in Christ

It's simply false. Which is why you keep ignoring my request.

And so what? Baptisms were also always done by Hebrew males - do you consider invalid all Baptisms done by gentiles? All Baptisms in the Bible were done in the Holy Lands or in modern day Turkey or Greece - do you consider invalid all done in the USA? IF you actually believed Baptisms must follow the example of the few we have in the NT, then you'd have a point (one I'd reject) but you don't - you deny your own point.

Josiah, how would a new born confess their faith in Christ? How would a newborn show that they had been made alive in Christ?

I'm waiting for the verse that states one must "confess" their faith in Christ before we can apply the Great Commission..... Where is this mandate? Where is this limitation and prohibition on the Great Commission? You've always ignored that request.



-Josiah

 

[Imalive]

Again, you are the only one making this about age.
I am rightly stating that you never once see a non-believer being baptized. You always see a confession of faith and a desire to show that the person has been made alive in Christ.
Josiah, how would a new born confess their faith in Christ? How would a newborn show that they had been made alive in Christ?
The answer is: They can not!
You are baptizing an unrepentant sinner and declaring their sins to be atoned for by virtue of their baptism. Yet, nowhere do you find that teaching in scripture.
You would never grab an unrepentant sinner off the street and baptize them, then tell them their sins are atoned for by virtue of water being sprinkled on them. How is it that you dare to preach a false gospel regarding infants?

They can not because they are not unrepentant sinners.

 

[Imalive]

Actually, I see it often....

But it's certainly not true in the Bible. Just one example, I have repeatedly asked you for the verse that states that all who were baptized "in her household" had attained the age of X and had given documentation that they first were spiritually alive and a Christian. You've ignored this because you know it says NOTHING of the sort.

And I reject your rubric that we are to ignore the Commands and teachings of Scripture - and instead look to the EXAMPLES of things that happen to be recorded in Scripture as the norm. I reject your whole premise and epistemology. By your premise, you should not be posting on the internet. By your premise, you should reject any baptism not performed by a Hebrew male and done in some body of water in the Holy Lands, Turkey or Greece. And of course, you'd reject any church using electricity or baptizing in a spa behind some curtain in a church or using powerpoint or having youth groups. You'd reject passing around Communion in little plastic cups with Welch's Grape Juice and a plate of cut up Webers White Bread. But you don't accept your own premise, you reject your own argument: it's pretty likely your church does LOTS of things never once exampled in Scripture. And you aren't forbidding all that.





It's simply false. Which is why you keep ignoring my request.

And so what? Baptisms were also always done by Hebrew males - do you consider invalid all Baptisms done by gentiles? All Baptisms in the Bible were done in the Holy Lands or in modern day Turkey or Greece - do you consider invalid all done in the USA? IF you actually believed Baptisms must follow the example of the few we have in the NT, then you'd have a point (one I'd reject) but you don't - you deny your own point.





I'm waiting for the verse that states one must "confess" their faith in Christ before we can apply the Great Commission..... Where is this mandate? Where is this limitation and prohibition on the Great Commission? You've always ignored that request.



-Josiah

It's in all the Biblical examples that you just dismiss. The household heard the Word, came to faith and was baptized. The guy w Philip. Acts 2. Why even look the texts up. You don't care about em anyway.

 

[Albion]

It's in all the Biblical examples that you just dismiss. The household heard the Word, came to faith and was baptized. The guy w Philip. Acts 2. Why even look the texts up. You don't care about em anyway.

Speaking of caring about reading the texts, the one in question here--the 'whole households' verse--does NOT say that everyone who was baptized was baptized after hearing the word, consenting to the Gospel, coming to faith, etc.

 

[Imalive]

Speaking of caring about reading the texts, the one in question here--the 'whole households' verse--does NOT say that everyone who was baptized was baptized after hearing the word, consenting to the Gospel, coming to faith, etc.

Tssss well in Acts 2 it's clear.

And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

They heard the Word. Faith comes by hearing. Then they got baptized.

 

[Albion]

Tssss well in Acts 2 it's clear.

And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

They heard the Word. Faith comes by hearing. Then they got baptized.

That's Acts 16. Having heard the Gospel preached to these people does not tell us who was baptized, just that the whole household was. We are still left to decide if that man's family included children. It would be rare if it did not, and bear in mind that he was still working, so he was not aged, and he did have a "family." It was not just servants etc. being referred to as the "household" (which opponents of infant baptism often claim).

 

[Imalive]

That's Acts 16. Having heard the Gospel preached to these people does not tell us who was baptized, just that the whole household was. We are still left to decide if that man's family included children. It would be rare if it did not, and bear in mind that he was still working, so he was not aged, and he did have a "family." It was not just servants etc. being referred to as the "household" (which opponents of infant baptism often claim).

But you don't know if he had a baby.

Acts 2

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

The ones cut to the heart, I can't imagine those were babies who felt guilty that they fake cried. I also can't imagine Peter telling them to repent. Those were youngsters or adults. I can imagine babies filled w the Holy Spirit though. He would poor out His Spirit on all flesh. But if that means baptize em.. the Bible doesn't say it. I'd think not.

 

[Albion]

But you don't know if he had a baby.

It isn't just a baby that you don't think is eligible for Baptism. Children of some indefinite, unknown, age are also prohibited from being baptized in those churches. And, while it's true that we do not know if the man in the scriptures had a baby or a three year old or a five year old or even older, we do not know that he didn't. The verse doesn't specify, so we should not assume that a whole "household" excludes those members who were part of most families in those days. To exclude them is arbitrary and based on a guess that's unlikely of being correct.

Acts "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

In order to know how this verse applies, we first have to know to whom Peter was speaking. Nothing is said about the hearer's families--which were included in the other verses (Acts 16)--so we have to think that he was speaking to adults and of course, as adults, they would have to hear and be converted in order to be baptized, unlike small children.

 

[Imalive]

Looked it up. Why not babies?
Marc 16:16 Who believes and lets himself get baptized shall be saved. First believe. Let yourself be baptized, it's an act from the persons themselves.
Acts 8:37 if you believe w your whole heart you may.
Acts 2:38 first repentance
1 Peter 3:21 it's a prayer of a good conscience to God. A baby can't pray.
Acts 22: 16 a baby can't call on His Name.

 

[Albion]

Certainly. IF the candidate is an adult or older child, all of those apply. And as has been said several times, the evangelists of the early church went to adults with the Gospel, just as you would if engaged in missionary work. That doesn't decide the issue with regard to younger children, one way or the other.

 

[Imalive]

Eeww. I googled on history to see what was common to do in Biblical times and then stumbled on this. No thanks. No baby baptism for me.

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/infant_baptism_exposed.htm

 

[Albion]

Eeww. I googled on history to see what was common to do in Biblical times and then stumbled on this. No thanks. No baby baptism for me.

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/infant_baptism_exposed.htm

From almost the start, that article is giving off false information. Any reputable source that opposes infant baptism on historical grounds would be welcomed, though.

By the way, this guy had this to say about tongues speaking. I found it interesting reading and, since you must trust what he says, you may too--

"The “tongues” recorded in the Bible are nothing like the “speaking in tongues” practiced today by Pentecostals and Charismatics. There are MAJOR differences:

No one actually spoke in*“tongues” in Acts chapter 2; but rather, the Bible says that every man HEARD in his own language (Acts 2:6). So they actually “heard in tongues.” The only language Peter spoke was Greek. The crowds thought the men were drunk, because they were all amazed; because Peter only spoke ONE language. The miracle was in that every man HEARD in his own NATIVE tongue.
*
Tongues in the Bible always involved KNOWN, established, earthly languages. There was never any unknown, jibber-jabber that no one even knew what they were saying as Charismatics do today. Charismatic tongues is of the Devil.
*
In the Bible God always initiated the gift of tongues, it wasn't something that men chose where and when to do. Charismatics decide where and when to speak in Charismatic tongues; but it was always God who initiated the miracle in the Bible.

These 3 facts by themselves prove that Charismatic tongues are of the Devil. "




.

 

[MennoSota]

They can not because they are not unrepentant sinners.

Psalm 51:5 (NLT)
For I was born a sinner--yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.