the meaning of Baptism

[atpollard]

Deleted.
Question answered.

 

[MennoSota]

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

Josiah, if you want to perform John the Baptists baptism, which came before the atoning work of Christ, then baptize in the name of John.
If you are going to baptize non-believers in the name of Jesus, then show the precedence from scripture. If you are going to argue from silence by imputing infants into a story in Acts, then admit you are arguing from silence and forcing your view upon the passage.
I have answered your age fallacy adnaseum. I cannot understand your fallacious hang up.

 

[Albion]

The argument for infant baptism is not an argument from silence.

John the Baptist's baptism is not an alternate baptism available today or being practiced today. It was what the Jews did before Christian baptism was instituted by Christ.

If "it's a story in Acts," it is the word of God. We do not get to throw away Acts if it says something that goes against what we'd prefer to believe. And you do not get to call it an argument from silence simply because you won't hear of something that is written in the New Testament.

 

[Imalive]

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

NKJV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

They think his parents were in sin. Why didn't he count? Why did his dad only call his brothers w Samuel? Joseph was the youngest and his dad liked him more than the others, cause he was from Rachel and sweet and young.
Davids son was conceived in sin too. He didn't die because of his own sins and he didn't go to hell.

It would have been better for Judas if he hadn't been born.

A small child can sin though:

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Jesus Warns of Offenses
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Babies can't profess faith in Christ, but they can't reject Him either.

"Beware that you don't look down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my heavenly Father.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

You are correct, it does not say that. It also does not say that Paul and Silas baptized non-believers. The implication in the passage is that the household was brought to faith. We see nowhere in the passage that the household had infants that were baptized. To imply that is to force your opinion upon the text, which is a terrible thing to do.
But, if you insist upon baptizing unregenerate humans, you need to go to the local pool and beach and start splahing in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do that enough and your whole town will be saved by your splash baptism techniques.
I am appalled by the baptismal regeneration that people are preaching in this thread.

 

[MennoSota]

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).

Your argument is from silence. You are forcing your opinion upon the text and creating a dogma from silence. That is a dangerous thing to do.

 

[Imalive]

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. "




.

Oh. Then it's indeed an unreliable source.


The earliest explicit mention of infant “baptism” in the history of the church is from the African church father, Tertullian, who lived from about A.D. 160 to about 220. He was born in Carthage, studied in Rome for a legal career and was converted to Christianity in about 195. He was the first Christian theologian to write in Latin and exerted significant influence through his apologetic works.

The work, de baptismo (Concerning Baptism) was written, evidently between 200 and 206. In it Tertullian questions the wisdom of giving baptism to infants. He says,

According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if [baptism itself] is not necessary—that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? For they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition…. They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation! (de baptismo, ch. xviii)
What we see here is that the first explicit witness to infant baptism does not assume that it is a given. In other words, at the turn of the third century it is not taken for granted, as it is 200 years later when St. Augustine addresses the matter. Tertullian speaks the way one would if the practice were in dispute, possibly as a more recent development.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-old-is-infant-baptism
This man smiles friendly, so it must be a good source.

 

[MennoSota]

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

His source is quite minimal for his presentation. He also assumes an age of accountability theory that is not taught in scripture. In fact I shared Psalm 51, which means we are accountable at conception. We must therefore bow at the mercy of God that he might choose to extend His grace and mercy to infants as he does with all the elect.

 

[MennoSota]

The argument for infant baptism is not an argument from silence.

John the Baptist's baptism is not an alternate baptism available today or being practiced today. It was what the Jews did before Christian baptism was instituted by Christ.

If "it's a story in Acts," it is the word of God. We do not get to throw away Acts if it says something that goes against what we'd prefer to believe. And you do not get to call it an argument from silence simply because you won't hear of something that is written in the New Testament.

Nowhere in the passage is an infant mentioned. That means infant baptism is silent in scripture. You are forcing your own wishes upon the passage. In the same vein, I cannot show you that infants were not baptized. What can be said is that the passage is silent on the matter and therefore of no use in out discussion.

 

[MennoSota]

NKJV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

They think his parents were in sin. Why didn't he count? Why did his dad only call his brothers w Samuel? Joseph was the youngest and his dad liked him more than the others, cause he was from Rachel and sweet and young.
Davids son was conceived in sin too. He didn't die because of his own sins and he didn't go to hell.

It would have been better for Judas if he hadn't been born.

A small child can sin though:

Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Jesus Warns of Offenses
6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Babies can't profess faith in Christ, but they can't reject Him either.

"Beware that you don't look down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels are always in the presence of my heavenly Father.

New International Version
Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me

 

[Lamb]

Nowhere in the passage is an infant mentioned. That means infant baptism is silent in scripture. You are forcing your own wishes upon the passage. In the same vein, I cannot show you that infants were not baptized. What can be said is that the passage is silent on the matter and therefore of no use in out discussion.

Entire households should put some doubt in your mind except you're thinking of modern day families where couples remain childless until their 30s. That wasn't the case in ancient times. There were children around and not only that, the entire household also included the servants. There was no birth control that was effective like the pill. There were children.

Even though you reject the verse, it is promised for our children.

Even though you reject that the word is alive and active, it's what makes baptism an actual baptism instead of merely water.

Even though you reject that God attaches promises and follows through...think of how God promised the leper in the OT to be cured by dipping in the river. Think of how God saved Noah and his family during the flood. Think of how Jesus used mud to make a blind man see. He didn't have to, but God often uses earthly means.

 

[MennoSota]

Entire households should put some doubt in your mind except you're thinking of modern day families where couples remain childless until their 30s. That wasn't the case in ancient times. There were children around and not only that, the entire household also included the servants. There was no birth control that was effective like the pill. There were children.

Even though you reject the verse, it is promised for our children.

Even though you reject that the word is alive and active, it's what makes baptism an actual baptism instead of merely water.

Even though you reject that God attaches promises and follows through...think of how God promised the leper in the OT to be cured by dipping in the river. Think of how God saved Noah and his family during the flood. Think of how Jesus used mud to make a blind man see. He didn't have to, but God often uses earthly means.

Why do you promote baptismal regeneration for infants, but not for adults?
Why don't you go down to the local pool and baptize as many as you can? Please explain.
Your argument is entirely from silence.

 

[Lamb]

Why do you promote baptismal regeneration for infants, but not for adults?
Why don't you go down to the local pool and baptize as many as you can? Please explain.
Your argument is entirely from silence.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the Word of God. The Holy Spirit uses the word to give us faith. Adults hear the word of God and are given faith by the Holy Spirit through the Word. Infants too can hear the Word of God because we know from scripture that infants can have faith (see my posts with the scriptures showing that). The word is with the water in baptism. It isn't just water. Remember how I said that the Holy Spirit uses the word of God to bring people to faith? Since it's with the water, it is a means to bring infants to faith. If there is no teaching after, their faith could die. Jesus told the disciples to make baptize and teach so we know that baptism and teaching have that connection. The Holy Spirit is involved in both. An empty baptism is not what should be promoted and it isn't what the ancient church practiced even though you reject tradition. When you reject what happened in the early church you have to ask yourself why you prefer a newer teaching since it isn't what the early church believed.

 

[MennoSota]

The word is with the water in baptism. It isn't just water.

There is your false teaching, which cannot be supported in scripture. You make a false assertion, which has comforted millions directly into hell.
If you truly believe what you say, you will go down to your local pool, start splashing and crying out "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!" If you go on a busy day I bet half the town can be saved.
Your insistence upon a non-biblical means of regeneration is disappointing.

 

[Albion]

Oh. Then it's indeed an unreliable source.


The earliest explicit mention of infant “baptism” in the history of the church is from the African church father, Tertullian, who lived from about A.D. 160 to about 220. He was born in Carthage, studied in Rome for a legal career and was converted to Christianity in about 195. He was the first Christian theologian to write in Latin and exerted significant influence through his apologetic works.

The work, de baptismo (Concerning Baptism) was written, evidently between 200 and 206. In it Tertullian questions the wisdom of giving baptism to infants. He says,

According to everyone’s condition and disposition, and also his age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if [baptism itself] is not necessary—that the sponsors should be thrust into danger? For they may either fail of their promise by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition…. They that understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation! (de baptismo, ch. xviii)
What we see here is that the first explicit witness to infant baptism does not assume that it is a given. In other words, at the turn of the third century it is not taken for granted, as it is 200 years later when St. Augustine addresses the matter. Tertullian speaks the way one would if the practice were in dispute, possibly as a more recent development.

Wow. I wasn't ready for you to be adopting the Roman Catholic approach to doctrine! I'll be waiting for your defense of the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession.

 

[Josiah]

If you are going to baptize non-believers in the name of Jesus, then show the precedence from scripture.

Jesus COMMANDED Christians to "go..... baptize..... teach." Nowhere is there the prohibition you claim: "BUT you art forbidden to do so until they have reached the age of X and hast documented and proven that they art spiritually alive, believe and art a Christian.' It's just not there.

Now, you can argue that commands such as "Love one another just as I have loved you" excludes poor people or Asian people or female people because it doesn't say, "An this INCLUDES poor folk and women" but the reality is such a prohibition is entirely missing from Jesus.

f you are going to argue from silence by imputing infants into a story in Acts, then admit you are arguing from silence and forcing your view upon the passage.

The silence is on your end: You have not yet been able to produce the verse, "But thou canst NOT go.... baptize.... teach unless and until the person hath FIRST attained the age of X and hath proven and documented that they art a Christian, art born again, and believe."

You have deserted Scripture and the authority of Scripture and substituted EXAMPES that happen to be recorded in Scripture. Problem is: it doesn't help you. Not all the examples of baptizing in the NT (and they are a TINY, TINY fraction of the number of Baptisms in the First Century) can be shown to be people over the age of X who had documented beforehand that they were born again, believing Christians.... in some cases, we know NOTHING about them except that they were baptized. Thus, your whole argument - the very, very small number of examples of baptisms in the NT were all of born again, Christian believers over the age of X simply isn't true.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Jesus COMMANDED Christians to "go..... baptize..... teach."

Jesus commanded:
1) Go
2) Make disciples
3) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
4) Teach
You neglect the need to make disciples.
You don't baptize the unregenerate...ever.
Children are born in sin (Psalm 51:1). They are not regenerated by your baptism. You cannot discern that they have faith at infancy. You are demanding that God must do what God never promised, which is...save infants from their sins by YOUR baptizing them.
Why are you all insisting on works salvation? It is anathema and a teaching straight from hell.
Matthew 28:19-20
[19]Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[20]Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
You don't baptize the unregenerate...ever.
...

Christians always baptise the unregenerate and the one baptised is always regenerated in baptism. Baptism is the washing of regeneration. That's what the scriptures teach.

 

[Imalive]

Christians always baptise the unregenerate and the one baptised is always regenerated in baptism. Baptism is the washing of regeneration. That's what the scriptures teach.

No I was already born again for 2 years. Had to wait w baptism, else my dad got mad. All of a sudden his whole family saved. All his atheistic effort to talk sense into us for nothing lol.
My mom got baptised as a baby. She got saved 50 years later when she checked if we had gone to a cult and stayed and prayed the sinners prayer and got baptized later. Also had to wait. Before she got born again she believed in God but had no personal relationship w Him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No I was already born again for 2 years. Had to wait w baptism, else my dad got mad. All of a sudden his whole family saved. All his atheistic effort to talk sense into us for nothing lol.

No, you were not already "born again" two years before your baptism. By the way, did your parents have you baptised in your infancy?