the meaning of Baptism

[MoreCoffee]

Acts 16:14-15 NASB
14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.


Just for fun, a quick look at one of those 'baptized households'. Lydia (a woman) was head of the household with no mention of a husband. Given what I know about 'worshippers of God' in general, and procreation in particular, I think the odds of a baby in her house is below average.

You do? She was in Philippi at the time but came from Thyatira and she was a dealer in purple (dye probably, which was rare and very expensive). Since she had a home in Philippi she may have moved there or had a household there for when she travelled to the city - Philippi being a Roman colony city it was likely relatively wealthy. Philippi was in the province of Macedonia while Thyatira was in the province of Asia they were separated by a long distance. Albert Barnes writes

A seller of purple - Purple was a most valuable color, obtained usually from shellfish. It was chiefly worn by princes and by the rich, and the traffic in it might be very profitable. Compare the Isa 1:18 note; Luk 16:19 note.

The city of Thyatira - This was a city of Lydia, in Asia Minor, now called Akhisar. The art of dyeing was early cultivated in the neighborhood of Thyatira, as we learn from Homer (Iliad, iv. 141), and as is confirmed by inscriptions found in that city - a circumstance which may be referred to as confirming the veracity of the statements of Luke even in his casual allusions. Several of these inscriptions have been published. See the Life and Epistles of Paul, i. 295.

Which worshipped God - A religious woman, a proselyte. See the note at Act 13:16.

Whose heart the Lord opened - See the note at Luk 24:45.

And when she was baptized - Apparently without any delay. Compare Act 2:41; Act 8:38. It was usual to be baptized immediately on believing.

And her household - Greek: her house ὁ οἶκος ἀυτῆς ho oikos autēs, her family. No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. Because:

1. Her believing is particularly mentioned.
2. It is not intimated that they believed.
3. It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed. It was the offering of her family to the Lord. It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized upon the faith of the parent.

If ye have judged me to be faithful - If you deem me a Christian or a believer.

And she constrained us - She urged us. This was an instance of great hospitality, and also an evidence of her desire for further instruction in the doctrines of religion.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Acts 16:31-34 NASB
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Another of those 'baptized households' to examine. Here it was the household of the jailer who was baptized. If we pluck verse 33 out and just read it all alone, it does say he and all his household were baptized. However, let's not pluck it out of context.

Acts 16:30 indicates that the jailer was ready to accept ... God had already prepared his heart. Acts 16:31 was spoken in the jail. Yet notice Acts 16:32 where Luke makes a point of telling us that Paul repeated the Gospel to the jailer's whole household, and in Acts 16:34 that the whole household believed!

That is all 'baptists' want, is for those who are baptized to hear and believe for themselves. It is not an 'unbiblical' view. Here you have exactly that happening.

You place some importance on properly understanding Acts 16:30. Let's see what Albert Barnes says on that verse

Acts 16:30

And brought them out - From the prison.

Sirs - Greek: κύριοι kurioi, lords - an address of respect; a title usually given to masters or owners of slaves.

What must I do to be saved? - Never was a more important question asked than this. It is clear that by the question he did not refer to any danger to which he might be exposed from what had happened. For:

1. The apostles evidently understood him as referring to his eternal salvation, as is manifest from their answer, since to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ would have no effect in saving him from any danger of punishment to which he might be exposed from what had occurred.
2. He could scarcely now consider himself as exposed to punishment by the Romans. The prisoners were all safe; none had escaped, or showed any disposition to escape; and besides, for the earthquake and its effects he could not be held responsible. It is not improbable that there was much confusion in his mind. There would be a rush of many thoughts; a state of agitation, alarm, and fear; and in view of all, he would naturally ask those whom he now saw to be men sent by God, and under his protection, what he should do to obtain the favor of that great Being under whose protection he saw that they manifestly were. Perhaps the following thoughts might have tended to produce this state of agitation and alarm:
   • They had been designated by the Pythoness Act 16:17 as religious teachers sent from God, and appointed to “show the way of salvation,” and in her testimony he might have been disposed to put confidence, or it might now be brought fresh to his recollection.
   • He manifestly saw that they were under the protection of God. A remarkable interposition - an earthquake - an event which all the pagan regarded as ominous of the presence of the divinity - had showed this.
   • The guilt of their imprisonment might rush upon his mind; and he might suppose that he, the agent of the imprisonment of the servants of God, would be exposed to his displeasure.
   • His guilt in attempting his own life might overwhelm him with alarm.
   • The whole scene was suited to show him the need of the protection and friendship of the God that had thus interposed. In this state of agitation and alarm, the apostles directed him to the only source of peace and safety - the blood of the atonement. The feelings of an awakened sinner are often strikingly similar to those of this jailor. He is agitated, alarmed, and fearful; he sees that he is a sinner, and trembles; the sins of his life rush over his memory, and fill him with deep anxiety, and he inquires what he must do to be saved. Often too, as here, the providence of God is the means of awakening the sinner, and of leading to this inquiry. Some alarming dispensation convinces him that God is near, and that the soul is in danger. The loss of health, or property, or of a friend, may thus alarm the soul; the ravages of the pestilence, or any fearful judgment, may arrest the attention, and lead to the inquiry, “What must I do to be saved?” Reader, have you ever made this inquiry? Have you ever, like the pagan jailor at Philippi, seen yourself to be a lost sinner, and been willing to ask the way to life?

In this narrative we see the contrast which exists in periods of distress and alarm between Christians and sinners. The guilty jailor was all agitation, fear, distress, and terror; the apostles, all peace, calmness, joy. The one was filled with thoughts of self-murder; the others, intent on saving life and doing good. This difference is to be traced to religion. It was confidence in God that gave peace to them; it was the want of what led to agitation and alarm in him It is so still. In the trying scenes of this life the same difference is seen. In bereavement, in sickness, in times of pestilence, in death, it is still so. The Christian is calm; the sinner is agitated and alarmed. The Christian can pass through such scenes with peace and joy; to the sinner, they are scenes of terror and of dread. And thus it will be beyond the grave. In the morning of the resurrection, the Christian will rise with joy and triumph; the sinner, with fear and horror. And thus at the judgment seat. Calm and serene, the saint shall witness the solemnities of that day, and triumphantly hail the Judge as his friend; fearful and trembling, the sinner shall look on these solemnities with a soul filled with horror as he listens to the sentence that consigns him to eternal woe! With what solicitude, then, should we seek, without delay, an interest in that religion which alone can give peace to the soul!​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Acts 16:31-34 NASB
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

Another of those 'baptized households' to examine. Here it was the household of the jailer who was baptized. If we pluck verse 33 out and just read it all alone, it does say he and all his household were baptized. However, let's not pluck it out of context.

Acts 16:30 indicates that the jailer was ready to accept ... God had already prepared his heart. Acts 16:31 was spoken in the jail. Yet notice Acts 16:32 where Luke makes a point of telling us that Paul repeated the Gospel to the jailer's whole household, and in Acts 16:34 that the whole household believed!

That is all 'baptists' want, is for those who are baptized to hear and believe for themselves. It is not an 'unbiblical' view. Here you have exactly that happening.

Continuing on with Acts 16:31-34 Albert Barnes writes

Acts 16:31

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ - This was a simple, a plain, and an effectual direction. They did not direct him to use the means of grace, to pray, or to continue to seek for salvation. They did not advise him to delay, or to wait for the mercy of God. They told him to believe at once; to commit his agitated, and guilty, and troubled spirit to the Saviour, with the assurance that he should find peace. They presumed that he would understand what it was to believe, and they commanded him to do the thing. And this was the uniform direction which the early preachers gave to those inquiring the way to life. See the notes on Mat 16:16. Compare the notes on Act 8:22.

And thy house - And thy family. That is, the same salvation is equally adapted to, and offered to your family. It does not mean that his family would be saved simply by his believing, but that the offers had reference to them as well as to himself; that they might be saved as well as he. His attention was thus called at once, as every man’s should be, to his family. He was reminded that they needed salvation, and he was presented with the assurance that they might unite with him in the peace and joy of redeeming mercy. Compare the notes on Act 2:39. It may be implied here that the faith of a father may be expected to be the means of the salvation of his family. It often is so in fact; but the direct meaning is, that salvation was offered to his family as well as himself, implying that if they believed they should also be saved.

Acts 16:32

To all that were in his house - Old and young. They instructed them in the doctrines of religion, and doubtless in the nature of the ordinances of the gospel, and then baptized the entire family.


Acts 16:33

And he took them - To a convenient place for washing. It is evident from this that, though the apostles had the gift of miracles, they did not exercise it in regard to their own sufferings or to heal their own wounds. They restored others to health, not themselves.

And washed their stripes - The wounds which had been inflicted by the severe scourging which they had received the night before. We have here a remarkable instance of the effect of religion in producing humanity and tenderness. This same man, a few hours before, had thrust them into the inner prison, and made them fast in the stocks. He evidently had then no concern about their stripes or their wounds. But no sooner was he converted than one of his first acts was an act of humanity. He saw them suffering; he pitied them, and hastened to minister to them and to heal their wounds. Until the time of Christianity there never had been a hospital or an almshouse. Nearly all the hospitals for the sick since have been reared by Christians. They who are most ready to minister to the sick and dying are Christians. They who are most willing to encounter the pestilential damps of dungeons to aid the prisoner are, like Howard, Christians. Who ever saw an infidel attending a dying bed if he could help it? and where has infidelity ever reared a hospital or an almshouse, or made provision for the widow and the fatherless? Often one of the most striking changes that occurs in conversion is seen in the disposition to be kind and humane to the suffering. Compare Jam 1:27.

And was baptized - This was done straightway; that is, immediately. As it is altogether improbable that either in his house or in the prison there would be water sufficient for immersing them, there is every reason to suppose that this was performed in some other mode. All the circumstances lead us to suppose that it was not by immersion. It was at the dead of night; in a prison; amidst much agitation; and was evidently performed in haste.

Acts 16:34

He set meat before them - Food. Greek: “he placed a table.” The word “meat” formerly meant “food” of all kinds.
And rejoiced - This was the effect of believing. Religion produces joy. See the notes on Act 8:8. He was free from danger and alarm; he had evidence that his sins were forgiven, and that he was now the friend of God. The agitating and alarming scenes of the night had passed away; the prisoners were safe; and religion, with its peace, and pardon, and rejoicings, had visited himself and his family. What a change to be produced in one night! What a difference between the family when Paul was thrust into prison, and when he was brought out and received as an honored guest at the very table of the renovated jailor! Such a change would Christianity produce in every family, and such joy would it diffuse through every household.

With all his house - With all his family. Whether they believed before they were baptized or after is not declared. But the whole narrative would lead us to suppose that, as soon as the jailor believed, he and all his family were baptized. It is subsequently added that they believed also. The joy arose from the fact that they all believed the gospel; the baptism appears to have been performed on account of the faith of the head of the family.​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Acts 18:8 NASB
8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

Here again we have the entire household of Crispus "believed in the Lord" and many Corinthians were ...
1) hearing
2) believing
3) being baptized.

(Just like Baptists and Evangelicals still do things.)
What we do not see is any evidence of an unbelieving household getting baptized on the faith of another.

Albert Barnes writes

Acts 18:8

And Crispus - He is mentioned in 1Co 1:14 as having been one of the few whom Paul baptized with his own hands. The conversion of such a man must have tended greatly to exasperate the other Jews, and to further the progress of the Christian faith among the Corinthians.

With all his house - With all his family, Act 10:2.

And many of the Corinthians - Many even in this voluptuous and wicked city. Perhaps the power of the gospel was never more signal than in converting sinners in Corinth, and rearing a Christian church in a place so dissolute and abandoned. If it was adapted to such a place as Corinth; if a church, under the power of Christian truth, could be organized there, it is adapted to any city, and there is none so corrupt that the gospel cannot change and purify it.
​

The passage does not appear to support the order of belief and actions that you propose. Acts 18:8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized. But perhaps it is comforting for credobaptists to suppose that it does.

 

[Albion]

I wanted to point out that Scripture really does present a strong link between hearing, believing and being baptized.

Of course it does...because the recorded meetings and conversations between the Apostles and potential converts were between adults. For them, the formula you refer to would hold, but that doesn't mean that infants and children were not baptized.

I believe that it is no accident that the word "baptize" means to plunge under water

That's one meaning of the word. The other meanings are compatible with the other most common ways of administering baptism.

something is lost when a parent or priest "believes" for an infant and they are "sprinkled".

Ah, the old and ever-erroneous stereotype of what the majority of Christians do...with a little personal opinion to start it off. It's quite a popular strawman argument even though it's incorrect almost from beginning to end.

.

 

[Josiah]

And her household - Greek: her house ὁ οἶκος ἀυτῆς ho oikos autēs, her family. No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. Because: It is not intimated that they believed.

Yet we STILL hear, "But ALL (the tiny, tiny number of) the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT were of people over the age of X who had first documented and proved that they were born again, regenerated, believing Christians."

It's just not true.

And it's irrelevant if it were.

(BTW, this is not the only example in the Bible where we know NOTHING of the age or faith of those baptized)



Where are these bold prohibitions these folks insist upon, these big limitations to The Great Commission of Jesus to us?

Where is the "... but NOT until they have celebrated their X birthday!!!! Thou canst NOT do that!"
Where is the ".... but NOT until they document and prove that they are born again, regenerated, believing Christians! Thou canst NOT do that!"

Where is the ".... but this is a waste of time and of no spiritual value but thou art COMMANDED to do it so that you'll waste people's time!"
Where is the ".... God cannot bless any under the age of X because He is rendered impotent by those younger than that!"
Where is the ".... Do NOT baptize with water but rather only dunk them into the Holy Spirit!"

You know, the things people here have insisted the Bible states.



Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

Yet we STILL hear, "But ALL (the tiny, tiny number of) the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT were of people over the age of X who had first documented and proved that they were born again, regenerated, believing Christians."

It's just not true.

And it's irrelevant if it were.

(BTW, this is not the only example in the Bible where we know NOTHING of the age or faith of those baptized)



Where are these bold prohibitions these folks insist upon, these big limitations to The Great Commission of Jesus to us?

Where is the "... but NOT until they have celebrated their X birthday!!!! Thou canst NOT do that!"
Where is the ".... but NOT until they document and prove that they are born again, regenerated, believing Christians! Thou canst NOT do that!"

Where is the ".... but this is a waste of time and of no spiritual value but thou art COMMANDED to do it so that you'll waste people's time!"
Where is the ".... God cannot bless any under the age of X because He is rendered impotent by those younger than that!"
Where is the ".... Do NOT baptize with water but rather only dunk them into the Holy Spirit!"

You know, the things people here have insisted the Bible states.



Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah




.

Have you ever asked a 2 month old if they wanted to confess their sins and confess Jesus as Lord? I tried w 3 year olds. They don't even get what a sin is.
Even the sinners prayer is simplified for kids. The Bibles are simplified for kids. A 4 y o can understand it sometimes. Mine got it when they were 5, not earlier. Sure they believed in Jesus but there was no conviction of sin. Im not gonna tell a 2 month old fake crying baby that its necessary to repent of his sin now and let his sinful nature die w Christ. That'll come later. 'Jesus loves you and wants to bless you' will do.

 

[Lamb]

Have you ever asked a 2 month old if they wanted to confess their sins and confess Jesus as Lord? I tried w 3 year olds. They don't even get what a sin is.
Even the sinners prayer is simplified for kids. The Bibles are simplified for kids. A 4 y o can understand it sometimes. Mine got it when they were 5, not earlier. Sure they believed in Jesus but there was no conviction of sin. Im not gonna tell a 2 month old fake crying baby that its necessary to repent of his sin now and let his sinful nature die w Christ. That'll come later. 'Jesus loves you and wants to bless you' will do.

Do we demand anything from our children before we start teaching them? Jesus told the disciples to baptize and teach. Only men are putting limitations on Jesus' words. God is the one at work in baptism and gives them the gift of the Holy Spirit in it. God is the one who also teaches us. Are you waiting for something special before you teach them? Then don't wait to baptize them. Baptism and teaching go hand in hand and have been authorized by Jesus.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baptism of young children and infants is difficult for credobaptists to accept partly because so many of them think of salvation as an instantaneous change of state from hell-bound-unsavedness to heaven-bound-savedness that happened at some time in the past for each saved individual and that this kind of salvation is the result of an act of faith in Jesus Christ which they reason can't happen unless you are old enough to articulate the act of faith. Saying something like a sinner's prayer and confessing something like "Jesus is my personal saviour and Lord". Of course all of that is wrong. Salvation is an act of God through which people come to faith and learn the truth slowly growing in righteousness and increasingly repenting of sins as they become aware of them and salvation is completed only when the last day arrives and judgement is made and the righteous are separated from the wicked in the resurrection. With a proper biblical and Christian view of salvation it makes complete sense that baptism is the start of the journey for most people and that it is their parents who start them on the journey before they are old enough to speak a word.

 

[Albion]

Have you ever asked a 2 month old if they wanted to confess their sins and confess Jesus as Lord?

That's irrelevant. It's been mentioned several times before that when the NT described conversations between adults, what that tells us is about an adult's conversion, entrance into the church, etc. You aren't talking here about an adult.

 

[atpollard]

You place some importance on properly understanding Acts 16:30. Let's see what Albert Barnes says on that verse

You missed the entire point of my post ...

"Yet notice Acts 16:32 where Luke makes a point of telling us that Paul repeated the Gospel to the jailer's whole household, and in Acts 16:34 that the whole household believed!"

 

[MoreCoffee]

You missed the entire point of my post ...

"Yet notice Acts 16:32 where Luke makes a point of telling us that Paul repeated the Gospel to the jailer's whole household, and in Acts 16:34 that the whole household believed!"

I saw your point but that is not what is at issue. Your point is yours to make. The point at issue is what does the passage say and mean. Your point is an interpretation common among credobaptists but it is nevertheless not what the passage says nor what it means. Stating that the household believed need mean no more than that the heads of the house believed and their dependent children and infants were accounted believers because they were members of the household just as an Israelite household was spoken for by its head as, for example, was the case with Joshua who proclaimed "As for me and my house we will serve the LORD". Saints Paul and Silas and Saint Luke recording the events were all instructed in Jewish religious practise and knew full well that as the head of the house went so went the household. The credobaptist interpretation depends on individualism for its framework while it ignores Jewish and Christian corporatism. The passage is in the holy scriptures so it speaks in accord with the corporate language that God gave to his people and which Christians still speak today unless they have lost their roots in the corporate covenantalism of God's revelation given in holy scripture. If the story of the Jailer were in a Greek or a Roman story then maybe the individualism of credobaptists would have a foothold for its interpretation but that is not the case. Holy scripture is not a Greek play or a Roman history it is revelation from God who saves a people from their sins by incorporating them into the body of Christ. That is why Albert Barnes observed

Acts 16:32

To all that were in his house - Old and young. They instructed them in the doctrines of religion, and doubtless in the nature of the ordinances of the gospel, and then baptised the entire family.​

At its roots credobaptism is built on proof texting devoid of contextual understanding. The Hermeneutic of credobaptism is very modern, very individualistic, and very wrong.

 

[atpollard]

You do?

Yes, I believe that unmarried women who are wealthy business persons and the head of a First Century (Roman?) houshold, are less likely to have an infant child at home than a married woman whose husband was the head of that same First Century household.

Google the "birds and the bees" if you need still more explanation.

Albert Barnes writes
And her household - Greek: her house ὁ οἶκος ἀυτῆς ho oikos autēs, her family. No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. Because:

I am shocked ... :yikes: ... who would have suspected that a 19th Century Prebytrian Theologian would see "presumptive proof" of infant baptism in the use of the word 'household'?

What is "presumptive proof"?

"Presumptive" = of the nature of a presumption; presumed in the absence of further information.
synonyms: conjectural, speculative, tentative; theoretical, unproven, unconfirmed

"Proof" = evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, documentation

So Barnes sees this as STRONG 'conjectural evidence' or 'speculatative verification' or 'tentative corroboration' or 'theoretical authentication' or 'unproven confirmation' or 'unconfirmed documentation'. Well, that's certainly good enough to ignore all those pesky verses about repenting and jump straight to 'sprinkling' unbelievers on the faith of another and calling it "immersion" (Baptism: from the Greek word to plunge beneath the water).

Either build your case or at least refute the points that I am actually making, please.

[edit] OK, I withdraw the last part since you have built your case while I was typing this.

 

[atpollard]

I saw your point but that is not what is at issue. Your point is yours to make. The point at issue is what does the passage say and mean. Your point is an interpretation common among credobaptists but it is nevertheless not what the passage says nor what it means. Stating that the household believed need mean no more than that the heads of the house believed and their dependent children and infants were accounted believers because they were members of the household just as an Israelite household was spoken for by its head as, for example, was the case with Joshua who proclaimed "As for me and my house we will serve the LORD". Saints Paul and Silas and Saint Luke recording the events were all instructed in Jewish religious practise and knew full well that as the head of the house went so went the household. The credobaptist interpretation depends on individualism for its framework while it ignores Jewish and Christian corporatism. The passage is in the holy scriptures so it speaks in accord with the corporate language that God gave to his people and which Christians still speak today unless they have lost their roots in the corporate covenantalism of God's revelation given in holy scripture. If the story of the Jailer were in a Greek or a Roman story then maybe the individualism of credobaptists would have a foothold for its interpretation but that is not the case. Holy scripture is not a Greek play or a Roman history it is revelation from God who saves a people from their sins by incorporating them into the body of Christ. That is why Albert Barnes observed

Acts 16:32

To all that were in his house - Old and young. They instructed them in the doctrines of religion, and doubtless in the nature of the ordinances of the gospel, and then baptised the entire family.​

At its roots credobaptism is built on proof texting devoid of contextual understanding. The Hermeneutic of credobaptism is very modern, very individualistic, and very wrong.

To paraphrase another member of the board ...

So "the whole household believed" doesn't mean "the WHOLE household believed" ... just the Papa?

 

[MoreCoffee]

To paraphrase another member of the board ...

So "the whole household believed" doesn't mean "the WHOLE household believed" ... just the Papa?

The whole household believed means that the whole household followed papa. That's how households work, except maybe nowadays, where it is every one for themselves rather than working together as a household.

 

[Albion]

At best, it means that there WERE teens or younger adults or servants in the household and they were included in the instruction, but it doesn't mean that the toddlers or infants were lectured individually. Yet we know that the whole number of persons in these households was baptized. There is nothing peculiar in that. Rather, it is what would be expected.

 

[Josiah]

Yet we STILL hear, "But ALL (the tiny, tiny number of) the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT
were of people over the age of X who had first documented and proved that they were born again, regenerated, believing Christians."

It's just not true.

And it's irrelevant if it were.

(BTW, this is not the only example in the Bible where we know NOTHING of the age or faith of those baptized)



Where are these bold prohibitions these folks insist upon, these big limitations to The Great Commission of Jesus to us?

Where is the "... but NOT until they have celebrated their X birthday!!!! Thou canst NOT do that!"
Where is the ".... but NOT until they document and prove that they are born again, regenerated, believing Christians! Thou canst NOT do that!"

Where is the ".... but this is a waste of time and of no spiritual value but thou art COMMANDED to do it so that you'll waste people's time!"
Where is the ".... God cannot bless any under the age of X because He is rendered impotent by those younger than that!"
Where is the ".... Do NOT baptize with water but rather only dunk them into the Holy Spirit!"

You know, the things people here have insisted the Bible states.



Soli Deo Gloria



- Josiah


.

Have you ever asked a 2 month old if they wanted to confess their sins and confess Jesus as Lord? I tried w 3 year olds. They don't even get what a sin is.

So what?


Ask 32 year olds and you'll discover most of them don't get what "sin" is either (see the thread here: "What is Sin?"). Ask 50 year old CHRISTIANS what sin is and you are likely to get a lot of wrong answers....

Where is the Scripture, "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but thou art forbidden to do so until after said receiver knowth what sin is and canst define such perfectly and art repenting which of course no unbeliever canst do."

A 4 y o can understand it sometimes.

I agree (perhaps MUCH younger than 4)... but again, with all due respect, so what?

Where is the Scripture that states, "Go.... baptize.... teach but thou canst NOT do this until said receiver can cognatively understand all that you teacheth." A problem because I'm 29, have a Ph.D. and I don't understand MOST of Christianity so by that rubic, I still can't be the object of anyone reaching out to me, baptizing me or teaching me.

John the Baptist believed before he was born.... he leaped in his mother's womb as Mary entered the room with Jesus in her womb.... I think unborn babies can be given faith. Now, how much an unborn baby UNDERSTANDS in his/her brain, well, I don't know. But faith = trust, not cognative understanding. I have trust, I admit I don't understand (MUCH of Christianity is MYSTERY which is why until the middle ages, "theology" wasn't called that, it was called "the mysteries of God.") We are called to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, not to fully wrap our puny brains around all things divine. We are called to be the MORAL and LOVING equals of not, not the cognative equals of God.



Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

At best, it means that there WERE teens or younger adults or servants in the household and they were included in the instruction, but it doesn't mean that the toddlers or infants were lectured individually. Yet we know that the whole number of persons in these households was baptized. There is nothing peculiar in that. Rather, it is what would be expected.

To me, the point is the very often made point that we are forbidden to "go.... baptize.... teach...." those under the age of X BECAUSE all the very, very, very few examples of baptisms that just happen to be recorded in the NT state that all were over that age is simply FALSE. It is obviously WRONG. The whole premise is baseless. It's simply NOT the case.

And of course, irrelevant since the very ones insisting on this rubric don't believe or follow it. They do LOTS of things never once exampled in the NT. Probably 99% of what their churches do is never once exampled in the Bible. Their very posting on the internet with this argument is not once exampled in the Bible. Since they reject their own premise, their own argument, their own apologetic.... since they call it wrong and false, then why should we accept it?



- Josiah



.

 

[Imalive]

So what?


Ask 32 year olds and you'll discover most of them don't get what "sin" is either (see the thread here: "What is Sin?"). Ask 50 year old CHRISTIANS what sin is and you are likely to get a lot of wrong answers....

Where is the Scripture, "Go.... baptize.... teach..... but thou art forbidden to do so until after said receiver knowth what sin is and canst define such perfectly and art repenting which of course no unbeliever canst do."







I agree (perhaps MUCH younger than 4)... but again, with all due respect, so what?

Where is the Scripture that states, "Go.... baptize.... teach but thou canst NOT do this until said receiver can cognatively understand all that you teacheth." A problem because I'm 29, have a Ph.D. and I don't understand MOST of Christianity so by that rubic, I still can't be the object of anyone reaching out to me, baptizing me or teaching me.

John the Baptist believed before he was born.... he leaped in his mother's womb as Mary entered the room with Jesus in her womb.... I think unborn babies can be given faith. Now, how much an unborn baby UNDERSTANDS in his/her brain, well, I don't know. But faith = trust, not cognative understanding. I have trust, I admit I don't understand (MUCH of Christianity is MYSTERY which is why until the middle ages, "theology" wasn't called that, it was called "the mysteries of God.") We are called to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, not to fully wrap our puny brains around all things divine. We are called to be the MORAL and LOVING equals of not, not the cognative equals of God.



Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

Yes well maybe babies can get born again too. Why not? They also get baptized in the Holy Ghost and I think it was Paul who said about some ppl: they received the Holy Spirit too. How can we hold the water away from them?

 

[Lamb]

Yes well maybe babies can get born again too. Why not? They also get baptized in the Holy Ghost and I think it was Paul who said about some ppl: they received the Holy Spirit too. How can we hold the water away from them?

Why wouldn't God who is all loving and merciful not want babies to have the gift of the Holy Spirit? (The gift is for you and your children -Acts). The Jews were family oriented if you remember.