• Welcome to Christianity Haven, thank you for visiting! If you have not already, we invite you to create an account and join in on the many discussions we have! 

    • Please be aware that when registering you must not register while using a VPN. Any registrations made using a VPN will be rejected.
    • Additionally, registration emails are not being sent out which is an issue that is being worked on. Your registration may go into an approval queue for admin approval. We work to send manual emails to the email on file, so please ensure the email you use is one you can readily access! 

the meaning of Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
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.

Yes well the weird thing is, sure, of course babies can get baptized in the Holy Spirit and sure they can have the bread and wine but somehow baptism: noooo they have to understand that! I think because evangelicals link it to the sinners prayer which you dont understand w 2 months and then some wait til 12 which makes no sense to me whatsoever. Plus: bread and wine okay because w Passover everyone ate and baptism not okay makes no sense. Both have to be the same. Hey btw could just born babies eat the Passover? They'd choke on that.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
34,538
Age
59
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes well the weird thing is, sure, of course babies can get baptized in the Holy Spirit and sure they can have the bread and wine but somehow baptism: noooo they have to understand that! I think because evangelicals link it to the sinners prayer which you dont understand w 2 months and then some wait til 12 which makes no sense to me whatsoever. Plus: bread and wine okay because w Passover everyone ate and baptism not okay makes no sense. Both have to be the same. Hey btw could just born babies eat the Passover? They'd choke on that.

Don't just born babies get the food passed on from their mothers who have consumed the Passover in the breast milk?
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Don't just born babies get the food passed on from their mothers who have consumed the Passover in the breast milk?

Oh yeah guess so. Guess they didn't have milk bottles back then.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
To heck with babies, that is a symptom, not the cause.

Show me in Scripture (assuming you still believe that the Word of God stands above human traditions), where anyone, of any age was First Baptized and then Later Believed and was 'Born from above'. 'Baptists' object to your baptizing unbelievers on the faith of another person. Just show me where it happens anywhere in scripture.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
To heck with babies, that is a symptom, not the cause.

Show me in Scripture (assuming you still believe that the Word of God stands above human traditions), where anyone, of any age was First Baptized and then Later Believed and was 'Born from above'. 'Baptists' object to your baptizing unbelievers on the faith of another person. Just show me where it happens anywhere in scripture.

Show me where an Altar Call occurred anywhere in Scripture. Show me where a "dedication" ceremony was used as a substitute for baptizing a child.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Show me where an Altar Call occurred anywhere in Scripture. Show me where a "dedication" ceremony was used as a substitute for baptizing a child.

Mark 16:16 NASB He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Act 8:12 NASB But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

Act 8:13 NASB Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

Act 18:8 NASB 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.

Show me where an 'Altar Call' or a 'dedication ceremony' directly contradicts what the Apostles wrote in Scripture and the comparison becomes "apples" to "apples". Until then, you offer me nothing but a straw man.

(And for the record, ANY human tradition that contradicts Scripture is wrong.)

Now where in Scripture are people Baptized first and then Believe at some later date?
Where in Scripture does some else get to 'believe' for you?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,382
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Show me anywhere in the bible where it is necessary to show chapter and verse for a thing that is true to be proven true.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Show me where an 'Altar Call' or a 'dedication ceremony' directly contradicts what the Apostles wrote in Scripture and the comparison becomes "apples" to "apples". Until then, you offer me nothing but a straw man.
Nope. Being unable to show us any Biblical basis for those two items of which you approve--altar calls and infant dedications--you switch the argument to
"but it's not explicitly condemned in Scripture, so anything goes."

That is a very poor argument that justifies a host of heresies that come from religious legends and theological speculation that we both would reject as unscriptural if advocated by someone else here who is a member of a non-Sola Scriptura denomination.

You challenged your readers to show you where something they believe (but you do not) is to be found in scripture, but when I ask the same of you, your reply is "show me where my pet practices are forbidden in scripture!" as though that makes any innovation or human tradition acceptable.

You can't have it both ways.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Mark 16:16 NASB He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.



1. Good to remember that the Greek word "kai" (and) is just a connector. It does not remotely indicate or imply order, ALL it does is join things. "I took a shower and ate breakfast" is a factual statement, I just didn't do them in that order.

2. Of course, no one teaches that Baptism is ESSENTIAL to salvation, as if God is forbidden to give faith and justify any who has not been baptized. The Thief on the Cross and John the Baptist in the womb of Elizabeth are the usual examples.

3. The lack of faith indicates that one is not heaven bound, not the lack of baptism. Nonetheless, God does call on us to go.... baptize.... teach meaning these are not optional.




Act 8:12 NASB But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.


Yes.... today also, the baptism rite tends to stress the need for education....

Remember: Scripture is normative in it's TEACHING. We should not ignore what is taught in favor of a tiny, tiny percentage of practices that happen to be recorded is the Bible. Here is is likely adults were baptized.... probably already believers (although that can't be proven) but that is not remotely indicative of some mandate that only adults or believers are permitted to be baptized, it simply does not state that.




Act 8:13 NASB Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.


Act 18:8 NASB 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.


1. Again, "kai" by no means indicates or remotely implies order

2. Again, we have a certain situation here.... but that doesn't mandate we can only do what was done here.

3. "With all his household" does not inform us of the age, race, color, nationality or religious beliefs of ANY in that group. Those who base their apologetic on "ALL the baptisms in the Bible were to those over the age of X who had FIRST documented and proved their born again, regenerated status and their Christian faith" find their whole argument destroyed. This is one of the places where we simply cannot know that any of that was the case. MAY have been..... may NOT have been..... Scripture doesn't say.




Show me where an 'Altar Call' or a 'dedication ceremony' directly contradicts what the Apostles wrote in Scripture and the comparison becomes "apples" to "apples". Until then, you offer me nothing but a straw man.


I don't beleive these practices "contradict" Scripture. Scripture nowhere mentions them but again the example see (or don't see) in the NT are not normative - what the Bible TEACHES is normative.

I do wonder about "Baby Dedication" IN LIEU OF Baptism...... I do wonder about "Altar Calls" as a good work performed by the unregenerate, dead, atheist that God rewards with salvation.... but the practices PER SE are okay in my opinion, not PER SE unbiblical (abiblical, however - which is okay)



Now where in Scripture are people Baptized first and then Believe at some later date?


We cannot know because we are simply not told that in all cases of baptisms....

With all due respect, it's irrelevant. IF you hold that we are to ignore what Scripture teaches and instead of that, in lieu of that, copy the tiny, tiny percentage of examples of practices that happen to be recorded in the Bible, then you'd be arguing that Gentiles cannot baptize (we only have examples of Hebrews doing that), they can only be done in the Holy Lands and modern-day Turkey and Greece (no examples elsewhere in the Bible) and you'd be against any Asians or Hispanics or Native Americans or Australians and probably Blacks from being taught and baptized since there are no examples of such anywhere in the Bible. You'd also be protesting posting on the internet, using electricity, churches having youth and women's groups, youth pastors, VBS, passing around Communion with little cut up pieces of leavened white bread and little plastic cups of Welche's Grape Juice and probably 99% of the things Christian Churches do today.



Thank you.



- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Mark 16:16 NASB He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Act 8:12 NASB But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

Act 8:13 NASB Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

Act 18:8 NASB 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.

Show me where an 'Altar Call' or a 'dedication ceremony' directly contradicts what the Apostles wrote in Scripture and the comparison becomes "apples" to "apples". Until then, you offer me nothing but a straw man.

(And for the record, ANY human tradition that contradicts Scripture is wrong.)

Now where in Scripture are people Baptized first and then Believe at some later date?
Where in Scripture does some else get to 'believe' for you?

No one can believe for another person but doesn't the holy spirit give faith and so when that happens we do the believing and we see by example that babies can believe and even John the Baptist believed in the womb so there are no hindrances such as being not even yet.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
55
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Show me where an Altar Call occurred anywhere in Scripture. Show me where a "dedication" ceremony was used as a substitute for baptizing a child.
Neither of your retorts refers to atonement of sins. Neither an altar call nor a dedication ceremony saves a person. The problem is that baptismal regeneration is not a bible-based teaching.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
55
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Show me anywhere in the bible where it is necessary to show chapter and verse for a thing that is true to be proven true.
^^^^^^The above statement is idiotic and nonsensical.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
55
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
1. Good to remember that the Greek word "kai" (and) is just a connector. It does not remotely indicate or imply order, ALL it does is join things. "I took a shower and ate breakfast" is a factual statement, I just didn't do them in that order.

2. Of course, no one teaches that Baptism is ESSENTIAL to salvation, as if God is forbidden to give faith and justify any who has not been baptized. The Thief on the Cross and John the Baptist in the womb of Elizabeth are the usual examples.

3. The lack of faith indicates that one is not heaven bound, not the lack of baptism. Nonetheless, God does call on us to go.... baptize.... teach meaning these are not optional.







Yes.... today also, the baptism rite tends to stress the need for education....

Remember: Scripture is normative in it's TEACHING. We should not ignore what is taught in favor of a tiny, tiny percentage of practices that happen to be recorded is the Bible. Here is is likely adults were baptized.... probably already believers (although that can't be proven) but that is not remotely indicative of some mandate that only adults or believers are permitted to be baptized, it simply does not state that.







1. Again, "kai" by no means indicates or remotely implies order

2. Again, we have a certain situation here.... but that doesn't mandate we can only do what was done here.

3. "With all his household" does not inform us of the age, race, color, nationality or religious beliefs of ANY in that group. Those who base their apologetic on "ALL the baptisms in the Bible were to those over the age of X who had FIRST documented and proved their born again, regenerated status and their Christian faith" find their whole argument destroyed. This is one of the places where we simply cannot know that any of that was the case. MAY have been..... may NOT have been..... Scripture doesn't say.







I don't beleive these practices "contradict" Scripture. Scripture nowhere mentions them but again the example see (or don't see) in the NT are not normative - what the Bible TEACHES is normative.

I do wonder about "Baby Dedication" IN LIEU OF Baptism...... I do wonder about "Altar Calls" as a good work performed by the unregenerate, dead, atheist that God rewards with salvation.... but the practices PER SE are okay in my opinion, not PER SE unbiblical (abiblical, however - which is okay)






We cannot know because we are simply not told that in all cases of baptisms....

With all due respect, it's irrelevant. IF you hold that we are to ignore what Scripture teaches and instead of that, in lieu of that, copy the tiny, tiny percentage of examples of practices that happen to be recorded in the Bible, then you'd be arguing that Gentiles cannot baptize (we only have examples of Hebrews doing that), they can only be done in the Holy Lands and modern-day Turkey and Greece (no examples elsewhere in the Bible) and you'd be against any Asians or Hispanics or Native Americans or Australians and probably Blacks from being taught and baptized since there are no examples of such anywhere in the Bible. You'd also be protesting posting on the internet, using electricity, churches having youth and women's groups, youth pastors, VBS, passing around Communion with little cut up pieces of leavened white bread and little plastic cups of Welche's Grape Juice and probably 99% of the things Christian Churches do today.



Thank you.



- Josiah




.
Do you go to the local pool and splash people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? If not, please explain why you fail to obey Matthew 28.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
55
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
No one can believe for another person but doesn't the holy spirit give faith and so when that happens we do the believing and we see by example that babies can believe and even John the Baptist believed in the womb so there are no hindrances such as being not even yet.
The gift of faith comes...after...God saves a person, not before. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes this clear.
You are not capable of imputing God's atonement upon an infant by baptizing them. Nor can you state that baptizing an infant imputes God's atonement upon the child.
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
No one can believe for another person but doesn't the holy spirit give faith and so when that happens we do the believing and we see by example that babies can believe and even John the Baptist believed in the womb so there are no hindrances such as being not even yet.

Yes it wouldn't be a problem w him (I think), but how can you know if a baby believes and this stuff happens too:

https://www.babycenter.com/400_should-we-baptize-our-baby-even-though-were-not-religious_500625_1.bc
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,382
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
^^^^^^The above statement is idiotic and nonsensical.

But not quite so much as your reply. And your other reply quoted below

Do you go to the local pool and splash people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? If not, please explain why you fail to obey Matthew 28.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
55
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
But not quite so much as your reply. And your other reply quoted below
It's an honest question.
If a baby can have its sins atoned for by virtue of someone else choosing to sprinkle water upon it and say "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" then why can't any or all humans have their sins atoned for by the same practice? Why just babies?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,382
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It's an honest question.
If a baby can have its sins atoned for by virtue of someone else choosing to sprinkle water upon it and say "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" then why can't any or all humans have their sins atoned for by the same practice? Why just babies?

It is not "an honest question".
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,481
Age
77
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Does raise an interesting question
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom