1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Problems denying infant baptism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Taufgesinnter, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
    34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

    No it does not say that they were baptised because they were believers.

    It says HE AND ALL HIS, STRAIGHWAY in verse 33. This means everyone. Nowhere does it say they had to believe first.

    As for verse 34. It is an event separate from the preceding event. I could say and do say: "My household is a Christain household" It does not get negated because I have an infant or a child under the age or reason. Otherwise, no one could say that they have a Christian household or a God Believing Household because they have children under the age of reason and understanding. They would have to wait until the ENTIRE household reached the age of reason and actually believed until they could make a proclamation that they have a christian household or a God Fearing Household.

    God bless.
     
  2. mojoala

    mojoala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    you're heresy states that you believe some scriptures should not be in the bible?

    Have you seen some of these oldest manuscripts?

    Or are you taking [Moderator's Note: You are not allowed to attack a Bible version in this manner on the BB. Attack edited out.] word for it.

    [Attack on a Bible version removed.]

    I may not like Jack Chick, but he is right about the NIV.
     
    #22 mojoala, Jul 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2006
  3. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh wow! I did not realize that I was talking to someone who does not care about the condition of the Greek New Testament text in ancient times, or the evidence on it.

    I did not reference the NIV, but rather the TNIV and RSV 1946-52. You can also read notes of doubt in most other modern translations. There were questions about about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 long before the NIV was even thought of. Questions about the authenticity of the addition are as old as the 1800's.

    I have a facsimile of Cardinal Mai's Greek New Testament based upon Codex Vaticanus -- it is put out by D. A. Waite's Bible for Today. It marks the end of 16:8 and indicates omission of anything thereafter by Codex Vaticanus. This edition came out in the 1860's.

    As for "throwing scripture on the ground," whatever text was not there to begin with was NEVER Scripture.

    But hey, if we are going to speculate that Satan had anything at all to do with himself creating any Bible, I guess we are again stepping off the pages of Scripture -- like with infant baptism.

    Me, on the other hand, I want to stick with the same New Testament text that the New Testament church followed.
     
    #23 Darron Steele, Jul 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2006
  4. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is just a footnote to clarify my position. I have been a Baptist since 1945. I did grow up in the Church of England and was so schooled prior to entering a Baptist school. I attend an Anglican Church now because there is no other option in my area.

    I fully support believer's baptism, and I was just stating the other viewpoints. I have no intention of scripturally supporting those other viewpoints.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  5. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point was that because there is no record of a post-apostolic
    invention of infant baptism, when it began and who began it, or where
    it originated, we cannot assume that it was not a practice or teaching
    of the apostles. The key issue in this "argument from silence" point
    is that if something so basic in doctrine and practice had been so
    radically altered, someone would have complained and raised heck about
    it; even if the mainstream Church had declared the gainsayers to be
    heretics, there would still be some kind of record about heretics
    opposing infant baptism, but there isn't any. How can you blithely
    dismiss as an "argument from silence" the fact that no Christians in
    the first several centuries of church history are on record against
    infant baptism? And since it is mentioned, and assumed to be the normal
    Christian practice, in the second century, and explicitly described in
    the third century as the traditional practice handed down by the
    apostles, all these things together would lead one to conclude, in
    the absence of any early Christian opposition, that these writers were
    correct.

    "There are no protests against the validity of infant baptism from
    anyone in the early church, even those regarded as heretics, except for
    those who advocated waiting until one's deathbed, although some other
    people supported waiting until the age of three for baptism."

    Just an argument from silence? If nobody opposed a certain practice in the
    church, and there are positive references to it, how is it a fallacy to
    assume that it was the normal practice? And if it were claimed to be
    apostolic in origin, but nobody said otherwise, why would it be a
    fallacy to think that claim correct?

    As for "baptism always follows faith," you are assuming, with a
    modern, rationalistic, naturalistic, Enlightenment-based bias, that infants
    have no faith simply because their physical brains seem incapable of
    it, without regard to their souls or spirits being capable of faith. Why?

    "because you don't prepare for baptism"--In the early church,
    preparation for baptism in the catechumenate sometimes took years.

    I was sincere in my initial post--so do you have anything constructive
    and helpful to offer, please?
     
  6. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I bet the infants could tell the difference between baptism & circumcision.:eek:

    Just throwing a bit of gasoline on the fire.
     
  7. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    False dilemma

    What was practiced in the second- and third-century Church has great relevance as to whether someone is being biblical, since they still had the oral teachings of the apostles being handed on and knew the apostolic interpretations of the Scriptures. The "church fathers" and the practice of the early Church who decided which books even did or did not belong in the New Testament, as those who determined the written standard, should certainly not be dismissed as presenting the best understanding of how that standard is to be applied. Biblical or traditional is a false dichotomy as you presented it.
     
  8. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rolleyes: hoo boy.
     
    #28 rbell, Jul 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2006
  9. Darron Steele

    Darron Steele New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe in the early church preparation for baptism would take years, but in my New Testament, it was done immediately. As soon as the apostles were all dead, the church seems to have quickly started doing whatever it wanted. 3 John indicates that there was a monarchial church leader in rebellion against the apostle John, and yet the church did not depose that rebel -- the rebellion was already starting before John was dead.

    I have no doubt that you were sincere in your opening post. Here is what I have that I hope will be helpful. I posted something like it earlier but it got buried, and I am going to try to make it less inflammatory:
    I believe the Scriptures teach against "infant baptism." 1 Peter 3:21 says
    "El bautismo que corresponde a esto ahora |os| salva (no quitando las inmunicias del cuerpo, sino como la aspiración de una buena conciencia hacia Dios) mediante la resurrección de Jesucristo” (RVR 1995|RVA|RVR 1995)
    translated "The baptism that corresponds to this now |you| saves (not removing the filths of-the body, but as the aspiration of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus-Christ."
    This passage calls baptism "an appeal to God for a clear conscience" (NASB) or "the aspiration of a good conscience toward God" = desire to replace a bad conscience = repentance. It calls baptism 'repentance'; in other words, it identifies baptism "as" repentance = representation of repentance. This seems to mean that where there is no repentance, there is no baptism. Hence, I do not believe baptismal ceremonies of pre-repentants are Scripturally acceptable.
     
    #29 Darron Steele, Jul 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2006
  10. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering that infant baptism predated Augustine by centuries, and that the Orthodox teach against the Augustinian concept of original sin yet practice infant baptism, I don't see how infant baptism and original sin must be "inseparably tied."

    Do you have a citation for Pelagius so that I can look that up?
     
  11. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    And all the extra verses added by man, too?
     
  12. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I appreciate that

    Thank you! I'll look that verse over very carefully.
     
  13. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    :smilewinkgrin:
     
  14. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There's another interpretation of infant baptism out there - the Missouri Synod Lutherans believe that baptism gives the child the capacity for faith, so that when confirmation time comes around, the child may accept Christ as Savior.

    I've never quite understood how that reconciles with itself, but that's what they say.
     
  15. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont agree with your assessment that I offer a false dichotomy. As I stated the Apostle Paul said already everyone had turned against him. The early church fathers are not our standard of truth or practice of the faith. The Scripture is period. And here seems to be another area we disagree with each other. I dont believe Scripture is Scripture because the early fathers or a council says so. Scripture is Scripture because God says so. That God lead the early council to understand what was Scripture and place it in the canon, I am very grateful to God for. God has always used human instruments in both writing and compiling His Word, but those men are not the final authority God is and to Him goes all the glory. I know many believe that the Church sets over the Bible and tells it what it is, I believe the Bible sits over the Church and tells it what it is.

    Bro Tony
     
  16. BD17

    BD17 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Infant baptismis biblical and I would be happy to discuss why. ;-)
     
  17. Link

    Link New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess the issue is what you want to go with, scripture or church history. I do see the tension.

    And might I add that Tertullian thought baptism should be put off until after the teen years, probably more to prevent post baptismal sin during the teen period than anything else.

    I don't know of anything on infant baptism from the earliest years of Christianity. You can find evidence for people believing in it around 200.

    The scriptural issue is that the Bible says to 'repent and be baptised.' It also says that we are buried Him in baptism... by FAITH in the operation of Him Who raised Christ from the dead. The idea that faith and repentance is necessarily for a valid baptism is the key issue here.
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    1Pet 3:
    21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[/quote]

    Peter directs us away from thinking of the "magic waters of baptism"! INSTEAD of a "magic sacrament" the REAL saving aspect is in the heart's knowing - deliberate - active "APPEAL to God for a good conscience". THAT is the sense in which baptism saves for it is a public symbol that the sinner has already made that “appeal to God for a clean conscience”.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
  20. BD17

    BD17 New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with all the non-infant baptism Arminist here is that they are not taking New Testament baptism into context.
     
Loading...