Featured Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

There is no instance of infant baptism for hundreds of years later. What are you talking about?? There is not one instance of infant baptism in the Bible! Not one! Every case of baptism is after one's confession of faith in Christ as Lord; all are adults; all are by immersion; and the word itself is "immerse".

We are not the one's arguing from silence. It is not I that has to prove infant baptism. It is you. There is no infant baptism. If there is it would be there. The onus is up to you to prove it. You can't argue from a point of silence. You stand upon a logical fallacy and are sinking into sinking sand rather rapidly.

 

Timothy baptized as an infant?

Yikes!

Wittenberger, you are teaching contrary to the Word of God.

Scripture does not say Timothy "grew up in a Christian home." So, why say he did?

Scripture tells us his mother was Jewish and his father was Greek and that he learned the Scriptures as a child. But it does not say it was a "Christian home." Nor does it say he was "baptized as an infant."

Where is your proof that he was "baptized as an infant?"

Did you just come on this board to bash Baptists? You should be ashamed.

 

Many like to use the story of the Philippian jailer as proof that infants can be baptized, saying "surely there were infants in the house."

But the Word of God is careful to reveal that there were no infants in the house of that man.

Acts 16:34 (KJV) And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The man believed in God with all his house... with all his house. Let that sink in.

Luke records that ALL his house believed in God. If there were infants in the house, how would Luke know they believed, seeing as they are unable to communicate in a language man can understand?

Acts 16:34 clearly shows a believer's baptism and not infant baptism.

 

My history is not inaccurate seeing I have just finished doing a study of the history of Christianity on the Indian subcontinent. Thomas came first. He established "Baptist-like" churches in India. Those churches continued on for centuries in the "Baptist" or apostolic faith.

About 550 years B.C. all of that territory: Persian, India, Ethiopia, was under control of the Persian Empire:

Esther 8:9 Then were the king's scribes called at that time in the third month, that is, the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded unto the Jews, and to the lieutenants, and the deputies and rulers of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, an hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language.

Whose empire was greater: the Persian empire, or Rome's empire?
Rome's empire was greater than the Persian empire, so it is not inconceivable that both Alexander the Great (of Greece) and the Roman empire had some influence in India.

Nevertheless Thomas was an apostle to India. He was there first, not the Catholics. Catholics didn't even come into existence til the fourth century.

 

If someone came to my house with a check for the Jones's, I would point them to another house. I am not Jones.

Luke recorded all believed Why can't you just believe the Bible instead of saying 'not all believed'?

 

Mr. Wittenbooger,
Your presence here speaks of the great tolerance and leeway this board gives to extra Bibical faiths. If one of us was to go to say a "conservative Lutheran" board (no such thing as a conservative Lutheran, kind of like a conservative Democrat), we would get the boot about the second or third post, probably sooner than that in a Catholic board.

Preservation of man written documents, ideas, and thoughts are not an indicator of the preservation of the church of Jesus Christ. I do not think the Lord cares how many file cabinets are full of doucments with pope baby's signature. I might as well have recorded by pet cat's meows and signed each document with meow on it, date and time, and filed it away. That makes as much sense as equating RCC, or Lutheran documents for that matter, in relation to the church.

Why not try this standard for a change instead of warped false doctrine? Try looking at today's church, on any subject, Lord's Supper, baptism, etc and compare it with Scripture. The Lord's Supper is explained in detail. No where does it say to take the remaining leftover elements, put then in a magical box, wave a magic wand, and voila, the body and blood of Jesus appear. How does that equate to the standard of the Bible, do this in remembrance of Me? Where in Scripture does it talk about a magic formula for salvation by sprinking infants to transfer salvation from their saved parents? How does that line up with the last part of Matthew?

The doctrine of God's sovereignty is not fully understood by man except we know the Lord is sovereign. Where do you come to the conclusion that the sovereignty of God is to be used as a tool to justify your false notion that infants should be sprinked?

Your meaning of reformed and the Baptist or Presbyterian meaning of reformed are quite different. It is almost like you do not really believe God's sovereignty is election, but an explanation to explain unBiblical practices of the RCC and Lutherans. God being sovereign means He does as He wills, and nothing is by chance. You on the other hand, use God's sovereignty to explain rather odd ideas like transsubstantiation and infant sprinkling. God's will and Scripture will always agree.

The bottom line in all of this is that you put faith in historical documents more than Holy Scripture. I got news for you. The church was being preserved for hundreds of years by local, Bible believing churches by daily practice and faith in Jesus while idiot Popes were signing this or that edict, or after the Reformation, Lutherans and Episcopalians continued the same practice without the Pope's signature, now we have the biship's signature.

The point is, neither the RCC or the Lutherans have contributed one ounce of effort in preserving the local NT church, and you have the nerve to come on this board and rip apart those local churches that do preserve the church.

 

You would be welcome to post on a Catholic board and not prevented from joining as are Catholics on this one. I know of no Catholic board that is afraid to allow Baptists to join and present their views. However, you would have to do so in a Christ-like manner without the mocking and disrespectful way you go about depicting that faith as shown in the bolded portions of your post. Not only is it disrespectful and not becoming a Christian but it isn't accurate and misrepresents what Catholics and Lutherans believe and practice. .

 

Translated from Greek recently found in Egypt


Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies*2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).*

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).*

*

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition*21:16 [A.D. 215]).*

 

There are lots of baptist on catholic.com