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.
Problems denying infant baptism
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Taufgesinnter, Jul 18, 2006.
Page 2 of 6
-
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. -
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. -
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 -
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? -
Just throwing a bit of gasoline on the fire. -
False dilemma
-
-
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. -
Do you have a citation for Pelagius so that I can look that up? -
-
I appreciate that
-
-
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. -
Bro Tony -
Infant baptismis biblical and I would be happy to discuss why. ;-)
-
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. -
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”. -
Here we see the "evolution" of the error of infant baptism as it "evolved over time".
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=816793&postcount=13 -
The problem with all the non-infant baptism Arminist here is that they are not taking New Testament baptism into context.
Page 2 of 6