• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Pope Francis defends infant baptism

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I see baptism as symbolic of a believer coming to Christ to repent and wash away their sins.
The Greek word for symbol is Symbolia. It is not found in the NT nor in the LXX. Nothing in Scripture states Baptism is symbolic of anything. Perhaps where the idea of baptism as symbolic comes from is from the NIV translation of antitypon in I Peter 3:21 "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also." This bad translation of antitype which received round criticism everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KevinT
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Can you explain what you mean by the recipient being in a passive state? In all the baptisms I have seen in protestant churches, the person is laid back in the water by the pastor, and then helped back up by the pastor. Is that what you are referring to? The actual method that John used when baptizing Jesus isn't really described in scripture.
There are three basic elements of Christian baptism 1) water applied to the human body 2) with triune formula 3) another Christian baptizing the person. The recipient is completely in a passive state. No Christian can baptize himself. Baptism is the work of another. Therefore, no Christian can take credit for their own baptism anymore than a medical patient can take credit for open heart surgery. A person is in a passive state during open heart surgery. A person may say, "I consented to be baptized." However, consenting is not baptism it is consenting. Baptism is not a work you do....it is the work of another.
 
Upvote 0

KevinT

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2021
863
462
58
Tennessee
✟72,448.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In English Yes…..in Greek….no, Luke uses τοῖς τέκνοις (children) and it is a generalized word for children of any age. Luke uses two other words for descendants Σπέρμα (sperma) Acts 7:5, Σπέρμα Acts 7:6, σπέρματος Acts 13:3 and ὀσφύος osphus, or loins) Acts 2:29. Luke could have used Σπέρμα or ὀσφύος as a substitute for τοῖς τέκνοις but didn’t.

Furthermore, we see the word τέκνοις (children) accompanied by ὑμῶν. Ὑμῶν, meaning your, occurs in the genitive (a possessive), 2nd person plural. This tells us that Peter is speaking of the children of those he is speaking to, that is, the children of the crowd. The text itself communicates a literal idea, that the promise found in Baptism is granted to the crowd and their families. So your hermeneutical rule…children really means descendants….falls flat.

Proper hermenuetics at least demands what the term τέκνοις (children) meant by the original speakers and what the original audience would have inferred by it. Peter was addressing the hearers as the Jewish people as a whole. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:32) We can clearly see that he is addressing them as covenant community and not as individuals, even though the people listening to Peter didn't have a personal hand in crucifying Jesus yet Peter does say that "you" as a covenant community crucified him.

So how would this Jewish covenant community have understood the term τέκνοις (children) Peter was preaching about? The Jews, who had been initiating their children via circumcision into the visible covenant community for 2,000 years, should be convinced by Peter’s preaching they must no longer do so if baptism was not for their children. Peter gives no admonition to bar children from baptism. It would have intuitive for Peter’s listeners to understand τέκνοις to mean their children would be included rather than excluded from baptism.

You make a good argument here. I have not studied Greek, so you have me at a bit of a disadvantage. So I have turned to others and see what they say about this. This link has several Bible commentators discussing Acts 2:39. Most gloss over the "and your children" part. Some discuss the children as descendants, and one (Gill's) uses children in the sense you describe:
and to your children: this is the rather mentioned, because these awakened, and converted souls, were not only in great concern about themselves, for their sin of crucifying Christ, but were in great distress about their children, on whom they had imprecated the guilt of Christ's blood, as upon themselves; the thought of which cut them to the heart, and made their hearts bleed, within them: wherefore to relieve them, and administer comfort to them in this their distress, the apostle informs them, that the promise of Christ, and of his grace, was not only to them, who were now called, but it was also to their children; to as many of them as the Lord God should call; and who are the children of the promise, which all the children of the flesh were not, Romans 9:6 and to these the promise should be applied, notwithstanding this dreadful imprecation of theirs:

I don't know who these Bible commentators are. Perhaps they are all Protestants and therefore biased. I did a Google search for Catholic commentary on this verse and found Haydock's Catholic commentary, which doesn't mention the children part. It also found a Coffman's commentary (not specified as Catholic) that also doesn't mention the children part.

I also looked up the Greek interlinear translation for this text here, which shows the word for "children" is teknois, as you said. It gives an overview definition of: A child, descendent, inhabitant. From the base of timoria; a child. There is a link to other uses of the root word teknon here, and from what I see there, it does indeed mean "children", "child", or "son" etc. I looked to see if there is a Greek word for infant that Luke could have used if he wanted to specify just babies (rather than children in general), and there is népios (an infant, fig. a simple-minded or immature person) or brephos (an unborn or a newborn child).

Looking again at "to your children" from here:

to
τοῖς (tois)
Article - Dative Neuter Plural
Strong's 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

your
ὑμῶν (hymōn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 2nd Person Plural
Strong's 4771: You. The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou.

children
τέκνοις (teknois)
Noun - Dative Neuter Plural
Strong's 5043: A child, descendent, inhabitant. From the base of timoria; a child.
I had to look up the meaning of Genitive here.
In grammar, the genitive case (abbreviated gen)[2] is the grammatical case that marks a word, usually a noun, as modifying another word, also usually a noun—thus indicating an attributive relationship of one noun to the other noun.[3] A genitive can also serve purposes indicating other relationships. For example, some verbs may feature arguments in the genitive case; and the genitive case may also have adverbial uses (see adverbial genitive).

I don't see that this changes the English translation to anything other than the same "your children" that we use. I don't see that it excludes the concept of children meaning offspring. Indeed Strong's 5043 includes the option of "descendant" for translation. But again, I have not studied Greek.

In summary, I understand you to say that Peter told the crowd to repent and be baptized, both the adults and the children. From what I can see trying to look at the Greek myself, your reading is well supported. But I feel my understanding could also be true. But even if it were true that Paul wanted everyone in the crowd, men and women and children and infants, to all go down to the river and be baptized, that is NOT the same as saying that all baptisms going forward were all supposed to be done before a person has the mental capacity to understand what is being done.

As I read the scriptures, baptism is always paired with repentance, and a believer is encouraged to make the decision to undergo this ritual, rather than someone else making it for them.

Thanks for your time and effort.

KT
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As I read the scriptures, baptism is always paired with repentance,
In all the conversion narratives with Baptism in the Book of Acts (Eight of them), repentance is only mentioned in Acts 2:38.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Christian Forums Staff
Moderator Trainee
Hands-on Trainee
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
38,371
22,057
30
Nebraska
✟880,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I am understanding better the Catholic teachings.

Can you tell me more about what confirmation is?

Thanks
KT
It’s being sealed with the Holy Spirit and completes Baptism. The forehead is anointed with chrism oil usually by the bishop of the diocese. It’s the completion on the initiation sacraments, although it times past, it was performed before one received their first holy Communion.

I was baptized at around 2 months old, received Holy Communion and Confession at 8, and was confirmed at 16.

Hope that makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KevinT
Upvote 0

KevinT

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2021
863
462
58
Tennessee
✟72,448.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In all the conversion narratives with Baptism in the Book of Acts (Eight of them), repentance is only mentioned in Acts 2:38.
Here is a counter example:

Acts 19: 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

I suspect you will say that this doesn't count because it wasn't the full baptism that Paul wanted them to have, which included the Holy Spirit coming on them.

KT
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Here is a counter example:



I suspect you will say that this doesn't count because it wasn't the full baptism that Paul wanted them to have, which included the Holy Spirit coming on them.

KT
John's baptism is NOT equivalent to Christian Baptism. My matrix will show John's baptism is not with the Triune formula. John's disciples did not know of the Holy Spirit only of John's baptism. We don't even know if John used another formula or not but is was not the Triune formula or his disciple would have heard of the HS. Certainly, John's baptism is not Romans 6 theology being united with Christ's death and resurrection. John died half way through Jesus' ministry. Paul orders John's disciples to undergo Christian baptism.

In all probability, Acts 19 deals with the question: What do we do about all of John's disciples? Do they have to undergo Christian baptism? The answer is yes....

This is not REBAPTISM! All of John's disciples never had Christian baptism.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,471
2,660
✟282,941.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
John's baptism is NOT equivalent to Christian Baptism. My matrix will show John's baptism is not with the Triune formula. John's disciples did not know of the Holy Spirit only of John's baptism. We don't even know if John used another formula or not but is was not the Triune formula or his disciple would have heard of the HS. Certainly, John's baptism is not Romans 6 theology being united with Christ's death and resurrection. John died half way through Jesus' ministry. Paul orders John's disciples to undergo Christian baptism.

In all probability, Acts 19 deals with the question: What do we do about all of John's disciples? Do they have to undergo Christian baptism? The answer is yes....

This is not REBAPTISM! All of John's disciples never had Christian baptism.
So what is this?
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

What is household here?
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

KevinT

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2021
863
462
58
Tennessee
✟72,448.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
John's baptism is NOT equivalent to Christian Baptism. My matrix will show John's baptism is not with the Triune formula. John's disciples did not know of the Holy Spirit only of John's baptism. We don't even know if John used another formula or not but is was not the Triune formula or his disciple would have heard of the HS. Certainly, John's baptism is not Romans 6 theology being united with Christ's death and resurrection. John died half way through Jesus' ministry. Paul orders John's disciples to undergo Christian baptism.

In all probability, Acts 19 deals with the question: What do we do about all of John's disciples? Do they have to undergo Christian baptism? The answer is yes....

This is not REBAPTISM! All of John's disciples never had Christian baptism.
What about the baptisms that Jesus's disciples performed on others before the death and resurrection of Jesus? Would they need to be rebaptized again? What about the disciples Andrew and John themselves? They were disciples of John before they found Jesus. Certainly they would have been baptized by John. I think it is unfair to say that John's baptism was not a true baptism. If that is so, then Jesus's baptism was not a true baptism?

You are saying that "this was not rebaptism," because you are using a definition of "baptism" to mean only that which includes the Triune forumla. But Paul, in Acts 19, did not say to the people in Ephesus that they had not been baptized. Only rather that they should be baptized now in the name of the Lord Jesus. (No mention of a Triune forumla). If you want to distinguish between "Christian baptism" and "John's baptism," I have no problem with that. But in my mind, since both are technically baptisms, then having one followed by the other is still a repeat of the baptism process.

KT
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What about the baptisms that Jesus's disciples performed on others before the death and resurrection of Jesus? Would they need to be rebaptized again? What about the disciples Andrew and John themselves? They were disciples of John before they found Jesus. Certainly they would have been baptized by John. I think it is unfair to say that John's baptism was not a true baptism. If that is so, then Jesus's baptism was not a true baptism?

You are saying that "this was not rebaptism," because you are using a definition of "baptism" to mean only that which includes the Triune forumla. But Paul, in Acts 19, did not say to the people in Ephesus that they had not been baptized. Only rather that they should be baptized now in the name of the Lord Jesus. (No mention of a Triune forumla). If you want to distinguish between "Christian baptism" and "John's baptism," I have no problem with that. But in my mind, since both are technically baptisms, then having one followed by the other is still a repeat of the baptism process.

KT
You ask very good questions....and this is where things get complex. I flat out reject your notion
But in my mind, since both are technically baptisms
Christian baptism is in a category all of its own. The Jewish hand washing baptism of Mark 7 and Luke 16 definitionally are water applied to the human body with the Word "baptizo" but these baptisms are not considered Christian baptisms. NO PROMISES ATTACHED to these baptisms.

Baptists and American Evangelicals do not believe ANY PROMISES ARE ATTACHED TO BAPTISM. They believe baptism is an empty sign signifying nothing.

Geez, at least they believe at least John's baptism contains one promise of which Baptists admit to (Mark 1:4). But Christian baptism, they don't any promises are attached here.

So what are the promises attached to Christian baptism? Do your homework. You might want to confer with @ViaCrucis here @CF....he has a BIZILLION posts listing promises attached to baptism which the Baptists and American Evangelicals repudiate.

I am done with this conversation.....God's blessings with you in the future here at CF.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,471
2,660
✟282,941.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
What about the baptisms that Jesus's disciples performed on others before the death and resurrection of Jesus? Would they need to be rebaptized again? What about the disciples Andrew and John themselves? They were disciples of John before they found Jesus. Certainly they would have been baptized by John. I think it is unfair to say that John's baptism was not a true baptism. If that is so, then Jesus's baptism was not a true baptism?

You are saying that "this was not rebaptism," because you are using a definition of "baptism" to mean only that which includes the Triune forumla. But Paul, in Acts 19, did not say to the people in Ephesus that they had not been baptized. Only rather that they should be baptized now in the name of the Lord Jesus. (No mention of a Triune forumla). If you want to distinguish between "Christian baptism" and "John's baptism," I have no problem with that. But in my mind, since both are technically baptisms, then having one followed by the other is still a repeat of the baptism process.

KT
Distinct baptisms?
Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Distinct baptisms?
Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
High probability this passage deals with the Day of Pentecost---but not absolute. Lacks human administration and water, but does contain a promise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KevinT

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2021
863
462
58
Tennessee
✟72,448.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You ask very good questions....and this is where things get complex. I flat out reject your notion
...
I am done with this conversation.....God's blessings with you in the future here at CF.
I likewise am growing weary of the conversation. I appreciate the time you have spent reading and responding to my posts. :)

God Bless and best wishes,

KT
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,471
2,660
✟282,941.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
High probability this passage deals with the Day of Pentecost---but not absolute. Lacks human administration and water, but does contain a promise.
Interesting subject. I think I am going to have to go through it all just to get a better grip. I just found it of interest that churches connected it to circumcision.
I have somewhat thought of the notion of the father as head of his household in a priestly manner? So I have kind of looked at old testament types, especially with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, before and apart from the sinai law and covenant. I do not know what you might think of that?
Abraham circumcised his entire household, those born in his house including his household servants..
Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting subject. I think I am going to have to go through it all just to get a better grip. I just found it of interest that churches connected it to circumcision.
I have somewhat thought of the notion of the father as head of his household in a priestly manner? So I have kind of looked at old testament types, especially with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, before and apart from the sinai law and covenant. I do not know what you might think of that?
Abraham circumcised his entire household, those born in his house including his household servants..
Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
As the old saying goes: Baptists are foresters in the OT and Lutherans are tourists. My OT theology is weak.
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,471
2,660
✟282,941.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
As the old saying goes: Baptists are foresters in the OT and Lutherans are tourists. My OT theology is weak.
Ok, I am not Baptist, never have been. I actually am looking at a more liturgical and sacramental Church. But some of the hurdles for me in that have led me to seek out which one. Lutheran is just one of those. So thank you for your posts and the links.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,292
818
Oregon
✟176,362.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok, I am not Baptist, never have been. I actually am looking at a more liturgical and sacramental Church. But some of the hurdles for me in that have led me to seek out which one. Lutheran is just one of those. So thank you for your posts and the links.
I think you took it the wrong way. I wasn't attempting to imply you are a Baptist. It is just Baptists tend to know more about the OT than Lutherans-----sort of an self depreciating humor Lutherans use about themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
8,471
2,660
✟282,941.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
I think you took it the wrong way. I wasn't attempting to imply you are a Baptist. It is just Baptists tend to know more about the OT than Lutherans-----sort of an self depreciating humor Lutherans use about themselves.
No, I just wanted to let you know why this is such interest to me. I have more looked at Orthodox, and Catholic on this, it is good to know other liturgical churches have their own ideas.
 
Upvote 0