The Doctrine of Creation: A Critique of Credobaptism.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Both Credos and Paedos agree that infants are created in the image of God. Small children have a soul and are spiritual creatures. God gives each of us a spirit by which we can commune with God as God is spirit. The spiritual nature is what distinguishes humans from animals.

Click to expand...

This I can agree with.

When credos say they don’t baptize infants because they can not or do not have faith, what are they actually saying?

Click to expand...

Denomination such as what I go to (Australian Baptist and Australian Church of Christ which may look nothing like their US counterparts) do not baptize infants.
There is a difference to what you said: "because they can not or do not have faith"
To what we hold to: "Because they can not confess faith in Christ or reject faith in Christ."
Infants cannot with their mouth say for or against Christ.
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
They are by their very nature innocent and covered by the blood of Christ.

I think also your belief in what baptism is and does is different to ours.
We view baptism as something you do in obedience to God, to show the church community that you have faith. We do not believe that baptism holds any part in becoming saved but rather you get saved then you get baptized and baptism is by full immersion.

Infants are already saved. The only thing a baptism would do is be a nice ceremony for the parents. As far as I can see churches that 'baptize' infants include a tiny amount of water to be drawn or dribbled on them, that is not what we call a baptism. A baptism is full immersion.

We prefer to dedicate infants. In a dedication the infant is brought to the front, blessed and prayed over over and the parents are the ones who speak, to promise to raise the infant in a Godly home.

Infants cannot confess Christ with their mouth, so they can't face the congregation to show their faith. They cannot get baptized in obedience to God as the parent is doing it to the infant. A child must be old enough to understand all these things and hold their breath and not inhale water. Normally baptism is done in a tub or a creek and the person is helped to go down and backwards and their face is submerged. I doubt anyone wants that to happen to their infant.

They are saying infants are incomplete creatures of God, and don’t become complete creatures of God until the Age of Accountability….at that at point the can have saving faith. This is clear….all of humanity does not have the ability to have saving faith until the Age of Accountability.

This belief is intensified by the credos treatment of the severely mentally ill. They will forever be incomplete creatures of God. Sort of a second class person, never fully belonging to the human race. This assumption is highly offensive to families with SMI children or adults.

The assumption here is God is NOT available to an infant or the severely mentally ill…. but only to adults with a fully functioning mental capability. But does God really have a self imposed restriction on Himself,...that even He can’t communicate and bring to faith anyone before the Age of Accountability?

Examples of John the Baptist and Jeremiah, who were regenerated in the womb and filled with the Holy Spirit demonstrate that God bypassed the human intellect and brought them to saving faith.

Also, it seems to me credos believe infants are not so dissimilar to the animals because animals are living creatures but they cannot and do not have saving faith either.

Paedos believe infants are fully human with nothing more needed for them to be human.

Paedos believe there is no moment in life, when a person is more human than another.

Credos believe you are more human after the Age of Accountability, because you then can have the ability to have saving faith and fully joined to humanity.

Click to expand...

Your views are coloured by your own view on baptism which is not our view on baptism. We are not saying infants or the mentally ill are incomplete creatures of God. That is your take on it.

As to pedophiles I have no idea where you are going now. Gross. pedophiles have nothing to do with churches that not baptize (immerse) infants.

If you want to call infant sprinkling a baptism you are free too do so but we don't view that as a baptism.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Not so. There are (1) four passages in the NT (2) in which the word baptizo is used, (3) water is applied to the human body, (4) and contextually it CANNOT MEAN IMMERSION.

Click to expand...

You asked why, you received an answer.
And we of course disagree that baptism isn't immersion.

We see the general ritual washing of hands without full body immersion in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:2-4.

In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially baptize (Baptizó) his hands before dinner. Jesus didn’t fully immerse himself in water, but rather the usage of water was just enough to fulfill the Jewish custom

In Mark 7, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially baptizing their hands after buying food at the market.

In both Luke and Mark, the word for “washing” of the hands is Baptizó . Jesus and the disciples were not criticized for not immersing themselves fully in water as original Hellenistic word would suggest, rather they were criticized for not washing their hands as this new meaning of the word “baptism” allows. A change in meaning occurred at the time of the NT from baptism being some act of submersion to simply the application of water to the human body.

Click to expand...

Context is important.
Luke 11:38 is baptó (to dip, sink) with the context being ceremonial handwashing before a meal.
Mark 7 is a similar situation except the word here is not baptó it is rhainó (to sprinkle)

Ritual handwashing of the Pharisees and the Jews before a meal has nothing to do with baptism of infants or baptism in general.

This is change of meaning of the word Baptizó is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:18). Paul is blind, in the house of Judas, and he didn't eat for three days and "18 And immediately something like fish scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight, and he stood up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house?

Click to expand...

Who says he got baptized while standing up inside the house? Is the man not allowed to walk?
He stood up, so I am sure he could walk. Maybe he walked outside to a lake or a river.

Any Bible with decent footnotes mentions that.
Ellicott's Commentary
The baptism would probably be administered in one or other of the rivers which the history of Naaman had made famous, and so the waters of “Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus” (2Kings 5:12)

Acts 8:36-39


36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
While the same word Baptizó is used the context is different. We all know that throughout Acts baptism wasn't done as washing of hands. It was done immediately after conversion in the nearest body of water that would allow immersion.

The "not eating" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time.

Click to expand...

What exactly is a short time? If they lived close to a river that may have taken 10 minutes.
No new convert in Acts would have washed his hands and called that believers baptism.
When the eunuch said he wanted to be baptized he wasn't looking for a way to wash his hands. Both of them understood that a body of water was needed and that he would be immersed. It was also done quickly, no long ceremony.

Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. "STAND UP and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." Same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages.

So we have two passages of Scripture, talking about the same event, both mentioning the administration of baptism, AND CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT IMMERSION BAPTISM. This is the plain reading of the text.

Baptists are quite wrong when they state "all baptisms in the NT are immersions."

Click to expand...

So because he stands up first, this nixes all possibility of him walking anyplace after this does it? Most people do generally stand up before walking somewhere, but if you can do so without standing up first I would like to see that.

How exactly the baptism was done wasn't elaborated on because it didn't need to be, everyone knew that believers baptism was always done in a body of water by immersion.
"STAND UP and be baptized," makes no mention of the actual baptism. You cannot claim they stood there and got sprinkled when this isn't stated. To have a case you would need a verse specifically stating they got baptized by sprinkling. In fact if this had happened I am quite sure this would have been stated clearly because it would have been highly unusual.

Things that are well understood are mentioned occasionally, not every time they occur. Baptism by immersion was then normal understanding of believers baptism.
Matthew 3:13-17
John 3:23
Acts 8:36-38
Romans 6:3-6 (The reason for immersion is explained here) because it represents Christs death and burial and rising back to life.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

I believe a reasonable person would come to the conclusion St. Paul was NOT immersed. I am not saying all people would believe this, just a "reasonable" person would.

Testing the "reasonable" person assumption:

Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known secularists to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion.

The same would be about Acts 22. Thirty secularists would agree that Paul was not immersed. Appeal to an outside unbiased source is a way to solve a problem.

What is the problem here? CONFIRMATION BIAS.

This is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data. It is the tendency of the human brain to filter out and ignore evidence – And focus on the things that confirm our beliefs.

So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are! And no investigation is necessary. But how do you know all baptism are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person?

If you re-read your statements, you are jumping through hoops trying to demonstrate something opposite which the plain text states is there. This is not rocket science.

More on this later.

Click to expand...

Well, the Eastern churches immerse everyone who can safely be immersed, even infants (there are at least two safe techniques I am aware of for doing this). @GreekOrthodox and @dzheremi have seen more baptisms than I have. I myself used aspersion in the UCC, but going forward, I want to use immersion, however, there is credible information to suggest some parts of the Serbian Orthodox church once used affusion, and since I don’t have the training to baptize an infant using full immersion, I think affusion is ideal, since it can be applied in a discernible threefold manner, like immersion, whereas aspersion is sort of...continuous, and also I don’t own an aspergilium, but rather use hyssop grown by a nursery in southern california, which I keep in the fridge (and frequently forget to bring, which is a headache, since is two hours away, in which case I use the Coptic technique, which is to bless people with water by splashing them from a bucket...this is seriously what Coptic priests do at the end of the Divine Liturgy. You leave eating delicious antidoron bread while drenched as though you had been for a ride on Splash Mountain).

Ain't Zwinglian said:

I believe a reasonable person would come to the conclusion St. Paul was NOT immersed. I am not saying all people would believe this, just a "reasonable" person would.
This is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data. It is the tendency of the human brain to filter out and ignore evidence – And focus on the things that confirm our beliefs.

So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are! And no investigation is necessary. But how do you know all baptism are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person?

Click to expand...

That's why documents like the Didache are so important. Even though they are not canonical like Scripture, they are a critical witness to what the practices were.

"But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

So initially, a river or stream was the preferred method, immersion in some pool next and finally pouring water on the head was still acceptable.

And to quote Ray Steven's Mississippi Squirrel Revival about a squirrel who got loose in a revival meeting. "We all got rebaptized whether we needed it or not":

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Not so. There are (1) four passages in the NT (2) in which the word baptizo is used, (3) water is applied to the human body, (4) and contextually it CANNOT MEAN IMMERSION.

Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original Greek context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. This is the culture Jesus was born into. It typically meant “to wash with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.

We see the general ritual washing of hands without full body immersion in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:2-4.

In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially baptize (Baptizó) his hands before dinner. Jesus didn’t fully immerse himself in water, but rather the usage of water was just enough to fulfill the Jewish custom

In Mark 7, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially baptizing their hands after buying food at the market.

In both Luke and Mark, the word for “washing” of the hands is Baptizó . Jesus and the disciples were not criticized for not immersing themselves fully in water as original Hellenistic word would suggest, rather they were criticized for not washing their hands as this new meaning of the word “baptism” allows. A change in meaning occurred at the time of the NT from baptism being some act of submersion to simply the application of water to the human body.

This is change of meaning of the word Baptizó is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:18). Paul is blind, in the house of Judas, and he didn't eat for three days and "18 And immediately something like fish scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight, and he stood up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house?

The "not eating" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time.

Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. "STAND UP and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." Same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages.

So we have two passages of Scripture, talking about the same event, both mentioning the administration of baptism, AND CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT IMMERSION BAPTISM. This is the plain reading of the text.

Baptists are quite wrong when they state "all baptisms in the NT are immersions."

Click to expand...

Full immersion was the preferred method when possible.

Ain't Zwinglian said:

Where does the Scripture specifically state baptism is SYMBOLIC of anything? No where in Scripture states baptism is symbolic. The greek word for symbol is "symbolia" and it is NOT found in the NT nor the LXX.

With the caveat of the NIV translation of I Peter 3:18 "symbol" for "antitype" which is a bad translation....no where does Scripture state baptism is symbolic.

Stating baptism is symbolic of something in the NT is an INNOVATION and not apart of Sola Scriptura. Saying baptism is symbolic is just American Christianity speak....not the words of Scripture

Click to expand...

symbolic
[simˈbälik]
ADJECTIVE

1. serving as a symbol.
   "a repeating design symbolic of eternity"
   synonyms:
   figurative · representative · illustrative · emblematic · allegorical · parabolic · nonliteral · allusive · denotative · connotative · suggestive · mnemonic
   • significant purely in terms of what is being represented or implied.
     "the release of the dissident was an important symbolic gesture"
     synonyms:
     emblematic · representative · typical · characteristic · distinctive · symptomatic · meaningful · significant

Curious that John the Baptizer would choose less-than-pure river water over pure spring water to baptize his followers.

John 3:23
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Mark 1:5
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

OldWiseGuy said:

Curious that John the Baptizer would choose less-than-pure river water over pure spring water to baptize his followers.

John 3:23
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Mark 1:5
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Click to expand...

Likewise when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in the desert it is highly doubtful that the water was pure, much less running.

OldWiseGuy said:

symbolic
[simˈbälik]
ADJECTIVE

1. serving as a symbol.
   "a repeating design symbolic of eternity"
   synonyms:
   figurative · representative · illustrative · emblematic · allegorical · parabolic · nonliteral · allusive · denotative · connotative · suggestive · mnemonic
   • significant purely in terms of what is being represented or implied.
     "the release of the dissident was an important symbolic gesture"
     synonyms:
     emblematic · representative · typical · characteristic · distinctive · symptomatic · meaningful · significant

Click to expand...

That’s Zwinglianism per se, which is a sacramental theology which I reject, which @Ain't Zwinglian obviously rejects, which the Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and Roman Catholics reject, and which many Baptists reject in favor of memorialism.

So its a minority position, and very few denominations are officially Zwinglianism. This may have been different had Zwingli not fancied himself a great military general and tried unsuccessfully to conquer Calvinist territory, which resulted unfortunately in his demise. This does not technically make him a martyr in the Christian sense, however, because we have never regarded Christians who die in military service as martyrs.

OldWiseGuy said:

symbolic
[simˈbälik]
ADJECTIVE

1. serving as a symbol.
   "a repeating design symbolic of eternity"
   synonyms:

Click to expand...

The word symbol derives from the Greek σύμβολον symbolon, meaning "token, watchword" from σύν syn "together" and βάλλω bállō " "I throw, put." The sense evolution in Greek is from "throwing things together" to "contrasting" to "comparing" to "token used in comparisons to determine if something is genuine." Hence, "outward sign" of something. The meaning "something which stands for something else" was first recorded in 1590, in Edmund Spenser's Faerie Queene.[1]

Ain't Zwinglian said:

I believe a reasonable person would come to the conclusion St. Paul was NOT immersed. I am not saying all people would believe this, just a "reasonable" person would.

Testing the "reasonable" person assumption:

Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known secularists to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion.

The same would be about Acts 22. Thirty secularists would agree that Paul was not immersed. Appeal to an outside unbiased source is a way to solve a problem.

What is the problem here? CONFIRMATION BIAS.

This is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data. It is the tendency of the human brain to filter out and ignore evidence – And focus on the things that confirm our beliefs.

So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are! And no investigation is necessary. But how do you know all baptism are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person?

If you re-read your statements, you are jumping through hoops trying to demonstrate something opposite which the plain text states is there. This is not rocket science.

More on this later.

Click to expand...

Baptism of believers was done by immersion, a reasonable person on saying someone got baptized would assume they walked to a near by body of water and got baptized.
A reasonable person would also like to see at least one scripture verse detailing the standing still and being sprinkled if it happened. Just one would do.

Not rocket science to stand up and walk, most 1 year olds can accomplish that.

coffee4u said:

Baptism of believers was done by immersion, a reasonable person on saying someone got baptized would assume they walked to a near by body of water and got baptized.
A reasonable person would also like to see at least one scripture verse detailing the standing still and being sprinkled if it happened. Just one would do.

Not rocket science to stand up and walk, most 1 year olds can accomplish that.

Click to expand...

One indication that baptism had a couple of methods is Mark 7:4

Mark 7:4 - And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (Greek βαπτισμοὺς) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches (Greek κλινῶν).

These would have looked something along these lines and immersion would have been difficult, especially to move them to a mikvah

coffee4u said:

Baptism of believers was done by immersion, a reasonable person on saying someone got baptized would assume they walked to a near by body of water and got baptized.
A reasonable person would also like to see at least one scripture verse detailing the standing still and being sprinkled if it happened. Just one would do.

Not rocket science to stand up and walk, most 1 year olds can accomplish that.

Click to expand...

The Orthodox fully immerse infants unless there is a medical need not to, i.e. they are on a ventillator.

GreekOrthodox said:

One indication that baptism had a couple of methods is Mark 7:4

Mark 7:4 - And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (Greek βαπτισμοὺς) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches (Greek κλινῶν).

These would have looked something along these lines and immersion would have been difficult, especially to move them to a mikvah

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I do not wash my cups and pots and copper vessels by sprinkling them with water and calling it good, do you? The normal way of washing the human body is not to sprinkle a few drops of water on the forehead and call it good. Whether I take a bath or a shower I get my body thoroughly wet.