Baptism and babies

[Not David]

Gal. 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

II Cor.11:3-4 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.



It's a bit of a leading question, why don't you tell me your answer?

Protestantism came 500 years ago so I don't think it is wise to use "other Gospel" argument.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Gal. 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

II Cor.11:3-4 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.



It's a bit of a leading question, why don't you tell me your answer?

1. that doesn't say that Scripture is the yardstick since the Gospel comes before the Scripture.

2. it's not leading at all. and since you are the guest and I asked you first, you first.

 

[East of Eden]

Protestantism came 500 years ago so I don't think it is wise to use "other Gospel" argument.

The Reformation brought Christianity back to it's roots.

Your statement is like saying the Orthodox Church is only from 1054, which I'm sure the RCC does.

 

[East of Eden]

1. that doesn't say that Scripture is the yardstick since the Gospel comes before the Scripture.

That's a distinction without a difference. The second passage says 'the one we (the Apostles) proclaimed'.

As to your second question, this sounds like a reasonable answer:

The First Twenty Years: What Happened to the Church immediately after Jesus Died? - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's a distinction without a difference. The second passage says 'the one we (the Apostles) proclaimed'.

no, because you can proclaim it in other ways, not only in the Scriptures.

 

[East of Eden]

no, because you can proclaim it in other ways, not only in the Scriptures.

OK, so what other way did they clearly proclaim infant baptism?

 

[ArmyMatt]

As to your second question, this sounds like a reasonable answer:

The First Twenty Years: What Happened to the Church immediately after Jesus Died? - The Gospel Coalition | Canada

I meant what did they look to since they didn't have the NT at that time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

OK, so what other way did they clearly proclaim infant baptism?

that comment was to you speaking of the "yardstick of Scripture" is actually Scriptural.

 

[nutroll]

OK, so what other way did they clearly proclaim infant baptism?

By practicing it.

 

[East of Eden]

By practicing it.

So that makes it legit, despite no clear Biblical example of it? By that standard everything the RCC does is legit.

 

[Light of the East]

Amazing how you know everything about me like that. Did you ever consider that we reject your covenant notions?

This is the real issue. You reject the Covenant of God. Period. They are not "covenant notions." They are principles which are shown and proven from a proper study of the Sacred Scriptures. And yes, watching your posts, I see someone who is exactly where I was forty years ago and I know you better than you think I do. As they say "Been there - done that." In spades.

 

[nutroll]

So that makes it legit, despite no clear Biblical example of it? By that standard everything the RCC does is legit.

The notion that anything that the scripture preserves all that was correct in the early church, and the notion that anything that anyone did in the early church is correct are both equally absurd. The truth is that the Church -- the pillar and ground of truth, the Body of Christ led into all truth by the Holy Spirit -- predates the writing of the NT. The New Testament was not meant to be a manual for the church. There is very little at all that tells us about the praxis of the early church, because that Church was an active and living presence in the world so everything didn't need to be written down. There were certainly heretics and savage wolves in this period, but just because a practice is not recorded explicitly in scripture does not mean that it is another gospel or the teaching of heretics. The yardstick then was not scripture, it was truth of the faith once delivered to the apostles of which the scriptures testify.

 

[Lukaris]

I believe in Romans 6, St. Paul is speaking of baptism in it’s spiritual & bodily aspects. While the adult who is baptized is to walk in newness of life so is the person who is baptized in infancy. The bodily aspect of baptism is, of course, related to the Lord’s Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection etc. & is not contingent upon age. One might ask why was not the Lord baptized as an infant? He had to fulfill the law & yet, what did any circumcised, male infant know of the Law ( except the Lord)? St. Paul says we are planted together in likeness of the Lord’s death & resurrection ( Romans 6:5, KJV etc.). These are not directly related to our intellects although these will be in our subconscious & our intellectual faith must be linked to them.


Romans 6 per KJV

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 6 - King James Version

The CF linked translation is fine ( & wonderful tool)but sometimes I think the KJV brings more things out.

 

[East of Eden]

This is the real issue. You reject the Covenant of God. Period. They are not "covenant notions." They are principles which are shown and proven from a proper study of the Sacred Scriptures.

We disagree. Let me guess, proper = agree with you?

And yes, watching your posts, I see someone who is exactly where I was forty years ago and I know you better than you think I do. As they say "Been there - done that." In spades.

As I could say for your position, for 30 years I was a member of a church that practiced infant baptism, and had my own two baptized as infants, I now regret.

 

[Not David]

We disagree. Let me guess, proper = agree with you?



As I could say for your position, for 30 years I was a member of a church that practiced infant baptism, and had my own two baptized as infants, I now regret.

Why regret? When I have my kids, they will be baptized.

 

[East of Eden]

The notion that anything that the scripture preserves all that was correct in the early church, and the notion that anything that anyone did in the early church is correct are both equally absurd. The truth is that the Church -- the pillar and ground of truth, the Body of Christ led into all truth by the Holy Spirit -- predates the writing of the NT. The New Testament was not meant to be a manual for the church.

Huh?

There is very little at all that tells us about the praxis of the early church, because that Church was an active and living presence in the world so everything didn't need to be written down. There were certainly heretics and savage wolves in this period, but just because a practice is not recorded explicitly in scripture does not mean that it is another gospel or the teaching of heretics. The yardstick then was not scripture, it was truth of the faith once delivered to the apostles of which the scriptures testify.

Exactly what the RCC would say about their theological errors. Apparently for your church also, tradition is on an equal if not superior position to the Word of God, which in this issue invariably has as a pattern, first conversion, then baptism.

 

[East of Eden]

Why regret? When I have my kids, they will be baptized.

I wish I had given them that choice and experience after they chose to believe, as in the NT.

 

[East of Eden]

I believe in Romans 6, St. Paul is speaking of baptism in it’s spiritual & bodily aspects. While the adult who is baptized is to walk in newness of life so is the person who is baptized in infancy. The bodily aspect of baptism is, of course, related to the Lord’s Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection etc. & is not contingent upon age. One might ask why was not the Lord baptized as an infant? He had to fulfill the law & yet, what did any circumcised, male infant know of the Law ( except the Lord)? St. Paul says we are planted together in likeness of the Lord’s death & resurrection ( Romans 6:5, KJV etc.). These are not directly related to our intellects although these will be in our subconscious & our intellectual faith must be linked to them.


Romans 6 per KJV

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 6 - King James Version

The CF linked translation is fine ( & wonderful tool)but sometimes I think the KJV brings more things out.

Would you baptize a severely retarded person or one with advanced dementia?

 

[Not David]

I wish I had given them that choice and experience after they chose to believe, as in the NT.

Why are you applying the standard of first generation adult converts to Christian-born kids?

 

[prodromos]

Would you baptize a severely retarded person or one with advanced dementia?

Absolutely!

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.​