East of Eden
Well-Known Member
- Feb 20, 2021
- 1,073
- 342
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
We disagree, I don't think the idea of infant baptism is clearly in the NT.
Upvote
0
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.
Therefore, ArmyMatt's point is correct. It's not a winning argument to say that some word does not appear in Scripture but then change the claim to saying that the idea does (but not the word).
I guess when Moses split the Red Sea, the Israelites left the infants on the Egyptian coast.
If it was an innovation then there would be evidence of some controversy, as the Church was very serious about "holding fast to the traditions they had been taught by the Apostles, either by word or epistle".
Apparently not the RCC.
Look, I see no point in continuing this conversation, we've all said our piece. I've enjoyed getting your perspective on this. I still have a hard time seeing how an infant with no idea what is happening, and is possibly kicking and screaming against that ritual, then becomes a born again Christian.
ask John the Baptist. he jumped in his mother's womb at the voice of Mary.
A rather unusual circumstance, that.
which shows that infants being aware isn't impossible.
Not impossible to walk on water either but I've never seen it done.
right, so infants might be aware enough even if you aren't aware of their awareness.
They are totally unaware of the significance of the baptism going on. The NT model is conversion, followed by baptism.
Which has what do do with Christian infant baptism?
Looking back to the events of the first exodus in 1 Corinthians 10, the apostle Paul speaks of “our fathers” being under the cloud and passing through the sea, being “baptized” into Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). The use of the language of baptism to refer to the crossing is arresting. Paul sees in the crossing something analogous to our baptism: Israel is being united to Moses, who, as we’ve seen, experienced his own deliverance from the water many years before. In a similar manner, we’re baptized into Christ, united with him in his death and buried with him, so that the shape of his resurrection life might become the shape of our lives (Rom. 6:4).
We disagree, I don't think the idea of infant baptism is clearly in the NT.
They are totally unaware of the significance of the baptism going on. The NT model is conversion, followed by baptism.
That's probably the #1 mistaken assumption that's made by people who think children were not baptized, according to the Scriptural record.
The NT model for adults is conversion, followed by baptism.
Every account we have in the New Testament of a conversion followed by baptism refers to an adult who came to Christ. But of course that is how any evangelist would go into the world seeking to make converts of all nations. He'd deal with adults! Neither then nor now would it be normal to approach children in preference to their parents!
you don't know what they know or don't know. John the Baptist was aware, while in the womb. that's the only example from Scripture of a baby and an encounter with Christ.
and the NT model only follows your logic if we define things like household the way you do.
plus, nowhere does the Scripture say you must be aware of the significance of a baptism, to be baptized.
That's because you're excluding the OT from our story as Orthodox Christians. Otherwise, you wouldn't be limiting our narrative of baptism to the NT.
The crossing of the Red Sea is a type of baptism. The flood is another type of baptism.
The reason US households have less children is because of anti-children modern feelings, so no a good argument to identify "households"If God intended infant baptism, He could have easily arranged a similar happening for an infant being baptized in the NT.
Yes, less than 7% of US households have an infant under three years old, let alone a few weeks old.
It says, believe, then be baptized. I understand you have traditions that go against that, but so did the Pharisees.
What sense would that make when a normal adult is free to make a commitment to Christ if he so chooses???Why not baptize adults, maybe with a sponsor, and hope they eventually come to faith?
The reason US households have less children is because of anti-children modern feelings, so no a good argument to identify "households"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?