East of Eden
Well-Known Member
- Feb 20, 2021
- 1,073
- 342
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
There is no introduced human tradition of infant baptism. When the Lord said to bring the children to Him, He meant just that. Why would baptism be excluded? The fact that several entire households were baptized, seems more to attest than not.
Then why would it be all right to assume that there were none??It is a problem here, and throughout the West, but the point is you can't assume 'household' = infants when not specified.
Then why would it be all right to assume that there were none??
In NT times, people usually did have children as family members, and childless couples still in the childbearing years who did NOT have children were not typical.
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.
Infants were brought to the Lord ( Luke 18:15-17).
to your first point, there is something similar: circumcision.
I dunno what your second point is about.
and it doesn't always say that to your third. sometimes it just mentions baptism.
Which was part of the OT covenant, in which male infants were made a part of due to their Jewish parentage and that ceremony. It did not mean they were redeemed. The OT covenant was replaced by 'a better covenant', Heb. 7:22, which was predicted in the OT. In one of his final addresses to the nation of Israel, Moses looks forward to a time when Israel would be given “a heart to understand” (Deuteronomy 29:4, ESV). Infants have no such understanding. The prophet Jeremiah also predicted the New Covenant. “‘The day will come,’ says the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. . . . But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,’ says the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people’” (Jeremiah 31:31, 33). Entering the New Covenant is made possible only by faith in Christ, who shed His blood to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). The New Covenant is also mentioned in Ezekiel 36:26–27, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”
I was referring to the fact that very few US households have a person younger than 3, let alone an infant of a few weeks.
Wouldn't you sort of have to be an adult to understand and obey that command?
Not really.As right as assuming there were some.
So? Your church doesn't baptize 1 year olds, or 2, 3, 4, 5, kindergartners, 7 year olds, etc. either, does it? Most churches that hold to what they call "Believer's Baptism" exclude all pre-teens.Children yes, but they had infants for a very short time.
So? Your church doesn't baptize 1 year olds, or 2, 3, 4, 5, kindergartners, 7 year olds, etc. either, does it? Most churches that hold to what they call "Believer's Baptism" exclude all pre-teens.
That had nothing to do with baptism, it would probably have been some kind of dedication or healing.
They baptized a 10 year old recently, as long as they are old enough to make that decision......."Suffer the little children to come to Me......", right? An infant can make no such decision.
I respectfully disagree in the totality of your statement. I am sure it is true in different aspects not pertaining to baptism but not in pertaining to baptism. I believe we cover our bases in explaining our Orthodox faith & believe you present your views well but we see this differently.
Your own statistics for the USA prove you wrong.As right as assuming there were some.
Your own statistics for the USA prove you wrong.
That is a non zero number of households with infants. Ergo, "household" includes infants.I don't know how you figure that, in the US a household has a 93.5% chance of NOT having a child under three years old.
That is a non zero number of households with infants. Ergo, "household" includes infants.
So what? Households can and do include infants. I don't even see the relevance of your quoting current USA statistics when they have nothing in common with 1st century Palestine.In a small minority of cases.
I don't know how you figure that, in the US a household has a 93.5% chance of NOT having a child under three years old.
That is a non zero number of households with infants. Ergo, "household" includes infants.
In a small minority of cases.
So what? Households can and do include infants. I don't even see the relevance of your quoting current USA statistics when they have nothing in common with 1st century Palestine.
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?