Baptism and babies

[East of Eden]

where does that definition insist that it's solely a mental exercise?

What is your definition of belief? Can it be conferred on another person without them knowing?

 

[East of Eden]

we're not talking about Roman errors.

Yes, I'm talking about Orthodox errors, and not to leave out Albion, Anglican errors.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is your definition of belief? Can it be conferred on another person without them knowing?

yes, at least in the sense you mean (i.e. John the Baptist in the womb).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, I'm talking about Orthodox errors, and not to leave out Albion, Anglican errors.

then why bring up Rome at all?

 

[East of Eden]

yes, at least in the sense you mean (i.e. John the Baptist in the womb).

How is a miraculous description such as that normative? Yes, I agree the unborn can sense a lot more than our culture of abortion admits to, but how to they, or a born infant, accept the Gospel?

 

[East of Eden]

then why bring up Rome at all?

It's the same pattern of error. All churches need to examine their traditions against Scripture. Look at all the Baptists for instance who insisted drinking alcohol was in itself a sin.

 

[Light of the East]

Don't you think that it's just tad arrogant to assign error to Orthodoxy while holding to beliefs that didn't show up in Christianity for 1600 years?

Be honest. You can't find Baptist theological particulars in the first Christians. They simply don't exist, just as Roman Catholicism ain't there, despite what they claim.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How is a miraculous description such as that normative? Yes, I agree the unborn can sense a lot more than our culture of abortion admits to, but how to they, or a born infant, accept the Gospel?

John the Baptist isn't the only one who is said to be filled with the Spirit even from his mother's womb.

but it does show that the only evidence from Scripture affirms our position and not yours. your definition of belief is found nowhere in the Bible

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's the same pattern of error.

you do it too with the Trinity, and a Mormon or JW would say the same thing to you that you are saying to us.

 

[Albion]

And how would Jesus have a conversation with an infant?

You're avoiding the issue here. The so-called evidence for "adults only" baptism isn't evidence at all. You merely have turned the circumstances of that particular meeting into obligatory ground rules for all humans. You might just as well have argued that only men can be baptized since it was a male who was instructed about baptism in that case.

I don't believe baptising an infant saves that person...

We don't either, and that's been explained many times here, so it would be nice if that particular--and erroneous--objection to baptizing children were dropped.

You want to call it a dedication, fine.

Where's the Scriptural evidence for THAT mock baptismal ceremony to be found?

I don't think an unbaptised infant goes to hell

Neither do we.

Do you have anything that actually bears upon the issues involved with baptizing children of believers?

 

[East of Eden]

Don't you think that it's just tad arrogant to assign error to Orthodoxy while holding to beliefs that didn't show up in Christianity for 1600 years?

Only if you discount the NT.

Be honest. You can't find Baptist theological particulars in the first Christians. They simply don't exist, just as Roman Catholicism ain't there, despite what they claim.

So what do you imagine I believe that the NT church did not? Do you find incense and the ritualism of your church there?

 

[East of Eden]

you do it too with the Trinity,

Cite?

and a Mormon or JW would say the same thing to you that you are saying to us.

Those cults would say the same to you, what does that prove?

 

[East of Eden]

John the Baptist isn't the only one who is said to be filled with the Spirit even from his mother's womb.

So who else, and is that normative for today? How come millions of infant baptized people who were supposedly 'filled with the Spirit' today live as any non-Christian and rarely if ever attend church? As I said before, half the population of the UK are baptized Anglicans yet only 1%+ attend church. Is that 'Spirit filled'?

but it does show that the only evidence from Scripture affirms our position and not yours. your definition of belief is found nowhere in the Bible

We disagree.

 

[East of Eden]

You're avoiding the issue here.

And your dodge of my question is noted.

The so-called evidence for "adults only" baptism isn't evidence at all. You merely have turned the circumstances of that particular meeting into obligatory ground rules for all humans.

You mean like Matt has tried to use the case of the infant John the Baptist as the ground rule for all humans?

You might just as well have argued that only men can be baptized since it was a male who was instructed about baptism in that case.

Why would I say that when I just posted a NT passage that specifically said men and women were baptized, it didn't mention infants.

We don't either, and that's been explained many times here, so it would be nice if that particular--and erroneous--objection to baptizing children were dropped.

So what does infant baptism accomplish?

Where's the Scriptural evidence for THAT mock baptismal ceremony to be found?

I'm not promoting it.

Do you have anything that actually bears upon the issues involved with baptizing children of believers?

You haven't been paying attention.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So what do you imagine I believe that the NT church did not? Do you find incense and the ritualism of your church there?

if you ever actually read the early Christians, you'd know the answer was yes.

 

[Albion]

Those cults would say the same to you, what does that prove?

I guess it 'proves' that we think there's a difference between the teachings of a cult and the teachings of historic, Scriptural Christianity.

If not...then why would baptizing an infant rankle you? That issue would seem much less problematic than teaching that the gods were once men, that all Christians who don't belong to the cult in question are agents of Satan, that the Second Coming occurred in 1914, and so on.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So who else, and is that normative for today? How come millions of infant baptized people who were supposedly 'filled with the Spirit' today live as any non-Christian and rarely if ever attend church? As I said before, half the population of the UK are baptized Anglicans yet only 1%+ attend church. Is that 'Spirit filled'?



We disagree.

they live as non-Christians because they choose to. Saul was still anointed as king, but he didn't use the gift that was given.

and I know we disagree, but I am not the one justifying my position with a modern definition of belief not found in the Bible.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Cite?



Those cults would say the same to you, what does that prove?

...you earlier said in this thread that you believe in the Trinity...

and it proves my earlier point that just because something isn't found in Scripture, that it's erroneous.

 

[Albion]

And your dodge of my question is noted.

...and I will continue to stick to the topic here and not respond to attempts to switch to off-topic issues.

Why would I say that when I just posted a NT passage that specifically said men and women were baptized, it didn't mention infants.

That doesn't address my point. The event you referred us to does not deal with the requirements for baptism in all cases; that passage clearly describes a reply given to a particular person and dealt with his particular situation.

I'm not promoting it.

Then what was the point in you saying this: "You want to call it a dedication, fine." Obviously, I do not agree with those dedication ceremonies; and if you are now saying that you do not do so, either, what was the purpose in mentioning them?

 

[Not David]

Well, baptism serves as a way to regenerate children too.