• 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.

Do we need to be baptized in order to be saved ?

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,273
804
Oregon
✟167,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Infant baptism is not biblical. The Apostle Peter established the conditions for those wishing to be water baptized. He stated everyone who believed in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was to repent, and obey the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin. Jesus made this reality possible for those willing to believe and obey. Infants do not have the capacity to chose to believe and obey God's command.
There are only two passages of Scripture which state who is to be baptized. You quoted only one of them. Acts 2:38-39. In the Acts 2, there are TWO categories of individuals who are to be baptized. Adults and the adult's children. "This promise is for you and your children" (vs. 39). What is the promise? Forgiveness of sins and receiving the HS is the promise of baptism to adults and their children. From this, adults are to repent and children are not commanded to do so.

There are certain commands of Scripture that only pertain to adults. “Repent and be baptized” is only addressed to sinful adults. And you can’t bring children into these passages who are not addressed. Had Jesus expected children to repent and be converted, He would have addressed them as He did His adult audience.

Helping widows, giving alms, feeding the poor, preaching the word, defending the faith, studying scripture, faithful to the apostle’s teaching, breaking bread, praying, sharing their belongings, selling their possessions, distributing the proceeds to those in need pertain to only adults.

An absolute inability to perform any command from scripture absolves a person from the obligation to perform it. Thus any command of Scripture which an infant cannot perform is to be interpreted as pertaining to an adult. It is impossible for an infant to repent....therefore only applies to adults. God does not demand impossibilities.

Thus a blind man is not bound to read the gospel, nor deaf man to hear the gospel preached, nor an insane person from understanding it. This is what baptism is for. Baptism is the remedy for these horrid disabilities. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their Christian parents and pastors who can repent, hear, understand, and believe, teach and confess the faith. And there is no passage of Scripture that bars infants from being baptized. Quite the opposite.

The second passage of Scripture which allows children and infants to be baptized is Matthew 28: 18-19. The Christian church is to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them. The church is to baptize all nations and there was never a nation without infants. Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism. Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants. According to Jesus, there is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism.

Paedobaptists baptize infants as a remedy for original sin....and the dual promises of Acts 2:39 apply all descendants of Adam in the NT era....forgiveness of sin and the HS. Credobaptists don't believe in inherited guilt of Adam descendants and make up a false teaching called the Age of Accountability.....this is following the doctrines of man (Mark 7:13).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who died in 202 A.D., said: “‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]). Moreover, St. Hippolytus of Rome, who died in 235 A.D., said: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

We can see here that this was a known and actualized belief before the 3rd Century, with St. Hippolytus saying to baptize them even before they can speak for themselves. This goes even into the 1st Century with St. Aristides the Athenian: "And when a child has been born to one of them [i.e., Christians], they give thanks to God [i.e., baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins" (Apology 15 [A.D. 140]).
Traditions abound. And many unfortunately usurp the final authority of the bible. God accused man of making the word of God of none effect through their tradition. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13, Col. 2:8)

We must all chose whom we will serve. (Joshua 24:14-15)

According to the word of God, repentance and faith are pre-requisites to valid biblical baptism.

1. Infant baptism was introduced well after the apostolic era, and became compulsory in 416 AD throughout Roman Empire.

2. Baptize means to immerse. The word does not mean to sprinkle.

3. Biblical baptism requires repentance and turning away from a sinful life. Infants are not capable of complying with the command. (Luke 13:3-5)

4. Submitting to baptism requires faith in Jesus Christ. Not possible for an infant. (Acts 2:4-42)

5. Baptism requires a confession of faith in Jesus. Not possible for an infant. (Acts 8:35-39)

6. Baptism involves complete immersion in water; the person identifies with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. (Romans. 6:3-6)

7. Baptism requires a good conscience before God. (1 Peter 3:21) Not possible for infants.

8. Those who die prior to the age of understanding go to be with the Lord in heaven. (2 Sam. 12:22-23 - David speaks of going to his son when he dies)
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
19
Bible Belt
✟51,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Traditions abound. And many unfortunately usurp the final authority of the bible. God accused man of making the word of God of none effect through their tradition. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13, Col. 2:8)

We must all chose whom we will serve. (Joshua 24:14-15)

According to the word of God, repentance and faith are pre-requisites to valid biblical baptism.

1. Infant baptism was introduced well after the apostolic era, and became compulsory in 416 AD throughout Roman Empire.

2. Baptize means to immerse. The word does not mean to sprinkle.

3. Biblical baptism requires repentance and turning away from a sinful life. Infants are not capable of complying with the command. (Luke 13:3-5)

4. Submitting to baptism requires faith in Jesus Christ. Not possible for an infant. (Acts 2:4-42)

5. Baptism requires a confession of faith in Jesus. Not possible for an infant. (Acts 8:35-39)

6. Baptism involves complete immersion in water; the person identifies with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. (Romans. 6:3-6)

7. Baptism requires a good conscience before God. (1 Peter 3:21) Not possible for infants.

8. Those who die prior to the age of understanding go to be with the Lord in heaven. (2 Sam. 12:22-23 - David speaks of going to his son when he dies)
1. The quotations I gave are clearly from individuals who knew the Apostles.
2. The sanctifying effects of water baptism are found in Ezechiel 36, which says: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.”
3. I will again point to St. Hippolytus of Rome, who died in 235 A.D., said: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
4. Ibidem.
5. Ibidem.
6. Consider Romans 6:3-4: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." From a symbolic perspective, immersion better portrays being “buried” with Christ. And that is at least one reason why the Catholic Church teaches immersion to be a valid form of baptism (cf. CCC 628; 1239). But baptizo is not limited to immersion in the New Testament. It can also mean, as Newman points out: “to wash,” as in, the “washing” of hands. In fact, according to Luke 11:37-38, a “ritual washing” and “the washing of hands” can be joined as one: "While [Jesus] was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (Gr. ebaptisthe, aorist, third person singular form of baptizo) before dinner." This was obviously not immersion. There were “baptisms” the Pharisees did that would involve full immersion, but this was not one of them. Mark 7:3-4 gives us an even more complete picture of the nature of the “baptism” being referred to here: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands. . .” The Greek word used here for wash is ebaptisthe, or “baptize.” Moreover, Jesus prophesied that with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the apostles would be “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5), and yet its fulfillment in Acts 2:4 is described in two distinct ways, neither of which indicating “immersion.” In Luke 24:49, for example, we find this same “baptism in the Holy Spirit” referred to as being “clothed” upon: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high." To be “clothed” does not indicate an immersion; rather, a partial covering. And yet, this is clearly baptism in the Holy Spirit. We should also look at Acts 2:16-17 where we read: "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.”" This biblical text describes the Holy Spirit being “poured out” upon the recipients of this great gift. Thus, it would be unbiblical to claim that “baptism” can only refer to immersion. See also: "Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:24–250. Apollos could have been baptized by John the Baptist or one of his disciples. But remember John’s baptism was not sufficient for salvation, as his baptism was only a precursor to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:8), the baptism that gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 2 record the disciples’ remembrance of Jesus’s words regarding John’s baptism vs. His (Jesus’s) baptism. They (the disciples) themselves were baptized by water & the Holy Spirit (and received Him), and they also talk about how they baptized a multitude of followers in the name of Jesus Christ, who in turn received the Holy Spirit. Being baptized by water & the Holy Spirit and receiving His “seal” (and receiving Him) is required for salvation. Notice that ALL apostles were baptized by water. Many argue that the 120 were baptized at Pentecost because water baptism is essential to salvation, and because the apostles are obviously saved, they must have been water baptized.

However, the text plainly indicates the apostles — and the rest of the 120 — were not water baptized at Pentecost specifically. Consider Acts 2:41: They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. It must have been prior to Pentecost. Notice John 13:8-11: "Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean." Add this to the puzzle: "Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you" (John 15:3). This is the claim, in response to that verse: “Peter asks to be washed by Jesus head to toe, and Jesus responds that this is not necessary. The image is of a man who bathes in preparation for a feast, and upon arriving there only needs to have his feet washed. In 15:3, we see that the disciples are baptized via having their feet washed. And so it seems that Jesus is saying, in effect, I have one last lesson to teach you: washing your feet completes the cleansing by my word.” The first part of this quote is true, however this saying of “cleansing by my word” contradicts the church’s later teaching that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. Just as Jesus’ first disciples (along with his Blessed Mother), the apostles were undoubtedly baptized. Just before his Ascension, Jesus makes clear to his apostles that baptism is a fundamental part of becoming his disciple (Matt. 28:18-20). And Jesus’ baptism is distinguished from John’s, which was a baptism of penance yet which could not forgive sins or provide grace. Luke mentions John’s baptism in Acts 1:5, 1:22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, and 19:4. So yes, as Jesus’ first disciples (along with his Blessed Mother), the apostles were undoubtedly baptized. Just before his Ascension, Jesus makes clear to his apostles that baptism is a fundamental part of becoming his disciple (Matt. 28:18-20). And Jesus’ baptism is distinguished from John’s, which was a baptism of penance yet which could not forgive sins or provide grace. Luke mentions John’s baptism in Acts 1:5, 1:22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, and 19:4. Thus, it would be unbiblical to claim that “baptism” can only refer to immersion.
7. See #3.
8. Baptism was not instituted until the New Testament, but it is implied that David [being Jewish]'s son would have been circumcised, the Old Testament archetype of baptism. Furthermore, no one went to Heaven until after the Resurrection of Christ. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent states, “before his death and Resurrection, heaven was closed against every child of Adam.” The fact that Jesus and the good thief did not enter Heaven on the day of the crucifixion is also demonstrated in Matthew 12:40: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Another passage that refers to Christ’s descent into Limbo is Ephesians 4:8-9: “Therefore it says, ‘When He ascended on high, He led a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.’ In saying He ascended, what does it mean but that He had also descended into the lower regions of the earth?” Here, we are told that Jesus descended into the lower regions of the earth and ascended with a host of captives. His soul did not descend to the hell of the damned but to the place where the just of the Old Testament were waiting, called the limbo of the fathers or the limbus patrum in Latin. It is also sometimes called Abraham’s bosom. Scripture refers to this descent in 1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 4:9. Thus, where David and his son resided was not heaven, but was the limbus patrum. The word translated above as “paradise” (Greek, paradeiso) means “the abode of the blessed dead” (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 339). Jesus didn’t ascend to Heaven until after His Resurrection, and He descended into Hell on the day of His death. Jesus called it paradise because He would be there.
 
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are only two passages of Scripture which state who is to be baptized. You quoted only one of them. Acts 2:38-39. In the Acts 2, there are TWO categories of individuals who are to be baptized. Adults and the adult's children. "This promise is for you and your children" (vs. 39). What is the promise? Forgiveness of sins and receiving the HS is the promise of baptism to adults and their children. From this, adults are to repent and children are not commanded to do so.

There are certain commands of Scripture that only pertain to adults. “Repent and be baptized” is only addressed to sinful adults. And you can’t bring children into these passages who are not addressed. Had Jesus expected children to repent and be converted, He would have addressed them as He did His adult audience.

Helping widows, giving alms, feeding the poor, preaching the word, defending the faith, studying scripture, faithful to the apostle’s teaching, breaking bread, praying, sharing their belongings, selling their possessions, distributing the proceeds to those in need pertain to only adults.

An absolute inability to perform any command from scripture absolves a person from the obligation to perform it. Thus any command of Scripture which an infant cannot perform is to be interpreted as pertaining to an adult. It is impossible for an infant to repent....therefore only applies to adults. God does not demand impossibilities.

Thus a blind man is not bound to read the gospel, nor deaf man to hear the gospel preached, nor an insane person from understanding it. This is what baptism is for. Baptism is the remedy for these horrid disabilities. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their Christian parents and pastors who can repent, hear, understand, and believe, teach and confess the faith. And there is no passage of Scripture that bars infants from being baptized. Quite the opposite.

The second passage of Scripture which allows children and infants to be baptized is Matthew 28: 18-19. The Christian church is to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them and teaching them. The church is to baptize all nations and there was never a nation without infants. Jesus neither instituted adult nor infant baptism just simply baptism--baptism for all. All Human souls are intended for baptism. Christians are authorized to baptize all who compose a nation, men, women and children & infants. According to Jesus, there is no age or intellectual developmental requirement given for baptism.

Paedobaptists baptize infants as a remedy for original sin....and the dual promises of Acts 2:39 apply all descendants of Adam in the NT era....forgiveness of sin and the HS. Credobaptists don't believe in inherited guilt of Adam descendants and make up a false teaching called the Age of Accountability.....this is following the doctrines of man (Mark 7:13).
The sum of God's word is truth. And it reveals:
Baptism requires repentance and turning away from a sinful life. (Luke 13:3-5) This can apply to children of an age of understanding. However, infants are not capable of complying with the command.

Submitting to baptism requires faith in Jesus Christ. Not possible for infants. (Acts 2:4-42)

Baptism requires a confession of faith in Jesus. Not possible for infants. (Acts 8:35-39)

Baptism involves complete immersion in water; the person identifies with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. (Romans. 6:3-6)

Baptism requires a good conscience before God. (1 Peter 3:21) Not possible for infants.

Those who die prior to the age of understanding go to be with the Lord in heaven. (2 Sam. 12:22-23 - David speaks of going to his son when he dies)

As to your comment about the blind and deaf. Consider that blind men can hear and the deaf can see
 
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. The quotations I gave are clearly from individuals who knew the Apostles.
2. The sanctifying effects of water baptism are found in Ezechiel 36, which says: “For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.”
3. I will again point to St. Hippolytus of Rome, who died in 235 A.D., said: “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
4. Ibidem.
5. Ibidem.
6. Consider Romans 6:3-4: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." From a symbolic perspective, immersion better portrays being “buried” with Christ. And that is at least one reason why the Catholic Church teaches immersion to be a valid form of baptism (cf. CCC 628; 1239). But baptizo is not limited to immersion in the New Testament. It can also mean, as Newman points out: “to wash,” as in, the “washing” of hands. In fact, according to Luke 11:37-38, a “ritual washing” and “the washing of hands” can be joined as one: "While [Jesus] was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (Gr. ebaptisthe, aorist, third person singular form of baptizo) before dinner." This was obviously not immersion. There were “baptisms” the Pharisees did that would involve full immersion, but this was not one of them. Mark 7:3-4 gives us an even more complete picture of the nature of the “baptism” being referred to here: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands. . .” The Greek word used here for wash is ebaptisthe, or “baptize.” Moreover, Jesus prophesied that with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the apostles would be “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5), and yet its fulfillment in Acts 2:4 is described in two distinct ways, neither of which indicating “immersion.” In Luke 24:49, for example, we find this same “baptism in the Holy Spirit” referred to as being “clothed” upon: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high." To be “clothed” does not indicate an immersion; rather, a partial covering. And yet, this is clearly baptism in the Holy Spirit. We should also look at Acts 2:16-17 where we read: "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.”" This biblical text describes the Holy Spirit being “poured out” upon the recipients of this great gift. Thus, it would be unbiblical to claim that “baptism” can only refer to immersion. See also: "Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:24–250. Apollos could have been baptized by John the Baptist or one of his disciples. But remember John’s baptism was not sufficient for salvation, as his baptism was only a precursor to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:8), the baptism that gives you the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:4-5 and Acts 2 record the disciples’ remembrance of Jesus’s words regarding John’s baptism vs. His (Jesus’s) baptism. They (the disciples) themselves were baptized by water & the Holy Spirit (and received Him), and they also talk about how they baptized a multitude of followers in the name of Jesus Christ, who in turn received the Holy Spirit. Being baptized by water & the Holy Spirit and receiving His “seal” (and receiving Him) is required for salvation. Notice that ALL apostles were baptized by water. Many argue that the 120 were baptized at Pentecost because water baptism is essential to salvation, and because the apostles are obviously saved, they must have been water baptized.

However, the text plainly indicates the apostles — and the rest of the 120 — were not water baptized at Pentecost specifically. Consider Acts 2:41: They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. It must have been prior to Pentecost. Notice John 13:8-11: "Peter saith to him: Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him: If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all. For he knew who he was that would betray him; therefore he said: You are not all clean." Add this to the puzzle: "Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you" (John 15:3). This is the claim, in response to that verse: “Peter asks to be washed by Jesus head to toe, and Jesus responds that this is not necessary. The image is of a man who bathes in preparation for a feast, and upon arriving there only needs to have his feet washed. In 15:3, we see that the disciples are baptized via having their feet washed. And so it seems that Jesus is saying, in effect, I have one last lesson to teach you: washing your feet completes the cleansing by my word.” The first part of this quote is true, however this saying of “cleansing by my word” contradicts the church’s later teaching that baptism is absolutely essential to salvation. Just as Jesus’ first disciples (along with his Blessed Mother), the apostles were undoubtedly baptized. Just before his Ascension, Jesus makes clear to his apostles that baptism is a fundamental part of becoming his disciple (Matt. 28:18-20). And Jesus’ baptism is distinguished from John’s, which was a baptism of penance yet which could not forgive sins or provide grace. Luke mentions John’s baptism in Acts 1:5, 1:22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, and 19:4. So yes, as Jesus’ first disciples (along with his Blessed Mother), the apostles were undoubtedly baptized. Just before his Ascension, Jesus makes clear to his apostles that baptism is a fundamental part of becoming his disciple (Matt. 28:18-20). And Jesus’ baptism is distinguished from John’s, which was a baptism of penance yet which could not forgive sins or provide grace. Luke mentions John’s baptism in Acts 1:5, 1:22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, and 19:4. Thus, it would be unbiblical to claim that “baptism” can only refer to immersion.
7. See #3.
8. Baptism was not instituted until the New Testament, but it is implied that David [being Jewish]'s son would have been circumcised, the Old Testament archetype of baptism. Furthermore, no one went to Heaven until after the Resurrection of Christ. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent states, “before his death and Resurrection, heaven was closed against every child of Adam.” The fact that Jesus and the good thief did not enter Heaven on the day of the crucifixion is also demonstrated in Matthew 12:40: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Another passage that refers to Christ’s descent into Limbo is Ephesians 4:8-9: “Therefore it says, ‘When He ascended on high, He led a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.’ In saying He ascended, what does it mean but that He had also descended into the lower regions of the earth?” Here, we are told that Jesus descended into the lower regions of the earth and ascended with a host of captives. His soul did not descend to the hell of the damned but to the place where the just of the Old Testament were waiting, called the limbo of the fathers or the limbus patrum in Latin. It is also sometimes called Abraham’s bosom. Scripture refers to this descent in 1 Peter 3 and Ephesians 4:9. Thus, where David and his son resided was not heaven, but was the limbus patrum. The word translated above as “paradise” (Greek, paradeiso) means “the abode of the blessed dead” (A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 339). Jesus didn’t ascend to Heaven until after His Resurrection, and He descended into Hell on the day of His death. Jesus called it paradise because He would be there.
There is no record of anyone in the apostolic era administering water baptism by sprinkling. And the word of God is what all will be judged by. Without fail, the Bible records at least 2-3 witnesses/accounts revealing the truth regarding any topic.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, (Jesus) and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

2 Cor 13:1
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Matt 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
 
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
...

An absolute inability to perform any command from scripture absolves a person from the obligation to perform it. Thus any command of Scripture which an infant cannot perform is to be interpreted as pertaining to an adult. It is impossible for an infant to repent....therefore only applies to adults. God does not demand impossibilities.

Thus a blind man is not bound to read the gospel, nor deaf man to hear the gospel preached, nor an insane person from understanding it.
Mankind is without excuse. The blind do hear, the deaf can see, and insane people have moments of mental clarity to make a choice whether or not to believe and obey. Making a way for those who wish to be in fellowship with Him is not impossible for God!
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,588
29,148
Pacific Northwest
✟815,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Infant baptism is not biblical. The Apostle Peter established the conditions for those wishing to be water baptized. He stated everyone who believed in Jesus' death, burial and resurrection was to repent, and obey the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin. Jesus made this reality possible for those willing to believe and obey. Infants do not have the capacity to chose to believe and obey God's command.

Peter didn't provide "conditions". What St. Peter says is "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins", this is a two-fold call of repent and be baptized. The promise attached is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Who is this call, this promise for? "For you and for your children and for all whom the Lord our God will call"

So the call and promise was given to who? It was for those right there who heard St. Peter's words, and also for their children, and indeed for all whom God calls.

In the Acts of the Apostles we see how the call, the invitation, and the promise is realized as the Apostles carry out their divinely appointed ministry.

We see, for example, entire households being baptized. The entire household of Cornelius received baptism, the entire household of the Philippian jailer received baptism.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that certain members of the household were deprived of receiving baptism. The text does not explicitly tell us that there were infants or small children, but it is most likely that there were. Just as the text doesn't tell us that there were household servants and slaves, but it is almost certain that there were. The proper inference is that all members of the household, including slaves, servants, infants, and small children, all would have been baptized.

Further, we know the Jewish context of baptism. When the Lord Jesus established Baptism as a Sacrament for His Church it wasn't without context. In the ancient Jewish world ritual washing (tevilah) was an essential component of Jewish life and practice. There were designated baths called mikveh where Jewish people could undertake ritual washing. The wealthier Jewish families and members of the community had mikvehs built right into their houses. The reasons for tevilah were diverse, for example before entering the Temple and making sacrifice, priests had to regularly undergo tevilah, if someone became ritually impure they had to undergo tevilah.

When a Gentile converted to Judaism, part of the conversion process was undergoing tevilah, and this was very significant. Even to this day tevilah is a central part of conversion to Judaism. And, significantly, small children and infants are also converted along with the parent(s). And the meaning of this conversion tevilah is also noteworthy, as it signifies the reception of a new life and identity as a Jew. The man or women (and their children) have a new life as Jews, as members of God's Covenant people.

The Mikveh's Significance in Traditional Conversion | My Jewish Learning

If you look at these articles, notice the way conversion immersion (tevilah) is spoken about. This is language that is deeply reminiscient of the way the New Testament talks about baptism. The way Jesus talks about being born of water and the Spirit in John 3:5 for example.

Christian Baptism while not merely another Jewish tevilah has its context in this Jewish practice. But it is a new washing, a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a washing that carries with it the promise of the Holy Spirit, and the reality of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and our union to Him and participation with Him in His Life, Death, and Resurrection (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-12). This is why it is not just another Jewish ablation, and it's not the same as what St. John the Baptist was doing (Acts 19:1-7). This is a new Christian Baptism, because it is by Christ's Authority, who said "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them" (hence it is spoken of as in His Name, it is by His Authority as Christ and Lord, and it unites us to Him, joins us to Himself, clothes us with Jesus Christ Himself and His Life, Death, and Resurrection).

And there is no reason to withhold it from children and infants. Because in the Jewish context of Baptism, infants are included. Because in the Acts of the Apostles entire households are spoken of as baptized. Because the Lord Jesus Himself says "Do not prohibit the little ones from coming to Me". Because it was Christian practice, from the very beginning, to include infants and small children in the life-giving promise and work of God that is the Sacrament of Holy Baptism.

The Lord says "Come" and we come. We, our children, and all whom the Lord calls.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,588
29,148
Pacific Northwest
✟815,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
There is no record of anyone in the apostolic era administering water baptism by sprinkling.

The Didache says pouring is entirely acceptable. And Scripture offers no command on the mode of baptism.

"Immersion-only" and "Believers-only" baptism is manmade tradition. Scripture commands and teaches neither of these.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,588
29,148
Pacific Northwest
✟815,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The practice of infant baptism is a manmade tradition begun well after the apostolic era; in the 3rd century.

False. The first explicit mentions appear in the 2nd century, and are mentioned in such a way as to speak of them as long-established ordinary practice. Implicit mentions of infants being baptized also show up 2nd century, such as in the writings of St. Justin Martyr and in the hagiography of St. Polycarp.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

AveChristusRex

Unapologetic Marianite
Nov 20, 2024
478
225
19
Bible Belt
✟51,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The Didache says pouring is entirely acceptable. And Scripture offers no command on the mode of baptism.

"Immersion-only" and "Believers-only" baptism is manmade tradition. Scripture commands and teaches neither of these.

-CryptoLutheran
Very true.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,273
804
Oregon
✟167,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is no record of anyone in the apostolic era administering water baptism by sprinkling.
Paul was baptized in a standing position. See Acts 9:17ff and Acts 22:16ff.

In Acts 9, Paul is struck blind on the Damascus Road. He is led to the house of Judas where for three days he doesn't eat or drink. The Lord comes to Ananias and tells him to go to the house of Judas to restore Paul's sight. He does so and enters the house of Judas. Luke writes...."the Lord as has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he stood up (ἀναστὰς) 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. Why do you delay? STAND UP (ἀναστὰς) and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." The same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages. And this happened very quickly as 22:16 states: Do not delay.

Paul was not immersed in the house of Judas. We have two texts from Scripture, both commenting on the same event, both using the same Greek verb for standing up, both commenting on a mode of baptism and contextually it cannot be immersion baptism.

Our hermenuetical Rule: In a historical narrative, we interpret Scripture using the plain text rule.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,273
804
Oregon
✟167,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Just as the text doesn't tell us that there were household servants and slaves
I remember something someone said when John MacArthur said the Philippian jailor's household only consisted of slaves and servants. He wrote something like...."Oh, the Philippian was so wealthy, so rich, that he had to take a job as a jailor working the graveyard shift....in which one mistake would have gotten him executed!"
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Peter didn't provide "conditions". What St. Peter says is "repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins", this is a two-fold call of repent and be baptized. The promise attached is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Who is this call, this promise for? "For you and for your children and for all whom the Lord our God will call"

So the call and promise was given to who? It was for those right there who heard St. Peter's words, and also for their children, and indeed for all whom God calls.

In the Acts of the Apostles we see how the call, the invitation, and the promise is realized as the Apostles carry out their divinely appointed ministry.

We see, for example, entire households being baptized. The entire household of Cornelius received baptism, the entire household of the Philippian jailer received baptism.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that certain members of the household were deprived of receiving baptism. The text does not explicitly tell us that there were infants or small children, but it is most likely that there were. Just as the text doesn't tell us that there were household servants and slaves, but it is almost certain that there were. The proper inference is that all members of the household, including slaves, servants, infants, and small children, all would have been baptized.

Further, we know the Jewish context of baptism. When the Lord Jesus established Baptism as a Sacrament for His Church it wasn't without context. In the ancient Jewish world ritual washing (tevilah) was an essential component of Jewish life and practice. There were designated baths called mikveh where Jewish people could undertake ritual washing. The wealthier Jewish families and members of the community had mikvehs built right into their houses. The reasons for tevilah were diverse, for example before entering the Temple and making sacrifice, priests had to regularly undergo tevilah, if someone became ritually impure they had to undergo tevilah.

When a Gentile converted to Judaism, part of the conversion process was undergoing tevilah, and this was very significant. Even to this day tevilah is a central part of conversion to Judaism. And, significantly, small children and infants are also converted along with the parent(s). And the meaning of this conversion tevilah is also noteworthy, as it signifies the reception of a new life and identity as a Jew. The man or women (and their children) have a new life as Jews, as members of God's Covenant people.

The Mikveh's Significance in Traditional Conversion | My Jewish Learning

If you look at these articles, notice the way conversion immersion (tevilah) is spoken about. This is language that is deeply reminiscient of the way the New Testament talks about baptism. The way Jesus talks about being born of water and the Spirit in John 3:5 for example.

Christian Baptism while not merely another Jewish tevilah has its context in this Jewish practice. But it is a new washing, a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a washing that carries with it the promise of the Holy Spirit, and the reality of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and our union to Him and participation with Him in His Life, Death, and Resurrection (Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-12). This is why it is not just another Jewish ablation, and it's not the same as what St. John the Baptist was doing (Acts 19:1-7). This is a new Christian Baptism, because it is by Christ's Authority, who said "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them" (hence it is spoken of as in His Name, it is by His Authority as Christ and Lord, and it unites us to Him, joins us to Himself, clothes us with Jesus Christ Himself and His Life, Death, and Resurrection).

And there is no reason to withhold it from children and infants. Because in the Jewish context of Baptism, infants are included. Because in the Acts of the Apostles entire households are spoken of as baptized. Because the Lord Jesus Himself says "Do not prohibit the little ones from coming to Me". Because it was Christian practice, from the very beginning, to include infants and small children in the life-giving promise and work of God that is the Sacrament of Holy Baptism.

The Lord says "Come" and we come. We, our children, and all whom the Lord calls.

-CryptoLutheran
You are making assumptions that the households spoken of in scripture included infants. No scripture indicates this is so. And, there is no evidence that the children spoken of were not required to make an informed decision on the their own. Repentance and obedience to God's command is not possible for young children let alone infants.
 
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Didache says pouring is entirely acceptable. And Scripture offers no command on the mode of baptism.

"Immersion-only" and "Believers-only" baptism is manmade tradition. Scripture commands and teaches neither of these.

-CryptoLutheran
The Didache is not the Bible. And the Didache contains much that directly contradicts the word of God. The mode of water baptism is in scripture. It takes very little effort to find it for those who actually choose to search it out.
 
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
False. The first explicit mentions appear in the 2nd century, and are mentioned in such a way as to speak of them as long-established ordinary practice. Implicit mentions of infants being baptized also show up 2nd century, such as in the writings of St. Justin Martyr and in the hagiography of St. Polycarp.

-CryptoLutheran
What the apostles practiced is recorded in the word of God. Writings that contradict the biblical record, no matter who penned them, are not to be accepted. It was Jesus who said, the Word will be the final judge. (John 12:48)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoreyD
Upvote 0

Wansvic

Active Member
Jun 16, 2020
191
52
Virginia
✟46,568.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul was baptized in a standing position. See Acts 9:17ff and Acts 22:16ff.

In Acts 9, Paul is struck blind on the Damascus Road. He is led to the house of Judas where for three days he doesn't eat or drink. The Lord comes to Ananias and tells him to go to the house of Judas to restore Paul's sight. He does so and enters the house of Judas. Luke writes...."the Lord as has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he stood up (ἀναστὰς) 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. Why do you delay? STAND UP (ἀναστὰς) and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." The same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages. And this happened very quickly as 22:16 states: Do not delay.

Paul was not immersed in the house of Judas. We have two texts from Scripture, both commenting on the same event, both using the same Greek verb for standing up, both commenting on a mode of baptism and contextually it cannot be immersion baptism.

Our hermenuetical Rule: In a historical narrative, we interpret Scripture using the plain text rule.
In the event you are unfamiliar with the general practice, it is customary for a person who is in a sitting position to get up in order to enter baptismal waters.
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Furthermore, the word baptism means to immerse: NT:907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism.

In addition, multiple scriptures confirm baptisms took place in water with no mention of sprinkling:

Matt 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway OUT OF THE WATER: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:9-10
And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
And straightway COMING UP OUT OF THE WATER, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Matt 3:5-6
Then went out to him (John the Baptist) Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
And were baptized of him IN JORDAN,

Acts 8:38
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and THEY WENT DOWN BOTH INTO THE WATER, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

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.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,273
804
Oregon
✟167,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In the event you are unfamiliar with the general practice, it is customary for a person who is in a sitting position to get up in order to enter baptismal waters.
This customary practice is not found in the NT and therefore is considered extra-Biblical. Certainly not sola Scriptura. If I were to give creedance to this practice you are going to have to cite a source from the first three centuries of the early church about this practice. And this citation should contextually demonstrate this customary practice was wide spread rather than a one off exception.

The command Ananias gave Paul was to STAND UP AND BE BAPTIZED in a house, not "stand up and go else where to be baptized." This is equivocation....using of ambiguous language to obscure the plain meaning of the text. Seen it before, will see it again. In a historical narrative we use the plain text rule for interpreting scripture.

*********

There are (1) four passages in the NT (2) in which the word Baptizó is used, (3) water is applied to the human body, (4) and contextually it CANNOT MEAN IMMERSION. We already examined Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16. The other two passages deal with Jewish baptisms in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4.

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

In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially baptize (Baptizó) ἐβαπτίσθη 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 whether sprinkling or pouring.

In Mark 7:4, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially baptizing (βαπτίσωνται) their hands after buying food at the market.

In both Luke and Mark, the word for “washing” of the hands is Baptizó or in Hebrew called netilat yadayim. 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.

We know how these baptisms or washings were performed in the NT as these traditions have been preserved Talmud some 345 times. Mayim achronim has its own "how to," which is less involved than regular handwashing. For most types of handwashing, including before a meal where you'll be eating bread, you should follow the following steps.
  1. Make sure your hands are clean.
  2. Fill a washing cup with enough water for both of your hands. If you are left-handed, begin with your left hand. If you are right-handed, start with your right hand.
  3. Pour the water twice on your dominant hand and then twice on your other hand. Some pour three times, including Chabad Lubavitchers. Make sure the water covers your entire hand up to the wrist with each pour and separate your fingers so the water touches the whole of your hand.
  4. After washing, grab a towel and as you dry your hands recite the bracha (blessing)
Within the NT, the Greek word Baptizó has a wider semantic range than immersionists will allow. Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16, Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 use the word Baptizó and contextually it can not mean immersion.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Wansvic
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,688
8,270
50
The Wild West
✟767,734.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
And many unfortunately usurp the final authority of the bible. God accused man of making the word of God of none effect through their tradition.

On the contrary, Holy Tradition is endorsed in verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The context for those verses you cite eisegetically the Pharisaical tradition, which became the basis for Rabinnical Judaism.

The Apostolic Tradition, which is preserved by the Orthodox, and also in some high church Anglican, confessional Lutheran, and other liturgical Protestant churches, and in traditional Roman Catholic congregations that reject modernism, particularly those which retain the Traditional Latin Mass and in the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, was not the subject of those statements.

This is why the leading figures of the Reformation such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and John Wesley expressly recognized the role of Tradition in assisting in the interpretation of Scripture. Hence the Anglican tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, and the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which adds Experience to the above.

What Martin Luther was seeking to do with Sola Scriptura, as my confessional Lutheran friends like @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm, was to correct obvious errors that crept into the medieval Roman Catholic Church (which had contributed to the schism with the Eastern Orthodox in 1054). He was not seeking to do away with most fixtures of traditional Western Christianity, and thus Luther celebrated the Eucharist every Sunday, made the sign of the cross, and even prayed a modified version of the Hail Mary.

Likewise, high church Anglicans retained many of these traditions, and would in the 19th century restore those that had been wrongfully suppressed in order to appease the Puritans in the aftermath of the English Civil War (and which were not suppressed by the Scottish and Non Juring Episcopalians, who ordained the first Anglican bishop for the United States, after the Church of England was prevented from continuing to provide episcopal support such as ordaining presbyters for the former British colonies for political reasons).

And of course the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox had the fortune to never get caught in a power struggle with Charlemagne (which was a key event that would precipitate the emergence of Papal Supremacy), and likewise never underwent a dogmatic shift (which the Roman Catholics demarcate by saying that St. John of Damascus was the last Patristic theologian, and by referring to subsequent theologians, whose teachings were innovative and in some cases arguably at odds with Patristic theology, at least that of the Greek and Syrian fathers, as Scholastic, starting with Anselm of Canterbury.

Of course, Scholastic Theology was by no means entirely antithetical to the received tradition - some of what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote was very insigntful, for example. But there is a noticeable distinction between the writings of the Fathers and the Orthodox theologians on the one hand, and the Schoolmen on the other. In particular, the idea of systematic theology seems to have originated with Aquinas and was later taken up by John Calvin, with their Summa and Institutes respectively being the first two widely known works in the field, and subsequent systematic theology has been dominated by Calvinists, most notably Karl Barth and his ponderous eight volume Church Dogmatics.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,588
29,148
Pacific Northwest
✟815,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You are making assumptions that the households spoken of in scripture included infants. No scripture indicates this is so. And, there is no evidence that the children spoken of were not required to make an informed decision on the their own. Repentance and obedience to God's command is not possible for young children let alone infants.

Repentance and, indeed, obedience are not singular acts. The entire Christian life is comprised of these two things: our repentance and our obedience. These are not things we do to earn salvation; but rather are our response.

If you raise an infant in the faith, then repentance and obedience will follow. In the same way that when an adult converts, so too does a life of repentance and obedience.

St. Peter did not say "Repent and then get baptized", but proclaims both to those gathered together on Pentecost.

If you say a child cannot be baptized because a child cannot repent, then you are adding conditions and stipulations to the word of God.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,588
29,148
Pacific Northwest
✟815,379.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The Didache is not the Bible.

That is irrelevant. Your statement was in reference to practice in apostolic times. The Didache is an historical Christian document that records Christian practice from apostolic times.

And the Didache contains much that directly contradicts the word of God.

Share with the class what the Didache says that contradicts the word of God.

The mode of water baptism is in scripture. It takes very little effort to find it for those who actually choose to search it out.

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to show where Scripture commands a specific mode of baptism.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0