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

[ViaCrucis]

Were you?
What does immerse mean, and how does a baby qualify as a disciple of Christ?

"Should we trust men or God?"

If God can have a man bathe in the Jordan River seven times and cure him of leprousy, and if God can take mud and spit and cure a man of blindness, and if God can multiply loaves and fishes to feed five thousand--then surely when God says our sins are forgiven, and that we belong to Him--which is what happens in the waters of Holy Baptism--then what God says and does is true.

Who would be so bold as to question the word of the Lord and King of the Universe?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The point is the Didache was not written by the original apostles: The Bible instructs people are to hold fast to the apostles’ doctrine/teachings. (Acts 2:42) It was the Apostle Paul who said after his death men would begin speaking perverse things, drawing people away from the truth. (Acts 20:28-32) Perverse things are contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice.

The following Didache instructions do not exist, and in fact are contrary to what's found in the biblical record:

Confess your sins in church

Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. Having instructed him in all of these teachings, baptize the catechumen in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, then baptize in other water. And if you cannot in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let both the baptizer and the catechumen fast, and also any others who are able. And be sure that the catechumen fasts a day or two before.

FASTING d o NoT let not your fasts fall on the same days as the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays. Keep your fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.

Pray the Lord’s Prayer 3 x a day. - CONCERNING PRAYER d o NoT pray as the hypocrites either, but pray as the Lord commanded in His Gospel: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven; give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one; for thine is the power and the glory unto ages of ages. Pray this way three times each day.

Concerning apostles and prophets, act according to the Gospel’s teaching. Receive every apostle as the Lord. He should not stay for more than a single day, or two days if necessary. But if he remains for three days, he is a false prophet. When he leaves, let the apostle receive nothing except bread, until he finds a place to stay. But if he asks for money, he is a false prophet. Do not test or judge any prophet who speaks in the Spirit. Every other sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. And not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only he who follows the ways of the Lord. From his behavior, then, you will know a false prophet from a true prophet. Any prophet who orders a meal in Spirit will not eat from it, but if he does eat of it, he is a false prophet. Any prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do the things he teaches, is a false prophet. Every true prophet, if he performs a worldly mystery of the Church, but does not teach others to do likewise, he must not be judged by you. He has his judgment in the presence of God, as with the prophets of old. If anyone says in the Spirit, “Give me money,” do not listen to him. But if he tells you to give to others who are in need, let no one judge him.

N ow concerning the eucharistic thanksgiving, give thanks in this way. First, as concerning the cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David,a which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. Then as regards the broken bread: We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. ????As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, ???? u Acts 15:29. v Mat. 28:19. w Mat. 6:16. x Mat. 6:5f. y Mat. 6:9f. z 1 Cor. 11:23-25. a John 15:1. b Acts 3:13, 26. c John 3:15, 5:26, 6:68f. DIDACHE 9 so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ unto ages of ages. Do not let anyone eat or drink of this Eucharist who has not been baptized into the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord has said, “Do not give the holy things to the dogs.”


GaTher together each Sunday,a break bread and give thanks,???? first confessing your sins, ???? that your sacrifice may be pure.

Oh, so it's not that the Didache contradicts Scripture. It's that it contradicts your man-made traditions.

Confession is biblical. Christ instituted the Sacrament of Confession of Absolution, that's Matthew 18:18 and John 20:21-23, and it is again found in James 5:16, and 1 John 1:9.

Your confusion about certain things in the Didache would be easily put to rest if you simply knew the Scriptures.

For example, consider the statement concerning broken breat that was scattered and became one. Have you not read what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10? Where he speaks of partaking of the flesh of Christ in the bread which we break, which he then describes as being one loaf though gathered from many places; so St. Paul speaks here of the two-fold Mystery of the Eucharist and the Church in Christ. For by partaking of the One Loaf, that is the body of Christ; so are we brought together as One Loaf, the body of Christ. "For whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life".

It would appear your worst enemy, in this instance, is that you need to read the Scriptures more.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CoreyD]

"Should we trust men or God?"

I am totally for trusting God, rather than men.
Hence why when Jesus said

• go make disciples
• baptize them
• teach them

I trust Jesus, rather than men who say, "babies can be baptized too... just sprinkle water on their head, and there are good.... they don't have to understand and be taught, nor be a disciple".

If God can have a man bathe in the Jordan River seven times and cure him of leprousy, and if God can take mud and spit and cure a man of blindness, and if God can multiply loaves and fishes to feed five thousand--then surely when God says our sins are forgiven, and that we belong to Him--which is what happens in the waters of Holy Baptism--then what God says and does is true.

Who would be so bold as to question the word of the Lord and King of the Universe?

-CryptoLutheran

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Men decide that anything that they decide to do is acceptable to God, because they say anything is possible with God, but to say we trust God, rather than men, and then accept manmade traditions, and call it God's work, is... well, let Jesus tell us, what that is.

Mark 7:6, 7
“You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’"

I certainly do not question the word of God.
You aren't questioning this, are you?

 

[CoreyD]

Your objections to why 3,000 could not have been immersed on the Day of Pentecost is foolish.

Seriously? Someone actually made that argument!!?
That person probably have not seen these.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

... just sprinkle water on their head, and there are good....

We baptize infants because of the promises attached to baptism. No promises....no baptism..... is just water.
Baptists don't believe baptism has ANY PROMISES attached to it, and therefore you get the quotation above...baptism is just water.

We baptize infants as a remedy for original sin. They are born in a condition of sin.
Baptists don't believe children are born sinful....or in a condition of sin....they are considered "safe but not saved" until the age of accountability.....which of course is a man made doctrine (Mark 7:13). A sort of modified universalism.....more man made doctrine (Mark 7:13).

 

[Wansvic]

These are all followed by the Church. The Catholic understanding clarifies the distinction between human traditions and Sacred Tradition. Christ rebuked the Pharisees and scribes for elevating human traditions (e.g., their ritual handwashing) above the commandments of God. However, in Catholic teaching, divine revelation is transmitted through both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (cf. Dei Verbum, 9). Sacred Tradition includes teachings, liturgical practices, and oral teachings handed down from the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:15: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.").

The Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, safeguards the authentic interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition (cf. Dei Verbum, 10), so I don't really see how this verse is relevant to the matter. You said that "there is always a correct interpretation," and your right, but it is not that tradition is condemned, but is side by side with the Scriptures. Also, Matthew 23:2-3: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." Jesus recognizes the authority of their teaching office while criticizing their hypocrisy. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, St. Paul commends the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth," so the traditions held by the Church came from the Apostles, i.e., St. Peter directly.

According to the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Session II, it states: "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril." Thus we can see that this Apostolic tradition continues through the Pontiffs of Rome, and thus their teachings and traditions.

Unfortunately many denominations insist scripture is not sufficient in and of itself. However, the truth is all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Jesus Himself stated that everyone will be judged by the word. (John 12:48) Therefore teachings from religious leaders and/or Popes that contradict God's word are to be rejected.

 

[Wansvic]

The statements do not limit themselves to the content of the New Testament, which was not even defined as a canon until the fourth century (and indeed, it was largely through the writings of St. Irenaeus that the four canonical Gospels were separated from other texts, some of which were blatantly Gnostic (such as “The Gospel of Truth”, the “Gospel of Mary” and the exceedingly blasphemous and vile “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”, but others of which could have been included had care not been taken by Christian bishops.

These include the Aramaic “Gospel of the Hebrews” which survives only in quotations, and the Gospel of Peter, of which we have a fragment of the passion that is similiar to the canonical Gospels at least until the resurrection narrative, but with some oddities noted in the third century and in the present, and the “Gospel of Thomas”, a list of sayings of our Lord that largely agrees with the synoptics but which I and many others believe was corrupted by Gnostics, and the “Protoevangelion of James” which agrees with Orthodox and Roman Catholic doctrine but which was believed by early church fathers to have been written psuedepigraphically in the second century.

There are several other books which came even closer to being made canonical, such as 1 Barnabas, which is pseudepigraphical and problematic, 3 Corinthians, Laodiceans, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Likewise, there are books which many bishops did not trust and wanted to exclude, but which were discerned by most bishops following the lead of St. Athanasius to be valid and important, such as Revelation, Jude, 2 John, 3 John and 2 Peter, which were omitted from the original edition of the Syriac Aramaic translation known as the Peshitta, but later added by the Syriac Orthodox from a translation by St. Thomas of Harqel in order to ensure their canon matched that of the Coptic Orthodox and Armenian churches, as St. Athanasius was highly respected throughout Oriental Orthodoxy (and Eastern Orthodoxy and the Western church).

Clearly what is found in the compilation of the inspired word of God is sufficient as it reveals all will be judged by it. (John 12:48)

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am totally for trusting God, rather than men.
Hence why when Jesus said

• go make disciples
• baptize them
• teach them

I trust Jesus, rather than men who say, "babies can be baptized too... just sprinkle water on their head, and there are good.... they don't have to understand and be taught, nor be a disciple".

This is, of course, a straw man argument.

Nobody has said "just sprinkle water on their head, and there[sic] are good.... they don't have to understand and be taught, nor be a disciple"

That's something you are making up.

Because here is what we who follow the biblical and Christian practice of baptizing our children actually believe:

"Raise a child in the right path and when he has grown he will not depart from it." - Proverbs 22:6

In our churches our children are taught. For it is the responsibility of the parents to teach their child in the things of faith, and they are part of God's Household of Faith, they are members of the Body of Christ, and are taught in the way of Christ. When the child is baptized the parents make a commitment, in front of the whole congregation, to raising their child as a Christian, to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. And we, the congregation, also pledge our commitment to the same thing. For our new baby brother or baby sister has gained an extended family among all the saints, and it is our obligation to be there for this child, as they grow.

In the Lutheran tradition our Confessions contain two Catechisms, the Small and the Large. The purpose of the Small Catechism is there for the express purpose for teaching children the simple matters of Christian faith: The Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Sacraments, Prayer, Christian Duty, and the answering of questions pertaining to the faith. The Large Catechism is a more robust expansion, but the Small is there in order that parents and pastors may help guide children, new converts, and others in the elementary ways of Christianity. As the child grows, they shall learn more, be taught more, and as they hear the Word when it is preached they shall have their faith strengthened. And as they come to partake in the Sacraments, they shall appreciate the gifts they receive as they come to know more of the goodness and grace of our God and what He has done for us through His Son.

If a child is baptized, but the parents do not keep their committment, it is not the fault of the Sacrament, but of parental responsibility. If a parent, seeing their child needs medical care, refuses to bring their child to the doctor, it is not the doctor, nor the medicine, nor the medical community that is to blame--it is bad parenting.

Christian parents raise Christian children. This is the sacred and holy vocation of fatherhood and motherhood.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
Men decide that anything that they decide to do is acceptable to God, because they say anything is possible with God, but to say we trust God, rather than men, and then accept manmade traditions, and call it God's work, is... well, let Jesus tell us, what that is.

Mark 7:6, 7
“You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’"

I certainly do not question the word of God.
You aren't questioning this, are you?

You are the one who would deny God's Word and Promise.

For it is written, "All who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Galatians 3:27

So it is written. So it is true. The word of the Lord endures forever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wansvic]

An ablution is a ceremonial washing of ones body or a part of it. And this definition which YOU PROVIDED fits the meaning of the NT Jewish baptisms in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 in which baptizo contextually can not mean immersion. Jesus and the disciples DID NOT IMMERSE THEMSELVES during these washings. Thanks for pointing this out.

Your attempt to distort what the Strong's says concerning various usages of the word baptizo does not change what the word means in association with the ordinance of Christian baptism:
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

The scriptures you referenced have nothing to do with the ordinance of water baptism:
Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

Mark 7:4
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your attempt to distort what the Strong's says concerning various usages of the word baptizo does not change what the word means in association with the ordinance of Christian baptism:
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

The scriptures you referenced have nothing to do with the ordinance of water baptism:
Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

Mark 7:4
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

Do you believe that you are a better expert of the Greek tongue than those for whom it was their first language?

Those who spoke Greek, who knew Greek, who used it in their homes, at the market, and every day of their life--they used this word to describe not just immersion, but also to washing in other modes, such as pouring.

No amount of clinging woodenly to a 19th century lexicon is going to change the reality of a living breathing linguistic community that existed and used words the way they did, and for which we have evidence.

You are not relying on the word, you are demanding the word fit your pre-conceived doctrine. You are making yourself lord over God's word, and bullying the Scriptures into subjugation to yourself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your attempt to distort what the Strong's says concerning various usages of the word baptizo does not change what the word means in association with the ordinance of Christian baptism:
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

The scriptures you referenced have nothing to do with the ordinance of water baptism:
Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

Mark 7:4
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

καὶ ἀπό ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν

This is about hand washing.

Hand washing did NOT involve immersion, but pouring water upon the hands.

Ritual Hand Washing Before Meals | My Jewish Learning

Jewish custom now normally associated with meals started with Temple purity. By Rabbi Louis Jacobs

www.myjewishlearning.com

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wansvic]

St. Peter wasn't speaking to believers, but non-believers. The crowd to whom Peter preached his sermon was a crowd of non-believing Jews who had come to Jerusalem as pilgrims for the Feast of Shavu'ot (Pentecost). As such the crowd was comprised of disparate Jewish persons who spoke different languages and dialects. Which is why it was noteworthy that when the Holy Spirit condescended and the fledgling Church gathered in the upper room began to speak in diverse languages by the power of the Holy Spirit, that these languages were the languages of the gathered pilgrims. "Are these not Galileans?" some in the crowd asked, "Yet they speak in our languages". Many in the crowd mocked what they observed, "They are drunk" is what they said. These were non-believers. By the time St. Peter was done preaching, the Holy Spirit had worked the power of the Gospel into their hearts, and they believed, and were received into the Church through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism "about three thousand" St. Luke tells us.

It is true enough that, when the Law is preached and we feel the sting of a guilty conscience ("For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"), we experience the guilt of our sin as our wretchedness is reflected toward us by the good use of the Law. And from this despair we have guilt, and indeed grieve; and that the Gospel creates and works faith, and indeed forgiveness. For the guilt of sin can only be alleviated and healed by the grace and kindness, the love and mercy, the forgiveness that is from God alone, through Christ His Son who suffered, died, and rose again for us and our justification. That we are no longer enemies, but indeed children of God, by the grace He so richly pours out upon us.

And, therefore, our response is that of repentance, metanoia; the change of mind as we are brought from a state of enemity against God to that of being beloved children who know God as Abba, Father.

But this metanoia is not a singular act, or a singular change. For since even after conversion the Old Man stubbornly persists, and must always be dealt with, so the Law must always be preached; that upon hearing what we ought to do (and ought not do) we see again our own unrighteousness before the Holy and Righteous God who is Just Judge of the living and the dead. For in this St. John reminds us, "If we say we have no sin then we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" this is the danger of living an impenitent life; but the penitent life of confession brings us again to hearing and beholding the mercy of God in Christ: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

We must, therefore, always remain humble at the foot of the Cross, for here in our weakness does God find us, and in His mercy embrace us and clothe us with His Son, and with the righteousness of His Son. So that though our sins be as scarlet, yet shall we be white as snow. These robes which God Himself clothes us--the wedding clothes of the Great Banquet--are a gift.

So that even as the Old Man must always be put to death through repentance, from the day we first converted to the day we breathe our final breath and step before Glory; so too the New Man is vitalized and renewed day by day by the mercy and kindness of God. So that the life of the Christian is one marked by repentance and good works; not as the prerequisite of conversion but as the fruit of a converted life; of a life that is being changed day-by-day by grace.

To believe that one singular word or act of repentance suffices is a dangerous belief--for it puts one's own soul in mortal danger. For here mortal sin lay ready to shipwreck our faith, as we deny the work of the Spirit, quenching Him, resisting Him, and His work of repairing and sanctifying the sinful heart and converting this heart of stone to a heart of flesh that trusts in, and has full confidence in, Jesus Christ and His finished work.



And here you can see the point I've made laid out clear as testified in Holy Scripture.

Pay attention to what is not in the text: That only adults can be baptized, that children cannot be baptized, that a person cannot be baptized unless they perform some work of repentance. Instead that divine work of repentance is found here: "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine" Here is the work of the Spirit to keep them in faith, by abiding in the word, and a penitent life. This is part of what it means to "do works worthy of repentance".

-CryptoLutheran

The listeners at Pentecost became believers of Jesus at the point they acknowledged Peter's statement was true. (Acts 2:22-24; 32-37)

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it...
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

It was at this point that Peter revealed what every believer must do in order to experience the NT rebirth; repent, and be water baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sins and receive the Holy Ghost as well. (Acts 2:38)

Consider the parallel in Acts 19:1-7. Paul's question to the 12 Ephesians, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" It reveals people can believe yet still need to be filled with the Holy Ghost/Spirit and submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Were you?
What does immerse mean, and how does a baby qualify as a disciple of Christ?

I fear this is very close to Palagianism, that being that Babies are not complicit in Original Sin from the moment of conception and thus do not need to be baptized and confirmed into the Church ASAP upon birth. I feel the "age of reason" hypothesis is a stretch, as how can a man who is too old and possibly devoid of the same reasoning [that a fully grown adult would have], be given the grace to be baptized? It seems that, in regards to the "age of reason" hypothesis, a person cannot be baptized if they don't remember it or if they are devoid of the reasoning to remember it; that seems very un-Christ-like, unless one posits that children and the feeble elderly are unable to sin [and thus is Palagian], then unlike Circumcision of the Old Testament, Baptism seems very closeted.

Moreover, by questioning the validity of an infant's baptism, then it is an implication of re-baptism, which is a grave error. If an individual was baptized as an infant and just got re-baptized by another church, it implied by that individual's actions that what the Holy Spirit did in his first baptism was not sufficient. Objectively, that is a sin, because it insults the work of the Holy Spirit. But it is not the same thing as the sin against the Holy Spirit—the sin of “blasphemy against the Spirit“—which involves a final refusal to repent. I pray this implication is not what you meant to say.

I trust Jesus, rather than men who say, "babies can be baptized too... just sprinkle water on their head, and there are good.... they don't have to understand and be taught, nor be a disciple".

I'm worried that you are devolving the Apostles' words, given by the Holy Ghost, as lesser than those of the Son, who is of equal personhood with the Spirit who gave the words to the Apostles.

Therefore teachings from religious leaders and/or Popes that contradict God's word are to be rejected.

Correct, but a Pope's teachings* cannot contradict God's word, as their declarations (ex cathedra) are protected by the Holy Spirit [though a Pope could error in the matter of internal forum, where they personally believe an error they do not teach, the Holy Spirit does not protect such things]. As such, if a Pope has the ability [equal to the writers of the Scriptures] to speak God-breathed words that are authoritative on heaven and earth (Matthew 16:19), then those should be followed, and thus Infant Baptism [ignoring the scriptural references to it] is entirely valid by the matter of Apostolic Authority.

 

[Wansvic]

Do you believe that you are a better expert of the Greek tongue than those for whom it was their first language?

Those who spoke Greek, who knew Greek, who used it in their homes, at the market, and every day of their life--they used this word to describe not just immersion, but also to washing in other modes, such as pouring.

No amount of clinging woodenly to a 19th century lexicon is going to change the reality of a living breathing linguistic community that existed and used words the way they did, and for which we have evidence.

You are not relying on the word, you are demanding the word fit your pre-conceived doctrine. You are making yourself lord over God's word, and bullying the Scriptures into subjugation to yourself.

-CryptoLutheran

There is no need to be an expert in the Greek language to comprehend that the same word can mean different things per context. As I stated your mention of the usage of the word baptizo in the scriptures you referenced below has no bearing on the meaning of the word when used in the context of the Christian ordinance. There is no need to demand a word fit a pre-conceived doctrine but rather accept as the context reveals:

"The scriptures you referenced have nothing to do with the ordinance of water baptism:
Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

Mark 7:4
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The scriptures you referenced have nothing to do with the ordinance of water baptism:
Luke 11:38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.

Mark 7:4
And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

In post #142 I wrote:

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.

Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 deals with Jewish baptisms which are NOT immersion. In Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16 Baptizó (the same word in Jewish baptisms) is used and contextually it can not be immersion. The NT usages of the word Baptizo has a wider semantic range (to include sprinkling, pouring and immersion) than the narrow usage which only is used by immersionists (immersion only).

Theoretically removing bias in interpreting in Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16.

Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known agnostics to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion.

The same would be about Acts 22. Thirty agnostics would agree that Paul was not immersed. What is so hard about understanding this? A reasonable person would conclude the mode of immersion wasn’t employed in Acts 9:18 and it’s parallel passage in Acts 22.

Baptists and American Evangelicals have been brought up from cradle to grave believing all NT baptisms are immersion without investigation. But how do you know all Christian baptism in the NT are immersion unless you investigate each and every instance of recorded baptism in the NT? For the past 200 years non-immersionists have been using the example of the baptism of Paul as an example NOT ALL BAPTISMS IN THE NT ARE IMMERSION. And all we get from the Baptists is silence.

​

 

[Wansvic]

I fear this is very close to Palagianism, that being that Babies are not complicit in Original Sin from the moment of conception and thus do not need to be baptized and confirmed into the Church ASAP upon birth. I feel the "age of reason" hypothesis is a stretch, as how can a man who is too old and possibly devoid of the same reasoning [that a fully grown adult would have], be given the grace to be baptized? It seems that, in regards to the "age of reason" hypothesis, a person cannot be baptized if they don't remember it or if they are devoid of the reasoning to remember it; that seems very un-Christ-like, unless one posits that children and the feeble elderly are unable to sin [and thus is Palagian], then unlike Circumcision of the Old Testament, Baptism seems very closeted.

Moreover, by questioning the validity of an infant's baptism, then it is an implication of re-baptism, which is a grave error. If an individual was baptized as an infant and just got re-baptized by another church, it implied by that individual's actions that what the Holy Spirit did in his first baptism was not sufficient. Objectively, that is a sin, because it insults the work of the Holy Spirit. But it is not the same thing as the sin against the Holy Spirit—the sin of “blasphemy against the Spirit“—which involves a final refusal to repent. I pray this implication is not what you meant to say.

I'm worried that you are devolving the Apostles' words, given by the Holy Ghost, as lesser than those of the Son, who is of equal personhood with the Spirit who gave the words to the Apostles.

Correct, but a Pope's teachings* cannot contradict God's word, as their declarations (ex-cathedra) are protected by the Holy Spirit [though a Pope could error in the matter of internal forum, where they personally believe an error they do not teach, the Holy Spirit does not protect such things]. As such, if a Pope has the ability [equal to the writers of the Scriptures] to speak God-breathed words that are authoritative on heaven and earth (Matthew 16:19), then those should be followed, and thus Infant Baptism [ignoring the scriptural references to it] is entirely valid by the matter of Apostolic Authority.

Wow. Such concepts have no scriptural backing. And for the record, the Apostle Paul rebaptized individuals in order to meet the requirements of the NT rebirth. (Acts 19:1-7, Luke 24:47)

 

[CoreyD]

We baptize infants because of the promises attached to baptism. No promises....no baptism..... is just water.
Baptists don't believe baptism has ANY PROMISES attached to it, and therefore you get the quotation above...baptism is just water.

We baptize infants as a remedy for original sin. They are born in a condition of sin.
Baptists don't believe children are born sinful....or in a condition of sin....they are considered "safe but not saved" until the age of accountability.....which of course is a man made doctrine (Mark 7:13). A sort of modified universalism.....more man made doctrine (Mark 7:13).

In other words, you make your own commands and traditions.
That's exactly what the scripture is saying, which I am pointing out.
Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Wansvic]

In post #142 I wrote:

Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 deals with Jewish baptisms which are NOT immersion. In Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16 Baptizó (the same word in Jewish baptisms) is used and contextually it can not be immersion. The NT usages of the word Baptizo has a wider semantic range (to include sprinkling, pouring and immersion) than the narrow usage which only is used by immersionists (immersion only).

Theoretically removing bias in interpreting in Acts 9:18 and Acts 22:16.

Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known agnostics to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion.

The same would be about Acts 22. Thirty agnostics would agree that Paul was not immersed. What is so hard about understanding this? A reasonable person would conclude the mode of immersion wasn’t employed in Acts 9:18 and it’s parallel passage in Acts 22.

Baptists and American Evangelicals have been brought up from cradle to grave believing all NT baptisms are immersion without investigation. But how do you know all Christian baptism in the NT are immersion unless you investigate each and every instance of recorded baptism in the NT? For the past 200 years non-immersionists have been using the example of the baptism of Paul as an example NOT ALL BAPTISMS IN THE NT ARE IMMERSION. And all we get from the Baptists is silence.

​

All Christian water baptisms in the NT are administered through immersion. Burials do not involve sprinkling. As Paul explained:

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Rom 6:3-6

 

[CoreyD]

I fear this is very close to Palagianism, that being that Babies are not complicit in Original Sin from the moment of conception and thus do not need to be baptized and confirmed into the Church ASAP upon birth. I feel the "age of reason" hypothesis is a stretch, as how can a man who is too old and possibly devoid of the same reasoning [that a fully grown adult would have], be given the grace to be baptized? It seems that, in regards to the "age of reason" hypothesis, a person cannot be baptized if they don't remember it or if they are devoid of the reasoning to remember it; that seems very un-Christ-like, unless one posits that children and the feeble elderly are unable to sin [and thus is Palagian], then unlike Circumcision of the Old Testament, Baptism seems very closeted.

Moreover, by questioning the validity of an infant's baptism, then it is an implication of re-baptism, which is a grave error. If an individual was baptized as an infant and just got re-baptized by another church, it implied by that individual's actions that what the Holy Spirit did in his first baptism was not sufficient. Objectively, that is a sin, because it insults the work of the Holy Spirit. But it is not the same thing as the sin against the Holy Spirit—the sin of “blasphemy against the Spirit“—which involves a final refusal to repent. I pray this implication is not what you meant to say.

I'm worried that you are devolving the Apostles' words, given by the Holy Ghost, as lesser than those of the Son, who is of equal personhood with the Spirit who gave the words to the Apostles.

Correct, but a Pope's teachings* cannot contradict God's word, as their declarations (ex-cathedra) are protected by the Holy Spirit [though a Pope could error in the matter of internal forum, where they personally believe an error they do not teach, the Holy Spirit does not protect such things]. As such, if a Pope has the ability [equal to the writers of the Scriptures] to speak God-breathed words that are authoritative on heaven and earth (Matthew 16:19), then those should be followed, and thus Infant Baptism [ignoring the scriptural references to it] is entirely valid by the matter of Apostolic Authority.

Wasn't Jim Jones, David Koresh, and others all "protected by the Holy Spirit", according to them, and their following? They all are still men, and their "authority" does not invalidate God's word.

 

[Aaron112]

Man's teachings and doctrines and practices every day contradict God and Jesus and the Bible.