Infant baptism

[timtams]

Nice job at attempting to move the goalposts
But no.

Affirmanti incumbit probatio.

YOU are the one who claims that oikos does not include infants for some magical reason. YOU are the one who needs to provide proof of this argument.
Until then, you're *beep* out of an argument.

Wrong. Monk Brendan made the affirmation. You have nothing to contribute.

 

[DanishLutheran]

Wrong. Monk Brendan made the affirmation. You have nothing to contribute.

In the conversation between you and me, you are the one who made the claim. Therefore, you are the one on whom the burden of proof falls.

 

[timtams]

In the conversation between you and me, you are the one who made the claim. Therefore, you are the one on whom the burden of proof falls.

No, our "conversation" commenced with you claiming: "The Roman Pater Familias was the head of the ENTIRE household - slaves, children, infants, etc, all of it."

I then asked you for evidence for where the Greek oikos (no-one said anything about the Latin) specifically included infants. You are not interested in providing it, so there is nothing more to say.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just curious for those that believe in infant baptism, sprinkling, etc where did this idea come from since Jesus himself was not baptized until he was around 29-30?

Christians have always baptized babies and young children. Christian Baptism is rooted in the Jewish practice of tevilah (ritual washing). There are many reasons for ritual washing in Judaism; one reason was conversion to Judaism. Part of the conversion process to become a Jew is tevilah in a mikveh; adults and young children alike.

In the Acts of the Apostles we read that whole households were baptized, that would have included people of all ages, from the very young to the very old; a household would have included several generations, children, parents, and grandparents, as well as slaves and servants.

There was never a need to specifically speak of "infant baptism" because baptism is baptism regardless of whether we are talking 8 day old infants or 80 year old seniors.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just to point out , when Jesus was baptized, He was fully immersed in the water.
No sprinkling of water.

Probably. But both Jewish ritual washing and Christian Baptism has recognized that the central idea is washing, not immersion. Which is why the Gospel of Mark mentions Jewish washings of furniture and utensils and of hands, which is not by immersion but pouring water. The Didache, a first century Church manual, describes that immersion is preferable, but not necessary, as pouring water on the head is acceptable when there isn't a sufficient body of water around.

Insisting on immersion is adding to the word of God, since Scripture itself certainly never commands that immersion be used exclusively.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timtams]

Why do you believe something for which there is no scriptural support ... only inferential "possibilities"? To hold to your tradition?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why do you believe something for which there is no scriptural support ... only inferential "possibilities"? To hold to your tradition?

There's no scriptural support for baptizing the elderly. If we are looking for explicit statements on all possibilities in Scripture then I'm afraid that we are going to have to do away with a lot of things--such as Scripture itself. So perhaps going down that particular line of reasoning may not be the best option.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timtams]

There's no scriptural support for baptizing the elderly. If we are looking for explicit statements on all possibilities in Scripture then I'm afraid that we are going to have to do away with a lot of things--such as Scripture itself. So perhaps going down that particular line of reasoning may not be the best option.

-CryptoLutheran

That's not comparable. It says anyone who believes. That obviously doesn't exclude elderly persons. Using your reasoning here, it would be okay to baptize them even if they don't consent (if they are perhaps suffering from dementia). While we don't know whether infants were included in households on all occasions (or even if the oikos ever included infants in its definition) we do know that scripture commands to "believe and be baptized." So I am back to thinking that this might be more about finding scripture to justify a tradition.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's not comparable. It says anyone who believes. That obviously doesn't exclude elderly persons. Using your reasoning here, it would be okay to baptize them even if they don't consent (if they are perhaps suffering from dementia). While we don't know whether infants were included in households on all occasions (or even if the oikos ever included infants in its definition) we do know that scripture commands to "believe and be baptized." So I am back to thinking that this might be more about finding scripture to justify a tradition.

Moving the goalposts. Your initial argument involved a lack of explicit biblical mention. You are not shifting the argument entirely.

Further your assertion is that belief must precede baptism isn't biblical. For a Lutheran this is also a non-issue, as of course the baptized infant has faith, because God's Word creates faith (Romans 10:17) and therein Baptism is the Word (Ephesians 5:26) and faith (Colossians 2:12-13).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timtams]

"... because my tradition says an infant has faith".

 

[ViaCrucis]

"... because my tradition says an infant has faith".

Because Scripture declares that faith is a gift which is apart from ourselves, and this gift is attached to Word and Sacrament.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Definitely tradition and definitely not Scriptural .
Talk about adding to The Holy Word of God.
Infant baptism = infant getting wet.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Definitely tradition and definitely not Scriptural .
Talk about adding to The Holy Word of God.
Infant baptism = infant getting wet.

Baseless statement is baseless.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Baseless statement is baseless.

-CryptoLutheran

My statement was 100% accurate.
Infant "baptism " = infant getting WET

Let me ask you a question, what does infant baptism represent and bring about?
And, can you back it up with The Word of God?

 

[timtams]

Because Scripture declares that faith is a gift which is apart from ourselves, and this gift is attached to Word and Sacrament.

Actually it doesn't. You've misread Ephesians. Check a scholarly commentary to see what the "gift of God" refers to. So you seriously believe, to protect your tradition of men, that a baby can hear the Word of God and believe? Are you serious? No, a baby cannot hear. Paul said, How can they hear without a preacher. He said that if you speak an unknown tongue, no-one understands. Yet you think a baby that doesn't even know any words yet can hear and believe?

 

[ViaCrucis]

My statement was 100% accurate.
Infant "baptism " = infant getting WET

Let me ask you a question, what does infant baptism represent and bring about?
And, can you back it up with The Word of God?

The same thing as baptism for anyone, new birth in Christ. John 3:5

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ml5363]

The same thing as baptism for anyone, new birth in Christ. John 3:5

-CryptoLutheran

But an infant can't choose to follow Christ..that's my issue with infant baptism...is suppose to be a sign you have accepted Christ and are a believer...infants just coo, poop, eat, and sleep

 

[ml5363]

And for the record, children being saved at an early age don't just say Jesus loves me...they are led down the Roman road like any other ..at least in my experience of churches anyway...

 

[ViaCrucis]

But an infant can't choose to follow Christ..that's my issue with infant baptism...is suppose to be a sign you have accepted Christ and are a believer...infants just coo, poop, eat, and sleep

No where does Scripture teach that baptism is a sign that we have accepted Christ.

Also, biblically, we don't choose Christ, we are chosen by Christ. We are saved by grace alone, not our works.

Whether an infant or an old person, it's the same: Salvation is by the grace of God alone, through faith, on Christ's account alone. Decisionism is unbiblical.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And for the record, children being saved at an early age don't just say Jesus loves me...they are led down the Roman road like any other ..at least in my experience of churches anyway...

The concept of "Romans Road" isn't biblical either. Like other aspects of modern Evangelicalism, it is massively errant.

The altar call, the sinner's prayer, the four spiritual laws, etc--these are rooted in inherently bad theology which places the emphasis on human decision (Decisionism) which is simply works-based salvation.

-CryptoLutheran