Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

[KEPLER]

It does say household, but it doesnt say infants. One may conclude infants are a part of a household but so are the family pets. Did they baptize these as well? No, because that makes little sense. Same with the infants.

Actually household is a pretty specific word in ancient times, and it did NOT include 'pets', but it did include servants. It also specifically DID include ANY children, including any infants.

Look at John 4:50-53 same with Acts 18:8
50Jesus said to him, "Go; your son lives." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off. 51As he was now going down, his slaves met him, saying that his son was living. 52So he inquired of them the hour when he began to get better. Then they said to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him." 53So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, "Your son lives"; and he himself believed and his whole household.

Does this mean even the infants believed? Hmmmm.....

If there were infants in the houslehold, then yes it does.

Acts 10:1-2
1Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.

Does this mean the infants also feared God? Hmmmm.....

I guess household doesn't always mean EVERYONE including infants....looks like it means everyone of understanding to me.

Again, if there were infants in the houslehold, then yes it does.

An aside, to the audience: "Just wait, here's where he says: 'An infant believe?! You're telling me an infant can believe??!!' "

EXEUNT...curtain falls.

(So, AWC, you wanna take the next obvious retort, or shall I?)

Credo-baptists ... heh ...bless their uneducated little hearts.

 

[Jig]

Actually household is a pretty specific word in ancient times, and it did NOT include 'pets', but it did include servants. It also specifically DID include ANY children, including any infants.
[/color]

If there were infants in the houslehold, then yes it does.
[/color]

Again, if there were infants in the houslehold, then yes it does.

An aside, to the audience: "Just wait, here's where he says: 'An infant believe?! You're telling me an infant can believe??!!' "

EXEUNT...curtain falls.

(So, AWC, you wanna take the next obvious retort, or shall I?)

Credo-baptists ... heh ...bless their uneducated little hearts.

Okay....how can an infant believe or even fear God then?

 

[TheDag]

Okay....how can an infant believe or even fear God then?

In regards to how can they believe maybe you should get in touch with CEF (child evangelism fellowship) and talk to them about the success of that organisation or get in touch with
Children’s Ministry Institute (CMI) P.O. Box 348 Warrenton, MO 63383, USA


Also bear in mind christianity is a faith.



As to how can they fear I know alot of missionaries who would say christians in western countries don't fear God.

 

[TheDag]

His children were all grown up with wives of their own...

Are you just here to argue for the sake of it?
Just because you are grown up it doesn't mean you stop being your parents child just like it doesn't mean you don't continue to honour your parents simply because you've reached whatever magical age.

 

[KEPLER]

Okay....how can an infant believe or even fear God then?

Jig,

With all due respect, when discussing such matters about Scripture, the onus is upon BOTH parties to keep and open mind and heart. I was once a credo-baptist ("believers baptism") myself; I grew up in a denomination which taught that. Scripture has since changed my mind. The historical fact that infant baptism was already in practive at some point between the years 50 and 60 AD helps to strenghten the case.

So, can an infant believe? Can an infant have faith? The typical credo-baptist says no, and uses reasoning something like this:

Infants don't have knowledge of anything, therefore they can't have faith.
​

But this begs the question on two fronts.

First, it puts human reasoning over and above Scripture. We observe that infants are helpless, non-rational creatures who have yet to develop thought capabilites, and therefore conclude that they are incapable of having faith.

Second, it fails to acknowledge that faith is a gift from God, not some rational choice that humans make. The act of trusting God is a gift which God gives to us BEFORE we ever come to any conclusions about Him.

So, the disucssion then goes something ike this:

ME: Are you SURE an infant can't have faith?

Credo-baptist: Of course they can't.
​

ME: Are you REALLY sure?

Credo-baptist: Yes, I'm sure, stop asking me!
​

ME: So, you're telling me that you think a person can be filled with the Holy Spirit and NOT have faith? Is that what Baptists really believe?

Credo-baptist: That's nonsense! Of course you must have faith to be filled with Holy Spirit!
​

ME: Oh, so you DO believe that if someone is filled with the Holy Spirit, then of necessity that person MUST have faith...?

Credo-baptist: Of course, any other position would be ridiculous!
​

So, please explain to me then, how was it that John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" while he was STILL in Elizabeth's womb?! Furthermore, while he was still in Elizabeth's womb, he leaped at Mary's greeting. (Luke 1:15 & 41)

I realize that John the Baptist had a special calling, but that is not really the point, is it? The only relevant point is that Scripture proves that it is POSSIBLE for an infant to have faith.

Furthermore, we can look at the Psalms:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
Psalm 22:9-10
​

What a wonderful God we serve that can create trust in the heart of an infant! And how wonderful He is that He provided the means for us to include our children in His family.

 

[ArohaB]

Are you just here to argue for the sake of it?
Just because you are grown up it doesn't mean you stop being your parents child just like it doesn't mean you don't continue to honour your parents simply because you've reached whatever magical age.

If you took it in context, i said that because they were old enough to think for themselves as opposed to babies who cannot.
Also as I have posted previously if you've cared to read the entire thread, Christadelphian, simply means Brethren In Christ, that sure sounds like Christian to me, maybe moreso than other names that come to mind.
It would be great if you could stick to the discussion with scripture rather than finding retorts with me that have nothing to do with what we are discussing, sounds rather childish don't you think?

Also with regards to whole households believing, i see no problem with accepting that, however someones "added words to the Bible", as we are asked not to in scripture and assumed that the babies were baptised, it doesn't even say anything of the sort.

 

[ArohaB]

Jig,

​

​

So, please explain to me then, how was it that John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" while he was STILL in Elizabeth's womb?! Furthermore, while he was still in Elizabeth's womb, he leaped at Mary's greeting. (Luke 1:15 & 41)

Yet you brought me out of the womb;

you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
Psalm 22:9-10

​

What a wonderful God we serve that can create trust in the heart of an infant! And how wonderful He is that He provided the means for us to include our children in His family.

Absolutely God can do this, it still doesn't justify sprinkling a baby and calling it baptism, cos John didn't start his ministry until he was of an age to be able to speak for himself, also in the psalms, God can do this but nowhere does it assume that the baby was sprinkled.

 

[KEPLER]

Absolutely God can do this, it still doesn't justify sprinkling a baby and calling it baptism, cos John didn't start his ministry until he was of an age to be able to speak for himself, also in the psalms, God can do this but nowhere does it assume that the baby was sprinkled.

I'm sorry ArohaB but you have clearly not followed the logic here.

 

[ArohaB]

I'm sorry ArohaB but you have clearly not followed the logic here.

What's logic got to do with plucking one scripture out of the bible and using it to justify a whole behaviour? I would rather cross reference my Bible so I don't take it out of context and start a whole religion on my own understanding.

 

[TheDag]

If you took it in context, i said that because they were old enough to think for themselves as opposed to babies who cannot.

They still didn't choose though. It was something God did. All they did was choose to go onto the boat and even then in terms of the culture that choice wasn't theirs but Noahs. So one could even say they only chose to honour their parents.

Also as I have posted previously if you've cared to read the entire thread, Christadelphian, simply means Brethren In Christ, that sure sounds like Christian to me, maybe moreso than other names that come to mind.

Is this directed at me? I have never said anything about christadelphians on CF. I have read the entire thread. I always make it my practice to read every post in any thread I post in.

 

[TheDag]

Absolutely God can do this, it still doesn't justify sprinkling a baby and calling it baptism, cos John didn't start his ministry until he was of an age to be able to speak for himself, also in the psalms, God can do this but nowhere does it assume that the baby was sprinkled.

The question being dealt with was can an infant have faith not was John baptised as asked by Jig in post #120 that led to that part of the discussion.

 

[lmnop9876]

Should one be fully submerged for Baptism?

indeed they should, if at all possible. not that I think there is any Scriptural or theological reason for it, but it should be done in keeping with the ancient tradition of the church, and for the sake of maintaining unity. if a person can't be immersed, pouring should be used, i.e. pour water over the entire head and upper body three times in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jig]

Jig,

With all due respect, when discussing such matters about Scripture, the onus is upon BOTH parties to keep and open mind and heart. I was once a credo-baptist ("believers baptism") myself; I grew up in a denomination which taught that. Scripture has since changed my mind. The historical fact that infant baptism was already in practive at some point between the years 50 and 60 AD helps to strenghten the case.



So, can an infant believe? Can an infant have faith? The typical credo-baptist says no, and uses reasoning something like this:

Infants don't have knowledge of anything, therefore they can't have faith.


​

But this begs the question on two fronts.


First, it puts human reasoning over and above Scripture. We observe that infants are helpless, non-rational creatures who have yet to develop thought capabilites, and therefore conclude that they are incapable of having faith.

Second, it fails to acknowledge that faith is a gift from God, not some rational choice that humans make. The act of trusting God is a gift which God gives to us BEFORE we ever come to any conclusions about Him.

So, the disucssion then goes something ike this:



ME: Are you SURE an infant can't have faith?

Credo-baptist: Of course they can't.


​

ME: Are you REALLY sure?

Credo-baptist: Yes, I'm sure, stop asking me!


​

ME: So, you're telling me that you think a person can be filled with the Holy Spirit and NOT have faith? Is that what Baptists really believe?

Credo-baptist: That's nonsense! Of course you must have faith to be filled with Holy Spirit!


​

ME: Oh, so you DO believe that if someone is filled with the Holy Spirit, then of necessity that person MUST have faith...?

Credo-baptist: Of course, any other position would be ridiculous!


​

So, please explain to me then, how was it that John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit" while he was STILL in Elizabeth's womb?! Furthermore, while he was still in Elizabeth's womb, he leaped at Mary's greeting. (Luke 1:15 & 41)


I realize that John the Baptist had a special calling, but that is not really the point, is it? The only relevant point is that Scripture proves that it is POSSIBLE for an infant to have faith.

Furthermore, we can look at the Psalms:

Yet you brought me out of the womb;

you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
Psalm 22:9-10

​

What a wonderful God we serve that can create trust in the heart of an infant! And how wonderful He is that He provided the means for us to include our children in His family.

The case with John the Baptist is beyond unique. John was actually Elijah. This in no way applies to any infant besides John. The same way I believe Jesus was unique amoung infants. Do you think a buddist baby has faith in God but when he grows up he loses this faith?

Also your Psalm means nothing. NET bible clearly helps those who think trust means believe.



22:9 Yes, you are the one who pulled me from the womb, and made me feel secure on my mother’s breasts.

 

[KEPLER]

What's logic got to do with plucking one scripture out of the bible and using it to justify a whole behaviour? I would rather cross reference my Bible so I don't take it out of context and start a whole religion on my own understanding.

AROHAB!!

MY POST was about the BIBLICAL FACT that in some MYSTERIOUS way, infants can have some kind of faith.

I made NO REFERENCE in my post to any MODE of baptism.

My post wasn't directed to you, and it was not answering an objection you posited. You clearly didn't read it, and therefore did not follow the logic. It was NOT posted for you.

 

[ArohaB]

AROHAB!!

MY POST was about the BIBLICAL FACT that in some MYSTERIOUS way, infants can have some kind of faith.

I made NO REFERENCE in my post to any MODE of baptism.

My post wasn't directed to you, and it was not answering an objection you posited. You clearly didn't read it, and therefore did not follow the logic. It was NOT posted for you.

YES AND CONSIDERING THAT ALL OF THESE POSTS HAVE STEMMED FROM THE QUESTION "DOES ONE HAVE TO BE FULLY SUBMERGED TO BE BAPTISED?"
I WOULD STILL ANSWER ALL OF MY THREADS THE SAME WAY!

AND YOU DON'T NEED TO YELL EITHER!

 

[KEPLER]

The case with John the Baptist is beyond unique. John was actually Elijah. This in no way applies to any infant besides John. The same way I believe Jesus was unique amoung infants. Do you think a buddist baby has faith in God but when he grows up he loses this faith?

Also your Psalm means nothing. NET bible clearly helps those who think trust means believe.

22:9 Yes, you are the one who pulled me from the womb, and made me feel secure on my mother’s breasts.

Where on EARTH did you get that hideous translation?

NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and ASV all translate the Hebrew word batach as "trust", and yes, it is often used as an EXACT synonym for justifying faith:

Trust (batach) in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock. Isaiah 26:4

In fact, throughout the early Psalms, in almost every instance where you see "trust" or "hope", the Hebrew word is batach, and is a direct synonym for faith in the God of Mercy.

Furthermore, Paul seems to think that trust and faith are synonymous:

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. Rom 4:5

As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Rom 9:33

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Rom 15:13

Yes, tools like Netbible (or biblegateway, or blueletterbible) are wonderful tools. I suggest you learn how to use them properly. Here's the first lesson: don't put the cart before the horse.

 

[Jig]

Where on EARTH did you get that hideous translation?

NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and ASV all translate the Hebrew word batach as "trust", and yes, it is often used as an EXACT synonym for justifying faith:

Trust (batach) in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock. Isaiah 26:4

In fact, throughout the early Psalms, in almost every instance where you see "trust" or "hope", the Hebrew word is batach, and is a direct synonym for faith in the God of Mercy.

Furthermore, Paul seems to think that trust and faith are synonymous:

However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. Rom 4:5

As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Rom 9:33

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. Rom 15:13

Yes, tools like Netbible (or biblegateway, or blueletterbible) are wonderful tools. I suggest you learn how to use them properly. Here's the first lesson: don't put the cart before the horse.

You never heard of the NET bible?

 

[KEPLER]

You never heard of the NET bible?

as in: www.netbible.com ?? OK, I see it's actually www.bible.org

OK, I confess, I knew of it, but usually use biblegateway.com or blueletterbible.com, or my own books here.

I see their translation now, and frankly it sucks, and is completely misleading.

Psalm 22:4 In you our ancestors trusted (batach);they trusted (batach) in you and you rescued them.

Psalm 22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved;in you they trusted (batach) and they were not disappointed.

But just four verses later in Psalm 22:9, they suddenly change batach to "feel secure"??? Clearly they put their bad theology ahead of the translation in order to avoid the obvious meaning of the verse. What a bunch of liars. Their own work proves them wrong.

EC

P.S. I just sent the translators/editors a note via their comments page and expressed my disgust at the fact that they had "put their credo-baptist cart before the exegetical horse". It floors me that they thought they could get away with it...

 

[Jig]

as in: www.netbible.com ?? OK, I see it's actually www.bible.org

OK, I confess, I knew of it, but usually use biblegateway.com or blueletterbible.com, or my own books here.

I see their translation now, and frankly it sucks, and is completely misleading.

Psalm 22:4 In you our ancestors trusted (batach);they trusted (batach) in you and you rescued them.

Psalm 22:5 To you they cried out, and they were saved;in you they trusted (batach) and they were not disappointed.

But just four verses later in Psalm 22:9, they suddenly change batach to "feel secure"??? Clearly they put their bad theology ahead of the translation in order to avoid the obvious meaning of the verse. What a bunch of liars. Their own work proves them wrong.

EC

P.S. I just sent the translators/editors a note via their comments page and expressed my disgust at the fact that they had "put their credo-baptist cart before the exegetical horse". It floors me that they thought they could get away with it...

Why all this hatred??

Either way...Jesus saves and God is merciful.
I do disagree with you, I never said the word could be translated "trust"...it may be a better translation than "feel secure". All I'm saying is the "trust" in that psalm didnt mean 'believe in God'. The infant trusted his mothers breast had milk to feed on. God installed this instinct to all babies. This is the trust the psalm is refering to. Faith is not an instinct, its a choice.

 

[tel0004]

If a preacher in Jail in China was baptising people, and they stoped giving him water so he could not baptise people any more, and only gave him apple juice, then would sprinking apple juice on them be baptism? Yes, its the act and the though that counts. I think we should TRY to be fully submerged, but if its not available, then sprinkling water on them is fine.