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.
Scriptures says no infants! Not anybody's "private" interpretation!
It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.
Scripture demonstrates (three times, per my recollection) that entire households were baptized.
Jesus Christ commands, "Go, baptize ..." but does not state in His command an age limit.
To claim an age limit for baptism is indeed to add to Scripture.
"Suffer the little children to come unto Me."
It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.
To baptize infants who have no way of telling one whether they believe on Christ or not is presumptuous sin. Scripture demonstrates that one must believe; i.e., "if thou believest, thou mayest." There must be a profession. Had the eunuch not professed faith in Christ, no doubt, Philip would have told him that he could not be baptized.
Actually the more one studies the teachings regarding Mary, the more concerned they should become. The third council was in Ephesus. This was where the goddess Diana was so worshipped. Many who were accustomed to that were pushing hard for that council to vote as they did.
One could go all the way back to Isis and Osirus. The legend of Nimrod. He was killed, all parts found except the male part. She resurrected him and became with child, That is the meaning of the symbol of the obelisk. Like the one at St, Peters with a cross on the top. A lot of the symbols used of Rome have those pagan legends. They claim to have christianized them, but it is still troubling. Even easter is based more on a pagan day than the proper time to actually observe it, which is by the Jewish calander. Makes one wonder about that lady called Babylon.
I strongly disagree.Sola Scriptura shuts the door to heresies.
It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.
Infant baptism is a doctrine by implication....it is implied ]that in five households in the N.T. that were visited by salvation, there must surely have been young children. These were the households of Cornelius in Acts. 10, Lydia in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, Crispus in Acts 18, and Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16Scripture demonstrates (three times, per my recollection) that entire households were baptized.
Christ also commands BELIEVE and TEACH BEFORE one is baptized.Jesus Christ commands, "Go, baptize ..." but does not state in His command an age limit.
To imply that those households included infants is adding to Scripture.when entire households were baptizedTo claim an age limit for baptism is indeed to add to Scripture.
That was not a command for baptism."Suffer the little children to come unto Me."
The threads on these forum boards just seem to drift off topic. I have not been on any forum board where this is NOT the case. Sola Scriptura comes into the thread when we are dealing with topics that are extra-biblical. The assumption of Mary is not found in Scripture and neither is infant baptism.It sure is good to see that we don't wanna add to scripture. Of course, reading infants into that word households, may just be doing that too. What has all this got to do with the 'assumptioning of Mary' teaching,?, and talking about adding to scripture....might wanna look at that one.
Infant baptism is a doctrine by implication....it is implied ]that in five households in the N.T. that were visited by salvation, there must surely have been young children. These were the households of Cornelius in Acts. 10, Lydia in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, Crispus in Acts 18, and Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16
The Case of Cornelius. It is stated in Acts 10:24 that those gathered with him in the house were his kinsmen and near friends. He sends word that they are `all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee [Peter] of God.' In v. 44 the Holy Spirit fell upon all them which heard the Word. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit fell only upon those who have believed. Those gathered were capable of hearing the commands of God with a view to believing and obeying. It is specifically stated in Acts 11:17 that those who were saved and baptized with Cornelius were those "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." Obviously these were not tiny infants.
Lydia and Her Household (Acts 16:14-15). Nothing is said about infants in this passage, and it is highly unlikely that this busy merchant woman would have had tiny babies. There is no evidence here whatsoever for the practice of infant baptism.
The Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:30-34) This passage clearly says that Paul spoke the Word of God to the entire household (v. 32) and that the entire household believed (v. 32-33). This could not be said of infants.
The household of Crispus (Acts 18:8) Those who were saved and baptized in this family were all believers, for we are told, "Crispus ... believed on the Lord with all his house." The ages of the members of crispus' family were not told but Scripture states that each one of them believed on the Lord. Obviously, then, they were not infants.
The household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) Nothing is actually said about infants being present or baptized. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 it states that this household addicted themselves to the ministry. This could not be said of infants.
Christ also commands BELIEVE and TEACH BEFORE one is baptized.
Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37
To imply that those households included infants is adding to Scripture.when entire households were baptized
That was not a command for baptism.
No one has the right to interject what is omitted from Scripture just to bolster subjectively a supposed doctrine and ignore the clear teaching of many other portions of the Word of God. This is what is being done when you imply that infants were present and were baptized, when the Scripture never states such is the case.
The threads on these forum boards just seem to drift off topic. I have not been on any forum board where this is NOT the case. Sola Scriptura comes into the thread when we are dealing with topics that are extra-biblical. The assumption of Mary is not found in Scripture and neither is infant baptism.
Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture.
It doesn't matter if you had a signed document by the POTUS saying we are to baptize infants. Neither he, nor the ones you listed above would be correct. Scripture reveals belief in Christ is a necessity prerequisite for baptism. "If thou believest, thou mayest."Alright this is obviously going nowhere, basically your saying that infants could not have been in the household, and we're saying there were. So instead I'll get down to the problem all Anabaptists run into sooner or later, history.
We have statements by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Hippolytus of Rome saying straight up that infant's were baptized, and in the case of Hippolytus actually describing the ceremony of baptism for infants, all of these men lived between 130 and 254 AD. Also keep in mind that this was not merely the case in the Western Church. It occurred all throughout the Eastern and Western Churches. Even the Indian Church which was separated from the other churches extremely early on practices infant baptism.
The earliest account of infant baptism being standard practice in that list is from 130 AD just 30 years after the death of the St. John the Apostle. So how in your view did the church fall into a error that spread throughout the entire Roman Empire and India in just 30 years?
Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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.
The Word of God makes one perfect... thoroughly furnished. This clearly reveals that the Word of God is all one needs in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.
The assumption of Mary, however, is not taught in Scripture.
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.
Just as the old covenant was circumcision, the new covenant is through baptism...both for infants.
Timothy knew the "Old Testament" (probably the LXX) from his mother Eudiki. Paul indeed recommends these, but note that the word here for "complete" is "fit" but is not the same sense of teleios (which is a deeper sense as in fulfilled).Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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.
The Scriptures do not make us perfect; God does !The Word of God makes one perfect... thoroughly furnished. This clearly reveals that the Word of God is all one needs in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?