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.
You were the first and only one to mention scripture. I do appreciate that. However, then you seem to turn to tradition in your last paragraph. But we could discuss Church History. Did you ever really look at a survey of the ante-nicean Church Fathers? Some of the early ones did practice something like believers baptism, but by the time of Nicea, it was nearly universally infant baptism.
I notice you quote "Catholic Answers." They of course use scriptural references and assert that their practice is in accord with the bible. IT would be a much better discussion to pick just one of the references in the article you quoted and we could look at the context and work through it exegetically. If you wish to pursue that, feel free to pick the first reference you please and post it.Don, thanks for writing back. It is likely that for the first couple hundred years of Christian history, believers' and infant baptism would have existed side by side. Some Church Fathers do seem to reference infant baptism.
Early Teachings on Infant Baptism | Catholic Answers
I notice you quote "Catholic Answers." They of course use scriptural references and assert that their practice is in accord with the bible. IT would be a much better discussion to pick just one of the references in the article you quoted and we could look at the context and work through it exegetically. If you wish to pursue that, feel free to pick the first reference you please and post it.
With Roman Catholicism, or many other forms of Catholicism, the greater issue is the meaning behind baptism. In RCC doctrine, they would teach and believe in Baptismal justification. Of course protestants, even many protestants who baptize infants, deny that Baptism either regenerates, or justifies. Many Protestants would look upon that as inserting works of merit into salvation and herein lies the real theological issue.
You suggest that they existed side by side the first few hundred years. I am certainly not well read in Church history, but I would question if they existed side by side for the whole time. Is there anything written in the first century (either scriptural or from the fathers) that reflects infant baptism? A first century non-cannonical writing called the didache (~The Didache~) ( see chapter VII) also reflects believers baptism. Can another document from the first century be shown that reflects infant baptism? I would suggest that rather than seeing the history of baptism as a "side by side" I would see it as a transition where the two forms may have some overlap, and that it began with believers baptism, and moved to infant baptism.
I am not trying to introduce a new subject, but coming from my perspective, the issue is not the Church Fathers. The issue is the scriptures alone. But that is an issue for a different thread.
Especially when you consider how St Paul directly links circumcision under the OT with baptism under the NT. Under the Law, circumcision was a requirement for all males in order for them not to be cut off from the people of God. Under the Gospel, baptism is now the means through which God has promised to work in order to unite us with the benefits of the works and merits of Christ for us.I'm on the fence about this whole issue, but there is a Biblical basis for baby dedication...Jesus and Samuel being the two that come to mind...though there may be more that I'm not recalling at the moment. Now, the argument could be made that this was a Jewish custom that doesn't apply to New Covenant believers...but I'm pretty sure this is where the concept comes from, at least partly.
Matthew 28What Scriptures make a positive case for infant baptism?
Good points. Instead of setting an age (Infant, teen, adult) just go by what the Bible says. "...If thou believest (trust Jesus to save you) with all thine heart, thou mayest." Ac 8:37. Age isn't the issue, but faith in Christ having died for your sins, and offers to save you if invite Him to be your Savior (Ro 10:9,10,13).It's not that clear. For one thing, which verse says that Baptism is only for adults??
The answer would have to be "none." Just as was said about infant baptism.
Those who argue that only adults are eligible are using the same thinking that they criticize in Christians who baptize young children. That is to say, they interpret and make a reasoned assumption. That's hardly any different from what advocates of infant baptism do by pointing to the scriptural reference to "whole households" being baptized.
While it's true that there are verses that clearly show us adults being baptized, that's not the issue here. No one on these forums has said that adults should not be baptized. The question is whether the ordinance/sacrament should be restricted to adults.
There is nothing in scripture which says so.
In addition, the supporters of "believer's baptism" do not practice what they preach. That damages their argument IMO. They not only have invented--purely invented--a ceremony that amounts to a mock sacrament with the ritual called "dedication" of a newborn. And they also baptize (under the cover of "adults only") 8 and 9 and 10 year olds who are by no stretch of the actually "adults" capable of making an informed and adult commitment to Christ.
So we have to earn our salvation by inviting Jesus to be our savior? God requires us to do something before he will save us?Good points. Instead of setting an age (Infant, teen, adult) just go by what the Bible says. "...If thou believest (trust Jesus to save you) with all thine heart, thou mayest." Ac 8:37. Age isn't the issue, but faith in Christ having died for your sins, and offers to save you if invite Him to be your Savior (Ro 10:9,10,13).
So we have to earn our salvation by inviting Jesus to be our savior? God requires us to do something before he will save us?
Scripture plainly states that we are spiritually dead before God acts to save us. How do dead people do anything so that God will then save them?[/QUOTE
We don't earn our salvation in any way. Salvation is by grace (unmerited), Eph 2:8. Yes, God requires we put faith in Him, and obey Him to call upon Him to save us, Ro 10:13. Physically dead people do nothing, Heb 9:27; "And it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment." Spiritually dead people that are still physically alive are spiritually separated from God, but still conscious of God, and can call on Him to save them from their sins, thus making them spiritually alive, and united with God, Eph 2:1,2. "And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Col 2:13, speaking to Christians.
Please explain the underlined portion in light of the verse quoted below.Spiritually dead people that are still physically alive are spiritually separated from God, but still conscious of God, and can call on Him to save them from their sins, thus making them spiritually alive, and united with God, Eph 2:1,2. "And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" Col 2:13, speaking to Christians.
1Co 2:14 is a very familiar verse to me. First of all, we all start out as a "natural" person. This verse is speaking in general terms that the natural man usually doesn't accept the basic things of God, let alone the deeper things of God. But if it was all inclusive of everything (rather than general with some exceptions) NO ONE COULD BE SAVED. But those that are saved, were Natural Persons first (spiritually dead but with the ability to at least be aware of God when he called them, and did sense the wooing (pre-salvation work) of the H.S. The natural man usually fulfills Jn 1:11 and does not accept the things of God or accept Christ as Savior. "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." But those that are saved are the exception, as found in v. 12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." If 1CoPlease explain the underlined portion in light of the verse quoted below.
1 Corinthians 2
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
You do realize the Eastern churches immerse infants three times? And the Latin church did the same till the 10th century.Jumping in briefly, I will insert my own observation. Having been sprinkled as a baby in a Presbyterian church and coming to saving faith in Jesus Christ as a young adult apart from the church, I encountered Christians who rejected infant baptism.
Interestingly, it was a conservation (PCA) Presbyterian pastor who provided great clarity for me on the issue. He gave me a list of every use of the Greek words related to baptism in scripture. What nailed it for me was Mark 7:4 (and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)) The word for washing is the same as baptizing in Greek. I don't wash my tableware by sprinkling water on it and calling it good lest I drown the things. I immerse them.
Hence, I have concluded that baptism and washing are one and the same in Greek. How do I was myself? I get all wet, preferably in a good bathtub, which is the only means available other than outdoor bodies of water. What would happen if I immersed a baby? If I was not careful the baby would drown. Therefore, I rejected the baptism of infants and the sprinkling of people as a normative form of biblical baptism.
In order to get both views probably best to post this question in sub forums where they practise infant baptism and those who do not practise it.Is there anything written in the first century (either scriptural or from the fathers) that reflects infant baptism? A first century non-cannonical writing called the didache (~The Didache~) ( see chapter VII) also reflects believers baptism. Can another document from the first century be shown that reflects infant baptism? I would suggest that rather than seeing the history of baptism as a "side by side" I would see it as a transition where the two forms may have some overlap, and that it began with believers baptism, and moved to infant baptism.
.
Neither do the Holy Scriptures.
For one thing, no one can be re-baptized. Baptism is indelible.
You do realize the Eastern churches immerse infants three times? And the Latin church did the same till the 10th century.
The scripture clearly teaches infant baptism. That's not even up for debate (I won't say which verse, but plenty of bible experts with knowledge of greek here may know which one) The problem arises because we confuse the 'οικος' of Acts 16:31 to how a modern family is ordered. The oikos included all dependants under the 'Kyrios' (master or head) of his household. This included slaves, adopted members, children etc. In Acts 16:31 the apostles don't say you and all your oikos, EXCEPT if there be kids under 8 years of age or to your servants children etc. They said your entire household fullstop, before they ever knew who constituted that household.
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?