Why Credo-Baptism by Immersion is the biblical mode of baptism

SaintCody777

The young, curious Berean
Jan 11, 2018
315
317
29
Miami, Florida
✟53,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Today, as I was playing in my home swimming pool with my dad, right after my mom and I dunked him under the water, I said to my dad and mom, "Now that is how a real baptism is done. Not by having a priest pour water on my head when I was a baby."
When I was 15 and went on a high school field trip to a municipal pool, a Hatian student dunked me and other students in the water the way a Baptist baptizer does just to play around with us.
I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic church. I never remembered at the age of 6 months, ever professing my faith before getting baptized. And how can babies and toddlers do the Biblical prerequisite (Acts 2:38 [No, I'm not saying it has to be done in Jesus-name only] and Acts 8:36-37) to getting baptized?
I was confirmed as a Catholic by the time I was 15 years old, supposedly verifying and confirming my baby baptism in my responsibility effect.
I'd adhere to the normative principle, if something is not addressed specifically in Scripture, it is not forbidden (Romans 14.) But I have to ask pedo-baptists, how can the whole families that were baptized, like the Phillipian prison guard, include babies and toddlers who can't first confess faith in Christ, as per book of Acts?
And that Colossians 2:12 gives burial underwater and resurrection out of it as a symbolic demonstration of faith. That's also how the Ethiopian enoch was baptized in Acts 8.
This is how a baby or a tot would really feel when being baptized (look towards the end of the video when Stewie Griffin gets baptized);
 

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
'd adhere to the normative principle, if something is not addressed specifically in Scripture, it is not forbidden (Romans 14.) But I have to ask pedo-baptists, how can the whole families that were baptized, like the Phillipian prison guard, include babies and toddlers who can't first confess faith in Christ, as per book of Acts?

Faith is more than just intellectual consent.

1) Young children can have Faith per the Bible. e.g. "suffer the little children to come onto me". Dealt with very young children. Like toddler age. Children also are used in the Bible as an example of Faith.


2) The Bible also shows that little children are under their parents protection until the age of consent etc.
e.g. Passover, Bat Mitzoh instruction did not begin till adolescence etc.


3) Faith is not just about the individual but the group as well. In the Bible, their is very little mention of having Jesus as a "personal lord and savior", instead scripture talks about "being in Covenant", as an Israelite, or member of the Church. Faith is part of being part of the Body of Christ. Number 3 is the main reason for believing that babies were baptized as part of a household, besides point 2.


4) I would also cite the historic witness of the Church. Their are many adult baptisms in early Christianity, and many ancient Christians put off their baptism (because the issue of how sin was dealt with post baptism was foggy for many), but there is no record of people questioning child baptism until the Anabaptists. And if you study Church history that really says something! (It suggests that this view point is an innovation and not in a good way).
 
Upvote 0

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So, the only examples that we have in Scripture are either of adults who have come to faith in Christ being baptized, and also of “entire households “ being baptized on the basis of at least one person’s Christian faith.

Now, what Scripture doesn’t tell us is what was done with the future children of those new Christians. Archeological and Patristic witness verifies infant baptism.

Again, entire households were baptized according to one member’s Christian faith. Ages aren’t mentioned. But a single adult coming to faith in Christ and requesting baptism and the situation mentioned above are completely different.
 
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Given that you're Orthodox, don't you mean Paedo-Baptism?


Good point, but the OP is questioning paedobaptism because a child cannot say or give assent etc. at least that is how I read that comment.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Radagast
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Good point, but the OP is questioning paedobaptism because a child cannot say or give assent etc. at least that is how I read that comment.

Never mind, I got confused as to which post was the OP.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
So, the only examples that we have in Scripture are either of adults who have come to faith in Christ being baptized, and also of “entire households “ being baptized on the basis of at least one person’s Christian faith.

Now, what Scripture doesn’t tell us is what was done with the future children of those new Christians. Archeological and Patristic witness verifies infant baptism.

Again, entire households were baptized according to one member’s Christian faith. Ages aren’t mentioned. But a single adult coming to faith in Christ and requesting baptism and the situation mentioned above are completely different.

There was a great quote from @Albion that I got from a thread on baptism, probably over a year and a half ago. I think it really fits the OP. I loved it so much I quoted it a while back, when I was Facebook blogging on Baptism. Thanks Albion.

(In reference to the lack of "clear" Bible passages showing or depicting infants being baptized)

"The only reason that instances are recorded in the New Testament of followers of Christ speaking to adult converts about being baptized is because, when the whole world is to be evangelized, OF COURSE they would go first to adults! Wouldn't you? You wouldn't expect them to cruise schoolyards trying to convince children, would you???? But when it says that "whole households" were baptized, as the NT says, it means children, too.

In fact, it is ludicrous to assume (which advocates of "believers baptism" often do) either that 1) there were no children in the households of people of that place and time OR that 2) the parents would join a new religion and insist that their own children be excluded from it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Knee V
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
This is how a baby or a tot would really feel when being baptized (look towards the end of the video when Stewie Griffin gets baptized);

Ever seen how a baby or toddler looks when receiving a vaccine, or has to eat their vegetables?

Baptism is of far greater importance than either of those things.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In fact, it is ludicrous to assume (which advocates of "believers baptism" often do) either that 1) there were no children in the households of people of that place and time OR that 2) the parents would join a new religion and insist that their own children be excluded from it.

Jewish children became part of God's family. This is what circumcision indicated.

Christianity is not less generous than Judaism.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟394,138.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Baptism is not something we do for God, but something God does for us, so who are we to deny children God's grace? I can't think of any instances in God's Word where children are specifically denied God's grace, but I can think of many examples of children receiving God's grace. Simply, before God, adults and children alike are equally helpless and in need of Christ.

Only in the theological framework where it's believed that Baptism is a simple rite, or a work, or a personal pledge, or a mere public declaration of faith, or only an act of obedience, does exclusive adult Baptism make sense. The problem is, that's not how Scriptures talk about Baptism. I used to believe this, but I would encourage everyone who holds to this view to read everything the Bible has to say about Baptism, washing with water and the Spirit, and being born again, you can find that it's a lot more than a simple public declaration of faith, as it's often expressed in our day. Baptism is not our pledge to God, but God's pledge to us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?’ And Philip said, ‘If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest’. And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” Acts 8:36–38 (NCPB)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Coady
Upvote 0

SaintCody777

The young, curious Berean
Jan 11, 2018
315
317
29
Miami, Florida
✟53,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
4) I would also cite the historic witness of the Church. Their are many adult baptisms in early Christianity, and many ancient Christians put off their baptism (because the issue of how sin was dealt with post baptism was foggy for many), but there is no record of people questioning child baptism until the Anabaptists. And if you study Church history that really says something! (It suggests that this view point is an innovation and not in a good way).

What about the Waldensians of the medieval times? Here's a quote from a Gundulphus in about 1025 about baby baptism:

Because to an infant that neither wills nor runs, that knows nothing of faith, is ignorant of its own salvation and welfare, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration or confession; the will, faith and confession of another seem not in the least to appertain
" [Gill’s Divine Right of Infant Baptism, etc., p. 29].

Also, the in the Roman empire, after it adopted Christianity as the civil religion, had declared those who baptized adults and not babies to be outlaws of Roman society.
The history is explained from 9:50 onwards in this video,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
That is still a thousand years after the fact..... And I would say innovation still applies it just has roots 500 years sooner than I claimed.



Mathew 16

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



If you believe this sort of thing, you basically are saying that God did not do this. He essentially let the gates of Hell prevail over the Church for an entire millennia. Only to give it a brief rescue in one geographical area, but otherwise let the gates of Hell prevail until the coming of the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation.
 
Upvote 0

SaintCody777

The young, curious Berean
Jan 11, 2018
315
317
29
Miami, Florida
✟53,520.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
That is still a thousand years after the fact..... And I would say innovation still applies it just has roots 500 years sooner than I claimed.
I was simply giving evidence that credobaptism was done by underground sects by saying that in just a few hundred years after the Book of Acts, the emperor considered anyone who believed or done credobaptism to be an outlaw.


Mathew 16

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



If you believe this sort of thing, you basically are saying that God did not do this. He essentially let the gates of Hell prevail over the Church for an entire millennia. Only to give it a brief rescue in one geographical area, but otherwise let the gates of Hell prevail until the coming of the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation.
The church was persecuted for the first few hundred years. It was only when Christianity got adopted by the Roman empire when credobaptism was mentioned as a capital crime, meaning that underground credobaptist sects were around between the Apostles and the Anabaptists. I was giving evidence that credibaptism was practiced between the time of the Apostles and the time of the Anabaptists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I guess this thread reminds of of a saying from psychology / counseling. (I wanted to be a psychologist, or some kind of counselor "when I grew up, but hit a snag or two while in graduate school and never completed that life's ambition). The saying which came from studies on communication etc., was that most questions, roughly 70% or so, are not genuine inquiries for information, but actually are veiled expressions of opinion (Expressing an opinion in a less force way out of politeness, lack of confidence etc.)

Certainly, if you are driven to want to believe in Credobaptism their is no Church Gestapo to hunt you down and force you to believe infant baptism. It is a free country etc.


I for one however do not think that is very sound epistemologically speaking. Do you for instance believe in: "the full Divinity of Jesus"? That he is "true God and True Man"? The Trinity? The received Canon of the New Testament? Because those beliefs, and inheritances likewise come from the same people that gave you infant baptism.

Besides that there is also an aspect of alternative history, concerning "The Trail of blood" etc. claim of some baptists etc. that is kind of on par with other revisionist history groups like the Mormons, Islam as far as their modus operandi goes.

But hey if this is the way you want to go, knock yourself out!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The church was persecuted for the first few hundred years. It was only when Christianity got adopted by the Roman empire when credobaptism was mentioned as a capital crime, meaning that underground credobaptist sects were around between the Apostles and the Anabaptists. I was giving evidence that credibaptism was practiced between the time of the Apostles and the time of the Anabaptists.

Where were these credobaptists outside of the Roman Empire? How come Christianity in Armenia, Persia, Ethiopia, and everywhere else had the same beliefs and practices as Christianity in the Roman Empire?

The Persian Empire continued to persecute Christians even as Christianity had already received official toleration under Constantine, even as Christianity had become the official religion under Theodosius. The Sassanids continued to persecute the Church.

Where were these secret credobaptists?

Where were the credobaptists in India? Armenia? Persia? Ethiopia? And everywhere else Christianity had already long been established long before Rome even made Christianity legal, let alone the official religion of Rome.

You quote what you say is a person named Gundulphus, however the source I can find states that these remarks come from Gerard, bishop of Cambray and Arrus, speaking of a group led by a certain man named Gundulphus. (Western Baptist Review, volume 4); providing the same source you provide.

And from that source,

"Mr. Stennet relates from Dr. Allix, a passage concerning one Gundulphus and his followers in Italy; divers of whom, Gerard, bishop of Cambray and Arras, interrogated upon several heads in the year 1025: and among other things, that bishop mentions the following reason, which they gave against infant baptism; "because to an infant, that neither wills nor runs, that knows nothing of faith, is ignorant of its own salvation and welfare, in whom there can be no desire of regeneration or confession; the will, faith and confession of another seem not in the least to appertain." Dr. Wall, indeed, represents these men the disciples of Gundulphus, as Quakers and Manichees in the point of baptism, holding that water baptism is of no use to any:" - John Gill, The Divine Right of Infant Baptism: Examined and Disproved

As is usually the case in this kind of narrative, the appeal is always to find an individual, or even a group, somewhere that opposed the baptism of infants, and then to prop it up as evidence of a secret, underground lineage of Christians who believe "as I do", most famously obviously being Landmarksim, and this is really just another version of that.

I find it significant that time and again whenever a Landmarkist, or Landmarkist-like narrative is attempted, there is always a piecemeal, cherry-picked set of "proofs", little attention being paid to the broader context of the individuals and groups. No attention is paid, for example, that a group opposed the baptism of infants because we are dealing with out-and-out heretics. Heretical not just because they deny the meaning and significance and application of Baptism; but heretics because they deny the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. It's not an accident that frequently the charge of Manichaeanism is found, for example against groups such as the Cathars, the Bogomils, the Paulicians, et al.

Or, in addition, claims are made of certain groups which are never cited, for example that the Waldenses refused the baptism of infants; a claim that is made all the more strange considering that the Waldenses themselves willingly embraced the Reformed tradition of the Reformation, hence the Waldensian Church is a Protestant church within the Reformed tradition of John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. I am unable to find anything which would suggest that the Waldenses ever denied the efficacy of Baptism, or denied Baptism to infants. In fact, originally the Waldenses were simply lay preachers, but because they engaged in lay preaching without the permission of the local clergy, it brought them into conflict with the clergy. The Waldenses were not some long lost group of secret Christians who practiced credobaptism; they were a lay preaching movement that took issue with the excesses of the medieval Western Church, arguing in favor of Christian simplicity. They show up at a time in the history of Western Europe where these sorts of reactionary movements against Ecclesiastical excesses were becoming more frequent. Just look at St. Francis of Assissi; though where Francis and the Franciscans obtained favor from Rome, and the Waldenses didn't can probably be attributed, in part, to the fact that even though the Waldenses received a blessing from the Pope to preach, they were told to do so only under the authority of the local clergy, which they ignored; Francis on the other hand and his movement remained in good standing with church authorities. On the other hand, whether or not a movement received sanction or condemnation seemed somewhat whimsical, based upon the particular circumstances and the particular individuals involved and their temperament.

Landmarkism, or its various permutations, is consistently rejected by serious historians and academics; regardless of the religious beliefs of said historians and academics. It is rejected because it lacks the weight of evidence and substance. It relies on cherry-picking data, making claims that cannot be backed up and verified, and seeks to weave a narrative connecting dots throughout history completely regardless of whether there is basis to do so. Do we have groups and individuals who rejected infant baptism? Sure, but are there reasons for rejecting it all the same? No. Is there a line of connectivity between them? No.

I mean, I get it. How romantic would it be if one was part of some secret society of clandestine underground True Christians surviving against all odds. But, that's just not a thing. It's never been a thing. Because, again, we have persecuted Christians outside of the Roman Empire, and we know what their beliefs and practices were and are. And they believed and practiced just like their Christian brothers and sisters within the Roman Empire.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,009
Flyoverland
✟1,224,061.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
But I have to ask pedo-baptists, how can the whole families that were baptized, like the Phillipian prison guard, include babies and toddlers who can't first confess faith in Christ, as per book of Acts?
I would think you would be asking the credo-baptists how that works. They would have to add to to the text that whole families didn't include any young people.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,786
Pacific Northwest
✟728,226.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Today, as I was playing in my home swimming pool with my dad, right after my mom and I dunked him under the water, I said to my dad and mom, "Now that is how a real baptism is done. Not by having a priest pour water on my head when I was a baby."
When I was 15 and went on a high school field trip to a municipal pool, a Hatian student dunked me and other students in the water the way a Baptist baptizer does just to play around with us.
I was baptized as a baby in the Catholic church. I never remembered at the age of 6 months, ever professing my faith before getting baptized. And how can babies and toddlers do the Biblical prerequisite (Acts 2:38 [No, I'm not saying it has to be done in Jesus-name only] and Acts 8:36-37) to getting baptized?
I was confirmed as a Catholic by the time I was 15 years old, supposedly verifying and confirming my baby baptism in my responsibility effect.
I'd adhere to the normative principle, if something is not addressed specifically in Scripture, it is not forbidden (Romans 14.) But I have to ask pedo-baptists, how can the whole families that were baptized, like the Phillipian prison guard, include babies and toddlers who can't first confess faith in Christ, as per book of Acts?

From the historically Christian point of view, this is really easy: Personal confession of faith comes later, as the child is raised up in the faith.

This is much harder for the credobaptist, however, as they have to try and explain why infants and small children couldn't have been baptized.

And that Colossians 2:12 gives burial underwater and resurrection out of it as a symbolic demonstration of faith.

No it doesn't. No where in Colossians 2:12 does it mention a "symbolic demonstration of faith", it says exactly what it means: we were buried with Christ in Baptism. Paul means what he says here. There's no "symbolic demonstration of faith", that's something credobaptists have to add to the text, but the text doesn't say that, it says that we were buried with Christ in our baptism. When we were baptized, we died with Christ, we were buried with Christ, we were raised with Christ, we were born again in Christ. That's what Baptism means, and what Baptism does. It's simply what Scripture says.

That's also how the Ethiopian enoch was baptized in Acts 8.

"And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing." - Acts of the Apostles 8:36-39

I suspect what you have in mind, however, is verse 37, which isn't found in most Bibles as it is pretty commonly recognized to be a late addition to the text. Which reads (quoting from the Douay-Rheims, one of the few Bible translations that has it),

"And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Now, here's something that I don't think many credobaptists would really think about, but let's examine this critically.

This verse is a late addition, but what is the point here? Was it inserted in later manuscripts in order to say that only adult converts can be baptized? Or does it perhaps make more sense in the context of a more standardized Rite of Baptism which we see in later centuries, where adult catechumens are called on to profess their faith. This is still the normative Rite of Baptism even today, the catechumen is asked, "Do you believe in God the Father?" and "Do you believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God?" etc. The historic Creeds are themselves the product of this most ancient Baptismal confession. And this isn't just for adults mind you, when an infant is baptized the same Rite is used, only the child has a sponsor (or sponsors), usually their parents.

Because we aren't separating Baptism from the profession of faith. But the profession of faith is not what gives validity to Baptism, rather Baptism solidifies and cements and gives basis for the profession of faith. A profession of faith that isn't just one time mind you, but is to be professed and confessed and believed for one's entire lifetime. It doesn't really matter if one is an infant or an adult, both will be growing into that faith and confession as Christians. That's why we recite the Creed [almost] every time we worship. Our gathered worship together constitutes the hearing of God's word, the receiving of God's gifts, and also our confession--our confession of our sins, our confession of our faith in Christ, our confession of thanksgiving and praise to God. The Liturgy is a Conversation, where we hear the Word of God and respond by saying, "Amen. God has spoken."

So what Acts 8:37 does is provide a late addition affirmation of the common Christian Rite of Baptism. It does not produce some kind of divinely proscribed order of events. The text is not proscriptive in that way. So even if one does believe that Acts 8:37 is supposed to be in the text, it does not achieve the ends which the credobaptist may wish it did.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ralliann

christian
Jun 27, 2007
6,112
1,696
✟201,659.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Jewish children became part of God's family. This is what circumcision indicated.

Christianity is not less generous than Judaism.
Not just Judaism. Abraham was to circumcise his entire household. Not just his natural offspring but all that were born in his house. His servants children were part of his household. Baptism in Judaism signified discipleship. Hence John's baptism was to his disciples. All Children are to be under the instruction in the Lord first from their parents.
Ge 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dan Perez

Well-Known Member
Dec 13, 2018
2,549
270
87
Arcadia
✟193,984.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Faith is more than just intellectual consent.

1) Young children can have Faith per the Bible. e.g. "suffer the little children to come onto me". Dealt with very young children. Like toddler age. Children also are used in the Bible as an example of Faith.


2) The Bible also shows that little children are under their parents protection until the age of consent etc.
e.g. Passover, Bat Mitzoh instruction did not begin till adolescence etc.


3) Faith is not just about the individual but the group as well. In the Bible, their is very little mention of having Jesus as a "personal lord and savior", instead scripture talks about "being in Covenant", as an Israelite, or member of the Church. Faith is part of being part of the Body of Christ. Number 3 is the main reason for believing that babies were baptized as part of a household, besides point 2.


4) I would also cite the historic witness of the Church. Their are many adult baptisms in early Christianity, and many ancient Christians put off their baptism (because the issue of how sin was dealt with post baptism was foggy for many), but there is no record of people questioning child baptism until the Anabaptists. And if you study Church history that really says something! (It suggests that this view point is an innovation and not in a good way).
I believe that WATER BAPTISM was not known until John 1:31 And I knew Him NOT //OV is a DISUNCATIVE PAARTICLE NEGATIVE and means that I jOHN nevrerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr new Christ , but that he should be MADE manifest to Israel ( does say to GENTILES ) therefore am I come BAPTIZING with WATER .

These is where WATER BAPTIZING began with Israel .

The next question is WHY DID Israel have to be WATER BAPTIZED ??


And here is another wrinkle to WATER BAPTISM !!


In 1 Cor 10:2 and all were BAPTIZED unto Moses in the CLOUD , and in the SEA ?

How did that happen ?

#1 How does a Pastor Baptized into Moses ??

#2 BAPTIZE into the CLOUD ?

#3 And BAPTIZE all unto the CLOUD ?

dan p
 
Upvote 0