“Suffer the little children to come unto me” sounds pretty clear.
Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state that we are not to baptize our children before they are sophisticated enough to be taught to obey all things whatsoever Christ has commanded them.
The sixteenth century is early? Since when?
Adam was a type of Christ. 1 Peter 3 says that the ark was a type of baptism.
You’ve at least got that right.
Noah wasn’t baptized. Noah was in an ark. You’re misusing the term “baptism” here.
Let’s repeat that for good measure. Baptism doth also now save us.
That’s exactly what that passage says, and it’s exactly what that passage has always been interpreted as saying.
Peter used Noah’s ark illustratively, to illustrate the fact that Baptism doth also now save us.
Peter’s clarification was of how baptism saves. It saves, not as a cleansing of the flesh, but as an appeal for a good conscience before God.
Who said anything about John’s baptism here?
I’ve already shown you that this is a mistranslation, and you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever to counter this claim.
Peter uses Noah’s ark as a type of baptism precisely because he wanted to emphasize that water baptism now saves us. He clarifies that baptism doesn’t save us by cleansing away filth from the flesh becuase he’s talking about water baptism, and people might be prone to misunderstand why water baptism saves us. This is the way the passage has always been interpreted.
Peter didn’t say that. Your KJV says that. Peter said, “the appeal to God for a good conscience.”
The illustrative act was Noah’s ark. The illustrated act was baptism.
An entirely unsubstantiated claim, as most or all of yours seem to be.
The grammar very clearly indicates that it does modify “Baptism doth also now save us.” You don’t have another option provided by the Greek grammar.
You don’t believe that baptism saves us, remember?
All of our grace is received through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, so this makes sense.
So now even the parentheses of the KJV are inspired?
The clarification in parentheses clarifies the manner by which baptism saves us.
And we’re back to the conspiracy theories. “I have no idea how they would do this, but they would find a way.”
His argument that they didn’t have baths is strong evidence that they didn’t always do baptism by immersion. In conjunction with the fact that baptism by immersion is never commanded in the Bible, it’s a pretty darn strong indication that baptism by immersion is not the only biblical method of water baptism.
The Greek doesn’t say that. Heck, your KJV doesn’t even say that.
Nice try, but you have no proof the baptism was outside.
Bibleapologist,
ahem, ahem; 
cough, cough…]
heck, I assure you) suggest that, before asking this of others, that you consent to take the same advice?
little unfair when, in open debate, the Baptist side demands of the Catholic side adherence to a rule that said Baptist is seemingly:tsktsk: unwilling and/or unable to apply to himself…Might we hear a
speculation, please, as to what that way might be ???assuming that, being Baptists, that a raindance was right out…).
Does that include All Scripture - does it include the stuff the Apostle said he could not write down because there was too much of it - …the stuff the Apostle must have taught the Churches Personally By spoken word - because there was No written new testament Scriptures. I can see the Apostle teaching Everything to the Church that Christ had taught him - as Christ had commanded him to obey Eveything He taught the Apostle. I can also see some Apostles writing letters to the Church encouraging them to continue to hold fast to the Doctrines the Apostles had taught them. And I see someone sending a request to an Apostle for more information on the Story of Christ. And I see an Apostle responding with the written Gospel account telling him that its contents were for Those Who Wished To Learn More. The Written Gospel Scripture being a step by step account of Christs life which would enhance All the Doctrines and teachings the Apostles had already handed on to the Church from Christ - the same which the Church has always perserved and taught.
You’re exactly right… Baptism does save us, just not water baptism. Like I said earlier in this thread, there is more than just one baptism mentioned in the New Testament, I have shown that.
It symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection… and identifies ourselves with Christ and His death burial, and resurrection to the observers.
So the ark was not a type of Christ… even though the eight were saved by water… Isn’t it Jesus that saves? Or is it a work that saves us? If it is a work, such as baptism, why would we need Jesus?
If the ark was a type of baptism, how can you say that Noah wasn’t baptized? The truth is, my explanation still stands… Noah was baptized in a figurative sense, and he was saved from judgement through that baptism… which is the same way Peter uses the term baptism in verse 21 (figuratively)… a spiritual baptism.
Exactly, and that is why in verse 21 Peter says: “The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us”. Peter was still using the term baptism in an illustrative sense to describe a spiritual event hence the opening statement “the like figure”.
I’ll take that last statement as a challenge.
What are you talking about we are already born of water? I came from my mothers womb not water. also please respond to my post 82
Of course not, but the scripture is clear that faith is required for justification…
John
What I am trying to prove, is that the early churches in the New Testament practices baptism by immersion, which that argument would supercede any historical reference I would give you concerning the anabaptists.
Actually the General Baptists, and the Particular Baptists were identified at the same time. General meaning “general atonement”, and Particular meaning “particular atonement”, or only a few were chosen for atonement. As far as the split occuring in 1609, they were both immersion baptists… one was John Smythe, and the other was led by Thomas Hellewys. That split occured in Amsterdam.
That is not a baptist practice. The illustrative work of baptism is the first act of obedience to Christ… most Baptists believe in eternal security so there is no need for a re-baptizing if that person was truly saved to begin with… there may be so-called baptists who believe you can lose your salvation, so you need to re-establish your baptism. The only problem with that is, we all sin every day, that would mean that we lose our salvation every day… and would therefore need to be baptized every day. That’s kind of silly.
THIS STATMENT IS FOR EVERYONE TO READ