Baptism... And the True Church

[bibleapologist]

Odell

What are you talking about we are already born of water? I came from my mothers womb not water.

That is the whole point of Jesus telling Nicodemus to be “born again”. He had already been born once… he needed to be born again…

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Being born of water IS being born of flesh… but to get to heaven you must be born of the Spirit.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

What I am trying to prove, is that the early churches in the New Testament practices baptism by immersion

Where in the Bible are we told that early churches practiced baptism by immersion? Answer: We aren’t.

My arguments are that the early churches practices baptism by immersion

Where in the Bible are we told that early churches practiced baptism by immersion? Answer: We aren’t.

and the doctrine of baptism expained biblically only allows for immersion baptisms

Where in the Bible are we told that immersion is the only valid form of baptism? Answer: We aren’t.

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.

Prove it.

The Baptist William Whitsitt wrote in 1880 that the first Baptists baptized by sprinkling or pouring. According to him, it was not until 1641 that the first Baptist church in Europe began immersion baptisms and not until 1644 that the first American Baptist church did so.

You’ve shown no concrete evidence to the contrary.

 

[Eden]

bibleapologist:

Many early "anabaptist’ sects referred to Infant Baptism as “the badge of the Antichrist”… and I concur.

When you concur that infant baptism is “the badge of the Anti-Christ”, with what specifically are you concurring? Can you please expound upon this idea of Catholics as wearing a badge of the Anti-Christ? I want to be sure that I understand the implication before responding more fully.

 

[jemfinch]

So the ark was not a type of Christ…

No, in 1 Peter 3, the ark is being given as a type of baptism, not a type of Christ. The ark is related to baptism in that they both save through water.

even though the eight were saved by water… Isn’t it Jesus that saves?

Of course it’s Jesus that saves. But Jesus isn’t what the ark’s being compared to in 1 Peter 3. You have no textual support for such a claim.

Or is it a work that saves us? If it is a work, such as baptism,

Baptism is no more a work than the sinner’s prayer, or even your “intellectual assent” to the gospels. All involve an act of the will.

why would we need Jesus?

Another tired, old strawman. I would have expected you to know better by now.

If the ark was a type of baptism, how can you say that Noah wasn’t baptized?

Noah did not receive water baptism.

The truth is, my explanation still stands…

Still stands? Your explanation never stood in the first place. You made arbitrary distinctions and postulated unnecessary entities in order to conform the Scripture to your preconceived theology.

Noah was baptized in a figurative sense, and he was saved from judgement through that baptism…

You’re twisting words to try to squeeze this passage into your theological mold. Baptism, when used figuratively (and there’s only one place I know of in the Bible that happens definitively) is a metaphor for suffering. Noah, clearly, was saved from suffering; I’m not sure his 40 days on the ark were ever presented as a “suffering time” for him.

which is the same way Peter uses the term baptism in verse 21 (figuratively)… a spiritual baptism.

Again, you ignore the main import of the passage. The reason why Noah and the ark is brought up is because it is a type of salvation through water. Peter even says this! Just as eight were saved through water, so baptism also saves you. Peter is clearly talking about water baptism!

Let me make this next quote in context:

bibleapologist:

Then you made correct observation which contradicted the previous statements…

jemfinch:

bibleapologist:

but Peter was still using that water baptism illustratively.

Peter used Noah’s ark illustratively, to illustrate the fact that Baptism doth also now save us.

Now I suppose I’m getting a better idea of how you can read the clear statements of the Bible and somehow believe that they support your theology; I’ve just witnessed you reading my own clear statements and somehow misinterpreting them in such a way that has me in agreement with you! I’m going to be brutally honest here: I have no idea how you can do this. Do you not actually read what I say? Do you not actually think about what I say? Does your blind hope spring so eternally that you actually think I was agreeing with you?

You said “Peter was using water baptism illustratively,” and I replied with, "Peter was using Noah’s ark illustratively. Later in that very same post I said, “The illustrative act was Noah’s ark. The illustrated act was baptism.” I even bolded the endings so that you couldn’t be confused as to what I was saying.

And yet you still, somehow, think that I both contradicted myself and agreed with you. Amazing. I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to apply a better hermeneutic to my own words than you apply to the Bible: you believe what you want to believe, and nothing at all can convince you otherwise.

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”.

No he was not. Peter was using Noah’s ark to illustrate baptism. Baptism itself is what is illustrated. You’ve perceived that this passage destroys your theology, so you’ve postulated an utterly unnecessary, unwritten entity that baptism can illustrate, just so you don’t have to abandon the traditions of your fathers.

I think you are starting to understand jemfinch.

Don’t insult me.

Jeremy

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

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.

You said it right… the baptism that Jesus described to Nicodemus was the same baptism that Peter descibes in Acts 2… being born of Spirit. Where you are wrong, is that we are all already born of water… when our mother’s gave birth to us. That is why Jesus corrected Nicodemus when he asked “can a man enter again into his mother’s womb?”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Oh please, John, give me a break.

Nicodemus was simply showing he didn’t understand what Jesus was talking about. Jesus said we must be born “anothen” - either “from above” or “again” - the word had both meanings in the OT and NT. Nicodemus, looking from the worldy view, thought Jesus meant born again. Jesus, looking from the Spiritual view, mean from above (which is where the Spirit comes from).

Being born from the mother’s womb is a rhetorical statement, for we all are born of water in your context. Jesus could have simply said, unless one has a mouth and is born of Spirit, using this technique. Your use of the term “of water” does not qualify anything in the slightest.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

It symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection… and identifies ourselves with Christ and His death burial, and resurrection to the observers.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You didn’t answer my questions"

  	 				By the way, where does it say that Baptism should only be by full immersion?

And if it’s only a symbol of our “Baptism of Faith”, then why is immersion so important?

If it’s a symbol, why is it so important?

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

Another tired, old strawman. I would have expected you to know better by now.

That was not a strawman… you’re using that term too loosely… show me how it is a strawman, I felt like I made a valid argument.

You’re twisting words to try to squeeze this passage into your theological mold. Baptism, when used figuratively (and there’s only one place I know of in the Bible that happens definitively) is a metaphor for suffering. Noah, clearly, was saved from suffering; I’m not sure his 40 days on the ark were ever presented as a “suffering time” for him.

Actually the place you are claiming that baptism was used figuratively as a metaphor for suffering… was a metaphor for spiritual baptism… the “cup” was the metaphor for suffering which is substantiated by “let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39)

Again, you ignore the main import of the passage. The reason why Noah and the ark is brought up is because it is a type of salvation through water. Peter even says this! Just as eight were saved through water, so baptism also saves you. Peter is clearly talking about water baptism!

Yes, the ark was a type of salvation through water… and baptism does save you… but you have not proven that it is through water baptism… because you can’t… it is a spiritual baptism which is salvation.

No he was not. Peter was using Noah’s ark to illustrate baptism. Baptism itself is what is illustrated. You’ve perceived that this passage destroys your theology, so you’ve postulated an utterly unnecessary, unwritten entity that baptism can illustrate, just so you don’t have to abandon the traditions of your fathers.

No, baptism itself was not what was illustrated in verse 20. It was salvation… you stated this yourself JF… “eight people were saved by water… the like figure whereunto”. The topic of the passage is salvation not water baptism.

As far as the utterly unnecessary and unwritten entity that I have postulated… the only thing I have postulated is salvation itself, is this what you call unecessary? To be born-again is most definintely a written entity, and the spiritual re-birth is our benefit of the resurrection of Christ.

What we are arguing is whether Peter is referring to that necessary, written entity of salvation as “baptism”…

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

How do you rectify this verse with your explication of 1 Peter 3:20, 21?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

Being born from the mother’s womb is a rhetorical statement, for we all are born of water in your context. Jesus could have simply said, unless one has a mouth and is born of Spirit, using this technique. Your use of the term “of water” does not qualify anything in the slightest.

It qualifies that Jesus wasn’t talking about water baptism, which is what you alluded to in a previous post. You’re right as far as the rest of your post.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Katholikos]

Katholikos,
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.

Again, there is no biblical, artistic, literary, archaeological, or historical evidence that the early Church practiced baptism by immersion ONLY. The early local Churches were branches of the Catholic Church, who recognizes three forms of baptism: immersion, infusion (pouring),and sprinkling.

Have you argued you immersion ONLY theory on Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Methodist websites, for example? Have you argued your case with the Crystal Cathedral, a Reformed church, where babies are sprinkled on national TV? The Baptist immersion ONLY doctrine is not mainstream Christianity.

My arguments are that the early churches practices baptism by immersion, and the doctrine of baptism expained biblically allows for immersion baptisms.

The NT gives no instructions for how baptism is to be administered, period. Nor does any description of any baptism performed in the NT allow one to conclude that immersion is the ONLY valid form of baptism.

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.

John Smythe, founder of the first Baptist church, baptized himself – in Amsterdam – by INFUSION . He almost immediately left the Baptist congregation he founded in 1609 (some historians say 1607) and returned to the Mennonites, from which the Baptists were formed. Thomas Helwys then led a handfull back to England, where they began the practice of immersion ONLY in 1638 (or 1641 or 1644).as opposed to the pouring mode they had borrowed from the Mennonites when the denomination was originally formed. This group was known as the Immersion Baptists.

That is not a baptist practice.

Oh, really? Well, golly, it was done by the Southern Baptists, the largest Baptist denom in the U.S. of A.

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…

All Baptists believe that baptism is purely symbolic. Since it doesn’t wash away sin in the Baptist view, it has nothing to do with salvation. It means nothing, accomplishes nothing, so why do it at all? And why do it again? and again? and again? and . . .

there may be so-called baptists who believe you can lose your salvation, so you need to re-establish your baptism.

So which of you is right? You can (or cannot) lose your salvation? I was “saved” once, so am I still saved? Why would I need to re-establish my baptism if it was purely symbolic and had no effect?

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.

Right, to use your word, it’s silly. That’s why we need Confession – for the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism.

Katholikos.

 

[jemfinch]

I have though answered every one of your posts

You haven’t answered all the parts of my posts.

I take great care to quote your words and to respond with my own, trying to account for everything you say. My complaint is that you don’t take such care with my posts. You pick and choose which parts you’ll respond to and ignore the others, making it appear as though you’ve responded, when in fact you’ve ignored anything that’s hard to respond to.

It’s this duplicity that I dislike: this “I responded to all your posts” attitude when you’ve not responded to the most difficult issues I present in my posts. You’ve consistently ignored my biblical/grammatical arguments as well as my call for you to present historical support for your statements.

1. I have also offered reason, and comparative scripture…

No, you haven’t. Reason has been particularly lacking in your posts: you state your interpretation of a passage from the Bible and your only defense of that interpretation is that you believe it. You don’t offer any historical support. You rarely offer other Scriptures, and when you do, you don’t ever actually explain the meaning of those Scriptures and how they apply to your argument.

I am trying to be fair

No, if you were trying to be fair, you’d reply to all the claims made in my posts and not pick and choose whichever ones you find easiest.

and argue the point on the foundation of God’s word

No, all your arguments have been built on the foundation of your interpretation of Scripture. Do you honestly think I don’t already know the Scripture passages you quote? Do you honestly think I haven’t considered their relation to the rest of Scripture? I refuse to accept your argument because it isn’t founded on God’s Word: it’s founded on your own, self-given authority to interpret Scripture.

which I was under the impression that Catholics understood as an authority

Scripture can have no authority by itself. Scripture does not, cannot, reach out of the paper and correct someone when he misinterprets it. If you think it has some sort of “authority” such that it can apply its authority and correct those in error, you’re mistaken. Only a living entitity with authority to interpret Scripture can do that.

1. I am making the same tired arguments because my arguments are misrepresented in the rebuttals.

If I’ve misinterpreted anything that you’ve said, by all means, correct me. Your words have no authority or ability to correct me, but you, as their author, can explain what exactly you mean.

1. You are accusing me of fideism, and that is not at all what I proposing,

No, I’m not. Fideism says that reason cannot be used to augment faith. I’m saying that you are not using reason to augment your faith. You’re not looking into history. You’re not looking into the beliefs of the early Church.

you chose to ignore the substantiation that I have provided…

You’ve provided little to no substantiation for your arguments. Your arguments, in large part, have amounted to, “I don’t agree. I like this interpretation better.” You rarely, if ever, explain what it is inadeqate about an opposing interpretation.

I answer the most applicable arguments that my limited time will allow for the express purpose of avoiding an accusation like the one you made.

You do no such thing. You consistently “answer” the easiest arguments, and you consistently ignore the hardest arguments.

1. Show me where I have done that [set up strawmen].

I’ve already done that, and you’ve ignored those accusations each and every time. Read my posts.

1. I don’t ignore the plain meaning of scripture… I offer an explanation based on a deeper study than anyone here is willing to accept,

HAH!

A deeper study than anyone here is willing to accept! And I’ll bet the very best part of you is your humility, isn’t it? To think that you (or any individual) could actually study Scripture more deeply than the Church, the author and recipient of it, the possessor and guardian of it for almost two millennia!

I don’t take “proof verses” out of text to prove my preconceived notions… that is a naive approach to biblical study, and it’s an irresponsible approach to theology.

You take all your verses out of context. Not only out of the literary context of the rest of the Bible, but out of their historical context as well, since you have no historical support whatsoever for the things you teach.

Now that I have rectified these points, can we get on with the debate?

You call this a debate?

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

Sorry, I missed this question.

By the way, where does it say that Baptism should only be by full immersion?

And if it’s only a symbol of our “Baptism of Faith”, then why is immersion so important?

If water baptism is to illustrate the spiritual baptism, the only way to justifiably be an illustration is by full immersion… it symbolizes death, burial and resurrection (going down, under water, raising up).

Water baptism is important in that it serves as a testimony to what Christ has done in a born again believers heart. Those who see that baptism, or hear of that baptism are in a real sense being witnessed to of the saving power of Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,
It qualifies that Jesus wasn’t talking about water baptism, which is what you alluded to in a previous post. You’re right as far as the rest of your post.

John
www.gideonsword.net

The problem with your theory comes with the rest of the chapter. After the meeting with Nicodemus, what does Jesus and his disciples immediately go do? John 3:22 - ***After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.

---

 

[bibleapologist]

Katholikos,

John Smythe, founder of the first Baptist church, baptized himself – in Amsterdam – by INFUSION . He almost immediately left the Baptist congregation he founded in 1609 (some historians say 1607) and returned to the Mennonites, from which the Baptists were formed. Thomas Helwys then led a handfull back to England, where they began the practice of immersion ONLY in 1638 (or 1641 or 1644).as opposed to the pouring mode they had borrowed from the Mennonites when the denomination was originally formed. This group was known as the Immersion Baptists.

What website did you get that information from? If you are quoting from Whitsitt I can tell you that he has been proven to be an erroneous historian. Baptists nor Catholics practiced aspersion or effusion exclusively before 1641, and many "ana-baptist groups practiced immersion exclusively.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworthy,

Sorry, I missed this question.

No problem. You’ve been a busy man tonight!!! It’s all good!

If water baptism is to illustrate the spiritual baptism, the only way to justifiably be an illustration is by full immersion… it symbolizes death, burial and resurrection (going down, under water, raising up).

Water baptism is important in that it serves as a testimony to what Christ has done in a born again believers heart. Those who see that baptism, or hear of that baptism are in a real sense being witnessed to of the saving power of Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

But where does it say in the Bible, “Water Baptism illustrates Spiritual Baptism”?

 

[jemfinch]

That was not a strawman… you’re using that term too loosely…

No, I’m not.

show me how it is a strawman, I felt like I made a valid argument.

You should already know by now that “salvation by works” (as non-Catholics like to call the Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith working through love) does not oppose in the least salvation by grace alone. If you don’t know that, then by all means start a new thread about it, so we can explain it to you.

Actually the place you are claiming that baptism was used figuratively as a metaphor for suffering… was a metaphor for spiritual baptism… the “cup” was the metaphor for suffering which is substantiated by “let this cup pass from me” (Matt. 26:39)

And this is a perfect example of why this thread isn’t a debate. You don’t offer substantiation for your interpretive claim here. You don’t offer historical support, or even reasons why my interpretation is inadequate.

Yes, the ark was a type of salvation through water… and baptism does save you… but you have not proven that it is through water baptism… because you can’t… it is a spiritual baptism which is salvation.

I absolutely can prove that the baptism in this passage is water baptism.

1. It’s prefigured by the Ark, in which a few “were saved through water.”
2. It doesn’t save “as a removal of dirt from the body.” Your postulated “spiritual baptism” does not remove dirt from the body. Water baptism does. Peter’s audience knew implicitly that he was talking about water baptism, which is why he explained that it doesn’t save by means of cleansing the flesh.

Your “spiritual baptism” cannot explain why Peter has to emphasize that baptism doesn’t save by washing the flesh. Your “spiritual baptism” cannot explain why Peter emphasizes that those in the Ark were saved through water. Your “spiritual baptism” interpretation is grossly lacking.

No, baptism itself was not what was illustrated in verse 20. It was salvation…

Do you even listen?

Noah’s ark illustrates baptism. Noah’s Ark, to use your archaic (and poorly-translated) KJV terminology, is “the like figure whereunto” baptism. The passage does not continue, “Baptism, the like figure whereunto salvation,” because baptism isn’t a figure of salvation. It’s an act of salvation. It is the means by which salvation is granted. Baptism now saves you.
whereunto".

The topic of the passage is salvation not water baptism.

The grammatical subject of the sentence is baptism. The illustration in the sentence illustrates baptism. “Salvation” is not mentioned: only the fact that baptism saves. There is no word “salvation” in the passage. “Salvation” is not the subject of any sentence. There is no grammatical indication whatsoever that this passage has to do with anything besides water baptism.

As far as the utterly unnecessary and unwritten entity that I have postulated… the only thing I have postulated is salvation itself, is this what you call unecessary?

Salvation itself, as an subject or as an object, is not discussed in the passage.

What we are arguing is whether Peter is referring to that necessary, written entity of salvation

There is no such entity in this passage.

How do you rectify this verse with your explication of 1 Peter 3:20, 21?

I’ve asked you already: please use quotation marks for your Biblical citations, so that they show up when I quote you. When you use the quote ] markup, I can’t quote the citation.

This is the passage you want me to explain:

“Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”

What is there to explain? This passage is perfectly consistent with my explanation of 1 Peter 3:20-21. Please, by all means, explain what it is you think needs explanation.

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

jeremy,

Well, you sure have taken the time to attack my character… if you had taken that much time to argue your position you might sound more credible.

Notworthy and I have engaged in a very good debate tonight, during which time you have failed to offer anything but this? I think you have hurt your own credibility.

I take great care to quote your words and to respond with my own, trying to account for everything you say. My complaint is that you don’t take such care with my posts. You pick and choose which parts you’ll respond to and ignore the others, making it appear as though you’ve responded, when in fact you’ve ignored anything that’s hard to respond to.

Anyone who cares to take the time to look through the posts will see that the exact opposite is the truth… I have taken your best arguments to refute.

No, you haven’t. Reason has been particularly lacking in your posts: you state your interpretation of a passage from the Bible and your only defense of that interpretation is that you believe it. You don’t offer any historical support. You rarely offer other Scriptures, and when you do, you don’t ever actually explain the meaning of those Scriptures and how they apply to your argument.

Again, another lie. I quote your ENTIRE statements, and I refute them… when you don’t have an answer you post something like this

No, all your arguments have been built on the foundation of your interpretation of Scripture. Do you honestly think I don’t already know the Scripture passages you quote? Do you honestly think I haven’t considered their relation to the rest of Scripture? …

Why is that so offensive to you? Isn’t that the basis for debate?

Fideism says that reason cannot be used to augment faith. I’m saying that you are not using reason to augment your faith. You’re not looking into history. You’re not looking into the beliefs of the early Church.

You accused me of fideism in your previous quote of this same post… " your only defense of that interpretation is that you believe it".

You’ve provided little to no substantiation for your arguments. Your arguments, in large part, have amounted to, “I don’t agree. I like this interpretation better.” You rarely, if ever, explain what it is inadeqate about an opposing interpretation.

That’s a cop out, and lazy apologetics. You have proven nothing against my arguments with that statement, which is why I don’t think you have a good argument.

You do no such thing. You consistently “answer” the easiest arguments, and you consistently ignore the hardest arguments.

Well, give them to me… again… and I will refute them… again.

A deeper study than anyone here is willing to accept! And I’ll bet the very best part of you is your humility, isn’t it? To think that you (or any individual) could actually study Scripture more deeply than the Church, the author and recipient of it, the possessor and guardian of it for almost two millennia!

So, why are you here debating these topics? If you have no truth other than what the Catholic Church gives you, why do you attempt to explain scripture? The truth is, your statement is another cop out… the Catholic Church you have been defending has been proven wrong and you’re feelings are hurt so you fall back on the “old faithful” statement… “the Catholic church couldn’t be wrong, it’s been around too long”.

You take all your verses out of context. Not only out of the literary context of the rest of the Bible, but out of their historical context as well, since you have no historical support whatsoever for the things you teach.

The bible itself is a historical book… how can you say I give no historical support for the things I teach? If you are going to make claims like I take ALL my verses out of context… you’d better be ready to prove that. But, I know you won’t… because you can’t, which is why you shouldn’t make claims like that.

You call this a debate?

No, I call this you’re feeble attempt to get this thread closed by the moderator to save yourself some dignity because you have lost your arguments.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[BlestOne]

Blest one,

Where in that verse does it say “baptize infants”… it doesn’t, just like it does not say “baptize unbelievers”. If your explanation of that verse is to be taken literally, then the best evangelistic effort we could make is to cause it to rain on all nations… what a revival! Acts 2:38-41
38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.

41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

Because nowhere does the bible explicitly state that we are to baptize our children before they are sophisticated enough to be taught to obey all thing whatsoever Christ has commanded them.

Where does it say sophistication is a prerequisite for baptism? In fact Jesus says we need to be as children to enter his kingdom doesn’t it?
Matthew 18

3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Many early "anabaptist’ sects referred to Infant Baptism as “the badge of the Antichrist”… and I concur. That is a chance I am willing to take.

John

Well John, then you are now taking it from the Anabaptists and not from the bible…shame on you!!! Where is your responsibility to your children? Where is your respect for the gift that Almighty God has given you? To raise a child is a responsibility to God first and formost because God is the creator of all life. In essence you are saying…that this wonderful gift that God has given to you is not important enough to worry about their salvation. What? Let them decide? When they are old enough they can choose without the graces God promises through baptism? I think I would rather bring my child to Christ from birth than to listen to the Anabaptists who weren’t even there with Christ, so that leads to the only logical conclusion that can be drawn…they think they are better and smarter than our Lord.

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

But where does it say in the Bible, “Water Baptism illustrates Spiritual Baptism”?

As you know, there is not a direct quote in the New Testatment identical to the one you mentioned.

But, as John the Baptist was a prophet sent to prepare the way for Christ, and herald His coming… it was his practice to baptize by immersion as an illustration of the “spiritual baptism” that was to come…

Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

Since water baptism was used to make disciples of Christ BEFORE the resurrection… and IF I am right, and that illustration precluded the true baptism to come (spiritual), what authority would the Apostles have to start baptizing to be saved?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

But, as John the Baptist was a prophet sent to prepare the way for Christ, and herald His coming… it was his practice to baptize by immersion as an illustration of the “spiritual baptism” that was to come…

Where does it say he immersed? I’m sorry if I’m nit-picking here, but you differentiated between John’s Baptism and numerous others.

You admit that Noah’s Ark pre-figured baptism, but you deny that the water has anything to do with it.

Then you say that John’s water baptism pre-figured Jesus baptism (rightly so), and you demand that immersion by John is necessary for Jesus’ spiritual baptism.

I’m just a little confused here.

And again, I don’t see where John had to baptize by immersion. I see the phrase “when He came up out of the water”, but that could just as easily mean “Jesus walked up the bank to the edge of the water” as it could mean “when Jesus came up from under the water”. Is there anywhere that is more explicit?

Since water baptism was used to make disciples of Christ BEFORE the resurrection…

No, John preached a baptism of repentence, but he did not necessarily make disciples of Jesus. Many people who were baptized became Disciples of John. Even though some of them later joined Jesus, like John, son of Zebedee, John the Baptist never instructed his disciples to leave him and join Jesus.

and IF I am right, and that illustration precluded the true baptism to come (spiritual), what authority would the Apostles have to start baptizing to be saved?

John
www.gideonsword.net

They had two specific instructions from Jesus. Baptize them with (1) water (born of water) in the (2) name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[bibleapologist]

Blestone,

Well John, then you are now taking it from the Anabaptists and not from the bible…shame on you!!! Where is your responsibility to your children? Where is your respect for the gift that Almighty God has given you?

You know I am not getting that doctrine from the Anabaptists. I was only attempting to use a historical reference that jemfinch so rudely accused me of avoiding.

What? Let them decide? When they are old enough they can choose without the graces God promises through baptism?

What right do you have to forcibly take your child and impose salvation on him/her? That is not Christian behavior, Christ did not impose Himself on us, He offered the free gift of salvation to us to freely choose to accept or deny Him.

That is unless you believe Augustines predestination idea that some are chosen for justification… if you do, then to take your child to baptism is to impose your will on your child instead of letting God’s will take it’s course.

I would rather submit to the Biblical view that we are ALL free to choose Christ…

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Paul did not say that we didn’t have a choice, but rather that God sent His Son that we might accept Him and receive the adoption of sons. That was the reason for God showing us His love, that we might see that love, and accept Him.

John
www.gideonsword.net