Baptism... And the True Church

[jemfinch]

The statement I quoted from you was exactly that… a fideistic statement…

Your density, John, is utterly astounding.

I find it hard to believe that you’re simply not intelligent enough to understand the concept of modality, but you leave me with no other option, having evinced your failure to understand the key nature of fideism several times by your misuse of the term.

the only substantiation you offered for that statement is simply that you believed it.

That does not make a statement fideistic. That makes the statement unsupported (in this case, for topical reasons). The very nature of fideism is that such statements are not made by fideists because the fundamental claim of fideism is that one of modality: that it is impossible to support faith with Logic.

No one here is a Fideist. If anyone were, he would not be arguing with you.

A statement is not “fideistic” if it doesn’t include support. A statement is fideistic if and only if it makes the claim that faith CANNOT be supported by logic.

Why is Mary and Jesus the exceptions to this rule?

Because the Bible teaches that they are. It teaches the rule, and it teaches the exceptions to the rule. Start another thread (God forbid) if you wish to discuss the immaculate conception or Christ’s sinless nature, because those points are off-topic for this thread.

If you offer no substantiation except your belief in the statement… THAT IS FIDEISM.

No it isn’t

You don’t know what fideism is, John.

You need to look up what fideism is, if you want to use the term.

You need to stop using the term fideism incorrectly, because, aside from annoying the heck out of me, it makes you look dumb.

I’ve provided you resources to learn what Fideism is.

I’ve given you links (multiple times) so that you can stop misusing the term.

If, after this post, you continue to insist on using the term fideism incorrectly, I can only presume that you are, in fact, not intelligent enough to understand the modal claim that fideism presents.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Well, you were right after “Faith in Christ”.

Because heaven will clearly be filled with people who don’t love Jesus.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

The earlies possible perspective on truth we have is the writings of the Apostles (The New Testament). Any contrary document does not negate the truth they taught, so it must be a faulty interpretation.

No, the earliest possible perspective on truth that we have is the teachings of the Apostles, which preceded their writings. That’s why Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “Stand firm in the traditions you have received from us, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” The Catholic Church is the Church that originally received these teachings, and these teachings (as well as the writings) support baptism of infants and baptism by methods other than immersion.

I’d give you arguments to support that claim, but I and others have already made those arguments and have been ignored, so there’s no point in repeating them. Read the posts in this thread if you’re interested in doing anything but upholding your “Baptist” traditions of men.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Praise God, the whole family was saved! That verse does not prove anything for infant baptism.

It proves that if there were infants in Stephanas’ household, they would have been baptized, since such children are included in the set of people identified by a “household.” It proves that infant baptism was clearly not opposed by the Apostles, since the Apostle who wrote that passage had no reason whatsoever to indicate that although “household” applied to adults and infants alike, infants were not baptized with the rest of the household.

I assure you, if Paul baptized the whole household of Stephanas, there were no infants implicated.

Ah, the true mark of an ideologue: even if the Bible itself disagrees with you, you’ll adhere to the traditions of your Baptist fathers. You have done nothing to disprove the objective, linguistic fact that the term for “household” includes children and infants, and thus to baptize a household implies that if children were present, they were baptized.

Which words would be toward the effectually salvation of Peter, and subsequently his whole household (1 Corinthians 7:16). As is qualified by verse 16.

I can’t understand this statement, perhaps there’s a typo involved.

Apparently her whole family was saved. In fact, verse 40 refers to the household of Lydia as “brethren”, and Paul and Silas “comforted” them in Lydia’s house.

What does this prove? All who are baptized are brethren.

Yes, the jailer was baptized with his house… but in verse 30 he asked what shall I do to be saved.

Before he took Paul to his house.

in verse 32 the gospel was shared with him… AND HIS HOUSE.

Yes, and then he washed their wounds, and he and his whole house were baptized. Not by immersion, most likely: houses didn’t have bathtubs back then, so he was most likely baptized by pouring the same water over him that he had washed Paul’s wounds with.

In verse 34 we see evidence that he and his whole house had believed the gospel that was preached to them…

Yes, everyone in his household who could believe in the gospel certainly did. The Church has never baptized unbelievers.

I see no evidence for Infant Baptism in any of the quotes you cited…

Some people just haven’t been given eyes to see, I suppose.

You’ve still yet to explain why the biblical authors, knowing that a “household” included children, never explained that the households that were baptized in the Bible didn’t include children. They knew what their readers would think, and yet they said nothing to make sure that an abomination like infant baptism did not occur. Explain that, John.

Jeremy

 

[Odell]

Odell,
The word “ekklesia” which is translated “church” in the New Testament means “an assembly” or a “called out assembly”. There are two different types of churches mentioned in the New Testament… the visible “churches”,

Those visible Churches where physicaly one Church they believed all the same. some one who believed Christ was God but believed something different than this Church was xalled a haritic and was not considered to be part of this Church.

I was speaking of Galatians 2:11-21 where Paul rebuked him for his actions which taught heresy.

That was your interpritation

Well, you were right after “Faith in Christ”.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

John we believe this passage 100% no one on here believes we save our selves. But we do have to respond to God grace by faith and works. “only faith working threw Love counts for anything”(Gal 5:6)

If you want we can start another thred we can.

Also you said

Peter is exactly right… we are to have unity in Spirit… the Holy Spirit. Peter was exhorting us to be unified because of the Spirit that was imparted to us. If Peter was referring to teaching, he would have told us to have unity of “mind”. In this passage he is not.

I responded with.

So what is (Phil2:2) talking about? “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

(Rom15:5) “May the God of endurance and ecouragement grant you to THINK in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus.”

would you please explain these verses to us after saying what you said about Peter.

 

[NotWorthy]

Notworty,

My dismissal of documents like the Didache, or portions of it is not based on historical inaccuracy, but biblical corraboration.

Whatever historical document that was written has been an interpretation of biblical truths… it is possible, even probable that many of them are innacurate interpretations…

The earlies possible perspective on truth we have is the writings of the Apostles (The New Testament). Any contrary document does not negate the truth they taught, so it must be a faulty interpretation.

John
www.gideonsword.net

But you need to prove the inaccuracies. Again, you’re only excuse (do to the widespread use of the Didache) is that the Church went into Apostasy before the death of the last Apostles. You’ll have to understand our incredulity at this statement and our need for a little more proof than you’ve provided so far.

 

[Eden]

Eden

Isn’t that side-stepping my question?

You said the Catholic Church gave us the King James Bible, all I said is; why don’t we use it to debate. Do you not care what that infallible Word of God says?

I thought we had been using it to debate. Are you saying that you have not beein using the KJV up until this point?

 

[Eden]

Justin Martyr was absolutely right… Baptism IS the circumcision of the New Testament…

You didn’t look at the quotes from St. Justin Martyr closely enough.

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15)

He is referring to infant baptism in this quote.

 

[Eden]

Since you agree that St. Justin Martyr was “absolutely right” that baptism is the “New Circumcision”, here are some more quotes from St. Justin Martyr:

"BORN AGAIN" MEANS “BAPTISM”:

For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." *Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165). *

WE ARE BORN WITH ORIGINAL SIN:

“He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with freewill, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 88:4 (A.D. 155).

 

[valient_Lucy]

jeremy,

What basis do you have scripturally to impose justification on your children… don’t get me wrong… If I could for my children I would, and save them from the possibility of hell, but what joy could one have being justified if that justification was imposed on them… such as the angels?

Well, I doubt that the angels are miserable.
Furthermore, the child can still choose to reject the grace given to them in their baptism, so if a child decides that he wants to abandon God and go to hell, he can.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Would you like to discuss this relationship between circumcision and baptism further?

John
www.gideonsword.net

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Why did God decide that Jewish children should be part of the Covenant with Israel but not apart of the New Covenant with the Church?

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

That does not make a statement fideistic. That makes the statement unsupported (in this case, for topical reasons)…

No one here is a Fideist. If anyone were, he would not be arguing with you.

A statement is not “fideistic” if it doesn’t include support. A statement is fideistic if and only if it makes the claim that faith CANNOT be supported by logic.

You are right, a fideistic statement is one that cannot be supported by logic… Which is why I have labeled some of your statements fideistic.

When you don’t offer substantiation for a statement, but only state the proposition as a fact… one can only suppose that you have no logical substantiation for your claim. But that you believe your claim to be true regardless of any lack of logical substantiation.

Why is Mary and Jesus the exceptions to this rule?

Because the Bible teaches that they are. It teaches the rule, and it teaches the exceptions to the rule.

Again, you have not offered any substantiation for your claim that Mary and Jesus is an exception to the rule… so I can only assume that you believe that to be true without any logical substantiation… only that you have faith that it is true.

You can SAY the Bible teaches that they are, but that doesn’t mean it’s so. Not only do you believe that Mary and Jesus are the exception to the rule without any substantiation whatsoever, but you have also convinced yourself that the Bible teaches that… WHEN IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

It proves that if there were infants in Stephanas’ household, they would have been baptized, since such children are included in the set of people identified by a “household.”

Yes, the term “household” could very well include infants, but that does not prove that the Apostles baptized babies. The verse in question only proves that the “household” of Stephanas was baptized… we have to look at other scripture to see if the Apostles had warrant to baptize infants, and if they did not, we can assess that the household of Stephanas did not contain infants.

Quote:
Apparently her whole family was saved. In fact, verse 40 refers to the household of Lydia as “brethren”, and Paul and Silas “comforted” them in Lydia’s house.

What does this prove? All who are baptized are brethren.

It proves that they were able to be comforted by Paul and Silas’ words, and that those “brethren” were able to understand that confort… the greek word translated “comfort” is “parakeleo” which means to exhort.

You’ve still yet to explain why the biblical authors, knowing that a “household” included children, never explained that the households that were baptized in the Bible didn’t include children. They knew what their readers would think, and yet they said nothing to make sure that an abomination like infant baptism did not occur. Explain that, John.

Probably because there was no question in those days that baptism was only for believers… the same reason why there is no record of an account of an infant or toddler being baptized in the New Testament.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[jemfinch]

You are right, a fideistic statement is one that cannot be supported by logic…

No it isn’t. You still don’t know what Fideism is, John. You still remain ignorant, and refuse to enlighten yourself by looking up what it is.

A fideistic claim would be one that claims that faith cannot be supported by logic. I have never made nor ever will make such a claim.

Which is why I have labeled some of your statements fideistic.

No, you’ve labelled by statements fideistic because you don’t understand what fideism is and would rather remain ignorant in your delusions.

When you don’t offer substantiation for a statement, but only state the proposition as a fact…

Improper use of “when”: I’ve not done that. My statements are substantiated, oftentimes in posts you’ve never read because you don’t want to see or argue against them.

one can only suppose that you have no logical substantiation for your claim.

A false assumption. I can easily make a number of statements without stating their justification: you would be in error to suppose that I have no logical substantiation for those claims. Watch this:

1. Gravity causes a downward force on objects.
2. There are twenty-four hours in a day.
3. My father is a preacher.

Note how these statements do not differ in any way from these following statements:

1. The Bible contains 72 books.
2. Baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation.
3. Baptism is the ordinary means of justification.

But that you believe your claim to be true regardless of any lack of logical substantiation.

I’ve substantiated. You’ve consistently ignored those arguments. If anyone here believes his claims to be true regardless of any lack of logical substantiation, it’s you, who either will not or cannot respond to the arguments presented here.

Again, you have not offered any substantiation for your claim that Mary and Jesus is an exception to the rule… so I can only assume that you believe that to be true without any logical substantiation… only that you have faith that it is true.

Are you really that imbecilic, John? I explained in the posts above that if you want to discuss this issue, Start a new thread. It’s not the topic of this thread.

You can SAY the Bible teaches that they are, but that doesn’t mean it’s so.

You can SAY the Bible teaches that they aren’t, but that doesn’t mean it’s so.

Not only do you believe that Mary and Jesus are the exception to the rule without any substantiation whatsoever, but you have also convinced yourself that the Bible teaches that… WHEN IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT.

Hah. You still don’t understand that you’re not the Holy Spirit, and that your interpretation of the Bible isn’t infallible. Amazing.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Yes, the term “household” could very well include infants,

No, let’s be clear. If infants are present, the term “household” ALWAYS included them.

but that does not prove that the Apostles baptized babies.

It proves that the authors through which God wrote the Bible didn’t see a need to “correct” the doctrine of infant baptism which would arise naturally from the meaning of the word “household.”

The verse in question only proves that the “household” of Stephanas was baptized… we have to look at other scripture to see if the Apostles had warrant to baptize infants,

No, we have to look at other Scripture to see if anyone has a right to withhold baptism from the little ones of whom Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”

and if they did not, we can assess that the household of Stephanas did not contain infants.

Another fatal flaw with your plan here is that the original recipients of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians did not have the entire Bible at their disposal. It hadn’t all been written yet, and it certainly hadn’t been circulated widely. All these people would have known is the whole household of Stephanus had been baptized, and because of the meaning of the word “Household,” they would have assumed that infants were included in the baptism.

It proves that they were able to be comforted by Paul and Silas’ words, and that those “brethren” were able to understand that confort…

Not at all. If there’s a funeral at your house, and I go there to comfort or encourage “your household,” I would say, “I comforted John’s household” even if there were infants where who might have taken little or no encouragement from my words. I certainly would not say, “I comforted John’s household, except the infants, who were too young to understand my words of encouragement.”

Probably because there was no question in those days that baptism was only for believers…

Ah, so now you’re positing an extra-biblical tradition that was very clear that baptism was only for believers? Be careful, John: you’re going to recreate the Catholic Church wrongly

the same reason why there is no record of an account of an infant or toddler being baptized in the New Testament.

There’s no direct account because the justification of infants isn’t interesting like the conversion of adults (pagans and Jews) is. There’s no command in the New Testament not to baptize infants, either, and there are several statements which indicate that infant baptism is valid. But I don’t expect the Bible to have any effect on you anymore; you’re going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the Bible actually says and what history actually records. “Ever learning, but never coming to the full knowledge of the truth.”

Jeremy

 

[NotWorthy]

No, we have to look at other Scripture to see if anyone has a right to withhold baptism from the little ones of whom Jesus said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”

This is an interesting quote. I understand the term “little children” referred to those that were too young to walk, i.e. “infants”.

Another fatal flaw with your plan here is that the original recipients of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians did not have the entire Bible at their disposal. It hadn’t all been written yet, and it certainly hadn’t been circulated widely. All these people would have known is the whole household of Stephanus had been baptized, and because of the meaning of the word “Household,” they would have assumed that infants were included in the baptism.

This is another good point. Since a majority of the “households” in ancient Israel would have included infants, someone who had kids in their household would wonder, “Hey, why is my entire household not allowed to be baptized while Stephanus whole household baptized”??? To prevent this confusion, you would think our good brother, St. Paul would need to explain what “households” mean.

Ah, so now you’re positing an extra-biblical tradition that was very clear that baptism was only for believers? Be careful, John: you’re going to recreate the Catholic Church wrongly

While at the same time, he’s ignoring the fact that infant Baptism was practiced in the first century. Selective memory leads to faulty doctrine.

 

[Eden]

Bibleapologist - The New Testament gives two imperatives for baptism: that it must be done with water and that it must be done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19-20). There is no imperative that baptism must be a “believer’s baptism”. That expression doesn’t even appear in the Bible. And there is certainly no prohibition against pouring or sprinkling or baptizing of infants in the Bible.

So, not only do you believe that you can privately interpret the Bible’s meaning on baptism, but you are adding to scripture to make your interpretation valid - exactly what you accuse the Catholic Church of doing. It is amazing to me that you are able to reconcile in your mind, the obvious double standard.

 

[Mickey]

Probably because there was no question in those days that baptism was only for believers…

If “believer’s baptism” was always the norm, the history books would have recorded much protest when the Church began baptizing infants.

 

[Pryority7]

Isn’t there a very early manuscript that describes the baptism of a baby girl only a few months old that they found in a catacomb somewhere dating back around 110 or something? I’ve read it in another thread before, but I don’t remember where…
It would be a good source for infant baptism.

-P7

 

[Eden]

Isn’t there a very early manuscript that describes the baptism of a baby girl only a few months old that they found in a catacomb somewhere dating back around 110 or something? I’ve read it in another thread before, but I don’t remember where…
It would be a good source for infant baptism.

-P7

Yes, there are several existing manuscript, several tombs confirming infant baptism in the earliest days of the Church and at least two depictions of baptism by pouring in artwork on walls of the catacombs. But bibleapologist says their existence only confirms that “perversions” of the true faith were present from the beginning.