Baptism... And the True Church

[bibleapologist]

This thread was started by request from Odell. And as a split from the thread “The True Church”.

Since discussion of the differences between the Catholic and the Baptist understanding of baptism is so different, we felt the debate would warrant it very own thread.

One of the statements I made on the aforementioned thread was that Believers Baptism is one of the distinctives of the true Church. I would like to ask that Odell start out with his rebuttal to that particular statement by me.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[jemfinch]

One of the statements I made on the aforementioned thread was that Believers Baptism is one of the distinctives of the true Church. I would like to ask that Odell start out with his rebuttal to that particular statement by me.

You made the assertion, now you defend it. That’s how argument works: those who make positive assertions are responsible to defend them.

And please reference this thread if you’re just curious about the Catholic response; I doubt you can rise above the level of debate in that thread.

But if you want some hints as to how you should frame your argument, I’m glad to help. You need to prove:

1. That age-restrictive baptism is the only baptism practiced in the Bible.
2. That age-restrictive baptism has been the practice of the Church since the beginning. Please offer significant historical and patristic evidence to support your thesis.

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

You made the assertion, now you defend it. That’s how argument works: those who make positive assertions are responsible to defend them.

I did defend it… in my assertion, Odell’s statement that prompted this thread is…

But its not so woul you please start a thred on belivers baptism a mark of the true Church. I would love to show how your belifes on baptism are not biblical. And the true Church believs how the catholics do regarding baptism.

Odell wished to show me how my beliefs are not Biblical, but thanks anyway jemfinch.

And please reference this thread if you’re just curious about the Catholic response; I doubt you can rise above the level of debate in that thread.

I did, and didn’t see anything that I am not eager to discuss on this thread, I sure hope you are planning on participating

But if you want some hints as to how you should frame your argument, I’m glad to help. You need to prove:…

I have no doubt that age-restrictive baptism will be a topic to arise from discussion in this thread, but for starters, this thread was begun as a platform for Odell to prove my explication of baptism wrong. And I trust that he will quote those portions of my positive assertion that he disagrees with.

I will though, be sure to copy and paste your “hints” to a special file on my computer… to use for future reference

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

In the case of infants, the baptism is based on the faith of the parents. This is entirely biblical and is supported by the writings of the early Christians.

 

[scylla]

The true Church sees Baptism as a fullfillment of Circumcision. This is to include all people not just Jewish infant boys.

Since the true Church is based on Jesus and the source of the Bible then it would have a faith tradition that would be based on Jesus. The Bible would then be understood from the faith as a supplement to teach and understand the faith.

Baptism as evidenced by all Christians would be understood by this faith tradition to encompass everyone, who by God’s Grace are allowed to enter into His family by Baptism. This does not exclude anyone even those who by no fault of their own cannot make a profession of faith.
Or else Christianity would not be for those who don’t have the ability to make a profession of faith, such as infants\retarded, etc.

Since Christians believe that God wants everyone to come to Him and not be excluded we as Christians don’t make man made rules to exclude people from His family.

The true Christian Church has existed since before the Bible existed, so it must be approached from the understanding of Jesus founding the Church and continuing from there not just an interpretation of the Bible.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Magicsilence]

Ok.

You go first John.

From the bible, (and you are free to use a Catholic bible with all the books in it) give us the verse that says infants are not to be baptised.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[jemfinch]

Odell wished to show me how my beliefs are not Biblical, but thanks anyway jemfinch.

Which of these statements do you believe?

“Baptism now saves you,”

or,

“Baptism does not now save you”?

Do I need a more biblical argument?

Jeremy

 

[SPH1]

One of the statements I made on the aforementioned thread was that Believers Baptism is one of the distinctives of the true Church.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Of course “believers Baptism” is the way to go…when baptising adults. But as you know, there are a whole slew of Protestants who also baptise infants.

Baptism is a Sacrament confering grace - Born Again, the biblical way. With regard to infants, you are in error believing that God cannot communicate with the soul of an infant.

Really though, like virtually every other issue, it comes down to the question of authority, which properly is the Catholic Church. That and the belief that Christ is, in fact, head of and shepherding his church at all times through the ages…not merely a symbolic figurehead as in your position.

 

[Eden]

Here is a website for any Baptists who may be following bibleapologist’s threads and want to explore more thoroughly the differences between what the Catholic Church and the various Baptist denominations teach:

members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/bibletruth.html

The site states as its purpose:

This web site contrasts the differences between the Holy Scriptures and the distinctive teachings of the various churches that call themselves Baptist. Our objective is to help Baptists, and those contemplating joining a Baptist church, to see that many of the distinctive fundamentals of Baptist doctrine are, in fact, false teachings and recently invented traditions of men.

Here is a link from the site specifically about the topic of Baptism:

members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/baptism1.html

 

[Andruschak]

This thread was started by request from Odell. And as a split from the thread “The True Church”.

Since discussion of the differences between the Catholic and the Baptist understanding of baptism is so different, we felt the debate would warrant it very own thread.

One of the statements I made on the aforementioned thread was that Believers Baptism is one of the distinctives of the true Church. I would like to ask that Odell start out with his rebuttal to that particular statement by me.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Coming in quite late, from the perspective of an RCIA Candidate, I was informed that Baptisms in other Christian Churches were acceptable IF they were done “In The Name Of The Father, The Son, And the Holy Spirit”. In my case, that is excatly the way the Church of England did it to me in 1944.

My baptism was CoE because I was honestly born in England in 1944. But a lot of Church records were lost to bombs and fires.

Now, if I cannot get a copy of the baptisimal certificate, I may need a “CONDITIONAL Baptism”.

 

[bibleapologist]

Scylla,

The true Church sees Baptism as a fullfillment of Circumcision. This is to include all people not just Jewish infant boys.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I totally agree with you on the statement I quoted above. This would be a great place for us to start, as it can be established as a first principle.

It is the interpretation of circumcision, and how it relates to baptism that I will be explaining, and the misinterpretation of circumcision from the Catholic, and protestant viewpoint.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Here is a link from the site specifically about the topic of Baptism:

Thanks, and here is a link to my website and an article explaining the Biblical interpretation of Baptism, and how it relates to the circumcision.

A Repudiation of Infant Baptism

Portions of that article have been taken from my book “The Theocracy Conspiracy”, in which I have expounded on the doctrine of Baptism extensively.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Andruchak,

Coming in quite late, from the perspective of an RCIA Candidate, I was informed that Baptisms in other Christian Churches were acceptable IF they were done “In The Name Of The Father, The Son, And the Holy Spirit”. In my case, that is excatly the way the Church of England did it to me in 1944.

Please stick around, you might find some of the things discussed in this thread very interesting

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

Many things that n-C churches tell me are not “core” beliefs I find to be Biblically stated otherwise.

Baptism just for an example. Many of the modern post-reformation step children have relegated this to some sort peripheral nicety that we “should” do but it’s not necessary for one’s salvation. Yet I find an awful lot of New Testament scripture that indicates otherwise.

Examples:
**
Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,**

There are others, but I just want to get a scriptural basis for this discussion laid.

Is Baptism a “core teaching” and neccesary for salvation? If it’s not…why bother?
Blackie

 

[TheGarg]

i have never really understood what the problem here is, why it is even a debate.
1 Peter 3:20-22 (New American Standard Bible)

20who once were disobedient, when the (A)patience of God (B)kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (C)the ark, in which a few, that is, (D)eight (E)persons, were brought safely through the water.

21(F)Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--(G)not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a (H)good conscience–through (I)the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

22(J)who is at the right hand of God, (K)having gone into heaven, (L)after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

and NOWHERE does Jesus say “no kids”…and we know what he warns us if we try to keep the children from Him.

Amen i say to you Blackie!!..There is no more reason to look at this thread, if Scripture can’t convince someone about the Importance of Baptism, then Nothing will.

If Jesus said or did it, it was not an option ; if you Love him, you will do as he commnands.

 

[Black_Knight_MI]

Matthew 28

:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Why would Our Lord command us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them to observe he commanded us if it wasn’t necessary?

Mark 16

:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemnedHe who believes and is baptized…

Acts 2

:38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Verse 38 plainly says that they must repent “and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”. Verse 39 then extends it to all future believers. Verse 41 shows that the crowd responded in obedience, so apparently they took that baptism very seriously…as required. The apostles certainly did.

Romans 6

:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. This in no way indicates a symbolism, but is an expression of a spiritual reality. Whatever happened to “God says it, I believe it, That settles it”?:ehh:

Ephesians 4

:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.Why include it here among the essentials of salvation?

1st Peter 3

:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,Peter, the speaker in the Acts 2 passage above, outright says that baptism saves you…

If one takes the Bible literally I have to continue to wonder how this Sacrament can be so marginalized.
Blackie

 

[bibleapologist]

Jemfinch,

Which of these statements do you believe?
“Baptism now saves you,”
or,
“Baptism does not now save you”?

Well, let’s see what the Bible says…

1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

This verse alone verifies the existence of more than one Baptism mentioned in the Bible. According to Peter, there is a baptism that is the “putting away the filth of the flesh” (such as the one that Scylla mentioned was related to circumcision), and one that is an “answer of a good conscience toward God”.

Since this verse is speaking of Baptism saving us, and this baptism not being the one that is “putting away the filth of the flesh”, it can only be the baptism that is an answer of a good conscience toward God. In the text of this verse, Peter was using the deluge as an illustration for baptism… How that “eight souls were saved by water”. It must not be misunderstood here that “water” is the principle topic, as Noah and his family were never submerged in the water… but were saved from the judgement of God by water, and the salvation of those people is the topic of this passage.

To get an understanding of what is meant in this passage, we must also consult the words of Jesus concerning Baptism…

Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.

This Baptism that Jesus spoke of was not His baptism in the Jordan river, but a future baptism that He was going to experience…

Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

The baptism that Jesus was going to be baptized with, was the death, burial and resurrection of His body… which He had previously affirmed to the Apostles that they would also experience. And the Apostle Paul associates himself with this baptism, and tells the Romans that they have also experienced this baptism…

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

This Baptism IS salvation… it is following Jesus through His death, burial and resurrection by; forsaking the bondage of sin and trusting Jesus as the propitiation for your sins (death and burial), and Jesus will give you new life (resurrection).

Let’s look at the immediate text in Peter’s epistle…

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom 6:8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Rom 6:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Rom 6:11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

To be baptized in Christ is to be dead to self, and alive unto God (verse 10).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

The garg,

and NOWHERE does Jesus say “no kids”…and we know what he warns us if we try to keep the children from Him.

I would refer to the verses Black Knight quoted…

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Why would Our Lord command us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them to observe he commanded us if it wasn’t necessary?

Since Matthew 28:19 calls for baptizing “all”, the Pedo-baptists assume this statement to include infants. This is a rediculous assertion, since the verse does not implicate “everyone” in the entire world… only those who are taught.

If this verse is to be taken literally, as “all” are to be taught and baptized, there would also be a valid assumption that the “all” in question would be able to be taught, as the command is to “teach all nations”. While it’s understood that infants do learn to some degree, the crucial question is; are infants able to fulfill Matthew 28:20?

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Are infants really able to observe all things whatsoever Jesus has commanded us? The truth is, when a person has reached the sophistication level to observe all the things Jesus commanded us, he is then qualified to be taught. The “Great Commission” does not make baptism obligatory it only requires teaching; baptism here in verse 19, to be harmonious with the Gospel would be requisite only upon faith from consequent teaching.

In Acts chapter 8 we see an account of this water-baptism that was administered by Phillip after he taught the eunuch.

Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 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?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 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.

After Philip taught the eunuch the Gospel of Jesus from Isaiah 53:7, we see that the eunuch wished to be baptized. The only requirement for this baptism was that the eunuch believed with all his heart. Here is the key: the eunuch said “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”. The eunuch had believed, by which his faith was counted for righteousness. He had already been baptized with the baptism of Jesus, the eunuch was not asking for salvation, he already had that, he had a desire to submit to the ordinance of water-baptism, as saved people do.

Baptism should never be administered to someone who has not received the truth in knowledge.

In 1 Timothy 2:4, it is said about “God our Saviour”: “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

An infant does not have the sophistication level to understand, and it should never be assumed that a child can understand, or will accept the teachings of Jesus. Like Phillip, we should investigate whether one has come to the knowledge of truth, and has believed and surrendered to Christ in their heart.

Biblically, water baptism was administered as an outward profession of ones faith, after they had received Christ as their Saviour.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

Not only in Baptism Biblical in the NT, it’s biblical roots go all the back to the Old Testament. Could Ezekiel be any clearer? Ezek: 36:25-27

(a) I will sprinkle clean water upon you (b) to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and (c) place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you and make you (d) live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.

Let’s see:

a) This sounds like Baptism
b) It cleanses you from your sins.
c) You receive the Holy Spirit
d) Sounds like obedience is very important, too!!

Compare that with what St. Peter says in Acts: 2:38:

Repent and (a) be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ (b) for the forgiveness of your sins; (c) and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

And as (d) obedient Catholics, we just follow His Word!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

John (BA), one of the things you stated in your original post is that the early Church did not practice infant baptism. In some of the Catecombs of Rome, there are grave headstone of infants that were buried around 90 AD. These children showed to have been baptism as infants and toddlers. Does this show that the early church practiced infant baptism?