Baptism... And the True Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter bibleapologist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Garg,
i am done with this, sorry…it has been expertly,and plainly explained, and all you can retort with is "opinoin’ non-authorative] , and manipulative argumentation intended to sidestep obvious major points
The only thing that has been expertly displayed is an affirmation of existential ideologies, you have done nothing to prove me wrong… you have only resisted the truth of God, by insisting your own perspective to be right.

Not only is that argument self-defeating, it contradicts your presence and participation on an apologetics forum… if you have the truth, and the only proof you have for that truth is that you believe it… why join a debate?

May I suggest attending a Paris cafe to proclaim your truth?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
dancelittleewok,
What about in both translation there is the word “save”? Isn’t that the issue here?
No-one is denying that salvation occurs, it is how that salvific experience occurs that is being debated, and it is not by water baptism… but by faith (like that of Abraham) which is the answer of a good conscience toward God.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Dance little ewok,
I really don’t like how you are painting catholics out to be there. It is not only erroneous, but insulting. John, in his post cites, “go forth and baptize the nations,” which is from scripture…will you please answer his question?
I did, in post #18. But I will repeat myself for your benefit…
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.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Infant Baptism was practiced by the True Church since its inception, by Jesus. When we were instructed to go forth and teach all nations, baptizing all was included in this instruction. It is not ‘rediculous’ (sic) to infer that an entire household would include children. It is ridiculous NOT to assume that an entire household would include children under the age of reason.

To refute what the first Christians did as ‘unBiblical’ is even more ridiculous. There was no Bible at that time.

The True Church stands on both Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture, as cannonized by Her and by Her authority as given to her by Jesus Himself.

To falter from that Authority is to walk towards hell.
 
jemfinch,
Some older translations mistranslate the Greek word for “question, appeal” as “answer.”
Much like many liberal translations like to misranslate “hos” in John 3:16 as “so much.”
Not so, the word translated to “answer” in the KJV, is “eperotema”, which means “inquiry”. The definition of inquiry is much different than simply asking a question…

Webster defines inquiry as: “a formal investigation to determine the facts of a case”. In this case, the investigation would cover whether one has been saved.

Baptism, then in the text of 1 Peter 3:21 would be the outcome of that inquiry to prove the saved state of that person… which by being performed “after” salvation would affirm a person’s saved state, and their subsequent good conscience toward God.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
The Garg,

I am not making the subject complicated, I am reasoning with you by rightly dividing the scripture.

The confusion comes by your fidiestic approach to Catholic Doctrine… “I believe it, therefore it is true”. Your approach to the subject matter is self-defeating because it eliminates God as the originator of truth, and gives yourself the status of infallibility.

You are ignoring my reason, and dismissing it as irrelevent because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived ideas… that is Neo-Platonism, and Neo-platonism has no place in theology. Neo-platonism dismisses truth as it proceeds from God, and embraces a notion of existential truth.

If you wish to continue the debate, and reason through the scripture, I am more than willing to engage in discussion on Covenant theology and how it relates to baptism. But the discussion will be fruitless unless you admit you are not God, and therefore not the originator of truth.

John
www.gideonsword.net
I can’t believe your giving this advice to someone else.

Here is a helpful hint, before you give advice, make sure you your self follow it first. Then set pride aside, it has no place in christianity.
 
Not so, the word translated to “answer” in the KJV, is “eperotema”, which means “inquiry”.
Not so? By what, bibleapologist fiat?

Thayer’s Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament gives the meaning as, “an inquiry, a question; a demand; earnest seeking, a craving.” My Middle Liddel I have here (since I did take Greek in college) says that it’s “a question.” Please, present your sources that confirm your definition of the word.
The definition of inquiry is much different than simply asking a question…
Yes, and it has more of a connotation of an “appeal” or a “request.” Hence the use by all modern translations of a “question” or “appeal” or “request” term in its place. Even the NIV, the liberal translation it is, can’t in good conscience change the word to “pledge” without a footnote saying, “or request.”

Fundamentally, the KJV (and all translations which use “answer” or “pledge” or similar words for eperotema) is mistranslated. The words they use are simply not good translations of the Greek.
Webster defines inquiry as:
So Webster’s authoritative for you, but the Early Church Fathers aren’t? I see 🙂

Since “inquiry” is not an accurate translation of the Greek, Webster’s opinion is pretty moot.
Baptism, then in the text of 1 Peter 3:21 would be the outcome of that inquiry to prove the saved state of that person…
And even here you miss the boat. The passage says, “Baptism saves you.” It doesn’t say that baptism proves our salvation: it says that baptism, the subject, actively saves us.
which by being performed “after” salvation
How can baptism occur after salvation when the passage itself says that baptism itself saves us?

And again, you provide no historical evidence. I’m not interested in your distortions of Scripture; you have no apostolic authority by which to claim an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Show me in history where people with apostolic authority (even if it’s arguable) held anything remotely near your viewpoint.

Jeremy
 
Bibleapologist continues to ignore the testimony of early Christians that support the Church’s practice of infant baptism.

He also ignores the fact that even most Protestants teach original sin as St. Augustine articulated it (including Calvin), and that the early Protestants understood baptism as regenerative.

Further, he passes right over the archeological evidence that supports both pouring of water in baptism by early Christians and the baptizing of infants.

St. Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John was baptized as an infant. He referred to this infant baptism at his martyrdom when he said, “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3)

**St. Justin Martyr (100-166) was a Christian in the next generation following St. Polycarp and he said, "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).

Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, St. Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Thirty-five years later, St. Irenaeus (130 - 200) writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Bibleapologists’ website suggests that the “Milevitan” Council established the practice of infant baptism by Catholics. He either misunderstands or purposely misrepresents the articulation of what was already a practice amongst the first Christians, that was simply being put into canon as a result of the Pelagian heresy. If 418 A.D. is the magic number for the invention of infant baptism, then explain these early Council quotes:

Similar expressions (regarding infant baptism) are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254.

The 66 bishops said: **“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.” **

Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: “For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.”

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: **“If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema.” **

issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm
 
And moving on to the archeological evidence that early Christians practiced infant baptism:

Generally, the infant was baptized during the first week of life, but in cases of illness this took place on the day of birth. An example of this already comes from about 260 in North Africa in an inscription from Hadrumetum (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres II, 4429-A):
Arisus in pace
natus ora sexta
bixit supra scriptas VIIII


This Latin inscription indicates that a child who died nine hours after its birth was baptized. Such practice of Baptism within the first days of life, or on the day of birth in an emergency, remained for both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe.

Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. It is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism.

In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter:

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the “fish symbol” - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."

Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. **In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus **and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:

Dedicated to the departed.
Florentius made this inscription
for his worthy son Apronianus who
lived one year and nine months and five days.
As he was truly loved by his grandmother
and she knew that his death was imminent,
she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.


The fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.

The catacombs were the “Cradle of Christian art” which depicted, among many other beliefs of the early Christians, baptism.

Here is an early Christian depiction of baptism from the St. Calixte Catacomb (3rd century):

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Baptism_-_Saint_Calixte.jpg

Notice the baptism is taking place not by immersion, but by pouring.

More images of the artwork in these Christian catacombs can be found here:

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_catacombs
 
Believers Baptism a sign of the True Chruch? That’s interesting. The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, believed in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, beliefs still taught by the Lutheran Church. I don’t see why Protestants do not have a problem with the plethora of churches that have popped up since Martin Luther decided to split from the one true church, the only church that can trace its history back to the apostles. If Martin Luther’s act was an act of God, then why do so many modern day Protestants disagree with him when it comes to baptism? They should all be Lutherans. All that the Protestant Reformation has done is to lead to so much confusion and chaos. God is not the author of confusion! The Bible and the Church fathers are very clear on the issue of baptism. We are born again through water baptism! John 3 and other passages clearly point this out.
 
John,
Where does it say in Holy Scripture, “Do not Baptize infants”? Show me the Biblical authority NOT to Baptize infants?

Jesus Christ said in Matt 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…”
He did not say adults only did he? Did he ever put an age limit to receive Baptism?

Acts 22:16, “and now WHY DO YOU DELAY? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
So why do you delay in Baptizing your children?

Acts 2:38, But Peter said to them, “Repent and be Baptized every one of you…”
I would say that verse would include everyone, including infants and children of all ages. Peter did not say to leave your infants at home.

Acts 16:15, “And when she and her household had been Baptized…”
Did her household have infants maybe? Did Luke say “everyone in her household except infants”?

Acts 16:33, “And he took them at that very hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he and ALL his family were baptized immediately.”
Again, were infants excepted here?

1Cor 1:16, “I Baptized also the household of Stephanas…”
Did Paul say “everyone except infants”?

Luke 3:21, “Now it came to pass when all the people had been baptized…”
Aren’t infants part of “all the people”?

For those who deny infant baptism, the burden of proof is upon you to show that in all of the verses listed above there were no infants in all of those households and families.

Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.”
He also said in John 3:5, “…unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
How are they to come to Him unless they are Baptized?
Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children.

The baptism of the New Testament makes a man a Christian, and baptism saves,
Acts 2:38, Rom 6:4, 1Pet 3:21.
 
I may be ignortant, here (and yes, that can be considered the understatement of the year!), but weren’t these pools used to draw water for the residents of Jerusalem? Wouldn’t the said residents have a problem with these pools being used to fully immerse 3000 people?!?
I would like to hear your response to this and that many baptisms took place in the homes. So how did they baptise in homes that did not have baths?
 
I would like to hear your response to this and that many baptisms took place in the homes. So how did they baptise in homes that did not have baths?
f
Funny! I was just thinking about that myself.

I would also like to know which Bible versese explicitly say that baptism must be by immersion only.
 
Blest one,
Where does it say in Holy Scripture, “Do not Baptize infants”? Show me the Biblical authority NOT to Baptize infants?
Jesus Christ said in Matt 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…”
He did not say adults only did he? Did he ever put an age limit to receive Baptism?
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 22:16, “and now WHY DO YOU DELAY? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
So why do you delay in Baptizing your children?
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.
Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, “Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.”
He also said in John 3:5, “…unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD.”
How are they to come to Him unless they are Baptized?
Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children.
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
www.gideonsword.net
 
jemfinch,
And even here you miss the boat. The passage says, “Baptism saves you.” It doesn’t say that baptism proves our salvation: it says that baptism, the subject, actively saves us.
Quote:
which by being performed “after” salvation
How can baptism occur after salvation when the passage itself says that baptism itself saves us?
Let’s look at the verses again…
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Pe 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:
The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype. When Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, it represented a burial, and they seemed as it were to be buried in it, it was an emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial and resurrection.

Verse 21 states that like that same figure of baptism (Noah’s baptism, which illustrated the resurrection), baptism doth also now save us… Not that water baptism is the act that brings about salvation, but Peter was still using that water baptism illustratively. Hence Peter’s clarification… not that it was like the Baptism that John the Baptist administered, but that it was an answer of a good conscience toward God (a spiritual baptism).

The statement made by Peter “the answer of a good conscience toward God” was still intended as referencing the illustrative act of water baptism… as I stated earlier by the “inquiry”. That whole clarification in verse 21 was intended as a clarification and should not be taken as to qualify the opening statement… “baptism doth also now save us”. The final statement of that sentence explains how baptism saves us… “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.

Everything in parenthasis in verse 21 is speaking directly of water baptism… what is not in the parenthasis is speaking directly of spiritual baptism in Christ. The clarifications in parenthasis were meant to distinguish the illustration from the literal.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Odell,
I may be ignortant, here (and yes, that can be considered the understatement of the year!), but weren’t these pools used to draw water for the residents of Jerusalem? Wouldn’t the said residents have a problem with these pools being used to fully immerse 3000 people?!?
Probably no more of a problem than they had with that great multitude who gathered around the pool of Bethesda for healing (John 5:2, 3)
I would like to hear your response to this and that many baptisms took place in the homes. So how did they baptise in homes that did not have baths?
My answer to that, is that they would find a way. Your argument that they didn’t have baths doesn’t negate how a true baptism should be administered.

Why would they have baptized the prison guard in Acts 16 outside, then after the baptism come inside… wouldn’t it had been safer to stay out of sight and be baptized indoors?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
The ark, and deliverance by it, as it was a type of Christ, and salvation by him, so it was a figure of baptism, and baptism was the antitype. When Noah and his family were shut up in it by God, it represented a burial, and they seemed as it were to be buried in it, it was an emblem of baptism, which is expressed by a burial and resurrection.

Verse 21 states that like that same figure of baptism (Noah’s baptism, which illustrated the resurrection), baptism doth also now save us… Not that water baptism is the act that brings about salvation, but Peter was still using that water baptism illustratively. Hence Peter’s clarification… not that it was like the Baptism that John the Baptist administered, but that it was an answer of a good conscience toward God (a spiritual baptism).
But the problem is the quote specifically says, "eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.
  • How were they saved? Through water.
  • What is the “this” that prefigured Baptism? This has to point to the previous clause, or else it would have to specify an earlier relationship to “this”. Since it doesn’t, “This” is the saving through water.
  • What saves you now? Baptism.
  • Which Baptism? The Baptism that Jesus describes to Nicodemus. Being born of Water and Spirit, the same Baptism that Peter describes in Acts, chapter 2. “Repent and be baptized… and receive the Holy Spirit” (be born of water and Spirit).
Why do you have to go through such literary gymnastics when Peter states his case quite plainly?
The statement made by Peter “the answer of a good conscience toward God” was still intended as referencing the illustrative act of water baptism… as I stated earlier by the “inquiry”. That whole clarification in verse 21 was intended as a clarification and should not be taken as to qualify the opening statement… “baptism doth also now save us”. The final statement of that sentence explains how baptism saves us… “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”.
No one denies this. All Graces come to us through Christ (although you failed to mention “the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ”. I hope it was just a slip of the keyboard ).
Everything in parenthasis in verse 21 is speaking directly of water baptism… what is not in the parenthasis is speaking directly of spiritual baptism in Christ. The clarifications in parenthasis were meant to distinguish the illustration from the literal.
No, the clarification tells us what happens after Baptism. All our sins (as well as Original Sin) are washed away and we receive a clear conscience of God, but only because he gave us the graces we receive in Baptism.
 
Odell,
Probably no more of a problem than they had with that great multitude who gathered around the pool of Bethesda for healing (John 5:2, 3)
Probably? Probably?!? Although the pool of Bethesda was large (and it’s interesting that archaeologist have recently discovered this pool with five portico’s. The authenticity of it had been questioned for many centuries. Cool!!), it certainly couldn’t hold 3000 people in need of healing. And besides, only the first one to touch the water could get healed. After that, game over. I imagine it was like a game of musicals chairs.
My answer to that, is that they would find a way. Your argument that they didn’t have baths doesn’t negate how a true baptism should be administered.

Why would they have baptized the prison guard in Acts 16 outside, then after the baptism come inside… wouldn’t it had been safer to stay out of sight and be baptized indoors?
Since it was midnight, there was little chance of discovery. He also took them outside to bathe their wounds. Since water was nearby for bathing, why should you have to go back inside?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top