Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dokimas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”

The forbidding of water he questions, was an external act of joining the first gentiles to the Church of Believers. Peter baptized them because he recognized the internal witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three were in agreement.
In this response, Rocket, it seems that we are in agreement. The Apostles never separated the work of the HS from the baptismal water.
 
In this response, Rocket, it seems that we are in agreement. The Apostles never separated the work of the HS from the baptismal water.
Then, could you also agree that God does not always reveal Himself in a lightning bolt as he did for Saul. For some, He does so in small steps and one can come to faith in Jesus Christ, acknowledging His substitutional work as a gift, given a new heart, made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, and his sins remembered no more, without the water being immediately applied externally?
 
You have not explained how the disciples of the Apostles misunderstood what they taught, so they thought it meant that the HS and the water together constituted the One Baptism.
And I won’t because I didn’t say that nor do I believe it.
 
from www.ariel.org - Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum

"Baptism was a common Jewish practice long before it became a Christian practice. The basic Hebrew meaning of baptism is identification. When one was baptized he identified himself with a person, and/or message, and/or group. In Judaism, when a Gentile underwent the process of conversion to Judaism, he would also be baptized and, by so doing, would identify himself with Judaism and the Jewish people. Those who were being baptized by John were identifying themselves with John’s repentance movement and with the message he was proclaiming concerning the soon coming of the King. By being baptized by John, they were making a commitment that whomever John declared Messiah to be, they would accept Him as the Messiah.

In believer’s baptism we identify ourselves with the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah."
Your website is a Christian missionary site aimed specifically for the conversion of Jews. baptism in its Christian sense is not part of Judaism. The Mikveh is not baptism in any way that a Christian would understand baptism.
 
Your website is a Christian missionary site aimed specifically for the conversion of Jews. baptism in its Christian sense is not part of Judaism. The Mikveh is not baptism in any way that a Christian would understand baptism.
My website: www.ariel.org is a website of a Jewish man who came to understand that Jesus is the Messiah his people had been looking for. Dr Fruchtenbaum is quite learned in Judaism and Christianity, the OT and the NT.
 
What does this have to do with the statement of mine you said you were replying to?
You were saying that it is rare to have children in households,and that therefore, the households that were being baptized by the Apostles had no children in them.

I was letting you know that, back in those days, having children in households was a very, very common occurrence - much more common than today, for the reasons that I gave to you.
 
There’s two baptisms, which one is key to understanding these passages. And then Paul would say, ‘one baptism’ so what does that mean? WOW, seems confusing. Thank God we can search the Bible for answers. Thank God He has given us the Holy Spirit to make our search fruitful.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “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” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “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” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . 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.”
 
You were saying that it is rare to have children in households,and that therefore, the households that were being baptized by the Apostles had no children in them.

I was letting you know that, back in those days, having children in households was a very, very common occurrence - much more common than today, for the reasons that I gave to you.

I’m not sure what you read but I did not say that having children (infants or young) in household was rare. I don’t know why you think I said that. I must have been very unclear.​

Someone pointed out that there were 5 households in the NT that got baptized. They thought it illogical that all 5 would be without infants. I said 5 households out of all the households of the thousands and thousands that were baptized in the NT, is a very small % of all the households represented in all those baptisms.
 

I’m not sure what you read but I did not say that having children (infants or young) in household was rare. I don’t know why you think I said that. I must have been very unclear.​

Someone pointed out that there were 5 households in the NT that got baptized. They thought it illogical that all 5 would be without infants. I said 5 households out of all the households of the thousands and thousands that were baptized in the NT, is a very small % of all the households represented in all those baptisms.
So, are you agreeing, then, that at least some of the households must have had children in them, and that therefore the Apostles must therefore have also been baptizing children? 👍
 
So, are you agreeing, then, that at least some of the households must have had children in them, and that therefore the Apostles must therefore have also been baptizing children? 👍

How are you coming up with your conclusions?​

It is obvious to me that the Bible teaches baptism for those who decide to get baptize only. Therefore if a household gets baptized, there where no babies in that household. 5 households out of the thousands is a very very small %. 5 / 3000 (one day only) = .00167 which is .167 %.
 

How are you coming up with your conclusions?​

It is obvious to me that the Bible teaches baptism for those who decide to get baptize only.
You are assuming your conclusion. Where are you getting that only those who decide for themselves can be baptized? The fact that thousands of households were baptized (five of which are mentioned specifically in the text of Scripture) shows us the opposite - that infants and children were certainly baptized.
 
You are assuming your conclusion. Where are you getting that only those who decide for themselves can be baptized? The fact that thousands of households were baptized (five of which are mentioned specifically in the text of Scripture) shows us the opposite - that infants and children were certainly baptized.

Where are you getting that thousands of households were baptized? Thousands of **individuals **were baptized and they were part of a household.​

There are many verses posted on this and other threads that reveal that **belief should precede **baptism. Infant can’t belief on that level.
 
Where are you getting that thousands of households were baptized? Thousands of **individuals **were baptized and they were part of a household.
The Apostles did not permit households to divide against themselves, as we see with the five households given as examples in Scripture. The wives, children, and servants were also baptized; not only the jailer himself. The Apostles went to his house explain to them what was going on - they did not have the choice of whether to be baptized, though. They were baptized on the strength of the jailer’s faith.
There are many verses posted on this and other threads that reveal that **belief should precede **baptism. Infant can’t belief on that level.
The Early Church baptized infants, and required the parents to bring their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This is a matter of historical record. The debate of those times was not whether the kids had to wait until they reached “the age of accountability” before being baptized - they were debating whether the kids had to wait until the eighth day after birth, before they could be allowed to be baptized, and the answer of the Early Church was, no - go ahead and baptize them as soon as they are clear of the birth canal, if you want to.
 

Where are you getting that thousands of households were baptized? Thousands of **individuals **were baptized and they were part of a household.​

There are many verses posted on this and other threads that reveal that **belief should precede **baptism. Infant can’t belief on that level.
Amen and how can a baby repent?
 
Amen and how can a baby repent?
Of what, exactly, is the baby going to repent? Or are you saying that God requires us to commit sin before we can be baptized, so that we can repent? :confused:

The only people who have to repent before Baptism are people who have actually sinned before Baptism. 🙂
 
His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).
This is a command directed to Apostles to obey; As should we.👍

Peace, one
 
Of what, exactly, is the baby going to repent? Or are you saying that God requires us to commit sin before we can be baptized, so that we can repent? :confused:

The only people who have to repent before Baptism are people who have actually sinned before Baptism. 🙂
Acts2: 38 -39
 
The Apostles did not permit households to divide against themselves, as we see with the five households given as examples in Scripture. The wives, children, and servants were also baptized; not only the jailer himself. The Apostles went to his house explain to them what was going on - they did not have the choice of whether to be baptized, though. They were baptized on the strength of the jailer’s faith.

The Early Church baptized infants, and required the parents to bring their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This is a matter of historical record. The debate of those times was not whether the kids had to wait until they reached “the age of accountability” before being baptized - they were debating whether the kids had to wait until the eighth day after birth, before they could be allowed to be baptized, and the answer of the Early Church was, no - go ahead and baptize them as soon as they are clear of the birth canal, if you want to.

You make statements but where is the evidence that the 1st century church, specifically those headed by Paul, Peter, James, etc. baptized babies? If your best evidence is the word ‘household’ it have been well documented on this thread and others that you can’t just assume all households at all times have babies. It’s not logical or real. What is logical, every other time baptism is practiced or instruction to practice baptism, it is mentioned with believing first, then baptism follows.​

NO ONE here has dealt with the question that if God so loves all babies, then why require them to be baptized. Remember Jesus said not to forbid children to come unto Him. If you require baptism first, then you are keeping those children that can’t or don’t get baptized from the Lord Jesus Christ against His will.​

Beliefs have ramifications. God have mercy upon us. Don’t give us what we deserve; I could not stand in Your presence if I got what I deserve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top