Baptism

[Teneas]

If you examine the verses about baptism and see how many speak of believing then baptism, I don’t think I’d be consistant to interpret those households any other way. I believe the Bible teaches believer baptism.

Okay, thanks for the answer, we can move forward with the others now. Can you please answer those?

Edit: You posted as I wrote goes to read your answers

 

[Teneas]

If you examine the verses about baptism and see how many speak of believing then baptism, I don’t think I’d be consistant to interpret those households any other way. I believe the Bible teaches believer baptism.​

According to Peter in one of his letters, interpretation is for the Holy Spirit and Him alone. I have often said I may very well be surprised when I get to Heaven (if God permits) when I find out which of my beliefs are incorrect. What I try to do is read and hope to listen to the still small voice of the Holy Spirit. Of course, I’ve heard many sermons over the yrs. I’ve looked up topics in commentaries and theology books. The bottom line, I’m responseble for me.

So, with this being said, you believe that your interpretations are correct? At least as much as possible? If that is the case, how can anyone’s interpretations be incorrect? If you alone can interpret the scriptures accurately, then we all can for ourselves. Therefore, there isn’t one single misinterpretation of scripture written here among these boards, if you are correct in your thoughts.

Yes, you are responsible for your salvation.

Um, and I just realized that you did not give an answer to whether or not you believe baptism is essential to salvation my friend. You simply said that the bible teaches believer baptism. That isn’t exactly whether or not -you- believe it is essential for salvation.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If you examine the verses about baptism and see how many speak of believing then baptism, I don’t think I’d be consistant to interpret those households any other way. I believe the Bible teaches believer baptism.

Salvation came to the Jew first then the Gentile. The first century Jew had to believe in Jesus first, in order to have enough faith to leave his Old Covenant with God from Moses, and come to the belief that Jesus is greater than Moses and Abraham. These Jews were already in the covenant with God. All they had to do first was believe, and then get baptised, “All households” because the promise of salvation was made to them (adults) and their “children” including those far off. The first Christian Communities consisted of adult Jews first and their “entire households” (which included slaves, women and children) which were not allowed in the Old Covenant except through Ones male husband., as recorded in the scriptures.

Baptism of infants becomes protected and defended early on during the time of apostates, and heretics who deny infant baptism. Second century on… records infant baptism being protected and practiced specifically.

I would be happy to post references if interested?

 

[Teneas]

In defense of infant baptism I propose the following:

Luke 18:15–16

Acts 2:38–39

Early Church Fathers:

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

The list goes on.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Teneas;6120837]In defense of infant baptism I propose the following:

Luke 18:15–16

Acts 2:38–39

Early Church Fathers:

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Irenaeus

“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

The list goes on.

Niiiice; Did you know the Catholic Church councils and Popes officially defended infant baptism against heretics here are a few;

Lateran Council IV, 1215
Infallibly defined that baptism was a sacrament of the Church.
Council of Lyons II, 1274
Infallibly redefined that baptism was one of the seven sacraments.
Council of Trent, 1545 - 1563
Again infallibly defined the seven sacraments listing baptism as the opening gateway and foundation of the sacraments.
Infant Baptism
Roman Catholic Christians among other denominational Christians, e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., believe in the efficacy and practice of baptizing infants.
The constant teaching of the Church attests to the baptism of infants.
Pope Zosimus (417 - 418)
Approved a teaching of a local council at Carthage which condemned those who denied baptism to newborn infants.
Pope Celestine I (422 - 432)
Taught that both children and infants need the sacrament of regeneration.
Pope Innocent II (1130 - 1143) and the Council of Lateran IV
Condemned those who denied the baptism of children.
Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216)
Condemned those who said that baptism of children was useless.
Pope Clement V (1305 - 1314) in the Council of Vienne
Defended the necessity of baptism of children.
Pope Eugene IV (1431 - 1447) in the Council of Florence
Defended the necessity of baptism of children.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563)
In a number of related canons, defined the absolute necessity of baptism for both children and adults.

 

[Teneas]

Gabriel_of_12:
Niiiice; Did you know the Catholic Church councils and Popes officially defended infant baptism against heretics here are a few;

Lateran Council IV, 1215
Infallibly defined that baptism was a sacrament of the Church.
Council of Lyons II, 1274
Infallibly redefined that baptism was one of the seven sacraments.
Council of Trent, 1545 - 1563
Again infallibly defined the seven sacraments listing baptism as the opening gateway and foundation of the sacraments.
Infant Baptism
Roman Catholic Christians among other denominational Christians, e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc., believe in the efficacy and practice of baptizing infants.
The constant teaching of the Church attests to the baptism of infants.
Pope Zosimus (417 - 418)
Approved a teaching of a local council at Carthage which condemned those who denied baptism to newborn infants.
Pope Celestine I (422 - 432)
Taught that both children and infants need the sacrament of regeneration.
Pope Innocent II (1130 - 1143) and the Council of Lateran IV
Condemned those who denied the baptism of children.
Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216)
Condemned those who said that baptism of children was useless.
Pope Clement V (1305 - 1314) in the Council of Vienne
Defended the necessity of baptism of children.
Pope Eugene IV (1431 - 1447) in the Council of Florence
Defended the necessity of baptism of children.
The Council of Trent (1545 - 1563)
In a number of related canons, defined the absolute necessity of baptism for both children and adults.

Good one! I really gotta get my early church father vol 1 book back sighs

 

[jmcrae]

I know I often fool myself. Just can’t reconcil the understanding of some here that seems to represent the CC. What I’m referring to is the idea that baptism and salvation is linked completely and vital: savation needs baptism. If that was true, Paul didn’t place that type of importance (salvation by baptism).

St, Paul equated Baptism with Circumcision. You can’t be a Jew if you are not circumcised; nor can you be a Christian if you are not baptized.

He didn’t even baptise many.

I have never baptized anyone at all in my whole life, and yet I consider Baptism to be extremely important - the reason is, there are other people whose job it is to baptize people. The fact that St. Paul hadn’t baptized any of a specific group of people doesn’t mean he doesn’t think it’s important.

He placed His emphasis on preaching the Gospel. And btw, if he saw baptism linked unseparately to the Gospel, one would think he’d be the one to baptize everyone he preached to.

St. Paul was not a “lone ranger” Christian - he was one member of a whole community. He wasn’t wandering from place to place like a lonely gypsy. Once he got things going in one place, others would come in and help to establish Churches, baptize people, etc. By that time, they were into the 3-year RCIA-like initiation process, so St. Paul’s preaching was more along the lines of Inquiry Catechesis - he wasn’t handing out “4 Spiritual Laws” tracts and baptizing people right away - they didn’t get baptized until three years later, normally by the Apostles and their appointed Bishops; not by St. Paul himself.

 

[Dokimas]

Salvation came to the Jew first then the Gentile. The first century Jew had to believe in Jesus first, in order to have enough faith to leave his Old Covenant with God from Moses, and come to the belief that Jesus is greater than Moses and Abraham. These Jews were already in the covenant with God. All they had to do first was believe, and then get baptised, “All households” because the promise of salvation was made to them (adults) and their “children” including those far off. The first Christian Communities consisted of adult Jews first and their “entire households” (which included slaves, women and children) which were not allowed in the Old Covenant except through Ones male husband., as recorded in the scriptures.

Baptism of infants becomes protected and defended early on during the time of apostates, and heretics who deny infant baptism. Second century on… records infant baptism being protected and practiced specifically.

I would be happy to post references if interested?

I guess I’m a heretic. I happen to believe God so loves infants that if He chooses to end their eathly existance, He will take them to Himself without baptism. Jesus said to let children come to Him and not to keep them from Him. Saying that without baptism an infant is not welcome in Heaven is, in my heretical mind, keeping children from Jesus.​

I’m glad for a heretical mind in this case because my God is far more gracious than the belief that an infant must be baptized.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I guess I’m a heretic. I happen to believe God so loves infants that if He chooses to end their eathly existance, He will take them to Himself without baptism. Jesus said to let children come to Him and not to keep them from Him. Saying that without baptism an infant is not welcome in Heaven is, in my heretical mind, keeping children from Jesus.​

I’m glad for a heretical mind in this case because my God is far more gracious than the belief that an infant must be baptized.

On the contrary you are not a heretic. You are of an opinion that does not accept infant baptism. Of no fault of your own, you reject infant baptism, you have to come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ “Truth” and then reject his teachings to be labeled as a heretic.

The Catholic Church prays and believes unbaptised children are in the merciful hands of God himself. I believe a honest and unbiased understanding of “sheol”, “hades” and what the Catholic Church calls today “purgatory” will give you comfort to these children who did not recieve a baptism. We must not neglect the Catholic teaching and understanding of baptism of desire saves, and baptism of blood saves.

In short, “purgatory” is a place where Jesus preaches to those souls already on their way to heaven (1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered 5 for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. **Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 6 **
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. 21
This prefigured baptism, which saves you now) so unbaptised infants from biblical standards are placed in the merciful hands of God.

 

[Bill_Pick]

What our Church Father had to say ca

Hippolytus

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

 

[Mickey]

Was it harder? Back then there were many miracles done by the apostles including Paul. Not to mention that there were many eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus (at least or about 500 according to Paul).

You must be joking. Many witnessed the miracles of Christ Himself, and yet did not believe.

 

[Dokimas]

You must be joking. Many witnessed the miracles of Christ Himself, and yet did not believe.

Nope I’m not joking. Jesus had thousands of followers and His public ministry was only 3 yrs. If we were as effective, our churches couldn’t hold all the new converts.

 

[Marie5890]

Want to thank all of you for the various comments of the past several pages.

Have an RCIA candidate (who is Jewish) by the way and tonight I am teaching on the Lord’s baptism. We will be discussing so much of what many of you have mentioned

 

[Dokimas]

Glad to hop in this one early - I’m quitting Yahoo!Answers (again) because of the trolls.

Ariel.org’s “about us” section indicates background is dispensationalist (Dallas Theological) and identification is Messianic Judaism. Interesting.

I’m urious what primary research he’s looking at …

QUOTE]
From Wikipedia​

"Arnold Fruchtenbaum was born in 1943 in Siberia, Russia. The family escaped to Germany in 1947 after his father had been accused of being a Nazi spy. At age 13, Fruchtenbaum came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. His father opposed this and forbade him to read the Bible, attend meetings, or otherwise meet with Messianic Jews. The family moved to Los Angeles in 1958.

After being forced to leave the family home, in 1962 he began college education at Shelton College in New Jersey. He moved to Cedarville College in Ohio, where he graduated with a BA degree in Hebrew and Greek in 1966. He then moved to Israel, where he studied archeology, ancient history, historical geography, and Hebrew at the American Institute of Holy Land Studies and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. During this time, he witnessed the Six Day War in 1967.

Later that year, Fruchtenbaum returned to the U.S. and entered Dallas Theological Seminary to continue his studies in Hebrew and the Old Testament. He also began working as a missionary with American Board of Missions to the Jews (ABMJ; today, Chosen People Ministries). Fruchtenbaum was married in 1968 to Mary Ann Morrow, a graduate of Gordon College in Massachusetts. Three years later (1971), he graduated with a Master of Theology degree from Dallas. He and his wife then moved to Israel and settled in Jerusalem to work with the local church and to train young Israeli Jewish believers for Christian service. They left Israel in 1973.

During the two years following, Fruchtenbaum served as a minister and as editor of “The Chosen People,” a monthly publication . This was with ABMJ in New Jersey. Then in 1976 he joined the staff of The Christian Jew Foundation as associate director. At this time he struggled with the issue of discipleship and perceived a need for biblical and theological training for Jewish Messianic believers. This was discussed with other leaders and this turned into the ideas for Ariel Ministries. Late 1977, Ariel Ministries was established. Fruchtenbaum is the founding director of Ariel Ministries and continues in this role and as a speaker at conferences.

He travels internationally throughout Europe, Israel and the United States. This has given him a broad knowledge of the messianic movement. He has completed his doctoral dissertation, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology at New York University in 1989. Fruchtenbaum has published a number of books."​

Any more questions about the credentials of Dr Fruchtenbaum?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Some believe that baptism is to replace circumcism. This would bring that understanding into question.

Good point but how can a female get circumcism,can you tell me

 

[Dokimas]

Good point but how can a female get circumcism,can you tell me

They can’t and thanx. You mention a good reason that baptism isn’t a NT replacement for circumcism.

 

[jmcrae]

Good point but how can a female get circumcism,can you tell me

They didn’t circumcise women, back then.

Baptism opened the covenant of grace to both males and females.

 

[guanophore]

They can’t and thanx. You mention a good reason that baptism isn’t a NT replacement for circumcism.

In the OT, women and children were considered property. Jesus elevated their status and made it clear that each can make a choice to be joined to him.

In the OT, women and children were in cluded into the covenant through the male guardian, whether a father, husband, or near kindred. In the New Covenant, each can make their own decision to be buried with Him in baptism.

What do you make of the fact that the disciples of the Apostles believed baptism was a replacement for circumcision.

 

[Dokimas]

In the OT, women and children were considered property. Jesus elevated their status and made it clear that each can make a choice to be joined to him.

In the OT, women and children were in cluded into the covenant through the male guardian, whether a father, husband, or near kindred. In the New Covenant, each can make their own decision to be buried with Him in baptism.

What do you make of the fact that the disciples of the Apostles believed baptism was a replacement for circumcision.

I prefer to make a doctrine from what the NT says. Show me the link between circumcism and baptism in the NT and I’ll accept it. However, I’m not sure it’s an imortant understanding.

 

[TheosisM]

I prefer to make a doctrine from what the NT says. Show me the link between circumcism and baptism in the NT and I’ll accept it. However, I’m not sure it’s an imortant understanding.

I assume Colossians 2:11-12 will be cited:

11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.