A
aidanbradypop
Guest
lol
- Status
lol
L
ltwin
Guest
You are taking irrelevant details (bodies of water, cousins) and confusing them with relevant details (the mode of baptism that is most similar to Jesus’ own that most clearly displays the burial and rising in Christ that baptism signifies).
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Not really. She is stating that if you are going to “do it like Christ” then you cannot pick which details you want to accept and discard the others.
If one is going to claim to baptize like Christ was to refute infant baptism, then one should do exactly the same and not pick a few details.
What of the entire families that were baptized in Sacred Scripture? Were those children (including infants) of the age? Were they saved before baptism or did their baptism play a part in their salvation?
L
ltwin
Guest
He was baptized, but in the name of Christ and not the Trinity.
No. I’m saying that not being baptized can evidence the presence of disobedience or lack of commitment Christ. Just because it may indicate those doesn’t mean those are the cause of the lack of baptism, however.
I believe God can save someone who hasn’t been baptized. But I would never tell someone, “Baptism is optional.” I think Scripture is pretty clear that all Christians should be baptized.
L
ltwin
Guest
“Washed by the blood baptism”. I’ve heard of being washed by the blood. The word “baptism” is not usually added to this.
I think Quakers would say that they are baptized with the Holy Spirit at conversion, and this supersedes any ritual involving water.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Yeah that sounds right. I really know nothing of the Quaker faith. lol
L
ltwin
Guest
Evangelicals talk a lot about “being washed by the blood of the Lamb.” This refers to the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross and the cleansing power of His atonement. It doesn’t replace water baptism though, which is still done.
S
SteveVH
Guest
And this would be a completley unbiblical, man-made invention. If this were true, all adults, who presumeably are “converted” prior to their Baptism, would not be in need of Baptism. You are saying that they can ignore Jesus’ command to go forth and teach all nations “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
Yet scripture tells us that thousands heard the words of the Apostles, believed and then were Baptized. Why would the Apostles have done this if it were not necessary?
J
jrtrent
Guest
Part of the reason we have differences of opinion on the propriety of infant baptism is that scripture does not specify in those instances of household baptisms whether young children or infants were involved. Credo-baptists would definitely deny such an assumption. One writer states, “in three of the four cases of household baptisms named in the New Testament there is positive proof that there was not an infant in these households.” truthmagazine.com/archives/volume45/V4503150108.htm
J
jrtrent
Guest
As so often happens on these forums, we seem to be debating a straw man argument. If we backtrack the line of reasoning is this thread, we see PRmerger responding to a post by stewstew03, who was responding to an article at sbc.net, and that article was brought up by you to show Southern Baptist belief on baptism.
That article said, “It is a membership requirement that every member must have been baptized the way Jesus demonstrated, even though some of us were “confirmed” as children.” The phrase “the way Jesus demonstrated,” taken in the context of the article, refers back to two questions asked and answered in the article: 1) Why is it so important to be baptized? “to follow the example set by Christ”; 2) Why be baptized by immersion? “Because Jesus was baptized that way.” sbc.net/knowjesus/baptism.asp
Stewstew03 gave the opinion that requiring that we be baptized the way Jesus demonstrated smacks of legalism. PRmerger quoted stewstew03’s comment, changing the statement to “We baptize the way Jesus was baptized,” and stating that “by this they mean, of course, immersion.” But then was added:
PRmerger may be referencing other sources or opinions, but in the context of this thread seems to have created a straw man to argue against by changing the wording of the phrase and bringing in what ltwin properly called “irrelevant details,” details not mentioned by the SBC.net article nor any other adherent of believer’s baptism that I’ve seen here.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.
Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with “He who does not believe will be condemned.” This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”
Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.
Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, “Repent and be baptized…” Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.
Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children.
Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God’s Covenant kingdom.
Etc…etc.
J
jrtrent
Guest
You don’t need to convince me; after all, I belong to a church that baptizes infants. To me, though, after having read well-thought-out arguments from both credo-baptists and paedo-baptists, it’s one of those things that I don’t see proved one way or the other from scripture. Below is John Gill’s take on Acts 16:15. The online sources I can reference do not seem to give as narrow a connotation on the word oikos as you do; that is, I see no requirement that infants and children must be present to use that word. blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G3624
John Gill
and her household; they were baptized also, being converted at the same time; these seem to be her menial servants, who came along with her from her native place upon business, and who attended on her; accordingly the Ethiopic version renders it, “and she was baptized with all her men”; and these were believers, and are called “the brethren”, Acts 16:40 hence this passage will by no means serve the cause of infant baptism: whether Lydia was a maid, a wife, or widow, cannot be said; it looks, however, as if she had no husband now, since she is mentioned as a trader herself; and whether she had any children or not, is not certain, nor can it be concluded from this clause, for there are many households that have no children; and if she had young children, it is not likely she should bring them with her to such a distant place, whither she was come upon trade and business: the pleaders for infant baptism must prove that she had children; that these were her household, or part of her household here spoken of; and that they were baptized; or this instance will be of no service to their cause bible.cc/acts/16-15.htm
P
PRmerger
Guest
Where does the Bible say that bodies of water and cousins are irrelevant but that immersion is relevant?
That’s an extra-biblical assignation you’ve applied here.
I don’t see anything mimicking burial by being dipped under a body of water.
And if we’re going to mimic Jesus’ burial, it would appear that you’d need to be under that body of water for 3 days. Or at least from Friday through Sunday.
Again, it appears as if you’re arbitrarily taking one criterion, but ignoring the rest. You decide something is “relevant”, not because the Scripture says it is, but because you heard some fallible man say it, who heard another fallible man say it, who heard another fallible man say it…but no one ever read “being immersed in water is a requirement for baptism, but being baptized by your cousin is not” in a single page of the Bible.
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly.
Not to mention the details that are picked are not specified as “relevant” in Scripture. So it’s simply a practice that some fallible man started, thinking it was relevant even though the Bible didn’t say it was…and people ran with it.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
I guess it can all be viewed depending on how you were brought up to believe. Baptizing someone after they were “saved” never really made sense to me. If that was the way to go, then John the Baptist should have baptized people after the death of Christ and not before.
Being raised Protestant, I am not against believer’s baptism. Afterall, when my wife joined the Catholic Church, she was baptized as a believer in Christ and His Holy Church. So that would be a believer baptism. Same goes with all the new converts to Christianity in the early Church.
I guess, as you stated, one could believer either way. It just all depends on how one’s denomination views Scripture.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Where does the Bible say that being baptized in the name of Christ = washed by the blood baptism?
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is very Catholic of you to say!
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, not a straw man argument. It is simply the natural progression of dialogue.
No discussion perseverates on the original question. Usually by page 3 the topic is resolved, and the discussion morphs into other tributaries.
Nothing wrong with that.
A
adf417
Guest
PR I can see Itwin’s point on some of these “irrelevant issues”. After all John the Baptist was baptizing all peoples and not just his cousins. What is still intriguing is Jesus’ age issue that you brought up earlier but lost interest in. When arguing infant baptism vs. the “just like Jesus did it” paradigm, this is absolutely one criterion that could be followed much more closely if one chooses to. Jesus being baptized in his 30’s is a far cry from “age of reason: and is completely attainable for all those who would want to abide by the “just as Jesus did it” paradigm as closely as they profess.
Peace!!!
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
JtheB was baptizing people before the death of Christ. Therefore they were baptized before Christ could save them. Those that perform believer baptism kind of do it backwards. Just my two cents to add lol
- Status