A
adrift
Guest
If you mean to change the topic of this thread, than no it is not agreeable and goes against forum rules.
If you wish to abandon this thread and start another topic than go for it.
- Status
If you wish to abandon this thread and start another topic than go for it.
C
Chiefsinner
Guest
This thread has gone off topic you keep mentioned “personal lord and savior” yet the sinner’s Prayer is un biblical and it has been proved many times.
The phrase highlighted in bold is not found anywhere in scripture.
Verses protestant use to support this doctrine
christianteens.about.com/od/Bible_Verses_On/a/Bible-Verses-About-Accepting-Christ.htm
You are trying to equate belief = salvation. Kris Holm is a famous unicylcist and he would travel on those narrow string rope from one side of the bridge to the other side and he asked a question do you believe “I can go to the other side on this cycle”. They were hesitant at first but when he went to the other side and came back. He asked the question again do you believe “I can go to the other side on this cycle and come back” they said yes we believe
Now he asked the trick question which one of you are willing to come ride on my shoulders and go to the other side? They all backed out
Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see
Matthew 7:21
It is not everyone that says to me, ‘My Lord, my Lord’’, who enters the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.
Let’s take a look at a few other passages of Scripture. Let’s open our Bibles to Matthew 25:31-46:
“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me. Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? And the King will answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me. Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me. Then they themselves also will answer, saying, ** Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You? Then He will answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life .”**
What is the basis of judgment here, Our faith alone? What about a few other passages. How about Revelation 20:11 15. Look for the words “faith alone” in this passage.
“And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; **and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
And again, in Matthew 16:26 27:
“For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; **and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.” **
And what about Revelation 2:23:
“And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts;** and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.”**
And what amazing information does St. Paul give us in Romans 2:5 11?
“But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.”
This is not the end of the biblical passages to suggest that the judgment will be based on works and not on faith alone. I would challenge anyone to find a verse that attributes the result of the final judgment to faith alone.**
The phrase highlighted in bold is not found anywhere in scripture.
Verses protestant use to support this doctrine
christianteens.about.com/od/Bible_Verses_On/a/Bible-Verses-About-Accepting-Christ.htm
You are trying to equate belief = salvation. Kris Holm is a famous unicylcist and he would travel on those narrow string rope from one side of the bridge to the other side and he asked a question do you believe “I can go to the other side on this cycle”. They were hesitant at first but when he went to the other side and came back. He asked the question again do you believe “I can go to the other side on this cycle and come back” they said yes we believe
Now he asked the trick question which one of you are willing to come ride on my shoulders and go to the other side? They all backed out
Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see
Matthew 7:21
It is not everyone that says to me, ‘My Lord, my Lord’’, who enters the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does the will of my Father who is in Heaven.
Let’s take a look at a few other passages of Scripture. Let’s open our Bibles to Matthew 25:31-46:
“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right, Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me. Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? And the King will answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me. Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me. Then they themselves also will answer, saying, ** Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You? Then He will answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life .”**
What is the basis of judgment here, Our faith alone? What about a few other passages. How about Revelation 20:11 15. Look for the words “faith alone” in this passage.
“And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; **and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”
And again, in Matthew 16:26 27:
“For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; **and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.” **
And what about Revelation 2:23:
“And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts;** and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.”**
And what amazing information does St. Paul give us in Romans 2:5 11?
“But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.”
This is not the end of the biblical passages to suggest that the judgment will be based on works and not on faith alone. I would challenge anyone to find a verse that attributes the result of the final judgment to faith alone.**
C
Chiefsinner
Guest
What the catholic church teaches on salvation
“How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth and eternal life?
By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?
By declaring with our mouths (Lu 12:8; Rom 10:9)?
By coming to a knowledge of the Truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?
By maintaining the faith (Col 1:22-23; Mt 24:13)?
By works (John 5:28-29; Rom 2:6, 7; James 2:24)?
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?
By His righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?
By His cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?
By carrying his cross ( Luke 9:23)?
“Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? without God’s grace? without repentance? without baptism? without the Spirit? These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up, overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather she holds them all in their fullness.
A
adrift
Guest
It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t recognize that it has been refuted. You began in your OP with the accusation that Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II of forcing infant baptism through intimidation and cruel force with a document that was pointed out to you didn’t prove what you wanted it to and to quote the answer given you
You have not acknowledge your misuse.
Scripture is not clear either way. Yes it says believe and be baptized. I see it more as a command not a prerequisite. Jesus says in order to attain heaven you must be reborn of water and the Spirit. He did not say first believe. Jesus also said suffer not the little ones to come unto me.
Where is the history of families having there children baptized at the age of reason? Where is your evidence that families who converted waited for their infants to be baptizes later instead of the evidence that entire families were baptized?
You chose the year 414 and made the statement that there is not writings in Apostolic or post Apostolic. I am not sure what years you are alluding to but I assume before 414.
•Origen (in cap. vi, Ep. ad Rom.) declares: “The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants”.
•St. Cyprian (Epistle 58) writes: “From baptism and from grace . . . must not be kept the infant who, because recently born, has committed no sin, except, inasmuch as it was born carnally from Adam, it has contracted the contagion of the ancient death in its first nativity; and it comes to receive the remission of sins more easily on this very account that not its own, but another’s sins are forgiven it.”
•St.Cyprian’s letter to Fidus declares that the Council of Carthage in 253 reprobated the opinion that the baptism of infants should be delayed until the eighth day after birth.
Polycarp AD 69–155 that makes his life 86 years on his death he said
That he was baptized as an infant is the only thing to be concluded.
S
Scitor
Guest
I do not see any misuse here. And it does prove what I stated and my comment has not been refuted. If you cannot see how instituting a law putting to death those that are re-baptized is support for and also a means of enforcing infant baptism, then all I can say is your bias restricts your ability think clearly on the matter.
The scriptures are clear. The Enunch asked what must I do to be baptized. What was he told, “believe.” In every example of baptism in scripture believe precedes baptism. Please provide an example of baptism in the bible where this is not the case.
Where is your evidence that families who converted baptized infants? It is not in scripture. You, like many others, assume/infer infants where baptized.
S
Scitor
Guest
QNDNN…I have read Catholic sources. And, I have compared Catholic apologetics with Southern Baptist apologetics. I would ask you…have you ever picked up a Southern Baptist or any other Protestant apologetics and done a comparison to understand the argument against many of the Catholic teaching, or are you just blinding following.
Also, in a previous post, I believe you stated I was hung up on the word “household.” Yes, I was and here is why.
The first account of baptism, after the Great Commission given by the risen Lord, is found in Acts 2:41-44: “Then they that gladly** received his word** were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common.” That was certainly believers baptism. They “gladly received his word.” “And all that believed were together.”
Acts 5 :14 : “And believers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” The text does not say they were baptized, yet no one doubts it. They were believers, men and women.
Acts 8:12: “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Notice those baptized were men and women-no infants, and they were believing men and women.
Acts 8 :37, the eunuch believed before Philip baptized him. And, not only did he believe, but he asked "what must I do to be baptized and was answered with “believe.”
Saul was praying and God heard him before Ananias went to him. He certainly was a believer prior to his baptism. “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we” (Acts 10:47)? They heard the Word, while Peter was preaching the Holy Spirit was given. They spake with tongues and magnified the Lord.
Of Lydia it is said, “Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household” (Acts 16:14-15). Now, in verse 40, we read of this household, “And when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.”
Of the jailer at Philippi, we read in Acts 16:32, “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” Then they were all subjects of gospel address, capable of receiving the message of life from Paul and Silas. Verses 33 and 34 read: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” Now, they heard the Word, they believed, they rejoiced, they were baptized.
“And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8).
Again, as I have stated and which has not been refuted on this thread,** there is not a single instance of infant baptism in the New Testament, not even an inference that has any scriptural support.** There is not the slightest evidence that anyone received the ordinance of baptism who did not profess faith in Christ; hence scripture supports believers baptism.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Actually I almost went into the Southern Baptist ministry many years ago, so I do know what they teach and believe about baptism and I have written an article on my blog that speaks to why the Catholic practice is both scriptural and in line with what the early church believed and taught as well.
The Case For Infant Baptism
In addition the following articles may also be of some interest to you.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?
The Case For Infant Baptism
In addition the following articles may also be of some interest to you.
Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said.
What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?
J
JamesTheJust
Guest
The discussion of accepting Christ as one’s savior for salvation is a different thread entirely, but I’m afraid the thief was not accepting Christ as King in that passage. In the context, the bad thief is mocking Jesus, and the good thief says, “Don’t you fear God? We have sinned, but this man has done nothing wrong!” The good thief is saying that they shouldn’t “stain their records” before God any more by mocking a righteous man, lest they be damned.
2 Samuel 12 is in the OT, so it is obviously silent on Baptism. However, as I have shown, Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, and 2 Samuel 12:18 states that the child was sick for seven days, meaning he was alive for at least 8, and would have been circumcised. Isaiah 7 is all Messianic prophecy, and reading it in context clearly demonstrates that. 7:15 comes immediately after this famous verse:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign;* the young woman, pregnant and about to bear a son, shall name him Emmanuel.
Without any indication that the passage now talks about young children and not Christ, it continues with the verse you mentioned. I’ll refer you to John Gill’d commentary to show you what the passage truly means:
m.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-7-15.html
P
Porknpie
Guest
What’s wrong with this logic?
The bible says whole households were baptized.
Infants are members of a household.
Infants therefore were baptized.
The logic holds true unless you want to argue infants are not members of a household. If you argue that they are not, then what do you believe they are members of?
PnP
S
Scitor
Guest
Porknpie…did you not just read my post addressing this issue and 1) proving how believers baptism is the intent of Christ as supported by many multiple scriptures given and 2) how there is no scriptural basis to conclude household included infants.
One has addressed the scripturesI have given to say otherwise.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Nor is there a single verse of scripture that explicitly prohibits infant baptism.
Tell me, Scitor, did Jesus give real authority to the apostles or not? The Bible says;
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)
“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ “ (John 20:21)
How did Jesus send the Apostles into the world? Just as the Father sent Him. And how did the Father send Jesus into the world? With all authority. Therefore, the Church built by Jesus upon Peter, the Rock, has been given all authority. Need confirmation of this? I thought you might.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.(Matthew 16:18-19)
What is the definition of “whatever”, Scitor? It means “everything” or “anything”. So, from these few verses, we can see that God the Father has given all authority to God the Son who in turn bestows this authority upon His own disciples and sends them out to preach the truth to all the world. Thus, we can see that the Apostolic Authority of the Church is God-given. And how closely does Jesus identify with that Church? I was hoping you’d ask!
He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.(Luke 10:16)
Now, all of that groundwork was put in place to ask one simple question:
If the Church, built by Jesus Christ upon Peter, the Rock, and led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, determines that it is acceptable to baptize infants, on what basis do you reject this?
You do not have a single verse suggesting that the Jews who accepted Christ as adults would not baptize their infants into the New Covenant just as they had circumcised them a few months earlier into the Old Covenant.
So, show me by what authority you contradict the Church which has God-given authority to bind and loose “whatever” it deems appropriate?
Thanks.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Folks are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. **Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes. **
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that “he and his wife were baptized,” but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Acts 16:25-34 - The Philippian Jailer
The Philippian Jailer blew it. He missed a great chance to witness to Jesus. Well, here…let’s review the passage first:
Acts 16:25-34
25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. 27The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” 29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.
As the scriptures clearly indicate, the Philippian jailer and the adult members of his household who were old enough to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior were already saved by their faith alone. (Regretfully, Luke was sloppy in his recounting of this incident and was not more careful to avoid giving the impression that minors may have been baptized, also.)
Getting baptized “immediately”, “at that hour of the night”, that is, “about midnight”, was a missed opportunity. The jailer should have waited a few weeks or until the next meeting of the local assembly when he could have been baptized in front of the entire congregation as a symbol of his salvation. This ceremony would have been more edifying for those who were already members of the Church.
I mean, why the rush? There was no time to witness to his friends about the exact date that he “got saved” or to invite them to attend the ceremony, no time to have his name printed in the bulletin, no party afterward…just a quick slam-dunk and it was over.
This whole, distasteful episode is at odds with how things would be done in the typical Bible church today. Why, the conversion of such an important official as the administrator of the local correctional facility would be quite a feather in the cap of any modern evangelist…what was Paul thinking?
Maybe he was thinking of his own conversion and how important it is to have one’s sins washed away in the waters of baptism (cf. Acts 22:16). Maybe he was thinking of the words of the Apostle Peter with whom he had conferred twice concerning the gospel message; the words that Peter used to clearly state “Baptism now saves you” (cf. 1 Peter 3:21).
The Philippian Jailer blew it. He missed a great chance to witness to Jesus. Well, here…let’s review the passage first:
Acts 16:25-34
25About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. 27The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” 29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.
As the scriptures clearly indicate, the Philippian jailer and the adult members of his household who were old enough to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior were already saved by their faith alone. (Regretfully, Luke was sloppy in his recounting of this incident and was not more careful to avoid giving the impression that minors may have been baptized, also.)
Getting baptized “immediately”, “at that hour of the night”, that is, “about midnight”, was a missed opportunity. The jailer should have waited a few weeks or until the next meeting of the local assembly when he could have been baptized in front of the entire congregation as a symbol of his salvation. This ceremony would have been more edifying for those who were already members of the Church.
I mean, why the rush? There was no time to witness to his friends about the exact date that he “got saved” or to invite them to attend the ceremony, no time to have his name printed in the bulletin, no party afterward…just a quick slam-dunk and it was over.
This whole, distasteful episode is at odds with how things would be done in the typical Bible church today. Why, the conversion of such an important official as the administrator of the local correctional facility would be quite a feather in the cap of any modern evangelist…what was Paul thinking?
Maybe he was thinking of his own conversion and how important it is to have one’s sins washed away in the waters of baptism (cf. Acts 22:16). Maybe he was thinking of the words of the Apostle Peter with whom he had conferred twice concerning the gospel message; the words that Peter used to clearly state “Baptism now saves you” (cf. 1 Peter 3:21).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
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. You can learn more about oikos here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos
Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
Finally, the “brethren” mentioned in v. 40 are not exclusively the members of the household but also those of the local church which met at Lydia’s home.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Long before the Baptist Church came into existence, Christians were discussing and writing about infant baptism, and note that the real argument was not WHETHER to baptize them but WHEN or how early to do so. :yup:
Further, many of these early writings date from the period PRIOR to the Edict of Milan in AD 313 when Constantine legalized Christianity. Why is this significant? Because it means that even before the Catholic Church was allegedly created by Constantine, true Bible Only Christians were baptizing their infants within a few days of their birth. Thus, infant baptism is not an invention of the Whore of Babylon. :nope:
Let’s take a look at what these early Christians had to say:
Polycarp (69-155 AD)
“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3)
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. If Polycarp had served the Lord for 86 years, he must have been baptized fairly young - during the lifetime of the Apostle demonstrating that infant baptism is Apostolic in origin.
Irenaeus (c.120-c.200 AD)
“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies 2:22:4).
“‘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]).
**Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) **
“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).
Hippolytus (170-236 AD)
“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).
“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]).
Council of Carthage (254 AD)
“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”
Cyprian
“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).
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
**Ambrose **
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])
Gregory of Nazianzen
“**Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. **From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
Further, many of these early writings date from the period PRIOR to the Edict of Milan in AD 313 when Constantine legalized Christianity. Why is this significant? Because it means that even before the Catholic Church was allegedly created by Constantine, true Bible Only Christians were baptizing their infants within a few days of their birth. Thus, infant baptism is not an invention of the Whore of Babylon. :nope:
Let’s take a look at what these early Christians had to say:
Polycarp (69-155 AD)
“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3)
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. If Polycarp had served the Lord for 86 years, he must have been baptized fairly young - during the lifetime of the Apostle demonstrating that infant baptism is Apostolic in origin.
Irenaeus (c.120-c.200 AD)
“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies 2:22:4).
“‘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]).
**Justin Martyr (100-166 AD) **
“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).
Hippolytus (170-236 AD)
“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).
“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]).
Council of Carthage (254 AD)
“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”
Cyprian
“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).
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).
**Ambrose **
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])
Gregory of Nazianzen
“**Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. **From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
OK, so from:
(1) the biblical data given:
(a) including Lydia’s whole household was baptized (Acts 16:15) as was all the family of the jailer (Acts 16:33). Paul says he baptized the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16). There is no reason in the text to exclude infants or children from the respective households, and
(b) there is certainly no prohibition in the entire NT against the baptism of infants.
(2) the patristic data: one example here among many available on the web. It is reported by them as an established practice and considered apostolic.
The Catholic Church East and West and the EOC have always held when they talked/wrote about it that infant baptism is a legitimate practice of apostolic origin.
So how would you sketch out the argument for your protesting view that it is more reasonable to conclude that infant baptism (the preexisting claim the CC and EOC) is positively contrary to God’s will and must be abandoned completely?
Bear in mind that if the argument for your protesting position is based on sola scriptura (SS), another protesting claim, you are begging the question, until you establish why it is more reasonable to adopt SS as the means God chose to hand on His word rather than by the united and interrelated process of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition in the Catholic and Apostolic Church going back to Pentecost (STC).
P
Porknpie
Guest
Scitor, that doesn’t answer my question. I am using scripture as well and logic. No where in scripture does it say to delay baptism to the age of reason.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:tiphat:
S
Scitor
Guest
Jazz…did you not read my previous post. I clearly showed through scripture that in each instance where household is mentioned, scripture goes on to state that those in the household believed first and then were baptized. The argument that households included infants has been thoroughly rebuffed.
And the argument that you, Randy, and Porknpie use…“the bible does not say you cannot baptize infants,” is an invalid argument. It holds absolutely no weight. Think about it.
- Status