Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;2763623:

Jesus says to baptize disciples made of all nations. You say to baptize infants. Infants are not disciples made of all nations. Therefore you are disobeying or disregarding or ignoring the command of Christ. That is a fact, not opinion.

Personally speaking, I’m always loathe to use the ‘fact’ when attempting to describe anything relating to God or the divine for the simple reason that the divine and God himself cannot be described as simply a fact and the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be confined simply a statement of fact. They are a reality which goes way beyond a fact and a reality which no one can say they have grasped the concept of in the infinite sense, bearing in mind that God is infinite. However, if we take that Jesus said baptize disciples, in what context did Our Lord himself mean it as he was the one who said it? Who does Jesus consider to be his disciple?/

quote]Not sure which side of the table you’re on but this is precisely the question. We accept as “disciples” those who are brought to Christ in the arms of their parents and sponsors.

Apologies for the confusion mercygate. My post did not come out as intended. I have terrible trouble quoting other posts when I reply and have yet to master the technique and have terrible trouble deleteting things. I was replying to a post by Phil12123 about baptizing disciples being a fact. It just didn’t come out that way! My understanding of the scripture quoted in Matthew is you become a disciple by baptism. For those who disagree with this, I was asking what they would say makes a disciple? I don’t believe you need to attain a certain level of intellect in order to be a disciple. What would happen to children who are severely mentally disabled when they are born if that was the case?

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
Originally Posted by Phil12123
By your definition, which undoubtedly is anyone who disagrees with anything the RCC says. So when Paul disagreed with Peter and “withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11-14), which of the two was the “dissenter” or “heretic” NOT “embracing the truth”?

Acts 16
1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek.
2 He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Ico’nium.
3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.<>Could this verse mean the pot was calling the kettle black ? No ! It was an apostolic mini council.

Opinion: Paul was telling Peter, Peter your the Papa, Pope ]you have to stay true to the gospel. An example of church developement, In Galatians 2: 11-14.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Apologies for the confusion mercygate. My post did not come out as intended. I have terrible trouble quoting other posts when I reply and have yet to master the technique and have terrible trouble deleteting things. I was replying to a post by Phil12123 about baptizing disciples being a fact. It just didn’t come out that way! My understanding of the scripture quoted in Matthew is you become a disciple by baptism. For those who disagree with this, I was asking what they would say makes a disciple? I don’t believe you need to attain a certain level of intellect in order to be a disciple. What would happen to children who are severely mentally disabled when they are born if that was the case?

Well, you handled that quote fine.

As to what makes a disciple, I will turn to my Greek dictionaries:

Disciple (mathetes) literally a learner (from manthano, to learn, from a root math–, indicating thought accompanied by endeavor), in contrast to didaskalos, ateacher; hence it denotes one who follows one’s teaching.

In the sense that Jesus was speaking of making disciples, there is the expectation that the person will indeed become an imitator of one’s teacher. Based on that definition, it might be hard to say that a severely retarded person could be a disciple of Jesus, as they might not ever be able to imitate Jesus. But it must also be noted that a person is a disciple before he/she achieves that level of imitation.

I think there is one other thing to note here, and I think it is at the core of why we have two different interpretations of Jesus’ directions to his disciples in Matthew 20. I think we have mistakenly linked discipleship to belonging to Jesus. Of course, all disciples belong to Jesus. But that doesn’t mean that all who belong to Jesus are disciples. Cannot Jesus claim any person as his, aside from his/her ability to function as a disciple? I think he can, because this is the very nature of God to take people that are not his people can call them his people.

So, no, I don’t think that baptism changes a person into a disicple of Jesus. I think the fact that they submit to receiving his teachings does that – and by that understanding even infants can be disciples. But I also think that even non-disciples can be claimed by and for Jesus, and if you do that with someone who is mentally disabled and not able to respond as a disciple attempting to imitiate Christ in his/her life, it does not mean that you still can’t claim them for Christ in the ritual of baptism, be they disciple, believer, or none of the above.

 

[Phil12123]

As to what makes a disciple, I will turn to my Greek dictionaries:

Disciple (mathetes) literally a learner (from manthano, to learn, from a root math–, indicating thought accompanied by endeavor), in contrast to didaskalos, a teacher; hence it denotes one who follows one’s teaching.

I think your Greek dictionary was probably Vine’s, and if so, it might be better if we give the entire entry, not just what you gave, though what you did give indicates things that an infant does not, and cannot, do. Here is all of Vine’s definition:

**Topics: DISCIPLE
English Use: Noun
Strong’s Number: 3101
Transliterated: mathetes

Text: lit., “a learner” (from manthano, “to learn,” from a root math, indicating thought accompanied by endeavor), in contrast to didaskalos, “a teacher”; hence it denotes “one who follows one’s teaching,” as the “disciples” of John, Matt. 9:14; of the Pharisees, Matt. 22:16; of Moses, John 9:28; it is used of the “disciples” of Jesus (a) in a wide sense, of Jews who became His adherents, John 6:66; Luke 6:17, some being secretly so, John 19:38; (b) especially of the twelve apostles, Matt. 10:1; Luke 22:11, e.g.; (c) of all who manifest that they are His “disciples” by abiding in His Word, John 8:31; cf. 13:35; 15:8; (d) in the Acts, of those who believed upon Him and confessed Him, 6:1-2, 7; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 19:1, etc. A “disciple” was not only a pupil, but an adherent; hence they are spoken of as imitators of their teacher; cf. John 8:31; 15:8.**

A disciple is an “adherent” or “believer” ---- not someone who may or may not some day believe or become an adherent, such as an infant. Nonbelievers were never considered “disciples.” Those who walked no more with Him were no longer His disciples. Even Judas was a disciple in the sense that he, at least outwardly, was a believer in or follower of Christ. When Christ said to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, etc., He was not talking about doing anything with an infant and starting its lifelong learning process. He was speaking of converts who were made by preaching the Gospel to sinners who, if they repented and believed that Gospel, were to be baptized and taught to go out and do the same thing (preach the gospel to others, etc.).

**Here’s another dictionary definition:

From Easton’s Bible Dictionary:
**
**Topics: Disci’ple

Text: a scholar, sometimes applied to the followers of John the Baptist (Matt. 9:14), and of the Pharisees (22:16), but principally to the followers of Christ. A disciple of Christ is one who

(1.) believes his doctrine,

(2.) rests on his sacrifice,

(3.) imbibes his spirit, and

(4.) imitates his example (Matt. 10:24; Luke 14:26, 27, 33; John 6:69). **

Infants do not meet any of those requirements.

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;2765133:

Apologies for the confusion mercygate. My post did not come out as intended. I have terrible trouble quoting other posts when I reply and have yet to master the technique and have terrible trouble deleteting things. I was replying to a post by Phil12123 about baptizing disciples being a fact. It just didn’t come out that way! My understanding of the scripture quoted in Matthew is you become a disciple by baptism. For those who disagree with this, I was asking what they would say makes a disciple? I don’t believe you need to attain a certain level of intellect in order to be a disciple. What would happen to children who are severely mentally disabled when they are born if that was the case?

Scripturally, is there a dividing line for the label “disciple?” The term seems to be a loose one, applied for “the disciples” – meaning the 12: the inner circle, for those who followed Jesus around more casually, listening to his teaching, and again, for those who belonged to specific rabbinic schools.

I see “making disciples and baptizing” as two features of apostleship, not necessarily sequential operations, at least where families are concerned. Certainly, even in the NT, people were baptized – like the Ethiopian eunuch – before they were fully “discipled.”

 

[mercygate]

Well, you handled that quote fine.

As to what makes a disciple, I will turn to my Greek dictionaries:

Disciple (mathetes) literally a learner (from manthano, to learn, from a root math–, indicating thought accompanied by endeavor), in contrast to didaskalos, ateacher; hence it denotes one who follows one’s teaching.

In the sense that Jesus was speaking of making disciples, there is the expectation that the person will indeed become an imitator of one’s teacher. Based on that definition, it might be hard to say that a severely retarded person could be a disciple of Jesus, as they might not ever be able to imitate Jesus. But it must also be noted that a person is a disciple before he/she achieves that level of imitation.

I think there is one other thing to note here, and I think it is at the core of why we have two different interpretations of Jesus’ directions to his disciples in Matthew 20. I think we have mistakenly linked discipleship to belonging to Jesus. Of course, all disciples belong to Jesus. But that doesn’t mean that all who belong to Jesus are disciples. Cannot Jesus claim any person as his, aside from his/her ability to function as a disciple? I think he can, because this is the very nature of God to take people that are not his people can call them his people.

So, no, I don’t think that baptism changes a person into a disicple of Jesus. I think the fact that they submit to receiving his teachings does that – and by that understanding even infants can be disciples. But I also think that even non-disciples can be claimed by and for Jesus, and if you do that with someone who is mentally disabled and not able to respond as a disciple attempting to imitiate Christ in his/her life, it does not mean that you still can’t claim them for Christ in the ritual of baptism, be they disciple, believer, or none of the above.

Now, if I had read this far down the thread before putting up my last post, I wouldn’t have had to write it!

My only itsy-bitsy change to this fine explanation would be that, had I written it, as a Catholic, I would not have referred to baptism as “the ritual of baptism” lest I convey a non-Catholic view that the ritual is not efficacious through sacramenteal grace.

 

[mercygate]

Yes, we have, both in respecting basic human rights and liberties including freedom of religion and conscience, and in seeing, accepting, believing, and practicing baptism of believers only, as commanded by Christ. Or at least some of us have.

So you accept the idea of the development of doctrine?

But your position represents a complete negation of sacramental theology in place up until the 1600s – a negation so bizarre, that even the Reformers did not embrace it, nor do their followers to this very day.

Moreover, in your view, baptism doesn’t DO anything to the person who receives it. For Catholics, a doctrine can *develop *but it cannot negate what has gone before. Believer’s only baptism not only changes the **discipline **from the norm of baptizing infants to older people, but it changes the significance, the effect, and the **purpose **of baptism as well.

Catholics would argue that such a complete reversal of sacramental theology after 1500 years does violence to the intent of the practice as we received it from the Apostles.

Your case for believer’s only baptism is a typical example of how individual interpretation of Scripture, outside the context of its home in the Church, has created a novel theology and practice that by focusing on one verse of scripture manages to contradict the whole Word of God.

Claiming scripture as the source for this invention demonstrates how all the “best” heresies arise from interpretations of Scripture divorced from the Body that produced it.

 

[guanophore]

So would you say it is not orthodox, but also not heresy, to say only disciples/believers should be baptized and that when a person becomes a Christian he should be baptized as a believer, whether he was bapized as an infant or not? And are you also saying that to hold such a position was never deemed heresy by the RCC, now or in the past?

It cannot be heresy, because the people that do things like this ae untaught. They never knew or understood Apostolic Teaching in the first place, in order to deviate from it. This is a requirement to be heretic. Catholics believe 100% in believers’ baptism, and we have a formal process for baptizing adults and children over the age of reason. However, we also know that the Apostles baptized infants, and that “there is ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins” (from the Sacred Tradition) and that makes in inappriate to baptize more than once. However, This position (Anabaptism) was treated as a heresy in the past because those who started this man-made tradition KNEW what the apostolic tradition taught, and chose willfully to reject it. This does not apply to today’s Protestants, who by and large have no idea about the Apostolic Teachings or the Sacred Traditions from which Jesus taught.

And can we conclude from that that they were both wrong in how they handled dissent, and in the case of infant baptism, wrong in their teaching that they felt necessary to protect by such means? To me, it would seem that if someone thinks he has to go to such extremes to defend a teaching, the teaching itself must be questionable or on shaky scriptural ground that it would need force and even torture to enforce belief of it.

I agree that it is not incumbent upon is to kill people who have departed from the Apostolic Teaching.

I understand that the Catholic position is not supported by the plain instructions of Jesus in Matt. 28:19 and in attempting to support it by other passages, the RCC in the final analysis ignores His words and makes them of no effect. That is not my “personal interpretation”—it is the result of simply reading and believing what HE said. I don’t add anything personal to it. I just believe it and say we should all obey it.

Matt 28:19 is speaking about the persons who the disciples will preach and teach, which includes those over the age of reason. However, it does not preclude the baptism of infants or small children, about whom Jesus had previously instructed them.

A “good Lutheran or Methodist” is not my authority for the TRUTH. God is. HE never said baptize infants. Period.

You should act according to the revelation you have received, however limited that may be. If you have not received the remainder of the teachings of Jesus, you cannot very well follow them, can you?

Catholics have received the Sacred Oral Traditions (as have the Orthodox) and therefore, we are obligated to comply with them. Unto thos whom much is given, much will be required!

 

[Phil12123]

I see “making disciples and baptizing” as two features of apostleship, not necessarily sequential operations, at least where families are concerned. Certainly, even in the NT, people were baptized – like the Ethiopian eunuch – before they were fully "discipled."

**The Ethiopian eunuch is another example of what we see consistently throughout Acts. He became a believer…then, and only then, he was baptized. He was “made a disciple” when he was converted from a nonbeliever to a believer. He was a convert who believed with all his heart. Growth in the faith is something that comes *after *conversion, obviously, and it is not a prerequisite to being baptized. Conversion, though, is always required. It amazes me that so many of you think believers-only baptism is some new doctrine invented by individuals with some sort of strange slant on Scripture, when, in fact, that is all the Scriptures teach. Just because the RCC has ignored that fact for centuries does not make baptism of nonbelievers like infants correct, no matter how long it has been practiced.

It might be helpful to see the passage:**

Acts 8:
26. Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, "Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’’ This is desert.
27. So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28. was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet.
29. Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot.’’
30. So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?’’
31. And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?’’ And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.
32. The place in the Scripture which he read was this: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so He opened not His mouth.
33. In His humiliation His justice was taken away. And who will declare His generation? For His life is taken from the earth.’’
34. So the eunuch answered Philip and said, "I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?’’
35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’’
37. Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.’’ And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’’
38. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.
39. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Ethiopian eunuch is another example of what we see consistently throughout Acts. He became a believer…then, and only then, he was baptized. He was “made a disciple” when he was converted from a nonbeliever to a believer. He was a convert who believed with all his heart. Growth in the faith is something that comes after conversion, obviously, and it is not a prerequisite to being baptized. Conversion, though, is always required. It amazes me that so many of you think believers-only baptism is some new doctrine invented by individuals with some sort of strange slant on Scripture, when, in fact, that is all the Scriptures teach. Just because the RCC has ignored that fact for centuries does not make baptism of nonbelievers like infants correct, no matter how long it has been practiced.
**

And it equally amazes me that you, Phil, know more than these people who learned from the Apostles. Why, according to you, the Apostles didn’t teach a flippin’ thing, for the Church went off into heresy while the blokes were still alive!

But on another point, why wasn’t the Eunuch’s household baptized?

Because he didn’t have one!!!

 

[jmcrae]

Phil;

The only infants we baptize are infants who are already being discipled at home in the Christian faith.

Infants are not unconscious, you know - they are hearing, learning, and responding to the songs and stories their parents are teaching them.

We don’t randomly pick babies up off the streets and baptize them regardless of their family background - if their families have no intention of training them up in the Christian life, then they don’t get baptized.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think your Greek dictionary was probably Vine’s, and if so, it might be better if we give the entire entry, not just what you gave, though what you did give indicates things that an infant does not, and cannot, do. Here is all of Vine’s definition:

**Topics: DISCIPLE
English Use: Noun
Strong’s Number: 3101
Transliterated: mathetes

Text: lit., “a learner” (from manthano, “to learn,” from a root math, indicating thought accompanied by endeavor), in contrast to didaskalos, “a teacher”; hence it denotes “one who follows one’s teaching,” as the “disciples” of John, Matt. 9:14; of the Pharisees, Matt. 22:16; of Moses, John 9:28; it is used of the “disciples” of Jesus** (a) in a wide sense, of Jews who became His adherents, John 6:66; Luke 6:17, some being secretly so, John 19:38; (b) especially of the twelve apostles, Matt. 10:1; Luke 22:11, e.g.; (c) of all who manifest that they are His “disciples” by abiding in His Word, John 8:31; cf. 13:35; 15:8; (d) in the Acts, of those who believed upon Him and confessed Him, 6:1-2, 7; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; 19:1, etc. A “disciple” was not only a pupil, but an adherent; hence they are spoken of as imitators of their teacher; cf. John 8:31; 15:8.

A disciple is an “adherent” or “believer” ---- not someone who may or may not some day believe or become an adherent, such as an infant. Nonbelievers were never considered “disciples.” Those who walked no more with Him were no longer His disciples. Even Judas was a disciple in the sense that he, at least outwardly, was a believer in or follower of Christ. When Christ said to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, etc., He was not talking about doing anything with an infant and starting its lifelong learning process. He was speaking of converts who were made by preaching the Gospel to sinners who, if they repented and believed that Gospel, were to be baptized and taught to go out and do the same thing (preach the gospel to others, etc.).

**Here’s another dictionary definition:

From Easton’s Bible Dictionary:
**
**Topics: Disci’ple

Text: a scholar, sometimes applied to the followers of John the Baptist (Matt. 9:14), and of the Pharisees (22:16), but principally to the followers of Christ. A disciple of Christ is one who
**
(1.) believes his doctrine,

(2.) rests on his sacrifice,

(3.) imbibes his spirit, and

(4.) imitates his example (Matt. 10:24; Luke 14:26, 27, 33; John 6:69).

Infants do not meet any of those requirements.

Judas does not meet any of those requirements either, yet he was still considered a disciple.

 

[minkymurph]

I think he can, because this is the very nature of God to take people that are not his people can call them his people.

So, no, I don’t think that baptism changes a person into a disicple of Jesus. I think the fact that they submit to receiving his teachings does that – and by that understanding even infants can be disciples. But I also think that even non-disciples can be claimed by and for Jesus, and if you do that with someone who is mentally disabled and not able to respond as a disciple attempting to imitiate Christ in his/her life, it does not mean that you still can’t claim them for Christ in the ritual of baptism, be they disciple, believer, or none of the above.

Trying desperately to quote here while fighting with my mouse so I hope this post turns out ok. Quote above, Grace seeker I agree with what your saying. Jesus knows those who love him and claims them as his. I believe that and I also believe that it is not for us to dictate who he may claim and who he may not and on what basis. On this line of thought I would also say that no one can dictate what is happening between and individual and God irrespective of how well they can quote scripture or how well versed in Greek they are and I mean absolutely no disrespect to the scholars among when I say that. I’m just trying to say that God will do what he will and in regard to infants or the severely mentally impaired God knows what they are capable of and what they are not. The parable of the talents tells us that which brings me to my point about discipleship. Now I am no scholar of Greek so I cannot comment about dictionarys or meanings but in reply to Phil12123, Judas was an Apostle. Is an Apostle not different from a disciple? Both are followers of Christ therefore, do you need to be a disciple? I wouldn’t describe myself as a disciple but I am a believer, a follower, by God’s grace I try to imitate Jesus and don’t always make a very good job of it and a sinner in need of forgiveness but above all things, I love Jesus. You said infants can’t be imitators of Jesus. I would have to disagree. Infants have not been marred by the world, (yet) they love unconditionally, they forgive easily, they don’t bear grudges and having two young children of my own, I would say yes even babies because I’ve seen it in my own. When they were babies and mummy was having a bad day, I still got a big smile and they cuddled up to me and if someone tells me they didn’t know what they where doing I won’t believe them. They can’t express themselves by word or intellect, but they can do it in other ways. How do we know babies can’t love the person who created them?Who put that love into them? Who gave them the ability to recognize their parents from the moment they are born and can’t see? Is it beyond God to create a child who has an awareness of him and is capable of responding to him in a baby way? Do the scriptures not tell us their where those called from the womb? Was that only for special people? Is not baptism entry into the life of Christ? Why can babies not do that?

 

[Phil12123]

Me: It amazes me that so many of you think believers-only baptism is some new doctrine invented by individuals with some sort of strange slant on Scripture, when, in fact, that is all the Scriptures teach. Just because the RCC has ignored that fact for centuries does not make baptism of nonbelievers like infants correct, no matter how long it has been practiced.

And it equally amazes me that you, Phil, know more than these people who learned from the Apostles. Why, according to you, the Apostles didn’t teach a flippin’ thing, for the Church went off into heresy while the blokes were still alive!

Jesus and the Apostles taught plenty but the only things we know for certain are those things that the Apostles wrote in their books that we have in the Bible. We cannot connect the Apostles’ doctrine to later ECFs by merely assuming that everything the ECFs taught was received by them from the Apostles, particularly when what we do have recorded does not support that or teaches otherwise. We don’t have recorded what the Apostles taught about what later ECFs did in terms of infant baptism, even if it occurred while they were still alive. So, what you want to do is make assumptions and base much of your position on those assumptions, when we do have recorded other things that would counter those assumptions (Matt. 28:19, etc.).

**But on another point, why wasn’t the Eunuch’s household baptized?

Because he didn’t have one!!!**

**We don’t know that. What we do know is, if he had a household it was not with him but was back at his house. And why is that significant? Because no one in his household, if he had one, was there to hear the Gospel preached by Philip and to repent and believe it…and then be baptized as a new believer, like the Eunuch was.

 

[Phil12123]

Judas does not meet any of those requirements either, yet he was still considered a disciple.

**And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that outwardly he was a believer or follower of Jesus? Of course, he did not “rest on His sacrifice” but rather helped the sacrifice happen by betraying Jesus to those who wanted Him crucified. And perhaps the definition given by Easton is more appropriate for defining “disciples” that Jesus wanted the Eleven to go out and “make” (Matt. 28:19). But my point remains, as used by Jesus, “disciple” would be a convert, someone who has heard the Gospel message, and has repented and believed it.

GS, I don’t believe you ever answered a question I posed to you many posts ago. In your view, as the Apostles went out to obey Jesus’ instructions in Matt 28:19-20 to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, etc., how do you think they would have determined when and if they had actually made a “disciple” and could then baptize that disciple, before moving on to the next house?**

 

[guanophore]

Me: **It amazes me that so many of you think believers-only baptism is some new doctrine invented by individuals with some sort of strange slant on Scripture, when, in fact, that is all the Scriptures teach. Just because the RCC has ignored that fact for centuries does not make baptism of nonbelievers like infants correct, no matter how long it has been practiced. **

Catholics believe and practice believer’s baptism 100%. We don’'t ignore that scriptual teaching at all. In fact, I would say that Catholics are more meticulous about it than anyone else, unless it it is the Othodox.

**Jesus and the Apostles taught plenty but the only things we know for certain are those things that the Apostles wrote in their books that we have in the Bible. **

You are limited in this way due to your Sola Scriptura doctine, one not taught by Jesus and HIs Apostles. On the other hand,Catholics/Orthodx know many othe things the Apostles taught because we have the Sacred Oral Traditions that parallel the scripture, and produced those scriptures.

We cannot connect the Apostles’ doctrine to later ECFs by merely assuming that everything the ECFs taught was received by them from the Apostles, particularly when what we do have recorded does not support that or teaches otherwise. We don’t have recorded what the Apostles taught about what later ECFs did in terms of infant baptism, even if it occurred while they were still alive.

You may not be able to connect it, because you don’t receive the Teachings, but we can, being open to all that Jesus said and taught by His Divine example. And we do not find infant baptism in the “later” fathes, but the earliest ones. Even in the Didache, one of the earliest documents. If you don’t “see” this then you are wearing your SS blinders, or have never read them. I think they were posted in this very thread!

So, what you want to do is make assumptions and base much of your position on those assumptions, when we do have recorded other things that would counter those assumptions (Matt. 28:19, etc.).

I think you could not have possibly studied the ECF if you really believe this.

**We don’t know that. What we do know is, if he had a household it was *not with him ***but was back at his house. And why is that significant? Because no one in his household, if he had one, was there to hear the Gospel preached by Philip and to repent and believe it…and then be baptized as a new believer, like the Eunuch was.

You are making yourself look ridiculuous, Phil. How does a man get a household?

 

[NotWorthy]

**But on another point, why wasn’t the Eunuch’s household baptized?

Because he didn’t have one!!!**

**We don’t know that. What we do know is, if he had a household it was *not with him ***but was back at his house. And why is that significant? Because no one in his household, if he had one, was there to hear the Gospel preached by Philip and to repent and believe it…and then be baptized as a new believer, like the Eunuch was.

No, what we don’t know is when Notworthy is picking, Phil. Often times the “wink” means I’m just pulling people’s chain.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus and the Apostles taught plenty but the only things we know for certain are those things that the Apostles wrote in their books that we have in the Bible. We cannot connect the Apostles’ doctrine to later ECFs by merely assuming that everything the ECFs taught was received by them from the Apostles, particularly when what we do have recorded does not support that or teaches otherwise. We don’t have recorded what the Apostles taught about what later ECFs did in terms of infant baptism, even if it occurred while they were still alive. So, what you want to do is make assumptions and base much of your position on those assumptions, when we do have recorded other things that would counter those assumptions (Matt. 28:19, etc.).

Phil, you never cease. Do you honestly believe that the same Holy Spirit that is guiding you, simply abandoned the entire Catholic Church in the very first century?

Do you honestly believe that the Apostles felt that, “Hey, if we teach this, we’d better write it down”. If that were true, the NT Scriptures would have been locked down before the first century was complete, rather than waiting 300 years.

I’ve said it before, but since you don’t mind repeating yourself, I’ll say it again. I’m going to be placing my bets with guys who learned from the Apostles, shared the Apostles culture, and were there to ask the Apostles questions when unsure of what to teach, over someone two thousand years later, who is sure that the Holy Spirit is guiding to dispute these people.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And why do you suppose that is? Could it be that outwardly he was a believer or follower of Jesus? Of course, he did not “rest on His sacrifice” but rather helped the sacrifice happen by betraying Jesus to those who wanted Him crucified. And perhaps the definition given by Easton is more appropriate for defining “disciples” that Jesus wanted the Eleven to go out and “make” (Matt. 28:19). But my point remains, as used by Jesus, “disciple” would be a convert, someone who has heard the Gospel message, and has repented and believed it.

GS, I don’t believe you ever answered a question I posed to you many posts ago. In your view, as the Apostles went out to obey Jesus’ instructions in Matt 28:19-20 to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them, etc., how do you think they would have determined when and if they had actually made a “disciple” and could then baptize that disciple, before moving on to the next house?

Phil, I see it as both/and. We both make disciples of those who are saved and we see those who are disciples saved.

Peter, John, James, would go proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to all the world. As they did this there would be those attracted to their message. Some of those people would make a decision to commit themselves to following Christ. That is they would be saved and then become a disciple, submitting themselves to baptism as an expression of their commitment and to teaching as a way to grow in their faith.

But the history of the New Testament church shows us that as early as we have any definitive information on it that they also practiced making disciples in a different order. Those adults who were already disciples themselves would commit to not only growing in their own discipleship but to raising their children as disciples of Christ, they would have them baptized even as infants as a way of saying that they belonged to Christ (just as the Jews had circumcized their children to say they belonged to God) and they would instruct them in the faith from infancy (just as the Jews had instructed their children in the faith from infancy in accordance with the Shema). And I believe that this instruction was also what they received from the disciples such as Peter, James, and John.

If it is not both/and then we have to chose: Either
(a) one must first become a true disciple in order to be baptized and taught. Or
(b) one must baptize and teach in order to create a disciple. But that Jesus saw Judas as his disciple throws a monkey wrench into both of these for clearly Judas gave all of the outward appearances of being a disciple (and in your practice of believrs’ baptism would be baptized), but yet scripture tells us he was not saved. So, believers’ baptism still leads us to baptizing unbelievers, which is your argument against infant baptism that we are baptizing unbelievers. And the sacramentalist says that baptism actually has some effect on one’s state of salvation. Yet we see that despite participating in all that Jesus himself shared with his disciples, even receiving the bread from the very hands of Jesus at the event in which he instituted Holy Communion for the Church, Judas was still not saved.

So, I don’t think the disciples ever did determine when and if they had made a disciple. Rather, they did those things that they knew were essential for people who would become disciples, they baptized and they taught knowing that these things would be necessary for all who would become “true” disciples either at that point in time or later, but what they would do is start people on that process and let them grow in their discipleship. As to their actual salvation, that would not be a product of the disciples’ ministry but of the work of the Holy Spirit in the individuals’ lives. That might happen at the very point of their baptism, before it or subsequent to it. For the Peter, James, and John that wasn’t their concern, their concern was to go out and do what Jesus had instructed them to do with as many people (and I believe of all ages) as possible.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

But on another point, why wasn’t the Eunuch’s household baptized?

Because he didn’t have one!!!

**We don’t know that. What we do know is, if he had a household it was *not with him ***but was back at his house. And why is that significant? Because no one in his household, if he had one, was there to hear the Gospel preached by Philip and to repent and believe it…and then be baptized as a new believer, like the Eunuch was.

OK. I get that part of this was said in jest. But part of it is also being taken seriously, so I’ll throw my two cents in.

I think we can be pretty sure the the Ethopian eunch, for that matter all eunchs, did not have a household. Just stop and think for a moment about how and why people were made into eunchs, I don’t care to get more descriptive. He was part of another’s household, and had none of his own.

He was baptized when he became a believer, Yes. But note that he was already a disciple of the scriptures before he became believer. And that he was even taught, by Philip, before he was baptized. So, the order of believer, disciple, baptized, taught does not hold true even in this case that had been identified as proof of believer’s only baptism.

:Lastly, on the why wasn’t the Eunch’s household baptized (if he had had one), the only logical answer is because it wasn’t there. This is not a theological answer, because they didn’t hear the gospel message. It is circumstantial reality. I would suggest that if he had had a household and if they had been there, that indeed, based upon the pattern we see in other households that they would have been baptized as well, even if they had not been with the Eunch and Philip as they discussed the gospel. Simply as members of his household, it is likely that they would have been baptized as well.