Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[MariaG]

This is an interesting and confusing thread. I do not attend Church period. But I have thought about it since taking an interest after my horrible experience as a child. Everyone is telling me I need to be baptized, that my Catholic christening (was never raised catholic however) does not count. Interesting viewpoints here.

Well, whether or not it “counts” depends on whose interpretation you choose to follow.

You can follow the interpretation recieved from the apostles and recorded outside of scripture as early as 189AD. An interpretation that is also held by sacramental Protestants that **GOD **is the one that infuses our soul with Grace, and that this grace can be given to anyone to be born again into the body of Christ, including infants and children.

Or you can follow a relatively new interpretation of Scripture that says one must be an adult or at the “age of reason” to be born again into the body of Christ, and that baptism is only symbolic. An interpretation that contradicts scripture, since we can see how a childlike faith is exhibited in Luke, chapter 1, with John the baptist leaping for joy in his mothers womb merely at the sound of the voice of “the mother of my Lord”.

However, I will say that since we do not believe in once saved always saved, that you can lose your salvation through neglecting or rejecting the grace given to you in baptism, (Rev. 3:16). So you definitely need to actively walk in the grace given you and do an act of repentance as an adult for not walking fully in the grace given to you.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Auriel]

However, I will say that since we do not believe in once saved always saved, that you can lose your salvation through neglecting or rejecting the grace given to you in baptism, (Rev. 3:16). So you definitely need to actively walk in the grace given you and do an act of repentance as an adult for not walking fully in the grace given to you.

God Bless,
Maria

Well, for me it is a process. When I said I had a horrible experience, I am not just saying something trivial like “I did no like what the preacher had to say”. He was a pervert and was a murder suspect in the death of his own toddler stepson. There were multiple broken bones, old breaks, that were never reported. It is a cold case now.

You see I have this weird gift. I “see” things. As a kid I told someone he was a pervert. He was caught, but I was “evil” for seeing it and was asked as a kid to never return. They did not even have the guts to tell me in person but called me and had a teenager relay the message, they did me a favor I think. It was insane how much he and others got away with, he had affairs with 19 women from that church alone and was caught in the act with a deacon’s daughter. His father was a famous Fundamentalist, had his own problems and covered for his son. He admitted he knew there was a prob but said it was in the past. In fact, he arrived there first before the police when the son was alone with the body of the 17 month old baby.

Sad thing is I visited another church with a relative soon after, my weird sense acted up there as well, I wanted nothing to do with that one either, it ended up that pastor was involved/connected in the same scandal. Just found out that the newer pastor at the same church was just recently caught, he is no longer there. I feel for others in the Catholic faith as well who have been abused. I will not point the finger at just a few religions however because I know it happens in all faiths. I think they have a lot to be accountable for, for they destroy us in more than one way…they destroy our faith. Happened to me too, but by another pastor,

My mom was the Catholic She died young however. I asked a lot of religious questions as a kid. And when no one had a reasonable answer, dismissed me as a trouble maker, could not answer or told me…“Because I said so…thats why” I decided “why should I believe anything they had to say?”

It was just recently and partially through a dream that I realized God did not leave me to the monsters, mankind twisted his words. The difference between me and others that point out the “evil perverted Christians” is that I say they were never Christlike to begin with. I honestly believe now that there are people planted as agents who with great malice and intent are hell bent on destroying churches. So like I said, it is a process. In my dream God said he knew I was mad and hurt and even angry…angry at him. He said that was ok, because he understood, and told me that one day I would understand as well, and that it was a process. He told me mankind takes his living words, and tries to twist them, but they can never corrupt or destroy him. The dream was so real I actually get teary eyed when I think about it. He had the most amazing brilliant pure light about him.

Combine all this with my on again off again living arrangements with other relatives after mom’s death, and all the different faiths I was raised around, some Christian, some non-Christian, and it is confusing. TBH I could find beauty in each one, it was just the leaders I did not trust.

Now, if I could only get over the fear of stepping foot into another church…LOL

YIKES!!! It appears I ranted…sorry.

 

[MariaG]

Well, for me it is a process. When I said I had a horrible experience, I am not just saying something trivial like “I did no like what the preacher had to say”. He was a pervert and was a murder suspect in the death of his own toddler stepson. There were multiple broken bones, old breaks, that were never reported. It is a cold case now.

You see I have this weird gift. I “see” things. As a kid I told someone he was a pervert. He was caught, but I was “evil” for seeing it and was asked as a kid to never return. They did not even have the guts to tell me in person but called me and had a teenager relay the message, they did me a favor I think. It was insane how much he and others got away with, he had affairs with 19 women from that church alone and was caught in the act with a deacon’s daughter. His father was a famous Fundamentalist, had his own problems and covered for his son. He admitted he knew there was a prob but said it was in the past. In fact, he arrived there first before the police when the son was alone with the body of the 17 month old baby.

Sad thing is I visited another church with a relative soon after, my weird sense acted up there as well, I wanted nothing to do with that one either, it ended up that pastor was involved/connected in the same scandal…they destroy our faith. Happened to me too, but by another pastor,

My mom was the Catholic She died young however. I asked a lot of religious questions as a kid. And when no one had a reasonable answer, dismissed me as a trouble maker, could not answer or told me…“Because I said so…thats why” I decided “why should I believe anything they had to say?”

It was just recently and partially through a dream that I realized God did not leave me to the monsters, mankind twisted his words. The difference between me and others that point out the “evil perverted Christians” is that I say they were never Christlike to begin with. I honestly believe now that there are people planted as agents who with great malice and intent are hell bent on destroying churches. So like I said, it is a process. In my dream God said he knew I was mad and hurt and even angry…angry at him. He said that was ok, because he understood, and told me that one day I would understand as well, and that it was a process. He told me mankind takes his living words, and tries to twist them, but they can never corrupt or destroy him. The dream was so real I actually get teary eyed when I think about it. He had the most amazing brilliant pure light about him.

Combine all this with my on again off again living arrangements with other relatives after mom’s death, and all the different faiths I was raised around, some Christian, some non-Christian, and it is confusing. TBH I could find beauty in each one, it was just the leaders I did not trust.

Now, if I could only get over the fear of stepping foot into another church…LOL

YIKES!!! It appears I ranted…sorry.

Not a rant Definitely a burden.

But if you do nothing else, stop refering to your gift from God as wierd sense:tsktsk: It is a gift. Frequently we see that those who have special gifts from God, are sometimes shunned by those who claim to be His.

The good news is that in the CAtholic Church, the Latin branch, you will never be asked to stop asking questions. Search, dig, and find answers that make sense.

I do understand about not trusting the leaders. I too had an experience, not as dramatic as yours, but one that shaped my life. When mom started going to church again for about 6 months when I was 15, my favorite priest, a guy who I could really relate to, was finally revealed to be a homosexual predator. (I say homosexual not pedaphile because he only preyed upon boys who were past the age of puberty, 14 - 16 years old.)

I blamed God for allowing it. However, I came to realize as an adult that while He wishes me to obey the authority of the Church (like when Jesus told the apostles to obey the pharisees but do what they tell you, not what they do for they are hypocrites), my complete trust should be in Him. I can trust the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, but individuals in the church will always fail.

And the good news is the Catholic Church is right there with you We believe that there is a process of sanctification. We learn, we grow, and we become more Christlike until that process is finally completed after (or the moment of) death.

Ah well, we have strayed from the topic. PM me if you like

Trust in Him, and thank Him daily for your gift of discernment:thumbsup: As well as for your vision

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Auriel]

Thanks, this morning after thinking about that post I became a little nervous after spilling like that! LOL I was going to see if I could remove it. Thanks for understanding.

Gift of discernment huh? So thats what other Christians call it. I was told as a child I was evil for seeing things. As a little child I referred to the angels I saw as pretty people who lived in the air. You can imagine the reactions I received. LOL

Yep, I would say we thread jacked http://i15.tinypic.com/fjhqme.gif....Sorry.:eek:

 

[MariaG]

Thanks, this morning after thinking about that post I became a little nervous after spilling like that! LOL I was going to see if I could remove it. Thanks for understanding.

Gift of discernment huh? So thats what other Christians call it. I was told as a child I was evil for seeing things. As a little child I referred to the angels I saw as pretty people who lived in the air. You can imagine the reactions I received. LOL

Yep, I would say we thread jacked http://i15.tinypic.com/fjhqme.gif....Sorry.:eek:

At the risk of further derailment, You are welcome:tiphat:

And isn’t it funny, people profess to believe in the seen and unseen but are very uncomfortable with those who get a glimpse of the unseen:shrug:

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

Thanks, this morning after thinking about that post I became a little nervous after spilling like that! LOL I was going to see if I could remove it. Thanks for understanding.

Gift of discernment huh? So thats what other Christians call it. I was told as a child I was evil for seeing things. As a little child I referred to the angels I saw as pretty people who lived in the air. You can imagine the reactions I received. LOL

Yep, I would say we thread jacked http://i15.tinypic.com/fjhqme.gif....Sorry.:eek:

Auriel, people who “see things” should definitely stay close to the Boss and I strongly advice regular contact with a spiritual director. I have a person in spiritual direction with me who “sees things” (he’s a priest, BTW). We just keep in touch with what’s happening and try to discern carefully how these gifts should be used. These gifts can be treacherous, and they are always a burden. Spiritual companionship with a trusted person can lighten the load.

 

[Phil12123]

A Protestant Pastor I know really well wants me to be baptised as an adult. … Here is the scripture he gave me. I’m not sure what to believe about infant vs believer’s baptism.

Matthew 28:19-29 (New International Version):
19 **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, **
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

[other verses cited omitted to shorten quote]

He told me that in all the above scriptures, adults were baptized after they believed. Further, the only scripture he could find which would even HINT at an infant baptism was the one where “entire households” were baptised. He said assuming that infants were baptized is quite an assumption. If they came to his house today, there would find 2 adult parents, a 16 year old and a 13 year old. And, other than that HINT of infant baptism, every other instance in scripture points to believer’s baptism.

Could you help me out here?

**May I offer some food for thought? The only reason we baptize anyone today is because Jesus instructed His disciples to do so. The question that you pose is really this: WHO did Jesus tell His disciples to baptize? If we want to be faithful followers of Jesus, we need to faithfully follow His instructions, right?

The only Scripture giving those instructions is quoted above in red. So let’s look at it more closely and see if it tells us WHO Jesus instructed His disciples to baptize.

Jesus told them to “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.”

What does that tell us? If they went out and proclaimed the Gospel, or good news, that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and the hearers did NOT believe that, would they be baptized anyway? Of course not; they would not have been made “disciples.” So, it was only the disciples that were made “of all nations” that were to be baptized. Only people who heard and believed the Gospel became disciples and proper candidates for baptism. Obviously they had to be of an age at which they could comprehend what the original disciples were telling them and could be taught to obey everything Jesus had commanded them. That would not have to be only adults. Young children can understand the Gospel, but infants obviously cannot.

Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that. But they do not. To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.

Peace
**

 

[jmcrae]

Now, if Jesus felt infants needed baptism to remove original sin or for any other reason, His instructions would have included that. But they do not. To put words into His mouth, adding to His clear instructions is not to be a faithful follower of Jesus, but to be a follower of some manmade tradition.

Peace

And yet, in the rest of the New Testament, both St. Paul and St. Peter take it for granted that Baptism is the entry into the New Covenant. Infants of the Old Covenant were initiated by circumcision at 8 days of age.

One of the early controversies of the Church in the first century was the question of whether infants had to wait the full 8 days to be baptised, or whether they could be baptised earlier than that.

There was no question in their minds that infants should be baptized, though, and even our common modern-day practice of waiting until the baby is a couple of months old would have seemed like a really long wait, to them.

I don’t know about you, but in our family, we automatically raise our children in our Christian faith - we don’t wait until they have reached a certain age before asking them if they would like to be Christians - we just raise them as such, so it is perfectly natural to baptize them as soon as possible, for the same reasons that we don’t ask their opinion about what nationality they would like to be, what language they would like to have as their native language, or whether they would like to learn how to read, write, and do arithmetic. We just assume that they will do the same as we do, and they really have no choice in the matter when they are young, because we believe that these things are good for our children.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Boppaid - one more thing. If you accept his invitation to be re-baptized, it’s kinda saying that you reject your own baptism, and in effect, you separate yourself from Christ. It’s forbidden for a Catholic to participate in worship or ceremonies outside the Catholic faith.

From catholic theology is there any pronouncement on the punishment for being rebaptised?

If they remain outside the church or return? Anyone hear of being baptised 3 times? (perhaps infant RCC, then Prot. Believers, than lets say Church of Christ Sacrament yet need faith)

 

[NotWorthy]

From catholic theology is there any pronouncement on the punishment for being rebaptised?

If they remain outside the church or return? Anyone hear of being baptised 3 times? (perhaps infant RCC, then Prot. Believers, than lets say Church of Christ Sacrament yet need faith)

I think the Church would consider your first baptism to be effective, and the remaining ones just empty rituals. (And you know how we Catholic detest empty rituals).

If you did it as a complete rejection of the Catholic Church, upon re-entering the Church, I would imagine most people would want to seek Penance for this, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[mercygate]

From catholic theology is there any pronouncement on the punishment for being rebaptised?

If they remain outside the church or return? Anyone hear of being baptised 3 times? (perhaps infant RCC, then Prot. Believers, than lets say Church of Christ Sacrament yet need faith)

Being “re-baptized” is impossible because God is faithful and the Sacrament “takes” the first time, and makes an indelible mark on the soul.

I believe (and you might want to PM Canon Lansing of these forums about the specifics) that a Protestant who has been baptized more than once would not incur any penalty if he becomes Catholic. For a Catholic to go off and get himself baptized in a Protestant Church constitutes repudiation of the Catholic faith. There may be more to the restoration of that person to full communion than merely coming to Confession . . . . This is an excellent point.

Lansing: Where are you when we need you?

 

[Lampo]

boppaid, to understand Catholic teaching on infant baptism, it is essential to first understand the Catholic teaching on original sin.

The doctrine on OS(original sin) is essentially, “In Adam all have sinned.” It parallels justification “In Christ all are righteous.” We must look at Roman 5:12-21. We are all subjects to sin & death because of Adam’s sin. By one’s trespass, condemnation was brought to all men. The CCC says OS is a sin “contracted”, not “committed.” - 404. When we are born, we are in a state of original sin. God was testing all of mankind through Adam.

If there is no such thing as OS, then why aren’t we born in the Garden of Eden? There was a fundamental change in everything. The gift of living in paradise was restored with the “second Adam” - Jesus; but we do not come into the world with that gift. We must first be born of the flesh, then “born again” of the spirit - baptism.

Romans 5 basically is the first Adam’s disobedience and the second Adam’s obedience. They parallel each other. One man’s disobedience leads to death for all. One man’s obedience leads to life for all. - 1 Cor. 15:12-22.

Eph. 2:3 reflects teaching on OS - “By nature we were children of wrath.”

There is no Scripture verse that says to baptize infants, just like there is no Scripture verse that says NOT to baptize infants. The Church's teaching flows from (1) Original Sin; (2) the sacrament itself. 

The argument that all the baptisms in the NT were "believer's baptisms" of adults, therefore infant baptism is contrary to Scripture because is is not in there, is not well thought out.

The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is immoral and thwarts God's law. Do you believe contraception is okay? There are plenty of Protestants who take your position on infant baptism and believe that contraception is acceptable. Can you show me one instance in Scripture where Christians use contraception? Since you can't, the reasoning isn't consistent. If it's not mentioned in the Bible, then it is NOT okay to do (when it comes to infant baptism.) If it's not mentioned in the Bible(contraception) then it is OKAY to do. See the inconsistency?

When something new like baptism comes along it will be the adults first. Like circumcision in the OT at first.

 

[Phil12123]

boppaid, to understand Catholic teaching on infant baptism, it is essential to first understand the Catholic teaching on original sin.

The doctrine on OS(original sin) is essentially, “In Adam all have sinned.” It parallels justification “In Christ all are righteous.” We must look at Roman 5:12-21. We are all subjects to sin & death because of Adam’s sin. By one’s trespass, condemnation was brought to all men. The CCC says OS is a sin “contracted”, not “committed.” - 404. When we are born, we are in a state of original sin. God was testing all of mankind through Adam.

If there is no such thing as OS, then why aren’t we born in the Garden of Eden? There was a fundamental change in everything. The gift of living in paradise was restored with the “second Adam” - Jesus; but we do not come into the world with that gift. We must first be born of the flesh, then “born again” of the spirit - baptism.

Romans 5 basically is the first Adam’s disobedience and the second Adam’s obedience. They parallel each other. One man’s disobedience leads to death for all. One man’s obedience leads to life for all. - 1 Cor. 15:12-22.

Eph. 2:3 reflects teaching on OS - “By nature we were children of wrath.”

**You are correct and I agree with you, except for one point, which I have bolded above. We are indeed born “children of wrath” and from the same passage in Eph., verse 1, we are born “dead in trespasses and sins.” Christ made us alive, verse 5. He gave us life, eternal life. The issue is when? and how? The NT makes it clear to me that that event occurs when a person repents and believes the good news that Christ died for his sins and rose again, not before. The NT pattern is consistent with Christ’s instructions: be a disciple or believer in Christ, then be baptized to identify with the believers. Jews identified with the Old Covenant by their circumcision; Christians identify with the New Covenant by their baptism. The error of saying something on behalf of a baby who cannot speak for itself, or become a disciple by him/herself, is clear when you see Mormons being baptized for people in their family trees who have died centuries before. Each person must repent and believe him/herself personally. We can’t do that for them. And God nowhere tells us to.

Another issue is, what does Jesus mean when He says in John 3:5, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is easy for someone to jump to the conclusion that the “water” means water baptism, even though the word baptism is not mentioned. If we say that’s what it means, then we have a dilemma. If water baptism is an essential act to enter the kingdom of God, then how did the thief on the cross enter paradise with Jesus? And how did Cornelius and those with him receive the Holy Spirit before being water baptized? So that there is no contradiction, the “water” of John 3:5 must refer to something else, such as the physical birth, or to the living water that Jesus referred to in the next chapter while conversing with the woman at the well. Water baptism is still retained but not until after the person’s becoming a disciple, as Jesus instructed and the pattern throughtout Acts confirms.**

There is no Scripture verse that says to baptize infants, just like there is no Scripture verse that says NOT to baptize infants.

**But, again, Jesus’ instructions tell us WHO He said to baptize. Did He specifically have to say, Don’t baptize infants until they become disciples/believers? No. All He had to do was tell us WHO to baptize and He did. Why isn’t that enough?

When you baptize an infant, you are baptizing a nonbeliever, in the hopes that one day he/she will become a believer. Is that what Jesus said to do? Go out and baptize everyone and hopefully some day they will all become disciples? If there’s anything that is “not well thought out,” that’s it.
**

When something new like baptism comes along it will be the adults first. Like circumcision in the OT at first.

**True, but the instructions for circumcision came with this specific: “He who is *eight days old *among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:12). The instructions for baptism also come with a specific: “…make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM…” It doesn’t say “adult” disciple but it does say disciple. A nonbelieving infant simply does not qualify. Can it be any clearer?

Peace**

 

[Lampo]

**You are correct and I agree with you, except for one point, which I have bolded above. We are indeed born “children of wrath” and from the same passage in Eph., verse 1, we are born “dead in trespasses and sins.” Christ made us alive, verse 5. He gave us life, eternal life. The issue is when? and how? The NT makes it clear to me that that event occurs when a person repents and believes the good news that Christ died for his sins and rose again, not before. **

Since there are parallels in Rom 5 regarding the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Jesus, the opposite of your statement above means that one is not condemned until he/she commits a personal sin. Is this what you believe? I know that some Church of Christ folks do.

The NT pattern is consistent with Christ’s instructions: be a disciple or believer in Christ, then be baptized to identify with the believers.

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 argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer’s baptism."Jews identified with the Old Covenant by their circumcision; Christians identify with the New Covenant by their baptism. The error of saying something on behalf of a baby who cannot speak for itself, or become a disciple by him/herself, is clear when you see Mormons being baptized for people in their family trees who have died centuries before. Each person must repent and believe him/herself personally. We can’t do that for them. And God nowhere tells us to.

Another issue is, what does Jesus mean when He says in John 3:5, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” It is easy for someone to jump to the conclusion that the “water” means water baptism, even though the word baptism is not mentioned. If we say that’s what it means, then we have a dilemma. If water baptism is an essential act to enter the kingdom of God, then how did the thief on the cross enter paradise with Jesus?

First, the good thief did a good work as he hung on the cross. He rebuked the bad thief. He expressed sorrow for his sins. He also expressed a desire to be with Jesus in His kingdom. So the good thief had a conversion of heart, and persevered in faith and good works to the end of his life, and Christ rewarded him with eternal salvation. Second, the Church has taught for 2,000 years that there are three ways to be baptized: by water, by desire and by blood. In this case, the good thief had a baptism of desire (by expressing his desire to be with Christ, even though it was presumably too late for a water baptism; this is also the reason why we can believe infants who die before baptism can go to heaven, based on the parents desire to baptize them, but for some intervening cause that prevented it). Martyrs who were not baptized in water and the Spirit, but martyred for Christ, are baptized by blood (i.e., the Holy Innocents). So water baptism is a normative, but not an absolute necessity for salvation.

And how did Cornelius and those with him receive the Holy Spirit before being water baptized? So that there is no contradiction, the “water” of John 3:5 must refer to something else, such as the physical birth, or to the living water that Jesus referred to in the next chapter while conversing with the woman at the well. Water baptism is still retained but not until after the person’s becoming a disciple, as Jesus instructed and the pattern throughtout Acts confirms.

Are you claiming that the “water” is referring to amniotic fluid? Jesus also taught that we must be born of water and Spirit in reference to baptism, or we cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5). Peter says that “baptism is what now saves us.” (1 Peter 3:21).

 

[Lampo]

(Con’t)

**But, again, Jesus’ instructions tell us WHO He said to baptize. Did He specifically have to say, Don’t baptize infants until they become disciples/believers? No. All He had to do was tell us WHO to baptize and He did. Why isn’t that enough?

When you baptize an infant, you are baptizing a nonbeliever, in the hopes that one day he/she will become a believer. Is that what Jesus said to do? Go out and baptize everyone and hopefully some day they will all become disciples? If there’s anything that is “not well thought out,” that’s it.
**

**True, but the instructions for circumcision came with this specific: “He who is *eight days old *among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:12). The instructions for baptism also come with a specific: “…make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM…” It doesn’t say “adult” disciple but it does say disciple. A nonbelieving infant simply does not qualify. Can it be any clearer?

Peace**
The Church baptizes babies because baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), just as the circumcision of eight-day old babies was the sign of the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3). In Acts 2:39, Peter says baptism is for children as well as adults. The word used for children (“teknon”) means infants, which is proved by Acts 21:21 in reference to eight-day old infants. We see in Acts 10:47-48; 16:15,33 and 1 Cor. 1:16 that entire households were baptized. Household (“oikos”) included infants and children. There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.” It would have been unthinkable from a Jewish perspective to exclude children from God’s covenant kingdom. See also in Matt. 9:2, Mark 2:3-5, Matt. 8:5-13, Luke 6:10, Mark 9:22-25 where people are healed based on another person’s faith (just as babies are washed away of sin based on their parents’ faith).

Your underlying assumption is that because it’s not explicitly in the Bible, it is not Christian. I’m interested in your response to my contraception question. Thanks for this dialogue, BTW.

 

[Lampo]

One other thing. In 1 Cor 15:29, Paul notes that there were folks baptizing on behalf of the dead. And, he doesn’t repudiate the practice. So, the Scripture tells us that there were Christians baptizing folks on behalf of the dead and nowhere does the Scripture say this shouldn’t happen…Paul himself offers no criticism of the practice. Why then does anyone believe that baptizing on behalf of the dead is not an acceptable Christian practice? Why? Because of the authority of the Church to decide such matters. Just as the Church can say that baptism on behalf of the dead is not acceptable, in spite of it clearly being practiced by Christians in Scripture, so the Church can decide on the method of baptism. It has Christ’s own authority to bind and loose on earth. And, what it binds and looses on earth, is bound and loosed in Heaven.

 

[Phil12123]

Since there are parallels in Rom 5 regarding the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Jesus, the opposite of your statement above means that one is not condemned until he/she commits a personal sin. Is this what you believe? I know that some Church of Christ folks do.

I’m not sure how this relates to our baptism discussion, but, anyway, I will give you my personal opinion and you can judge it for what it’s worth. Certainly a baby or very young child would not be guilty of personal sin until he/she commits it and God holds him/her accountable for it. At whatever point that occurs, probably when the child has “the knowledge of good and evil” and is no longer in a state of relative innocence (regarding personal sin), God would hold the child as accountable as He did Adam and Eve after they partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now, the child is still spiritually dead until the Holy Spirit comes in and regenerates or gives the child new life, as we saw in Eph. 2:5., but that does not occur until the child comes to know he/she is a sinner, needs a Savior, hears about Him through the preaching of the Gospel, repents and believes that message, all on his/her own volition. No one can do that for him/her.

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 argument that one must be a believer to be baptized.

**What? *Non sequitur *after non sequitur. Let’s look at the whole passage:

Mark 16:
14. Afterward He appeared to *the eleven *as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
15. And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

First of all, he is not speaking to “the crowd,” but the eleven at they sat at the table. What does He tell them? “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Similar to Matt. 28:19, right? “Go and make disciples of all nations…” What he says in Mark tells us how the eleven would “make disciples of all nations” in Matthew—by proclaiming the good news that Jesus died for their sins and rose again.

Then He says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” IF the baptism is to follow the believing and to identify the new believer with all the other believers, it is clear that IF the first does not occur (the believing), the person is rejecting the gospel message and is therefore condemned, i.e., his sins will not be forgiven and he has to pay for them himself in hell. In that case, he should not be baptized to identify him with the other believers because he himself is not a believer.

I will grant you that there are times when people have been improperly baptized when in fact they are not believers. Maybe they got baptized because everyone else was doing it, or maybe they didn’t understand the gospel message but just said they did and so were baptized. But what does this have to do with the subject? The only proper baptism is of a new believer or disciple after he has heard the gospel and embraced it. That’s what Jesus said, didn’t he?**

There is nothing in the Bible about a “believer’s baptism.”

**How can you say that? That exact phrase does not appear, as the word, “Trinity,” does not appear. But there’s plenty “about” both. Show me anything in the Bible that says nonbelievers should be baptized. The truth is that ONLY believers should be baptized. “…make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM,” Jesus said. A nonbeliever is not a disciple. An infant is not a believer or disciple, not yet anyway.

(to be continued)
**

 

[Zooey]

Thanks, this morning after thinking about that post I became a little nervous after spilling like that! LOL I was going to see if I could remove it. Thanks for understanding.

Gift of discernment huh? So thats what other Christians call it. I was told as a child I was evil for seeing things. As a little child I referred to the angels I saw as pretty people who lived in the air. You can imagine the reactions I received. LOL

Yep, I would say we thread jacked http://i15.tinypic.com/fjhqme.gif....Sorry.:eek:

Not at all!!!
And may I offer you some of these::hug1::hug1: God bless you!!
I am sorry I have neglected this thread until now!!!:hug1:
for you!!!

 

[Phil12123]

First, the good thief did a **good work **as he hung on the cross. He rebuked the bad thief. He expressed sorrow for his sins. He also expressed a desire to be with Jesus in His kingdom. So the good thief had a conversion of heart, and persevered in faith and **good works **to the end of his life, and Christ rewarded him with eternal salvation.

**So what are you saying? His works earned him the reward of eternal salvation? Is that how you view salvation? A reward for works? Surely you are aware that eternal salvation is a gift of God which He gives by His marvelous grace, as seen in Eph. 2:8-9 and Rom. 6:23:

**Eph. 2:
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9. not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Rom. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.**

**Why are you trying to find things he did to make him deserve a gift? And to receive the gift as a reward?

Certainly, the thief showed repentance and faith. We see his repentance in his changed mind and heart, and as you say, he expressed sorrow for his sins, or at least acknowledged them, saying he was getting what he deserved. His changed mind is evident because initially he had joined the other thief in reviling Jesus (Mark 15:32 – “And those who were crucified with Him reviled Him”), but later rebuked the other thief (Luke 23:40 – "But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?’ ").

And then there’s his amazing faith that led him to say to Jesus, One Who was dying on a cross, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” To believe He would have a kingdom was amazing. But my point was that this thief was told by Jesus, “Today, you will be with me in paradise,” and yet he was never baptized. The Bible makes no mention of a “baptism of blood” or a “baptism of desire.” So, the “water” of John 3:5 cannot be “water baptism.” Furthermore, if new believers were baptized to identify them with the other believers, there would scarcely be a need to do that for a new believer who was perhaps minutes away from death.**

Are you claiming that the “water” is referring to amniotic fluid?

It might be, or simply symbolic of physical birth. Water is a physical thing contrasted to Spirit, a spiritual thing. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” So, He is talking about two births, one physical and one spiritual. When He mentions “water and the Spirit” together, He may be identifying one (flesh) with the water and the other (Spirit) with the Holy Spirit. All I’m saying is that we need not jump to any conclusion that the “water” has to be water baptism, because the word “baptism” is not in the passage.

Jesus also taught that we must be born of water and Spirit in reference to baptism, or we cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:3-5).

**No, not in John 3:3-5. Again, He does not mention baptism.

(to be continued)
**

 

[Phil12123]

**The Church baptizes babies because **baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), just as the circumcision of eight-day old babies was the sign of the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3).

**I already answered this. Let me copy and paste my previous answer: …the instructions for circumcision came with this specific: “He who is *eight days old *among you shall be circumcised” (Gen. 17:12). The instructions for baptism also come with a specific: “…make disciples of all nations, baptizing THEM…” It doesn’t say “adult” disciple but it does say disciple. A nonbelieving infant simply does not qualify.

I noticed you start your statement above with, “The Church baptizes babies because…” but you don’t say, “…Jesus said to.” So, no matter what excuse you want to give, you are not obedient to the words of Christ Himself when HE said WHO to baptize. That is clear to me, but apparently not you, for some reason, because you continue to ignore His instructions and go about your set way of doing what you think should be done for whatever reasons, none of which count for anything if they are in direct opposition to the words of Christ.**

**In Acts 2:39, Peter says baptism is for children as well as adults. ** The word used for children (“teknon”) means infants, which is proved by Acts 21:21 in reference to eight-day old infants.

Read the whole passage:

Acts 2:
37. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?’’
38. Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39. "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.’'

**You say, “Baptism is for children as well as adults.” But only if they REPENT. Can an infant repent? The promise to them and their children and all who are afar off is that if they REPENT and are baptized they will have their sins remitted and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Sure, you can baptize a baby but you can’t get it to REPENT, and that is just as much an essential part of the promise, perhaps more essential, as baptism. Baptism would only be done if they did repent. You don’t baptize unrepentant people, young or old.

Furthermore, your Greek is faulty. The word used for children is indeed teknon, but that does not mean infant. It means simply child or children, of any age, and is so rendered, along with “son” and “daughter.” Never is it rendered “infant.” The word that is rendered “infant” is brephos or perhaps, paidion, as in Luke 18:15 — “Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when His disciples saw it, they rebuked them.” So the promise is to them, their children and their children’s children, and even to us, who are afar off, as long as they or we repent.**

We see in Acts 10:47-48; 16:15,33 and 1 Cor. 1:16 that entire households were baptized. Household (“oikos”) included infants and children.

**Acts 10:47-48 is the baptism of Cornelius and those with him, all of whom heard the word preached by Peter and spoke in tongues and magnified God (v. 46). Are you saying infants did that? It doesn’t even hint of such a thing.

Acts 16:15 simply states Lydia and her household were baptized with no mention of who made up her household. No mention of infants. The word oikos simply means a home, house, household, nothing more. You can’t say it necessarily included infants, any more than you can say my household has infants.

Acts 16:33 is about the Philippian jailer and is worth a closer look in its context:**

Acts 16:
30. And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’’
31. So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.’’
32. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
33. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
34. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It is evident that the jailer and his entire family heard and believed the word of God. No infants there. They were all believers who were baptized.