Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter boppaid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t recommend that anyone be water baptized for any reason.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Water baptism is not part of Paul’s gospel (“my gospel” “the gospel of the uncircumcision” “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” Gal 2:7; Rom 16:25). There’s no good reason to be water baptized.
Did you read any of this thread, or did you just jump in with this quote.

Instead of going back through the numerous pages of repeated arguments (thanks a lot, Phil… ;)), I’ve got a homework assignment for you.

Read the entire first chapter of 1 Corinthians and look at the context of the passage. Then tell me that Paul is anti-water baptism. Did you read in Acts the scene of Paul in jail and then the earthquake?

Have you read Matthew’s last chapter? Is Paul’s Gospel different then Jesus’? Is Paul’s Gospel any different then Peter’s in Acts, chapter 2?
 
Did you read any of this thread, or did you just jump in with this quote.

Instead of going back through the numerous pages of repeated arguments (thanks a lot, Phil… ;)), I’ve got a homework assignment for you.

Read the entire first chapter of 1 Corinthians and look at the context of the passage. Then tell me that Paul is anti-water baptism. Did you read in Acts the scene of Paul in jail and then the earthquake?

Have you read Matthew’s last chapter? Is Paul’s Gospel different then Jesus’? Is Paul’s Gospel any different then Peter’s in Acts, chapter 2?
I’ve read the entire first chapter of 1 Corinthians many times. I reference what Paul said there to show that water baptism is NOT part of the gospel that he preached. Peter could never have said “I was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

The gospel taht Christ committed to Peter for Israel to obey is very different than the gospel that Christ committed to Paul for the rest of the world to obey after Israel was cast away and cut off from their unbelief in Acts.

Paul refers to the gospel Christ committed to him as “the gospel of the uncircumcision” and to the gospel Christ committed to Peter as “the gospel of the circumcision” in Gal 2:7.

The big difference is the requirement of keeping the Mosaic law which means circumcision and abstaining from certain foods as Peter demonstrated by his reluctance to go into a Gentile’s home in Acts 10. This is further corroborated by the response Peter gets in Acts 11.

The preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery that Christ committed to Paul (Rom 16:25) is the gospel that we are to believe and promote. And its a gospel that requires NO WORKS to be done in order to receive salvation. The moment you believe Paul’s gospel you become a member of the Body of Christ and are sealed for the day of redemption.

Romans 4:4-5,15 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law [there is] no transgression.

Ephesians 1:6,13-14 …by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. 13 In Him you also [trusted,] after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 ** who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession**, to the praise of His glory.

Colossians 1:13-14 Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:
 
HI, Thiest
Paul must have changed his mind about baptism here:> Titus 3: 5he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Jesus let John Baptist , baptise him to fulfill all righteousness. It certainly was’nt for Jesus, since there was no sin in Him. So who did Jesus set the example of baptism that fulflls all righteousness for ?
Or was this an excersise in meaninglessness by Jesus?

Answe: Jesus obeyed His Father’s truth BAPTISM.

Peace, OneNow1:coffee:
 
Theist, you might be a little off on your Biblical interpretation. Paul and Peter were sent to preach ONE Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul in Corinthians was glad he didn’t baptize much, in order to prevent further “factioning”, as is demonstrated by those “who follow Apollos” and such. Could Paul be predicting the heretical tradition (of man) called “denominations”?!? Hmmmmm…

As Paul said in Ephesians, one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
 
**
**It is the written Word of God, “the word of righteousness,” that we need to be skilled in, in order to be discerners of the truth. In praying for all believers, Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). ****

I think you are adding in words at your own convenience, Phil. The NT was not yet written, and when the Apostles spoke of the scriptures, they were speaking of the OT, and the preached word. Jesus is God’s word, God’s Truth. The scriptures we have today reflect that word of righteousness who is Christ, but the Word is a person, not a book.
 
I don’t recommend that anyone be water baptized for any reason.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Water baptism is not part of Paul’s gospel (“my gospel” “the gospel of the uncircumcision” “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” Gal 2:7; Rom 16:25). There’s no good reason to be water baptized.
I see that the person who posted this will not get my reply, but for those others that may be reading the thread, I would like to point out that Paul did baptize, even though that was not his chief commission. He was called as a preacher and teacher, and did not have time to baptize all the converts he made, so his companions did the baptizing. He makes this reply in response to people quibbling over which Apostle they could claim. If one reads the whole passage, it is clear it is not about baptism, which Paul strongly taught and practiced, but about factiousness.
 
I don’t recommend that anyone be water baptized for any reason.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

Water baptism is not part of Paul’s gospel (“my gospel” “the gospel of the uncircumcision” “the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery” Gal 2:7; Rom 16:25). There’s no good reason to be water baptized.
I see that the person who posted this will not get my reply, but for those others that may be reading the thread, I would like to point out that Paul did baptize, even though that was not his chief commission. He was called as a preacher and teacher, and did not have time to baptize all the converts he made, so his companions did the baptizing. He makes this reply in response to people quibbling over which Apostle they could claim. If one reads the whole passage, it is clear it is not about baptism, which Paul strongly taught and practiced, but about factiousness.
I reference what Paul said there to show that water baptism is NOT part of the gospel that he preached.
Baptism is part of the great commission Jesus gave to the Apostles. It is more of a response to the gospel, I suppose you could say.
Peter could never have said “I was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”
???

Jesus commanded Peter to baptize, just as He commanded Paul.
The gospel taht Christ committed to Peter for Israel to obey is very different than the gospel that Christ committed to Paul for the rest of the world to obey after Israel was cast away and cut off from their unbelief in Acts.
This is just nonsense.
The big difference is the requirement of keeping the Mosaic law which means circumcision and abstaining from certain foods as Peter demonstrated by his reluctance to go into a Gentile’s home in Acts 10. This is further corroborated by the response Peter gets in Acts 11.
More nonsense. You are misunderstanding the scriptures.
The moment you believe Paul’s gospel you become a member of the Body of Christ and are sealed for the day of redemption.
This is what happens in baptism.
 
I am just wondering. I am reading a lot of talk about “the gospel that Paul preached,” even about “Paul’s gospel.”

I thought we were all supposed to be seeking to follow Jesus’ gospel, His Good News.

Why should “Paul’s gospel” then have priority over “Peter’s gospel” or “James’ gospel” or “Thomas’ gospel”?

Is not Jesus’ gospel more than even the sum of the contents of all the written documents we use to reconstruct “Paul’s” or “Peter’s” or whoever’s “gospel”?

Why is is that so many Protestants appear to be reading Jesus in the light of Paul rather than Paul in the light of Jesus?
 
I am just wondering. I am reading a lot of talk about “the gospel that Paul preached,” even about “Paul’s gospel.”

I thought we were all supposed to be seeking to follow Jesus’ gospel, His Good News.

Why should “Paul’s gospel” then have priority over “Peter’s gospel” or “James’ gospel” or “Thomas’ gospel”?

Is not Jesus’ gospel more than even the sum of the contents of all the written documents we use to reconstruct “Paul’s” or “Peter’s” or whoever’s “gospel”?

Why is is that so many Protestants appear to be reading Jesus in the light of Paul rather than Paul in the light of Jesus?
You were fine until your final comment. Please do not assume that one person’s comment ever represents the totality of a group, even one that they claim to identify with. That doesn’t mean the rest of that group identifies with those views. Personally, I would think that it would be few and far between that you would find Christians of any persuasion, protestants included, that would read Jesus in the light of Paul.

The only other comment I would make is that we really aren’t even talking about Jesus’ gospel, but rather the Gospel (or good news) about Jesus. The reason that distinction is important is because the Gospel message is about what Jesus did (on the Cross) more than it is about what he said (in his own preaching ministry, which focused on the Kingdom of God).
 
You were fine until your final comment. Please do not assume that one person’s comment ever represents the totality of a group, even one that they claim to identify with. That doesn’t mean the rest of that group identifies with those views. Personally, I would think that it would be few and far between that you would find Christians of any persuasion, protestants included, that would read Jesus in the light of Paul.
You would be surprised. I agree that you can’t lump all of anyone into one bucket, not the least of which Protestant. But there does often seem to be a tendency to use the writings of Paul to “contradict” the teachings and the parables of Jesus. This has always seemed odd to me. But again, one should not assume that all Protestants do that. That’s simply not true.
The only other comment I would make is that we really aren’t even talking about Jesus’ gospel, but rather the Gospel (or good news) about Jesus. The reason that distinction is important is because the Gospel message is about what Jesus did (on the Cross) more than it is about what he said (in his own preaching ministry, which focused on the Kingdom of God).
Although Jesus’ actions are what saved us, His Words also lead us to Salvation. I know you’re not minimizing the teachings of Jesus (for they were truly revolutionary in that day and age), but one may mistake you for doing so.

God Bless you in your works!

John
 
You would be surprised. I agree that you can’t lump all of anyone into one bucket, not the least of which Protestant. But there does often seem to be a tendency to use the writings of Paul to “contradict” the teachings and the parables of Jesus. This has always seemed odd to me. But again, one should not assume that all Protestants do that. That’s simply not true.

Although Jesus’ actions are what saved us, His Words also lead us to Salvation. I know you’re not minimizing the teachings of Jesus (for they were truly revolutionary in that day and age), but one may mistake you for doing so.

God Bless you in your works!

John
Thank-you for not mistaking me for having done so. And while I won’t say that you won’t find anyone ever doing so, these words from Paul make it clear (to me at least) that he never thought that “his” gospel was superior to what Jesus himself had to say:
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. (1 Timothy 6:3-4a)
I would hope that most (well actually I would hope all, but am only willing to assume most) protestants would concur with Paul on this point.
 
I think you are adding in words at your own convenience, Phil. The NT was not yet written, and when the Apostles spoke of the scriptures, they were speaking of the OT, and the preached word.

You’re right that when that book of the NT was written, it referred to the OT and the preached word, plus whatever NT scriptures were written at that time. For believers today, however, the truth stated in that verse is just as true when you include all that we presently have in terms of OT and NT. My point is that maturity comes from knowing the written Word of God----ALL of it, so as to discern the truth from error.
 
guanophore;2679995:
I think you are adding in words at your own convenience, Phil. The NT was not yet written, and when the Apostles spoke of the scriptures, they were speaking of the OT, and the preached word
.

You’re right that when that book of the NT was written, it referred to the OT and the preached word, plus whatever NT scriptures were written at that time. For believers today, however, the truth stated in that verse is just as true when you include all that we presently have in terms of OT and NT. My point is that maturity comes from knowing the written Word of God----ALL of it, so as to discern the truth from error.
So, how did we get from having only an OT, to having both an OT and an NT? What was the process by which the memoirs of a few of Jesus’ followers became Holy Writ?
 
So, how did we get from having only an OT, to having both an OT and an NT? What was the process by which the memoirs of a few of Jesus’ followers became Holy Writ?
Is there a specific thread for the discussion of that question, or are you trying to relate it to infant baptism? I think maybe we’ve gotten sidetracked… not that that isn’t an interesting rabbit to chase. We presently have both OT and NT. Neither teaches baptism of nonbelievers, whether infant or adult.
 
Is there a specific thread for the discussion of that question, or are you trying to relate it to infant baptism? I think maybe we’ve gotten sidetracked… not that that isn’t an interesting rabbit to chase. We presently have both OT and NT. Neither teaches baptism of nonbelievers, whether infant or adult.
But they both preach initiation into the Covenant of (OT) 8 day olds and (NT) “you and your family”.

Interesting point.
 
Is there a specific thread for the discussion of that question, or are you trying to relate it to infant baptism? I think maybe we’ve gotten sidetracked… not that that isn’t an interesting rabbit to chase. We presently have both OT and NT. Neither teaches baptism of nonbelievers, whether infant or adult.
My point was that we got the custom of baptizing infants from the same people who gave us the New Testament.

If they are trustworthy in the matter of the New Testament, then why not in everything else? But if we can’t trust them in the matter of infant baptism, then we have to doubt the New Testament, too, until we have some other way, besides their word to us, of knowing which books belong in the New Testament.
 
My point was that we got the custom of baptizing infants from the same people who gave us the New Testament.

If they are trustworthy in the matter of the New Testament, then why not in everything else? But if we can’t trust them in the matter of infant baptism, then we have to doubt the New Testament, too, until we have some other way, besides their word to us, of knowing which books belong in the New Testament.
jmcrae, I usually don’t find much merit in your “the church gave us the NT argument”, which this is another form of the same, but I have to give credit to you this time. This particular wording of it makes the most sense I’ve seen any make for it.
 
jmcrae, I usually don’t find much merit in your “the church gave us the NT argument”, which this is another form of the same, but I have to give credit to you this time. This particular wording of it makes the most sense I’ve seen any make for it.
In the summer of 1987, when my husband and I were visiting Scotland, I went to a print studio in Inverness, where such things are not valued very highly (old is just old - they have no concept of “antique”), and in the studio, there is one of the seven original Gutenberg presses.

In the cases next to the press are the very letters that were used to publish the world’s first mass-produced English Bibles - and yes, the upper cases still hold the upper-case letters, ABCD … etc., and the lower cases still hold the lower-case letters, abcd … etc. and as I picked them out and held them in my hands, I began to meditate on all of the steps of the process that brought the Scriptures from the lips of the Holy Spirit to the little table beside my bed.

It was then that I realized that I had a lot of gaps in my knowledge of how the Bible came to us. (Still do, today.) So, I decided to work my way backwards.

Bible. On the night table.

Got there, in a shopping bag. (Shopping bag got recycled.)

Was put into the shopping bag by the store clerk.

Was given to the store clerk by me.

I got it off the shelf in the book store.

It got to the shelf in the book store when a box boy unloaded a box of Bibles that he got off the back of a truck that came to the store.

The box of Bibles got on to the truck when a truck driver picked it up at a printer’s.

The Bibles were put into the box by the printers.

They got them from the Bindery area of the print shop, where they had just been glued and bound together.

Before that, they had to cut the pages apart and put them in the right order.

Before that, the ink was wet, and the pages were laying on drying racks.

The ink got on to the pages when they went through the press.

The press was loaded up with plates of text copied from proofs given by - who? The Holy Spirit?

That’s the part where I realized that there had to be human beings involved in the writing and proofing of the text of the Scriptures. Which means that there had to be an editing process. Who did the editing? By what criteria did they know when it was finally correct? When did this happen, originally?

After much research, the “who” turned out to be the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, the criteria turned out to be the Oral Tradition of the Catholic Church, and the “when” turned out to be some time between 400 and 405 AD.
 
I am just wondering. I am reading a lot of talk about “the gospel that Paul preached,” even about “Paul’s gospel.”

I thought we were all supposed to be seeking to follow Jesus’ gospel, His Good News.

Why should “Paul’s gospel” then have priority over “Peter’s gospel” or “James’ gospel” or “Thomas’ gospel”?

Is not Jesus’ gospel more than even the sum of the contents of all the written documents we use to reconstruct “Paul’s” or “Peter’s” or whoever’s “gospel”?

Why is is that so many Protestants appear to be reading Jesus in the light of Paul rather than Paul in the light of Jesus?
Paul himself was very annoyed by this factious attitude among believers about who “owned” the gospel, and who “baptized” who.

1 Cor 1:12-13
12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

1 Cor 3:5-9

5 What then is Apol’los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building."

Most Protestants look at salvation through the lens of Paul because the Pauline literature gives the fullest and most detailed theology present in the NT. Most are not taught to interpret his writings in the light of other NT passages, but take them peicemeal, or relate them only to other Pauline letters. Once, I even had a Paulist tell me that Jesus did not really have much to say on the topic of salvation because he had not yet been crucified! :eek: 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top