Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[jmcrae]

Clement of Rome was probably an adult convert to Christianity, considering he was an adult at the time of the writing of Philipians. So that probably rules him out.
The didache was not written by one person, but was a sort of rule book for the early church probably written by many.

It began to be quoted by others in about 50 AD, which puts it well within the Apostolic period.

I think the best way to explain is to use scripture. Col 2:12
buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Baptism is an identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. Read Romans 6 as well. How can an infant identify itself in Christ’s death and resurrection?
1 Peter 3:21-22
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Certainly to identify with the death and resurrection, repentance must come first, whic an infant can’t do.

It is also identified with the circumcision of the Jews, being called a “circumcision of the heart” and since circumcision was proper to infants, to bring them into the Jewish Covenant, it stands to reason that baptism can also be applied to infants, to bring them into the Christian covenant. In Acts 2, St. Peter states that “this promise is for you, and for your children,” so obviously, it was possible to have little children become Christians in the early Church. The way we become Christians is by being baptized.

 

[onenow1]

I think that’s a stretch, but what about the rest of my post?

I agreewith all the verses you cited, not your interpretation.

if the Baptism of John remitted sins, what more could the Baptism of Christ do for those whom the Apostle Paul wanted to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ after they had received the Baptism of John? (Acts 19:4-5)"
St. Augustine, Baptism, 5:10:1

And now why do you delay? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
Acts 22:16

Mark you must show us biblical authority, that says you cannot baptise infants.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

Matthew 28
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit .

There’s no ambiguity in this command from Jesus in Matthew.

**I wholeheartedly agree that there is no ambiguity. Jesus commanded that only disciples were to be baptized. **

The problem with believers baptism, lies in this; if indeed water baptism is a necessary step [and it is] for salvation, then those who teach water baptism is not necessary, are disobeying Jesus

Not so. Water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but neither is good works, but that does not mean they shouldn’t be done. Those who teach water baptism is not necessary for salvation still get baptized, to be obedient to the Lord’s command, not to get saved. On the other hand, if Jesus says baptize disciples, YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

 

[jmcrae]

YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

That’s why we only baptize the children of Christian families, and not children of families that don’t intend to raise their children in the Christian faith.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

? Phil how long does it take to make a disciple of someone, was it in an instant ?

Peace,OneNow1

 

[Phil12123]

Mark you must show us biblical authority, that says you cannot baptise infants.

**No, it is incumbent on you to show Jesus commanded it, when His clear words of Matt. 28 and Mark 16 indicate otherwise.

Are we to baptize the family dog, too? Of course not. But why not? It is part of the household. Why not baptize it? Because Jesus did not command it; the family dog is not a disciple, nor is any infant. The fact that the infant may some day become a disciple or believer in Christ is irrelevant. Until he or she does, he or she is not a proper candidate for baptism, according to Christ’s instructions.**

 

[Phil12123]

Me: if Jesus says baptize disciples, YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

You: That’s why we only baptize the children of Christian families, and not children of families that don’t intend to raise their children in the Christian faith.

Jesus did not tell them to baptize non-disciple or nonbeliever infants, whether they had good parents or bad parents or no parents. What their parents were going to do, or intending to do, is irrelevant. The infants themselves are not disciples and not believers, so they should not be baptized, according to Jesus’ instructions.

 

[Phil12123]

Me: if Jesus says baptize disciples, YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

**You: ? Phil how long does it take to make a disciple of someone, was it in an instant ?

Peace,OneNow1
**
It can take years to make a disciple of someone. There are wives who are praying for their nonbeliever husbands and mothers for their nonbeliever children and it is years and years, and sometimes they never become disciples/believers. Never. It only takes an instant for someone to repent and believe the Gospel and be saved, but some never do. Until they do, they are not proper candidates for baptism.

 

[Phil12123]

**You don’t make a person a disciple by baptizing them. They become a disciple by repentance and faith. THEN you baptize them.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, it is incumbent on you to show Jesus commanded it, when His clear words of Matt. 28 and Mark 16 indicate otherwise.Where does Scripture say that if Jesus didn’t command it, it’s not kosher?

Are we to baptize the family dog, too? Of course not. But why not? It is part of the household. Why not baptize it? Because Jesus did not command it; the family dog is not a disciple, nor is any infant. The fact that the infant may some day become

It’s a little too early to be doing mental gymnastics. I understand the point you’re trying to make, but the issue of animals and souls would best be done on another thread.

 

[NotWorthy]

Me: YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

You: That’s why we only baptize the children of Christian families, and not children of families that don’t intend to raise their children in the Christian faith.

Jesus did not tell them to baptize non-disciple or nonbeliever infants, whether they had good parents or bad parents or no parents. What their parents were going to do, or intending to do, is irrelevant. The infants themselves are not disciples and not believers, so they should not be baptized, according to Jesus’ instructions.

The Church in all it’s Apostolic History, begs to differ with you. The people that learned from Jesus disagree with you. The people that they taught disagree with you.

I would think that they’d understand what Jesus said, a tad bit clearer than you, Phil.

 

[Phil12123]

Where does Scripture say that if Jesus didn’t command it, it’s not kosher?

Kosher? Do we want to obey Him or not? Why don’t we just obey Him and do what He said? Why is that so hard to accept? We can’t go wrong if we just DO what HE said to DO. When we add to it, we are not obeying His command, we are coming up with our own ideas, our own command. Is that what you’d do in the Army? Change the commanding officer’s command to your own liking? Even if a million other soldiers said, Yeah, let’s do plan B, rather than plan A, would that make it right?

It’s a little too early to be doing mental gymnastics. ** I understand the point you’re trying to make**, but the issue of animals and souls would best be done on another thread.

**If you understand the point, that’s all that is needed. No other thread is necessary. So, what is your response to the point made? Baptizing the family dog is not commanded by Jesus, nor is baptizing nonbeliever, nondisciple infants.
**

 

[Phil12123]

The Church in all it’s Apostolic History, begs to differ with you. The people that learned from Jesus disagree with you. The people that they taught disagree with you.

I would think that they’d understand what Jesus said, a tad bit clearer than you, Phil.

**Well, then help me understand. WHAT is so hard about Jesus’ words in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 that anyone cannot understand them, if they truly want to obey Him? It is not a matter of ambiguous words that need some special understanding that only a select few can grasp. All the words are simple enough for a child to understand. It is not understanding that is the key. It is simple obedience. Do we DO what He said, or do we do something else? That is the issue. The ONLY issue.
**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think that’s a stretch, but what about the rest of my post?

What about the rest of your post? Well let’s look at part of it.

You said:

Clement of Rome was probably an adult convert to Christianity, considering he was an adult at the time of the writing of Philipians. So that probably rules him out.
The didache was not written by one person, but was a sort of rule book for the early church probably written by many.

I can’t believe you would really mention DIonysius the Aeropagite, since he was an Athenian Judge who was converted when Paul preached at Mars Hill( Areopagus, Thus Aeropagite).

It appears you are challenging the references to these people. Why? I suspect because you dispute that they help the case of infant baptism. That would be well and good, but that is not what you offered, rather you said things like, “I can’t believe you would really mention DIonysius the Aeropagite, since he was …”

Now why I mentioned Dionysius and all the rest that I mentioned is stated right in my post:

When I search for the “early Fathers” here are some of the sources I find for identifying them: ccel.org/fathers.html and newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm#appeal.
Perhpas you didn’t mean to say, " all of the early Fathers", but had meant to say apostolic Fathers, instead? Is so, I again turn to the New Advent Encyclopedia for a listing of who these peopl are…

In other words I was providing a list from a source that would have been acceptable to the person I was in conversation with. I think you would have understood that if you had read the post in context. I don’t know why you missed that given that this was just a normal conversation between two people where you are able to read both sides of the conversation, but it raised some doubt in my mind that you would understand how to read in context when reading scripture rather than adopting an eisogetical reading of the text.

I have no further comment on the rest of your post.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

On the other hand, if Jesus says baptize disciples, YOU are disobedient if you baptize a non-disciple infant.

Phil, not even examining your statement theologically, but merely logically, your conclusion does NOT follow from the premise. (Even if it ends up that you are right theologically, you logic is still amiss.)

Jesus says to do X.
You do Y.
Therefore you are disobedient.

From that we don’t know that X was left undone. And we are not told that Y was to NOT be done. So, doing Y does not qualify as disobedience.

Now, theologically, you have taken the scriptures and made it say something that it does not say.

Scripture says:

1. Go, make disciples.
2. Go, baptizing and
3. Go, teaching.

I disagree with your assessment of Matthew 28 declaring who is to be baptized. I do not think that in Matthew 28 we have Jesus actually say commenting at all with regard to who is to be baptized. And while I also don’t think that it says anything about the process of making disciples, if it does say anything about the process, the implication is that the process is a two-fold process of baptizing and teaching as a means of disciple making, not activity that is post-disciple making.

 

[NotWorthy]

Kosher? Do we want to obey Him or not? Why don’t we just obey Him and do what He said? Why is that so hard to accept? We can’t go wrong if we just DO what HE said to DO. When we add to it, we are not obeying His command, we are coming up with our own ideas, our own command. Is that what you’d do in the Army? Change the commanding officer’s command to your own liking? Even if a million other soldiers said, Yeah, let’s do plan B, rather than plan A, would that make it right?

But Phil, in all of your “disobeying Christ” rantings, you fail to consider that the officers had ample time to question the commander about what He meant. You don’t and never have had that opportunity. What you cling to so blindly had been debated and discussed with that very same Commander who issued the command.

**

If you understand the point, that’s all that is needed. No other thread is necessary. So, what is your response to the point made? Baptizing the family dog is not commanded by Jesus, nor is baptizing nonbeliever, nondisciple infants.

**Nor is posting on the internet, which is an integral part of my household. So when are you going to log-off?

To deal with this ridiculous analogy of dogs and households, you are doing something once again that you’ve done numerous times. You’ve inserted your culture into Ancient Israel. It’s typical of why you’ve gone off the beaten path of the Apostolic Church in your Spiritual journey.

Dogs were considered unclean, so Jews would not have dogs as part of the household.

Please try another tact, Phil.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, then help me understand. WHAT is so hard about Jesus’ words in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 that anyone cannot understand them, if they truly want to obey Him? It is not a matter of ambiguous words that need some special understanding that only a select few can grasp. All the words are simple enough for a child to understand. It is not understanding that is the key. It is simple obedience. Do we DO what He said, or do we do something else? That is the issue. The ONLY issue.

It is the ONLY issue?!? A Symbolic Ritual (in your eyes) is the ONLY issue?

You amaze me.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Phil, I have a real life issue that relates to believer’s baptism. I am honestly interested in your take on it. Here’s the story:

I was at Hardee’s and a lady noticed that I had my Bible with me and asked me if I was a pastor. Conversation ensued and she asked me if I baptized people and in what name.

Me: Yes. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Turns out she understands herself to be a Christian, but she has never been baptized, and she would like to be. But here is the deal. She doesn’t want to be baptized into the membership of any given church. She just wants to be baptized in Jesus’ name and then to go about her business her own way, quite apart from any local congregation.

(There’s one more wrinkle too, but I’ll share that later if appropriate.)

So, it would definitley be a case of believer’s baptism. But she is not willing to be discipled, except by her own interpretation of scripture apart from any faith community. What do you think of that?

 

[Phil12123]

Me: WHAT is so hard about Jesus’ words in Matt. 28 and Mark 16 that anyone cannot understand them, if they truly want to obey Him? It is not a matter of ambiguous words that need some special understanding that only a select few can grasp. All the words are simple enough for a child to understand. It is not understanding that is the key. It is simple obedience. Do we DO what He said, or do we do something else? That is the issue. The ONLY issue.

NotWorthy: It is the ONLY issue?!? A Symbolic Ritual (in your eyes) is the ONLY issue?
You amaze me.

And you amaze me. If Jesus says WHO to baptize, as He does in Matt 28 and Mark 16, what other issue is there besides obedience to His command? Yes, in the debate of infant vs. believer’s baptism, with Christ’s unambiguous words to instruct us on the subject, that is the ONLY issue—obedience.

 

[NotWorthy]

And you amaze me. If Jesus says WHO to baptize, as He does in Matt 28 and Mark 16, what other issue is there besides obedience to His command? Yes, in the debate of infant vs. believer’s baptism, with Christ’s unambiguous words to instruct us on the subject, that is the ONLY issue—obedience.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… "what’s that? Oh it’s nothing… just Phil calling me disobedient to Christ’s words… Yeah, I’m tired of it, too… Yeah, that crack about Christ’s unambiguous words could be applied to the Eucharist in John chapter 6 as well… yeah, I know… double standard…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz