R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It’s what they have been taught…they don’t know what they don’t know.
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You’re right. I’m not inferring or making that leap. I’m simply repeating what Jesus said.
We’ll deal with who is “ever-changing” in a second. In the meantime, look at the Catholic Church. She has taught infant Baptism since the first century. How do you call that ever-changing. (Edited By Moderator-response to off topic post)
N
Nita
Guest
Hi billbush,
In the cases you cite, the persons being addressed were adults - “understand” to the eunuch; “repent” to the jailer. “believe” to jailer. Even in Acts 2:38 Peter doesn’t specify who the “Repent” applies to. But he does specify who the being baptized applies to - “let every one of you be baptized”. (Note he doesn’t say “Let every one of you repent and be baptized…”)
Why didn’t you complete the following passage in Acts 16:34 “Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God.”
There is no directive given here or elsewhere in Scripture that only those who are of an age to understand and repent are eligible for baptism. (Nor is there anywhere a directive that those who are too young, or are incapable of understanding and repenting, may not be baptized.
God bless,
Nita
S
Salamander
Guest
Why was Jesus baptized?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
As he tells John, “To Fulfill all Righteousness”.
S
Salamander
Guest
Nita,
If your logic follows in line, you have no idea how old the members of the household of the jailer were. You are riding on the assumption that there were children involved? As with all conversions in the N.T., they had to believe. Would you not agree that small children are innocent until they can believe in the things spoken about His Kingdom? I believe that children come to an “age of accountability” when they understand what “sin” is…that’s when they can make a conscious decision.
Sal.
If your logic follows in line, you have no idea how old the members of the household of the jailer were. You are riding on the assumption that there were children involved? As with all conversions in the N.T., they had to believe. Would you not agree that small children are innocent until they can believe in the things spoken about His Kingdom? I believe that children come to an “age of accountability” when they understand what “sin” is…that’s when they can make a conscious decision.
Sal.
S
Salamander
Guest
So, in order to “fulfill all righteousness” one must believe, right?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Go back to the original post. Paul did NOT know if the household (which includes servants and slaves and their children) any infants, and he emphatically includes this whole household, without any disclaimers.
Please address that point.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No. Where do you get that from?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Protestant presuppostions.No. Where do you get that from?
S
Salamander
Guest
I see your point. But I do not believe that our God is the god of confusion-that is Satan (1 Cor. 14:33). Paul, as God’s servant obeyed Jesus and the Spirit as he was given the power as an Apostle to teach. Since Jesus said that “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be condemned, Mark 16:16” I believe Jesus was talking about those who would “believe”. Infants, therefore, cannot believe. Paul would have known this and he probably would have baptized every infant he came in contact with whose believing parents put them in front of him. Infant baptism was not instituted in the “religious bodies” until 416 A.D. “Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants in the Council Of Mela in 416 AD.” (www.bible.ca)
S
Salamander
Guest
Well, the very word means “submerse” does it not? Was it not done to wash away sins and Jesus did it so that He could be the “righteous” example-not that He sinned-he was obedient to our Lord-“this is My Son, in whom I am well pleased”? It showed the cleansing of the body (tradition) but also was an example of the “Death, Burial, and Resurrection”, as is the Lord’s Supper, which is a command, right?
N
Nita
Guest
As NotWorthy pointed out, we are not assuming there were children, only that there might have been children. The whole point is that we don’t know since the Scripture text does not tell us the ages of all the members of the household - the head of which was still young enough to be handling criminals in jail!
Nita
N
Nita
Guest
My apologies billbush. I thought you left something out. You just used a different translation than I was using. My quote is from the RSV translation.
Nita
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I think St. Peter suspected St. Paul was the god of confusion. But that’s neither here nor there…
So, you’re inserting your own presuppositions into this statement.
Paul didn’t say, “you and your whole household will be baptized”. He said “you and your whole household will be saved”. To repeat the words of a wise man, “God is not the god of confusion”. Now if Paul meant this to be adults only, he should have said so. Furthermore, if Luke wanted to prevent the “misleading understanding” of infant baptism, then the Holy Spirit would have inspired him to made this stipulation.
Thank you, Salamander! You are the first “non-infant baptizing” apologist to concede that Paul most probably baptized infants, even if it was symbolic in your eyes, it’s a start. We’re going to bridge this ecumenical gap before you know it.
What? Infant Baptism was practiced in the 1st century. Infant Baptism was argued about whether it should be done prior to 8 days or on the 8th day in the 2nd century. Notice, it wasn’t argued “against”. It was argued “how early”.
What is this “council of Mela” you are talking about. Your link doesn’t work. I did find my way to your sight and I’ve found numerous errors in 30 seconds.
This presents the problem with Sola Scriptura. If people like WWW.Bible.CA can not interpret Catholic Teaching correctly, how can you expect them to interpret the Bible correctly!?!?!?
S
Salamander
Guest
No Nita, are you saying that infants have faith?
Sal.
Sal.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Not entirely! The word means,
“submerse”. The word also means “to pour”. The word also means, “to sprinkle”.
OK, you lost me on this point. Can you elaborate?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I’m curious…the book of Acts was written long after Paul baptized the Jailer and his household, correct? I mean, this incident was recorded later, right?
So, if the Holy Spirit had wanted the Church to not baptize infants, Luke would have been inspired to clarify this important instruction, wouldn’t he? He would have been careful to state clearly that Paul baptized the adults in the household only…just to make sure that no error crept into the sacrament, don’t you think?
But that’s not what was written…odd…oh, well.
One more thing, since the Church was obviously baptizing long before the scriptures about baptizing were ever written, it seems to me that Church Tradition was recorded in Scripture and not derived apart from it. The Tradition of baptism existed long before the verses on baptism. In other words, the Bible tells us 2,000 years later what the early Church was doing and teaching at the beginning; the Bible did not tell the early Church what she was supposed to be doing and teaching.
It’s helpful to consider how harmonious Tradition and Scripture really are.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
So, if the Holy Spirit had wanted the Church to not baptize infants, Luke would have been inspired to clarify this important instruction, wouldn’t he? He would have been careful to state clearly that Paul baptized the adults in the household only…just to make sure that no error crept into the sacrament, don’t you think?
But that’s not what was written…odd…oh, well.
One more thing, since the Church was obviously baptizing long before the scriptures about baptizing were ever written, it seems to me that Church Tradition was recorded in Scripture and not derived apart from it. The Tradition of baptism existed long before the verses on baptism. In other words, the Bible tells us 2,000 years later what the early Church was doing and teaching at the beginning; the Bible did not tell the early Church what she was supposed to be doing and teaching.
It’s helpful to consider how harmonious Tradition and Scripture really are.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
S
Salamander
Guest
Which Greek Lexicon are you using for the definition of baptizo?
Secondly, Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, right? If Jesus had wanted John to pour water over Him, I’m sure there would have been a better location to perform this; say the Temple maybe?
What of the act of the Ethiopian eunuch; he would have used his water bottle I am sure instead of going down “into the water” with Philip. Oh, and he came up out of the water too.
Secondly, Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, right? If Jesus had wanted John to pour water over Him, I’m sure there would have been a better location to perform this; say the Temple maybe?
What of the act of the Ethiopian eunuch; he would have used his water bottle I am sure instead of going down “into the water” with Philip. Oh, and he came up out of the water too.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It is true that *baptizo *often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is *baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).Which Greek Lexicon are you using for the definition of baptizo?
Secondly, Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan river, right? If Jesus had wanted John to pour water over Him, I’m sure there would have been a better location to perform this; say the Temple maybe?
What of the act of the Ethiopian eunuch; he would have used his water bottle I am sure instead of going down “into the water” with Philip. Oh, and he came up out of the water too.
But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.
A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism baptisma] to be baptized baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”
from catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp
- Status