Infant Baptism.

[WIP]

Acts 16:31 is the only scripture offered in defense of infant baptism in the above so lets notice a few things in its context.
1. The text DOES NOT say infants were included in the jailer's family.
2. Therefore it must be ASSUMED there were infants. Assumption is a poor method for establishing a cardinal doctrine
of a church.

The opposite could also hold true. The text does not say there were no infants therefore, your post above assumes that there were no infants.

If we take this part of Acts 16 at face value what can we determine? What does "all his household" mean? It does not say all those above a certain age or understanding. What we know from this text is that to be saved one must believe. It says he spoke the word of the Lord to all in his household. It says that all in his household were baptized. It does not say that all in his house believed. It does not say all those who were baptized were saved.

Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 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. Acts 16:29-34 NKJV

 

[th1b.taylor]

Acts 16:31 is the only scripture offered in defense of infant baptism in the above so lets notice a few things in its context.
1. The text DOES NOT say infants were included in the jailer's family.
2. Therefore it must be ASSUMED there were infants. Assumption is a poor method for establishing a cardinal doctrine
of a church.
3. Vs 36 says after the baptism they were brought back INTO his house.
4. If infant baptism is scriptural, WHY go outside for the baptism? Inside the house would be more convenient,but sprinkling
has always been more convenient than immersion. It certainly was in my case and many others. It has always
been the way of man to follow the way of least resistance.
5. Sprinkling and pouring as a substitute for what the Bible teaches requires little water as compared to a burial.
"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, BECAUSE THERE WAS MUCH WATER THERE (EMP. MINE bb)
and they came and were baptized there", Jn.3:23.
6. Acts 16:13 tells us there was a RIVER there.

When my grandmother died she was the oldest member of the Methodist Church on the island of Galveston, Texas. When she learned I was considering leaving the Methodist church she had me over for a meal
and had the Methodist preacher there for the purpose of persuading me to remain a Methodist. He had NO Bible nor did he ask for my grandmothers. Instead, after dinner he used only the Methodist Discipline book and afterwards gave it to me. I have through the years acquired another one to my library.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God bless,
Billy

Amen and Jesus came not for the RCC, the Methodist nor the Baptist. When He returns for the Rapture, He will only take the Christians and all of the others will be left behind.

 

[Mike S]

It's clear to me this issue will never be definitively resolved one way or the other for those who want to be part of dueling scriptures.

My belief is this, we're talking about baptism with water, which is not an instrument of salvation. It's a ritual, a recognition of being in covenant with God. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is gift from God that happens when we're born again by "grace through faith."

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)

 

[billybalke]

The opposite could also hold true. The text does not say there were no infants therefore, your post above assumes that there were no infants.

If we take this part of Acts 16 at face value what can we determine? What does "all his household" mean? It does not say all those above a certain age or understanding. What we know from this text is that to be saved one must believe. It says he spoke the word of the Lord to all in his household. It says that all in his household were baptized. It does not say that all in his house believed. It does not say all those who were baptized were saved.

Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 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. Acts 16:29-34 NKJV

True, much is assumed. However in the area of assumption the most is in favor of a believers baptism and that baptism is a burial. The opposition to infant baptism is not founded on assumption alone but scripture.
All one need do is study the word baptizo and learn it is a burial. One need not be a Greek scholar to do this.

When the jailer asked what to do to be saved the 1st word out of inspirations mouth was "believe". Can an infant believe? I think not and am sure you do also. Please note Paul went on in vs. 32 to speak the word of the Lord to the jailer's house. Is he talking to infants? I think not.

One reason infant baptism had its origin was the belief that we are all born with the guilt of Adam's sin which is unscriptural as well as anti-scriptural.

I have much more which needs to be said.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST.
ROM.16:16
God bless,Billy

 

[Mike S]

True, much is assumed. However in the area of assumption the most is in favor of a believers baptism and that baptism is a burial. The opposition to infant baptism is not founded on assumption alone but scripture.
All one need do is study the word baptizo and learn it is a burial. One need not be a Greek scholar to do this.

When the jailer asked what to do to be saved the 1st word out of inspirations mouth was "believe". Can an infant believe? I think not and am sure you do also. Please note Paul went on in vs. 32 to speak the word of the Lord to the jailer's house. Is he talking to infants? I think not.

One reason infant baptism had its origin was the belief that we are all born with the guilt of Adam's sin which is unscriptural as well as anti-scriptural.

I have much more which needs to be said.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST.
ROM.16:16
God bless,Billy

Baptism by water is not the same as baptism by the Spirit. Baptism by the Spirit does not require a church ritual, it's a gift from God when we're reborn.

When Christ on the cross said to the criminal next to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise" there was not baptism by water.

 

[billybalke]

Baptism by water is not the same as baptism by the Spirit. Baptism by the Spirit does not require a church ritual, it's a gift from God when we're reborn.

When Christ on the cross said to the criminal next to him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise" there was not baptism by water.

I've never believed or said water baptism were the same or had the same purpose. They are vastly different.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST.

 

[WIP]

When the jailer asked what to do to be saved the 1st word out of inspirations mouth was "believe". Can an infant believe? I think not and am sure you do also. Please note Paul went on in vs. 32 to speak the word of the Lord to the jailer's house. Is he talking to infants? I think not.

You're making a couple assumptions here. First, you assume that an infant cannot believe and second, you assume to know what I believe.

Scripture in fact does tell us that John (the baptist) believed from the womb.
Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Luke 1:39-44 NKJV

 

[for_his_glory]

Is it possible you are reading more into this than what is intended? By your own admission, you are making an assumption.

What I said was in response to Jim's post #9 with the scripture he gave in Matthew 19:13-15 which speaks nothing of infant baptism.

 

[Mike S]

I've never believed or said water baptism were the same or had the same purpose. They are vastly different.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST.

I'm sorry my comment looked like an attack on you, it wasn't meant that way. I don't question your belief on baptism, I meant to just explain my own.

 

[WIP]

What I said was in response to Jim's post #9 with the scripture he gave in Matthew 19:13-15 which speaks nothing of infant baptism.

But it doesn't rule it out either. As I've already posted above in post #27, it appears possible that babies can believe even before they are born.

 

[for_his_glory]

It's clear to me this issue will never be definitively resolved one way or the other for those who want to be part of dueling scriptures.

My belief is this, we're talking about baptism with water, which is not an instrument of salvation. It's a ritual, a recognition of being in covenant with God. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is gift from God that happens when we're born again by "grace through faith."

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Exactly, I agree.

 

[for_his_glory]

But it doesn't rule it out either. As I've already posted above in post #27, it appears possible that babies can believe even before they are born.

It does rule it out because Jesus never baptized anyone with water, but only His disciples baptized others in water, John 4:1, 2.

In the case of John he was already filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb and leaped for joy when Mary spoke to Elizabeth and as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary's voice she was immediately filled with the Holy Spirit and both John in the womb and Elizabeth knew that Mary was carrying the Messiah, Luke 1:1-44. This filling of the Holy Spirit was exceptional in John that made him leap for joy just as Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus. It was a special anointing that no other baby in the womb would ever have.

 

[Creative]

It would seem to me that if a person is baptized by another, then belief is not necessary for baptism.

But belief is definitely necessary for salvation.

 

[billybalke]

You're making a couple assumptions here. First, you assume that an infant cannot believe and second, you assume to know what I believe.

Scripture in fact does tell us that John (the baptist) believed from the womb.
Now Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. Luke 1:39-44 NKJV

Luke 1:39-44 does not say the baby "believed" it says the baby in her womb "leaped". Such surely is assuming too much.

I can only "assume" what one believes by what one writes.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
Be blessed, Billy

 

[Mike S]

It would seem to me that if a person is baptized by another, then belief is not necessary for baptism.

But belief is definitely necessary for salvation.

Precisely why baptism by water is not the same as baptism by the Spirit. One is a ritual of the church, the other a gift of God's grace.

 

[billybalke]

It would seem to me that if a person is baptized by another, then belief is not necessary for baptism.

But belief is definitely necessary for salvation.

Read Mk.16:16 or again the context of Acts 16:30---Vs. 31 definitely makes belief necessary to baptism. I can enlarge.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Read Mk.16:16 or again the context of Acts 16:30---Vs. 31 definitely makes belief necessary to baptism. I can enlarge.

Billy better than 98% of the membership rolls of the Cross Denominational American Church has shown in a mid-eighties survey of the Church that they are, likely, not saved because they do not believe the basic tenants of the Historical Church as defined in the New Testament. But they are Baptized. All they did in that Baptismal was to get wet.

 

[billybalke]

Billy better than 98% of the membership rolls of the Cross Denominational American Church has shown in a mid-eighties survey of the Church that they are, likely, not saved because they do not believe the basic tenants of the Historical Church as defined in the New Testament. But they are Baptized. All they did in that Baptismal was to get wet.

Billy better than 98% of the membership rolls of the Cross Denominational American Church has shown in a mid-eighties survey of the Church that they are, likely, not saved because they do not believe the basic tenants of the Historical Church as defined in the New Testament. But they are Baptized. All they did in that Baptismal was to get wet.

Amen and Amen!!

BTW I see you're not only from Texas (so am I) but a Vietnam vet. I'm of the Korean vintage, the Marine Corp and thank you for your good service.
TO BE DEEP IN THE SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
Respectfully, Billy

 

[Creative]

Read Mk.16:16 or again the context of Acts 16:30---Vs. 31 definitely makes belief necessary to baptism. I can enlarge.

You can enlarge, but I do not see how either the Mark or the Acts verses you reference definitely makes belief necessary for baptism. The Acts scripture says believe and be saved, nothing about baptism and Mark is inconclusive that you have to believe in order to be baptized.

 

[WIP]

It does rule it out because Jesus never baptized anyone with water, but only His disciples baptized others in water, John 4:1, 2.

In the case of John he was already filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb and leaped for joy when Mary spoke to Elizabeth and as soon as Elizabeth heard Mary's voice she was immediately filled with the Holy Spirit and both John in the womb and Elizabeth knew that Mary was carrying the Messiah, Luke 1:1-44. This filling of the Holy Spirit was exceptional in John that made him leap for joy just as Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus. It was a special anointing that no other baby in the womb would ever have.

When I read the text, I'm seeing that Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit after she heard Mary, not before. Toward the end in that same chapter, Luke 1, we can read the prophesy of John's father, Zacharias, where he foretells of what is to come regarding John. And then the very last verse says this:

"So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel." Luke 1:80 NKJV

What catches my attention is that it does not say that he was strong in the spirit nor does it say he became stronger in the spirit. It says he became strong in the spirit. This seems to indicate that he may not have had the Spirit before he was born.

Can you show me where it indicates that John was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to his growing up?