Infant Baptism and the Bible: Should Babies Be Baptized?

[Drew]

deleted own post

 

[francisdesales]

Here is a link to a study going on right now on this forum, read it, maybe you'll learn something.

http://www.christianforums.net/f34/word-god-33792/

After seeing who is there, I won't learn anything, thanks...

Meanwhile...

I'm still waiting for that proof that the Bible is the entire Word of God.

No, even the Bible itself says otherwise...

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, WHICH YOU HEARD FROM US, you accepted it not as the word of men,but as what it really is, the word of God... 1 Thess 2:13.

Naturally, we know what follows to the Thessalonians later about oral and written teachings of those very same apostles who SPOKE the Word of God.

Thus, infant baptism is part of the word of God that we (well, at least those of the Body of Christ) are commanded to hold to.

Yet again, the Bible proves you wrong...

 

[Drew]

I think you have a challenge to deal with. I do not know what additional sources fds would invoke to support this assertion of his:

Naturally, we know what follows to the Thessalonians later about oral and written teachings of those very same apostles who SPOKE the Word of God

....perhaps he has dealt with this earlier in the thread.

In any event, a text which supports the authority of scripture does not, by itself, rule out other sources of authority.

Now, as to the matter of the "completeness" argument, the text you post does indeed suggest that scripture contributes to the man of God being complete. I think you are implicitly adding to what's actually there inasmuch as you seem to draw the conclusion that the scriptures are fully sufficient for making the man of God complete.

I doubt that is a justifiable move. If I say this:

Hard work at spring training is profitable so that the baseball player is complete and fully equiped to play baseball.

....I am not necessarily precluding the possibility that "good eating habits" are equally as important - that is, they have equal "authority" or "power" in the making of a good baseball player.

In order for your take on the 2 Timothy text you post to stand, I suggest it would have to be written thus:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and fully suffices for the completion and fully equiping of the man for every good work.

I realize there are some rather fine points of language at issue here - it would be interesting to understand the original Greek. In any event, I am inclined to think that the 2 Timothy text does not so far as to rule out other sources of authority - the language of the text, in the translation you offer, simply does not read that way.

 

[francisdesales]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

​

My friend, you are living in the letter and not the Spirit. What a shame.

I already addressed this passage. Now, why are you jumping around? I thought we were talking about whether the Bible is God's ENTIRE Word... I give you a biblical passage and you ignore it. I address 2 Tim 3:16-17, and you jump elsewhere.

This leads me to believe that you are here only to argue and cause dissent.

2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Now, go off and pout again.

I fail to see the point of you posting this verse, since we are talking about the Bible...

UNLESS, according to YOU, the letter kills - the Bible kills, so the bible is to be discarded???

 

[Cornelius]

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, WHICH YOU HEARD FROM US, you accepted it not as the word of men,but as what it really is, the word of God... 1 Thess 2:13.

Amen, the preached the Word. The people heard the Word. But they still preached.....the Word of God.

I still preach the Word, people still hear what I say , I still do not add my opinion to it. I still avoid the traditions of men. I still ......speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God;1Pe 4:11

Psa 138:2 ... For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

 

[francisdesales]

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, WHICH YOU HEARD FROM US, you accepted it not as the word of men,but as what it really is, the word of God... 1 Thess 2:13.

Amen, the preached the Word. The people heard the Word. But they still preached.....the Word of God.

Indeed, oral and written teachings.

Like infant baptism.

Glad you finally came around, I was getting worried...

I still preach the Word, people still hear what I say , I still do not add my opinion to it. I still avoid the traditions of men.

Who are you kidding, we all "add our opinion". Stop reading your press releases...

One of your opinions was that infant baptism was not part of the orally given Word of God. An opinion later found wanting...





I still ......speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God;1Pe 4:11

Psa 138:2 ... For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. [/QUOTE]

 

[Drew]

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, WHICH YOU HEARD FROM US, you accepted it not as the word of men,but as what it really is, the word of God... 1 Thess 2:13.

Amen, the preached the Word. The people heard the Word. But they still preached.....the Word of God.

I still preach the Word, people still hear what I say , I still do not add my opinion to it. I still avoid the traditions of men. I still ......speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God;1Pe 4:11

Psa 138:2 ... For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Once again, this argument fundamentally begs the very question at issue. In a sense, it is a shame that there is no moderator whose job it is to point out examples of question-begging.

I cannot emphasize this enough: it is not legitimate practice to presume the very thing you are supposed to be establishing by argument. Here, Cornelius assumes that the "word" that is being preached is simply the oral rendition of what is otherwise written down in the Scriptures.

This simply begs the question, for it presumes the very thing that should actually be demonstrated, in this case that the entire content of God's "word" is limited to the Scriptures.

I probably do not entirely share fds's view, but let's play fair here and not beg the question (just one of a myriad of errors of logic and debate that we see in this thread).

 

[Cornelius]

Once again, this argument fundamentally begs the very question at issue. In a sense, it is a shame that there is no moderator whose job it is to point out examples of question-begging.

I cannot emphasize this enough: it is not legitimate practice to presume the very thing you are supposed to be establishing by argument. Here, Cornelius assumes that the "word" that is being preached is simply the oral rendition of what is otherwise written down in the Scriptures.

This simply begs the question, for it presumes the very thing that should actually be demonstrated, in this case that the entire content of God's "word" is limited to the Scriptures.

I probably do not entirely share fds's view, but let's play fair here and not beg the question (just one of a myriad of errors of logic and debate that we see in this thread).

I am basing my post firmly on facts. We see throughout the New Testament that the writers (even Jesus) based their teachings on "it is written" !

You DO know that the gospel is taught throughout the Old Testament too, don't you ?

Jesus and the Apostles also referred to the Word as " as it is written"

1Co 2:9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.

Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make trial of the Lord thy God.

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Mat 11:10 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mat 21:13 and he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.

Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended in me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Mar 7:6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.

Mar 9:13 But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.


There are many more examples

 

[Drew]

Jesus and the Apostles also referred to the Word as " as it is written"

1Co 2:9 but as it is written, Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him.

This does not help your case. All it does is, again, to legitimize the authority of the Bible - it does not rule out other sources of authority.

Same with all the other texts in your post - none of them speak to the question of sources of authoritative teaching outside the Scriptures.

 

[Cornelius]

Oh but you must not think that I want to get you to believe that the Bible is the ONLY authority . That would be a mistake. You must believe what you must believe. If you think there are other sources of authority, then that is what you must believe. Its just that your view have no rock, no ONE thing to cling to, nothing to stand on. Always a "maybe" always a "somewhere , somehow, maybe, and if" I cannot live like that. I need a Rock and the Word is that to me.

There is nothing as wonderful as when you can relax in the fact that God did not leave us to search and search through countless books for truth. That is something that I will be eternally grateful for.

 

[Drew]

Oh but you must not think that I want to get you to believe that the Bible is the ONLY authority . That would be a mistake. You must believe what you must believe. If you think there are other sources of authority, then that is what you must believe. Its just that your view have no rock, no ONE thing to cling to, nothing to stand on. Always a "maybe" always a "somewhere , somehow, maybe, and if" I cannot live like that. I need a Rock and the Word is that to me.

There is nothing as wonderful as when you can relax in the fact that God did not leave us to search and search through countless books for truth. That is something that I will be eternally grateful for.

You have tried this strategy before and here you use it again. Remember how this pattern went before:

1. Cornelius makes an assertion strongly implying that Christians should reject conventional medical treatments;

2 Drew asks Cornelius to own this positoin and clearly go on record as supporting this highly unusual (and I would suggest deeply dangerous and irresponsible) position;

3. Cornelius does not take up the challenge and produces instead a "sermon-y" treatment about how people should only do what their faith allows.

This is very much a "dance" - not owning your position and thereby evading the serious challenges to it, while at the same time sneaking a subtle implication that those "with true faith" will see things your way.

And we get the same kind of thing here - unable (or unwilling) to deal with demonstrated errors in your logic, you, once more, give us a little sermonet extolling the vitues of the word of God.

Well, no one is denying the inspiration of the world of God. So why are you not dealing with the clear challenges that have been placed before you.

Oh and while we are at it, where are your responses to the simple questions in post 346 that you have been repeatedly asked to address. I suggest that you know full well that to engage these questions will demonstrate the incoherence of your position. So, you avoid them.

 

[Cornelius]

More evasion, pure and simple.

But to the point

 

[Drew]

Cornelius: are you, or are you not going to address the questions in post 346?

If not, why not?

 

[Vince]

As a student at Dickinson College, I was required to take "Introduction to the History of Fine Art." The course included church buildings as objects of art. The instructor was a friendly, easy-going Atheist, and I was witnessing to him one day. He mentioned that no ancient church building had a baby baptistery before the fourth century.

 

[whitney]

Oh but you must not think that I want to get you to believe that the Bible is the ONLY authority . That would be a mistake. You must believe what you must believe. If you think there are other sources of authority, then that is what you must believe. Its just that your view have no rock, no ONE thing to cling to, nothing to stand on. Always a "maybe" always a "somewhere , somehow, maybe, and if" I cannot live like that. I need a Rock and the Word is that to me.

There is nothing as wonderful as when you can relax in the fact that God did not leave us to search and search through countless books for truth. That is something that I will be eternally grateful for.

Amen C!

 

[whitney]

As a student at Dickinson College, I was required to take "Introduction to the History of Fine Art." The course included church buildings as objects of art. The instructor was a friendly, easy-going Atheist, and I was witnessing to him one day. He mentioned that no ancient church building had a baby baptistery before the fourth century.

Hmmmm.........very interesting. Thanks for sharing Vince.

 

[Scotth1960]

As a student at Dickinson College, I was required to take "Introduction to the History of Fine Art." The course included church buildings as objects of art. The instructor was a friendly, easy-going Atheist, and I was witnessing to him one day. He mentioned that no ancient church building had a baby baptistery before the fourth century.

Dear Vince, So should we accept to word of a "friendly, easy-going Atheist" as an expert and a purveyor of the objective truth regarding "ancient church history" and Christian doctrine and practice? In Erie PA Scott H.

 

[francisdesales]

As a student at Dickinson College, I was required to take "Introduction to the History of Fine Art." The course included church buildings as objects of art. The instructor was a friendly, easy-going Atheist, and I was witnessing to him one day. He mentioned that no ancient church building had a baby baptistery before the fourth century.

Vince, you are funny.

There were very few church buildings, period, that lasted beyond the fourth century. Many were confiscated and destroyed in the persecutions of Diocletian... Thus, we don't find many Christian cathedrals prior to Constantine!

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The problem, Francis, is you don't believe Him, I imagine you believe IN Him, but you don't believe HIM. Your kind are everywhere!

I warned you about this sort of post. You have been reported.

 

[jasoncran]

the catholic church is considered part of the fold of christ.

francis may not be in agreement with the protestants here on alot of things, but its a bit much to call him a heathen.

if you cant be nice, then dont post.

or infraction will be issued.