Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Imagican]

Fran,

The topic is whether or not infant Batpism is AS VALID as ADULT Baptism.

While your faith may well TEACH that it IS, what would be NEEDED in order to offer PROOF would be SOME sort of scriptural evidence. We have NO SUCH EVIDENCE. Usning the word 'housholds' offers NO scriptural PROOF whatsoever.

Now, let me ask THIS: WHAT validates ADULT Baptism? I believe that the deciding FACTOR would be CHOICE. Since an INFANT has NO CHOICE, then it CANNOT BE as VALID as ADULT Baptism.

Your offering that the apostles were merely commanded to 'go out and Baptise' does NOT take into account ALL that is offered concerning Baptism. So, when these words were offered by Christ, it can be AUTOMATICALLY deducted that they had been TAUGHT ALL that concerns Baptism and ALL the details were not NEEDED to be REPEATED.

It has become apparent that discussion such as this IS practically useless BETWEEN US. For you are of the 'opinion' that one MUST accept what YOU have to offer regardless of whether there is ANY proof or not. YOUR BELIEF is ALL that matters.

I, on the other hand, AM a 'bit more sceptical'. I have accepted the instruction that we ARE to compare scripture WITH scipture in order to BE ABLE to discern TRUTH. Since we have been WARNED that there are MANY 'false prophets' that would teach us THEIR understanding instead of that of God, I simply beieve that we have an obligation to ourselves and others NOT to simply ACCEPT what MEN have to offer, but instead, are to DO the WORK that it MAY take in order to discern that which is valid and that which is NOT.

I understood what Drew offered. To the best of my ABILITY to follow what was stated. The problem lies in understanding. Just because I don't AGREE with what he offered does NOT indicate that I didn't UNDERSTAND IT. But you DO have the tendency to accuse others of 'lack of understanding' simply because they don't AGREE with YOU.

Now, you could certainly go 'round and round' simply stating that it's a belief of YOUR faith and therefore it is RIGHT. But you certainly won't convice MANY that are NOT of your faith using such tactics. For there ARE many like ME that require PROOF of that which they would BELIEVE. While there is a matter of 'faith' in some issues, there ARE OTHERS that have NOTHING to DO with faith. In other words, I was NEVER commanded to live by FAITH and PROVE it by simply accepting whatever ANYONE has to offer. But instead, it is by FAITH that I am ABLE to come in contact with that which is ABLE to offer truth.

The question was NOT 'Is it OK to Baptise children'? The topic is whether or not infant Baptism is AS VALID as adult Baptism. And so far, I have read what has been offered saying that IT IS and have found these to be merely WORDS uttered with NO evidence to back them up. Or, no VALID evidence.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Now, let me ask THIS: WHAT validates ADULT Baptism? I believe that the deciding FACTOR would be CHOICE. Since an INFANT has NO CHOICE, then it CANNOT BE as VALID as ADULT Baptism.

That is because you believe baptism is a work of man, rather than a person being "BORN FROM ABOVE". Can you not see the implication that you preach a different gospel?

Your offering that the apostles were merely commanded to 'go out and Baptise' does NOT take into account ALL that is offered concerning Baptism. So, when these words were offered by Christ, it can be AUTOMATICALLY deducted that they had been TAUGHT ALL that concerns Baptism and ALL the details were not NEEDED to be REPEATED.

To include the fact that the idea of repentance is meant only for those who are able to repent. Now, if we believe that God came to save ALL mankind, that means that God makes Himself available for ALL mankind. Children, the mentally ill, and so forth. Ordinarily, God wants us to repent. However, does God absolutely require this repentance BEFORE He heals? Go read your bible and see.

Does God heal sometimes without seeing repentance?

It has become apparent that discussion such as this IS practically useless BETWEEN US. For you are of the 'opinion' that one MUST accept what YOU have to offer regardless of whether there is ANY proof or not. YOUR BELIEF is ALL that matters.

Why can't you see that this applies to you, as well?

I, on the other hand, AM a 'bit more sceptical'. I have accepted the instruction that we ARE to compare scripture WITH scipture in order to BE ABLE to discern TRUTH.

Give me Scriptures where it says that one MUST REPENT before being baptized. In all cases, is it necessary to repent ONESELF. Find me those Scriptures, where this is an ABSOLUTE requirement.

For example, did Simon the Magician repent before being baptized? Does the Scriptures say he repented?

Until then, this is another matter of putting God in a box of your choosing because you cannot comprehend that God transcends your meager opinions of what He is able to do or what He offers.

 

[Cornelius]

That is because you believe baptism is a work of man, rather than a person being "BORN FROM ABOVE". Can you not see the implication that you preach a different gospel?

OK, I get it. I think understand now. You think this scripture is referring to water baptism !


Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

 

[Cornelius]

To include the fact that the idea of repentance is meant only for those who are able to repent.

Please tell me what you think repent means.

 

[Imagican]

Now, let me ask THIS: WHAT validates ADULT Baptism? I believe that the deciding FACTOR would be CHOICE. Since an INFANT has NO CHOICE, then it CANNOT BE as VALID as ADULT Baptism.

That is because you believe baptism is a work of man, rather than a person being "BORN FROM ABOVE". Can you not see the implication that you preach a different gospel?

Your offering that the apostles were merely commanded to 'go out and Baptise' does NOT take into account ALL that is offered concerning Baptism. So, when these words were offered by Christ, it can be AUTOMATICALLY deducted that they had been TAUGHT ALL that concerns Baptism and ALL the details were not NEEDED to be REPEATED.

To include the fact that the idea of repentance is meant only for those who are able to repent. Now, if we believe that God came to save ALL mankind, that means that God makes Himself available for ALL mankind. Children, the mentally ill, and so forth. Ordinarily, God wants us to repent. However, does God absolutely require this repentance BEFORE He heals? Go read your bible and see.

Does God heal sometimes without seeing repentance?

It has become apparent that discussion such as this IS practically useless BETWEEN US. For you are of the 'opinion' that one MUST accept what YOU have to offer regardless of whether there is ANY proof or not. YOUR BELIEF is ALL that matters.

Why can't you see that this applies to you, as well?

I, on the other hand, AM a 'bit more sceptical'. I have accepted the instruction that we ARE to compare scripture WITH scipture in order to BE ABLE to discern TRUTH.

Give me Scriptures where it says that one MUST REPENT before being baptized. In all cases, is it necessary to repent ONESELF. Find me those Scriptures, where this is an ABSOLUTE requirement.

For example, did Simon the Magician repent before being baptized? Does the Scriptures say he repented?

Until then, this is another matter of putting God in a box of your choosing because you cannot comprehend that God transcends your meager opinions of what He is able to do or what He offers.

Ok, we've BEEN through the Baptism thread before. If I remember properly, it was YOU that believes Baptism to BE 'necessary' to Salvation, whereas I offered that God is ABLE to do HIS will regardless of ANY ritual we are able to perform. So, NO, I do NOT believe Baptism to BE a 'word of men' in the sense of TRUE Baptism. But simply spriklning or dunking someone in water does NOT 'true Baptism' MAKE. For I have witnessed MANY that have been 'Baptised in water' that WALK 'no different'y' AFTER than they DID before. So there is OBVIOUSLY somehting MORE to it than the mere ritual.

And your second paragraph; Fran, you CAN'T have it BOTH WAYS, Either we are to RELY on God's Mercy or we simply place such understanding in the HANDS OF OTHERS. I choose to do EXACTLY THAT: Place MY faith in God and His Son. One minute you will attempt to attack my words from the standpoint of 'God's mercy', and in the NEXT sentence often, it is THEN; the work of MEN. You CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either we are reliant upon GOD or we are reliant upon MEN. I choose the former.

I CAN'T find you ANY scripture that IS ABSOLUTE except those concerning God Himself and His Son. That is the PURPOSE for us ONE DAY being judged. For it is NOT UP to US to determine what is ABSOLUTE EXCEPT God and His Son. The CLOSER we get to them Both the MORE we will be LED in the direction of what is absolute. I have found NO scripture that could be used to point to an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY of Baptism itself. For there are MANY scriptures that simply state that ALL we MUST do is CONFESS Christ as Our Savior. Do I believe this? Absolutely. iS THAT all WE MUST DO, i THINK NOT.

Fran, I have offer NO LIMITATIONS to God. If ANYTHING, it is YOU and YOUR faith that would have us believe that THAT WAY is the ONLY WAY. And I KNOW BETTER. I have contained God in NO such 'box' as you have accused. I simply have NOT accepted what YOU offer. God is ABLE to DO what He wills regardless of OUR UNDERSTANDING or even BELIEFS. We are NOT able to determine WHO God will and Who God WON'T SAVE. That is UP TO HIM regardless of denominations and teachings. The Word plainly offers this. It is simply our purpose to KNOW God and His Son and allow THEIR love to be a PART OF US as well.

You STILL have offered NOTHING that would POINT to the validity of INFANT Baptism. Why don't you simply admit the TRUTH and tell us that it is SIMPLY a belief that you WANT to believe in regardless of there being NO actual evidence. Then we could simply move on the 'other things' to argue about. (he he he).

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

Since the pertinent practice of Baptism is REPENTANCE and THEN Baptism, it would stand to reason that 'sprinkling water' on an INFANTS head would be of LITTLE value as to the recognition of of the infant as to REPENTANCE.

I have no idea where in scripture you find this sequence. I have already argued from Romans 6 that you have the sequence reversed.

Now perhaps you have addressed this in posts later than the one above.

I repeat my challenge - please show me from scripture where repentence precedes baptism.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

What you say has been 'addressed' has NOT been qualified as 'being addressed in truth'. YOU would have others believe what you have offered has merit, but in truth all you have offered is mere SPECULATION.

No. When I mean it has not been addressed, I mean it has not been addressed.

I provided an actual argument appealing to Romans 6. That argument shows that the true Biblical sequence is baptism then repentence.

No one has engaged that argument, at least not in any posts preceding the one that I am quoting you from (above).

Now, PLEASE, if there is ADDITIONAL information about the BAPTISM of ANY children present, SHOW US. All that is offered here is that Christ had compassion on a MULTITUDE and FED them. Men, women and children.

Of course, I never said that children were baptized at these feedings. My point remains unchallenged - in the Markan version of the account we have a precedent set whereby we know that children were present and fed, and yet there is no mention of this - only the men are mentioned.

The point, of course, is that the absence of any explicit Biblical statements about baptism of infants has no value in settling this matter, precisely because even if such children were baptized, this may not have been mentioned, since the custom of the day, when describing events, was to include children by implication.

 

[Drew]

If THIS is HOW you have been taught to UNDERSTAND the Word, then so be it. But don't even TRY to tell others that what you have offered in MERE speculation without ANY evidence whatsover is FACT when it isn't even CLOSE so far as THE evidence is concerned.

Romans 6 is not "speculation" - they are the inspired words of Paul. In the sequence of Romans 5 to 8, he places baptism well before the Romans 8 account of how the Spirit gives life and enables people to repent. So the Pauline sequence is baptism, then repentance. I am not making this up - it is there in the text.

If people think I am making this up consider this: Romans 5 to 8 sees the church as experiencing a new exodus.

In Romans 5, we have the act of Christ on the cross, setting the stage.

In Romans 6 we have baptism, corresponding to passing through the waters of the Red Sea.

In Romans 7 we have Paul talking about the Law and its crippling effect. This, of course. is an allusion to the delivery of the Torah at Sinai.

And then in Romans 8, we get the life-giving the Spirit - the only means that make repentence possible:

The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God

The leading of the Spirit maps to the leading of the people by the pillar of cloud and the fire.

Note that Paul places baptism before, not after, the "repentence-enabling" action of the Spirit in the entire extended metaphor.

Is this a massive co-incidence? Am I making this up? We know the sequence from the exodus: First comes the Red Sea, then the leading by fire and cloud. In Romans, first we have baptism (allusion to the Red Sea) then repentence as enabled by the Holy Spirit, without which we can not even get off the ground.

Now this is a powerful argument that Paul understands baptism as preceding repentence. You can believe that the ordering - baptism (Romans 6) before Spirit-enabled repentance (Romans 8) means nothing. I think Paul knows what he is doing in Romans 5 to 8. He has produced a detailed parallel to the sequence of event in the exodus.

And in that sequence, you pass through the Red Sea before you are lead by the pillar of cloud and fire.

 

[Drew]

And the reference to households. HOW MANY do you suppose there ARE mentioned in the ENTIRE NT? And you don't even know if the households MENTTIONED even CONTAINED women who COULD conceive or even MEN able to offer viable SEED in order to PRODUCE children. Once again, you have offered MERE speculation.

I am doing more than speculating but less than offering definitive proof.

It is highly unlikely (in that culture) that household would be devoid of children - the childless couple is much more a product of our time than the world of Palestine 2000 years ago.

I have no proof that there were children in these households - I merely appealing to the powerful likelihood that there were, given the nature of the society of that time and place.

 

[Drew]

You keep refering to something PAUL wrote concerning Baptism. How about YOU address THIS:

Acts 2:38 (King James Version)

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now, YOU have been insisting that Baptism come BEFORE repentance. What is stated ABOVE is to REPENT and BE Baptized.

Indeed, it says "repent and be baptized". It does not say "repent then be baptized".

 

[Cornelius]

You keep refering to something PAUL wrote concerning Baptism. How about YOU address THIS:

Acts 2:38 (King James Version)

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now, YOU have been insisting that Baptism come BEFORE repentance. What is stated ABOVE is to REPENT and BE Baptized.

Indeed, it says "repent and be baptized". It does not say "repent then be baptized".

It definitely does not say" Be baptized and repent. That would be silly.

 

[Drew]

It definitely does not say" Be baptized and repent. That would be silly.

Of course it does not say that - I never claimed that it did.

But, as has been shown without refutation, the order presented in the scriptures is first baptism, then repentence.

If you think that is "silly", you will need to take it up with Paul when you meet him - his extended metaphor in Romans 5 to 8 really leaves us no choice but to see baptism (Romans 6) as preceding repentance (Romans 8), just as the Red Sea crossing preceeded the guiding of the people by the pillar of cloud and fire.

 

[Drew]

Now, let me ask THIS: WHAT validates ADULT Baptism? I believe that the deciding FACTOR would be CHOICE. Since an INFANT has NO CHOICE, then it CANNOT BE as VALID as ADULT Baptism.

If baptism was validated by choice, then you would be right.

I see no evidence for such a mode of validation. I believe that God is at work in baptism, regardless of whether the baptized person understands this or not.

 

[francisdesales]

Ok, we've BEEN through the Baptism thread before. If I remember properly, it was YOU that believes Baptism to BE 'necessary' to Salvation, whereas I offered that God is ABLE to do HIS will regardless of ANY ritual we are able to perform.

You are remembering incorrectly. I said it was ORDINARILY necessary for salvation. However, God is not bound by the Sacraments and can give "birth from above" to anyone He chooses. Even without the sacrament of Baptism.

So, NO, I do NOT believe Baptism to BE a 'word of men' in the sense of TRUE Baptism. But simply spriklning or dunking someone in water does NOT 'true Baptism' MAKE.

I have never said a "simple sprinkling or dunking" was a true Baptism... Thus, again, you attribute to me something I did not say or do not believe. Typical... It has become your mode of operation...

For I have witnessed MANY that have been 'Baptised in water' that WALK 'no different'y' AFTER than they DID before. So there is OBVIOUSLY somehting MORE to it than the mere ritual.

One's walk is something different than one's baptism. Is your birth the same event as your riding a bicycle or walking down the street or reading this paragraph? The bible clearly speaks of people with "faulty walks" after being baptized in the Spirit. One always has free will to "return to the vomit" of their former lives.

And your second paragraph; Fran, you CAN'T have it BOTH WAYS, Either we are to RELY on God's Mercy or we simply place such understanding in the HANDS OF OTHERS. I choose to do EXACTLY THAT: Place MY faith in God and His Son. One minute you will attempt to attack my words from the standpoint of 'God's mercy', and in the NEXT sentence often, it is THEN; the work of MEN. You CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either we are reliant upon GOD or we are reliant upon MEN. I choose the former.

Could you cite more specifically where I "want it both ways"?

I CAN'T find you ANY scripture that IS ABSOLUTE except those concerning God Himself and His Son. That is the PURPOSE for us ONE DAY being judged. For it is NOT UP to US to determine what is ABSOLUTE EXCEPT God and His Son.

Which is further evidence that you shouldn't foist upon me an artificial obstruction when none exist in Scriptures. I have yet to see ANY sort of evidence that a person cannot have an infant baptized.

For there are MANY scriptures that simply state that ALL we MUST do is CONFESS Christ as Our Savior. Do I believe this? Absolutely. iS THAT all WE MUST DO, i THINK NOT.

Only God is our Savior, according to Scriptures. Thus, if you proclaim Jesus as your Savior WITHOUT the understanding that He is God, then you have committed idolatry and are partaking in false worship, a clear breaking of the first commandment...

Fran, I have offer NO LIMITATIONS to God.

You are NOW!!! "an infant cannot be baptized". A clear limitation placed upon God without any clear Scriptural evidence to support your claim.

is there any evidence that supports the idea that someone CANNOT be baptized as an infant or a mentally retarded person, or even, if you consider Paul's obscure statement to the Corinthians, the DEAD!?

Apparently, God is not bound by your ideas.

 

[Imagican]

When you start refering to POSSIBILITIES, we may as well be discussing ghosts and extra terrestrials. I am not a 'big' believer in Big Foot or the loch Ness Monster either. Since non of these are actually MENTIONED in the Word as being UNTRUE, perhaps they exist as well as Baptism for the DEAD.

I have contained God IN NO WAY Fran. and your continued insinuation of such is UNFOUNDED.

If ANYTHING, all I have offered is that it's quite dangerous to base doctrine on 'IMAGININGS' or 'how we would LIKE things to BE'.

There IS 'truth' obtainable. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to come to MUCH OF IT on our OWN.

And NUMBERS OR TIME have NOT bearing on truth. While you would LIKE for us to believe that there IS a 'particular church' that figured it all out two thousand years ago and continues to this day to 'have it all figured out', it is apparent to those that have actually DONE the 'homework' that this is simply NOT SO.

Infant Baptism is simply ANOTHER of these THINGS that are 'taught' with NO scriptural evidence to BACK THEM UP. If you CHOOSE to believe in it simply because you are BOUND to accept what you are TOLD, then I have NO PROBLEM with this. But to continue in an attempt to state that it IS scriptural just goes to show to what LENGTHS you will go to defend the teachings of MEN.

Hopefully, others DO read what we have to offer concerning such issues. And THAT way they will be able to discern the TRUTH for themselves. The SADDEST part of this whole debate is that there WILL be those that simply HEAR what someone says and accept it according to what they WANT to hear without EVER doing the 'homework' themselves.

My answer to this is READ. Read and PRAY. For study IS the KEY to being able to SEE the entire PICTURE. Just like watching a movie. The first time there are 'things' that take place that have you saying, "what's going on here''. After seeing it the FIRST time, the second time MOST of those questions become crystal clear.

The Bible, for those OF The Spirit, is similar in this respect. The first time that one reads it they are left with MORE questions than they have answers. But read it ENOUGH TIMES and the picture becomes clearer and clearer. Little bits and pieces that at first seemed to have NO relevance, begin to fit together in a most beautiful tapestry that fits together PERFECTLY.

So, while there is the possibility of being informed of truth from others, the IMPORTANT issue is that we EACH learn to READ and PRAY so that the truth is NOT something that we need to GUESS at.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

When you start refering to POSSIBILITIES, we may as well be discussing ghosts and extra terrestrials. I am not a 'big' believer in Big Foot or the loch Ness Monster either. Since non of these are actually MENTIONED in the Word as being UNTRUE, perhaps they exist as well as Baptism for the DEAD.

Oh boy. I thought you said you read the Bible...

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1 Cor 15:28-29

Baptizing the dead... I am wondering whether they had given a "faith proclamation" as well...

Today, we don't practice this, but it appears that some Christians did during the time of Paul. I am not aware when this practice stopped, I'd have to research that. However, the Scriptures mention it, and the Scriptures do not condemn the practice...

The implications are quite interesting...

I have contained God IN NO WAY Fran. and your continued insinuation of such is UNFOUNDED.

It is founded upon your very idea that infant baptism cannot be from God.

If ANYTHING, all I have offered is that it's quite dangerous to base doctrine on 'IMAGININGS' or 'how we would LIKE things to BE'.

Thanks for that obvious advice. I don't see where it applies here, though.

There IS 'truth' obtainable. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to come to MUCH OF IT on our OWN.

Are you finally coming around now? Congratulations.

And NUMBERS OR TIME have NOT bearing on truth. While you would LIKE for us to believe that there IS a 'particular church' that figured it all out two thousand years ago and continues to this day to 'have it all figured out', it is apparent to those that have actually DONE the 'homework' that this is simply NOT SO.

You haven't done your homework, and it shows practically every time we talk on these threads...

Infant Baptism is simply ANOTHER of these THINGS that are 'taught' with NO scriptural evidence to BACK THEM UP.

The evidence has been given. It is not dependent upon your acceptance of the evidence for it to remain evidence of infant baptism. Clearly, the first Christians were also taught to baptize infants in some cases, which refutes the concept of "it has to be explicit in Scriptures for it to be a Christian practice". Christianity ultimately is dependent upon a Person and His teachings, not upon a book. The first 30 years of Christianity proves that beyond any doubt.

Hopefully, others DO read what we have to offer concerning such issues. And THAT way they will be able to discern the TRUTH for themselves. The SADDEST part of this whole debate is that there WILL be those that simply HEAR what someone says and accept it according to what they WANT to hear without EVER doing the 'homework' themselves.

I hope they DO read what I write. I certainly wouldn't spend my time just writing to you, since you will not heed a word I said, on any religious subject, because I happen to be of a specific religious background... It would overturn your paradigm for such an organization to teach truth, since you have not disguised it here that you possess all truth and knowledge. Thus, any ACTUAL truth that contradicts your "truth" casts the entire Imagican paradigm into a free fall.

Perhaps if you weighed what has been said with an unbiased mind, you would see that the practice is an acceptable one with Scriptural basis. However, your bias against the ancient Christians will not allow it.

My answer to this is READ. Read and PRAY. For study IS the KEY to being able to SEE the entire PICTURE. Just like watching a movie. The first time there are 'things' that take place that have you saying, "what's going on here''. After seeing it the FIRST time, the second time MOST of those questions become crystal clear.

Where does the Bible say we can ascertain the truth by "reading"? The Truth is found in Christ. Follow Christ and what He has built, not yourself.

So, while there is the possibility of being informed of truth from others, the IMPORTANT issue is that we EACH learn to READ and PRAY so that the truth is NOT something that we need to GUESS at.

I am not guessing. I (and Drew) have given ample information for people to make an informed decision on what Scriptures reveal about this subject. We are to consider both implied and explicit data on any such theological cases.

 

[Drew]

Infant Baptism is simply ANOTHER of these THINGS that are 'taught' with NO scriptural evidence to BACK THEM UP. If you CHOOSE to believe in it simply because you are BOUND to accept what you are TOLD, then I have NO PROBLEM with this. But to continue in an attempt to state that it IS scriptural just goes to show to what LENGTHS you will go to defend the teachings of MEN.

But there is scriptural evidence - it has been repeatedly provided in this thread by both Fran and myself.

Fran has provided the references to households being baptized. You (and others) adopt the extremely dubious supposition that these households were devoid of children - a very unlikely possibility indeed.

And I have provided an argument based on what Paul is doing in Romans 5 to 8 - seeing the elements of the journey of the Christian as a "new Exodus". In that re-telling, Paul clearly places baptism "at the beginning", and certainly prior to repentence.

I suggest that the objective reader will see the Romans 6 arguments as essentially ignored. I can see why you ignore this since it works powerfully against the notion that baptism comes after repentance, and thus undercuts one of the central objections to infant baptism.

What is really discouraging about these threads is that people simply will not move from their positions no matter how powerful the evidence is.

 

[Drew]

My answer to this is READ. Read and PRAY. For study IS the KEY to being able to SEE the entire PICTURE.

Indeed. And if you read Romans 5 to 8 and understand the rather inticate parallel that Paul is drawing to the story of the exodus, also accessible to those who read, you will see that Paul maps baptism to the Red Sea crossing and repentance to the Israelites following the pillar of cloud by day and fire by night.

I could not agree with you more - read, read, read. And when you read and learn the exodus story and when you then read Romans 5 to 8, the connection will become clear.

Unless, of course, the detailed time-ordered parallels between the exodus story and the Romans 5 to 8 story are all a massive co-incidence.

 

[Cornelius]

Baptizing the dead... I am wondering whether they had given a "faith proclamation" as well...

Today, we don't practice this, but it appears that some Christians did during the time of Paul. I am not aware when this practice stopped, I'd have to research that. However, the Scriptures mention it, and the Scriptures do not condemn the practice...

The implications are quite interesting...

The Mormons think that way too :

A unique teaching of Mormonism is the practice of baptizing on behalf of the dead. This is a very important belief of Mormons today. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught: "...the Lord has ordained baptism for the dead as the means whereby all his worthy children of all ages can become heirs of salvation in his kingdom," (Mormon Doctrine, p. 73).

In every active Mormon Temple proxy baptisms for the dead take place in which living Mormons temporarily assume the names of dead people to perform baptisms on their behalf. Mormon leaders teach that this activity was practiced by the first century Christian churches and quote 1 Corinthians 15:29 as proof (Ibid).

Why is it, that people will go so fast into a false way, yet resist the truth ? I find that interesting and scary. False teachings are winning the race at this moment. More people believe false teachings at this moment, than the true gospel. Few in fact will stop long enough to hear the true Gospel.

Paul was merely pointing out what the same false teachers were doing , were inconsistent with what they were preaching. Why did THEY (false teachers) baptize people for the dead, if THEY (false teachers) were saying there is no resurrection ? Why bother then with baptism, even if was the wrong kind of baptism ? If they taught no resurrection, then all was lost, and we are still in our sins. So why preach such a stupid lie, and then go ahead and baptize for the dead ?

They were contradicting themselves by their action..


There.......mystery solved. We do not baptize for the dead, because Christians know that we cannot do things by proxy.

C

 

[Drew]

The Mormons think that way too

This is, of course, an entirely unfair tactic. Fran has asserted "X" and you attempt to discredit his argument by associating view "X" with a group whose teachings are otherwise dubious.

That is not fair debate. That would be like me arguing that since Adolf Hitler thought a certain economic policy was good, such a view must be mistaken.

There.......mystery solved. We do not baptize for the dead, because Christians know that we cannot do things by proxy.

And, of course, you entirely assume that baptism is something that is all about "us doing something" when Fran and I have been arguing all along that God is the primary agent at work in baprtism. You think the "mystery is solved" since your view assumes that baptism is centrally about us doing something. If that were otherwise established, then and only then could you deploy the proxy argument.