Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Drew]

I directly challenge Imagican and / or Cornelius to engage and attack my argument about the connection between Romans 5 to 8 and the exodus account of the Old Testament.

That arguments makes the case that Paul sees baptism as preceding repentence. Now you both, I believe, think that baptism follows repentence.

If so, I must be incorrectly representing Paul. FIne. Show me where my error lies by actually engaging the argument.

 

[francisdesales]

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 :

The Mormons are not entirely wrong on every issue, so this doesn't prove much of anything. I have already said that the practice is no longer an issue. I am not sure when it was stopped, but I'd presume it was relatively quickly, since it is not mentioned much by the Fathers.

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.

This can be equally applied to you, in my eyes...

As above, you also preach some elements of the truth in your posts, esp. on subsequent walk and the salvation that can be lost. However, that doesn't mean everything you declare as "the way it is" is indeed TRUTH.

I have not seen a valid argument yet from the "no, one must earn the right to be baptized from ABOVE" camp yet...

Paul was merely pointing out what the same false teachers were doing , were inconsistent with what they were preaching.

You should read the Scriptures more closely. It does not state that Paul disapproved of the practice, or even implied that. Knowing St. Paul, if he thought the practice was "un-Christian" or false, as you state, we would see this in the text - he would have certainly pointed that out! However, he uses the current practice among some Christians to PROVE ANOTHER POINT! That people, even implicitly by baptizing the dead, believe in the Resurrection. Baptism of the dead has no meaning if there is no Resurrection. That is the point Paul makes. It would be quite odd for Paul to use a false practice to make a rhetorical point. I do not see Paul saying the practice is false - though later Christians allowed the practice to fall away, for whatever reason.

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 ?

Again, Paul never says it is a false teaching. He merely utilizes the implications of baptizing the dead leads to an implicit belief in the resurrection. What they did was not in line with what they preached (no resurrection of the dead).

They were contradicting themselves by their action..

Agreed.

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

No, it isn't, as I have shown above. You have to prove that Paul taught that baptism of the dead was false. He never says that. Anywhere. NOR does he given any indication that would lead to a baptism paradigm (absolute requirement) that a person must be sane, of sound mind, repenting, or any such thing. Naturally, IF Paul stated somewhere that one could ONLY receive baptism upon repentance (or any other requirement), then you would be correct in your thesis. However, we don't see this.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

I directly challenge Imagican and / or Cornelius to engage and attack my argument about the connection between Romans 5 to 8 and the exodus account of the Old Testament.

That arguments makes the case that Paul sees baptism as preceding repentence. Now you both, I believe, think that baptism follows repentence.

If so, I must be incorrectly representing Paul. FIne. Show me where my error lies by actually engaging the argument.

Well Drew, it seems you have NOTHING to say about the scripture that I OFFERED.

I read Romans 5-8 about six times. I have YET to even SEE what you are TALKING about. So, I accept your challenge I guess. I don't even KNOW what you challenge is. I think you have deluded yourself into an unnatural belief in that which doesn't actually exist. But if CARE to point out what it is you BELIEVE points to redemption BEFORE Baptism, by ALL MEANS, let us have it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Cornelius]

The Mormons are not entirely wrong on every issue, so this doesn't prove much of anything. I have already said that the practice is no longer an issue. I am not sure when it was stopped, but I'd presume it was relatively quickly, since it is not mentioned much by the Fathers.

Unless you think that a person who is in hell, can be taken out of hell when somebody is baptized here on earth as a proxy for them. Do you believe that?

If not, where is this person that you would be baptized for then?

You have to read 1 Cor 15 in context. Its about the resurrection and the false teachers who taught there is no resurrection. They were the ones baptizing for the dead too. Paul uses the word "they".
Paul did not say " YOU Corinthians who baptize for the dead , nor did he say " Me Paul, who baptize for the dead".........not he said "THEY" the same people who the rest of the chapter is about. The false teachers.
1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

There were some who were in error even in Paul's day. The false teaching started right in the beginning and has never stopped.

 

[Cornelius]

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.

Not unfair, because if you adhere to a wrong teaching of any group, then you adhere to it.

Fran admits that he agrees with some of their teachings:

The Mormons are not entirely wrong on every issue,

So he is in agreement with them about baptizing the dead. They are also doing things by proxy, and use the same argument as Fran.

 

[francisdesales]

Unless you think that a person who is in hell, can be taken out of hell when somebody is baptized here on earth as a proxy for them. Do you believe that?

No, Cornelius, I do not believe that.

If not, where is this person that you would be baptized for then?

I cannot say what God intends to do with such people. I have said that this was not a practice that carried on to the next generation of Christians, as far as I know. Perhaps it was very localized and Paul did condemn it later. But the Scriptures do not say that, so we don't know.

You have to read 1 Cor 15 in context. Its about the resurrection and the false teachers who taught there is no resurrection. They were the ones baptizing for the dead too. Paul uses the word "they".

Paul did not say " YOU Corinthians who baptize for the dead , nor did he say " Me Paul, who baptize for the dead".........not he said "THEY" the same people who the rest of the chapter is about. The false teachers.

You are clearly reaching beyond what is said. The "they" could refer to anyone in their own midst who was unsure about the Resurrection. The context is about the resurrection of the dead, not false teachers or baptism of the dead. He merely refers to it to show that the practice would be pointless - NOT FALSE.

There were some who were in error even in Paul's day. The false teaching started right in the beginning and has never stopped.

True.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

If not, where is this person that you would be baptized for then?

I cannot say what God intends to do with such people. I have said that this was not a practice that carried on to the next generation of Christians, as far as I know. Perhaps it was very localized and Paul did condemn it later. But the Scriptures do not say that, so we don't know.

We do in fact. There are only two places to go when you die. No place in the middle. We also know that people do not yo-yo in and out of hell and their lot does not depend on others, but on their own faith. I am glad, because I do not want to place my eternity into the hands of another human's faith. Not even the faith of my parents.

You are clearly reaching beyond what is said. The "they" could refer to anyone in their own midst who was unsure about the Resurrection. The context is about the resurrection of the dead, not false teachers or baptism of the dead. He merely refers to it to show that the practice would be pointless - NOT FALSE.

No, you are not understanding the context. The context were the resurrection of the dead and "they" that did not believe in it and "they" who then baptized their dead. "They" were the false teachers and "they " were contradicting themselves by baptizing for the dead. Its simple. Not complicated.

 

[francisdesales]

We do in fact. There are only two places to go when you die. No place in the middle.

According to you, not Sacred Scriptures. Furthermore, there very well may be a 4th or 5th place that the Bible just doesn't mention... It is quite arrogant to say "there are only two places in the afterlife" when NO ONE has been there and returned to discuss these issues.

If you have evidence that there are only TWO places, please provide them.

We also know that people do not yo-yo in and out of hell and their lot does not depend on others, but on their own faith.

I don't think we have to say anyone "yo-yo's" in and out of hell. Perhaps God places people in a "holding area", such as the OT saints before the Resurrection, knowing full well WHO He will release on account of His most holy will and the prayers of others. Who can say? Again, you seem awfully sure about something we can only SPECULATE about.

I am glad, because I do not want to place my eternity into the hands of another human's faith. Not even the faith of my parents.

That's because you rely on yourself, quite frankly, not realizing that we are part of a community of faith. Yet again, you ignore the Words of Sacred Scriptures where one person appeals to the Lord for the sake of another... Yours is a prime example of modern-day pride, my friend. Before you get upset about that, consider your own words here and your "infallible knowledge" of the afterlife... Pride.

No, you are not understanding the context. The context were the resurrection of the dead and "they" that did not believe in it and "they" who then baptized their dead. "They" were the false teachers and "they " were contradicting themselves by baptizing for the dead. Its simple. Not complicated.

It's simple and not complicated. Yet, you remain wrong. They refers to those who baptize the dead, not false teachers. They are not necessarily one and the same person/s.

 

[francisdesales]

Not unfair, because if you adhere to a wrong teaching of any group, then you adhere to it.

It is unfair because I never said I agree with the particulars of the Mormon faith that differ from my Catholic faith. I said there are areas of truth that they do teach, areas of the faith that are indeed common to Christianity, such as Jesus was born of a Virgin or that we must walk in the ways of God to go to heaven.

EVERY religion teaches SOME truth. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists. There are all common points of agreement with our faith and theirs. Mine is a recognition of the desire of man to reach to God, and inevitably, there are points of agreement, since God is directing the desire...

You, on the other hand, are stuck in your box of your own making, claiming that everyone who does not think like you is wrong entirely and hell-bound.

Fran admits that he agrees with some of their teachings: "The Mormons are not entirely wrong on every issue,"

Perhaps you should read more carefully this simple little quote...

So he is in agreement with them about baptizing the dead. They are also doing things by proxy, and use the same argument as Fran.

This is a classic case of twisted logic. I never said I agree with baptism of the dead. And doing things by proxy is Scriptural. Jesus Himself heals others based upon the intercessions of others. I have already given you a number of verses that you have still not addressed on this matter.

If you must resort to such tactics, maybe you should just admit defeat and move on... Stooping to such levels is not the mark of a Christian walking in Christ.

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mark 6:12
And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luke 5:32
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
)
Acts 2:38
Then 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.

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

And I apologize. I had asked you to address these. I had attempted to post them a day or so ago and the forums was undergoing an 'update' and I never got around to posting them. But here they are and let us know what you have to offer concerning these.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Cornelius]

It is unfair because I never said I agree with the particulars of the Mormon faith that differ from my Catholic faith. I said there are areas of truth that they do teach, areas of the faith that are indeed common to Christianity, such as Jesus was born of a Virgin or that we must walk in the ways of God to go to heaven.

EVERY religion teaches SOME truth. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists. There are all common points of agreement with our faith and theirs. Mine is a recognition of the desire of man to reach to God, and inevitably, there are points of agreement, since God is directing the desire...

I will allow you to backtrack on your statement and save face.

You, on the other hand, are stuck in your box of your own making, claiming that everyone who does not think like you is wrong entirely and hell-bound.

Actually everybody who is outside the Bible-box in their thinking is entirely wrong and hell-bound.
We are warned not to add to the Word................yet many do and fear no consequence.

This is a classic case of twisted logic. I never said I agree with baptism of the dead. And doing things by proxy is Scriptural. Jesus Himself heals others based upon the intercessions of others. I have already given you a number of verses that you have still not addressed on this matter.

Proxy does have it limits. I would love to send you my sins by proxy and even if I had the faith, it will not work. Proxy works where the example is given. Healing is one of them.

If you must resort to such tactics, maybe you should just admit defeat and move on... Stooping to such levels is not the mark of a Christian walking in Christ.

Admitting defeat would be to say that the Bible is wrong. I cannot do that.

 

[francisdesales]

It is unfair because I never said I agree with the particulars of the Mormon faith that differ from my Catholic faith. I said there are areas of truth that they do teach, areas of the faith that are indeed common to Christianity, such as Jesus was born of a Virgin or that we must walk in the ways of God to go to heaven.

EVERY religion teaches SOME truth. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists. There are all common points of agreement with our faith and theirs. Mine is a recognition of the desire of man to reach to God, and inevitably, there are points of agreement, since God is directing the desire...

I will allow you to backtrack on your statement and save face.

I am not backtracking, since I never said what you attribute to me - that I believe in the false teachings of the Mormons, or am associated with them because there are points of common belief. You are free to look over my statements again, which have not been edited.

I merely said all religions, including Mormons, teach SOME truth. I did not delineate anything more specific than that, such as the belief in baptism of the dead, which I specifically said I did not believe. This means I do not agree with them on this doctrine, correct? Where have I said I agreed with a Mormon doctrine that is "false"? Can you be more specific? Or is this just some little campaign of smoke and mirrors to redirect the conversation so you don't have to address the topic?

Actually everybody who is outside the Bible-box in their thinking is entirely wrong and hell-bound.
We are warned not to add to the Word................yet many do and fear no consequence.

Please give me a verse, in context, that says we are not to add anything to the Bible. I am not talking about adding to the prophesies of Revelation, mind you.

This is just an ironic twist that you provide, and don't even realize it. You subscribe to a contradicting and ANTI-Biblical axiom and try to impose it upon me without any Scriptural warrant. And you whine about infant baptism because it doesn't fit your particular scheme - but have offered NOTHING to prove why infant baptism is not allowed?

Proxy does have it limits. I would love to send you my sins by proxy and even if I had the faith, it will not work. Proxy works where the example is given. Healing is one of them.

Baptism is a spiritual healing. It is the forgiveness of sins.

God has the ability to forgive the sins of whom He wills and can make whatever requirements He desires - as long as His mercy and justice are satisfied.

This is not so different from you or me.

We can have a boy who breaks a window. We, as their father, have the option of punishing the child as we desire, even to the point of forgiving without REQUIRING any sort of apology. We are not bound by an outside force to hold our child to a specific punishment, or when to forgive the infraction.

God is the same way. He can forgive whom He wills and He sets the requirements. THUS, if He decides to forgive sins or heal people based upon the actions of another person, WHO THE HECK ARE YOU to say otherwise? Any biblical warrant for this or are you jealous of the graciousness of God???

Admitting defeat would be to say that the Bible is wrong. I cannot do that.

Unfortunately for you, you have not offered any sort of biblical proof of anything yet... Being in denial is not an offering of proof, nor is merely saying "there is only heaven or hell in the afterlife". These are not proofs of anything. They are merely statements. As it turns out, speculative or false statements. They are unconvincing and do not advance the thread's topic.

 

[Drew]

I directly challenge Imagican and / or Cornelius to engage and attack my argument about the connection between Romans 5 to 8 and the exodus account of the Old Testament.

That arguments makes the case that Paul sees baptism as preceding repentence. Now you both, I believe, think that baptism follows repentence.

If so, I must be incorrectly representing Paul. FIne. Show me where my error lies by actually engaging the argument.

Well Drew, it seems you have NOTHING to say about the scripture that I OFFERED.

I read Romans 5-8 about six times. I have YET to even SEE what you are TALKING about. So, I accept your challenge I guess. I don't even KNOW what you challenge is. I think you have deluded yourself into an unnatural belief in that which doesn't actually exist. But if CARE to point out what it is you BELIEVE points to redemption BEFORE Baptism, by ALL MEANS, let us have it.

Which scripture have you posted that I have not responded to? Please let me know and, if I really did not address it, I will.

And, of course, your "response" to my challenge is not a real response at all. You merely toss out some dismissive rhetoric and ignore the fact that I have provided a number of posts in which I expressly lay out my argument.

I have already "pointed out what it is I BELIEVE points to redemption BEFORE Baptism". It is there in a number of posts about Romans 6.

Please engage those arguments. They are there and clearly identified.

Saying that "you do not see what I am talking about" is not a response. You need to show the reader where I have erred in my argument. There is a lot of material from me on this matter. So why not point out my error?

 

[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.

Not unfair, because if you adhere to a wrong teaching of any group, then you adhere to it.

No. Your post implied that because the Mormons reptutedly believe the same thing about baptising the dead as does Fran, then Fran's position is mistaken because Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity.

That is not a fair tactic, as has already been shown. The issue should be decided on its own merits, not by lumping it into Mormonism and then hoping to leverage the fact that probably all of us consider Mormonism to fall outside the category of orthodox Christianity.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Mark 1:4
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

I know that this is difficult for you to see, but your implied argument here is essentially circular. You are clearly arguing that if the baptism is one of repentence, then it must require knowledge about the nature of repentence on the part of the person being baptized, and therefore it makes no sense to baptize infants.

The problem is that you essentially assume that repentence is an act that springs from the mind of the human person. If that were established, then your point would follow. But you seem to simply overlook what I think the Scriptures otherwise make clear - that the unregenerate human mind - whether child or adult - is simply unable to implement repentance:

The mind of sinful man 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.

And yet what has Paul written in Romans 6 about baptism:

3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life

It is the act of baptism that the old nature is done away with, thereby enabling the very possibility of repentence.

So repentence is not something "we decide to do" before we get baptized - if it were, your point would be strong. But it is really the work of God, not the decision of a fully formed adult mind. And Paul seems to see baptism as the pivotal action whereby the "old self" dies and the possiblity of a new life arises. So we really do have a Pauline theology of "baptism first" and then embarking on the path of repentence.

And who is to say that God cannot do that work in a little child?

 

[francisdesales]

The problem is that you essentially assume that repentence is an act that springs from the mind of the human person. If that were established, then your point would follow. But you seem to simply overlook what I think the Scriptures otherwise make clear - that the unregenerate human mind - whether child or adult - is simply unable to implement repentance:

The mind of sinful man 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.

...clearly exposing the TRUE beliefs of the "works salvation" charecters of people like Imagican and Cornelius... They forget that man cannot repent without God moving the will to do so.

They believe repentance springs from their unaided wills. Thus, infant baptism has no place in their paradigms.

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

If you will 'look back' to the last post on the previous page you will find the scriptures to which I was refering.

Now these are NOT scripture that LEAVE it up to US to guess their meaning. One SPECIFICALLY STATES that we are to REPENT and THEN be Baptised. And it ONLY stands to reason that BEFORE repentance, one would have NO INCENTIVE to be Baptised. Unless, of course, you THINK that there are those that simply FOLLOW WORDS offered by MEN. I am one that believes that it is THORUGH The Spirit that we are URGED to be Baptised. And if we DO IT simply because it SOUNDS GOOD, we have accomplished NOTHING.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

One SPECIFICALLY STATES that we are to REPENT and THEN be Baptised.

Which one? I am convinced there is no such scripture.

And for your sake, I hope it is not a statement of the form "repent and be baptised". That is not the same as "repent and then be baptized".

 

[Drew]

And it ONLY stands to reason that BEFORE repentance, one would have NO INCENTIVE to be Baptised.

Again, you stick to your assumption that baptism is centrally concerned with us and what we believe. Fran and I keep pointing out - and you guys continue to simply ignore - that if God is the key agent at work in baptism, then the "incentive" of the person to be baptized is a secondary issue. Does a baby with a heart defect need heart surgery where it is the action of the surgeon that accomplishes the desired result? Of course!, even though the baby has no incentive at all.

And if we DO IT simply because it SOUNDS GOOD, we have accomplished NOTHING.

Again, you disclose your assumption that baptism is something that "we" do. This is not what the Scriptures teach - God is at work in the act of baptism. It is not merely a symbolic act by the human person. If it were, then your point might have some merit.

 

[Imagican]

John preached a 'Baptism' OF repentance.

Now, IF it were simply God at work, there would be NO REASON for the preaching. I believe that the preaching IS God AT work THROUGH the preaching of John. And that the preaching was NEEDED in order to ALLOW The Spirit to affect the hearts of those that were ABLE to HEAR what John had to SAY.

You continually state that I am offering that 'Baptism' is a 'work of men'. I believe JUST the opposite in fact. That MEN simply sprinkling or dunking others in water has NO EFFECT whatsoever OUTSIDE of The Holy Spirit. ALL that the water ITSELF is ABLE to DO is WET ONE.

Now, what about the scripture that I offered that PLAINLY STATES that 'repentance' comes BEFORE Baptism? Once again, it ONLY stands to REASON that one would NOT EVEN BE Baptised if they were NOT repentant FIRST. That means that it is the Spirit that MOVES one to BE Baptised through repentance. Once one becomes convicted in their HEARTS of the NEED for forgiveness, this IS repentance. And AFTER that comes Baptism for the REMISSION of sin.

Blessings,

MEC