Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Drew]

[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.

Now, it doesn't GET any CLEARER than THIS. Repent and BE Baptised for the remission of sins. You can attempt to 'twist these words AROUND', but the TRUTH is that they are offered IN THIS ORDER for a PURPOSE.

You are simply mistaken in believing that "repent and be baptised" means "repent then be baptised". That is simply not how the word "and" functions - it does not have implications of time ordering, no matter how much you might wish that it did.

 

[Cornelius]

I cannot continue with this. We can only talk if we have the same foundation and that we do not.

C

 

[Drew]

I'll ask again.

So YOU believe that we can BAPTIZE without the consent or understanding of the one we are Baptising and that is ENOUGH to 'bring God into their lives'?

Yes.

John's Baptism WAS one of repentance and BAPTISM. For there is NO REASON for one to CHOOSE to be Baptised UNTIL they have COME TO REPENTANCE. Until they have been convicted in their hearts, WHAT would LEAD them to Baptism?

This statement begs the very question that is at issue. You implicitly assume that baptism only achieves it goals if the person being baptized understands this. It is actually quite easy to see this by analogy. Consider the vaccination of children. We would never say "well, the child needs to understand how this will protect him" before we take them to the doctor.

Obviously, that is beside the point. We as the parent get the kid vaccinated regardless. And this is because it is the vaccine that is the key agent at work in vaccination. The child's mental disposition or competence is not relevant.

I suggest that this is roughly analogous to baptism. No one has made any Scriptural case that repentence must precede baptism. And God commands us to be baptized. So if you believe that God is at work in baptism, why not let God do what He wants to do and have your infants baptized?

 

[Drew]

Do you honestly BELIEVE that those that were Baptised at the time of John simply jumped into the water with him without ANY encouragement OTHER THAN HIS words? And IF it is simply a matter of FOLLOWING what some MAN tells us, HOW are we to obtain ANYTHING Holy?

Who said such a thing? Ceretainly not moi.

It is God, not man, who commands us to get baptized. I am not saying that adults who got baptized by John were not led by the Spirit. But this is not an argument against the baptism of infants.

I have been CALLED by The Spirit and I KNOW God and His Son. So, to tell me that a mere 'man-made' ritual is able to offer what has been given ME, is BEYOND my capacity in understanding.

Man-made? Hardly. God commands us to be baptized, not man.

And the FIRST step WAS repentance. I opened my heart and BEGGED to be forgiven. That was the FIRST STEP. I had been Baptised, (in an attempt to FIT IN), MANY years BEFORE the event that I speak of, and it had little if ANY effect on my 'walk'.

How do you know this. Can you rule out the possibility that this earlier baptism achieved something in your inner life that eventually led to an obedient walk on your part?

 

[Imagican]

No Drew I can't. God DOES work in 'mysterious ways'. I have already offered that the MAIN reason that I agreed to be Baptised was to 'fit in'. But, whether it had any true significance I cannot say. But, I can say that it was TWENTY or so years LATER that I 'became born again'.

All I have asked since joining this debate is for scriptural PROOF of 'infant Baptism'. If ALL you have is the word 'households' used a couple of times, I find that a bit LESS than convincing. For we have words that indicate that the APOSTLES THEMSELVES didn't consider children to be OF SIGNIFICANCE. It took Christ taking one upon His knee and directing their attention thus in order to expound upon the INNOCENCE of Children and how it would be THOSE LIKE THESE that would inherit the kindom of God.

So, we don't even know the PLACE that children held in society back then. For 'household' may well have NOT INCLUDED children. And THE household's mentioned may NOT have even CONTAINED children. For there are NO CHILDREN in MY household. And I know MANY that have NO children living there.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

All I have asked since joining this debate is for scriptural PROOF of 'infant Baptism'. If ALL you have is the word 'households' used a couple of times, I find that a bit LESS than convincing.

This is not all the proof that has been offered.

An argument has been presented, based on Romans 5 to 8, that makes the case that baptism precedes repentence.

I believe that neither you nor Cornelius have actually engaged that argumet - it is "out there" waiting for a response.

Even if that argument works, and I am confident that it does, it is not a direct "proof" of the wisdom of infant baptism. But it certainly undercuts the specific objection to infant baptism that is based on the notion that one need repent first.

I trust that no one reading these forums is sufficiently naive to think that because there are no direct assertion that it is good to baptize infants, that is therefore not a good thing to do.

There are no statements in the Bible about abortion, but it is pretty clear what the Biblical position on that matter is. So if you are expecting "scriptural proof" of the form of a directive to baptize infants, you will not find one.

But, obviously, this does not mean that a solid case for baptizing infants cannot otherwise be mounted.

For we have words that indicate that the APOSTLES THEMSELVES didn't consider children to be OF SIGNIFICANCE. It took Christ taking one upon His knee and directing their attention thus in order to expound upon the INNOCENCE of Children and how it would be THOSE LIKE THESE that would inherit the kindom of God.

This is entirely consistent with the infact baptism position. The apostles believe that children are of no significance. What does Jesus do? He rebukes and corrects them. So, if anything, this is can be seen as a teaching that children are important and should perhaps be baptized.

For 'household' may well have NOT INCLUDED children. And THE household's mentioned may NOT have even CONTAINED children. For there are NO CHILDREN in MY household. And I know MANY that have NO children living there.

I suggest that history will tell us that most households in that culture had children - the childless family (except for infertility) is a largely a modern (read post 1960 ish) phenomena.

 

[francisdesales]

All I have asked since joining this debate is for scriptural PROOF of 'infant Baptism'. If ALL you have is the word 'households' used a couple of times, I find that a bit LESS than convincing.

What is unconvincing is WHY an infant cannot be baptized. We have yet to hear a plausible reason why it is NOT ALLOWED. Since infants were circumcised, and baptism replaces circumcision as the means of entrance into the People of God, it appears that the onus is upon you to provide the evidence of either a statement that says children are not allowed to be baptized, that God no longer desires to have children in the Kingdom, or a baptism paradigm that demands the RECIPIENT to request the healing touch. Since no one has provided any of this, the only "argument" you really have is "it's not in the Bible".

Of course, neither is that VERY AXIOM... :crazy

Hypocrites... God bless 'em...

 

[Solo]

Does Colossians 2:11-12 Teach Infant Baptism?

By David Pyles

There is neither precept nor precedent for the modern practice of infant baptism in all the scriptures, and indeed, this practice is in violation of the scriptures. The historic record apparently offers no clear proof of such practice prior to about 256 A.D., when it is known to have been observed in North Africa. The practice was perpetuated and finally dogmatized by the Roman Catholic church. This unscriptural rite is also seen in many Protestant churches, who inherited it from their Roman ancestors. While the leaders of the Reformation can generally be credited with a zeal toward scriptural compliance in matters of doctrine, their tendency was to neglect scriptures in matters of church practice, opting instead for the vain traditions of men.

The crime of some Protestants now surpasses that of their Roman progenitors in that, whereas the Catholics generally admit there is no scriptural basis for this practice, but justify it on the premise of church authority, some Protestants have sought ingenious ways to justify the practice from the scriptures. But the scriptures are so uncooperative to their designs that the best they can generally offer is the following text:

• And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. - Colossians 2:10-12

They claim this text teaches baptism to be a replacement of the Old Testament practice of circumcision, and that whereas circumcision was administered to infants, the same may be said of baptism. Further, they assert their argument would be even stronger had it not been for what they claim to be an erroneous translation in the King James version. They would typically prefer a translation such as that of the NIV, which reads:

• and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. - NIV, Colossians 2:10-12

It will be claimed that the words having been places the baptism at equal time with the circumcision, thereby proving that one answers to the other.

We are convinced no one would have ever seen such thing in this text had they been reading it through unsoiled glasses. Their argument is manifestly erroneous at several points:

• 1) Even if the circumcision and baptism in this text were contemporaneous, this would not prove they are the same. If baptism replaced circumcision, then why are they both still of force in this text?
  
  2) An examination of the full context shows that the timing of the circumcision and baptism are relative to the words, And ye are complete in him. That is, they were circumcised and baptized as of the time they were complete in him, but they were not circumcised and baptized at the same time.
  
  3) The NIV weakens the argument for infant baptism when it says, ...raised with him through your faith in the power of God, because one cannot prove that an infant has faith in the absence of special Divine revelation, and most of the paedobaptists would deny that an infant has faith even in the face of this.
  
  4) Their practice of sprinkling the infant is clearly condemned by this scripture because it speaks of being buried with Him in baptism, thereby demanding immersion.
  
  5) If baptism replaced circumcision, then why baptize women?
  
  6) The circumcision of this text is made without hands, yet a baptism involves human hands to the same extent as a fleshly circumcision. The circumcision here clearly represents regeneration or the new birth. It is a circumcision of the heart and is performed by the Spirit (Romans 2:29). 7) This circumcision puts off the body of the sins of the flesh, yet Peter claimed in 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism was not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (by which he clearly means moral filth). Obviously, circumcision and baptism are not the same thing, nor is one a replacement of the other. We are amazed that even Protestants who denounce baptismal regeneration will advance this interpretation in support of infant baptism.

Jesus told his Apostles, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). This text shows who is to be baptized: It is someone who had been taught. We are to teach first, then baptize next. Jesus also said, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16). Again, a person is to believe first, then be baptized next. Accordingly, those converted on the day of Pentecost gladly received the word and were then baptized (Acts 2:41). Further, Philip gave the Ethiopian eunuch the condition for being baptized: If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (Acts 8:37). Philip obviously presented this as a necessary condition. If the eunuch had not believed with all his heart, then he could not have been baptized.

Paul told Timothy, And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also (2Timothy 2:2). We should all understand the meaning of the word same. Infant baptism is not the same with the teachings of Christ, Paul, or any other scriptural writer. It is our hope and prayer that God's children will withdraw themselves from that which is disorderly and not after the tradition of the scriptures (2Thessalonians 3:6). We are sure their greatest peace and joy can be discovered only in Christ's simple command, Follow me (John 21:19).

 

[Solo]

Apologetics Press :: Scripturally Speaking

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


One reason some religious groups within Christendom baptize babies instead of believers is because they believe baptism is (in the New Testament) what circumcision was (in the Old Testament). Allegedly, since “those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised.... n the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same†(“Infant Baptism,†n.d.). One biblical text that certain advocates of infant baptism frequently cite to support this position is Colossians 2:11-12. In this passage, the apostle Paul wrote about spiritual circumcision, saying:

• In Him [Jesus] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12).

Numerous proponents of infant baptism (sometimes called pedobaptists) believe that Paul’s reference to baptism and “the circumcision of Christ†implies that New Testament baptism and Old Testament circumcision are equivalent. Some time ago, I received a letter insisting that these verses prove “baptism replaced circumcision,†and since “circumcision was done to infants,†infant baptism is a biblical practice. Furthermore, “If Paul meant to exclude infants,†we are informed, “he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism†(“Infant Baptism,†n.d).

First, to allege that Paul would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism if babies were meant to be excluded as candidates for baptism, is like saying that Jesus would not have compared His disciples to serpents (Matthew 10:16) if He did not want them to act like the devil, “the serpent of old†(Revelation 12:9; 20:2; cf. Genesis 3:1; 2 Corinthians 11:3). By reasoning in such a way, a person might assume Christians are supposed to be senseless, because several times Jesus compared His followers to sheep (Matthew 10:6,16; 18:10-14; etc.). Or, someone might attempt to justify the consumption of intoxicating wine on the basis that Jesus once spoke of “old wine skins†(Luke 5:37-39). To argue in support of infant baptism because Paul paralleled spiritual circumcision and water baptism in his letter to the church at Colosse is to err. One cannot assume that a Bible writer approves of other points of comparison when only one point of comparison is made. Jesus once compared the actions of God to those of an “unjust judge†(Luke 18:1-8), yet that does not make God unjust (Zechariah 9:9; Psalm 11:4-7), nor does it mean that Jesus approved of the unjust judges of His day. Jesus was using the unjust judge in this parable only to compare His vindication of the widow to the vindication God will give His people (Luke 18:7-8). Similarly, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul used the word circumcision to illustrate how a person “cuts off †sin at baptism. The comparison between circumcision and baptism had nothing to do with the age of the ones who were baptized.

Second, nowhere in Colossians 2:11-12 (nor anywhere else in the Bible) do we learn that “baptism replaces circumcision†(“Questions Often Asked,†n.d.). In Paul’s letter to the Colossians, he merely stated that when they became Christians they were “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh†(2:11). Paul mentioned circumcision, but only to make the point that when the Colossians obeyed the Gospel, they circumcised themselves spiritually. (Moses had used this same kind of language 1,500 years earlier when he commanded the Israelites, saying: “Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longerâ€Ââ€â€Deuteronomy 10:16, emp. added.) Because of the work of Christ on the cross, sinful people (i.e., those old enough to transgress the lawâ€â€1 John 3:4) have the opportunity to cut off their body of sin. Furthermore, those in Colossae were old enough to know and understand “the body of the sins of the flesh†that was “cut off †of them by Christ at their baptism, and to have “faith in the working of God.†One must admit that babies who are baptized have knowledge of neither sin nor God. Thus, by implication, babies actually were excluded, not included, by Paul in this passage.

Finally, notice some other reasons why it is fallacious to teach that “baptism replaced circumcisionâ€Â:

• “The covenant of circumcision†(Acts 7:8) was confined to descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and those converted to Judaism (Genesis 17:12-13; Exodus 12:48); baptism is for all nations (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8).
  [/*:m:2rmsikwq]
• Circumcision was confined to males; baptism is for both male and female (cf. Galatians 3:28).
  [/*:m:2rmsikwq]
• If “baptism replaced circumcision†as some allege, people who already were circumcised according to the law could not be baptized. As J.W. Shepherd stated: “If the one came in the place of the other, the two could not exist at the same time in the same person. But all the Jews that had been circumcised on believing in Christ were baptized†(1929, p. 17). It was God’s will that the Jews, who heard John the Baptist, Jesus, and/or one of His disciples, be baptized regardless of their circumcision (Luke 7:30; John 3:22-24; 4:1-2). If baptism replaced circumcision, how could they both be in effect at the same time, among the same people, and under the same covenant (Brents, 1874, pp. 345-347)?[/*:m:2rmsikwq]

Truly, infant baptism cannot logically be defended using Colossians 2:11-12. Simply because Paul used the word circumcision in a spiritual sense to illustrate the time when non-Christians “put off †sin and become Christians (at the point of baptismâ€â€Colossians 2:11-12; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27) does not make babies candidates for baptism. Moreover, Paul was clear that the Colossians “circumcised with the circumcision made without hands†were conscious of both sin and God; babies, however, are aware of neither.

REFERENCES

Brents, T.W. (1874), The Gospel Plan of Salvation (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987 reprint).

“Infant Baptism,†(no date) Catholic Answers, [On-line], URL: http://www.catholic.com/library/infant_baptism.asp.
“Questions Often Asked and Answered†(no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/q4.htm.

Shepherd, J.W. (1929), The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1973 reprint).

Retrieved from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2287

 

[duval]

Jesus said "he that believes and is baptized shall be saved" Mk.16:16.
Peter said "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" Acts 2:38

Question: can an infant believe? Can an infant repent?

The Bible is its own BEST commentary!

God bless,
duval

 

[Drew]

There is neither precept nor precedent for the modern practice of infant baptism in all the scriptures, and indeed, this practice is in violation of the scriptures.

No it is not a violation of the Scriptures, as we will see.

• 1) Even if the circumcision and baptism in this text were contemporaneous, this would not prove they are the same. If baptism replaced circumcision, then why are they both still of force in this text?

• 
  Bad argument. The author is conveniently ignoring the fact that the circumcision described in this text is not a physical act:
  
  and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
  
  So there is no inconsistency. This author's objection would only work if the following conditions applied:
  
  1. Someone claims that physical baptism replaces physical circumcision (such as Fran has done. I believe);
  
  2. A text is found where both physical circumcision and physical baptism are prescribed.
  
  Then, of course, there would be a problem. But this text, with its clear reference to a circumcision of thre heart, does not contradict the notion physical circumcision is replaced by physical baptism.

 

[Imagican]

There was comparison of 'infant Baptism' to 'abortion' so far as them being mentioned in The Bible. I disagree with this offering. For, concerning abortion, it IS stated that we are NOT to KILL. And I don't believe that ANYONE is so ignorant as to NOT recognize abortion as 'killing'.

Now, if you would choose to compare these two, it would be prudent to offer scripture PERTAINING to 'infant Baptism' in JUST such a manner.

I believe that we argue a moot point. YOUR belief system REQUIRES you to accept what you are TOLD regardless of ANY valid PROOF of it's existence. Mine, on the other hand, requires NO such devotion to such an 'institution'. Therefore, we are ONLY to go 'round and round' without being able to come to ANY sort of agreement on this issue.

You have been challenged to produce scriptural evidence of which you have produced ZERO. I don't even believe your faith would CLAIM that there is SCRIPTURAL evidence of 'infant Baptism'. It is 'just something that we decided upon by those that 'supposedly' were ABLE to make such decisions. And ONCE made, it was then simply a matter of ADHERANCE to their demands.

Since we can clearly SEE that there is USUALLY a 'FEE' involved with such ritual, it is ONLY obvious to percieve that THIS is at least a MAJOR purpose of it's inception. And I have already offered that it serves to BIND the parents to RAISE their child in the FAITH to which it is Baptised. It is MORE a matter of having the PARENTS bound than the infant actually benefitting so far as Salvation is concerned.

So, I have offered about as MUCH as I am able in this matter. We have explored it about as deeply as possible and will OBVIOUSLY never convince the other of their belief.

Therefore, I think that I'm THROUGH with this discussion. In closing I offer this: It's ONE thing to state that one 'believes' something simply because that's what they CHOOSE to DO. But it's another to offer outright deception in stating that what one believes is SCRIPTURAL when it actually ISN'T. And it begs one to question ANY faith that operates on such strategy in deception.

There is NO scriptural evidence of 'infant Baptism' EVER taking place. It was CREATED by men and the REASONS are pretty clear.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

By David Pyles

There is neither precept nor precedent for the modern practice of infant baptism in all the scriptures, and indeed, this practice is in violation of the scriptures. The historic record apparently offers no clear proof of such practice prior to about 256 A.D., when it is known to have been observed in North Africa. The practice was perpetuated and finally dogmatized by the Roman Catholic church.

Solo,

Your source, Mr. Pyles, is incorrect on some of his presumptions.

1. No clear proof of infant practice prior to 256. Origen wrote that the practice was apostolic, taught by the Apostles. While he doesn't detail who specifically of the apostles taught this, it appears his witness offers evidence of the practice WELL BEFORE 256 AD. Considering Tertullian and Irenaeus' mentioning of the practice, it seems quite clear that the baptism of infants was indeed practiced AT LEAST 100 years earlier than Mr. Pyles suggested.

2. The practice was not "dogmatized" by the Catholic Church. The "ordinary" means of baptism remains immersion of adults. Baptizing infants is ALLOWED, not REQUIRED. Thus, it is not a "dogma" that Catholics must be baptized as infants. Furthermore, I mention that the Eastern Orthodox, who were part of the Catholic Church before the Great Schism, continue the practice of infant baptism - and this is WITHOUT the Western concept of Original Sin, which led many to baptize infants in the West in the first place. Thus, the practice is not dependent upon "Roman Catholic dogma" or "Roman Catholic Theology", such as the Western concept of Original sin.

What the anti-infant Christians must do is provide a clear Scriptural evidence that the RECIPIENT must offer a faith proclamation before being "born from above". I have already noted where God saves, often at the intercession of others. Infant baptism, as circumcision, relies on a "proxy statement of faith" by others. This is a Judeo-Christian concept, clearly pointing to the FACT that God has always established a community of believers to benefit others within the community and that God comes to man through this community, RATHER than God coming individually to each person outside the community. Man does not baptize themselves.

This unscriptural rite is also seen in many Protestant churches, who inherited it from their Roman ancestors. While the leaders of the Reformation can generally be credited with a zeal toward scriptural compliance in matters of doctrine, their tendency was to neglect scriptures in matters of church practice, opting instead for the vain traditions of men.

The crime of some Protestants now surpasses that of their Roman progenitors in that, whereas the Catholics generally admit there is no scriptural basis for this practice, but justify it on the premise of church authority, some Protestants have sought ingenious ways to justify the practice from the scriptures.

Since Protestants are not bound to follow Catholic practices, one must wonder if there is a "ingenious way" from ABOVE that continues to keep men within the faith once given... It is interesting to me why many Protestants retain such "non-biblical" beliefs. Perhaps the Spirit desires these practices to be retained. It is interesting why someone so anti-Catholic as Luther, knowing full well there is no explicit statement on infant baptism, defends it staunchly against the Anabaptists. Have you considered WHY? Do you really think it is because of "vain traditions of men"???

We have previously noted three Scripture cases of entire households being baptized. It is unlikely that an ancient household would be devoid of infants or children. Since we see no exception, strong evidence is provided that the practice can even be traced to Scriptural days. And since we see Scriptural precedent of people entering the People of God as infants via circumcision, it follows that the New Covenant would not exclude them, as well. Thus, we have Scriptural basis for the practice. Since there is no explicit statement against infant baptism, nor is there a baptismal paradigm that absolutely requires the recipient to make the faith proclamation, the practice is indeed biblically based.

Regards

 

[Drew]

There was comparison of 'infant Baptism' to 'abortion' so far as them being mentioned in The Bible. I disagree with this offering. For, concerning abortion, it IS stated that we are NOT to KILL. And I don't believe that ANYONE is so ignorant as to NOT recognize abortion as 'killing'.

OK forget abortion, there is nothing in the Bible that directly tells us that we are not to have laws against insider trading. And yet, it is indeed reasonable to deduce that God does not approve of the practice.

This issue is complex enough without some really bad arguments being admitted into play. And while I am not saying that you are making such an argument, it is important that we all understand that just because the Scripture do not say "thou shalt do X" that we can assume that we are not to do "X".

The scriptures do not say "send a man to the moon", yet no reasonable person would say that we should not send a man to the moon because the scriptures do not tell us to do so. Same idea with infant baptism. The absence of a specific instruction to baptise infants is hardly evidence that we should not baptise infants.

 

[Drew]

I believe that we argue a moot point. YOUR belief system REQUIRES you to accept what you are TOLD regardless of ANY valid PROOF of it's existence.[/qoute]
This is simply a false characterization of my position - I have said nothing that remotely justifies such a conclusion about the nature of my "belief system".

Mine, on the other hand, requires NO such devotion to such an 'institution'.

Assuming that you are talking to me (Drew), I trust you realize that I am not a Roman Catholic. So I am not sure what "institution" you are referring to.

You have been challenged to produce scriptural evidence of which you have produced ZERO.

This is more than a little misleading. Part of the reason is that this is like saying that snce I have produced zero evidence of a Biblical mandate to stop global warming, that we should not take steps to control global warming. As has been clearly shown, and should be understood by all, the absence of a specific, direct, mandate to baptize infants has almost zero value in resolving this issue.

Besides, the "household baptism" argument remains very strong - it is highly unlikely that statements about baptizing households do not strongly imply that children were baptized - in that culture most households would contain children.

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

Our understanding is certainly DIFFERENT. While you would contend that scripture does NOT offer specific instruction concerning MANY THINGS. I would contend that it is merely a matter of UNDERSTANDING that makes it possible to judge ALL of our 'behavior' according to scripture. Cheating is wrong. Lying is WRONG. Killing is WRONG. Stealing is WRONG. All these are AGAINST The Spirit and therefore can ONLY interfere with a progressive walk. And that DOESN'T mean that they are NOT OFTEN the 'catylist' of which we COME to God through His Son. But in definite TERMS offered UP in scripture, we ARE able to 'judge' what is RIGHT and what is WRONG in our OWN HEARTS. That IS the NATURE of The Spirit.

While some would contend, ''what the heck, how much HARM could it DO''. I simply accept conviction when offered and allow The Spirit to 'take it away' if that is God's will. I don't ARGUE with The Spirit. I simply follow as led.

So, you see, I don't really run into a whole lot of these situations of 'what the heck, how much HARM could it DO?''

And I am NOT one to condemn others for doing so. I would simply offer that there is A MUCH DEEPER relationship POSSIBLE when we are CONFORMED to the TRUTH. For EVERY SINGLE THING that we DO that is contradictory to The Spirit makes it THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to be IN The Spirit. But, from what I have learned here on the forums, that is NOT the deciding 'factor' for MANY.

I worship NO 'man-made institution'. Fault me is you will, but I have found them ALL LACKING. So, I continue in my faith and offer what I am ABLE to others. I KNOW what God has done in MY life through His Son and that is ENOUGH for me for MY faith to maintain and even flourish. And the more DEEPLY my faith is fulfilled, the MORE I find myself CONFORMED to that which we were MEANT to BE. For I do NOT 'force myself' to DO 'anything'. I do what comes NATURAL and once one is ABLE to come to TRUE faith, there is NO DOUBT in their MINDS that their hearts are 'changed FOR them'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

Our understanding is certainly DIFFERENT. While you would contend that scripture does NOT offer specific instruction concerning MANY THINGS. I would contend that it is merely a matter of UNDERSTANDING that makes it possible to judge ALL of our 'behavior' according to scripture.

False characterization yet again. I have written nothing that would allow anyone to properly conclude that I do not share your position that " it is merely a matter of UNDERSTANDING that makes it possible to judge ALL of our 'behavior' according to scripture". I do not disagree with this statement of yours in any way. And yet you are implying that I do.

But in definite TERMS offered UP in scripture, we ARE able to 'judge' what is RIGHT and what is WRONG in our OWN HEARTS. That IS the NATURE of The Spirit.

I am inclined to agree with this, but are you saying that "because my heart tells me infant baptism is not a good idea, then that judgement of mine must be correct"? If you are indeed saying this, surely you realize that I would respond to that by making a similar claim - my heart tells me that infant baptism is God's will.

And I am NOT one to condemn others for doing so. I would simply offer that there is A MUCH DEEPER relationship POSSIBLE when we are CONFORMED to the TRUTH. For EVERY SINGLE THING that we DO that is contradictory to The Spirit makes it THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to be IN The Spirit. But, from what I have learned here on the forums, that is NOT the deciding 'factor' for MANY.

The way you write this makes it seem that you see your spiritual judgements to be authoritative. Surely you realize that I could easily make the same claim about my position.

I suggest that there are many scripturally grounded reasons to baptise infants even though I agree there is no specific instruction to do so. Perhaps I will get into these in later posts.

 

[Drew]

Since we can clearly SEE that there is USUALLY a 'FEE' involved with such ritual, it is ONLY obvious to percieve that THIS is at least a MAJOR purpose of it's inception.

Not a valid argument. Do mininsters charge a fee to preside at a marriage? Of course they do. Can we therefore conclude that marriage is "invented" so that ministers can make money? Of course not.

Now we all agree that marriage is explcitly proscribed in the scriptures while infant baptism is, at best, implcitly supported. But it is entirely unfair to suggest that we resolve the issue by the cynical suggestion that infant baptism was an invention to make money.

It is MORE a matter of having the PARENTS bound than the infant actually benefitting so far as Salvation is concerned.

Clearly begs the very question at issue - you are assuming the very position that you should be making a case for. If Fran and I felt that God was not at work in baptism, in some way related to ultimate salvation, then we would not be the arguments that we are making.

In closing I offer this: It's ONE thing to state that one 'believes' something simply because that's what they CHOOSE to DO. But it's another to offer outright deception in stating that what one believes is SCRIPTURAL when it actually ISN'T.

You are giving us a clinic in begging the question. We obviously disagree that infant baptism "isn't Scriptural".

IThere is NO scriptural evidence of 'infant Baptism' EVER taking place.

This is like saying that a report that 5 houses in the US burned to cinders does not strongly imply that at least one television set was burned to cinders.

Is it possible that one could find a set of 5 adjacent houses with zero TVs in them? Of course its possible.

Is it likely? No it is not. In the 21st century US, it would be very unlikely that 5 houses would have zero TVs between them.

And the same is true in respect to the baptism of households - while we are not explicitly told that there were children in some of these "Baptized households", surely you must realize that it is far more likely than not that there were. Theirs was a culture where the only reason not to have children is if you could not.

 

[Imagican]

Drew,

IF it were ONLY 'my heart', then I would continue to study and PRAY until the answer became manifest. And IF it NEVER became clear, I simply wouldn't even DISCUSS it. I would leave it to others that HAD been offered such revelation to debate one way or the other.

But I have studied MUCH and offered MUCH prayer as concerns the matter in which we debate. And the answer that has been GIVEN is that there is NO evidence nor PURPOSE so far as GOD is concerned when it comes to 'infant Baptism'.

But we CAN clearly SEE that there IS a purpose IN IT so far as WHO it really benfits. For we all KNOW that a 'payment' is expected by those that perform such rituals.

So, you WANT to have your children Baptised? It has NO effect ON me. I have simply tried to offer OTHERS that they need NOT 'buy in' to such teachings. For there is NO evidence that it has EVER offered ANYTHING to anyone other than those to which payment is made, (and perhaps some 'peace of mind' for those that have been TAUGHT to believe in it).

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

So, you WANT to have your children Baptised? It has NO effect ON me. I have simply tried to offer OTHERS that they need NOT 'buy in' to such teachings. For there is NO evidence that it has EVER offered ANYTHING to anyone other than those to which payment is made, (and perhaps some 'peace of mind' for those that have been TAUGHT to believe in it).

Please provide some evidence that the first Christians accepted payments for baptizing their infants. If you cannot, your "offerings" are slander, which we KNOW cannot come from God. The more you speak, the more we find out who your "father" is, since only someone directed by a demon would make up such stuff to post and try to win points...