Infant Baptism Is Just As Valid As Adult Baptism

[Imagican]

Drew, Fran,

I believe that the PROBLEM involved with 'infant baptism' is the FACT that there is NO indication offerd in The Word that this is of ANY benefit whatsoever. We have NO indication that ANY child was EVER Baptized according to scripture. A statement was offered previous that showed that the Jews understood the 'age of accountability' to BE 20 years. If this has CHANGED, then perhaps it would be prudent to POINT out this changer SCRIPTURALLY. Otherwise, it just APPEARS to be a 'man-made' doctrine with NO basis in scripture.

Fran,

How about we simply discuss issues without personal attacks against each other. The 'game' has 'lost it's flavor' and I find it counter productive in TRUTH. I AM still flesh but am certainly 'struggling' to get "BEYOND IT''. How about we HELP each other in this respect.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

You know that sounds very nice and even right, but the moment we start looking for some evidence of what you have said , in the Bible: we find nothing.

We don't find "evidence" in Scriptures because Paul or no one else addresses that matter. That doesn't mean it was unimportant, but that the Communities in question did not ask about it. The Bible is not a catechism, but a series of letters that, on some issues are quite vague and mention little about common practices.

For example, HOW EXACTLY do you baptize? What are the words? The prayers? The material? The age of the recipient? What does the recipient do or wear? These were pertinent questions that Paul never addresses, because it is presumed that this was addressed orally or in other lettesr, such as the Didache, written about the same time as Paul's letters, which DOES address the above questions.

No incident of a baptism of a child that were kept in "cold storage" until the day the child decides to walk the walk.

How about me? How about anyone who "reverts" back to the faith of their childhood without a "new baptismal" ceremony? I am going to have to disagree with you, from my own experience. I didn't need to get baptized again. It is that the Spirit planted something within me that did not grow much until many years later.

In very many cases, these infants who were baptized, never walk with God.

You keep confusing the walk with baptism. I do not know why. The Bible very clearly tells us that even adults who were baptised in the proper "Cornelius" way fell away. Some even left the Church, teaching false teachings. Simon the Magician and Ananias/Sapphira spring to mind very early in the life of the Church. As I have struggled to say, God offers the gift freely, but WE are given the choice to respond. Choosing the light or the darkness is up to us, in the end. WE condemn ourselves if we choose the darkness. But this is refering to the walk AFTER baptism.

Some of my family (all of whom were baptized as infants) have died without God. Some of them even told my mother that she is driving my father away with her religion. Their "baptism" means nothing.

It did not mean "nothing". Unfortunately, your family - according to you - chose darkness, rather than the light. However, the choice was given to THEM. EACH of them had the opportunity to choose the Way, the Truth, and the Light. You continue to confuse between baptism and the choice we make in our walk.

On the other hand: Those who have come to repentance and are obedient got baptized after coming to the Lord.

Again, I ask you. Is there Scriptural precedent for people being healed, spiritually or physically, but had not asked God for that salvation, that healing?

Certainly, for adults, we repent and are baptized. But you are again forgetting that other people can "repent" for the sake of another.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I believe that the PROBLEM involved with 'infant baptism' is the FACT that there is NO indication offerd in The Word that this is of ANY benefit whatsoever. We have NO indication that ANY child was EVER Baptized according to scripture.

Do we have any indication that a child was refused baptism? Perhaps you should consider reading the thread's previous posts, since this has already been covered, to include the Scriptural warrants that you refuse to see.

How about we simply discuss issues without personal attacks against each other. The 'game' has 'lost it's flavor' and I find it counter productive in TRUTH. I AM still flesh but am certainly 'struggling' to get "BEYOND IT''. How about we HELP each other in this respect.

How about you practice what you preach and not make ridiculous strawman arguments that I never made...

 

[francisdesales]

Here is something that British theologian NT Wright has to say on the matter of baptizing infants:

Covenant theology certainly plays a role here, and I’m grateful you leave it that vague, because describing what covenant theology is and how it works would take too long right now! The cross-over from circumcision to baptism, as the people of God move from BC to AD, is significantly marked in e.g. Colossians 2, and though there are obvious differences (only males got circumcised, whereas females too get baptized, a point with resonances in Gal 3.27-28) there is a strong sense in the NT that God’s people in Christ are all, including children, to be marked with the covenant sign. This of course raises all kinds of other well known questions and problems, but actually granted the more or less universal practice of the church until comparatively modern times the real question ought to be, what is the biblical justification for NOT baptizing children? Baptism signifies membership in Christ... of course the follow-up question is always, how can children have the faith which is the sole badge of that membership, and part of my answer (only part, but it needs to be said) is that as a parent I know I can communicate with a tiny child, can give and receive love  and if God, the father of all, from whom all families take their name, cannot likewise give and receive love, then I am shocked and surprised. And how might God do that? Well, perhaps it might have something to do with bringing the child into the family of the church under the sign which speaks powerfully of the death and resurrection of Jesus...

This is the result of pondering Scriptures with the Spirit, rather than automatically resounding like a clamouring gong and claiming, "it's not in the Bible so it can't be true"...

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

We don't find "evidence" in Scriptures because Paul or no one else addresses that matter.

Agree, there is no evidence for this in the Bible.

That doesn't mean it was unimportant, but that the Communities in question did not ask about it. The Bible is not a catechism, but a series of letters that, on some issues are quite vague and mention little about common practices.

Here we disagree. God left nothing out of His Word. If He did, His Word would not be perfect.

For example, HOW EXACTLY do you baptize? What are the words? The prayers? The material? The age of the recipient? What does the recipient do or wear? These were pertinent questions that Paul never addresses, because it is presumed that this was addressed orally or in other lettesr, such as the Didache, written about the same time as Paul's letters, which DOES address the above questions.

No Paul never addresses these questions because he knew that when the Pharisees asked a similar question they received the following answer from Jesus: Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Jesus said this because the Pharisees were concerned with the the "how" of the ritual. By being concerned about the "how" , showed Him that they did not know the real meaning of what was written, although they were indeed the "church" of the day and they were teachers in that "church"

How about me? How about anyone who "reverts" back to the faith of their childhood without a "new baptismal" ceremony? I am going to have to disagree with you, from my own experience. I didn't need to get baptized again. It is that the Spirit planted something within me that did not grow much until many years later.

If you believe that it is because of your baptism, you believe it is the act of baptism that did this and not God that called you regardless of the ritual. We were talking about grace a while back.....?

You must also not confuse your lack of real baptism to be OK.You say "I did not need to get baptized again" is just your view. God is very clear that you must be baptized AFTER you come to repentance. Repentance is not joining a denomination, no matter what we think that denomination represents. If our walk is with our church and what it teaches, we have a walk with your church.

You keep confusing the walk with baptism. I do not know why

You have just done it in your previous sentence.

The Bible very clearly tells us that even adults who were baptised in the proper "Cornelius" way fell away. Some even left the Church, teaching false teachings. Simon the Magician and Ananias/Sapphira spring to mind very early in the life of the Church. As I have struggled to say, God offers the gift freely, but WE are given the choice to respond. Choosing the light or the darkness is up to us, in the end. WE condemn ourselves if we choose the darkness. But this is refering to the walk AFTER baptism.

That is true. That is because baptism is not what saves you.Its your obedience to the Word that saves you.

It did not mean "nothing". Unfortunately, your family - according to you - chose darkness, rather than the light. However, the choice was given to THEM. EACH of them had the opportunity to choose the Way, the Truth, and the Light. You continue to confuse between baptism and the choice we make in our walk.

No, some of them were just not chosen by God.

Again, I ask you. Is there Scriptural precedent for people being healed, spiritually or physically, but had not asked God for that salvation, that healing?

Of course there is, but we are talking about baptism. Not ALL things fall into the same category in the Scriptures and we must not try and push everything into the same hole. Baptism has is "rules"and the are clear :1) Repent and 2) be baptized. Why would we want to argue with Jesus about this?

Certainly, for adults, we repent and are baptized. But you are again forgetting that other people can "repent" for the sake of another.

No, it really is not possible. Each man must come and accept that forgiveness for himself. There is no example where we can repent for another and to teach this, is really to miss something really important about our walk. It misses the fact that in the New Testament, God moves very much to the individual . I can talk a lot about this,but I have to go now. Its Saturday morning and I have to gooooooooooo........

 

[n2thelight]

When we get Baptized, it is an act of faith and obedience; obedience because our Lord told us to do it, and faith in that when we get Baptized we are declaring that we believe that Christ Jesus died and rose again. It is a type of that which we do when we go under the water as Christ went into the tomb, and we come out of the water as Christ rose from the dead. It is a statement of faith as much as it is obedience to our Lord.

Acts 8:36-37
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV)

What does an infant believe?

 

[Imagican]

So, basically the attitude is: Well, it can't HURT so 'why not'? If this is the stand on the issue, then we can see that the answer to the OP is 'no'. Or at BEST, I DON'T KNOW, but what the heck. For the question is, "Is infant Baptism AS valid as Adult Baptism''. 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.
And really and truthfully, what 'guilt' could be contained within the heart of an INFANT? What GUILT that God could NOT overlook to begin with?

Now, what has been offered so far as concerns God's ability to DO WORK in one's life ACCORDING to Baptism, it would appear that 'infant Baptism' is MORE an act of 'wishful thinking' than actual evidence as offered up in scripture. That it has become 'common practice' in certain denominations has NO bearing on it being legitimate or NOT except in THEIR practice.

And that, my friends, is kind of like the man that says, "Hey, if God is NOT real and I don't believe, then I have lost NOTHING. But IF He DOES exist, believing could make all the difference in the world. Therefore it would be PRUDENT to 'believe' JUST IN CASE. For if I believe and He's NOT real, I have LOST little.

Such pretenses will have little effect in truth. Maybe offer some consolation to the individual who believes thus, but in reality, of NO valid compensation whatsoever in the 'big picture'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

In MY opinion, (not that it has MUCH value here), I would contend that 'infant Baptism' was designed to 'gain further lucre' and to insure that the parents PROMISE to raise their children in 'A PARTICULAR FAITH'. There is a LOT to be said of the promises of those that are faithful. And the KEY to MANY denominations is 'catchin' em EARLY'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

In MY opinion, (not that it has MUCH value here), I would contend that 'infant Baptism' was designed to 'gain further lucre' and to insure that the parents PROMISE to raise their children in 'A PARTICULAR FAITH'. There is a LOT to be said of the promises of those that are faithful. And the KEY to MANY denominations is 'catchin' em EARLY'.

Blessings,

MEC

Yea, those pesky Jews, circumcising their children... How dare they...

 

[francisdesales]

Here we disagree. God left nothing out of His Word. If He did, His Word would not be perfect.

Where do you find the concept that the "Bible" is perfect and that "nothing was left out"? Yet again, you show that you have no problems inventing or circumventing what the Scripture actually say. The bible ITSELF says things were left out, if you read the end of John's Gospel. In addition, Paul says that we are to hold onto ALL TRADITIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN. Do you see anywhere in the bible where that is abrogated, or is this another of your "pick and choose doctrines"? Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus wanted a Bible written OR that He would "ensure" that "nothing was left out"? It is a collection of the writings of the Apostles, recognized as inspired writings from God. Where is this idea that "nothing was left out"?

Clearly, the Bible suggests that infants were baptized in some quarters. Early history tells us that some Christians baptized their infants, though not everyone. Really, there is no evidence to the contrary and you have yet to provide a paradigm of Baptism that DEMANDS that a person must, himself, do any sort of work before receiving the call and the Spirit.

No Paul never addresses these questions because he knew that when the Pharisees asked a similar question they received the following answer from Jesus: Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.

Has nothing to do with the topic... More smoke and mirrors.

If you believe that it is because of your baptism, you believe it is the act of baptism that did this and not God that called you regardless of the ritual. We were talking about grace a while back.....?

God does the work of Baptism. We are born from above during baptism. Tell me, how many times does one have to repeat themselves before you start accepting that is what we believe?

You must also not confuse your lack of real baptism to be OK.

[/quote][/quote]

And here is where you prove your mettle.

You think you are born from below, and that you have to have a certain "quality" of faith from yourself before it is "real". In other words, you are born from below, not above.

Really, this is the heart of the matter. Your "way" has you being born by your own will, by your own proclamation of faith, rather than from God from above.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Where do you find the concept that the "Bible" is perfect and that "nothing was left out"? Yet again, you show that you have no problems inventing or circumventing what the Scripture actually say. The bible ITSELF says things were left out, if you read the end of John's Gospel. In addition, Paul says that we are to hold onto ALL TRADITIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN. Do you see anywhere in the bible where that is abrogated, or is this another of your "pick and choose doctrines"? Where does the Bible suggest that Jesus wanted a Bible written OR that He would "ensure" that "nothing was left out"? It is a collection of the writings of the Apostles, recognized as inspired writings from God. Where is this idea that "nothing was left out"?

I truly feel sorry for you and I am not being nasty or sarcastic.

Clearly, the Bible suggests that infants were baptized in some quarters.

No it does not.

Early history tells us that some Christians baptized their infants, though not everyone. Really, there is no evidence to the contrary and you have yet to provide a paradigm of Baptism that DEMANDS that a person must, himself, do any sort of work before receiving the call and the Spirit.

There is no evidence in the Bible for infant baptism

Has nothing to do with the topic... More smoke and mirrors.

Of course it has. It is the same thing that you are doing. Saying "what to wear, how to baptize, etc " You want the method to be right, just like the Pharisees were concerned about the ritual of the hand washing.

It has to do with the heart of the person, not the clothing or the words.

God does the work of Baptism. We are born from above during baptism.

Nonsense brother. You are born from above as you accept the Word of God into your heart.

Tell me, how many times does one have to repeat themselves before you start accepting that is what we believe?

I am not convinced by repetition. I am convinced by truth.

And here is where you prove your mettle.

You think you are born from below, and that you have to have a certain "quality" of faith from yourself before it is "real". In other words, you are born from below, not above.

Where on earth do you get this from LOL

Really, this is the heart of the matter. Your "way" has you being born by your own will, by your own proclamation of faith, rather than from God from above.

I have done this many times for you, but let me do it again.

God chooses the elect (Grace ) (not the parents or the Church by and through baptism)(no proxy)
The elect responds, because God has prepared their hearts (Grace )
The elect repents, because repentance is a gift (Grace)
To show forth this grace, we now get baptized. We go into the water and under the water (death to self) now we get up out of the water (resurrected life of Christ)
Now we can start our walk .We also have to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

So , its all grace. And as a Christian starts this walk, the rebirth starts happening . Christ (the Word) enters into our hearts, when we read the Word. His nature, character and authority, replaces our old natures (that is being born again from above) Now we must start becoming less, and He (the Word ) must become more.

 

[Imagican]

I will HAVE to agree with Fran on the issue of the Bible BEING complete understanding. it is ONLY the BEGINNING of understanding.

Very LITTLE was offered concerning Satan for the FACT that God does NOT want us to KNOW any MORE about Him than we are WILLING to LEARN on our OWN.

Little is written concerning DEMONS for the same REASON.

And little is offered about that which pertains to 'BEFORE our creation'.

And LITTLE is written concerning AFTER this world is CHANGED.

So, in this respect, we have the BEGINNING of understanding offered up IN The Word. MOSTLY what the Word deals with is the LEARNING of LOVE. For that is the FIRST STEP in becoming what we were DESIGNED to BE. Most likely, the MAJORITY of understanding will be offered AFTER those that are ABLE have LEARNED this LESSON.

So, The Bible is complete in that it is what God wishes for us to KNOW NOW. But I can assure you that there is MUCH MORE understanding to be offered WHEN we are ABLE to bear it.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Drew]

Drew, Fran,

I believe that the PROBLEM involved with 'infant baptism' is the FACT that there is NO indication offerd in The Word that this is of ANY benefit whatsoever. We have NO indication that ANY child was EVER Baptized according to scripture.

We have been through this extensively already. In one of the accounts of the "miracle feedings" (I do not know which - the 4000 or the 5000) in Mark, the gospel writer identifies that 4000 (or) 5000 men were fed.

Were there also women and children?

Obviously - and we know that there were from the Matthew version.

So we know that the style of writing of the time was to refer to women and children by implication.

So the absence of explcit references to the baptism of infants cannot be used to support the wisdom of not baptizing infants.

Besides, and has already been addressed, we have accounts of entire households being baptized.

It is exceedingly unlikely that none of these households would contain young children.

 

[Drew]

Agree, there is no evidence for this in the Bible.

I am going to point out that you have not responded to my argument about Romans 6.

That argument is what it is and should not be ignored.

In that argument I point out that Paul does not believe that baptism comes after repentence, it precedes repentance.

Which, of course, makes it entirely plausible that infants should be baptized.

Please address the argument.

 

[Imagican]

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.

Matthew 14:

14And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

15And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.

16But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.

17And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.

18He said, Bring them hither to me.

19And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

20And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.

21And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

22And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.

23And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone.

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.

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.

You attempt to 'brush off' my words like YOU have some sort of PROOF of that which you may as well have 'made up'. It may work with ignorant folks that you have encountered in the past, but myself, and I'm sure OTHERS INCLUDED, are not QUITE SO IGORANT as you would ASSUME.

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.

And even if there WERE children in the 'households', up until just a FEW hundred years ago, children were RARELY looked upon as VIABLE members of a household until they had reached an ADEQUATE AGE. Even in the EARLY years of THIS country, children were not even shown much of ANYTHING until the parents were SURE that they had grown OLD ENOUGH to outlive the childhood diseases that were PREVELENT back then.

So, if you have ANY reasonable evidence to offer, by all means, let us hear it. But myself, I have no NEED to hear of speculation USED to create DOCTRINE. Guesswork does NOT 'truth make'. And ALL that you have offerd so far may as well BE mere 'guesswork'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

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.

So, once again you seem to be insistant upon that which you have offered as truth when in fact you have offered NOTHING YET that could be discerned as such.

I would attempt to LEARN what it is that I speak BEFORE coming in contact with others that KNOW BETTER. For ALL that YOU have been able to do is PROVE that your understanding is quite askew.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

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.

So, once again you seem to be insistant upon that which you have offered as truth when in fact you have offered NOTHING YET that could be discerned as such.

I would attempt to LEARN what it is that I speak BEFORE coming in contact with others that KNOW BETTER. For ALL that YOU have been able to do is PROVE that your understanding is quite askew.

Perhaps you should learn what the other person's actual point of view is before you make such statements.

The issue is whether it is absolutely necessary to "repent" before receiving baptism. Is this given as a requirement? No, it is not. The Bible gives a particular order for the ordinary adult convert. Recognize you have sinned, have fallen short, and repent, asking God to forgive your sins at baptism. It becomes a sign that you are born from above. Adult baptism is the ordinary form of baptism in the Church. However, the Bible does not state that this is the ONLY way of receiving forgiveness of sins, or spiritual healing for that matter. In effect, this is the POINT of baptism, to receive forgiveness of sins. One must ask, "Does the Bible provide examples of people being healed without asking"? The answer is "yes". Thus, the paradigm of "adult only" baptism is based upon a partial understanding of God's Truth.

Thus, infant baptism, while not the ordinary form of repentance - is indeed repentance by proxy. Another has asked for healing for the sake of a third person, quite Scriptural. Considering that infants were circumcised, although not a single one asked to be circumcised, we see a ritual precedent in Scripture for the practice. Baptism is a rite of the New Covenant, replacing the Rite of Circumcision in its effect. So far, no one of the "adult only" party has swallowed that reality.

Thus, the Scripture in question does not provide an absolute paradigm for who can be baptised. The Lord does not actually say one must PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY repent BEFORE receiving Baptism. Repentance or intercessions can be made by others. Peter, speaking to a crowd of adults, naturally will make this call to adults - but he does not make it an absolute requirement, either. He, nor the Lord say anything to the effect of "you must repent of your sins, and then you are allowed to be baptised". As a matter of fact, the last words of Christ to the Apostles do not even mention repentance. They merely say "Go and Baptize". Pointing to the ordinary form does not teach us the absolute requirements.

Considering all that has been said on this issue, the bottom line is that the earliest Christians did practice infant baptism, the Bible implies it by mentioning entire households being baptized, and the Scriptural theology behind the concept is solid.

The problem is not whether infant baptism is "allowed", but whether God has chosen to do something that you don't approve of - since you have not yet provided ANY verse that says a person must be of any particular age of consent or to even absolultely repent prior to being baptized. In the end, you do not then believe in salvation by grace or being born from above.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

In MY opinion, (not that it has MUCH value here), I would contend that 'infant Baptism' was designed to 'gain further lucre' and to insure that the parents PROMISE to raise their children in 'A PARTICULAR FAITH'. There is a LOT to be said of the promises of those that are faithful. And the KEY to MANY denominations is 'catchin' em EARLY'.

Blessings,

MEC

Yea, those pesky Jews, circumcising their children... How dare they...

Now THAT was a 'covenant' with outright instruction given to Abraham.

While your comment may have 'seemed' legitimate and witty, the truth is that there is NO comparison to 'circumcision', (which was actually COMMANDED and specific INSTRUCTION offered), infant Baptism has NO SUCH command OR instruction.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

The Law was given to Moses. Was it only meant for Moses? What is your point regarding Abraham, that it was only meant for HIM???

While your comment may have 'seemed' legitimate and witty, the truth is that there is NO comparison to 'circumcision', (which was actually COMMANDED and specific INSTRUCTION offered), infant Baptism has NO SUCH command OR instruction.

Blessings,

MEC

My comments are not meant to be "witty".

You are misinformed, but as we have already seen, you will not admit this.

My comments are for those who might be reading this thread still. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that for you, I am just "casting pearls to swine"... But perhaps others may see the Truth spoken of in God's Word.

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. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Col 2:10-13

Clearly, Paul is speaking about Baptism and compares it to Circumcision.

Regards

 

[Cornelius]

Agree, there is no evidence for this in the Bible.

I am going to point out that you have not responded to my argument about Romans 6.

That argument is what it is and should not be ignored.

In that argument I point out that Paul does not believe that baptism comes after repentence, it precedes repentance.

Which, of course, makes it entirely plausible that infants should be baptized.

Please address the argument.

I am sorry Drew, but Paul does not say this in Romans 6. We have to read the rest of the Scriptures as well, we cannot go on one chapter. That is why God wrote a whole Bible.

After you repent (change your mind) about the way your lived for yourself, you then can get baptized (not before) . The the process of repentance becomes a daily thing, as we learn to live within Christ (The Word of God).

We are baptized into the nature, character and authority of Christ. The Greek word for NAME , means "nature , character and authority".

A baby cannot do this, because the mind of the person is active during repentance.There is no such thing a proxy repentance.
C