Infant Baptism.

[WIP]

Luke 1:39-44 does not say the baby "believed" it says the baby in her womb "leaped". Such surely is assuming too much.

I can only "assume" what one believes by what one writes.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
Be blessed, Billy

Okay, so now we've both been shown how we are both making assumptions. The goal of any theological discussion is not to prove which of us is the better debater but to grow in the truth and understanding. Where does that leave us? What other reason can you present to explain why John "leaped in the womb" at the sound of the voice of the Messiah's mother other than the knowledge of who Mary was and what her purpose was?

 

[chessman]

What other reason can you present to explain why John "leaped in the womb" at the sound of the voice of the Messiah's mother other than the knowledge of who Mary was and what her purpose was?

Joy!
Joy at the sound Mary's voice and joy of his being filled by the Holy Spirit.

It had been very quite for John those five months (20 weeks) at Zechariah's house inside the womb. Neither Zechariah nor Elizabeth had believed the prediction of John's birth UNTIL that day Mary arrived (with four months yet to go till his birth). Zechariah had been mute for five months and Elizabeth had been keeping herself hidden. Neither really believed they'd have a son until that day (four months out). We have the advantage of knowing the outcome. They didn't. Mary arrived at John's quickening (physically and spiritually). But the Text doesn't say John believed his cousin was the Messiah that day.

For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy! And blessed is she who believed that there will be a fulfillment to what was spoken to her from the Lord!”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:44-45&version=LEB​

Mothers (and fathers) remember and find it significant the first time they feel the baby kick inside the womb.

And Zechariah said to the angel, “By what will I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years!” And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:18-20&version=LEB​

 

[WIP]

Joy!
Joy at the sound Mary's voice and joy of his being filled by the Holy Spirit.

It had been very quite for John those five months (20 weeks) at Zechariah's house inside the womb. Neither Zechariah nor Elizabeth had believed the prediction of John's birth UNTIL that day Mary arrived (with four months yet to go till his birth). Zechariah had been mute for five months and Elizabeth had been keeping herself hidden. Neither really believed they'd have a son until that day (four months out). We have the advantage of knowing the outcome. They didn't. Mary arrived at John's quickening (physically and spiritually). But the Text doesn't say John believed his cousin was the Messiah that day.

For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy! And blessed is she who believed that there will be a fulfillment to what was spoken to her from the Lord!”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:44-45&version=LEB​

Mothers (and fathers) remember and find it significant the first time they feel the baby kick inside the womb.

And Zechariah said to the angel, “By what will I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years!” And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:18-20&version=LEB​

I'm not seeing the link between Zechariah's silence and John's response to Mary's presence. Please clarify.

Edit: by the way, thanks for pointing out the part about leaping for joy.

 

[for_his_glory]

When I read the text, I'm seeing that Elizabeth was filled with the Spirit after she heard Mary, not before. Toward the end in that same chapter, Luke 1, we can read the prophesy of John's father, Zacharias, where he foretells of what is to come regarding John. And then the very last verse says this:

"So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel." Luke 1:80 NKJV

What catches my attention is that it does not say that he was strong in the spirit nor does it say he became stronger in the spirit. It says he became strong in the spirit. This seems to indicate that he may not have had the Spirit before he was born.

Can you show me where it indicates that John was filled with the Holy Spirit prior to his growing up?

First I would say when we receive the Holy Spirit at the time of salvation, John 3:5, 6, our knowledge of the Holy Spirit is weak until we grow in the word and receive a greater understanding just as John would have grown into that which was prophesied of.

Luke says that John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb. When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, John leaped for joy and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit gave confirmation to both Elizabeth and John while in the womb just by hearing the voice of Mary that Mary was carrying Jesus as Elizabeth shouted out Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Elizabeth already knew that John would be the forerunner of Jesus and now it was all confirmed by the Holy Spirit that Jesus was now in Mary's womb. It's also like John said in John 3:29 we rejoice greatly at the sound of the voice of Jesus. Mary was that voice that caused John to leap for joy in the womb by that of Elizabeth's emotion to Mary's greeting.
John and Jesus were both of prophecy spoken that made their births much different then the average baby.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Luke 1: 41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Luke 1:44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

 

[billybalke]

Okay, so now we've both been shown how we are both making assumptions. The goal of any theological discussion is not to prove which of us is the better debater but to grow in the truth and understanding. Where does that leave us? What other reason can you present to explain why John "leaped in the womb" at the sound of the voice of the Messiah's mother other than the knowledge of who Mary was and what her purpose was?

Again, the leap is a mere assumption. Babies do leap in the mother's womb frequently. Ask any mother. Do you really think a baby in or out of the womb can understand anything? None of my children could and I've had 6 including adopted twins at three days old, and they all have done well in society.

But should we grant your position, was not John a special incident ?? Are you aware of any other infant in the womb who was filled with the Holy Spirit?? SURELY YOU MUST HAVE BETTER AND SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR INFANT BAPTISM!

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM. 16:16
Respectfully, Billy

 

[chessman]

I'm not seeing the link between Zechariah's silence and John's response to Mary's presence. Please clarify.

It was at the sound of Mary's greeting (not Zechariah's voice) that John leaped for joy. My point about Zechariah is that John hadn't heard his father's voice until after he heard Mary's voice and was filled with the Holy Spirit. His quickening didn't come from Zechariah's voice (as many babies are quickened by their fathers' voices) . In fact, Zechariah's voice returned immediately after John leaped in the womb. A reversal of role and order, so to speak. Dr. Luke indeed gave us an ordered account.

For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will never drink wine and fermented-drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still of his mother’s womb, and he [JTB] will turn-back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go-ahead before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn-back the hearts of fathers to their children, and to turn back disobedient ones with the understanding of righteous ones, to prepare a people having been made-ready for the Lord”.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:15-17&version=DLNT​

The order of events are Highly significant:
1. Zechariah was as 'righteous' as any man can get himself pre-Christ. Righteous enough to enter the inner temple. He'd washed and offered sacrifice and prayers the God heard.

2. Zechariah still had an unbelief problem and God caused him to become mute. But at the same time promised he would not only speak again but have a son.

3. Zechariah had an encounter with Jesus and the Holy Spirit there (through his son's leaping) which took away his unbelief in God's promises and his speech problem.

As for John, While in the womb Babies' hear the voices of not only their mothers but anyone else speaking or to music or loud noises. I spoke to my children by cupping my hands up to my wife's belly and my wife would tell me she could tell my girls reacted to my voice differently than hers. Even if I was just speaking to her, my girls could hear me (and my tone of voice). An old term for a baby's first 'kick' is 'quickening'. People don't use it much anymore. But past generations did.

Zechariah had not been able to speak to John until after Mary arrived and after John received the Holy Spirit. And Luke says Elizabeth had kept herself hidden. I take that quite literally. And thus John had not heard much of anyone's voice for five months. No TV noises or radio etc. either. (obviously). I envision his first five months as very quite and pretty much just his mother's heartbeat and whatever she spoke during those months. No other voices. And along comes another new voice (that of Mary's). He "jumps for joy", not so much because of him suddenly knowing/believing all that was instore for him and Jesus, but simply from the greeting of this new voice of Mary. Dr. Luke records, in my view, John's quickening physically (by his leaping) AND then spiritual quickening (by His filling by the Holy Spirit). And providence would have Jesus their as well.

Heck, Mary even sang a song to them and to the Lord (Mary's song) and John heard that too.

Additionally, I find it significant that Zechariah's voice came back that day after John leaped, a full four months prior to John's birth. But well after Zechariah had been washed. If I were making up a fictional story from scratch, wherby Zechariah was caused to be mute because of his unbelief that Elizabeth and him could have a child given their old age, I'd have Zechariah get his speech back at John's birth (not at his quickening). But Dr. Luke recorded it as it happened. Zechariah's washings before hadn't removed his unbelief problem(s), is my point.

Neither does washing an infant take away their's.

 

[WIP]

It was at the sound of Mary's greeting (not Zechariah's voice) that John leaped for joy. My point about Zechariah is that John hadn't heard his father's voice until after he heard Mary's voice and was filled with the Holy Spirit. His quickening didn't come from Zechariah's voice (as many babies are quickened by their fathers' voices) . In fact, Zechariah's voice returned immediately after John leaped in the womb. A reversal of role and order, so to speak. Dr. Luke indeed gave us an ordered account.

For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will never drink wine and fermented-drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still of his mother’s womb, and he [JTB] will turn-back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go-ahead before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn-back the hearts of fathers to their children, and to turn back disobedient ones with the understanding of righteous ones, to prepare a people having been made-ready for the Lord”.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 1:15-17&version=DLNT​

Thanks for posting this Scripture showing where John received the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. I totally missed it.

 

[billybalke]

Thanks for posting this Scripture showing where John received the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. I totally missed it.

I am doing what perhaps has never before happened on this forum. My Bible study has always been a search for truth and not to win an argument. I concede to WIP that the leap of John in his mothers womb was for a purpose and not coincidental. It was because of the Holy Spirit. Our studies should always be "What saith the scripture'', Rom.4:3. This is one reason why I personally like the one on one.

However, my comments in post #45 about it being a special incident etc. stand.

TO DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God bless, Billy

 

[billybalke]

I am not taking a position other than the one I first stated, and that is I am not certain the verse someone else posted a few years ago is conclusive.

This is more a sincere seeking then attempting to start debates or hold a position. I appreciate all the viewpoints expressed and scripture provided.

I wonder what Martin Luther's view was on the issue ?

Martin Luther's view may be found in Primary Works, pg.192 in which he writes that infant baptism is to be done by immersion and that "When the washing away of sin is attributed to baptism; it is rightly so attributed;--"

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
Billy
PS--What REALLY matters is "what saith the scripture", Rom.4:3 and not the view of any man.

 

[Apousía]

I have to admit, I am confused as to why people still do water baptisms

Is the " Call to Maturity " in the Book of Hebrews a message to modern Christians ?

That's why I don't grasp the baptisms, but I am probably misunderstanding it

 

[WIP]

I have to admit, I am confused as to why people still do water baptisms

Is the " Call to Maturity " in the Book of Hebrews a message to modern Christians ?

That's why I don't grasp the baptisms, but I am probably misunderstanding it

I look to Jesus as our example and He required it of Himself. When we claim the title "Christian" we are declaring our desire to follow Him and in so doing, baptism would be included.

 

[chessman]

I look to Jesus as our example

Did Jesus make His own decision to get baptized or did Mary and Joseph make it for Him?

 

[WIP]

Did Jesus make His own decision to get baptized or did Mary and Joseph make it for Him?

I was responding to Apousia's questioning why we get baptized. My answer is, "Because Jesus did."

 

[billybalke]

I was responding to Apousia's questioning why we get baptized. My answer is, "Because Jesus did."

One more reason, for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38

 

[WIP]

One more reason, for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38

That too.

 

[chessman]

I was responding to Apousia's questioning why we get baptized. My answer is, "Because Jesus did."

Since Jesus' baptism is a geat example to follow, shouldn't we make our own decision as He did as to when, where and who should baptize us?

 

[Apousía]

It's an interesting thing, when we look at all the verses that use this phrasing " remission of sin " you mentioned in Acts

( I personally like to look at all the verses that use a phrase / term, and not just one, because I feel it gives a better basis for exegesis )

They really seem to diverge to two groups:

~ those that mention the sacrifice of Christ for remission of sin
~ those that speak of baptisms in addition to repentance

Starting with:


Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Luk 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins

Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation ( atonement , ie; sacrifice ) through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these ( sins ) is, there is no more offering for sin.

-----------------------

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

Luk 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Act 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.

----------------------


You have verses like Hebrews 9:22 , which says there is " no remission of sin " ( without Christ's sacrifice ), then you have verses like Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 saying that " baptism of repentance " is required for remission of sin

...so....even if we were to baptize in water, ....without Christ's sacrifice......baptism is merely a ritual washing that dates back to the High Priest's cleansing rituals ( Immersion into the ritual bath - the Mikveh )

Where verses like Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 do indeed mention baptisms, at surface level, they seem to only mention baptism " of repentance " , ( as opposed to water )

The verses ( above ) as a whole, do not put forth a clause that implies:

" Without repenting, baptism is meaningless "

or

" Without baptism, repenting is meaningless "

...but they do indeed imply that without the sacrifice of Christ, ritual washing is just ......taking a bath


Where Hebrews ( the Call to maturity ) speaks of not laying again a foundation ( of things like ritual washing ), it uses the word

βαπτισμος baptismos {bap-tis-mos'} from 907; T - washing 3, baptism ) a washing, purification effected by means of water 1a) of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:10) which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptism


Where you have Mark 26:28 saying that the shedding of Christ's blood is for the remission of sin, it also seems to imply that first and foremost, remission of sin is by way of Christ's sacrifice, and not solely resting on ritual washing

You have really two types of baptisms laid forth in the scriptures:

~ Baptism of water
~ Baptism of repentance

------------------------------------

These are just my musings though, I personally think however God brings you into the fold,... is however he does ;)

I am certain that as members of the " cloud of witnesses ", that we all have our story of how we came to Christ, and that they are are different

I personally was never given a water baptism, for the record

----------------------------------

I also think it's interesting to note that:

" be baptized " βαπτιζω - baptizo ( Strong's 907 ) which is from Strong's 911:

βαπτω bapto {bap'-to} to dip, dip in, immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour

....as there is a profound connection to the color red and the practice of using the " scarlet worm " to dye garments

( coccus ilicis )

Exo 16:24 And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.
Job 17:14 I have said to corruption, Thou art my father: to the worm, Thou art my mother, and my sister.
Job 24:20 The womb shall forget him; the worm shall feed sweetly on him; he shall be no more remembered; and wickedness shall be broken as a tree.
Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
Psa 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
Isa 14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
Isa 41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 51:8 For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
Jon 4:7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.
Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mar 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

 

[WIP]

Since Jesus' baptism is a geat example to follow, shouldn't we make our own decision as He did as to when, where and who should baptize us?

Since I was baptized as an infant, is my water baptism of no value and do I have a responsibility to submit to being baptized again? If so...where, when, and by whom? Should I plan a trip so it can be done in the Jordan river? Am I now too old since I am long past 30? And who should I find to perform the baptism?

Unfortunately, John isn't here to baptize us. Who then can take his place? Matthew 28 shows us that Jesus' disciples were granted the authority to do it. But since they are long gone, who then? Are all disciples of Jesus given this authority?

What I believe Jesus demonstrated for us was not the when, where, and who but rather the what. Scripture backs this up by demonstrating other baptisms of various individuals, by various persons, in various places, and at all walks of life.

 

[chessman]

Since I was baptized as an infant, is my water baptism of no value and do I have a responsibility to submit to being baptized again?

1) I would say your infant baptism had value (especially for those in attendance), just not salvific value for your soul or for those in attendance (nor did Jesus' water baptism save Him from perishing). God (all three) saved His soul from perishing.
2)

If so...where, when, and by whom?

If you claim to be following Jesus' example of Baptism;
3) where = the place where it pleased God for you to became a son of God seems like a great place.
4) when = it should happen sometime after you prayed to God for salvation (not before) and the Holy Spirit descended inside of you
5) by whom = by someone whom has that same Holy Spirit indwelling him/her.

Now it happened that when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized, and while he was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 3:21-22&version=LEB​

Should I plan a trip so it can be done in the Jordan river?

6) not necessarily. All the hills and valleys surrounding the Jordan are also inhabited by the Holy Spirit.

And he went into all the surrounding region of the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight! Every valley will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be leveled, and the crooked will become straight, and the rough road will become smooth, and all flesh will see the salvation of God.’”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke 3:3-6&version=LEB​

Am I now too old since I am long past 30?

7) no. All the days since your birth from above (being born again) are available to observe Christ's example. Just not the days prior to your becoming a son of God as Christ never taught to baptize someone prior to their birth from above.

Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 28:19-20&version=LEB​

And who should I find to perform the baptism?

8) Someone who preceded your new-birth with a filling of the Holy Spirit themselves.

Unfortunately, John isn't here to baptize us. Who then can take his place?

9) see my answer to your 8th question.

Matthew 28 shows us that Jesus' disciples were granted the authority to do it.

Yep. Commanded to do "it" actually. Which is why someone with His Spirit living in them will follow His command and only baptize a person who has first been made a disciple and "baptizing them" (taught disciples not untaught non-disciples).

Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew 28:19-20&version=LEB​

But since they are long gone, who then?

10) pretty much anyone similarly indwelt which the same Holy Spirit they had in them.

Are all disciples of Jesus given this authority?

Given the same command, yes.

What I believe Jesus demonstrated for us was not the when, where, and who but rather the what.

I believe "it" (baptized those who have become a follower) was demonstrated and commanded for us to go and do likewise.

Scripture backs this up by demonstrating other baptisms of various individuals, by various persons, in various places, and at all walks of life.

Where does Scripture back-up a water baptism in the name of the Holy Spirit prior to a new-birth by the Holy Spirit?

 

[gr8grace3]

Thanks for posting this Scripture showing where John received the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. I totally missed it.

Luke 1:15~~King James Bible
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

from~~ek/ex
ek or ex: from, from out of
Original Word: ἐκ, ἐξ
Part of Speech: Preposition
Transliteration: ek or ex
Phonetic Spelling: (ek)
Short Definition: from out, out from among, from
Definition: from out, out from among, from, suggesting from the interior outwards.
HELPS Word-studies
1537 ek (a preposition, written eks before a vowel) – properly, "out fromand to" (the outcome); out from within. 1537 /ek ("out of") is one of the most under-translated (and therefore mis-translated) Greek propositions – often being confined to the meaning "by." 1537 (ek) has a two-layered meaning ("out from and to") which makes it out-come oriented (out of the depths of the source and extending to its impact on the object).

Judges 13:5
"For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines."

John was filled with the Spirit when he was out of(ek/ex) the womb.