What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Infant Baptism.

wondering said:
However, the CC does not teach that we are imputed with that sin.
402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin
Click to expand...
Being implicated in Adam's sin means that one has participated in it.
wondering said:
403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted,
Click to expand...
Adam's specific sin is transmitted to all. All are born afflicted with Adam's sin.
wondering said:
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin
Click to expand...
That tells us that Adam's sin became our sin because "The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man"."

So, the concept of "Original Sin" actually does teach that we are all guilty of Adam's sin.

iakov the fool
 
billybalke said:
Then the scripture is "erroneous", read Mk. 16:15,16.
Click to expand...
Scripture is completely free of error.
Your interpretations are not.
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" is a statement that there are two requirements for salvation: belief and baptism.
It says absolutely NOTHING abut the order of those events.
To teach order it would need to have said "He who first believes and then is baptized will be saved." It doesn't say that.
That's what billybalke says, not Mark.
You are inserting words into the scripture that do not belong there.

iakov the fool
 
Jim Parker said:
Scripture is completely free of error.
Your interpretations are not.
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved" is a statement that there are two requirements for salvation: belief and baptism.
It says absolutely NOTHING abut the order of those events.
To teach order it would need to have said "He who first believes and then is baptized will be saved." It doesn't say that.
That's what billybalke says, not Mark.
You are inserting words into the scripture that do not belong there.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...

Please tell us WHAT comes first in Mk.16:16, Jesus said BELIEVETH then He said IS BAPTIZED. Thats not Billy Balke but Jesus.
Lets try another passage: ''BUT WHEN THEY BELIEVED PHILIP PREACHING THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, THEY WERE BAPTIZED, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN'' Acts 8:12. Now, please tell us, WHICH came first, believed or baptized?? I still prefer the Bible order. It has belief first, then baptism.
TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God, bless
 
billybalke said:
Please tell us WHAT comes first in Mk.16:16, Jesus said BELIEVETH then He said IS BAPTIZED. Thats not Billy Balke but Jesus.
Lets try another passage: ''BUT WHEN THEY BELIEVED PHILIP PREACHING THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, THEY WERE BAPTIZED, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN'' Acts 8:12. Now, please tell us, WHICH came first, believed or baptized?? I still prefer the Bible order. It has belief first, then baptism.
TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God, bless
Click to expand...
At Mark 16, Jesus did NOT say "He that believes and THEN is baptized..."
That indicates two events in occurring in sequence. But that's not what Jesus said.
Jesus said, "He who believes AND is baptized..."
That indicates two events without any reference to sequence.
If you cannot see the difference then you will never extract the teaching of scripture from your own preconceptions.
You are attempting to force the scripture to say what it does not say. (the Gospel according to billybalke)

Acts 16:16 is the report of people hearing the Gospel, believing and being baptized. It is not a theological statement setting down the necessary sequence of belief and baptism. It says nothing about infant baptism.
and
At Acts 16:15 Lydia and her whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and and very young children.
At Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and any very young children.

iakov the fool
 
Creative said:
I just noticed here a long ago thread that quoted Mathew 16:16 as evidence against infant baptism:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

The post interpreted that the meaning here is that only a believer receives the baptism. Since an infant cannot believe there cannot be a valid baptism.

I do not believe that verse can be clearly interpreted to have that meaning. While the verse has the words believes and baptized in the same sentence it does not seem to exclusively imply that belief is necessary. In fact, the verse goes on to say that belief is necessary for salvation, not necessarily baptism.

In Acts 16 31-33 a jailer and his household is baptized and no mention of an infant is made, but that does not exclude the possibility.

Acts 2 38-41 states repent all of you and be baptized... the promise is for you and your children....

In Mark 1 5 it reads;

The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him, Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Were infants excluded from the whole countryside or city ? Also you do not baptize yourself, someone does it for you, is belief necessary for baptism ? If not can infant baptism be valid ?

Yet there is more to it. Col. 2 11-12

In whom you are also circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism: in whom you are risen again by the faith...

A Jewish boy is circumcised as an infant on his 8th day.

I don't see conclusive evidence either way.
Click to expand...
If a child were baptized shortly after birth and this meaning they were born into a Christian faith family, would they be refused the kingdom when they passed on? Would that occur if they lived their entire life in the faith?
I don't believe so.
The Father knows whom He shall call to His Son and before even this world came into being. Is it then a matter of the timing that makes men quibble, baptized as an infant, baptized rather as a willing accountable older individual, when all is accomplished as the Father wills.
Who can gainsay when baptism matters when the Father receives his own because he knew them before they became fleshly matter. Just as He knew whom among his creation would heed the call.
 
Jim Parker said:
That is not what baptism "means."
See Ro 6:3-10
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my writing, or I poorly represented my thoughts.

"If a child were baptized shortly after birth and this meaning they were born into a Christian faith family," Is to say, a child that is baptized as an infant can be presumed to be member of a Christian faith family.
I hope my rewording my thoughts assists in understanding. My apologies that my first writing was not more precise.
 
Jim Parker said:
At Acts 16:15 Lydia and her whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and and very young children.
Click to expand...

You are attempting to force the scripture to say what it does not say. (the Gospel according to Jim)

Does it say infants and very young children (or her livestock for that matter) were baptized or did you insert that idea?

And a certain woman named Lydia from the city of Thyatira, a merchant dealing in purple cloth who showed reverence for God, was listening. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was being said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household, she urged us, saying, “If you consider me to be a believer in the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.​
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Acts 16:14-15&version=LEB

Does it say she was baptized after the Lord opened her heart or before?

Did she prevail upon them to come to her house before or after saying "come to my house"?

Was she baptized first or her household?
 
Jim Parker said:
Being implicated in Adam's sin means that one has participated in it.

Adam's specific sin is transmitted to all. All are born afflicted with Adam's sin.

That tells us that Adam's sin became our sin because "The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man"."

So, the concept of "Original Sin" actually does teach that we are all guilty of Adam's sin.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...
Jim,
Do you see a difference between:
sin being imputed
sin being propogated ?
 
Jim Parker said:
At Mark 16, Jesus did NOT say "He that believes and THEN is baptized..."
That indicates two events in occurring in sequence. But that's not what Jesus said.
Jesus said, "He who believes AND is baptized..."
That indicates two events without any reference to sequence.
If you cannot see the difference then you will never extract the teaching of scripture from your own preconceptions.
You are attempting to force the scripture to say what it does not say. (the Gospel according to billybalke)

Acts 16:16 is the report of people hearing the Gospel, believing and being baptized. It is not a theological statement setting down the necessary sequence of belief and baptism. It says nothing about infant baptism.
and
At Acts 16:15 Lydia and her whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and and very young children.
At Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and any very young children.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...

Hi Jim. Its late and I'll be gone much of tomorrow but not to worry, I'll get back and answer your post as soon as possible.
God bless,
Blly
 
billybalke said:
Then the scripture is "erroneous", read Mk. 16:15,16.
Click to expand...
I already pointed out that the use of "and" does not necessarily have to imply an order of events.

I will share with you that I am tall and thin. Which of these two characteristics do you think happened first?
 
billybalke said:
Please tell us WHAT comes first in Mk.16:16, Jesus said BELIEVETH then He said IS BAPTIZED. Thats not Billy Balke but Jesus.
Lets try another passage: ''BUT WHEN THEY BELIEVED PHILIP PREACHING THE THINGS CONCERNING THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, THEY WERE BAPTIZED, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN'' Acts 8:12. Now, please tell us, WHICH came first, believed or baptized?? I still prefer the Bible order. It has belief first, then baptism.
TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God, bless
Click to expand...
No need to yell. Let's keep our cool.
 
Jim Parker said:
At Mark 16, Jesus did NOT say "He that believes and THEN is baptized..."
That indicates two events in occurring in sequence. But that's not what Jesus said.
Jesus said, "He who believes AND is baptized..."
That indicates two events without any reference to sequence.
If you cannot see the difference then you will never extract the teaching of scripture from your own preconceptions.
You are attempting to force the scripture to say what it does not say. (the Gospel according to billybalke)

Acts 16:16 is the report of people hearing the Gospel, believing and being baptized. It is not a theological statement setting down the necessary sequence of belief and baptism. It says nothing about infant baptism.
and
At Acts 16:15 Lydia and her whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and and very young children.
At Acts 16:33 the Philippian jailer and his whole household were baptized. That would include any infants and any very young children.

iakov the fool
Click to expand...

I didn't nor did Jesus say in Mk.16:16 "he that believes and THEN is baptized. You are putting words in my mouth, please refrain. Jesus did say and I repeat His words: "He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved--". The word "and" is a copulative conjunction joining two things together of equal importance. Whatever belief is for, baptism is for, AND, like it or not the order is believe first, followed by baptism.

I have given you thus far the Bible order (not mime):
1. Mk.16:15,16, believe first, followed by baptism
2. Acts 8:12, believe first followed by baptism. BTW, you ignored this verse.
3. Now one more. Acts 8:13: "THEN, SIMON HIMSELF BELIEVED ALSO: AND WHEN HE WAS BAPTIZED---"
Please tell us the order in this verse. Is it not belief, baptism? Three passages in a row, and the order does NOT change.

Then you bring up the household of Lydia. She was a merchant of purple and on a mercantile trip. She was from Thyatira some 300 miles distant. Its not too likely infants would accompany her on this business journey. Indeed, infants are not mentioned in the text and you build a false doctrine upon a flimsy premise.

You mention the Philippin jailer and his house hold. The comments on Lydia's household apply here. Its a rather dangerous thing to base a cardinal doctrine on an if.

You mention Acts 16:16 but I see no content in it to attach to our subject.



I challenge you to find one verse where belief (or its equivalent) and baptism (water baptism) are together when the ORDER is not belief, followed by baptism.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top