Infant Baptism.

[barelohim]

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.

Water baptism is a baptism for repentance...... so says Paul in Acts 19. So unless a babe has something to repent from, it is not required.

 

[barelohim]

First answer me this:

Is there history OUTSIDE of scripture?
Or does history not exist?

What church, according to you, was around about 50 years after Jesus' death?

The churchs that Peter started and Paul started, that took place in peoples houses.

 

[barelohim]

??
What is Original Sin in your opinion?
Are we born with any sin?
Are we born good?

Please clarify.
What does Jesus being the last Adam have to do with this?
I can't make the connection...
WHY is it necessary for Jesus to be the last Adam?

Original sin was that which came through the first adam. The sin, since Christ, are acts of unrighteous behaviour. " For all unrighteousness is sin!" No one is born good, but they do not inherit original sin of the first adam. What you call " good " is off the same tree. The tree of knowledge of good and evil...

 

[WIP]

Thank you. Will you please provide ONE passage where the context involves BELIEF (or its equivalent) and BAPTISM where the order is not belief first followed by baptism. I believe the Holy Spirit put it like that for a reason and its incumbent on us to accept as written.

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

I know of none and that's my point. By use of the word "and" the text doesn't specifically specify that belief must come first before baptism. As others have already pointed out, if the text had used the word "then" it would definitely define an order.

The first explanation I've seen so far that comes close to supporting the sequential order is this post by chessman where he referenced Matthew 28:19.

 

[barelohim]

Thank you. Will you please provide ONE passage where the context involves BELIEF (or its equivalent) and BAPTISM where the order is not belief first followed by baptism. I believe the Holy Spirit put it like that for a reason and its incumbent on us to accept as written.

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

I agree with your statement. I find that many Catholics don't read their bibles'

 

[WIP]

Sorry that post was for " wondering "

Yes, I know but I wasn't seeing the statement in what you quoted. There are others that read this so I'm looking for clarity.

 

[WIP]

Thank you. Will you please provide ONE passage where the context involves BELIEF (or its equivalent) and BAPTISM where the order is not belief first followed by baptism. I believe the Holy Spirit put it like that for a reason and its incumbent on us to accept as written.

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

The post I referenced. It was here and when I read it, it sounded like you were yelling so I asked that we refrain from doing so.

 

[billybalke]

The post I referenced. It was here and when I read it, it sounded like you were yelling so I asked that we refrain from doing so.

Is putting some words in caps against the forum rule. If so I'd like to read it. Again, I do not recall any post I made in which all was in caps.

I still await proof from anyone where belief or its equlivent and baptism are used in the same context where baptism does not follow belief.

 

[billybalke]

I know of none and that's my point. By use of the word "and" the text doesn't specifically specify that belief must come first before baptism. As others have already pointed out, if the text had used the word "then" it would definitely define an order.

The first explanation I've seen so far that comes close to supporting the sequential order is this post by chessman where he referenced Matthew 28:19.

Then how do you explain the fact that every context including belief and baptism always has belief first followed by baptism? Thats Bible not Balke.

 

[GodsGrace]

The churchs that Peter started and Paul started, that took place in peoples houses.

OK.
And are we still meeting in houses?
Did the church grow by leaps and bounds?
Was there not an organized church at some point?
What was it called... the one AFTER The Way found in Acts.

If you think there was a jump somewhere, WHERE was it?
When did this "jump" start?

You see, I'm asking a lot of questions because some hate the CC so much that they can't even admit that it was the first church.

Nothing I say will convince you. So you should just look into history and accept the truth. Catholic means universal. It was called the catholic church because it was the ONE church.

Many heresies came about the first few hundred years after Jesus resurrected.
The universal church kept these heresies out of the church, so even though we may not agree with their doctrine, we do have to be thankful that they were around back then.

I just don't understand how history could be doubted...
Who do you suppose put the bible together?
The Lutheran church?
Or the Assembly of God church?

See?

 

[GodsGrace]

Original sin was that which came through the first adam. The sin, since Christ, are acts of unrighteous behaviour. " For all unrighteousness is sin!" No one is born good, but they do not inherit original sin of the first adam. What you call " good " is off the same tree. The tree of knowledge of good and evil...

You say "since Christ".
We're still born with the sin nature.
This is an effect of Original Sin.
God does not hold us responsible for original sin, however since Adam was the head of humanity, it is passed down to us. It's called propogation of sin.

As for sin being unrighteous behavior...
What does righteous mean to you?

Sin is disobedience to God...going against what God would want us to do.
Sin is missing the mark. The arrow we use, misses the mark.

You're saying things a little differently from what I'm used to hearing, so I'd like to make sure I understand you.

Please explain what righteousness is and if you agree re the sin nature.

 

[barelohim]

Luke 1:15 is a prophecy describing John being filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb.



Except, no one was filled with the Holy Spirit, till after Jesus arose, and went back to heaven, and then He sent the Holy Spirit... Otherwise the Holy spirit was indwelling ones that Had Not Been Cleansed by the Blood of Jesus' death. The reference of those being filled, is closer translated " imbue, by, or influenced by."
[*StrongsGreek*]
4130 pletho play'-tho, a prolonged form of a primary pleo pleh'-o (which appears only as an alternate in certain tenses and in the reduplicated form pimplemi) to "fill" (literally or figuratively (imbue, influence, supply)); specially, to fulfil (time):-

 

[barelohim]

OK.
And are we still meeting in houses?
Did the church grow by leaps and bounds?
Was there not an organized church at some point?
What was it called... the one AFTER The Way found in Acts.

If you think there was a jump somewhere, WHERE was it?
When did this "jump" start?

You see, I'm asking a lot of questions because some hate the CC so much that they can't even admit that it was the first church.

Nothing I say will convince you. So you should just look into history and accept the truth. Catholic means universal. It was called the catholic church because it was the ONE church.

Many heresies came about the first few hundred years after Jesus resurrected.
The universal church kept these heresies out of the church, so even though we may not agree with their doctrine, we do have to be thankful that they were around back then.

I just don't understand how history could be doubted...
Who do you suppose put the bible together?
The Lutheran church?
Or the Assembly of God church?

See?

[1] Are we still meeting in houses, Yes, and in caves, and forests, and back rooms.. For where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I AM in their midst.
[2] Did it grow in leaps and bounds. Sheep begat sheep, is how His church grew, and grows.
[3] Was there an organized church at some point. No the church that belongs to Christ is not an organization, rather it is an " organism ". The body, is ministered to by the Head of that body, namely Jesus Himself. And that body was being led by the Holy Spirit. IF we sin, we can go directly to the head.
[4] It didn't have to have a name, for it wasn't organized by man. The Veil was rent in two from the top to the bottom, that we all can enter into the very throne room of the Lord.

The ' It " didn't refer to this embodiment or people that belonged to Christ Jesus. The Universal CC got the believers of Christ, but not the Knowers of Christ... There is a big difference, between those that believe in Christ, and those that KNOW HIM.
We can speak directly to Him for He is our source of Salvation, Justification, Provider , Protector. Healer, Righteousness/

 

[barelohim]

You say "since Christ".
We're still born with the sin nature.
This is an effect of Original Sin.
God does not hold us responsible for original sin, however since Adam was the head of humanity, it is passed down to us. It's called propogation of sin.

As for sin being unrighteous behavior...
What does righteous mean to you?

Sin is disobedience to God...going against what God would want us to do.
Sin is missing the mark. The arrow we use, misses the mark.

You're saying things a little differently from what I'm used to hearing, so I'd like to make sure I understand you.

Please explain what righteousness is and if you agree re the sin nature.

[1] We are still born with the sin nature. NO! That ended with Jesus who became the Last Adam.
[2] We are not condemned because of the old nature. We who have been born again, have a new nature. Jesus not only took the condemnation for that original sin, but He did away with the one with the old nature. We died with Him on Calvarys cross. We were buried with Him, and we arose with Him as new creations, In Him.
[3] We are the Righteousness of God, In Christ Jesus. Righteousness is a part of our new natures In Christ. And if we sin, we can go to Him, confess our sin to Him, and He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin, and cleanse us from all " unrighteousness. 1 John 2
And righteousness is equated to the Brides wedding dress. Rev.19:7,8

 

[WIP]

Then how do you explain the fact that every context including belief and baptism always has belief first followed by baptism? Thats Bible not Balke.

Literary choice? I've already explained it and you are refusing to even consider it.

Then how do you explain the fact that every context including belief and baptism always has belief first followed by baptism? Thats Bible not Balke.

This is only one that I am aware of, Mark 16:16 so I guess you are correct that every context including belief and baptism puts it that way but that is not a proof of your position. You are reading your own bias into it. I'm not saying you are incorrect but I am saying that you haven't provided the proof to back up your claim because the word "and" is a conjunction that only makes connection between two statements.

 

[WIP]

Is putting some words in caps against the forum rule. If so I'd like to read it. Again, I do not recall any post I made in which all was in caps.

I still await proof from anyone where belief or its equlivent and baptism are used in the same context where baptism does not follow belief.

In a way, yes, because it can violate ToS 2.4. Do not reply further in this thread. If you wish to discuss this further, start a thread in the TWTS forum.

 

[billybalke]

Literary choice? I've already explained it and you are refusing to even consider it.

This is only one that I am aware of, Mark 16:16 so I guess you are correct that every context including belief and baptism puts it that way but that is not a proof of your position. You are reading your own bias into it. I'm not saying you are incorrect but I am saying that you haven't provided the proof to back up your claim because the word "and" is a conjunction that only makes connection between two statements.

 

[billybalke]

I'm not referring to any "literary choice". I refer to inspirations choice of words and the order in which they are made. You may wish to refer to three different passages I cited for Parker. There are others if you would care to know.

 

[billybalke]

Literary choice? I've already explained it and you are refusing to even consider it.

This is only one that I am aware of, Mark 16:16 so I guess you are correct that every context including belief and baptism puts it that way but that is not a proof of your position. You are reading your own bias into it. I'm not saying you are incorrect but I am saying that you haven't provided the proof to back up your claim because the word "and" is a conjunction that only makes connection between two statements.

Checking back I see I gave Parker 3 examples where belief or belief's equivalent and baptism are found. In all 3 they have belief first followed by baptism. Those passages were Mk.16:15,16; Acts 8:12 and Acts 8:13. There is a pattern of sound words involved here. Sound because they are Inspirations words and pattern. Not mine. If you want another passage I shall be glad to respond. I make absolutely no personal interpretation here, the Bible is it's own best commentater. I do know the advocates in infant baptism need to have the order reversed but you cannot reverse what God writes to us.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVINIST

 

[GodsGrace]

[1] Are we still meeting in houses, Yes, and in caves, and forests, and back rooms.. For where two or three are gathered in My Name, there I AM in their midst.
[2] Did it grow in leaps and bounds. Sheep begat sheep, is how His church grew, and grows.
[3] Was there an organized church at some point. No the church that belongs to Christ is not an organization, rather it is an " organism ". The body, is ministered to by the Head of that body, namely Jesus Himself. And that body was being led by the Holy Spirit. IF we sin, we can go directly to the head.
[4] It didn't have to have a name, for it wasn't organized by man. The Veil was rent in two from the top to the bottom, that we all can enter into the very throne room of the Lord.

The ' It " didn't refer to this embodiment or people that belonged to Christ Jesus. The Universal CC got the believers of Christ, but not the Knowers of Christ... There is a big difference, between those that believe in Christ, and those that KNOW HIM.
We can speak directly to Him for He is our source of Salvation, Justification, Provider , Protector. Healer, Righteousness/

What's the difference between BELIEVING in Christ and knowing Christ?
What does believe mean?
You sound a little gnostic.
I agree with your last sentence.
But only when HE wants it to be.
It's HIS will not ours.