Baptism

[thereselittleflower]

Baptism is the circumcision without hands:

 

In baptism we are buried with Christ, and then raised with Christ:

 

Colossians 2:11-12

 

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

[MorningGlory]

Another old, resurrected thread.  Why?  The OP hasn't posted here in a year. 

[JohnD]

I have a 8 year old and a 6 year old they both want to be baptized. Should I baptize them?

 

In other posts you said they understood the essentials.

 

Dunk 'em.

[JohnD]

I was baptized at age 9. 

 

Age 6,8,9, or 99 most folks don't know all the details.

 

And for some reason they always question a child to somehow understand what they are getting into...

[Ezra]

Personally , I'm not sure if a child as young 5- etc can really understand the gravity of sin and repentance and the full Gospel and make that decision as well as an older child.

People generally underestimate children, and particularly when it comes to a relationship with Christ.  No adult has the right to prevent a child from being baptized if he or she states that they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and desire to be baptized.  Many children have been severely damaged spiritually because some adults thought "we know better".  We should pay careful attention to Scripture, particularly this verse (1 Sam 2:18): But Samuel ministered before the LORD, being a child, girded with a linen ephod.

 

The Lord Jesus Christ was a child of twelve who had a better understanding of Scripture than learned rabbis, Bible "scholars",  and doctors of the Law.  True He was God, but the principle applies. Never underestimate children and their spiritual perception.

 

In any event, Scripture does not give men the authority to "examine" faith before people are baptized. Those who confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus are to be baptized without argument or discussion. The rest is up to the Lord.

[Ezra]

And I agree, there is no need to revive ancient threads.  But since it was revived, some comments were necessary.

[JohnD]

Water baptism is an ordinance. So is communion. Missing out on either does not deny one entry into heaven. Both are testimonies and participation in symbolic representations of the actual baptism of faith (belief in the Lord Jesus and therefore death to self and resurrection to new life) and partaking of the broken body and shed blood of Christ on the cross.

 

His actual sacrifice and our actual faith are what count. Not the symbolism. In Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16, John the water Baptist said I indeed baptize with water but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (salvation) or with fire (judgment / damnation)... depending entirely upon our individual faith or lack thereof (John 3:16-18).

[Bible2]

thereselittleflower said in post 107:

 

Additionally, if one claims that it is the faith of the believing parent that makes it possible for their children to be holy - and there is no age limitation on this, then just as in the Old Covenant the infants were accepted and given the sign of the Old Covenant BASED ON the faith of the parents, then so much more so in the New and Better covenant does the faith of the believing parent open up the door to their children being given the sign of the New Covenant. with all its blessings and promises.

 

Unless God wants to make an exception for an elect individual (Exodus 33:19b, Romans 9:15), infant baptism isn't valid, because baptism is useless for salvation, and isn't even allowed, unless the one being baptized is already a believer with all his heart (Acts 8:36-38, Mark 16:16). Also, believers need to be not just sprinkled with water, as is often done with infant baptism, but water-immersion (burial) baptized (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12) in order to be ultimately saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

 

Only elect infants have been claimed by God. Non-elect infants have no hope of salvation (Romans 9:11-22), even if their parents get them baptized. There is no way to prove whether or not an infant is elect until he or she grows up and becomes a believer, proving he or she is elect (Acts 13:48b), or until he or she dies without ever becoming a believer, proving he or she is non-elect (John 8:42-47).

 

Also, 1 Corinthians 7:14 isn't referring to sanctification in the salvational, faith-based, spiritual sense of Hebrews 13:12, Acts 26:18b, and Romans 15:16b. For then it would be saying unbelievers are saved, which is impossible (John 3:36). So 1 Corinthians 7:14 must be referring to the lesser type of a merely-physical sanctification of the body (Hebrews 9:13) which a believing spouse imparts to the body of an unbelieving spouse (when they become one flesh: Matthew 19:6) and to the bodies of their resulting children.

 

--

 

thereselittleflower said in post 110:

 

Are not the Apostles the beginning of the Church, and did they not teach infallibly?  Thus did not Christ confer on the Church in the Apostles the mantel of infallibility as God the Father conferred it upon Christ?

 

Are you including present-day church leaders as being infallible?

 

If so, we are assured that at least some people in the church will continue in the truth until Jesus' 2nd coming, for there will be true believers who will still be "alive and remain" at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). But the way they will continue in the truth won't be by replacing God himself with church leaders as their source of truth, for church leaders are fallible (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34). It is only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11b, John 17:17) that believers can be sure not to be led astray by any church leaders who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31b, Mark 8:35-38).

 

Because all humans (except Jesus) are fallible, the church itself (unlike God's own Word the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4) has never been a perfect model for Christian doctrine and practice. There have always been wrong divisions (Acts 6:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4) and heresies within the church (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). For even those whom the Holy Spirit has made leaders in the church (Acts 20:28) can wrongly employ their free will to teach wrong doctrines and practices which increase their power over people in the church (Acts 20:30, cf. also 3 John 1:9-10). They and their followers can mistakenly forget the warnings of 1 Peter 5:3, Matthew 20:25-27, and Matthew 23:8-12.

 

Also, even Satan's ministers can transform themselves into "apostles" of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, cf. also Matthew 7:15). And even those truly appointed as apostles by Jesus can wrongly employ their free will to fall from their office (Acts 1:17,20b,25). So even the teachings of apostles must be checked against God's own Word the Bible (Acts 17:11b). So how much more must the doctrine of lesser "teachers" in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) be checked against the Bible, to make sure what they are teaching isn't mistaken (2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4)?

 

--

 

thereselittleflower said in post 124:

 

In baptism we are buried with Christ . . .

 

Amen! (Keyword "buried")

 

And in order to be saved ultimately, believers must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus' death for our sins (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). The original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse. For it is derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid. We are to be "buried" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12), and no one is buried by having some water merely sprinkled on his forehead. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter, abandon the requirement of immersion?

[thereselittleflower]

 

thereselittleflower said in post 107:

 

Additionally, if one claims that it is the faith of the believing parent that makes it possible for their children to be holy - and there is no age limitation on this, then just as in the Old Covenant the infants were accepted and given the sign of the Old Covenant BASED ON the faith of the parents, then so much more so in the New and Better covenant does the faith of the believing parent open up the door to their children being given the sign of the New Covenant. with all its blessings and promises.

 

Unless God wants to make an exception for an elect individual (Exodus 33:19b, Romans 9:15), infant baptism isn't valid, because baptism is useless for salvation, and isn't even allowed, unless the one being baptized is already a believer with all his heart (Acts 8:36-38, Mark 16:16). Also, believers need to be not just sprinkled with water, as is often done with infant baptism, but water-immersion (burial) baptized (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12) in order to be ultimately saved (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

 

Only elect infants have been claimed by God. Non-elect infants have no hope of salvation (Romans 9:11-22), even if their parents get them baptized. There is no way to prove whether or not an infant is elect until he or she grows up and becomes a believer, proving he or she is elect (Acts 13:48b), or until he or she dies without ever becoming a believer, proving he or she is non-elect (John 8:42-47).

 

Also, 1 Corinthians 7:14 isn't referring to sanctification in the salvational, faith-based, spiritual sense of Hebrews 13:12, Acts 26:18b, and Romans 15:16b. For then it would be saying unbelievers are saved, which is impossible (John 3:36). So 1 Corinthians 7:14 must be referring to the lesser type of a merely-physical sanctification of the body (Hebrews 9:13) which a believing spouse imparts to the body of an unbelieving spouse (when they become one flesh: Matthew 19:6) and to the bodies of their resulting children.

 

--

 

 

 

thereselittleflower said in post 110:

 

Are not the Apostles the beginning of the Church, and did they not teach infallibly?  Thus did not Christ confer on the Church in the Apostles the mantel of infallibility as God the Father conferred it upon Christ?

 

Are you including present-day church leaders as being infallible?

 

If so, we are assured that at least some people in the church will continue in the truth until Jesus' 2nd coming, for there will be true believers who will still be "alive and remain" at that time (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17). But the way they will continue in the truth won't be by replacing God himself with church leaders as their source of truth, for church leaders are fallible (e.g. Matthew 16:23, Galatians 2:11-14, Luke 22:34). It is only by sticking close to God's own infallible Word the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16, Acts 17:11b, John 17:17) that believers can be sure not to be led astray by any church leaders who might be teaching false doctrines which contradict God's Word (2 Timothy 4:2-4; 1 Timothy 4:1, John 8:31b, Mark 8:35-38).

 

Because all humans (except Jesus) are fallible, the church itself (unlike God's own Word the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:16 to 4:4) has never been a perfect model for Christian doctrine and practice. There have always been wrong divisions (Acts 6:1; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:4) and heresies within the church (1 Corinthians 11:18-19). For even those whom the Holy Spirit has made leaders in the church (Acts 20:28) can wrongly employ their free will to teach wrong doctrines and practices which increase their power over people in the church (Acts 20:30, cf. also 3 John 1:9-10). They and their followers can mistakenly forget the warnings of 1 Peter 5:3, Matthew 20:25-27, and Matthew 23:8-12.

 

Also, even Satan's ministers can transform themselves into "apostles" of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13-15, cf. also Matthew 7:15). And even those truly appointed as apostles by Jesus can wrongly employ their free will to fall from their office (Acts 1:17,20b,25). So even the teachings of apostles must be checked against God's own Word the Bible (Acts 17:11b). So how much more must the doctrine of lesser "teachers" in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11) be checked against the Bible, to make sure what they are teaching isn't mistaken (2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:2-4)?

 

--

 

 

 

thereselittleflower said in post 124:

 

In baptism we are buried with Christ . . .

 

Amen! (Keyword "buried")

 

And in order to be saved ultimately, believers must get water-immersion (burial) baptized into Jesus' death for our sins (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12, Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16). The original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse. For it is derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid. We are to be "buried" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12), and no one is buried by having some water merely sprinkled on his forehead. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church". On what basis did the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter, abandon the requirement of immersion?

 

 

 

Hi bible2    I am confused  -   it seems on one hand you discount the efficacy of, and need for baptism completely, then on the other hand say baptism is ultimately required for salvation.

 

That is quite confusing.

 

I also don't find what you shared in response to the first post of mine you quoted anywhere in the ancient christian teaching.   i see no denial of infant baptism and I see no denial that baptism saves as Jesus and Peter say in scripture.  I see nothing limiting the holiness of the child of the believing parent.  The word for holy is quite strong in that verse - it means saint.  

 

How can one deny a saint baptism?  That is the issue in regards to children of believing parents or parent.

 

 

I also don't find in the ancient christian teaching an absolute requirement for total immersion.

 

Also, you didn't address the very clear scriptures I've provided where it is plainly stated baptism saves us, both in Jesus' words and in Peter's.      What I find from those who deny the need for baptism are mental gymnastics to cloud the very clear words of scripture.    For instance, there is no such thing as a lessor sanctification, etc.  I find Paul's words to be very clear in the words used.    And I find nothing in the ancient christian practice or teaching in which children were forbidden baptism.  Forbidding baptism to infants and children goes against everything in the early christian faith and practice.

 

The forbidding of infant baptism is very recent, and not at all a part of the apostolic chrisianity.   Why would anyone want anything less that the ancient faith?     

 

Jeremiah 6:16 

This is what the LORD says: "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, 'We will not walk in it.'

 

 

 

The Didache, a first century book held in high esteem as authoritative by the very early christians, tells us how baptism was practiced in the first century -  there was no requirement that baptism must be by immersion only.  Provision was made by the apostles for other forms of baptism in descending order of prefence:

 

7 Concerning Baptism

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.

7:3 If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.

 

http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html

 

 

Most places don't have access to running water deep enough for immersion, or bodies of water one can be immersed in.     Pouring water over the head three times was perfectly acceptable in apostolic times.    Considering the Church which produced the canon of New Testament scripture you and I use today follows this teaching in the Didache,  it would be reckless to claim they would canonize scripture that contradicts such teaching and practice.    There can only be one of two conclusions - either they didn't know what they were doing when they canonized the New Testament books,  or  you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting the words of scripture in regards to how one must be baptized.   Logically speaking, the latter is the most likely conclusion, and in fact can be the only logical conclusion that I can see.    

 

Did the councils infallibly declare the canon of New Testament scripture?    If they did not, then this would mean they could have made errors, then you have no assurance you have all that is scripture in the bible or that all that is in the bible is indeed scripture.     

[thereselittleflower]

Then Jeff, by what authority do you know each and every book in the New Testament is indeed inspired scripture?

 

 

By what authority do you know there are no books missing from the New Testament?