A question about Baptism

[Hoddie]

55 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

it also does not say you should not stand in front of a speeding bus-- some truths are self explanatory

So, if it's not in the bible, you must be talking about traditions?  (Sacred/Apostolic)

Peace

[Hoddie]

49 minutes ago, woundeddog said:

The greek word bapitso- actually has three meaning- yes one is to ceremonially wash- but it also means to submerge ( not necessarily  in water, but if it did ,sprinkling with water would not be biblical because it would require submersion) and the third is to overwhelm-- this verse means one common "overwhelming" of commitment to salvation by faith in Christ, not a water washing

Say's who? (The meaning of the verse in particular.)

[Running Gator]

23 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

So, if it's not in the bible, you must be talking about traditions?  (Sacred/Apostolic)

Peace

Correct, and baptism of babies is not in the bible, thus it is just a tradition that has no biblical support.

[Hoddie]

2 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

You will notice I said it had "has no biblical basis and does not follow the plan put forth by Jesus himself to be baptized AFTER becoming a believer".  In other words there is no example in the NT of a baby being baptized.  Also, the plan put forth by Jesus was salvation then baptism, not the other way around.

Beneficially speaking all baptizing a baby does it get it wet, there is ZERO spiritual significance to it.

I disagree, and so does one fifth of the worlds population.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the most important reasons why we must baptize infants:

"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth" (CCC 1250).

Original sin is a reality from which each and every human person desperately needs to be freed. Biblically speaking, Romans 5:12 is remarkably clear on this point: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." Even if nothing else was said in Scripture implying infant baptism, we could conclude it to be necessary just from this simple fact: babies need to have original sin removed from their souls.

St. Paul, being a Jew, as well as all of the apostles, understood the idea that true religion is a family affair. A Jew became a Jew when he was circumcised on the eighth day. They did not have to first "accept Moses as their personal prophet" before they could be circumcised. And according to St. Paul, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; …you were buried with him in Baptism" (Colossians 2:11-12).

This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ and therefore open to infants is found at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins… For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord calls to him" (Acts 2:38-39, emphasis added).

If Peter believed baptism was exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher!

　

Peace

　

[missmuffet]

5 hours ago, Louvain said:

I was Baptised as a baby but growing up and things going on in my life i became lost to God. Christ showed me my way home to him and now i feel like i want to be baptised in his love again. What do you think of this idea?

If you want to be re-baptized that would be nice.

[Running Gator]

9 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

I disagree, and so does one fifth of the worlds population.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us the most important reasons why we must baptize infants:

"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth" (CCC 1250).

Original sin is a reality from which each and every human person desperately needs to be freed. Biblically speaking, Romans 5:12 is remarkably clear on this point: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned." Even if nothing else was said in Scripture implying infant baptism, we could conclude it to be necessary just from this simple fact: babies need to have original sin removed from their souls.

St. Paul, being a Jew, as well as all of the apostles, understood the idea that true religion is a family affair. A Jew became a Jew when he was circumcised on the eighth day. They did not have to first "accept Moses as their personal prophet" before they could be circumcised. And according to St. Paul, baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision: "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; …you were buried with him in Baptism" (Colossians 2:11-12).

This idea of baptism as the circumcision of Christ and therefore open to infants is found at least implied in other biblical texts as well. You’ll recall that on Pentecost, Peter preached to thousands of Jews, who already had an understanding of their faith involving a family covenant, and said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins… For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord calls to him" (Acts 2:38-39, emphasis added).

If Peter believed baptism was exclusive to adults, he was a terrible teacher!

　

Peace

　

Peter was a great teacher. Let's look at the whole passage not just pat of it...

³⁸ Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹ The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.

The promise that is for you and your children is that if they repent and get baptized they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  So, if the children repent and are baptized they will receive the same thing the parent did.  This has nothing to do with baptizing anyone before they repent.   There is no biblical support for baptism prior to repentance.   I would challenge you to find one example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament. 

[missmuffet]

2 hours ago, Hoddie said:

Where in the bible does it say infants are not to be Baptized? Book, Chapter and verse please.

 

Peace

Question: "What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?"

Answer: There is much confusion about baptism in the various Christian denominations. However, this is not a result of the Bible presenting a confusing message on baptism. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

https://gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html

[Hoddie]

28 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Correct, and baptism of babies is not in the bible, thus it is just a tradition that has no biblical support.

Sorry, I disagree. It is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that has no biblical support. Whereas Sacred/Apostolic Tradition does. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

 

Peace

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, Hoddie said:

Sorry, I disagree. It is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that has no biblical support. Whereas Sacred/Apostolic Tradition does. Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

 

Peace

Find me a single incident in the New Testament of someone being baptized prior to repentance. 

[Hoddie]

16 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

The promise that is for you and your children is that if they repent and get baptized they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  So, if the children repent and are baptized they will receive the same thing the parent did.  This has nothing to do with baptizing anyone before they repent. 

And by what authorty did you come to this? Is this your personal interpretation of this passage? If so, do you consider it fallible or infallible?

There is no biblical support for baptism prior to repentance.

And you can show where there is not? book, chapter and verse

I would challenge you to find one example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament.

Well lets see... if you adhere to the 'Bible Alone" way of beleiving, I would challenge you to find one example of a baby "NOT" being baptized in the New Testament.

　

Peace