Baptism?

[Quiddity]

Victor,

I never claimed infallibility... I am probably the most sinful man on this entire forum. As for "interpretations"...

II Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. NIV

You don't need to "interpret" scripture to understand it... just obey it!

So? You claim the authority to interpret Scripture. Therefore, according to the bogus argument above, the ultimate authority lies with you and not with Scripture.

You don't interpret scripture? Then what do you do when you read it?

Ok. We are going off topic here.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

you know there is a cryptic reference to being baptised for the dead?

I don't think the reference is particularly cryptic. Since there is only one reference to this practice, most people choose to simply ignore it. But in the context in which it is used, it makes perfect sense. While he did not elaborate on it, Paul obviously thought it worth mentioning, particularly as a supporting argument for his belief in the resurrection of all mankind.

 

[Scott1]

I would agree that your "confirmation" is an attempt to garner what scriptural baptism dictates happen. If it works for you, then great.

That's all we can do is try to be faithful... thanks for understanding.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So? You claim the authority to interpret Scripture.

I claim the authority to obey what I understand. My understanding will only be perfected on my death.

Therefore, according to the bogus argument above, the ultimate authority lies with you and not with Scripture.

This would hold true then for WHOMEVER you listened to. All communication entails some degree of "interpretation". You put your faith in your church. I put my faith in God's scriptures and the Spirit's ability to reveal them to me. Trying to denigrate my faith with convoluted logic is beyond the pale. You disagree with me... I accept that. Please return the favor without casting aspersions on my character.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Katzpur,

He never condones or condemns the practice. Just illustrating that they believe in the resurection because they follow the practice is not an indication that the practice was "correct". He had bigger fish to fry than that.

 

[Quiddity]

I claim the authority to obey what I understand. My understanding will only be perfected on my death.

This would hold true then for WHOMEVER you listened to. All communication entails some degree of "interpretation". You put your faith in your church. I put my faith in God's scriptures and the Spirit's ability to reveal them to me. Trying to denigrate my faith with convoluted logic is beyond the pale. You disagree with me... I accept that. Please return the favor without casting aspersions on my character.

“If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matt. 18:17). That’s Jesus speaking. I would listen to Him, if I were you.

~Victor

 

[may]

Was​

infant baptism practiced by first-century Christians?


​

Matt. 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples . . . baptizing them."​

Acts 8:12: "When they believed Philip . . . they proceeded to be baptized, both men and women."


​

However, later on, Origen (185-254 C.E.) wrote: "It is the custom of the church that baptism be administered even to infants." (Selections From the Commentaries and Homilies of Origen, Madras, India; 1929, p. 211) The practice was confirmed by the Third Council of Carthage (253 C.E.).


Religious historian Augustus Neander wrote: "Faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable . . . that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period [in the first century]. . . . That it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin."—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York, 1864), p. 162

​

​

​

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh, I listen to THE church, Victor. Just not yours.

So May, your points are strong:

Disciples (believers) were being baptized. None others need apply. It would be hard, by any stretch of the imagination, to assume that an infant was already a disciple.

 

[Scott1]

That it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin."—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles (New York, 1864), p. 162

If you're going to use a quote from Origen... maybe give a little context>

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Hmmm... seems clear to me.... maybe I'm not as smart as Mr. Neander.

Third century, eh? Seems Mr. Neander forgot to read Irenaeus:

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

 

[Mister Emu]

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age

Excuse my ignorance, but I fail to see infant baptism mentioned...

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Here as well...

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yo Victor...

No one is perfect... not even the Apostles.

I Corinthians 11:Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. NIV

What an interesting caveat Paul wrote here: as I follow. He didn't say regardless or in spite of. He didn't say that he or Peter or even the church were "perfect". He was still growing in his knowledge of Jesus as I am. Look at how the early church regarded women? There are obvious areas in the First Century church that violated Christ's teachings. Do we throw them all out? No... as they imitate Christ, we imitate them. No more, and no less.

 

[Scott1]

Excuse my ignorance, but I fail to see infant baptism mentioned...

Here as well...

That's fine... I'm not trying to convince you.... but it's pretty clear to me, and to history... but should I really have to DEFEND baptism in Christ?

That I wanted my infant daughters to have the fruit of Baptism, baptismal grace.... to look at my little girl and know that this grace includes forgiveness of original sin, birth into the new life by which she will become an adoptive daughter of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit..... to know that they were incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.... is something I would do again and again and again and again. God be praised!

:shout Charity, my friends... charity above all else.
Scott

 

[Scuba Pete]

The litle children have nothing to worry about... at least that's what Jesus said.

 

[Scott1]

The litle children have nothing to worry about... at least that's what Jesus said.

Little children become teenagers...

... again, bless all of you out there who don't baptize your children out of devotion to your faith.... but I just couldn't do it.

My kids are one with Christ by the grace of God.... I wasn't about to give the Devil an 18 year (or when, if ever, they become "disciples" WORTHY of Baptism) head start!

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur,

He never condones or condemns the practice. Just illustrating that they believe in the resurection because they follow the practice is not an indication that the practice was "correct". He had bigger fish to fry than that.

NetDoc,

I will readily admit that Paul's reference to baptisms for the dead is not conclusive proof of anything. However, if I were trying to convince someone of something, I certainly wouldn't use a practice I disapproved of as supporting evidence.

 

[Katzpur]

If you're going to use a quote from Origen... maybe give a little context>

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Hmmm... seems clear to me.... maybe I'm not as smart as Mr. Neander.

Third century, eh? Seems Mr. Neander forgot to read Irenaeus:

Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

But all of these statements were made 200 or more after the Apostolic period. 190 A.D. may sound to us today as if it were very close to the time the Savior lived, but it's really not. Do you have any quotes from, say 50 A.D. to support your argument?

 

[Scuba Pete]

He did it before. Check out Acts!

 

[Katzpur]

Little children become teenagers...

And by then, they are capable of committing sinful behavior. They are also capable of believing in the Atonement of Christ, and should therefore be baptized.

... again, bless all of you out there who don't baptize your children out of devotion to your faith.... but I just couldn't do it.

Given the fact that you believe your children are tainted by Adam's sin, I can understand where you're coming from. I believe, however, that Christ atoned for Adam's transgression, thereby making us accountable for our own sins and not for the sin of someone who lived 6000 years ago. When you first held one of your children in your arms and looked into his or her tiny face, did you really see a sinner? I know that when I first laid eyes on each of my new babies, I saw only purity.

My kids are one with Christ by the grace of God.... I wasn't about to give the Devil an 18 year (or when, if ever, they become "disciples" WORTHY of Baptism) head start!

So are mine. They were born "one with Christ." By the time they were old enough to know right from wrong, they were also old enough to repent of their sins and enter into a covenant relationship with their Savior. Satan didn't have a head start, because my children did not become accountable until they gained a knowledge of right and wrong.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

He did it before. Check out Acts!

If you're talking to me, could you be a bit more specific?

 

[Katzpur]

The litle children have nothing to worry about... at least that's what Jesus said.

Well, see! We do agree on something!