I think this whole discussion might hinge upon what constitutes a church and who qualifies as a member of a church. As one who believes that only the regenerate are part of the Church Invisible and that evidence of true faith should be asked for before giving membership in the Church Visible, I would say that baptism is meant only for those who are in the New Covenant (i.e., the elect). We don't know for sure who the elect are, which is why I think we should ask for a profession.
As I said earlier, baptizing an infant = no evidence of conversion, and baptizing an individual upon profession = evidence of conversion (the profession). I don't see any deviation from this practice in the Scriptures (from John the Baptist to the disciples/apostles to Paul), and as an adherent of "Sola Scriptura" I see no Scriptural basis for abandoning that practice.
@ASonOfLiberty1776 Let me interject if I may. Question 1, why do YOU require 'evidence' with regard to whether or not God has saved someone? I mean think about it: God says "you are my child". Does that have to be proven somehow in order for us to believe God's promise? A deaf, dumb and paralyzed person cannot display your rational evidence, so all you can do is trust the promise that God saves through means (through Christ, baptism, water, hearing, etc.).
@ASonOfLiberty1776 Now all of us, before Christ were deaf, dumb, and paralyzed. We were DEAD in our sins. How can a dead person say "I have done this?" and then follow that up by proving himself worthy of your baptism? You lay the work of salvation and faith on the broken and lifeless hearts of man, and you do not allow God to do His work. And you don't trust His promises! He says, "baptism saves you". He says "you are buried with Christ in baptism and raised to new life with him."
@ASonOfLiberty1776 ... what more assurance do you need? The assurance of man's rational evidence? Trust God and trust his promises to us! Only God can judge and know what is in the hearts of men, not you; not me. So baptize your people, young and old, and forget about this staunch American individual, rational faith crap. Quit playing judge and jury over God's people and have faith, just like Abraham who believed God in spite of how things appeared.
I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, brother -- school and homework (and life) has been demanding a lot of time lately. I have to disagree and say that the ONLY chronological mandate given for baptism in the New Testament is in Acts 2 where Peter preached the word of the Lord, the people heard it and believed, and they were baptized upon hearing and profession. I have yet to find any teaching in the New Testament that would apply any other chronological order to baptism,
I acknowledge that certain professing people have lied about their conversion and have received baptism. God will deal with them in His own fashion. But calling for a profession of faith (as Peter and Phillip both did) before giving the sign of the New Covenant to an individual is receiving a LOT more evidence of true conversion, as opposed to baptizing an infant and assuming or hoping for a future fulfillment that may never materialize.
You say "if repentance occurs after baptism, baptism is still valid". That's just it - "IF". That's the big question - "IF". To give an unvalid baptism to an infant and hope (because that's all it is, in the end) for that baptism to become valid in the future is a practice I don't see warranted anywhere by Scripture.
Not only did Jesus say baptize all nations, He also said to teach and disciple them. Every theologian of note (that I've read) has agreed (even paedobaptists) that what the text denotes is that if you baptize "all nations", you also have to be able to teach and disciple them. How is it possible to teach a one-week-old infant (I'm going by the Presbyterian model) all the things Christ has commanded us?
Not only does the sentence connect repentance and baptism, but two verses later we see the result of Peter's proclamation: Those who received his word were baptized, NOT those who received his word plus their children and/or households. You say that you "do not think baptism does any good for someone who has rejected repentance", so how do you justify giving that ordinance to an infant who then rejects the Gospel when he/she is older?
Your response begs a question, brother: If you "don't believe in baptism without repentance", then why do you give it to one who has not repented? In the end aren't you merely gambling with the ordinance of baptism, even if the infant provides evidence of repentance as a young person or adult? You haven't answered my previous question - what good is the baptism without repentance? Why baptize infants when we have no way of knowing if they will ever repent?
Assuming that you're right about Greek word order, isn't that more proof for my position -- that the emphasis is on repentance and baptism being inseparable (and I don't mean baptismal regeneration, I think you and I both would argue against that)? If an infant is baptized and does NOT become regenerate later in life, have we not then made a mockery of the baptism? What good is the baptism if not accompanied by repentance?
I obviously agree that one who is unrepentant shouldn't be baptized. I would say that one who doesn't give an answer one way or another shouldn't be baptized as well -- thus excluding infants who are physically unable to voice their repentance. If I repent of my sins and cling to Christ, that only qualifies me for baptism, not my child -- because though Christ has been merciful to me doesn't automatically guarantee my children a spiritual inheritance - unless they also repent.
@ASonOfLiberty1776 scripture never says what 'qualifies [someone] for baptism is if they 'repent of [their] sins,' yet you keep repeating this claim that scripture never makes, why do you do that?
I keep repeating that claim based on Acts 2:37-38. When the men assembled there heard the word of the Lord from Peter, God had opened their hearts to respond, and they asked a specific question. "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter responds to their question by saying "Repent, and each of you be baptized..." What does Peter tell them to do? Repent first, then be baptized. We see this model throughout the NT - the Gospel is preached, there is repentance, then there is baptism.
@ChristConquers Acts 2 has Peter calling for repentance before baptism. Are you saying that it's possible to drive a wedge between "repentance" and "confession of sin"? As for communion, it's an ordinance of the Church -- since both men and women were baptized, I don't see any warrant for excluding members of the Church from the Lord's Supper.
@ASonOfLiberty1776 confessing their sins is different then simply believing and being baptized, as occurs in Acts, the point of the communion example is that simply because something occurs in a certain manner does not mean its future occurance is required to be in the same manner
But what reason do we have to believe that the "future occurrence" was any different that the past occurrences, unless if Scripture tells us? And if there is no specific abrogation of the "Repent and be baptized" model that Peter set down in Acts, then how can we say that differing kinds of baptisms are valid according to Scripture?
@ASonOfLiberty1776 well you only get a few examples of repent, thats why you combined repent, confession, believe, which are connected, but not exactly the same, and again the scriptures are not a systematic theology book, again if you are going to say there is a rule that transcends age and context set forth in scripture, which is what you are saying, you have to show all of that in scripture
If there were any way we could know for sure that an infant was repentant and had turned to Christ, then by all means baptize them -- but I see no warrant in Scripture for baptism based on assumption. As for elderly baptism, there is no need for assumption on behalf of the senior, for they are quite capable of declaring their repentance (as Acts 2 requires). The difference between infant and elderly is that one is baptized by his profession, the other by parental choice.
@ASonOfLiberty1776 I am saying repentence should come before baptism for adults because why else would they want to be baptized, but children are like spunges
First off, brother, forgive me for not responding sooner -- other areas of life demanded attention and I kept putting off my response. Forgive me for not being more prompt. To answer your question about infant baptism and elderly baptism, I think we're looking at the same issue under differing presuppositions. I am not arguing against infant baptism because of the infant's age, but because of the lack of repentance -- a one-week-old infant is scarcely able to believe.
This opens the possibility that only women were in her household (and all members of her household were at the riverbank with her) because she was an unmarried or widowed businesswoman. Even if she were married and had children with her on the riverbank, there is no mention of infants or older children in her household. And were women servants baptized upon Lydia's household headship?
The case of Lydia is inconclusive proof at best for paedobaptism. "And when she and her household had been baptized..."----Acts 16:15 Where was Lydia's husband? Was he baptized upon her faith? She may or may not have been married at all. Only women are mentioned at the riverbank. And it appears that she and her household were baptized at the river before she took Paul back to house.
I'm not seeing the comparison between the way Paul began his letters (which is not an ordinance of the Church and thus is not binding on the Church) and baptism (which IS an ordinance of the Church and thus IS binding on the Church). Only if one is grasping at straws can they see any sort of comparison. Acts 2:37-41 is not at all contradicted by John's baptism: They both commanded repentance before baptism. Are you saying that in Acts 2, the people repented, but did not confess?
The proof for elderly baptism is the same proof for believers baptism. I said this once and I'll say it again - age is not the issue here, it's whether or not we can know if the individual has confessed and repented. Obviously we can know if an elderly person repents and believes, but we don't know the heart of a one-week-old infant - and to assume regeneration on behalf of an infant (or anyone, for that matter) is dangerous and unwarranted by Scripture.
@ChristConquers: Where should I start? There are people who spend their entire careers documenting the errors. I personally enjoy the fact that Nazereth did not appear until 100s of years after the Jesus myth began and the many absurd contradictions are fun to read.
@ChristConquers: It is little more than an fact finding mission. You demanded proof of evolution because you are evidence based rational thinker, yet you accept 2000 year old myths with nothing more than hearsay and an error prone book to back them up. Funny!
In the Great Commission, Christ is obviously referring to individuals within the nations - in addition, we can't separate the three commands (disciple, baptize, teach) from each other. Every theologian (including paedobaptists) that I've read have agreed that if you baptize those mentioned in the verse ("all nations"), you must also be able to disciple and teach them. If we are to baptize regardless of repentance, does that mean Peter was acting contrary to Christ in Acts 2?
It's a bit more than a few times, all the verses you listed earlier were credobaptisms. The only baptism mentioned that could remotely be used as proof for infant baptism would be Lydia's household, and I already wrote on how it's highly unlikely (given the historical context) that there were any but adults in that household. I have yet to see any example of New Covenant baptism that is inconsistent with what took place in Acts 2:37-41.
@ChristConquers: You blindly accept the words written in a book. A book that is full to bursting with errors. A book clearly written by men in an attempt to cement their power. What on earth are you thinking? Are you ill? All of this nonsense about interventionist gods is shameful in 2010.
Acts 2:37-41. The multitudes were cut to the heart and asked Peter what they should do. Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized..." Those who had received his word were baptized, and throughout the New Testament we see that same example over and over and over again. What Peter said in Acts 2:37-41 is consistent with the baptisms John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus during His ministry. It is also consistent with New Covenant teaching in Hebrews 8.
Age has nothing to do with baptism - the profession of an individual was the standard by which baptism was practiced in the New Testament. The fact that Peter says "Repent and be baptized" sets the standard - if there is no Scriptural warrant or example for baptizing one who has not given a profession of faith, then by what Scriptural basis can you baptize them?
Again, this is still some splitting of the theological hairs. One cannot confess Jesus as Lord without repenting of their sin - the two are forever linked. The very reason we need to confess Christ is because of our need for repentance. If there is a profession of faith without repentance, then it is a false profession. That is why the administration of baptism is a pastoral issue, because not all who say ""Lord, Lord" are indeed saved. How can one show faith without repentance?
My point has never been that the "disciples did not go around forcing people to be baptized regardless of their beliefs", but that the only reason they baptized them was BECAUSE of their belief.
(btw, I've posted other comments to your previous response, but I didn't post them as a direct response to you in particular, so you will probably not receive a notification that I responded...they should be at the top of the Comments page...I messed up on that, I'm sorry)
ACTS 18:8: Again, we see belief coming before baptism in the entire verse.
Unless we are going to separate confession and repentance of sin from belief, we are shown by the testimony of Scripture that the early church practiced credobaptism. To separate confession and repentance from belief is to split theological hairs in a VERY unbiblical way. Add to that no mention of infant baptism at all in the New Testament, and I make the case that only those who give a profession are to be baptized.
ACTS: 16:15: While only the faith of Lydia was mentioned, this can hardly be a proof text for infant baptism as it is very unlikely there were any infants in the household (the fact that no man is mentioned and that this is described as Lydia's household suggests, due to the cultural implications, that the household consisted of servants, probably all female).
ACTS 16:33: In verse 34, it reads "...and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." Credobaptism once again.
ACTS 8:36-38: We see in verse 37 that the Ethopian believed and then was baptized.
ACTS 10:47-48: Same example as Acts 8:16. The household of Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit and were exulting God - an act of worship that an unregenerate heart would never commit. They exulted God because they had believed on His Son and had received the Holy Spirit.
ACTS 11:16: This is not a water baptism, but a filling/a pouring on/an immersion of the Holy Spirit (baptidzo = immersion)
ACTS 8:16: Here we have people who had been baptized correctly (in the name of Jesus Christ) but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Upon prayer, they received the Spirit - would the 3rd Person of the Trinity fall upon them if they had not yet repented/confessed/believed? Only 3 verses before this one, we have credobaptisms taking place...I see no justification from the text that would suggest that the baptism they received was any different.
It seems to me like you might be putting an unreasonable demand upon Scripture, my brother. You give a multitude of verses that you claim to do not support my claim of confession/repentance/belief (because I don't believe any of those can be separated from each other) before baptism, but let us look closer at the texts:
ACTS 8: 12-13: Simon believed, and then was baptized, as were all who "believed Phillip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ."
Again, the example doesn't fit my point. In all three cases, repentance was preached before baptism. The disciples were rebaptized because they had not received the Holy Spirit, NOT because they had not repented of their sin when they were baptized by John. John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus during His ministry, and Peter all called for repentance, then baptism - and nowhere in Scripture is there any example of baptism that is contrary to the model they practiced.
When Jesus said "Amen, Amen I say to you" or when Paul wrote his epistles, they were not setting down the rules for an ordinance of the New Covenant church, so the examples given aren't compatible with baptism. We must stick with what Scripture specifically states about baptism over man's inference that is unclear and prone to error.
Is Scripture obligated to repeat a rule of repentance-before-baptism each and every time baptism is mentioned? We have the testimony of John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus (during Jesus' ministry on earth), and that of Peter in Acts 2...I fail to see what more is needed to show that repentance must precede baptism. I fear, my brother, that you may be arguing from silence.
I would hardly say it is "absent from Scripture". Peter commanded his hearers to "Repent and believe" and as a result, "those who had received his word were baptized". Right there we have Peter setting forth the guidelines for baptism, and they were the same guidelines that John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus followed - they baptized those who had first repented and believed. The household baptisms in Acts do not disprove this practice.
We would have to assume repentance and faith on the part of an infant, and repentance and faith is NOT something we can leave up to assumption. We must have evidence.
I agree wholeheartedly (forgive me for not making that clearer) - the gift of repentance, faith, and belief is solely of God. An adult, a young person, even a child can give evidence of repentance and holy living, but an infant? God has the same freedom to save infants as He does adults, but how are we as humans to know (by Scripture) if an infant is repentant and doing all the things Christ has commanded it to do?
Repentance is something we as humans do as a conscious act of turning from our wicked ways and turning to the Almighty for forgiveness. How can an infant do that, and how do we know?
No one knows the ages of the recipients of John's baptism, but John gave a baptism of repentance - by Luke's text we can see that those who repented of their sins were baptized by John. That by necessity would not include an infant - perhaps a child, but not an infant.
@ChristConquers how come Jesus was baptized as an adult? an if we are called christians arent we to follow him an his teaching? I was baptized as a kid and I have no memory of it or even understood it as an adult I was baptized by my own decision not my parents faith is God given our parents must pass our doctrine to us but cannot make us believe by simple tradition
my conscience is captive to the word of god....wow. Those words are so powerful.
Thank you
truthfighter7 7 months ago
churches that grow in the modern developed countries usually grow because they feed the flesh
KingsChamps02 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I think this whole discussion might hinge upon what constitutes a church and who qualifies as a member of a church. As one who believes that only the regenerate are part of the Church Invisible and that evidence of true faith should be asked for before giving membership in the Church Visible, I would say that baptism is meant only for those who are in the New Covenant (i.e., the elect). We don't know for sure who the elect are, which is why I think we should ask for a profession.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
As I said earlier, baptizing an infant = no evidence of conversion, and baptizing an individual upon profession = evidence of conversion (the profession). I don't see any deviation from this practice in the Scriptures (from John the Baptist to the disciples/apostles to Paul), and as an adherent of "Sola Scriptura" I see no Scriptural basis for abandoning that practice.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 Let me interject if I may. Question 1, why do YOU require 'evidence' with regard to whether or not God has saved someone? I mean think about it: God says "you are my child". Does that have to be proven somehow in order for us to believe God's promise? A deaf, dumb and paralyzed person cannot display your rational evidence, so all you can do is trust the promise that God saves through means (through Christ, baptism, water, hearing, etc.).
petrakid 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 Now all of us, before Christ were deaf, dumb, and paralyzed. We were DEAD in our sins. How can a dead person say "I have done this?" and then follow that up by proving himself worthy of your baptism? You lay the work of salvation and faith on the broken and lifeless hearts of man, and you do not allow God to do His work. And you don't trust His promises! He says, "baptism saves you". He says "you are buried with Christ in baptism and raised to new life with him."
petrakid 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 ... what more assurance do you need? The assurance of man's rational evidence? Trust God and trust his promises to us! Only God can judge and know what is in the hearts of men, not you; not me. So baptize your people, young and old, and forget about this staunch American individual, rational faith crap. Quit playing judge and jury over God's people and have faith, just like Abraham who believed God in spite of how things appeared.
petrakid 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I'm sorry for not getting back to you sooner, brother -- school and homework (and life) has been demanding a lot of time lately. I have to disagree and say that the ONLY chronological mandate given for baptism in the New Testament is in Acts 2 where Peter preached the word of the Lord, the people heard it and believed, and they were baptized upon hearing and profession. I have yet to find any teaching in the New Testament that would apply any other chronological order to baptism,
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I acknowledge that certain professing people have lied about their conversion and have received baptism. God will deal with them in His own fashion. But calling for a profession of faith (as Peter and Phillip both did) before giving the sign of the New Covenant to an individual is receiving a LOT more evidence of true conversion, as opposed to baptizing an infant and assuming or hoping for a future fulfillment that may never materialize.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
You say "if repentance occurs after baptism, baptism is still valid". That's just it - "IF". That's the big question - "IF". To give an unvalid baptism to an infant and hope (because that's all it is, in the end) for that baptism to become valid in the future is a practice I don't see warranted anywhere by Scripture.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Not only did Jesus say baptize all nations, He also said to teach and disciple them. Every theologian of note (that I've read) has agreed (even paedobaptists) that what the text denotes is that if you baptize "all nations", you also have to be able to teach and disciple them. How is it possible to teach a one-week-old infant (I'm going by the Presbyterian model) all the things Christ has commanded us?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Not only does the sentence connect repentance and baptism, but two verses later we see the result of Peter's proclamation: Those who received his word were baptized, NOT those who received his word plus their children and/or households. You say that you "do not think baptism does any good for someone who has rejected repentance", so how do you justify giving that ordinance to an infant who then rejects the Gospel when he/she is older?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Your response begs a question, brother: If you "don't believe in baptism without repentance", then why do you give it to one who has not repented? In the end aren't you merely gambling with the ordinance of baptism, even if the infant provides evidence of repentance as a young person or adult? You haven't answered my previous question - what good is the baptism without repentance? Why baptize infants when we have no way of knowing if they will ever repent?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Assuming that you're right about Greek word order, isn't that more proof for my position -- that the emphasis is on repentance and baptism being inseparable (and I don't mean baptismal regeneration, I think you and I both would argue against that)? If an infant is baptized and does NOT become regenerate later in life, have we not then made a mockery of the baptism? What good is the baptism if not accompanied by repentance?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I obviously agree that one who is unrepentant shouldn't be baptized. I would say that one who doesn't give an answer one way or another shouldn't be baptized as well -- thus excluding infants who are physically unable to voice their repentance. If I repent of my sins and cling to Christ, that only qualifies me for baptism, not my child -- because though Christ has been merciful to me doesn't automatically guarantee my children a spiritual inheritance - unless they also repent.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 scripture never says what 'qualifies [someone] for baptism is if they 'repent of [their] sins,' yet you keep repeating this claim that scripture never makes, why do you do that?
KingsChamps02 1 year ago
@KingsChamps02
I keep repeating that claim based on Acts 2:37-38. When the men assembled there heard the word of the Lord from Peter, God had opened their hearts to respond, and they asked a specific question. "Brethren, what shall we do?" Peter responds to their question by saying "Repent, and each of you be baptized..." What does Peter tell them to do? Repent first, then be baptized. We see this model throughout the NT - the Gospel is preached, there is repentance, then there is baptism.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers Acts 2 has Peter calling for repentance before baptism. Are you saying that it's possible to drive a wedge between "repentance" and "confession of sin"? As for communion, it's an ordinance of the Church -- since both men and women were baptized, I don't see any warrant for excluding members of the Church from the Lord's Supper.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 confessing their sins is different then simply believing and being baptized, as occurs in Acts, the point of the communion example is that simply because something occurs in a certain manner does not mean its future occurance is required to be in the same manner
KingsChamps02 1 year ago
@KingsChamps02
But what reason do we have to believe that the "future occurrence" was any different that the past occurrences, unless if Scripture tells us? And if there is no specific abrogation of the "Repent and be baptized" model that Peter set down in Acts, then how can we say that differing kinds of baptisms are valid according to Scripture?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 well you only get a few examples of repent, thats why you combined repent, confession, believe, which are connected, but not exactly the same, and again the scriptures are not a systematic theology book, again if you are going to say there is a rule that transcends age and context set forth in scripture, which is what you are saying, you have to show all of that in scripture
KingsChamps02 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Con't:
If there were any way we could know for sure that an infant was repentant and had turned to Christ, then by all means baptize them -- but I see no warrant in Scripture for baptism based on assumption. As for elderly baptism, there is no need for assumption on behalf of the senior, for they are quite capable of declaring their repentance (as Acts 2 requires). The difference between infant and elderly is that one is baptized by his profession, the other by parental choice.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 the word 'require' or its greek counterpart or any synonym in either language is absent from Acts 2
KingsChamps02 1 year ago
@KingsChamps02
So are you saying that when Peter said "Repent and be baptized", repentance before baptism is optional?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ASonOfLiberty1776 I am saying repentence should come before baptism for adults because why else would they want to be baptized, but children are like spunges
KingsChamps02 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
First off, brother, forgive me for not responding sooner -- other areas of life demanded attention and I kept putting off my response. Forgive me for not being more prompt. To answer your question about infant baptism and elderly baptism, I think we're looking at the same issue under differing presuppositions. I am not arguing against infant baptism because of the infant's age, but because of the lack of repentance -- a one-week-old infant is scarcely able to believe.
TBC...
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
To sum up Lydia's household, even many paedobaptists believe that this instance of household baptism does not help their case.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Cont...
This opens the possibility that only women were in her household (and all members of her household were at the riverbank with her) because she was an unmarried or widowed businesswoman. Even if she were married and had children with her on the riverbank, there is no mention of infants or older children in her household. And were women servants baptized upon Lydia's household headship?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
The case of Lydia is inconclusive proof at best for paedobaptism. "And when she and her household had been baptized..."----Acts 16:15 Where was Lydia's husband? Was he baptized upon her faith? She may or may not have been married at all. Only women are mentioned at the riverbank. And it appears that she and her household were baptized at the river before she took Paul back to house.
Con't...
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I'm not seeing the comparison between the way Paul began his letters (which is not an ordinance of the Church and thus is not binding on the Church) and baptism (which IS an ordinance of the Church and thus IS binding on the Church). Only if one is grasping at straws can they see any sort of comparison. Acts 2:37-41 is not at all contradicted by John's baptism: They both commanded repentance before baptism. Are you saying that in Acts 2, the people repented, but did not confess?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
The proof for elderly baptism is the same proof for believers baptism. I said this once and I'll say it again - age is not the issue here, it's whether or not we can know if the individual has confessed and repented. Obviously we can know if an elderly person repents and believes, but we don't know the heart of a one-week-old infant - and to assume regeneration on behalf of an infant (or anyone, for that matter) is dangerous and unwarranted by Scripture.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers: Where should I start? There are people who spend their entire careers documenting the errors. I personally enjoy the fact that Nazereth did not appear until 100s of years after the Jesus myth began and the many absurd contradictions are fun to read.
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
@ChristConquers: It is little more than an fact finding mission. You demanded proof of evolution because you are evidence based rational thinker, yet you accept 2000 year old myths with nothing more than hearsay and an error prone book to back them up. Funny!
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
In the Great Commission, Christ is obviously referring to individuals within the nations - in addition, we can't separate the three commands (disciple, baptize, teach) from each other. Every theologian (including paedobaptists) that I've read have agreed that if you baptize those mentioned in the verse ("all nations"), you must also be able to disciple and teach them. If we are to baptize regardless of repentance, does that mean Peter was acting contrary to Christ in Acts 2?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
It's a bit more than a few times, all the verses you listed earlier were credobaptisms. The only baptism mentioned that could remotely be used as proof for infant baptism would be Lydia's household, and I already wrote on how it's highly unlikely (given the historical context) that there were any but adults in that household. I have yet to see any example of New Covenant baptism that is inconsistent with what took place in Acts 2:37-41.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers: You blindly accept the words written in a book. A book that is full to bursting with errors. A book clearly written by men in an attempt to cement their power. What on earth are you thinking? Are you ill? All of this nonsense about interventionist gods is shameful in 2010.
MrAugustNidor 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Acts 2:37-41. The multitudes were cut to the heart and asked Peter what they should do. Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized..." Those who had received his word were baptized, and throughout the New Testament we see that same example over and over and over again. What Peter said in Acts 2:37-41 is consistent with the baptisms John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus during His ministry. It is also consistent with New Covenant teaching in Hebrews 8.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Age has nothing to do with baptism - the profession of an individual was the standard by which baptism was practiced in the New Testament. The fact that Peter says "Repent and be baptized" sets the standard - if there is no Scriptural warrant or example for baptizing one who has not given a profession of faith, then by what Scriptural basis can you baptize them?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Again, this is still some splitting of the theological hairs. One cannot confess Jesus as Lord without repenting of their sin - the two are forever linked. The very reason we need to confess Christ is because of our need for repentance. If there is a profession of faith without repentance, then it is a false profession. That is why the administration of baptism is a pastoral issue, because not all who say ""Lord, Lord" are indeed saved. How can one show faith without repentance?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
My point has never been that the "disciples did not go around forcing people to be baptized regardless of their beliefs", but that the only reason they baptized them was BECAUSE of their belief.
(btw, I've posted other comments to your previous response, but I didn't post them as a direct response to you in particular, so you will probably not receive a notification that I responded...they should be at the top of the Comments page...I messed up on that, I'm sorry)
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
ACTS 18:8: Again, we see belief coming before baptism in the entire verse.
Unless we are going to separate confession and repentance of sin from belief, we are shown by the testimony of Scripture that the early church practiced credobaptism. To separate confession and repentance from belief is to split theological hairs in a VERY unbiblical way. Add to that no mention of infant baptism at all in the New Testament, and I make the case that only those who give a profession are to be baptized.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
ACTS: 16:15: While only the faith of Lydia was mentioned, this can hardly be a proof text for infant baptism as it is very unlikely there were any infants in the household (the fact that no man is mentioned and that this is described as Lydia's household suggests, due to the cultural implications, that the household consisted of servants, probably all female).
ACTS 16:33: In verse 34, it reads "...and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." Credobaptism once again.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
ACTS 8:36-38: We see in verse 37 that the Ethopian believed and then was baptized.
ACTS 10:47-48: Same example as Acts 8:16. The household of Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit and were exulting God - an act of worship that an unregenerate heart would never commit. They exulted God because they had believed on His Son and had received the Holy Spirit.
ACTS 11:16: This is not a water baptism, but a filling/a pouring on/an immersion of the Holy Spirit (baptidzo = immersion)
TBC...
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
ACTS 8:16: Here we have people who had been baptized correctly (in the name of Jesus Christ) but had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Upon prayer, they received the Spirit - would the 3rd Person of the Trinity fall upon them if they had not yet repented/confessed/believed? Only 3 verses before this one, we have credobaptisms taking place...I see no justification from the text that would suggest that the baptism they received was any different.
TBC...
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
It seems to me like you might be putting an unreasonable demand upon Scripture, my brother. You give a multitude of verses that you claim to do not support my claim of confession/repentance/belief (because I don't believe any of those can be separated from each other) before baptism, but let us look closer at the texts:
ACTS 8: 12-13: Simon believed, and then was baptized, as were all who "believed Phillip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ."
TBC...
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Again, the example doesn't fit my point. In all three cases, repentance was preached before baptism. The disciples were rebaptized because they had not received the Holy Spirit, NOT because they had not repented of their sin when they were baptized by John. John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus during His ministry, and Peter all called for repentance, then baptism - and nowhere in Scripture is there any example of baptism that is contrary to the model they practiced.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
When Jesus said "Amen, Amen I say to you" or when Paul wrote his epistles, they were not setting down the rules for an ordinance of the New Covenant church, so the examples given aren't compatible with baptism. We must stick with what Scripture specifically states about baptism over man's inference that is unclear and prone to error.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Is Scripture obligated to repeat a rule of repentance-before-baptism each and every time baptism is mentioned? We have the testimony of John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus (during Jesus' ministry on earth), and that of Peter in Acts 2...I fail to see what more is needed to show that repentance must precede baptism. I fear, my brother, that you may be arguing from silence.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I would hardly say it is "absent from Scripture". Peter commanded his hearers to "Repent and believe" and as a result, "those who had received his word were baptized". Right there we have Peter setting forth the guidelines for baptism, and they were the same guidelines that John the Baptist and the disciples of Jesus followed - they baptized those who had first repented and believed. The household baptisms in Acts do not disprove this practice.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Con't...
We would have to assume repentance and faith on the part of an infant, and repentance and faith is NOT something we can leave up to assumption. We must have evidence.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
I agree wholeheartedly (forgive me for not making that clearer) - the gift of repentance, faith, and belief is solely of God. An adult, a young person, even a child can give evidence of repentance and holy living, but an infant? God has the same freedom to save infants as He does adults, but how are we as humans to know (by Scripture) if an infant is repentant and doing all the things Christ has commanded it to do?
con't...
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
Repentance is something we as humans do as a conscious act of turning from our wicked ways and turning to the Almighty for forgiveness. How can an infant do that, and how do we know?
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
No one knows the ages of the recipients of John's baptism, but John gave a baptism of repentance - by Luke's text we can see that those who repented of their sins were baptized by John. That by necessity would not include an infant - perhaps a child, but not an infant.
ASonOfLiberty1776 1 year ago
@ChristConquers
first of all most people where baptized as adults by John the baptist before Jesus but he was the primary example........thanks
chalatenango234 1 year ago
@ChristConquers how come Jesus was baptized as an adult? an if we are called christians arent we to follow him an his teaching? I was baptized as a kid and I have no memory of it or even understood it as an adult I was baptized by my own decision not my parents faith is God given our parents must pass our doctrine to us but cannot make us believe by simple tradition
chalatenango234 1 year ago