Featured Are some Baptists "historic revisionists " ?

Sure there is. You don't baptize anyone until they make a profession of faith. That's the biblical model for baptism post-cross.

Well, if you accept that baptism occurs after a profession of faith, then simple inference of scripture will show you. You cannot profess your faith in Christ until you hear the preached word (Romans 10).

 

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
The "ye" refers to all believers. Every believer is a priest before God. There is no NT priesthood. This concept, the RCC concept of an authentic Priesthood is a heresy that needs to be denounced.

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
--In the OT Israel had a "High Priest" that could make an atonement for them and only once a year by entering into the holiest of holies.
Here we are told we have something much better: a great High Priest, Jesus Christ!

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
--The OT high priest often did not know the people of Israel. They numbered in the millions. But our Great High Priest knows each one of us intimately, and he is sinless, but because he became man, suffered as a man, can also relate to our sufferings.

Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
--In the OT only the Levites, and the only those of the family of Aaron could be priests and be connected with the duties of the priesthood. And only the High Priest could make an atonement and could come near to God.
But we, in the NT, are all priests and are able to come boldly right before the throne of grace. Why? Because every believer is a priest before God.

A false statement.

There is only one priesthood, and that is the priesthood of believers. That doesn't come with baptism. It comes when one trusts Christ as their Savior. Baptism will get you wet, but it doesn't give you grace of any kind.

Peter didn't teach anything in Exodus.

He was speaking to all believers. All believers are priests before God.

And just how much to baptized infants participate?

1. There is no "Mother Church." --a heretical concept.
2. There is no liturgy.
3. We don't keep such because of our "baptism." How does two atoms of hydrogen compounded with one atom of oxygen give you a reason or obligate you to do anything. Absurd. Sounds like paganism to me.

No one can go to something that doesn't exist; that is a man-made superstition. I gave you three posts that give a rebuttal for each and every verse you gave.
An argument from silence is no argument at all.
Currently Zenas is arguing from silence for infant baptism. There is no infant baptism in the Bible, you will note that his argument is from silence. You can read anything you want to in the Bible--just like aliens from Mars and spaceships from Iowa. I can show you that in the Bible too, just like you can show me Purgatory.

There is no Purgatory; no aliens; etc.
Therefore how can you know for sure you will get into heaven being "unclean"?

 

If you are raised in a Christian home and taught the faith, you can come to personal faith that way.

 

No scriptural citations here. You are just saying what you have always believed and observed. Your approach to baptism is based on tradition, not on scripture.

I do accept that baptism occurs after a profession of faith, but I don't accept that is the only time it can occur. You have paraphrased Romans 10 (which says nothing about baptism), but you overlook the fact that Paul was writing to a church of adults, none of whom ever heard of Christ until they were adults. This thing about you can't believe without someone to preach the gospel is for the mission field, not for people who are born into Christian homes.

 

Not most.....100%. Zero evidence of even one infant.

 

McCree, I am assuming it must be in the Bible for you to consider something to be evidence. However, what kind of information in the Bible do you consider evidence?

1. Direct and positive declarations?

2. Declarations from which facts that are not mentioned may be reasonably inferred?

3. Transactions and relationships from which facts that are not mentioned may be reasonably inferred?

 

You said, "Currently Zenas is arguing from silence for infant baptism. There is no infant baptism in the Bible, you will note that his argument is from silence. You can read anything you want to in the Bible--just like aliens from Mars and spaceships from Iowa."

It is unwise to establish a doctrine from inference only, or in the case of infant baptism, a wished-for inference. Infant baptism was resorted to based on a false premise: That water can wash away original sin, and since infants have original sin, it must be washed away in baptism. As I said elsewhere: A false premise leads to a false conclusion. Infant baptism is supported only by tradition; it finds no warrant in scripture. Those who support infant baptism resort to the most incredible scripture twisting to try to justify it.

 

Your "evidence" is Cornelius. Household baptism right? When in Acts 10:2 his entire family is recognized as those "who feared God". The entire family believed in the God of Israel. So they entire family, that was baptized, was those who believed. Infants are not in the equation.

 

Maybe, maybe not. My daughter believed in Jesus from the time she was old enough to form sentences. But by Baptist standards she wasn't a suitable candidate for baptism until years later. Of course it's not just Cornelius. It's also the households of Stephanas, Lydia and the Philippian jailer. You know as well as I that to say there were no young children in four (4) First Century households borders on the absurd.

Of course you don't believe baptism removes sin so you see no need for infant baptism. You say you go by the Bible but you don't. You go by Baptist tradition which is directly opposed to Biblical teaching. The Bible teaches plainly that baptism removes sin.

 

Of course if it was so plain, there wouldn't be millions of Christians who don't believe it.

 

The bible teaches no such things as baptism washing away sin. That is tradition trumping scripture. Water does not have power of atonement. Hebrews 9 teaches the blood of Christ atones. "Magic" baptism didn't exist until Irenaeus championed the pagan practice of Sacerdotalism into Christianity

Romans 10:9 says nothing about being saved by water

"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. "

What is "Baptist standard" for baptism?

How old was your daughter?

 

As a matter of fact, those who do believe it outnumber those who don't by several times over. Indeed, there was only one view of baptism until Huldrych Zwingli in the 16th Century decided otherwise.

 

Because I'm still an active member of a Baptist church. I have not joined the Catholic church because of the culture in which I live, most specifically that it would break my dear wife's heart if I did. It's sort of like Lee joining up with the Confederate Army. He really didn't believe in the Southern cause but his roots were too deep in the South for him to follow his heart.

 

"Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." Acts 22:16. But I suppose you would say that is a euphemism. It's interesting how when scripture plainly states something with which we disagree it's either a euphemism or it is being taken out of context. As for Hebrews 9, yes, the blood of Christ is the only way to wipe out sin. And this same Christ said quite plainly, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

You might do well to read more of the Early Church Fathers. Most of them commented on the salvific effect of baptism. Justin Martyr, who lived a full generation before Irenaeus, is a good example. "Then they are led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you are reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.' . . . The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles." Source: First Apology, circa 148 A.D. As for Irenaeus and Sacerdotalism, I'm not sure what you are getting at. He did champion Sacertotalism but he was not the first and this has to do with holy orders, not baptism.

Indeed it does, and there are a number of other similar verses. However, we can't observe these to the exclusion of passages like Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38 and others. You can search the scriptures and come up with probably a dozen ways to get saved and you can't get saved by doing any of them to the exclusion of the others. Fortunately, none of them are mutually exclusive by their terms.

There is no Baptist standard for baptism and that is not what I said. I used the plural--"Baptist standards"--which is that you don't baptize anyone under the age of accountability. That will vary from church to church but I really doubt that you will find a Baptist church willing to baptize anyone under four years of age. My daughter was probably five or six when she was baptized. But she was no more than two when she could tell you about Jesus.

 

So there is the natural birth, the baptism birth, and the spiritual birth? Christ only said we must be born again, but you have us being born three times. The water in question there has often been taken to be the natural birth, not baptism. Being born of the spirit is salvation. If baptism is required for salvation then you have a lot of professed Christians burning in Hell because they were not baptized, the thief on the cross being among them.

What is it with Catholic sympathizers that the Bible is not enough? It's like they don't trust the word of God, but rather look to fallible men to prop up their traditions.

Did she truly 'believe' on Jesus, or did she just know about Him? I knew about Jesus my whole life. But I did not truly believe on Jesus until I was ten years old. The issue is faith. Did she really have faith in Jesus, or was she only aware of Jesus? We can be aware of stuff and never have faith in it.

 

Paul indicates that it is the Holy Spirit that washes away sin, not water. Verses such as Titus Chapter 3


"he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"

Romans 10: "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."...... No water needed.

Saying that water takes away sin, is like saying circumcision takes away sin. They are symbols of being in the covenant community. Nothing more.

The age of accountability: this is an emotional topic and can get things off track. We can discuss, but probably need a new thread.

*Forgot you posted Acts22

"Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name". There is two commands there. Get up and be baptized is the 1st. Wash away your sins, calling on his name is the 2nd. Already in this post I showed where Paul states that it is the Holy Spirit that does the washing.

You stress the wrong part of the verse. It is the "calling on His name" that saves.