What Scriptures support baptism by immersion?

Well meaning Baptists have made their mistake in believing that Romans chapter six deals with water baptism.

In Romans five he is dealing with justification, something that God does on our behalf. In chapter six he is saying that grace is greater than all our sins and the promise of eternal life to those who believe in Jesus. In chapter seven he is dealing with the struggle in the Christian life. So to inject immersion into Romans six is a disservice to God when He is dealing with our identification with Christ in a spiritual bonding that will prove to be eternal.

Romans chapter six and I Corinthians twelve speaks clearly of a new believer being baptized into the Holy Spirit as an act of Almighty God in creating His one spiritual body throughout our world. There is not enough water in Romans six to even sprinkle a person in baptism. In fact, there is not one drop of water in this chapter. In vs. 3 we are spiritually baptized into Jesus Christ. We have been buried and resurrected in Christ to newness of life, not because of water but because we have been baptized into the Holy Spirit and, if you will, into God the Father. In vs. 3 we are baptized into the Triune Godhead, thus, we are made one with Him. [John 17:11e]

 

This is a quote from "Fundamental Christian Theology" by H.M. Hills for Frank and those immerssionists who think that "baptizo" means to immerse and nothing else but immerse.

1. The testimony from the Lexicons. Immersionists assert that "all lexicographers define Baptizo to man to immerse, to dip, to plunge; not one to sprinkle or to pour." Whether this assertion is true or false we will leave to be determined by the lexicographers themselves. They shall decide the question.

Schrevelius, the great master of the Greek language whose Lexicon has been a standard authority for about two hundred years, defines Baptizo by mergo, abluo, lavo; that is to immerse, to wash, to sprinkle or wet. The same definitions are given by Scapula, and Hendericus. Only one of the words denotes exclusive immersion, the others signifying the application of water by other modes.

Schleusner, in his Lexicon of the New Testament, a work of the highest authority, defines Baptizo: 1. To immerse in water: 2. To wash, sprinkle or cleanse with water: 3. To baptize: 4. To pour out largely." Only one of these definitions restricts the meaning to immersion. Three of them denote the application of water by affusion.

Cole defines Baptizo: "to baptize, to wash, to sprinkle."

Suidas defines Baptizo by "mergo, madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo; that is to immerse, moisten, sprinkle, wash, purge, cleanse.

Passor defines it "to immerse, to wash, to sprinkle."

Conlor defines it by "mersione, ablutione, etaspersione"; that is, immersion, washing, sprinkling or wetting.

Robinson defines: 'to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing." "In reference to the rite of baptism, it would seem to have expressed not always simply immersion but the more general idea of ablution or affusion." He then proceeds through a whole column to prove that it could not always mean immersion, and must mean in many places pouring or sprinkling" (pp. 118, 119).

Grove defines it "to dip, plunge, immerse, wash, wet, moisten, stain, sprinkle, steep, imbue, dye, or color."

On the testimony of the Lexicographers, then the theory of immersionists or Baptists falls.

2. We now turn to the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and the Apochryphal books. This translation was made perhaps B. C. 280. It proves that the word was used long before Christ, to convey the idea of ceremonial cleansing, by the use of water. Bapto, and its derivative Baptizo were often so employed as to convey the idea of affusion, or sprinkling, and to exclude the idea of immersion.

(1) We read, Leviticus 14: 6, "As for the living bird he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip (or tinge) them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water." Here it is evident that bapsei, the future of bapto, cannot mean to immerse, for it is impossible that the "living bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet and the hyssop," should all have been totally immersed in the blood of one bird.

(2) It is found in Septuagint, 2 Kings 5: 14, in the case of Naaman, a translation of the Hebrew "tawbal," which is translated fourteen times by bapto, but here by (baptizo) because it expressed not the dipping, but the resultant ceremonial cleansing of Naaman. Seven gave the idea of completeness to the Hebrew mind.

(3) In Daniel 4: 33, it is recorded that Nebuchadnezzar's body (ebaphe) was wet with the dew of heaven. Now what is the action which is here expressed by ebaphe an inflection of bapto? If we allow the Scriptures to explain their own phraseology, they will determine this to be a clear case of affusion or sprinkling, and not of immersion. Thus, "The dew fell upon the camp in the night" (Num. 11: 9). "His heavens drop down dew" (Deut. 33: 28). "As the dew falleth on the ground" (2 Sam. 17: 12).

(4) The next case is in the book of Judith, and shows conclusively that baptizo was used to express the general idea of ritual purification, in a case where immersion is excluded with absolute certainty. Judith 12: 6, 7, 9. She "purified herself" (ebaptizeto) at the fountain, not in it, and entered into her tent pure (katharos). It was in a camp of soldiers, under the eye of a guard, at a spring (epi ????). A hard pressed Baptist writer suggests that she might have found a horse-trough large enough to immerse herself in. It only shows to what silly lengths men will go to force an argument, when they make "at a spring," mean "in an imaginary horse-trough!" The purification of a Jew was almost always by sprinkling, and with running water.

(5) The next and only other use of (baptizo) in Septuagint is in Ecciesiasticus or Son of Sirach, 34: 25, and is in itself enough to settle the whole question. "He that is purified (baptizomenos) from a dead body and touches it again, what does his cleansing profit him?" To see how it was done read Numbers 19: 13, 16, 19. A clean person took a bunch of hyssop and dipped it in running water and sprinkled the unclean. See the New Testament references to the same ceremony in Heb. 9: 13, 14, and Heb. 10: 22. The whole process of cleansing was by sprinkling, and yet in the passage above quoted, and in Heb. 9: 10, it is called baptism. It is abosolutely conclusive.

Josephus, referring to this, wrote 250 years later. Baptizing by this ashes put into spring water, they sprinkled on the third day and seventh day (Josephus, Book 4, chapter 4).

These passages clearly show that baptizo had been used by Jewish Greeks to represent the idea of ceremonial cleansing by water for at least two or three centuries before Christ. Christ never explained the word, and it was in this sense therefore that He used it. It was so used when the entire cleansing was by sprinkling. Mr. Carson, the Baptist, translates the passage, "immersed on account of a dead body." This does violence to the Mosaic law, and also to the meaning of "apo," which means "from" and not on account of. Such a rendering would not be thought of but to save a needy theory.

 

Ray:
Romans 6:3-5 is a discussion of what constitutes a baptism. It is a covering. Furthermore, the one who is BAPTIZED INTO THE AGENT IS ALSO RAISED FROM THE SAME. The one raised from the agent walks in newness of life like Christ. If Holy Spirit baptism were in view, this would make the one baptized in the Holy Spirit raised out of him. Accordingly, the Bible says, this would make him NONE OF CHRIST'S. Romans 8:9 says, 9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
By the way, I am a Christian as per Isaiah 62;2;56;5,Acts 11:26.

 

A further study into the impossibility of "baptizo" meaning only to immerse can be found at the site of Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers. Scroll down to the religious articles where you find "Baptizo, An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word" by James W. Dale.http://www.bolchazy.com/index.php?cat=myth&sub=all

You say that Jesus was burried because the tomb was his covering. How was He raised from the tomb when he walked out horizontally. He was already raised before He came out!

No, it doesn't mean that! When we receive the Holy Spirit, we are vicariously identified with Christ. That's why it can also be said that we are "crucified with Him", or that we "put on Christ". It simply means that everything Christ did to save us is shared through being identified with him in baptism.

 

Smokey:
In the examples of conversion in the new testament of Christ, each example employs the word baptizo. The text and examples provided teach us the word to mean immersion, or overwhelming. I Pet. 3:20,21, Romans 6:3-5. The conversion of the Eunoch required a burial as both parties went down into the water and he ( Philip) baptized him. Sprinkling does not require one to go down into any water ( Acts 8:38). Sprinkling does not require one to come up out of the water ( Acts 8:39). However, baptism as depicted in the new testament does, as it is an overwhelming (I Cor. 10:1,2). Furthermore, in the new testament, RHANTIZO means to be sprinkled, not baptizo.

It is irrelevant as to what uninspired men claim or write about jewish customs. I am under the authority of Christ. Mt. 28:18-20. Jesus said to baptize, not rahntizo or sprinkle.

If I wanted to be Jewish, I would follow the old law. However,I prefer the better covenant with better promises. Hebrews 8:6.

 

Smokey:
According to Romans 6:3,4, Identify the agent of baptism?

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Identify the agent: Is it Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism?

The Bible identifies one baptism that saves. Eph. 4:4,5. According to Romans 6:3,4 and the conversions of Acts, which agent or type is in view?

 

Eph 4:4-5 (KJV 1769)[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;One Lord, one faith, one baptism,...
Romans 6:3-4 (KJV 1769)Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Frank, I'm not sure these say what you want them to say, but it appears we fully agree, based on your rhetorical question "Identify the agent: Is it Holy Spirit baptism or water baptism?" that the Holy Spirit of God is the (as you put it) "agent" in baptism. Further, it seem swe agree that water is not the "agent." So why do you make so much fuss about how to use the water? You sound as if you hold the act of immersion in water to be a salvific act.

 

Well true, but where did you get your definition of baptizo and rahntizo? Is there an inspired glossary at the end of the bible that gives definitions of words? You get your definitions from uninspired lexicons just like I do, and when you say baptizo always means to immerse, that's your man's opinion. I'm just saying there is scholarship that says otherwise.

No they don't. I showed how the baptism of the Holy Spirit came as a pouring on Pentecost and on other occassions in Acts. Water baptism symbolized this as the two were interconnected. Jesus said John did the same thing with water that He did with the Holy Spirit!

No it didn't, we don't even know that they both went down into the water! The Greek word can mean "down to" the water just as well, where water could be scooped up. You would be hard pressed to even find a stream deep enough to immerse in that dessert region. They needed the water they were carrying to drink! They possibly could have waded down into a shallow stream, people didn't worry about getting their feet wet in the dessert. It probably felt good!

It doesn't say, but what agent do you think can really identify us with Christ, water or the spirit? Whatever the spirit does, water symbolizes as a testimony or ritual!

 

Smokey:
Water baptism is essential to salvation. The Bibles teaches this. I Pet. 3:21, Acts 8:12-16,36-39, Gal.3;26-29.
The baptism commanded by Christ to make disciples had human administrators. Mat. 28:18-20.
The baptism commanded by Christ was to continue to the end of time. Mt. 28:18-20.
The baptism commanded by Christ saves. Mark 16:16.

Holy Spirit baptism was done by Christ ONLY. Mat. 3:11.
Holy Spirit baptism was for the 12 and Gentile flesh in fulfillment of Joel 2:27,28. See Acts 2:1-4;10:44-48, Luke 24:44-51.
Holy Spirit baptism was not to save, but was to proclaim the message of salvation. Acts 2:1-4,37,38.
Holy Spirit baptism was not for all people. Acts 8:12-16,17,18.

Acts 8:12-16 clearly demonstrates that water baptism is the one baptism that saves. In the text, those baptized had not received the Holy Spirit. It was not until the hands of the apostles were laid on them did they receive the gift.

You have made an assumption that does not reflect the text of scripture nor the implications from the evidence.

 

Smokey:
I used the context to define the words. However, lexicons are also available to define words without the USE OF CONTEXT. I simply pointed out tht the Greek text uses two different words for this discussion. I did not site any scholar or his opinion. I simply looked at the words and the context. Any serious Bible student knows it is a basic principle of interpretation to allow context to define words. While some words have multiple meanings, CONTEXT WILL ALWAYS CLARIFY THE CORRECT ONE. ALWAYS!!!

 

1 Peter 3:20-21 (ESV)
because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The baptism that saves is an appeal to God for a good conscience by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Remember that the Lord told us if He went away, that is, if His life was taken away and then ressurcted , He would send the comforter, the Holy Spirit. The Spirit enters our life to teach us how to live, or to enlighten our conscience. When we appeal to God for a good conscience, we are asking God for the Holy Spirit. To avoid the conception that the water ritual accomplishes this instead of the Holy Spirit, Peter said that it was "not the removal of dirt from the body" but the Holy Spirit that saves. The waters of the flood were used as a type of Christian baptism which symbolized this! Incidentally, notice that it was the "avoidance of the flood waters" that saved Noah and his family, not being buried under them. As in the baptism of Moses, it was the sinners that were burried under the flood, not the righteous. Flood water is stagnate and impure, fresh rain water is clean and purifies. Therefore, it's the fresh rain water from the flood that best pictures the purifying effects of the Holy Spirit!

Acts 8:12-20 (ESV)
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. [13] Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
[14] Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, [15] who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, [16] for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. [17] Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. [18] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, [19] saying, "Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." [20] But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!

The fact that you believe and are baptized with water doesn't automatically make you a Christian unless you have the right kind of faith! Notice that Simon "believed" and then was condemned when he thought he could obtain the gift of God wiht money. These believers in Samaria had only a partial faith and obvioulsy needed futher help, so when Peter and John came to pray for them , they received the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 3:26-27 (ESV)
"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

I don't see how this says that water baptism saves! If it refers to water baptism, it just says that those baptized had became sons of God through faith, and confessed it through water baptism.

Holy Spirit baptism was to comfort, to teach, to give us the spriitual power to do wonderful things, and identified us with Christ in order to save us from our sins.
Romans 8:9 (ESV)
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Acts 10:44-47 (ESV)
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. [45] And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. [46] For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, [47] "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

The baptism of the Holy Spirit can come before or after water baptism depending on the circumstances. Some, who experienced water baptism, needed further help. Others, who believed the word and had the right kind of faith received the Spirit before water baptism. The fact that they received the Spirit before water baptism shows that its not the water ritual that saves, but the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Notice Peter said," Can anyone withold water since these people have already received the Holy Spirit? What does this tell you about the meaning of water baptism other that it symbolizes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 (ESV)
And Peter said to them, "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.

"For the remission of sins" means that they were to demonstrate publically what had already happened in ther lives. Sometimes, as shown above, the Holy Spirit was given even before baptism, and then was demonstrated with water.

I don't see how any of these scriptures say that Holy Spirit baptism was not for all people, especially in view of Romans 8:9 (ESV)
"You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
It's true that some were unable to receive the Holy Spirit right away in view of their circumstances, but that does not mean they could not receive it when their hearts gave the right kind of faith, that is, a saving faith!

This doesn't say that water baptism is the one baptism that saves! It only shows that its possible to have water baptism and not be saved if you do not also receive the Holy Spirit!

 

That's not true, context only helps clarify what a word's meaning is, it doesnt "always" give the correct meaning. The fact that the Greek has two different words for something doesn't fix the meaning of one word in concrete as apposed to the other! Contrary to "rhantize", baptizo had developed religious overtones by two or three centuries before Christ. Since it had became a religious word for the Jews, we correctly translate it "baptize" in our English versions.
You probably know that the Septuagint was a greek translation of the Old Testament made for Jews of the dispersion who had lost contact with their native language. In it,when they wanted a word for dip, they used the non-religious word bapto. When they needed a word for religious purification, they used "baptizo" which could refer to a sprinkling or a dipping, as long as it was used for a religious purification!

 

In Acts 16:14-15 Lydia followed the Lord by being baptized into the Christian faith. She had yielded to the Lord in faith and in her desire to be baptized. But there are other people involved than her. The Bible says that those in her house were baptized, which may have included other adults, teens, or even babies.

The Apostle Paul baptized the household of Stephanas which infers the same as in paragraph one.

The immersionists on this board have ignored these verses twice. Let's see if they can still persuade us that only adults are allowed to be baptized into the faith, from these vital texts to do with Christian baptism.

And to those who sprinkle babies, what does this mean to those who follow what apparently, the Apostle Paul did when he baptized adults?

 

Smokey:
The question was not is faith essential. It is. The question was is the baptism that pertains to salvation, immersion. The Bible teaches us through example it is a burial, covering or overwhelming. There is no BIBLICAL evidence anyone was sprinkled for baptism under the new covenant. None. You can argue what jewish scholars or sectarians believe, however, the Bible has made it as a clear as clear can be. Baptism for unto the remission of sins is water baptsim in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(Mt. 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, I Pet. 3:21).

The Eunoch and Philip went down into the water. He baptized him. They went down into and came up out of the water. This is consistent and harmonious with baptsim as it is depicted in the new testament.i.e. a burial, Romans 6:3-5,a covering, I Cor. 10:1,2, an overwhelming, I Pet. 3:21. Your argument that baptism in the new testament was sprinkling is in conflict with the inspired passages that teach baptism is a covering, burial or overwhelming. Your argument ASSUMES a meaning of the inspired language that is not harmonious with the examples. Therefore, it is a false argument. As Jeremiah said in 2:13, it is a broken cistern that holds no water. No pun intended.
By the way, I am not affirming that one is saved by water. Only, that it is a part of the system of faith that is essential to the salvation of the sinner.

 

Ray:
I have never ignored any of these texts. I believe every word of them. I also do not use unsound principles to exegete scripture. Your contention about babies and young children cannot be sustained throught the words of these texts. You can ASSERT. However, these texts in and of themsleves do not sustain or make your argument. One who attempts to use only parts of the evidence ona subject will most likely interpret it wrong. In short, the one verse wonder approach is futile.
In order to determine who is to be baptized for the the remission of sins,he must take the whole counsel of God. Acts 20:27. He must make the RIGHT conclusions based on the totality of the ahrmonious evidence. Luke 10: 26:-29.

One important question that must be asked is: Why should one be baptized?
The Bible teaches we are baptized for the remission of sins in order to receive the gift of salvation of the Holy Spirit( Acts 2:38).

Who is the sinner? The Bible says it is those who transgress God's law. I John 3:4. Those who know right from wrong and fail to do right. James 5:17,Acts 2:37.

In every case of conversion recorded in the book of Acts, the sinner responded verbally by confessing Christ, repented of his sin both mentally and through fruit bearing, and submitted to baptism. The Eunoch, the Jailer exemplify these characteristics.

Babies do not possess these abilities. They are not amenable to the gospel, as they are not sinners. Jesus said in Luke 18:16  But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Therefore, babies are not subject to baptism for the remission of sin.

 

Frank, I don't know what you're talking about when you say I argue what Jewish scholars and sectarians believe. The references I gave were from Christian scholars that happen to see a very excellant case for baptism by sprinkling! So do I. When you say the bible is clear as clear can be about immerssion, your giving your own opinion. Most of my arguments come from the bible accept when I find a need to counter what immerssionists say about "baptizo". They spend time on end in their research to show it can mean nothing else accept to immerse. Totally false! I see things within context like you do and come to different conclusions. I don't think you have a monopoly on the truth and neither do I!

 

Frank,

By the very fact that you have no exegetical answer to the Acts passage and the one in I Corinthians, as to 'household baptism' is an indication that your view as to who may receive and the mode of immersion is flawed. In other words, the theology has a gaping hole in it. If you cannot explain all the passages then you need to rethink your view of baptism.

Acts 11:14;16:15, 31, 33; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16 must be included in your theological understanding among the other verses in the New Testament.

Lydia seems to have been the head of the household and may have been a widow with children. The baptism of her household seems to have had a sanctifying effect on those under her roof, just as the Apostle Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 7:14.

Dr. Matthew Henry, "Matthew Henry's Commentary," says in Volume VI, p. 539 that 'these children are to be distinguished from the world; and therefore, the children born to a Christian mother, though married to an unbelieving husband, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed.'[I Corinthians 7:14] or in my words, "an unsaved man is sanctified if the wife is saved and because of their physical union--their children are to be considered as holy and part of the covenant of God. This does not mean that the husband is saved but her sanctifying affects on him may lead him to Christ. And hopefully when the children become adult they too will follow the supervision of the saved mother and her church, in this case, Lydia, because she had her children baptized as a covenant act on her part, by including her own children under the care of the Christian church.

The infants or young children have not come to the place where they have faith in Jesus, but one day the Christian mother will guide them into the fold. If the infants or young children die before 'the age of accountability' they of course will be saved."

I also think it is theologically wrong to say that children do not have a sin nature. Every human beings is a sinner.

In the "The Didache" meaning "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" they offered these words.

'Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the Name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.' from "The Apostolic Fathers", Baker Book House, p. 153.

As you see the Didache was written and being taught before Christians started immersing new believers in more recent times. The statement above has the imprimatur of the apostles as to the mode of baptism.

Isn't learning new things a wonderful thing?

 

Smokey:
Provide one example of a person in the new testament rahntizo for remission of sins. Or, demonstrate by implication, example or declarative statement anyone was sprinkled for the remission of sins. Book, Chapter and Verse will suffice. I have done so for immersion, overwhelming,covering, and burial.

Show me from the scriptures how the baptism of the new tesatmnent is not a burial, overwhelming or covering. Romans 6:3-5, I Pet. 3:20,21, I Cor. 10:1,2 show forth what is meant by baptism.

Now, by the same standard provide the evidence for sprinkling being the mode of baptism. I just want one example from the Bible. Book ,Chapter and Verse will suffice.

If you can do this, you will be the first man in the history of new testament Christianity to do so. Good Luck!

 

Ray:
My exegetical understanding has considered the totality of the evidence.
1. You ASSERT infants, babies and young children are sinners. PROVE IT! I Thes. 5:21.
2. You ASSERT these individuals were baptized. PROVE IT FROM THE TEXT!
3. Households may or may not have young children or infants in them. You have ASSUMED this without textual support. My household has five members. The youngest of which is 11 years old. There are no infants or young children who do not have the ability to discern right and wrong. So, your contention about households and infants and young children is ,well, unsupported assertion to be kind.

I presented evidence that identifies both sin and the sinner. The evidence will not allow for an infant or young child incapable of cognitive abiltiy to be subject to baptism for the remission of sins.

I would like to know how a one month old child confesses Christ as the Son of the Living God ( Acts 8:37). 37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I would like to know what fruits of repentence an infant must bear and can bear ( Mat. 3:8). Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

I Would like to know how an infant has the ability to know and do such things as murder, steal or any such work of the flesh. ( Gal. 5:19- 21 ). Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Which one of these sins does a baby commit?

Sin is the missing of the mark. I John 3:4. It requires one to do something. James 4;17, Gal. 6:10. It requires cognitive abitlity and discernment. ( Acts 2:36-38). Paul by inspiration said in Romans 7:7-9, Romans 7:7  ¶What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8  But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9  For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
When was Paul alive once without sin? Was it before he had the ability to comprehend coveteousness or after? Was he alive once when he was an adult. If this is so, then he understood coveteousness as an infant but became mentally ill and did not know it as an adult, as this would be the time he was alive once without the law.

Your argument is like taking candy from a baby. No pun intended!

[ September 28, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

Frank,

Just curious about why you never directly answer folks when they talk about "pouring," AKA "annointing" or more properly, "affusion." You always seem to turn discussion about affusion back with comments about "sprinkling" (more properly termed "aspersion," which I believe includes marking with water [i.e.making the sign of the cross with water on the forehead]) - somebody correct me if I'm wrong, OK?
Immersion is not affusion is not aspersion. But all three are forms of Christian baptism whether you personally accept it or not.