A Concise History Of The Baptists

[BobRyan]

you seem to have "endless ways" to avoid directly responding to the "details" of your "own quote".

I guess we have to "keep reminding you of them" untli the day comes - when you actually "address one".

So far the following "details are being ignored" in your responses.

#1. The point has been made "repeatedly" that the fasting requirement in "your own quote" shows that this could not possibly apply to infants.

#2. The point has been made that St. Peter makes it clear that it is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" that is the essence of Baptism.

All - devastating to you evolved tradition of "infant baptism".

Bill said

Did I not reply to this already?

No - you have dodged the point "repeatedly" by ignonring the obvious problem that "an appeal" has for infants and the obvious problem that "a command to fast" has for infants.

You simply "pretend" that these are "options" given by Peter and in the Didache - when in fact - Peter does NOT say "one possible use of Baptism is as an appeal to God for a clean conscience".

NEITHER does the Didache state "one of the many ways we baptize is to have the candidate fast" -

BOTH of these "edits" are "needed" for the defense you offer.

Bill said

Did I not point out that a non-reference to infant baptism is not a proof that infant baptism was not practiced or taught.

That non-response does not address "either point" above. (as usual - just a dodge - not an answer).

Bill said --
I referenced the didache to indicate the validity of baptizing by a pouring on of water,

True - you were hoping to avoid "every detail in your own quote" except the reference to "pouring".

I simply pointed out that if one was "awake" for the entire reading - the "other details" (like those mentioned above about fasting) refute your infant Baptism tradition.

Bill said --
or has that issue now disappear and you want to try to get me on something else?.

I simply want you to address the devastating case your own quote makes against BOTH the practice of infant baptism AND the baseless idea that "preference" is the only factor for "pouring" when in fact the Didache shows that "necessity" is the "only criteria".

But again - that would mean that you would have to "quote the detail" and address it directly.

Something - you are loathe to actually do.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: it references the command to fast - and to "command him to fast" - "him" being the baptismal candidate who clealry must be old enough to "be commanded" -- (obviously).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill said --
And I think I replied that yes, this was once practiced

The "problem" is that "practicing that" would ONLY allows for believers baptism since obviously imfants could not willingly "comply".

This has only been pointed out about half a dozen times.

I assume you simply are not going to respond.

Bill said --
as a embellishment of the Sacrament and nothing more, just like the use of candles and a baptismal gown,...

As "already noted"

You simply "pretend" that these are "options" given by Peter and in the Didache - when in fact - Peter does NOT say "one possible use of Baptism is as an appeal to God for a clean conscience".

NEITHER does the Didache state "one of the many ways we baptize is to have the candidate fast" -

BOTH of these "edits" are "needed" for the defense you offer.


The "Appeal to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3:21 is not possible for infants and is not given as "one alternate practice you might prefer" in God's Word (much as your defense "needs" it).

The "command to fast" in the Didache is "also not given as one possible practice among many" in the Didache (much as your defense "needs" it).

You have responded to each of these first-sources as "well that's just the way THEY did it- it is not the way WE do it today in the RCC".

Clearly it is not - but in THEIR reference they never position it as "this is just ONE way that might tickle your fancy - give it a try" (Much as your defense "needs" that to be the case).

However - I understand that it would not help your case to actually address these points - these "details" are not in keeping with your practice - clearly so you "need" the text to speak of them as "simly one way among many".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Any book that claims to be:
"A Concise History Of The Baptists
FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST THEIR FOUNDER TO THE 18TH CENTURY."
that doesn't mention Menno Simons is a fraud of no significance.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by mioque:
Any book that claims to be:
"A Concise History Of The Baptists
FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST THEIR FOUNDER TO THE 18TH CENTURY."
that doesn't mention Menno Simons is a fraud of no significance.

Ah yes.........

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10190b.htm

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[thessalonian]

#1. The point has been made "repeatedly" that the fasting requirement in "your own quote" shows that this could not possibly apply to infants.

The Didache is a catechetical document for adult converts. It is not a comprehensive document about baptism as it deals with much of early Christian teachings about other subjects (such as the Eucharist, ouch, they weren't SDA's, by the way, I've got a great quote from Justin Martyr whom you quoted above about Sunday worship) It is not about baptizing infants which requires that the faith of the parents who are already a part of the Church be expressed in behalf of the infants. Like the owners manual to my car doesn't deal with speed limits and stop signs, this document is not intended to deal with infant baptisms.

#2. The point has been made that St. Peter makes it clear that it is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" that is the essence of Baptism.
Yes, and we recieve that clean conscience by the washing of the holy spirit symbolized in the washing of the water at baptism. God chooses that moment to fill our lives with him. To give us a new life, where the old sins are forgotten and we have a clean slate because the Holy Spirit has washed our souls of those sins that have held us down. That is real salvatoin. We don't claim it is the water that does it but water symbolizes the internal workings of the Holy Spirit. Beautiful isn't it. Of course you must distort it and make it ugly.

"No - you have dodged the point "repeatedly" by ignonring the obvious problem that "an appeal" has for infants and the obvious problem that "a command to fast" has for infants."

Bob, I am beginning to think you are not too sharp. Jesus says in John 6 unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you.

Can a child eat his flesh and drink his blood regardless of what you think those words mean. I know of course that you will run off on a tangent about what these words mean and ignore my point. So do children go to hell because they cnanot fullfill these words? Another verse that by Bob's hyperliteral all age encompassing eisegesis commands children to eternal hell or at least to instant ahihilatoin (according to the SDA's)

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Why Bob an infant can't believe and I see nothing in scripture that specifically addresses how a non-believer can get to heaven. The fact is Bob, that once again the document in question (the didache) is a catechetical and instructional document for adult believers and your making a fool out of yourself. What's new.

"All - devastating to you evolved tradition of "infant baptism"."

Blessings

[ February 01, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[mioque]

WPutnam
"Ah yes........."
Yes him.

Menno is something of a keyfigure in baptist history.
Excluding him basically screams:"The author of this work does not know what he is talking about!"

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by mioque:
WPutnam
"Ah yes........."
Yes him.

Menno is something of a keyfigure in baptist history.
Excluding him basically screams:"The author of this work does not know what he is talking about!"

Yep! I got that message!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Said

#1. The point has been made "repeatedly" that the fasting requirement in "your own quote" shows that this could not possibly apply to infants.

Thess then chooses to diminish the Didache as an authorotative early 2nd century source - saying that in essence -- the Didache has some qualifier in it saying "and as for Baptism of the adults - we have this to say".

Or perhaps saying "although we admit to baptizing infants - when it comes to adults we have this to say".

No such "qualifier" is contained in the book - nor in any historic references to the book.

None.

So Thess "makes up" -- well it was written for "adult converts only" -- and was not intended to be read by the infants.

Thess said --
The Didache is a catechetical document for adult converts.

Again - a fascinating kind of "dancing" you are doing there Thess.

And "recall" that the subject here is - "baptism" and how it is done --

Thess obfuscates with "other subjects" in his dancing around...

Thess said --

It is not a comprehensive document about baptism as it deals with much of early Christian teachings about other subjects

Thess then "supposes" that in the Didache - or in an earlier document he DOES have source material showing the following...

Thess said -- baptizing infants which requires that the faith of the parents who are already a part of the Church be expressed in behalf of the infants.

Not a guote from Didache.

Not a guote from the Word of God.

Not a quote from any document preceding the Didach - (which is itself an early 2nd century document)

Bob Said

#2. The point has been made that St. Peter makes it clear that it is the "appeal to God for a clean conscience" that is the essence of Baptism.

So now Thess and Bill have the opportunity to addresss the "APPEAL" problem for infants and the fact that Peter declares that the substance of Baptism is NOT in the WATER (holy, sacramental, magical or otherwise) but is instead in the "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" by the one engaging in baptism.

Thess said --
Yes, and we recieve that clean conscience by the washing of the holy spirit symbolized in the washing of the water at baptism.

So then the WATER DOES the trick?

According to Peter - the "water does nothing".

According to Peter there must be "an APPEAL".

You drop "the detail" altogether - much as Bill has done.

You seem to feel that "paying attention to the details" of St. Peter's statements and of the Didache is to "make it ugle" -- only by "making things up as you go" do you consider it "beautiful".

How interesting. .

Now - as I have repeatedly pointed out here..

Bob said ..

you have dodged the point "repeatedly" by ignonring the obvious problem that "an appeal" has for infants and the obvious problem that "a command to fast" has for infants."

As you did on your response to the point raised again - as noted above.

Thess said --
Bob, I am beginning to think you are not too sharp. Jesus says in John 6 unless you eat the flesh...

You guys have a mind like a steel trap when it comes to these "details" and ways to dodge them.

That was a good leap into the wide blue yonder - going from 1Peter 3 - to John 6 as a way to answer the "detail" of the "appeal". When sects do that - we say they are resorting to "bait and switch" rather than addressing "the details" that do not please their traditions.

Thess said --

Jesus says in John 6 unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you.

Can a child eat his flesh and drink his blood regardless of what you think those words mean. I know of course that you will run off on a tangent about what these words mean and ignore my point. So do children go to hell because they cnanot fullfill these words?

Christ - said that the FLESH is worthless in John 6. And ... He is correct.

Nobody took a bite out of Christ that day in John 6 (or ever) and ... they were correct.

The faithLess disciples DID take your view of "eating real flesh" in John 6 - and they said so... and they were not correct.

Obviousl the infants of the faithLess disciples would be viewed by those same faithless parents as UNNABLE to follow Christ's supposed instruction - as the faithLess understood them to be.

But we are "not of that group".

Thess --
Another verse that by Bob's hyperliteral all age encompassing eisegesis commands children to eternal hell or at least to instant ahihilatoin (according to the SDA's)

That logic requires that we "believe" the view of the FaithLESS disciples in John 6 regarding the eating of human flesh and then MIX that in with the RCC view - to get to your wild conclusion.

And of course - few would want to go that route.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Just letting you know that our parish here in Starkville, MS has a large Baptismal font in the back and we do full immersions of adults and have even done infant immersions (not the head, though). Last year, a woman was baptized and then right after, her newborn baby was baptized! It was a very holy Easter Vigil!

 

[BobRyan]

So then you do not forbid the practice described in the Didache and in scripture - at least in some respects.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

The didache doesn't mention infants Bob. So therefore you cannont claim as you are that it says anything about infants, which it doesn't. I have wasted enough time argueing with such nonsense.

Blessings

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by mioque:
Any book that claims to be:
"A Concise History Of The Baptists
FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST THEIR FOUNDER TO THE 18TH CENTURY."
that doesn't mention Menno Simons is a fraud of no significance.

I'm not sure on what basis you concluded that Orchard did not mention Simons (since he does, though not extensively; circa pp. 360-370)?

 

[mioque]

rlvaughn
I used the internet explorer's search feature on Orchard's book. Nothing came up.
So untill I see concrete evidence to the contrary I'm assuming poor Menno was ignored.

 

[rlvaughn]

I own the book. He is mentioned on the pages I reference above. If you click on THIS LINK, you should be able to find something. I haven't read it in a long time, so I'll not claim to agree with what he says about Menno (don't remember).

 

[mioque]

Groan..
Orchard misspelled his name. It is Simons not Simon.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
The didache doesn't mention infants Bob.

Obviously because the practice of Baptism that the saints employed did not involve them.

And neither does the Bible mention infants being baptized - for the same reason.

That is the easy part.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by thessalonian:
The didache doesn't mention infants Bob.

Obviously because the practice of Baptism that the saints employed did not involve them.

And neither does the Bible mention infants being baptized - for the same reason.

That is the easy part.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Only odvious through the non-transparent glasses of Seventh Day Adventism and pre-concieved notions about what the didache should say. It breifly mentions baptism, hardly a full explanation of the matter so it cannot be understood to contain all the beliefs of the early Church on the matter and there is other evidence that infant baptism was done which brother Bibl has done a fine job of presenting but you ignore. Acts 2 3000 were baptized Bob. Nothing says none of them were children below the age of reason. Households were baptized Bob. Nothing says that there were no children in those households. The Jew's circumcised Children. Baptism quite clearly parrellel's circumcision as bringing a child in to the body of Christ is to bringing children in to the house of Israel. Circumcision of the flesh was a forshadowing of circumcision of the heart. It would have been natural for the apostles and early Christians who were Jews to expect induction of children in to the Church. It is extremely odd that no question in this regard would have ever come up if in fact infants were not being baptized, considering the Jewish Old Testament beliefs. Acts 15 is not just about adult circumcision. Child circumsiion was also a part of that discussion. Circumcision was left out of the salvatoin equation period. The Jews thought that circumcision (including that of babies) was neccessary for salvation. It apparently was not even a cut and dried question as there was much debate in acts 15. Now with circumcision out of the picture, why didn't they address the issue of infants having no cerimony to bring them in to the Church? Very odd. Of course we have no child's words about his baptism because they couldn't talk. But households being baptized was a reality. Tell me Bob, in the stories of the feeding of the multitudes (i.e. John 5) were any children, i.e. infants fed? Bible doesn't say it. So what do you suppose. Once again the Bible says that believers will have eternal life. You have nothing in scripture that tells how a child is to be saved so by your arguementation children must go to hell. Do tell how someone gets to heaven without believing. From the Bible Bob. Without believing Bob. It says "all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Bob. So a child can't call upon the name of the Lord so by your method of Eisegesis, a child goes to hell. There is no other second method of salvation Bob. I am sure you will again try to point the finger back at the Catholic Church on that because that is your game. That is the Gospel you preach. You would have nothing to say if we Catholics were not on this board because your Gospel is the Gospel of anti-catholicism. Very sad.

If the Bible is as explicit and plain on everything as you make it sound Bob, then Protestants are in a very sad state of affairs. They cannot interprut the broad side of a barn wall and so create more and more denominations and more and more division. No, I believe Peter when he says that some things are hard to understand that people like you distort to your own destruction. I believe Paul when he says that there are oral and written traditions that we are supposed to hold fast to (2 Thes 2:15). I believe John when he said that he had more to say in his third letter but that he would deliver it in person. I believe that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) because it carries these things on.

Blessings.

[ February 02, 2004, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[DHK]

Thessalonian tries to make a case for infant baptism from the Bible when there is none. There is not one case of any infant being baptized in the Bible--not one.
In fact, there is more evidence in the Bible for the unbiblical doctrine of multiple baptisms of the dead such as the Mormons do based on a misinterpretation of 1Cor.15:29

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

You would be better off believing as the Mormons do, then believing infant baptism, Thes. At least they can provide Scripture, whereas you cannot.
DHK

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by DHK:
Thessalonian tries to make a case for infant baptism from the Bible when there is none. There is not one case of any infant being baptized in the Bible--not one.
In fact, there is more evidence in the Bible for the unbiblical doctrine of multiple baptisms of the dead such as the Mormons do based on a misinterpretation of 1Cor.15:29

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

You would be better off believing as the Mormons do, then believing infant baptism, Thes. At least they can provide Scripture, whereas you cannot.
DHK

Well of course we have no words of an infant being baptized but households were baptized. Doesn't say anything about excluding infants.
Now in those days there was usually infants in households. In Acts when there were huge numbers being baptized there are no words saying "infants weren't baptized". And once again there are no words in scripture that say that there is another New Testament way of being saved other than believing in Jesus Christ and calling on his name. Since an infant can't do that then they must not be saved. At least according to Mr. DHK's hyperliteral way of thinking. And there is no recorded evidence in the New Testament of an infant being saved. So it seems if this is the game you want to play Mr. DHK, I'm up for it. Oh wait, I'm casting pearls again. Sorry.

Blessings

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Thessalonian tries to make a case for infant baptism from the Bible when there is none. There is not one case of any infant being baptized in the Bible--not one.
In fact, there is more evidence in the Bible for the unbiblical doctrine of multiple baptisms of the dead such as the Mormons do based on a misinterpretation of 1Cor.15:29

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

You would be better off believing as the Mormons do, then believing infant baptism, Thes. At least they can provide Scripture, whereas you cannot.
DHK

Well of course we have no words of an infant being baptized but households were baptized. Doesn't say anything about excluding infants.
Now in those days there was usually infants in households. In Acts when there were huge numbers being baptized there are no words saying "infants weren't baptized". And once again there are no words in scripture that say that there is another New Testament way of being saved other than believing in Jesus Christ and calling on his name. Since an infant can't do that then they must not be saved. At least according to Mr. DHK's hyperliteral way of thinking. And there is no recorded evidence in the New Testament of an infant being saved. So it seems if this is the game you want to play Mr. DHK, I'm up for it. Oh wait, I'm casting pearls again. Sorry.</font>[/QUOTE]Indeed, thessalonian!

I've made that point until I am black and blue in the face, and if the scriptures is not going to be that specific, it will not be accepted, despite the fact that infant baptism was practiced in the early church:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

Therefore the Church began to wallow in error early, and continued so for the rest of it's 1500 year history until the so called "Protestant Reformation."

So, yes, it is "casting pearls" indeed to point these things out.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[Singer]

Now be nice, Bill.
No matter how much the early church foundered and no matter how correct a certain individual was 2000 years ago, we're still solely accountable for how we regard the Lord Jesus Christ for ourself. Our own individual acceptance or denial of the Lord is our personal keys to the kingdom.

God insists in the end that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

That is what he has always required and that is what he requires yet today. That is the start of salvation in each man's life and that is the unsurmountable priority in this life. Even greater than you know what !! (wink wink).

Later,
Singer