Apostolic-era infant baptisms

Acts 10:39-48, particularly: vss: 43, 45, 47, 48.

This is believer's baptism. Infants are not capable of believing. Infants do not need baptism. Baptism does not save, nor wash away sin. The sins were washed at Calvary with the innocent blood of Jesus which is on the altar in heaven forever making intercession for the children of God.
cf: Acts 4:4;

Selah,

Bro. James

 

No mention of belief as a necessary prerequisite for baptism. It does seem to suggest that speaking in tongues might be though - I take it your church only baptises those who speak in tongues then?

 

The burden of proof is still on the affirmative. Where in the scripture is the doctrine of infant baptism? All you have is unnecessary inference and the commandments of men, plus other stretches of speculative imagination, along with a lot of smoke which fails to hide many centuries of false teachings. :1_grouphug:

Now what? :type:

Selah,
:wavey:

Bro. James

 

That font burned a whole in my retinas! Ok lets look at baptism sola scriptura.

Though they were confessing there sins there isn't an indicator that this was a requirement.

Jesus did it to fulfill all righteousness. Does it infer that Christians do it to? No not really it is certain Jesus must have done it for that purpose but it does not indicate that others have to do it that way. It is interesting to note that Mark Luke and John spend more time outside of the actual baptism of Jesus. The dialogue that occured around it.

No indicator here that there must be believe but that they must baptize in the Tinitarian formula and there is a responsibility to teach after baptism everything Jesus commanded them.

Nothing here about believing but it seems suffering is alluded to. Do we all need to be martyred to recieve Christ baptism?

There is an indicator that baptism is a course of action after repenting but nothing else apart from that. Must you repent before you are baptized or is baptism a natural course after repentance? Can we infer that both these requirements are required for the forgiveness of sins?

There is no idication of a requirement before baptism here. We assume that the eunuch believed. The Eunuch didn't even give his testimony!

So here is an idicator of a requirement. Recieving the Holy Spirit. Do any of you speak in tongues before being baptised?

Paul emphasises preaching over baptism but again where is the requirement? If you are sola scriptura you may need to state that the only clear indicator of a possible requirement is receipt of the Holy Spirit (and possibly repentance) evidenced by the speaking of tongues. If you agree with that then you can say the likelyhood of an infant recieving the Holy Spirit is diminished and can not be evidenced by the speaking in tongues. So infants can't be baptised. But then if you don't speak in tounges neither can you. Of course I don't believe that! However, an honest sola scriptura person can't really add to it. Kind of like the Trinity. Scripture alludes to the persons of the Godhead but never uses the Trinity. Therefore a sola scriptura person can only say that the Godhead has been revealed in the Father, Son, and Spirit but that is as far as it goes. The thology of the trinity beyond that (ie homoosius etc...) is not spelled out therefore there should not be a doctrine about it. My point is that many of our beliefs are extra scriptura. Strangely enough many come out of the eccuminical councils.

 

Your interpretation of Acts 8:36 contradicts Acts 8:37 which plainly shows that believing is a prerequisite to baptism. Again, believing is something which an infant is not physically able to do. You continue to support a believer's baptism argument.

Going back to the Ethiopian Eunuch: scriptures say he went away rejoicing. Where? He went back to Ethiopia, as the treasurer of Candice, the queen. Now we have a rejoicing, baptized believer in North Africa--the first missionary? Perhaps. He was a Black Jew. Interesting: Black Jews have been found alive in Africa even in our generation. God's Word does not return void.

The trinity extra scriptural? Only in a delusion of the Watchtower, etal. When Jesus told the Jews: I AM THAT I AM, they knew exactly what He was saying. That was their charge against Jesus: "He makes himself to be God. That's blasphemy. He is guilty and worthy of death". He is either God in the flesh, or the greatest imposter ever.
The third person is evidenced at the baptism of Jesus. All three persons were there: Father's voice, The Holy Spirit as a dove descending, and Jesus. The three persons of the Godhead--a trinity, if you will, is plainly revealed. This was part of the faith long before any ecumenical councils were called. God's people do not need anything but scripture--they are throughly furnished to all good works, including believer's baptism. See II Tim. 3:13-17.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Yes, but Jesus' claim in John 8:58 only speaks in terms of His co-equality with the Father; is says nothing about how that equality and divinity is worked out. Nor does it mention that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity; in fact the NT nowhere states the the HS is God at all, let alone how He is. It was left to the Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I to fully-form these Trinitarian doctrines that we all take for granted today. But you think they were concoctions of nasty Constantine and the nastier Catholic Church which he apparently started, so then again maybe you don't take them for granted or accept them?

And you've dodged my question about tongues - since you have stated that Cornelius' conversion is normative, I take it you refuse to baptise anyone who doesn't speak in tongues?

 

Yes, but...

Which yes are we butting?

John 14:26, KJV, 1679(?) ed. reads: "But the Comforter, which is the HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The whole chapter is filled with Trinity. See vs. 9.

The Comforter came on Pentecost and immersed the first Church. He continues to immerse His Churches even today--He has never left them nor forsaken them.

Now what? We seem to be stuck in semantics.

Speaking? hearing? in unlearned tongues, glossalia, is not germane to this discussion. We have too many subjects on the floor simultaneously. Glossalia WAS (note the past tense) a sign for the unbelieving Jews. Remember: "the Jews reqire a sign"? This was the miraculous sign: the Jews, regardless of their native tongue, could hear the Apostles speaking in their own tongue. i.e. kind of like the translator system at the U.N.--all different languages can be heard simultaneously--an individual hears the speaker in the hearer's native tongue. This analogy breaks down when we consider the U.N. to be a miraculous entity. This is a serious digression.

The Holy Spirit is everywhere in scripture--bearing witness and convicting of sin, righteousness and judgement to come.

No, the Lord's churches did not have to wait for councils of men and emperors to give them guidance as to what the Word of God might be, also The Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints. See Jude 3.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

In the same way that words like, "The Trinity exists," so there is nowhere with a phrase like, "The Holy Spirit is God." Even so, the teaching that the Holy Spirit is God is found in the bible. Just two examples: Peter asks Ananias, "Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?" (Acts 5.3). In the very next verse, Peter tells Ananias, "You have not lied to men, but to God." Gabriel told Mary, in asnwer to her question about how she, a virgin, could become pregnant, "The Holy Sprit will come upon you, and the power of the highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." And Jesus spoke of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. I understand that the Greek blasfhmew means "to speak evil of", generally, not of God specifically. However, every occurence of the word in the New Testament refers to God.

Are you saying that God revealed a new truth not found in the bible, to Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I? If so, if so, what is the standard by which you know that their pronouncements were true?

 

I said we can assume it but quote vs. 37. You will find that it does not say that we must believe. Lets see the quote.

 

Thanks for clarifying that you don't consider Acts 10 to be normative anymore

 

And why would this be so difficult to believe? Didn’t Jesus Himself promise to be with His Church until the end of the world and that the HS would remind His Church of all things? Didn’t St. John the Apostle state that there were many things Jesus said and done that aren’t contained in any letter or book?

In XC
-

 

No I don't believe he is saying that at all. The theology of the trinity ie the Union of the Godhead and Jesus and the HS being of the same substance is not mentioned in the bible. The bible clearly indicates God has revealed himself to us as One God - hear O Isreal the lord our God the Lord is one. That God has revealed himself as the Son ( I and the father are one) and in the Holy Spirit. The theology of the Trinity all spelled out is the defining of what we believe is revealed in scripture. However, scripture does not spell it out. If one is trully sola scriptural one must say God is one, and has revealed himself in the Father, son , and spirit. beyond that the doctrine of the trinity is extra biblical though we believe the bible alludes to it; it doesn't specify it. That's my point. It is also my point that if we are entirely sola scriptura those baptised must speak in tounges.
but we don't say that why?

 

The truth is not explicit but is rightly inferred, being in accordance with what the Church has always believed (the rule of faith, delivered to the saints once and for all).

 

But when Jesus spoke about the Holy Spirit bringing things to remembrance, He was talking to the Twelve, those with whom He was physically present, and to whom He had spoken. John 14.25-26:

25 ¶ "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

​

What sense would it make for Him to say to the Councils of Nicaea I and Constantinople I, "These things I have spoken to while being present with you .....the Holy Spirit......will bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you"?

As for things not mentioned in the bible, I imagine you are thinking of John 20.30-31, and John 21.25:

20.30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

21.25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

​

But these verses only mention "many other signs" performed by Jesus, and "many other things" that He did, not teaching on such a vital subject as whether or not the Holy Spirit is God. Nor is there any indication that the "many signs not written in this book" would be revealed by the Holy Spirit to certain councils in the 4th century.

 

(I am not ignoring the earlier part of your post, but I must limit my time on the Baptist Board, as I could easily spend whole days on it!)
That is a non-sequitur. If speaking in tongues were a prerequisite for baptism, then when the Ethiopian asked Philip if he could be baptised, Philip would have needed to say, "Sorry, not yet! You may believe with all your heart, but I haven't heard you speak in tongues yet!"

The context of Acts 10.46 is that it is part of the account of the Gentiles being converted. Until then most Christians had been Jews. The idea that God would save Gentiles was abhorent to many of them. We only have to think of the reluctance of Peter in this resoect, and the way in which God showed him, in that dream of the sheet containing ceremonially-clean and -unclean animals. And Acts 10.45 says:

And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

​

The speaking in tongues was not a requirement for baptism, but a sign to the Jewish Christians ("those of the circumcision") that God had caused these Gentiles to become Christians as well.

 

But according to Bro James (or at least his earlier post; he seems to have subsequently performed something of a volte face on the issue), the conversion of Cornelius' household is normative as far as baptism goes, in that belief preceded the baptisms there. Our point was that if you want to make that event normative, then you also have to include speaking in tongues as a prerequisite, since that also preceded the baptism of Cornelius & Co. We're just asking for consistency.

And John 14:25-26 is relevant, since the Apostolic body was gathered at both Nicaea and Constantinople

 

And obviously Christ knew that they would have trouble remembering what was said. Christ didn’t instruct His Disciples to write a book, nor did Christ leave any written manual for them, only that through the Father in Christ’s Name would the Holy Spirit teach and bring remembrance of all things.

Along those lines, Christ promised He would be with His Church until the end of the age.

The Apostles are gone on to Glory, their work finished, but the age has yet to end and there’s still work to be done yet. In today’s ever growing secular world and the devil’s full frontal attack on the Church, it’s vital that Christ keeps His promise and we know that God is True to His Word.

These Councils addressed specific heresy’s that threatened the integrity of the Gospel message and the Church. Just as the Holy Spirit did His job during the first Council recorded in Acts, the Holy Spirit continued in the infancy of the Church.

From what I’ve been taught, is that no new Revelation is needed. What has been reveled to the Church has already come to pass. No new Dogma is needed (Sorry my RC brethren). These Councils in the 4th Century didn’t proclaim anything new that wasn’t already being taught in the early Church. What these Councils did was reconfirm what was already in practice and in doing so it’s the Churches conviction that it was the Holy Spirit that ensured what the Church was teaching was Truth and that through these important Councils the Holy Spirit reminded these Councils what was Truth…How is a Mystery my friend.

Today certain Protestants want to debate or try and “redefine” how the natures of Christ’s humanity and His Divinity coexisted in a human body. They can debate until the cows come home, but it’s already been settled.

In XC
-

 

Good point and so we see that there is no prerequisit for baptism. Possibly repentance but not necissarily so if you read the scriptures. So Sola Scriptura means we can only make a doctrinal statement on what the scriptures say and they say nothing about a prerequisit for baptism ie neither should the sola scripturist. So is the believers baptism a result of belief or could it lead to belief? Which is my point. Even Sola Scripturist are not entirely so. But they rely on the tradition handed down by other baptist or whatever denomination they are in with regards to interpreting scripture. They also rely on the Eccuminical counsils for theological constructs like the trinity.

 

For 1000's of years, the sign of salvation was given to God's people when the youngsters had their bar mitzvah -- when they reached manhood -- an age of accountability (to use today's terms) if you will. Right?

Oops, sorry. They received the sign of salvation when they were still infants. From Genesis on, that's the way it was. No where in the OT do we see the sign given to them after they believed in Jehovah God.

So, if we are to somehow reverse thousands of years of practice in the NT, then wouldn't the Scriptures actually state this outright? But we don't see this. Instead, we see whole households being baptized. We see Peter preaching that the promise of salvation is for you and for your children. We see that even if one parent is a believer that the child is considered holy.

 

In Old Testament Israel, the male babies were circumcised as a sign that they were, by birth, descendants of Jacob. In the New Testament, people were baptised as a sign that they were, by second birth ("being born again") saved.

As for the quote from Peter's sermon, in Acts 2, we need to look at the context. Acts 2.38-41 (emphasis mine):

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
​

Besides, that the Greek word translated "children" does not mean "new-born babies". Indeed, it often means "descendants", as in John 8.39:

They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.​

Your friend, Spurgeon, wrote:

We maintain that the only proper subjects of Christian baptism are believers in Christ, those proselyted to Christ, disciples of Christ; or, since we have not, and are not required to have access to the heart, those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ. This we believe to be taught in the divine precept, "Go ye therefore, and teach [make disciples of] all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;" and to be confirmed by the record, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." ​

​

The full article is found at: http://heritagecommunitychurch.net/articles/c h spurgeon on baptism.htm

Finally, if baptism was to be the New Testament version of circumcision, then (to borrow your words ) wouldn't the Scriptures actually state this outright? But we don't see this.