-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Infant Baptism: Doctrinal error? Who should we ask?
- Thread starter BobRyan
- Start date
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Is this where you want to claim that the Eastern Orthodox Church has no doctrine that differs from the RCC or that there is no shared communion between the two denominations??
On the contrary we could adopt the Bible teaching in Mark 7 that flatly condemn any traditions where "you teach for doctrine the commandments of men" and use 'tradition to negate' God's Word.
The Bible sir -- I highly recommend it!
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You "appear" to argue that my posts show me using Ellen White to define/defend/prove/state/frame doctrine as you have referenced the RC magesterium and Popes to defend and define your RC views. If you actually HAVE fact to go with your hollow accusation then "show it" -- do the math... show that I have ever quoted Ellen White to make/define/defend a single doctrinal position I have taken on this board! In fact do I ever argue that anyone else should do such a thing with any source outside the Bible? If so -- show that I did it instead of simply making false accusation.
If your point is instead to issue a baseless accusation then "well executed" sir. So did the RCC in the dark ages before you.
By contrast - my practice is to stick with actual facts. And I would add that the fact that your magesterium leaves you with a position reduced down to false and factless accusations as the last remaining line of response means they have done a disservice to you sir.
I recommend the Bible method instead.
in Christ,
Bob
The Church did not "produce the Bible" -- God did. God gave the church the Word of God and Spiritual Gifts and Prophets and Teachers etc. READ Romans 3:1-3 if you are confused on that point for it shows that this was true EVEN for the Jews. And read 1Cor 12 if you deny that these gifts are FROM God and TO the Church!
If your point is instead to issue a baseless accusation then "well executed" sir. So did the RCC in the dark ages before you.
By contrast - my practice is to stick with actual facts. And I would add that the fact that your magesterium leaves you with a position reduced down to false and factless accusations as the last remaining line of response means they have done a disservice to you sir.
I recommend the Bible method instead.
in Christ,
Bob
The Church did not "produce the Bible" -- God did. God gave the church the Word of God and Spiritual Gifts and Prophets and Teachers etc. READ Romans 3:1-3 if you are confused on that point for it shows that this was true EVEN for the Jews. And read 1Cor 12 if you deny that these gifts are FROM God and TO the Church!
Last edited by a moderator:
Baptist churches are not in a denomination as such, and thus the practice is left up to each individual church. To my knowledge those churches that do have a practice of baby dedication never have any water involved. It is simply a public declaration of the parents that they are going to raise their child to the best of their ability for the Lord. A prayer is said. And that is all. No water is ever involved. And even then, this ceremony is not practiced by all Baptist churches.Eliyahu said:
DHK said:
I think whenever people defend Infant Baptism by bringing Matthew 19:13-15, the verses say that the parents wanted Jesus to pray for their children, the Disciples rebuked them, then Jesus laid His Hands on them, and departed thence. That's rather closer to the baby dedication, not to the Infant Baptism. Even in that case, in Matthew 19, the children might have been older than the ages of toddlers from the context who could understand the prayer, and the prayer could help them for the faith.
Matthew 19 never involved the Water or water baptism.
Zenas said:
Sorry Zenas, most Protestants do not hold to this view, even though we do baptize infants.
Eliyahu said:
Sorry, you are wrong. Every Presbyterian denomination (USA, PCA, EPCA, OPC, etc.) that I am aware of baptizes infants. We baptize both new believers and infants of believers [you know, that whole household thing found in both the OT and NT].
BTW, while some Presbyterian churches use the Shorter/Longer Catechisms to teach children, I do not know of any exam as such.
BobRyan said:
From OT times forward, both believers and their children received the sign of salvation. In the OT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith, what happened? They and their whole household were circumcised. When believers in the OT had children, did they wait until the male child was old enough - reach an age of decision - before he was circumcised? No, this was done while they were infants -- based upon God's directive to Abraham.
In the NT, when nonbelievers came to saving faith, what happened? They and their whole households were baptized – given the sign of salvation, consistent with OT practices. While the NT does not specifically mention the inclusion of infants in these households, there is no mention of exclusion as well.
Since the practice for the past 4000 years was to include infants and children, we would fully expect to see some statement in the NT that specifically excluded them -- IF there was to be a difference in practice going forward. Instead, we find no such directive.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no such thing as "infants, chairs, rugs and cats" being baptized in the NT just because "they are in the house at the time".
Much as a few people would like to imagine otherwise.
Rather it was those who HEARD and believed that were baptized.
Not even ONCE do we see all the children of OT saints receiving the "sign of salvation" as infants. The only thing that happened is the BOYS ONLY received the sign of tribal membership and land rights - inheritance in the earthly realestate.
But in the NT the REAL spiritual act of circumcision is stated in Romans 2 as being that which is "OF the HEART and BY the Holy Spirit" that ALONE comprises the spiritual significance -- and that CAN only be done in the life of a believer.
Obviously.
Wrong. OT saints (like Enoch and Noah and Abel etc were not circumcised".
ALSO the OT characters that were NOT Hebrew were not circumcised. SAME as in the NT.
Paul said in Acts 22-23 that HE did NOTHING to change that and in Acts 16 we see that he requires that Timonty be circumcised but NOT the Gentile - Titus.
Wrong again. which is why you are not quoting the text sir.
In the NT the household HEARD THE WORD of God - accepted it and were baptized. There is NO HEARING of the Word by Infants.
Obviously.
There is no "repent and be baptized" for infants.
Obviously.
There is no "appeal to God for clean conscience" by the infant
obviously.
Which means there is no NT basis for infant baptism...
obviously.
EVEN the RCC (who INVENTED this idea) admits that the first century NT church DID NOT practice infant baptism.
TODAY we see that Those who DO practice it - find that this is the MOST common form of baptism not "a nice little side unmentioned incident" and that is NOT what we see in the NT
in Christ,
Bob
Originally Posted by BobRyan
There is no such thing as "infants, chairs, rugs and cats" being baptized in the NT just because "they are in the house at the time".
Much as a few people would like to imagine otherwise.
Rather it was those who HEARD and believed that were baptized.
Not even ONCE do we see all the children of OT saints receiving the "sign of salvation" as infants. The only thing that happened is the BOYS ONLY received the sign of tribal membership and land rights - inheritance in the earthly realestate.
But in the NT the REAL spiritual act of circumcision is stated in Romans 2 as being that which is "OF the HEART and BY the Holy Spirit" that ALONE comprises the spiritual significance -- and that CAN only be done in the life of a believer.
Obviously.
Wrong. OT saints (like Enoch and Noah and Abel etc were not circumcised".
ALSO the OT characters that were NOT Hebrew were not circumcised. SAME as in the NT.
Paul said in Acts 22-23 that HE did NOTHING to change that and in Acts 16 we see that he requires that Timonty be circumcised but NOT the Gentile - Titus.
Wrong again. which is why you are not quoting the text sir.
In the NT the household HEARD THE WORD of God - accepted it and were baptized. There is NO HEARING of the Word by Infants.
Obviously.
There is no "repent and be baptized" for infants.
Obviously.
There is no "appeal to God for clean conscience" by the infant
obviously.
Which means there is no NT basis for infant baptism...
obviously.
EVEN the RCC (who INVENTED this idea) admits that the first century NT church DID NOT practice infant baptism.
TODAY we see that Those who DO practice it - find that this is the MOST common form of baptism not "a nice little side unmentioned incident" and that is NOT what we see in the NT
in Christ,
Bob
Infant Baptism
It's curious to me that "High Order" churches get constantly attacked on this board for doctrinal "errors" taught. But everyone pretty much lets Baptist slide on error after error. If all Higher Order churches are to be held "guilty" by God for teaching error. Where does that put Baptist and other Fundamentalist?? Just to mention a few errors of the Baptist. No legitimate, honest, Theologian or Scholar on earth can take Scripture and teach Tithing (as it is commonly taught by the Baptist) nor "total abstinence from alcohol" (other than a discipline), nor the "Rapture" (I'm speaking of the full blown LaHaye type fictions that many teach). Thankfully the SBC doesn't go to the extreme and actually have scripturally accurate doctrinal positions in the "Baptist Faith and Message" for public consumption. Or I wouldn't be there. But those are not what is being taught in many Baptist Churches, nor what your average Baptist believes. Why is one group of churches are considered evil, wrong, etc. and not the other?? I hope that no one here really thinks that their fundamentalist denomination/church is without error. Personally, I think some of these Pastors and Seminarians, teaching these things will ultimately answer to God for it. Many of these "false" teachings are like a spreading contagion that innocent people soak up and believe. Brain washing would almost be a kind word to use, at least they may have lesser guilt before God, when they give account. Yet these are the most intolerant. Wouldn't it be more Christian to remove the beam from your own eye?
It's curious to me that "High Order" churches get constantly attacked on this board for doctrinal "errors" taught. But everyone pretty much lets Baptist slide on error after error. If all Higher Order churches are to be held "guilty" by God for teaching error. Where does that put Baptist and other Fundamentalist?? Just to mention a few errors of the Baptist. No legitimate, honest, Theologian or Scholar on earth can take Scripture and teach Tithing (as it is commonly taught by the Baptist) nor "total abstinence from alcohol" (other than a discipline), nor the "Rapture" (I'm speaking of the full blown LaHaye type fictions that many teach). Thankfully the SBC doesn't go to the extreme and actually have scripturally accurate doctrinal positions in the "Baptist Faith and Message" for public consumption. Or I wouldn't be there. But those are not what is being taught in many Baptist Churches, nor what your average Baptist believes. Why is one group of churches are considered evil, wrong, etc. and not the other?? I hope that no one here really thinks that their fundamentalist denomination/church is without error. Personally, I think some of these Pastors and Seminarians, teaching these things will ultimately answer to God for it. Many of these "false" teachings are like a spreading contagion that innocent people soak up and believe. Brain washing would almost be a kind word to use, at least they may have lesser guilt before God, when they give account. Yet these are the most intolerant. Wouldn't it be more Christian to remove the beam from your own eye?
The people who bring the Circumcision for defending Infant Baptism are on the absolutely wrong track. I already mentioned the difference between Circumcision and Baptism. Circumcision is the shadow of the Salvation itself, while Baptism is the declaration and confirmation of the Salvation after the Salvation. The sinners were sprinkled either with the blood or with the Ash-Water ( symbolizing Salvation), thereafter they washed themselves and the clothes, even shaved themselves.
I posted this at post # 6:
Acts 8:
the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 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.
Infants cannot confess such faith!
In case of Philippian Jailor:
Acts 16:34
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house
One must explain how the babies believed in God at the jailor's house.
How could the baptism be the same as Circumcision?
If so, why didn't God specifiy that even the Baptism should be done for the babies on the 8th day after birth?
As for Circumcision, it is specified as the 8th day, where is the date for the Baptism?
Doesn't it alreay insinuate that the date should be after the Salvation?
Col 2:11-13 is a good example to disprove the arguments.
verse 11 equalizes the Circumcistion with the Salvation like the Crucifixion,
verse 12 talks about the Baptism which is like the Burial and the Resurrection,
verse 13 talks about the forgiveness from the sins thru the whole process.
So, it distinguish the effects of Circumcision and Baptism.
Col 2:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Jesus ask the disciples to allow the children to come to Him so that they may listen to the Gospel. That is the point.
The main aspect of the baptism is the declaration of the faith. It affirms the salvation of the Believer who was born again already.
How could the following verses support the Infant Baptism?
Dt 10:16 - 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Can Infants repent and get their foreskins of their hearts circumcised?
Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.
Can Infants remove the foreskins of their hearts?
Can the Infants open their heart to be circumcised?
Dt 30 : 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Can the Infants Love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul?
Romans 2:
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
In other words, the true believers are not the people who are changed by flesh circumcision but the people who are truly born again by Holy Spirit.
If the infants are wholly saved, then when they start to lose their salvation?
Infants cannot confess the Belief and cannot learn the truth, and therefore they were not included in the sacrament.
Baptism is not the matter of loving children, but the confirmation of the Faith and the Declaration of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the Believer.
Some people bring even the case of Cornellius:
Acts 10:
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Infants cannot hear the Gospel, and therefore we cannot believe that there were babies who were baptized at Cornellius house.
Peter re-affirms this in the next chapter too:
Acts 11:18
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Did Babies repent for the Baptism?
Satan is eager very much to bring the Unbelievers into the churches and the Infant Baptism is one of the important tools for it.
I posted this at post # 6:
Acts 8:
the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 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.
Infants cannot confess such faith!
In case of Philippian Jailor:
Acts 16:34
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house
One must explain how the babies believed in God at the jailor's house.
How could the baptism be the same as Circumcision?
If so, why didn't God specifiy that even the Baptism should be done for the babies on the 8th day after birth?
As for Circumcision, it is specified as the 8th day, where is the date for the Baptism?
Doesn't it alreay insinuate that the date should be after the Salvation?
Col 2:11-13 is a good example to disprove the arguments.
verse 11 equalizes the Circumcistion with the Salvation like the Crucifixion,
verse 12 talks about the Baptism which is like the Burial and the Resurrection,
verse 13 talks about the forgiveness from the sins thru the whole process.
So, it distinguish the effects of Circumcision and Baptism.
Col 2:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Jesus ask the disciples to allow the children to come to Him so that they may listen to the Gospel. That is the point.
The main aspect of the baptism is the declaration of the faith. It affirms the salvation of the Believer who was born again already.
How could the following verses support the Infant Baptism?
Dt 10:16 - 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Can Infants repent and get their foreskins of their hearts circumcised?
Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.
Can Infants remove the foreskins of their hearts?
Can the Infants open their heart to be circumcised?
Dt 30 : 6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Can the Infants Love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul?
Romans 2:
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
In other words, the true believers are not the people who are changed by flesh circumcision but the people who are truly born again by Holy Spirit.
If the infants are wholly saved, then when they start to lose their salvation?
Infants cannot confess the Belief and cannot learn the truth, and therefore they were not included in the sacrament.
Baptism is not the matter of loving children, but the confirmation of the Faith and the Declaration of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of the Believer.
Some people bring even the case of Cornellius:
Acts 10:
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Infants cannot hear the Gospel, and therefore we cannot believe that there were babies who were baptized at Cornellius house.
Peter re-affirms this in the next chapter too:
Acts 11:18
Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Did Babies repent for the Baptism?
Satan is eager very much to bring the Unbelievers into the churches and the Infant Baptism is one of the important tools for it.
Last edited:
The standard answer will be: "...but we go by the bible only..." Ok, then WHO interprets the Bible for you? "...the Bible interprets itself...duh..." STILL who says YOUR interpretation is better than anyothers? "...We'll if your a TRUE "Born Again" Christian, the Holy Spirit will led you to the Truth..."mes228 said:
And around we'll go...
-
Agnus_Dei said:
If you truly base your belief and arguments on the Bible itself, then the differences are neither much, nor difficult to resolve.
If you bring the biblical arguments against my Bible references, we can compare them, and confirm whose arguments are correct without difficulty.
You couldn't bring any biblical arguments against what I posted, can you?
Tell me whether the Infants were included in the Jailor's house and they all believed in God or not.
Tell me whether Cornellius had infants and they all heard the gospel and repented or not.
Please answer based on the Bible.
You take a Jack Chick, Dave Hunt and David Cloud stand and believe that “Satan” is bringing Unbeliever’s into the Church, via “infant baptism”. When neither you nor Chick, Hunt or Cloud understands the role of infant baptism, you just regurgitate old worn out accusations that have no merit.Eliyahu said:
In addition, an infant who’s been baptized still has to go through “Confirmation” when he/she reaches the age of accountability and I’m sure you’re familiar with Confirmation and what they’re confessing to believe…
Here’s the kicker though. You don’t believe that baptism has any bearing on one’s salvation, when Holy Scripture and Church Traditional history disagrees with you. All one has to do is repeat a few words, scripted out and bam, instant salvation, no matter how grievous of a sin you commit afterwards, you’re still saved…all past, present and future sins are forgiven and you don’t even have to get baptized…it’s just a symbol anyway.
In any event, I believe Satan is eager very much to bring the Unbelievers into the thousands of schismatic churches and you’re method of false conversion is an important tool to fool the individual.
Sadly,
-
The method of recording the History by RCC about the True Believers are this:
Simply condemn them as Heretics, or as Gnostic, or as manichaeans, etc after burning out their writings.
If RCC record the history about someone like me, they would record that
Eliyahu
- rejected Trinity because he refused calling Mary as Mother of God
- hated the children because he rejected Infant Baptism
- rejected the Sanctification or Purification because he refused the Purgatory
- believed in the chaotic order of the church because he refused the Priests and Pastors for the church leadership
- Ignored the Body of Christ, because he refused the Transubstantiation.
- Established his own cult because he ignored the ECF's
- claimed that there is no need for repentance, because he condemned the Mass where Priests lead the people to repent.
- claimed that there is no need to pray God to forgive the sins because God already forgave the sins, as he condemns that the Mass continues to ask God to forgive the sins without bringing the Gospel that all the sins were already forgiven.
- said that Everyone can live at his or her liberty because God forgave all the sins.
- said that everyone can interpret the Bible and live whichever life they want.
- said the Eucharist is nothing and can be trampled down
- didn't believe the Virgin birth of Jesus because he disbelieved the Perpetual virginity of Mary
- didn't respect the parents because he refused to respect our Mother.
Therefore we burnt all his writings because his heresies may pollute other holy believers of RCC.
This is how RCC wrote about the True believers in the past.
On this thread only, please check how many verses of the Scriptures I mentioned and posted. When RCC wrote the history about their dissidents, they almost never mentioned which verses they were based on and which Bible Truth they were explaining, but instead they simply liken them with Arianism, Sabellianism, Manichaeans, Gnosticts, etc.
Maybe RCC condemn me as Mono-physitic legalist.
This is how RCC advocate their 1.3 billion children running on the Broadway thru the Wide Gate to the Destruction ( Matt 7:13-14).
The other day I met a Catholic woman and showed the Romans, she was surprised to read ch 3 of Romans since she never read any portion of the Bible, neither OT, nor NT, nor even Gospel, nor Romans ever before. This is how RCC have kept their children in the darkness.
Simply condemn them as Heretics, or as Gnostic, or as manichaeans, etc after burning out their writings.
If RCC record the history about someone like me, they would record that
Eliyahu
- rejected Trinity because he refused calling Mary as Mother of God
- hated the children because he rejected Infant Baptism
- rejected the Sanctification or Purification because he refused the Purgatory
- believed in the chaotic order of the church because he refused the Priests and Pastors for the church leadership
- Ignored the Body of Christ, because he refused the Transubstantiation.
- Established his own cult because he ignored the ECF's
- claimed that there is no need for repentance, because he condemned the Mass where Priests lead the people to repent.
- claimed that there is no need to pray God to forgive the sins because God already forgave the sins, as he condemns that the Mass continues to ask God to forgive the sins without bringing the Gospel that all the sins were already forgiven.
- said that Everyone can live at his or her liberty because God forgave all the sins.
- said that everyone can interpret the Bible and live whichever life they want.
- said the Eucharist is nothing and can be trampled down
- didn't believe the Virgin birth of Jesus because he disbelieved the Perpetual virginity of Mary
- didn't respect the parents because he refused to respect our Mother.
Therefore we burnt all his writings because his heresies may pollute other holy believers of RCC.
This is how RCC wrote about the True believers in the past.
On this thread only, please check how many verses of the Scriptures I mentioned and posted. When RCC wrote the history about their dissidents, they almost never mentioned which verses they were based on and which Bible Truth they were explaining, but instead they simply liken them with Arianism, Sabellianism, Manichaeans, Gnosticts, etc.
Maybe RCC condemn me as Mono-physitic legalist.
This is how RCC advocate their 1.3 billion children running on the Broadway thru the Wide Gate to the Destruction ( Matt 7:13-14).
The other day I met a Catholic woman and showed the Romans, she was surprised to read ch 3 of Romans since she never read any portion of the Bible, neither OT, nor NT, nor even Gospel, nor Romans ever before. This is how RCC have kept their children in the darkness.
Last edited:
I didn't know whether they mentioned that the Infant Baptism is the method to bring the Unbelievers into the churches. If they said so, they pointed rightly out the truth.Agnus_Dei said:
That's another human theory which can never be found in the Bible. Confirmation is another human tradition RCC has added.
Yes, they disagreed with the Bible too.
Yes, even the Robber at the Cross was not baptized but went to Paradise while billions of RCC people are going to the Purgatory.
Satan never confess he is Satan or his people belong to Satan. Read John 8:41-44. Jews confessed their father is God, but Jesus said your father is devil. So, who belongs to Satan should be discerned by the Bible. Are 1.3 billion people not running on the Broadway? Should they be 13 billion in the future? YOu even advocated Mulsims because they know the Creator!
Then your religion will have 3 billion or more in the futue! Isn't that Broadway thru Wide Gate?