Infant Baptism

[Don]

Okay, Ed; I see we're back to one-verse theology again.

I see that you're going to use the argument of silence to support your position, while also using it to detract from others' position.

Ya know, that's also known as a "double standard," and could also fit into the category of "double minded men...."

Feel free to answer Pastor Vaughn. But I have a distinct impression that you...can't. Or that you'll simply fall back onto "baptize all."

 

[Squire Robertsson]

My dear Sir Edward: When are you going to reply to my contention the Believer's Immersion is an historic Baptist distinctive? And if so why should we Baptist deal treat it as an a priori element?

At this point, I usually give this illustration <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All the Irish pubs in San Francisco are Nationalist in their sympathies. Most I assume have a NORAid collection jar on the bar. Now these establishments are normally more than happy to serve all who enter. However, if a person were to enter the Abbey Tavern wearing a RUC rugby shirt, singing some kick the pope song, well, you can be assured that person would be none to welcome and be not so gently shown the door. If on the other hand, this lonesome beer loving Ulsterman had come in quietly wearing a 49ers sweat shirt. Well, he'd be welcome as long as he could pay for his drinks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For a seemingly well educated gentleman, Sir Edward, I fear you really don't know the history of the issues at hand.
I am, Sir Edward, y'r humble serv't in Christ,
Robertsson

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: JBotwinick ]

 

[Sir Ed]

Don, that is exactly my point. Other than the universal command to baptize all, the Scriptures are silent on whether or not the Baptism of infants is ok, just as it is silent as to whether or not the Baptism of seven year olds is ok.

There is no evidence against infant baptism; so that our choice is to follow what generations of Christians before us have believed based upon a rational understanding of Scripture and baptize infants or to reconstruct by a priori methods a history for which we have no evidence; ie: the Baptism of 7 year olds.

 

[rlvaughn]

The command of our Lord to baptize those who are made disciples ought to be ample evidence of whom we should baptize and sufficient authority for us to do so. The ALL of Matthew 28 is not all indiscriminately, but rather all of a certain class of people.

 

[Sir Ed]

Vaughn, a critical reading of Matthew (in context) makes it pretty clear that isn't what it says.

 

[rlvaughn]

Then show us what it says!! Tell us what you mean. Is it not ALL of a certain class of people, but rather ALL regardless of who they are?? A little explanation, please. The context is the aftermath of Jesus' resurrection. He is about to ascend back into heaven. He is leaving His church with a command to go forth. They are to go and teach (make disciples of) all the peoples of the world (cf. Acts 1:8). Those who are made disciples are to be baptized (baptizing them...). Those baptized disciples are to be taught all the commands of the Lord (teaching them...). I think this is the third time I have brought this up and you have made no rebuttal other than some general statement about Matthew that cannot be investigated nor discussed because it is too generic.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Sir Ed]

Vaughn, it would help if you would read the entire thread, but I will say this again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It says to teach all nations, to baptize them. There is no qualification. I understand where you are coming from though. You want to rewrite the verse to read " . . . teach all nations, THEN baptize them in the name . . ." in order to fit your doctrine.

However, it doesn't say that.

 

[rlvaughn]

Sir, I have read the entire thread as it has progressed, and have gone back and read your posts again. But, as in the last post for example, your answer is no answer, "It says to teach all nations, to baptize them. There is no qualification." Baptizing THEM is the qualification. NOT JUST EVERYBODY - THEM! If we identify who 'them' is, we will know who is to be baptized. I have stated who I believe them is - those who have been made disciples (cf. John 4:1). What you have said, taken at face value, would mean to baptize every single individual of every single nation - infants, disciples, and unbelievers! That's not what you mean, is it?? What do you mean??

 

[Sir Ed]

Ok, we are almost there.

Just looking at the language of Matthew 28 we know that we are to baptize "every single individual of every single nation - infants, disciples, and unbelievers!"

However, the Bible does go on to qualify that as it applies to adults by giving examples of adults who have been baptized. THEY must be believers.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Quick question,

What if somebody from say an Islamic country does not want to be baptized in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit? Should we baptize them anyway and then teach them to obey allthings which Christ has commanded us? Or, should we go with free will and allow the person to choose whom he shall serve? If adults are able to choose, then why shouldn't infants be allowed to choose? Is it because they don't have the mental capacity to choose? Are we therefore forcing Jesus upon them? What if they grow up and decide they are atheist? Shouldn't they be allowed to choose that as well? Isn't one of the principles of the Catholic faith the doctrine of free will?

Joseph

 

[Sir Ed]

We choose every day of our lives if we wish to accept the gift of our baptism, God's Grace. Even if we aren't baptized, we still make that choice every day.

 

[rlvaughn]

Maybe we are just so far apart in our presuppositions that we just can't understand one another; but from where I am, Sir, it looks like you're just playing games. You want Matthew 28 to mean EVERYONE is qualified to be baptized; then you will go somewhere else and disqualify all those that you have just qualified, except for those you do not want to be disqualified. Then you must requalify those that you have disqualified that you want to be qualified. That is contradiction, Sir.

 

[Sir Ed]

No, its qualification of a general rule. For example, the law generally says killing is wrong. It qualifies that by saying that killing is ok if it is in self-defense. As another example: All American citizens may vote, however American citizens who have been convicted of a felony must receive a pardon to be eligible to vote.

All are to be baptized, however all who are adults must first believe to be baptized.

I know you don't want to admit it, but thats what the Bible says just looking strictly at the words there.

BTW: Why don't you answer my post above instead of just making some statement that I'm "contradicting" myself. Show me how I'm wrong in reading the words of the Lord in Matthew and believing them and then putting then comparing them to other verses that deal with baptism.

Feel free to skip the verses dealing with families, that has been dealt with in detail. What is the difference between Jesus in Matthew and in other stories of baptisms? In each of those "individual" stories of baptisms, an adult is being baptized. Those adults are (as best we can tell) all required to be believers before Baptism.

So we see that generally Baptism is for everyone, but since an adult has the ability to believe or not (as opposed to the child or mental incompetent), an additional requirement exists for the adult.

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

Do you equate baptizing infants with assuring their salvation? If so, then you are forcing salvation upon them without free will, aren't you?

Joseph

 

[Sir Ed]

Joseph (great name btw; that is what we hope to name our unborn son in a couple of months!),

No. Baptism in no way assures Salvation.

 

[rlvaughn]

The BIGGEST (not the only, just the biggest) is that the sentence of Matthew 28:18-20 just doesn't say what you want it to say.

It says, "You go [imperative] and teach (matheteuo, make disciples of, cf. Mt. 13:52; 27:57; Acts 14:21) all nations (ethnos, not the corporate political entity, but the people of it), baptizing [present active participle, while in the process of going] them (antecedent is those made disciples of all nations, not all nations)in the name of...teaching (another present active participle, while in the process of going; Gk. didasko) them (antecedent is those made disciples and baptized) to (not 'how to', but 'to') observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..."

No, the word 'then' is not there, but if you baptize those who have been made disciples, you will be baptizing AFTER they have been made disciples - just as Jesus did (He made AND baptized more disciples than John, a two-fold process).

A second problem is that to define the relation of discipling and baptism as you have to uphold your doctrine, creates a contradiction in your practice in the last part of the commission - teaching them to observe. In fact, infant sprinkling churches do not teach their children to observe ALL things Christ commanded (for example, communion), but rather teach them to refrain until they are, how do you say it? - confirmed.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ed,

If it doesn't assure salvation, then why do catholics baptize infants?

Joseph

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Is it because the Catholic faith beleives in baptismal regeneration?

Joseph

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ "merited for us justification by His most holy passion...the instrumental cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism....If anyone says that baptism is...not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."1 Vatican II (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent2 and reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation,3 as does the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993: "Baptism is necessary for salvation...the Church does not know of any [other] means...that assures entry into eternal beatitude...." 4

 

[Sir Ed]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> them (antecedent is those made disciples of all nations, not all nations) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an assumption on your part. However, it would be interesting to get a Greek linguist to talk with us about this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A second problem is that to define the relation of discipling and baptism as you have to uphold your doctrine, creates a contradiction in your practice in the last part of the commission - teaching them to observe. In fact, infant sprinkling churches do not teach their children to observe ALL things Christ commanded (for example, communion), but rather teach them to refrain until they are, how do you say it? - confirmed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Vaughn, you are wrong about this, but I am short on time at the moment so I will have to get back to you. This may be a good topic to start a new thread on though.

J, I'm not Catholic, so I really can't say.

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Sir Ed ]