When was receiving Jesus as our Lord and Savior same as drink down whiskey?
-
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!
Is infant baptism from the Bible?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
- Status
Another genius from the 16th century who thought he knew more about the Christian faith than those that came before him who were actually a part of the newly forming Christian Church. If I am not mistaken, Zwingli was also the first to deny the "Real Presence" of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. Yeah, a real genius that Zwingli was for sure.
Hobie
Well-Known Member
This is a good overview of the conflict today...
" Infant baptism is either scriptural or unscriptural. If scriptural, it should be practiced. The study of scriptures reveals that infant baptism is not taught, either by [Biblical] precept or example.”
In presenting Dr. Welshimer's message, I often began with the following quote from a statement in A Living Faith Pamphlet published by Westminster (Presbyterian) Press in 1962: “If the baptism of infants can genuinely express what baptism means in the New Testament, well and good. If not, we should discontinue it, no matter how long it has been practiced.” This statement is significant because it was published by a denomination which has practiced infant baptism throughout most of its history, but which, in many quarters, is abandoning the practice....
The origin of sprinkling as a substitute of baptism is a matter of recorded history. We cannot know the personal motives of those who made the change.
In AD 753. Pope Stephen was driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of the Lombards. He fled to Pipen. While he was there, he was asked by the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, if, in the case of necessity, baptism poured on the head would be lawful, in place of immersion. This was 723 years after the beginning of Christian baptism in AD 30 (Acts 2:38). Even then, it was allowed only in case of extreme emergency. The common practice remained immersion.
In 1311 AD, the Counsel of Revenna declared sprinkling or immersion to be valid. There was no claim that sprinkling was scriptural. The change was made by a majority vote of the College of Cardinals. It was the product of the superstitious theology of the middle ages which had long since lost sight of the Biblical reasons for baptism.
Two basic errors are involved in the evolution of infant baptism. First,. those who established the practice, as well as those who continue it have lost sight of what Christian Baptism is, as is represented in scripture. Not just immersion in water. Christian baptism is immersion in water of a repenting believer for the remission of sin (Acts 2.38). Having lost sight of the scriptural nature of baptism, they attribute to the ceremony itself the power of salvation."...https://www.thecra.org/restoration-herald/articles-of-note/why-i-did-not-baptize-the-baby
" Infant baptism is either scriptural or unscriptural. If scriptural, it should be practiced. The study of scriptures reveals that infant baptism is not taught, either by [Biblical] precept or example.”
In presenting Dr. Welshimer's message, I often began with the following quote from a statement in A Living Faith Pamphlet published by Westminster (Presbyterian) Press in 1962: “If the baptism of infants can genuinely express what baptism means in the New Testament, well and good. If not, we should discontinue it, no matter how long it has been practiced.” This statement is significant because it was published by a denomination which has practiced infant baptism throughout most of its history, but which, in many quarters, is abandoning the practice....
The origin of sprinkling as a substitute of baptism is a matter of recorded history. We cannot know the personal motives of those who made the change.
In AD 753. Pope Stephen was driven from Rome by Adolphus, King of the Lombards. He fled to Pipen. While he was there, he was asked by the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, if, in the case of necessity, baptism poured on the head would be lawful, in place of immersion. This was 723 years after the beginning of Christian baptism in AD 30 (Acts 2:38). Even then, it was allowed only in case of extreme emergency. The common practice remained immersion.
In 1311 AD, the Counsel of Revenna declared sprinkling or immersion to be valid. There was no claim that sprinkling was scriptural. The change was made by a majority vote of the College of Cardinals. It was the product of the superstitious theology of the middle ages which had long since lost sight of the Biblical reasons for baptism.
Two basic errors are involved in the evolution of infant baptism. First,. those who established the practice, as well as those who continue it have lost sight of what Christian Baptism is, as is represented in scripture. Not just immersion in water. Christian baptism is immersion in water of a repenting believer for the remission of sin (Acts 2.38). Having lost sight of the scriptural nature of baptism, they attribute to the ceremony itself the power of salvation."...https://www.thecra.org/restoration-herald/articles-of-note/why-i-did-not-baptize-the-baby
Not only is this drivel based on the false, man-made precept of Sola Scriptura, a 16th century invention - your "history" and nomenclature are WAY off.
Let's start with the latter and work our way to the former . . .
Your claims about "sprinkling" are nonsense. First of all - every time I debate an anti-Catholic about Infant Baptism - I ask them to show me an example of people being baptized by "sprinkling". They NEVER seem to be able to produce even ONE instance.
The correct term is "POURING" - and this IS provided for in the 1ST CENTURY document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles). Allow me to educate you . . .
From The Didache:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Infant Baptism is a teaching from the APOSTLES themselves, as attested to by The Didache - AND the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers.
In Scripture, we see ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS being baptized. Since you don't seem to be familiar with the way tings worked in the first century - allow me to educate you again.
It was common in First century homes for multiple generations to live under the same roof. Grandparents, parents and children - of ALL ages.
Peter Baptized the ENTIRE household of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14).
Paul baptized the ENTIRE households of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16) and the Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:23-33).
As for your first claim that if something isn't explicitly mentioned in Scripture it shouldn't be practiced - I challenge you to:
Show me ONE verse of Scripture that says we should NOT Practice anything that is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.
Since YOU are a Sola Scripturist - YOU have placed the burden on yourself to provide Scriptural Proof for EVERYTHING.
Scripture does NOT support this 16th century tradition of men . . .
One can try to make a case for infant baptism from Bible, but cannot make one for Infant regeneration!
Incorrect.
Baptism doesn't just regenerate SOME people - but ALL who are Baptized as Jesus prescribed (John 3:5, Matt. 28:19).
In Acts 2:38, Peter said that Baptism was for the forgiveness of sins and for the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the very next verse, he assured the crowd that this promise was also for their CHILDREN.
Circumcision of 8-day-old infants didn't bring SOME of them into the covenant with God - it brought ALL of them into the Covenant with God.
Baptism is the fulfillment of the OT Type that was circumcision.
water Baptism in the NT is NOT circumcision, as those who receive the water already have the Holy Spirit!
I didn't say that water Baptism was circumcision.
I said that it is the FULFILLMENT of what circumcision was.
Paul tells us this much:
Col. 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead
As to your second LIE in RED - we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit AT Baptism.
In Acts 2:37, the crowd was moved - but they hadn't yet received the Holy Spirit.
Then, Peter says:
Acts 2:38
“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.
Why do you continually drag out these threads arguing with people who are only here with ulterior motives. Let it go.
Yet, you, MB and Walpole can never fully declare that you are saved. Therefore, infant baptism doesn't actually regenerate. All you can declare is that infant baptism covers sin for a moment.
Of course, saying that newborns have sin in them also goes against at least one of your partners beliefs so it begs the question as to why an infant is would ever need to be baptized for the purpose of regeneration.
Ultimately, the contradictions you juggle and the fact that infant baptism is never directly described in the Bible should dissuade you from such a belief.
Your trust in your schizophrenic church is fascinating.
Walpole
Well-Known Member
In Christianity (Catholicism) we have theological virtues, one of which is that of hope. Hope is the expectation of something we do not yet possess. If we already possess something or are guaranteed it, we would not need the virtue of hope. Instead, we would just need the virtue of patience to wait for it. Here is St. Paul...
"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" (Rom 8:24)
In Protestantism, there is no need for hope since Protestants judge themselves to already be saved. (This is actually called the sin of presumption.) I've yet to meet a Protestant who hasn't already judge themselves to be saved. Thus in Protestantism, hope is meaningless.
Catholics --> Hopeful
Protestants --> Presumptuous
We don't get to set ourselves up as our own judge. Only Christ is the rightful judge of ALL.
This is Christianity 101.
To them , water baptism ives to you a pardon for all past sins, and puts one on spiritual probabtion, hoping can get enough infused grace to
Why are Sda and Rome allowed to post here even, as do not regard either of them as real NT Church!
Not hope. Grace through faith.
It seems you intentionally neglect all that God tells us.
Romans 8:23-25,29-30 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Ephesians 2:4-9 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Walpole, your cherry picking of a sentence makes you look bad and shows you have a disrespect for scripture while you uphold your church.
All believers are saved by grace (not are being saved as you contend). All believers are granted faith, which is the hope of our assured salvation.
Unfortunately, you refuse to accept that God has saved you. Instead you desire to live in paranoid fear that you will out run God and somehow mangle and destroy your salvation.
I wish you could rest in the promises God has given you, but it seems you are simply going to live in fear your entire life. You don't have to be fearful. Trust God's promises.
JW have no assurance of salvation, as have no idea of just how many knocking on doors God requires, likewise, Catholics have no idea of just how sacramental gracing required to bypass Purgatory go straight into heaven!
Walpole
Well-Known Member
There's no cherry picking verses. Faith, hope and charity are three distinct Christian theological virtues. Faith is not hope and hope is not faith. Furthermore, St. Paul tells us the greatest is not faith, but charity. (cf. 1 Cor 13:13)
The same Apostle tells us we are saved by hope. However, based on the Protestant presumption that they have judged themselves to be saved, then the virtue of hope would be meaningless in Protestant theology.
"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?" (Rom 8:24)
Hope is the expectation of something we do not yet possess. If something is already possessed (your salvation), then there is no need for hope. Hope would be futile. Instead, you would just need patience to wait it out. Thus, in Protestantism, there is no need for hope when one has already judged themselves to be saved.
Last edited:
Why are you allowed to post here as you have no basic respect for other Christian faith traditions? You do little but make charge after charge in a very un-Christian manner and there is really no fruitful dialogue that can be had with you. Let us let God do the judging as to what constitutes a valid NT church, shall we?
Look, you have even distanced yourself from the original "reformers", going way beyond standard Christian belief's and practices that all of Christendom followed. You are in no position to question anyone else's belief as being a valid NT church.
How you can see the splinter in someone else's eye when that beam is in your eye is beyond my comprehension.
Last edited:
I shared the rest of Romans 8 to you so you can stop making claims not supported by context. You do a great job of cherry picking verses. You know Muslims do the same thing with the Bible.
The Gospel of Rome is not the one of Jesus....
Walpole
Well-Known Member
In the midst of your posting the rest of Romans 8, I did not see you offer a rebuttal to the Apostle. Once again, if you are already saved, then the words of Paul in Romans 8 are futile. There is no need for the virtue of hope if you already possess something. Hope would be an absurdity.
Catholics = Hopeful
Protestants = Presumptive
- Status