Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. There's a strong argument for saying that baptismal regeneration is taught in the Bible - I Peter 3:21 springs to mind.
There is no argument there at all. That verse doesn't even come close to teaching baptismal regeneration.
1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
--Speaking of "the like figure" means that it is symblolic (a figure), and that it refers to the picture in the verses that precede it.
In the verses that precede Peter speaks of Noah and the "eight souls were saved by water.} (vs. 20). But they weren't saved by water. Everything was destroyed by water. Water was the agent of destruction not salvation. What saved them was the ark, the symbol of Christ, the only way of salvation, the only way to heaven. One cannot be saved by water; cannot be saved by baptism. Water is a destroying agent in this picutre.
So what does verse 21 mean.
What does the rest of the verse say; the part that you guys never quote?
"(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
--Baptism represents the putting away of the flesh. It is symbolic of our old life that is dead to sin. Baptism doesn't save. What saves? The answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is what saves a person. Baptism is completely out of the picture here. What saves is the answer of a good conscience toward God, which can only come through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When one believes on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the gospel), and conscientiously acts upon by praying to Christ and giving answer to God accordingly he shall be saved. Baptism is symbolic of that salvation, but it cannot and is unable to save any one.
2. These matters to which you refer were taught by the early church; Irenaeus, for example, writes:
Well glory be! Ireneaus for example believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Are we to believe all the strange doctrines of these men. That is why we have a Bible, which is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). "‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hyppolytus:
There is a lot of heresy in that above quote. Can I trust you to find it for yourself, or need I point it out to you?
Did Jesus become an infant for infants? I think not!
Was he dipped 7 times in the Jordan for Naaman?
Was Namaan baptized?
I think not.
The entire post is so allegorical it is ridiculous.
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
There is no precedent for this in Scripture. Where is there any precedent in Scripture for:
1. Children to be baptized, and
2. Parents to speak for children that are being baptized. These are man-made doctrines. that go against what the Bible teaches.
and Cyprian of Carthage:
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).
More heresy. No where does it teach infant baptism in the Bible. It teaches believe and be baptized. An infant cannot be baptized. The above teaching is heresy. The advice here is not to follow the teachings of the early church fathers.
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).
Again here is the advocacy of infant baptism, a heresy of the early church, not found in the Bible, not taught by the Apostles.
These are all well before Constantine's Edict of
Toleration of 313 when you state the Catholic Church began. Seems like these 'early Baptist churches' held some distinctly non-Baptist doctrines and interpretattions of Scripture...Hmmm...
Even John 2:19 indicates that there were heresies among the church at the time of his writing. He also said there were antichrists at that time. Jesus and all of the apostles warned against false prophets and fales teachers. There were false teachers in the Church at Corinth and in Galatia that were leading those believers quicly astray.
Um...no - see above. Believers' baptism alone has only been taught since the 1520s, beginning with the Anabaptists.
Believer's baptism was taught all through the Bible. Take the Ethiopian eunuch. They both went down into the water and they both came up out of the water. They were baptized in that particular spot because there was much water there. The very Greek word, "baptidzo" means "immerse." Most church historians readily admit that immersion was the mode of baptism practiced by all churches until just recently. Even the Catholic Church practices immersion in many places.
DHK
