• 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!

The Baptism debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wittenberger

New Member
(See my first answer above, within your quote, in red)

No, it surely does not. No Baptist and no evangelical believes that God can only save adults. You really should stop posting untruths.

I don't brand myself as an evangelical, but, concerning what I have said, I believe believers' baptism proponents would agree that for those who are mature enough to understand, faith is required for salvation; for those who are not, if they should die, God saves them all. In any case, water baptism in NT times was reserved for those who had been regenerated as evidenced by their profession of faith. Water baptism did not produce the regeneration in them, nor did it produce regeneration later in infants when people started baptizing them out of superstition, fear, and ignorance. Man cannot control or summon God by word or ritual. The Spirit blows where it wills, not where man wills that it should blow!

You have absolutely no ground to stand on with your views about infant baptism, as has been shown. Even what you said about John the Baptist destroys your own argument concerning infant baptism because whatever God did for him in the womb, it certainly was not by water baptism! And do you suppose that John the Baptist would have been saved if he had not continued to follow God?

You are one confused individual. Earlier you were making unfounded charges against Baptists as you were calling them Calvinists; now you are doing the same as you are calling them Arminians! You have failed in your arguments and posted untruths in both cases!

What is blown to smithereens is the unbiblical doctrine of infant baptism and that a ritual and incantation can cause the Spirit to move simply by virtue of the words and actions of men. Want to talk works-base salvation? There you have it in a nutshell. Baptists are about as far away from "Mother Rome" as it's possible to get. Magisterial Protestants are not, in many areas, as can be clearly seen.

One more point: The very early "Didache" talks about baptism but does not mention infant baptism; that silence is deafening. This is one proof of the truth of what I said and the Quakers originally said: The stream is purest at the source; the further you get from the source, the more corrupted and polluted the stream becomes. Infant baptism is a prime example. It arose because of superstition, fear, ignorance, and a wrong view of original sin. It did not exist in the NT or the earliest Christian communities; it's only foundation is the tradition of men, as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, and a Catholic priest and archaeologist proved.

Dear brother,

You need to get out a textbook and start reading about the history of Baptists. They started as two groups: General Baptists and Particular Baptists.

Baptists are not an homogenous group. Some are Calvinists, some are Arminian, and some are Calminian (three points Calvinists, two points Arminian).

I am still waiting for any hard evidence from the first six centuries after Christ where anyone stated that baptism is simply and only "our adult act of profession of faith".

NO ONE believed this! You can trumpet your sixteenth century interpretation of the Bible as the true Christian doctrine, but you have absolutely no historical evidence to back it up.

You have no more proof that your interpretation of the Bible is correct than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You can keep making yourselves feel better by wrapping yourselves in the belief that God has told YOU that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and by putting your hands to your ears, refusing to listen to historical evidence that says otherwise. But you cannot prove your position with hard facts of history.

Ostriches bury their heads in the sand and do the same thing: avoid the truth!
 

Wittenberger

New Member
Excellent point! Paedobaptists like to quote this scripture as support for infant baptism, but they conveniently leave off the last part, "and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.", because it totally destroys their argument.

So, a literal reading and interpreting of the scripture by the paedobaptist, or a total mangling of it? Obviously the latter.

The promise was to:

1. the Jewish crowd to whom Peter was speaking, who repented and were baptized AND their children
2. those that are far off (Gentiles) who repented and were baptized AND their children.
 

Wittenberger

New Member
And you and Lutherans are denying your professed belief that scripture is the final authority and not tradition because your view of baptism can be substantiated ONLY by tradition and nothing else, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits.

Neither the Bible nor the earliest churches know anything of infant baptism. As the stream got further from its source -- the apostles and their writings -- superstition crept in, and people started baptizing their infants. Superstition, fear, and ignorance created infant baptism -- nothing else.

You Baptists and evangelicals have distorted the term "Final Authority" to mean the "ONLY authority".
 

Wittenberger

New Member
You misunderstood my words. I do believe in original sin. I simply said that Christ removed the eternal consequences (not temporal) of the Adamic sin so that no person stands in judgement for the individual act of Adam but only for his own works - Jn. 1:29 - He simply removed the LEGAL eternal consequences for that individual act of Adam without removing its temporal consequences.



You mean that it is NORMAL for "every other person who has ever walked on earth" to understand the gospel and be filled with the Spirit IN THE MOTHER'S WOMB???

Don't you think you are being a tad bit irrational? How can you possibly compare John to the NORM! Is every person the fulfillment of the return of Elijah?????

Your position on original sin does not sound very Baptist to me.
 

Wittenberger

New Member
You misunderstood my words. I do believe in original sin. I simply said that Christ removed the eternal consequences (not temporal) of the Adamic sin so that no person stands in judgement for the individual act of Adam but only for his own works - Jn. 1:29 - He simply removed the LEGAL eternal consequences for that individual act of Adam without removing its temporal consequences.



You mean that it is NORMAL for "every other person who has ever walked on earth" to understand the gospel and be filled with the Spirit IN THE MOTHER'S WOMB???

Don't you think you are being a tad bit irrational? How can you possibly compare John to the NORM! Is every person the fulfillment of the return of Elijah?????

You seem to want to back me into a corner where I say that we are either saved by baptism when we are infants OR saved when we are adults, hear the Gospel, and believe.

Lutherans believe both can happen. God can save whenever He wants. You are missing the point: how do YOU explain how John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Sprit as an infant? Why didn't God wait until he was older and could make a free will, informed decision?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wittenberger

New Member
All I hear is silence from you?

Baptist brother, before I make my next comment, I would like to preface it with the following:

I believe that you are my Christian brother because of the following:

1. You profess your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior
2. You have followed Christ's command to be baptized
3. You believe in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed: Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, but He IS God, the Virgin birth, the trinity, etc.

You may not recite the Nicene Creed in your church, and you may believe that the Nicene Council was already apostate, but I would be shocked if any Baptist denied any of the doctrines expressed in this creed.

That said, just because you are a better debater than me does not make you right. Just because you, as a Pastor, know more scripture than me does not make you right. Just because you can put together groups of verses to agree with your position in very reasoned and logical positions, does not make you right.

When a very well versed, well studied, Mormon or Jehovah's Witness comes to my door I refuse to debate them. Why? Because I am afraid they might prove me wrong? No.

I don't debate them because I know that if they have been very well trained, they will have a rebuttal, using scripture verses, to every arguement I have that supports the doctrine of the Trinity. They have very logical and reasoned positions that can make your head spin, but are they right?

Getting into a debate with them over scripture, is an endless exercise of futility. They have clever, detailed, scriptural responses to every point I make. It just ends up:

MY INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THEIR INTERPRETATION!

So do you know how I put an end to the conversation? I say this:

Can you give me any historical evidence that any early Christians, any early Church Fathers, agreed with your positions?

They will respond, "No, but the early 'Church Fathers' were all apostate, we can't believe them."

"Exactly," I say. "You have no support for your new doctrines other than the feeling, that you have inside yourself, that God has told you that your position is correct."

At that point, I wish them a good day, and I shut the door.

Scripture warns of false prophets preaching new doctrines. Avoid them!

Dear brother, you may be a Christian, and not a cultist, but your doctrines, as with the Mormons and JW's, have no support other than your internal belief that you are right, and that God tells you that you are right.

That voice that you hear inside may very well not be God. It could be you or worse yet...Satan himself.

Orthodox Christians have historical evidence that supports their interpretation of Scripture, you do not.

You can keep saying "The Bible says, the Bible says, the Bible says,..." but it is just YOUR interpretation.

To understand what the true interpretation of the Bible is, don't listen to a voice inside of you, which could be an evil spirit, listen to the early Christians, who learned the true interpretation directly from the Apostles and their disciples.
 

Moriah

New Member
God bless you, sister! I don't agree with you, but I still love you as my Christian sister!

I know you think I am a “sister” because the name Moriah sounds close to a female name. Moriah means taught by God, that is why I choose that name.
I definitely do not agree with you either, but still love you too.
I hope that you get over all the religion stuff. It is not about trying to find the oldest church. Read the Bible, pray to God, and ask for wisdom, start obeying, and Jesus will reveal himself to you, and you will know the truth.
 

Moriah

New Member
You have put your hands to your ears and refuse to even listen to what I am saying. How can I debate you?

The bible does not implicitly endorse infant baptism. The Bible does not implicitly forbid it, either.

The point is that John the Baptist is an example where God gave the Holy Spirit to an infant, without waiting for that infant to become an adult and make a decision to believe.

Your side insists that ALL men, OT and NT, must first believe and repent as older children or adults before God considers them righteous or saved.

John the Baptist is proof that your insistence that ALL men follow YOUR patter of salvation is not correct. Just saying that John the Baptist was special case does not change the fact, unless you believe that John the Baptist was a God: he still needed faith and repentance before being declared righteous and receiving the Holy Spirit.

The only way that could happen is if God gave the infant John the Baptist faith, belief and repentance at his birth, thereby declaring him righteous.

I do listen to you, but I have had the truth revealed to me and cannot ever go back to falseness. I do not know why you think we cannot debate each other.
The only thing that matters is God’s Word, not man’s word. The only thing that matters is obeying God’s Word that is where the life is.
The Bible does not endorse infant baptism, and to say the Bible does not forbid it is inaccurate, for the Bible says water baptism is a pledge, infants cannot make pledges.
You bring up John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb as proof that infants can be water baptized, but John being filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother’s womb has nothing to do with water baptism. A person can receive the Holy Spirit before, during, or after water baptism.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Dear brother,

You need to get out a textbook and start reading about the history of Baptists. They started as two groups: General Baptists and Particular Baptists.

Baptists are not an homogenous group. Some are Calvinists, some are Arminian, and some are Calminian (three points Calvinists, two points Arminian).
You are referring to Baptist history in England. The origin of Baptists did not start in England. You can do better than that. Do your homework before posting.
I am still waiting for any hard evidence from the first six centuries after Christ where anyone stated that baptism is simply and only "our adult act of profession of faith".

NO ONE believed this! You can trumpet your sixteenth century interpretation of the Bible as the true Christian doctrine, but you have absolutely no historical evidence to back it up.
Even the Roman Catholic Bishop, Cardinal Hosius of the 16th century admitted that the Waldenses, an anabaptist group, existed from the apostolic times baptized by immersion.

The Eastern rite, that is the EOC, I believe, still baptizes by immersion. Why would that be? They have no choice do they? The NT is written in Greek. The Greek word baptidzo means "immersion." They can't deny their own language can they?
You have no more proof that your interpretation of the Bible is correct than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
Their authorities are Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell respectively. Our authority is the Word of God, which is inspired by God. It is a far greater authority.
You can keep making yourselves feel better by wrapping yourselves in the belief that God has told YOU that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and by putting your hands to your ears, refusing to listen to historical evidence that says otherwise. But you cannot prove your position with hard facts of history.
The Bible interprets itself. Any objective person who comes to the Bible with an open mind can see what the Bible teaches for themselves. But many are not willing to do that. Historical evidence tells me that the ones that killed more Christians than any other organization in the World is the RCC. The ones that they killed were "anabaptists," those that Baptized "again." Do you think they had an agenda??
Ostriches bury their heads in the sand and do the same thing: avoid the truth!
Yes they do. Look to your own self.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Dear brother,

You need to get out a textbook and start reading about the history of Baptists. They started as two groups: General Baptists and Particular Baptists.

Baptists are not an homogenous group. Some are Calvinists, some are Arminian, and some are Calminian (three points Calvinists, two points Arminian).

I am still waiting for any hard evidence from the first six centuries after Christ where anyone stated that baptism is simply and only "our adult act of profession of faith".

NO ONE believed this! You can trumpet your sixteenth century interpretation of the Bible as the true Christian doctrine, but you have absolutely no historical evidence to back it up.

You have no more proof that your interpretation of the Bible is correct than the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You can keep making yourselves feel better by wrapping yourselves in the belief that God has told YOU that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible and by putting your hands to your ears, refusing to listen to historical evidence that says otherwise. But you cannot prove your position with hard facts of history.

Ostriches bury their heads in the sand and do the same thing: avoid the truth!

You are going to lecture ME on the history of Baptists? That is hilarious! You obviously have read very few of my posts here. If you remember, I had to correct you earlier about your broad-brush painting of Baptists as Calvinists!

It is you who have swallowed a lie, as I have shown with overwhelming evidence. You who claim to accept the Bible as final authority and then resort to traditions of men when there is no scriptural evidence to support your position, dare to make the accusations you make? You have absolutely no credibility! It is you who are the ostrich! How's the breathing down there in that sand?

Once again, the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that infant baptism is based on tradition; a Catholic Franciscan priest and archaeologist affirms that Jesus and the Apostles taught believer's baptism only; the NT teaches believer's baptism only; the earliest churches practiced believer's baptism only; the Didache, a very early document affirms believer's baptism only, presenting a deafening silence on infant baptism, and the following exposition from a former presbyterian minister completely destroys every argument for infant baptism: http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

You have not a leg to stand on. The only support you have for infant baptism is man-made, corrupted tradition, not one iota of evidence or support from the NT or earliest churches.

Oh, and the following fact is very telling: All of the state-church persecutors and murderers held to infant baptism; the free churches did not. The free churches sought to follow the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the earliest churches. It is quite clear which of these two groups was true to NT Christianity and which was not.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
You Baptists and evangelicals have distorted the term "Final Authority" to mean the "ONLY authority".

I am Celtic Anabaptist who affirms the Baptist/Anabaptist principles; I do not term myself "evangelical", as that is too narrow to describe me. Let me enlighten you: I have repeatedly said on this forum that I agree with the Anglican and Methodist position: that the Bible is the final authority, and that tradition, reason, and experience are secondary authorities -- inasmuch as they agree with scripture! I realize you haven't been here long, but I also know you have read that because I have posted it on the thread in which you have been participating. Please stop misrepresenting my beliefs!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wittenberger

New Member
Questions Baptists should consider:
1. What, according to the New Testament, is the disciple-making act? And who is active in it?
2. Does God’s word pronounced at Holy Baptism accomplish what it says?
3. One must prove that baptism does not replace circumcision, as St. Paul teaches in Colossians.
4. If one cedes that when the covenant sign changed from circumcision to baptism, then one must also cede that the thing signified changed also.
5. Baptists must explain what the meaning of baptism actually is from the contents of Scripture (that is, they must explain what baptism means because the meaning precedes any “personal commitment”).
6. The Baptist must prove that there were no children in any of the households mentioned in the New Testament.
7. If the Baptist explicitly denies the principle of covenant authority as the basis for the baptism of infants, on what basis does he exercise biblical authority over his/her own children?
8. The Baptist must demonstrate that children are excluded under a new and better covenant, while the Old Covenant actually included them.
9. Where in the New Testament does either the Lord Jesus or St. Paul expound the abandonment of the familial (family) salvation paradigm for an individualistic one?
10. How is it that the New Covenant in Christ Jesus is superior, as the fulfillment of all of the Hebrew Scripture covenants, and yet it neither obtains nor pertains to the children of those in-grafted into the New Covenant, while it did so in the Old Testament?
11. Does Scripture represent only one way into covenantal-saving relations with God and His people or two ways: (i) conversion by grace to God from outside the covenant and (ii) by grace inherit the kingdom from within the covenant? Clearly the latter (which is an overriding theme of the Old Testament) must have New Testament fulfillment.
12. Since faith and repentance are gifts from God, what then is the “cognitive” condition (or otherwise) for salvation that Christ has not fulfilled and the Spirit does not grant and work in us? (The concern here is that salvation, in the Baptist scheme, is of knowledge not faith).
13. Since “baby dedication” is not a sacrament with God’s promises attached to it, then what does it accomplish, if anything, and what Scripture commands or justifies this practice?
14. In Baptist theology, if an non-baptized child of a Baptist dies, can the Baptist in good conscience give their child a Christian burial? By what New Testament promise?
15. When Jesus sent his disciples out to make disciples of ALL peoples by baptism and teaching (Mt 28.19), would this not include children? Didn’t Jesus represent all humanity in salvation?
16. Since all are born sinners, would not infants be in need of salvation too? And has not Christ provided a means of saving those who cannot save themselves, even the weakest and neediest among us?
17. When Jesus took “infants” (Lu 18.15) into his arms and said, “to such belongs the kingdom of God” and “do not hinder them” from coming to me and therefore his grace of salvation, do not Baptists hinder the express wishes of Jesus by denying their child baptism?
18. How does a Baptist exercise faith in God’s redeeming promises concerning their babies?
19. If faith and repentance are God’s gifts, then what prevents a baby from coming to receive the very things that saves them? In other words, whose work is baptism if not God’s own?
20. Are any of the conditions of salvation not fulfilled and supplied by Christ himself that they would not also cover and available to babies?
21. Is our salvation dependent upon how much or little we know about Jesus or is it dependent upon faith which God gives through His means of grace? If the latter, how can children be excluded?
 

Wittenberger

New Member
Here is my evidence that historical records support the orthodox/Lutheran view. I am still waiting for one of you to provide me with a statement from an early church father who states that baptism is "an adult profession of faith and nothing more".

Early Church witness from within the first two centuries of Christianity, showing continuity with apostolic teaching concerning the efficacy of God’s saving Word spoken purposefully and specifically during holy baptism. As the apostles taught in Scripture, so too their immediate successors taught:

Didache: 9:5 “And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.” (circa 80-100)

“He was born and baptized so that by His passion He could purify the water.” St Ignatius (c. 105)

“There is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received the remission of our former sins.” Hermas (circa 150)

“Before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and obtains life. The seal, then, is water. They descend into water dead, and they arise alive.” Hermas (circa 150)



“This washing of repentance and knowledge of God has been ordained on account of the transgression of God’s people, as Isaiah cries. Accordingly, we have believed and testify that the very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented. And this is the water of life. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses only the flesh and body? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“We who have approached God through His Son have received, not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism by God’s mercy, since we were sinners.” Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“But there is no other way than this: to become acquainted with this Christ; to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“Christ has redeemed us by being crucified on the tree and by purifying us with water.” St Justin Martyr (circa 160)

“The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also could be a sign of men being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and bath of regeneration- as many as come to the truth and are born again.” Theophilus (circa 180)

“When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)

“But there are some of them [Gnostics] who assert that it is unnecessary to bring persons to the water. Rather, they mix oil and water together, and they place its mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated . . . This they maintain to be the redemption. Other heretics, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power should not be performed by visible and corruptible creatures . . . These claim that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself prefect redemption.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)

“Man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the bath of regeneration. Therefore, the Lord said of [the blind man] after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.” By this means, He restored to him both confirmation and regeneration that takes place by means of the bath.” St Irenaeus (circa 180)

“Scripture says, ‘And he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan.’ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was a symbol for us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, just as the Lord has declared: ‘Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’” Irenaeus (circa 180)

“Being baptized, we are illuminated. Illuminated, we become sons. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins. Grace, by which the penalties accruing to the transgressions are remitted. Illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195)




“And he who has just been regenerated- as the name necessarily indicates- and has been enlightened, is immediately delivered from darkness, and instantly receives the light… Thus, also, we who are baptized, having wiped off the sins that obscure the light of the Divine Spirit, have the eyes of the spirit free, unimpeded, and full of light, by which alone we contemplate the Divine, the Holy Spirit flowing down to us from above.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195)

“John prophesied up until the baptism of salvation.” Clement of Alexandria (circa 195)

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life . . . We, like little fishes, after the example of our Ichthus, Jesus Christ, are born in water.” Tertullian (circa 198)

“Oh, miserable unbelief that denies to God His own properties, simplicity, and power! What then? Is it too wonderful that death should be washed away by washing?” Tertullian (circa 198)

St Irenaeus (d. 202) remarks, “For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).

In his commentary on Romans, Origin (d. 254) writes, “The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Romans Commentary, 5.9).

St Cyprian (d. 258) writes, “In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man . . . Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision . . . we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

And in his Enchiridion, St Augustine (d. 430) declares, “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin" (Enchiridion, ch. 43).
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Here is my evidence that historical records support the orthodox/Lutheran view. I am still waiting for one of you to provide me with a statement from an early church father who states that baptism is "an adult profession of faith and nothing more".

Early Church witness from within the first two centuries of Christianity, showing continuity with apostolic teaching concerning the efficacy of God’s saving Word spoken purposefully and specifically during holy baptism. As the apostles taught in Scripture, so too their immediate successors taught:

Didache: 9:5 “And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.” (circa 80-100)

You are violating your own Lutheran position which supposedly affirms sola scriptura. You violate it by making tradition equal to and even more authoritative than scripture. You have already been shown how the fathers held to many errors. If you put what they said above scripture in one instance, then you must accept all their other errors.

I have shown how even the RCC admits that infant baptism is based solely on tradition and that it was not the practice in the NT or the earliest churches. The best that you can do is drag out quotes by fallible men who were wrong in many other areas.

The Didache does not affirm infant baptism but denies it.

Your position is indefensible; it is contradictory, inconsistent, places tradition above scripture; in effect, then, it denies scripture, the teachings of the apostles, and the practice of the earliest churches. You have allied yourself with a doctrine that state-churchism used to persecute and murder countless thousands of Christians in the name of Jesus.
 

Wittenberger

New Member
You are violating your own Lutheran position which supposedly affirms sola scriptura. You violate it by making tradition equal to and even more authoritative than scripture. You have already been shown how the fathers held to many errors. If you put what they said above scripture in one instance, then you must accept all their other errors.

I have shown how even the RCC admits that infant baptism is based solely on tradition and that it was not the practice in the NT or the earliest churches. The best that you can do is drag out quotes by fallible men who were wrong in many other areas.

The Didache does not affirm infant baptism but denies it.

Your position is indefensible; it is contradictory, inconsistent, places tradition above scripture; in effect, then, it denies scripture, the teachings of the apostles, and the practice of the earliest churches. You have allied yourself with a doctrine that state-churchism used to persecute and murder countless thousands of Christians in the name of Jesus.

I have listed many early Christians who give testimony to the orthodox/catholic/Lutheran view of baptism. You Baptists can't come up with even one who states that baptism is simply a public profession of faith.

The reason you cannot understand infant baptism, is that you do not understand the purpose of baptism.

No where in the Bible does it state that baptism is "OUR public profession of faith". That is something you Baptists/Anabaptists ASSUME.

You say baptism is a picture of our salvation: the water represents the blood of Christ washing over us to cleanse us of sins. Lutherans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all agree with you on this! Baptism does present a picture of what happens to us spiritually! But baptism is an act of God, not an act of man.

You don't know what the purpose of baptism is. Your belief in a "public profession" has no scriptural basis!
 

Wittenberger

New Member
The salvation of John the Baptist as an infant tells us what?

1. God can and has saved infants.

2. Since John was a sinful human being and not a god, God required faith, belief and repentance to be saved; the same requirements that he has had for everyone else on planet earth.

3. If infants cannot believe, have faith, or repent, as Baptists state, then how was John the Baptist given the Holy Spirit? Did God give the Holy Spirit to a sinner and wait until he was older to believe, have faith and repent?

4. The example of John the Baptist dispells the Baptist notion that only adults can be saved and that in order to be saved you have to have the maturity and intelligence to make a free will decision to believe.

5. I cannot prove that the Apostles baptized infants. Baptists can't prove for 100% sure that they didn't.

What I can be sure of, due to the example of John the Baptist, is that God does NOT mandate that, in all cases of salvation, that the person converting must be an adult or older child. John the Baptist converted, was saved, coming out of his mother's womb.

God provided the belief, faith and repentance to the infant as a FREE GIFT, the same manner that he does for the infants of Christian parents in Holy Baptism.

God accomplishes all of Salvation, my friends, he doesn't need your adult decision.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Wrenn

New Member
I have listed many early Christians who give testimony to the orthodox/catholic/Lutheran view of baptism. You Baptists can't come up with even one who states that baptism is simply a public profession of faith.

The reason you cannot understand infant baptism, is that you do not understand the purpose of baptism.

No where in the Bible does it state that baptism is "OUR public profession of faith". That is something you Baptists/Anabaptists ASSUME.

You say baptism is a picture of our salvation: the water represents the blood of Christ washing over us to cleanse us of sins. Lutherans, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all agree with you on this! Baptism does present a picture of what happens to us spiritually! But baptism is an act of God, not an act of man.

You don't know what the purpose of baptism is. Your belief in a "public profession" has no scriptural basis!

Precisely! And because it is an act of God and not man, man cannot force God to act by using a magical incantation and magical water. God baptizes by the Spirit into the body of Christ which the water represents, not produces. The words and actions of man cannot produce actions from God. The Spirit bloweth where it listheth, not where man listeth that it should blow.

It is you paedobaptists who don't know the purpose of baptism. Like some that Jesus spoke to, you get the physical and spiritual mixed up.

Oh, and by the way, we have sources which are much better, more reliable, and authoritative than the fathers, and that would be Jesus and the apostles -- you know, the ones that you and Lutherans claim to place above the traditions of men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top