Latest News: The Great Trubulation


Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] Last »
The case for infant baptism
Author Message
Yannis
Pilgrim


Posts: 1,054
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #31
RE: The case for infant baptism

veritas re Wrote:
While I agree that the evident lack of comprehensive proof that early Christians did perform infant baptism does not of itself prove that early Christians didn’t practice it, but so far no one has found evidence that they did past the hazy phrase “household” as if that had to include the babies too. And so we are left to consider the issue in terms of first why baptism was done in the first place, and then examine the practicalness of baptism upon infant persons that cannot fulfill the requirements that Jesus laid out to the apostles.

One thing we can prove is that Jesus and the apostles warned of the traditions of men that would one day supplant the real faith that Jesus and the apostles established, so it behooves persons to beware that what they believe may not be the real deal.


v r


To me the tradition of men is not recognizing the importance of baptism despite irrefutable scriptural references.

Tell me, who is more faithful to the Lord's/Apostolic direction on baptism? Those who baptise infants or those who see no benefit in baptism? Less is not more i am afraid.

While i can appreciate those who do not see clear Scriptural support in baptizing infants and choose not to practice it, i cannot accept those who disregard the command of baptism in light of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
06-19-2011 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user
BethelBoy
Member


Posts: 1,169
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #32
RE: The case for infant baptism

I love a story one of the elders at church gave concerning baptism.

A guy came interested in being baptized as an adult by immersion.

Questions were asked like,what do you remember about your baptism?
What made you decide to be baptized etc. Answers were no, I don't know etc.

The elder then told him a story about a cow that had died on their farm. A grave was dug and he asked if they took a handful of dirt and threw it on top the cow would the cow be buried? Of course the answer was NO.

I think we all would agree that baptism is a symbol.

What does it symbolize?

Believers Baptism symbolizes a past event when the person put their trust in Christ and His death in their place alone as the only way to ever be acceptable to God. Repentance toward God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ ( Acts 20:21 )

They are saying ( Witnessing or testifying ) to what has happened to them.

When Jesus was baptized it wasn't " a baptism of repentance " He had nothing to repent of it was about identification. His identification as the Son of God,the Messiah, and symbolically it pointed to His death burial and resurrection in the sinners place.

It's all about identification. Just as Christ died and was buried so was the " old man/woman " (Eph 4:22-24,Col 3:1-17 )that old rebel died with Christ and just as Christ rose from the dead the believer rises to a new life "In Christ". ( 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15 )

Romans 6

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more.


My favourite guy in the NT is the repentant thief on the cross.

Luke 23
39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” 43 And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

No baptism, church attendence, no good works- only repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ. But what a promise this sinner gets fron God!!!

Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Also "Baptidzo" means to dip or immerse in a solution ( not sprinkle )

How sprinkling comes to be is beyond me.


BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:


http://www.uplook.org
http://www.voicesforchrist.org/order.html

Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you. And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

06-19-2011 04:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
veritas re
truth seeker


Posts: 260
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Sep 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #33
RE: The case for infant baptism

Yannis Wrote:
To me the tradition of men is not recognizing the importance of baptism despite irrefutable scriptural references. Tell me, who is more faithful to the Lord's/Apostolic direction on baptism? Those who baptize infants or those who see no benefit in baptism? Less is not more i am afraid.


A valid reverse logic approach – saying that a tradition of men can also decide not to practice something that is commanded. But again – on what basis would “Less is not more” - in the case where tradition placed unauthorized even contradictory extensions on the original instruction - become acceptable? An example of traditional extensions and whether that is cool or not is the garb that Orthodox and Catholic priests wear at church services. The inference here is that the early Christians brought their Jewish Law Covenant paradigm - where priests were instructed to wear certain garb - into the Christian system. This says that God must be a one trick pony that has to build on a prior system and is not able to change lanes - something like the Persian kings of old that once they said something was law and were forever stuck with it. But where is a basis in New Testament Scripture in something the apostles or Jesus said?

The notion that “more faithful” has to mean a shotgun approach just in case we missed something lacks the kind of detail that the Scripture “make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine” tells us. The history of Christian based religious systems are fraught with additions and extensions even to the point where church hierarchy decided that the rank and file were not qualified to read the Scriptures in their own languages, that a “priesthood” had to do all the reading in a dead language such as Latin and then “translate” to the peeps in the pews. So where do we draw a line here? At what point do persons step back and say “prove it”? One of the problems the Catholic church is having is to prove that parts of their traditional belief systems has any sort of Scriptural basis.

Most persons here already have been there done that with respect to church hierarchies dictating “what is Truth?” to the rank and file, where personal conviction based on doing the math themselves takes a back seat to traditions even though they can’t be surely proved. The history of religion is a long list of traditions of men that got us to where we are now where men can stand up and tell persons that some kind of faithful and discreet slave class or clergy men have the ability and God given authority to say that up is really down - and that we should accept it hook line and sinker. I'd like a little more detail myself...

A good example for the Orthodox camp is to consider the reasons why the split from the church of Rome around 1,000 occurred that was over the issue of the infallibility of the pope of Rome. Orthodoxy leadership said no way could a man be infallible just because he got elected pope, and they split off. What did they base that on? Is “less more” or was “more less”, and is this REALLY the criteria for accepting or rejecting a teaching? I think it's more an issue of what we can with some sort of reasonable basis in Scripture establish as Truth - and it not become yet another grab bag of tradition that who knows what or how got going but demands that since it was here for thousands of years before we got here - and based only on that criteria - it must be OK.




v r


"...and YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free."
06-19-2011 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user
Yannis
Pilgrim


Posts: 1,054
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #34
RE: The case for infant baptism

veritas re Wrote:
An example of traditional extensions and whether that is cool or not is the garb that Orthodox and Catholic priests wear at church services. The inference here is that the early Christians brought their Jewish Law Covenant paradigm - where priests were instructed to wear certain garb - into the Christian system. This says that God must be a one trick pony that has to build on a prior system and is not able to change lanes - something like the Persian kings of old that once they said something was law and were forever stuck with it. But where is a basis in New Testament Scripture in something the apostles or Jesus said?



Why could he not build on a prior system that HE created in the first place? You sir make it seem that God learned from some mistake so God had to change lanes.

veritas re Wrote:
Most persons here already have been there done that with respect to church hierarchies dictating “what is Truth?” to the rank and file, where personal conviction based on doing the math themselves takes a back seat to traditions even though they can’t be surely proved. The history of religion is a long list of traditions of men that got us to where we are now where men can stand up there and tell persons that some kind of faithful and discreet slave class or dudes in robes and cool hats have the ability and God given authority to tell us that up is really down - and that we should accept it hook line and sinker. I'd like a little more detail myself...


The Orthodox church differentiates between traditions of men which are indeed fallible and Holy Tradition, the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

You accept one Holy Tradition from the Church, the compilation of the New Testament. You are willing to give the Church the benefit of the doubt there BUT not in infant baptism.

veritas re Wrote:
A good example for the Orthodox camp is to consider the reasons why the split from the church of Rome around 1,000 occurred that was over the issue of the infallibility of the pope of Rome. Orthodoxy leadership said no way could a man be infallible just because he got elected pope, and they split off. What did they base that on? Is “less more” or was “more less”, and is this REALLY the criteria for accepting or rejecting a teaching? I think it's more an issue of what we can with some sort of reasonable basis in Scripture establish as Truth - and it not become yet another grab bag of tradition that who knows what or how got going but demands that since it was here for thousands of years before we got here - and based only on that criteria - it must be OK.


They based it off the fact that papal infallibility was not an Apostolic teaching.


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
06-19-2011 09:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] Last »

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: