The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[JesusistheChrist]

Go argue with Paul ...

Romans 10, NASB
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS ";
14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS ";
15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
​

All flesh is condemned. Righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and it is not our righteousness, but His, imputed to us by His death and resurrection, that God sees.

First of all, that's Romans chapter 3 and not Romans chapter 10 for anybody who might be following along.

Secondly, did you even bother reading what YOU posted?

Again, "through the law comes the knowledge of sin".

Is a newborn infant KNOWLEDGABLE of either "the law" or "sin"?

 

[SeaBass]

Go argue with Paul ...

Romans 10, NASB
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS ";
14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS ";
15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
​

All flesh is condemned. Righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and it is not our righteousness, but His, imputed to us by His death and resurrection, that God sees.

12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."

It says they have turned aside, NOT born aside. They have become useless, NOT born useless. How one turns or what one becomes shows personal responsibility not how one was unconditionally born.

Verse 19 shows these OT verse are being directed specifically to the group Jew.
In verse 9, "all" refers to the GROUPS Jew and Gentile not specific individuals.

 

[Jason0047]

Many years ago (20 something), I was asked by my church at that time to teach what they called a "Care and Share" which was a Bible study which took place in the house of certain church members in which they could invite the lost to hear God's Word or those who might not normally feel comfortable doing so in a normal church setting or environment. Well, needless to say, we came to the point in our study where I taught extensively on water baptism and it's significance and EVERYBODY in the Bible study (it was a small group...10 people on an average night) wanted to get water baptized in obedience to the Lord, but nobody and I mean NOBODY wanted to get water baptized at the church because they didn't like the pastor there (with good reason, btw) and they didn't agree with a lot of things which transpired in that church either (again, for good reasons). Anyhow, I approached the Pastor of the church and told him of the situation and asked him if these people could be baptized in a neutral setting...a pool, a lake, a stream...whatever. He emphatically told me "NO!"...simply because he wanted to inflate his church membership and not because he cared the least bit about the people at that study. I'm sorry to say that, but that's simply the way that it was. Anyhow, I hear what you're saying, BUT we were never supposed to be "baptized" into a church or into a denomination, but rather INTO CHRIST. In fact, this whole being "baptized" into a denomination is what Paul was actually addressing here:

I Corinthians chapter 1

12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Whereas some people will "wrest" Paul's words by seeking to teach that Paul downplayed the importance of water baptism here, such is truly NOT the case. No, rather, Paul was simply saying that he rarely did the water baptizing himself so that none might say that he had "baptized anybody IN HIS OWN NAME". Again, Paul was fighting against "denominationalism" here in that the word "denomination" basically means to "designate by a name". At that time, there were those who were carnal (even as there are multitudes of the same today) who were saying, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ". We were always supposed to be only "OF CHRIST", but, again, "denominationalism" (I'm a Baptist, I'm a Luteran, I'm a Pentecostal, I'm a Wesleyan, etc., etc.) runs rampant today even as I type.

What I am getting at is do you believe a person is not saved until they are baptized? What happens if someone accepts Christ on his death bed or if they accept Christ in a country where water is scarce or hard to come by?

 

[MarcR]

All exhortation to be baptized is directed to those who have both believed and repented.

infants lack the linguistic development to do either.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

What I am getting at is do you believe a person is not saved until they are baptized? What happens if someone accepts Christ on his death bed or if they accept Christ in a country where water is scarce or hard to come by?

I addressed that yesterday:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...tles-taught-infant-baptism-8.html#post1912205

Personally, I believe, based upon what I see in scripture, that somebody who believes in Christ ought to be water baptized as soon as possible after having first believed. I mean, obviously the thief on the cross couldn't get water baptized, but he was literally buried shortly after believing which is what baptism signifies. Anyhow, I'm really not into this "splitting of hairs" that some here engage in regularly in relation to water baptism. IOW, whenever I share the gospel with anybody, I tell them that they should get water baptized after they've believed. If something hinders them from doing the same, even though it is in their heart to do so, and they die before being baptized, then I believe that they would be saved in that their baptism occurred in their heart, but simply wasn't yet manifested outwardly. At the same time, however, my own daughter, age 12, goes to church every Sunday, youth group every Friday night, helps out teaching younger children in another group every Wednesday night, reads her Bible, has "quiet time" daily...and refuses to be water baptized. I've spoken to her about the same on a few different occasions and my own personal observation and/or belief in regard to her is this:

As outwardly "religious" as she presently is, she's never truly given her life to the Lord and her refusal to be water baptized is but one of many evidences of the same.

When I got saved?

I was ready to do a swan dive off of a building and into the river if need be. Having previously been a world class rebel, I was and still am more than willing to obey the One Whom I call "Lord" and said obedience included my own water baptism.

 

[Vernon]

Scripture reveals that some of if not all the apostles were baptized before they even knew who Jesus was, so the argument that you must receive Christ before you can be baptized is simply not true. The historical record shows that the church was baptizing infants in the second century.

All new new believers are called babes in Christ so I could argue only infants are water baptized.

Just a thought.

 

[CRC]

Should Your Baby Be Baptized?
BAPTISM has been part of Christianity from its beginning. Jesus himself was baptized, and he directed that others undergo baptism.
If you will soon become a parent, or recently became one, perhaps you have wondered whether your baby should be baptized. Would this be necessary in order for your child to meet God’s approval?
The churches of Christendom have different opinions about this. Some practice infant baptism. But others will baptize only those who are old enough to demonstrate belief in the principles of religion taught by their church.
The Bible is the only dependable source of information about baptism, for it alone is “inspired of God.” (2 Tim. 3:16) Does the Bible advocate baptizing babies?
The earliest references to baptism in the Word of God are related to the activity of John the Baptist. Concerning him, Mark 1:5 states: “All the territory of Judea and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem made their way out to him, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, openly confessing their sins.” This would, of course, require that they be old enough to recognize their sinful state.
Concerning Jesus, we read: “In the course of those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.” (Mark 1:9, 10) At that time Jesus was “about thirty years old.”—Luke 3:23.
During his earthly ministry Jesus did not personally baptize anyone. But, under his direction, his disciples baptized quite a number of people. Did they include babies? The Gospel of John reports: “Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.” (John 4:1) So Jesus had his followers baptize only persons who had already become disciples.
Knowing this helps us to understand Jesus’ command at Matthew 28:19, 20: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” Jesus did not mean to make disciples of people, even infants, by means of baptism. This command clearly means that a person would be baptized only after becoming a disciple.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Some think there is a difference between original sin and sin nature/total depravity. Alike or different, neither one is biblical.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Adam's sin is what brought death into creation. That condition became the heart of separation of man from God. I think "original sin" is an appropriate title to the doctrine outlined in that chapter. What Adam did required Jesus to answer to.

Calvin's "Total depravity" isn't a reasonable or Bible supported title, with nothing in the scriptures indicating Adam became a totally wicked, licentious, profane brute. All have sinned, come short of the glory of God without Christ. Some people let sin accumulate in them to such awful ends, depraved, even gone insane with sin. John Calvin believed all men but himself were like that, except those God chose to be holy regardless of their own desire.

 

[michael56]

“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” Jesus did not mean to make disciples of people, even infants, by means of baptism. This command clearly means that a person would be baptized only after becoming a disciple.

Indeed, and Jesus forgave peoples sins without requiring them firstly to be baptised in water

 

[SeaBass]

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (KJV)
[SUP]21 [/SUP] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Adam's sin is what brought death into creation. That condition became the heart of separation of man from God. I think "original sin" is an appropriate title to the doctrine outlined in that chapter. What Adam did required Jesus to answer to.

Calvin's "Total depravity" isn't a reasonable or Bible supported title, with nothing in the scriptures indicating Adam became a totally wicked, licentious, profane brute. All have sinned, come short of the glory of God without Christ. Some people let sin accumulate in them to such awful ends, depraved, even gone insane with sin. John Calvin believed all men but himself were like that, except those God chose to be holy regardless of their own desire.

All men suffer the consequence of Adam sinning, physical death, but do not inherit Adam's sin. The dead victims of a car crash certainly suffer the consequence of the sin of a drunken driver but do inherit the drunken driver's sin.

 

[posthuman]

does that mean one should not be immersed in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O publicly, as a testament of your good conscious toward God? of course not.
but my faith is not in a shadow; it is in the substance.

You keep saying this, nowhere does the bible teach baptism is a outward showing of an inward faith, this is a mix mash of man made doctrine contrived of cherry picked "parts" of verses....

i keep saying this because when i read 1 Peter, i read the entire book, and when i specifically come to chapter 3 v. 21, i read the entire verse, not just 4 words out of it.

it literally says the resurrection of Christ saves me, not 'the washing of filth from the flesh.'
it literally says it is the answer of a good conscious [INWARD] toward God that is effective, not giving your flesh a bath [OUTWARD].
it literally says this H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion that we willingly and obediently undergo is a 'figure' - just as the ark is a figure - a shadow. Christ is the substance.

i know that the only part you see is "baptism now saves you" -- but do you know that that is what "cherry picking" means? only reading 4 words out of a whole book? seeing the whole of the gospel is not "cherry picking." reading an entire sentence instead of 4 words is not "cherry picking."

 

[Jeff_56]

I would read the KJ and then compare. I have never heard of Yochanan is that a eastern god or sumpin?

your reply is as close to (hopefully totally inadvertent) blasphemy as i've seen on this forum; except of course all the roman abomination responses that are straight from hell on purpose.

yahshua said yochanan is the greatest born of woman. yochanan is the one who immersed yahshua.

do you believe yahshua or not ?

 

[posthuman]

I would read the KJ and then compare. I have never heard of Yochanan is that a eastern god or sumpin?

Yochanan is a transliteration of the Hebrew name that is anglicized as "John"

just as in English, we say "Jesus" but in Hebrew, He is called "Yeshua"

Jeff (not meaning to speak for him) i think finds value and blessing in reading the CJB -- which is a double-translation of the New Testament (which is written originally in Koine Greek) into Hebrew, and then back into English with the inclusion of many transliterated Hebrew words.

there are several threads in the forum discussing this version of the Bible and other issues connected to it; you will find more info by searching "Hebrew Roots Movement" -- not to say that Jeff is 'Hebrew Roots' (i don't know) -- but many people as a devotion to God, recognizing that Salvation is to the Jews first, and then to the Gentile, like to use these names instead of the Anglicized ones.
some people arguably take this a bit too far (again, not saying anything about Jeff - i don't know and i don't accuse)

i don't think it's something worth causing division over, but it is something to be aware of and to learn, so you won't be confused when someone mentions something from the book of Yirmyahu for example (Jeremiah).

 

[Jason0047]

I addressed that yesterday:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...tles-taught-infant-baptism-8.html#post1912205

A person can be on fire for the Lord and still not find that right group of believers to be baptized with. I believe I was on fire for the Lord and saved before baptism just as much as I am I saved and on fire for him now. 1 Peter 3 makes it clear baptism is not for salvation.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

A person can be on fire for the Lord and still not find that right group of believers to be baptized with. I believe I was on fire for the Lord and saved before baptism just as much as I am I saved and on fire for him now. 1 Peter 3 makes it clear baptism is not for salvation.

Did you read my response?

Anyhow, my point is that baptism ought not have anything at all to do with "the right group of believers to be baptized with"...unless you're being "baptized" into that group/denomination instead of Christ...which I wouldn't recommend.

 

[Utah]

Baptized as an infant meant nothing, they only got wet nothing more.

Sorry Brother, but thankfully you're very wrong. I've been a part of many infant baptisms and the Holy Spirit is indeed present; enriching the lives of everyone involved, most of all the child being baptized.

 

[DesiredHaven]

I was baptized as an infant and I sure didnt have the Holy Ghost, I just got wet

 

[JesusistheChrist]

I was baptized as an infant and I sure didnt have the Holy Ghost, I just got wet

I was baptized as an infant, too, and then I basically lived like the madman of Gadara from the time that I was about 16 until the time that I actually got saved shortly before my 27th birthday.

 

[DesiredHaven]

I was baptized as an infant, too, and then I basically lived like the madman of Gadara from the time that I was about 16 until the time that I actually got saved shortly before my 27th birthday.

We must have been saved during the same time (given our age difference) because I was in my earlier twenties then you. However, I never recall dates that well, not even the date of my own water baptism, I have the picture, not the date. Maybe its on the back of the picture? I never even checked. But you know me by now, I just dont recall dates very well for the most part. But it was after I got out of the Army. I went into the Army at 18 years old, so somewheres between 21-24 Im guessing. It doesnt matter to me, but yeah, I didnt reccognize God being with me (or in me) at any time, not so until that time, then I was keenly aware of His presence with me and in me. THAT was just not so before that time.

 

[pwrnJC]

what I am seeing here is a justification only. There is NO commandment, law, degree, or mention of baptising babies. In Fact..JESUS Himself never baptised anyone in water. I have yet to understand that GOD will approach us one day and ask "UH, you have NOT been baptised as an infant...therefore, get out of my sight!" In my home town, there is an old established church that has yearly animal baptisms, sprinklings and blessings...again...not what JESUS advocated at all. It is really funny seeing animals, some dressed in christening gowns, lined up to have a priest say a salutation and then sprinkle them, just as he would an infant child. Why man is stuck on traditional man-made rituals goes way beyond me.