The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[SeaBass]

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

I would say the error of infant baptism came about because of another error known as 'original sin', neither of which the apostles taught yet Catholics and some non-Catholics believe in anyway. The purpose of baptism is 'for the remission of sins" Acts 2:38 yet infants have no sins to be remitted. Jesus, speaking of children, said "for such are the kingdom of heaven" Mt 19. The kingdom of heaven is not made up of lost, unforgiven reprobates. Also in Mk 16:16 Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism. Infants have not developed the intellectual ability to hear and believe as the bible requires, infants have no language skills to understand gospel words being spoken.

It is sometimes argued in Acts 16:30-33 infants were baptized. It is "assumed" infants were in the house. It is also said the word of the Lord was spoke to all that were in the jailer's house, v32. Again, infants have no language skills or the cognitive development necessary to understand the words being spoken. Anyone, infant or adult, that does not believe, does not understand the gospel words are NOT candidates for baptism. Those so called "church fathers" contradicted the bible, and each other, on various issues.

 

[AuphirahQueen]

The men you listed were not apostles............Find two verses in the BIBLE that states a child was IMMERSED!

My daughter at the age of five decided to get baptized, but the pastor came to ask me was it ok with me. That is not my decision so I ask him to ask my daughter why she wanted to get baptized and did she understand the meaning of the word. The pastor spoken to my daughter for two minutes , she explain to him why and he return to me shocked. My daughter was baptized that day at the age of five. Hallelujah!! I do not question the Holy Spirit nor ABBA!

 

[p_rehbein]

You can start by "quoting" where anybody here is allegedly a "SELF-PROCLAIMED Bible expert"...or you just repent for lying.

Clearly you have not understood the inferences of the comments made here...........and you have not tied together the comments here with the comments on the Heavenly Mansions thread.

Repentance may well be needed............question is...........who?

 

[posthuman]

look at it this way -- if a man or woman believes, they may take their whole household with them to church weekly, but that is of their own conscious, hoping that their children may also come to faith, and to train them up in the right way. it does not reflect the individual faith of the children who are not of age, but reflects the hope of their parents.

H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism is not what saves, but the resurrection of Christ saves, and Christ's baptism of us with His spirit is the guarantor of our salvation. this sign we perform publicly is for an indication of an inward faith, a "like figure" not the substance of it.

i think the confusion here is linked to the confusion of thinking H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion itself is what saves - just like thinking that attending a congregational service every week is what saves - it is not, neither is H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism. the early church did not have cathedrals and membership rolls like we have today. baptizing your children who are not of age to understand and believe in that day was like what we do today, bringing babes to chapel on the weekend. it is the hope of the parents, not the faith of the children.

Adolf Hitler was baptized as an infant. so what do you think? was this a baptism that showed his faith? that saved? or the hope of his parents?

we don't trust in ritual, but in a risen Lord.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O baptism truly works salvation, we need more firehoses, not pulpits.

 

[p_rehbein]

Inferences made:

Comment #87, Comment #82, Comment #80, Comment #78, Comment #77, Comment #76, Comment #73, Comment #72, Comment #71, Comment #70, Comment #69, Comment #68, Comment #66, Comment #65………

Shoot…………that’s far enough……..folks can go back further if they want…….

 

[tribesman]

My daughter at the age of five decided to get baptized, but the pastor came to ask me was it ok with me. That is not my decision so I ask him to ask my daughter why she wanted to get baptized and did she understand the meaning of the word. The pastor spoken to my daughter for two minutes , she explain to him why and he return to me shocked. My daughter was baptized that day at the age of five. Hallelujah!! I do not question the Holy Spirit nor ABBA!

But to some people who post here that is not acceptable, because she could not articulate, by means of intellectual consent, what she believed in. Like faith in God is something man works up by his own intellect and abilities.

 

[posthuman]

I would say the error of infant baptism came about because of another error known as 'original sin', neither of which the apostles taught yet Catholics and some non-Catholics believe in anyway. The purpose of baptism is 'for the remission of sins" Acts 2:38 yet infants have no sins to be remitted. Jesus, speaking of children, said "for such are the kingdom of heaven" Mt 19. The kingdom of heaven is not made up of lost, unforgiven reprobates. Also in Mk 16:16 Jesus made belief a prerequisite to baptism. Infants have not developed the intellectual ability to hear and believe as the bible requires, infants have no language skills to understand gospel words being spoken.

It is sometimes argued in Acts 16:30-33 infants were baptized. It is "assumed" infants were in the house. It is also said the word of the Lord was spoke to all that were in the jailer's house, v32. Again, infants have no language skills or the cognitive development necessary to understand the words being spoken. Anyone, infant or adult, that does not believe, does not understand the gospel words are NOT candidates for baptism. Those so called "church fathers" contradicted the bible, and each other, on various issues.

it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion is actually for "remission of sins" then we are right to baptize anyone, regardless of their inward faith.

however if outward H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion is indicative of inward faith, and the faith itself being the substance of conversion, rather than the ritual, then washing those who have not been washed of God inwardly is meaningless. it is whitewashing the walls of a tomb.

you can't have it both ways. the cake is not in your belly if you have not eaten it.

 

[oldthennew]

when I was a very small child I fell in child-like Love with Jesus,
He somehow, in one of His mysterious ways instilled in my heart
that no matter what my abusers did to me, that He was there
and that I would be ok, no matter what...
and as those who have met me and know me can testify,
He surely told me the Truth those many years ago.

as an adult, and after my conversion, I had such a desire to please Him
and one of the ways that He showed me I could do this was to
immerse myself into the water of life,
as I came up out of the ocean, it did make me feel such a wonderous joy,
I will never forget that feeling, because it has never left me.

I don't like reading when others disagree or argue about such things as
baptism or the like, because it almost always ends up in unkind or hurtful
words or insulations being said that many times are not really meant,
but they can't be taken back....
it's always hurtful when brothers and sisters disrespect one another -
I only pray that when this happens that positive lessons with be
learned and that then new growth in our walk for Jesus will
prevail.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion is actually for "remission of sins" then we are right to baptize anyone, regardless of their inward faith.

however if outward H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion is indicative of inward faith, and the faith itself being the substance of conversion, rather than the ritual, then washing those who have not been washed of God inwardly is meaningless. it is whitewashing the walls of a tomb.

you can't have it both ways. the cake is not in your belly if you have not eaten it.

It's pretty much the same exact scenario as it was with circumcision under the Old Covenant. IOW, many people were circumcised outwardly under the Old Covenant who had never truly been circumcised in the foreskins of their hearts. Similarly, for one to be baptized outwardly without having first "obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine which was delivered to them" (Romans 6:17) is meaningless.

 

[SeaBass]

it seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.
if H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion is actually for "remission of sins" then we are right to baptize anyone, regardless of their inward faith.

however if outward H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion is indicative of inward faith, and the faith itself being the substance of conversion, rather than the ritual, then washing those who have not been washed of God inwardly is meaningless. it is whitewashing the walls of a tomb.

you can't have it both ways. the cake is not in your belly if you have not eaten it.

Jesus did not say baptized anyone "regardless". Jesus said "he that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved". Jesus made a belief in Him/His gospel word a prerequisite for baptism. This is a type of belief infants do not/cannot/unable to have therefore they are not candidates for baptism.

Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Infants do not have the faith the NT requires nor do infants come to God in faith or diligently seek God in faith. Baptism of infants, or unbelievers of any age, would not be pleasing to God.

 

[michael56]

Most of the mafia got baptised as infants didn't they?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Jesus did not say baptized anyone "regardless". Jesus said "he that BELIEVETH and is baptized shall be saved". Jesus made a belief in Him/His gospel word a prerequisite for baptism. This is a belief infants do not have therefore they are not candidates for baptism.

Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Infants do not have the faith the NT requires nor do infants come to God in faith or diligently seek God in faith. Baptism of infants, or unbelievers of any age, would not be pleasing to God.

Amen.

Here's "the great commission" as recorded by Matthew, Mark and Luke:

Matthew chapter 28

[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Again:

Mark chapter 16

[15] And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
[16] He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Again:

Luke chapter 24

[45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
[46] And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
[47] And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
[48] And ye are witnesses of these things.

By combining these gospel records, we can see that "teaching all nations", "preaching the gospel to every creature", "believing" and "repentance and remission of sins" all need to precede/accompany "baptism".

 

[posthuman]

Infants do not have the faith the NT requires nor do infants come to God in faith or diligently seek God in faith. Baptism of infants, or unbelievers of any age, would not be pleasing to God.

for sure.

then it is faith, not H[SUB]2[/SUB]O immersion, which is effective unto remission of sins and salvation. physical baptism is a 'like figure' of the actual baptism that remits sin.

i only wish you would not be double-minded about this, because i am quite familiar with how you falsely argue on the same subject in other threads.

 

[DesiredHaven]

Most of the mafia got baptised as infants didn't they?

Always reminded me of this

Where is the "believe and is baptized"?

Even when the eunuch wanted to be baptized with water Philip said in Acts 8:37 ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Always reminded me of this

Where is the "believe and is baptized"?

Even when the eunuch wanted to be baptized with water Philip said in Acts 8:37 ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.

Well, in some of the new (per-) versions of the Bible, that portion of scripture is omitted...

 

[AuphirahQueen]

But to some people who post here that is not acceptable, because she could not articulate, by means of intellectual consent, what she believed in. Like faith in God is something man works up by his own intellect and abilities.[/QUOTE

That is incorrect my daughter can articulate because later she told me. Hallelujah!! Why do Christians argue on every little nugget of wisdom!! Now my daughter is 21 saved, graduating from college, and belongs to ABBA.

 

[DesiredHaven]

Well, in some of the new (per-) versions of the Bible, that portion of scripture is omitted...

Gotcha, so what would be left to put the difference between the other and taking a bath?

LOL

I gotta head out (be back later)

 

[Jeff_56]

What does baptism signify?
Why should we be baptized?


If we answer these questions I think it is clear whether we should baptize infants or wait until they are adults.

a note, or 2,....

notice, all through the scriptures, torah, OT, NT, no one asked "why should we be immersed" ? no one.

notice, all through the scriptures, torah, OT, NT, no one asked "what does immersion signify" ? no one.

those who followed jesus, who accepted him, who obeyed him, were all immersed.

those who did or didn't follow jesus, who rejected him, who disobeyed him, who crucified him, they weren't.

even a 5 year old child knew when someone was immersed and when they weren't, and could easily and readily
see
the difference in the peoples lives. today also - it is still the same. only those with scales over their eyes,

or a veil not taken down yet, don't see and agree with yahshua. of course, that's everyone in the heresy, and
almost everyone on earth (it is written that the whole world (includes the heresy) will not repent of worshiping demons - will not repent of worshiping demons - will not repent of worshiping demons)....

and as long as they think that the heresy and hasatan are telling the truth,

as long as they don't seek the truth, as long as they don't turn and seek yahweh the creator in yahshua,

as long as their close family and friends and demon-teaching leaders will kick them out if they start to seek and believe the truth,

they're not going to turn and seek the truth, even with God's help, unless ... ... well, that's the 'key', isn't it? ...
but it is still as jesus says - "if you love family and friends or anything of the world more than me, you are not worthy of me"; and "members of your own family may be your worst enemies"(if you seek the truth)

 

[kennethcadwell]

But to some people who post here that is not acceptable, because she could not articulate, by means of intellectual consent, what she believed in. Like faith in God is something man works up by his own intellect and abilities.[/QUOTE

That is incorrect my daughter can articulate because later she told me. Hallelujah!! Why do Christians argue on every little nugget of wisdom!! Now my daughter is 21 saved, graduating from college, and belongs to ABBA.

They argue and debate on issues because of letting God through His Holy Spirit guide them, they get over educated and lost within man's teachings, philosophies, and twists that man has made in the word to believe themselves to be wise.
The bible clearly says that are wise and believe themselves to be something, they will be made foolish and shown to be nothing.
This is what the non-denominational movement is about, pulling away from all outer distractions and letting the pure word of God and the Holy Spirit guide through all understanding. Not leaning on our own or other man's understanding.

As for infant baptism there is no biblical support for it, but the bible does speak of an age of accountability when it comes to children. It does not give a specific age for such, but does show children are innocent until they reach the age to know right from wrong. Those who preach or say the child is sinful from day one after birth are lead in very much as great a false teaching as those who teach infant baptism.

 

[posthuman]

Gotcha, so what would be left to put the difference between the other and taking a bath?

the thing that is actually necessary - faith - without which it is impossible to please Him.

and the 'one baptism' that Paul speaks of (Ephesians 4:5), which is that baptism with which Christ baptizes, which is not the baptism of men, but of God - the Spirit.



it's only when we lose sight of Who actually works salvation that we get led astray by things like infant baptism and regeneration by human works. if we keep sound doctrine, knowing that Christ alone saves, by faith and not works, we're not led into confusion.