The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[Word_Swordsman]

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.

Even Adam's physical seed was corrupted, Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit and the woman's seed. Man's seed was not sufficient. Yes, we suffer the consequence of death, which is obviously passed down to each of us, all guilty of sin. Death isn't something inherited by genetics, but is a curse against the creation God said was good. It was never intended to be a natural part of the creation. Every descendant of Adam receives death of the body because of that one man Adam's sin. So it is that no person other than Jesus can be born free of the plague of sin, all born in slavery. A better analogy is a slave fathering sons who are born in his slavery, the sons fathering slaves, on through generations without remedy. Until the resurrection people will continue to be born in that condition.

The natural man fell and died rather than eat of the Tree of Life and live forever a free man. All Adam's sons and daughters were cursed to inherit Adam's destiny, all their bodies to die, man's sin multiplying the curse, the law given to inform man of the terror of sin and depth of the curse of sin and death. Then Jesus came. Even so, all have sinned, fallen short of the glory of God, but once in Christ redeemed from the curse of the law.

Adam prefigured Jesus, the first man (natural) being a figure of the last man (spiritual) Jesus.

Knowing no person can be baptized in water for the remission of sin is based on all that Jesus stands for. He saves disciples, people who believe on Jesus, repent of sin, live holy as he is holy. People who do that have a first work of obedience, to be baptized as a confession before men, like circumcision was given by God as a sign of Abraham's covenant.

Neither baptism nor circumcision can possibly save anyone. Not infant baptism nor adult baptism, whether immersion or sprinkling of H2O. The blood of Jesus saves. Choosing Jesus as our savior and master does save, making the redeemed forsakers of the mastery of sin. So while infant baptism isn't forbidden, it was not taught by Jesus or any other in the Bible. It is a pleasant tradition that serves as a sign of dedication by the parents to sanctify the infant until able to make the choice of life or death, slavery to sin or liberty in Christ.

 

[Jabberjaw]

• the waters of the flood brought death to the earth.
• immersion into Christ's death and burial condemns & puts to death our sinful nature.
• by the ark 8 humans and many animals were given salvation from death, being preserved in life.
• by the resurrection of Christ we pass from death into life.

Where is your antitype in what I have quoted of you above?

now mr. Jaw, which are you more thankful for?
your death, or your life?

it is a complete "figure"

and it is Christ's blood, not H[SUB]2[/SUB]O, which atones. Christ's resurrection, not a dry towel, by which we have life.
which then shall we give glory? on which do we depend? which is a "figure" and which is substance ?
the blood of Jesus & the hand of God? or some tap water and any human willing to say "the right words" over us while we rinse our hair?

can you define "antitype" ? then show where that applies according to you in 1 Peter 3:20-21 ?

 

[SeaBass]

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.

The purpose of baptism is for remission of sin, Acts 2:38.

Infants have no sins to be remitted.

Therefore baptizing infants does nothing, serves no purpose at all for the infant, it's not biblical.

 

[SeaBass]

Wrong. But what else should we expect?

There is only one Greek word in the verse for the English phrase "turned aside." It is ekklino meaning "deviate from the right way and course." You ignore v. 9 which clearly states Jews and Greeks are all under sin. The the readers of the epistle, that meant everyone in the world, for there were only "Jews" -- Israel -- and Greeks, meaning everyone else. So take your false doctrines and bad biblical interpretation and peddle to some one more gullible than the rest of us around here. [/FONT][/SIZE]

Rom 3:12 "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Again, the verse does not prove your point but proves mine. It does NOT say thy were "born out of the way" or "born unprofitable". So the verse does not describe how people are born but what they choose to become, showing personal culpability.


===================================================


Instead of pulling verses out of context one needs to look at the whole CONTEXT of the first few chapters of Romans

A theme of Paul in the first 3 chapters is NO JUSTIFICATION!!!

Paul is not dealing with individuals but begins in Rom 1 dealing with the GROUP Gentile proving that they are sinners. Then in the next chapter Paul turns his attention to the GROUP Jew also proving they are sinners. Then in Rom 3:9 Paul concludes "What then? are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles (groups), that they (Jew & Gentile) are all (Jew & Gentile) under sin;"

--Paul concludes both GROUPS are under sin, again nowhere is Paul dealing with specific individuals.

--Paul spent 3 chapters proving both groups Gentiles and Jews are sinners. If original sin were true, then Paul could have just used one verse, one sentence in saying both groups Gentiles and Jews are sinners having been born with Adam's sin. Yet Paul did not for original sin is not biblical.

--The Gentiles Paul wrote about being sinners in chapter 1 were the Gentiles that lived before the law of Moses. Paul then proves the Jews who were given the law of Moses were sinners also. Paul then concludes both groups "under sin". Paul did NOT conclude them under sin because they inherited Adam's sin but concluded both groups under sin for the OT laws they lived under did not allow for complete remission of sins, there was NO JUSTIFICATION for them under those OT laws. Paul says "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight..." And beginning in Rom 3:21, Paul uses the word "but" for Paul is about to give the remedy for the 'sin problem' those Gentiles and Jews had under those OT laws. That solution of course is Christ..."Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" There IS JUSTIFICTION for both groups Gentiles and Jews "IN CHRIST". Any Gentile or Jew that obeys the gospel can then be freed from sin/justified, Rom 6:17,18.

By looking at the whole context, the 'sin problem' of both groups Jews and Gentiles had nothing to do with inheriting Adam's sin but had to do with those OT laws not providing any way for them to be justified/freed from sin leaving them 'under sin' but the solution to that problem being Christ, those that obey Christ's gospel are then freed from sin and no longer under sin.


--lastly, in Rom 3:9-18 Paul quotes a few verse from the law of Moses then in v19 Paul says KJV "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law:" The NLT renders v19 as "Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given," The law was given to the Jews so these quotes were being directed specifically at the group Jews proving them to be sinners.

 

[mailmandan]

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

Baptized as adults who merely believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" and even in the existence and historical facts about Christ (which is no different than the belief of demons), but don't truly believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation means nothing, they only get wet nothing more.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Well, first, not counting my infant baptism (Because it doesn't mean anything), I never been baptized into a denomination. When I was baptized as a believer, I did it for God and not for men or a church.

Second, I disagree with the fact that you need to find the right group of believers who are willing to baptize you. For you cannot baptize yourself. You need other Christians to baptize you. Letting just any group of believers baptize you without knowing who they are and what they represent for real is not good. In other words, some people do not always find the right body of believers who are willing to baptize them.

No offense, but it seems to me that you just contradicted yourself.

I mean, you began by telling me that you were never baptized into any denomination and then you continued on to tell me that we need to be careful in relation to what group of believers baptizes us.

What were you baptized into?

Christ or the group of believers who baptized you?

Anyhow, I have a genuine question for EVERYBODY:

Who can baptize?

All Christians or just Christian clergy?

 

[Jason0047]

No offense, but it seems to me that you just contradicted yourself.

No offense taken, and I did not contradict myself.

I mean, you began by telling me that you were never baptized into any denomination

After becoming a believer, I wasn't baptized into a denomination. I was baptized in a non-denominational church and they did not give me any specifc rules or doctrines and or a denominational membership.

and then you continued on to tell me that we need to be careful in relation to what group of believers baptizes us.

Yes. A true believer will obviously not let themselves be baptized by the RCC or something silly like that. Is not the type of believers you have fellowship have any significance?

What were you baptized into?

I was baptized into his death and resurrection. It was a public declaration of my faith in Jesus Christ because I already had a good conscience before Him before being baptized.

Christ or the group of believers who baptized you?

Anyhow, I have a genuine question for EVERYBODY:

Who can baptize?

All Christians or just Christian clergy?

True Christians and not fake or counterfet ones.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

True Christians and not fake or counterfet ones.

So, you believe that any Christian can baptize somebody?

I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you properly.

If this is what you believe, then what do you base that belief upon?

Again, I'm just asking and not necessarily disagreeing.

Thanks.

 

[john832]

It may not be explicitly spelled out in scripture but the Apostles did teach it according to history.

There are many practices that are not spelled out in scripture, penance, lent, transubstantiation and many others. None of which are scriptural.

 

[john832]

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

I'd be glad to see just one.

 

[john832]

The first quote clearly states that they received the doctrine of Infant Baptism through the Apostles.

Joseph Smith claimed to receive his teachings from an angel. Are you convinced?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Joseph Smith claimed to receive his teachings from an angel. Are you convinced?

Smith probably did receive his teachings from an angel...a fallen angel:

Galatians chapter 1

[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Sheesh, they even tell you that it's "another testament" right on the front cover of their book:

 

[SeaBass]

Even Adam's physical seed was corrupted, Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit and the woman's seed. Man's seed was not sufficient. Yes, we suffer the consequence of death, which is obviously passed down to each of us, all guilty of sin. Death isn't something inherited by genetics, but is a curse against the creation God said was good. It was never intended to be a natural part of the creation. Every descendant of Adam receives death of the body because of that one man Adam's sin. So it is that no person other than Jesus can be born free of the plague of sin, all born in slavery. A better analogy is a slave fathering sons who are born in his slavery, the sons fathering slaves, on through generations without remedy. Until the resurrection people will continue to be born in that condition.

The natural man fell and died rather than eat of the Tree of Life and live forever a free man. All Adam's sons and daughters were cursed to inherit Adam's destiny, all their bodies to die, man's sin multiplying the curse, the law given to inform man of the terror of sin and depth of the curse of sin and death. Then Jesus came. Even so, all have sinned, fallen short of the glory of God, but once in Christ redeemed from the curse of the law.

Adam prefigured Jesus, the first man (natural) being a figure of the last man (spiritual) Jesus.

Knowing no person can be baptized in water for the remission of sin is based on all that Jesus stands for. He saves disciples, people who believe on Jesus, repent of sin, live holy as he is holy. People who do that have a first work of obedience, to be baptized as a confession before men, like circumcision was given by God as a sign of Abraham's covenant.

Neither baptism nor circumcision can possibly save anyone. Not infant baptism nor adult baptism, whether immersion or sprinkling of H2O. The blood of Jesus saves. Choosing Jesus as our savior and master does save, making the redeemed forsakers of the mastery of sin. So while infant baptism isn't forbidden, it was not taught by Jesus or any other in the Bible. It is a pleasant tradition that serves as a sign of dedication by the parents to sanctify the infant until able to make the choice of life or death, slavery to sin or liberty in Christ.

Baptism doeth now save us, 1 Pet 3:21. Baptism does save, as Peter also said in Acts 2:38 the purpose of baptism is for remission of sins. Infants have no sins to be remitted in baptism therefore are not candidates for baptism. It is because of the unbiblical idea of original sin various religious groups baptism infants.

No man is born with Adams' sin. If so, then Christ would have been born with Adam's sin, no exception can be made for Christ, Heb 2:17; Phil 2:7,8. Each soul dies for his/her own sin, sin is not inherited, Eze 18:19,20.

 

[SeaBass]

Baptized as adults who merely believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" and even in the existence and historical facts about Christ (which is no different than the belief of demons), but don't truly believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation means nothing, they only get wet nothing more.

What's the difference between "believe mental assent" and "truly believe"?

 

[Jabberjaw]

True Christians and not fake or counterfet ones.

So, you believe that any Christian can baptize somebody?

I'm not saying that I disagree with that, but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you properly.

If this is what you believe, then what do you base that belief upon?

Again, I'm just asking and not necessarily disagreeing.

Thanks.

Look close at Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:38 (Byz)
38 πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων και ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος

Repent μετανοησατε (second person plural) Peter told all of them to repent,

Be baptized βαπτισθητω (third person plural) meaning literally to baptize each other

Each one of εκαστος (singular)

You υμων (second person plural)

Peter said (all of you Repent, be baptized baptizing each other, every single one, all of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins)

 

[Utah]

How did I slap God in the face with stating the truth?

I didnt believe in Jesus Christ when I was an infant, my parents got me wet, not God, and it wasnt His decision it was someone elses (for me) how is God responsible for that that I am perceived as slapping God?

Are you sure it wasnt that I disagreed with you and might have felt I slapped you in the face but believe I slapped God rather?

You don't think God was with you, at your most vulnerable time in life, being an infant? You don't think God was with you as you were the focal point of the baptism sacrament? You don't think God was with you as your then church family beared witness to your baptism and proclaimed in His name that they would raise you in the Word?

On another note, I couldn't care less if people agree with me or not, that's not why I'm here. I'm here to learn, share and glorify God. God was glorified at your baptism; don't think for a second God was not in attendance. No, my sister, something much more happened on that day than you just getting wet.

 

[Utah]

The purpose of baptism is for remission of sin, Acts 2:38.

Infants have no sins to be remitted.

Therefore baptizing infants does nothing, serves no purpose at all for the infant, it's not biblical.

Is it in the Bible that we are NOT to baptize infants/children?

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Is it in the Bible that we are NOT to baptize infants/children?

The Bible doesn't teach water baptizes for remission of sin. John the Baptist came preaching the baptism of repentance, meaning he preached that men should repent to prepare for salvation from Jesus, baptizing them in water as a sign of their repentance. His water baptism became a way of life for many.

Jesus then came saying in Matthew 26:28 (KJV) [SUP]28 [/SUP] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The blood of Jesus is what remits, forgives unto liberation, our sin, washing us clean. Infant baptism amounts to no more than putting a tattoo on their body as a sign of parental decision. I supppose that would not be a sin to do that, as the Bible doesn't say not to do it. Get the point?

 

[posthuman]

Where is your antitype in what I have quoted of you above?
can you define "antitype" ? then show where that applies according to you in 1 Peter 3:20-21 ?

can you not glory in Christ instead of quibbling over words?

Jesus came in the flesh and showed God's grace by making atonement for our sins on the cross.
He was raised again the third day, appeared before men and ascended to heaven.
He will return to gather His own. He is Salvation come to earth, if we would just believe and put our trust in Him.
it is by grace, not works - His blood cleanses us from all sin, by faith working through love.

it is that simple.

Keep reminding God's people of these things.
Warn them before God against quarreling about words;
it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
(2 Timothy 2:14)

it is to be rejoiced over, not to constantly quarrel and stir up divisions!

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Baptism doeth now save us, 1 Pet 3:21. Baptism does save, as Peter also said in Acts 2:38 the purpose of baptism is for remission of sins. Infants have no sins to be remitted in baptism therefore are not candidates for baptism. It is because of the unbiblical idea of original sin various religious groups baptism infants.

No man is born with Adams' sin. If so, then Christ would have been born with Adam's sin, no exception can be made for Christ, Heb 2:17; Phil 2:7,8. Each soul dies for his/her own sin, sin is not inherited, Eze 18:19,20.

Again, Jesus was not born of Adam's seed, no man involved in his conception. The promise in the Garden was to the woman and her seed. Genesis 3:15 (KJV) [SUP]15 [/SUP] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. is the basis for the virgin birth, putting Jesus on the same original earthly advantage Adam had before Adam sinned.

When will folks quit making false doctrines by plucking verses out of context? Your quote from Peter is wrongly used. Look at the context. I bolded in blue the part you emphasized. I will underline qualifiers in red.
1 Peter 3:18-22 (KJV)
[SUP]18 [/SUP] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[SUP]19 [/SUP] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
[SUP]21 [/SUP] 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:
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

What saves us is
1. Christ suffered for us the just and unjust, to bring us to God
2. Put to death, shedding his blood
3. Brought back to life (resurrected)
4. Preached the gospel again
5. Looks for our good conscience
6. Gone to heaven for our sake
7. On the right hand of God, our advocate

Water baptism is a figure like Noah's ark. The relationship of the two figures, the ark and water baptism, is like this: the ark floated on the water, separated from God's wrath. The water was destroying the earth. The ark contained the people. The people were saved by God in the ark on the water. We are saved in Christ separated from the wrath of God. Had Noah and family jumped into the water they would have drowned.

When we submit to salvation, we are spiritually crucified with Christ, believing on him and repenting of sin (like the soldier did at the cross). Next we die with, are buried with Christ, dead to sin, the figure of water baptism being a sign of taking part in what Jesus did and buried to sin. Upon rising from the water it is a figure of our resurrection with Christ unto the new life, forgiven, able to follow him.

Being dunked in water doesn't accomplish that. It is a sign we have submitted to that experience in Christ.

No infant could choose to make that decision. No parent could save an infant by wetting him with H2O regardless of powerful prayers or high ranking priests attending. RCC folks believe it anyway, like they believe the wafers and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus to be consumed. It's heresy.