Posted on 11/29/2006 9:23:13 AM PST by Alex Murphy
These questions would be further aggravated by what this saved Jew himself would have heard taught in the New Testament time. For example, he would have heard Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 38, 39: 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. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Remember, Peter said this to Jews, Jews who were used to having the outward sign of their faith applied to their children.With all these things in his mind, he would expect his child to be baptized. If it were refused, what would you have done in his place? You would have asked the Apostles the reason why. So would the thousands of Christian Jews in that day. The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.
The only reason possible for the New Testament not dialing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.
Francis A. Schaeffer PING
4 Later
Baptistic churches lose 80% of their kids to the other team soon after the kids leave home. Hard-core calvinist families keep 90+% of the kids on the team. Paedobaptist confessions (Reformed, Catholic, Luterhan, Orthodox) take the life of the mind more seriously, I believe, than the anabaptists. These confessions also have catechisms and found parochial schools.
It is all too easy to induce a false "conversion" experience, if you put enough effort in tothe task of making false converts. Finney's techniques (altar call, e.g.) are tailor-made for that task. 96% of Billy Graham's "converts" give no later indication of having gotten with the program -- and that's according to his own statistics.
Nope. Not even logical to baptize before one has faith or even knowledge of the Lord. How sad I would have been to think that I was baptized before I could do so out of my own obedience. How misleading this is to some.
Bump for later
Too much to read for now. But we do know only people who heard the Word were baptized in the New Testament. They all had to choose.
And that makes sense. You can't accept Christ into your life without knowledge of Him. And the concept of infant baptism is fallible, in that the infant has committed no sin from which he must be saved. Adam sinned, making our world a fallen, sinful world. But Adam's is responsible for his own sin and is what he will be held accountable for. My sin is what I will be held accountable for. I won't be held accountable for anyone else's sin.
Ping for later.
Are you bothered by Jesus healing the servant of the Centurion without the servant ever seeing Jesus?
Are you bothered by what Jesus said to the men carrying the paralytic in Mark 2 (When Jesus saw their faith...)
Are you bothered by the Old Testament's requirement that before entering into the People of God, one must be circumcised - TO INCLUDE INFANTS?
God has always allowed faithful men and women to act in proxy for another. While it might appear to be less common (since Christianity was in an infancy stage itself) than adult baptism, it doesn't follow that God doesn't accept one person's faith to step in for another. God is Merciful.
Regards Regards
No sell.
Or I guess I mean, no sale. Well, lol, whatever...it makes no sense in the context of saving faith. Physical healing is different.
There is no instance of infant baptism in Scripture.
There is no instance of refuting infant Baptism, either. Thus, we cannot know from Scripture ALONE whether infant baptism is a valid practice for Christians.
If we understand that Baptism replaces Circumcision, the New replacing the Old, then there isn't a problem - infant baptism is an acceptable practice. Paul in Col 2 makes the comparison, so I would say it is a valid practice, based on this understanding and historical records that show Christians baptizing infants - and even the dead, according to Paul in 1 Cor 15.
Regards
Wrong. Jesus ties ALL healing (spiritual and physical) together in Mark 2, which I have already cited as showing God healing a person based on the faith of another. Are you denying God the ability to heal whom He wills, whether they personally ask or not?
When if God desires to await on the Christian to beg God for mercy for another's sake? Isn't that the WHOLE IDEA of intercessionary prayer? Do you dismiss intercessionary prayer, as well???
Regards
There is zero percent chance I'm going to agree with you on this. But I am not saying your personal faith is not genuine. I might, however, worry about your children.
We can absolutely know from Scripture alone that infant baptism is not a valid practice. Scripture is clear that baptism is for a penitent believer. An infant is not able to believe or repent of their sins. Therefore, infant baptism is not valid.
We can absolutely know from Scripture alone that infant baptism is not a valid practice. Scripture is clear that baptism is for a penitent believer. An infant is not able to believe or repent of their sins. Therefore, infant baptism is not valid.
My children's eternal salvation is not dependent on themselves. Unless you believe in works salvation...
Regards
You are making a leap of logic that isn't warranted. Scripture does not say that one MUST HIMSELF believe before being baptized. I am not aware of a Scripture verse that says "a person can't be baptized unless THAT person believes". You are presuming that because baptism is ordinarily described as a ritual that believers go through to enter union with the Spirit, you think that believers ONLY can be baptized. I don't find that anywhere in Scriptures. The Scripture says that entire households were baptized. It is very likely that would include infants, as most families of the day had many children. Therefore, infant baptism is NOT invalid.
Regards
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
According to Christ, who needs to believe in order for one to be saved?
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.