Topic: Infant vs. Believer Baptism

[katherineofdixie]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

If I understand this, and I'm not quite sure I do, it's absolutely not the case.

[Ortho_cat]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

we're not in the business of dodging facts/questions here, we've got nothing to hide.

[Marc1152]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

[FountainPen]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

That may indeed be what Pastor Young thinks as well. But, as we discussed above, it is hard to get around he fact that babies were baptized from the earliest of times. If the latter is ignored, then one is put in a position of picking and choosing; the Holy Scriptures lose their preeminent position and, one's predilections reign much more so than even for a person who operates under sola scriptura.

[katherineofdixie]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?


And if they never should have started in the first place, that means that Christians for 1500 or so years were getting a foundational belief and paractice wrong, with no records and no controversy, until the Anabaptists discovered the truth.
How likely is that?

[Ortho_cat]

I have a strong feeling that the verses that refer to househoulds being baptized were done so after the conversion of the man of the house. That is, it was his responsibility to lead his family in faith, and after he converted, the rest of his family was baptized based on his faith. Perhaps it isn't PC today, but I think this is how the culture functioned back then.

[katherineofdixie]

I have a strong feeling that the verses that refer to househoulds being baptized were done so after the conversion of the man of the house. That is, it was his responsibility to lead his family in faith, and after he converted, the rest of his family was baptized based on his faith. Perhaps it isn't PC today, but I think this is how the culture functioned back then.

Yes, a household in the Roman Empire could, and mostly did, include not only the nuclear family, but extended family, uncles, aunts, cousins, slaves, and even business partners and proteges. The pater familias had pretty much total control over everyone, and made the decisions for the entire household.

[Marc1152]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

That may indeed be what Pastor Young thinks as well. But, as we discussed above, it is hard to get around he fact that babies were baptized from the earliest of times. If the latter is ignored, then one is put in a position of picking and choosing; the Holy Scriptures lose their preeminent position and, one's predilections reign much more so than even for a person who operates under sola scriptura.

Something else occurred to me today. Christian's continued to circumcise their infant boys during the Apostolic era. That's indisputable. At the council of Jerusalem they debated the need for Gentiles to be circumcised in order to convert as we all know. But the bulk of "Christians"
 ( followers of Jesus, the term "Christian" had not been coined yet) were Jews.

So you would have to argue that Christians circumcised their newborn males but didn't Baptize them. Very very hard to beleive. Plus the mind set is the same. The infant could enter the eternal covenant with God via circumcision without attaining the age of reason, with no consent on his part but with the consent and spiritual guidance of his parents and relatives who stood up for him.  

[PeterTheAleut]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

If that were the case, though, then Jewish boys wouldn't have needed to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Communion with God has never been a strictly individual thing.

[FountainPen]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility.  

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

[Aindriú]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility. 

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to you: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where he will and you hear his voice: but you know not whence he comes and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[FountainPen]

Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?

[FountainPen]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility. 

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to you: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where he will and you hear his voice: but you know not whence he comes and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Yes and it is clearly a baptism of repentance.

[Aindriú]

He probably realises they'd be dismissed rather than answered that might be why.

Hardly.. it would be monumentally important if he can provide some documentation. More likely he cant but let's wait and see.

Here is the question. If the Apostles performed "Believers Baptism" in the manner of today's Protestants then they refused to Baptize infants and children. But early on we know that the Church did in fact Baptize infants and children. The question is then how did this change occur without discussion? To alter a fundamental sacrament without anyone noticing, discussing it pro or con much less have a council decide to approve the change, seems to us to be an impossibility. 

Here's the thing: what if they should never have started to baptise children in the first place?

If children (example baby John) have some kind of communion with God, maybe they don't need it, maybe they never did. The scriptures clearly teach a baptism of repentance and babies so obviously cannot and need not, repent.

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus said to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Wonder not that I said to you: You must be born again. 8 The Spirit breathes where he will and you hear his voice: but you know not whence he comes and whither he goes. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Yes and it is clearly a baptism of repentance.

If it is only repentance then water would not be necessary, and a mere confession of faith appropriate.

[genesisone]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

[Ortho_cat]

Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?

"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.

[FountainPen]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

[FountainPen]

Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?

"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.

Where is this quote from?

[Ortho_cat]

wiki

[Aindriú]

St. Hippolytus, who died at around 236 AD, was a presbyter in the church of Rome. In one of his writings, Traditio Apostolica, he mentioned baptism of children.

And at the hour when the cock crows they shall first pray over the water.
When they come to the water, let the water be pure and flowing.
And they shall put off their clothes.
And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.
And next they shall baptize the grown men; and last the women, who shall [all] have loosed their hair and laid aside the gold ornaments [which they were wearing]. Let no one go down to the water having any alien object with them.
And at the time determined for baptizing the bishop shall give thanks over the oil and put it into a vessel and it is called the Oil of Thanksgiving.

source


St. Cyprian, who took the Episcopate of Carthage somewhere between 218-249 AD, also mentioned infant Baptism in a dispute over when(if delayed like carnal circumcision) it should be administered to an infant.

2. But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them, Luke 4:56 as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

...

5. For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, The Lord has said to me that I should call no man common or unclean. Acts 10:28 But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted— and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.

Letter 58

[PeterTheAleut]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

And what's wrong with that?

[PeterTheAleut]

Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?

"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.

You admit after this post that you copied this from the Internet. I need you, therefore, to post a link to the source where you copied this or pm me the link so I can append it to your post. 72 hours should be enough time for you to do this.

Thanks.

-PtA

[FountainPen]

I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.

[Ortho_cat]

Do you all hold the view of infant baptism because of the covenant of grace?

"The covenant of grace promises eternal life for all people who receive forgiveness of sin through Christ. He is the substitutionary covenantal representative fulfilling the covenant of works on their behalf, in both the positive requirements of righteousness and its negative penal consequences (commonly described as his active and passive obedience). It is the historical expression of the eternal covenant of redemption. Genesis 3:15, with the promise of a "seed" of the woman who would crush the serpent's head, is usually identified as the historical inauguration for the covenant of grace."

We don't really hold to the covent of grace model, that's more reformed theology than anything.

You admit after this post that you copied this from the Internet. I need you, therefore, to post a link to the source where you copied this or pm me the link so I can append it to your post. 72 hours should be enough time for you to do this.

Thanks.

-PtA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology#Covenant_of_grace

[Aindriú]

I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.

I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:

4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm

[FountainPen]

I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.

I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:

4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm

Yes, circumcision of the heart is now today.

Baptism has always been practiced, it's not a replacement.

[genesisone]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

[PeterTheAleut]

I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.

I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:

4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm

Yes, circumcision of the heart is now today.

Baptism has always been practiced, it's not a replacement.

It's not a replacement only in that we baptize even girls and women.

[Marc1152]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

And yet, clearly that's what they did. I wonder what the Apostles and direct disciples of Christ understood that you don't?

If there really was a change from the Apostles performing a Protestant styled "Believers Baptism " ( ie refusing to Baptize children) it would have been discussed.

Tertullian discusses infant Baptism somewhere around the year 200 to 206 A.D. It's clear from what he wrote that this was not some new innovation but was already a established sacrament. That means at the infant Baptism was norm before 200 AD.

And yet, no mention anywhere of the Church changing course from "Believers Baptism" (an obvious fantasy projection of a Protestant heresy onto the Apostles) to accepting children. Impossible.

[FountainPen]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

[FountainPen]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

And yet, clearly that's what they did. I wonder what the Apostles and direct disciples of Christ understood that you don't?

If there really was a change from the Apostles performing a Protestant styled "Believers Baptism " ( ie refusing to Baptize children) it would have been discussed.

Tertullian discusses infant Baptism somewhere around the year 200 to 206 A.D. It's clear from what he wrote that this was not some new innovation but was already a established sacrament. That means at the infant Baptism was norm before 200 AD.

And yet, no mention anywhere of the Church changing course from "Believers Baptism" (an obvious fantasy projection of a Protestant heresy onto the Apostles) to accepting children. Impossible.

"no mention anywhere..." it's funny because when i tried to use that to qualify my position, it was dismissed.

I'm sure it was an established sacrament by that time, but not one that Christ commanded.

[Aindriú]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

We have been showing this:
-Jesus commanded to baptize.
-Baptism is necessary for salvation, as commanded by Jesus.
-The apostles baptized whole families.
-Baptism is the new circumcision.
-The early church baptized infants.

You desire to claim: That Baptism isn't necessary until someone decides it is? Don't let me mince your words, but I think that's where we are at.

The burden of proof is on you, as we are continually establishing precedent that Jesus intended baptism for ALL to include children.

[FountainPen]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

We have been showing this:
-Jesus commanded to baptize.
-Baptism is necessary for salvation, as commanded by Jesus.
-The apostles baptized whole families.
-Baptism is the new circumcision.
-The early church baptized infants.

You desire to claim: That Baptism isn't necessary until someone decides it is? Don't let me mince your words, but I think that's where we are at.

The burden of proof is on you, as we are continually establishing precedent that Jesus intended baptism for ALL to include children.

I don't dispute children can be baptised.

I don't dispute that baptism is necessary.

[PeterTheAleut]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

And yet, clearly that's what they did. I wonder what the Apostles and direct disciples of Christ understood that you don't?

If there really was a change from the Apostles performing a Protestant styled "Believers Baptism " ( ie refusing to Baptize children) it would have been discussed.

Tertullian discusses infant Baptism somewhere around the year 200 to 206 A.D. It's clear from what he wrote that this was not some new innovation but was already a established sacrament. That means at the infant Baptism was norm before 200 AD.

And yet, no mention anywhere of the Church changing course from "Believers Baptism" (an obvious fantasy projection of a Protestant heresy onto the Apostles) to accepting children. Impossible.

"no mention anywhere..." it's funny because when i tried to use that to qualify my position, it was dismissed.

Arguments from silence are not always bad logic. If you can establish convincingly that the party whose silence you're citing had such compelling reason to say something that their silence clearly shows ignorance of the matter, then the silence can indeed be very loud. Your argument from silence was dismissed because you showed no evidence whatsoever that the apostolic council of Acts 15 had any reason to address the subject of baptism. Marc's argument from silence, OTOH, gives us some good background information to show why the silence of the early Fathers on any change in baptismal practice matters.

[PeterTheAleut]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

And why is your personal opinion important in this discussion? What dogmatic precedent can you cite to suggest that we are to follow only those practices that Jesus mandated explicitly in the Scriptures?

[Mivac]

I should have asked what Orthodox believe about the old and new covenants and what makes the new one, new but i thought that might be too broad and off topic even if relevant to Peter's link of circumcision and baptism.

I do think it's relevant.

Colossians 2:

4 Now this I say, that no man may deceive you by loftiness of words. 5 For though I be absent in body, yet in spirit I am with you, rejoicing, and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith which is in Christ. 6 As therefore you have received Jesus Christ the Lord, walk in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him and confirmed in the faith, as also you have learned: abounding in him in thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. 9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. 10 And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh: but in the circumcision of Christ. 12 Buried with him in baptism: in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God who has raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he has taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross. 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he has exposed them confidently in open show, triumphing over them in himself.

http://newadvent.org/bible/col002.htm

Yes, circumcision of the heart is now today.

Baptism has always been practiced, it's not a replacement.

If Baptism is the same and just about repentance both OT and NT, then why did Paul bother to rebaptized those who only had the Baptism of John?

Acts 19:19 And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples 2 he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”

So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 And he said to them, “Into what then were you baptized?”

So they said, “Into John’s baptism.”

4 Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

[FountainPen]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

And why is your personal opinion important in this discussion?

I was stating my position, not my opinion. I've given sources as to why i believe what i do.

[PeterTheAleut]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

And why is your personal opinion important in this discussion?

I was stating my position, not my opinion.

Position... opinion... What's the difference?

I've given sources as to why i believe what i do.

Such as...

[Marc1152]

Do Scriptures record that whole households repented and were baptized?

It says they were saved, nothiing more than that.

Acts 16 says more than "nothing" twice (NKJV):

14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.

31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

It says nothing about infants that's for sure. So a fundamental practice is based on no explicit command.

Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to believe that these families were without children of various ages. You can support your position only by adding "(family/household) except for the children" or "the adults of (the family/household)". Very strange that you suggest that the only families who converted to Christianity as recorded in the New Testament were families without children. Is that your position? i.e. that only individuals and families without children became Christians during the Apostolic era?

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?

[Aindriú]

No, my position is: if it doesn't say explicitly, then don't squish and squash verses and church fathers this way and that, to back up a practice that does not have an explicit directive from Christ.

Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?

 

[FountainPen]

Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?

Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".

[Azul]

Baptism is the door of entrance into the Church.. One cannot partake of the mysteries of the Church and actively participate in the life of the Church without Baptism.The Bible does not explicitly say that infants were baptized but it speaks of thousands being baptized at a time and of houses being baptized.While it wasn`t the general use infants were being baptized also.. We can see this from the writings of the fathers and even from the acts of early local councils such as the Council of Chalcedon in 256.

Baptism is given even to infants as a result to the Abrahamic Covenant whom like all covenants is transcended in Christ.Paul identifies Baptism with the Circumcision of Christ , or Christ was circumcised when he was an infant.In the Orthodox Tradition Christ circumcised circumcision, completed it, met its final fulfillment, ended it and made it obsolete.According to the Bible no one defiled (unregenerated by the waters of Baptism) should enter into the Church hence Baptism is the door of entrance into the Church.Much more Ezekiel prophecized of this in an allegory saying that no one uncircumcised will enter into the New Temple.This discussion can also go further unto what belief really is and if Baptism is only for believers.

[Marc1152]

Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?

Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".

That all you got?

 

[FountainPen]

Apparently the Apostles performed Infant Baptisms as did all those taught by them. Who are you again?

Not surprised you prefixed with "Apparently...".

That all you got?

 

Is that all that matters to you is what i've "got"?