• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

Well, when it says whole households were baptized, it’s difficult to reject an infant if there is no biblical proof against it.

Besides that. There is much writing about it through the history of the church in the 1st 2end 3erd centuries
Isn't that a curious point?
I mean just one or two extra words from the Holy Spirit and we would have something EXPLICIT (one way or the other). Instead we have an 'argument from silence', a debate over who was in an undefined 'household', and later writings from people with a 50/50 track record. [We know a lot of people did it, but a lot of people got a lot of other things wrong back then, too.]

The lack of a "smoking gun" verse suggests that we are focusing on a gnat and swallowing a camel ... what is the BIG THING that GOD really wanted us focused on? Clearly is was not "paedo-" vs "credo-" baptism. :unsure:
 
Isn't that a curious point?
I mean just one or two extra words from the Holy Spirit and we would have something EXPLICIT (one way or the other). Instead we have an 'argument from silence', a debate over who was in an undefined 'household', and later writings from people with a 50/50 track record. [We know a lot of people did it, but a lot of people got a lot of other things wrong back then, too.]

The lack of a "smoking gun" verse suggests that we are focusing on a gnat and swallowing a camel ... what is the BIG THING that GOD really wanted us focused on? Clearly is was not "paedo-" vs "credo-" baptism. :unsure:
Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or a Adult. The Holy Spirit does
 
Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or an Adult. The Holy Spirit does
Do you have an EXPLICIT verse or paragraph teaching on that in mind?
You are placing ideas together in a definitive “cause-effect” relationship that MANY theologians would disagree with. Why is it so “obvious” to you and so equally obviously false to those that embrace “baptismal regeneration”?

(As a Particular Baptist, you are preaching to the choir with me … but we are called to handle the WORD with care, so I invite you to present your case rather than your opinion.) (y)
 
Do you have an EXPLICIT verse or paragraph teaching on that in mind?
You are placing ideas together in a definitive “cause-effect” relationship that MANY theologians would disagree with. Why is it so “obvious” to you and so equally obviously false to those that embrace “baptismal regeneration”?

(As a Particular Baptist, you are preaching to the choir with me … but we are called to handle the WORD with care, so I invite you to present your case rather than your opinion.) (y)

Thanks. Opinions called heresies is all we have .

Heresies different personal commentaries .Called private interpretations. In that way there must be heresies difference of opinion as long as they do not do despite the the fullness of grace the complete cost of salvation. Which some do.

God is not a man. He makes men different from one another as in; what does one have that they have not received freely from the hand as a will of God?

Presenting my opinion. . . I would think in a ceremonial way. . . a gospel sign to the unbelieving world not a sign unto themselves . Not I did it, it proves it.

Like Aaron two sons who volunteered not called, learning how to baptize new priest using H20 to represent the doctrines of Christ that fall like rain the Holy Spirit or water of the living word.

Same believers baptism as a sign to the world today, a new kingdom of priests old ceremonial baptism. Aarons two sons added to the living word . . 15 second of false pride. They were consumed by that strange fire (Adding to the living word)

In a ceremony as sign to the unbelieving world. God uses a Ass to represent natural unconverted mankind and a clean animal a lamb to redeem . . or brake the neck

Exodus 13:13And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Fulfilling that prophecy listed twice in Exodus 13 and again chapter 14 . . . . It . fulfilled . the prophecy in Numbers 22. God using as Ass "sent one" (apostles ) prophesying declaring the will of Christ the husband .

He can use a rock 2 tablets written with his finger on both sides no room for oral traditions. . . to show he is not served by human hands as a will of mankind in any way shape or form .

He has no needs but satisfies all needs (dying mankind) We have his power of faith or labor of love that works in us. But would never assume that treasure of power was of us.

Christ gives us little faith calling believers "You of little faith" . Plenty to please the Holy Father I would think.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
 
... [T]he Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 seems to have been fully immersed.

I think we could all grant that. However, there is a strong suggestion that it didn't involve him being submerged. Since the text says that both gentlemen went down into and came up out of the water, but nobody (to my knowledge) interprets this as Philip being baptized, this language—"down into" and "up out of"—is almost certainly not referring to submersion. Both men were fully immersed (i.e., standing in the water), yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were submersed (i.e., dunked under water).

It usually surprises people to learn that the term "immersion" does not refer strictly to submersion. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), "immersion" also refers to a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submerging the person under water. In other words, being fully immersed does not necessarily mean entirely submerged—which is not always possible anyway, such as in cases where the water is not deep enough (which is why The Didache allows for pouring), as seems likely in the semi-arid climate of the Middle East. "Immersion in this sense has been employed in the West and East since at least the second century and is the form in which baptism is generally depicted in early Christian art" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Baptism").

We can both agree they were fully immersed, but that doesn't automatically mean there was bodily submersion. Here is a scenario which takes the text and both views seriously, one that I think is more probable: Philip and the eunuch both walked down into the water, Philip baptized him by pouring water over his head or upper body, then they both walked up out of the water.
 
I think we could all grant that. However, there is a strong suggestion that it didn't involve him being submerged. Since the text says that both gentlemen went down into and came up out of the water, but nobody (to my knowledge) interprets this as Philip being baptized, this language—"down into" and "up out of"—is almost certainly not referring to submersion. Both men were fully immersed (i.e., standing in the water), yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were submersed (i.e., dunked under water).

It usually surprises people to learn that the term "immersion" does not refer strictly to submersion. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), "immersion" also refers to a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submerging the person under water. In other words, being fully immersed does not necessarily mean entirely submerged—which is not always possible anyway, such as in cases where the water is not deep enough (which is why The Didache allows for pouring), as seems likely in the semi-arid climate of the Middle East. "Immersion in this sense has been employed in the West and East since at least the second century and is the form in which baptism is generally depicted in early Christian art" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Baptism").

We can both agree they were fully immersed, but that doesn't automatically mean there was bodily submersion. Here is a scenario which takes the text and both views seriously, one that I think is more probable: Philip and the eunuch both walked down into the water, Philip baptized him by pouring water over his head or upper body, then they both walked up out of the water.
I don't disagree. This is one reason I don't "die on the baptism hill". The bible is unclear. If baptism was this super important required to be saved event a person must go through I would think there would be a chapter or two in the bible explaining the process.
 
I think we could all grant that. However, there is a strong suggestion that it didn't involve him being submerged. Since the text says that both gentlemen went down into and came up out of the water, but nobody (to my knowledge) interprets this as Philip being baptized, this language—"down into" and "up out of"—is almost certainly not referring to submersion. Both men were fully immersed (i.e., standing in the water), yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were submersed (i.e., dunked under water).

It usually surprises people to learn that the term "immersion" does not refer strictly to submersion. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), "immersion" also refers to a form of baptism in which water is poured over someone standing in water, without submerging the person under water. In other words, being fully immersed does not necessarily mean entirely submerged—which is not always possible anyway, such as in cases where the water is not deep enough (which is why The Didache allows for pouring), as seems likely in the semi-arid climate of the Middle East. "Immersion in this sense has been employed in the West and East since at least the second century and is the form in which baptism is generally depicted in early Christian art" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Baptism").

We can both agree they were fully immersed, but that doesn't automatically mean there was bodily submersion. Here is a scenario which takes the text and both views seriously, one that I think is more probable: Philip and the eunuch both walked down into the water, Philip baptized him by pouring water over his head or upper body, then they both walked up out of the water.

There is nothing we can do outwardly as a sign that proves a person has been born again inwardly .No such thing as Charismatic (sign gifts). Those that seek after signs rather than prophecy alone .The cleansing water of the word

I would agree "baptism" meaning "washing" by the water of the word "the gospel" . The doctrines that fall like rain .Not earthly inspired

Deuteronomy 32King James Version Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

Simon wondering why (not believing).Woman in the priesthood? There were no women prophets in the old testament priesthood Men's only club. Pentecost the promise of Joel men and women prophets from all the nations of the world holding out the gospel .Sending them out two by two

Acts 8:12-13 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

The washing baptizing. . the daily washing of water by the word,

Ephesians 5:25-27King James Version Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Water and the word used that way throughout the Bible to represent the work of Holy Spirit of Christ the husband

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:

H20 baptism. When a new priests volunteered deciding to be used to display the gospel to the unbelieving world ."Show and tell" signs to the world

Aarons two son added to the word of God for 15 seconds of false fame .They were consumed as a waning today of the new Kingdom of Priest not to add or subtract from all things written in the law with the prophets (sola scriptura)
 
Back
Top