Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

[atpollard]

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.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or a Adult. The Holy Spirit does

 

[atpollard]

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.)

 

[Mr GLee]

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.)

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?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... [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.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

 

[Mr GLee]

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)

 

[Hobie]

Literal water cannot not wash away sin in a baby or a Adult. The Holy Spirit does

How would you read these words of Christ...
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[Mr GLee]

How would you read these words of Christ...
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Hi Thanks .

One of those things a person keeps on the back burner

I would offer to begin without parables the signified undestanding. Christ spoke not . . comparing as a sign the temporal things seen water as metaphors compared to the unseen the things of faith (belief) Spirit. You could say both working as one .

In several parables Christ uses both water and or with blood, or water and wine The blood of grapes ) the things seen to give the unseen Holy Spiritual.

Again Blood /Water interchangeable no differnce .

John 6 parable Eat flesh drink blood and companion parables .

The gospel a picture to the world.

Christ pouring out His Holy Spirit life as a labor of love as if it was blood like water on the flesh of drying mankind in jeapordy of His own Spirit life. .

The parable David in prisoned in doubt like that of John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit sent a famine for hearing the power of the gospel .Christ sending three to represent the end of a matter to the city of bread (Bethlehem) to represent flesh and draw living water by the gate.

Water changing to blood just a water to wine.

1 Chronicles11: 16-19 And David was then in the hold, and the Philistines' garrison was then at Bethlehem.(flesh) And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem, that is at the gate! And the three brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem,(flesh) that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: but David would not drink of it, but poured it out to the Lord. And said, My God forbid it me, that I should do this thing: shall I drink the blood of these men that have put their lives in jeopardy? for with the jeopardy of their lives they brought it. Therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mightiest.

David knew the prophetic demonstration of Christ pouring out His Spirit was promised to the Son of man, Jesus .

Beautiful Christmas parable

 

[Rella]

How would you read these words of Christ...
John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

@Hobie
I do not read it as you do.

John 3: 5-8
5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Once again we see that Jesus begins His response to Nicodemus by indicating the solemnity of His words.

Then, He goes on to answer the objection Nicodemus raises: of "How can this be". … 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit., he cannot enter the kingdom of God” .

John 3:5 is an often referred to as how we got the term born again.

Repeat... In that verse, Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This statement is significant not only because it comes from Jesus Himself, but also because it pertains to salvation.

And it is here that so often a stumbling block arises what it truly means to be born of water and the Spirit? Does the water reference here truly mean a baptism? I say no for 2 reasons. First Nick might have thought Jesus was referring to a physical birth when he said ""Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit . So Nick likely had to be thinking, hearing of the word flesh it had to be a physical birth... and likely was doubly convinced when Jesus said 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Yet Jesus did nothing to
correct him when he asked...“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

And second. Baptism, not for salvation was not unknown in that day for the Jews that were cleansing themselves and those converting. (Not in Baptismal Fonts but Mikvehs)

Nick very likely would not have had that thought with the exchange between them and Jesus would know that Nick would not regard baptism as part of salvation.....and especially not with Jesus' response to him. "10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?"

Now, let’s consider the context of John 3:5 again as part of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, who was remember, a Pharisee!

When Nicodemus acknowledges Jesus’ uniqueness, our Lord promptly responds, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" And when Nick, obviously perplexed, asks How can someone be born again? Would an adult get back to his mother’s womb? Instead of explaining to him , Jesus extends His earlier statement to being born of water and the Spirit .

Advocates of water baptism as a requirement for salvation often cite this verse as proof text. It seems obvious enough, they say, that Jesus is saying we must be baptized to be saved. However, one can only reach this interpretation by disregarding the context of John 3:5 and scriptural teachings on salvation as a whole.... and the avoidance of explaining to Nicodemus when Nick questioned about being born again from a mother. Jesus made no attempt to clarify because it is not water that is needed to be born again.

The Bible is clear: Salvation is by faith alone. As Paul affirms in Rom 3:22, "We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are" . Other passages that emphasize salvation through faith alone include Eph 2:1-10 , Gal. 2:16 , and Titus 3:4-7 .

And the most often ignored proof is that of the conversion of the thief on the cross which refutes the notion that water baptism is required for salvation (Luke 23:40-43).

Granted water baptism holds significance as a physical demonstration of inner transformation, but it does not save us.

The entire conversation between Jesus and Nick further makes the water baptism interpretation an unconvincing one. In the same chapter, Jesus explains, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3: 14-16).

There is no mention of water baptism in this explanation. So, how should we understand John 3:5?

There is little controversy regarding being born of the Spirit. This refers to the transformative work performed by the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer in Jesus. Similar to how new life enters the world through physical birth, a new life—eternal life—is born through the Spirit’s regeneration.

As for the phrase born of water, This pretty much closes out my first reason for saying no to baptism needed for salvation..... As explained in depth above the first interpretation views born of water as a metaphor for physical birth, which takes into account the context. In John 3:3 where Jesus initially states, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus then questions, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (John 3:4). According to this perspective, Jesus’ response emphasizes the necessity of being born twice to enter the kingdom of God. This view finds support in the fact that unborn babies reside in a sac of amniotic fluid. We even use the expression "her water broke" when it’s time for birth.

The second interpretation sees being born of water as spiritual cleansing. This aligns with passages in the Old Testament, such as Ezekiel 36:25-27 , which Nicodemus would have been well aware of: "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

Given that Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand, this second interpretation carries as much weight as the first. According to this view, being born of water and of the Spirit are essentially the same thing: the Holy Spirit cleanses and renews the spirit of a man.
Rella