Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

[DJT_47]

Then explain to me how infants were able to enter into a Covenant with God through circumcision, if NOT through the faith of their parents. How can an infant enter into a Covenant??

Funny how you completely ignored that point . . .

I said clearly infants have no ability to do anything!

 

[DJT_47]

Agreed,
I consider the backwoods of the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri....Paradise. But Paradise is the condition of a place and the joy it brings.....Not generally the proper name.....Paradise can be a lot of places.....the proper name of the Garden of Eden was the Paradise of Delights.

12 Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. 5 On behalf of such a man I will boast; but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regard to my weaknesses. 6 For if I do wish to boast I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth; but I refrain from this, so that no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me. 2nd Corinthians 12

In the scriptures God "takes" a few people but we really don't know exactly where He take them. And Sheol is real but most Christians do not consider it.

Yeshua after the cross opened the gates to Heaven to humans for the first time. And yes Heaven is like Paradise……Unless you like playing baseball.

The scriptures do not tell us exactly where the thief on the cross went….more speculation than information.

If Jesus promised to him as he did, then we know where exactly he went as the scripture tells us: PARADISE, the 3rd heaven

​

 

[BreadOfLife]

I said clearly infants have no ability to do anything!

Through the faith of the parents, they can enter a Covenant with God.
Are you denying this Biblical (Gen. 17:10-14) fact?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your entire argument is built on lies and rebellion against the authority of God's Word. The Bible never “rejects” itself as the only authority, that’s a ridiculous and false claim. What it does reject is adding to or taking away from what God has spoken. Deuteronomy 4:2 says, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it.” Proverbs 30:6 warns, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” And Revelation 22:18–19 issues the same warning at the close of the canon. God has already spoken, and His written Word is sufficient.

WRONG.
The Bible absolutely rejects Sola Scriptura.

If Scripture was our “ONLY” Authority – Jesus would NEVER have said the following to His Church:
Matt 16:16-19, Matt. 18:15-18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

You claim the Old Testament had the authority of Moses and the Prophets, yes, and what did God command? Write it down. Over and over, God told His prophets, “Write the vision” (Habakkuk 2:2). Not invent oral traditions, but record His Word. The authority came from what God said, not the men themselves.

ONE more time, son:

An Oral Sacred Tradition is not an “invention”. It is a sacred teaching based on the Authority given by God. By contrast, the washing of hands is not a sacred Tradition.

The New Testament follows the same pattern. The Apostles were eyewitnesses and inspired by the Holy Spirit, not to create an institution, but to declare and write God’s Word so that future believers would have the truth. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written.” That means the standard is Scripture, not tradition, not councils, not church hierarchy.

WRONG.

Paul was telling the Corinthians not to fight with each other about WHO they follow (1 Cor. 4:7) - and stick to what they wrote to THEM. There wasn’t an NT Canon of Scripture yet for them to read.

Learn to read the Bible in CONTEXT - don't just cherry-pick verses . . .

The Greek word for “Scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16 is graphē (γραφή), meaning the written Word. Paul says that all Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos), and able to make the man of God complete and fully equipped (2 Timothy 3:16–17). That word artios means complete, and exērtismenos means thoroughly equipped. Not partially, not dependent on the “Church,” but fully furnished by Scripture alone.

You’ve been shown this over and over again, but you refuse to listen. You cling to man-made tradition and call it divine, while you slander those who hold fast to God’s actual Word. That’s not ignorance, that’s willful deception. You reject the truth and lie about what Scripture teaches, and I’m done entertaining it. You are twisting God’s Word, and unless you repent, the judgment you face won’t be from me, it’ll be from the God whose Word you keep rejecting.

You should read this post: Click Here

Once again – you read, but fail to understand.

Paul DOESN’T say that Scripture is “able to make” a man complete and fully equipped.
He says that Scripture is helpful/useful (opelimos). It doesn’t say that it is ALL you need. We also need to be obedient to Christ and His Church (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15018, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are not rightly dividing anything, you’re twisting Scripture to defend man-made religion, and I’ve had enough of your dishonest arguments. You keep accusing others of cherry-picking while you rip verses out of context to support false doctrine. Mark 7 isn’t about hygiene, it’s about corrupt religious tradition being elevated above the Word of God. Jesus said clearly in verse 7, “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” That applies directly to your defense of things like infant baptism, which is nowhere taught or practiced in Scripture.

Correct. Mark 7: 5 is absolutely about corrupt religious, man-made tradition being placed ABOVE the Word of God. There are man-made traditions – and there are Sacred Apostolic Traditions. You have placed an invented, man-made tradition called “Sol Scriptura” above the Word of God. This nonsense is found NOWHERE on the pages of Scripture – NOR is it even implied.

As for Infant Baptism – it IS taught in the Scriptures (Acts 10:1-49, 16:25-34). Peter and Paul Baptized Cornelius and the Philippian Jailer – and their ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS.

The doctrine was also written about in the early days of the Church:
Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; INFANTS, AND CHILDREN, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an INFANT for INFANTS, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. BAPTIZE FIRST THE CHILDREN, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
THE CHURCH RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES THE TRADITION OF GIVING BAPTISM EVEN TO INFANTS. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of INFANTS: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized WITHIN THE SECOND OR THIRD DAY AFTER THEIR BIRTH, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that INFANT is brought to baptism; and it is through this ONE SPIRIT that the INFANT so presented is REBORN. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

The Greek word used for tradition in Mark 7:8 is paradosis (παράδοσις), which refers to handed-down teachings, not commands from God. Jesus condemned these because they nullified the Word of God (Mark 7:13). That is exactly what you’re doing, propping up religious tradition, claiming it’s biblical, and then attacking anyone who shows you what the Bible actually says. You ignore clear verses, invent meanings, and falsely accuse others just to prop up a system that isn’t found in Scripture.​

You’re not correcting, you’re deflecting. You have been shown the Word plainly, yet you continue to lie and resist the truth. That’s not debate, that’s deception. You’ve rejected Scripture and chosen tradition.

WRONG.

The Bible tells us that there ARE handed-down teachings (Traditions) that we MUST adhere to (2 Thess. 2:15) – and that they are as binding as Scripture.

 

[bdavidc]

WRONG.

The Bible tells us that there ARE handed-down teachings (Traditions) that we MUST adhere to (2 Thess. 2:15) – and that they are as binding as Scripture.

Again, you are completely wrong about 2 Thessalonians 2:15. That verse does not give anyone permission to add to the Bible or treat man-made traditions as equal to God's Word. Paul was telling the Thessalonians to hold to what he and the other apostles had already taught them, whether spoken in person or written in their letters. That was apostolic teaching, not an open door for religious systems to invent new doctrines centuries later. The apostles were chosen by Jesus Christ and their teaching became the foundation of the New Testament (Ephesians 2:20). Once that foundation was laid and the Scriptures were complete, nothing was to be added. Jude 1:3 says “the faith” was once delivered unto the saints, not continuously modified. Revelation 22:18-19 clearly warns that if anyone adds to God's Word, they will face judgment. So let me be clear, your interpretation is not only false, it is dangerous. You’re twisting Scripture to justify human authority, and that is exactly the kind of deception the Bible warns about.

I’ve given you the truth from the Word of God, and you’ve chosen to reject it. You continue to push false doctrine and defend teachings that go against Scripture. I’m not going to waste more time with someone who refuses correction and hardens their heart to God’s truth (Titus 3:10-11). I’ve put you on ignore and I won’t be reading or responding to your posts anymore. I answer to God, not to false teachers.

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.” — 2 John 1:10

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. ~ Galatians 1:8-9

 

[David Lamb]

WRONG.

The Bible tells us that there ARE handed-down teachings (Traditions) that we MUST adhere to (2 Thess. 2:15) – and that they are as binding as Scripture.

But 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2Th 2:15 NKJV)

Pauls is referring to the preaching of the gospel (by word) and what he wrote in his letter (our epistle). He's not talking about handed-down traditions, as you claim.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Again, you are completely wrong about 2 Thessalonians 2:15. That verse does not give anyone permission to add to the Bible or treat man-made traditions as equal to God's Word. Paul was telling the Thessalonians to hold to what he and the other apostles had already taught them, whether spoken in person or written in their letters. That was apostolic teaching, not an open door for religious systems to invent new doctrines centuries later. The apostles were chosen by Jesus Christ and their teaching became the foundation of the New Testament (Ephesians 2:20). Once that foundation was laid and the Scriptures were complete, nothing was to be added. Jude 1:3 says “the faith” was once delivered unto the saints, not continuously modified. Revelation 22:18-19 clearly warns that if anyone adds to God's Word, they will face judgment. So let me be clear, your interpretation is not only false, it is dangerous. You’re twisting Scripture to justify human authority, and that is exactly the kind of deception the Bible warns about.

And even after I’ve explained to you – ad nauseam – you still can’t comprehend the difference between traditions of men (i.e., washing of hands) and sacred Apostolic teaching.

The Church didn’t “invent” doctrines centuries after the Apostles. These were beliefs and practices FROM the Apostles that, in many cases were defined later. And that only happens when a teaching is rejected or called into question - usually by heretics like the “Reformers”. These are teachings that are included in Paul’s admonition in 2 Thess. 2:15.

I’ve given you the truth from the Word of God, and you’ve chosen to reject it. You continue to push false doctrine and defend teachings that go against Scripture. I’m not going to waste more time with someone who refuses correction and hardens their heart to God’s truth (Titus 3:10-11). I’ve put you on ignore and I won’t be reading or responding to your posts anymore. I answer to God, not to false teachers.

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting.” — 2 John 1:10

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. ~ Galatians 1:8-9

YOU and your unbiblical man-made abominations such as “Sola Scriptura” are a prime examples of the warnings in 2 John 1:10 and Gal. 1:8-9.

Matt. 18:17-18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2Th 2:15 NKJV)

Pauls is referring to the preaching of the gospel (by word) and what he wrote in his letter (our epistle). He's not talking about handed-down traditions, as you claim.

A “handed down tradition”, as you call it IS an Apostolic teaching.
The Apostles appointed others to take their place after they died – and this succession continued down through the centuries.

In Acts 1, we see that the Apostles gathered together to choose a successor for Judas.
Peter quotes the Psalms as he says:

Acts 1:20
“Let another take his office.”
The Greek word for “office” here is “Episkopay” (Bishopric)

Question: Why did Judas need to be replaced? Couldn’t they just have pushed on without him?
Answer: Because, like every other office – Judas’s office had a purpose and was successive.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I’ve given you the truth from the Word of God, and you’ve chosen to reject it. You continue to push false doctrine and defend teachings that go against Scripture. I’m not going to waste more time with someone who refuses correction and hardens their heart to God’s truth (Titus 3:10-11). I’ve put you on ignore and I won’t be reading or responding to your posts anymore. I answer to God, not to false teachers.

Instead of simply refusing to respond - I suggest you try studying the Scriptures in their proper context . . .

 

[David Lamb]

A “handed down tradition”, as you call it IS an Apostolic teaching.
The Apostles appointed others to take their place after they died – and this succession continued down through the centuries.

In Acts 1, we see that the Apostles gathered together to choose a successor for Judas.
Peter quotes the Psalms as he says:

Acts 1:20
“Let another take his office.”
The Greek word for “office” here is “Episkopay” (Bishopric)

Question: Why did Judas need to be replaced? Couldn’t they just have pushed on without him?
Answer: Because, like every other office – Judas’s office had a purpose and was successive.

Yes, a replacement for Judas was described in Acts. But that is it. No replacement is mentioned for James when Herod killed him:

“Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.” (Ac 12:2 NKJV)

Only Judas was replaced of the apostles.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes, a replacement for Judas was described in Acts. But that is it. No replacement is mentioned for James when Herod killed him:

“Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.” (Ac 12:2 NKJV)

Only Judas was replaced of the apostles.

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. It completely discards history.

Hippolytus of Rome was a disciple of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John. Hippolytus's works were considered lost prior to their discovery at a monastery on Mount Athos in 1854.

In his treatise, On the Seventy Apostles of Christ, he names Cleopas as James’s successor in Jerusalem. He also writes that Linus succeeded Peter in Rome.

 

[David Lamb]

This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. It completely discards history.

Hippolytus of Rome was a disciple of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John. Hippolytus's works were considered lost prior to their discovery at a monastery on Mount Athos in 1854.

In his treatise, On the Seventy Apostles of Christ, he names Cleopas as James’s successor in Jerusalem. He also writes that Linus succeeded Peter in Rome.

Well, so Hippolytus of Rome was a disciple of Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of Apostle John. But that doesn't mean that Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Polycarp were themselves apostles. Timothy was a disciple of Paul, but that doesn't make him an apostle.

 

[Marymog]

They've not committed sin, so salvation is a non issue. And you're right. Infants can't believe: and baptism saves the sinner from past sins committed.

Thanks DJT. We agree, infants have not and cannot commit sin.

Clearly you don't believe in original sin spoken of in Scripture and taught by Christianity for 2,000 years so I will skip that discussion. And you interpret the verses in Scripture on how baptism replaces circumcision and that 2,000-year teaching, so we won't get into that debate. And when Jesus said baptize all you don't think infants are part of all. And you don't believe that when Scripture says entire families were baptized you don't believe infants are part of entire families. You say infants can't believe....and I agree with you.


At what age can one or is one expected to start believing what is told of them and they be held accountable if they don't? At what age does one know they are committing a sin? When is, what some call, the age of reasoning?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

2000 yrs of so-called Christian teaching should tell you all you need to know. The church was going astray as early as the letters of the NT and if you read the 1st 3 chapters of revelation you can see it didn't get any better. So, add your 2000 years of man made up contrary sctitural doctrine to that, and that's why you have duch things as infant baptism, pouring water or sprinkling water in lieu of baptizing, pope's, Cardinals, nuns, phoney saints, phoney church hierarchy, etc. 2000 years of falsehood.

Got it........YOU have figured out what early Christian teachings are "contrary to sctitural {sic} doctrine" but Marymog and The Church hasn't figured out what is contrary to Scriptural doctrine? My doctrine is "man made" and your doctrine is.......God made?

Interesting......

 

[PGS11]

How does anyone know if an infant was baptized in the river and later I think that is an assumption on our parts adult only for some reason like a small child could never know God.Jesus absolutely loved all the children around him and even called us his children.Where in the bible does it say exactly that they should not be baptized because I can' find it.As a child he loved the temple himself with zeal Mary told stories of this in the bible.A blessing was said over Jesus and prophecy was told when it happened and he was a child.

 

[Marymog]

I'm not a cult member so you can keep your "recovery"

Oh goodness Dash. I apologize if I left you with the impression that I thought you were a cult member. I do not think you are.

If you read what I wrote you would see at the beginning of my post I said I am a recovering Protestant. I then listed the problems with Protestantism. I then at the end of that post said that I hoped that you would recover from being a Protestant.

Would you care to address anything I wrote in that post (#85)? Or is your only intent to be a troll?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I’ve given you the truth from the Word of God, and you’ve chosen to reject it. You continue to push false doctrine and defend teachings that go against Scripture. I’m not going to waste more time with someone who refuses correction and hardens their heart to God’s truth (Titus 3:10-11). I’ve put you on ignore and I won’t be reading or responding to your posts anymore. I answer to God, not to false teachers.

YOU have given @BreadOfLife the Word of God and BOL is pushing a false doctrine and teachings that go against Scripture? BOL refuses to stand corrected and BOL's heart is hardened?

Oh goodness......My eyes have been open to who you really are.

 

[Marymog]

Yes, a replacement for Judas was described in Acts. But that is it. No replacement is mentioned for James when Herod killed him:

“Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.” (Ac 12:2 NKJV)

Only Judas was replaced of the apostles.

Hey David,

Are you suggesting that since Scripture doesn't mention a replacement for James that they didn't replace James in the same manner that they replaced Judas? That their agreement at the Council of Jerusalem on how to replace an office holder (an Apostle) was only a 1-time deal and never to be repeated again?

Curious Mary

 

[David Lamb]

How does anyone know if an infant was baptized in the river and later I think that is an assumption on our parts adult only for some reason like a small child could never know God.Jesus absolutely loved all the children around him and even called us his children.Where in the bible does it say exactly that they should not be baptized because I can' find it.As a child he loved the temple himself with zeal Mary told stories of this in the bible.A blessing was said over Jesus and prophecy was told when it happened and he was a child.

Sorry, but I don't understand the beginning of your post. (Not a criticism, so please don't take offence, as none is meant.) What does your first sentence mean: "How does anyone know if an infant was baptized in the river and later I think that is an assumption on our parts adult only for some reason like a small child could never know God.Jesus absolutely loved all the children around him and even called us his children.Where in the bible does it say exactly that they should not be baptized because I can' find it." Not sure whether you are asking how anyone knows whether an infant was baptize in a river specifically, rather than a baptistry, font, lake, swimming pool, etc.

I do understand your question about where in the bible does it say that children should not be baptized. My answer to that would be that it doesn't. But we are told that belief comes first. For instance, when the Ethiopian asked Philip if he could be baptized, Philip said:

“If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."” (Ac 8:37 NKJV)

Similarly, when the jailer at Philippi and his household were baptized, we read:

“And he took them (the apostles) the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 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.” (Ac 16:33-34 NKJV)

So although there is no specific age given, if a child is to be baptized, he or she needs to be sufficiently mature to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.