Nic
Well-known member
I was raised in Dallas. I have that drawl down pat.
Shared altar / pulpit
- Thread starter HillsboroMom
- Start date
HillsboroMom
Active member
This is the biggest one for me.
I never understood why so many evangelicals deny infant baptism.
They even call it being "born again." Why don't they understand that baptism has nothing to do with what WE do, just like birth has nothing to do with what the baby does.
Authentic Nouveau
Well-known member
Here is the complete list of babies baptized by the disciples.
____________________
"For the preservation of public order" both Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli promoted the total elimination of the Anabaptists (through capital punishment) as a matter of utmost urgency.
Killing anabaptists was the reason most moved to Russia from Germany.
500 years later, Lutherans approached the Mennonites and asked for forgiveness. Mennonites forgave the Lutheran killers on their way out of town.
AnaBaptists are actually anapedobaptists. Menno Simon left the Catholic Church because of their false teachings of infant baptism.
Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Nic
Well-known member
Well you appeared to enjoy writing that one. Good one.😁 Now can you similarly post the comprehensive manifest of every last person baptized by the disciples. Be sure to not leave anyone out. The point as I see it, you will fail to have an exhaustive list. A subset of the set is never as inclusive as the whole.
For extra credit. Please list the exhaustive list of the works of Christ. 😉🙂
Bonnie
Super Member
Probably! (from a 5'2" 108 lb. grandma in Georgia...)
Bonnie
Super Member
Hmmmm, good point. When we are baptized, we become part of God's household, adopted sons and daughters. A human baby does nothing when people adopt him; he is completely passive about it. He becomes a member of their family, even though he is too young to understand what is going on.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Just as a genral principle that view is also contrary to the synergism which Paul wrote of, that we are fellow workers with God but that neither the one who plants or the one who waters is anything but God who makes it grow, 1 Cor 3:7-15.
It is the interpretive grid they have learned to lay over Scripture. If the grid doesn't allow for the objective true good news of incarnate, crucified, and risen Lord to and for all men then they must find the basis of their assurance somewhere else.
For example, instead of faith merely receiving the grace of God in Christ Jesus they make faith to be a cause of grace. Instead of the person and work of Christ for all men being the assurarance of their salvation they "know" they are saved because they "believe." In both cases the person turns away from Christ and looks inward for his assurance of salvation.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
Here is the complete list of anabaptists and those who taught anabaptist doctrine in Scripture:
---End of list---
An inclusive command from the risen Lord to baptize and teach all peoples doesn't rest upon or require that an example be provided from all possible subsets of people in summary accounts.
Cite your source since lumping Luther and Zwingli together should be a signal that the major issue wasn't anabaptism. Although there was no central group of anabaptism, the anabaptists as a whole would not be received in any country without first repenting of their sedition, murder, robbery, etc., for an example see Muntzer.
That is Acts 2:38 and it is an excellent presentation of how those Apostles and disciples whose minds were opened to understand the Scriptures, Luke 24:44-48, were to proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His name then proclaimed at Pentecost repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His name as, "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus..."
That is Mark 16:16 and it tells us of the assurance given to the already baptized disciples of Christ regarding those whom they were going to disciple.
The one who believes is the one who believes baptism into Christ saves through the resurrection of Christ. That is what the Apostles and disciples preached from Pentecost going forward, for example, see Acts 2:38; Romans 6:4; 1 Peter 3:21-22.
Those that object to what Mark 16:16 literally says and to whom usually imagine a relative pronoun and then read it into the passage so it says something like, "Whoever believes this [other thing] and is baptized will be saved." Again, see Acts 2:38; Romans 6:4; 1 Peter 3:2-22.
Last edited:
Tertiumquid
Well-known member
"as a whole" is well stated.
If I recall correctly, the way scholarship on Anabaptist history has moved is that actually defining who composed the group known as "Anabaptists" is a bit tricky. Some were peaceful, some were seditious and intolerant. Some had wacky end-times theology, some did not. Luther appears to have vacillated back and forth on the issue of religious tolerance toward the Schwärmer, first wanting more tolerance, then not, then again tolerance.
My 2 cents: the magisterial Reformers as a whole at times suffer from modern-day anachronistic thinking. The concept of religious tolerance is a modern concept. The Israelites certainly didn't have it... nor did Jesus when he encountered the scribes and Pharisees. Sure Jesus said to "turn the other cheek" but he really wasn't advocating tolerance in Matthew 23. The magisterial Reformers inherited the baggage of the medieval church, plus they themselves (even Luther!) were fallen human beings. Being able to overcome an ingrained and imbedded cultural concept seems so easy to us (because we're sophisticated, intelligent, and soooo much less fallen and sinful, LOL).
There is an unhealthy strain of people with "anabaptist" hero mentality running around the Internet. They use the word without defining it, overlook aspects of the movement that they don't like, and pridefully put forth anabaptism as the "true" line of Christianity that can be traced through history back to the apostles. Then again, there are Roman Catholics, Mormons, JW's, and all sorts of people that do the same thing that aren't Anabaptists. It's only 10:15 AM where I am, far too early for a drink.
HillsboroMom
Active member
Exactly!
When people say "You can't baptize an infant, because they don't understand what's going on," I usually answer, "Oh, that's a good point. Because a fetus needs to understand neo-natal biology before it can pass through its mother's birth canal, otherwise its birth doesn't really "take" and it's just a silly ritual that means nothing."
Once again, Ephesians 5:26 has nothing to do with baptism. Sure, God "could" do it through baptism. But He doesn't. This isn't about what God can theoretically do, but about what the Bible says He DOES do.
I live in South Florida. The New Yorkers have turned our once beautiful Florida into the Jersey Shore with palm trees. And they all treat the locals like crap. So glad the snowbirds have gone home so we don't have to deal with them.
I have friends from Upstate New York and they always say, "Please don't judge us by the ones from New York City".
Nothin' personal - they do that to everyone!
Dat's cuz dere mudders never bringed dem up too swell! 😂
Believe it or not, I can sympathize. Dad moved us to Long Island in the mid 50s. Only house on the block. Then other folks moved out from NYC. Unfortunately, they were year-round residents 😢
Yep. Totally different. Upstate is more like where DW & I are living now - 5 cars in a row is "rush hour"! 😊
--Rich
It's why they're universally hated. New Yorkers are a word I can't say here, but, in military jargon, it's your fourth point of contact.
BJ Bear
Well-known member
"For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." 2 Peter 1:16 -NKJV
"For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." Eph. 5:23 -NKJV
Eph. 5:25-27 tells us of how Christ, our loving Lord, is the Savior of the body. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish." -NKJV
There is a larger or more expansive summary account of this in Acts 2. It is a long summary but the short of it is that Christ gave Himself up, received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and pours it out on all flesh in baptism.
"Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”" Acts 2:38-39 -NKJV
Also, please note from the section in Ephesians 5 that Christ is the one who sanctifies and cleanses in baptism. God works in baptism rather than man.
If one believes what Peter wrote above then that means many things recorded in the NT actually occurred in time, including the inarnate, crucified, and risen Lord and His work for all men. Since that is true it follows that Ephesians 5:26 is referring to that work which includes baptism and its effects.
"For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body." Eph. 5:23 -NKJV
Eph. 5:25-27 tells us of how Christ, our loving Lord, is the Savior of the body. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish." -NKJV
There is a larger or more expansive summary account of this in Acts 2. It is a long summary but the short of it is that Christ gave Himself up, received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, and pours it out on all flesh in baptism.
"Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”" Acts 2:38-39 -NKJV
Also, please note from the section in Ephesians 5 that Christ is the one who sanctifies and cleanses in baptism. God works in baptism rather than man.
A common distinction between can and could is that could is used to introduce uncertainty or doubt. Since there is no uncertainty or doubt expressed in Ephesians 5:26-27, Acts 2:38-39, and 1 Peter 3:21-22, etc., regarding the work of the Lord it is an error and an expression of unbelief for a reader to infer or read uncertainty or doubt into the text.
Bonnie
Super Member
Once again, yes it does. What do you think "cleansed her with WATER with the word" means? But you are partially right--it IS about what God does--which is cleanse us of sin by WATER with the word. Baptism.
You're assuming. There's nothing in the text that suggests baptism.
Nothing about baptism here.
Not about baptism.
Look at the grammar: Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς “Μετανοήσατε,” [φησίν], “Καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος.
"εἰς" is a preposition that indicates something that already exists or has already occurred.
So the remission of sins has already occurred and baptism is because of the remission of sins, not a means to obtain remission of sins.
It's like saying, "Take two aspirin FOR a headache." You don't take two aspirin to get a headache. You take two aspirin because you already have a headache.
Nothing in the Ephesians 5 about baptism.
No, it doesn't.
Read it carefully. It's the Word that washes. The water is only an analogy.
That's why we have verses like:
You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. - John 15:3
Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth - .John 17:18
BJ Bear
Well-known member
The," bath [or washng] of water with the word," is baptism.
There was to the Apostles and all whose minds have been opened to understand Scripture. That is why Paul spelled it out in Eph. 5:25-27.
No, the forgiveness of sins does already exist but it only exists in Christ Jesus. People are baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, etc., which can only be rightfully received alone by faith. That is why baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
Nothing in the text suggests this.
He didn't spell it out. He never once says nor suggests that it's baptism.
The grammar of the verse, which I have already posted for you, indicates that the remission of sins has already taken place and that baptism is a response to the remission of sins.
OK. Well, since you can't be honest and post the whole thing, i guess I'll have to. Here, let the grown up do your work for you:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.