Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by ken_sylvania »

Valerie wrote:Youre assuming the apostles wrote every detail about baptism down.
No, I am not assuming that. I know good and well that they did not. I declare that the NT writers wrote enough about baptism for us to know that the apostles baptized believers, not unbelievers.
Valerie wrote:But the Apostle Paul explicitly stated there were oral & written traditions. If Scripture alone was clear, I wouldnt see so much variety about baptism among Anabaptists and this thread probably wouldnt have been necessary if it was so clear by Scripture alone.
Scripture is actually very clear if one is willing to read and understand. One has to torture the plain reading of scripture to get it to teach infant baptism.
Valerie wrote: If whole households were baptized at once, and it didnt say except infants & children, then people assume these various passages were whole households full of adults
John 4 talks about the nobleman whose son Jesus healed. It says he and his whole house believed. Do you think this means the babies believed?
Galatians 3:27 says that all who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Are you suggesting that infants can "put on Christ?"
Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to "all" who were in the Philippian jailer's house. Do you really think they spoke the word of the Lord to the babies? Do you actually think that the babies rejoiced?
These accounts don't come anywhere close to teaching infant baptism. In fact what they actually teach is the baptism of people who have believed.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by ken_sylvania »

Soloist wrote:
Josh wrote:One is certainly baffled to understand how infants and stillborns of non-believing parents go to hell but those of believing parents go to heaven.

What about adoptions? Or unknown paternity?
1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Take it for what you will, but this is partly why I would wonder. That being said, I don't know either way
I don't think it means that an ungodly person can be saved by being married to a believing spouse... That would be contrary to other Scripture.

I think the context would suggest that the influence of the godly spouse can lead the ungodly spouse and the children to follow God, where if the godly spouse were to abandon the family, there would be no godly influence to lead them to repentance. See especially v. 16.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

ken_sylvania wrote:
Soloist wrote:
Josh wrote:One is certainly baffled to understand how infants and stillborns of non-believing parents go to hell but those of believing parents go to heaven.

What about adoptions? Or unknown paternity?
1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Take it for what you will, but this is partly why I would wonder. That being said, I don't know either way
I don't think it means that an ungodly person can be saved by being married to a believing spouse... That would be contrary to other Scripture.

I think the context would suggest that the influence of the godly spouse can lead the ungodly spouse and the children to follow God, where if the godly spouse were to abandon the family, there would be no godly influence to lead them to repentance. See especially v. 16.
Except it makes a distinction: the husband is 'sanctified' by the believing spouse
The children however are 'clean' and 'holy'-
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by ken_sylvania »

Valerie wrote: Except it makes a distinction: the husband is 'sanctified' by the believing spouse
The children however are 'clean' and 'holy'-
How is "sanctified" different from "clean" and "holy?"

Edited to add:
ESV says it this way:
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:
Sudsy wrote:
Josh wrote:I think that when someone's old enough to be married, they're old enough to choose to be baptised, and vice versa. Both are very significant, life-long commitments.
Curious - in what way is water baptism a commitment ? Is someone waiting to be baptised not committed to something or someone and is there scripture to support this ?
The question becomes how young is too young for such a commitment?

If there's no commitment then in theory a 3 year old can ask and be baptised.
I'm trying to understand what commitment is made at water baptism as it is not the commitment to follow Christ which in Holdeman beliefs happens previously by the new birth and the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is admittance into the Kingdom of God.

The COGICM's belief in water baptism is - "Born-again believers are admitted into the visible church through water baptism". So, I take the 'life-long commitment' that you were referring to is a commitment/admittance into the 'visible church' (the Holdeman church), is this correct ?

I also don't think that any of the Anabaptist groups believe that regeneration occurs at water baptism, is this correct ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by ken_sylvania »

I think you would still find some echoes of baptismal regeneration theory among some of the older conservative brethren type people. I don't think it is as strong or as common as it maybe used to be. I'm not particularly certain on this though.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

ken_sylvania wrote:
Valerie wrote:Youre assuming the apostles wrote every detail about baptism down.
No, I am not assuming that. I know good and well that they did not. I declare that the NT writers wrote enough about baptism for us to know that the apostles baptized believers, not unbelievers.
Valerie wrote:But the Apostle Paul explicitly stated there were oral & written traditions. If Scripture alone was clear, I wouldnt see so much variety about baptism among Anabaptists and this thread probably wouldnt have been necessary if it was so clear by Scripture alone.
Scripture is actually very clear if one is willing to read and understand. One has to torture the plain reading of scripture to get it to teach infant baptism.
Valerie wrote: If whole households were baptized at once, and it didnt say except infants & children, then people assume these various passages were whole households full of adults
John 4 talks about the nobleman whose son Jesus healed. It says he and his whole house believed. Do you think this means the babies believed?
Galatians 3:27 says that all who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Are you suggesting that infants can "put on Christ?"
Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to "all" who were in the Philippian jailer's house. Do you really think they spoke the word of the Lord to the babies? Do you actually think that the babies rejoiced?
These accounts don't come anywhere close to teaching infant baptism. In fact what they actually teach is the baptism of people who have believed.
I believe the Apostles baptized infants- I don't think that Christians who said the Apostles taught it,, made that up. For one thing, every single country where the Apostles took the faith, the Church in all of these countries- baptize infants, and they become a part of the Church.

We have 5 accounts of whole households being baptized (and apparently those are the only ones recorded, we can assume this was common practice) and it's strange to think that none of these households had infants or children in them- that they were a household of 'grown ups' only. What, if Mary left home at 15 being the Mother of our Lord, we have all these other households with just grown ups living in them? Highly unlikely. I think it's just as the early writers/fathers said- the Apostles taught them to. We have no record of this practice all of a sudden starting and there was no one 'pope' or council meeting, as everything in the Church where there was any controversy, was settled by councils. Yet none seems to exist about it and everywhere throughout the world the Gospel was taken, baptized infants of Christian families.

You left out the account of Lydia in Acts 16, I understand why:

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

So apparently all these grown ups lived together, no children, no infants- all these households that were baptized at once? This is why it is difficult to answer the question of this topic- there is no scripture guiding people outside the original church at some age of accountability- there's nothing in the new testament about that.

Jesus made it clear:

Matthew 19:14King James Version (KJV)

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Acts 2:
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

I don't think you have to torture the Scriptures to see it, you merely have to believe the passages that support it and believe those who claimed the Apostles taught it, and also know it's been the tradition of the Church wherever the Gospel was taken for 2000 years with some exceptions of denominations after the Reformation- while some kept it- I don't think it's difficult to understand this.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Josh »

What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
0 x
User avatar
Wayne in Maine
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:52 am
Location: Slightly above sea level, in the dear old State of Maine
Affiliation: Yielded

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Wayne in Maine »

Josh wrote:What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
They end up in Limbo if they die:

"Limbo is the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the 'limbus patrum'); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the 'limbus infantium' or 'puerorum')."

This is also a tradition of the Western Roman religion (I suspect the Easter Romans believe something similar), which is another "tradition" supposedly passed on orally and secretly from the Apostles, not documented in any writings the early church considered authoritative.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Baptism and the Age of Accountability

Post by Valerie »

Wayne in Maine wrote:
Josh wrote:What are the consequences of not baptising infants?
They end up in Limbo if they die:

"Limbo is the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the 'limbus patrum'); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the 'limbus infantium' or 'puerorum')."

This is also a tradition of the Western Roman religion (I suspect the Easter Romans believe something similar), which is another "tradition" supposedly passed on orally and secretly from the Apostles, not documented in any writings the early church considered authoritative.
Limbo was a Roman Catholic invention- we see where Rome drifted in several areas which eventually led to the Great Schism- but no, Eastern Christianity never taught limbo or pergatory
0 x
Post Reply