Valerie, have you ever considered that the reason children aren't mentioned specifically in the baptismal accounts in Acts is because the original readers were well aware that they would not have been included in the "believers baptism" of the households. Impossible to prove a negative, but consistent with the NT's references to the purpose of baptism. And again you give credence to someone's statement who is 100 years removed from NT times, above the teaching of the NT.Valerie wrote:I can understand where you are coming from- yet I can assure you, that just as you can't see it from Scripture, those who practiced it from the beginning, wouldn't see how you 'couldn't' see it from Scripture, they use many passages to confirm their belief in it- but indeed they have oral traditions handed down as well. And it seems you are speculating- do you trust the Church that canonized the very Scriptures you believe?silentreader wrote:It is quite possible that the letters to the 7 churches are recorded because their differences and similarities were a representative sample of the churches of that time, certainly there are similarities to churches of today. And it was not the 7 churches that were the "few", but rather the "few" were those within the 7 churches who had remained faithful.Valerie wrote:
Compared to the entire world, Christianity is a few yes- but the 7 churches Jesus addressed were a handful compared to myriads of other churches by this time- those were a handful, and they were the ones Apostle John was Bishop over in that part of Asia- but the Apostles started churches in many countries. But none of those things Jesus addressed to the 7 churches had anything to do with baptism at all- I do appreciate what Jesus was addressing to the 5 churches that needed repentance, of what He was pointing out and we need to always be mindful of those things- He also pointed out the things they were doing right- I am not sure how He would address the Church at large today because now it is not by 'location' only but myriads of different interpretations/denominations- doctrine is one of the issues He addressed to them. I just think it is not a correct assumption that 'infant baptism' was considered falling away because it was said that the Apostles taught it.
And I am not saying there are no oral traditions, but when they contradict Scripture, they become suspect.
And that is why when "it is said that the Apostles taught it" comes up it raises warnings in my mind. Because I do not believe that it is possible to honestly reconcile "infant baptism" with the NT model of "believers baptism".
In the year 180, Irenaeus had this to say:
"The Church having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it....For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egpt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But just as the sun, the creation of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men who are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. "
He also says in 180 A.D. :
"To which course, many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit. Without paper or ink, they carefully preserve the ancient tradition.....Those who have believed this faith without any written documents are barbarians as to language. But as to doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed."
It verifies the unity of the faith & traditions and the work of the Spirit.
Before, I couldn't really have seen it by Scripture but I do see the implication of Scriptures, and considering the Jews that started the faith, wouldn't leave their children as 'outside' the faith or church and the only way, as Apostle Paul said of the Believing parent "Now your children are clean and holy" that would imply to be that way, clean and holy, they were baptized along with the rest of the household- and so we see by tradition throughout the world with the exception of some, it was common. We do not see anything in the New Testament about delaying a child's baptism, or any teaching from Jesus or the APostles about some age of accountability- that was a man made teaching from what I understand
Valerie, I'm always reluctant to attempt to engage you in dialog simply because we evidently have differing perceptions of the sources of truth, and any discussion with you seems to quickly deteriorate into going around in circles. I believe you have received valuable input in this thread from others, whether you choose to accept any of it or not is up to you.
I believe I have made my position sufficiently clear, and rather than 'saying' something I might regret, I am going to terminate my part in this discussion.
May the Lord guide you and richly bless you as you seek His will in your life, Valerie.