Why Some Churches Practice Infant Baptism and others do not.

[RZehr]

Much is written in the New Testament books by the apostles, warning about leaving the faith and warning about false teachers. And not just false teachers in some future time, but warnings about false teachers who were leading people astray in that very moment of writing.

So we know that there was various false doctrines being taught right from the very beginning. Who knows what all was being taught back then, I suppose it was a lot of extra curricula stuff. Infant baptism may have been one of them. The Bible doesn’t necessarily list all the false notions and offer rebuttals to each one. That isn’t what we have. Instead, we are told what is the way to live, and anything that isn’t taught, well, isn’t taught.

Nonetheless, the fact that it has been practiced for centuries does not make it Biblical whatsoever.

[Soloist]

There honestly is more support for baptism of the dead…

[Valerie]

If those Amish at Parkside can, in spite of clear teaching and knowledge and practice, drop the covering after a short time passes - why would it be strange to find out that some people a hundred years after Christ apostatized and adopted infant baptism?

Sure, in the context of 2,000 years of history, the first 100 years is fairly early. But apostasy doesn’t need decades - see Parkside Amish. Or see how most of Christiany dropped the head covering practice in the modern era. Getting off course can happen anytime, early or late, and can happen fast or slowly over time.

So the fact that infant baptism happened long ago shouldn’t really be any more material than if it happened 100 years ago.

Then you best not trust your Bible THEY canonized. They obviously trusted oral traditions handed down and did not see baptism like Anabaptists did 1500 years later. Other churches also maintained infant baptism after rejecting RC. The whole topic here is about it. No need to preach to the choir here obviously, probably no need to start the topic at all unless you love to waste time

[Valerie]

There honestly is more support for baptism of the dead…

Not in my opinion I understand the practice, I didn't most of my life. I don't understand a doily as a head covering either or strings or no beard rules etc but to each their own understanding

Speaking of which I have spent way too much time on a futile attempt which has been done here in the past why it came up again is strange but I have housework glaring at me

Have a blessed day, I think we should stop here, at least I am

[RZehr]

If those Amish at Parkside can, in spite of clear teaching and knowledge and practice, drop the covering after a short time passes - why would it be strange to find out that some people a hundred years after Christ apostatized and adopted infant baptism?

Sure, in the context of 2,000 years of history, the first 100 years is fairly early. But apostasy doesn’t need decades - see Parkside Amish. Or see how most of Christiany dropped the head covering practice in the modern era. Getting off course can happen anytime, early or late, and can happen fast or slowly over time.

So the fact that infant baptism happened long ago shouldn’t really be any more material than if it happened 100 years ago.

Then you best not trust your Bible THEY canonized. They obviously trusted oral traditions handed down and did not see baptism like Anabaptists did 1500 years later. Other churches also maintained infant baptism after rejecting RC. The whole topic here is about it. No need to preach to the choir here obviously, probably no need to start the topic at all unless you love to waste time

Well, is that what you want to discuss here now, the canon?

[Josh]

Well, they had a chance to do so for several years, and they didn’t do so until after I started attending a conservative Mennonite church.

What inference would you make?

Without being there, I don't know. Maybe they were planning to invite you but hadn't.

OK, so they had a year or more to do so, and didn’t do it.

As soon as they find out I’m a Mennonite convert tho then they invite me.

Sounds like Parkside thinks their mission field is Mennonites and Amish. Which isn’t something i approve of.

Maybe us Menmonites should try to evangelise Parkside people?

[Josh]

Well, is that what you want to discuss here now, the canon?

This is a big part of what it boils down to. Is our authority Jesus and the Bible, or do we look to some other source?

[Sudsy]

Regarding reading 'back into the text' many would say those who believe in nonviolence are doing that. Jesus could have said something like 'follow me and get rid of your swords' ....

Well, he kind of did. He said "Love your enemies" and "whosever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
If a person will not hear such a clear command, neither will they be persuaded even if Christ were to actually demonstrate such nonresistance and subsequently rise from the dead.

Jesus also tells the rich man to give up all of his wealth and sell everything he owns and give the money to the poor and come and follow Him. Does this mean as His disciples we should do the same ? Jesus goes on to say -'And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.' Do we read this as a clear command that disowning our family and property for His sake will give us 100 times as much now in this life and will also give us eternal life ? My point is that a 'simple' reading of the scriptures taken literally can easily lead us in ways that contradict other scriptures.

Some would say participating in war may involve killing someone else as it is unloving to not defend the defenseless. And it is also loving to protect a wicked person from killing others. On a one on one situation to turn the other cheek, it can be understood as responding to personal insult without retort. In that sense, there is much to consider on how we respond to each other on these forums and everywhere.

Whenever I use a phrase or similar phrase that a command is clear and there is no room for seeing things with a different understanding, I think it is perhaps better if I say this is my conviction that this is what is meant by the text. I believe there are many things we feel convicted that are true and we should live according but always open to the Holy Spirit correcting us where we have gone astray and where He wants us to change our thinking.

When reading scripture commentaries they often give varied possible understandings of a text. I believe the idea of a 'simple' understanding has more to do with the idea that one does not need a seminary degree to follow Jesus and that the Holy Spirit will guide all of us if we will allow Him to and that is what we will account for and it is not about what some call a 'simple' reading of the text as we might read other texts. I think 'literal' and 'simple' are quite different but sometimes are used interchangeably.

Regarding infant baptism, I believe the word 'household' being used as to who were baptised in the family is not the main problem regarding water baptism but rather whether water baptism has any saving properties or not. It would seem some just look at it more from a church practise and not the reasons behind doing it.

[Bootstrap]

Then you best not trust your Bible THEY canonized.

Which THEY, in which year? Which version of whose canon gave Scripture its authority?

Weren't the books equally trustworthy before they officially canonized them?

[Soloist]

In scripture Paul directly mentions baptism for the dead as a practice and uses it to make a point of the resurrection.

1Co 15:29  Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Can you point to any verse where infant baptism is referenced so openly? Of course not. So I find more Scriptural support for baptism for dead people then I do for infant baptism.

None of this means I intend to practice either and I don’t think Paul was intending us to do this practice although he doesn’t condemn it.