Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Josh]

It is impossible for an infant to repent and be baptised.

The NT never teaches infant baptism. A “whole household” repenting and being baptised is possible. It doesn’t mean an unborn baby, a newborn baby, and the family dog were baptised.

[Valerie]

The reason that Churches formed from the Reformation forward have a vast array of baptism styles/doctrines & interpretations is because they all were going by Scripture-

Sometimes I almost get the impression that you think following Scripture is a bad thing.

How can you? I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. None of this discussion or my statements or observations discouraged following Scripture. I feel like Scriptures i brought up are ignored or dismissed.
Which Scripture taught Sprinkling and which Scripture taught immersion?
Which Scripture conveyed that the prophetic gifts of prophecy and spiritual gift of tongues no longer are part of the Church as Apostle Paul taught?
Should each of the myriads of denominations claiming to follow Scripture look/practice so different? Even the denominations themselves have changed or split into so many sects- is that following Scripture OJ? If all the Churches follow Scripture they should all look somewhat the same. Pentecostal Churches believe they are the closest because they have the Holy Spirit- when we were with them, they "Scripturally" conveyed what they believed wrong about all other Protestants, Anabaptists, Catholics & Orthodox "Scripturally" -if the Spiritual Gifts were not bring encouraged.
Of course i encourage Scripture- i just know not everything was written down. Scripture itself, says not everything was written down- if that would have been understood than maybe there would be more peace verses walls


.

[Valerie]

It is impossible for an infant to repent and be baptised.

The NT never teaches infant baptism. A “whole household” repenting and being baptised is possible. It doesn’t mean an unborn baby, a newborn baby, and the family dog were baptised.

I think that the Church, by reading early Church writers, see a broader understanding of baptism- obviously, if the very Apostles who Jesus commissioned to start the church, included infants in baptism, it is more because we can't find proof of that in New Testament. Obviously if everywhere Churches began baptize infants and with all their attacks of it not being scriptural has not conveyed to them it should not be done then who is the one not following the scripture? I have seen them use the support of scriptures to endorse infant baptism-
Do you believe in sprinkling or immersion Josh & by what passage do you conclude this? What age should one be baptized. & how?
And you are assuming a household would not include infants and children. You're assuming that the places in Acts where whole households were baptized at once was a household that had adults only which would be quite odd. Why do you think some Protestants baptize infants?

[Valerie]

The Church Jesus said He would build is supposed to be One. That was Jesus prayer in John 17. Yet we keep digging our heels in to keep it sected.

[Josh]

It is impossible for an infant to repent and be baptised.

The NT never teaches infant baptism. A “whole household” repenting and being baptised is possible. It doesn’t mean an unborn baby, a newborn baby, and the family dog were baptised.

I think that the Church, by reading early Church writers, see a broader understanding of baptism- obviously, if the very Apostles who Jesus commissioned to start the church, included infants in baptism, it is more because we can't find proof of that in New Testament. Obviously if everywhere Churches began baptize infants and with all their attacks of it not being scriptural has not conveyed to them it should not be done then who is the one not following the scripture? I have seen them use the support of scriptures to endorse infant baptism-
Do you believe in sprinkling or immersion Josh & by what passage do you conclude this? What age should one be baptized. & how?

Baptism in Jesus’ time was simply the Jewish practice of miqvah, which was neither sprinkling nor immersion. You went into a pool of flowing water (or a river) and had water poured in your head.

This was done once a Jewish person reached age 12.

And you are assuming a household would not include infants and children. You're assuming that the places in Acts where whole households were baptized at once was a household that had adults only which would be quite odd.

Does “household” include the family dog and cat being baptised?

Why do you think some Protestants baptize infants?

The same reason they do things like go to war.

[Valerie]

Well the New testament Church didn't look like that in baptism mode. Although the ancient Church of the Catholic and orthodox which started out as one still has a much more appearance of a Jewish influence than any other churches then more followed for example this:
Acts 8:38

“And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”

King James Version (KJV)

I believe I asked the question what scripture passage do you find in the New testament for sprinkling? For immersion? John said that he was baptizing a baptism of repentance but he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire-

And of course the household would not be the family cat and dog. Nowhere in the New testament did Jesus say suffer not the cat and dog to come unto me He said suffer not the children to come unto me-

Do you think a household was all adults?
What Scripture do you bade that on?
If we go by Scripture aline, shouldn't all Protestant (which includes Anabaptists) baptize the same way?

Do you think the early Church fathers/writers were lying when they said the very Apostles taught to baptize infants & Children? Please share your answers without being sarcadtic-

[Soloist]

Do you think the early Church fathers/writers were lying when they said the very Apostles taught to baptize infants & Children? Please share your answers without being sarcadtic-

Which writer are you referring to who claimed this?

[Valerie]

Do you think the early Church fathers/writers were lying when they said the very Apostles taught to baptize infants & Children? Please share your answers without being sarcadtic-

Which writer are you referring to who claimed this?

Go nack to the very first post where i started this topic and you can read the quotes/statements/beliefs- no one has really addressed those through this discussion, and thank you to those who have not made this a personal attack against me, my faith, or my attempt to understand- i truly try to have a teachable spirit when it comes to the Christian faith & understandings, not claiming to be infallible but in hopes (and prayers) to heal the schisms of the Churches. With God all things are possible

[JimFoxvog]

Baptism in Jesus’ time was simply the Jewish practice of mikvah, which was neither sprinkling nor immersion. You went into a pool of flowing water (or a river) and had water poured in your head.

I understand baptism was an adaption of the Jewish practice of mikvah, but I've read complete immersion was required. There were requirements that a person have nothing on their body that would prevent the water from covering every part, not even a pin or comb in one's hair.

[Soloist]

These are some quotations regarding infant baptism from Church Fathers:

Origen (184-253 AD): "The Church inherited from the apostles the custom of baptizing even newborns. Because the apostles, to whom were entrusted the secrets of divine mysteries, understood that everyone is born with sinful tendencies that must be cleansed by water and the Holy Spirit " (Commentaries on Romans 5:9).

Origen was considered a heretic by who? If after he lived he was branded as one, then why assume this is accurate? Also this is at least 150 years after the apostles so who taught him it was from the apostles? Certainly not even one who was taught by one who was taught the apostles themselves.

Hippolytus of Rome (about 170–235 CE): "First baptize the youngsters, and if they are able to speak for themselves, allow them to do so. Otherwise, their parents or other relatives should speak on their behalf " (The Apostolic Tradition).

Either this is a bad translation of the original quote or it doesn’t exist. Can you show it in context so I can find it?

Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) wrote, "He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; that is, all who are reborn in God through him: newborns, children, youths, and the aged" (Against Heresies, 2:22:4)

.
I’d have to see the Latin but off hand he was responding to this nonsense not laying down a practice

. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Aeons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty Aeons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent109 Aeons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution” [Isa 61:2]), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.

Even if it is actually referencing infant baptism, how do you know it was taught by the apostles and not simply adopted as a practice like baptism for the dead? Surely no one here would argue a dead man could repent would they?

Cyprian of Carthage (200–258): "But in regards to the case of infants, which you claim should not be baptized until the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be observed, so that a newborn should not be baptized and sanctified until the eighth day, we all had very different opinions in our council. No one agreed with your proposed course of action; rather, we all believe that the kindness and grace of God cannot be denied to anybody born of woman " (Letter to Fidus).

Baptism age wasn’t unified at this time although my observation is that the pre-200AD authors hardly mentioned it
Why are you not part of the Orthodox? Didn’t Ignatius say

Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for “he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God.” (Heb 13:17) Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ,

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) stated, "The habit of Mother Church in baptizing newborns is clearly not to be despised, nor is it to be considered redundant, nor is it to be claimed that her tradition is anything other than apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 10:23:39).

No one here would consider Augustine to be a good guide for doctrine.
Now a question stirs… what did the earlier writings say on Baptism?

, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life. But the cisterns which you have dug for yourselves are broken and profitless to you. For what is the use of that baptism which cleanses the flesh and body alone? Baptize the soul from wrath and from covetousness, from envy, and from hatred; and, lo! the body is pure.

Read this one carefully by Justin

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Joh 3:5) Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above;67 he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” (Isa 1:16-20)

Nothing Justin says here is something for a baby.
And again, this isn’t for a baby, note the bold

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings

Okay, 1 author, what about others?

We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing. And since knowledge springs up with illumination, shedding its beams around the mind, the moment we hear, we who were untaught become disciples. Does this, I ask, take place on the advent of this instruction? You cannot tell the time. For instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit. For that faith is the one universal salvation of humanity, and that there is the same equality before the righteous and loving God,

Clement of Alexandria
And again

In the same way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism, speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father. Jesus therefore, rejoicing in the spirit, said: “I thank Thee, O Father, God of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes;” (Luk 10:21) the Master and Teacher applying the name babes to us, who are readier to embrace salvation than the wise in the world, who, thinking themselves wise, are inflated with pride. And He exclaims in exultation and exceeding joy, as if lisping with the children, “Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” (Luk 10:21) Wherefore those things which have been concealed from the wise and prudent of this present world have been revealed to babes. Truly, then, are we the children of God, who have put aside the old man, and stripped off the garment of wickedness, and put on the immortality of Christ; that we may become a new, holy people by regeneration, and may keep the man undefiled. And a babe, as God’s little one,14 is cleansed from fornication and wickedness.

There are numerous others, if we but use the clear teachings of these earlier teachers, the later teachers are shown to not be teaching truth.