Baptism

[KnightofChrist]

The disciples rebuked them that brought the them (children). Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and [color="#FF0000"]forbid them not[/color]; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Amen I say to you,[color="#FF0000"] whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.[/color]

Can you see where Christ words can be applied to infant baptism? Baptism is how we come to Christ. Christ tells us directly not to forbid the children from coming to Him. And denying baptism to children I do believe is forbiding the children from Christ.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1078828' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:57 AM']
NewReformation,

I dont know if its been brought up, but did not Paul go and baptize entire houses and families? He would baptize "All of them that were in the house", now in most all cases families and houses have babies, and children, and Paul bapitized alot of familys and alot of houses. So it is very logical that Paul did indeed bapitize children, and babies, and if Paul can do it, so can the Church.
[/quote]

Well, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because Paul would baptize an entire household, that he baptized infants and wee children. This is a case of inferring something into Scripture. The fact is, everytime we see baptism done, we see it being done with persons old enough to make a statement of faith in Christ. We do see a couple of examples of households being baptized, but it doesn't always follow that there were infants in the household. It would be nice if it was specifically stated.



[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1078854' date='Sep 29 2006, 01:14 AM']
The disciples rebuked them that brought the them (children). Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me, and [color="#FF0000"]forbid them not[/color]; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Amen I say to you,[color="#FF0000"] whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.[/color]

Can you see where Christ words can be applied to infant baptism? Baptism is how we come to Christ. Christ tells us directly not to forbid the children from coming to Him. And denying baptism to children I do believe is forbiding the children from Christ.
[/quote]
Ehhhh...I take this scripture to mean that one must accept Christ as a little child can accept something wholly on faith. Children are able to trust and believe much easier than can an adult. I don't really believe that Baptism is the means for coming to Christ either. I see Baptism as a symbol of one's faith in Christ.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078948' date='Sep 29 2006, 06:52 AM']
Well, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because Paul would baptize an entire household, that he baptized infants and wee children. This is a case of inferring something into Scripture. The fact is, everytime we see baptism done, we see it being done with persons old enough to make a statement of faith in Christ. We do see a couple of examples of households being baptized, but it doesn't always follow that there were infants in the household. It would be nice if it was specifically stated. [/quote]


But when Paul did baptize Holy Scripture says he would baptize "[u]all[/u]" within the house, "all" not just the adults and teens, "all". All people within the familys and houses He baptized would include Adults, Teens, Childern, and infants. And Holy Scripture teaches us, that Paul baptized them all, and there is no need to specifically state age. Age was not a issue then, only until the likes of Luther did that become the case. Anyhow, scripture sayth "All," not some...



[quote name='NewReformation' post='1078948' date='Sep 29 2006, 06:52 AM']
Ehhhh...I take this scripture to mean that one must accept Christ as a little child can accept something wholly on faith. Children are able to trust and believe much easier than can an adult. I don't really believe that Baptism is the means for coming to Christ either. I see Baptism as a symbol of one's faith in Christ.
[/quote]

I do not understand why do non-catholics see Holy Baptism only as a symbol of ones faith, when it is SOOOO much more than that. Christ baptism was much more that some symbol, the coulds opened up, The Holy Spirit desended opon Him, in the form of a dove, and God the Father declared Him to be His Son.

Some what the same happends at our baptism, just without all the fireworks. The Holy Spirit desends opon us marking us as a Child of God, and God the Father declares us to be one of His children. Forbiding children from baptism, is much more than forbiding them from a symbol, of a faith. A faith you admint they have anyway so why forbid them of Baptism, if they as children accept something wholly on faith?

[sweetpea316]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1079101' date='Sep 29 2006, 11:55 AM']
Age was not a issue then, only until the likes of Luther did that become the case.
[/quote]

Sorry... just want to sneak in here and add something. I was baptized in the Lutheran church at 4 days old...they do believe in infant baptism. Just wanted to clarify that. That's all, thanks, carry on.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1078643' date='Sep 28 2006, 09:12 PM'] So, if you are in it for the long hull, so am I.[/quote]is he in a ship? :

[thessalonian]

[quote]Well, it doesn't necessarily follow that just because Paul would baptize an entire household, that he baptized infants and wee children. This is a case of inferring something into Scripture. [/quote]

Actually know that is not the case at all. We don't think that everything has to be explicit in scripture and you can't hold to explicitness no matter how much you think you can. We see infant baptism as implicit in scripture. There are some things that you see as implicit in scripture, though I don't know that you will admit it. For example I look in the dictionary and when I see the word rememberence I don't see the word symbol as any kind of a synonym. Yet you say the Lord's Supper is symbolic and this is scriptural. You have no explicit verse if you have no passage that says it is symbolic. Now from my standpoint, I don't need such a passage, but you do because you have set the noose rather tight on your arguements. The question is who's implicit is correct?

Now answer a question for me that noone has ever been able to answer. We see hundreds at Billy Graham Crusades (he's a baptist you know) going up to something called an altar call and declaring Jesus Christ as Personal Lord and Savior. All very nice and I am not neccessarily knocking it. But here's the rub. Where in the Bible are there altar calls. Particularly altar calls without baptisms. You see, I never see a baptism at the Billy Graham Cursades. Yet in every single instance in the Bible such declarations were IMMEDIATELY followed by baptisms. Or is Billy's practice GASP unbiblical?

Blessings

[NewReformation]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1079282' date='Sep 29 2006, 02:01 PM']


Now answer a question for me that noone has ever been able to answer. We see hundreds at Billy Graham Crusades (he's a baptist you know) going up to something called an altar call and declaring Jesus Christ as Personal Lord and Savior. All very nice and I am not neccessarily knocking it. But here's the rub. Where in the Bible are there altar calls. Particularly altar calls without baptisms. You see, I never see a baptism at the Billy Graham Cursades. Yet in every single instance in the Bible such declarations were IMMEDIATELY followed by baptisms. Or is Billy's practice GASP unbiblical?

Blessings
[/quote]
Actually, I'm not a big fan of altar calls. Not so much that it's an "unbiblical practice" but that it's a manipulative action employed to bring numbers in.

[KnightofChrist]

Well Reform I do pray you rethink your toughts on baptism being a symbol...