Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

heartstrings

Infant Baptism? Might As Well.

Recommended Posts

We should not confuse infant 'baptism' with sprinkling baptism of believers. But if "Baptizing infants is a very dangerous teaching" then we are trusting in the dubious faith of dangerous heretics when we rely on the KJV. Either they were true Christians led by the Holy Spirit in their work that has given lasting benefit to the church for 100s of years, or they were heretics & we should look for a translation by those who rightly understood the Scripture they were translating. Or the doctrine of infant baptism is consistent with Scripture, according to the understanding of these faithful men who gave us the 1611 translation.

The fact that countless sinners have relied on their baptism (both infant & on confession of faith or 'decision') to assure them of eternal salvation does not necessarily make the teaching unscriptural. All versions of Christianity believe that Jesus died for their sins, & accept the "Apostles Creed" as a basic statement of their belief. The fact that that creed can be recited without question by the unsaved does not make it invalid. Nor does baptism by immersion on profession of save anyone.

Try to get beyond glib points - you are rejecting countless godly men & women baptised in infancy who came to a living faith in CHrist, & served him faithfully without being immersed or questioning the validity of their baptism. I am not defending infant baptism as a doctrine, but defend the sincere faith of godly infant baptists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trusting baptizing to save you, is not scriptural, its not in the Bible, its heresy of the worse kind.

There is only one way to be saved, its by grace, though faith in Jesus, its not of self, its not of works.

Trusting baptizing saves, teaching baptizing will save, gives a person false hope, a person with false hope are the hardest to sin to Christ.

Amazing at the amount of heresy that is being brought to this Baptist forum. Some people will accept anything so they can think there is unity, & made some just do not have the back bone to take a stand, or yet, some just do not know.

Teaching commandments of man for commandments of God is wrong, its heresy.

Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Its God's truth that makes a person free.


Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Not commandments of men, not heresy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry - do you actually read what I write????? You keep making the points that I substantially agree with & refuse to address my main point:

But if "Baptizing infants is a very dangerous teaching" then we are trusting in the dubious faith of dangerous heretics when we rely on the KJV. Either they were true Christians led by the Holy Spirit in their work that has given lasting benefit to the church for 100s of years, or they were heretics & we should look for a translation by those who rightly understood the Scripture they were translating. Or the doctrine of infant baptism is consistent with Scripture, according to the understanding of these faithful men who gave us the 1611 translation.
....
Try to get beyond glib points - you are rejecting countless godly men & women baptised in infancy who came to a living faith in Christ, & served him faithfully without being immersed or questioning the validity of their baptism. I am not defending infant baptism as a doctrine, but defend the sincere faith of godly infant baptists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I read it, thanks for asking.

Your main point seems to be defending & promoting commandments of men.

I will let Jesus decided who is godly, who is not godly, after all He is better qualified at that than you or I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I read it, thanks for asking.

Your main point seems to be defending & promoting commandments of men.

I will let Jesus decided who is godly, who is not godly, after all He is better qualified at that than you or I.

You rely on the work of the 1611 translators, all of whom you consider heretics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You rely on the work of the 1611 translators, all of whom you consider heretics.

That's really the funniest part to me...I am not KJVO (as y'all know), and these kinds of statements (that those who baptize infants are heretics) make KJVO's look ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All you can do is make accusations, blind accusations, accusations towards people you disagree with, & cannot back up what you believe with Holy Scriptures, so you make accusations, attack the person, & it helps you not the least bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point.

From what I understand, those who believed in infant baptism which put together the KJB never repented of that but David did repent. The infant baptizers continued on in their belief while David repented and commited no further murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, those who believed in infant baptism which put together the KJB never repented of that but David did repent. The infant baptizers continued on in their belief while David repented and commited no further murder.


Well, in any case it doesn't matter. Whatever the translators of the KJV personally believed wasn't reflected in the scripture. This was King James intention.

Ecclesiastes 8

[4] Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? Edited by Wilchbla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that practices infant baptism is a heretic. A heretic is one who practices heresy. A heresy is a religious belief that goes against orthodox Christian doctrine. Infant baptism fits the bill.

Edited by MatthewDiscipleOfGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in any case it doesn't matter. Whatever the translators of the KJV personally believed wasn't reflected in the scripture. This was King James intention.


Right. I believe the KJV is the only English Bible without error. I believe God has the power to preserve ALL of his words through SINNERS. What your typical Evangelical believes is that God can only preserve his message in general but never the very words. At least not in one book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I believe the KJV is the only English Bible without error. I believe God has the power to preserve ALL of his words through SINNERS. What your typical Evangelical believes is that God can only preserve his message in general but never the very words. At least not in one book.

What is really bad is all these pastors today who declare that all Bible versions are the Word of God (if they do decide to knock a Bible it will be the KJB). It's impossible that all versions are the Word of God when there are so many differences between them, and not just "little" differences, but major differences.

You can't take a stack of two dozen different Bible versions which disagree in many areas and claim that each of them is the Word of God. Even using human reasoning that concept is illogical.

Who in their right mind would take a classic book like Tale of Two Cities, have two dozen different authors make changes as they see fit, and then sit all those differing versions on a table and declare they are all the same? Certainly if such wouldn't be acceptable or make sense with a novel we should be able to see the same when it comes to the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone that practices infant baptism is a heretic. A heretic is one who practices heresy. A heresy is a religious belief that goes against orthodox Christian doctrine. Infant baptism fits the bill.



Its just his way of personally attacking me for he does not know how to back up what he claims is truth.

Obvious divided by a common language - I have not attacked anyone, nor approved infant baptism.

My contributions have been to show that Christians holding to infant baptism have served the church well, not least the 1611 translators. We can therefore respect them as Christians, without approving all that they believed. They justified infant baptism from Scripture, while I (we) cannot. I did, on an earlier page, indicate how they understood Scripture to allow infant baptism.

I also showed how sprinkling baptism is taught in Scripture - without denying that immersion baptism is taught in Scripture. I do not see how, if someone is prepared to take the name of 'Christian' & own Jesus Christ as Lord, it matters not how much water is used for his baptism. In 30s Jerusalem they were taking the name of a condemned criminal. In many countries today, baptism is a death warrant.

As for infant baptism, some true Christians baptise their babies in a belief that such baptism can be supported in Scripture. Sadly most believe that baptism is linked to salvation, washing away original sin & welcoming them into the church. In an established church situation (as it was in the CofE) & Orthodox & Catholic in some counties, it is an indication of citizenship. An unbaptised person lost privileges & positions open only to baptised/confirmed Anglicans - University, Parliament, etc. Marriage was also impossible, though some Anglican churches did conduct non-conformist marriages without asking questions. In such a situation, baptising as believers those who had been baptised as infants was in defiance of the state, & a capital offence. I was baptised as a believer (by immersion) in 1957 & my mother said she felt that her enemies were those of her own family.

Linking infant baptism with salvation may be as serious as linking adult immersion baptism with salvation. Countless Baptist & other baptising churches do just that - it's called 'adult baptism & linked to being born again. Spurious adult baptism is probably worse than infantbaptism - because it is a deliberate act that confirms the sinner in his unregeneracy. I believe you have a strong objection to the 'Church of Christ' for insisting on baptism as the moment of salvation.

The LORD looks on the heart, not the mechanics of baptism or even the belief of those doing the baptising. A true believer trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for his salvation, & we can recognise believers by their fruits - fruit of the Spirit, rather than age at baptism or the amount of water used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone that practices infant baptism is a heretic. A heretic is one who practices heresy. A heresy is a religious belief that goes against orthodox Christian doctrine. Infant baptism fits the bill.


This is far from the truth. Infant baptism is documented as early as the second century, and has been practiced historically by the orthodox Church. It is well within the framework of orthodox Christianity.

Many, many church fathers and great theologians have differed on whether infant baptism is appropriate. This is a matter that is well within orthodox Christianity, and has actually been practiced by orthodox Christians since very early in church history.

I will also point out, that historically, infant baptism is NOT linked to salvation. Yes, children of believers are part of the New Covenant just as babies of the Jewish people were part of the Old Covenant, but each generation must accept or reject the call of Christ for themselves. We saw this exhaustively in the OT where generations either followed or rejected the commandments of God.

Also, I will point out that churches that practice infant baptism also have believer's baptism. If an adult who has not been baptized puts his or her faith in Christ, they are baptized. Edited by kindofblue1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is far from the truth. Infant baptism is documented as early as the second century, and has been practiced historically by the orthodox Church. It is well within the framework of orthodox Christianity.

Many, many church fathers and great theologians have differed on whether infant baptism is appropriate. This is a matter that is well within orthodox Christianity, and has actually been practiced by orthodox Christians since very early in church history.

I will also point out, that historically, infant baptism is NOT linked to salvation. Yes, children of believers are part of the New Covenant just as babies of the Jewish people were part of the Old Covenant, but each generation must accept or reject the call of Christ for themselves. We saw this exhaustively in the OT where generations either followed or rejected the commandments of God.

Also, I will point out that churches that practice infant baptism also have believer's baptism. If an adult who has not been baptized puts his or her faith in Christ, they are baptized.


Why do so many bring up how "early" something is done in church history? In the time of the early church there was "abstaining from meats" "forbidding to marry". "certain men crept in unawares" "doctrine of the Nicolaitanes", "wolves in sheep's clothes" "Gnosticism" "Lords over God's heritage" and probably every other heresy we have today. What if some were counting rosary beads and chanting "Hail Marys" back then too;, does that make it legit? Why not trust God that He preserved His Holy Word for English speaking people in the form of the KIng James Bible? Why not acknowledge that baptising babies is NOT found in the KJB? Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot serve God well unless, you follow Jesus, & to follow Jesus, you have to walk in His truth.

Talking about what people of yesterday years did, how well they severed & or making what they teach be the Gospel, seem to be on the same level as the RCC, which puts the teaching of what they call their church fathers on equal basics, or even above teachings from in the Bible.

Heartstrings, I suppose bringing up early Christians between the time the Bible was completed, & our time, is putting them on equal footing with the Bible, & or believing them above the teachings in the Bible. I would not state this, except they are trying to defend heretic & false teachings that are not in the pages of the Bible by what some people taught in yesterday years.

Oh, Jesus was baptized by John the baptist, & no one can follow Him until they to have been baptized, that is the 1st step of obedience after having been saved.


Mt 3:13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mt 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mt 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Quite clear, John the Baptist was sent to baptize, not sprinkle, & Jesus submitted to John the Baptist baptizing whose authority to baptize came from God the Father.

Anyone that sprinkles, or anyone wishing to be sprinkled, are not fully submitting to Jesus being their Lord. And cannot please God until they fully submit to Jesus, surrender all, denying self.

Mt 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Mt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Edited to add:

It matters not what is documented among man by man, what actually matter is if its documented in the Bible. And when something is not documented in the Bible, that means its false teaching, heresy, & is not of God.

Use of any teachings documented by man, that is not documented in the Bible, is to trust in man.

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.


PS: Ps 119:105 ¶ Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

God's Word is not your lamp when following man.

Edited by Jerry80871852

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do so many bring up how "early" something is done in church history? In the time of the early church there was "abstaining from meats" "forbidding to marry". "certain men crept in unawares" "doctrine of the Nicolaitanes", "wolves in sheep's clothes" "Gnosticism" "Lords over God's heritage" and probably every other heresy we have today. What if some were counting rosary beads and chanting "Hail Marys" back then too;, does that make it legit? Why not trust God that He preserved His Holy Word for English speaking people in the form of the KIng James Bible? Why not acknowledge that baptising babies is NOT found in the KJB?


That is the only defense, it cannot be defended with the Holy Scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Acts 8 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Tell me, if 'sprinkling' was baptism, why did the eunuch need to clamber down off that chariot and get down "into the water"?
What's the problem? Just obey, get dunked and move on! Huh? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ac 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Ac 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.

Right, Phillip did not say stop the chariot, getting down with a bowl, filling it with water, climbing back up sprinkling the eunuch. In fact nothing like that is described within the pages of the Bible. Some people just cannot surrender to do things God's way! They feel they have to have everything way, which is rebellion. And look at what the Bible says about rebellion.

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Pr 17:11 An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infant baptism is documented as early as the second century, and has been practiced historically by the orthodox Church.


If grandma and great-grandma did it, it must be right, right? Your ancestors were in error then just as you are today for adopting their beliefs and not separating from them KoB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...