Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

declining age of accountability

Rate this topic


JimR
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Salyan, i understand. The consensus is clear and the reasons for it.

 But somehow I doubt Cornelius and the folks in other house churches had big water tanks or even a bathtub big enough to lie down in.  Something is going to stick up out of the water, which violates your full-immersion requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, JimR said:

Salyan, i understand. The consensus is clear and the reasons for it.

 But somehow I doubt Cornelius and the folks in other house churches had big water tanks or even a bathtub big enough to lie down in.  Something is going to stick up out of the water, which violates your full-immersion requirement.

Just to be clear, my 'full immersion requirement' is not based on consensus. It's based on Scriptural example and the Biblical explanation for the picture that baptism is to provide. Are you able to provide a Scriptural reason to back up your idea of not-fully-dunking?

I don't see why they would have needed tanks in their houses...  considering the early examples for baptism (John the Baptist, Philip) utilized external bodies of water, I would have expected the early churches to continue with the same example.  Hey, i know a church that still uses a lake for baptism, since they haven't got a tank in their rented building. They're located in the Canadian mountains, so it's a tad cold (even in July), but it's very Biblical! 😄

That being said, it was not uncommon in the era for villas to have their own private baths (which included several large water basins), so it wouldn't have been out of the question for a wealthy Roman (like Cornelius) to actually have his own thermae.

This isn't directly related, but it's a picture I love. This shows the baptismal font in a Catholic building in Rome, San Giovanni in Laterno, commissioned by Constantine. The current font is on a platform in what was original the baptismal pool... back when the building was originally built and they still practiced baptism by immersion! 😄  (Not intending to open a debate on catholic doctrine and what's wrong with it/how it's different/Constantine. I just love how this picture shows so clearly that they used to immerse - their little bitty font (okay, it's kind of a big font) is literally located in a swimming pool!)

Image result for san giovanni in laterano baptismal font"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Romans 6

4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Likeness of his death.......

Don't ya hate it when the Bible disagrees with you?

 

Edited by DaveW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I didn't post in this thread until now because I was not interested in the straw man proposition at the very start.

I finally stuck my nose in when the OP proposed a clearly unbiblical form of baptism, but now that my nose is "in here" I am going to waggle it around a little.

The original post is so full of false premise that it simply isn't funny.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 1:42 AM, JimR said:

An article found in the Gospel Coalition site reported that two hundred years ago no baptist church would baptize anyone younger than 18.  Ages have declined steadily and now kids as young as eight or ten are being baptized.  We have all heard stories about adults who said their childhood baptisms had more to do with peer pressure than actual conversion and they did not consider them to be valid.  Yet the practice continues.  Kids are not becoming emotionally mature at younger ages; just the opposite.  Many are childish while in college.  

When ten-year-olds are baptized in baptist churches, we must conclude that the difference between catholic churches and baptist churches is only  10 (10 minus zero is 10).  This is not much of a difference and while i understand that an exceptional child might be able to make a serious informed commitment at a young age, most cannot.  This is disturbing.  Presbyterians, like Baptists, do not believe baptism saves, but they go ahead and baptize babies anyway, then later they give the kids a confirmation class and have them standup in front of the church.  They get the process done backwards but they get it done.  Is this any worse than baptizing a ten year old?

Some Grace dispensationalists say that Paul stopped baptizing after he stopped going to the Jews and the gentile church does not need to do that anymore.  Honestly, I would be more comfortable in a church that does not baptize at all than in one that baptizes babies or small children.  

Sorry for the long post but I am curious as to what others will say about child baptisms and the declining age of baptism.  

 

Who cares what the Gospel Coalition says (whoever they are...)?

I know from my own experience that when I was saved 30+ years ago, and then a few month later baptised, people were already having the discussions about children with false professions "getting saved" again as an adult. I will note to you that the discussion was NEVER about those people getting baptised at a young age, but about whether or not they got saved at that age. I have spoken to many people older than I who made a profession of faith for salvation at ages as young as three, but mostly around the ages of 6-10, who then doubted their salvation and later "tried again". That means that this "trend" you propose has been stable for at least the last 50 or more years.

On 12/8/2019 at 1:42 AM, JimR said:

We have all heard stories about adults who said their childhood baptisms had more to do with peer pressure than actual conversion and they did not consider them to be valid. 

I gotta say that I have never heard this in an IFB church - about salvation yes, but not about baptisms, and the way you word this appears to be suggesting that baptism is a part of salvation...…. Maybe that is simply sloppy wording on your part, but that is the way it looks......

 

On 12/8/2019 at 1:42 AM, JimR said:

Kids are not becoming emotionally mature at younger ages; just the opposite.  Many are childish while in college.  

So what? What has this to do with "emotional maturity"? It is about understanding your position as a sinner, and understanding the offer of salvation through Christ.  It is not about emotional anything......

On 12/8/2019 at 1:42 AM, JimR said:

When ten-year-olds are baptized in baptist churches, we must conclude that the difference between catholic churches and baptist churches is only  10 (10 minus zero is 10). 

This is utter stupidity. The difference between baptism in a catholic church and baptism in an Independent Baptist Church is nothing to do with age, and everything to do with doctrine. Catholics baptise as a part of their salvation ritual process, IFB baptise as a testimony of what the Lord HAS ALREADY done in a saved person's life. You either have ZERO understanding of what baptism means or...…. no that's it...….

And your proposal means that the position of an IFB church would have to change with every baptism. A couple of baptisms ago, our church baptised two 13 year old, a 14 year old, and a 73 year old. Do we average them to find out how close to a Catholic church we are? So we were 28.25 years away from being a Catholic church.

But the last baptism was a mother of about 38. So now we are 38 years away from being Catholic? See, it is a stupid proposition.....

 

On 12/8/2019 at 1:42 AM, JimR said:

Presbyterians, like Baptists, do not believe baptism saves, but they go ahead and baptize babies anyway, then later they give the kids a confirmation class and have them standup in front of the church.  They get the process done backwards but they get it done.  Is this any worse than baptizing a ten year old?

Who cares what Presbyterians do? But here again you display a lack of understanding about baptism. It takes very little Bible research to see that the order is set out in a plain way - salvation then baptism. Find one instance of a man in the Bible being baptised before being saved..... (I assume Judas was baptised but he never was saved......so he doesn't count.)

And yes it is worse than baptising a ten year old, because in every IFB church that I have ever been associated with, the ten year old would only be baptised AFTER he has professed Christ as his Saviour. No baby who cannot even speak the words, is of sufficient understanding to be able to be saved.

 

So in short, your proposition of a trend towards baptising younger is not true over the last 50+ years anyway, so your beginning premise is wrong.

Your attempt to associate baptism with "emotional maturity" is simply unbiblical.

You appear to be associating baptism to salvation in an essential way, which is unbiblical.

Your attempt to make the difference between Catholicism and Baptist churches into one of "age of baptism" is ridiculous, unbiblical, and quite frankly, stupid. 

And your attempt to minimise the "process" difference between the Presbyterians and the IFB indicates that your purpose here is not just for a good discussion, but to gently spread dissent and false teaching.

Edited by DaveW
typos, and a sentence or two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 minutes ago, JimR said:

hey calling me stupid is a bit much.  But I can see I am too dumb for this group. Sorry to have bothered y'all.

I didn't call you stupid, I said your proposition was stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I gotta say..... Of all the things mentioned in my critique of the original post, there is not one answer, not one objection, not one disputed point - except that the person has taken offense at my use of the word stupid - which as I said was not directed at the person but at the proposition.

Seems to me that the person was seeking for something to be offended at....

I did after all clearly display how the proposition was indeed a stupid one.

Oh well...…...

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...