[BillSPrestonEsq]

"I gave you an article on it, with references. Did you just skip that? Don't respond to something if you're unwilling to read it"

Iread it, read the scriptures and saw no evidence of confirmation.

"If they're apostate, they're apostate, and they know it. No false hope is given."
Not if they aren't elect for they wouldnt be quickened

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
I read it, read the scriptures and saw no evidence of confirmation.

Then you're just ignoring it, then. If you really want to discuss this further, I would suggest explaining why you saw no evidence of confirmation.

Not if they aren't elect for they wouldnt be quickened

Huh??

[BillSPrestonEsq]

The un-elect would be unaware of their apostacy, for they would be totally depraved.

No confirmation had nothing to do with those scriptures. the thing that article reminded me the most of was fiddler on the roof, Tradition! God hates vain traditions of men too

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
No confirmation had nothing to do with those scriptures. the thing that article reminded me the most of was fiddler on the roof, Tradition! God hates vain traditions of men too

Oh please... Perhaps if you could actually cite scripture to the effect that confirmation is wrong, then perhaps you would have a leg to stand on...

Rolls eyes at hyper-evangelical hypocrisy

[BillSPrestonEsq]

in other words you cant give a scripture so you insult, how original

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
in other words you cant give a scripture so you insult, how original

Quite the opposite. There's a whole article chock-full of them. It seems you're the one who fails to give scripture to support his assertions.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Cut the name calling, OK? I have given you scriptures, you just ignore them. You dont answer the simplest question. What is the point of it? Where is it in scripture? When a doctrine is extra-scriptural the burden of proof lies on the one who says its there. You havent given me any reason other than B/R as to why its done. Stand and deliver. I want scripture, not articles full of "its tradition"

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
Cut the name calling, OK?

I didn't call a name...

I have given you scriptures, you just ignore them. You dont answer the simplest question.

From the Confirmation article to now, you've yet to cite any scripture. In fact, you've not done so for the past 15 posts. And the scripture that I did deal with (Galatians) was more than adequetly dealt with. And even if it wasn't, you've yet to post anything contradicting my post concerning Galatians.

What is the point of it? Where is it in scripture?

Proof of what? Use antecedents when you use pronouns.

When a doctrine is extra-scriptural the burden of proof lies on the one who says its there.

Of course, if its extra-scriptural, it tends to not be in scripture. But that's never stopped hyper-evangelicals before (like the Rapture, Christian Zionism, altar calls, jesusismypersonalsavior, etc). But, on the other hand, we have the universal practice (at least from the 3rd century) witnessing to the way the Church has understood baptism for the last 2000 years.

You havent given me any reason other than B/R as to why its done. Stand and deliver. I want scripture, not articles full of "its tradition"

LIke I said earlier, if you want a non-B/R understanding of infant baptism, you'll have to ask a paedobaptist who does NOT affirm B/R. I cannot speak to the position of something I don't hold.

Secondly, if you're arguing for adult exclusive baptism, you'd better be finding scripture that explicitly commands it; otherwise, you're guilting of 'adding to scripture."

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Cut the name calling, OK?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't call a name...
Hypocrite you did

I have given you scriptures, you just ignore them. You dont answer the simplest question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From the Confirmation article to now, you've yet to cite any scripture. In fact, you've not done so for the past 15 posts. And the scripture that I did deal with (Galatians) was more than adequetly dealt with. And even if it wasn't, you've yet to post anything contradicting my post concerning Galatians.

Because the subject hasnt been anything scriptural in quite a while. Laying on of hands was part of the commisioning for ministry in the early church and was nothing similar to confirmation as we know it. "1 Timothy 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure." Confirming a child would be partaking in their sins if this is parrelel.

What is the point of Infant Baptism? (the subject of the thread, Remember?) Where is it in scripture? and to your comment that not doing something extra-scriptural as a sacrement being adding to scripture. How the heck is not doing something not there adding.

The idea of a rapture is in scripture. "Matthew 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Matthew 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Answer these if you can, please cut the cheap losing death throe of an argument called an insult.

[Underdog482]

I suggest people read the institutes of thye Christian Religion by John Calvin. He has some very intresting scripture and thoughts about this baptism stuff. It is very deep and long so if you start reading it finish it.

wade

[seungk5]

Well... Yes, if its not scriptural. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is actually true. If you don't have scriptural warrant to deny the sacrament of Baptism to infants, you shouldn't deny the sacrament of Baptism to infants\

you said your self up there, if it's not scriptural just because you believe something to be true doesnt mean it's true.

infant baptism is not scriptural..... so just cause u guys
ASSUME that infant baptism is ok doesnt mean it's true. if god were to say it is important he would have done it.

where does bible say anywhere that circumcision is replaced by baptism? it is similar but God never says it replaced it.

the whole household was baptised, waht's the chance that there happen to be infant? the whole house accepted christ first before being baptised.

you said your self that person is required to accept Christ before baptism. what's the point of doing it when you are infant when you didnt even accept christ? baptism is for believers period. you guys admited it. i dont consider infant believer who ever their parents are, infants are not believers.

you said the kid later confirms it in 7th or 8th grade, than shouldn't kid be baptised in 7th or 8th grade when he wants to? what's the point of baptising them earlier than later he have to confirm it? that's like getting baptised twice.

God never commands it, if he wanted to he would have in the bible. He didn't there fore it's not necessary at all.

you cant disagree with the bible man, bible says baptism is for believers and you guys admited it up there. i dont believe infants are believers.

you said adults are baptised and they sin anyway, and you said "waht's the point of baptism than"
so waht's the opint of infant baptism than?

[WooTang]

I personally do not hold to paedobaptism. My argument is simple. It is just not mandated in scripture. I've read all the posts to this point, so don't please bother rehashing old rebuttals. I understand the correspondence of baptism to circumcision. Circumcision is a visible, outward affirmation of acceptance into the covenant, scripture has been presented to link this with baptism. Both are evidenced as being necessary for obedience to God, not salvation. But as for specifically the command to administer baptism to infants as being comparable to circumcision, there is no explicit, conclusive proof. To support paedobaptism, one would have to rely on the implicit inference that just as circumcision is to be done to infants, such is the requirement for baptism. Where scripture is silent, it is unwise to make definitive, decisive proclamations. That is the only reason why I do not adhere to infant baptism. It seems that the argument in favor of infant baptism opens the door to the possibility of appying any possible implication to an unclear doctrine that is not explicitly defined in scripture.

Also, I apply this same precedent to altar calls, age of accountability (responsibility), etc.

I respect the opposing view of this. I do not think that those who hold to paedobaptism are unbiblical or heretical. After all, since this would be considered a nonessential doctrine, this is often the only point of disagreement between myself and my Presbyterian friends. I disagree with those who teach that in the act of baptism there is the impartation of grace ex opere operato, without preexisting faith. The implication as a lesser sarcament can lead to the belief in sacramental grace in baptism, which is contrary to the doctrine of salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Yet, I do not believe that this is the purpose of this thread.

Article VII of the Baptist Faith and Message
Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.


Baptist doctrine has historically put belief and understanding, as well as a " response of faith to the gospel of Jesus Christ" before baptism, as this has precedent in Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:44-48; 16:14-15, 32-33.

The Schleitheim Confession of 1527, written with the belief that the Reformed and Lutheran churches at the time had not fully separated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, states that "baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and wish to be buried with Him in death, so that they may be resurrected with Him, and to all those who with this significance request it [baptism] of us and demand it for themselves. This excludes all infant baptism... ."

[Luke]

Excellent post WooTang, even though I do disagree with you.

Toward greater edification of all!
Luke

[seungk5]

considering no one replying to my post i say i am a little right at least.

u cant disagree with bible and just ASSUME that it's ok

just cause people did it back than doesnt mean it's ok.

it's ok only if Bible commands it.

which they dont.....

baptism is for believers period ! baptism is after accepting Christ.

you guys admited that, that's the requirments....

infants doesnt fill those requirements, so therefore there is no point of infant baptism, nor is there proof that God says to do it or that hes ok with it. i dont htink so cause that's going against hte bible. which you shouldn't

you guys said bible never says no infant baptism but it does say baptism is for believers, so how is infant a believer?

i believe you should give your childrens a free choice, leave it up to God and his timing and plan.
infant baptism wont change a kid or do anything much. it's just using baptism in wrong way because bible says baptism is for believers and people who just accepted Christ (who are saved)
not for babys

[Travis]

Originally posted by seungk5
it's ok only if Bible commands it.

So I take it you do NOT tie your shoes, nor will you ever drive a car or brush your teeth or even shower. Not commanded in scripture.