What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Taken]

I know I’ll regret this because I’ll have to suffer through your verbose rants and bizarre word-salads – but here goes . . .

Fully aware it is your usual behavior to claim you repeatedly exhibit regretful behavior.

As early as the FIRST century, full immersion was NOT the only method of Baptism.

Fully aware Baptism of the Holy Spirit IS the ONLY METHOD of Baptism that MATTERS…
* IS ONLY performed by Christ Jesus.
* IS NOT dependent on Water.
* IS ONLY PERFORMED ON a freely submissive individual.

In the document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles),we read the following:

Fully aware you rely on Teachings OUTSIDE of Scripture which have NO Evidence OF Gods Approval.

As for your objection to infant Baptism – as God why He commanded that 8-day-old BABIES to be circumcised in order to enter into the Covenant with Him.
This might give you some

insight . . .

Gods Offering TO ALL individuals, TO BE MADE INCLUDED in HIS PROMISE of SALVATION…IS ONE AND THE SAME PROMISE EFFECTED BY GODS POWER OF
HE CIRCUMCISING (the FREELY, WILLING, SURRENDERING) individuals HEART!

The Parents PROMISE of an Israelite Infant…
The Parents PROMISE of a Gentile Infant…
IS EXPRESSLY a Parents PROMISE to Raise that INFANT ACCORDING to Gods WORD…
PERIOD.

It Is NOT the INFANT MAKING ANY Declaration of Belief, Promise To Believe or Submission of Belief…

Nor IS God, BY the Acts, Promises of the Parents, Baptizing that Infant WITH GODS BAPTISM OF His Holy Spirit…
(As you wrongly have Claimed and Teach…as your church has wrongly taught and for centuries, that your church has pridefully accredited themselves FOR their wrongful teaching.)

Human men ARE EXPRESSLY LIMITED to DECLARING a Baptism ACCORDING TO “THE NAME” OF:
The Father……….God Yahweh
The Son…………..Lord Jesus
The Holy Spirit…Almighty Christ

The Lord God Almighty, EXPRESSLY DECLARES “”His Baptism” IS GIVEN an Individual By, Through, Of….HIM…
(Not human men!) (Not water!)

I have zero expectation you are capable of reading, absorbing, verifying the facts revealed in Gods Approved Scripture….

I do not respond to your diatribes for your benefit.

God Bless you and your like kind.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[GodsGrace]

Point taken -- but a mild dissent on the date. The Didache, according to most scholars, was written in late First Century or possibly early Second Century. Consensus on the range is 70 - 110 AD. We just don't know how many of the Apostles were still alive at the time it was written.

This thread seems to be about everything....
But you're right....the best guess for the Didache is circa 90AD.
Whether the Apostles were still alive or not is irrelevent....
those they taught were definitely around and yet the document circulated.

Do you also not believe in baptism without water?
Never heard of this before....

 

[RedFan]

This thread seems to be about everything....
But you're right....the best guess for the Didache is circa 90AD.
Whether the Apostles were still alive or not is irrelevent....
those they taught were definitely around and yet the document circulated.

Do you also not believe in baptism without water?
Never heard of this before....

I haven't either. Water baptism is firmly entrenched in Christianity, and has been from the beginning as best I can tell.

 

[Truther]

Beware of Internet, historians

 

[GodsGrace]

Or history?

If one was Christian for the first 1000 years of Christianity, one was Catholic. That's all there was. Then, in 1054 A.D., the Orthodox splintered off, but retained Apostolic Succession.

Protestantism didn't arise until the 16th century and was started by rogue Catholics. Every one of the Protestant Reformers were Catholic. That means one has to ask the question, was Christianity wrong for 16 centuries until Protestantism arose, and came to "correct" the teachings? And if so, which of the tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations has it right? Or do you claim no one does and Christ reallyl did a poor job of spreading His message?

We claim that Christ founded a (one!) Church, which has existed the entire time. It alone has the fullness of Christ's truths, which it does not claim the right to change. Christ founded a Church to spread His truths. He didn't write a book. The Church He founded wrote the New Testament, but didn't set the canon for the New Testament until the late 4th century. The vast, vast majority of people were illiterate anyway, until the last 100 years, give or take, in man's history. St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Tim 3:15.

Agreed Augustine.
I've made this point many times about doctrine that was changed at or after the reformation.

Great point.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fully aware it is your usual behavior to claim you repeatedly exhibit regretful behavior.

Fully aware Baptism of the Holy Spirit IS the ONLY METHOD of Baptism that MATTERS…
* IS ONLY performed by Christ Jesus.
* IS NOT dependent on Water.
* IS ONLY PERFORMED ON a freely submissive individual.

Fully aware you rely on Teachings OUTSIDE of Scripture which have NO Evidence OF Gods Approval.

See - I KNEW I would regret this after having read the first of what promises to be MANY unbiblical rants.
You certainly didn't disappoint . . .

And you’re WRONG about it not being dependent on water,
BOTH Jesus and Peter make this perfectly clear . . .

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of WATER and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

1 Pet. 3:20-21
… to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and THIS WATER SYMBOLIZES BAPTISM THAT NOW SAVES YOU also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Gods Offering TO ALL individuals, TO BE MADE INCLUDED in HIS PROMISE of SALVATION…IS ONE AND THE SAME PROMISE EFFECTED BY GODS POWER OF
HE CIRCUMCISING (the FREELY, WILLING, SURRENDERING) individuals HEART!

The Parents PROMISE of an Israelite Infant…
The Parents PROMISE of a Gentile Infant…
IS EXPRESSLY a Parents PROMISE to Raise that INFANT ACCORDING to Gods WORD…
PERIOD.

It Is NOT the INFANT MAKING ANY Declaration of Belief, Promise To Believe or Submission of Belief…

Nor IS God, BY the Acts, Promises of the Parents, Baptizing that Infant WITH GODS BAPTISM OF His Holy Spirit…
(As you wrongly have Claimed and Teach…as your church has wrongly taught and for centuries, that your church has pridefully accredited themselves FOR their wrongful teaching.)

Except for that last part – you sound very CATHOLIC . . .

Human men ARE EXPRESSLY LIMITED to DECLARING a Baptism ACCORDING TO “THE NAME” OF:
The Father……….God Yahweh
The Son…………..Lord Jesus
The Holy Spirit…Almighty Christ

WRONG.

Jesus didn’t tell His disciples to go and “DECLARE all nations Baptized”.
Jesus Je said:
Matt. 28:`9
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

The Lord God Almighty, EXPRESSLY DECLARES “”His Baptism” IS GIVEN an Individual By, Through, Of….HIM…
(Not human men!) (Not water!)

I have zero expectation you are capable of reading, absorbing, verifying the facts revealed in Gods Approved Scripture….

I do not respond to your diatribes for your benefit.

God Bless you and your like kind.

Glory to God,
Taken

Make up your confused mind.
Is it MAN who declares a person Baptized – or GOD??

You’ve contradicted yourself by claiming BOTH . . .

And finally - the Father and the Son send the Counselor, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7). The Counselor is Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6).
He proceeds from the Father AND the Son - NOT just the Son.

 

[Truther]

This thread seems to be about everything....
But you're right....the best guess for the Didache is circa 90AD.
Whether the Apostles were still alive or not is irrelevent....
those they taught were definitely around and yet the document circulated.

Do you also not believe in baptism without water?
Never heard of this before....

It must be because of the waterless car washes nowadays.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Point taken -- but a mild dissent on the date. The Didache, according to most scholars, was written in late First Century or possibly early Second Century. Consensus on the range is 70 - 110 AD. We just don't know how many of the Apostles were still alive at the time it was written.

Let's just say that you're right about the dating. There were still Apostles walking the earth. Can you show me a contemporary writing from that period that either contradicts ir condemns the Didache?

Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by Peter and was a lifelong disciple of the Apostle John wrote 7 letters to 7 Churches on the way to his martyrdom in Rome. MANY of the things in those letters mirror what we read in the Didache as he presented a glimpse into the practices of the Apostolic Church in the first century.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Ignatius of Antioch
For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 107]).
For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop (ibid. 8).

Ignatius of Antioch
Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 107]).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Listen Roman Catholic, the name of the son is not son. I don’t know where you guys get that idea. You got that, son?

Uhhhh, no kidding, Sherlock, I never made that claim.

It;s funny - the people in ithe FIRST century understood what "in the name of" meant - even though it completey stupefies a peson like YOU.
Observe these excerpts from the FIRST century Church document, the Didache . . .

"baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

"And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ;"

 

[GodsGrace]

It must be because of the waterless car washes nowadays.

Hmmm. Don't know of any.
My car requires water to be washed.

 

[Taken]

See - I KNEW I would regret this after having read the first of what promises to be MANY unbiblical rants.
You certainly didn't disappoint . . .

Nothing new…Open with your negative accusations … Gaslight …. Proceed to back-pat yourself. Yawn.

And you’re WRONG about it not being dependent on water,
BOTH Jesus and Peter make this perfectly clear . . .

Blah, blah, irrelevant.

Water Baptism is the topic.
Water involves natural birth.
Gods Baptism has nothing to do with Water.

 

[RedFan]

Let's just say that you're right about the dating. There were still Apostles walking the earth. Can you show me a contemporary writing from that period that either contradicts ir condemns the Didache?

No. I wouldn't expect to see one, either. As to apostles still walking the earth, we can't know how many, if any, were still alive (never mind ambulatory). Nor does it matter. The Didache section on ecclesiastical practices -- probably the last section written -- does not depend on apostolic imprimaturs for its validity.

 

[GodsGrace]

No. I wouldn't expect to see one, either. As to apostles still walking the earth, we can't know how many, if any, were still alive (never mind ambulatory). Nor does it matter. The Didache section on ecclesiastical practices -- probably the last section written -- does not depend on apostolic imprimaturs for its validity.

John was the last to die.
I doubt if any Apostles were still alive when the Didache was written...unless the dating is earlier, at about70AD or so but bible scholars seem to doubt that it's that early.

Why does the last section written not depend on Apostolic imprimaturs? (not that there were any).

 

[RedFan]

John was the last to die.
I doubt if any Apostles were still alive when the Didache was written...unless the dating is earlier, at about70AD or so but bible scholars seem to doubt that it's that early.

Why does the last section written not depend on Apostolic imprimaturs? (not that there were any).

Because what counts is the fact that its intended audience would know if it contradicted established apostolic tradition. That's the guaranty of trustworthiness.

 

[Truther]

Let's just say that you're right about the dating. There were still Apostles walking the earth. Can you show me a contemporary writing from that period that either contradicts ir condemns the Didache?

Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by Peter and was a lifelong disciple of the Apostle John wrote 7 letters to 7 Churches on the way to his martyrdom in Rome. MANY of the things in those letters mirror what we read in the Didache as he presented a glimpse into the practices of the Apostolic Church in the first century.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Ignatius of Antioch
For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 107]).
For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop (ibid. 8).

Ignatius of Antioch
Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 107]).

More Internet, fake news from fake ancient fathers. None of these people were early church fathers. They were the wolves that Paul spoke about that would come after he was gone in Acts chapter 20. They were all reprobates that were heading in the direction of becoming the Roman Catholic Church in the fourth century A.D.

 

[Truther]

Uhhhh, no kidding, Sherlock, I never made that claim.

It;s funny - the people in ithe FIRST century understood what "in the name of" meant - even though it completey stupefies a peson like YOU.
Observe these excerpts from the FIRST century Church document, the Didache . . .

"baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

"And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ;"

In your opinion, just like the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, you think in the name of the son is son.
It is clear to me that not a single one of you guys know what the name of the son is per Matthew 28:19.
Instead, you deflect and say, in the authority of, in the authority of, in the authority of,…
Nameless authority is what you guys teach.

 

[GodsGrace]

More Internet, fake news from fake ancient fathers. None of these people were early church fathers. They were the wolves that Paul spoke about that would come after he was gone in Acts chapter 20. They were all reprobates that were heading in the direction of becoming the Roman Catholic Church in the fourth century A.D.

Why are you spreading FAKE NEWS??

Don't you know any church history?
If it weren't for the CC, you wouldn't be posting on a Christian Forum right now because there wouldn't be any Christianity!

Study a little and then come back and report.

 

[Truther]

Hmmm. Don't know of any.
My car requires water to be washed.

They have a product called waterless car wash. I guess you spray it on wipe it off and you don’t need to rinse it. Those that disobey Acts 2:38 are the modernist waterless car wash salvation salesmen … Lol.

 

[GodsGrace]

In your opinion, just like the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, you think in the name of the son is son.
It is clear to me that not a single one of you guys know what the name of the son is per Matthew 28:19.
Instead, you deflect and say, in the authority of, in the authority of, in the authority of,…
Nameless authority is what you guys teach.

Ugghhhh.....

You don't know what IN THE NAME OF means!!!

Yeah. Some studying will do you good.

 

[Truther]

Why are you spreading FAKE NEWS??

Don't you know any church history?
If it weren't for the CC, you wouldn't be posting on a Christian Forum right now because there wouldn't be any Christianity!

Study a little and then come back and report.

Have you ever seen an actual document from those ancient church fathers? Or do you take somebody else’s word that they exist? Just think for a minute, the original scriptural manuscripts have disintegrated and all we have is copies and copies of copies.
So, with that in mind, you think that the writings of the so-called church fathers have Existed longer than the original manuscripts, or are they copies and copies of copies?
Were they copied perfectly like the scriptures were? You need to think about the things you believe.