Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 6016 | ||
I myself am a 5-point Calvinist with regard to my soteriology. However, I must admit my biggest "hang-up" with the traditional Reformed position is what we are discussing here: paedobaptism. The question is not whether the Reformation and the Roman Catholics banded together against the Anabaptists or not. It is theoretically possible that both are wrong. I do not argue that the salvation of the elect is monergistic on the part of our Lord. What I need to resolve this question in my mind is more evidence that (a) the church did indeed practice infant baptism from its EARLIEST days (which is not erribly apparent from Scripture; and, tied into that, (b) the Scriptural evidence of the covenental nature of baptism. I pretty much have the answer to (b) in the fact that household baptisms were common. The question in my mind is whether that included infants or whether everyone who was baptized first believed as well. In any case, this thread is worth the in-house discussion, and your view is definitely within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6031 | ||
I think that if you look at the way that "household" is used in Scripture, it refers to every member of the house, contrary to opinions that have been voiced earlier. Plus, as EdB has pointed out, there is evidence that the church has been baptizing infants for at least the past 1850 years. If 150AD isn't early enough, I don't know what is. Heck, our earliest complete compies of the New Testament are some time after that. | ||||||
3 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | charis | 6079 | ||
Dear orthodoxy, Indeed, 'household' does appear to mean every member of the house, including slaves, also their menagerie, and the utensils. But you are still assuming the presence of children, and assuming that the people of those times did not require faith to be a part of a holy rite, but neither of these has any Biblical proof, one way or the other. As to evidence that the church has been baptizing for 1850 years, we have no such proof that all churches did so, or that this was approved by God. Even so, 150 AD is not good enough. When we ask if infant baptism is Biblical, we use the Bible as the source of the answer. Otherwise, the question becomes, "Is infant baptism traditional?" The answer to this one is 'Yes.' How many complete copies of the New Testament we have from when is irrelevant. (Just ask Josh McDowell :-) The original question was from a sincere believer seeking the opinions of this forum, but moreover seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit. I did not ridicule his baptism as a baby, or say it was meaningless or based on heretical teaching. I simply pointed out that the Bible should be the source of his decision. I still pray that he is baptized (if he so chooses) in accordance with the leading of the Spirit, not in accord with his church's tradition. Orthodoxy, I do not ridicule your opinion, I just prefer my understanding of Scripture, praying before God that it may be acceptable to Him. Blessings in Jesus' name, charis |
||||||