ECT Where did we get the idea of the need for infant baptism?

[aikido7]

Where did that thinking originate? Is it necessary? Is it a decree of God?

It is surely a tradition handed down from early Jews experience of John the Baptizer.

It seems definitely a Christian interpretation of the idea of infant circumcision and becoming old enough (in the Catholic tradition) to formally and publically assert one's faith at comfirmation.

Every culture and societies have their ways of preparing adolescents into young adulthood by certain rituals.

I was gathered into the worship patterns and faith from my own first family. As I got older and was attending high school the ritual for us young folks was what we called "dragging Main"--riding up and down the main avenue and evaluating the girls and guys who were driving by in the opposite direction.

Later, I was able to still connect with my Christian upbringing and now I am posting on this site, trying to "set people up on blind dates" with Jesus!

 

[Cross Reference]

It is surely a tradition handed down from early Jews experience of John the Baptizer.

But, John never baptized babies and, dare I say, for lack of the reasons he challenged the adults to be water baptized.

 

[Cruciform]

Says the man stating a creed that he has no care of creeds.

"...I want to say first of all is that it is a time that men speak disparagingly of creeds. You hear it on every side, 'I believe in religion but I don't care anything about theology. I love flowers but I don't care anything for botany. Let's have a religion without any dogma.' Men take great credit to themselves in these utterances that they are free from the enslavement to dogmas. You must not take these people too seriously. They either don't know what they are talking about, or else know what they say is utterly unworthy of human respect." - B. H. Carroll

:thumb:​

"In truth there are only two kinds of people: those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it." ~ G.K. Chesterton​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[aikido7]

But, John never baptized babies and, dare I say, for lack of the reasons he challenged the adults to be water baptized.

The idea and context is that there were Jews that believed in repentance by immersion. There is no historical evidence that babies were ever formally baptized or immersed in the purification pools.

Part of the rite that Jews had to welcome a newborn into the bosom of their faith and culture may have occasioned a sprinkling of water by the priest (as well as cutting the foreskin).

But I am not aware of this from the history that I have read.

Every culture throughout history has developed certain rites and rituals to bring their children into an adult life.

All I have been able to find is that infant baptism began in the early Middle Ages but I don't remember if it was a sprinkling water or full immersion rite.

The archeology around the Jewish settlements at Qumran has found the existence of baptismal pools but the idea of infant baptism must be discounted unless some new texts are unearthed that are positive proof. I try to find historical evidence and facts from real history instead of asserting that my own ideas or my religion's ideas are absolutely true.

To me the Bible is inerrant but our understanding of it is certainly not.

 

[Cross Reference]

The idea and context is that there were Jews that believed in repentance by immersion. There is no historical evidence that babies were ever formally baptized or immersed in the purification pools.

Part of the rite that Jews had to welcome a newborn into the bosom of their faith and culture may have occasioned a sprinkling of water by the priest (as well as cutting the foreskin).

But I am not aware of this from the history that I have read.

Every culture throughout history has developed certain rites and rituals to bring their children into an adult life.

All I have been able to find is that infant baptism began in the early Middle Ages but I don't remember if it was a sprinkling water or full immersion rite.

The archeology around the Jewish settlements at Qumran has found the existence of baptismal pools but the idea of infant baptism must be discounted unless some new texts are unearthed that are positive proof. I try to find historical evidence and facts from real history instead of asserting that my own ideas or my religion's ideas are absolutely true.

To me the Bible is inerrant but our understanding of it is certainly not.

I am sure we can both agree that Jewish babies were dedicated to the Lord as a rite instituted by Hannah, Samuels mother.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wrong! I believe strongly in good insightful theology...

So all the Creeds and Confessions created by the visible vestiges of Christ's Bride are not good insightful theology? Which ones are not? Which ones are?

Is the Biblical mandate for the church to confess its beliefs after the patterns of what has been delivered to her in error? Does your church have a statement of faith published at its web site? If not, do you think the discerning visitor would be able to craft your church's unwritten statement of faith after observation of its practices, exhortations, and delivery of the Word each week by its ordained servants? Do you really think you are bereft of dogma when it is clear you do from what you post? Running around tossing out self-righteous platitudes like "I believe no man-made creeds" tickles one's notions of piety, but it speaks to just how confused you really are on the matter. Have you even taken the time to set down on paper exactly what you believe? Can you even do so, or is your worldview so contradictory that such an exercise would result in nothing but your own cognitive dissonance?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Now, what you you deem more important of the two or maybe you can't answer?

Religion without theology is but an academic exercise. Theology without religion is impossible, as the very word implies personal conviction in something.

Please resist trying to bait me with all the "you cannot answer", you "won't answer" and the like. It is a schoolyard tactic worthy of bullying children with erasers on their shoulders. (1 Cor. 13:11)

Try to be better than these foolish things.

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Religion without theology is but an academic exercise. Theology without religion is impossible, as the very word implies personal conviction in something.

Please resist trying to bait me with all the "you cannot answer", you "won't answer" and the like. It is a schoolyard tactic worthy of bullying children with erasers on their shoulders. (1 Cor. 13:11)

Try to be better than these foolish things.

AMR

And you sir, are of such a religion fabricated by man which is based upon a flawed theology that has ensnared you away from understanding the ultimate intentions of God for having redeemed you. Your reference to wikipedia for a description of it testifies to that being the case.

If you have questions to ask of me I will be happy to answer any I am able to answer. Too date you have asked none of me pertaining to my knowledge of Jesus Christ leaving me with the opinion, you know it all and therefore have no need to ask what you would only conclude as being non-knowledge.. What you have done to date, is to obfuscate all I have asked of you, probably for the same reason. I really don't think discussions as these should move in that direction and assume lurking folk might learn something, if indeed you consider that in your thinking.

I believe all should learn what Lapsarianism is all about.

 

[Cross Reference]

So all the Creeds and Confessions created by the visible vestiges of Christ's Bride are not good insightful theology? Which ones are not? Which ones are?

Is the Biblical mandate for the church to confess its beliefs after the patterns of what has been delivered to her in error? Does your church have a statement of faith published at its web site? If not, do you think the discerning visitor would be able to craft your church's unwritten statement of faith after observation of its practices, exhortations, and delivery of the Word each week by its ordained servants? Do you really think you are bereft of dogma when it is clear you do from what you post? Running around tossing out self-righteous platitudes like "I believe no man-made creeds" tickles one's notions of piety, but it speaks to just how confused you really are on the matter. Have you even taken the time to set down on paper exactly what you believe? Can you even do so, or is your worldview so contradictory that such an exercise would result in nothing but your own cognitive dissonance?

AMR

Read what you are saying in all that AMR and then tell me what it is that you have placed your faith in; what you live by??

 

[keypurr]

where does it say the world is round?

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

 

[Heterodoxical]

Where did that thinking originate? Is it necessary? Is it a decree of God?

The verse that says baptism saves you, the idea is, if your child is born and dies before baptism they go to hell, not heaven.

The RCC takes a more literal view of that verse than most.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Religion without theology is but an academic exercise.

Gal 5:6, the most important theological debate of Paul's day, one he wished in writing the offenders on the other side of the Table would mangle their genitals for teaching it, was not important, but FAITH ACTING THROUGH LOVE was.

That's not theology. That's lifestyle regardless of theology.

Eph 4:11=15 Says the Lord appointed people to lead the church, and they lead people to do works of service, until the church is built up, until THEY EACH grow to the spiritual maturity that Jesus the Christ had.

I know you are more about lecturing than exegetics, but the exegetics call your unprocessed bull fertilizer out on this one....

Try to be better than these foolish things.

AMR

Funny YOU of all people would say that.....

AMR
All Mouthy Regurgitation. you lecture not discuss. You don't account for your claims when challenged and showed wrong.

I used to hope, when I saw you, there would be good chats. There was never more than lectures, and some of them are just plain rote repetition, I wonder if you could ever make the arguments for them.

You might can, but, but I've never seen proof of it.

 

[Cross Reference]

Gal 5:6, the most important theological debate of Paul's day, one he wished in writing the offenders on the other side of the Table would mangle their genitals for teaching it, was not important, but FAITH ACTING THROUGH LOVE was.

That's not theology. That's lifestyle regardless of theology.

Eph 4:11=15 Says the Lord appointed people to lead the church, and they lead people to do works of service, until the church is built up, until THEY EACH grow to the spiritual maturity that Jesus the Christ had.

I know you are more about lecturing than exegetics, but the exegetics call your unprocessed bull fertilizer out on this one....



Funny YOU of all people would say that.....

AMR
All Mouthy Regurgitation. you lecture not discuss. You don't account for your claims when challenged and showed wrong.

I used to hope, when I saw you, there would be good chats. There was never more than lectures, and some of them are just plain rote repetition, I wonder if you could ever make the arguments for them.

You might can, but, but I've never seen proof of it.

As is the mindset of all Lapsarians, one cannot understand the Scriptures without embracing the writings of the early writers of those who agree with them. In this, we can see to understand that when discussing all things Christ Jesus with them, that they have indeed placed cart before the horse and the horse is, dead.

 

[Heterodoxical]

As is the mindset of all Lapsarians, one cannot understand the Scriptures without embracing the writings of the early writers of those who agree with them. In this, we can see to understand that when discussing all things Christ Jesus with them, that they have indeed placed cart before the horse and the horse is, dead.

Ummm yeah. Gimme a false dilemma, and then say nothing can be true if it's not within your false dilemma.

Whatever.

Augustine rewrote a lot of what they early writers said, or redefined it. YAWN. I guess he didn't get your memo.

 

[Cross Reference]

Ummm yeah. Gimme a false dilemma, and then say nothing can be true if it's not within your false dilemma.

Whatever.

You got it!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

you lecture not discuss. You don't account for your claims when challenged and showed wrong.

I used to hope, when I saw you, there would be good chats. There was never more than lectures, and some of them are just plain rote repetition, I wonder if you could ever make the arguments for them.

You might can, but, but I've never seen proof of it.

Well there is this, Heterodoxical, which is appropriate. Just sayin'.

There is not a single member herein that can point to a question asked of me in sincerity to understand versus to entrap or appeal to the hoi polloi in mockery and self-promotion, that I have failed to answer. Red suits you.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So all the Creeds and Confessions created by the visible vestiges of Christ's Bride are not good insightful theology? Which ones are not? Which ones are?

Is the Biblical mandate for the church to confess its beliefs after the patterns of what has been delivered to her in error? Does your church have a statement of faith published at its web site? If not, do you think the discerning visitor would be able to craft your church's unwritten statement of faith after observation of its practices, exhortations, and delivery of the Word each week by its ordained servants? Do you really think you are bereft of dogma when it is clear you do from what you post? Running around tossing out self-righteous platitudes like "I believe no man-made creeds" tickles one's notions of piety, but it speaks to just how confused you really are on the matter. Have you even taken the time to set down on paper exactly what you believe? Can you even do so, or is your worldview so contradictory that such an exercise would result in nothing but your own cognitive dissonance?

AMR

If you have questions to ask of me I will be happy to answer any I am able to answer.

Asked.

Answered? :idunno:

AMR

 

[Cross Reference]

Asked.

Answered? :idunno:

AMR

I will defer to Heterodoxial's analysis of the situation, I know to be true..

 

[Cross Reference]

delete

 

[Cross Reference]

As I implied previously, the implications of your lachrymose view is contrary to Scripture.

Such a view would imply, contrary to Romans 1, unregenerate man genuinely possesses motives that are not seen as hateful of God, that your neighbor who failed to be as wise as you were, simply was not "good enough" to choose as you so chose, should be pardoned by the One who is holy and Who struck down a man (Uzza) who, merely in a misguided attempt to prevent the ark from touching the very dirt God created, thinking he was doing something "good". Yours are the humanistic notions of Who God is that leads to grievous error.

In simple summary, those that are not believers hate God with their every thought, word, and deed and deserve nothing but His righteous judgment. Even these persons acts of civil goodness, helping the old lady across the road, giving to charity, etc., are performed for the wrong motives.

Likewise, if you deny original sin of all in Adam, then yours is the sort of slippery slope one finds oneself upon. Said denial is contrary to Christendom's orthodoxy in its communal understanding of the sin of Adam and its consequences-- we sin because we are sinners, and not that we are sinners because we sin. Feel free to count yourself outside the camp, but be wary of the enticement of being in the minority, for it appeals to one's vanity and tickles one's itching ears.

The "salvation message" is clear. All who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The details of exactly what "all" means here is the matter at hand that you are ignoring.

AMR

That'll work. Thanks