...

Sat, 25 Jun 2005 16:40:34 +0100

Written by Shane on 2005-06-13 18:29:49\"The baptismal stories never support infant baptism (nor do they outright deny it), they never support the baptism of unbelievers (nor do they outright deny it), they never indicate joining a covenant community (nor do they outright deny it\"

I may reading this out of context, but I don\'t understand the ambiguity?
1.) I am not sure why anyone we even look for a verse \"denying\" infant baptism as this was not a Jewish teaching. Infant baptism came some time after the replacement theology catholic dogma, centuries after the scriptures were written. Intitially, even the catholics immersed.

2.) Baptism in itself is for the believer and many verses say to believe and be baptized. Therefore why would Scripture have to deny such a practice?
(Although Constantine baptized armies of Pagans... )

3.) I think every example of baptism is joinging a covenant. You are baptized believing in Messiah. And \"if ye be Messiah\'s then ye be Avraham\'s seed and heir to the promise\". It is a symbol of this.
Just some thoughts there, I may not have been reading your point correctly.

So many folks look for Scriptures to support their denominational beliefs. I view this as an infinite loop of futility. The Scriptures were written in a Jewish context/Faith and would not directly support Calvinism, Catholicism, Methodist, SDA, etc.

Instead we should go to the Scriptures seeking His truth as the Bareans did. And they used the \"Old Testament\".
Written by biblerey on 2005-06-13 18:30:02You\'re question on the ambiguity is probably directly related to the rest of the series. My purpose is to look at Baptism as spoken of in Scripture to disprove (firstly) baptismal justification then baptismal regeneration and along the way I intend to show how baptism of the dead and infant baptism are also wrong. The Scriptures were definitely written in a Jewish context and that\'s why I spent so much time bridging Acts 2:38 (an oft-used proof-text) to the Jewish community.

So if anything, the ambiguity is connected to me starting to cover my flank and simultaneously opening the door for later considerations when folk start saying \"Households were baptized so that surely means infants were baptized in that household\". It\'s an unwarranted conclusion and therefore I would want to highlight before I get there that there\'s nothing in the text that supports the thesis.

Lastly, there is nothing in those specific events that denies Infant baptism either. This is where I would see a systematic study on baptism alone starts to fall short. That\'s why I started a contextual argument drawing on the flow of Romans and culminating in Romans 6.
Written by Shane on 2005-06-13 18:29:35\"Households were baptized\" in itself seems to be those that should be baptized. It seems all inclusive would be just as unwarranted. My point being that it is the catholics that introduced infant baptism and this goes against the Jewish teachings of baptism.

Just as you will find nothing that teaches \"against\" sprinkling, but at the same time it cannot be supported. You cannot disprove a doctrine directly that was created hundreds of years later. In other words, how would the Bareans prove or disprove through Scripture a practice which would not exist until centuries later?

Written by biblerey on 2005-06-10 16:53:30good point and completely correct. And yet, many many believers still practice it and defend it. Jollyblogger did a series defending it and he\'s Protestant.

Good thing I won\'t be argueing to outright disprove the practice, but showing that the practice has no true Biblical support. In saying yes to infant baptism they have strayed from sola-scriptura. They would surely disagree but I think it\'s as clear as day...infant baptism is a doctrine of Men. They would try to argue that the Trinity is never mentioned in the Scriptures and they\'d be off.
Written by Shane on 2005-06-13 18:30:27Amen, amen!

P.S. Name is me. DOH! - Rey

Baptism and Romans -tmp(Rom 6:1-11)

...