Christian Forums

To not tread on the thread Texas Conservative started  and while we await his reply to the question asked there....

I did a little inquiring into why some churches baptise babies and children.

NOW... BEFORE Y'ALL JUMP ALL OVER THIS SUBJECT AND/OR JUMP ALL OVER
THE MENTION OF A SPECIFIC CHURCH OR MORE... THIS IS ONLY FOR INFORMATION AS TO WHY... EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY FEEL OR HAVE CORE BELIEFS OF THE WRONGNESS OF SAID IDEAS HAVE A LOOK.

While you may never, or probably wont, ever accept this concept, perhaps knowing why some came to the conclusions they did, might help to understand.

Keeping in mind always... translations of the Holy Word with clarity of understanding is more often or not at odds with the next reader.

First:

Why Does the Church Baptize Babies?
https://theopolisinstitute.com/infant-baptism-in-the-history-of-the-church/

Infant baptism was the universal practice of the church until after the Protestant Reformation. At the onset of the Reformation, none of the magisterial reformers abandoned the practice of infant baptism, but began to vigorously defend it with fresh biblical rationale based on Covenant Theology. The Reformers went so far in their defense of paedo-baptism that none of them even advocated the re-baptism of those who had received baptism in the pre-Reformation church.

To this day, churches that are the ecclesial and theological heirs of the Protestant Reformers have continued that practice of infant baptism. These would be Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed of various kinds, and Anglicans (which I would argue fall in the Reformed camp, but someone may protest that I left them out). In these churches there is a continuous and consistent theology and practice of infant baptism that goes back to the days of the early church.

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82695/what-mainstream-sects-object-to-infant-baptism

Reformed Protestant groups such as the Presbyterian Church in America practice infant baptism, but unlike the Roman Catholic Church, does not teach that such baptism saves the child. Instead, it teaches that infant baptism is a covenant sign and does not save, just the same as Old Testament circumcision was a covenantal sign that did not save. Lutheran Churches, like the Roman Catholic Church, practice infant baptism and maintain that such baptism saves the child.

Christian denominations that oppose infant baptism would include the Baptists, Churches of Christ, and Pentecostal groups. They would deny infant baptism by saying that belief must precede baptism and that infants cannot believe.

Due to length I will move on to specific churches.

First. The Roman Catholic church
https://www.simplycatholic.com/why-baptize-babies/

The Catholic Church has been baptizing babies ever since Christ commanded His apostles to baptize all people in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Mt 28:18-20). This has always been the practice of the Orthodox churches and of many Protestant denominations as well.

Parents bring their babies to the waters of baptism by professing a belief in Christ on behalf of the child, and promising to raise him or her in the faith. For adults who are to be baptized,the Church also requires them to profess their faith in Christ.

Because baptism confers saving grace, the earlier a person comes to baptism, the better.

In infant baptism, then, though the child is too young to have faith, the parents extend their faith on the child's behalf.

On what basis does the Church believe that the faith of one person may be effective on behalf of someone else? The Scriptures are full of examples in which Jesus extends healing grace to people based on the faith of others.

For example, Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic based on the faith of those who brought him (see Mt 9:2; Mk 2:3-5).Jesus heals the centurion's servant based on the faith of the centurion (Mt 8:5-13).Jesus exorcises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith (Mk 9:22-25).

We might also note that in the Old Testament, God spares the firstborn child's life during the Passover based on the parent's faith (see Ex 12:24-28).

Given these examples, then, we must ask ourselves: If God is willing to effect spiritual and physical cures for children based upon the faith of their parents, how much more will He give the grace of baptism to children based upon the faith of their parents?

Because babies are born with original sin, they need baptism to cleanse them, so that they may become adopted sons and daughters of God and receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the kingdom of God also belongs to children (see Mt 18:4; Mk 10:14).He never put an age limit upon those eligible to receive His grace (Lk 18:15-17; Mt 18:2-5).

When St. Paul addresses the "holy ones" of the Church (see Eph 1:1; Col 1:2),these include the children, whom he addresses specifically in Ephesians 6:1 and Colossians 3:20. Children become "holy ones" of the Church and members of the body of Christ only through baptism.

The Scriptures also demonstrate that the early Church baptized babies. In the Book of Acts, for example, St. Peter preached to the crowd:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your childrenand to all that are far off, whomever the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39).

When St. Peter said the promise of baptism is for children, the word "children" (from the Greek teknon) also includes infants. This same word, teknon,is used later in Acts 21:21 to describe the circumcision of eight-day-old infants.

The Greek word for "household," oikos, refers to all the members of a family, adults as well as infants and children. The Book of Acts speaks of whole households being baptized, so any infants and children who belonged to these households would have been included.

St. Paul baptizes Lydia with "her household" (16:15); the entire household of Cornelius (see 10:48; 11:14); the Philippian jailer "and all his family" (16:33); and the "household of Stephanus" (1 Cor 1:16). In none of these accounts is there ever any indication that infants and children are excluded from baptism.

Baptism and Circumcision

Finally, in any discussion of infant baptism we should remember the correlation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Under the Old Covenant, babies were circumcised when they were eight days old (see Gn 17:12; Lv 12:3). This was the sign by which they entered into the covenant.

St. Paul actually calls baptism the "new circumcision" when he writes:

"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col 2:11-12).

Since baptism is the new circumcision of the New Covenant, baptism is for babies as well as adults, just as circumcision in the Old Covenant was for babies as well as adults.



NEXT:Presbyterian

https://www.westminsterconfession.org/resources/worship/why-we-baptize-infants/

Baptism is one of the two ordinances of the New Testament that we call sacraments. Baptism is administered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Baptism "in the name of" means "into union with" or "into the discipleship of." Baptism in the one name of the triune God means baptism into subjection and devotion to the one living and true God. It means that the mark of the triune God is placed upon the recipients of it.

The placing of the mark of God upon us in baptism does not, however, mean that it is the authentication or seal of an ownership on the part of God or of discipleship on our part that is naturally and natively a fact. It is true that there is a natural ownership on the part of God and an inalienable devotion that we as His creatures owe to Him. But baptism is not the mark of an ownership that is natively and properly God's nor of the devotion on our part that we naturally owe to Him. It is the mark of an ownership that is constituted, and of a devotion that is created, by redemptive action and relation. In other words, it is the mark of the Covenant of Grace. In it, and bearing it, we profess to renounce every other lordship but that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in all the manifold relations that we come to sustain to each Person in the terms of the Covenant of Grace.

More specifically, baptism signifies washing or purification, washing from the defilement or pollution of sin by regeneration of the Holy Spirit, and washing from the guilt of sin by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Manifestly, it is only in and through Christ and His work that these blessings can be enjoyed. Union with Christ, therefore, is the bond that unites us to the participation of these blessings. Our Shorter Catechism gives a rather succinct and comprehensive definition when it says that "Baptism is a Sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's."

We believe that Scripture warrants the dispensing of this ordinance of baptism to infants. Just as infants were circumcised under the Old Testament – and circumcision meant fundamentally the same thing as baptism, namely, the removal of the filth of sin and the imputation of the righteousness which is by faith – so children who stand in a similar covenant relation with God should be baptized under the New Testament. What, we may ask, does this precisely mean?

It means that children, even newly-born infants, stand in need of cleansing from sin both in its defilement and in its guilt. Children do not become sinful after they grow up or in the process of growing up. They are sinful from the very outset. They are conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity.

But baptism is after all a sacrament of grace. And therefore it means more than the fact of need. It means that by the grace of God infants may enjoy precisely and fully what baptism represents. They may be regenerated by the Spirit and justified in the blood of Christ. They may be united to Christ in all the perfection of His mediatorial offices and in all the efficacy of His finished work.


Baptism is the ordinance that initiates into the fellowship of the visible church. The visible church is a divine institution. It is the house and family of God. It is a divine sanctuary where God's glory is made known. It is the channel along which normally the current of God's saving grace flows. What a privilege it is for parents by divine authority in the reception of the ordinance of baptism to introduce their children into this blessed fellowship.

If infant baptism has the divine warrant, then what dishonor is offered to Christ and what irretrievable damage is done to the church and to the souls of children by refusing to introduce children into this glorious fellowship. No argument from apparent expediency, no seeming evangelistic fervor will counteract that dishonor to our Lord and that damage done to the souls of men.

In concluding this brief study of the meaning and privilege of infant baptism, there are two warnings that must be given. The first is that against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We must not look upon baptism as having some semi-magical effect. Baptism derives all its efficacy from the sovereign grace of the Holy Spirit. We do well to remind ourselves of the words of our Shorter Catechism, "The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them." We must never take for granted that the infant who is baptized is by that mere fact assured of eternal life. Baptism is certainly a means of grace which God has, in accordance with His appointment, abundantly honored and blessed throughout the whole history of the Christian church. But we must ever preserve the true evangelicalism of our Christian faith that, in the last analysis, we are not saved by any external rite or ordinance, but by the sovereign grace of God that works mysteriously, directly and efficaciously in the heart and soul of each individual whom He has appointed to salvation.

The second is that infant baptism does not relieve parents or guardians, as the case may be, of that solemn responsibility to instruct, warn, exhort, direct and protect the infant members of the Christian church committed to their care. we must repeat again the text we have already quoted, "The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him and his righteousness unto children's children, to such as keep his covenant and to those that remember his commandments to do them." The encouragement derived from a divine promise must never be divorced from the discharge of the obligations involved. It is only in the atmosphere of obligation discharged, in a word, in the atmosphere of obedience to divine commandments, that faith in the divine promise can live and grow. Faith divorced from obedience is mockery and presumption.

PLUS:

The Episcopal Church baptizes infants as well as older children and adults. Episcopalians consider the sacrament of holy baptism "full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into Christ's Body, the Church." The Book of Common Prayer contains the liturgy for a baptismal service, and stipulates when and how an infant should receive this sacrament.

Methodists: Within the Methodist tradition, baptism has long been a subject of much concern, even controversy. John Wesley retained the sacramental theology which he received from his Anglican heritage. He taught that in baptism a child was cleansed of the guilt of original sin, initiated into the covenant with God, admitted into the church, made an heir of the divine kingdom, and spiritually born anew. He said that while baptism was neither essential to nor sufficient for salvation, it was the "ordinary means" that God designated for applying the benefits of the work of Christ in human lives.

Lutheran: Why, then, does our church encourage the early baptism of our little ones, to the point of cherishing infant baptism, baptism in the very earliest days of life when our tiniest can do nothing other rest safely, as the old hymn suggests, against not only our own shoulders but against the very bosom of God?

It is because of what baptism is: a sacrament, a visible means of an invisible grace. It is something characterized by an earthly element, like water, wine, bread, something that has a promise attached to it, something of which our Lord has said, leaving no room for speculation, "Do it."

That promise part? That's something to which we need to pay particular attention. There, hidden though it may be, lies our stake in getting our babies—and anyone else, as far as that goes!—up to and through the font.

We want them to get what God gives in the sacrament of baptism and get it as soon as they can—not because hell is hot but because life is so often cold, cold to the bone cold—lonely, isolating, full of judgments and pain. It is such, sadly so, even from the earliest of ages. And truthfully, sad to say, it is sometimes because of our own not-so-helpful choices.

In baptism we are grafted into a family—the church, the body of Christ, "the communion of saints." We have a whole body around and about us, our brothers and sisters, the baptized. They belong to us as we to them. They are called to whisper the promise that we are one with each other even when life divides.

Why baptize little ones? For the same reason all the saints are invited to come down to the waters: so we might come to know Christ and his gifts for what they are—our own, through all that life might bring.

That water dripping over even the tiniest brow? It, by Jesus' word, promises nothing less.

Baptism is for those who believe in Christ.  A baby cannot.  It doesn't matter what the reasons these churches use, they are invalid.

: Texas Conservative  Sat Dec 02, 2023 - 11:30:18Baptism is for those who believe in Christ.  A baby cannot.  It doesn't matter what the reasons these churches use, they are invalid.

But this just proves that the alleged experts and people who should be in the know don't agree with scripture interpretation.

Both the RCC and the Presbys posted reasons relating to the bible of their beliefs... though opposite of each other as to meaning.

Does your church have a document you can post on why you believe what you believe with references that I could take to mine cause I do think wrongs should be righted.

Its kind of in my blood having a former vicar of the church of England leave it a couple centuries ago to move out of the country and into a new church... and this all over a disagreement about baptism.

My church doesn't need a document.  These other churches only need documents because they need to convolute what scripture says to arrive at their beliefs.

: Texas Conservative  Mon Dec 04, 2023 - 09:08:45My church doesn't need a document.  These other churches only need documents because they need to convolute what scripture says to arrive at their beliefs.

Then you cannot "prove" your beliefs with scriptural reference.

One on one does not cut it

: Rella  Mon Dec 04, 2023 - 09:57:36Then you cannot "prove" your beliefs with scriptural reference.

One on one does not cut it

I absolutely can.  The very nature of the word "baptizo" in Greek means to immerse.

: Texas Conservative  Mon Dec 04, 2023 - 11:00:05I absolutely can.  The very nature of the word "baptizo" in Greek means to immerse.

Why are forms of the word βάπτισμα transliterated as baptism, baptize, instead of being translated
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/35262/ddg#35264
The word "baptize" or "baptized" is an Anglicized version of the Greek "baptizo", and is transliterated instead of being translated. The practice of immersion in water existed for centuries before it began to be altered as early as the 4th century AD, and being more commonly replaced by sprinkling in the 7th century AD. It is said that Eusebius "baptized" Emperor Constantine on his deathbed in 337 A.D. by pouring water over him.

"Sprinkling as a form of baptism took the place of immersion after a few centuries in the early Church, not from any established rule, but by common consent, and it has since been very generally practiced in all but the Greek and Baptist churches, which insist upon immersion." (McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Art. Sprinkling, Vol. IX, p. 968).

"Sprinkling was still (in the period of 323 – 692) confined to Baptismus Clinicorum (clinical baptism) and was first generally used in the West in infant baptism in the 12th century, while the East still retained the custom of immersion." (Kurts, a German Lutheran Historian, in Church History, Vol. I, p. 367)

The Catholic Church officially changed the form of baptism from immersion to sprinkling at the Council of Ravena in 1311 AD. (Notes 1, 2)

The reason we are stuck in continued arguments about what constitutes "baptism" with the denominational world is that the translators from the original Greek texts were afraid of offending the king. By the time the Bible was translated into the English in the 14th and 16th centuries A.D., too many powerful people, such as King James, had already been sprinkled under the practice of the Church of England as learned and approved from the Roman Catholic Church.

The word in the Greek means to be submerged or immersed. If you speak that word today in a Greek country they will understand it to be dunked, submerged, dipped under completely.

Here are the meanings of "baptizo" from reliable lexicons, as used in the original Koine (common) Greek at the time of Christ, in the first century A.D

"To make a thing dipped or dyed. To immerse for a religious purpose" (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, E.W. Bullinger).

"Dip, immerse, mid. Dip oneself, wash (in non-Christian lit. also 'plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm. . . .')" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Arndt and Gingrich, p. 131).

"immersion, submersion" (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grimm-Thayer, p. 94).

"to dip, immerse, sink" (Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, Abbott-Smith, p. 74).

"dip, plunge" (A Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott, p. 305).

"consisting of the process of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip)" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

"immerse, sumberge. The peculiar N.T. and Christian use of the word to denote immersion, submersion for a religious purpose" (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek, Cremer).

"to dip, immerse; to cleanse or purify by washing" (The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Perschbacher, p. 66).

"to dip, to immerse, to sink. . . . There is no evidence that Luke or Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks" (Greek and English Lexicon, Sophocles).

The Greek word "baptizo" comes from the primary verb "bapto" which means to overwhelm, to cover wholly with a fluid.

F.H. Chase explains,

"In English we translate the Greek word baptizein. When we use the word "baptize" we think at once and we think only of the religious rite. Apart from that rite the word has no meaning for us. It is simply and solely a religious technical term. But the Aramaic Christian when he used the Aramaic word, and the Greek Christian when he used the Greek word, would never in this particular application of the term lose sight of its primary and proper signification "to immerse," "to plunge in or into",

and he continues

"In their versions of the New Testament the Syriac and the Egyptian Christians translated the word baptizein. Latin-speaking Christians, though like ourselves they commonly transliterated it (baptizare), yet sometimes . . . used as its equivalent the Latin verb tingere. What if we dare to follow their example and, instead of transliterating it, venture to translate it—Baptizontes autous eis to onoma, "immersing them into the Name"? So surely a Greek-speaking Christian would understand the words. He would regard the divine Name as the element, so to speak, into which the baptized is plunged. Thus the outward rite is seen to be an immediate parable of a great spiritual reality. ("The Lord's Command to Baptize," The Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905, p. 503). (Bold emphasis is mine.)

The purpose of the immersion is the participation in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It is an outward sign of an inward renewal, an inward decision to live for Christ, and follow Him. Sprinkling is not a burial into Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. (Col. 2:12, Rom. 6:3-4; 2Cor 4:10-16)

Note:

1) Baptism changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD here

2) How Sprinkling or Pouring Replaced Scriptural Baptism here

--Gina

: Texas Conservative  Sat Dec 02, 2023 - 11:30:18Baptism is for those who believe in Christ.  A baby cannot.  It doesn't matter what the reasons these churches use, they are invalid.

Let's revisit 2 Timothy 3:15 King Jimmy's interpretation

15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

And now let us look at some commentaries on this from some very learned men... One might even have been a member in your 100% correct church...just sayin.

Their wording would indicate that a baby can learn and understand.

No, don't go the route that claims but it is baptism and faith in Jesus that is at stake... If a little Jewish infant can learn... how much more do you think that a potential child of God can?

Or are you of the opinion that perhaps the genes in the Jewish tots made them more suceptible to learn at a younger age.

You do know that a baby in the mother can hear... and react to parental fighting and also music. And there is a school of thought that it is right to read to babies before they are born.

I copied each of the following complete lest you say I missed something that would counter the areas bolded.

Matthew Poole's Commentary
And that from a child; from thy infancy, by the instruction of thy mother Eunice, and thy grandmother Lois, 2 Timothy 1:5.

Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures; thou hast had a notion of the writings of Moses and the prophets, the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, for at this time no others were written.

Which are able to make thee wise unto salvation; which Holy Scriptures (without the help of the writings of Plato or Pythagoras, or any other pagan philosophers) have in them a sufficiency of doctrine to make thee, or any other, wise enough to get to heaven.

Through faith which is in Christ Jesus; but not without a faith in Christ Jesus, receiving him as thy and their Saviour, besides a faith assenting and agreeing to those holy writings as the revelation of the Divine will.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures - That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written; see the notes at John 5:39. The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject. Rabbi Judah says, "The boy of five years of age ought to apply to the study of the sacred Scriptures." Rabbi Solomon, on Deuteronomy 11:19, says, "When the boy begins to talk, his father ought to converse with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law; if he does not do that, he seems to bury him." See numerous instances referred to in Wetstein, in loc. The expression used by Paul - "from a child" (ἀπὸ βρέφους apo brephous) - does not make it certain at precisely what age Timothy was first instructed in the Scriptures, though it would denote an "early" age. The word used - βρέφος brephos - denotes:
(1) a babe unborn, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44;

(2) an infant, babe, suckling.

In the New Testament, it is rendered "babe and babes," Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44; Luke 2:12, Luke 2:16; 1 Peter 2:2; "infants," Luke 8:15; and "young children," Acts 7:19. It does not elsewhere occur, and its current use would make it probable that Timothy had been taught the Scriptures as soon as he was capable of learning anything. Dr. Doddridge correctly renders it here "from infancy." It may be remarked then,

(1) that it is proper to teach the Bible to children at as early a period of life as possible.

(2) that there is reason to hope that such instruction will not be forgotten, but will have a salutary influence on their future lives. The piety of Timothy is traced by the apostle to the fact that he had been early taught to read the Scriptures, and a great proportion of those who are in the church have been early made acquainted with the Bible.

(3) it is proper to teach the "Old" Testament to children - since this was all that Timothy had, and this was made the means of his salvation.

(4) we may see the utility of Sunday schools. The great, and almost the sole object of such schools is to teach the Bible, and from the view which Paul had of the advantage to Timothy of having been early made acquainted with the Bible, there can be no doubt that if Sunday-schools had then been in existence, he would have been their hearty patron and friend.

Which are able to make thee wise unto salvation - So to instruct you in the way of salvation, that you may find the path to life. Hence, learn:

(1) that the plan of salvation may be learned from the Old Testament. It is not as clearly revealed there as it is in the New, but "it is there;" and if a man had only the Old Testament, he might find the way to be saved. The Jew, then, has no excuse if he is not saved.

(2) the Scriptures have "power." They are "able to make one wise to salvation." They are not a cold, tame, dead thing. There is no book that has so much "power" as the Bible; none that is so efficient in moving the hearts, and consciences, and intellects of mankind. There is no book that has moved so many minds; none that has produced so deep and permanent effects on the world.

(3) to find the way of salvation, is the best kind of wisdom; and none are wise who do not make that the great object of life.

Through faith which is in Christ Jesus; - see the Mark 16:16 note; Romans 1:17 note. Paul knew of no salvation, except through the Lord Jesus. He says, therefore, that the study of the Scriptures, valuable as they were, would not save the soul unless there was faith in the Redeemer; and it is implied, also, that the proper effect of a careful study of the "Old" Testament, would be to lead one to put his trust in the Messiah.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
15. from a child—literally, "from an infant." The tender age of the first dawn of reason is that wherein the most lasting impressions of faith may be made.
holy scriptures—The Old Testament taught by his Jewish mother. An undesigned coincidence with 2Ti 1:5; Ac 16:1-3.

able—in themselves: though through men's own fault they often do not in fact make men savingly alive.

wise unto salvation—that is, wise unto the attainment of salvation. Contrast "folly" (2Ti 3:9). Wise also in extending it to others.

through faith—as the instrument of this wisdom. Each knows divine things only as far as his own experience in himself extends. He who has not faith, has not wisdom or salvation.

which is in—that is, rests on Christ Jesus.


Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

15. from a child] Lit. from a babe; the word occurs four times in St Luke's 'Gospel of the Infancy,' ch. 1 and 2, and again Luke 18:15; Acts 7:19.

thou hast known] Lit. 'thou knowest,' the perfect having this present force, and the Greek idiom in a phrase like this using the present where we use the perfect definite. The meaning is that there has been a continued knowledge present always 'from a babe' and present now. So in John 15:27, 'ye are, i.e. have been, with me from the beginning,' cf. Winer, iii. § 40.

the holy scriptures] Lit. 'the sacred writings' of the Old Testament. It was a requirement of the Rabbis that a child should begin to learn the Law by heart when five years old. 'Raf said to Samuel, the son of Schilath, a teacher, "Do not take the boy to be taught before he is six years old, but from that year receive him, and train him as you do the ox, which, day by day, bears a heavier load." Philo, a contemporary of our Lord, says, "They are taught, so to speak, from their very swaddling clothes by their parents, masters and teachers, in the holy laws, and in the unwritten customs, and to believe in God, the one Father and Creator of the world," (Legal. ad Caium, § 16). At the age of thirteen he became a "son of the Law," and was bound to practise all its moral and ritual requirements.' Geikie, Life of Christ, i. 173.

The original word for 'scriptures' is used of Moses' writings John 5:47, where Westcott well points out that it 'appears to mark the specific form rather than the general scope of the record' which is denoted by the word used in 2 Timothy 3:16.

which are able] Present participle, in harmony with the present sense of 'thou hast known,' and marking the abiding continuous power of the Holy Scripture.

to make thee wise] The verb occurs here only in N.T.; its participle in 2 Peter 1:16, 'cunningly devised'; the tense is aorist according to the proper use of the aorist, to give the idea of the verb in its most general form, 'the scriptures have this capacity of making wise.'

through faith which is in Christ Jesus] See note on 1 Timothy 3:13; the clause belongs to the verb 'make wise,' not to the noun 'salvation.' The doctrine and scheme of Christianity is required to illuminate the precept and history of the Old Testament. 'In vetere Testamento latet novum, in novo vetus patet.' Ellicott quotes Hooker, Eccl. Pol. i. 14. 'The Old did make wise by teaching Salvation through Christ that should come, the New by teaching that Christ the Saviour is come.' Cf. also Art. vii. in the English Prayer Book, 'The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ.'

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 15. - Babe for child, A.V.; sacred writings for Holy Scriptures, A.V. And that from a babe, etc. Another consideration urged as a reason for standing fast. He was no novice in the Scriptures. His mother and grandmother had been careful to imbue him with that sacred literature which should make him wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, from his very earliest years. Surely he would not throw away such a precious advantage. The sacred writings (τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα); literally, the holy letters, or learning. An ordinarily educated child learns γράμματα (John 7:15), in contradistinction to the uneducated, who are ἀγράμματοι (Acts 4:13). But Timothy had learnt τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, whose excellence is described in the next verse. 2 Timothy 3:15

: Rella  Sat Dec 09, 2023 - 08:10:05Let's revisit 2 Timothy 3:15 King Jimmy's interpretation

15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

And now let us look at some commentaries on this from some very learned men... One might even have been a member in your 100% correct church...just sayin.

Their wording would indicate that a baby can learn and understand.

No, don't go the route that claims but it is baptism and faith in Jesus that is at stake... If a little Jewish infant can learn... how much more do you think that a potential child of God can?

Or are you of the opinion that perhaps the genes in the Jewish tots made them more suceptible to learn at a younger age.

You do know that a baby in the mother can hear... and react to parental fighting and also music. And there is a school of thought that it is right to read to babies before they are born.

I copied each of the following complete lest you say I missed something that would counter the areas bolded.

Matthew Poole's Commentary
And that from a child; from thy infancy, by the instruction of thy mother Eunice, and thy grandmother Lois, 2 Timothy 1:5.

Thou hast known the Holy Scriptures; thou hast had a notion of the writings of Moses and the prophets, the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, for at this time no others were written.

Which are able to make thee wise unto salvation; which Holy Scriptures (without the help of the writings of Plato or Pythagoras, or any other pagan philosophers) have in them a sufficiency of doctrine to make thee, or any other, wise enough to get to heaven.

Through faith which is in Christ Jesus; but not without a faith in Christ Jesus, receiving him as thy and their Saviour, besides a faith assenting and agreeing to those holy writings as the revelation of the Divine will.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures - That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written; see the notes at John 5:39. The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject. Rabbi Judah says, "The boy of five years of age ought to apply to the study of the sacred Scriptures." Rabbi Solomon, on Deuteronomy 11:19, says, "When the boy begins to talk, his father ought to converse with him in the sacred language, and to teach him the law; if he does not do that, he seems to bury him." See numerous instances referred to in Wetstein, in loc. The expression used by Paul - "from a child" (ἀπὸ βρέφους apo brephous) - does not make it certain at precisely what age Timothy was first instructed in the Scriptures, though it would denote an "early" age. The word used - βρέφος brephos - denotes:
(1) a babe unborn, Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44;

(2) an infant, babe, suckling.

In the New Testament, it is rendered "babe and babes," Luke 1:41, Luke 1:44; Luke 2:12, Luke 2:16; 1 Peter 2:2; "infants," Luke 8:15; and "young children," Acts 7:19. It does not elsewhere occur, and its current use would make it probable that Timothy had been taught the Scriptures as soon as he was capable of learning anything. Dr. Doddridge correctly renders it here "from infancy." It may be remarked then,

(1) that it is proper to teach the Bible to children at as early a period of life as possible.

(2) that there is reason to hope that such instruction will not be forgotten, but will have a salutary influence on their future lives. The piety of Timothy is traced by the apostle to the fact that he had been early taught to read the Scriptures, and a great proportion of those who are in the church have been early made acquainted with the Bible.

(3) it is proper to teach the "Old" Testament to children - since this was all that Timothy had, and this was made the means of his salvation.

(4) we may see the utility of Sunday schools. The great, and almost the sole object of such schools is to teach the Bible, and from the view which Paul had of the advantage to Timothy of having been early made acquainted with the Bible, there can be no doubt that if Sunday-schools had then been in existence, he would have been their hearty patron and friend.

Which are able to make thee wise unto salvation - So to instruct you in the way of salvation, that you may find the path to life. Hence, learn:

(1) that the plan of salvation may be learned from the Old Testament. It is not as clearly revealed there as it is in the New, but "it is there;" and if a man had only the Old Testament, he might find the way to be saved. The Jew, then, has no excuse if he is not saved.

(2) the Scriptures have "power." They are "able to make one wise to salvation." They are not a cold, tame, dead thing. There is no book that has so much "power" as the Bible; none that is so efficient in moving the hearts, and consciences, and intellects of mankind. There is no book that has moved so many minds; none that has produced so deep and permanent effects on the world.

(3) to find the way of salvation, is the best kind of wisdom; and none are wise who do not make that the great object of life.

Through faith which is in Christ Jesus; - see the Mark 16:16 note; Romans 1:17 note. Paul knew of no salvation, except through the Lord Jesus. He says, therefore, that the study of the Scriptures, valuable as they were, would not save the soul unless there was faith in the Redeemer; and it is implied, also, that the proper effect of a careful study of the "Old" Testament, would be to lead one to put his trust in the Messiah.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
15. from a child—literally, "from an infant." The tender age of the first dawn of reason is that wherein the most lasting impressions of faith may be made.
holy scriptures—The Old Testament taught by his Jewish mother. An undesigned coincidence with 2Ti 1:5; Ac 16:1-3.

able—in themselves: though through men's own fault they often do not in fact make men savingly alive.

wise unto salvation—that is, wise unto the attainment of salvation. Contrast "folly" (2Ti 3:9). Wise also in extending it to others.

through faith—as the instrument of this wisdom. Each knows divine things only as far as his own experience in himself extends. He who has not faith, has not wisdom or salvation.

which is in—that is, rests on Christ Jesus.


Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

15. from a child] Lit. from a babe; the word occurs four times in St Luke's 'Gospel of the Infancy,' ch. 1 and 2, and again Luke 18:15; Acts 7:19.

thou hast known] Lit. 'thou knowest,' the perfect having this present force, and the Greek idiom in a phrase like this using the present where we use the perfect definite. The meaning is that there has been a continued knowledge present always 'from a babe' and present now. So in John 15:27, 'ye are, i.e. have been, with me from the beginning,' cf. Winer, iii. § 40.

the holy scriptures] Lit. 'the sacred writings' of the Old Testament. It was a requirement of the Rabbis that a child should begin to learn the Law by heart when five years old. 'Raf said to Samuel, the son of Schilath, a teacher, "Do not take the boy to be taught before he is six years old, but from that year receive him, and train him as you do the ox, which, day by day, bears a heavier load." Philo, a contemporary of our Lord, says, "They are taught, so to speak, from their very swaddling clothes by their parents, masters and teachers, in the holy laws, and in the unwritten customs, and to believe in God, the one Father and Creator of the world," (Legal. ad Caium, § 16). At the age of thirteen he became a "son of the Law," and was bound to practise all its moral and ritual requirements.' Geikie, Life of Christ, i. 173.

The original word for 'scriptures' is used of Moses' writings John 5:47, where Westcott well points out that it 'appears to mark the specific form rather than the general scope of the record' which is denoted by the word used in 2 Timothy 3:16.

which are able] Present participle, in harmony with the present sense of 'thou hast known,' and marking the abiding continuous power of the Holy Scripture.

to make thee wise] The verb occurs here only in N.T.; its participle in 2 Peter 1:16, 'cunningly devised'; the tense is aorist according to the proper use of the aorist, to give the idea of the verb in its most general form, 'the scriptures have this capacity of making wise.'

through faith which is in Christ Jesus] See note on 1 Timothy 3:13; the clause belongs to the verb 'make wise,' not to the noun 'salvation.' The doctrine and scheme of Christianity is required to illuminate the precept and history of the Old Testament. 'In vetere Testamento latet novum, in novo vetus patet.' Ellicott quotes Hooker, Eccl. Pol. i. 14. 'The Old did make wise by teaching Salvation through Christ that should come, the New by teaching that Christ the Saviour is come.' Cf. also Art. vii. in the English Prayer Book, 'The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ.'

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 15. - Babe for child, A.V.; sacred writings for Holy Scriptures, A.V. And that from a babe, etc. Another consideration urged as a reason for standing fast. He was no novice in the Scriptures. His mother and grandmother had been careful to imbue him with that sacred literature which should make him wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, from his very earliest years. Surely he would not throw away such a precious advantage. The sacred writings (τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα); literally, the holy letters, or learning. An ordinarily educated child learns γράμματα (John 7:15), in contradistinction to the uneducated, who are ἀγράμματοι (Acts 4:13). But Timothy had learnt τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, whose excellence is described in the next verse. 2 Timothy 3:15

What did I just read? 

I have kids.  I raised them.  None of them on planet earth can believe in Jesus Christ.  It's really that simple.  It takes time for them to understand, and at the time they are baptized by infant baptizers like the RCC and Presbyterians, they cannot.  No misuse of scripture can prove what you are trying to. 

: Texas Conservative  Sat Dec 09, 2023 - 14:55:11What did I just read? 

IDK but queen of thread hijacking chiming in -

Last week, my daughter and I were searching YouTube for "Baptism gone wrong" and found some pretty bizarre baptisms, and a lot of them were infant baptisms.  ::lookaround:: 

Baptism revisited

It will be revisited until Christ comes and everyone will still believe what they have been taught to believe.

I thank God I was not raised in a church, but came to Christ around twenty five years old with a clean slate to begin my journey with.

If a person had only the scriptures to guide them, then they would never EVEN CONSIDER infant baptism, or, even baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!  They most likely would not even baptized teenagers, since there is not even an example of such in the scriptures.
 

: Red Baker  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 06:14:47It will be revisited until Christ comes and everyone will still believe what they have been taught to believe.

I thank God I was not raised in a church, but came to Christ around twenty five years old with a clean slate to begin my journey with.

If a person had only the scriptures to guide them, then they would never EVEN CONSIDER infant baptism, or, even baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!  They most likely would not even baptized teenagers, since there is not even an example of such in the scriptures.
 

Considering teenagers would have been considered adults, you are probably wrong on that point.

: Texas Conservative  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 06:50:12Considering teenagers would have been considered adults, you are probably wrong on that point.

Greetings TC,

I cannot prove it either way, yet in the Acts of the apostles only men and women were baptized into the religion/faith of Jesus Christ.

Baptism is an answer of a good conscience unto God concerning the gospel of His Son. It is also a commitment to follow the teachings of the scriptures which very few youths are ready to do to the degree which the apostles commanded them to do. Most are too busy serving their lust, or trying to figure out the changes going on in their bodies. Without question there are exceptions, but they are few that are ready to do so. No examples in the scriptures for us to consider.   

One more thought to consider: if they are God's elect, they will not spoil, give them time to do this commitment on their own without pressure from us, or from preachers who just want  another feather in their hat of bringing souls to Jesus.

: Texas Conservative  Sat Dec 09, 2023 - 14:55:11What did I just read? 

I have kids.  I raised them.  None of them on planet earth can believe in Jesus Christ.  It's really that simple.  It takes time for them to understand, and at the time they are baptized by infant baptizers like the RCC and Presbyterians, they cannot.  No misuse of scripture can prove what you are trying to. 

Wiki says

Most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism. Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholicism,[3] Eastern Orthodoxy,[4] and Oriental Orthodoxy.[5] Among Protestants, several denominations practice infant baptism including Anglicans,[6] Lutherans,[7] Presbyterians,[8] Congregationalists,[9] Methodists,[10] Nazarenes,[11] Moravians,[12] and United Protestants.[13]

Christians who do not practice infant baptism are called credobaptists.

: Red Baker  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 06:14:47It will be revisited until Christ comes and everyone will still believe what they have been taught to believe.

I thank God I was not raised in a church, but came to Christ around twenty five years old with a clean slate to begin my journey with.

If a person had only the scriptures to guide them, then they would never EVEN CONSIDER infant baptism, or, even baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!  They most likely would not even baptized teenagers, since there is not even an example of such in the scriptures.
 

I'll be posting more later, but... since YOU know all the scriptures that refer to the households like the Jailer and Lydia.....so I dont have to

At what age do people count in your mind that could be counted in a house hold....worthy of baptism.

AGE 25???? When most people that age are out on there own?

I think then that when God chose "His " people and circumcision was on the block.... so to speak... only adult males age 25 and older should have been and not babies age 8 days. The same should be for today.

: Rella  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 08:11:29

Wiki says

Most Christians belong to denominations that practice infant baptism. Branches of Christianity that practice infant baptism include Catholicism,[3] Eastern Orthodoxy,[4] and Oriental Orthodoxy.[5] Among Protestants, several denominations practice infant baptism including Anglicans,[6] Lutherans,[7] Presbyterians,[8] Congregationalists,[9] Methodists,[10] Nazarenes,[11] Moravians,[12] and United Protestants.[13]

Christians who do not practice infant baptism are called credobaptists.

Texas Conservativeopedia says:

Christians who do not practice infant baptism are called Christians who actually read the Bible.

: Rella  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 08:22:24I'll be posting more later, but... since YOU know all the scriptures that refer to the households like the Jailer and Lydia.....so I dont have to

At what age do people count in your mind that could be counted in a house hold....worthy of baptism.

AGE 25???? When most people that age are out on there own?

I think then that when God chose "His " people and circumcision was on the block.... so to speak... only adult males age 25 and older should have been and not babies age 8 days. The same should be for today.

There is no certain age~yet, one must believe with all their heart.

Acts 8:37,38~"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

One must bring forth fruits worthy to be baptized, confessing their sins and forsaking them.

Matthew 3:6-8~"And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:"

One must be willing to commit themselves to the teachings and commandments of the word of God, and to God's people. Acts 2:37; Acts 9:19,20; Acts 10:44-48; 17:34; etc. 

One must be able and willing to give an answer of a good conscience, and willing to follow Christ wheresoever he leads them. 1st Peter 3:21. The most powerful scripture on water baptism to be found in the word of God.

Though there is no certain age given in the scriptures yet God does break down mankind into four distinct age groups. See Leviticus 27:3-7. Need help?

One month to five years old ~ infants; 6-19 ~ young lads; 20-60 years old ~youth; sixty up is old age. Does this help out a little? It should.

One must be willing to commit themselves to the teachings and commandments of the word of God, and to God's people. Acts 2:37; Acts 9:19,20; Acts 10:44-48; 17:34; etc. 

l can agree with this but to me it also includes the teaching of baptism and what it's for and accomplishes

: Red Baker  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 13:02:40There is no certain age~yet, one must believe with all their heart.  One must bring forth fruits worthy to be baptized, confessing their sins and forsaking them. One must be willing to commit themselves to the teachings and commandments of the word of God, and to God's people. Acts 2:37; Acts 9:19,20; Acts 10:44-48; 17:34; etc. 

One must be able and willing to give an answer of a good conscience, and willing to follow Christ wheresoever he leads them. 1st Peter 3:21. The most powerful scripture on water baptism to be found in the word of God.

Though there is no certain age given in the scriptures yet God does break down mankind into four distinct age groups. See Leviticus 27:3-7. Need help?

One month to five years old ~ infants; 6-19 ~ young lads; 20-60 years old ~youth; sixty up is old age. Does this help out a little? It should.

EXCEPT... It was often that girls would marry at the age of 12 with parental consent....

https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2005/may/page20.htm

Also, under Judaism, boys could marry or make religious vows at 14-years-old and girls at 12-years-old, both only with parental permission, which parental permission was required until both boys or girls were 21-years-old ("Adult Age," McClintock and Strong Encyclopaedia).

So according to your beliefs that would be before they should be of baptism age.

So they could be married, and be parents, but not believe, yet?

: Rella  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 13:47:57EXCEPT... It was often that girls would marry at the age of 12 with parental consent....

https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2005/may/page20.htm

Also, under Judaism, boys could marry or make religious vows at 14-years-old and girls at 12-years-old, both only with parental permission, which parental permission was required until both boys or girls were 21-years-old ("Adult Age," McClintock and Strong Encyclopaedia).

So according to your beliefs that would be before they should be of baptism age.

So they could be married, and be parents, but not believe, yet?

Again, I never gave a specific age to be baptized.  Besides I do not believed girls married at such a young age. There may have been exceptions, but exceptions only proves the rule. 

: Red Baker  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 14:22:54Again, I never gave a specific age to be baptized.  Besides I do not believed girls married at such a young age. There may have been exceptions, but exceptions only proves the rule. 

There were a lot of arranged marriages back then, so who knows.

: Red Baker  Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 06:14:47It will be revisited until Christ comes and everyone will still believe what they have been taught to believe.

I thank God I was not raised in a church, but came to Christ around twenty five years old with a clean slate to begin my journey with.

If a person had only the scriptures to guide them, then they would never EVEN CONSIDER infant baptism, or, even baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!  They most likely would not even baptized teenagers, since there is not even an example of such in the scriptures.
 

@Red Baker,

I am starting this post in reply to you for one very simple reason.
Your comment of "If a person had only the scriptures to guide them, then they would never EVEN CONSIDER infant baptism, or, even baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!"

I am not even into the defending of infant baptisms at this point in time... NOT because I no longer see areas in the Holy Word that point that way but since we had our "Sabbatical" away from GC all those months
I came to a better understanding of things... and while you NO DOUBT will argue against what I am sharing, with permission , below, you are certainly  solid in your statement of  would never EVEN CONSIDER  baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!

I am starting this reply with a number of comments from an extremely long list of threads so if some things seem a little odd.... they are included to only make a continuing point.  Any extra emphasis is mine.
*******
The Scriptures support at least 3 Baptisms.

Did you study all those yet? (For there are only two that are ever discussed here on GC.)

So, lets stick with 2.

There is... "one Lord, .. one Faith.....one Baptism".

Yet there are at least 3 Baptisms, in the Bible...so is that verse wrong?
No, its not wrong..
Its making a clear declaration by distinction that is showing you that the MAIN Baptism, is in the verse that says "ONE Lord" and "ONE Faith"..

So, what is the main one?

What is the Main Baptism, and notice that verse does not say WATER.

Did you notice?

The ONE Baptism that is the main one..., is Spiritual..... Its by the Baptism with<>in<>By = The HOLY SPIRIT< .. = Its Regeneration, of the spirit in an unbeliever.

That's the "ONE" baptism that matters, as that is a BIRTH in the Spirit, by the Holy Spirit of God.

Water is not required.


Now, Let me show you the theological ignorance of this "cult of mary teaching"... that teaches.. "Born again.. BY water"..

So, if that is true, if its "BY Water".... then that means you can't be born again, unless there is some water in the area.

Which means... you can't be born again in a Prison cell.
Which means the dying Thief didn't go with Jesus., as Jesus said he would.
You can't be born again in a Islamic Country, or Communist country that wont let you become a Christian as there is NO WATER BAPTISM of NEW Christians, allow in those countries.

So, if water is required, then millions of "underground Christian" in this world right now.. who are still not water baptized,...... and all "death bed conversions"......., and everyone born again in a Prison cell block"....are all FAKE conversions, according to the IGNORANT "cult of mary" theology that teaches that without water there is no salvation.

Amazing, ... how many people are deceived by this "WATER Cult".

Its billions of people., including all those who were water baptized and died and still went to hell today, and tomorrow, and yesterday.

-----------------------------------

*One other poster countered with

the baptism in spirit (born of water and the spirit ) suggesting that means both water and spirit.

The  Reply
It says baptism in SPIRIT.

That is not water.
Can you even read?

See, you just posted that Spirit Baptism, is water, also.

Its not.

Spirit and Water are different words
*****

(As I tend to always look elsewhere for confirmations of things that I read that are new ideas to me I ran across this

Got Questions simplified this by the statement... The baptism of the Holy Spirit may be defined as that work whereby the Spirit of God places the believer into union with Christ and into union with other believers in the body of Christ at the moment of salvation....

The baptism of the Holy Spirit was predicted by John the Baptist (Mark 1:8) and by Jesus before He ascended to heaven: "For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5). This promise was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4); for the first time, people were permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and the church had begun.

further note: the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not requite water.

-------------------


In Acts 2:38...

Did you notice that Peter had the believers get water baptized? [yet]
Did you notice that none in the Upper Room, nor did Peter get water baptized. ?????

That's interesting isn't it. ......
Open your bible, and check that out, one day, when you have time.
Notice that Peter didnt get "water baptized for the remission",= YET he spoke with Tongues.

Isn't that bible amazing?
It just chops down Cult Denominations......always., as the "word is sharper than any two edged sword".

NOW
The above are bits and pieces pulled from several posts by a man named Behold. One or two of you here may know that name from elsewhere, but it is with permission I am posting the following from him.

"Sin happens in the heart and mind, and from there, the person DOES it with their body, or not.
But first, it happens inside, when you imagine it, and then choose to pursue it...or not.
Its already happened, inside your heart and mind.
Jesus said that when you dwell on it, in your head, you are making the sin happen in your heart, even before you do it in life......or not.

If you look at a woman, and in your head, you are imagining sinful pleasure with her, then in your heart...., the sin has happened already, even if you never touch her.

So, we see that the SIN issue, the LUST>..... is inside us.... where the "imaginations of the heart", are occurring.

All sin is Lust. Lust to have it.

You can literally be full body paralyzed, and can't move... and in a bed, for 40 yrs, and you sin all day and night, by thinking on SINFul pleasure.
See it?

So, its on the inside of us that is the issue.. and WATER only touches your body.
Water only gets you wet.
Cults teach that water has magic power, and that come from the Catholic Cult, who teaches that water and salvation work together.
That is the Catholic cult teaching "Baptismal regeneration" = Born again By water..

And of course you are not born again by water as water is just water.
We are born again, by the HOLY SPIRIT< and not water is required.

Water baptism only wets your body.., it can't touch or effect what is going on inside you, where the SIN exists and has to be dealt with by the BLOOD OF JESUS.

Water gets you wet, and that is all it can do..
"water cults" that you are dealing with, are a bi-product of the Catholic Cult.

So, what is water baptism?

We do this, because its a public confession, of our redemption and faith in Christ.

Its symbolic... .and the idea is that you go under the water, as the "old man of sin", and you come UP out of the water, as the New Man, reborn,. 'In Christ".
Its symbolic of being crucified with Christ and raised again, (born again) in newness of Eternal Life.

I was water baptized 11 yrs after i was born again.

The dying Thief, on the Cross, was NEVER water baptized and He's in heaven right now, and you can meet Him, once you are there.

Water is just Water... nothing more.
It can not wash away sin, because sin is INSIDE YOU.....where water can't touch that,.... but the BLOOD of JESUS does, and always will.
This is why the Bible teaches us that = "without the shedding of BLOOD, there is no forgiveness, no redemption, no PAYMENT for our sin".

And that is why Jesus shed His BLOOD for us..
******

I further found....
https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/spiritual-life/how-does-baptism-of-the-holy-spirit-join-me-into-the-body-of-christ.html

The prevailing Protestant belief is that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at conversion. When a person "asks Jesus into their heart," to use a colloquialism, the Holy Spirit indwells that person. This enables a person to experience the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit chooses.

This baptism of the Holy Spirit was only possible because of Jesus' death and resurrection, thus cleansing the believer of sin. At times in the Old Testament, certain individuals were empowered by the Holy Spirit for short periods of time for specific acts. However, man's sinful state did not allow for continual indwelling.

Once Jesus ascended to heaven, as He promised in Acts 1:5, He sent the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, to guide the believers.

No water.
***************
Finalizing with this

What does it mean to be born again?

It means that the spirit inside your body, that formally was separated from God's Holy Spirit by sin, has now been Re-Joined to God by "spiritual Birth"

This means that the Holy Spirit of God, has birthed your spirit into God.... who is "A Spirit".

= Born......again......"spiritually"... having become a "new Creation (Spiritual Birth) in Christ"...

And that has nothing to do with water baptism.[/size]

: Rella  Fri Dec 15, 2023 - 13:07:55@Red Baker,

I am starting this post in reply to you for one very simple reason.
Your comment of "If a person had only the scriptures to guide them, then they would never EVEN CONSIDER infant baptism, or, even baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!"

I am not even into the defending of infant baptisms at this point in time... NOT because I no longer see areas in the Holy Word that point that way but since we had our "Sabbatical" away from GC all those months
I came to a better understanding of things... and while you NO DOUBT will argue against what I am sharing, with permission , below, you are certainly  solid in your statement of  would never EVEN CONSIDER  baptism as a means of being born again. NEVER!

I am starting this reply with a number of comments from an extremely long list of threads so if some things seem a little odd.... they are included to only make a continuing point.  Any extra emphasis is mine.
*******
The Scriptures support at least 3 Baptisms.

Did you study all those yet? (For there are only two that are ever discussed here on GC.)

So, lets stick with 2.

There is... "one Lord, .. one Faith.....one Baptism".

Yet there are at least 3 Baptisms, in the Bible...so is that verse wrong?
No, its not wrong..

Actually there are a few senses in which baptism is used ~ yet, I'm not going to go into them at this point and time, maybe later.

: RellaSo, lets stick with 2.

There is... "one Lord, .. one Faith.....one Baptism".

Yet there are at least 3 Baptisms, in the Bible...so is that verse wrong?
No, its not wrong..
Its making a clear declaration by distinction that is showing you that the MAIN Baptism, is in the verse that says "ONE Lord" and "ONE Faith"..

So, what is the main one?

The main one is water baptism, that identifies the believer with Jesus Christ and his religion that he is committing his life to following, and defending. Matthew 28; Mark 16; Romans 6:1-4; 1st Peter 3:21 just to name a few.

: RellaWhat is the Main Baptism, and notice that verse does not say WATER.  Did you notice?

It did not have to mention water, it does so in so many other scriptures, beside it does not mention anything other than that there is one baptism ~ and that one baptism is immersion into Jesus Christ's religion/faith/teachings, etc.

: RellaThe ONE Baptism that is the main one..., is Spiritual..... Its by the Baptism with<>in<>By = The HOLY SPIRIT< .. = Its Regeneration, of the spirit in an unbeliever.

That's the "ONE" baptism that matters, as that is a BIRTH in the Spirit, by the Holy Spirit of God.

Give me a verse to prove this...you will not find one. The closest one that most use is found here:

1st Corinthians 12:13~ "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

I'm coming back and look at this one verse since it will take a whole post to consider....RB     

1st Corinthians 12:12-14~"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.  For the body is not one member, but many."

What forms various members into one spiritual body to be used by the Spirit (I Cor 12:12,14)?  A spirit in man makes him a living soul and animates his bodily members (James 2:26).  A church is more than an organization: it is a spiritual organism with life from the Spirit. All the members of a church are united together spiritually by the Holy Spirit of God. God dwells in a local church by the Presence of the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:22; I Tim 3:15). The Spirit takes spiritual children and makes them living stones in His temple (I Pet 2:5). In the spiritual union in a church there is no Jew, Greek, bond, or free (Galatians 3:28).

The body here is obviously the local church, for it is all that is mentioned before and after.

Those exalting a universal church as the only church that counts interpret this verse to be teaching infant baptism making church members and national citizens, simultaneously.

Paul is writing the local church at Corinth, and he is dealing with gifts in a local church.

He will tell them plainly in a few verses that he is talking specifically about them (Ist Cor 12:27).

Paul did not jump subjects to water baptism admission into some universal church.

The baptism here is not water baptism, for it is a baptism performed by the Holy Spirit.

Not every baptism is a baptism involving water and burial in it (Matthew 3:11; 20:22).

Water baptism is an individual act of answering God with a good conscience (I Pet 3:21).
Water baptism is performed by a human administrator, not by the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:38).

Water baptism does not make church members except in Roman Catholicism, for the eunuch was not made a member anywhere by his baptism by Philip (Acts 8:39). Church membership, the outward organization, is by mutual assent in Christ, for Paul's baptism had not made him a member in any sense of any body (Acts 9:18,26).

Since baptism is an immersion, the verse describes the Spirit immersing us into a church.

We lay claim to this verse by asking for it to be done when we receive new members, which is the opposite action we take when excluding a member from our church body.

The church has binding and loosing authority, which the Spirit applies (Matthew 18:18).

The Holy Spirit immerses, buries, plunges, dips, and otherwise sticks new members into the body until they are grafted onto it and participate in the same Spirit in the body.

The result is not salvation, membership, gifts, or anything else, "but participation in the body." "To drink into one Spirit" is mutual participation in the lively energy of the Holy Spirit.

This is a passive work done to members, just like the baptism in the first part of the verse.

The OED has its second definition for "into" the sense of "into the possession of." There are more options for this unusual use of "into" in the OED second definition.

The Spirit takes spiritual children and makes them living stones in His temple (I Pet 2:5).

Spiritual sustenance, vitality from Christ, and unifying charity are supplied by this union.

The graces and fruits that make saints of church members flow from unity in the Spirit.

The verse before and the verse after define the unifying animation of the Spirit of God. The coordination of members in a church is not by a good pastor, but by a perfect Spirit.

The closer a church gets to Christ and walks in the Spirit, the more benefits they realize.

The unified relationship in the Spirit is something church members maintain (Eph 4:3).

The verb "drink" is used to indicate the water vitality of the Spirit (John 4:10; 7:37-39).

: Rella  Fri Dec 15, 2023 - 13:07:55@Red Baker,

The ONE Baptism that is the main one..., is Spiritual.[/b].... Its by the Baptism with<>in<>By = The HOLY SPIRIT< .. = Its Regeneration, of the spirit in an unbeliever.

That's the "ONE" baptism that matters, as that is a BIRTH in the Spirit, by the Holy Spirit of God.

Good morning Rella~My post above from 1st Corinthians 12:13 is the only scripture which speaks of being baptized by the Spirit and in the sense in which we are to understand, I presented it to you for your consideration. The context of 1st Corinthians 12 drives our interpretation of that one verse~which is not speaking of regeneration, as you think, but "but participation in the body" of a local church where at least two or three are gathered together.

So your understanding of a spiritual birth by the Spirit as being the one baptism is without scriptural support.

I do indeed believe that the new birth is a birth by the Spirit of God, yet it is never referred to as a baptism, never...thereby, can't be the one baptism mentioned in Ephesians four.

The rest of your post is would be considered a strawman argument, since it is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
 

: Red Baker  Sat Dec 16, 2023 - 04:58:50I do indeed believe that the new birth is a birth by the Spirit of God, yet it is never referred to as a baptism, never...thereby, can't be the one baptism mentioned in Ephesians four.

Colossians 2:11-13 disagrees with you:

Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12  having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Col 2:13  When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

That passage clearly is speaking about the new birth and it clearly says that it is in baptism that the new birth occurs.

A similar description of the relationship of the new birth to baptism is seen in Romans 6:3-11.

I think there is no doubt at all that being born again occurs in water baptism.  Baptism is not the agent bringing about the new birth; baptism is the occasion, the time in one's life, that God, through the Holy Spirit, regenerates, i.e., causes one to be born again.

So yes indeed, water baptism is the one baptism being spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

And I would point out that Colossians 2:11-13 also points out that it is through faith, i.e., belief in God, that regeneration occurs.  Faith before regeneration.

: 4WD  Sat Dec 16, 2023 - 05:59:50Colossians 2:11-13 disagrees with you:

Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12  having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Col 2:13  When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

That passage clearly is speaking about the new birth and it clearly says that it is in baptism that the new birth occurs.

A similar description of the relationship of the new birth to baptism is seen in Romans 6:3-11.

I think there is no doubt at all that being born again occurs in water baptism.  Baptism is not the agent bringing about the new birth; baptism is the occasion, the time in one's life, that God, through the Holy Spirit, regenerates, i.e., causes one to be born again.

So yes indeed, water baptism is the one baptism being spoken of in Ephesians 4:5.

And I would point out that Colossians 2:11-13 also points out that it is through faith, i.e., belief in God, that regeneration occurs.  Faith before regeneration.

Good morning 4WD,

I sent you a PM  ::tippinghat::

I got it.

I sent another PM.... enjoy

: 4WD  Sat Dec 16, 2023 - 05:59:50Colossians 2:11-13 disagrees with you:

Col 2:11  and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12  having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Col 2:13  When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Wishful thinking on your part.

Let us consider these two verses and see if you have a solid foundation upon which you are building your faith on.

In 2:11 ~ the circumcision of Christ is the spiritual cutting off of all our sins by Jesus Christ's death. 4WD the forgiveness of our sins must be either by Christ's death or, by our obedience to Gospel commandments ~ it cannot be both.

Why is circumcision introduced here? We are "complete in Him" (2:10) by His death and resurrection for our sins, which makes the hands-on Old Testament ritual exceeding worthless.

Circumcision was only an Old Testament outward sign of mere ceremonial privilege in Israel.

This circumcision, that the Colossians had already received, was done without human hands!

This circumcision is in Jesus Christ, which we trace back by simple male pronouns to verse 8.

Circumcision is the cutting off of unnecessary skin, which well represents cutting off our sins.

The prepositional phrase requires either a subjective-genitive construction, Jesus did the circumcising, or an objective-genitive construction, Jesus was Himself circumcised, or cut off.

Jesus paid for our sins by being cut off Himself: we choose the objective-genitive construction.

Since Jesus Himself was cut off, do we choose the eighth day or last day of His blessed life?

Jesus Christ was cut off out of the land of the living to pay for those sins (Isaiah 53:8; Daniel 9:26).

Of course, Jesus did circumcise us (actively) by being circumcised at Calvary (passively).

There is absolutely no value or connection of circumcision with godliness after the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-31; Romans 2:28-29; 4:11; Ist Corinthians 7:18; Galatians 2:3-5; 5:1-4; 6:12-13).

This is one of those rudiments of the world, which the Judaizers wanted to force on Gentiles.

But this entire verse is entirely spiritually, describing our justification by Jesus being cut off.

Here Paul is presenting the legal completeness we have in Jesus Christ by His sacrificial death.

Paul argues our completeness in Christ by making Jewish circumcision a vain ritual (2:16-17).

Here is not regeneration or sanctification in a vital sense, for the apostle places that in 2:13.

The immediate context is not His active part in our salvation, but His passive part. See 2:12.

Here is the body of the sins of the flesh that is cut off, but 2:13 is the flesh needing renovation.

It is "in whom," not by whom, here. He becomes the active agent of regeneration in 2:13.

In 2:12  Water baptism is the great act by which we declare faith in Christ's burial and resurrection.

Why is baptism introduced here? We are "complete in Him" (2:10) by His death and resurrection for our sins, which we picture gloriously in baptism in His likeness (Romans 6:3-11).

ALso, If in this life only we have hope in Jesus Christ, we are of all men most miserable (Ist Corinthians 15:19); but we profess by baptism our faith in a coming resurrection, following His lead. 1at Corinthians 15:29

Death has been conquered and resurrection promised, which we acknowledge by our baptisms.

Baptism must be a burial, and baptism must be a resurrection; for by it we copy Jesus Christ.

Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and the rest of the churches in the brothel have no baptism.

By baptism we put on the Lord Jesus Christ, ( his religion, teachings, etc )  which practically identifies us in Him (Galatians 3:27).

True faith in the operation of God must copy the figure of what He did for us (Ist Peter 3:21).

The definite article, creating "the faith of the operation of God," is not God's faith (James 2:1).

It is the faith of baptism, our faith in God's operation of sending and raising Him from death.

There is no Presbyterian funeral, for they must become pagans (cremation) or Baptists (burial)!

It is a figurative burial alongside Him, for we take His name and bury our old man to Him.

Again, we believe in the resurrection of the dead, so we gladly show it by baptism (Ist Corinthians 15:29).

We are complete in Him – we are fully assured that we shall be resurrected from the dead!

God raised Him from the dead, which declared Him to the Son of God with power (Rom 1:4).

This is the practical completeness we have in Him, we shall participate in a future resurrection.

It is enticing words of beguilers who try to make the circumcision of the previous verse literal circumcision, and the baptism of this verse its sprinkling replacement for covenant blessings!

The colon separating these verses is as much a break as the colon separating verses 10 and 11.

Baptism and circumcision are unrelated spiritually, grammatically, and by revelation, at least!


In 2:13, based on the forgiveness of sins, Jesus had quickened the Colossians to new life with Him.

Why is regeneration introduced here? We are complete in Him (2:10), which requires vital life!

The natural state of men, including the Colossians and the reader, was spiritual death in sins.

It is another worthless lie to listen to anyone detract from Jesus by claiming we were only sick.

For it took resurrection power to bring about the new nature of a believer (Ephesians 1:19; 2:1-5).

The uncircumcision of their flesh was the vital corruption of their sinful flesh yet within them.

Jesus Christ quickens, makes alive, or resurrects His sheep by His mighty voice (Jn 5:25-29).

The vital application of our salvation could not have occurred without our sins being put away.

Their legal circumcision is not enough; they must be vitally circumcised (Romans 2:28-29).

In closing, 4WD verse 11 comes before 12,13, yet, your theology requires you to quietly overlook this so you can hold to your water baptism as a means of being born of God. One must be born again first before they can have spiritual life to obey~and this life is freely given on the behalf of Jesus Christ's work of redemption for his people.

: Red Baker  Sun Dec 17, 2023 - 04:45:30Wishful thinking on your part.

No, not wishful thinking. Just reading and understanding what the verses say. Something that you do not always do very well.

: Red BakerLet us consider these two verses and see if you have a solid foundation upon which you are building your faith on.

Actually there were three verses there.

: Red BakerIn 2:11 ~ the circumcision of Christ is the spiritual cutting off of all our sins by Jesus Christ's death. 4WD the forgiveness of our sins must be either by Christ's death or, by our obedience to Gospel commandments ~ it cannot be both.

See you did it again.  Instead of reading and understanding what it said, you had to insert your false idea into the verse.  The cutting off was not done by Jesus Christ's death.  It was done by God.  The issue here is, among some other things, when does that happen. Paul does a very good job of explaining that. You fail to read what it actually says.

: Red BakerWhy is circumcision introduced here? We are "complete in Him" (2:10) by His death and resurrection for our sins, which makes the hands-on Old Testament ritual exceeding worthless.

That is mostly true, so why all the discussion about the Old testament ritual?

: Red BakerHere is not regeneration or sanctification in a vital sense, for the apostle places that in 2:13.

Actually the entire passage of verses 2 through 15 is a discussion about regeneration. And once again you make a mockery of scripture with you introduction of various "senses" of  the whole truth of salvation. There is no "this sense" or "that sense" of regeneration.  There is simply regeneration.  It is an instantaneous act by God.  It is one and done by God.

Verse 12 tells us when regeneration happens and under what conditions regeneration happens.

Paul says there that in happens in being buried with Jesus in Baptism. That is precisely the occasion when the circumcision made without hands, i.e., regeneration, occurs.  The condition under which it occurs is the faith in the powerful working of God.  Clearly that is the faith of the one being baptized.


Verse 13 tells us what is accomplished by regeneration. Here Paul says that God made the dead come alive.  And here he notes the cause of the one being dead.  He said, it was because of the trespasses of the one being dead; nothing about your false notion of Adam's sin.  What happened to that one dead?  God, not Jesus' death on the cross, made that dead one come alive.  How? By forgiving all the trespasses.

That happened to the one with faith and it happened when the one with faith was baptized.

It really is not any more complicated than that.

: Red BakerIn closing, 4WD verse 11 comes before 12,13, yet, your theology requires you to quietly overlook this so you can hold to your water baptism as a means of being born of God. One must be born again first before they can have spiritual life to obey~and this life is freely given on the behalf of Jesus Christ's work of redemption for his people.

Oh my, once again, you fail to actually read what it says.

Yes, verse 11 comes before verses 12 and 13. But what is stated in verses 12 and 13 does not come after what is stated in verse 11.  Verses 12 and 13 explain the what, when, how and to whom is the regeneration described in verse 11.

: Texas Conservative  Sat Dec 02, 2023 - 11:30:18Baptism is for those who believe in Christ.  A baby cannot.  It doesn't matter what the reasons these churches use, they are invalid.

Do  you   have  a  verse where  Gentiles   are   to   be   baptized ?

I   know   that  water   baptism  as   given  to  Israel  in  John  1:31 .

Do  ou   have a   verse that   water   baptism  was   given  to   Gentiles ??

dan p

: dan p  Fri Mar 15, 2024 - 13:55:33Do  you   have  a  verse where  Gentiles   are   to   be   baptized ?

I   know   that  water   baptism  as   given  to  Israel  in  John  1:31 .

Do  ou   have a   verse that   ater   baptism  was   given  to   Gentiles ??

dan p

Yes! In Acts Chapter of 10 about Cornelius and his family, as follows:

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Its a placebo, immersing you into the body of Christ. "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house."-Mark 3:27

: Jaime  Fri Mar 15, 2024 - 20:35:08Yes! In Acts Chapter of 10 about Cornelius and his family, as follows:

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

There  is   no   question  the   Cornelius as n  a   Gentile !

And   the  Law  of   Moses  was   still in  effect and  in  Acts  10:34 Peter says   that  God  is not   a  RESPECTER  of   Persons .

And  in   verse 35  the   one Revering  Him is  acceptable to  Him .

Even  a   Gentile !!

And   Cornelius  becomes   PART  of  the  nation  of   Israel  Why ? ?

Because   the   BODY  OF   CHRIST  as   NOTTTT   Known  as   YET .

And  Paul  was  the   FIRST  //  PROTO  to  enter the   B O C .

dan p

Did God ever declare Gentiles unclean or common? I know the Pharisees did as part of their traditions of men or the so called "Oral Torah" that Jesus always pushed back on. I could not find anywhere that God declared the Gentiles unclean or common prior to Acts 10.

Also, not following your Law of Moses statement. Acts 10 occurred AFTER Pentecost in Acts 2.