Did the Early Church Practice Infant Baptism? - David Bercot

[@AnabaptistTheology]

I totally agree! Thank you for addressing this subject.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thanks for watching!

[@Omega-AlphaStudios-lh1rz]

I disagree.

[@TimMartinBlogger]

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit." ORIGEN (C. AD 184-C. 253)

[@ReluctantPost]

@@ante-nicenechristianityYou might want to check that reference in Job in the LXX again. It also inexact. If infant baptism was universal and necessary, it is hard to explain the baptisms of well-known Christian leaders raised in Christian homes like John Chrysostom.

[@ReluctantPost]

@@ante-nicenechristianity "For mortal man born of woman is short-lived and full of wrath. He falls like a flower that blooms, and like a shadow, he does not continue. Have You not taken account of him and brought him to judgment before You? For who shall be be pure from uncleanness? No one. Even if his life is but one day upon the earth, his months are numbered by You. You appointed a time for him, and he cannot exceed it" (LXX, St. Athanasius trans.). Full context matters. So you would ground absolutist doctrine and practice on the idea that if either parent might not have been a believer, this makes the child Anabaptist and justifies the baptism being delayed? These are not Augustinian / Calvinist theologians, for one thing, and my argument is not an Anabaptist one. It is against what was neither instructed about in the Scriptures regarding believers' children either way, nor ever exemplified in the earliest centuries as being uniform but was developed into that in the following centuries and since--it is against the removal of mystery and variability for the sake of dogma, uniformity, and readily identifying other Christians as heretics and enemies. It makes no difference to me whether it is Catholics doing that or Anabaptists doing it. Whatever else may be said, Paul specifies that baptism is a function of faith in the working of God (Col. 2:12), part of grace through faith, without any suggestion anywhere that this is by proxy as well. Making that scripturally-absent proxy concept absolutist, though, would certainly be a great way to facilitate compulsory conversions in other, later settings, too, wouldn't it?

[@GregSanders-m8w]

St John Chrysostom and St Augustine both said infant baptism was an apostolic tradition - this is perhaps the weakest argument to leverage the supposed circumstances of their baptisms. Humble yourselves and listen to the fathers. The holy fathers of the 300’s and 400’s know the fathers of the 200’s and 100’s much better than you and I do, and they would run circles around all of us in knowledge of scripture, and the apostolic deposit!

[@ReluctantPost]

@@GregSanders-m8w And that's why such a faithful Church exiled Chrysostom as a faithful bishop under sociopolitical pressure because he maintained the ancient Christian teachings on wealth?

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

@ante-nicenechristianity We think that it's fair to request that you discuss with the virtues of graciousness and charity. The sincerity of your objection is not enhanced by labeling ideas that differ from yours as being "from Satan." Declaring your conversation partner's words to be "limp brained" is counterproductive and unkind. Conversation is good. Unkindness is not.

[@jessedutch3086]

It will remain an unsettled debate till our graves. Strange enough I don't hear ANY theologians arguing that both infant AND believers baptism were practiced from the beginning. I tend to think that Christianity from the start quickly practiced both ways in the first century already, like the church divided on so many points already under the governance of the apostles.

[@mpenner2124]

There is an excellent review of that perspective under another thread here, timmartinblogger or similar starting it.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

The James led church was solid, the Pauline church was full of divisions, heretics and pagan philosophy

[@joshuas1834]

​@@Benjamin-jo4rf not all of Paul's church plants were like that. The Thessalonians seemed to be doing pretty well. But you would expect the gentiles, who lacked knowledge of the Old testament and brought many pagan habits with them, to be more difficult to deal with than the Jewish Church that James oversaw.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

@@joshuas1834 Thessalonians was the first of the Epistles. Things seemed to spiral out of control very quickly.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The simple reason is that no-one disputes that believer's baptism was practiced from the outset; it's only paedobaptism that is disputed. It's pretty hard to argue with any integrity that Jesus contemplated anyone other than disciples being baptized when he gave the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). Early church writers, too, restricted baptism to those old enough to have been discipled and who had repented of their sins and expressed saving faith. For example, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Tertullian (c.160-220), writing c.205-210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism. Even the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) restricted baptism to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Baptismal deferral was also quite common then, even among the clergy. For example: • Basil of Caesarea (330-378) wasn't baptized until he was appointed reader there (c.356). • Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) wasn't baptized until c.362 - by his father who was himself bishop of Nazianzus - at about the time he was ordained a presbyter there. • Ambrose of Milan (c.339-397) wasn't baptized until he was appointed bishop there (374). • Nectarius (?-397), who was already a praetor (magistrate) of Constantinople, wasn't even baptized until he'd been appointed to preside over the Council of Constantinople (381). • John Chrysostom (c.349-407) wasn't baptized until 368 or 373, when he was appointed as a reader in the church. Many other Christians deferred baptism so as to not lose their salvation, remaining as catechumen for years. Constantine (306-337) wasn't baptized until he was near death, in 337, and it is on this basis Constantine is often wrongly accused by his critics of not being a Christian during his reign. However, Constantine's reason for deferring his baptism was his concern that, as Emperor, he might be obliged to do things regarded as sinful (there was a strong ascetic undercurrent running through the church, deeming all manner of activities sinful) and, if he was baptized, he would forfeit his salvation. So, like so many others of his day, he lived as a catechuman, until May 337 when he was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Paedobaptists will often point to various 'household' texts (e.g. Acts 10:2-48; 16:14-15, 25-33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16) to justify paedobaptism, arguing that 'household' includes children and infants and, hence, those children and infants obtained baptismal remission of their sins. Credobaptists, though, typically do not deny baptism to children mature enough to express both: repentance of their sins; and saving faith in Jesus Christ. Moreover, when we examine the 'household' accounts closely: • Acts 10:2 portrays Cornelius as a devout man who feared God _with all his household,_ implying everyone in that household was mature enough to 'fear God'. Additionally, they were all present to hear (ἀκούω - akouó, meaning to hear with understanding) Peter (Acts 10:33) and all received the Holy Spirit with praising God and speaking in tongues and it is only the people who did so that were baptized (Acts 10:44-48); • Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) is not said to have been married (the fact she prevailed upon the apostles in her own right suggests not) or, even if she was, to have had infants or children too young to have repented of their sins nor expressed saving faith, so there is no reason to suppose such infants or children were part of her household. It is also difficult to see how she might have been engaged in trade over 600km from home (the distance from Philippi to Thyatira) with an infant or young child; • Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-33) that salvation was available to all in his household who believed, and all of whom are said to have been baptized and to have rejoiced in their belief. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; • Crispus (Acts 18:8) believed in the Lord, together with all his household. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; and • Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) and his household were baptized but 1 Corinthians 16:15 clarifies that his whole household had "devoted themselves to the service of the saints". Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough both to: convert to Christianity; and devote themselves to serving.

[@GregSanders-m8w]

Why did david leave out Hippolytus and Origen from his dictionary section on "the question of infant baptism"? They both say infant baptism is a doctrine the church received directly from the apostles. Interesting he left out those excerpts (two of the most important textual witnesses to the practice from Rome to Alexandria). Yet David quotes Origen as an authority in order to reject doctrines from the unified church of the first millenia. This is why many do not trust his carefully prooftexted portrayal of the early church. Not one single writer in the ante nicene fathers denies the viability of infant baptism. Not one. Tertullian says to wait *because* infant baptism is viable, and gives the same instruction to unmarried adults for the same reason. The notion that believers baptism was the norm in the 4th century is nonsense. The anabaptists that leave for the ancient churches are the ones that read the fathers for themselves. I suggest to the anabaptists listening to David's prooftexted lectures and dictionary that they read the holy fathers for themselves - you are all being misled and you don't even know it.

[@demcdoug]

David's criteria required a significant number of writers addressing a subject, and widespread agreement among them. Apparently, the topic of infant baptism did not meet those criteria.

[@GregSanders-m8w]

The notion that it does not meet that criteria is biased delusion. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Origen, Roman catacombs, etc. (and before you deny Irenaeus, know that David used to claim his text as pro infant baptism because Irenaeus was the mentor of Hippolytus as they lived in southern france and rome respectively - they knew each others). The only recorded controversy over this topic in the early church is a council to determine if the children should be baptized on the first day or the 8th day like in Israel. The protestants claim Justin Martyr saying to fast etc, but St Hippolytus, among others, suggest the same thing, in addition to baptizing infants (another protestant argument of straw). By the way, David's dictionary lists Tertullian's work "On Baptism" in 198 AD - so the fact that he keeps telling people there is no evidence for this until the 3rd century is inaccurate even by his own scholarship.

[@demcdoug]

Perhaps the greater challenge is in starting with traditions and finding justifications for them, rather than starting with the scriptures without traditional bias clouding the understanding. It's a difficult task. What scripture would you offer that shows us the inspired instruction that disciples should "do and observe" (cf Mt 28:19-20) the sprinkling of unwitting infants?

[@GregSanders-m8w]

Tertullian is writing about a known practice around him..... this among roman epitaphs reaches well into the 100's. Do the anabaptists believe in pentecost? Do they believe the holy spirit will "lead you into all truth" ? Or do they believe this is a false teaching Christ allowed to universally permeate his church very early on? David painting the early church as rejecting infant baptism is absurd and delusional - even Gregory of Nazianzus who he steals excerpts from explicitly states that infant baptism is viable, but suggests to consider waiting til 2 or 3 - does that sound like an anabaptist to you? There is no one else to pull from..... no fathers to prooftext with, though he may try.

[@GregSanders-m8w]

A few questions to pose for this topic - where in holy scripture is "age of accountability" located in the new testament? John Calvin called the anabaptists "Catabaptists" aka "against baptism" because they rejected the sacramental nature of baptism (Not advocating for calvinism, but Calvin got that right - and spoiler alert, the anabaptists got this from their spiritual father Zwingli - who infamously denied the holy mysteries - baptism, eucharist, etc). Where in holy scripture do we find a man's children being baptized? Where do we find in scripture baptism being compared to circumcision as the sealing of the new covenant, and what age was circumcision performed in the old Israel vs the new israel (the church)? Where does Christ say "This promise is to you and your children" in regards to baptism and the bestowing of the holy ghost? Where does Christ say "Suffer the children to come unto me for **theirs** is the kingdom of heaven" and "unless you are born of water and spirit you cannnot enter my kingdom"? Can the children enter His Kingdom (His Kingdom is the church)? Did you know the early church gave the eucharist to infants and little children, and always have? How do you know this precludes all of a man's children being baptized with him in the new circumcision? Where in scripture does it compare baptism to the crossing of the red sea, where all of israel was delivered from pharaoh ? Did St Paul write his letters to corinth, galatia, ephesus, etc with the intention of writing an exhaustive treatise of all things pertaining to baptism? If he did not, then who clarified and preserved these traditions in 150, 200, 250, 300 AD etc? Did you know triple immersion was an apostolic oral tradition? Did you know the sealing of the holy ghost (Christmation) was an apostolic oral tradition? Did you know the fathers all believed in oral tradition? Do you think it is perhaps possible the entire church was not universally steered into error for nearly 1500 years, and instead the apostles clarified these things to their bishops, who then clarified these things to their flocks, and St Irenaeus, the grandson of the apostle John, did not get this wrong? The Roman papists introduced the innovation of sprinkling as the normative baptism - whereas the apostles permitted pouring only as a last resort (see didache). Sprinkling, as the normative form, is a departure from the apostolic tradition. The Church has always had parents "speak for their children who cannot speak for themselves" - this apostolic tradition is defended by St Hippolytus of Rome in his work entitled "Apostolic Tradition" - he is defending the apostolic traditions against innovation in 215 AD - read this work for yourself with a humble heart and open mind - you will not be able to reconcile any protestant sect with what you read in that document. I believe this doctrine is drawn out across the witness of many scriptures in the NT, but this is not all irrefutably clear in the NT like a document from a title attorney - it never needed to be, because as St Paul said to Timothy "the church is the pillar and ground of truth". If I may say so respectfully, you say "show me in scripture", but St Ireneaus, the grandson of St John the apostle says “One should not seek among others the truth that can be easily gotten from the Church. For in her, as in a rich treasury, the apostles have placed all that pertains to truth, so that everyone can drink this beverage of life. She is the door of life.” - St Irenaeus of Lyon 180 AD. (I will presume you know where all the scriptures are that answer these questions, otherwise you likely would not be asking - cheers!) sorry this is so long!

[@Jeff_Huston]

Infant and " Believers" baptisms have always existed and always will. As a convert to Eastern Orthodox, I'm an example of the latter. The important point here is that both must be done as an actual sacrament within The Church (which would include Chrismation), not merely as a "public testimony" officiated by anyone. Even so, so long as a baptism is triune (in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), the Orthodox Church will recognize that baptism and then complete the sacrament with Chrismation when a convert enters The Church.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Thank you for introducing us to how the Eastern Orthodox church thinks about and practices baptism. We're on the same page with baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

The earliest writings we have on the subject by any church father are by Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) and Tertullian (c.160-220). Justin viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Tertullian, writing c.205-210, objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). This reservation of baptism for professing believers is consistent with what we find in the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4), which reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. Even the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) restricted baptism to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). What is more, as alluded to in the _Apostolic Constitutions,_ baptismal deferral was quite common then, even among the clergy. For example: • Basil of Caesarea (330-378) wasn't baptized until he was appointed reader there (c.356). • Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) wasn't baptized until c.362 - by his father who was himself bishop of Nazianzus - at about the time he was ordained a presbyter there. • Ambrose of Milan (c.339-397) wasn't baptized until he was appointed bishop there (374). • Nectarius (?-397), who was already a praetor (magistrate) of Constantinople, wasn't even baptized until he'd been appointed to preside over the Council of Constantinople (381). • John Chrysostom (c.349-407) wasn't baptized until 368 or 373, when he was appointed as a reader in the church. Many other Christians deferred baptism so as to not lose their salvation, remaining as catechumen for years. Constantine (306-337) wasn't baptized until he was near death, in 337, and it is on this basis Constantine is often wrongly accused by his critics of not being a Christian during his reign. However, Constantine's reason for deferring his baptism was his concern that, as Emperor, he might be obliged to do things regarded as sinful (there was a strong ascetic undercurrent running through the church, deeming all manner of activities sinful) and, if he was baptized, he would forfeit his salvation. So, like so many others of his day, he lived as a catechuman, until May 337 when he was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

[@jvlp2046]

The English word ROCK in Greek is "PETRA" (in female form) while "PETROS" (in male form) means small stones or pebbles, and not ROCK (Large Stone)... The Greek dilemma was Simon Bar-Jonah was a Man (Male), calling him PETRA in Greek would not be right, logically speaking... So, to solve the problem, they resort to the male form which is PETROS (pebbles/small stones), which is PETER in English, and PEDRO in Spanish (Transliteration). Facts and Truth of the Matters... Biblically, Logically, and Rhetorically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@rogersiders3702]

David must have changed his mind about infant baptism. Yesterday, I listened to his audio message on infant baptism. It was made years ago and quoted numerous early Church fathers. David said infant baptism was practiced even before the year 200. I don't understand why he has changed his mind.

[@ReluctantPost]

So change to apostolic teachings and practice was widely accepted by the early third century, then, and quite possibly the second? (Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who argues for carefulness in what he would otherwise forcefully deny as apostolic or show as being heretical if he thought that was true.) We are not given biblical guidance regarding believers' children and there is no indication that either approach was universal, as the Catholic or Anabaptist views would like. There was a natural, biblical association between baptism and the practice of circumcision, though. Anabaptists were completely right to reject the distorted "infant baptism" that was a political device of citizenship on earth.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

Just a few years ago before David bercot decided he was going to be a mennonite he was firmly pro infant baptism

[@ReluctantPost]

@@Benjamin-jo4rf I don’t think he ever accepted the notion of baptism into the Church and state together rather than into Christ and His holy Church. “Holy orthodoxy” must be the first before it can ever be the second, but this corruption has been the most universally offered historically.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

@@ReluctantPost regardless of if what you say is true, he openly, publicly and aggressively supported infant baptism just a few years ago while he was an ordained priest in the Church of England's USA division. The Anglican Church. This is a fact. You can tell yourself whatever you want to make yourself feel better but that is an indisputable fact.

[@ReluctantPost]

@@Benjamin-jo4rf 1) He was never part of ECUSA. He was ordained in the more conservative and traditional Continuing Anglican communion; 2) Since he has a CD on the subject of his changed position, called Bercot vs. Bercot, there would hardly be a point in arguing that an Anglican priest did not believe or teach their doctrine, nor do I imagine it making anyone feel better (?). The point of my post is that neither of the positions typically argued enjoy untainted support and practice from both the Scriptures and the ancient Church prior to Constantine’s reforms. The Anabaptists faced a world in which both the so-called catholic churches and those wishing to reform them treated baptism as a civic function of citizenship and birth records, not an initiation into dying daily with Jesus that we might live with Him. Genealogists still use those records today for that same purpose rather than being indicative of anything spiritual-the carnal corruption is useful.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

@@ReluctantPost I agree with you on pretty much everything you just stated, if not all of it. However I don't see much difference between the Anabaptists and the Catholics. Especially the Amish. They are so very similar, you can absolutely see the glaring similarities still lingering. The only real difference is the graven images, the prayers to saints and a few other things. I think a return to being true followers of Jesus is needed. Complete separation from cults and sects and following men is needed, whether those men be Luther, menno Simon, Amon, the early church pagan philosophers, etc.

[@Anabaptista-ESTEBAN]

I want to join a anabaptista church ... Please help i stay in Veracruz México, i have a wife and 3 kids🙏

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

The only Anabaptist churches in Mexico that we know of are listed here: churchindex.org/ It doesn't appear that any are in Veracruz. Whether or not God gives you an Anabaptist church, we hope that you continue to pursue a relationship with Jesus of loving discipleship in a community of believers.

[@cleanerfloors]

Baptism was already being practiced by Jesus' disciples after John the baptizer had baptiized Jesus. So baptism was certainly being used by the disciples even before the Resurrection, but not yet to all the nations. Now what is interesting is that when infants/children were brought to Jesus, HE only laid hands on them and prayed. Baptism was available; his disciples were already baptizing, yet Jesus did not command it be used on the infants. So lay hands on infants and pray is certainly following the example of the Lord, instead of baptizing them first and laying hands of confirmation on them later.

[@RichPohlman]

We do not see anything prohibiting infant baptism in the New Testament.

[@AnabaptistPerspectives]

Do you see clear endorsement of infant baptism in the New Testament?

[@kang7348]

@@AnabaptistPerspectivesyes!

[@IvanEck-h8u]

kang7348, I would simply ask, Where?

[@ruthgoebel723]

The Bible says in several places about whole households being baptized. Whole households would include children. The command to baptize all nations does not include a disclaimer of everyone of the 'age of accountability '. There is no biblical reference to age of accountability anywhere in Scripture.

[@demcdoug]

Yes, typically the Philippian jailer is the reference for this argument in Acts 16. But David makes the point ....which you can read for yourself, that the household of those who were baptized were also those who believed! Can infants believe? So then how do the hypothetical assumptions that you've been convinced to repeat stand up to the actual text? Another great question is what did they believe? What did they hear that led to their baptism? The answer is consistent throughout the New Testament. Acts 2:38-41; 22:16, 1 Pet 3:20-21, Rom 6:3-5, Col 2:11-12 ...and so on are but a few passages that demonstrate the purpose of immersion in the likeness of His death, burial and resurrection when enjoined by an active faith in His unique ability to save us, and its inclusion in every preaching of the Gospel. Jesus' own words in Mat 28:19-20 and John 3:3-5 likewise describe the purpose and necessity of discipleship, learning and observing His commandments and the rebirth involving both the water and the Spirit without which He said no one would enter His Kingdom. Note that in the John 3 passage, he indicated that one who doesn't understand or teach these most basic elements of His Gospel has no business teaching "Israel" (the children of God under the old covenant, nigh unto passing away). The good news in the case of Nicodemus is that he was humble enough to listen and change.

[@TimMartinBlogger]

Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother’s womb. - Psalm 22:9-10 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy. - Luke 1:44 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. - Luke 1:15 The ability for Children to believe and be filled with the Holy Spirit is fairly clear in these passages.

[@demcdoug]

@@TimMartinBlogger And so many of them are ready to be immersed that they exit the womb and fall on their faces in repentance for ...? I think we can see the extremely unique circumstances in Luke - the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy, both the one preceding Him to make the paths straight, and the Messiah ...who was Himself baptized "as an adult" insisting the need to fulfill all righteousness. John likewise expressed his need to receive baptism. We can find justification for about any doctrine that suits us by proof texting. But we are called on to rightly handle ...make proper application of the Word of Truth. Wouldn't you agree?

[@TimMartinBlogger]

​@@demcdoug I'd agree we need to rightly handle the word and you can get yourself into trouble proof texting. However, I do believe the Spirit can bring anyone, regardless of age, from death to life. To quote the hymn "I know not how the Spirit moves, convincing us of sin, revealing Jesus through the Word, creating faith in him."

[@demcdoug]

@@TimMartinBlogger There is no doubt that the rebirth of water and the Spirit must occur ...or that God knows those with ears to hear. For example, He did send Philip out to the Ethiopian Treasurer... to preach the Gospel beginning in Isaiah, and culminating in the new believer's excitement over the opportunity to receive baptism. But faith comes by hearing and understanding the Word of God. Can anyone "hear" without the preaching of the Gospel? Rom 10:17 and surrounding verses makes that affirmation and answers those questions. And Paul also made it clear: The Gospel is itself the power of God to save Rom 1:16) ...which is why in another place, he affirms that knowing the wrath of God, he and his companions endeavored to persuade men through his preaching thereof. Cornelius in Acts 10 may be a great (and extremely unique with a purpose explained in chapter 11) example that would seem to demonstrate your understanding. Note however that the Spirit "fell on them" in the hearing of the Gospel. Note also that Peter commanded them to receive baptism... and they all obeyed ...just as they all had been speaking in ... likely Hebrew, causing the Jews accompanying Peter to marvel, and later bear witness that the God had opened the Gospel (repentance that leads to life) to the Gentiles. So there it is again, a rebirth involving immersion in water and the Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel. And isn't that exactly what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3? So then why would you suppose one might replace immersing a convicted sinner in the likeness of His death, burial and resurrection (Rom 6:3-5; Col 2:11-12) with a sprinkling ritual? And from what spiritual death is the brand new baby being reborn?

[@jvlp2046]

One reason why God/YHWH through Christ Jesus, gave AUTHORITY to the CHURCH built upon the ROCK (Cephas), the Authority to BIND and LOOSE on Earth and in Heaven through the Apostolic Succession... The Purpose of the Apostolic Succession of God's CHURCH in Christ Jesus is to see to it that if any ARGUMENT (debate) in the Written Scripture arises among believers, God's CHURCH would be the Sole ARBITRATOR (Adjudicator) and must settle the issue through the MAGISTRATE (Church Elders) decision whether Heretical or not... The Protestants and Evangelicals do not have the KEYS to the "CHURCH'S APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION" towards the Authority to "BIND and LOSE" on Earth and in Heaven... NONE... They are the "PRODIGAL SONS" of the True CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST of the 1st Century A.D.... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Please learn to read what the New Testament writers actually wrote. In the _Greek_ text of the New Testament, Jesus _did not_ call Peter Cephas in Matthew 16:18-19. In fact, Jesus used two different words to differentiate Peter from the Rock upon which the church was to be built. Roman Catholics make much of Matthew 16:18-19, using it to justify their claims of Papal Authority and Papal Succession. However, they take Jesus’ words out of context and ignore the underlying meaning of the Greek text. *Matthew 16:13-19* _Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter_ [πέτρος (petros)], _and on this rock_ [πέτρα (petra)] _I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."_ Note, too, that Jesus didn't give Peter the binding and loosing authority at that time. That didn't happen until Matthew 18:18, when Jesus gave it to _all_ the apostles.

[@jvlp2046]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh CEPHA or KEPA is a Hebrew-Aramaic word for "ROCK"... which is the language used by Christ Jesus to his apostles at that time, and not Greek, Latin, German, or English, etc... Facts and Truth...

[@jvlp2046]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh The Original manuscripts of Peter, Matthew, John, James, and Jude were all HEBREW-ARAMAIC using their own native tongue and were translated by early Christian scribers into Greek... while the Original manuscripts of Paul, Mark, and Luke were already in the Greek language... God/YHWH only had chosen 8 Men of Christ Jesus Inspired by the Holy Spirit to rightfully "WRITE" the WORD of God/YHWH (Holy Scripture) in the N.T. ... Facts and Truth...

[@jvlp2046]

@@Berean_with_a_BTh The English word ROCK in Greek is "PETRA" (in female form) while "PETROS" (in male form) means small stones or pebbles, and not ROCK (Large Stone)... The Greek dilemma was Simon Bar-Jonah was a Man (Male), calling him PETRA in Greek would not be right, logically speaking... So, to solve the problem, they resort to the male form which is PETROS (pebbles/small stones), which is PETER in English, and PEDRO in Spanish (Transliteration). Facts and Truth of the Matters... Biblically, Logically, and Rhetorically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Keep telling yourself your lies if that gives you comfort, but please don't expect anyone else to swallow your garbage. Contrary to what you claim: • πέτρος (petros) denotes a small rock or a stone, such as one might throw, and even a pebble; and • πέτρα (petra) denotes a boulder, rocky outcrop, bedrock, or a cliff. The very fact that the Greek texts of the Gospels contain transliterated Aramaic & Hebrew expressions and their Greek translations tells against the Gospels being written in those languages. There are also well-recognised Christological Greek hymns in some of the gospels and epistles (e.g. John 1:1-17, Colossians 1:15-20, Philippians 2:6-11, etc.) proving them to not be translations from Aramaic or Hebrew. There is likewise no evidence that any of the Epistles was written in any language other than Greek. Moreover, the Aramaic/Hebrew primacy argument overlooks the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is quoted 283 times in the New Testament. Those quotes differ from the Septuagint about 185 times (65%). Hardly a ringing endorsement of it. But why quote from the Septuagint rather than from an Aramaic or Hebrew version of the Old Testament? Departures from the Masoretic text (which didn't exist at the time) are 10% worse, at 212 (75%), No recognised NT scholar supports the claims that the NT was written in Aramaic or Hebrew. The claim is ludicrous. To date, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, 11 of which date to the 2nd century. The earliest and most famous of these is the Ryland Papyrus P52, dating to 100-150AD, which contains a portion of John's Gospel. That is 400 years earlier than _any_ known Aramaic manuscript. It is widely accepted that the Peshitta version of the Old Testament was translated into Syriac from Hebrew in the 2nd century, and the New Testament from Koine Greek in the early 5th century. The earliest known Aramaic manuscripts of the Peshitta, which is demonstrably a Syriac translation of the Greek text of the NT, date from no earlier than the early 6th century. Syriac isn't even the same Aramaic dialect that was spoken in Israel in the 1st century. These manuscripts all evidence translation from a language other than Aramaic. Moreover, the earliest such manuscripts lack 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation - these were only added to the Peshitta in the 7th century. The earliest Hebrew manuscripts are demonstrably translations from over 1,000 years after the New Testament was written - in Greek.

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

1:35 infallible human writings not created for all humans to follow as gospel truth for the remainder of humankind. Exactly how Paul's Epistles should be read

[@cyclqal]

Hey just a question, Are you saying that Paul's Epistles no longer apply? I don't think I've heard that before, could you explain?

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

@@cyclqal I see direct conflict between Paul's Epistles and the teachings of Jesus and of the disciples who actually knew Jesus. I also see many other issues with Paul's "gospel" as he calls it. He differentiates it with the gospel of the other apostles he speaks negatively about. Why did Tertullian call pall the apostle of the heretics? Why did all the church's in Asia mentioned in Revelation abandon Paul? Paul says you can eat meat sacrificed to idols but Revelation warns against false apostles and eating meat sacrificed to idols. I am a follower of Jesus, not Paul.

[@cyclqal]

@@Benjamin-jo4rf Very interesting! What canon of scripture do you use then? Thanks for your time!

[@Benjamin-jo4rf]

@@cyclqal I don't subscribe to the whole canon thing. I don't trust the emperor's of Rome to decide what books I should read. I have lots of different versions with varying canons in them. I read the same Bible David bercot reads, the new text critical one from the missionary guy in Papua New Guinea, and many other "new testament" canons but I prefer looking at each book individually. OT I read the Orthodox Study Bible Septuagint, ArtScroll Tanach, and the interlinear for both Hebrew Bible and the "new testament".

[@cyclqal]

@@Benjamin-jo4rf Very interesting! Just for my edification, what are one or two passages you believe contradict the teachings of Jesus? I'd love to learn about this.

[@christianaronsen5553]

"They were fallible humans" - that is a really bad argument. So was Paul, Peter and James "Everyone in the baptised households believed" (paraphrased) - that is simply not true, it does not always say that. The reality is that there were most likely infants or children in these households, and that the Bible seems to say they were baptised. "Emergency baptisms show that believers baptism was the norm" - that is a very weird argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with believers baptism. The babies were baptised because they cannot believe, again, that has nothing to do with believers baptism. The church Fathers talks about infant baptism from the late second century, proving it probably happened before that. (Irenaeus 189AD) Say it happened in the 160s. At this point we are only a few generations away from the apostles (John dies in the 80s or 90s). It is very likely this is a teaching passed on from the apostles.

[@AlexandarShmex]

Simple answer, no. Baptism is invalid if it's not done after full commitment to being a serious Christian, being observed for a period of couple years and then baptism can be done because of one's own will and determination to be a Christian, after studying the Holy Scriptures and talking with theologians.

[@kang7348]

Ligma

[@Omega-AlphaStudios-lh1rz]

Sorry brother, I love your work, but they did. Study them closer. Not a single father opposed infant baptism

[@SupaFlossy95]

Nobody cares what these "fathers" opposed or didn't opposed. Scripture never taught infant baptism. First off, baptism doesn't save you. Babies cannot declare their faith.

[@Omega-AlphaStudios-lh1rz]

@@SupaFlossy95 how do you find the trinity in scripture?

[@SupaFlossy95]

@@Omega-AlphaStudios-lh1rz Mathew 28:19

[@Omega-AlphaStudios-lh1rz]

@@SupaFlossy95 yes, I agree

[@Omega-AlphaStudios-lh1rz]

@@JasonMcAllister-d9g What are you talking about brother? I do believe in the trinity

[@Captain_Autismo]

“Even if they are whole house holds it says they all believe” straight up lie re read ACTS. Says nothing about that.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

So which passages are you relying on? Paedobaptists will often point to various 'household' texts (e.g. Acts 10:2-48; 16:14-15, 25-33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16) to justify paedobaptism, arguing that 'household' includes children and infants and, hence, those children and infants obtained baptismal remission of their sins. Credobaptists, though, typically do not deny baptism to children mature enough to express both: repentance of their sins; and saving faith in Jesus Christ. Moreover, when we examine the 'household' accounts closely: • Acts 10:2 portrays Cornelius as a devout man who feared God _with all his household,_ implying everyone in that household was mature enough to 'fear God'. Additionally, they were all present to hear (ἀκούω - akouó, meaning to hear with understanding) Peter (Acts 10:33) and all received the Holy Spirit with praising God and speaking in tongues and it is only the people who did so that were baptized (Acts 10:44-48); • Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) is not said to have been married (the fact she prevailed upon the apostles in her own right suggests not) or, even if she was, to have had infants or children too young to have repented of their sins nor expressed saving faith, so there is no reason to suppose such infants or children were part of her household. It is also difficult to see how she might have been engaged in trade over 600km from home (the distance from Philippi to Thyatira) with an infant or young child; • Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-33) that salvation was available to all in his household who believed, and all of whom are said to have been baptized and to have rejoiced in their belief. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; • Crispus (Acts 18:8) believed in the Lord, together with all his household. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; and • Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) and his household were baptized but 1 Corinthians 16:15 clarifies that his whole household had "devoted themselves to the service of the saints". Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough both to: convert to Christianity; and devote themselves to serving. Matthew 28:19 is quite clear about who is eligible to be baptized - disciples.

[@Captain_Autismo]

I was only commenting on the eisegesis that is based purely on assumption and is not in line with patristic evidence. I don’t think any passage is per se enough to establish infant baptism. Rather, it is the purpose of baptism that establishes infant baptism, but that is not the question here: Acts 10:2. This simply means his household was God fearing. Similar to “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” It means children are brought up in faith or will be brought up in faith. If I say that is a God fearing family, I am talking about the attitude of the house in general. This is also similar to how Joshua says “as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” That does not by any stretch of the imagination imply that his entire household is old enough to serve the Lord, nor does jt mean they are excluded from the covenant. It simply means his household would honor God. We could say if Joshua, for example, that Joshua feared God along with his entire household regardless of if he had infants or not. We know baptism is a sign of the new covenant and we also know circumcision was given to infants so the burden of proof will always be on the credo Baptist in this regard. It is simply an argument from ignorance and a misunderstanding of how language works to gather that from this passage. If it is the case that baptism cannot be applied to infants than the new covenant is actually Worse than the old covenant because while the Old covenant could save a person’s children the new covenant could not. For all the other passages, it is the same pattern of eisigisis simply reading your views into the text with poor support and negating the most natural reading of it while also ignoring the broader themes of baptism as the sign of the new covenant, baptism as salvific, and the promises for one’s household being for one’s children. Another easy example of poor reading comprehension is your understanding of Matthew restricting baptism to disciples: It is a simple formal logical fallacy if all S is P it does not imply that All P is S. For example Matthew 28 says that all disciples should be baptized but that does not mean that all who should be baptized are disciples. Again you are reading in your own ideology and this ideology is contrary to the witness of the early church. The witness of the early Church, for example , Cyprian, Origen, Hypopytus, st Gregory, Athanasius and John Crysostun describe it as an apostolic practice to baptize infants. This is also re-enforced in canon 7 of the council of Carthage. So, it makes no sense to say these passages excluded infants and makes more sense to read them in their natural sense that the entire household, regardless of who that consists of, were baptized. The overwhelming patristic evidence against places the burden of proof on the credo Baptist. He must find a passage that prohibits baptizing infants and can no longer argue from silence.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

@@Captain_Autismo No matter how much they want to push their paedobaptist narrative, the the Great Commission, the plain reading of all the related passages and the history of the early church are inconveniently against it. For example, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before. Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Tertullian (c.160-220), writing c.205-210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20). Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism. Even the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) restricted baptism to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). What is more, baptismal deferral was quite common then, even among the clergy: • Basil of Caesarea (330-378) wasn't baptized until he was appointed reader there (c.356). • Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) wasn't baptized until c.362 - by his father who was himself bishop of Nazianzus - at about the time he was ordained a presbyter there. • Ambrose of Milan (c.339-397) wasn't baptized until he was appointed bishop there (374). • Nectarius (?-397), who was already a praetor (magistrate) of Constantinople, wasn't even baptized until he'd been appointed to preside over the Council of Constantinople (381). • John Chrysostom (c.349-407) wasn't baptized until 368 or 373, when he was appointed as a reader in the church. Many other Christians deferred baptism so as to not lose their salvation, remaining as catechumen for years. Constantine (306-337) wasn't baptized until he was near death, in 337, and it is on this basis Constantine is often wrongly accused by his critics of not being a Christian during his reign. However, Constantine's reason for deferring his baptism was his concern that, as Emperor, he might be obliged to do things regarded as sinful (there was a strong ascetic undercurrent running through the church, deeming all manner of activities sinful) and, if he was baptized, he would forfeit his salvation. So, like so many others of his day, he lived as a catechuman, until May 337 when he was baptized on his deathbed by Eusebius of Nicomedia.

[@Macropod_]

​@@Captain_Autismo Seems to me you are the one engaged in eisegesis. Pretty crass eisegesis at that!

[@Captain_Autismo]

@@Macropod_ Hmmm if only there was some type of authority that could tell us the authentic interpretation that is guided by the Holy Spirit. Welp guess we’ll never know!