(Not a papist) Peter describes the mode of baptism’s efficacy, i.e. in what sense baptism saves us (namely by faith in the promise of grace sealed by it), not whom the proper recipients of baptism are (which all scripture teaches to be those who profess the true religion and their children)

>>18506927
>which all scripture teaches to be those who profess the true religion and their children
>and their children
even if they don't have an answer of a good conscience? how so? is it merely the eisegesis wherein when a "house" is saved (or even, when a house "believes", which infants are incapable of), you interpret it to mean infants were baptized (which was written nowhere in the text)?

I'm not going to answer you because of your manifest disrespect.
Don't bother replying either, this thread is already dead.
Spell the name of the Catholic Church properly for once, you malignant scoffer.

>>18506940
sorry, CatholiX Church*

>>18506936
>even if they don't have an answer of a good conscience? how so?
Because of the promise to Abraham, “I will be a God to you and to your seed after you”.
>is it merely the eisegesis wherein when a "house" is saved (or even, when a house "believes", which infants are incapable of), you interpret it to mean infants were baptized (which was written nowhere in the text)?
It’s not eisegesis, no. First of all, whether infants are baptized in those passages is immaterial, what matters is that *households* were baptized and not individuals. There could have been infants, but it is a demand of your theology that there was not (which is the imposition of your theology on this text of which it says nothing). Second, in Acts 16:34 they are baptized not because they believed, but because he believed.

>>18506959
Do infants have an answer of a good conscience toward God?
If someone else's belief is enough, then do the Mormons have a point with their confirmations by proxy?
It is not a demand of my theology that no infants were baptized. Rather, the text never mentions an infant being baptized. Therefore, it is eisegesis.
>If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest
Can the adult children of converts be baptized unconditionally due to their parent's faith? Why or why not?

>>18506966
"baptized unconditionally due to their parent's faith" sounds like a contradiction. I mean, without any personal conditions on THEIR part, it being ALL on the condition of their parent's faith. Like how it works if they were an infant.

>>18506966
>Do infants have an answer of a good conscience toward God?
Do they have notitia, assensus, and fiducia? No
>If someone else's belief is enough
*Nobody*, including an adult professor, is baptized on account of their belief (which is internal to man’s heart and inaccessible to others), but on their objective and external membership in the covenant of grace. The same for covenant children.
>It is not a demand of my theology that no infants were baptized. Rather, the text never mentions an infant being baptized. Therefore, it is eisegesis.
It is demanded by your theology that no infants were baptized, or else you are wrong. The text states that whole households were baptized, without saying if infants were or were not included. I do not claim that infants were among those baptized, but you claim they were not, a positive claim stated nowhere by the text. The eisegesis is yours.
>Can the adult children of converts be baptized unconditionally due to their parent's faith? Why or why not?
No, because they do not belong to their parents’ household and are not under them as their federal head.

>>18506982
The condition is divine grace. In your Pelagian theology, baptism is an act of man’s own righteousness, in the bible it is a gift of God’s grace.

>>18506987
>I do not claim that infants were among those baptized, but you claim they were not,
I do not claim this. I just find it highly unlikely considering not only is it never mentioned, but all example of individual baptism involve people who are not infants.
>but you teach infant baptism is wrong, ergo if believer's did it, then it is right
believer's can do wrong things. my theology is not dependent on believers always doing right things. though again, I find it highly unlikely, since not only is it never mentioned, it is contraindicated by numerous verses.

>Can the adult children of converts be baptized unconditionally due to their parent's faith? Why or why not?
>No, because they do not belong to their parents’ household and are not under them as their federal head.
Okay, at what age does this end and why?

>>18506992
>baptism is an act of man’s own righteousness

>Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
>But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
>And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh US to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

>The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Baptism is (part of) an answer of a good conscience toward God, which is righteousness.

>>18507005
>I just find it highly unlikely considering not only is it never mentioned
The presupposition that there would be something noteworthy about it is unbiblical and as an argument it begs the question. Infant baptism is the continuation of the old covenant practice of infant circumcision. For it to be abrogated is what would be seen as extraordinary and require explicit note, but scripture does not say this, ergo it is false. Who gave Baptists the authority to abrogate the commands of God?
>all example of individual baptism
Are an extreme minority compared to the many thousands said to be baptized without further detail.
>believer's can do wrong things
The believers in question are the apostles of Jesus Christ. If you are wiser than them, so that their example does not bind you, why do you trust their written words in the New Testament at all?
>it is contraindicated by numerous verses
You cannot show me a single verse in the entire bible where infant baptism is contradicted.
>Okay, at what age does this end and why?
2 Timothy 2:23 “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”

>>18507012
Pelagianism is damnable heresy. The bible teaches that salvation is not by man’s actions, but God’s grace alone Ephesians 2:8-9

>>18507012
>Baptism is (part of) an answer of a good conscience toward God
That isn’t what Peter says, baptism is not a good conscience toward God, but this is how “baptism doth also now save us”

>>18507018
Your answer is that you have no answer but your Church does it so it must be right.
Unless you can answer
>what age does this end and why?
Did the "households" in Acts have their older children/young adult children (if they were part of the household and under their father's authority) baptized along with their father?
Just as much as you say there could've been infants baptized in these households (because there is no bold explicit statement that there weren't), then I can say there could've been 15-year-olds baptized solely on account of their parents' faith. Because it's just made up and not congruent with the Bible, which says Baptism is an answer of the conscience, and that belief of the individual is a requirement.

>>18507019
Baptism itself doesn't save thoughever. The answer of a good conscience towards God (i.e. believing on the Lord Jesus Christ) saves.

>>18507022
>but this is how “baptism doth also now save us”
...which is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

>>18507029
>Your answer is that you have no answer but your Church does it so it must be right.
This is what you hallucinated me saying
>Unless you can answer
>>what age does this end and why?
No, this is a foolish question which Paul says to refuse. Do you dispute that people once are members of their parents’ household, and then cease to be? If not, this is a sophistical question. If so, then my only answer is to go back to eating crayons and stop wasting the time of adults.
>Did the "households" in Acts have their older children/young adult children (if they were part of the household and under their father's authority) baptized along with their father?
According to the text every member of the household was baptized.
>then I can say there could've been 15-year-olds baptized solely on account of their parents' faith
1. Nobody is baptized on account of anybody’s faith, but their own objective covenant membership 2. It does not follow, that because every member of the household was baptized, that therefore some were baptized who professed unbelief. This would be actually contradictory to the bible’s own teaching, so can be inferred logically not to have happened.
>which says Baptism is an answer of the conscience
Only your own imagination says this
>>18507030
Amen. Baptism doesn’t save, but God saves through faith in the gracious promises it signified and seals. In this sense baptism is properly said to save.
>>18507034
Correct, not a statement of what baptism is, but how it saves. The appeal of a good conscience is opposed to “the removal of filth from the flesh”, which baptism in fact physically does do. Hence baptism does not save physically, as though sprinkling with water was sufficient, but only those who have faith.

>>18507048
>It does not follow, that because every member of the household was baptized, that therefore some were baptized who professed unbelief.
No. What if there were 15-year-olds, professing neither belief nor unbelief, who were baptized along with their house. Since the Bible says the whole houses were baptized, and, according to you, regardless of the faith of the individuals under the authority of the householder. Why is a 15-year-old not a "covenant member" but an infant is?

>>18507058
>What if there were 15-year-olds, professing neither belief nor unbelief
That is impossible for one with a formed mind capable of rational thought.
>Why is a 15-year-old not a "covenant member" but an infant is?
It is a strawman argument. Again, the relevant aspect is that households and not individuals were baptized. You can disagree with the text if you want, but it doesn’t change what it says. Now, concerning the hypothetical of a 15 year old who denies the faith while his parents profess it, he is not to be baptized since he actively rejects the covenant and shows his separation from it. This an infant cannot do, who by God’s grace is born into a Christian family and the household of God.

I don't understand Baptists. Why in the Bible would there be blessings for households if the parent's devotion to God and wanting their kid to be included into God's family suddenly merit exclusion? When a baby gets baptized, it doesn't mean "Lol you're too young to choose God, therefore it's a sham", but that Grace becomes available to them throughout their life through the intent of the parent's and God's love. It doesn't automatically make them a Christian, but it does mean that God will be there to lead them into embracing him.

The arguments basically become "Uh, the text doesn't show a baby being baptized", as if discernment is basically impossible and not expected for a believer. When Paul talked about pagan meats, did he mean that literally and only about meat, or could that example be treated in a wider example with "Set your heart on Christ when engaging with any and all false idolatry"?

>>18507058
>>18507064
And to repeat myself again, it immaterial whether everyone in the household was a rational person actually professing faith, or not. In either case scripture construes baptism as being of households and not individuals.

>>18507065
>Why in the Bible would there be blessings for households if the parent's devotion to God and wanting their kid to be included into God's family suddenly merit exclusion?
very hard to parse what you are even talking about. however, the Bible states that people are admitted into God's family upon belief.
>But as many as received him [Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
dont take anything I'm saying as "children shouldnt be baptized"
rather, children should become believers as soon as possible (as soon as their understanding would allow, and thus make them liable to sin), and baptism should follow immediately after, as the standard of all biblical examples of baptism shows.

>>18507071
>rather, children should become believers as soon as possible (as soon as their understanding would allow, and thus make them liable to sin), and baptism should follow immediately after
So you’re saying children shouldn’t be baptized. Can you show us where the bible says this?
>the standard of all biblical examples of baptism shows
Every example of Christian baptism in the New Testament is of converts, i.e. adults who previously belonged to a different creed and now confess Christ. Can you show us a single example in scripture of what you advocate, i.e. a person born into and raised in the church who is not baptized until they personally profess faith?

>>18507064
>Again, the relevant aspect is that households and not individuals were baptized. You can disagree with the text if you want, but it doesn’t change what it says. Now, concerning the hypothetical of a 15 year old who denies the faith while his parents profess it, he is not to be baptized since he actively rejects the covenant and shows his separation from it.
Why do you make an exception? It says "households" were baptized. This logically includes people who did not believe. Is your only argument that "the text doesnt mention that"?
You sound like a baptist methinks.

>>18507071
>rather, children should become believers as soon as possible (as soon as their understanding would allow, and thus make them liable to sin), and baptism should follow immediately after, as the standard of all biblical examples of baptism shows.
Then it just becomes procedure and overlooks the fullness of the baptism of the heart, which is really what being a Christian is all about. I agree on the point that kids should be talked with about God, but with care and love. When you start mixing in "You HAVE to get baptized, or else your belief and heart simply doesn't qualify" is when you start treating faith as some procedural game that may even lead people to treat the faith as some kind of checkpoint game. The question becomes, "If baptism of the heart is insufficient, then why is it professed in the Bible at all?".

>>18507078
>Is your only argument that "the text doesnt mention that"?
No, my argument was this
>This would be actually contradictory to the bible’s own teaching, so can be inferred logically not to have happened.

>>18507073
>Every example of Christian baptism in the New Testament is of converts, i.e. adults who previously belonged to a different creed and now confess Christ.
If it mattered that baptism was done any other way in the subsequent generations then the Bible would mention it.
However, we have many very early writings on Baptism. Let us go to the Didache: it is specifically meant as an instructional tool for Christians in an era where there are now children of believers. It mentions that one should be instructed in the faith first and then fast prior to baptism. Infant baptism is not mentioned when it SHOULD BE since it is an instructional booklet.

>>18507085
I do not see how
>what doth hinder me from being baptized
>if thou believest with all thine heart though mayest
doesn't contradict infant baptism, therefore, infant baptism can logically be inferred to have not happened. or else Paul et al is in some grave conflict with Phillip.
If the Bible says one must believe with all thine heart, then it logically follows that those without the capacity to believe are "hindered" from being baptized.

>>18507088
You're appealing outside scripture to tradition. Should we treat Didache with the infallibility that we accord to The Bible? If you want to go that route, Tertullian, who originated the concept of the Holy Trinity, was in full support of baptism for babies. Who do we give priority to?

>>18507104
Logically you give priority to what came earliest, which is the New Testament, and between tertullian and the didache you choose the didache. also you should probably not trust abject heretics like tertullian (no, he did not start out good if he later went off the rails; tainted from the start). also, he did not come up with the Trinity. The Trinity is in the Bible.

>>18507098
You cannot see it by your own fault, and not scripture’s. 1. This verse is not original to the text of Acts, but an interpolation from centuries later. And the scribe who wrote it certainly believed in infant baptism 2. The Ethiopian eunuch was a convert. Hence as a prooftext it is simply irrelevant, since it neither substantiates your assertions nor contradicts ours. Therefore your argument is an irrelevant conclusion fallacy.
>If it mattered that baptism was done any other way in the subsequent generations then the Bible would mention it.
Again, the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one positing a change from the established practice of the old covenant which preceded the New Testament. Who gave you the authority to abrogate God’s commands?
>Let us go to the Didache
I prefer to go to the scripture, which is the supreme judge of all controversies and the sole font of divine religion. However, the Didache was intended for the catechesis of new converts and is therefore irrelevant.

>>18507120
>However, the Didache was intended for the catechesis of new converts and is therefore irrelevant.
it's intended for the instruction of clergy in myriad ecclesiastic matters thougheveralbeit

>1. This verse is not original to the text of Acts
unfortunately for you the majority text is God's Word, unless you think God would wait until thousands of years later to give people the "real" version. therefore you are proven to be a liar and or imbecile.

>>18507120
>since you are the one positing a change from the established practice of the old covenant which preceded the New Testament
also, if you're really going that route, then EVERYONE, no matter if they believed or not, had to circumcised in the Old Testament, even your slaves. you've already shown you don't believe baptism is actually analogous to that.

>>18507111
You're making my argument for me. If Tertullian was flawed, but could conceptualize a holy idea, why is the didache not met with the same scrutiny? Do you see that it's not clear cut that leading figures were all perfect in everything they wrote? You could even use Paul as an example, because he espoused urgency and his writings were flavored with the belief that Christ would return in his lifetime. Obviously that didn't happen. Humans under the sway of the Holy Spirit writing doesn't mean they're infallible, otherwise they would just be perfect demi-gods, including the apostles.

I agree the Trinity is in The Bible, but the exclusion of baby baptism isn't, so which way do you want to land your argument? Tertullian should be disregarded for being the first to bring the idea from the text, but baby baptism is a no no?

>>18507127
>Tertullian should be disregarded for being the first to bring the idea from the text
He wasn't the first. The New Testament was first.
>You could even use Paul as an example, because he espoused urgency and his writings were flavored with the belief that Christ would return in his lifetime.
what? Christ could return in anyone's lifetime (not talking about the modern Secret Rapture doctrine). That's what imminence is. Paul was not "wrong" for being under the impression Christ would return soon. He is returning "soon" no matter what.

>>18507134
>He wasn't the first. The New Testament was first.
You're just arguing semantics now, as if the Trinity was made apparent to all who read it before he conceptualized the idea. Acknowledging my Tertullian argument wouldn't give you the out to avoid reckoning with what I'm saying with appeals to tradition, would it?
>what? Christ could return in anyone's lifetime (not talking about the modern Secret Rapture doctrine). That's what imminence is. Paul was not "wrong" for being under the impression Christ would return soon. He is returning "soon" no matter what.
You want to sugarcoat it, when his writings made it clear what he believed:
>We who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord
He was mistaken. Does it make him less of an apostle? No, but it means that he carries the falliability of man, just as Peter believed in Jewish exclusivism, despite being Christ's right hand man when he was alive.

I gotta go. All I ask is to take it into consideration.

>>18507124
You are a creature of strife and deception. Are you not ashamed of yourself, fool?
>>18507126
Slaves were not permitted to be unbelievers under the old covenant. See for example Abraham’s chief slave Eliezer of Damascus, whose faith surpassed your own.

>>18507145
>He was mistaken
He was not mistaken you wolf. This statement is general and not specific, as though he said “those of us who are still alive”.

erm, bump much?

>>18506992
>In your Pelagian theology, baptism is an act of man’s own righteousness
You are the one who insists that a man can force God to fill a baby with grace/salvation/whatever regardless if that baby has faith.
>Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness.
If one considers submitting to baptism by proclaiming that Jesus is Lord and we will thus walk in his commandments, then yes, we do have righteousness through this faith. (There are probably quite a few other verses in Romans that could also be used to make this point.)
>"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Acts 2 even makes note of children being baptized, but not without mentioning that they should repent and welcome the message. Can a little baby do those things?
I'm not even one who argues that a conscious ceremony is essential, but I dislike how infant baptism takes away from one having self-reflection and repentance and submission to God as Lord, but instead relying on the water his parents asked a minister to pour on him.

>>18507154
>Slaves were not permitted to be unbelievers under the old covenant
???
>Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

>>18507104
>Tertullian
This is the worst early Christian writer one could choose to argue for infant baptism. He was so hesitant to baptize youths, that he even cautioned against baptizing unmarried people if they weren't securely guarded against sinful temptations:
>The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred — in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom — until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Also, baptism has nothing to do with water. It's poor exegesis to interpret the term baptism that way every time it appears in scripture.

>>18508611
Sort of true. But in general you can tell if it's about water baptism or the Baptism of the Spirit, or both.

>>18506940
Translation: I don't have an answer

>>18507884
The word “heathen” here is more correctly translated “nations”
>>18507868
>You are the one who insists that a man can force God to fill a baby with grace/salvation/whatever regardless if that baby has faith.
No, I don’t believe this. I believe I have specifically denied this ITT, i.e. the sacrament has no efficacy to those who lack faith. Man does not force God to act through word and sacrament, but He is pleased to do so. And the efficacy of God’s grace is not contingent on anything good in man, like faith, but it is the cause of it.
>I dislike how infant baptism takes away from one having self-reflection and repentance and submission to God as Lord, but instead relying on the water his parents asked a minister to pour on him.
Baptism is the ground of the call to repent and believe. As our children are baptized into Christ, they are called to live in light of that baptism, with faith in what they were baptized into. If our children are not baptized, but treated and regarded as heathens, there is no more basis to raise them up in the Lord, teaching them to believe in Christ and how to live acceptably in His sight, and expect them to be and live as Christians, than there is for a Hindu priest.

>>18509028
>The word “heathen” here is more correctly translated “nations”
Did they instantly believe on the LORD upon purchase?

>>18506896
That’s when the anabaptists get called in or something like that