tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post115043288432020523..comments2023-05-30T02:34:51.780-05:00Comments on FullyPersuadedBaptist: Refutation of a PedobaptistJames McEntirehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150817950396877072006-06-20T10:39:00.000-05:002006-06-20T10:39:00.000-05:00This is so silly I am playing the fool to even ans...<B>This is so silly I am playing the fool to even answer it.</B><BR/><BR/>Obviously your level of frustration is rising.<BR/><BR/>The fact is we disagree! It would be easy for me to say that I was playing the fool to answer several of your assertions. I suppose the silliness of the arguments are in the eye of the beholder. I must move along to other issues. You had the last word here which is more than fair since the blog belongs to me. There are plenty of arguments to consider for anyone who stumbles across this debate. Any further arguments you attempt to post here at this time will be deleted.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the tone of your debate up to the last post!James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150815457027080052006-06-20T09:57:00.000-05:002006-06-20T09:57:00.000-05:00The word infant in Luke as we have already establi...<B>The word infant in Luke as we have already established could possibly mean a little child, it does not necessarily mean baby.</B><BR/><BR/>No, sir. Properly understood, in the context Luke supplies, the word <I>brephe</I> canNOT possibly mean a little child. That might have been possible but for Luke’s insertion of the word <I>kaio</I>. When Luke says that there were “also” or “even” infants being brought to Jesus, there can be absolutely no doubt that he intends for us to understand infants. If he is using <I>brephe</I> as a synonym for <I>paidion</I>, then the use of <I>kaio</I> makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It wouldn’t belong in there.<BR/><BR/>The so-called preponderance of the evidence does not prevail in this case, because the words selected by Matthew and Mark CAN include infants. Where Matthew and Mark leave us uncertain as to whether infants were among these small children, Luke tells us plainly, “Yes, there were <I>also</I> infants.”<BR/><BR/>The disciples did not believe that infants could receive the things of God. Our minds tell us the same thing even today. An infant cannot comprehend its sinfulness. An infant cannot understand who Jesus is. But the kingdom of God belongs to small children – even infants; because that is what scripture says. <BR/><BR/>When I say that there were infants present I am not assuming ANYTHING. I am yielding to the plain meaning of the words in scripture and not allowing what I perceive with my senses to overrule what the Lord Jesus Christ has so clearly said.<BR/><BR/><B>[Eric] They were NOT coming on their own… [James] Then how could they be forbidden?</B><BR/><BR/>This is so silly I am playing the fool to even answer it. If you were bringing your baby girl (an infant) for a picture on Santa’s lap (and I know you wouldn’t do that, but stay with me for a second), and the elf said, “No, we can’t take her picture, she’s too small;” to whom was the picture “forbidden”? You and your daughter both, right? It’s not just you being turned away, and it’s not just your daughter – it’s both. And it is primarily her, because she was the one who was going to receive something from Santa. But if Santa intervenes and says, “Come on, let that cute little baby come sit on my lap,” is he telling your infant to jump out of your arms and walk freely to him? No. The conclusion you are drawing from this one little word has absolutely no merit. In no way does this word suggest that infants were not among those forbidden by the disciples and welcomed by Jesus.<BR/><BR/><B>The point is they had the ability to walk up to Jesus. They were not babies. They were brought because their parents brought them to where Jesus was and then the children could approach Jesus without having to be carried.</B><BR/><BR/>This is pure assumption on your part. How does the text communicate this assertion?<BR/><BR/><B>Jesus called them to him</B><BR/><BR/>To assume that this means he called only the children who could walk up to him, and denied access to the infants among them is pure prejudice. Just as Santa calling your infant daughter in no way implies that she has the ability to come on her own, even so Jeus calling the children does not imply that they can walk to him on their own.<BR/><BR/>Come on, James, even Santa Claus wouldn’t be as selective as you think Jesus was. Why do you insist that Jesus refused to bless the infants? Why do you insist that he wasn’t talking about infants when he said that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these? Scripture says the opposite. Yield to the Word of God.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150761500908563322006-06-19T18:58:00.000-05:002006-06-19T18:58:00.000-05:00The proposition is this: Babies should be excluded...<B>The proposition is this: Babies should be excluded from the baptizing Christ has commanded the Church to do.</B><BR/><BR/>No, the proposition is this: Believers are the proper candidates for baptism.<BR/><BR/><B>Where is the testimony in Acts supporting this claim?</B><BR/><BR/>I have given the testimony supporting the claim that believers are the proper candidates for baptism.<BR/><BR/>Where is your undeniable, indisputable evidence for the proposition that babies are included in the command to baptize?<BR/><BR/><B>How does the testimony that says adults were baptized support the proposition that infants should not be baptized?</B><BR/><BR/>To begin with it is not that adults were baptize. This is not my terminology. It is believers are baptized.<BR/><BR/>It is not the testimony that believers were baptized that support the proposition that babies should not be baptized. There is no evidence that babies were baptized. You are aruging for the postive, that babies are included in the command to baptize. Well, if so, give an example. There are no examples except what is built upon imagination and assumption. You have to imagine and assume that they were. I do not have to imagine and assume that believers were baptized.<BR/><BR/><B>Pastor Joe Schmoe preached Christ crucified for sinners in the town square and baptized 3,000 people. Do you know whether infants were excluded from that baptism? If so, how do you know?</B><BR/><BR/>If Joe Schmoe was a Baptist I know they were only baptizing belivers. In this case Joe Schmoe can go to the New Testament and find clear cut examples for his practice. If Joe Schmoe were a Pedobaptist then they were probably baptizing babies. In this case Joe Schmoe can go to the New Testament and not find one clear cut example of his practice.<BR/><BR/><B>If the testimony does not tell you that infants were excluded, then the testimony does NOT support the claim that infants were or ought to be excluded.</B><BR/><BR/>If the testimony does not tell you that babies were included then the testimony does not support the claim that infants ought to be baptized. The testimony does tell us that believers were baptized.<BR/><BR/><B>Acts does not say that infants were excluded from any baptism with unnamed recipients,</B><BR/><BR/>Acts does not say that infants were included in any baptisms with unnamed recipients. We do agree on this.<BR/><BR/><B>therefore Acts is completely silent on the question of whether infants should be included or excluded in baptism.</B><BR/><BR/>Acts is not silent on who is a candidate for baptism. It clearly establishes a pattern of belivers being baptized. The silence of Acts on the matter of baptizing babies does not strengthen your argument. It is like you are saying I have a witness that says nothing therefore my view is correct. Acts is not silent on my position. Believers were baptized.<BR/><BR/>I have evidence for my position in the book of Acts. When you go to Acts with your position you are met, by your own admission, with stony silence, but continue to contend that the practice is valid.James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150759839677061122006-06-19T18:30:00.000-05:002006-06-19T18:30:00.000-05:00I have not made this admission, because the text s...<B>I have not made this admission, because the text simply will not allow it.</B><BR/><BR/>The text does allow for it. <B>Broadly understood brephos can include small children, and broadly understood paidion can include infants.</B> So, it does allow for it.<BR/><BR/>Luke 18:15-17 - And they brought unto him also <B>infants</B>, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer <B>little children</B> to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a <B>little child</B> shall in no wise enter therein.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 19:13-15 - Then were there brought unto him <B>little children</B>, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer <B>little children</B>, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.<BR/><BR/>Mark 10:13-16 And they brought <B>young children</B> to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the <B>little children</B> to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a <B>little child</B>, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.<BR/><BR/>These were not babies. The perponderance of the evidence would cause one to look at this and say that it was little children coming to Jesus. The word infant in Luke as we have already established could possibly mean a little child, it does not necessarily mean baby. When we let Scripture interpret Scripture the logical conclusion is that little children are in question here, not babies.<BR/><BR/>You assume the presence of babies but we know there were little children (young child).<BR/><BR/><B>They were NOT coming on their own. This idea that they were coming volitionally is not found anywhere in the text.</B><BR/><BR/>Then how could they be forbidden, which Jesus plainly indicates they could.<BR/><BR/><B>The little children in question, infants among them, were being brought to Jesus. They were NOT coming on their own.</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to imply that they must be babies because they were brought to Jesus. But even older children are taken most of the places they go by their parents. There is no argument being made here that the children were here without their parents. The point is they had the ability to walk up to Jesus. They were not babies. They were brought because their parents brought them to where Jesus was and then the children could approach Jesus without having to be carried.<BR/><BR/>Jesus called them to him, so they were old enough to understand his command and old enough to go to him. So their parents bought them to where Jesus was and the children were old enough to hear, understand, and act upon the direction of Jesus to come to him, and at least some of them did.James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150755708771175212006-06-19T17:21:00.000-05:002006-06-19T17:21:00.000-05:00My interpretation of Matt. 28 is based on the test...<B>My interpretation of Matt. 28 is based on the testimony of the book of Acts.</B><BR/><BR/>The proposition is this: Babies should be excluded from the baptizing Christ has commanded the Church to do. Where is the testimony in Acts supporting this claim? How does the testimony that says adults were baptized support the proposition that infants should not be baptized?<BR/><BR/>Pastor Joe Schmoe preached Christ crucified for sinners in the town square and baptized 3,000 people. Do you know whether infants were excluded from that baptism? If so, how do you know?<BR/><BR/>If the testimony does not tell you that infants were excluded, then the testimony does NOT support the claim that infants were or ought to be excluded. Acts does not say that infants were excluded from any baptism with unnamed recipients, therefore Acts is completely silent on the question of whether infants should be included or excluded in baptism.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150754016674270572006-06-19T16:53:00.000-05:002006-06-19T16:53:00.000-05:00By your own admission there may not have been babi...<B>By your own admission there may not have been babies present [in the account of Luke 18:15-17].</B><BR/><BR/>I have not made this admission, because the text simply will not allow it. Here’s why.<BR/><BR/>When Matthew records the account in chapter 19 of his gospel, he uses the word <I>paidion</I> throughout. As we have already discussed, this word can apply to infants. Matthew is not saying that there were only small children old enough to come on their own, and no infants. He is saying simply that there were small children – children approximately four years old and younger – and he does not say specifically whether there were infants among them or not. It is possible, but he doesn’t tell us for sure.<BR/><BR/>Luke is different. He wants you to know that among the little children (v. 16) there were also/even <I>(kaio)</I> infants. Because the word <I>paidion</I>, which Jesus uses in verse 16, can, but does not necessarily, include infants; Luke wants to take away all our doubts and let us know with complete certainty that there were infants among these small children.<BR/><BR/>The little children in question, infants among them, were being <B>brought</B> to Jesus. They were NOT coming on their own. This idea that they were coming volitionally is not found anywhere in the text. They were being brought. Using a little imagination you have interpreted Jesus’ words, "Let the little children come..." to mean that the children must leave their parents behind and come on their own. But notice that it is the disciples who Jesus rebukes -- NOT the people bringing the children. In saying "Let the little children come..." Jesus is encouraging the adults to continue bringing the children. He is most definitely NOT saying that even these small children must come on their own.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150753897303871502006-06-19T16:51:00.000-05:002006-06-19T16:51:00.000-05:00True, but that is entirely irrelevant because it i...<B>True, but that is entirely irrelevant because it is not in dispute.</B><BR/><BR/>Of course it is not in dispute! The pattern is clearly set forth. This is the very reason why baptizing babies is in dispute, no such pattern is set forth. The only concrete pattern we have for interpreting Matt. 28:19,20 is believers were baptized. One can claim babies were baptized, but as you readily admit there is no concrete, indisputable evidence of that in the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>Your interpreation of Matthew 28:19,20 causes you to build an argument on silence and assumption in the book of Acts. My interpretaion of Matthew 28:19,20 is premised on the clearly established pattern from Acts that believers were baptized. As you admit, this is beyond dispute. And why? For the very reason that the evidence that believers were baptized is irrefutable. There is no such evidence in the Scripture for the baptizing of babies.<BR/><BR/><B>And on that issue Acts is completely silent.</B><BR/><BR/>It is not completely silent on who is baptized. It speaks over and over again to that very thing, believers were baptzied. You interpretation of Matt. 28 is based on silence and assumption in the book of Acts. My interpretation of Matt. 28 is based on the testimony of the book of Acts.James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150746028446471722006-06-19T14:40:00.000-05:002006-06-19T14:40:00.000-05:00Just a quick comment on one aspect of your most re...Just a quick comment on one aspect of your most recent post...<BR/><BR/><B>[Acts] does clearly establish the practice that believers were baptized.</B><BR/><BR/>True, but that is entirely irrelevant because it is not in dispute. We ALL baptize believers. There is not one group of Christians on earth that doesn't baptize believers. Not all denominations exclude infants, and not all denominations include infants. Where we differ is on the inclusion or exclusion of infants in the command to make disciples by baptizing and teaching all nations. And on that issue Acts is completely silent. Therefore, our understanding of Matthew 28:19-20 on that particular issue cannot be affected by any appropriate interpretation of the book of Acts.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150742507724681472006-06-19T13:41:00.000-05:002006-06-19T13:41:00.000-05:00Concerning the Book of Acts It does NOT say that i...Concerning the Book of Acts <B>It does NOT say that infants were baptized. It also does NOT say that they were excluded from baptism.</B><BR/><BR/>It does clearly establish the practice that believers were baptized.<BR/><BR/>Ac 2:38,Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.<BR/>Ac 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.<BR/><BR/>These were believers being baptized. They had repentance preached to them and they gladly received the word.<BR/><BR/>Ac 8:12 - But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.<BR/><BR/>They were baptized when they believed.<BR/><BR/>Ac 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.<BR/><BR/>He believed and was baptized.<BR/><BR/>Acts 8:36,37 - And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 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.<BR/><BR/>Philip indicates the requirement for baptism is belief.<BR/><BR/>Acts 9:<BR/>5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.<BR/>6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.<BR/>11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,<BR/>18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.<BR/><BR/>Paul had a conversion experience and then he was baptized.<BR/><BR/>Acts 16:13=15 - And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.<BR/><BR/>Vs: 13 He spake to the women.<BR/>Vs: 14 - Lydia's heart was opened and she attended to the things that were spoken.<BR/>Vs: 15 - Lydia and her household were baptized. Lydia after she attended to the things that were spoken by Paul. The pattern that is being established would seem to suggest that the others that were baptized had also attended to the things which were spoken.<BR/><BR/>Acts 16:30-34 - And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.<BR/><BR/>Vs: 30 - What must I do to be saved.<BR/>Vs: 31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.<BR/>Vs: 32 - Paul spake to him the word of the Lord.<BR/>Vs: 33 - The jailer and all his were baptized that same night.<BR/>Vs: 34 - The jailer and all his house were believing. Every one there was believing.<BR/><BR/>Ac 18:8 - And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.<BR/><BR/>They heard the word of God, believed, and were baptized.<BR/><BR/>You can argue that there may have been babies present and so there may have been. But they had to be old enough to believe. My position is that believers are baptized and the book of Acts endorses that claim by example<BR/><BR/>Even the gospels endorse that claim by example.<BR/><BR/>Mt 3:6 - And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.<BR/><BR/>They were confessing their sin. Do babies do this?<BR/><BR/>Luke 3:7,8 - Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.<BR/><BR/>John the Baptist required they bring forth fruits meet for repentance. He refused them baptism.<BR/><BR/><B>Broadly understood brephos can include small children, and broadly understood paidion can include infants. In Luke 18 they were bringing even brephe to Jesus, and the Greek scholars you honor the most (King James’ translators) said these children were infants. But when Jesus said, “Suffer the paidion to come unto me…” and said again, that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these, he was excluding the infants from those statements? Are you sure? How do you know?<BR/><BR/>This could conceivably be true, but if so, it is no less convoluted for being true.</B><BR/><BR/>Having agreed that the Greek words can have broad meaning we are left to examine the passage to attempt to discern the general age of the children. The children were to be allowed to come to Jesus indicating they were old enough to do so. They were not to be forbidden indicating they were old enough to desire it and thus were not to be forbidden. These children were of sufficient age to recieve the kingdom of God. They were not babies. By your own admission there may not have been babies present. Yet, you want to insist that there were in order to find an example of babies believing even though we do not understand how that can be. Why would you take the passage and create the absurdity of babies believing when the words do not necessitate the presence of babies.<BR/><BR/><B>How is it a fatal flaw?</B><BR/><BR/>Well I didn't expect it to be a fatal flaw to you, but it certainly is to me. I contend that baptism is for believers. I can provide clear evidence that believers were baptized. You contend that babies were baptized and you cannot provide clear evidence to that end. All of the passages that you have brought to the table thus far, if my memory serves me correctly, must at least allow for the fact that babies might not have been present. At every turn you are having to assume to give evidence of babies being baptized. I do not have to assume that believers were baptized, the pattern is there. Thus when I come to the passages where assumptions must be made I make the assumption base on a clearly established pattern. There really are not that many passage where we have to assume. You want to take the few where assumption must be made and establish the practice of baptizing babies on those few places?<BR/><BR/><B>I don’t have my source with me today, but I believe there are grave markers for infants and small children indicating that they had been baptized.</B><BR/><BR/>When you get a chance I would be interested in seeing the sources. No hurry.James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150731758480695562006-06-19T10:42:00.000-05:002006-06-19T10:42:00.000-05:00Thank you again for your gracious and kind words.I...Thank you again for your gracious and kind words.<BR/><BR/><B>I interpret [Mt. 28:19-20] as I said on the basis of how it was implemented in the book of Acts. They preached the gospel, baptized the converts, equipped them. I am more than satisfied with this position because it is comparing spiritual things with spiritual (Scripture interpreting Scripture).</B><BR/><BR/>With all due respect, sir, you are reading Acts as though infants were excluded from baptism in that book. This is not actually the case. Acts is <I>silent</I> on the question of infant baptism. It does NOT say that infants were baptized. It also does NOT say that they were excluded from baptism. If Acts did say that infants were excluded from baptism, then I would certainly concede that I have misinterpreted Matthew 28. But Acts does not say one way or the other whether infants were included or excluded. So our reading of Acts cannot affect our understanding of Matthew 28. Reading Acts as though infants were excluded from baptism is the result of reading it with the predisposition to believe that infants cannot receive saving faith, in conjunction with the idea that this somehow makes them ineligible for baptism (neither of which is actually supported by scripture).<BR/><BR/>This does shed more light on why you think my admission that the New Testament does not provide a single example of infant baptism is such a fatal flaw. YOUR position rests entirely on the assumption that babies were excluded from baptism in the New Testament. MY position rests on the scriptures that say infants and small children can and do receive the kingdom of God, in conjunction with the command to baptize and teach all nations without any exclusion.<BR/><BR/><B>So it seems as though Jesus is saying in verse 16 suffer the "little children" not babies to come unto me. Which is just how it is translated in the KJV. <BR/><BR/>And again in verse 17 it is translated little children not infants or babies. The word in both of these cases is not "brephos" but "paidion."</B><BR/><BR/>Broadly understood <I>brephos</I> can include small children, and broadly understood <I>paidion</I> can include infants. In Luke 18 they were bringing even <I>brephe</I> to Jesus, and the Greek scholars you honor the most (King James’ translators) said these children were infants. But when Jesus said, “Suffer the <I>paidion</I> to come unto me…” and said again, that the kingdom of God belongs to such as these, he was excluding the infants from those statements? Are you sure? How do you know?<BR/><BR/>This could conceivably be true, but if so, it is no less convoluted for being true.<BR/><BR/><B> Of course my position is that this is a fatal flaw in your logic not being able to give one clear example of babies being baptized in the New Testament.</B><BR/><BR/>How is it a fatal flaw?<BR/><BR/><B>Just out of curiosity, at what point do we have a clear undeniable historical example of a baby being baptized? I am truly curious about this point.</B><BR/><BR/>I don’t have my source with me today, but I believe there are grave markers for infants and small children indicating that they had been baptized. These date to the second century (less than 100 years after the apostles). In other words they are almost as old as the most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament currently available. There is other evidence, less concrete, suggesting that infant baptism was taking place during the lives of the apostles.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150596224985249852006-06-17T21:03:00.000-05:002006-06-17T21:03:00.000-05:00Thanks for your kind interaction! I appreciate th...Thanks for your kind interaction! I appreciate the very clear presentation of your arguments for it helps me to examine my own posititions in light of Scripture. Of course I disagree with your conclusions and the arguments you use to arrive at said conclusions.<BR/><BR/>I did find your arguing from Matthew 28:19,20 to validate infant baptism interesting as this is a view to which I have never been exposed. Even others with whom I have debated the issue have never argued this point, if so they had not done so as effectively as you have. Of course, again I disagree. I interpret the verse as I said on the basis of how it was implemented in the book of Acts. They preached the gospel, baptized the converts, equipped them. I am more than satisfied with this position because it is comparing spiritual things with spiritual (Scripture interpreting Scripture).<BR/><BR/>You sieze on the Greek "brephe" to make the argument that the children in question here are infants (babies). I looked the word up in Strong's and it seems there is disagreement on the use of the word.<BR/><BR/>In verse 15 it is "brephos bref’-os." Strong's defines the word as follows, of uncertain affin.; an infant (properly, unborn) literally or figuratively:— babe, (young) child, infant. Indicating it can be young child, child.<BR/><BR/>In the KJV brephos is used 8 times it is translated babe 5 times, child 1 time, infant 1 time, young child 1 time. This is by men who were Greek scholars. It seems possible that brephos may have a little broader meaning than what you are willing to allow.<BR/><BR/>Also in checking the Greek I noticed that when Jesus addressed the issue he used a different word in verses 16 and 17. In verse 16 he says little children and in verse 17 he says little child. In both cases this is translated from the Greek word "paidion pahee-dee’-on." Strongs defines this word as follows: a childling (of either sex), i.e. (properly,) an infant, or (by extension) a half-grown boy or girl; figuratively, an immature Christian:— (little, young) child, damsel.<BR/><BR/>The Greek word is used 51 times in the KJV and is translated in the following manner by those scholars; child 25 times, little child 12 times, young child 10 times, damsel 4 times.<BR/><BR/>So it seems as though Jesus is saying in verse 16 suffer the "little children" not babies to come unto me. Which is just how it is translated in the KJV. <BR/><BR/>And again in verse 17 it is translated little children not infants or babies. The word in both of these cases is not "brephos" but "paidion."<BR/><BR/><B>Yes... absolutely. I am conceding that there is no clear example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament.</B><BR/><BR/>With this statement you have earned my respect. I have never had anyone concede this point, you are the first. Of course my position is that this is a fatal flaw in your logic not being able to give one clear example of babies being baptized in the New Testament. I understand, I believe, why you do not feel it necessary, but again, I disagree.<BR/><BR/>Just out of curiosity, at what point do we have a clear undeniable historical example of a baby being baptized? I am truly curious about this point.James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150588987017146262006-06-17T19:03:00.000-05:002006-06-17T19:03:00.000-05:00James,Forgive me for neglecting to thank you for t...James,<BR/>Forgive me for neglecting to thank you for the compliment you gave me in your opening remarks. You called me "articulate," and I am sincerely grateful. Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I like your format of bolding so I’m going to stick with it. Your arguments are bolded, and unless otherwise noted they are direct quotes.<BR/><BR/><B>I have never said children can't do it. You want me to say that but I haven't. I have said babies can't. These children were able to and thus were not babies.</B><BR/><BR/>The text (Luke 18:15-17) says explicitly that these little children included infants. The Greek term (brephe) applies to newly born, nursing babies. It does not apply to any other category of child. None of these children were coming to Jesus of their own volition. They were being brought to him. This suggests that they were all very young. They were bringing even infants to him... the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God." These children, even the infants, were able to receive the kingdom of God – Jesus said, the kingdom belongs to them (perfect tense – it is theirs already).<BR/><BR/>Sound reason tells us that babies can’t have faith. A baby cannot have a conscious conviction of its own sin. It can’t. A baby cannot choose to trust in Christ or to surrender to him. We have eyes and ears and minds, and we know these things to be true. But in speaking of a group of children, which we are told explicitly included infants, Jesus says, "to such belongs the kingdom of God" – a kingdom that cannot be received apart from faith. Thus it follows without a shadow of doubt that our reason is wrong and Jesus is right – infants CAN receive saving faith in God’s only Son.<BR/><BR/><B>So are you arguing that babies can believe? How young might that be? Newborns? six weeks? eight week? Three months? Can babies believe something they cannot understand?</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I am arguing that babies can believe. How young? Sometimes even before they are born (Ps. 22:10; Lk 1:15), but ordinarily from the day they are old enough to receive the word of God (law and gospel) in baptism – that is, the day they are born. Can babies believe something they cannot understand? Given that they cannot understand, and given that Jesus nevertheless says they can receive the kingdom of God, I am forced to believe that newborn babies can believe something that they cannot understand. How? I don’t know. But they can, because my Redeemer says so quite clearly.<BR/><BR/><B>Well, I really am quite impressed. I would not pretend to be a Greek scholar and probably much to your chagrin do not find it necessary having absolute confidence in my King James Bible.</B><BR/><BR/>I am certainly no Greek scholar either, but I avail myself of the opportunity to read books by people who are. I am not chagrined by your lack of interest in the original language. Your King James Bible is certainly an excellent translation. Yet even in that translation, the imperative is "teach" and the participles are "baptizing" and "teaching." The participles refer back to the imperative and explain how it is to be carried out. This is clear in Greek, in Elizabethan English and in modern English. In other translations the reader has to close his mind to miss it. In King James 1611 it is much easier to miss because it says "Goe… teach… baptizing… teaching." But even in King James, if you look at it carefully, it is not too hard to see.<BR/><BR/><B>Are you conceding the fact that there is no clear example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament? You did write, "In neither argument am I asserting that infants were baptized in the New Testament." Am I understanding you correctly here?</B><BR/><BR/>Yes... absolutely. I am conceding that there is no clear example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>My argument is that Matthew 28:19-20 makes infant baptism a binding command upon all Christians. I believe Christians have a responsibility before God to make their children disciples. Scripture tells us this is done by baptizing and teaching them. Some forms of teaching must wait until they get older. There is, however, no form of baptism (not even full immersion) that must wait any longer than it takes for a baby’s belly button or circumcision to heal.<BR/><BR/>Since Matthew 28:19-20 commands infant baptism, I believe that infants were baptized in the book of Acts. However, I must concede that the eyewitnesses on the scene and/or Luke did not make a note of infant inclusion in the New Testament narratives concerning baptism. The silence of the narrative testimony on this subject does not affect my reading of Matthew 28:19-20 in any way. Nor should it have any bearing on that reading, logically speaking. Those two things are separate issues.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150505877816334632006-06-16T19:57:00.000-05:002006-06-16T19:57:00.000-05:00You write, "Yes, that is EXACTLY what he is saying...You write, "Yes, that is EXACTLY what he is saying. But admitting this puts you in the unenviable position of asserting that little children cannot do the very thing that adults must do in the manner that little children would do it if they were able."<BR/><BR/>I have never said children can't do it. You want me to say that but I haven't. I have said babies can't. These children were able to and thus were not babies.<BR/><BR/>You write, "its like saying Jack can’t sing, but if you want to be a singer you must sing as Jack would sing if he could sing."<BR/><BR/>How do we know how Jack would sing if he has never sung?<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "Yes, we are in complete agreement once again. But these children, who are old enough to believe, are infants. The Greek word is "brephos" (v. 15), and even the King James Version of 1611 translates it as "infants."<BR/><BR/>The point is they are old enough to believe. Babies are not.<BR/><BR/>You write, Wow!!! Three Lutheran agreements with a Baptist preacher in one day! Isn’t that a sign of the Apocalypse? :)"<BR/><BR/>Very funny! Too bad it is not true or you would finally be coming into the light. :0<BR/><BR/>You write, "Jesus was quite explicitly saying that these babies were eligible to receive the kingdom of God."<BR/><BR/>Babies??? How old?? Old enough to receive.<BR/><BR/>You write, "If they can receive the kingdom of God, which can only be received by grace through faith, then they are at least theoretically eligible for baptism – even by Baptist standards"<BR/><BR/>Yes, this would be true by Baptist standards. But they are also old enough to receive the kingdom of God.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "With all due respect, sir, you are assuming that the process of making disciples involves teaching, baptizing, and teaching observance. This is not what the text says. It says, "Go and make disciples baptizing and teaching them." The imperative is the compound "Go" and "make" disciples. The modal participles "baptizing" and "teaching" are subordinated to the imperative, and explain to us how the command is to be carried out. In other words, Matthew 28:19-20, properly understood, tells us to "Go and make disciples by baptizing and teaching all nations." The Greek bears this out as well. "Make disciples" is imperative(matheteusate). "Baptizing" (baptidsontes) and "teaching" (didaskontes) are participles. If Jesus had intended to say (as you suggest), "Having made disciples, baptize and teach them," then he would have said as much. "Make disciples" (matheteusate) would become "having made disciples" (mathateusantes), and "baptizing" (baptidsontes) and "teaching" (didaskontes) would become "baptize" (baptidsete) and "teach" (didaskete). This isn’t what was said, nor is it what was meant."<BR/><BR/>Well, I really am quite impressed. I would not pretend to be a Greek scholar and probably much to your chagrin do not find it necessary having absolute confidence in my King James Bible.<BR/>When I read what Jesus said in Matthew 28 and then see how that command was implemented in the book of Acts I believe it is then when I have the proper understanding of what Jesus meant. The pattern that I observe in Acts is that they preached the gospel, people were saved, they were then baptized, and then were equipped. Therefore my understanding of Matthew 28:19,20 is based solely on the implementation of that command in the book of Acts.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "This is an assumption that is not found in scripture. How can an infant (brephos) be elligible to receive the kingdom of God, but not be elligible to become a disciple?"<BR/><BR/>I am not sure what is the assumption that I am making? Is the assumption that we are dealing with people that can be taught? I do not believe that is an assumption, because we are talking about people who have the capacity to "observe." Babies cannot do this. Is it an assumption that babies cannot be taught so that they can become disciples? Well, I have never seen a baby that could? If by infant you mean baby then babies cannot receive anything?<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "Futhermore the command is to teach. I will be teaching my infant son the things of God from his very first days on this earth. In fact, I am reading scripture to him and his mother even now. I am commanded to baptize and teach him. I am not given responsibility to make sure that he attains any specific level of understanding either before baptism or after. In fact, there is no criteria given in scripture by which I might test his faith or test his understanding of the things of God. So what should I do? Should I invent the criteria that would admit him to baptism, or simply obey the command in both its parts?"<BR/><BR/>Again, this is just another paragraph that highlights our areas of disagreement on this issue.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "Here is where we run into the problem of making narratives normative and didactic (instructive)."<BR/><BR/>No, here is where you run into a problem of not being able to provide one clear, undeniable example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament. And this is the heart of my argument. I have pleaded for someone with your view to provide just one such example from the pages of the New Testament and it has never been done, because it can't be done. On the other hand we can provide clear, undeniable examples of believers being baptized. Until you can provide this critical piece of evidence your argument will not have any solid Biblical support in my estimation.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "Yet you read Biblical narrative accounts of mass baptisms and household baptisms where the narrator does not specifically mention the inclusion of infants, and you assume on the basis of the narrative account that infants were and of right ought to be excluded from baptism."<BR/><BR/>And you read the narrative and assume babies were present and that if they were present then they were baptized. You admit the narrative lacks certain details. You say babies were present and were baptized. I contend that if they were present they were not baptized. Why? Because in the passages where it is made clear who was being baptized it was always believers and never babies.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "In neither argument am I asserting that infants were baptized in the New Tesatment."<BR/><BR/>Is this a denial of infants being baptized in the New Testament. I don't understand?? I thought the whole point here was that you were asserting that babies were baptized in the New Testament and I was denying that assertion.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "The historical argument assumes that babies were NOT baptized in the New Testament, and challenges those who actually believe this to explain how it became the universal practice of the medieval church without even a hint of dissent on the subject."<BR/><BR/>I think I dealt briefly with this in my blog. Not a hint of dissent?? You obviously have not looked for evidence of dissent.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "The analogy is actually premised upon the meaning of the word "household" and/or "family." This is rather more concrete than my personal, subjective imagination or assumption."<BR/><BR/>It was you who used the words assumption and imagine in the analogy. The fact is household does not necessarily include babies. In my household there are no babies our youngest being nine. Because we have no babies are we not a household. There is a great deal of presumption in your arguments on this point.<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "That babies cannot believe is a perfectly rational assumption unsupported, and indeed contradicted, by scripture."<BR/><BR/>So are you arguing that babies can believe? How young might that be? Newborns? six weeks? eight week? Three months? Can babies believe something they cannot understand?<BR/><BR/>Are you conceding the fact that there is no clear example of a baby being baptized in the New Testament? You did write, "In neither argument am I asserting that infants were baptized in the New Tesatment." Am I understanding you correctly here?James McEntirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18076786630641849452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25640206.post-1150499682681048612006-06-16T18:14:00.000-05:002006-06-16T18:14:00.000-05:00I am the paedobaptist in question. :) I will follo...I am the paedobaptist in question. :) I will follow the same format, and put your arguments in bold.<BR/><BR/><B>Luke 18:17 says, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." When Jesus says, "of such is the kingdom of God" he is saying that people must become as a child to receive the kingdom of God.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, that is EXACTLY what he is saying. But admitting this puts you in the unenviable position of asserting that little children cannot do the very thing that adults must do in the manner that little children would do it if they were able. If the logic leaves you dizzy, don’t be surprised – its like saying Jack can’t sing, but if you want to be a singer you must sing as Jack would sing if he could sing.<BR/><BR/><B>This verse also tells us that he is speaking of children who are old enough to receive.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, we are in complete agreement once again. But these children, who are old enough to believe, are infants. The Greek word is "<I>brephos</I>" (v. 15), and even the King James Version of 1611 translates it as "infants."<BR/><BR/><B>Also, there is nothing in this passage about babies being baptized. You have to assume that is happening.</B><BR/><BR/>Wow!!! Three Lutheran agreements with a Baptist preacher in one day! Isn’t that a sign of the Apocalypse? :) <BR/><BR/>I agree that the babies in question are certainly not receiving Christian baptism, and probably not being baptized at all. But by receiving them, and declaring them to be the model examples for how one must receive the kingdom of God, Jesus was quite explicitly saying that these babies were eligible to receive the kingdom of God. If they can receive the kingdom of God, which can only be received by grace through faith, then they are at least theoretically eligible for baptism – even by Baptist standards.<BR/><BR/><B>Actually what Jesus commanded is as follows, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. . . ." Your partial quote would have people believe that baptism precedes teaching when such is not the case. They were to be taught (made disciples) then baptized, then taught to observe.</B><BR/><BR/>With all due respect, sir, you are assuming that the process of making disciples involves teaching, baptizing, and teaching observance. This is not what the text says. It says, "Go and make disciples baptizing and teaching them." The imperative is the compound "Go" and "make" disciples. The modal participles "baptizing" and "teaching" are subordinated to the imperative, and explain to us how the command is to be carried out. In other words, Matthew 28:19-20, properly understood, tells us to "Go and make disciples by baptizing and teaching all nations." The Greek bears this out as well. "Make disciples" is imperative(matheteusate). "Baptizing" (baptidsontes) and "teaching" (didaskontes) are participles. If Jesus had intended to say (as you suggest), "Having made disciples, baptize and teach them," then he would have said as much. "Make disciples" (matheteusate) would become "having made disciples" (mathateusantes), and "baptizing" (baptidsontes) and "teaching" (didaskontes) would become "baptize" (baptidsete) and "teach" (didaskete). This isn’t what was said, nor is it what was meant.<BR/><BR/><B>Again this all takes for granted that we are dealing with people who have sufficient intellectual development to be taught so that they can become a disciple. Such is not the case with babies.</B><BR/><BR/>This is an assumption that is not found in scripture. How can an infant (brephos) be elligible to receive the kingdom of God, but not be elligible to become a disciple? <BR/><BR/>Futhermore the command is to teach. I will be teaching my infant son the things of God from his very first days on this earth. In fact, I am reading scripture to him and his mother even now. I am commanded to baptize and teach him. I am not given responsibility to make sure that he attains any specific level of understanding either before baptism or after. In fact, there is no criteria given in scripture by which I might test his faith or test his understanding of the things of God. So what should I do? Should I invent the criteria that would admit him to baptism, or simply obey the command in both its parts?<BR/><BR/><B>We do not start with the church and go the New Testament. We start with the New Testament and go to the church.</B><BR/><BR/>…and that is what I did.<BR/><BR/><B>I will feel obliged to do this when you can show just one conclusive, open and shut case, where the Apostles baptized a baby.</B><BR/><BR/>Here is where we run into the problem of making narratives normative and didactic (instructive). This problem is compounded by the fact that the narrative descriptions in question frequently lack certain details (and not only the detail of infants being baptized). If you read newspaper accounts of six presidential inauguration ceremonies, and never read that Justice Clarence Thomas attended the ceremonies, would it be accurate to assume that he was forcefully excluded from the ceremonies? Yet you read Biblical narrative accounts of mass baptisms and household baptisms where the narrator does not specifically mention the inclusion of infants, and you assume on the basis of the narrative account that infants were and of right ought to be excluded from baptism. This follows a certain logic, but it is a very poor logic.<BR/><BR/><B>Your putting us in the position of challenger and thus assuming the burden of proof does not make it so. You are asking us to prove something that from our perspective did not happen. Its absence is the proof. It is you who are arguing for a positive; they baptized babies in the New Testament. The burden of proof is on you to prove it did happen. Surely if it did there would be some clear, decisive evidence to that end.</B><BR/><BR/>There are two arguments I am making. One is a scriptural argument and the other a historical argument. In neither argument am I asserting that infants were baptized in the New Tesatment. The scriptural argument rests solely on the command to baptize "all nations," and it refutes the idea that scripture excludes babies from this command. The historical argument assumes that babies were NOT baptized in the New Testament, and challenges those who actually believe this to explain how it became the universal practice of the medieval church without even a hint of dissent on the subject. <BR/><BR/><B>This example [of the Gibson family photo] does not help your argument. The whole analogy is premised upon what we imagine and assume.</B><BR/><BR/>The analogy is actually premised upon the meaning of the word "household" and/or "family." This is rather more concrete than my personal, subjective imagination or assumption.<BR/><BR/><B>What we say is that every one that was baptized in these households were believing, and babies cannot believe.</B><BR/><BR/>That babies cannot believe is a perfectly rational assumption unsupported, and indeed contradicted, by scripture.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13313782518736452219noreply@blogger.com