Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

Wonder just WHY that might be?

Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

Wonder just WHY that might be?

Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!

Wonder just WHY that might be?

jenna wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

Wonder just WHY that might be?

Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!

Wonder just WHY that might be?

Great point! That fact alone, is enough to toss away the doctrine of the Trinity.*



*And I told you I wasn't going to use sarcasm anymore. That didn't last too long.

RickD wrote:Great point! That fact alone, is enough to toss away the doctrine of the Trinity.*

Amen, brother! In fact, let's just get rid of all doctrines not used explicitly by name in Scripture, including but not limited to:

1. "The Divinity of Christ"
2. "The Hypostatic Union"
3. "The Canon of Scripture"
4. "The Inerrancy of Scripture"

Well, I'd list more but my phone just went off so now I have to go help a patient. But I would note that every single one of the -ologies are not mentioned by name in Scripture (Theology, etc), and so on.

So, yeah! NO MORE THEOLOGY BECAUSE THEOLOGY ISN'T MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE!!!!

(But philosophy is, so I'm good )

Jac3510 wrote:She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

No she isn't correct simply because while Acts 16 doesn't explicitly state it, it doesn't definitively rule it out either. The most she can say is that infant baptism is not explicitly stated in scripture to which I say that is correct but it is definitely implied, in Acts 16 among others.

Byblos wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

No she isn't correct simply because while Acts 16 doesn't explicitly state it, it doesn't definitively rule it out either. The most she can say is that infant baptism is not explicitly stated in scripture to which I say that is correct but it is definitely implied, in Acts 16 among others.

It is not "definitely implied." It is not ruled out, but nor is it ruled in. As always, we must distinguish between what is permissible, what is stated, and what is implied. The phrase is broad enough that it allows that children might have been baptized. The broadness of the phrase does not suggest, much less imply, that children actually were baptized, however. To be as clear as possible:

Stated: all in his household were baptized
Implied: others in his household came to faith or were brought/accepted into the faith through his leadership
Permissible: Infants and others who did not have the ability to place their faith in Christ might have been baptized

We're talking about INFANT baptism. Not children who are old enough to understand right from wrong and salvation has been explained to them -- at the child's request. When a person observes a child feeling bad about something, then they can be asked questions and given simple responses. And children Have been known to understand their need For salvation and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and then inquire More about baptism without prompting from adults.

Strange how infant baptism has been so widely embraced as IF it had been commanded in Scripture, and yet we have not one Scriptural example of such. I'd say that is a tradition that isn't substantiated with any obvious Scriptural support. It does absolutely nothing, spiritually speaking, for the infant. It does, however, make the family and parents feel good.

The verbiage of the infant baptism strongly suggests that the baptism is bringing eternal life to the child:

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cf ... extindex/7

RickD wrote:

jenna wrote:

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.

Wonder just WHY that might be?

Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!

Wonder just WHY that might be?

Great point! That fact alone, is enough to toss away the doctrine of the Trinity.*



*And I told you I wasn't going to use sarcasm anymore. That didn't last too long.

haha! i told you it would last only until you saw my posts!

Jac3510 wrote:To be as clear as possible:

Stated: all in his household were baptized

That's clear.

Implied: others in his household came to faith or were brought/accepted into the faith through his leadership.
Permissible: Infants and others who did not have the ability to place their faith in Christ might have been baptized

There is no reason whatsoever to think infants are merely permissisble and not implied, other than reading your own theology into the text. Of course, you can turn around and charge me with the same and that's fair. The fact remains, households of the time typically included several generations and would not be unusual at all to assume almost every household included infants. My point of emphasis being you (or crochet) absolutely cannot state emphatically there was no infant baptism in scripture. Again, the most you can say is that it is not explicitly stated. You say it's not implied, I think a strong case can be made that it is.

Again, the most you can say is that it is not explicitly stated.

And so THAT tells me that this is a tradition of man that God doesn't see as important. It's not talked about in Scripture - certainly not with clarity or certainty, and it's not modeled so as there can be no mistake. You don't make doctrinal practices out of things so unclear - or rather, you shouldn't. Other than a ceremony where a family and friend acknowledge the importance of their Christian faith, and in being dedicated to helping influence the child toward a life of faith, that is all it does. We practice baby dedications - as in, the parents and those in attendance agree to come alongside the parents and child to influence it to ONE DAY come to faith and to walk a Christian walk. But there is no water involved.

But what does the verbiage of the ceremony say to YOU? What is the intended meaning FOR THE CHILD?

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cf ... extindex/7

Philip wrote:

Again, the most you can say is that it is not explicitly stated.

And so THAT tells me that this is a tradition of man that God doesn't see as important. It's not talked about in Scripture - certainly not with clarity or certainty, and it's not modeled so as there can be no mistake. You don't make doctrinal practices out of things so unclear - or rather, you shouldn't. Other than a ceremony where a family and friend acknowledge the importance of their Christian faith, and in being dedicated to helping influence the child toward a life of faith, that is all it does. We practice baby dedications - as in, the parents and those in attendance agree to come alongside the parents and child to influence it to ONE DAY come to faith and to walk a Christian walk. But there is no water involved.

But what does the verbiage of the ceremony say to YOU? What is the intended meaning FOR THE CHILD?

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cf ... extindex/7

That's all nothing but a non sequitur. I have not defended nor do I intend to defend infant baptism.

But to answer your last question, as Jac stated, it first starts with whether or not a case can be made for original sin. If original sin is biblical, then infant baptism is most definitely a grace imparted by God onto the child.

Byblos wrote:There is no reason whatsoever to think infants are merely permissisble and not implied, other than reading your own theology into the text. Of course, you can turn around and charge me with the same and that's fair. The fact remains, households of the time typically included several generations and would not be unusual at all to assume almost every household included infants. My point of emphasis being you (or crochet) absolutely cannot state emphatically there was no infant baptism in scripture. Again, the most you can say is that it is not explicitly stated. You say it's not implied, I think a strong case can be made that it is.

You are just factually incorrect. It is not implied that children are baptized. It's also not implied that no children are baptized. You are just using the word "implied" incorrectly. Perhaps your exegesis concludes that such passages are suggestive of infant baptism. But, no, you cannot say that infant baptism is implied.

And yes, I can and do state that there is no infant baptism in Scripture. I can say that certain portions of Scripture can be interpreted in such a way that it allows for infant baptism, but none of those passages say that infants were, in fact, baptized. So, again, the idea is simply not found in Scripture. To say that is not reading theology into Scripture. To say that it NOT ALLOWED by any reading of Scripture would be reading the theology in. To say that it IS in Scripture would be to read theology in. But, emphatically, no, infant baptism is not in Scripture. Obviously it isn't explicitly stated. But it isn't even implied.

BTW, your oikos argument doesn't work, anyway, for the simple reason that to take it the way you do to include any children, you further have to take it to mean all domestic animals. So by your argument, we ought to be baptizing pigs and donkeys, too. You'll of course say that's stupid, and you'll start appealing to what baptism is, to show why it is stupid to baptize a donkey. But now you're doing exactly the same thing crochet and I do. It's literally no different. What we have are different theologies of baptism. The difference is that crochet and I are honest about that. We take oikos to refer to all consenting adults in his house precisely because nothing else can, in principle, be baptized. To be doubly clear, nothing else can be baptized because that is just what baptism is. You include infants because you think that's what baptism is. But you exclude things, just like we do, because of what you view baptism to be. The biggest difference is that you are finding in that passage something for which there is absolutely NO Scriptural precedent--paedobaptism--and for which the existing precedent definitively disallows (baptism following conversion). So if anybody is practicing eisogesis, it's you. There's no strong argument to be made for paedobaptism here. There's no implication here. There might be a suggestive exegesis if you are willing to read your theology into the text. But there's not even that much. You are, again, just wrong on the interpretation of this verse. If paedobaptism is valid, it isn't because of Acts 16. It isn't because Scripture. It's because some other authority has so declared it. But you can't get there from Scripture.

Byblos wrote:That's all nothing but a non sequitur. I have not defended nor do I intend to defend infant baptism.

But to answer your last question, as Jac stated, it first starts with whether or not a case can be made for original sin. If original sin is biblical, then infant baptism is most definitely a grace imparted by God onto the child.

But this, on the other hand, is quite correct.

I'm just not an Augustinian and deny original sin. That's something else I don't see any Scriptural basis for whatsoever. It's all non-Scriptural, a completely fabricated idea that contradicts what the text says everywhere. What I wish you and other paedobaptists would say, again, is what you've said here. It follows from your view of original sin and of a defense of sacramental theology. THAT is where the real argument is.

Of course, I might then counter that one man's modus tollens is another's modus ponens . . . ah well.