Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!Philip wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.
![Not talking, upset y[-(](./images/smilies/yahoo/28.gif)
Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!Philip wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?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?RickD wrote:Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!Philip wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.
Great point! That fact alone, is enough to toss away the doctrine of the Trinity.*jenna wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?RickD wrote:Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!Philip wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.
Amen, brother! In fact, let's just get rid of all doctrines not used explicitly by name in Scripture, including but not limited to:RickD wrote:Great point! That fact alone, is enough to toss away the doctrine of the Trinity.*
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
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.Jac3510 wrote:She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.
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:Byblos wrote: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.Jac3510 wrote:She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
haha! i told you it would last only until you saw my posts!RickD wrote:Great point! That fact alone, is enough to toss away the doctrine of the Trinity.*jenna wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?RickD wrote:Hey, we don't find the word, "Trinity" in scripture either!Philip wrote:Wonder just WHY that might be?She is correct that we don't find children being baptized in Scripture, and Acts 16 is no exception to that.
*And I told you I wasn't going to use sarcasm anymore. That didn't last too long.
That's clear.Jac3510 wrote:To be as clear as possible:
Stated: all in his household were 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.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
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.Again, the most you can say is that it is not explicitly stated.
Philip wrote: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.Again, the most you can say is that it is not explicitly stated.
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
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.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.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
But this, on the other hand, is quite correct.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.
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue