Believer's Baptism

[Just Passing Through]

Tabibito: That story has been used to justify infant baptism, but the reality is it was simply implemented as a way to enforce Christianity as the State Religion of Rome under and after Constantine.

[Cow Poke]

For somebody who's 'just passing through', you sure can be verbose.

[Just Passing Through]

I'm like the wind. It never knows when to stop passing through, either.

[tabibito]

Cyprian, Epistle 58: Is good enough. One that I was not aware of.

Didache doesn't make provision for infants - but that may be a matter of applying specifically to adults, rather than being a general procedure for baptism.

I'm still not satisfied that infant baptism actually achieves anything.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, he told us to make disciples of them - baptism follows.

Let the little children come to me, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

The people were bringing little children to Jesus for Him to bless them, not to baptize them.

JPT - you gots a WHOLE LOT of supposition and assumptions going on in this little screed.

[Cow Poke]

I'm like the wind. It never knows when to stop passing through, either.

And often leaves an unmitigated mess -sometimes even death and destruction - in its path?

[Just Passing Through]

Actually, he told us to make disciples of them - baptism follows.

Let the little children come to me, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
The people were bringing little children to Jesus for Him to bless them, not to baptize them.

I cited that only as an encouragement to let Jesus bless them, and baptism is the ideal way to let him do that. If I was going for verbosity, I would have gone on, both about the use of brephe here (not just little children, but infants), and the passage that describes one who causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, both demonstrating that they can have faith and they can sin (and the sin is not just a slip-up, but a skandalon, a downfall from the faith).

JPT - you gots a WHOLE LOT of supposition and assumptions going on in this little screed.

[tabibito]

The main sticking points in my opinion have always been

repent and be baptised - how does an infant repent? That presupposes an informed, volitional response.

call on the name of the Lord - how does an infant call on the name of the Lord? That takes cognition and oral vocabulary.

Talk of the baptism of everyone in a household involves presupposition that

infants were present (no evidence advanced in support of their presence)

and

that infants, if present, would have been counted as members of a household.
(some evidence has been advanced supporting the idea that they weren't - though it is not overly compelling.)

[Cow Poke]

So, you're WAY smarter than the hundreds of translations that are out there that didn't figure that out.

JPT - I'm sure you're a good guy - but you have that "air" about you that, once you decide something "is", you'll jump through any hoops and hurdles necessary to 'prove it'.

As you were, sir!

[tabibito]

Checking: Teaching is part of the process of making disciples, so I'll accept JPT's assessment on that score.

But not the claim that the "little ones" who believe could be infants.
With σκανδαλιζω being the subjunctive, active -
that would be "should sin against" one of the small ones - given that ενα is accusative
neither passage (Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:6) claims that the little ones sin
both passages claim that the little ones believe (or perhaps, trust).

[KingsGambit]

If the apostles really did teach it, then, I'd like to know why because it may be that we are missing a piece of what they intended baptism to be.

[Cow Poke]

Checking: Teaching is part of the process of making disciples, so I'll accept JPT's assessment on that score.

But not the claim that the "little ones" who believe could be infants.
With σκανδαλιζω being the subjunctive, active -
that would be "should sin against" one of the small ones - given that ενα is accusative
neither passage (Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:6) claims that the little ones sin
both passages claim that the little ones believe (or perhaps, trust).

Equating NT Baptism with OT Circumcision is also problematic as a proof for infant baptism, since only male infants were circumcised. Should only male infants be baptized?

[Terraceth]

The problem I have with that argument is this: It is true there is no explicit description of infant baptism in the New Testament (the household baptisms could have included them, but that is nothing more than a possibility). However, there is no explicit description of what logically should follow the idea of believers' baptism: The baptism of someone once they reach the necessary age for believers' baptism to count. That is never described. Nor is there any statement not to baptize infants.

I feel when it comes to believers' baptism vs. infant baptism, the New Testament is, pun intended, a wash.

Unfortunately, the historical record is ambiguous regarding it for a while from either a positive or negative viewpoint. We know for sure that from the mid third century onward, infant baptism was normative (as shown by Origen and Cyprian's writings and pretty much everything that followed). Tertullian around the year 200 A.D. expresses skepticism of it but nevertheless implies it was commonplace even then.

But in the intervening period after the apostolic age and Tertullian, we don't have anything for or against the practice outside of some very ambiguous remarks. The Didache doesn't mention it, but it's also a catechism for converts, so it would have no reason to. Polycarp's attestation that he served God for "eighty and six years" implies he was baptized as an infant, though it is possible, albeit unlikely, that he lived so long that he was baptized later in life--though still presumably at a relatively young age--and then lived for 86 years more. Justin Martyr also likens baptism to circumcision and elsewhere describes some people as having been Christ's disciple since childhood--but again, these are ambiguous statements.

Equating NT Baptism with OT Circumcision is also problematic as a proof for infant baptism, since only male infants were circumcised. Should only male infants be baptized?

The problem I have with this argument is that the reason only male infants were circumcised--namely, biological differences--does not apply to baptism.

[JonathanL]

Equating NT Baptism with OT Circumcision is also problematic as a proof for infant baptism, since only male infants were circumcised. Should only male infants be baptized?

That would be a valid objection, if it were not for this passage by Paul:

Scripture Verse: Galatians 3:23-28

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, Paul here removes any distinction between male and female when it comes to the benefits of the faith. So if baptism is meant to be analogous to circumcision for Christians, then the fact that only male infants were circumcised cannot be used to object to the comparison, since Paul made away with that distinction.

[JonathanL]

It seems that Swedish can't deal with the Koine Greek grammar directly in this passage - but better than English grammar can. However, the Swedish translators have done a VERY good job of preserving the meaning.

I think the Swedish words are in the right places below: they're related to the English words (near as I can tell). The English words translate the Koine Greek.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]37257[/ATTACH]

I think you got it mostly correct. If "o" and "this" refers to "anti-typal" then "denna"After* this antitype**", with all of the words having roughly the same meaning in both sentences. I.e



* or according to
** You wouldn't normally translate as antitype, but in this context, when it refers specifically to the greek word antitupon, I think it's ok.

In this context, yes. But "er" can function as an accusative, dative and genitive (and I'm probably forgetting some ways you can use it), so just seeing the word "er" is not in itself enough to say that it functions as an accusative.

But in this case your guess that it functions as an accusative is indeed correct.


Would that "o" refer also to "antitype", or does it refer only to "water"?

Not usually, but I can think of a few cases where it might be fitting to translate it that way.