Acts 8:37

[Ransom]

I was just watching the middle portion of Steven Anderson's crockumentary New World Order Bible Versions, where he tries to argue that the NIV is a "Catholic Bible" because it props up certain Catholic doctrines.

The first of these is infant baptism, where he argues that since modern Bibles omit the Ethiopian eunuch's verbal confession of Christ, there's nothing stopping infants from being baptized.

In response to this, I note two things:

• The eunuch was an adult being instructed in the faith, and you can't argue from an implicit confession of faith that no confession of faith at all is required; and
• the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not appeal to Acts 8 where it discusses the necessity of baptizing infants (CCC 1250-52).

And the latter is the main point of this post: Can anyone point to any Christian tradition, Catholic or otherwise, that practises paedobaptism and also uses the omission of Acts 8:37 as justification for the practice?

Conversely, I've seen both Catholic and Protestant sources that appeal to Acts 16:15, for example, assuming Lydia's "household" to include infants, as evidence that the church practised paedobaptism right from the start. However, I've never seen one appeal to the Ethiopian eunuch.

Anderson and other KJV-onlyists claim that this variant reading could be used in this way, but unless I can see evidence of it actually being used in this way, it seems to me that their objection is not one based in reality.

 

[prophet]

I was just watching the middle portion of Steven Anderson's crockumentary New World Order Bible Versions, where he tries to argue that the NIV is a "Catholic Bible" because it props up certain Catholic doctrines.

The first of these is infant baptism, where he argues that since modern Bibles omit the Ethiopian eunuch's verbal confession of Christ, there's nothing stopping infants from being baptized.

In response to this, I note two things:

• The eunuch was an adult being instructed in the faith, and you can't argue from an implicit confession of faith that no confession of faith at all is required; and
• the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not appeal to Acts 8 where it discusses the necessity of baptizing infants (CCC 1250-52).

And the latter is the main point of this post: Can anyone point to any Christian tradition, Catholic or otherwise, that practises paedobaptism and also uses the omission of Acts 8:37 as justification for the practice?

Conversely, I've seen both Catholic and Protestant sources that appeal to Acts 16:15, for example, assuming Lydia's "household" to include infants, as evidence that the church practised paedobaptism right from the start. However, I've never seen one appeal to the Ethiopian eunuch.

Anderson and other KJV-onlyists claim that this variant reading could be used in this way, but unless I can see evidence of it actually being used in this way, it seems to me that their objection is not one based in reality.

I doubt that Evangelicals are in danger of returning to Romish Infant Sprinkling, due to the wording in some Nestle offspring.

A larger concern, it would seem, is the growing popularity of Theology void of Eternal Security, and the Priesthood of the Believer.

I will remind us all, however, that "method of Baptism" has made many martyrs.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Both Catholics and Protestants tended to kill immersers.

 

[Steven Avery]

The significance of Acts 8:37 can be seen in an early time in:

The Bloody Theater or Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians who baptized only upon confession of faith, and who suffered and died for the testimony of Jesus, their Saviour, from the time of Christ to the year A.D. 1660.  by Thieleman Janszoon Braght (1625-1664). 

Braght continually uses:

Acts 8:37 
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.

in defense of the Anabaptist position on water baptism, including the confession of faith, contra the rcc position.

• the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not appeal to Acts 8 where it discusses the necessity of baptizing infants (CCC 1250-52).

Of course not.  Jerome and many ECW as far back as Irenaeus and Cyprian had the wisdom to utilize the verse.  And it is in the historical Vulgate Clementine edition that represents the mass of mss. 

So the rcc simply has to bypass the account when discussing baptism.  They do not want to bring attention to the verse that declares that the confession of faith is part of New Testament water baptism.

All that could change  now that they are using the far more corrupt Critical Text (Nova Vulgata), but they are using that in liturgy, not apologetics and confessions.  And it is not their goal to highlight the differences between their Plan A (Vulgate) and Plan B (Critical Text) texts.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Next time, Avery, don't waste your blue crayon on answering a question I didn't ask.

 

[Steven Avery]

Scott, I deal with the real questions, not the one that you word-parse.

The simple truth is that Acts 8:37 is a vital verse for believer's baptism, doctrinally.  It is the only verse that directly links baptism and our testimony of faith in Jesus. 

And it is one that paedo-baptists will seek to bypass.

The rcc only took it out of their Bibles in the last century, as they have moved to the Critical Text. So of course they did not use the absence of the verse, it was in their Bibles, just like it was in the Reformation Bible editions.

Steven 

 

[praise_yeshua]

Of course not.  Jerome and many ECW as far back as Irenaeus and Cyprian had the wisdom to utilize the verse.  And it is in the historical Vulgate Clementine edition that represents the mass of mss. 

So the rcc simply has to bypass the account when discussing baptism.  They do not want to bring attention to the verse that declares that the confession of faith is part of New Testament water baptism.

All that could change  now that they are using the far more corrupt Critical Text (Nova Vulgata), but they are using that in liturgy, not apologetics and confessions.  And it is not their goal to highlight the differences between their Plan A (Vulgate) and Plan B (Critical Text) texts.

Steven Avery [/color]

Your appeal to Irenaus doesn't make your case for inclusion. Irenaus just stated the obvious. That the Eunuch confessed Christ. There is no reason to believe that Irenanus was quoting Acts 8:37. Cyprian is a different story. He, at the very least, gives some witness to the oral tradition of the story. However, he still does not directly and complete quote the verse.

The textual evidence is overwhelming and is more important to the determining the validity of the canonical inclusion of the text than an oral tradition. In fact, the very fact the quotes do not directly match the verse later found in late manuscripts...... provides evidence that the text was later added and not part of the original. No doubt the story got retold many times by many different peoples. There is no controversy in realizing that the story got embellished to some degree by those who told it. Someone obviously felt it was important to "ADD" the comments to the text to provide evidence for the proper method used in early church conversions.

This is the proper method of dealing with the evidence at hand. Your method is entirely based on promoting "your choice" at all cost. Even at the expense of common sense.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The simple truth is that Acts 8:37 is a vital verse for believer's baptism, doctrinally.  It is the only verse that directly links baptism and our testimony of faith in Jesus. 

Steven 

Ah. Motives.... Avery.... you're so silly.

This isn't the only verse. Not even close. Do you even read your KJV?

 

[rsc2a]

The simple truth is that Acts 8:37 is a vital verse for believer's baptism, doctrinally.  It is the only verse that directly links baptism and our testimony of faith in Jesus. 

If you can only find your doctrinal position supported in one passage, I suggest you reconsider your doctrinal position.

 

[subllibrm]

The simple truth is that Acts 8:37 is a vital verse for believer's baptism, doctrinally.  It is the only verse that directly links baptism and our testimony of faith in Jesus. 

If you can only find your doctrinal position supported in one passage, I suggest you reconsider your doctrinal position.

Then we would have to drop the babies go to heaven because David said so doctrine.

BTW I have heard that passage used for a child as old as 8 who had died. Even if you are on board with the age of accountability idea you have to admit that 8 is pretty darn old to be unaccountable.

 

[Ransom]

Scott, I deal with the real questions, not the one that you word-parse.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you have no answer to the question I posed in the OP.

In that case, your further contribution to this thread is no longer required.

 

[Steven Avery]

I really ignore ultra-parsed irrelevant questions.  They  are a contra specialty.

Instead, I deal with the real historical issues of substance.

 

[rsc2a]

Instead, I deal with the real historical issues of substance.

Irony: a KJVoist saying they only deal with historical issues of substance.

 

[Ransom]

I really ignore ultra-parsed irrelevant questions.

You don't ignore them, Avery, you just answer the opposite question.

I asked who appealed to the story of the Ethiopian eunuch to defend paedobaptism. You answered by blathering on about the people who use Acts 8:37 to defend credobaptism. Not the question I asked. The opposite of the question I asked.

Instead, I deal with the real historical issues of substance.

Then instead of hijacking someone else's thread to pontificate on your "real historical issues of substance," which no one asked you about anyway, feel entirely free to start your own.

 

[prophet]

Both Catholics and Protestants tended to kill immersers.

Exactly, which is why I claim to be neither.

Here is the test that they fail:

16 1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.  John 16:1-3

Haklo

 

[praise_yeshua]

Both Catholics and Protestants tended to kill immersers.

Exactly, which is why I claim to be neither.

Here is the test that they fail:

16 1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.  John 16:1-3

Haklo

If the immersers were in power...... there would be a lot of Protestant and Catholics getting murdered.

 

[prophet]

Both Catholics and Protestants tended to kill immersers.

Exactly, which is why I claim to be neither.

Here is the test that they fail:

16 1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.  John 16:1-3

Haklo

If the immersers were in power...... there would be a lot of Protestant and Catholics getting murdered.

Lol @ "in power".

Haklo

 

[subllibrm]

Both Catholics and Protestants tended to kill immersers.

Exactly, which is why I claim to be neither.

Here is the test that they fail:

16 1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.  John 16:1-3

Haklo

If the immersers were in power...... there would be a lot of Protestant and Catholics getting murdered.

Yeah, that Roger Williams guy sure had them on the run in Rhode Island.  :

 

[prophet]

Both Catholics and Protestants tended to kill immersers.

Exactly, which is why I claim to be neither.

Here is the test that they fail:

16 1  These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2  They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.  John 16:1-3

Haklo

If the immersers were in power...... there would be a lot of Protestant and Catholics getting murdered.

Yeah, that Roger Williams guy sure had them on the run in Rhode Island.  :

Exactly.
Wasn't Providence the only place that Catholics could live unmolested, until the 18th Century, in the USA?

Haklo

 

[Ransom]

If the immersers were in power...... there would be a lot of Protestant and Catholics getting murdered.

Yeah . . . all those theocratic Baptists and violent Mennonites just doing what they do.

PY fails history. Must be a day with "Y" in it again.