Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok if your point is don’t give bibles to infants then I would agree with you it’s best to wait until they’re old enough to read but again I don’t see how this has anything to do with infant baptism.According to scriptures the bible is for:
2 Tim 3: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
And to be...
Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
And a light to my path.
So I look for what the scripture teaches, instead of doesn't teach.
That’s not my point but it’s a good comparison, infants can’t read bibles nor can they accept Jesus or repent from sins or have sin so is pointless. If you thought your infant baptism was valid why did you get baptized again when you were older?Ok if your point is don’t give bibles to infants then I would agree with you it’s best to wait until they’re old enough to read but again I don’t see how this has anything to do with infant baptism.
Personally I think the argument spawns from typical anti Catholic propaganda.This is a re-quote from from #272
Baptists and American Evangelicals allow women take Holy Communion and yet there is no "Bible record" allowing women to take holy communion. No example and no teaching. So why do they do it?
Hermenuetics.
There are two ways to interpret Scripture: That which is not prohibited is permitted OR that which not permitted is prohibited.
Baptists and American Evangelicals are schizophrenic. They interpret infant Baptism as "not specifically permitted, therefore prohibited" and the Lord's supper as "not specifically prohibited, therefore permitted."
--------
The whole tenor of the NT in hermenuetics is that which is not prohibited is permitted. The whole of Paul's argument on Christian liberty is he can "do all things" but all not "all things" are profitable.
We are always looking for prohibitions which is restrictive. Nowhere does Scripture prohibit infant being baptized.
I have notice a few people here on CF basically two sets of rules for interpreting Scripture. One for baptism and other for the rest of Scripture.
I answered that in another post in this thread. I got baptized a second time as an outward symbol of my new faith. I wanted to make a conscious pledge of my faith to God.That’s not my point but it’s a good comparison, infants can’t read bibles nor can they accept Jesus or repent from sins or have sin so is pointless. If you thought your infant baptism was valid why did you get baptized again when you were older?
I was baptized at the age of 4 or 5. I had no idea of what was going on and it didn’t change me in the slightest. When I was 38 years old I came to Christ and received the Holy Spirit. I decided to get baptized a second time as a sort of pledge to God in my new found faith. But yes I agree the scriptures record people receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism and not receiving Him after baptism.
And thats the biblical reason.I answered that in another post in this thread. I got baptized a second time as an outward symbol of my new faith. I wanted to make a conscious pledge of my faith to God.
False hope? Really? The vast majority of Christian's baptize their children because of the promises attached to baptism. These promises have been clearly articulated to you in probably 15 separate posts. Yet you don't believe.The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.
A baby can't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior or have sin or repent from sins, that comes from a personal decision that babies can't make, which has also been articulated in several different posts followed by the scripture on what is required. If one thinks their infant baptisms are valid and do not need to be baptized when they are old enough to understand the following scriptures, than yes, it is giving people false hope that they are already baptized. If you have an example from scripture that shows otherwise, feel free to share, I look to scripture to be our guide which is what we are told to do. Pslams 119:105False hope? Really? The vast majority of Christian's baptize their children because of the promises attached to baptism. These promises have been clearly articulated to you in probably 15 separate posts. Yet you don't believe.
What kind of FALSE
I was still able to accomplish it after being baptized as a child before I knew what it meant.And thats the biblical reason.
False hope? Really? Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin. We baptized based upon the promises attached to baptism. There have a been at least 10 posts on this thread that list them. I won't bother relisting as it will be of no use to you.The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.
You are putting words in my mouth that infants would die no matter what- never once did I post that so please do not add what's not there. My posts are about baptism and what it stands for and the scripture associated with it and the example in scriptures, which shows no infant baptism.False hope? Really? Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin. We baptized based upon the promises attached to baptism. There have a been at least 10 posts on this thread that list them. I won't bother relisting as it will be of no use to you.
What FALSE HOPE to you give a grieving parent who lost an unbaptized infant who died?
Are you saying the child will be saved NO MATTER WHAT? Are all children born to Christian parents 'SAVED NO MATTER WHAT? Or are all children who die before the Age of Accountability SAVED NO MATTER WHAT?
What pastoral counseling statements would you state to grieving parent?
Thats great, many people think their infant baptism was enough despite having no memory or understanding what it meant, which is the point and congrats on your baptism.I was still able to accomplish it after being baptized as a child before I knew what it meant.
I guess I missed these answers. Could you please refer me to the post # to this answers.Already answered.
Baptism by water is symbolic .... water or the act of baptism (religious ceremonies) don't save anyone ..... Jesus does. Baptism is not aThat was not my point. My point was that the RCC has a range of options regarding the rite of baptism.
Thats the issue, baptism is supposed to mean something, its part of our salvation according to the scripture Mark 16:16
An infant can't do the following...
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19).
The harm is its giving people false hope that if they were baptized as an infant, they will be saved no matter what, but that's not what the scriptures teach. I am glad as an adult you had better understanding what it means to make the commitment to Christ, saying goodbye to your life of sin and walking in newness with Christ.
The doctrine of the original sin was a mistake of Augustine. He misunderstood one specific Greek text of Paul.Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin.
Not believing in original sin was the mistake of Pelagius. He was a condemned heretic.The doctrine of the original sin was a mistake of Augustine. He misunderstood one specific Greek text of Paul.
Credos don’t baptize infants because they can’t repent. Paedos baptize infants because it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO REPENT.Thats the issue, baptism is supposed to mean something, its part of our salvation according to the scripture Mark 16:16
An infant can't do the following...
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them ... teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19, 20).
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
Pelagius had much more complex theology than just "there is no original sin". Anyway, its not too relevant to my point that Bible (in Greek) does not support it.Not believing in original sin was the mistake of Pelagius. He was a condemned heretic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?