You've made several assertions but have not provided evidence to support your positive claims and evidence to refute the things that you deny.
Upvote
0
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.
You've made several assertions but have not provided evidence to support your positive claims and evidence to refute the things that you deny.It is the blood of Jesus that takes away sins .... not water.
sacraments are religious ceremonies .... Jesus saves through His blood ... not through or by a ceremony.
Water baptism is not a requirement ... it is a symbol of one's faith ... in that they have received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
Colossians 1:20You've made several assertions but have not provided evidence to support your positive claims and evidence to refute the things that you deny.
None of the verses supports and refutes the tings you mentioned.Colossians 1:20
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Ephesians 1:7 NIV
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace
Hebrews 9:14
14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
Hebrews 9:22
22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
1 John 1:7
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Hebrews 10:19
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,
Hebrews 13:12
12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.
It's His blood .... not baptisim.
None of the verses supports and refutes the tings you mentioned.
This is what I have said several times.Most certainly does ..... its the blood of Jesus that saves not water ....
Holy Scripture, point blank, says the same of both. Why do you insist on it being either/or?Most certainly does ..... its the blood of Jesus that saves not water ....
This is what I have said several times.
In Catholic teaching, it is believed that Jesus Christ, through his death and resurrection, made salvation possible for humanity. The Catholic Church teaches that faith in Jesus as the Son of God and the redemption he accomplished through his death and resurrection is necessary for salvation. Additionally, the sacraments, particularly baptism and the Eucharist, are believed to be instrumental in the process of salvation. Ultimately, it is God's grace that saves the soul.
I enjoy the privilege of treating attacks, such as those in your post, and not needing a reply.Yes ...
It is the way good people get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.Do you think it is good?
There are other ways, besides dying, to do good and prepare for one's "home coming". And there are better ways to stop the wicked doing evil, such as saving their souls.It is the way good people get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.
I am not talking about preparing oneself for death, but death itself.There are other ways, besides dying, to do good and prepare for one's "home coming". And there are better ways to stop with wicked doing evil, such as saving their souls.
Infant baptism is both a practice and a doctrine within Christianity
It refers to baptizing an infant, and relies on powers of the priest to mark the soul, and sacramental waters of baptism that are part of that whole idea.. As a practice, infant baptism refers to the act of baptizing a child
Those who minds are not capable of comprehending such abstract concepts as sin, salvation, repentance, salvation, gospel, Christ, New birth.who is too young to make a personal profession of faith.
I could name a number of practices you do not agree with that have a long history in certain branches of Christianity.The practice of infant baptism has a long history in Christianity
True - and so what does the Bible actually teach in places like Matt 28 and Acts 2 - where they are called to hear the gospel, repent and then be baptized?, Other denominations, such as the Anabaptists and Baptists, practice believer's baptism and consider it necessary for an individual to make a personal profession of faith before being baptized.
Anabaptists were killed, regrettably, by both Protestants and Catholics.It is noteworthy in church history that thousands of Anabaptists were murdered by the established church because they denied infant baptism and stood up for adult believer baptism.
True.Anabaptists were killed, regrettably, by both Protestants and Catholics.
They were killed as heretics, which, at the time, was a civil crime as well as a religious offence.
Preach!I can find no biblical justification for denying our children Jesus Christ. As though we should raise our children as atheists or pagans rather than as Christians. That we should deny them God's means and works and word. That we should stand in the way between Christ and our children and tell Jesus no, He can't have them; or to tell our children that no they can't have Him.
For Christ Himself says concerning these little children, "The kingdom belongs to such as these" and "Do not prohibit the little ones from coming to Me". He Himself gives Himself to all sinners, and indeed through Adam all are sinners, all are dead in their trespasses, and therefore "There is no other name" by which one can be saved. Salvation is found in Christ alone, and so the Church as the minister and Body of Christ proclaims the Gospel to all nations, baptizing them.
We can baptize pagan idolators who repent, but we can't baptize our own children whom God has already entrusted to our care that we should be ministers to them? He has given them that they should be cared for, loved, and ministered to with the love, grace, and word of God. Therefore, minister to them, cradle them in your arms, take them by the hand, and show them Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Unless it can be proved by Holy Scripture that God forbids little children to come to Him, that God forbids that His Church should baptize the little ones, then I must stand on the solid foundation of God's word: There is salvation no where else except Jesus Christ, and God has told His Church to baptize. Therefore I will not, and cannot, recant of the good confession of faith that God ministers to us through the water of baptism with His word, to create and sustain faith and to wash away our sins and declare us righteous in His sight by the perfect and finished work of Christ alone. To do otherwise would be to deny the word of God and the reject power of the Gospel to save.
-CryptoLutheran
Very well put. I am really undecided on this topic and trying to decide. Two points that are very strong that stand out - if children were included in the Old Covenant and part of it, it's pretty hard to say that they are not included in the New. That doesn't sound like a better covenant. They are not included until they are older and make a decision to be? Or is that better - you get to have the choice. Still undecided.Infant baptism is the practice of baptizing infants or young children. There are several biblical and theological arguments that can be made in favor of infant baptism.
First, the Bible teaches that baptism is a sacrament that washes away sin and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, it is clear that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38) and grants the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5). Since infants are born with original sin, they are in need of forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit, just as adults are.
Second, the Bible teaches that baptism is the means by which one enters the covenant community of believers. In the Old Testament, infants were included in the covenant community through circumcision, which was the sign of the covenant (Genesis 17:9-14). In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant (Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, it makes sense that infants would be included in the covenant community through baptism.
Third, the Bible teaches that the whole household can be baptized (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). This implies that the infants in the household were included in the baptism.
Fourth, the early Church practice of baptizing infants is attested in the writings of the early Church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Augustine of Hippo.
In conclusion, infant baptism is biblically and theologically sound, as it is in line with the biblical teaching on the nature of baptism and its relationship to the forgiveness of sins and entrance into the covenant community of believers, and it was also the practice of early Church.
A covenant is a promise made by God to human beings either with conditions or without conditions that the human beings must meet. The New covenant is a promise that does not have explicit conditions. Covenants also have signs that go with them, like the rainbow in the first covenant made by God with humanity. The new covenant in Christ's blood has signs too, baptism. Since it is a sign of what God promises it is about God rather than about the faith of the person who receives it. Think of the rainbow. No human being does something to cause a rainbow; its function is to remind God of his promise, Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." Genesis 9:16.Very well put. I am really undecided on this topic and trying to decide. Two points that are very strong that stand out - if children were included in the Old Covenant and part of it, it's pretty hard to say that they are not included in the New. That doesn't sound like a better covenant. They are not included until they are older and make a decision to be? Or is that better - you get to have the choice. Still undecided.
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?