Any infant baptist churches?

[concretecamper]

Care to share?

Here is one of many.....

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

Now please show me where infant baptism is forbidden. God Bless

 

[InChristForever]

Here is one of many.....

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

Now please show me where infant baptism is forbidden. God Bless

Show me an actual scripture first, that is a quote from someone... that is not the Word of God.

Furthermore the baptism that you see before Christ's death was a baptism of repentance to the state that Israel was in. It was an outward recognition that where they were was not right. Which was the baptism John performed.

Repenting (turning away from the old way), and being baptised (the pledge of it). I need to be clear that this was BEFORE Christ's death. It had a different meaning there. Are we talking about the Church or the Jews friend?

 

[Yitzchak]

Show me an actual scripture first, that is a quote from someone... that is not the Word of God.

Furthermore the baptism that you see before Christ's death was a baptism of repentance to the state that Israel was in. It was an outward recognition that where they were was not right. Which was the baptism John performed.

Repenting (turning away from the old way), and being baptised (the pledge of it). I need to be clear that this was BEFORE Christ's death. It had a different meaning there. Are we talking about the Church or the Jews friend?

.

That is your distinction , not necessarily the scriptures. But regardless , Jesus was baptized by John and Jesus never sinned. So on what basis was Jesus baptized if it was a baptism of repentance ? What repentance did Jesus need ?


oh and here is some scriptures. hardly someone's made up doctrine. Just different from yours.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other

Speaking of Israel passing through the red Sea. Guess what Israel included their children which included babies.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

 

[Alithis]

Here is one of many.....

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

Now please show me where infant baptism is forbidden. God Bless

typical ambiguous jargan qouting a Mans commentary..NOT the bible .reversing the question is avoiding giving a direct answer simply because there is no direct answer you can give.it is not forbidden in scripture,however doctrine that is not in agreement with the scriptures is false doctrine..false= untrue -and,that ,is clearly and unambiguously forbidden
one must believe ,repent and make choice to obey and be baptized-by faith entering into christs death..being buried-full immersion. an infant cannot do that.

the doctrine of infant baptism has no scriptural foundation. it is not underwritten by inspired scripture anywhere.
it is man made tradition and nothing more.
are we not belivers and followers of God?should we not BE HONEST concerning all things? we must.
It is not biblical -period- that's the honest truth of the matter.

i have nothing against those who do so as long as they understand it is not an automatic ticket for heaven.
as to imply that would be to deceive.

 

[Alithis]

.

That is your distinction , not necessarily the scriptures. But regardless , Jesus was baptized by John and Jesus never sinned. So on what basis was Jesus baptized if it was a baptism of repentance ? What repentance did Jesus need ?

to lay down example ..after which he said "follow me"

 

[concretecamper]

Haha....too funny. I am challenged to show what the early Christians believed....so I did. Now you scorn me for it. Please, if you ask me for something and I oblige, please be charitable.

So, no one can come up with a scripture that forbids infant baptism? Don't worry...I already know the answer to my question

 

[Yitzchak]

to lay down example ..after which he said "follow me"

That is speculation . the scripture does not say that. The reason which the scripture gives is this...

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

By the way , this is what follows afterwards , not " come and follow me "

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Besides , it makes no logical sense to say Jesus was our example and then pick and choose what to apply it to. There are things which we do not follow his example in. Such as being crucified for other people's sins. Even the immediate context has Jesus immediately following his baptism with forty days of fasting. Are we expected to fast for forty days in the wilderness after our baptism ? On what basis is it decided which things are as an example and which things are not an example for us ?

Clearly , saying it was as an example for us is grasping at straws because the scripture does not say that directly. What it does say as a reason is difficult to understand and a bit of a mystery.

Mar 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Mar 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mar 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Luk 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

If the goal is to stick to only the scriptures , we are not faring well with the question concerning the baptism of Jesus. The point that i am trying to make is that just because the scripture is silent on a given point or just because it only gives hints at something does not make it any less true or false. We routinely piece together doctrines in areas where the scripture does not make a direct statement. there is room for honest disagreement between Christians who both want to serve the Lord and be true to the scriptures , yet reach different conclusions on some of the details. The more rigid and dogmatic that we are about all the details , the more likely that we have resorted to some speculation and educated guesses. We could go through example after example of this.

This does not mean that anything goes. But it does mean that there is room for different honest convictions. We are speaking of Christian baptism being applied to infants , not some pagan and evil ceremony. You are not forced to agree , but there is no scripture which directly forbids infant baptism.

 

[Yitzchak]

Haha....too funny. I am challenged to show what the early Christians believed....so I did. Now you scorn me for it. Please, if you ask me for something and I oblige, please be charitable.

So, no one can come up with a scripture that forbids infant baptism? Don't worry...I already know the answer to my question

There is no scripture which forbids it. Not only that , but a lot of Protestant denominations currently practice it. Not just the Catholics. There is a legitimate divide on the issue amongst bible believing born again Evangelicals. Some denominations go one way and some the other way. Considering that the scripture does not spell out all the details , I would think that non denominational churches would be open to both views and not be dogmatic about it.

 

[Alithis]

That is speculation . the scripture does not say that. The reason which the scripture gives is this...

By the way , this is what follows afterwards , not " come and follow me "

Besides , it makes no logical sense to say Jesus was our example and then pick and choose what to apply it to. There are things which we do not follow his example in. Such as being crucified for other people's sins. Even the immediate context has Jesus immediately following his baptism with forty days of fasting. Are we expected to fast for forty days in the wilderness after our baptism ? On what basis is it decided which things are as an example and which things are not an example for us ?

Clearly , saying it was as an example for us is grasping at straws because the scripture does not say that directly. What it does say as a reason is difficult to understand and a bit of a mystery.


If the goal is to stick to only the scriptures , we are not faring well with the question concerning the baptism of Jesus. The point that i am trying to make is that just because the scripture is silent on a given point or just because it only gives hints at something does not make it any less true or false. We routinely piece together doctrines in areas where the scripture does not make a direct statement. there is room for honest disagreement between Christians who both want to serve the Lord and be true to the scriptures , yet reach different conclusions on some of the details. The more rigid and dogmatic that we are about all the details , the more likely that we have resorted to some speculation and educated guesses. We could go through example after example of this.

This does not mean that anything goes. But it does mean that there is room for different honest convictions. We are speaking of Christian baptism being applied to infants , not some pagan and evil ceremony. You are not forced to agree , but there is no scripture which directly forbids infant baptism.

re read the end of my post.as that's the crux of it

and i didn't say he said
' follow me "as in chronological order.
the point is people who are fringe believers, but not living in obedience to the Holy Spirit ,are ,at times, being taught, sprinkle your babies head and they are saved... with no scriptural basis.-thus,man made doctrine and deceptive.

 

[concretecamper]

re read the end of my post.as that's the crux of it

and i didn't say he said
' follow me "as in chronological order.
the point is people who are fringe believers, but not living in obedience to the Holy Spirit ,are ,at times, being taught, sprinkle your babies head and they are saved... with no scriptural basis.-thus,man made doctrine and deceptive.

OK then, you cannot dispute infant baptism using the bible so now you are changing the subject to whether baptism is salvific or not. Just wanna know. Are we changing direction or not?

 

[Alithis]

OK then, you cannot dispute infant baptism using the bible so now you are changing the subject to whether baptism is salvific or not. Just wanna know. Are we changing direction or not?

your being silly.oh that would be half as passionate for Jesus as you are defending man.you cannot show bible basis.. so instead of saying ,no i cant show bible basis...honestly.you want to turn it into endless argument.
honestly- i cannot show bible basis for or against.\

therefore i shall not "make up " a doctrine on the matter.but will consider what the entire bible states.

for what the Entire bible states on any topic..that is the doctrine thereof.. not an amgiguous commentry on an excerpt of a single scripture.

 

[Alithis]

.

That is your distinction , not necessarily the scriptures. But regardless , Jesus was baptized by John and Jesus never sinned. So on what basis was Jesus baptized if it was a baptism of repentance ? What repentance did Jesus need ?


oh and here is some scriptures. hardly someone's made up doctrine. Just different from yours.





Speaking of Israel passing through the red Sea. Guess what Israel included their children which included babies.

they dont show up in the quote..
but some scriptures offered in your post i will take in and ask the lord about and not brush off.

 

[Yitzchak]

re read the end of my post.as that's the crux of it

and i didn't say he said
' follow me "as in chronological order.

Fair enough. I asked you a question and you answered it. You are entitled to your view as to the reason why Jesus was baptized.

the point is people who are fringe believers, but not living in obedience to the Holy Spirit ,are ,at times, being taught, sprinkle your babies head and they are saved... with no scriptural basis.-thus,man made doctrine and deceptive.

Yes. I would agree with that. That is false assurance of salvation.

 

[concretecamper]

your being silly.oh that would be half as passionate for Jesus as you are defending man.you cannot show bible basis.. so instead of saying ,no i cant show bible basis...honestly.you want to turn it into endless argument.
honestly- i cannot show bible basis for or against.\

therefore i shall not "make up " a doctrine on the matter.but will consider what the entire bible states.

for what the Entire bible states on any topic..that is the doctrine thereof.. not an amgiguous commentry on an excerpt of a single scripture.

You are too funny. YOU admit you are applying man made limitations since YOU admit you cannot find anything in the bible. Now to accuse me of defending something else other than Jesus....wow, were is the love?

 

[concretecamper]

your being silly.oh that would be half as passionate for Jesus as you are defending man.you cannot show bible basis.. so instead of saying ,no i cant show bible basis...honestly.you want to turn it into endless argument.
honestly- i cannot show bible basis for or against.\

therefore i shall not "make up " a doctrine on the matter.but will consider what the entire bible states.

for what the Entire bible states on any topic..that is the doctrine thereof.. not an amgiguous commentry on an excerpt of a single scripture.

You are too funny. YOU admit you are applying man made limitations since YOU admit you cannot find anything in the bible. Now to accuse me of defending something else other than Jesus....wow, where is the love?

 

[Alithis]

You are too funny. YOU admit you are applying man made limitations since YOU admit you cannot find anything in the bible. Now to accuse me of defending something else other than Jesus....wow, where is the love?

you missed it-1stly i am displaying the same honesty which i demand of others.but
im not applying anything ,the reason being,i will not formulate a doctrine when i have no scripture upon which to base it.

be reasonable and honest.

 

[FreedByte]

Thread has been derailed.

 

[Alithis]

Thread has been derailed.

Seriously though, I don't believe in infant baptism, but the OP did not start this thread to hear arguments for or against it. He started this thread to find out if there are any non-denominational churches that allow infant baptism.

oh that it was true .. but later posts displayed agenda .. even took the time to sneak in sentence on the sacraments .. ..

bit like if i went to the rcc forums and asked an supposedly innocent question about where i can go to a church thats not catholic but venerates(worships) mary ...

its not what we do .. but why we do it .. i have a problem ..i always notice agenda .. i have no idea why lol

 

[FreedByte]

bit like if i went to the rcc forums and asked an supposedly innocent question about where i can go to a church thats not catholic but venerates(worships) mary ...

This is a good point, perhaps this thread would have been better off in the "Looking for a church" subforum.

 

[Yitzchak]

oh that it was true .. but later posts displayed agenda .. even took the time to sneak in sentence on the sacraments .. ..

bit like if i went to the rcc forums and asked an supposedly innocent question about where i can go to a church thats not catholic but venerates(worships) mary ...

its not what we do .. but why we do it .. i have a problem ..i always notice agenda .. i have no idea why lol

My agenda is standing up for the doctrine of liberty of conscience. Meaning that each person has a God given right to read the scriptures for themselves and with an honest conscience to interpret it to the best of their ability. As opposed to needing another person to dictate to them what the scripture really means.

As for people who intentionally either ignore or twist the scripture. that is another matter.