East of Eden
Well-Known Member
- Feb 20, 2021
- 1,073
- 342
- 66
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
What is your definition of belief? Can it be conferred on another person without them knowing?
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.
where does that definition insist that it's solely a mental exercise?
we're not talking about Roman errors.
What is your definition of belief? Can it be conferred on another person without them knowing?
Yes, I'm talking about Orthodox errors, and not to leave out Albion, Anglican errors.
yes, at least in the sense you mean (i.e. John the Baptist in the womb).
then why bring up Rome at all?
How is a miraculous description such as that normative? Yes, I agree the unborn can sense a lot more than our culture of abortion admits to, but how to they, or a born infant, accept the Gospel?
It's the same pattern of error.
You're avoiding the issue here. The so-called evidence for "adults only" baptism isn't evidence at all. You merely have turned the circumstances of that particular meeting into obligatory ground rules for all humans. You might just as well have argued that only men can be baptized since it was a male who was instructed about baptism in that case.And how would Jesus have a conversation with an infant?
We don't either, and that's been explained many times here, so it would be nice if that particular--and erroneous--objection to baptizing children were dropped.I don't believe baptising an infant saves that person...
Where's the Scriptural evidence for THAT mock baptismal ceremony to be found?You want to call it a dedication, fine.
Neither do we.I don't think an unbaptised infant goes to hell
Don't you think that it's just tad arrogant to assign error to Orthodoxy while holding to beliefs that didn't show up in Christianity for 1600 years?
Be honest. You can't find Baptist theological particulars in the first Christians. They simply don't exist, just as Roman Catholicism ain't there, despite what they claim.
you do it too with the Trinity,
and a Mormon or JW would say the same thing to you that you are saying to us.
John the Baptist isn't the only one who is said to be filled with the Spirit even from his mother's womb.
but it does show that the only evidence from Scripture affirms our position and not yours. your definition of belief is found nowhere in the Bible
You're avoiding the issue here.
The so-called evidence for "adults only" baptism isn't evidence at all. You merely have turned the circumstances of that particular meeting into obligatory ground rules for all humans.
You might just as well have argued that only men can be baptized since it was a male who was instructed about baptism in that case.
We don't either, and that's been explained many times here, so it would be nice if that particular--and erroneous--objection to baptizing children were dropped.
Where's the Scriptural evidence for THAT mock baptismal ceremony to be found?
Do you have anything that actually bears upon the issues involved with baptizing children of believers?
So what do you imagine I believe that the NT church did not? Do you find incense and the ritualism of your church there?
Those cults would say the same to you, what does that prove?
So who else, and is that normative for today? How come millions of infant baptized people who were supposedly 'filled with the Spirit' today live as any non-Christian and rarely if ever attend church? As I said before, half the population of the UK are baptized Anglicans yet only 1%+ attend church. Is that 'Spirit filled'?
We disagree.
Cite?
Those cults would say the same to you, what does that prove?
...and I will continue to stick to the topic here and not respond to attempts to switch to off-topic issues.And your dodge of my question is noted.
That doesn't address my point. The event you referred us to does not deal with the requirements for baptism in all cases; that passage clearly describes a reply given to a particular person and dealt with his particular situation.Why would I say that when I just posted a NT passage that specifically said men and women were baptized, it didn't mention infants.
Then what was the point in you saying this: "You want to call it a dedication, fine." Obviously, I do not agree with those dedication ceremonies; and if you are now saying that you do not do so, either, what was the purpose in mentioning them?I'm not promoting it.
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?