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.
There's also zero evidence in the bible that says babies weren't baptized. John 3:16 doesn't say "All those over a certain age who believe and are baptized will be saved and any under a certain age are saved automatically".
Those passages don't automatically assume that ALL children believe in Jesus. They just talk about the children that do. I know more than a few kids who have never heard of Jesus.
There is only one baptism. It is done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
We believe in baptizing babies because it's scriptural. We do so because they have a need for forgiveness (Psalm 51:5), they too are included in the command to baptize “all nations” (Matthew 28:19-20), and they can believe through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 18:6; Luke 18:15-17).
If you say that only those who can declare their belief vocally can be baptized, what do you do about those who cannot?
If there is only one baptism what do you do with this verse?
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
When we lump the different types of baptism as one we bring confusion. If water baptism saves, and we know that the disciples were baptized with water, what did Jesus mean when he said to Peter, "When thou art converted---"? (Luke 22:32)
If there isn't more than one baptism how do you answer this verse?This doesn't refer to two different baptisms. It just refers to Jesus being more powerful than John the Baptist - which is the ENTIRE point of his statement. It's not really about the baptism, it's about the power difference.
I'm getting the sense that you don't believe the Holy Spirit is present during a water baptism. If that's the case, I do feel sorry for you.
There is only one baptism. Saying otherwise actually goes against the SoF of this site, too, as we cling to the Nicene Creed:
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38) The asterisks don't pertain here, but I will list why they are there for clarification: **May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.
As to what Jesus said to Peter, he wasn't talking about being converted in the modern sense that we view being converted. Peter, at this time, was unknowingly subverting Jesus. It's why he says "get thee behind me, Satan" to him. Has nothing to do with baptism whatsoever.
If there isn't more than one baptism how do you answer this verse?
Act 11:16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized G907 with water; but ye shall be baptized G907 with the Holy Ghost.
I agree that there is only one baptism that saves. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
The Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ when we are born again.
Saying that you feel sorry for me is not the spirit in which I feel comfortable in.
If there is only one baptism what do you do with this verse?
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
There are three major forms of Baptism in the Bible.
1. Baptism of repentance. Man is the baptizer, water is the mode, and it is unto repentance.
2. Baptism of Jesus. Jesus is the baptizer, fire is the mode, and it is with gifts of the Holy Spirit.
3. Baptism into Christ. The Holy Spirit is the baptizer, conversion (or the new birth)is the result, and it is for eternal life.
Psalm 51:5 (David)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
The two are not mutually exclusive. So is David in error?
There's also zero evidence in the bible that says babies weren't baptized. John 3:16 doesn't say "All those over a certain age who believe and are baptized will be saved and any under a certain age are saved automatically".
Those passages don't automatically assume that ALL children believe in Jesus. They just talk about the children that do. I know more than a few kids who have never heard of Jesus.
On what basis is the act of infant baptism justified?
"indoctrinate them while they are young for maximized succes of brainwashing"?
Oh, kinda like public schools?
You're on thin ice, Dogma. I'd tread carefully if I was you.
However, it is kinda true, isn't it...
It's far easier to have a child believe the claims of a religion, then an educated adult. Children have a tendency to not ask question and simply accept whatever they are told by what they perceive as "trusted authorities", like their parents.
It's not at all surprising to me that most, if not all, religions never take the stance of "let's wait till people are educated and developed enough so that they can be reasoned into the faith".
Instead, you are born and then immediatly labeled a "christian child". And even before you can properly open your eyes, you get baptised.
No. Schools are about education, not indoctrination.
Sorry, it was too easy and couldn't help myself.
However, it is kinda true, isn't it...
It's far easier to have a child believe the claims of a religion, then an educated adult. Children have a tendency to not ask question and simply accept whatever they are told by what they perceive as "trusted authorities", like their parents.
It's not at all surprising to me that most, if not all, religions never take the stance of "let's wait till people are educated and developed enough so that they can be reasoned into the faith".
Instead, you are born and then immediatly labeled a "christian child". And even before you can properly open your eyes, you get baptised.
Maybe. But little children become teenagers, who may question/rebel against the faith, if only because their parents hold it. There's no guarantee that a child who is taken to Sunday school will accept the Christian faith, and do so for the rest of its life.
Were you provided with a list of reasons why you should trust, and love, your parents?
1) You shouldn't be. Being born in a "Christian" country does not make someone a Christian nor guarantee that they will become one later in life.
My 2 oldest cousins were baptised automatically, as babies, even though their parents didn't believe in what they were doing. Now they are humanists, not christians.
2) Children aren't automatically baptised when they are babies - some are toddlers or older. Some aren't baptised at all.
I must admit that, for some, baptism is a ritual; even a superstition. "Let's get her baptised so she will go to heaven if anything happens to us" (false). Or "if we get him baptised, he can wear the family heirloom and it will be a good reason to invite the cousins down," (not necessary, you can have a service of thanksgiving and family party without a baptism.)
3) I can understand the implication that children aren't old enough to decide if they want to be baptised, if that's what you're saying; but parents don't ask their children if they want to have vaccinations, learn to read, go to school, have a baby brother or sister or dozens of other things.
Christian parents who know that God is their heavenly Father, can trust him and have the joy and peace that comes from living a life with him, want that for their children too, because they want what is best for them. They can't force their child to accept their beliefs, they may adopt their own faith when older, or none at all. but they can give them what they believe to be the best start. Just as parents who are vegetarians and/or vegans might bring their child up to eat no meat at all, or some parents may decide that their kids will not grow up addicted to tv and so they don't have one in the house. Some of us may look at them and think, "what a shame, the kids are missing out, there's nothing wrong with burgers" or whatever, but those parents are doing what they feel is best for their children. I dare say there are also atheist parents who think "I'm not having my child indoctrinated with those myths", and so decide that their kids will not go to Sunday school.
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?