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.
No but baptism is a way to show that someone has accepted Christ...not to save them
Babies and young children cannot intellectually make the decision (understand properly) to accept Christ as Saviour first , then make the decision to be baptized secondly.
That verse is dealing with a spouse within a marriage that is an unbeliever.What about the scripture that declares the believers children sanctified.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Then why didn't Jesus set the example and get baptized when He was an infant?Rather it to show that Christ has accepted them. A child of believing parents, or even one believing parent, is a child of the new covenant, and therefore part of the visible church, which is what baptism indicates.
No, but God can, and baptism is His work.
That verse is dealing with a spouse within a marriage that is an unbeliever.
1 Corinthians chapter 7 is dealing with marriage.
Basically the one within the marriage who is saved should live accordingly before the one who is not.
Not knowing that living and behaving in a Godly manner could not only bring the unbeliever to God , but also any children that may be involved.
Look at what Paul wrote two verses later in 1 Corinthians 7:16 (KJV)
For what knowest thou, O wife , whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man , whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Notice the question marks that Paul inserted in that verse .
It doesn't mean the one or other will be saved , but certainly it is clearly an option for the lost one even more so if the believing spouse live and love according to God's Word.
Insomuch that even from that Godly influence any children involved within that marriage could also be influenced to be saved.
What does being baptised- entering into God's Covenant- have to do with forcing one's salvation?I don't have to prove anything and circumcision is not the topic here.
God allows us to choose or reject.
He doesn't force His salvation upon anyone and baptism comes after salvation.
Therefore one can conclude that infant baptism is not Scriptural.
And the spouse.But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?
Where did I ever state they couldn't?But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?
Number one you are putting the cart before the horse.What does being baptised- entering into God's Covenant- have to do with forcing one's salvation?
Under the Law, infant boys had no choice in being circumcised. It was imposed on them by the Mosaic Law (which was God-given), and their parents were responsible for getting the child circumcised. At no point was the child asked if he wanted to enter the Covenant- God (and his parents) made that decision for him. This is the standard that God has set, and the first Christians (including the apostles, and Jesus Himself) understood this.
Please provide examples of infants being baptized in the Scriptures.I was baptized as an infant. I have no desire to get baptized again due to I think my first baptism counted. There are examples in scripture of children being baptized so... Its valid. There's no point in infants who grow up to get baptized again and again.
So is the unbelieving husband but your church wouldn't consider baptizing him. Why not? The wording is exactly the same for both.But it clearly states that the children are holy. Who are you to say that they cannot be baptized?
Where did I ever state they couldn't?
And what we are discussing involving the verse you and I provided has nothing to do with baptism.
Please provide examples of infants being baptized in the Scriptures.
Just curious for those that believe in infant baptism, sprinkling, etc where did this idea come from since Jesus himself was not baptized until he was around 29-30?
to your children
Circumcision of the flesh was a sign that one was a member of the nation of Israel. All of the nation of Israel of the flesh were under the Law of Moses.Under the Law, infant boys had no choice in being circumcised. It was imposed on them by the Mosaic Law (which was God-given), and their parents were responsible for getting the child circumcised. At no point was the child asked if he wanted to enter the Covenant- God (and his parents) made that decision for him. This is the standard that God has set, and the first Christians (including the apostles, and Jesus Himself) understood this.
Regarding our previous discussion from verses from 1 Corinthians 7:14 and 16, I believe Paul is still speaking in a futuristic manner of the possibilities not only regarding the husband and wife within the marriage, but also any children that may be involved regarding salvation.But it does state that the child is holy because of the parent. Whose to say that child who is holy cannot be baptized?
No. No infant baptisms were brought up in this thread , but rather assumptions were brought up.Its already been stated in the first page of the thread. But, The centurion and his household were baptized. I highly doubt they were all grownups. Not to mention Lydias household was also baptized see acts 16:15. I highly doubt all of these households in scripture were all grownup adults. Many of them were infants and children. But anyway yeah they've already been brought up in this thread.
What about circumcision? The infant boys of Israel (including Jesus) were circumcised- thereby entering into God's covenant- despite not having made the decision to themselves. It was made for them by their parents, who obeyed the Mosaic Law. "Personal acceptance" isn't the standard that God set for us in the past, and we have no reason to believe that He has changed His mind.
Regarding our previous discussion from verses from 1 Corinthians 7:14 and 16, I believe Paul is still speaking in a futuristic manner of the possibilities not only regarding the husband and wife within the marriage, but also any children that may be involved regarding salvation.
He chose to use the word holy regarding the child , but used the word saved regarding the parents.
It was a hypothetical scenario that he presented which obviously existed then and now.
But, none of this has anything to do with infant baptism.
They are good questions that you bring up however.
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?