GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Infant Baptism  (Read 282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • 1st Day Texas Conservativite
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8595
  • Manna: 353
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Infant Baptism
« on: Sat Jul 06, 2019 - 08:20:00 »
Why does anyone believe in infant baptism?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Infant Baptism
« on: Sat Jul 06, 2019 - 08:20:00 »

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
  • Manna: 743
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #1 on: Fri Jul 12, 2019 - 15:10:30 »
This is a good question. I would venture to say because they do not truly understanding the biblical teaching on the subject.

Lets be honest with ourselves the bible does not leave man unclear on the subject of baptism. It is clearly taught just what baptism is all about and what God does in the act of baptism. 

I would say it is man that has muddied the understanding on baptism and does not want to see what the teaching is because they do not want to admit thet could have been led astray.

But let the truth be know the bible is clear on the subject of baptism. Let God be heard on what he says on this subject.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #1 on: Fri Jul 12, 2019 - 15:10:30 »

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • Manna: 222
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #2 on: Fri Jul 12, 2019 - 16:04:43 »
This is a good question. I would venture to say because they do not truly understanding the biblical teaching on the subject.

Lets be honest with ourselves the bible does not leave man unclear on the subject of baptism. It is clearly taught just what baptism is all about and what God does in the act of baptism. 

I would say it is man that has muddied the understanding on baptism and does not want to see what the teaching is because they do not want to admit thet could have been led astray.

But let the truth be know the bible is clear on the subject of baptism. Let God be heard on what he says on this subject.

True.

However, it is not just a matter of misunderstanding or misconstruing the teaching on the subject of baptism, but it is also a matter of misunderstanding or misconstruing the teaching on the subject of hamartiology, particularly how and why a person becomes sinful.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #2 on: Fri Jul 12, 2019 - 16:04:43 »

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7122
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #3 on: Fri Jul 12, 2019 - 21:48:32 »
Why does anyone believe in infant baptism?

I don't know of anyone outside of catholicism that believes in it, it apparently is a catholic doctrine. And as with many of their doctrines, it is based upon the teachings of men rather than upon Scripture, for I know of no such passages that it can be based upon.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #3 on: Fri Jul 12, 2019 - 21:48:32 »

Online seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #4 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 09:23:46 »
I don't know of anyone outside of catholicism that believes in it, it apparently is a catholic doctrine. And as with many of their doctrines, it is based upon the teachings of men rather than upon Scripture, for I know of no such passages that it can be based upon.

Presbyterians do.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #4 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 09:23:46 »



Online seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #5 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 10:06:09 »
I was reviewing some of the "stories" that have turned up as I was doing genealogy.

You should find this interesting of my ancestor going back a few hundred years.  And the reason HE believed in infant Baptism....

Francis Doughty (clergyman)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Francis Doughty (1616 – c. 1670) was an English-American Presbyterian minister.

Doughty was born in Bristol, and was ordained as a priest in the Church of England by William Piers.

[1] He served the parishes of Boxwell, Leighterton and Rangeworthy in Gloucestershire.

[2] In 1635 he got in trouble by referring to Charles I as "Charles by common election and general consent King of England".

[3]Doughty decided to emigrate to America, going first to Massachusetts, where he probably arrived in 1638.

[4] He pastored churches in Taunton and Cohasset, but was persecuted on account of his beliefs regarding infant baptism.

[5] He had preached that all children of baptized parents were children of Abraham, and therefore ought to be baptized as well
.

[6]Doughty then moved to Long Island, where in 1642, Director of New Netherland Willem Kieft granted him and his associates a large tract of land at Maspeth, "with power to erect a church, and to exercise the Reformed Christian religion which they profess."

[7] The following year, however, war with Indians forced him to relocate to New Amsterdam, where he pastored a church in Flushing for five years.

[5] He came into conflict with Kieft, and Captain John Underhill ordered his church doors to be shut.

[7] Doughty migrated again, and pastored churches in Northampton County, Virginia, Charles County, Maryland, and Rappahannock County, Virginia.

[2] In Virginia he became known for "troublesome but unsuccessful witch-hunting proclivities".

[1]William Gray Dixon calls Doughty the "Apostle of Presbyterianism in America", and suggests that his character "seems to have well befitted his name.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Doughty_(clergyman)

References:
References
 Bell, James B. (2013). Empire, Religion and Revolution in Early Virginia, 1607–1786.

 Palgrave Macmillan. p. 90. ISBN 9781137327925. Retrieved 10 October 2015.

 Dorman, John Frederick (2004). Adventurers of Purse and Person, Virginia, 1607-1624/5: Families G-P. Genealogical Publishing Co. p. 134. ISBN 9780806317632. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
 
Parker, Henry Ainsworth (1906). "The Reverend Francis Doughty". Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 10. p. 262. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
 
Parker, "Reverend Francis Doughty," p. 261.
 Dixon, William Gray (1930). The Romance of the Catholic Presbyterian Church. p. 233.

 Lechford, Thomas (1642). "Plain Dealing, or Newes from New-England". Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Volume 23. p. 96. Retrieved 10 October 2015.

 "Rev. Francis Doughty". Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 5 (3): 290. 1898. JSTOR 4242057 – via JSTOR. (Registration required (help)). Cite uses deprecated parameter |registration= (help)




Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #5 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 10:06:09 »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • 1st Day Texas Conservativite
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8595
  • Manna: 353
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #6 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 16:59:10 »
Presbyterians do.

But no basis in scripture since it is clear that baptism means immersion and babies cannot have faith.

Online seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #7 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 17:15:48 »
But no basis in scripture since it is clear that baptism means immersion and babies cannot have faith.

Perhaps Presbyterians are a cult?

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #8 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 19:38:41 »
Depending on how people define baptism and it's purpose will determine the method and principal used to baptize an individual.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #8 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 19:38:41 »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • 1st Day Texas Conservativite
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8595
  • Manna: 353
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #9 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 19:45:28 »
Depending on how people define baptism and it's purpose will determine the method and principal used to baptize an individual.

Better to use scripture instead.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • 1st Day Texas Conservativite
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8595
  • Manna: 353
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #10 on: Sun Jul 14, 2019 - 19:46:27 »
Perhaps Presbyterians are a cult?

They are a church wrong on baptism.   Many are no longer Christian in that they are "affirming."

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 03:22:57 »
Better to use scripture instead.
Of course but that leads to another situation where people can't agree on the interpretation of the verses.


Not that I agree with the reasoning but this page offers an explanation to infant baptism.


https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism

Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8976
  • Manna: 272
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 05:29:17 »
Anyone who believes in original sin and also believes that the act of being baptized, regardless of the belief of the one being baptized, washes away sin will most likely believe in infant baptism.  But of course neither of these are true.

Offline yogi bear

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
  • Manna: 743
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 09:56:24 »
Quote
Of course but that leads to another situation where people can't agree on the interpretation of the verses.

It does not make any difference in what one interprets the scripture cause the scripture is very clear and does not need interpreted just needs accepted as it is written. It even verifies it self with other scripture so there is no misleading. It is man that twisted the written scripture to satisfy their need. 

There is only one truth and it is recorded in simple plain to read text. Man just does not to accept so they go to great lengths to reword what is recorded bur scripture stands alone and backs itself with other passage to give the true understanding of what it means.

Baptism along with faith is two of the most clear teachings in the word we just have to accept what is written and be will to conform to scripture rather than try to make it conform to our understanding. 

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6348
  • Manna: 339
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 10:06:14 »
Why does anyone believe in infant baptism?
Good question~it only proves how powerful influence false religion has upon even the very best of God's children. Not only is not infant baptism not taught in the NT, neither is there ONE instance where YOUTH are baptized, NOT ONE. Youth to me is under the age of twenty, proven by the scriptures. IT was ALWAYS MEN AND WOMEN that were baptized. I believe there are some strong reasons as to why, but time will not allow me to speak now on this subject, maybe tomorrow.  RB

Offline Alan

  • I AM Canadian!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Manna: 288
  • Gender: Male
  • Politically Incorrect
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #15 on: Yesterday at 10:52:46 »
Good question~it only proves how powerful influence false religion has upon even the very best of God's children. Not only is not infant baptism not taught in the NT, neither is there ONE instance where YOUTH are baptized, NOT ONE. Youth to me is under the age of twenty, proven by the scriptures. IT was ALWAYS MEN AND WOMEN that were baptized. I believe there are some strong reasons as to why, but time will not allow me to speak now on this subject, maybe tomorrow.  RB


"All the household" appears at lest a couple of times, while it doesn't specify any ages of the household members I can only assume that Catholics believe that must mean all of the children as well.



Online seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #16 on: Yesterday at 13:48:47 »
Of course but that leads to another situation where people can't agree on the interpretation of the verses.


Not that I agree with the reasoning but this page offers an explanation to infant baptism.


https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism

Thank you for posting this link Alan.

It does explain things well, IMO. The biblical references even more so.

Question for those of you who do not believe in infant Baptism.....

Do you regard Baptism as a sacrament?

Westminster Confession of Faith 1647:

Chapter XXXVIII  ( 28 for those of you not understanding Roman Numerals)

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,a not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church,b but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,c of his ingrafting into Christ,d of regeneration,e of remission of sins,f and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life:g which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.h

a. Mat 28:19. • b. 1 Cor 12:13. • c. Rom 4:11 with Col 2:11-12. • d. Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27. • e. Titus 3:5. • f. Mark 1:4. • g. Rom 6:3-4. • h. Mat 28:19-20.

2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel lawfully called thereunto.a

a. Mat 3:11; 28:19-20; John 1:33.

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.a

a. Mark 7:4; Acts 2:41; 16:33; Heb 9:10, 19-22.
 

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,a but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.b

a. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38. • b. Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14.

        (Acts 2:38-39 ~38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
         remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your
         children
, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.)

        (1 Corinthians 7:14 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
        husband: else ywere your children unclean; but now are they zholy.)



5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,a yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,b or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.c

a. Luke 7:30 with Exod 4:24-26. • b. Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47; Rom 4:11. • c. Acts 8:13, 23.

6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;a yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.b

a. John 3:5, 8. • b. Acts 2:38, 41; Gal 3:27; Eph 5:25-26; Titus 3:5.

7. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person.a

a. Titus 3:5.

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6348
  • Manna: 339
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #17 on: Yesterday at 14:14:05 »
Thank you for posting this link Alan.
While I have not read Alan's posted link (but will before posting in depth on this subject) there are several errors in your's that you posted from Westminster Confession of Faith 1647:  Does Circumcision Prove Infant Baptism? as they claim?

No! For if it is, then only infant boys should be baptized and that leaves out all females including you! (Genesis 17:10; Exodus 12:48).

No! Circumcision was a sign of a covenant based on physical descent. Baptism is a sign of conversion resulting from grace, which has nothing to do with physical descent (Matthew 3:7-12; Galatians 3:16,26-29).

No! John the Baptist baptized in water those who already had the sign of circumcision. This showed that the sign was different and the condition was different.

No! The children of God are not those born of certain parents or given some ritualistic application of water, but rather the result of a spiritual birth (John 1:12-13).

No! The children of God are not the natural descendants of Abraham, but rather the spiritual descendants (Romans 9:6-8). And these are not the same.

No! The early Jewish Christians under apostolic direction did not think so, for they continued to circumcise their infant boys (Acts 21:20-21), which was superfluous and contradictory, if baptism had replaced circumcision.

No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is a circumcision made without hands by the cutting off of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins (Colossians 2:11). When they start baptizing without using hands, we will reconsider their argument.

No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is an internal operation of the Spirit upon the heart of man (Romans 2:28-29), which purifies his heart, and makes him a fit candidate for baptism (Ist Peter 3:21)!

No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), but circumcision had no prerequisite condition (Levictus 12:2-3).

No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), and this is impossible for infants (Jonah 4:11).

No! When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should be required of Gentile believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism taking the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it was not even mentioned.

No? Then where did this heresy come from? It came from the Presbyterians, who retained the baptismal heresies of their mother church, Rome. They ransacked the church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church to find a logical defense for their continuation of Rome's superstition of infant sprinkling. No apostle or early saint even considered the idea, as faith and repentance were necessary for baptism.
Quote from: seekingHiswisdom on: Today at 13:48:47
Do you regard Baptism as a sacrament?
NO~more then that there are NO sacraments mentioned in the NT, only by the cults of EOC/RCC. More on this later, also more on your post to point out the many errors therein. 
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 14:19:11 by RB »

Online seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #18 on: Yesterday at 16:45:02 »
While I have not read Alan's posted link (but will before posting in depth on this subject) there are several errors in your's that you posted from Westminster Confession of Faith 1647:  Does Circumcision Prove Infant Baptism? as they claim?

No! For if it is, then only infant boys should be baptized and that leaves out all females including you! (Genesis 17:10; Exodus 12:48).

No! Circumcision was a sign of a covenant based on physical descent. Baptism is a sign of conversion resulting from grace, which has nothing to do with physical descent (Matthew 3:7-12; Galatians 3:16,26-29).

No! John the Baptist baptized in water those who already had the sign of circumcision. This showed that the sign was different and the condition was different.

No! The children of God are not those born of certain parents or given some ritualistic application of water, but rather the result of a spiritual birth (John 1:12-13).

No! The children of God are not the natural descendants of Abraham, but rather the spiritual descendants (Romans 9:6-8). And these are not the same.

No! The early Jewish Christians under apostolic direction did not think so, for they continued to circumcise their infant boys (Acts 21:20-21), which was superfluous and contradictory, if baptism had replaced circumcision.

No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is a circumcision made without hands by the cutting off of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins (Colossians 2:11). When they start baptizing without using hands, we will reconsider their argument.

No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is an internal operation of the Spirit upon the heart of man (Romans 2:28-29), which purifies his heart, and makes him a fit candidate for baptism (Ist Peter 3:21)!

No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), but circumcision had no prerequisite condition (Levictus 12:2-3).

No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), and this is impossible for infants (Jonah 4:11).

No! When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should be required of Gentile believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism taking the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it was not even mentioned.

No? Then where did this heresy come from? It came from the Presbyterians, who retained the baptismal heresies of their mother church, Rome. They ransacked the church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church to find a logical defense for their continuation of Rome's superstition of infant sprinkling. No apostle or early saint even considered the idea, as faith and repentance were necessary for baptism.NO~more then that there are NO sacraments mentioned in the NT, only by the cults of EOC/RCC. More on this later, also more on your post to point out the many errors therein.

Guess what Red. I frankly do not care.

Save your fingers.

I know where you stand. I know where all the posters in this thread stand.

Once upon a time it bothered me.... no more.

I own my beliefs. At last.

If I am wrong then I will suffer the eternal pits of hell, knowing every day there that faith counts for nothing.

Why I feel so drawn into threads like this is beyond me. Maybe it is for the shock value of re-reading what you all continually say and the affirmation of my likely destination according to some.

You say...No! For if it is, then only infant boys should be baptized and that leaves out all females including you!

Perhaps it is as it should be. Biblical times it was all about men. In the Muslim world it is all about men. Dare I say that even on GC often it is often all about men.

Maybe females should not be baptized. Not many are mentioned in the bible attached to that.... Off the top of my head by name I can only think of Lydia.

I only know that a year ago when I was trying so hard to be immersed.... no one wanted to do the deed.

So what that tells me is I am not wanted. I am not chosen. And as I said...

Save your fingers cause I knew every point you would argue when I was posting that.

TC had asked why infant baptisms.

Alan posted what the Catholics believe.

And I posted the Presbyterian Westminster Confession.

It is obvious that religion is a cult. And we all know what happens to cultists in the end. ::tippinghat::






Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8976
  • Manna: 272
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #19 on: Yesterday at 18:49:29 »
Guess what Red. I frankly do not care.
I think you do care.But you shouldn't care about what anyone here thinks about it; rather, you should care about what you think the Bible says about it.
Quote from: seeking
If I am wrong then I will suffer the eternal pits of hell, knowing every day there that faith counts for nothing.
I do not think you will suffer the eternal pits of hell for being wrong about this.  After all faith is the significant signature of the saved.  It is not the sum total but I have no doubt but what it will count for a whole lot.
Quote from: seeking
I only know that a year ago when I was trying so hard to be immersed.... no one wanted to do the deed.
Then perhaps you were looking in the wrong place.  If you can't find some clergy in your area that is willing to baptized you by immersion, then get a friend to help you with it.  Nothing in the Bible says that anything about baptism depends upon the baptizer.
Quote from: seeking
So what that tells me is I am not wanted. I am not chosen.
That says nothing of the kind.  But that is just the sort of poppy-cock that can come out of the false Calvinist doctrine of election.
Quote from: seeking
TC had asked why infant baptisms.
Infant baptism derives primarily from the false teaching of original sin.  Original sin is wrong and so is infant baptism.

Offline soterion

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • Manna: 222
  • Gender: Male
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #20 on: Yesterday at 18:57:49 »
It seems to me that infant water application ( I can't refer to sprinkling as baptism) serves more to the peace of mind of the parents than anything else.

Nothing on a spiritual level is taking place in the infant. He doesn't need to be saved; he is safe as an innocent without sin. It is the false belief of the parents, ultimately coming from the church leadership, that is driving fears to have the infant watered.

So, regardless of what is actually going on with the child, as long as the parents are satisfied, that's all that really matters.

Online seekingHiswisdom

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Manna: 11
  • paining by Akiane Kramarik
Re: Infant Baptism
« Reply #21 on: Today at 06:25:15 »
I think you do care.But you shouldn't care about what anyone here thinks about it; rather, you should care about what you think the Bible says about it.

I do not think you will suffer the eternal pits of hell for being wrong about this.  After all faith is the significant signature of the saved.  It is not the sum total but I have no doubt but what it will count for a whole lot.

Then perhaps you were looking in the wrong place.  If you can't find some clergy in your area that is willing to baptized you by immersion, then get a friend to help you with it.  Nothing in the Bible says that anything about baptism depends upon the baptizer.

That says nothing of the kind.  But that is just the sort of poppy-cock that can come out of the false Calvinist doctrine of election.

Infant baptism derives primarily from the false teaching of original sin.  Original sin is wrong and so is infant baptism.

Whatever.

 

     
anything