Infant Baptism

[popsthebuilder]

You're wrong. Baptism is not "admittance of being a born again Christian". Baptism is being born from above. Jesus said it this way: "In all truth I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above ... In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit"


You've never been baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?



If you are not baptised then you ought to seek baptism.

I do plan to get baptised but don't know where to go to have it done. I am not an official member of any congregation. I don't want it to be in vain. On top of that, evidently I don't fully understand the doctrine of baptism so want to learn its significance and meaning first. I was literally saved on a personal level about five years ago. Lately baptism seems to be one of the next steps for me in Faith under God. I still have no clue Where to go to have it done. I'm not comfortable in crowds, and huge congregations of people kind of make me uneasy. Really I think I would prefer it to be outdoors in a natural body of water with as small a group of witnesses as possible.

Does anyone denomination do that, or is it wishful thinking.

Someone mentioned Anabaptists or Mennonites, and that they are deceived in their doctrine. That seems far fetched to me. As does the assumption that one is saved by merely being splashed with water and proclaiming the name of Jesus.

It's probably pretty obvious that I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to baptism. My opinions on this thread are just that. I am seeking help in this matter and not ridicule. I stated in my first post that I could be wrong, but would really like scriptural references for anyone who's opinion is that, yes, I am wrong.

Thanks in advance,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[psalms 91]

I do plan to get baptised but don't know where to go to have it done. I am not an official member of any congregation. I don't want it to be in vain. On top of that, evidently I don't fully understand the doctrine of baptism so want to learn its significance and meaning first. I was literally saved on a personal level about five years ago. Lately baptism seems to be one of the next steps for me in Faith under God. I still have no clue Where to go to have it done. I'm not comfortable in crowds, and huge congregations of people kind of make me uneasy. Really I think I would prefer it to be outdoors in a natural body of water with as small a group of witnesses as possible.

Does anyone denomination do that, or is it wishful thinking.

Someone mentioned Anabaptists or Mennonites, and that they are deceived in their doctrine. That seems far fetched to me. As does the assumption that one is saved by merely being splashed with water and proclaiming the name of Jesus.

It's probably pretty obvious that I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to baptism. My opinions on this thread are just that. I am seeking help in this matter and not ridicule. I stated in my first post that I could be wrong, but would really like scriptural references for anyone who's opinion is that, yes, I am wrong.

Thanks in advance,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

There are some congregations which use immersion in water outside, you just ned to look they are out there. As for baptism I am of the belief it is the persons heart that counts so if only a couple witnesses and soomeone to do it and you understand that you are immersed in your old man or life and when you arise you are a new creature in your inner man, you profess your belief and your new life and rejoice in that. It can be as simple as that

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do plan to get baptised but don't know where to go to have it done. I am not an official member of any congregation. I don't want it to be in vain. On top of that, evidently I don't fully understand the doctrine of baptism so want to learn its significance and meaning first. I was literally saved on a personal level about five years ago. Lately baptism seems to be one of the next steps for me in Faith under God. I still have no clue Where to go to have it done. I'm not comfortable in crowds, and huge congregations of people kind of make me uneasy. Really I think I would prefer it to be outdoors in a natural body of water with as small a group of witnesses as possible.

Does anyone denomination do that, or is it wishful thinking.

Someone mentioned Anabaptists or Mennonites, and that they are deceived in their doctrine. That seems far fetched to me. As does the assumption that one is saved by merely being splashed with water and proclaiming the name of Jesus.

It's probably pretty obvious that I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to baptism. My opinions on this thread are just that. I am seeking help in this matter and not ridicule. I stated in my first post that I could be wrong, but would really like scriptural references for anyone who's opinion is that, yes, I am wrong.

Thanks in advance,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Most denominations will want to baptise in the church building. Some will baptise at the beach or a river in warm weather. The Catholic Church would very likely want you to spend the time between now and Easter Vigil in 2017 learning the faith and the significance of baptism before baptising you (if you wanted to be baptised) at the Easter vigil in 2017. I am not sure what our Lutheran brethren would say so one who is a Lutheran can tell you that.

 

[Josiah]

How can an infant be understand and follow the teachings of Christ is they can't even comprehend it?

Thank you. If I may, respectfully.....


1. This thread is about the new (well, 500 years old) tradition created by Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century that we are forbidden from baptize any who have not yet lived "X" years since their birth (I post "X" years because no one, to date, has established how many years that is, what birthday one must first celebrate). It's this German's protests and denounciation of the practice going back to 69 AD (at the very latest) embraced by 100% of Christians from at least 69 AD until this German came up with this "withhold" doctrine in the 16th Century, denouncing what became known as the practice of PAEDO-baptism (popularly called "infant baptism").

2. I don't know what any can "understand." But I do know that Scripture states that "NO ONE" (that seems to be rather universal).... NO ONE is ABLE to declare "Jesus is Lord." No one. Can. 1 Corinthians 12:3. Scripture stresses that it's the HOLY SPIRIT that is entirely responsible for our coming to faith, our "understanding" (if that's what you mean). Thus.... you have a point. Since those under this (never disclosed) age of X are included in the "NO ONE CAN" then I'd agree, they probably can't understand and believe apart from Spirit. But then "NO ONE" would seem to also apply to a 45 year old German with 3 Ph.D's, an IQ of 260 and a seminary education. Scripture says that no one can understand, the Holy Spirit brings about understanding.... the Holy Spirit brings about faith.

3. I can find no verse that says, "Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they are ABLE to understand" (and of course, Scripture says NO ONE can understand). I can't find anything that forbids us to baptize those under a certain IQ or educational level.


I hope that helps. You might re-read the opening post for more.



- Josiah





.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Thank you. If I may, respectfully.....


1. This thread is about the new (well, 500 years old) tradition created by Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century that we are forbidden from baptize any who have not yet lived "X" years since their birth (I post "X" years because no one, to date, has established how many years that is, what birthday one must first celebrate). It's this German's protests and denounciation of the practice going back to 69 AD (at the very latest) embraced by 100% of Christians from at least 69 AD until this German came up with this "withhold" doctrine in the 16th Century, denouncing what became known as the practice of PAEDO-baptism (popularly called "infant baptism").

2. I don't know what any can "understand." But I do know that Scripture states that "NO ONE" (that seems to be rather universal).... NO ONE is ABLE to declare "Jesus is Lord." No one. Can. 1 Corinthians 12:3. Scripture stresses that it's the HOLY SPIRIT that is entirely responsible for our coming to faith, our "understanding" (if that's what you mean). Thus.... you have a point. Since those under this (never disclosed) age of X are included in the "NO ONE CAN" then I'd agree, they probably can't understand and believe apart from Spirit. But then "NO ONE" would seem to also apply to a 45 year old German with 3 Ph.D's, an IQ of 260 and a seminary education. Scripture says that no one can understand, the Holy Spirit brings about understanding.... the Holy Spirit brings about faith.

3. I can find no verse that says, "Thou mayest NOT baptize any unless and until they are ABLE to understand" (and of course, Scripture says NO ONE can understand). I can't find anything that forbids us to baptize those under a certain IQ or educational level.


I hope that helps. You might re-read the opening post for more.



- Josiah





.

Respectfully, it doesn't have so much to with age but Faith. An infant doesn't have Faith in what they can't even comprehend.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Josiah]

Respectfully, it doesn't have so much to with age but Faith. An infant doesn't have Faith in what they can't even comprehend.

Well, that's an issue for another day and thread.

But where we may disagree is in regard to 1 Corinthians 12:3, etc., etc., etc. I believe NO ONE can understand OR believe - whether you can document they have an IQ of 65 or 100 or 140 or 200 or 260 or whatever level of IQ you believe is mandated. Indeed, I have a Ph.D. (in Physics from the University of California) but I don't even PRETEND that I "understand" soteriology, which is why 2000 years of Christianity has referred to these as MYSTERIES.... and why Scripture calls on the church to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES" of God, not to "mentally comprehend all things." Our "job" is not to "wrap our brains" (puny and limited and sinful such is!) around the things of God to "UNDERSTAND" all of it. We are called to faith (trust/reliance) not to make the things of God "understandable" to those with an IQ of at least (I don't know, what IQ level would you say is the minimun for salvation?). I think FAITH is what is called for (trust, reliance) in terms of justification. And Scripture says faith is the gift of God, the work of the Holy Spirit. In spite of my Ph.D., I don't feel that justification is a matter of me adequately (and how IS "adequately?") UNDERSTANDING in my brain all the things of God. Indeed..... I stand in AWE of God, I admit there is much my PUNY brain does not (and cannot) understand. I don't think that my justification is a matter of taking an extensive exam (like an SAT) and attaining a certain score.... especially when no such text exists so taht we can only GUESS if we have attained the required level of "understanding."

In any case, I can't think of a verse that indicates, "Thou mayest NOT baptize any until they have attained X level of IQ and/or education."


But again, this thread is not about whether justification mandates a certain IQ and educational level (a certain score on a test); it's about Thomas Muenzer's new tradition of forbidding PAEDO-baptism.




Thank you! Blessings!



- Josiah



.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Well, that's an issue for another day and thread.

But where we may disagree is in regard to 1 Corinthians 12:3, etc., etc., etc. I believe NO ONE can understand OR believe - whether you can document they have an IQ of 65 or 100 or 140 or 200 or 260 or whatever level of IQ you believe is mandated. Indeed, I have a Ph.D. (in Physics from the University of California) but I don't even PRETEND that I "understand" soteriology, which is why 2000 years of Christianity has referred to these as MYSTERIES.... and why Scripture calls on the church to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES" of God, not to "mentally comprehend all things." Our "job" is not to "wrap our brains" (puny and limited and sinful such is!) around the things of God to "UNDERSTAND" all of it. We are called to faith (trust/reliance) not to make the things of God "understandable" to those with an IQ of at least (I don't know, what IQ level would you say is the minimun for salvation?). I think FAITH is what is called for (trust, reliance) in terms of justification. And Scripture says faith is the gift of God, the work of the Holy Spirit. In spite of my Ph.D., I don't feel that justification is a matter of me adequately (and how IS "adequately?") UNDERSTANDING in my brain all the things of God. Indeed..... I stand in AWE of God, I admit there is much my PUNY brain does not (and cannot) understand. I don't think that my justification is a matter of taking an extensive exam (like an SAT) and attaining a certain score.... especially when no such text exists so taht we can only GUESS if we have attained the required level of "understanding."

In any case, I can't think of a verse that indicates, "Thou mayest NOT baptize any until they have attained X level of IQ and/or education."


But again, this thread is not about whether justification mandates a certain IQ and educational level (a certain score on a test); it's about Thomas Muenzer's new tradition of forbidding PAEDO-baptism.




Thank you! Blessings!



- Josiah



.

The verses you referenced seem to be talking about no one understanding God or Christ except by the Holy Spirit. Which is what I was saying initially.

Respectfully, with humility, peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Lamb]

Respectfully, it doesn't have so much to with age but Faith. An infant doesn't have Faith in what they can't even comprehend.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Please read back where this has already been proven that even Jesus spoke of the faith of infants.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Please read back where this has already been proven that even Jesus spoke of the faith of infants.

This is a large thread. Could you refer the post numbers?

Thanks, regardless,

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Full O Beans]

there is ZERO biblical basis for infant baptism .

it is not baptism into christ but into a religious spirit or organization . it cannot and does not save .i say this with the confidence that the clear unambiguous scripture says it .

REPENT and be BAPTISED for the remission of sin.. baptism without repentance is nothing more then swimming . and sprinkling is even less then taking a poor shower .
i don't know about you lot but iv not meet a baby that was able to repent of sin in order to then Be baptised .

i do wish people would read the scriptures and know that what the lord Jesus said is true and simply means what he says .

Amen! The only time an infant should be baptized is if he has repented of his sins and confessed Jesus Christ as his Saviour and Lord, and has made the commitment to serve God with his life, fulfilling the Great Commission...and by requesting himself be baptized in obedience to God's word.

 

[Josiah]

Amen! The only time an infant should be baptized is if he has repented of his sins and confessed Jesus Christ as his Saviour and Lord, and has made the commitment to serve God with his life, fulfilling the Great Commission...and by requesting himself be baptized in obedience to God's word.

Would you please quote the following Scriptures:

"Thou art forbidden to let one recieve Baptism unless he/she has celebrated "X" number of birthdays since his/her birth."
"Thou art forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless and until he/she has repented of his/her sins."
"Thou are forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless he/she has recited the sinner's pray or adequately and appropriately responded to an altar call."
"Thou are forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless he/she has made some kind of 'commitment' to serve God with his/her life and pledges to make disciples of all 7.4 billion people by BAPTIZING and teaching all of them."

We have a command to baptize. And I'll agree it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say we may permit Americans, blondes, those with Ph.D's, Gentiles, etc. to be baptized.... it just says to do it. But if one insisted, "But the Bible says we are forbidden to baptize Democrats!!!!" I'm pretty sure you'd say "WHERE?!" Well, in the 16th Century, along came this German man, Mr. Thomas Muenzer, who invented this new tradition, this new view, that we are forbidden to let folks receive Baptism unless they are at least "X" years old (he and his followers will never say how old that is), this protesting PAEDO-baptism (the sole subject of this thread), the universal practice of all Christians since at least 69 AD at the very latest. This new (and still small) tradition of of Mr. Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century of WITHHOLDING baptism to those under the age of X (anti-paedobaptism) is the subject here.




.

 

[Full O Beans]

The command to baptize is for us to baptize the repentant. Babies cannot repent. The command to everyone who repents is to be baptized. Babies cannot follow that command. God doesn't expect babies to repent, nor to be baptized....there is no reason for it. Baptizing babies is a religious exercise in futility, and serves only to assuage the anxious parent who somehow has doubts about salvation, and that a child who dies before understanding accountability will perish.

The word of God does not authorize infant baptism. Rather, it teaches all about personal responsibility and individual accountability---something infants lack, but we as obedient sons and daughters of God must teach them!

 

[Josiah]

An infant doesn't have Faith in what they can't even comprehend.

Here's my first reply to this....

Well, that's an issue for another day and thread.

But where we may disagree is in regard to 1 Corinthians 12:3, etc., etc., etc. I believe NO ONE can understand OR believe - whether you can document they have an IQ of 65 or 100 or 140 or 200 or 260 or whatever level of IQ you believe is mandated. Indeed, I have a Ph.D. (in Physics from the University of California) but I don't even PRETEND that I "understand" soteriology, which is why 2000 years of Christianity has referred to these as MYSTERIES.... and why Scripture calls on the church to be "stewards of the MYSTERIES" of God, not to "mentally comprehend all things." Our "job" is not to "wrap our brains" (puny and limited and sinful such is!) around the things of God to "UNDERSTAND" all of it. We are called to faith (trust/reliance) not to make the things of God "understandable" to those with an IQ of at least (I don't know, what IQ level would you say is the minimun for salvation?). I think FAITH is what is called for (trust, reliance) in terms of justification. And Scripture says faith is the gift of God, the work of the Holy Spirit. In spite of my Ph.D., I don't feel that justification is a matter of me adequately (and how IS "adequately?") UNDERSTANDING in my brain all the things of God. Indeed..... I stand in AWE of God, I admit there is much my PUNY brain does not (and cannot) understand. I don't think that my justification is a matter of taking an extensive exam (like an SAT) and attaining a certain score.... especially when no such text exists so taht we can only GUESS if we have attained the required level of "understanding."

In any case, I can't think of a verse that indicates, "Thou mayest NOT baptize any until they have attained X level of IQ and/or education."


But again, this thread is not about whether justification mandates a certain IQ and educational level (a certain score on a test); it's about Thomas Muenzer's new tradition of forbidding PAEDO-baptism.



.

But I want to add.....


Do you entirely comprehend all the physics of aeronautics, the physics of flight? Believe me, it's a LOT more complex (and mysterious!) than what your high school general science teacher may have presented with his paper airplane... But let's say you "best" all, perhaps you have a Ph.D. in this, and you DO fully comprehend such. THEREFORE, by your rubric, American Airlines permits you to board one of its planes. But there's this 6 week old little boy. Does HE likely have a Ph.D. in this. Not even that elementary school "explanation." No comprehension at ALL. Should American Airlines thus withhold his boarding pass until he attains an adequate level of comprehension (and how would that level be proven?)?

Faith means to rely, to trust, to entrust. Now, even one who is WRONG about the physics of aeronautics (and thus actually is WORSE than not comprehending it, they are WRONG about it), even that one can trust a plane, even that one can board the plane, even that one is welcomed by American Airlines to board. And that 6 week old baby can trust, rely (THAT as well as eating and pooping is about all babies do really well!). A lot of people don't know a thing about brakes and yet not only ride in a car but prehaps drive one. And a lot of people take medications that they don't have a CLUE how or why they work. But they trust them, rely on them, entrust their very lives to them. Or consider God's command that boys 8 days old are to be circumcized in the Old Testament. Did they UNDERSTAND this physical act? Did they COMPREHEND anything about it at 8 days of age? Did God seem to care at all if they did or not; did God say "You must WITHHOLD circumcision until the one receiving it fully comprehends and understands it?" In short, faith = TRUST. It doesn't equal "understand/comprehend." Not in the Bible, not in life, not in anything. Indeed, I'd say in many things, comprehending FOLLOWS trusting, not the other way around (I likely trusted mom LONG before I comprehended and understood everything about her..... indeed, I trusted HER before I know who she was or that understood she was trustworthy). IMO, you are making a "connection" that's just not as strong or strick as you suggest. Respectfully, friend, see my point?

But again, this thread is not about seeking the mandate that we must withhold things from people who don't first fully comprehend and understand it. It's exclusively about a German man in the 16th Century who invented and begun this entirely new tradition of withholding baptism from any unless and until they reach their "X" birthday, thus protesting and denouncing PAEDO-baptism (the universal practice of all Christians from at least 69 AD until then - and still the vastly more common practice... NOT withholding it because a certain not-disclosed age has not yet been reached).



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

The command to baptize is for us to baptize the repentant.

Then just quote the first, "Thou shalt withhold baptism from any unless and until they first repent." "Baptize ONLY the repentant."


Would you please quote the following Scriptures:

"Thou art forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless he/she has celebrated "X" number of birthdays since his/her birth."
"Thou art forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless and until he/she has repented of his/her sins."
"Thou art forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless he/she has recited the sinner's pray or adequately and appropriately responded to an altar call."
"Thou art forbidden to let one receive Baptism unless he/she has made some kind of 'commitment' to serve God with his/her life and pledges to make disciples of all 7.4 billion people by BAPTIZING and teaching all of them."

We have a command to baptize. And I'll agree it doesn't SPECIFICALLY say we may permit Americans, blondes, those with Ph.D's, Gentiles, Methodists, married persons, etc. to be baptized.... it just says to do it. But if one insisted, "But the Bible says we are forbidden to baptize Democrats!!!!" I'm pretty sure you'd say "WHERE?!" Well, in the 16th Century, along came this German man, Mr. Thomas Muenzer, who invented this new tradition, this new view, that we are forbidden to let folks receive Baptism unless they are at least "X" years old (he and his followers will never say how old that is), this protesting PAEDO-baptism (the sole subject of this thread), the universal practice of all Christians since at least 69 AD at the very latest. This new (and still small) tradition of of Mr. Thomas Muenzer in the 16th Century of WITHHOLDING baptism to those under the age of X (anti-paedobaptism) is the subject here.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

An infant is able to die and rise with the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what baptism accomplishes.

 

[Full O Beans]

An infant is able to die and rise with the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what baptism accomplishes.

Baptism does nothing for an unaware infant but get him wet!

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Here's my first reply to this....





But I want to add.....


Do you entirely comprehend all the physics of aeronautics, the physics of flight? Believe me, it's a LOT more complex (and mysterious!) than what your high school general science teacher may have presented with his paper airplane... But let's say you "best" all, perhaps you have a Ph.D. in this, and you DO fully comprehend such. THEREFORE, by your rubric, American Airlines permits you to board one of its planes. But there's this 6 week old little boy. Does HE likely have a Ph.D. in this. Not even that elementary school "explanation." No comprehension at ALL. Should American Airlines thus withhold his boarding pass until he attains an adequate level of comprehension (and how would that level be proven?)?

Faith means to rely, to trust, to entrust. Now, even one who is WRONG about the physics of aeronautics (and thus actually is WORSE than not comprehending it, they are WRONG about it), even that one can trust a plane, even that one can board the plane, even that one is welcomed by American Airlines to board. And that 6 week old baby can trust, rely (THAT as well as eating and pooping is about all babies do really well!). A lot of people don't know a thing about brakes and yet not only ride in a car but prehaps drive one. And a lot of people take medications that they don't have a CLUE how or why they work. But they trust them, rely on them, entrust their very lives to them. Or consider God's command that boys 8 days old are to be circumcized in the Old Testament. Did they UNDERSTAND this physical act? Did they COMPREHEND anything about it at 8 days of age? Did God seem to care at all if they did or not; did God say "You must WITHHOLD circumcision until the one receiving it fully comprehends and understands it?" In short, faith = TRUST. It doesn't equal "understand/comprehend." Not in the Bible, not in life, not in anything. Indeed, I'd say in many things, comprehending FOLLOWS trusting, not the other way around (I likely trusted mom LONG before I comprehended and understood everything about her..... indeed, I trusted HER before I know who she was or that understood she was trustworthy). IMO, you are making a "connection" that's just not as strong or strick as you suggest. Respectfully, friend, see my point?

But again, this thread is not about seeking the mandate that we must withhold things from people who don't first fully comprehend and understand it. It's exclusively about a German man in the 16th Century who invented and begun this entirely new tradition of withholding baptism from any unless and until they reach their "X" birthday, thus protesting and denouncing PAEDO-baptism (the universal practice of all Christians from at least 69 AD until then - and still the vastly more common practice... NOT withholding it because a certain not-disclosed age has not yet been reached).



Thank you.


- Josiah

Your comparison is not even remotely relevant to the topic friend. Can a six year old fly a plane without training?

Can those not yet saved by the grace of God bring others into salvation?

If people want to baptize infants then cool. Just don't expect it to mean anything to them whatsoever. An infant may know what the word mom is. They may know when they are hungry. They have absolutely no comprehension of God or Christ so how can they be baptised to any effect? For one to be baptised they must at least know of the concept of God. For one to follow the direction of God they must at least be aware of God, if only in theory. I've seen some pretty young children that have strong Faith, but an infant knows eat, sleep and defecate. That's all.

Let's say an infant is baptised. Will they inherently lead a life as God sees fit? No. They must be taught.

An infant may be pure or without sin as they don't understand or know of that either. Infants barely know of their own peril or the dangers of life. They know nothing of God. That is why it seems illogical and counterproductive, to me, for them to be baptised before at least some kind of knowledge of God.

Scripture gives an order for baptism. First is spirit. So how can an infant be rightfully baptised if they don't even know of such?

No where in scripture does it say to baptize infants, but it does say it comes in three parts, none of which an infant can even grasp at all. So why do it?

What are the pros of baptizing an infant, other than for show to others?

I'm not trying to be rude, I just really can't get why, or to what benefit one would choose to baptize an infant. To me it seems like baptizing a puppy or house plant.

Please explain in some way other than a wild comparison.

Thank you for trying to explain.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Baptism does nothing for an unaware infant but get him wet!

Aside from getting you wet what did baptism do for you?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

The command to baptize is for us to baptize the repentant. Babies cannot repent. The command to everyone who repents is to be baptized. Babies cannot follow that command. God doesn't expect babies to repent, nor to be baptized....there is no reason for it. Baptizing babies is a religious exercise in futility, and serves only to assuage the anxious parent who somehow has doubts about salvation, and that a child who dies before understanding accountability will perish.

The word of God does not authorize infant baptism. Rather, it teaches all about personal responsibility and individual accountability---something infants lack, but we as obedient sons and daughters of God must teach them!

Good point. Babies are innocent anyway. If they perished they would be saved, no doubt. The ignorant are weighed against their actions. If a baby is ignorant and without sin or fault then why must they be baptised?

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Full O Beans]

Aside from getting you wet what did baptism do for you?

As an adult who has received the revelation of God about who I was outside of Christ---a sinner in need of a Saviour---and repented of my sin and received God's free gift---I obeyed God in submitting myself to water baptism to identify publically with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk