ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Re-Baptized When Saved

Must infants that were baptized have to be baptized again when they accept Christ?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Baptism Bible Quiz
 ---veronica on 8/21/09
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



The truth is, we all accept some customs/traditions without realizing it. A challenge in our Christ centered life is to seek Him and search the Scriptures for truth. What we have to be careful of is that we don't "prove or defend" our positions as much as we seek and find and then demonstrate our beliefs from Scripture.

People who belong to institutions don't need to study the Scriptures because their "clergy" tell them what to believe. How can one refute or challenge an institution? Such as Eastern Orthodox religion.

Bartholomew, the head of Eastern Orthodox does want to reconcile with the RCC, so that is a fair subject to bring up.
---Rod on 9/5/09


Mark V. I am a Eastern Orthodox Christian. Let's leave the RCC out of this for a second. Your traditions (that we should follow only the Bible and that the Bible interpret itself) are extra biblical traditions. That's your reasoning which you got from other Protestant preachers/theologians.

You have yet to prove your traditions/customs using Holy Scriptures alone. Instead, you are too focused on Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Why attack the RCC and other churches when even your traditions are not Scriptura?

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 9/5/09


Mark V. Again, our discussion deals with YOUR traditions/customs which you have yet to prove using Holy Scriptures. Let's play by your rules. Let's discuss YOUR methods and not the RCC methods.

The bottom line is that you, like everyone here, interpret Holy Scriptures. If Holy Scriptures interpret itself and that it is so clear, you wouldn't be using commentaries, but you do. You rant about the RCC, but you are quilty of the same thing (believing doctrines/practices not found in Holy Scriptures).

If you can't give Scriptura support for your own traditions, why even attack the RCC?

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 9/5/09


Ignatius 2 continue:
The gospel states that the atoning death of Jesus paid in full the penalty of all our sins, rendering us sinless before God. Allowing us to be free of all condemnation, an assures us that upon death we will join the Lord in heaven. Furthermore, Jesus offers that forgiveness as a gift. It cannot be earned by the performance of good and noble deeds. That's the worse thing I am against the RCC. Even today many others are starting to believe the same as the RCC. Works. Forgiveness cannot be received through some power alleged to exist in a sacrement, and forgiveness is not given in exchange for obedience. The offer of pardon is to believe by faith and be baptized into Him in whom Salvation is found.
---MarkV. on 9/5/09


Ignatius, I mention the RCC since they and other churches with the same doctrines are the only one's who use the same method to interpret. And as long as the interpretion comes from man and not God it will always have flaws. For all man sin, all fall short of the glory of God. There is no one since Adam's fall other the Jesus Christ who is without sin. That has been the fault of the RCC from the beginning. Here is the worse thing I have found out about traditions and interpretations of the Church, the teachings of mass, purgatory, indulgences, baptismal regeneration, which undermine the one sacrifice of Jesus that forever secured the remission of sin. The Roman Catholic church does not teach the saving gospel as set forth in the Word of God.
---MarkV. on 9/5/09




Mark V. I am not sure why you are mentioning the RCC. You are too focused on Roman Catholicism and what happen in the Protestant Reformation, but you unaware of Eastern Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, etc).

"Ignatius, the Bible is the only Truth, it interpret's itself."

Believe what you will Mark V. However, your tradition is not found in the Holy Scriptures. That is your reasoning, not Holy Scriptures.

"The RCC made it very plain that the Church does not draw on the Scriptures alone"

Not just the RCC, but all the Ancient and Apostolic Churches of the East. You believe otherwise, fine, but that is your extra biblical tradition. I can respect that though.

In IC.XC,
---Igantius on 9/4/09


Ignatius, the Bible is the only Truth, it interpret's itself. "Sola Scriptura" is a method that is use by most to interpret Scripture outside of the RCC. If the RCC used it they would find themselves in many errors.
The RCC has made it very plain that the Church does not draw on the Scriptures alone for what it believes and practices, tradition they say, had equal value with the Bible. That is why they believe interpreting Scripture is the exclusive right of the Magisterium.
Which is a problem for all Catholics who have questions on topics they read which contradict what the RCC teaches. If they go to a priest they will be told whatever they find as Truth is wrong, no matter what it is. Only they can pronounce what is Truth.
---MarkV. on 9/4/09


Mark V. I am just using the term in the usage most commonly held by many Protestants.

The Bible does not interpret itself, that is your tradition. People interpret Holy Scriptures, and God has set up offices (e.g., Bishops/Presbyters, etc) of "faithful man" (1 Tim 2:2) who will be able teach others and correctly interpret Holy Scriptures (Acts 8:30-35, 2 Peter 3:16).

The idea that the Bible interpret itself is foreign in Holy Scriptures and the writings the early Holy Fathers/Saints (1st-11th centuries). That is a post 17th century tradition. If the Bible interpret itself and it is so clear, there will be no need for commentaries, yet in another blog, you admitted that you use them.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 9/4/09


"The Bible didn't specify which other books are true and which aren't. He left that judgement up to us. But how do we judge spiritual truth?...by the Bible, I'd say." (Donna)

The problem is that the Bible itself, or at least your version of it, doesn't specify which books should be called "Holy Scriptures". You believe in a 66 book bible, but that itself is a extra-biblical tradition.

So you can't "spiritually discern" which books are true by the Bible. That doesn't make any sense. That is why Sola-Scriptura is a silly man-made doctrine.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 9/4/09


" Brother, will you also ask me to study Greek and Latin and be circumcised to be saved?" (Nana)

No, I am asking you to study Ancient Christianity, and if you believe Holy Scriptures and God's power, there must still be a Ancient and Apostolic Church that teach the fullness of the Faith (not teaching any falsehood). Only you can study Church History. Protestants came too late in the game.

All I am saying is study all the Ancient and Apostolic Churches (Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy [Jersualem, Antioch, Alexandria], Oriental Orthodoxy) and decide for yourself and why they all disagree Protestantism, who came 1,500 years after the fact and which one is Truthfull to Ancient Christianity (1st-11th centuries).

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 9/4/09




jerry6593:

Unfortunately, that does not help at all to help in the Sola Scriptura argument, as in order to know whether a book is true, we still don't have a list in the Bible, but must rely on subjective extra-Biblical principles of interpretation (which are, like all other subjective principles, open to interpretation).

While I certainly agree that it is definitely a good rule of thumb, it cannot be used to create a "categorically correct" canonical list.
---StrongAxe on 9/3/09


Axey and Donna: Yes, the Bible does specify which extra-biblical books are true. According to Isa 8:20, they are the ones that line up with the Bible's teaching.
---jerry6593 on 9/3/09


StrongAxe-- "pagan" Greek authors were well known by people at the time. Just quoting them didn't mean the authors agreed with everything they said. I may quote the Bhagavad Gita, esp. if I'm with someone who knows it, but that doesn't mean I agree with Hinduism.

The Bible didn't specify which other books are true and which aren't. He left that judgement up to us. But how do we judge spiritual truth?...by the Bible, I'd say.
---Donna66 on 9/2/09


jerry6593:

Yet it's curious that several New Testament authors quote apocryphal books that are not included in the scriptural canon, and on at least one occasion, pagan greek authors! These apostles wouldn't have quoted these books if they believed them to be false.

And there is no scripture in the Bible that says that any book other than the Bible is false. While I agree that teachings that directly contradict the Bible are in error, these two statements are NOT equivalent.
---StrongAxe on 9/2/09


Jerry6593
Jesus did say in Matt 28 v's 19-20(a seed being palnted). Where is the fruit of this seed any one being baptized that way? Here's a similarity. When Jesus told these certain people, you destroy this temple in 3 days I was raise it up again. This was a seed that was planted then watered & the increase came when Jesus died was buried & rose again the 3rd day. Where the fruit came from Matt 28 v's 19-20 Is Acts 2 v's 37-41. Jesus Christ Is The Name of The Father The Son & The Holy Ghost. God robed in flesh. There is NONE found in scriptures that was actually baptized in the titles Father Son & Holy spirit. They All were baptized in The Name of The Lord & The Name of The Lord Is Jesus Christ.
---Lawrence on 9/2/09


The answer given by ---Rod on 9/1/09 is full of wisdom!
---mima on 9/2/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


Axey: "the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. The whole Christian movement in the first century existed without most of the New Testament being available to most people"

The "Bible" at the time of Christ was our entire Old Testament, plus some books now missing. They were referred to as "The Law" (the books of Moses) and "The Testimony" (the books of the minor prophets). The Bible says of itself:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Thus, any doctrine that doesn't agree with the OT is false!
---jerry6593 on 9/2/09


Ignatius,
"if one believe Holy Scriptures",
Indeed, to believe it one must read it or be taught and truly must there be a tradition and a doctrine (Gospel) as Paul so clearly states. Christ was first to encourage me to study all Scripture with his constant allusions to it, even Paul in his dissertations, he proved that the core patterns of old were the same as the new. Brother, will you also ask me to study Greek and Latin and be circumcised to be saved? A great portion of what a man need to know to seek God is within himself, Matt 7:11- and that goodness and knowledge is the fuel to enact Matt 19:19 "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" amongst other things.
---Nana on 9/1/09


Believing and following, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember Peter or the disciples "repenting" and following Jesus. They believed and followed. I don't even think the Bible says Peter repented of denying Jesus, by the general definition of repent. Jesus said to deny one's self and follow Him. To believe on Jesus is to "repent," which means to change from being an unbeliever to a believer. If people believe and follow Jesus, they will change "repent" about the way they believe and the way they do things. To "confess," is to say the same thing God says about it (admit it) and follow him in doing and being right in one's heart, asking Him to change one's heart.
---Rod on 9/1/09


Ignatius, the Bible does not teach "Sola Scriptura" it is a hermeneutic term use by those who interpret Scripture. Maybe not in the Catholic Church since they want to interpret Scripture the way they want. What Sola Scriptura really means is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Where one passage speak of one meaning, there is other Scriptures that speak about the same meaning in another area of Scripture. That is done to confirm that the first meaning is either correct or not. The Bible interprets inself. It does not need man to interpret it since man is sinful and add's his own agenda to make the passage say what they want it to say, the very tool the RCC used through history, their own interpretation for their own needs.
---MarkV. on 9/1/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


Nana,

Yes, it does make you wonder. True, there have been schisms FROM the Church, but if one believe Holy Scriptures, there still must be a Church who teach the fullness of the faith, following in the the Holy Apostles , and the God-Bearing Fathers.

All one have to do is study all the Ancient and Apostolic Churches and study Church History, and see which kept the Faith of the Early Church (1st-11th centuries).

Personally, I find it amusing that all the Ancient and Apostolic Churches of the East (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, other Eastern churches) and the western Apostolic Church (Rome) disagree with all Protestant sects that arose 1,500 years after the fact. Makes you wonder, eh?

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/31/09


I was baptized as a baby, when I got saved, I was rebaptized, but water baptism is symbolic. Holy Ghost Baptism is more important. Read the book of Acts. They all received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands from someone who already has been Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 says, REPENT, a baby cannot repent, can they? REPENT, Be Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, etc., This is referring to Holy Ghost Baptism.
---anon on 8/31/09


Believing and following Christ is all that is needed for Salvation. I know, that is not a theological definition, but will work for most practical situations.
*****

curious where is this idea in Gods Holy Word?

"believing and following christ is all that is needed" directly contradicts Acts 2:38 that tells one to REPENT of their former life of sin and be baptized

RELIGIOUS christianity has many idea's from Gods Holy Word YET few acknowledge WORDS found within choosing to dismiss and ignore for an easier salvation ...just click your heals 3x's and you will be home

one either obeys men and their traditions opinions and reasoning OR they obey Gods Word in Acts 2:38
---Rhonda on 8/31/09


"Not unless you following in the footsteps of the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, the God-Bearing Fathers/Mothers since the first century......."
Ignatius on 8/30/09

Good thing you put all those dots, dots, dots. It has not been all smooth sailing since the first century, as there have been many splits since and not only during and after the reformation. Make one wonder as to which way the "footsteps of the Holy Apostles" led.
---Nana on 8/31/09


Shop For Church Resources


Must infants that were baptized have to baptized again when they accept Jesus?

Must for what? Salvation, no.

Just because people were baptized in Acts doesnt mean people have to to be saved.

People did other things, such as give all their possessions, but that is not necessary for salvation.

Believing and following Christ is all that is needed for Salvation. I know, that is not a theological definition, but will work for most practical situations.
---Rod on 8/30/09


jerry6593:

I agree it can be dangerous to base important doctrines on extra-Biblical sources. However, excluding ALL such sources leads to absurd contradictions. For example, the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. The whole Christian movement in the first century existed without most of the New Testament being available to most people - yet they still believed it without it being in the Bible. Also, there were many discussions about WHICH books to include in the Bible canon. Such determinations must necessarily be extra-Biblical, since no Bible book contains lists of which books are in the Bible itself. Some books do mention other books, but some also mention other biblical books that aren't in the Bible either.
---Strongaxe on 8/30/09


oh ye of little faith ! baptism is the final thing you should be doing , apart from agreeing with G-d on jesus ...Believing in him who He has sent ! then acquireing the gifts of the imputed holy spirit , riteousnes . baptism to show the world that indeed , you have been redeemed ! READ THE BIBLE , QUIT BEING FOOLISH !
---gazmobean on 8/30/09


"Believing a doctrine by what is not stated in the Bible is a dangerous thing, as it leads to as many false beliefs as the imagination can conceive" (JERRY6589)

Not unless you following in the footsteps of the Holy Apostles, there Holy Successors, the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, the God-Bearing Fathers/Mothers since the first century.......

It is silly to believe in Sola-Scriptura when the Holy Bible doesn't teach such as a thing. It is thus safe to conclude that this is your tradition. Disagree? O.k Jerry boy, prove Sola-Scriptura using the Bible....If you can't, please kindly renouch your former statement. Let's play by your rules now.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/30/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


Axey: Believing a doctrine by what is not stated in the Bible is a dangerous thing, as it leads to as many false beliefs as the imagination can conceive. For example, using the scriptures you quoted, and your line of reasoning, some might conclude that animals are also baptized. Absurd? No more so than some of the doctrines I read on this website.
---jerry6593 on 8/29/09


jerry6593:

Acts 16:15
"And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us."
Acts 18:8
"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized."
1 Corinthians 1:16
"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other."

Although not explicit, one's whole house could include children and infants, there is no mention of anyone being excluded by reason of age.
---StrongAxe on 8/28/09


C-looney: Great, you're back! I'll play it again:

C-luny: ""Find/prove it in the Bible" is YOUR rule and YOUR game.

Not mine, or even the Bible's."
---Cluny on 8/23/09

You said it [infant baptism] was in the Bible, but when pinned down, you can't produce it. Now, like a spoiled brat, you don't want to play. As I suspected, no integrity.
---jerry6593 on 8/24/09
---jerry6593 on 8/28/09


jerry6593,
Cluny is not all there.

Cluny,
When Paul said of the likes of you, "a wild olive tree","graffed in", could it be that you are the only man on earth that has olives growing out of yer ears?
---Nana on 8/27/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


\\The "nurture and admonition of the Lord", is the true baptismal water, John 15:3:\\

In other words, when the Bible says "water," it doesn't mean H2O.

Is this what you are saying?
---Cluny on 8/27/09


Cluny: Are you there?
---jerry6593 on 8/26/09


Ephesians 6:4: "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

The "nurture and admonition of the Lord", is the true baptismal water, John 15:3: "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you."
1 Peter 3:21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" A 'good conscience' is not the holy Ghost but that readiness John cried about, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
---Nana on 8/25/09


It is a matter of conscience. Each soul must be satisfied that they are obedient and are doing all that they able to do to serve the Lord. If anyone have a question that they are lacking in fulfilling that what Jesus commanded, then let that one get baptized until their conscience is settled, and then the soul can rest in the confidence that having done all to stand, stand therefore ready to receive from the Lord.
---Eloy on 8/25/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Ignatius:

Yes, it is true that infants have faith. They are generally full of it, since they are only starting to learn the rudiments of reason. Unfortunately, much of the time, their faith is misdirected - children usually believe many things that aren't true (Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Boogey Man, the world is inherently fair, if their parents divorce it's the child's fault, etc.) If their faith is unreliable in so many things, how can we then treat it as reliable when the things they believe in just happen coincidentally to be true?

Consider, for example, prodigies like 3-year-old evangelists who can barely speak - do they truly have a deep real faith in God, or are they just good mimics of their preacher parents?
---StrongAxe on 8/25/09


I agree with Leslie's statement,"Baptisim comes AFTER salvation. If not, it is out of order. We are called to repent, and then be baptized."
---Leslie on 8/25/09
---mima on 8/25/09


Baptisim comes AFTER salvation. If not, it is out of order. We are called to repent, and then be baptized.
---Leslie on 8/25/09


Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
---TheSeg on 8/25/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Rhonda. Again, The fact is the Scriptures you posted only give examples of Adult Baptism which was logically given after confession of faith. Holy Scriptures do not forbid Infant Baptism only your MAN MADE reasoning forbid it. Explicit references to infant Baptism is found in the 2nd Century Church. I was not talking about the RCC. Infant Baptism was practiced long before the Great Schism of 1054AD, when the Western Church became know as the RCC. This is a Ancient Apostolic practice.

If you had any clue of the Biblical teaching of Holy Baptism (rebirth, Jn 3:3), you won't argue against Infant Baptism. Who said Infants do not have faith? Luke 1:44.

I won't follow your 21st interpretation of Holy Scriptures.

In IC.XC
---Ignatius on 8/25/09


I think so, because this time you accepted it for yourself.
---amand6348 on 8/24/09


The LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
.
And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
---TheSeg on 8/24/09


Acts 18:2-5: "He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
There it is, water and spirit.
---Nana on 8/24/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


C-luny: ""Find/prove it in the Bible" is YOUR rule and YOUR game.

Not mine, or even the Bible's."
---Cluny on 8/23/09

You said it was in the Bible, but when pinned down, you can't produce it. Now, like a spoiled brat, you don't want to play. As I suspected, no integrity.
---jerry6593 on 8/24/09


Many Protestant churches do not practice infant baptism...not because it is wrong, but because they see no need for it. There is no example of it in the Bible, so how has it become so important that it should be made a doctrine?

All the baptisms in the Bible seem to be of adults who had come to some understanding of who God is to them personally. That is why many churches require a person to express their understanding before baptism. And of course, an infant has no understanding of spiritual things.
---Donna66 on 8/23/09


" This question is usually passed by Catholics and Lutherans and others from denominations that believe in baptismal regeneration(infant baptizing)." (Mima)

Many Protestant sects believe in the Bibical belief of Baptismal Regeneration (John 3:3, etc), but do not practice Infant Baptism, for example The Church of Christ. One who believe in Baptismal Regeneration doesn't necessarily believe in Infant Baptism.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/23/09


Cluny:

Jesus says those who believe and are baptized are saved, while those to do not believe are condemned. This leaves the grey area of those who believe but are not baptized. While Jesus commands baptism, it is not ABSOLUTELY necessary, as there are exceptions (for example, the thief on the cross, who was not baptized). Paul constantly emphasizes faith, but merely assumes baptism without ever commanding it per se.


Ignatius:

I used to believe Sola Scriptura, but 1) it is, itself, not in the Bible, and 2) who determined which books are, in fact, scripture? That selection process was, by necessity, extra-biblical.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Holy Scriptures do not forbid Infant Baptism only your MAN MADE reasoning forbid it.
****

Ignatius AGAIN I will ASK that all continue to EVADE ...How does an infant REPENT? Acts 2:38 ...Gods Word does not "forbid" yet man made REASONING IMPLIES infant baptism simply because mens REASONING IMPLIES God "forgot" the infants

Gods Word is CLEAR to REPENT and be BAPTIZED which an infant cannot ...infant baptism makes a mockery of God and his Word

rcc is NOT 1st century church ...ITS infant baptism is AGAINST Holy Word of God and DISMISSES and IGNORES all verses that support a DECISION is made by the one receiving baptism
---Rhonda on 8/23/09


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:

Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?

Repentance, does it come before or after, the baptism?
---TheSeg on 8/23/09


Susie B. You made a silly proposal that Cluny is StrongAxe. Why did you accused your fellow Christian in Christ? StrongAxe is not Cluny as he already defended himself. Yes, his arguments are silly but he is correct about your silly doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Again, why is some of our Orthodox doctrines/practices so wrong, but your doctrine, unsupported by Scriptures, isn't? Isn't that like a double standard?

You have attack certain doctrines/practices in other blogs for simply not being in word of God, yet your man-made rule (that if something is not found in the Bible it is wrong) isn't in the word of God (i.e. Holy Scriptures). That is your tradition.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/23/09


mima said, "I do not believe baptism to be absolutely necessary for salvation.''

Jesus does, otherwise He would not have commanded it.

Who do we believe, mima or Jesus?
---Cluny on 8/23/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


"I guess by mens reasoning household in Acts 16:15 ignorantly IMPLIES children even though this would go AGAINST Gods Word" (Rhonda)

If you had any knowledge of the Greek word "household", perhaps you have a different conclusion. The fact is the Scriptures you posted only give examples of Adult Baptism which will logically was given after confession of faith. Holy Scriptures do not forbid Infant Baptism only your MAN MADE reasoning forbid it. Explicit references to infant Baptism is found in the 2nd Century Church. Apparently you and others are against this Ancient practice because it does NOT agree with YOUR man made interpretation of Scriptures .

In IC.XC
---Ignatius on 8/23/09


Sorry
But, (any baptism performed on a child is worthless and only seeks to appease adults who do not comprehend Gods plan for mankind.)

Why are they doing it, is it not in hope?
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord,)

You have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
---TheSeg on 8/23/09


Many people have ask me about being rebaptized after making a profession of faith(being saved) my answer to them is pray about it and do what you think God would have you do. I do not believe baptism to be absolutely necessary for salvation. This question is usually passed by Catholics and Lutherans and others from denominations that believe in baptismal regeneration(infant baptizing).
---mima on 8/23/09


SusieB:

1) I am NOT Cluny. I happen to know Cluny personally, and we agree about quite a few things, but we also disagree about quite a few others (sometimes even on these forums).

2) Perhaps you have never heard of reductio ad absurdum, a logical technique that points out that an argument is invalid by showing that it leads to ridiculous conclusions.

Of course my argument was absurd. But it follows logically from your own argument, which is equally absurd: If "not being in the Bible" automatically makes something wrong, then everything else not in the Bible must also be wrong as well.
---StrongAxe on 8/23/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


\\ C-luny: That sounded an awful lot like an admission that you can't find infant baptism in the Bible. \\

"Find/prove it in the Bible" is YOUR rule and YOUR game.

Not mine, or even the Bible's.
---Cluny on 8/23/09


instead of pointing to scripture identifying infant baptism self professing RELIGIOUS christianity uses only mans REASONING WITHOUT scripture glossing over Gods Holy Word as superficial book of words preferring their own traditions AGAINST Gods Word Mark 7:6-7

using something called sola/solo scriptura/scripture (whatever that is) as their VAIN attempt of "proof" from Gods Holy Word infant baptism is supported

I guess by mens reasoning household in Acts 16:15 ignorantly IMPLIES children even though this would go AGAINST Gods Word of REPENTANCE in Acts 2:38, and ability to DISCERN their DECISION Acts 2:37, 8:35-38, Luke 11:13

KNOWING Baptism does not "save" Rom 5:10 it cleanses of past sins Mark 1:2-5
---Rhonda on 8/23/09


"OK, show us where in the Bible infant baptism is discussed. If you can't find it, please have the integrity to admit your error." (Jerry)

Although I can point couple of Scripture that gives hints of Infant Baptism, such as Acts 16:15, I will bypassed it and go straight to the naive notion of Sola-Scriptura, which you uphold so dear.

Show us where in the Bible Sola-Scriptura, or the silly notion that everything must be found in Holy Scriptures in order for it be true, discussed. If you can't find it, please have the integrity to admit your error, or remain silent.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/22/09


LIVING water baptism happens when the holy spirit is able to witness to OUR SPIRIT...

Romans 8:16
"bearing witness with our spirit".

If we are "good and right and true" (Ephesians 5:8), we will have the guarantee of salvation (eternal life)...

God's spirit was left with us to prepare us for eternal life (so we "neither thirst", Revelation 7:16, Acts 1:5, 1 John 5:6)...

2 Corinthians 5:5
"has prepared us".

Ephesians 1:14
"the guarantee of our inheritance".

John 7:38
"shall flow rivers of living water".

Have a "faith for faith" (Romans 1:17) and learn the "DEPTHS of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10).
From RSV.
---more_excellent_way on 8/23/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


C-luny: That sounded an awful lot like an admission that you can't find infant baptism in the Bible. Yet you boldly professed that it is there. Please stick to the subject. If you can't find it, please have the integrity to admit your error.
---jerry6593 on 8/23/09


(Susie B).

Your question was directed to Cluny, but I want to make a comment. As I told you before in another blog, Holy Icons/Statues has it's origin in the Old Testament. We also know in the Old Testament about veneration towards Holy Icons/Statues.

Susie, since you and other Protestants believe in Sola-Scriptural, where is that in the Holy Bible? Why is our [Orthodox] practices so wrong, but your silly doctrine isn't, despite it being unsupported in Holy Scriptures?

Those who are against Infant Baptism, a Ancient practice, even practiced by the 2nd century Church, apparently do so the basis of Sola-Scriptural.

In IC.XC,
---Ignatius on 8/22/09


\\C-luny: OK, show us where in the Bible infant baptism is discussed. If you can't find it, please have the integrity to admit your error.
---jerry6593 on 8/22/09\\

Show me where the Bible actually teaches sola scriptura, and I'll show you a lot of verses that refute it.
---Cluny on 8/22/09


StrongAxe (aka Cluny) your arguments are getting silly.
---SusieB on 8/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


SusieB:

There are many things that churches do today that aren't mentioned in Scripture either, yet they do them.

For example: pews, hymnals, choirs, puplits, altar calls, bake sales, TV ministries, etc.

The internet and Christian discussion forums aren't mentioned either, yet you obviously use them (so presumably you see nothing wrong with them, even though the Bible doesn't explicitly permit them.)
---StrongAxe on 8/22/09


C-luny: OK, show us where in the Bible infant baptism is discussed. If you can't find it, please have the integrity to admit your error.
---jerry6593 on 8/22/09


Lawrence: "...Father-Son & Holy spirit
(No one found in scriptures that was baptized in the titles),"

Jesus said:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Are you suggesting that Jesus didn't know what He was talking about?
---jerry6593 on 8/22/09


\\
baptizing infants and children is not supported by scripture\\

Yes, it is.
---Cluny on 8/21/09
*****

LOL ok I'll take YOUR word for it OVER the Holy Word of God?

when you can describe how an infant repents of their past sins then you just may sell me on YOUR idea

when you can describe how a child who is in process of being taught to become an adult somehow is given a major LIFES decision about God to make but is unable to make any other decisions then maybe you might sell me on that idea too

until then I'll stick with Acts 2:38 and Gods Holy Word not a mortal mans opinion about Gods Word
---Rhonda on 8/22/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Its funny how people see things.
John said
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:

And one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Is right!
So, if a man or a baby be Baptize with water, so what!
Does repentance come by water or by the word of truth?

My lord said
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with,
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
How indeed?

One Baptism, the lords
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
---TheSeg on 8/22/09


cluny...Where does it say in the scripture to kiss an icon? You keep saying all these things that aren't in the scripture. Why is this practice alright if it ISN'T in the Bible?
---SusieB on 8/21/09


\\
baptizing infants and children is not supported by scripture\\

Yes, it is.
---Cluny on 8/21/09


Cluny -- In the Bible, Christians are not called "Christians" either, in most places. They are more often called "believers" or "followers of Christ" or "the faithful"
...something along that line.

But since Christianity is something that requires active personal belief (you aren't Christian by heritage) The terms "accept Christ" or "personal Savior" have come into use. In a society where "the Church" in it's many forms is institutionalized, these terms distinguish between "church attenders" and "true believers".
---Donna66 on 8/21/09


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Yes. If they were a babies baptism & was done in the titles Father-Son & Holy spirit
(No one found in scriptures that was baptized in the titles), they All were baptized in The Name of The Lord which Is, Jesus Christ. So must be baptized, Mark 16 v 16 - Acts 2 v's 37-41 which Fulfills Matt. 28 v's 19-20.
---Lawrence on 8/21/09


The Bible says "ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE Baptism."

Nowhere does it use the phrase "accept Christ," or for that matter, "personal Savior."
---Cluny on 8/21/09


baptizing infants and children is not supported by scripture

Acts 2:38 states that one must REPENT

...infants are not capable of repenting as they cannot talk

even though a child can talk and make somewhat intelligent sentences they are not expected to make a LIFE decision to follow God ...any baptism performed on a child is worthless and only seeks to appease adults who do not comprehend Gods plan for mankind
---Rhonda on 8/21/09


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.