Not all Christians are going to Heaven (woman, believer, divorce)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
infant baptism is something 'new' and was never taught by Jesus, and His disciples.
The reason why your infant baptism isn't recognized because you weren't an adult. You have to recognize Jesus and His teachings.
Jesus said REPENT then be Baptized.
How is an infant supposed to repent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by grannynancy
So why do you reject my baptism and tell me I must be baptized again?
I guess more scholarly people than us have not resolved this issue which has existed for centuries. The fact that Tertullian had an opinon [not the prevailing opinion, BTW] in the 2nd century indicates the practice was clearly being done back then.
I too am tired - there is no argument to the references posted for relative to being "born again" and this concept permeates Christianity but does not prescribe a particular "lightning bolt kind of experience"
................it still does not answer where the scriptural source of this prevailing and condescending attitude in some fundamentalist sects
Renriq02 - you do not know whether or not infant baptism was done by Jesus and his dsiciples, neither do I. We just know it was done in the early church.
Adults had sins to repent, infants could not repent for themselves. But last time I heard adults STILL sin after they are baptized - that is our human condition. If an adult was not baptized as a child, then certainly they should be baptized when they want to accept Jesus. They should repent and be baptized.
I have lost my patience with you. You do not care to discuss and instruct, only to tear down as evidenced by your use of smilies, and do not bring any evidence to the table other than your own opinion.
The Bible states "one baptism" yet then put your own rules around that saying that a baptism is not a baptism because it did not meet some unstated criteria.
Now a baby cannot repent but he can be somehow "protected" by the faith of his parents? Where is that? And a baby has no sin, though the bible says he does?
My issue is not with the nuances what YOU choose to believe - Christians are a rich tapestry indeed and God meets us all somehow where we are - it is with the fact that somehow you have considered your faith superior to others' and lack any tolerance and openess that we can look at the same thing from many angles.
To be quite honest...and I mean bluntly and brutally honest here...I don't really care at the moment. I'm too tired to care about what fundamentalist bible thumpers think.
You being angry tells me you don't have a full understanding of the gospel. I use to be just like you thus my name "Reformed Liberal" I created a God to suit myself and I was so angry and disgusted at fundamentalist .Can you believe I am what I hated. I am not saying, fundamentalist are 100% correct because they are not and they would be the first to say so, it's just from my perspective of reading the entire scriptures they have a much better hold than any other group out there.
My liberal Christianity did not compute, it did not add and did not always jive with the whole gospel which found bewildering yet frustrated but the "inerrancy, infallible words of scripture" point of you I now take TOTALLY MAKE SENSE. I followed the truth and it led me here. I pray you really take a hard look at yourself and truly study the bible. follow THE truth and see where it leads.
I do know this as Jesus was Jewish...raised Jewish...lived a Jewish life.
Jews did NOT baptize infants. The earliest would be when they were twelve/thirteen. This is the age that they would go before God/Temple.
Children were saved through their parents...therefore baptism was NOT necessary. Adults were not saved as they now have to make a choice to decide whether you want to accept Jesus or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grannynancy
Renriq02 - you do not know whether or not infant baptism was done by Jesus and his dsiciples, neither do I. We just know it was done in the early church.
Adults had sins to repent, infants could not repent for themselves. But last time I heard adults STILL sin after they are baptized - that is our human condition. If an adult was not baptized as a child, then certainly they should be baptized when they want to accept Jesus. They should repent and be baptized.
I have lost my patience with you. You do not care to discuss and instruct, only to tear down as evidenced by your use of smilies, and do not bring any evidence to the table other than your own opinion.
The Bible states "one baptism" yet then put your own rules around that saying that a baptism is not a baptism because it did not meet some unstated criteria.
Now a baby cannot repent but he can be somehow "protected" by the faith of his parents? Where is that? And a baby has no sin, though the bible says he does?
When my children feel that I am not listening to them, sometimes they yell...PLEASE POINT US TO THE SCRIPTURE THAT EXPLAINS HOW A PERSON IS TO GO ABOUT BEING "BORN AGAIN".
I do not know that Jews did not baptize children - what is your historical source and how did that relate to the Baptism of Christians? I
Where [in the Bible] does it say that children are saved through their parents and where [in the Bible] does it condemn the Baptism of infants?
Oh here I go finding articles again since I do not find this historical context in the Bible - these articles say, indeed the did Baptize the infants of converts. But that is probably irrelevant because Christ brings the "new covenant". Jews certainly circumcized infants under the old coventant
I do not know that Jews did not baptize children - what is your historical source and how did that relate to the Baptism of Christians? I
Where [in the Bible] does it say that children are saved through their parents and where [in the Bible] does it condemn the Baptism of infants?
Oh here I go finding articles again since I do not find this historical context in the Bible - these articles say, indeed the did Baptize the infants of converts. But that is probably irrelevant because Christ brings the "new covenant". Jews certainly circumcized infants under the old coventant
I am confused. Are we talking about "infant baptism" which is performed by the Catholic church or "baby dedication"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
