Verses in the Bible supporting baptism by sprinkling:. Error 404: No verses found

Verses in the Bible supporting baptism by sprinkling:
Error 404: No verses found

Verses in the Bible supporting infant baptism:
Error 404: No verses found

Why do so many """christians""" believe sprinkling babies is legitimate for baptism when it is never found in the Bible even a single time?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, all the apostolic Churches in fact, insist on the absolute necessity and urgency of infant baptism, that's the tradition passed down from the earliest apostles (according to people writing just a century later)

    >1500 years later, Protestants decide they know better than the followers of Jesus, thus dooming their children to Hell in their pride.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >source is literally just: Dude trust me, we have to it because uuhh, uuh, we have to man
      okay heretic

      13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus Christ himself was baptized as an adult man and I DO NOT care about what people other than him do or say, he is THE example, anything else is mere human opinion.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >I DO NOT care about what people other than him do or say, he is THE example, anything else is mere human opinion.
        Okay, so we're supposed to circumcise infants then?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I don't care if people circumsize infants or not. Why would I care?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You say Jesus is "THE example." Jesus was circumcised as an infant according to the ancient israeli fashion. Should we follow His example?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Considering that circumscision has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a Christian, no, I would say that's optional. People got circumcized as a mark of the old covnenant; Jesus was a israelite, so he was circumcized. People get baptized as a mark of the new covenant; if you are Christian, you have to be baptized. The baptism essentially takes the place of a circumcision.
            Beyond that it's up to you.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That sounds like a whole lot of "human opinions" and not much respect for Jesus as "THE example".

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus didn't decide to circumcise himself moron. No one cares about your penis obsession. Get over it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus is the example of baptism that we derive the ritual from.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Perhaps that is because he had none other than God to teach him (or not teach, as the case would be). If he could have led by example as an infant, perhaps he would have, but apparently he knew that was not the most effective way to teach. Jesus never forbade infant baptism or sprinkling. If people want to do that as a matter of tradition, for calming their own hearts, or whatever other dogmatic reasoning, what is the harm?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >what is the harm?
          Because every time in the Bible someone is baptized it's always dunking and after they believe

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and if people still follow this example later in life, what is the harm?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >If he could have led by example as an infant, perhaps he would have, but apparently he knew that was not the most effective way to teach.
          Are you forgetting the scene of Jesus educating holy men in the temple as a boy?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not at all. What does that have to do with baptism?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Jesus never forbade infant baptism or sprinkling.
          Jesus also never forbids nibbling on your chick's ear a little bit while kissing so it's necessary for salvation

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Very funny, but all he said was
            >19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
            There's little specification about how to baptize beyond the formula you must say, therefore the Catholic church and many others take it that there's little requirement beyond that (IIRC it's decided that literally anyone could perform a baptism, uncharacteristically among all the sacraments which require a priest or bishop, but the baptism is invalid if it wasn't done in the name of the Trinity)

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I should say "some protestants" in fact, because to be fair to these heretics, even in their errors the Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Reformed and Methodists do baptize infants.
      It's really just Anabaptists, Baptists, Pentecoastals and various pseudo-Christians like JWs and Mormons who object.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because Catholics believe that divine revelation can come from places other than scripture, in other words the church leadership can just make something up and it will be accepted as true.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Many Roman Catholics may deny it on impulse, but that's ultimately what their leadership style comes down to.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics admittedly just make things up. They think they can void the word of God because of Jesus once breathed some gifts into his apostles. Yup, that's how they justify it. It's a mess.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Catholics
      And Orthodox, and every other apostolic church, and most protestant denominations.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >And Orthodox, and every other apostolic church, and most protestant denominations.
        Well you are confusing bad interpretations with the dynamic of believing you literally have the power to ignore the Bible and make up different rules on your own. The Catholic church, and the orthodox, both have this dynamic as part of their dogmas. That's much worse that simply being wrong. Those plenty of people calling themselves protestant or christian are just larping and are satanists.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >believing you literally have the power to ignore the Bible and make up different rules on your own.

          >Romans 6:2 How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection
          Baptism sounds pretty necessary for salvation here. Doesn't say anything about children being exempt.

          >Acts 10:47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
          Do children not receive the Holy Spirit?

          >Acts 13:23 From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, 24 after John had proclaimed, before His coming, a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
          Are children not people?

          >Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether israelites or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
          Are children not part of the Body of Christ?

          Who's ignoring the Bible and making up different rules exactly?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The issue was about sprinklers, not baptism itself. But if you'd like to move the discussion to that more comfortable area for you, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Dismas proves that. However, if you have the opportunity to be baptized and don't, that may be held against you.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The issue was about sprinklers
            I thought it was about infant baptism, I completely forgot baptism by sprinkling was even mentioned.
            Baptism by sprinkling is a far rarer position than infant baptism.

            >Dismas proves that
            How?
            >One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him.
            >“Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
            >Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
            Does that sound like someone who was unbaptized and not a Christian?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Does that sound like someone who was unbaptized and not a Christian?
            He was a israelite, so unless John the Baptist had baptised him 3 years earlier then he wouldn't have been baptised. Baptism was originally for people entering into Judaism, so regular israelites would never have had, or needed, to be submerged.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >believing you literally have the power to ignore the Bible and make up different rules on your own.

          >Romans 6:2 How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection
          Baptism sounds pretty necessary for salvation here. Doesn't say anything about children being exempt.

          >Acts 10:47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”
          Do children not receive the Holy Spirit?

          >Acts 13:23 From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, 24 after John had proclaimed, before His coming, a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
          Are children not people?

          >Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether israelites or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
          Are children not part of the Body of Christ?

          Who's ignoring the Bible and making up different rules exactly?

          I'll also add another question to these quotes: do you take your children to church before their baptism?

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Why would God give the slightest of shits of you sprinkle the water or not?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Because baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection. You don't just throw a little dirt on a corpse and say it's buried
      4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Does God give a shit if you throw a bit of dirt on the corpse?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          well you should bury people, so yeah moron. You don't just leave corpses laying out in the street

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Does God change his opinion of you if you are buried at the bottom of a 100 foot deep hole or are left out in the street?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            either way it represent Christ's burial you numb nuts. He was placed in a tomb, he didn't just have a scoop of dirt poured over his head, moron

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why aren't you answering the question? Are you suggesting that God DOES view you differently if all you have is a scoop of dirt poured over your head?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >God DOES view you differently if all you have is a scoop of dirt poured over your head?
            no, but you should still be buried in the ground so you're corpse doesn't get people sick. You're just being moronic on purpose

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So depth of burial is a public health measure, not a spiritual requirement? So how does this relate to wether or not God gives a shit about precisely how much water you are covered in?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >So how does this relate to wether or not God gives a shit about precisely how much water you are covered in?
            Because the Greek word specifically refers to the act of fully submerging someone. Being dipped does mean being sprinkled.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >You don't just throw a little dirt on a corpse and say it's buried

        Except israelites do put stones on a grave as symbolic of old desert burials.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    > Proof for any metaphysical shit:
    > Error 404: No proof found

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >killing babies is...LE NEUTRAL
      the power of atheist reasoning

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        > God slaughters the first-borns of Egypt because their leader was an butthole
        > God orders the slaughter of even infants and children in multiple military campaigns
        > Have your wife drink a substance that will abort the pregnancy if she was unfaithful
        > Christians: abortion is wrong because killing kids is wrong!
        Now here come the mental gymnastics and justifications. Christians talking about "morality" is the height of comedy. You're a joke.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          People who were adulterers were supposed to be killed under Mosaic law, idk where you are getting this abortion myth from. Other than that it was always God who ordered the Israelites to kill children, he didn't just allow them to kill whoever they wanted whenever they wanted. It was tribal warfare, and it was gruesome, but acceptable.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So these adulterers are killed in a way that kills them but keeps the fetus alive until birth?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > People who were adulterers were supposed to be killed under Mosaic law
            I guess they induced birth and kept the fetuses in incubators amirite

            > Other than that it was always God who ordered the Israelites to kill children, he didn't just allow them to kill whoever they wanted whenever they wanted
            So it was alright to stab babies and little kids to death just because God told them to? Lmfao, the people claiming to be the moral ones are the same ones saying that slaughter of babies is alright as long as THEIR god commands it. Get fricked lmao.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >God commands all people to die a few times
            vs
            >3,000 abortions every single day in America alone
            You're moronic

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            > I have to defend child murder by my god because he's MY god and my parents told me he was real and if I don't believe the invisible man I've never seen or heard is gonna be soo mad at me!!!
            You're moronic

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >God isn't real because, b-because HES A MEANIE
            You're moronic

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Abortion was in the Didache and multiple documents of the Catholic church even today.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >> Have your wife drink a substance that will abort the pregnancy if she was unfaithful
          that's not true moron

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    (OP)

    I've always thought the reason behind infant baptism was due to it taking away the original sin. It is like if you have a baby whose is sick, you would give it medicine immediately. You can think of baptism in a similar way, which is why parents would want to do it as soon as possible.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols" Ezek. 36:25.

    Since this event was to coincide with the giving of the Holy Spirit (vv. 26-27) we are certain that it refers to the cleansing symbolized by baptism.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >only verse he has is from a time that baptism didn't even exist
      cope

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >only verse he has is from a time that baptism didn't even exist
      cope

      22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.
      23 And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
      24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.
      25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
      26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
      27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
      28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.
      29 I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.
      30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.

      It could also have a possible prophesy with the NT, but it is clearly the immediate interpretation is that it is them returning from exile

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Verses in the Bible criticising infant baptism:
    Error 404: No verses found

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Acts 8
      36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
      37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
      38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
      >If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest

      Also that's a moronic way to interpret the Bible.
      >Oh every single time someone is baptized they first give a confession of faith and never one is a infant baptized. Well it doesn't specifically say not to baptize infants

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Luke 18:15 Now they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16 But Jesus called for the little ones, saying, “Allow the children to come to Me, and do not forbid them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

    It seems the disciples initially thought much like some Protestants do ("surely mere babies cannot become Christian yet, they lack reason, they are not worthy") but Jesus cleared that up.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Calvin seemed to concur with this interpretation:

      This narrative is highly useful; for it shows that Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach to him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need his grace. Those little children have not yet any understanding to desire his blessing; but when they are presented to him, he gently and kindly receives them, and dedicates them to the Father [611] by a solemn act of blessing. We must observe the intention of those who present the children; for if there had not been a deep-rooted conviction in their minds, that the power of the Spirit was at his disposal, that he might pour it out on the people of God, it would have been unreasonable to present their children. There is no room, therefore, to doubt, that they ask for them a participation of his grace; and so, by way of amplification, Luke adds the particle also; as if he had said that, after they had experienced the various ways in which he assisted adults, they formed an expectation likewise in regard to children, that, if he laid hands on them, they would not leave him without having received some of the gifts of the Spirit.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        He declares that he wishes to receive children; and at length, taking them in his arms, he not only embraces, but blesses them by the laying on of hand; from which we infer that his grace is extended even to those who are of that age. And no wonder; for since the whole race of Adam is shut up under the sentence of death, all from the least even to the greatest must perish, except those who are rescued by the only Redeemer.
        To exclude from the grace of redemption those who are of that age would be too cruel; and therefore it is not without reason that we employ this passage as a shield against the Anabaptists. They refuse baptism to infants, because infants are incapable of understanding that mystery which is denoted by it. We, on the other hand, maintain that, since baptism is the pledge and figure of the forgiveness of sins, and likewise of adoption by God, it ought not to be denied to infants, whom God adopts and washes with the blood of his Son. Their objection, that repentance and newness of life are also denoted by it, is easily answered. Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God, according to the capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time.
        He could not present the infants solemnly to God without giving them purity. And for what did he pray for them, but that they might be received into the number of the children of God? Hence it follows, that they were renewed by the Spirit to the hope of salvation. In short, by embracing them, he testified that they were reckoned by Christ among his flock. And if they were partakers of the spiritual gifts, which are represented by Baptism, it is unreasonable that they should be deprived of the outward sign. But it is presumption and sacrilege to drive far from the fold of Christ those whom he cherishes in his bosom, and to shut the door, and exclude as strangers those whom he does not wish to be forbidden to come to him

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I’m fine with Jesus blessing a baby, but baptism (sprinkling) doesn’t save your baby’s soul. If you care about cleanliness, then you need clean baby bed and all the things for a baby. This is why I think Catholics got everything too muddled with wanting the Spirit. Whereas the rest of us just do things like most people and wash the baby with warm water and soap. That’s because using miracle water isn’t really that necessary unless you need to kill microorganisms that are killing your baby, or other diseases and defects and you want the miracle from God to heal it. In that case, you can do it at home and you don’t NEED a priest to do it for you. Jesus wanted everyone to be high priests, a holy kingdom. By submitting to dogmatic doctrine, you are directly disobeying what Jesus wanted. But whatever. You do what you want in America.

        When the flesh comes back again to the things of the spirit of God, it is usually that much more powerful as the absence it had with it. Supposed to just use common sense.

        The priest used to use the blood,of the animal for theirself sometimes. That was what the altar basin was for when they used to bleed the animal into it and then do the offerings and sacrifices. They would eat the animal too.

        We don’t have to do it that way anymore, we can just go to Cattle Barons and eat a 10 oz Center sirloin Steak with a baked potato and butter. I guess we can’t really eat any part we want anymore when we do it like that, but I imagine it is still a good cut of meat.

        The blood is not really accessible anymore either, and I wonder why, but it is said that when the israelites start those up again, that the antichrist will be at hand.

        Most people may not be able to have a blood bath to get healing, but they can go to hospital and the sick can get blood and people give blood. It’s just that the healthy can’t luxuriously just spend blood bags for health reasons because that would be really expensive I guess.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Tiger’s Blood Snowcone: Watermelon, Strawberry, Coconut (according to internet).
          If true, then God can give people the ability to make their own essential oil bath out of these essential oils and carrier oils if people believe it is God’s power through Jesus Christ.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous
        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Meds.

          If you are saved then your baby is saved.
          And as long as your child remains with you and is trained up in the way that he should go, and usually that includes getting a real baptism as a show of the moment he actually confessed and believed in the heart, which was the actual saving moment of their soul where their soul shifted from being saved by the family to officially saved because they believed. It’s like your parents were just keeping that spot warm in your heart until you sat in it yourself.

          Total headcanon.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Remember to take your booster shot to shed your spike proteins because you hate meat.
            That’s not my first post, no. That is why there is no @OP.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      So where does he say to baptize them?

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    if i have to be honest with you, id guess that tradition has to do with preventing infant deaths, just like circumcision was to ensure that israelites wouldnt have a problem reproducing

    people werent as clean as they are now, even if it was a custom the lower classes wouldnt necessarily follow them

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >circumcision was to ensure that israelites wouldnt have a problem reproducing

      ....what?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Amerimutt golems are baffled by the idea that someone could have sex with an uncut penis, you see.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        as i mentioned earlier, hygiene

        a circumcised penis would ensure there wouldnt be problems for lack of care, a single man with a std could frick up a tribe

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Infant baptism is a liberal Christian dogma that came from pagans.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Literally the opposite.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, it is. In Christianity, you don’t have to believe in infant baptism as a requirement. Just as not everyone has to take their baby to Jesus (or d bishop) if they don’t want to. See the verse
        Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

        And this:
        John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

        And this:

        I’m fine with Jesus blessing a baby, but baptism (sprinkling) doesn’t save your baby’s soul. If you care about cleanliness, then you need clean baby bed and all the things for a baby. This is why I think Catholics got everything too muddled with wanting the Spirit. Whereas the rest of us just do things like most people and wash the baby with warm water and soap. That’s because using miracle water isn’t really that necessary unless you need to kill microorganisms that are killing your baby, or other diseases and defects and you want the miracle from God to heal it. In that case, you can do it at home and you don’t NEED a priest to do it for you. Jesus wanted everyone to be high priests, a holy kingdom. By submitting to dogmatic doctrine, you are directly disobeying what Jesus wanted. But whatever. You do what you want in America.

        When the flesh comes back again to the things of the spirit of God, it is usually that much more powerful as the absence it had with it. Supposed to just use common sense.

        The priest used to use the blood,of the animal for theirself sometimes. That was what the altar basin was for when they used to bleed the animal into it and then do the offerings and sacrifices. They would eat the animal too.

        We don’t have to do it that way anymore, we can just go to Cattle Barons and eat a 10 oz Center sirloin Steak with a baked potato and butter. I guess we can’t really eat any part we want anymore when we do it like that, but I imagine it is still a good cut of meat.

        The blood is not really accessible anymore either, and I wonder why, but it is said that when the israelites start those up again, that the antichrist will be at hand.

        Most people may not be able to have a blood bath to get healing, but they can go to hospital and the sick can get blood and people give blood. It’s just that the healthy can’t luxuriously just spend blood bags for health reasons because that would be really expensive I guess.

        Tiger’s Blood Snowcone: Watermelon, Strawberry, Coconut (according to internet).
        If true, then God can give people the ability to make their own essential oil bath out of these essential oils and carrier oils if people believe it is God’s power through Jesus Christ.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If you are saved then your baby is saved.
    And as long as your child remains with you and is trained up in the way that he should go, and usually that includes getting a real baptism as a show of the moment he actually confessed and believed in the heart, which was the actual saving moment of their soul where their soul shifted from being saved by the family to officially saved because they believed. It’s like your parents were just keeping that spot warm in your heart until you sat in it yourself.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The lack of verses is what supports the argument. We know it was something done very early on and the New Testament doesn’t really discuss it. If it was such a big deal how it took place you’d see something about it in the epistles. It took centuries for a universal formula for “correct” baptism to pop up. Do you question the salvation of everyone from like 350AD or earlier?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >We know it was something done very early on
      Like after the entire Bible was already written
      >If it was such a big deal how it took place you’d see something about it in the epistles
      Because people weren't doing it at the time of Paul, and every time someone is baptized it was after they were saved
      >Do you question the salvation of everyone from like 350AD or earlier?
      No and that's just a stupid question

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Like after the entire Bible was already written
        You know they were baptizing households before they wrote in Acts that they were baptizing households right?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          And you realize nowhere does that say it includes infants? The youngest person in my household is 12. You're completely inserting something into the text that isn't here.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      > The lack of verses is what supports the argument
      Oh… I dunno… maybe also something like how baby Jesus wasn’t even infant baptised?!

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        You don’t need to wash clean dishes. I really fear for the IQ of this board based on the responses I’m getting so far.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          He did get circumcised though.
          Luke Chapter 2
          21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That’s what I’m saying. He was presented to the temple. It was sufficient at the time. Jesus brought a new method of cleansing sin he didn’t retroactively make everyone before that point dirty. In israeli custom at the time you wouldn’t do their version of baptism unless you were ritually purifying something made unholy.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Sola scriptura is unbiblical and a 16th century innovation

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Mark 7
      5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
      6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
      7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
      8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
      9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
      10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
      11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
      12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
      13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >>Mark 7
        not canon

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          okay moron

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *