Now you're just rambling on without making any sense. There is absolutely no reason to withhold baptism from a baby. You're just making up any sort of excuse not to, when clearly the scriptures indicate that even children and unborn babies received the holy spirit, so there is absolutely no reason to withhold water baptism from them. Whoever says that a baby cannot be baptized because he cannot yet choose, or because he hasn't yet committed sins to where he would need to repent first, has no understanding that the choice that a baby would be saved already happened from before the foundation of the world, so therefore, let the baby be baptized, for he is already chosen.
Baptism of Water for Babies and Children
- Thread starter cgaviria
- Start date
Now you're just rambling on without making any sense. There is absolutely no reason to withhold baptism from a baby. You're just making up any sort of excuse not to, when clearly the scriptures indicate that even children and unborn babies received the holy spirit, so there is absolutely no reason to withhold water baptism from them. Whoever says that a baby cannot be baptized because he cannot yet choose, or because he hasn't yet committed sins to where he would need to repent first, has no understanding that the choice that a baby would be saved already happened from before the foundation of the world, so therefore, let the baby be baptized, for he is already chosen.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
First of all, David does not state that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to him. Instead, when we examine what is said we can understand that David was deeply troubled for his sins and wicked behavior and convicted of his guilt:
"For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps.51:3-5).
Here we see that David was acknowledging total responsibly for his actions and he was not placing the blame upon Adam or anyone else. He expressed his repentance in an extreme manner, using figurative language to express the idea that he had been sinful ever since he could remember.
After all, not everything that is said in Psalm 51 can be understood literally. Let us look at what else is said in the same Psalm:
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice" (Ps.51:5-8).
If all of these verses are to be taken literally then verse seven can be evidence that men are cleansed from their sins "with hyssop." Verse eight can also be taken in a literal sense to teach that broken bones rejoice!
On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to think that the following verse should not be taken literally:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).
If a baby comes out of the womb dead in sin then it is impossible that it could be said that baby is fearfully and wonderfully made!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Because it is ordained that all people die (Heb.9:27) and some people die earlier than others.
If you believe that an infant emerges from the womb dead in sin and then that infant dies physically then how can he be with the LORD?
dodge
New member
The best way I have ever had they explained is this:
when a lion is born the cub drinks its mothers milk; however, when it grows it eventually eats milk because that is its nature. The same applies to mankind no baby is born having committed sin, but that is the nature of mankind and if that baby lives long enough it will sin because that is the babies nature.
You and I know only one born of woman never sinned and that is because the human father was taken out of the process when Mary was over shadowed by the Holy Spirit.
dodge
New member
Wrong ! death is the result of SIN.
dodge
New member
There are very few babies in the womb receiving the Holy Spirit in scripture and it was always for that baby whom God had chosen for a particular mission.
This story was not His...is why He used names so people knew which story He was retelling...He was using a story already popular among the people...using it for His message...
no Jew believed in hell...most not even in life after death...some not even in resurrection?
Besides being misused for pro hell purposes do you even know what the moral of the story is?
Why He used it?
dodge
New member
I am confident He by whom all things are made had no need to plagiarize an UN-true story to make a point.
You do understand that you and I are talking about God in the flesh right ?
Not many Jews at that time believed Jesus was the Messiah and they were ALL WRONG so I don't put any credence on what a Jew believes or disbelieves concerning the things of God. The only Jews I follow and believe are Jesus and His Apostles !
You might want to take it up with God after all it is His creation hell and all.
UN-like many I do not believe Jesus lied in a story form to make a point.
It is obvious you have no clue what a parable or a recount of an actual event is.
Jerry, you're a nice guy. I guess for me do to some of the trials I've endured I've become callous and don't have a problem with infant mortality and other mortality ending up lost. I'm sorry bro. I hope you are right but I know in the end we will say God did that which was right.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
You're right; that's Mohammed.
Do you have any biblical evidence or early Christian teachings that support the claim "Baptism pictures burial and resurrection with Christ to walk in a new life with Christ in a marital relationship?"
I can provide ample evidence to support infant baptism. Both Biblical, historical, and from the earliest of Christian writings and authors.
It was an illustration of how the Jews dealt with foreigners. There was a lack of care and concern on the part of the Jews rather than to love their neighbors.
What does your research show as to how infants perceive baptism? They are already a new creature so are you saying they then become a newer creature?
Time and chance, it happens to everyone.
dodge
New member
Wrong ! I don't treat God's word as suggestions or fairy tales.
dodge
New member
Rom 6:4
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.
There is no scriptural evidence for infant baptism . Man made traditions yes scripture no.
dodge
New member
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Death is a result of sin. Their own sin or the sin of someone else , but ALL death is a result of sin.
jsanford108
New member
This directly points to an intriguing question. What is the purpose of baptism?
Baptism is the removing of one from original sin. By baptizing an infant, one is immediately freed from the bondage of original sin. (This is obviously the Catholic doctrine).
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
Sorry, but I am about to prove you wrong.
Acts 2: 37-41, 10:24-16, 16:15-35
1 Cor 7:14
Col 2:11-12
We're not "whole house holds baptized?" (Acts 16) Are babies not part of a household?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
dodge
New member
lol , that scripture does not say any infants were baptized. How do you know if the youngest child was not 30 ? YOU DON'T.