toldailytopic: Infant baptism: what do you think of it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Then show me this to be true. I can wait until you have access to the sites you need.
zippy2006
New member
Try googling "can an infant hold their breath under water?" There is really no disagreement on the fact. :idunno:
-------------------------------
Let me show you something Zippy in all of your verses you use for "household" baptism and saying that it included infants. In context it is CLEAR that there was belief before baptism. How does a baby believe? gaga goo goo...did you hear that? the baby said "I believe"...:baby:
Acts 16:13-14 Zippy's verse
Acts 16: 11-15 If you read the whole thing in context they only went to her house. There is no mention of baptising her household. The reason they went to her house is because they found her to be faithful. If you read this passage it is clear that what it explains is that first she heard the Gospel and then she wanted them to come to her house to share it.
Acts 16:33 Zippy's verse
Acts 16:31-33 Read it in context there was belief first.
1 Corinthians 1:16 Zippys' verse
1 Corinthians 1:10-16
Read this whole passage and the same thing these people already believed.
zippy2006
New member
I quoted Acts 16:15, not the one you have me quoting. Here's what it says:
Acts 16:15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us.
Yes, belief on the part of the jailer. His household wasn't even present. He then went and baptized his whole household. It says
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
What about the young children which were a part of their household? It is the same as the jailer. Try again.
zippy2006
New member
Ditch the quotes around the text
And I am then told a child must be trained to hold its breath properly because though there is some instinct it dissipates relatively quickly and if you do not continue to apply water to the facial area on a regular basis the child must then be retrained to hold their breath.
zippy2006
New member
Way to go. Now you know that infants can hold their breath and be safely submerged in baptism, even though submersion is not necessary :thumb:
Irrelevant as logic dictates that any children young enough to be considered infants at the time the events recorded in said verses took place were not kept in the habit of holding their breath underwater.
Prove it. Prove that baptism is not immersion. Go ahead.
This is just dumb. If baptism is compared to circumcision then why are women baptised?
If you're going to use the example of it is an anti-type. Then you still fail in the OT circumcision was used as part of the mosaic law. The New Testament's equal to that is the circumcision of the heart.
Acts 15
Also the controversy over circumcision at the Jerusalem council was not solved by declaring that baptism was a replacement for circumcision. They solved it by saying that Gentiles were not under the law.
zippy2006
New member
If the paschal lamb was foreshadowing Christ then why didn't Christ have wool?
It is true that circumcision also typified that of the heart.
Your point being...?
some other dude
New member
If the paschal lamb was foreshadowing Christ then why didn't Christ have wool?
I think He's described (in Proverbs?) as having hair like wool, which once led Letsargue to propose that Christ was an albino (and chewed His tongue off on the cross and other such nonsense) :chuckle:
Acts 16:11-15
11 Therefore, sailing from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and the next day came to Neapolis, 12 and from there to lPhilippi, which is the 3foremost city of that part of Macedonia, a colony. And we were staying in that city for some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. 14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of mThyatira, who worshiped God. n The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So oshe persuaded us.
Acts 16:31-3431 So they said, a“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, bhe set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
1 Corinthians 1:10-16
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, qthat you all 4speak the same thing, and that there be no 5divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are 6contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that reach of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of sApollos,” or “I am of tCephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 uIs Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized vnone of you except wCrispus and xGaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of yStephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
Last edited:
If the paschal lamb was foreshadowing Christ then why didn't Christ have wool?
Your point being...?
Looks like you're done. :kookoo:
That's correct and the reason why they don't submerse the infant is because what they call a baptism is not what is found in the Bible.
BabyChristian
New member
Exactly! :up:
BabyChristian
New member
Do think babies are going to hell? To me that is the question, the most important question.
BabyChristian
New member
They were considered part of the household but these were adult slaves with the ability to make decisions.
A baby is innocent unless God wants innocent babies to burn in hell for eternity before they've been able to make a decision about God.
I don't believe God, who is LOVE, would do that, still I see NOTHING wrong with making parents feel better, even if they're wrong, to have their babies baptized before they're old enough to sin.
BabyChristian
New member
Certainly NOT to be baptized. The Romans had all kinds of luxuries, such as vomitoriums, where they got drunk, gorged themselves with food, would go and vomit and start all over again. And places where they bathed often and had orgies quite often in those man-made pools of water. Nothing similar whatsoever.
The age of consent from what I understand is the age of 13 when a male reaches puberty, as least in Jewish tradition when they have the Bar Mitzvah. I could be wrong, I'm going from memory here but after all RCC and Protestants are a derivative from Judeo belief system. Still, if it makes the parents feel better, I see nothing wrong with it.. Problem is, many have had their babies baptized only to see them become atheists, so then are they still saved by those that believe in infant baptism? I personally don't think so.