Why Baptize a Baby?

[Taken]

Don't just read John 3:5.
STUDY the entire conversation.

You MIGHT just learn something about Baptism . . .

Keep studying, you MIGHT finally get it.

Water does not save people.

The thief saved without WATER!!

Luke 23:
[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[bbyrd009]

I’ve given you many Bible lessons – and now it’s time for a LIFE lesson:

thank God you are so unashamed and proud, at least ppl know to run lol

 

[Taken]

I’ve given you many Bible lessons – and now it’s time for a LIFE lesson:

A HETEROsexual person is one whose sexual proclivity is towards those of the OPPOSITE sex.
A HOMOsexual person is one whose sexual proclivity is towards those of the SAME sex.

In BOTH cases, they can live an ACTIVE sexual life or an INACTIVE sexual life and STIL maintain their sexuality. In other words, Einstein – a person can be a homosexual WITHOUT engaging in homosexual sex

Now for another Bible lesson . . .
In BOTH cases – the sin is the SAME.
Heterosexual relations outside of wedlock are abominable before God.
Homosexual relations are always abominable before God.

A celibate Heterosexual does NOT sin sexually.
A celibate Homosexual does NOT sin sexually.

There ends the lesson for the day.

It seems yet again you have not paid attention when you are told your so called teaching is of no interest to me.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is what I said in post no. 180:

Before Constantine, only those in a Christian household were baptized, including the children. This made some sense since people were very devoted at that time...whole families went to the lions, think of it. The chances were that if one grew up in a Christian family, he would also become a Christian.

After Constantine, the church was truly corrupted, in my humble opinion.
Now EVERYONE in the state HAD to be baptized, and thus began what we could call mechanical Christianity? IOW, it began to be believed that if everyone just did what the church/state said, they would be saved.
Go to church
Go to confession
Be baptized
etc.

This was a corruption of Christianity. Baptism became meaningless.

Well BoL. Everything I said above is absolutely correct except for one little thing...
I wrote Constantine instead of Justinian.

IF you're so good at history, why didn't you just bring this to my attention instead of being so mean all the time?

Justinian was the one that forced everyone is his Kingdom to be baptized, and to accept the Catholic Creed, or Nicene Creed.
But it did all begin with Constantine and his becoming converted (maybe, who could know for sure) and the monarchs became catholic and had to answer to the Pope. As I said, this ruined the church that existed before Constantine...which is the church I respect,,,the anti-Nicene fathers.

Please note that I never brought up the Edict of Milan...YOU did. The E of M has nothing to do with my statement...it did not force religion on anyone.
Also, I NEVER stated the phrase "forced by a sword"...that is just not in my vocabulary and I never read that anyone was threatened with death when it was declared that Christianity was to be accepted by everyone.

With Constantine the stage had been set to allow Emporers to answer to the Pope and declare doctrine...this did not happen immediately.

There are many sources online which make an interesting read....

Christian emperorship[edit]
Enforcement of doctrine[edit]
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to the gods for the spiritual health of their subjects, and after Constantine they had a duty to help the Church define orthodoxy and maintain orthodoxy.[28] The Church generally regarded the definition of doctrine as the responsibility of the bishops; the emperor's role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[29] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrines and dogma consisted of was for the Church to determine.[30]

source: Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia

The idea of a church/state continued with Theadosius:

Theodosius’s situation was complicated by the sharp antagonism that arose about 379 between disciplesof the Nicene Creed (according to which Jesus Christis of the same substance as God the Father) and several other Christian groups in his part of the empire. Theodosius himself, the first emperor who did not assume the title of pontifex maximus(supreme guardian of the old Roman cults), believed in the Nicene Creed, despite his baptism only after a serious illness in the fall of 380.

Out of political as well as religious motives, he energetically undertook to bring about unity of faith within the empire. His position was improved by the fact that during 379 the followers of the Nicene Creed gained ground, whereupon Theodosius on February 28, 380, without consulting the ecclesiastical authorities, issued an edict prescribing a creed that was to be binding on all subjects. Only persons who believed in the consubstantiality of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were henceforth to be considered Catholic Christians, a designation that here appears for the first time in a document.

source: Theodosius I | Roman emperor

And I'll end with Justinian, who DID enforce Christianity:

Justinian and Orthodoxy
Justinian was a fervent supporter of Orthodoxy.
Justinian viewed himself as the new Constantine the Great. He believed in a Mediterranean-wide Christian order politically, religiously and economically, united and ruled from Constantinople under a single Christian emperor. To this end he directed his great wars and his colossal activity in reconquering the western provinces from the Germanic tribes.

Perhaps the most noteworthy event occurred in 529 when the Academy in Athens (famous for being founded centuries earlier by Plato) was placed under state control by order of Justinian, effectively strangling this training school for Hellenism. Paganism was actively suppressed. The worship of Ammon at Augila in the Libyan desert was abolished, and so were the remnants of the worship of Isis on the island of Philae, in Egypt, and unrepentant Manicheans were executed in Constantinople. Justinian frequently sent out missionaries and converted numerous tribes. In Asia Minor alone, John, Bishop of Ephesus, converted 70,000 pagans.

Justinian also took a very firm stance in his support of Orthodoxy; he fought different heresiesthroughout his rule. At the beginning of his reign, he promulgated by law belief in the Holy Trinityand the Incarnation, and subsequently declared that he would deprive all disturbers of orthodoxy due process of law. He made the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed the sole symbol of the Church and accorded legal force to the canons of the four Ecumenical Councils. At the command of the sovereign, the Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 553, censuring the teachings of Origen and affirming the definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. He also attempted to secure religious unity within the Empire through his (unsuccessful) dialogues with the non-Chalcedonians. He appointed Theodora, who was the daughter of an Oriental Orthodoxpriest, as his special envoy to deal with those who rejected Chalcedon. Besides Monophysitismand Miaphysitism, other ecclesiastical tensions had begun to emerge between the East and the West; the "Three Chapters" controversy brought all of these to a head (cf. external links).

source: Justinian - OrthodoxWiki
[/QUOTE]
The fact remains that YOU said "Constantine", which is incorrect.

I'm NOT a mind reader. I took you at your word . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It seems yet again you have not paid attention when you are told your so called teaching is of no interest to me.

Glory to God,
Taken

Just offering you some CLARITY where you obviously have none . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

thank God you are so unashamed and proud, at least ppl know to run lol

That's okay. I'm not here to make friends.
I'm ONLY here to make sure people stay honest . . .

 

[Taken]

Just offering you some CLARITY where you obviously have none . . .

Were you talking to me?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[GodsGrace]

*Jane takes a deep breath*

It isn't remotely about "Jane just going to do whatever and she wants". No. It's not about what I want. I am on my knees this entire time. It's about what God instructs me to do. God is my King. I look towards Him alone, because I am a disciple of Christ, a Christian. It's not about what I want, it's about following God. He is the source of Truth.

You keep asking "but what if this other person over here thinks something different?". I. don't. care. what. they. think.

If I were to compromise my relationship with God solely because of "Bob" thinks, I would no longer be a Christian-- I would be a disciple of Bob, and in direct violation of the First Great Commandment. If I were to look to them men of some council for Truth instead of God, I would be in sore need of repentance for again violating the First Great Commandment. I can only keep my eyes focused on Christ and continue to listen. Scripture is VERY clear that Truth is received from God, and not men (see Galatians 1).

As to Bob--- Bob has his own relationship with God, and if Bob does/doesn't listen right then that's Bob's deal, for better or worse. I can only keep my eyes focused on Christ and continue to listen.

Mary, I respect that you trust the Catholic Church and look to them for Truth. That's you choice, your deal, for better or worse. I respect that's a choice you make for you. But as for me, I do not. I am thrilled to have you share your love of Christ here- hearing various people's love of God is actually why I'm on here. I'm also thrilled to share my love of Christ with you. But I'm not interested in listening to proselytizing, just as I'm sure you're not interested in that either.

I've been following this interesting conversation between you and @Marymog and, how could it be?...but I agree with both of you!

I agree with you because I got to know Jesus before I had even ever read a bible and He's helped me with words of wisdom -- more than any man could ever help me because what HE tells you is truth.

OTOH, I've studied a lot and I find that I'm much richer for it and know so many things I never would have known. Maybe it's just because I'm curious and like to know some history and background of cultures, etc. For instance, I don't really care for Revelation. However, I did read a great book by Scott Hahn, a former Protestant turned Catholic many years ago, a Professor teaching at a college (of theology), the book is called The Supper of the Lamb. I loved it and got so much from it. I think the whole book is highlighted !

So, yes, I agree with both of you.

 

[CoreIssue]

Were you talking to me?

Glory to God,
Taken

Just a general comment.

 

[Taken]

That's okay. I'm not here to make friends.
I'm ONLY here to make sure people stay honest . . .

Must be a heavy burden, you being a friendless false accuser and all.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I've been following this interesting conversation between you and @Marymog and, how could it be?...but I agree with both of you!

I agree with you because I got to know Jesus before I had even ever read a bible and He's helped me with words of wisdom -- more than any man could ever help me because what HE tells you is truth.

OTOH, I've studied a lot and I find that I'm much richer for it and know so many things I never would have known. Maybe it's just because I'm curious and like to know some history and background of cultures, etc. For instance, I don't really care for Revelation. However, I did read a great book by Scott Hahn, a former Protestant turned Catholic many years ago, a Professor teaching at a college (of theology), the book is called The Supper of the Lamb. I loved it and got so much from it. I think the whole book is highlighted !

So, yes, I agree with both of you.

For the record, I don't have any blanket ban on the idea of Christian teachers-- in fact I think they are really important. I'm not remotely a sola scriptura person. Teachers can indeed be servants of God, and are super important for guiding individuals and the world. And I do actually admire the Catholic acknowledgment of the importance priesthood (even though I have a ton of disagreements on the who/how/why/validation and many other things here).

While teachers are important, a mortal should NEVER replace the relationship/discipleship a person has directly with God. Support, totally. But NEVER replace. The basics of a testimony begin with the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you, and should never stray from that. You should directly validate each teacher and teaching with God, less we take our eyes off the Most High. God loves us so much that He gave us His Spirit, teachers, scriptures, AND a direct phone line to Him. Those things are ALL important.

 

[GodsGrace]

Really? You took me at my word?
Then why did you question me?
If someone mis-speaks a mere name, and I knew they had mis-spoken, I would just gently correct them without making such a big issue of it, as YOU did.

But, as I stated, I do write for those reading along and the correct name was Justinian.

My mother always said two brains are better than one --- but maybe not in every case?

@BreadOfLife

 

[GodsGrace]

For the record, I don't have any blanket ban on the idea of Christian teachers-- in fact I think they are really important. I'm not remotely a sola scriptura person. Teachers can indeed be servants of God, and are super important for guiding individuals and the world. And I do actually admire the Catholic acknowledgment of the importance priesthood (even though I have a ton of disagreements on the who/how/why/validation and many other things here).

While teachers are important, a mortal should NEVER replace the relationship/discipleship a person has directly with God. Support, totally. But NEVER replace. The basics of a testimony begin with the Holy Spirit speaking directly to you, and should never stray from that. You should directly validate each teacher and teaching with God, less we take our eyes off the Most High. God loves us so much that He gave us His Spirit, teachers, scriptures, AND a direct phone line to Him. Those things are ALL important.

Hi JD, Yes, I do believe we're on the same page with this.
I agree fully with all you've said.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Keep studying, you MIGHT finally get it.

Water does not save people.

The thief saved without WATER!!

Luke 23:
[43] And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Glory to God,
Taken

But who says that the thief was not water baptised before hand ?
Jesus would of known but if one says like the thief did of Jesus, then one is in the Kingdom of God because you believe in him, so he is in the Paradise the Kingdom of God, not Heaven mind. or Jesus would of said Heaven.

The Garden was Paradise, (not Heaven) until God kicked them out because of the workings of the Serpents temptations leading them astray, so they were not worthy of Gods Paradise that God created for us.

So one who has faith will get water baptised, water Baptised does not give you faith but faith can come before water baptised for sure, but water baptise is a community of Gods people for that ends as to faith for sure to be sure.

Just off hand I don't think that the Bible does not say that the thief or Saul and others were water baptised but I think that they all were, a lot of the top Jews were water baptised by John as well. but it did not save them. and John says of Jesus Baptism of the Holy Spirit is so much more than the Water Baptism.

In Gen 1: 2 the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, well Jesus walked on the waters, you all know what that means don't you. he is the one of God the Holy Spirit and he moves upon the waters and you being of the waters are his. he is the beginning and the end no one come to the Father but through his only begotten Son. without the Holy Spirit you are lost, dead to such and under a curse of Sin. outside of Gods Garden.

The Jew was kicked out of the Garden because they rejected the Son 2000 years ago.
The Jew has no right to be back in the Land because they reject the Son and such is a Sin against God to create such, so it's a work of Satan.

One point in the Bible points out that there was a Vineyard who's was let out to some people and the owner went away and that a mob took over, well the owner sent some to see that mob and they always killed them who were sent and then the owner sent his only Son and they killed him as well, they were murders from the beginning he said of them and they were not people of God but of their Father the Devil. I wonder who that Son was ? the People have not changed there spots who they serve. so why look to such as anything but what they truly are cursed Satanist who lead the whole world astray. nothing that they do is of the Holy Spirit but the workings of cursed mad men. they come across as looking like great shinning ones to all who are not Born Again because true Israel (Servants of God) who are Born Again can see a Kike for what it is, a white washed tomb full of dead mans bones. once you put your hand on such a shining one, Click you know it's a filthy parasite Kike that has no love of God but of themselves and there stupid worldly driven ego, that only destroys people like a plague of Vampires sucking the life blood out of all and we have seen this with the fall of Christianity being undermined by such Satanist leading it astray. Christianity is irreverent in the world today but Jews are Idolised now. (how Satanic)
One knows who controls you if you can not speak out against such in fear of them, Jesus coped it from such peoples cunning, remember what the bastards did to him !

 

[Nancy]

Randomly pointing out things about another faith/church you don't like is bashing. It makes the person doing it look very hateful and makes other people dismiss that person and their beliefs.

So if that's the impression you want to convey, by all means keep at it. If you want to convey a different impression, now you know how to. I have no dog in this fight.

Agreed. It is the spirit in which words are given that can make or break any point. I am not a big fan of sarcasm and do not believe it belongs in a Christians character.
"Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care" Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Frank Lee]

Infant baptism is not biblical. Let's stay with the bible. Man made denominations have man made traditions. I'm sticking with God's words. Man worships his own creations, denominations, more than God. We owe God everything. We owe, I owe man made traditions NOTHING, ZERO. It was not them who brought salvation to me. Only my Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a perfect example of traditions being honored ABOVE God's words. Jesus came and saved me, baptized me in his Holy Spirit and later I was baptized in water. This happens to be the same order of things as happened with Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, not that the order is important. Just so you are born again first of all.

If we think that man's traditions are above and Holier than God's words then we err.

Doctors said we couldn't have children and they were right. For 14 years they were. My wife's body they found, killed my seed upon contact. She was allergic to it! But Then Jesus came and saved me outside the walls of church buildings as he spoke in Ezekiel chapter 34, and began to tell us he was sending us a son. He told me the day my wife conceived so we went by faith and put his name in a baby book Tuesday October 29, 1979. He was born Wednesday June 25th, 1980.

He also sent us two daughters. Our children were raised in Jesus and were born again BEFORE being baptized.

If I am to be criticized then let it be for being jealous for God's word. Without him we'd never have had children. Shall I go by God's words or by the traditions that men have made?

If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord , choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord ."
Joshua 24:15 NASB

An infant cannot choose Jesus until it is of the age of understanding. We dedicated our children to God before and after their births. All three knew him truly as savior by 5 or 6 years of age. Only after this were they baptized in water. This is the biblical order.

Men will fight to the death to defend their religious traditions but stand idly when God's words are cast aside.

Let men do as they will. But you shall not find it in the pages of the Bible.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Must be a heavy burden, you being a friendless false accuser and all.

Glory to God,
Taken

Not accusing anybody of anything.
Just exposing you - that's all . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Really? You took me at my word?
Then why did you question me?
If someone mis-speaks a mere name, and I knew they had mis-spoken, I would just gently correct them without making such a big issue of it, as YOU did.

But, as I stated, I do write for those reading along and the correct name was Justinian.

My mother always said two brains are better than one --- but maybe not in every case?

@BreadOfLife

Ummmmmm, I questioned you because you said "Constantine" - and that was the WRONG answer.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Infant baptism is not biblical. Let's stay with the bible. Man made denominations have man made traditions. I'm sticking with God's words. Man worships his own creations, denominations, more than God. We owe God everything. We owe, I owe man made traditions NOTHING, ZERO. It was not them who brought salvation to me. Only my Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a perfect example of traditions being honored ABOVE God's words. Jesus came and saved me, baptized me in his Holy Spirit and later I was baptized in water. This happens to be the same order of things as happened with Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, not that the order is important. Just so you are born again first of all.

If we think that man's traditions are above and Holier than God's words then we err.

Doctors said we couldn't have children and they were right. For 14 years they were. My wife's body they found, killed my seed upon contact. She was allergic to it! But Then Jesus came and saved me outside the walls of church buildings as he spoke in Ezekiel chapter 34, and began to tell us he was sending us a son. He told me the day my wife conceived so we went by faith and put his name in a baby book Tuesday October 29, 1979. He was born Wednesday June 25th, 1980.

He also sent us two daughters. Our children were raised in Jesus and were born again BEFORE being baptized.

If I am to be criticized then let it be for being jealous for God's word. Without him we'd never have had children. Shall I go by God's words or by the traditions that men have made?

If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord , choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord ."
Joshua 24:15 NASB

An infant cannot choose Jesus until it is of the age of understanding. We dedicated our children to God before and after their births. All three knew him truly as savior by 5 or 6 years of age. Only after this were they baptized in water. This is the biblical order.

Men will fight to the death to defend their religious traditions but stand idly when God's words are cast aside.
Let men do as they will. But you shall not find it in the pages of the Bible.

The METHOD of Baptism isn't Biblical either, Einstein.
NOWHERE does the Bible describe HOW to Baptize - so HOW do you "stay with the Bible", hmmmmm??

As for these "infant dedications" - WHERE is the New Testament precedent for this??
I thought YOU just stuck with the Bible . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Must be a heavy burden, you being a friendless false accuser and all.

Glory to God,
Taken

I've got PLENTY of friends.
I just don't look for them here.

I'm only here to expose people like YOU so that others who read your lies won't be seduced by them . . .