Search results

So says you. The 2,000 year teachings of Christianity disagrees with you. Why are you being so headstrong and denying 2,000 years of teaching and accepting a 500 year teaching?

Your welcome? o_O Sooooo another theory of yours is that any Reformers that remained Roman Catholics as far as baptism was concerned were wrong? Your theory suggest that the further Christian teachings get AWAY from the teachings of the CC the more right they are. o_O Sooooo the men who...

I did read the entire post. That is why I asked from whom did you receive this theory because it is a theory (Definition of THEORY) Is it YOUR theory or are you repeating the teachings/theory of someone else? If your argument stands on their own merits then that means that you believe what...

Hi David, Because your interpretation parrots theirs!! The men of the Reformation went to Scripture also. So when they come up with a different interpretation of Scripture than you do who is right? Your or them? Can you see how your argument (We go to Scripture) is one big circle that leads...

Where is your evidence that the men of the Catholic Church teach nonsense and the men of the Reformation do not teach nonsense? Some of the men of the Reformation AGREE with many teachings of the CC. Are they only right when they disagree with the CC? Curious Mary

Hi Helen, Your POV is common among Reformation Christians but not all Reformation Christians believe what you believe. Do you believe it is necessary to follow the example that Jesus gave us? If you believe it is necessary to follow His example then water baptism is necessary for salvation...

Hi David, If the ECF's were not right then who, in your opinion, was right? Docetism? Gnostics? Marcionism? And who has the authority to decide? Curious Mary

Excellent..... if you cut out parts of Scripture that speak of water baptism that don't agree with what you believe ;)

It takes man to interpret Scripture. You and other men have interpreted what you THINK the Apostles meant. I trust the men who lived during the time of the Apostles.....you trust men who lived 1,500+ years later. :( Hence....don't trust what the great great great grand children of David...

Because your grandchildren would have better knowledge about you then your great grand children ;) So your retort is asinine.

Why do people go to the Reformers?

Thank you. From whom did you receive this theory?

What's pretty simple is that Scripture and historical 1st century Christians writings make it very clear that water is necessary for baptism. Your theory is the teaching of men from the 16th century.....congratulations!

I have read your post....and they lack theology

Very much a dilemma....either 2,000 years later you are right or the Christians who walked and talked with the Apostles are right....That is QUIT a dilemma. I agree with you that you can not tell me "why the 1st century Christians chose to continue the use of water baptism". Because there is...

You have an interesting theory since the eunuch insisted on being baptized in water. Jesus was baptized in water the only historical Christian writings from your the 1st century Christians emphatically say they baptized in "living water" sooooo I am not sure who tickled your ears and gave you...

Post #1699 destroyed your theory by putting John 3:5 into context, showed that amniotic fluid was NEVER talked about in Scripture and showed historically what The Church has ALWAYS taught, practiced, believed about baptismal regeneration and that passage. Your context is wrong... Your...

Hmmmm......so the Southern Baptist (which started 1700+ years after Christ died) know more about what the Apostles taught on infant baptism then Irenaeous? If I ever want to know what David Taylor was like I should go ask his great, great, great, great, great, great grand children instead of...

Already have in this discussion about baptism. ;)

I forgot......You properly interpret Scripture and rely on no one else to interpret it for you therefore what you said is true.....you don't follow oral tradition. I guess you are the one who first interpreted John 3:5 to mean amniotic fluid....you didn't get that from anyone else. o_O