Baptizing... babies?...!
- Thread starter Frank Lee
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
See this is all you do. Your looking for fault even when you are looking scripture in the face. Am I talking scripture or not?Do you really believe that you personally are taught all things directly by God?
My children were baptized after they were true born again believers in Jesus. Traditions always set aside God's words for the sake of peer pressure and tradition.
I have no idea that anything I say will change anything. Tradition is a powerful habit. Just so No one ever thinks that baptism of infants has anything to do with salvation, regardless of whether they are dipped, dunked, squirted, sprinkled, drizzled, soaked, immersed or sprayed.
Infant "baptism" for lack of a better word, is for the sake of religion, tradition and the men and women who support it. It does nothing whatsoever for the little one.
Deuteronomy 6:7 (NKJV)
You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Only the things written in Deuteronomy profit the children. Afterwards, after coming to true belief in the savior they should be baptized. Does anyone really think that John the Baptist sprinkled or sprayed Holy water on Jesus for His baptism? Men turn aside the word of God again and again. Why is something so simple that God gives changed to something else?
Was the Ethiopian eunuch sprinkled? There is absolutely no precedent in the Bible for any other type of baptism other than going down in the water and coming back up. It is a type of the rebirth. Also a type of the burying, the putting off of the old man. How much of what people believe and practice is from the Bible and how much from traditions, from denominations, from Europe?
Regardless of how much religious history is quoted it is just that, a history of the traditions of men. It's not Biblical. I don't care if they wear the finest most colorful linen robes money can buy, or if they burn expensive incense in golden pots, or if everyone in the building speaks Latin, Greek and Hebrew. The practice is not Biblical.
For those wishing to continue the practice of sprinkling their babies please do so. Just be aware that it has no actual significance.
Deuteronomy 11:19 (NKJV)
You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
I have said the truth according to the Bible and anything else would be to no avail.
If you are baptized in the Holy Spirit then:
1 John 2:27 (NKJV)
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
I realize that not all have experienced this baptism, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and this will set men apart. It is also a command.
Peace be in Jesus name.
I have no idea that anything I say will change anything. Tradition is a powerful habit. Just so No one ever thinks that baptism of infants has anything to do with salvation, regardless of whether they are dipped, dunked, squirted, sprinkled, drizzled, soaked, immersed or sprayed.
Infant "baptism" for lack of a better word, is for the sake of religion, tradition and the men and women who support it. It does nothing whatsoever for the little one.
Deuteronomy 6:7 (NKJV)
You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Only the things written in Deuteronomy profit the children. Afterwards, after coming to true belief in the savior they should be baptized. Does anyone really think that John the Baptist sprinkled or sprayed Holy water on Jesus for His baptism? Men turn aside the word of God again and again. Why is something so simple that God gives changed to something else?
Was the Ethiopian eunuch sprinkled? There is absolutely no precedent in the Bible for any other type of baptism other than going down in the water and coming back up. It is a type of the rebirth. Also a type of the burying, the putting off of the old man. How much of what people believe and practice is from the Bible and how much from traditions, from denominations, from Europe?
Regardless of how much religious history is quoted it is just that, a history of the traditions of men. It's not Biblical. I don't care if they wear the finest most colorful linen robes money can buy, or if they burn expensive incense in golden pots, or if everyone in the building speaks Latin, Greek and Hebrew. The practice is not Biblical.
For those wishing to continue the practice of sprinkling their babies please do so. Just be aware that it has no actual significance.
Deuteronomy 11:19 (NKJV)
You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
I have said the truth according to the Bible and anything else would be to no avail.
If you are baptized in the Holy Spirit then:
1 John 2:27 (NKJV)
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
I realize that not all have experienced this baptism, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and this will set men apart. It is also a command.
Peace be in Jesus name.
Last edited:
You never recognised the scripture.
1 John 2:27 (NKJV)
But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
Here is the scipture, I said that you never recognised. So on the basis of this understanding I said what I said in truth.
A false interpretation because you rip it out of context and try to make it say something it doesn't.
Well I wonder if you could explain to us how to read scripture in context so I dont do it again thank you?
And you could use my example to begin with. What a perfect chance for you to teach us on this issue.
Oh yes I do. and you are obviously fully capable of teaching so I am really looking forward to this. Theres so much confusion over how to read in context.
I'm surprised you don't understand context and it's importance in interpretations.
The first level of context is the surrounding verses.
Then we ask questions such as:
What is the issue the text is addressing?
Who is the text addressed to?
What else has the writer said on this issue?
Let's take those in reverse order regarding this issue - which is the Holy Spirit guiding us into truth.
What has John told us previously?
Back in his gospel John records Jesus addressing the apostles, the leaders of his Church at the Last Supper.
He has been teaching them for three years and he is soon to leave them. He makes them two promises.
Firstly about the past – all he has taught them.
But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (Jn 14:26).
Secondly about the future – to guide them in new situations
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (Jn 16:13)
And we can see how this guiding happened in Acts 1 (the choosing of Matthias as a successor to Judas), and in Acts 15 (the Council of Jerusalem)
Now we move to John’s letter, chapter 2.
Who is he addressing?
He is writing to Christians who he personally has catechised, taught them everything, taught them the truth. He addresses them as “my children” (vs 1) and “beloved” (vs 7). We can reasonably assume that like Jesus teaching the apostles, he has imparted to them all they need to know.
What issue is he addressing?
It seems they are in danger of being led astray by false teachers (vs 18&26)
Now with that in mind we need to start at verse 20
20. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know.
Footnotes say some manuscripts say “you know everything” instead of you all know.
They know because John has taught them.
21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it… [because John has taught them].
24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you[what they have already been taught]. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.
26 I write this to you about those who would deceive you [John is concerned that they are being taught falsely].
Now vs 27 in this context:
27 but the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you [because they have already been taught by John]; as his anointing teaches you about everything [that they have been taught], and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him.
This is equivalent to the first promise Jesus made to the apostles. The Holy Spirit would bring to mind all the true teaching they had already received. That presupposes that they had already received true teaching. But you have to get that true teaching first. You cannot generate it from your own resources. You cannot reach the truth by starting from scratch, but only by receiving it from those who have already been taught it and can pass it on. Then when you are presented with false teaching, the Holy Spirit will bring to mind the truth that you have already been taught.
John makes no promises about the future as Jesus did to the apostles.
This where Martin Luther and the other reformers went wrong. They thought they could reject the teaching authority of the Church and start from scratch with just the Bible. And that is why Protestantism has fractured into thousands of denominations with many opposing doctrines.
Wow you really never got it that I know. And I am exposing you dont know or you just lied about my post.
There are three main poimnt to keep in context.
1.Who said it.
2.Who was he talking to.
3.When did he say it.
That is how you stay in context.
After having another proper look at what you posted. I with drew some of what I said that was harsh towards you. so I deleted it. But I will still need to ask you to expose whay what I said was out of context? What you are sayimng is it was fopr them and not us. And that is totally wrong. So please wxpand on where I was wrong.
Last edited:
You missed the point. You never read books?
"we have no need of any man to teach us anything" means divine revelation was given to the Apostles to teach, followed by ordained bishops to continue the same teaching. It does not mean individual bible readers will have truths taught to them directly by God.
I never missed any point. I care nothing for mans books.
Theres only one book. I dont care how it came together I dont care what man has to say when it comes to spiritual truths. we see the works of man who lead the church and its a complet disaster. One word one God one church. Lol mans work is a pig sty. You read the books and learn all you like.
And if you belive God cant teach the individual I cant do any thing for you. I know He leads me unto all truth. especially since I left the church and all there tradictional garbage, misteaching and lies. I never seen one person healed in 21 years. I leave church and four years later I seen more people healed than the whole church saw in the 21 years I was there. keep church and the books. God leads me. It He doesnt lead you. Just ask and wait. It means what it says. The apostles are no more to God than me. God will do for one what He does for another. He has no favourets. There is n slight of turning in Him.
Act_2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act_2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
1Jn_2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
or as Jesus put it
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
of course He could be lying?? Could He??
Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
You said:
"we have no need of any man to teach us anything. as He will teach us all things"
And then referenced 1Jn 2:27 to back that up.
I showed how 1Jn 2:17 doesn't back that up at all.
If you find fault with my analysis then please show me where the error is.
Oh so man does not have teh Holy Spirit promised to all who come to Christ, and so therfore we are "forced" to go to the religion of thsi world to Know God??? Ie this bit
Mat_23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Yes being Led by teh Spirirt requires faith so few Have.
So explain why the Holy Spirit teaches millions of people contradictory doctrines.
For 1500 years the Church - to which Jesus promise the Holy Spirit would lead onto the truth (Jn 16:13) -taught one interpretation of the words "This is my body". The came along Protestantism teaching that the Holy Spirit leads each individual personally into the truth.
Then, by 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Word, “This is My Body” was published at Ingolstadt, Germany.”
(A Biblical Defence of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong).
See a connection?
He doesnt never has, people read teh bible get there opinion, people go to church and learn there churches doctrines, the only truth is in Christ but so few will follow Him
No your church like all religions has its own doctrines that are very often at odds even with the bible yet your doctrines over ride teh bible, it has no truth. This topic of baby baptism. what can baptising babies do?? nothing, one needs to be able to make their own decision, of which a baby is incapable, nice tradition but serves no purpose. Fir you Mungo its all about your religion for Christians its all about Christ.
I am teh way teh truth and the life He said,,,, do you Mungo know another way.
Who said Holy Spirit does that? satan is the liar. hes the one that bring confusion. This is not difficult. Your problem is you love the tradictional catholic church and the pope to much. Not interested in your books or dave or the pope who or all the men you call Father. which you were told not to. You have need of NO MAN. I dont care if you dont believe that . I am good with that. You told me what you think I think your wrong . Why do you feel the need to force me. I dont need to force you. You dont agree fine.
Similar threads
