Big Baptism Argument!

[Bill Judson]

Hello Christian Community!

I thought the debate section would be good for this. I recently became aware of a big argument about baptism among some of the popular youtube preachers that appear to have caused these guys to break fellowship with each side accusing the other of teaching heresy just because the other side does not see things exactly they way they do.

I had an interesting email exchange with one of these guys that I'll post down below who seems to be more judgemental than the others and likes to claim those that don't perfectly agree with him are condemned to hell like he has some say so in that. Of course he doesn't realize he will be judged with the judgement he uses that Jesus tells us of in Matthew 7:2 - unless he repents of this he will be judged very harshly.

On other topics all 3 of these youtube preachers are very accurate and do a really good job at looking at all the different places the Lord speaks of the topic they are teaching on. But this baptism thing has spilled over into one big argument so it'll be interesting to see which guy listens to the Lord and tries to get reconciliation going between themselves.

The Lord does not desire there to be any schism in the Body of Christ spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:25-27 so at some point someone has to be the gown up in the room and get some reconciliation going. If not, then maybe they means all 3 of these guys are still babies in the faith and will continue to hold as grudge against the other for not seeing things exactly, precisely they way they do.

Here's the 3 youtube preachers involved in the baptism brouhaha

Abide in the Word
(Links removed: New members must have a required 10 posts before they can post links. See forum rules. Links to bible verses are fine)

Kerrigan Skelly

Y-City Preachers



If you look thru their recent videos, you'll see where they are posting videos to "refute" each other.

 

[Bill Judson]

Here's the email exchange I had with the abide in the word guy:


On Feb 21, 2024 at 12:47 PM, abide in the Word wrote:

Ok now you’re straight up falsely accusing me and calling me a liar. I said I wanted to start with Scripture FIRST!!! How is that a “look squirrel” tactic. It’s you who wants to start with obscure scenario like ER conversations FIRST, instead of going with Scripture and THEN going to the various scenarios. I have answers to those scenario’s. But since you feel the need to falsely accuse me and lie about me, we are done.



On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:45 PM Bill Judson wrote:

You DO have a problem answering the question because you
don't know the right answer. You are doing what the OSAS people
do all the time... "hey look, a squirrel"

But that's where you are wrong... I do receive the Word of God.
The horse your sitting on is not as high as you suppose because
you are not the Lord and your doctrine is not literally perfect as His is..

Your view point is that anyone that does not agree with you exactly
how you see things... they are condemned and on their way to hell

So you are actually sitting over others as judge jury and executioner
which is sad because you will be judged in the exact same way you
judge others which is very very harsh. You might want to repent of this.

Did I say water baptism is not part of initial salvation?
No, I never said that and I agree that it in fact is since Jesus said it is.
That settles that and discards your false accusation that I claimed
water baptism is not needed which I never said. Lying is a sin as well you know.

I raised the question of where does God's Word teach us that
water is needed to cleanse some sin... but not others?

Since this cannot be answered due to God's Word not teaching this,
it sounds like you, Kerrigan, and Y City Preachers are all teaching error
by FAILING to teach people they must be re baptized if they were to sin
after initial salivation / baptism

Either water is a part of cleansing sin or it's not... one cannot
stand in contradiction claiming the water washes away some sin
but is not needed to wash away other sins.



On Feb 21, 2024 at 12:18 PM, abide in the Word wrote:

I have no problem answering your questions. But the truth is if you don’t first RECEIVE the word of God you aren’t humble. You are the opposite of humble. First you must receive the word of God which is able to save your soul, THEN we can discuss the scenarios. But u to you accept the word of God nothing else will matter. But if you reject the word of God, you will answer to God for it!



On Feb 21, 2024 at 12:20 PM, abide in the Word wrote:

First accept the word of God just as it stands - Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Titus 3, John 3:3, Mark 1, etc etc etc. If you don’t first believe and accept these just as they are, there is no hope for you.



On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:16 PM Bill Judson wrote:

So you agree with the extreme church of christ people that if one
dies on the way to being baptized they would go to hell?

This would have to mean Jesus was not telling us correctly when
he told the thief on the cross he would join Jesus in paradise even
though the guy had not been water baptized. I don't accept the idea
that Jesus told us wrong, but some actually do.

You aren't very good as answering the hard questions which lets
me know you don't have all the answers as you present yourself.

You did a video a while back about being humble so I think
that lesson has been lost and needs to be revisited.



On Feb 21, 2024 at 12:07 PM, abide in the Word wrote:

Did the Israelites need BOTH the blood of the lamb over their doorposts AND to be saved through walking through the Red Sea? Yes or no? Now be very very careful before you answer. Just the simple act of speaking against God and His word is enough to condemn you. I would tread VERY lightly and fear God.



On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:05 PM Bill Judson wrote:

The topic I said was from the old covenant was when you said the Children of Israel did
not have to go back thru the Red Sea.

The bottom line is we cannot have it both ways... claiming it's the Blood of Jesus and
the water than cleanses us... but later on if we were to sin, the water is not required
to wash away sin.

Where in scripture are we taught that the water is needed to cleanse some sin,
but it's not needed to cleanse other sins?

There is contradiction going on here that should be addressed.



On Feb 21, 2024 at 11:51 AM, abide in the Word wrote:

Friend, you do realize this wasn’t my idea this relates to our salvation, right? It’s God’s Just know if you reject this you reject God Himself, Who has given us His word!

“Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.” ‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭10‬:‭1‬-‭13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This isn’t up for debate. You don’t get out of Scripture by saying “that’s the old covenant”. Here Paul says that happened as an example for us today. Jesus says He is the manna, the Rock Who followed them around. The Passover Lamb without spot. This wasn’t my idea, nor is it my interpretation. Rejecting this isn’t rejecting me, it’s rejecting God’s word and Jesus and God as a result.

 

[Bill Judson]

Continued:


On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:48 PM Bill Judson wrote:

That's the old covenant. It's in the new covenant that we find
He that believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16)

Once cannot have it both ways... either the Blood and the water
are required to cleanse us of our sin, or not. If one is not getting
baptized again if they sin after becoming a Christian, then they
apparently believe some sin can be cleansed without water.

OK, so if someone gets born again... and the guy that led him
to the Lord is driving him immediately to the river to baptize him
and they have a car crash and the new convert dies.

Do you really believe Jesus is going to tell this guy he is not
accepted and will go to hell now just because he didn't quite make
it to the river to be baptized.?

I've actually heard of church of christ people that claim this
guy would be sent to hell and Jesus would reject him even though
Jesus accepted the thief on the cross who did not get baptized.

As a matter of doctrine yes we should always teach that people need
to get baptized because the Lord said to... that does not mean one
is not saved if extenuating circumstances exist that prevent baptism
such as the thief on the cross or someone getting saved on their death
bed and you'd have to literally kidnap them from the ER to go get them
baptized because the hospital wouldn't cooperate which of course
would be a felony.

So that's the hard question... if someone confesses Jesus as their
Lord and Savior while turning away from their live of sin and they die
before having opportunity to get baptized... do they go to hell?



On Feb 21, 2024 at 11:16 AM, abide in the Word wrote:

Friend, did the Israelites have to walk back through baptism in the Red Sea when they sinned again?



On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 12:15 PM Bill Judson wrote:

That being true, if I were to do something sinful then I'll need to confess / forsake the sin and get re baptized
If it's in fact true that we must have the Blood of Jesus and baptism to be cleansed of sin, then everyone is teaching error by not instructing people to get re baptized if they did commit a sin.

In other words, after initial salvation / baptism as a new convert, going forward if we sin then confessing and forsaking our sin does not actually cleanse us from all unrighteousness unless one also gets baptized again.



On Feb 21, 2024 at 11:00 AM, abide in the Word wrote:

I’m not sure if I understand what you are saying, but it’s not either the blood OR the water, according to the Bible it’s BOTH/AND. Look at 10 Cor 10, the isrealites had to have BOTH the blood AND the water.



On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 11:59 AM Bill Judson wrote: (O was being a little factious here)

OK, thanks. I wouldn't want to listen to anyone that's on their way to hell for teaching heresy

I head that the Blood of Jesus does not actually cleanse us from our sins as it's getting baptized that does that and if we sin going forward we have to always get baptized again when we confess and forsake our sin otherwise our sins are not washed away. Probably why some churches have a baptismal built right on their church property.

That of course leaves the question open as why the Lord shed His Blood in the first place.
Apparently that's a non issue and is irrelevant for salvation.



On Feb 20, 2024 at 2:20 PM, abide in the Word wrote:

Yes sorry. Kerrigan Skelly has some really good videos on this topic. However he is heretical when it comes to the topic of baptism so watch out.


*NOTE - I originally emailed this guy about a different topic that he had not answer for and I asked him if he knew of anybody else that had scriptures for that topic and he replied with the post above:

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

First, welcome to the forum

Next...

I mean no disrespect but have to say that you have, IMO, 3that are arguing for the sake of arguement because other then the Mark 16: 16 , unless I missed it, only one of them used a scripture to shore up their opinion.... (Which BTW is the very scripture that many C of Christ
people use....

It is just that they fail to complete the thought because they cannot answer
Mark 16:16 NASB95 (My preferred translation, readily available)
NASB 1995
"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

They never offer a valid answer as to if you are unbaptised are you condemned.

If you do a search on here you will find many debates on this subject. It is one of the most contentious subjects ... not just between the 3 you mentioned

Be blessed.

 

[Bill Judson]

I mean no disrespect but have to say that you have, IMO, 3that are arguing for the sake of arguement because other then the Mark 16: 16 , unless I missed it, only one of them used a scripture to shore up their opinion....

Did you go to each of these guy's youtube channel and listen to all their recent messages on baptism?

They are the ones saying the other is teaching heresy for not agreeing with them.

If you'll notice in my post, I stated that the email exchange was just between me and one of these characters. The other two guys were not involved in that email exchange.

They never offer a valid answer as to if you are unbaptised are you condemned.

You fav translation says it clearly - "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

I'm not seeing anything saying one does not have to be baptized when reading He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, do you? Jesus clearly attached believing with being baptized as prerequisites for being saved.

If you do a search on here you will find many debates on this subject. It is one of the most contentious subjects ... not just between the 3 you mentioned

Don't you think it's odd to break fellowship over this and claim those who do not see this topic exactly as you do are heretics who will burn in hell forever?

This is the kind of language these guys are using towards one another. Pretty sad.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Did you go to each of these guy's youtube channel and listen to all their recent messages on baptism?

No I did not because as you will learn you ARE going to find that here.

They are the ones saying the other is teaching heresy for not agreeing with them.

If you'll notice in my post, I stated that the email exchange was just between me and one of these characters. The other two guys were not involved in that email exchange.




You fav translation says it clearly - "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

I'm not seeing anything saying one does not have to be baptized when reading He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved, do you? Jesus clearly attached believing with being baptized as prerequisites for being saved.

What I see is Jesus never said if you were not baptised you will not be saved.

I have a neighbor who was baptised as a teen with other friends and he sat in the kitchen about 6 months ago and the 81 year old man made the statement... "I have no idea why I got baptised."

I was not going to get into it with him, for I would be wrong. But here is a clear example that
people can get baptised for all the wrong reasons and is an example of why when Jesus said
"he who has disbelieved shall be condemned" ... water had no part of it.

I wanted desperately to ask him his beliefs now... but I did not for his wife died from covid
just as they were starting to roll out those useless shots... and he firmly believes she is up in heaven.

Don't you think it's odd to break fellowship over this and claim those who do not see this topic exactly as you do are heretics who will burn in hell forever?

Well, on another forum I had my salvation questioned by some c of C . (9 or 10 of them)
And I can tell you that shook me to my core.

This is the kind of language these guys are using towards one another. Pretty sad.

It is sad but if some come along in your thread you might be surprised what "Christians" believe because it is a dogmatic subject to them.

Now if you really want to stir the pot ask those fellows about their beliefs in what comprises a household... Such as the Jailer was baptised with his household, as was Lydia and also Stephanus... cause that generally opens another can of worms

And here is one link on that subject... I started and got few replies

Yet again.... The jailers baptism and talk of the Holy Spirit

This has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread, but I did not want to revive it. I just ran into this link, while looking for a definition, and thought it curious and interesting enough to share. (copied in full) (CORRECTION... IT IS CUT OFF DUE TO LENGTH... CHECK THE LINK TO FINISH) (IN...

www.christianityboard.com

OR

What is the purpose of infant baptism?

Purposes of paedobaptism: As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14. I baptized all my 5 kids by near submersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy...

www.christianityboard.com

What is the purpose of infant baptism?​

OR (This is a good one)

Scriptural Baptism

Dr. Kenneth Wuest stated that “the Greek word for ‘baptism’ speaks of the introduction or placing of a person or thing into a new environment or into union with something else, so as to alter its condition or its relationship to its previous environment or condition.” When we believed, the Holy...

www.christianityboard.com

Scriptural Baptism​

 

[O'Darby]

I had a weird wrinkle (true story): When I was baptized in the Southern Baptist Church at age 20, our pastor (who knew me well) seemed to be very stressed and repeately got my name completely wrong! I kept trying to correct him out of the corner of my mouth, but he never took the hint. What a hoot! Fortunately, I also have my infant baptismal certificate from the Episcopal Church if my credentials are questioned at the Pearly Gates.

 

[Bill Judson]

What I see is Jesus never said if you were not baptised you will not be saved.

Mark 16:16 - He that believes and is baptized shall be saved

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

No I did not because as you will learn you ARE going to find that here.

But you won't find these guys calling each other heretics just because the other guy doesn't see things exactly like they do which is the topic of discussion.

Well, on another forum I had my salvation questioned by some c of C . (9 or 10 of them)
And I can tell you that shook me to my core.

So you are weak in the faith and have no firm foundation? This statement sounds like it.

Unless you are very new in the faith, that should not have shaken you to your core in anyway.

What is the purpose of infant baptism?

There is no evidence in the Bible that the Lord led anybody to baptize babies

 

[Bill Judson]

I had a weird wrinkle (true story): When I was baptized in the Southern Baptist Church at age 20, our pastor (who knew me well) seemed to be very stressed and repeately got my name completely wrong! I kept trying to correct him out of the corner of my mouth, but he never took the hint. What a hoot! Fortunately, I also have my infant baptismal certificate from the Episcopal Church if my credentials are questioned at the Pearly Gates.

In the bible we only see adults being baptized AFTER they have become believers.

Someone squirting water on a baby is meaningless before the Lord since He never told anybody to do this type of thing.

 

[dev553344]

In a short summary what is the argument?

Baptism is required as spelled out in the bible.

 

[Augustin56]

 

[O'Darby]

In the bible we only see adults being baptized AFTER they have become believers.

Someone squirting water on a baby is meaningless before the Lord since He never told anybody to do this type of thing.

Oh, dear, one of those who can't recognize humor without a Smiley Face emoji.

Hey, if my Episcopal infant baptism made my grandmother happy and kept peace in the family, that's fine with me and I'm pretty sure it was theologically harmless at worst.

 

[O'Darby]

In the bible we only see adults being baptized AFTER they have become believers.

Someone squirting water on a baby is meaningless before the Lord since He never told anybody to do this type of thing.

To be fair to those for whom infant baptism is a sacrament, the ceremony is considerably more than "squirting water on a baby." That's like describing an adult immersive baptism as "going swimming." Because part of my wife's family is Russian Orthodox, I have attended an Orthodox infant baptism, and it was quite profound for all concerned regardless of our perspectives on precisely what it accomplished. In fact, I'm not so cocksure that I'm prepared to say exactly what it did or didn't accomplish.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Mark 16:16 - He that believes and is baptized shall be saved

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

How can you rationalize the two verses with each other.

In Mark it says "believes and is baptized shall be saved"

In Acts Luke says "Repent, and be baptized and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

This IS two differing thoughts from two different people... the later who was a companion of Paul .

But you won't find these guys calling each other heretics just because the other guy doesn't see things exactly like they do which is the topic of discussion.

Have you objected to all three?

heretic /hĕr′ĭ-tĭk/

noun​

1. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. One who holds to a heresy; one who believes some doctrine contrary to the established faith or prevailing religion.
3. One who having made a profession of Christian belief, deliberately and pertinaciously refuses to believe one or more of the articles of faith “determined by the authority of the universal church.”

So you are weak in the faith and have no firm foundation? This statement sounds like it.

I never was weak in faith UNTIL I joined a religious forum in 2012 and the c of C came at me.

But after another member told me to get a backbone or drop out I got that backbone, which you shall see if you are around long enough.

BTW... here is a question for your and your youtube friends...

Do you believe that the members of the Salvation Army are doomed?They do not believe or promote baptism.

Unless you are very new in the faith, that should not have shaken you to your core in anyway.

Really... ? ... at my age in my 70s and having been a believer at the age of 12 or 13 when I understood and my faith was all in Christ Jesus.. and even before as I would learn from people... I am not exactly new.

What I was new to was someone actually telling me... in my 60s that I was hell bound.

The certificate I had from my minister was false and I must have a new baptism . It had to be.

But funny thing.... I went about to get a baptism from those people... 2 church groups of them and basically was ignored by one and denied from the other after an hour long meeting in my home.

I had access to a baptism locally by a generic church who wouyld baptise anyone no matter
what their beliefs were.... I declined.

But enough of that saga....

There is no evidence in the Bible that the Lord led anybody to baptize babies

Then you tell me

Why was it written that PAUL in Acts 16:33 of the Jailer

NASB 1995
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

Why was it written in Acts 16: 14 -15 of Lydia

NASB 1995
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; [a]and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Why was it written in 1 Cor 1:16 Tha Paul also baptised Stephanus?

NASB 1995
Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

Advocates of infant baptism do not claim that these verses prove that the Bible teaches infant baptism. However, a straightforward reading of them suggests that children were likely baptized along with the household or family of which they were a part. Thus, these verses pose a difficulty for Protestants who oppose infant baptism and must be explained differently.

In Acts 16:15, we read, “She was baptized, with her household.” The fact that the verse says household rather than simply husband is a clear indication of others being involved. Now, who are the members of a household? In that time and culture, it probably would have included parents and maybe grandparents, as well as siblings or cousins. And almost always it would also include children.

Extended families are not so common in our culture, but they usually still do (even in our somewhat antilife culture) include children. What’s more, many biblical passages connect household and children (Gen. 18:19, 31:41, 36:6, 47:12; Num. 18:11; 1 Chron. 10:6; Matt. 19:29; 1 Tim. 3:12).

Furthermore, Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Rom. 9:4). Circumcision, given to boys eight days old, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gal. 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom. 4:11).

Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 29:10-12; cf. Matt. 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25; Rom. 2:28-9; Phil. 3:3).

Now I am going to stop because you have your beliefs... and we are limited to 10,000 characters on this forum....

Blessings

 

[DJT_47]

Mark 16:16 - He that believes and is baptized shall be saved

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.




But you won't find these guys calling each other heretics just because the other guy doesn't see things exactly like they do which is the topic of discussion.




So you are weak in the faith and have no firm foundation? This statement sounds like it.

Unless you are very new in the faith, that should not have shaken you to your core in anyway.




There is no evidence in the Bible that the Lord led anybody to baptize babies

Agree. No such thing in the scriptures as infant baptism nor does it make any sense whatsoever. Man contrived nonsense.

 

[Augustin56]

Agree. No such thing in the scriptures as infant baptism nor does it make any sense whatsoever. Man contrived nonsense.

You can only say that if you don't understand what Baptism is and does, and you don't understand Scripture. Somehow, you seem to think someone coming along 16 centuries or later, personally interpreting a translation into English of his/her Bible through the light of 21st century culture is going to give you the fullness of truth in opposition to the understanding of Christ's 2000 year old message. Sad.

 

[DJT_47]

You can only say that if you don't understand what Baptism is and does, and you don't understand Scripture. Somehow, you seem to think someone coming along 16 centuries or later, personally interpreting a translation into English of his/her Bible through the light of 21st century culture is going to give you the fullness of truth in opposition to the understanding of Christ's 2000 year old message. Sad.

Blah, blah, blah. Just words with no scriptural support or validation. Once again there is NO scriptural support for infant baptism. Infants have NOT committed sin, cannot believe, nor confess with their mouths their belief if they had such as required by scripture.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Blah, blah, blah. Just words with no scriptural support or validation. Once again there is NO scriptural support for infant baptism. Infants have NOT committed sin, cannot believe, nor confess with their mouths their belief if they had such as required by scripture.

Not to mention they have no scripture to back up squirting babies with water claiming they are baptized and saved

 

[DJT_47]

Not to mention they have no scripture to back up squirting babies with water claiming they are baptized and saved

And the word "baptism", is self explanatory. One simply needs to look up its Greek origin and definition, and upon doing so, it'll be clear that it means to dip, plunge, immerse, and not sprinkle or pour which are different Greek words and are not interchangeable with 'baptizo'.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Blah, blah, blah. Just words with no scriptural support or validation. Once again there is NO scriptural support for infant baptism. Infants have NOT committed sin, cannot believe, nor confess with their mouths their belief if they had such as required by scripture.

Why were male babies circumcised at 8 days of age?

You do not see that someone born (physically) under the Old Covenant received the sign of that covenant (circumcision); likewise, someone born (spiritually) under the New Covenant ("born again," John 3:3) receives the sign of that covenant (baptism).

You cant comprehend ????

Circumcision was the physical sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. Although the initial covenant was made in Gen 15, circumcision wasn’t commanded until Gen 17 – at least 13 years later, after Ishmael was born. At that time, God changed Abram’s name from Abram (“exalted father”) to Abraham (“father of a multitude”), a name that anticipated the fulfillment of God’s promise. The covenant was made with Abraham and later to Isaac and Jacob and to all their descendants.

Baptism is, in some sense, the sign of the New Covenant God makes with His Church. Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” )Matt 28:19) . Baptism is the outward sign of an inward change. It represents rebirth in Christ.

There seems to be a basis for sprinkling.

Ezekiel 36:25-27. " I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will become clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your disgusting idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit inside you, and I will cause you to walk in my regulations, and you will observe and carry out my judicial decisions."

Sprinkling or pouring is a standard Old Testament practice associated with cleansing and anointing. Immersion would have been foreign to the Jews, who were familiar with Old Testament practices.

And while you are explaining why God said this....

Please, someone tell me what this little font was used for?

Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace

Archaeologists have discovered a baptismal font dating to the 6th or 7th century A.D., hidden inside another baptismal font in the Church of the Nativity.

www.livescience.com

Archaeologists Discover Ancient Baptismal Font Hidden Inside Jesus' Traditional Birthplace​

News
By Brandon Specktor
published June 28, 2019

Ziad al-Bandak, head of the Restoration Commission for the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, West Bank, reveals an ancient baptismal font discovered inside another, newer font. The newfound font is estimated to date from 501 to 600 A.D. (Image credit: Credit: Wisam Hashlamoun/Anadolu Agency/Getty)


The Church of the Nativity — a World Heritage site believed to house the birthplace of Jesus in the West Bank city of Bethlehem — is apparently so holy that there are baptismal fonts coming out of the baptismal fonts.

Finally... We had a jailer, We had Lydia, We had Stephanus..... who is said their households were baptised...

Do you really believe that none of the 3 had a child in their family? IS IT POSSIBLE they either gave their children away or somehow they were aborted?

And be sure to finish off the reason this is in the bible.........

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Why would this even be needed for when the children grew up, they could be cleaned by their baptisms.