Infant baptism biblical?

  • 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!

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
David was brought forth in iniquity. As everyone is. All are born into a sinful world.
-and in sin(whose sin?) did my mother conceive me. Not David's sin, his mother's sin.
David had no sin until he commited his own sin by transgression of Gods law.
You completely miss the point. Being brought forth in iniquity, as everyone is, means we are all conceived with God's grace being absent. This means original "sin" is not clear because original sin is contracted, not committed. I don't think you understand this. Baptism restores what was lost. David's original sin has nothing to do with his mother's sins, it has everything to do with contracted sin from Adam, not committed sin. For the 10th time, original sin is NOT a committed sin.
 

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You completely miss the point. Being brought forth in iniquity, as everyone is, means we are all conceived with God's grace being absent. This means original "sin" is not clear because original sin is contracted, not committed. I don't think you understand this. Baptism restores what was lost. David's original sin has nothing to do with his mother's sins, it has everything to do with contracted sin from Adam, not committed sin. For the 10th time, original sin is NOT a committed sin.
OS is man's imagination not God breathed
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Both John's baptism(old covenant) and Jesus' baptism(new covenant) was for the same purpose.

Mark 1:4,
-John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38
-Then Peter said to them, Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins

Both baptism same purpose.
To be consistent with your doctrine BreadofLife it must be true that babies were baptized in John's baptism also.

Matthew 3:2;6
-and saying repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand
-and were baptized by him confessing their sins.
BreadofLife, How many babies repent and confess their sins?
btw, babies are sinless, therefore they do not qualify for repentance, confession, baptism.
And WHO said that the Baptism of Christ is ONLY about repentance??
The Bible doesn’t say this.

Both were Baptisms of repentance – but the Baptism of Christ was for the regeneration of the soul and rebirth in the Holy Spirit. It is HOW we enter into the New Covenant with God (Acts 2:39).

Ezek. 36:25-28
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Acts 2:37-38
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rom. 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Tit. 3:4-8

but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Both baptism same purpose.

Not a reference to baptism baptisma
Ezekial 36:25 sprinkle, Hebrew word: zaraq

Baptism is immersion in Greek never defined as sprinkling, pouring.
WRONG.

“Baptism”, according to the 1st Century Early Church document, The Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) has a broader definition of Christian Baptism:

The Didache (AD 50)
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, POUR OUT WATER THRICE UPON THE HEAD into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Incidentally, there is not a SINGLE descriptive example of a Baptism in the entire NT.
MOST of what we practice as Christians regarding Baptism is based on TRADITION from the Apostles.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Both baptism same purpose.

Not a reference to baptism baptisma
Ezek. 36:25 – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”) sprinkle, Hebrew word: zaraq

Baptism is immersion in Greek never defined as sprinkling, pouring.
zaraq means sprinkle.
Strong's Hebrew: 2236. זָרַק (zaraq) -- scatter \

Ezek. 36:25 is a prophecy about baptism to be fulfilled with the death of Christ. – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 – Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 – Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.

Acts 2:41 – at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 – because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.
OS is man's imagination not God breathed
Rejection of Romans 5, which explicitly explains OS, is a manmade tradition invented by Modernist liberal Protestants. Both Luther and Calvin baptized babies, it was never a reformist issue, which puts you in the radical fringe group category.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
zaraq means sprinkle.
Strong's Hebrew: 2236. זָרַק (zaraq) -- scatter \

Ezek. 36:25 is a prophecy about baptism to be fulfilled with the death of Christ. – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (“Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.”)

2 Kings 5:14 – Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.

Num. 19:18 – here, the verbs for dipping (“baptisantes”) and sprinkled (“bapsei”) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 – Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Mark 7:4 – we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.

Luke 11:38 – Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.
]
Acts 2:41 – at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:38 – because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.

Rejection of Romans 5, which explicitly explains OS, is a manmade tradition invented by Modernist liberal Protestants. Both Luther and Calvin baptized babies, it was never a reformist issue, which puts you in the radical fringe group category.
Luther and Calvin are heretics as was Augustine.

Mark 7:3 – the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands)
All Greek scholars that have credibility teach the washing of cups and hands when baptizo is used in the verse can only mean immersed under water. To say they poured or sprinkled is perverting the greek meaning of baptizo.

It matters not what O T passages say unless the word baptizo is in the passage.
We are dealing with the water immersion in the name of Jesus Christ in the new testament!!! Not Jewish Washings!!!!
Hebrews 6:2,
-if the doctrine of  baptisms of laying on of hands of ressurection of the dead and of eternal judgment.

Every single passage that speaks of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is baptizo which only means immersion.
Folks who try to pervert immersion in the name of Jesus ALWAYS go to other passages that use different greek or hebrew words that have different meanings from baptizo.

Strongest evidence of what baptism in the name of the Lord is, is the very act taking place.
Acts 8:37-39
-So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Phillip and the eunuch went down into the water and he baptized(baptizo) him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the enuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

I challenge anyone to give an actual baptism in the name of the Lord in the new testament that was not a immersion in water. Cannot do it.
Also Holy Spirit baptism is not the same as water baptism. Therefore you cannot equate the two.
One is done directly by God the other by one man to another man. Poor exegesis.
 

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
zaraq means sprinkle.
Strong's Hebrew: 2236. זָרַק (zaraq) -- scatter \

Ezek. 36:25 is a prophecy about baptism to be fulfilled with the death of Christ. – Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is
Ezekial 36:25 = Hebrews 9:19,
-For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of bulls and goats, with  water, scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in the new testament to be born again Christians.

This is not new testament baptism in the name of Jesus Christ that Converts to Christ observed.
Baptizo was done to Christ. It was done to Him by John the Baptist. It was water immersion! Submerged in water was Jesus, baptizo
Mark 1:9-10,
-it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized(baptizo) by John in the Jordan.
-and immediately coming up from the water, He saw the heavens....
Immersion. Never sprinkled or poured.
 
Last edited:

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,424
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If water alone saves , then why not just throw every false religoin into the ocean and procliam them baptized .
Exactly . ITS FAITH IN JESUS that saves , THEN COMETH the Water baptism .
1 Peter 3:21
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,424
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Phillip would have said the same .
When the eunach long ago asked him this question .
See , look here is some water , what does HINDER ME from being baptized .
And phillip then said IF YE BELIEVE with all your heart .........................YE MAY BE Baptized .
Yes indeed my friend . What infant believes and confesses in Christ . They cant even talk yet .
Baptism cometh AFTER , not before repentance and faith . Exactly .
Matthew 19:14
 

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
it was never a reformist issue, which puts you in the radical fringe group category.
No, I believe what the apostles taught. Original sin can only be traced back to Augustine.
Ezekial 18:20,
-the soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the gulit of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

OS teaches Jesus did not inherit Adam's sin nature because God is Jesus' Father.
Likewise God is Adam's Father. Great contradiction this false doctrine.

Luke 3:38,
-the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Jesus had no sin nature because His Father was God
Adam's Father was also God, yet Adam had a sin nature.
Remember this sin nature is inherited.
Therefore Adam inherited his sin nature from God.
But Jesus did not.
This is a contradictory doctrine, therefore must be false.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, I believe what the apostles taught. Original sin can only be traced back to Augustine.
Ezekial 18:20,
-the soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the gulit of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

OS teaches Jesus did not inherit Adam's sin nature because God is Jesus' Father.
Likewise God is Adam's Father. Great contradiction this false doctrine.

Luke 3:38,
-the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Jesus had no sin nature because His Father was God
Adam's Father was also God, yet Adam had a sin nature.
Remember this sin nature is inherited.
Therefore Adam inherited his sin nature from God.
But Jesus did not.
This is a contradictory doctrine, therefore must be false.

No – you DON’T believe in what the Apostles taught.
If you did – you wouldn’t adhere to false doctrines like Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) – which are taught NOWHERE in Scripture.

As a matter of fact, the ONLY place in ALL of Scripture that you will find the phrase “Faith alone” is in James 2:24, where it states explicitly:
James 2:24

You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.

Secondly, the doctrine if Original sin did NOT originate with Augustine – just the PHRASE.
The word “Trinity” is NOT found in the Bible – but the TEACHING is.
The word “Incarnation” is NOT found in the Bible – but the TEACHING is.
For that matter – the word “BIBLE” is NOT even found in the Bible.

Tell me something – are these “false” doctrines because the words “Trinity” and “Incarnation” are noit explicitly found in the Bible?? Did they originate AFTER the Apostles?
OR - is it simply that YOU don’t understand what you’re talking about?

The TEACHING of Original Sin is ALL OVER the NT:
Romans 5:12 states emphatically:
Rom. 5:12

Therefore, just as SIN ENTERED THE WORLD THROUGH ONE MAN, AND DEATH THROUGH SIN, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

In verses 15-19, we also read:
Rom. 5:15-19
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as one trespass RESULTED IN CONDEMNATION FOR ALL PEOPLE, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

What Paull wrote here is the Scriptural definition of Original Sin.
YOUR claim that it is a “false doctrine” amounts to heresy . . .

PS
– while you’re trying to figure out how you missed this Biblical teaching – perhaps you can show me where the Bible explicitly teaches the false Protestant doctrines and practices like:
- Eternal Security (Once Saved ALWAYS Saved)
- Accepting Jesus as “Personal Lord and Savior”
- All Future sins are “Automatically” forgiven
- A Pre-Millennial Rapture
- Limited Atonement
- Altar Calls
- Infant “Dedications”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Baptized babies have entered the NEW Covenant through Baptism (Acts 2:39) – just as the OT babies entered the Old Covenant through Circumcision (Gen. 17:7).
Household babies were not baptized .

Catholics argue that the four household baptisms necessarily infer that infants were baptized.
Let us look briefly at the four cases:

(i) Household of Cornelius. Those composing this household were able to understand the words of Peter thus they "heard the word" (Acts 10:44) This excludes infants.

(ii) Household of Lydia. This same household was able to be "comforted by the words of Paul and Silas" after their conversion(Acts 16:40). This excludes infants.

(iii) Household of the Philippian Jailer. When Paul preached the gospel to this house. All were able to believe it(Acts 16:34). This excludes infants.

(iv) Household of Stephanus. Paul baptized the Corinthian household(1Cor. 1:16), but those if that household "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints"(1Corinthians 16:15). This excludes infants.

Infant baptism is unbiblical, unscriptual heresy.
 

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
931
318
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Those who believe that Baptism is an “Adults Only” sacrament have not only perverted the Word of God – they have repudiated the very words of Christ Himself.
The idea that since adults were the one being preached to in the NT - so they are the ONLY beneficiaries of God’s grace – is ignorant and asinine.

The Bible says that faith comes from HEARING the Word of God. Does this mean that all DEAF people are going to Hell?
Jesus
said
Luke 18:16
But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God”.

Mark 36:37

He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children IN MY NAME welcomes ME; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

And Paul reiterates the Jewish Tradition of raising faithful children in the COVENANT with God:
Eph. 6:4
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Baptized babies have entered the NEW Covenant through Baptism (Acts 2:39) – just as the OT babies entered the Old Covenant through Circumcision (Gen. 17:7).
Clearly only adults as they only have the ability to hear, believe, confess, repent and then be baptized. Children don't have those capabilities

Acts 5:14

14And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Household babies were not baptized .

Catholics argue that the four household baptisms necessarily infer that infants were baptized.
Let us look briefly at the four cases:

(i) Household of Cornelius. Those composing this household were able to understand the words of Peter thus they "heard the word" (Acts 10:44) This excludes infants.

(ii) Household of Lydia. This same household was able to be "comforted by the words of Paul and Silas" after their conversion(Acts 16:40). This excludes infants.

(iii) Household of the Philippian Jailer. When Paul preached the gospel to this house. All were able to believe it(Acts 16:34). This excludes infants.

(iv) Household of Stephanus. Paul baptized the Corinthian household(1Cor. 1:16), but those if that household "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints"(1Corinthians 16:15). This excludes infants.

Infant baptism is unbiblical, unscriptual heresy.
WRONG.
NONE of the above examples “excludes” infants.

This idiotic claim would presuppose that infants DID NOT and COULD NOT enter into a Covenant with God on the faith of their parents.
The Old Testament PROVES this point of view to be absolute manure.

A “COVENANT” by definition is a sacred agreement between 2 or more parties.
Were 8-day-old infants able to enter into a COVENANT with God? The Bible says that WERE:

Gen. 17:9-14

Then GOD SAID to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my COVENANT, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my COVENANT with you and your descendants after you, the COVENANT you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the COVENANT between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is EIGHT DAYS OLD MUST BE CIRCUMCISED, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My COVENANT in your flesh is to be an everlasting COVENANT. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my COVENANT.”

These are the words of Almighty God – and NOT the false claims of an ignorant little anti-Catholic on an obscure online forum.

YOUR view on Infant Baptism is heresy.
Your insistence that God is a LIAR is blasphemy . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Clearly only adults as they only have the ability to hear, believe, confess, repent and then be baptized. Children don't have those capabilities

Acts 5:14

14And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
Clearly - YOU are Biblically-ignorant.

Tell me something - can an infant enter into a sacret agreement with another Party?
The Bible says, "YES" (Gen. 17:9-14).
Gen. 17:9-14

Then GOD SAID to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my COVENANT, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my COVENANT with you and your descendants after you, the COVENANT you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the COVENANT between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is EIGHT DAYS OLD MUST BE CIRCUMCISED, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My COVENANT in your flesh is to be an everlasting COVENANT. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my COVENANT.”

If an 8-day-old INFANT can enter into a Covenant with Almighty God through Circumcision - then an infant can enter the NEW Covenant through Baptism.
 

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This idiotic claim would presuppose that infants DID NOT and COULD NOT enter into a Covenant with God on the faith of their parents.
The Old Testament PROVES this point of view to be absolute manure.
It would give some credibility to your claims if in fact the old covenant that one got into through circumcision equated with water immersion but they do not.

Circumcision never was designed to save a Jewish baby. Circumcised Jews could be lost.
Whereas new testament baptism in the name of Jesus Christ does wash away the sins of the individual.
Circumcision: not for the forgiveness of sins.
Immersion in Jesus' name: for the forgiveness of sins.

So your old testament covenant argument with children is irrelevant because circumcision never saved any of those baby boys.
Where as baptism in the new covenant was only for the purpose to save.
You have made a false equivalency.
Your argument is a fallacy therefore, you have no credibility.

Stop running to the old testament. Those who try and pervert the true meaning of baptizo like to use Jewish ceremonies as their proof texts.
We are dealing with the Christian religion, not the old Mosaical law and Jewish traditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJT_47

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It would give some credibility to your claims if in fact the old covenant that one got into through circumcision equated with water immersion but they do not.
OT circumcision is not equated with baptism, that's where you are confused. They are signs of entering different covenants.
Circumcision never was designed to save a Jewish baby.
Because it has nothing to do with salvation, it had to do with entering a covenant with vows made by the parents.
Circumcised Jews could be lost.
Whereas new testament baptism in the name of Jesus Christ does wash away the sins of the individual.
Circumcision: not for the forgiveness of sins.
Immersion in Jesus' name: for the forgiveness of sins.

Genesis 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.

Read full chapter
Genesis 17:12 in all English translations

Leviticus 12:3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Read full chapter
Leviticus 12:3 in all English translations

Not Legalism but Christ​

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [a]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Read full chapter
You are trying to correct Paul by divorcing yourself from our Jewish roots.

1669956500822.png
Joe: "Mary, should we wait until He is old enough to decide for Himself to be circumcised?"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OT circumcision is not equated with baptism, that's where you are confused. They are signs of entering different covenants.

Because it has nothing to do with salvation, it had to do with entering a covenant with vows made by the parents.

Genesis 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.

Read full chapter
Genesis 17:12 in all English translations

Leviticus 12:3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Read full chapter
Leviticus 12:3 in all English translations

Not Legalism but Christ​

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [a]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Read full chapter
You are trying to correct Paul by divorcing yourself from our Jewish roots.

View attachment 27462
Joe: "Mary, should we wait until He is old enough to decide for Himself to be circumcised?"
If an 8-day-old INFANT can enter into a Covenant with Almighty God through Circumcision - then an infant can enter the NEW Covenant through Baptism.
False equivalency. One takes away sins, saves. The other cannot save anyone.
You are trying to correct Paul by divorcing yourself from our Jewish rootsAnd your accusation is misrepresentation. I never denied spiritual circumcision as a metaphor of old covenant circumcision to water baptism in Jesus' name into the new covenant.
And your accusation is misrepresentation. I never denied there is a metaphor used to describe water baptism as a spiritual circumcision.

You are trying to equate,
Babies being circumsized with babies being saved in baptism.
They do not equate for the have different PURPOSES.
Physical circumcision: Never saved, was never its purpose.
Water immersion does save, it is metaphorically spiritual circumcision.

All Catholics need to do is give one example of an infant baptism in the Bible and infant baptism becomes Biblical baptism.
You cannot show any evidence because there is none.
Instead you run to the old testament and take verses out of context, then claim the perverted verses prove infant baptism.
There are no babies water baptized baptizo in the old testament.
There are no babies water baptized in the new testament.
Babies have no need for water baptism because they are in Christ. Sin is what separates us from God.
Babies are without sin, therefore baptism does nothing for a baby except get them upset.

Fact: Catholics don't baptize babies, they sprinkle water over them. That is unscriptual. That is changing the definition of water immersion.
Not one example in the new testament where a person being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ was sprinkled or poured. It is an immersion, fully submerged in water,
Acts 8:38-39,
-So he commanded the chariot to stand still. and both Phillip and the Eunch went down into the water and he baptized him.
-Now when they came up out of the water
, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

infant sprinkling is unscriptual, doctrines of men. It is heresy.
 
Last edited:

Titus

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2022
1,783
500
83
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Illuminator and BreadofLife,
Since you both teach babies must be baptized to be saved.
You are teaching all infants that are aborted before they can be sprinkled are lost.
The catholic religion has babies going to hell.
Jesus taught babies are already in the kingdom,
Matthew 18:3-4,
-and said, Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
This was before baptism in Jesus' name was in force.
Babies were saved without baptism said Jesus.