Should I be rebaptised?

[Marymog]

I have Marymog on "ignore" but I got the gist of her arguments from your post, Stranger. They refuse to answer the questions: 1) If Jesus said that His followers should make disciples of all people [groups] and then baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit--how does infant baptism fit into that paradigm? How does one make a disciple of an infant?

2) If infants have not sinned (and they haven't according to Romans 9:11--they have done neither right nor wrong) why baptize them as a symbol of turning from sin and turning toward God? She is using the argument that "50,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong" when she says you "disagree with everyone".

I would point her to the Anabaptists who did not believe in infant baptism and were horribly persecuted for it by the RCC.

1) Maybe you or @Stranger or @Nancy can explain why infants are not considered “people” in the “all people” passage YOU QUOteD or part of a “family” in the passage that says entire “families” were baptized??? The CC and some Protestant Churches agree with scripture. They baptize “all peoples” and “entire families soooooo it is not a matter of refusing to answer a question. It is a matter of why you and your ilk don’t follow Scripture and instead follow the 500 year tradition of the Reformation.

2) Baptism also washes away original sin. The Church and some Protestant Churches believe what scripture says: Unless one is born of water and Spirit they can not enter the kingdom of God. YOU and your ilk deny infants the cleansing sacrament of baptism and the kingdom of heaven if they die before they can “believe” first!!!

YOU and your ilk, not The Church, has some explaining to do since your baptism beliefs came 1600 years AFTER the original teaching. YOU and your ilk want to change 1600 years of teaching, The Church doesn’t want anything changed sooooo YOU have to explain why YOU want to do that silly “Lady”.

The Anabaptist had SEVERAL teachings that were oppostite of Church teaching and they wanted to set up a Commmunist style system and polygymay in their “church”. They destroyed literature and precious art they didn’t agree with that is why the Catholic leaders, Lutheran leaders and adherents to the teachings of Zwingli tried to stop the AnaBaptist. Your ignorance of your own Christian history has led you to make such a ridicules statement @Lady Crosstalk.......So to pretend it was an “infant baptism” issue and only the CC tried to stop them is dishonest on your part.

2nd off historically your Protestant brothers committed the same atrocities that The Church committed against people that didn’t agree with them. How many of your 683 messages on this website have acknowledged that FACT??? Or are you a hypocrite and only point out Catholic atrocities????

Historical and Scriptural Mary

BTW....You make a infant a disciple of Christ just like scripture says in Acts 16:33. Also the parents or leader of the home since the time of the Jews decides for the family sooooo it is a 2,000+ year practice of mankind......but you deny that also I suspect?

 

[tzcho2]

Roman catholics who are seeking to know God's truth, honestly just need to read the Bible for themselves i.e. the 66 books only and avoid all the RC writings & sermons by the priests who preach Roman doctrines instead of what is actually in the Bible. Immerse yourself in the Bible only and then God willing like Luther you will have an epiphany and see the difference between what you've been taught from the Vatican and what the Word of God actually says.

 

[Marymog]

Roman catholics who are seeking to know God's truth, honestly just need to read the Bible for themselves i.e. the 66 books only and avoid all the RC writings & sermons by the priests who preach Roman doctrines instead of what is actually in the Bible. Immerse yourself in the Bible only and then God willing like Luther you will have an epiphany and see the difference between what you've been taught from the Vatican and what the Word of God actually says.

Lol......It is because everyone is reading the bible for themselves and interpreting it for themselves (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course) that Christianity has 30,000 churches with thousands of different "truths". Sooooo are YOU the arbitrator of truth or should I look to someone else for it??


Luther, an anti-Semite, wanted to get rid of several books of the NT and was the catalyst for dividing Christianity and the killing of thousands of people. He was stopped by his fellow reformers from taking books from the NT but no one could stop him from being an anti-Semite and condoning polygamy. Sooooo you might want to choose another ''hero" from the Reformation kiddo.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

Oh goodness.......This is confusing.

I agree with you that you never said anything about the age of accountability. You did say that “One believes and is baptized” and that “Anyone baptized in Scripture was a believer” further saying that “Infants are not in the place to make a decision’. All of YOUR statements suggest that a person has to be rationale enough to make their own decisions and know right from wrong before they can AGREE to being baptized. Hence a person would have to be acccountable for their decision and in most societies we hold children accountable for their decisions before their teen years. Scripture says NOTHING about a persons age concerning baptism. It does say that the decision for the family to be baptized was made by the head of the family. Jewish and Christian history tells us that the decision is made by the head of the family. What YOU are preaching does not match up with what scripture or your own Christian history says.

You have told me any Christian can baptize another person BUT THEN you told me if I baptize an infant it wouldn’t be valid which means I really can’t baptize another person.....VERY CONFUSING.

You are now telling me I can choose whatever age I like but IN THE NEXT SENTENCE you say their is no such thing as infant baptism.....VERY CONFUSING!!!

You have now disregarded the promise to MY CHILDREN as stated in Acts 2:39. You have taken that very clear passage that says “your children” and changed it to the children of Israel and/or Gentiles......VERY CONFUSING and dishonest.

YOU won’t allow me to have my entire family baptized. Scripture allows it.

YOU won’t allow all my children to be baptized. Scripture says it is for me and my children.

YOU won’t allow infant baptism to be valid but 2,000 years of Christian teaching says it is. You side on the 500 year teaching of the Reformers.

You have produced ZERO evidence from Scripture that says not to baptize infants. You have given me ZERO evidence from history that shows that infant baptism was argued against in the first 300 years of Christianity. If you gave me one shred of evidence to support your belief I would switch to your side.

Mary

Where does it say the decision to be baptized is based on the head of the family? So, since I a man am the head of my family, my family doesn't need to be baptized? Or, are you saying, I as the head of my family, determines their salvation?

I have already told you. Any believer can baptize. But if you are a believer, Mary, you have no authority to baptize an infant who you do not know is a believer. You only baptize believers. Gee, that was hard.

No, I already explained (Acts 2:39) to you. Pay attention.

I don't allow you to be baptized Mary unless you are a believer. Much less your whole family. Cain was loved of Adam and Eve...don't you think? Yet he was no believer. What a revelation.

That's right, no infant baptism. You can throw water on your babies if you like. Perhaps they need a bath. But it has no affect towards God in regarding anything towards salvation. Sorry.

That is a lie Mary. I have showed you that all baptism in the Scriptures is to those who believe first. Show me one shred of evidence of infant baptism. There is none.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Hmmm....and still no apology for insulting me.....how sad.

Yes, I am really praying for you. Not only for the insult that you refuse to apologize for but also when given the chance to say you oppose child sex slavery you refused to say it. That DEEPLY concerns me. I wonder if @Lady Crosstalk or @Nancy “like” your stance on that???

I believe in the past you have stated that baptism is not symbolic. You agree with the 2,000 year teaching of The Church.

Soooooo how did the men of The Church (and some Protestant churches) get infant baptism wrong and you got it right????

Are you able to interpret scripture better than them????

Praying and Curious Mary

As I said, don't waste your sadness on me. It doesn't affect me.

Oh really? What do you pray for me about Mary? Tell me. You bring up charges against me concerning child sex slavery, where do you come up with this. Why do you not provide the proof of what you are saying? Give me the thread and post # that you are addressing. So all can see.

You believe in the past? I don't trust the way you manipulate the past Mary. So, don't just say some things...present them. Show the thread and post # of what you base your allegations against me on.

Oh yes, you are such a praying saint Mary. Just makes your face so aglow that it is unrecognizable in the real world.
'
Stranger

 

[Marymog]

Where does it say the decision to be baptized is based on the head of the family? So, since I a man am the head of my family, my family doesn't need to be baptized? Or, are you saying, I as the head of my family, determines their salvation?

I have already told you. Any believer can baptize. But if you are a believer, Mary, you have no authority to baptize an infant who you do not know is a believer. You only baptize believers. Gee, that was hard.

No, I already explained (Acts 2:39) to you. Pay attention.

I don't allow you to be baptized Mary unless you are a believer. Much less your whole family. Cain was loved of Adam and Eve...don't you think? Yet he was no believer. What a revelation.

That's right, no infant baptism. You can throw water on your babies if you like. Perhaps they need a bath. But it has no affect towards God in regarding anything towards salvation. Sorry.

That is a lie Mary. I have showed you that all baptism in the Scriptures is to those who believe first. Show me one shred of evidence of infant baptism. There is none.

Stranger

hi Stranger,

@BreadOfLife already showed you passages from scripture that showed the decision to be baptized was based on the head of the family.
You reject that part of Scripture because it doesn't fit what YOU believe.

You have also rejected the 3,000 year Jewish/Christian practice of the head of the family bringing their infants into their faith. Circumcision with the Jews and Baptism with Christians.

You have to explain why infants are not "people".

You have to explain why infants are not part of "entire families".

I have nothing to explain. I accept Scripture and 2,000 years of Church teaching/practice. You don't....pretty simple.

You didn't explain Acts 2:39 to me. You gave your opinion on it. Your opinion is OPPOSITE of 2,000 years of Christian teaching.

Oh ye' of short memory.....I already told you that you and the Catholic Church agree with each other....There is not one shred of evidence of infant baptism. Furthermore there is not one shred of evidence that says DON'T baptize babies. The ONLY evidence we have that babies were more than likely baptized is because they are "people" and they are part of "families" and the promise is for me and my "children".

You simply can't twist scripture enough to make those three facts go away....but you keep trying.

Biblical and historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

Oh really? What do you pray for me about Mary? Tell me. You bring up charges against me concerning child sex slavery, where do you come up with this. Why do you not provide the proof of what you are saying? Give me the thread and post # that you are addressing. So all can see.

Stranger

Lessons for historical Mary

There ya' go kiddo....

 

[Marymog]

As I said, don't waste your sadness on me. It doesn't affect me.

Oh really? What do you pray for me about Mary? Tell me. You bring up charges against me concerning child sex slavery, where do you come up with this. Why do you not provide the proof of what you are saying? Give me the thread and post # that you are addressing. So all can see.

You believe in the past? I don't trust the way you manipulate the past Mary. So, don't just say some things...present them. Show the thread and post # of what you base your allegations against me on.

Oh yes, you are such a praying saint Mary. Just makes your face so aglow that it is unrecognizable in the real world.
'
Stranger

I don't think my sadness is being wasted. My sadness for you keeps me in prayer mode for you.

Why are you so vile in your words?? Why are you speaking to me in such a mean way? What have I done to deserve this?

Curious Mary

 

[Stranger]

hi Stranger,

@BreadOfLife already showed you passages from scripture that showed the decision to be baptized was based on the head of the family.
You reject that part of Scripture because it doesn't fit what YOU believe.

You have also rejected the 3,000 year Jewish/Christian practice of the head of the family bringing their infants into their faith. Circumcision with the Jews and Baptism with Christians.

You have to explain why infants are not "people".

You have to explain why infants are not part of "entire families".

I have nothing to explain. I accept Scripture and 2,000 years of Church teaching/practice. You don't....pretty simple.

You didn't explain Acts 2:39 to me. You gave your opinion on it. Your opinion is OPPOSITE of 2,000 years of Christian teaching.

Oh ye' of short memory.....I already told you that you and the Catholic Church agree with each other....There is not one shred of evidence of infant baptism. Furthermore there is not one shred of evidence that says DON'T baptize babies. The ONLY evidence we have that babies were more than likely baptized is because they are "people" and they are part of "families" and the promise is for me and my "children".

You simply can't twist scripture enough to make those three facts go away....but you keep trying.

Biblical and historical Mary

And I have told you that no infants are baptized by the direction of the head of the family. And no Scripture indicates such.

Infants can be part of the family. But not part of baptism.

I did explain (Acts 2:39). You reject that for teaching that is outside of the Bible.

Sorry, baptism is clearly laid out. It is after one believes. Infants are not yet ready. Being part of the family doesn't include one to be baptized.
Oh mary, I have seen your Biblical and historical perversions. Makes one want to gag.

Quantrill....I mean Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Lessons for historical Mary

There ya' go kiddo....

What? You sent me to post #93 in 'Lessons for historical Mary'.

That doesn't say anything about me supporting child sex slavery.

Stranger

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Infants can be part of the family. But not part of baptism.

In the same way, few churches permit young children to partake of communion. Does the RCC permit infants and small children to take communion? (I know they don't--else why the big deal of 1st communion at around age 6 or 7?)

 

[Stranger]

I don't think my sadness is being wasted. My sadness for you keeps me in prayer mode for you.

Why are you so vile in your words?? Why are you speaking to me in such a mean way? What have I done to deserve this?

Curious Mary

You don't pray for me Mary. You say you do, but you don't. I asked you what do you say? What do you pray for me? When you go to bed at night and pray to God what do you ask of Him concerning me? It is so easy to say I am sad and am praying for you. Sure. I bet.

Yes, your sadness is wasted on me because I know it is just a phrase you use. You arn't sad. You're just trying to make points. And it makes you look so spiritual and holy.

Oh please Mary. Just read through our many encounters and you will see why I address you as I do and why you address me as you do.

Quit trying to play the part of poor little innocent me.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

In the same way, few churches permit young children to partake of communion. Does the RCC permit infants and small children to take communion? (I know they don't--else why the big deal of 1st communion at around age 6 or 7?)

Good point.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

And I have told you that no infants are baptized by the direction of the head of the family. And no Scripture indicates such.
Infants can be part of the family. But not part of baptism.

I did explain (Acts 2:39). You reject that for teaching that is outside of the Bible.

Sorry, baptism is clearly laid out. It is after one believes. Infants are not yet ready. Being part of the family doesn't include one to be baptized.
Oh mary, I have seen your Biblical and historical perversions. Makes one want to gag.

Quantrill....I mean Stranger

Acts 2:39 is a perfect example of the teaching of Infant Baptism.
In Acts 2:38, Peter tells the crowd:
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the very next verse, he says:
The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

In the OT, adults entered into the Covenant with God and brought their baby sons in by circumcision at 8 days old. The baby boys had NO CHOICE in the matter - yet they were NO LESS a part of the Covenant.

The SAME is true for Baptism, only ALL are invited to be Baptized. Only a Scriptural illiterate couldn't see the type and fulfillment here . . .

It's hilarious how you Anti-Catholics will split hairs and strain gnats all day long in a vain attempt to prove the unbiblical heresy of Sola Scriptura - yet you will reject Infant Baptism which actually has MORE Biblical support.

 

[BreadOfLife]

In the same way, few churches permit young children to partake of communion. Does the RCC permit infants and small children to take communion? (I know they don't--else why the big deal of 1st communion at around age 6 or 7?)

What is the "RCC"??
Didn't we have this lesson already??

 

[Marymog]

And I have told you that no infants are baptized by the direction of the head of the family. And no Scripture indicates such.

Infants can be part of the family. But not part of baptism.

I did explain (Acts 2:39). You reject that for teaching that is outside of the Bible.

Sorry, baptism is clearly laid out. It is after one believes. Infants are not yet ready. Being part of the family doesn't include one to be baptized.
Oh mary, I have seen your Biblical and historical perversions. Makes one want to gag.

Quantrill....I mean Stranger

You are right Stranger. No infants have ever been baptized by the direction of the head of the family in the 2,000 year history of Christianity. No scripture says that baptism replaces circumcission.

You are right Stranger. Infants are part of a family but when families are baptized they are not part of a family.

You are right Stranger. I reject the your teaching of Acts 2:39 that is outside the Bible.

You are right Stranger. Baptism is clearly laid out. One has to believe before they can be baptized. Every biblical theologian that says opposite of your teaching and the 2,000 year practice of Christianity is wrong and YOU are right.

Finally....I have switched to your side. What other truths can you teach me?

Does baptism save or is it just a symbol?

 

[Marymog]

What? You sent me to post #93 in 'Lessons for historical Mary'.

That doesn't say anything about me supporting child sex slavery.

Stranger

You were given the opportunity to speak out against it. You didn’t.....you can clear it all up right now and speak out against it. OTHERWISE: Silence in the face of evil is evil itself.

 

[Marymog]

You don't pray for me Mary. You say you do, but you don't. I asked you what do you say? What do you pray for me? When you go to bed at night and pray to God what do you ask of Him concerning me? It is so easy to say I am sad and am praying for you. Sure. I bet.

Yes, your sadness is wasted on me because I know it is just a phrase you use. You arn't sad. You're just trying to make points. And it makes you look so spiritual and holy.

Oh please Mary. Just read through our many encounters and you will see why I address you as I do and why you address me as you do.

Quit trying to play the part of poor little innocent me.

Stranger

Wow.....Now you are calling me a liar. Sooooo I am a crazy liar now????

Your pride prevents you from apologizing.....I will add to my prayers that you stop being soooo prideful and start showing some humility.

Mary

 

[tzcho2]

Lol......It is because everyone is reading the bible for themselves and interpreting it for themselves (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit of course) that Christianity has 30,000 churches with thousands of different "truths". Sooooo are YOU the arbitrator of truth or should I look to someone else for it??
Luther, an anti-Semite, wanted to get rid of several books of the NT and was the catalyst for dividing Christianity and the killing of thousands of people. He was stopped by his fellow reformers from taking books from the NT but no one could stop him from being an anti-Semite and condoning polygamy. Sooooo you might want to choose another ''hero" from the Reformation kiddo.
Mary

There are no where near 30,000 denominations in Protestantism. You are very good at being condescending & the repeating your incorrect beliefs but are severely lacking on correct information.
No one ever said Martin Luther was perfect after all he spent most of his life under the teachings & rule of the RCC. It is well known fact that Luther was an anti-Semite BECAUSE he was a RC Priest & a German monk that was TAUGHT Anti-Semitism by the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages and that's what they taught.
The claims about the 30,000 churches -- that is a misconception and it just shows pitiful limited theological education. You've had these false statements about Protestantism corrected many, many times but I guess you think you are insulting protestants by showing your own great ignorance & lack of spiritual understanding concerning the different denominations? Sad for you & the unwillingness to consider anything but RC dogma.
Here's a good video with Ex:Catholic

 

[tzcho2]

Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?

Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?

Question: Which of the 30,000 Protestant denominations is the true church of God?"

Answer: In order to argue against Protestantism and Sola Scriptura, Roman Catholics will often ask, sarcastically, that if we are to only go by what the Bible says, not church tradition, which of the 30,000-plus Protestant denominations has the correct interpretation? The argument is essentially that, since the Reformation has resulted in thousands of denominations/divisions within Christianity, which is clearly not God’s desire, Sola Scriptura must be invalid and God must have established an infallible interpreter of Scripture; namely, the Roman Catholic Church, the first church, the one true church of God.

The “30,000 Protestant denominations” argument fails on several points. First, there are not 30,000 Protestant denominations. Even under the most liberal definition of what constitutes a denomination, there are nowhere close to 30,000 Protestant denominations. The only way to get even remotely close to the 30,000 figure is to count every minor separation as an entirely different denomination. Further, the vast majority of Protestant Christians belong to just a handful of the most common Protestant denominations; i.e., Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc. Yes, it is undeniably sad that there are so many denominations, but the 30,000 Protestant denominations argument is an extreme exaggeration of the reality of the divisions within Protestantism.

Second, even if there genuinely were 30,000 Protestant denominations, one thing all Protestant denominations agree on is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one true church of God. Protestant denominations are unanimous in rejecting the papacy, the supremacy of Rome, prayer to saints/Mary, worship of saints/Mary, transubstantiation, purgatory, and most other Roman Catholic dogmas. Sola Scriptura has led all Protestant denominations to the same conclusion – the Bible does not teach many of the things Roman Catholics practice/believe. Further, outside of disagreeing with Roman Catholicism, the Protestant denominations agree on far more issues than they disagree on. Most of the Protestant denominations were formed because of a non-essential doctrine, a side issue, on which Christians can agree to disagree. As an example, Pentecostalism separated from the other denominations based primarily on the issue of speaking in tongues. While tongues can be an important issue in the Christian life, in no sense does it determine the genuineness of faith in Christ.

Third, there is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, nor is there a need for one. There is no infallible denomination or church. Even after receiving Christ as Savior, we are all still tainted by sin. We all make mistakes. No denomination/church has absolutely perfect doctrine on every issue. The key is this – all the essentials of the faith are abundantly clear in God’s Word. We do not need an infallible interpreter or 2,000 years of church tradition to determine that there is one God who exists in three Persons, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead, that Jesus is the one and only way of salvation, that salvation is received by grace through faith, that there is an eternal heaven awaiting those who trust in Christ and an eternal hell for those who reject Him.

The core truths that a person needs to know and understand are absolutely and abundantly clear in Scripture. Even on the non-essentials, if Sola Scriptura were consistently applied, there would be unanimity. The problem is that it is very difficult to perfectly and fully apply Sola Scriptura, as our own biases, faults, preferences, and traditions often get in the way. The fact that there are many different denominations is not an argument against Sola Scriptura. Rather, it is evidence that we all fail at truly allowing God’s Word to fully shape our beliefs, practices, and traditions.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy