Should I be rebaptised?

[Marymog]

More bla-bla of the same ilk. Why do you lie and then repeat the lies? I'm putting you on "ignore".

Asking you questions is a lie??? hmmmmm.....weird

Ignored once again.....I guess some can't explain why they believe what they believe......

 

[Marymog]

Where do you get off spouting RCC dogma at me? There were very sound reasons for rejecting the books which were excluded and you should know that. Here's a link to a website that explains some of what you should know: What are the pseudepigrapha?

Sooooo it is ok for you to spout off YOUR dogma but Catholics shouldn't spout off their dogma??? Hypocritical????

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where do you get off spouting RCC dogma at me? There were very sound reasons for rejecting the books which were excluded and you should know that. Here's a link to a website that explains some of what you should know: What are the pseudepigrapha?

That's not what I asked you.
YOU made the following claim: "There was no disagreement as to what was Scripture"

I called you on THIS statement, which is false. There was PLENTY of disagreement regarding all of the different canons floating around. YOU simply don't know your Early Church history.

Tell me something - why didn't Paul's Letter to the Ladodiceans make it to the Canon of Scripture when Peter referred to Paul's writings as "Scripture" (2 Pet. 3:16)?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

When you read the writings of the Early Church - you realize that Infant Baptism was "a very basic doctrine which all Christians believe" - as YOU put it. In fact the ONLY objections to Infant Baptism in the Early Church was about WHEN to baptize the infant. 30 days after birth? 8 days after birth? Immediately after birth??

As for children being Baptized in Scripture (Acts 2:39) - in your OWN words: "Says nothing about the age of the child."
You're absolutely right. There is NO age restriction on Baptism in Scripture.

YES, there is! Baptism is supposed to be done with disciples. That would be someone who is capable of understanding what is being said and would accept the teachings of the Bible under the power and authority of the Holy Spirit. How does one go about discipling an infant?

Just as 8-day-old boys were circumcised end entered the Old Covenant by the faith of their parents - Newborns are BAPTIZED and they enter the NEW Covenant by the faith of their parents.

Mmm-mm--NO! The Old Covenant was a physical covenant as witnessed by the flesh of every man in Israel. The New Covenant is a spiritual covenant and is evidenced by FAITH--not anything in the flesh. It is impossible for an infant to state his/her faith. There is much more that I could say to you but I don't think I will.

As to the Thief on the Cross - he couldn't get baptized. He was a little "busy" at the time but God allows for exceptions. This is what is called "Baptism of Desire". He had NO WAY of getting baptized after coming to faith but before he died.

And you would insist that there are no exceptions for infants?!

A little advice: NEVER base your doctrines on the exception - but the norm . . .

The stated norm from the Lord Himself is BAPTIZING DISCIPLES (which you conveniently ignore).

Finally - you NEVER gave me a motive for the Early Church Fathers, who were being hunted and murdered for their beliefs - as to why they would invent LIES about Infant Baptism. What could they POSSIBLY gain by doing this??

I never said that they were "LYING" (by the way, you don't pass the Pinocchio test yourself when you say that I have said things I haven't said). Even Eve exaggerated about what God had said during her encounter with the Satanic snake. She said that God had told them they weren't even allowed to touch the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God made no such rule. Just like the Jews did something they called "hedging the law"--making up "rules" that God had not given. So many babies and young children died in those days that it is not surprising that infant baptism was done as a comfort.

We can discuss your skewed version of Tyndale on another thread. No sense in hijacking this topic. Needless to say, it was NOT for simply translating the Scriptures into English . . .

You can save your RCC excuses for what is clearly inexcusable--I've heard them all before.

PS -

You NEVER told me the difference between the "Catholic Church" and "Roman" Catholic Church (RCC) or "Roman Church". Can I just assume you're ignorant of that as well??

Whether I answer any point or not is my prerogative. I choose not to engage RCC dogma on any point other than Scripture. I am done arguing with you--it serves no good purpose.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Sooooo it is ok for you to spout off YOUR dogma but Catholics shouldn't spout off their dogma??? Hypocritical????

I have no "dogma" unlike the RCC which has official dogma. I have the Bible as interpreted by the Holy Spirit as the basis of understanding faith and the practice thereof. Calling me a hypocrite is not very becoming of you. And it is one lie too many. Enough.

 

[BreadOfLife]

YES, there is! Baptism is supposed to be done with disciples. That would be someone who is capable of understanding what is being said and would accept the teachings of the Bible under the power and authority of the Holy Spirit. How does one go about discipling an infant?

Mmm-mm--NO! The Old Covenant was a physical covenant as witnessed by the flesh of every man in Israel. The New Covenant is a spiritual covenant and is evidenced by FAITH not anything in the flesh. It is impossible for an infant to state his/her faith. There is much more that I could say to you but I don't think I will.

And you would insist that there are no exceptions for infants?!

The stated norm from the Lord Himself is BAPTIZING DISCIPLES (which you conveniently ignore).

Your comments (in RED) are absolutely FALSE.

When the household of the Philippian Jailer was Baptized - it was based on HIS faith alone - NOT theirs.
He spoke FOR them. The Bible says that they rejoiced for HIM that HE believed God (Acts 16:25-40). THEY were not disciples - the Philippian Jailer was.

When a child was circumcised on the Old Covenant - it was by the faith of the PARENTS - NOT the child.
THEY spoke FOR him and raised him in the faith.

It is the SAME for a child being baptized in the NEW Covenant. It is by the faith of the PARENTS - NOT the child. THEY spoke FOR him and raised him in the faith. What WAS circumcision now becomes Baptism.

It is the fulfillment of the OT type that WAS circumcision - but is available for ALL - not just Jewish boys.

I never said that they were "LYING" (by the way, you don't pass the Pinocchio test yourself when you say that I have said things I haven't said). Even Eve exaggerated about what God had said during her encounter with the Satanic snake. She said that God had told them they weren't even allowed to touch the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God made no such rule. Just like the Jews did something they called "hedging the law"--making up "rules" that God had not given. So many babies and young children died in those days that it is not surprising that infant baptism was done as a comfort.

Sorry - but that's an idiotic statement that is completely unsubstantiated by the text of their testimonies.
They declare POINT-BLANK that they are baptizing babies because baptismal regeneration if for ALL - not just adults.

READ them again and see for yourself.
They weren't baptizing babies to "comfort" anybody . . .

You can save your RCC excuses for what is clearly inexcusable--I've heard them all before.

And apparently - you weren't paying attention.
Like I said - that's a conversation for another thread . . .

Whether I answer any point or not is my prerogative. I choose not to engage RCC dogma on any point other than Scripture. I am done arguing with you--it serves no good purpose.

Actually - your ENTIRE case floats or sinks based on your knowledge or ignorance of this subject.
Allow me to educate you . . .

YOU keep erroneously referring to my Church as "RCC" or "Roman" Catholic Church. It's a common anti-Catholic error - but I thought I'd correct you now, before you go on embarrassing yourself. "Roman" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite.

There are TWENTY Liturgical Rites that comprise "The Catholic Church", which are largely ethnically cultural. The "Roman/Latin" Rite is ONE of them. Others include the Coptic, Melkite, Maronite, Ruthenian, Alexandrian, Byzantine, and so on. They are ALL in communion with one another and comprise the ONE Catholic Church.

The official name of the Catholic Church with Bishop of Rome (aka, the "Pope") as its earthly head is . . . "The Catholic Church." So, I guess that would be "CC" - not "RCC" . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have no "dogma" unlike the RCC which has official dogma. I have the Bible as interpreted by the Holy Spirit as the basis of understanding faith and the practice thereof. Calling me a hypocrite is not very becoming of you. And it is one lie too many. Enough.

Can I ask you a question then?

If YOU have the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for you and THAT is your sole rule of faith - what about the tens of thousands of other disjointed and perpetually-Splintering Protestant sects who ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they were "led" by the Holy Spirit??

WHO is right and HOW do you determine that??

 

[Waiting on him]

Can I ask you a question then?

If YOU have the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible for you and THAT is your sole rule of faith - what about the tens of thousands of other disjointed and perpetually-Splintering Protestant sects who ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they were "led" by the Holy Spirit??

WHO is right and HOW do you determine that??

That’s simple, they’ll be known by their fruits

 

[BreadOfLife]

That’s simple, they’ll be known by their fruits

Uh-huh, like what, exactly.

MANY of them have thriving ministries - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, getting people off of drugs, etc.
WHICH one of them is spreading the correct message of the Gospel?
WHICH one of them was guided by the Holy Spirit guide to ALL truth of the Scriptures?
WHICH of them got it wrong??

How do YOU know??

 

[Waiting on him]

Uh-huh, like what, exactly.

MANY of them have thriving ministries - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, getting people off of drugs, etc.
WHICH one of them is spreading the correct message of the Gospel?
WHICH one of them was guided by the Holy Spirit guide to ALL truth of the Scriptures?
WHICH of them got it wrong??

How do YOU know??

Hi, Dread of life.
I don’t have to list the fruits for an astute student ass yourself.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hi, Dread of life.
I don’t have to list the fruits for an astute student ass yourself.

Just asking a valid question.

With tens of thousands of other disjointed and perpetually-Splintering Protestant sects who ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they were "led" by the Holy Spirit - HOW can somebody claim that their "only teacher" is the Holy Spirit?? Is the Holy Spirit the Author of confusion??

Christ Himself said that His CHURCH must go out and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

PS - I'll leave the typos alone for now . . .

 

[Waiting on him]

Just asking a valid question.

With tens of thousands of other disjointed and perpetually-Splintering Protestant sects who ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that they were "led" by the Holy Spirit - HOW can somebody claim that their "only teacher" is the Holy Spirit?? Is the Holy Spirit the Author of confusion??

Christ Himself said that His CHURCH must go out and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

Did he say this to the church or his disciples prior to Pentecost?

 

[Stranger]

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 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’” (Luke 18:15–16).

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12).

People whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no “cradle Christians,” people brought up from childhood in Christian homes. If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

A bug didn't fly up my dress. I am just addressing your FALSE belief.

Mary

Didn't say He baptized them.

(Col. 2:11-12) says nothing of infant baptism.

Makes sense because that is the way it is supposed to be. One believes and then one is baptized. Pretty straight forward.

Stanger

 

[Stranger]

Dear, dear Stranger,

YOUR view of baptism is the view of Scripture???? I thought Baptism is real only if it is in accordance with God??? Which one is it???

Did God tell YOU that YOUR view is right???? What else has God told you that us Christians are doing wrong? Please share....

Soooooo the next time you chime in on a conversation between me and someone else, which you have done in the past, is that the time "your stitches need addressing"?

I am chiming in now because you made a statement that is not backed up by scripture AND you suggested YOU know how baptism is to be conducted because YOU know scripture better than anyone else what is in accordance with God....you crack me up.

Mary

He told me last night..."Don't listen to marymog" I asked why? He said, 'She is crazy as a bed bug'. I said, I know but she is always in stitches. He said, 'what do you expect'.

Baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ. Infant baptism is not a legitimate baptism. Chime in on that.

Stranger

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Baptism can be performed by any believer in Christ. Infant baptism is not a legitimate baptism.

Agreed.

 

[Stranger]

As usual - your aberrant doctrines are base on one of the MAJOR aberrant doctrines o the Protestant Revolt:
SOLA SCRIPTURA

NOWHERE does the Bible state that everything ewe believe and practice must be explicitly taught on the pages of Scripture. his is a Protestant invention - NOT a Biblical truth.

HOWEVER - the implicit teaching on Infant Baptism is absolutely in Scripture:
- We see the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of Cornelius being baptized based on HIS faith (Acts 10:47-48).
- We see the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of the Philippian Jailer being baptized based on HIS faith (Acts 16:31-34).
- We see the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of Stephanas being baptized (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15).
Gee, I hate to be the one to break this to you but "Entire Households" had people of EVERY age living in them - from infants to the very old.

In Acts 2:39, Peter said about Baptismal regeneration, "The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Now for some actual historical proof of the APOSTOLIC Tradition handed down to the Early Church regarding Infant Baptism:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
The Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of INFANTS: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Augustine
It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, "Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents" or "by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him," but, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit." The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

(Acts 10:47-48) says nothing of infant baptism. In fact, it speaks to those who heard and magnified God. (Acts 10:46) No infants here.

(Acts 16:29-34) says nothing of infant baptism. It speaks of the jailers whole house being baptized, but it doesn't say infants. And you must assume there were infants. You don't know. Neither does the Roman Church know.

Same is true with (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15). In fact in (16:15) it is clear that adults are being addressed. "...they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." No infants.

Your so called 'church fathers' can be just as wrong as your Roman Church is. So?

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did he say this to the church or his disciples prior to Pentecost?

He said this to the leaders of His Church.

 

[bbyrd009]

google is pretty hard to beat for that imo. Better than a Bible search engine even

even if you can't recall the whole v or even the right keywords, you can just ask google "bible verse about blank" and usually get there pretty quick

 

[BreadOfLife]

(Acts 10:47-48) says nothing of infant baptism. In fact, it speaks to those who heard and magnified God. (Acts 10:46) No infants here.

(Acts 16:29-34) says nothing of infant baptism. It speaks of the jailers whole house being baptized, but it doesn't say infants. And you must assume there were infants. You don't know. Neither does the Roman Church know.

Same is true with (1 Cor. 1:16, 16:15). In fact in (16:15) it is clear that adults are being addressed. "...they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." No infants.

Your so called 'church fathers' can be just as wrong as your Roman Church is. So?

Stranger

In Acts 2:39, Peter said about the effects of Baptism, "The promise is for you and your CHILDREN and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Peter NEVER puts an age restriction on "your children".
NEVER says, "ONLY if your children believe."

Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John himself.
This is what he was taught by John:
Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; INFANTS, and CHILDREN, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for INFANTS, sanctifying INFANTS; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Finally - Paul baptized the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD of the Philippian Jailer based on the faith of the Philippian Jailer - and NOT their own:

Acts 16:30-31
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and YOU will be saved—you AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD.”

Acts 16:33
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he AND ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD were baptized.

Funny how willing you are to dismiss SOME of the doctrines of the Early Church such as Infant Baptism - yet you cling to the Scriptures that THEY declared were "inspired". You ALSO accept other doctrines they declared such as the "Trinity" - which is at BEST, only implicitly taught in Scripture.

Can you explain that?

 

[Acolyte]

Wow... the first thread I started here, I ended up in tears over how we believers tore each other apart. We don't have to agree, why then do we tear each other down?
Before I was saved(thank you Father for your mercy and grace), I was guilty of this. Now, I try not to, and I don't usually like posts that do.
Thank you all for your answers, please save the rest for debate forums. And btw: