Had to share as I find this very upsetting..

[smokey]

I dont agree with infant baptism either. Its not a biblical practice. Just like i dont agree with circumcision in the name of religion as was only a law for the nation of Israel at the time as a covenant with God and was later over ridden. (this is for those that follow the bible)

According to the bible, there is not one account or mention of infant baptism

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. The word baptism means to 'dip or plunge'. This is not done in infant baptism.

It doesnt mention infant baptism directly but a number of times says "their houshold and all thiers" which means their children as well (plus all servants and hands)

 

[mayb_baby]

-_-

 

[aragornlover8]

I dont agree with infant baptism either. Its not a biblical practice. Just like i dont agree with circumcision in the name of religion as was only a law for the nation of Israel at the time as a covenant with God and was later over ridden. (this is for those that follow the bible)

According to the bible, there is not one account or mention of infant baptism

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. The word baptism means to 'dip or plunge'. This is not done in infant baptism.

It doesnt mention infant baptism directly but a number of times says "their houshold and all thiers" which means their children as well (plus all servants and hands)

I really don't see why baptism has to be thrown into this?? It's a practice that my church practices; it's not the infant making a decision, no, but it's the parents making a decision to raise their children in the church. Confirmation, on the other hand, is the child making their own decision to remain in the church.

Why do you have to make this thread anti-religion if no children are being harmed by these baptisms, as they're not immersed in water for safety reasons? I would suggest keeping it to circumcision, as there are medical reasons for that not to be practiced...

 

[ShanandBoc]

I dont agree with infant baptism either. Its not a biblical practice. Just like i dont agree with circumcision in the name of religion as was only a law for the nation of Israel at the time as a covenant with God and was later over ridden. (this is for those that follow the bible)

According to the bible, there is not one account or mention of infant baptism

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. The word baptism means to 'dip or plunge'. This is not done in infant baptism.

It doesnt mention infant baptism directly but a number of times says "their houshold and all thiers" which means their children as well (plus all servants and hands)

The bible never mentions children being baptized.

In view of the fact that ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily,’ and ‘repenting’ precede water baptism (Ac 2:14, 22, 38,41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at least be of age to hear, to believe, and to make this decision.

As u said, An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where ‘households’ were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas. (Ac 10:48; 11:14; 16:15, 32-34; 18:8; 1Co 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized. But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Ac 10:44-46) Lydia was “a worshiper of God, and Jehovah opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul.” (Ac 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to “believe on the Lord Jesus,” and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Ac 16:31-34) “Crispus the presiding officer of the synagogue became a believer in the Lord, and so did all his household.” (Ac 18:8) All of this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed “the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized.” Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but “men and women.”—Ac 8:12.

The statement made by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians that children were “holy” by reason of a believing parent is no proof that infants were baptized; rather, it implies the opposite. Minor children too young to have the ability to make such a decision would come under a form of merit because of the believing parent, not because of any so-called sacramental baptism, imparting independent merit. If infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to have the merit of the believing parent extended to them.—1Co 7:14.


Anywho going a bit OT now.

 

[ShanandBoc]

I dont agree with infant baptism either. Its not a biblical practice. Just like i dont agree with circumcision in the name of religion as was only a law for the nation of Israel at the time as a covenant with God and was later over ridden. (this is for those that follow the bible)

According to the bible, there is not one account or mention of infant baptism

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. The word baptism means to 'dip or plunge'. This is not done in infant baptism.

It doesnt mention infant baptism directly but a number of times says "their houshold and all thiers" which means their children as well (plus all servants and hands)

I really don't see why baptism has to be thrown into this?? It's a practice that my church practices; it's not the infant making a decision, no, but it's the parents making a decision to raise their children in the church

.

But that completely undermines the very purpose of baptism (as mentioned in my previous post)

Why do you have to make this thread anti-religion if no children are being harmed by these baptisms, as they're not immersed in water for safety reasons? I would suggest keeping it to circumcision, as there are medical reasons for that not to be practiced..

No one is making it an anti religious thread hun, i am a Christian myself Someone mentioned infant baptism, likening it to circumcision as the child doesnt get to choose for themselves. It wasnt me that brought it up....the question was raised why is anything alright if its done in the name of religion. I was merely pointing out that infant baptism is a man made tradition, not a Godly one.

I never said children were being harmed but i think what matters is what the bible says on the subject and the true proper meaning of baptism dont you?

 

[aragornlover8]

I dont agree with infant baptism either. Its not a biblical practice. Just like i dont agree with circumcision in the name of religion as was only a law for the nation of Israel at the time as a covenant with God and was later over ridden. (this is for those that follow the bible)

According to the bible, there is not one account or mention of infant baptism

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. The word baptism means to 'dip or plunge'. This is not done in infant baptism.

It doesnt mention infant baptism directly but a number of times says "their houshold and all thiers" which means their children as well (plus all servants and hands)

I really don't see why baptism has to be thrown into this?? It's a practice that my church practices; it's not the infant making a decision, no, but it's the parents making a decision to raise their children in the church

.

But that completely undermines the very purpose of baptism (as mentioned in my previous post)

Why do you have to make this thread anti-religion if no children are being harmed by these baptisms, as they're not immersed in water for safety reasons? I would suggest keeping it to circumcision, as there are medical reasons for that not to be practiced..

No one is making it an anti religious thread hun, i am a Christian myself Someone mentioned infant baptism, likening it to circumcision as the child doesnt get to choose for themselves. It wasnt me that brought it up....the question was raised why is anything alright if its done in the name of religion. I was merely pointing out that infant baptism is a man made tradition, not a Godly one.

I never said children were being harmed but i think what matters is what the bible says on the subject and the true proper meaning of baptism dont you?

Sorry, I have been skimming the thread so I missed your point. Sooo soo tired. No offense intended at all.

 

[ShanandBoc]

Of course not, none taken xxx

 

[smokey]

But as with his baptism I dont leave it to his decission on if he wants to join our church as part of our family same as I dont let him decide where he wants to go to school.
Its all part of me making choices for him as the adult that I think are best for him untill he is old enough to choose himself.
If once come his comfirmation he doesnt want to go through with it then we will rethink it.
Any way back to circ as thats whats its all about

 

[ShanandBoc]

But baptism isnt for 'joining a church' thats the point. Its a serious decision that an individual has to make to dedicate his life to God.

Anywho ive rattled on about that enough for now lol xxx BTW Smokey ur little boy is just too cute