abb6e6 No.548312
>And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Why won't you baptize your children, /christian/?
adee1d No.548314
This is sure to be a meaningful conversation in which we break new ground
924a71 No.548317
baptism is the new covenant, circumcision is nothing.
fe50ea No.548318
Why is Protestant baptism closer to the one Jesus Christ had?
ef3f7c No.548329
Because you have to believe
Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And dunked(A LOT more verse on this but they were saved on my old phone)
Matthew 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Aslo Baptisem represeants the the death, burial, and resurrection if Christ(somewhere in Romans)
Also you're ASSuming that household had children.
adee1d No.548334
>>548329
All of our adults with the possible exception of the retarded confess faith before they are baptized, if you want to argue a profession of faith is necessary for baptism as a principle try quoting a verse in which that is said
>Aslo Baptisem represeants the the death, burial, and resurrection if Christ(somewhere in Romans)
Romans 6:3-4 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
924a71 No.548335
>>548329
every child believes in God and is close to God, until their parents/society reeducate them. Baptism is a grace that even infants and children should be blessed with.
baptism is part of the new covenant, replacing circumcision. It has a metaphysico-spiritual dimension that many protestants are unable to perceive because they only see the world with eyes of the flesh, since they are quasi-materialists.
The only time it should'nt be done is if the child refuses/disbelieves for some reason.
>>548312
child baptism should also involve submersion. Sprinkling of water is not trad.
abb6e6 No.548337
>>548329
>Because you have to believe
I am unaware of any denomination that will baptize an adult without confession of faith
>And dunked
The mode of baptism is circumstantial, like the time of day you do it. It's not actually part of the sacrament
>Aslo Baptisem represeants the the death, burial, and resurrection if Christ
No, it represents the new birth
>Also you're ASSuming that household had children.
Household = family. If it was just the jailer and his wife it would say that, instead of claiming to be a whole family.
adee1d No.548339
>>548337
>The mode of baptism is circumstantial, like the time of day you do it. It's not actually part of the sacrament
The earliest instructions for baptism insist on immersion whenever the water to do so is present
>No, it represents the new birth
You aren't going to win this one
abb6e6 No.548340
>>548339
>The earliest instructions for baptism insist on immersion whenever the water to do so is present
And the fact they allow for pouring shows it wasn't an essential part of the sacrament
>You aren't going to win this one
?
adee1d No.548341
abb6e6 No.548342
>>548341
That's not about the sacrament.
288491 No.548426
>Got baptized by a tiny water sprinkle according to photos(Catholic father)
>Want to actually dunk myself my body on a river
>Orthodoxy insists on one baptism
Okay now what
3c7bef No.548427
83a947 No.548436
>>548312
>story where the apostles baptized adults after they confessed belief in Christ
>anabaptists BTFO! Why won't you baptize your children?
924a71 No.548440
>>548426
Ask your priest. Might be valid, even if not ideal? Not sure.
3db9d2 No.548442
>>548335
>every child believes in God and is close to God
Are you retarded?
3db9d2 No.548443
>>548337
Becuse babies can't believe so they can't be baptized
And you're assuming they had infants
abb6e6 No.548445
>>548443
>babies can't believe
Babies aren't adult converts
>And you're assuming they had infants
Why does it say "all his household" instead of "his wife"?
288491 No.548448
>>548440
I don't have any priest since I'm just trying my best to follow what I perceive as the original church in a foreign land with 1%- Orthodox presence.
f823f9 No.548450
>>548337
Remember that the nuclear family is a modern invention. In the past, the 'family' also included parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws and whoever else could fit in your crappy peasant home.
>>548426
anabaptism is bae
abb6e6 No.548453
>>548450
Reminder that the Roman Empire wasn't high medieval Germany
3db9d2 No.548463
>>548445
And they can't believe
Because his whole household was. You're automatically assuming they had babies
74d75f No.548478
501f20 No.548692
>>548445
>Why does it say "all his household" instead of "his wife"?
The same reason why 1 Corinthians 16:15 says "the house of Stephanas" has addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. So clearly infants are either not present or not included. And yes this is the same house of Stephanas mentioned that was baptized in 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Also, those specifically who gladly received the word were the ones who were baptized in Acts 2:41-42, and those same people who received the word and were baptized continued stedfastly in the doctrine of the Apostles and in their fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.
05c3e1 No.548701
>>548312
My children are baptized, so … I can't answer your question.
abb6e6 No.548800
>>548463
>And they can't believe
How do you know?
>Because his whole household was
Who was his whole household?
>You're automatically assuming they had babies
You're assuming everyone there was capable of professing faith
05c3e1 No.548802
>>548463
>they can't believe
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matt 19:14
501f20 No.548812
>>548802
>forbid them not
>But you already were baptized and if you want to profess your belief now you will take the death penalty for rebaptism!
Oh the irony.
81d70f No.548815
>>548442
You're a brainlet.
22cac1 No.548833
>>548812
>death penalty for rebaptism
Does it take effort to be this retarded, or does it come naturally to you?
556d6e No.548852
>>548802
>little chikdren = new born babies
There's nothing wrong with baptizing 6-7 year olds
501f20 No.548853
>>548833
Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6
(Reinstated in Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6)
>16.6.4 The same Augustuses to Hadrianus, Praetorian Prefect.
>We sanction by this law that if any person should hereafter be discovered to rebaptize, he shall be brought before the judge who presides over the province. Thus, the offenders shall be punished by the confiscation of all their property, and they shall suffer the penalty of poverty, with which they shall be afflicted forever. But if their children dissent from the depravity of the paternal association, they shall not forfeit the paternal inheritance. Likewise, if perchance they have been involved in the perversity of the paternal depravity and prefer to return to the Catholic religion, the right to acquire possession of such property shall not be denied them. (A.D. 405 febr. 12)
>16.6.6 Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect.
>No person shall resort to the crime of rebaptizing… if after the time that the law was issued any person should be discovered to have rebaptized anyone who had been initiated into the mysteries of the Catholic sect, he shall suffer the penalty [of death], along with the person rebaptized, because he has committed a crime that must be expiated, provided, however, that the person so persuaded is capable of crime by reason of his age. (A.D. 413 march 21)
556d6e No.548855
>>548800
>3 month year old babies can believe on Christ
>braindeadwojak.png
Everyone that lived in his house
Because if everyone was baptized then they were able to
abb6e6 No.548867
>>548852
Many Baptists will disagree with you on that. How do you know the child isn't lying to make their parents happy? How do you know they have a credible profession of faith?
>>548853
These laws are about Donatism. Anabaptism didn't exist until the 16th century.
>>548855
>>3 month year old babies can believe on Christ
>>braindeadwojak.png
Why do you believe all babies go to hell?
>Everyone that lived in his house
The word means family
>Because if everyone was baptized then they were able to
You're reading your theology into this verse. The bible never says you have to confess Christ to be baptized.
556d6e No.548880
>>548867
An adult can also lie to make people happy you retard.
babies haven't sinned yet so they don't
That's basically what I said
Yes it does
Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) abb6e6 No.548894
>>548880
>An adult can also lie to make people happy you retard
If a 6 yearold who has been raised in a church and only knows Christianity is asked if they love Jesus, do you think it's more likely they'll respond "Yes I love Jesus" or "No I hate Jesus hail Satan"?
>babies haven't sinned yet so they don't
So you believe there are two ways to be saved, either by faith or being a baby? Why do you believe babies are righteous creatures that deserve to be saved? Why shouldn't we abort every baby on earth to fill heaven with souls?
>Yes it does
Again, every church requires adult converts to profess faith before baptism. This is not relevant to Christian infants.
556d6e No.548903
>>548894
If he wasn't avtually saved then he wasn't technically baltized and would need to be later. I don't get your point on this.
Because that's murder you dip
>Christian infants.
Literally not a thing. And if it himders adults then why not children? Also it wouldn't make sense to do it to them because being baptized is supposed to show your faith to people and obedianxe to the Father(probably why Jesus was) which babies can do neither. And it also represeants the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus which babies don't even know of.
abb6e6 No.548908
>>548903
>If he wasn't avtually saved then he wasn't technically baltized and would need to be later
Are re-converted apostates to be re-baptized?
>Literally not a thing
Matthew 19:14
>And if it himders adults then why not children?
Adults are rational creatures, children are not. In the case of adults, when they hear the gospel, they either accept or reject, they are either friendly or hostile, none are neutral. But in the case of children, they are neither friendly nor hostile, they neither accept nor reject, they are all neutral, thus their inner state can only be discerned by the environment in which God has been pleased to place them. So seeing as birth to a Christian household is itself evidence of election, we should presume regeneration in Christian children. If a child is born to Christians and baptized, and then falls away later on, it has apostatized, since it was in the visible church.
c8238e No.548913
>>548312
I will probably never have kids because I'm trying to enter the seminary next year.
05c3e1 No.548915
>>548894
>babies are righteous creatures that deserve to be saved
It's a Muslim belief. Original Sin isn't a thing, as they believe God forgave Adam, and all babies are born Muslim and stay Muslim until corrupted by the world. It's why they call converts "reverts".
556d6e No.548927
>>548908
If you never were saved then you weren't even baptized.
So you're saying I should go around killing babies? You're kinda fucked up dude.
>they can't accept it
So the then can't be baptized because to be baptized you have to accept it
abb6e6 No.548939
>>548927
>If you never were saved then you weren't even baptized
Are re-converted apostates to be re-baptized?
>So you're saying I should go around killing babies?
When did I say that?
>So the then can't be baptized because to be baptized you have to accept it
What you have to be to be baptized is a member of Christ's Church, which the bible says the children of believers are.
2483e6 No.548946
>>548913
Congratulations anon, and God bless you!
9b4825 No.548947
>>548915
lol The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. Is this why they murder everyone they can get their hands on?
501f20 No.548969
>>548867
Actually the laws 16.6.5 and 16.6.6.1 were specifically about Donatism. As in it named them specifically as condemned. Meanwhile, the Codex Justinianus, over 100 years later, dropped all of those laws, but specifically kept the blanket death penalty for "rebaptizers" that I just quoted. Likely because old Justinian thought he still "needed" them. The only two laws he kept under that Title were death for them and death for anti-trinitarians.
>Anabaptism didn't exist until the 16th century.
Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius (1504-1579)
>For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.
He called them that, not me. And Honorius called them "rebaptizandi" which was distinct from Donatists, which as I said were named separate from this designation in other related laws.
>>548939
>Are re-converted apostates to be re-baptized?
>re-converted
1 John 2:19.
05c3e1 No.548973
>>548947
Ha! That's actually kind of an amusing way of looking at it.
abb6e6 No.548974
>>548969
>Actually the laws 16.6.5 and 16.6.6.1 were specifically about Donatism. As in it named them specifically as condemned. Meanwhile, the Codex Justinianus, over 100 years later, dropped all of those laws, but specifically kept the blanket death penalty for "rebaptizers" that I just quoted. Likely because old Justinian thought he still "needed" them. The only two laws he kept under that Title were death for them and death for anti-trinitarians.
I'm not seeing your point. All re-baptizers then were Donatists, there were no credobaptists. A reference to re-baptism was a reference to Donatism since they were the ones doing it.
>He called them that, not me. And Honorius called them "rebaptizandi" which was distinct from Donatists, which as I said were named separate from this designation in other related laws.
Anabaptist means re-baptist. Again, you're practicing anachronism.
>1 John 2:19
I obviously mean returned to the Christian Church, not re-saved or something.
501f20 No.548983
>>548974
>All re-baptizers then were Donatists
Well in the article on Maximianists on the catholic encyclopedia itself, it says "these separated sects were so numerous that the Donatists themselves could not name them all." So we can see that you are vastly oversimplifying church history in this statement. Also even before Donatus you had the Novatians, who were also being named in related laws as yet another sect that did this.
>there were no credobaptists.
Yet we find the teaching in Acts 8:37 and Acts 2:41-42. Also, nice attempt to prove a negative; it can't really be done. I think what you mean to say is "there mustn't have been" and I can understand why you would make yourself think that way. Just tune out scripture and it is possible to think just about anything.
abb6e6 No.548995
>>548983
>So we can see that you are vastly oversimplifying church history in this statement
I am using Donatist in a broad sense. My point is that none of these rebaptizers were credobaptists.
>Yet we find the teaching in Acts 8:37 and Acts 2:41-42
No, we don't.
>Also, nice attempt to prove a negative
The negative is proven by lack of a positive.
501f20 No.548997
>>548995
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
abb6e6 No.548999
>>548997
Would you kindly show me a church that will baptize adults without a profession of faith?
501f20 No.549001
>>548999
Probably the same church that has infants which have "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 1 Cor. 16:15.
501f20 No.549269
>>548995
>The negative is proven by lack of a positive.
You know what, I've been thinking, probably the funniest thing about this is that you simultaneously claim we don't need a single example of infant baptism in the Bible itself.
New historical evidence is always at hand to disprove your negative assumption, but the Bible is closed canon, it's fixed, so how can you possibly argue this? I have a definite negative by absolute lack of a positive but I guess the logic doesn't work both ways with you.
abb6e6 No.549341
>>549269
>probably the funniest thing about this is that you simultaneously claim we don't need a single example of infant baptism in the Bible itself.
Aside from the OP verse, which strongly implies the baptism of infants, there doesn't need to be an example of infant baptism in the bible because that wouldn't be a change, that would be the default. God commanded the old sacrament be applied to the children of believers, even though it was the sign and seal "of the righteousness he had by faith", so without clear change the same remains for the new sacrament.
e6baa2 No.549351
Does anyone have that YT video that was posted here a few weeks ago about orthodox priest baptizing babies really quickly and the adorable baby had this overwhelmed look on his face?
501f20 No.549373
>>549341
>God commanded the old sacrament be applied to the children of believers,
I'm looking for this and not finding it.
Also, the OP verse is no different in implications than 1 Corinthians 1:16. And as we've seen, it's absurd to suggest what you're suggesting in that verse. Not to mention in that passage the very next verse says his whole house "believed in God," so we rarely get to see it used like this.
abb6e6 No.549399
>>549373
>I'm looking for this and not finding it.
And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised".
>Also, the OP verse is no different in implications than 1 Corinthians 1:16. And as we've seen, it's absurd to suggest what you're suggesting in that verse
A Roman household would include any slaves owned by the head of the household. A lowly jailer wouldn't own slaves.
>Not to mention in that passage the very next verse says his whole house "believed in God,"
That doesn't mean anything
427138 No.549401
>>549341
>which strongly implies the baptism of infants
Bo ut doesn't. How much if a retard are you? Not every household has babies.
501f20 No.549414
>>549399
>That doesn't mean anything
Alright, nevermind this. I have my answer here: Mark 7:13.
abb6e6 No.549431
>>549414
That doesn't mean anything because it's exactly what one would expect of small children. Also, the word "believed" is singular, so it means he believed and at this they all rejoiced.
eb4f71 No.552788
>>548913
>I'm trying to enter the seminary next year.
Why don't you just kill yourself outright? You're going to hell either way.
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) 1692c5 No.552793
>>552788
You have to roll for initiative first before you respond.
0ad008 No.552844
>>548913
blessings to you on your discernment
0b7023 No.553109
>>548442
Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.
Matthew 18:14
But Jesus called them unto him , and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Luke 18:16-17
And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether [God] will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
2 Samuel 12:22-23
8db55a No.558187
>>548329
>Aslo Baptisem represeants the the death, burial, and resurrection if Christ
it also the sign of the covenant which is open to infants.
>Also you're ASSuming that household had children.
The first Christians were jews so ofcourse early christians would have included children in the household. God has always included children in the covenant and baptism is the seal of it.
Gotta stay reformed bro.
91a11a No.558233
>>548329
>Baptist
>Can't spell Baptism correctly
3fe770 No.568570
>>548312
I still don't know what the seashells are for.
36ad13 No.568639
>>568570
Obviously there are three seashells for the Trinity. The rest is just a mystery, beyond our limited understanding.
36ad13 No.568642
>>552788
Is this one of those orthoprots i keep hearing about
5978c7 No.568709
>>548426
Is the amount of water in any relation with the amount of faith?
36ad13 No.568714
>>548426
The Russians are usually much more skeptical of baptisms if that helps.
609de6 No.568736
>>548312
Same quotes, same denoms, every time.