/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>caring about physical baptism inspite of romans 8:8

Yes it is called they in the flesh cannot please God. That and 1 corinthians 2:14

>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So stop bothering with any physical baptisms anymore. It is a waste of time and literal virtue signalling.

>>584833

Infant baptism is valid. It is a Sacrament that washes away original sin, in which one dies and is reborn. It also is the sign that you are now part of the Church.

Don't worry that your baptism might be invalid. As long as it was in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it is valid.

In case you are worried, ignore protestants on that matter, because they have no authority and very twisted perceptions of the Sacraments.

>>584839

Also if not by full immersion must be poured 3 times. Sprinkling is invalid

>>584833

yes, if done correctly

no, if done by Pastor Anderson

>>584833

>Is there a case that my infant baptism is invalid?

YES, WITHOUT EXCEPTION

Heretics, such as Ortholics and several Protestants will argue otherwise because of muh heretic tradition, they cannot argue in favor of The Bible, only against it.

>>584833

Even most Protestants know infant baptism is valid.

IIRC James White once got eviscerated in a debate with some Presbyterian on infant baptism.

>>584862

I believe this is the one you are talking about.

Protties don't believe baptism is that important so it shouldn't matter if he got baptised as an infant, if anything its better to get baptised as an infant so you can have ur cake and eat it too

>>584868

It was probably the one with Bill Shishko

>>584833

>IS infant baptism valid?

Absolutely, we were commanded to baptize our children in Genesis 17:10

>>584833

That's like asking if infant circumcision was valid for Jews in the Old Testament, since they didn't have the faith or the choice to enter into the covenent. Baptism is the New Testament fulfillment of circumcision, in the same way that the Eucharist is the fulfillment of Passover. You must always look at the Old Testament in light of the New, and from there you will begin to see the connections. I believe St. Irenaeus said something like we must treat the Old Testament as precious gems that we use to create a mosaic of the King. Also, in the New Testament, several times it mentions entire households being baptized. This implies more than just adults, but also children and even infants.

>>584869

This is bait.

>>584860

This is also bait.

>>584833

We are born sinners, so we are born seeking forgiveness. So infant baptism is valid.

Daily reminder the jesus sacrament is literal spirit cooking and should be avoided at all costs

>>584839

>>584846

Nope

Gou have to believe first

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.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Have to be dunked

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

sprinkling something on someone isn't a burial

>>584918

Matthew 28:19

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

>>584977

this.

We know that the nastiest persecutions against Christianity(ex: Diocletian) were during an age when infant baptism was definitely there.

Which would make for some really awkward situations in the afterlife.

>>584977

Hus didn't reject infant baptism

>>584999

hus gets the bus *BEEP BEEP*

>>584884

>we're commanded to baptize our children thousands if years before baptism existed

>>584956

>Jesus: Go into all nations and baptize them

>(((you))): He said baptize children

What???

>>584999

Weren't the hussites believers baptists? Well then anabaptists a century later if thats the case, which only strengthens the point.

>>584888

>This implies more than just adults, but also children and even infants.

Acts 2:41-42

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 8:36-37

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?

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.

>>584833

>>585027

Infant baptism was never, ever in the history of Church questioned. The only debate was whether the baptism should be administered on the 8th day, like circumcision was in the old law. Your interpretation of those lines is false, there are examples in the Acts where entire households and families were baptized, nowhere does it say 'everyone, except the children'.

St. Cyprian said on the matter replying to a person who argued no child should be baptized before it's 8 days old:

>For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them," as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

>Moreover, belief in divine Scripture declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift.

>But in that is expressed the divine and spiritual equality, that all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the love and mercy of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since He shows Himself Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace.

>>585009

>baptize all nations, except the children screw them

>>585008

Circumcision and baptism are the same sacrament. Both are the sign of the covenant, both are the rite of initiation, both mark saints apart from the world, both signify and seal the new birth and forgiveness of sins, the only difference between them is in the external ceremony.

>>585047

>baptize all nations, except the children screw them

Oh and the best part its, when we take John into consideration 3:3-5:

>Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God

Which would mean that everyone who died before the age of 14 would go to hell because they would be unbaptized..

Explain this to me, examples of entire households being baptized in Acts:

• The Household of Cornelius, Acts 11:13–14: “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.”

• The Household of Lydia, Acts 16:15: “And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.’ So she persuaded us.”

• The Philippian Jailor’s Household, Acts 16:33: “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.”

• The Household of Crispus, Acts 18:8: “Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

• The Household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”

>but household doesn't imply children

Does that also mean that in Genesis 7:1 which says Noah's entire 'household' went into the ark, the children did not go into the ark?

Or in Genesis 17:23 when Abraham's entire 'household' was circumcized, that didn't include children?

>>585052

Baptism isn't absolutely necessary to be saved

>>585047

>baptize all nations

That doesn't mean go and forcefully dunk them.

>>585056

>Explain this to me, examples of entire households being baptized

Does it say there were children? No, quite the contrary, the word of God says only those who believed were baptized. Of course, you just cut this part out where necessary. Consider the very next verse here:

Acts 16:33-34

And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

And furthermore Acts 16:32 says they spoke unto his house the word of the Lord first. But you left that out too.

And Acts 18:8 literally says they heard, believed and were baptized. That's why I'm surprised you mentioned it.

1 Corinthians 1:16: “Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.”

1 Corinthians 16:15: I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

>Does that also mean that in Genesis 7:1 which says Noah's entire 'household' went into the ark, the children did not go into the ark?

Genesis 5:32 says Noah was 500 years old when he begat his three sons. The flood was 100 years after that, and in Genesis 11:10 it says the Shem had his firstborn after the flood. So none of his household were children. You see then how household doesn't imply there were children or infants. So now, you need to explain why in Acts 2:41-42 and in Acts 8:36-37 it was only those who heard and believe that were permitted to be baptized. And in every case it explicitly relates they were told the word of God first, not just forcefully dunked in water.

>>585131

>That doesn't mean go and forcefully dunk them.

No it means baptize them (by sprinkling, pouring or dunking, any of the three works) once they have entered into covenant with God.

>>585131

>now, you need to explain why in Acts 2:41-42 and in Acts 8:36-37 it was only those who heard and believe that were permitted to be baptized.

Because they were adults and not infants? A household can be said to believe and be baptized, and yet still have children and infants baptized(How, by the way, do you determine how old is old enough for a child to be able to "really believe" for baptism? Scripture doesn't say the age, so what is it and how do you know it?) because all members who were capable for action did action, but all members capable of receiving received, and these two divisions do not need to be identical. For example, you can say "That family really did a lot for the neighborhood", even if that family includes infants who did nothing, however it can also be said of the same family "Because they did a lot for the neighborhood we gave them food". The food is obviously not excluded from being for the infants in the family merely because they personally did not perform the actions that merited it. That's just how it works in everyday life.

>>585168

>because all members who were capable for action did action, but all members capable of receiving received,

By the same token then you could say the household was baptized yet not including the infants. How, exactly, can you not see this?

>>585170

>By the same token then you could say the household was baptized yet not including the infants

His argument actually implies the exact opposite. Change "did a lot for the neighborhood" to "believed" and "gave them food" to "baptized them".

>>585172

He's saying you could say X applies to a household when it's actually just applying to those capable of receiving it. If we grant that it's possible to say that a household believed yet without including every member, then it is also possible to say, by the same token, that a household was baptized yet without including every member.

>>585173

Infants are capable of receiving baptism, I assure you

>>585175

Returning back to square one is fine as well, but then I would just respond again with my initial post

>>585178

Infants are physically incapable of believing. The same is not true of getting wet

>>585201

Colossians 2:11-12

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

>>585202

>baptism is not efficacious to those without faith

And the relevance of this to our discussion is??

>>585205

Hebrews 11:1-3

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

>>585201

>Infants are physically incapable of believing.

infants are aware of god more than you are tbh

>>585222

>>585222

This. Read Luke 1:41.

>>585201

Infants have a natural awareness to God and the spiritual and John the Forerunner jumped in the womb when he knew Christ was nearby.

>>585222

You know in your own conscience that it makes no sense to forcefully dunk someone which is why you say these things. But maybe in your case, what you say is true. But it's not true for those who have received the knowledge of the truth, that is, the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

>>585246

unfortunately, you doubt the efficacy of the holy spirit when it comes to baptism

it is a spiritual initiation into the bosom of Christ's Church; in your deceived mind you forget that this initiation is dead without faith, and also the seriousness of original sin

>>585249

>is dead without faith,

as in, when the infant achieves our divinely-given rationality, then it can make a rational decision to accept or reject Christ, until then, it is not capable of mortal sin

>>585249

>it is a spiritual initiation into the bosom of Christ's Church; in your deceived mind you forget that this initiation is dead without faith,

Which is why one requires faith, see Acts 8:36-37. Without faith, you're not risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, making this not a baptism but just a simple splashing. But don't give up hope, because it's always possible for someone to realize this and become baptized into an actual church. It's never too late for those God has elected and chosen to become baptized into a church, no nonsense will get in the way when that time comes.

>>585170

My point is that the language itself does not remove the possibility of infants being baptized.

>>585252

An infant can be baptized and still raised through faith. John the Baptist was not even born but he still excited at Jesus' presence. Additionally, the raising through faith can come at a later time, it is not required to occur at the same exact moment, though I believe it does even for infants. The passage cited in colossians can't be used to deny infant baptism has some affect, even assuming the infant is not raised. It says "Buried with him in baptism", with no condition placed on faith, so at the very least an infant baptism would still accomplish the putting away of the old, with a later putting on of the new, but it cannot be repeated because a person can only be buried with Christ once, and the burying is said irrespective of faith.

>>585250

Salvation and sin aren't "rational decisions"

>>585252

>Without faith, you're not risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, making this not a baptism but just a simple splashing

You're twisting that verse. It doesn't say anything about faith being essential to baptism or baptism being invalid without faith.

>>585299

>putting away of the old, with a later putting on of the new

Those are the same thing

>>585310

Mortal sin, a rational and deliberate decision to break a sin designated as such, is.

Since the mods don't care enough to edify others by refuting this. Here's a ban appeal denied or ignored for my post here >>584835

Baptisms aren't physical they are spiritual due to a scriptural lesson that starts with

hebrews 10:22

>Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Also see john 6:54-55

>Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

>For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Now see 1 corinthians 10:3-4

>And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

>And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Now see Hebrews 10:12-14

>For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat

>For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

>But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

So Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He then calls it "my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed". 1 corinthians 10:3-4 that the isrealites did eat and drink of that Rock which was Christ. Finally hebrews 10:12-14 calls milk "one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness". Followed by saying "strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.". Hence why Jesus' flesh is meat, which is "to be skilled in the word of rightousness" spiritually. Jesus' blood "is drink indeed" see 1 corinthians 13:12

>For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Finally to the point of the blogpost, baptism, is it physical or is it spiritual? See mark 10:38-39

>But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

>And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Wow to "drink of the cup that I drink of" surely refers to Jesus' blood right? Well which blood? See john 19:34-35

>But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forth with came there out blood and water.

>And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

Well in hebrews 10:22 again, it is said "let us wash with pure water". What purer water then the spiritual blood of Christ? Which is spiritual due to the wording of 1 peter 3:21

>The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

All to top this off, romans 8:8

>So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

and 1 corinthians 2:14

>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Jesus was baptised/sprinkled the old, physical way of 2 chronicles 29:22 in john 1:31 as to fullfill leviticul priesthood stuff. But christians are to be baptized/sprinkled with the spiritual blood of Christ as said in hebrews 10:22 and mark 10:38-39 and no longer with physical baptisms, but spiritual. This includes all non-fallen christians, including infants.

>>585299

>Additionally, the raising through faith can come at a later time,

That's right, because it comes with the actual baptism.

>>585052

'Kingdom of heaven' isn't heaven itself, it refers to the Christian community.