/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Praise God

>>838392

Hallelujah!

>>838392

You are already baptized. What you are doing is a sin because you're basically saying the gift you received from God the first time wasn't real, you are dishonoring his grace, you are blaspheming him. My advice, go to confession and and come experience Christ in the Eucharist.

>>838407

Sorry but that doctrine is incorrect!

I had no faith of Christ as a baby, and could not of followed Christ’s commandment to be baptized!

I am sorry you are confused about this, my brotheren! I advise you to pray about the way you approach peoples faith!

>>838407

To put it simply. You are very wrong. Stop trying to enslave people in your cult. This ones a free man and you will not enslave his soul and bring him into your church of demons.

>>838408

I'm encouraged by your conviction bro

>>838411

I felt it too. He has power.

>>838410

>Stop trying to enslave people in your cult.

Following the scriptures is not a "cult". Ephesians 4:5 says there is "one baptism". It's pretty clear that "one" means "one" last I checked, and simply accepting this has not cultic affiliations.

This isn't even a Catholic/Orthodox/or Protestant thing. They all held to this and didn't re-baptize. The early church even allowed heterodox (not outright heretics), to join the true church and didn't require a new baptism. Because they believed the baptism itself was pure and they at least had the basics right.

To deny any of this is what is actually cultish. It's denying other churches that at least have the basics right (like the Apostle's Creed) and that the "one baptism" stated in Ephesians is false. It declares all churches for 2000 years to be utterly false and void and only your tiny little group has any truth. This is the definition of a cult.

>>838434

You have to understand what baptism is when getting baptized. Also, submersion is the proper baptism. I doubt infants are submerged in water. Therefore that’s another reason op’s infant baptism was not the one Christ had in mind. Therefore invalid.

Is Baptism mechanical or does it require faith and awareness from Baptisee?

If the latter, child baptisms (when they arent aware) is illegitimate. The child has no concept of God or rebirth.

>>838457

It is neither. Baptism is a sign and seal of grace to God's people, so it derives its efficacy from the word attached to the elements, not from the elements themselves nor only from faith in the believer, hence it is irrelevant whether they had faith at the time of baptism so long as the sacrament was performed validly. Infants have not rejected God like an unbelieving adult, but they are merely neutral, so while baptism is an empty ceremony when performed upon adult unbelievers this is not the case with the children of Christians. The basis of baptism is not the faith of the recipient but Christ's command to baptize the members of the Church which Christian children are. This is the Reformed position.

>>838392

OP if your baptism was performed by open heretics who were not in a true church but a synagogue of satan (i.e. a Roman Catholic priest) then by all means be baptized again. In that case you were not truly baptized to begin with. But if you received a Christian baptism then you're doing nothing but sinning since you are rejecting that which God called holy.

>>838461

Baptism requires faith first! That is the way God requires us to be baptized! The other way is a tradition of man that has been lampooned as “okay” !

>>838481

>Baptism requires faith first! That is the way God requires us to be baptized!

Unbiblical.

>>838486

How is that unbiblical. A person needs to understand what they are doing. Submersion is also a big part of it baptism. As always you just sage to keep the thread going in circles.

>>838538

>How is that unbiblical

It does not reflect the bible's teaching on the subject

>Submersion is also a big part of it baptism

The bible never says that

>As always you just sage to keep the thread going in circles.

What?

>>838457

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; …you were buried with him in Baptism” (Colossians 2:11-12).

If that were true, WHY did God enforce infant circumcision in the OT? Because that was the PREDECESSOR to Baptism

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/infant-baptism

>>838538

Luke 18:15-17

Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciple 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. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

>>838544

Every baptism during Jesus’ time was through submersion. There was no other way. The Ethiopian eunuch say a body of water and got baptized. That same eunuch could’ve used a sprinkle of water if it was what reminded him of baptism, but it was a body of water that reminded him he could be baptized. Not one baptism back then was done any other way but a submersion. And not one baptism was done on an infant.

And you do make the thread go in circles, many times. It’s as if you don’t think as you read from the start of the thread.

>>838545

The infant circumcising was a different matter. God detailed when it had to be done. Jesus had a submersion baptism, detailing how baptisms had to be done. Jesus set the example. Baptism, like birth, is done through a submersion in water/fluid. Jesus set the example, we are not allowed to change it. These are two different things you are mentioning. Circumcising was not a baptism. I don’t know who put that in your head. If that is true then Timothy got two different baptisms, one an actual baptism the other the circumsision.

Imagine arguing for the same thing Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and Mormons do… and then calling others a "cult".

>>838552

Guilt by association is not an argument

>>838550

Baptism is a washing. Not a drowning. Jewish cleansing's (like of pots and bowls and such, where baptism came from originally) main purpose was the separation to God's temple use. The language of immersion is there for figurative purposes - that is, to cleanse thoroughly. Not literal purposes for you to be some stickler or lawyer and break out some fine print argument. This is why something like the Didache could exist at the same time as the Apostles (pre 70 AD) and still remark that Baptism could be done by pouring:

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

If it was so controversial, someone like John, who resided in Syria when this very Didache was written, would have spoken out. He didn't. And we've been doing it this way for 2000 years. Who the hell are you interlopers, trying to speak on things you have no part of, and have the hubris to call a 2000 year old church a "cult"?

The priority was simply put on welcoming households into God's kingdom, first and foremost. Nobody was going to step in the way of that, except a complete jerkoff who didn't want them to be used for God.

>>838554

It is in this case. It's always nutcases and fringe movements, of some variety. The only other groups are Anabaptists, who are no better and even went to war and killed other Protestants. The rest are YouTube meme Baptists, like Ruckman and Anderson. Anderson is the only one who is slightly better than any of them - and considering how much of a joke he is, that's a pretty low bar too.

>>838557

Jesus set the example and how it should be done. This is the simple answer to the question. You all are complicating it. Why are you not letting Jesus example be the way? Was not Jesus submersed in water? Did he not come to earth to be an example to us in everything he did? Did not John “the Baptist” baptize in water? You don’t think he would’ve used a vial or water if it was ok? He certainly could’ve made his ministry portable if what you say is true.

> "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

Can I have the scripture so I can look this up? This sounds foreign to me. Quick, the scripture please.

>>838559

Your too hung up on the things your enemies do right and obsessing over it. Just because they are cults and teach most things incorrectly doesn’t mean they do all things incorrectly. I’m not supporting cults, but truth is truth, no matter where you hear it.

>>838559

Actually, to be fair, everyone killed and went to war in those days (of the Anabaptists, that is).

>>838561

>> "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

>Can I have the scripture so I can look this up? This sounds foreign to me. Quick, the scripture please.

I mentioned it was in the Didache. A contemporary 1st century document not in the Bible. Part of the same Syrian church where people were called "Christians" in the first place. They're not a cult.

Just got back from my baptism!

I am over joyed! I am sorry for you brothers who decided to quarrel, hope all is well! Blessings

>>838565

Nice

>>838548

>Every baptism during Jesus’ time was through submersion

We don't know that, and even if we did it would only prove that every baptism during Jesus’ time was through submersion

>That same eunuch could’ve used a sprinkle of water

And it doesn't matter that he didn't. The mode of baptism is free. It doesn't matter whether it is done by sprinkling, pouring or dunking.

>And not one baptism was done on an infant.

Blatantly untrue, see Acts 2:38-39

>>838550

>Jesus had a submersion baptism, detailing how baptisms had to be done

That is your interpretation, but where does the bible actually say that?

>Circumcising was not a baptism.

Baptism is the continuation of circumcision under the new law. They are the same sacrament, the command under the old law to circumcise children applies now as a command to baptize children.

>>838563

They're not worthy of associating with in any way. There's a reason why Jesus silenced demons, even when they confessed he was the Son of God. A bad association spoils the whole mission.

No one but heretics even taught this nonsense about re-baptism until very late in history. I'll follow the timeless ways instead. The only early time it was brought up was very early in the church, when Christianity was legalized in Rome.. and some thought it right to "re-baptize" people who had behaved like cowards under persecution. But these efforts were condemned and even these cowards who had betrayed the church under Rome were allowed back in the fold, without re-baptism.

>>838565

All is fantastic! I’m glad this quarreling didn’t stop you! We quarrel here, it’s normal, that’s how we know who’s strongest. God bless you OP!!!

>>838570

I wasn’t re-baptized, I was never baptized in the first place! It could not of been done out of my own accord.

This is a fruitless conversation!

>>838570

I didn’t say to accosiate with them. I personally avoid them at all costs. But I’m not going to make matters more difficult by condemning what they got right.

>>838573

Try to enjoy your day OP. It’s a happy day. Let us weaken these fools, then if you want you can pounce. Even with all this said. You do what the Holy Spirit tells you to do. If it tells you to pounce now you pounce now, we will not stop you.