ooh don’t say that. They have no idea what’s what when it comes to the Truth. But you’re right, it is kind of nutty to baptize a second time. But they have no idea why it only counts one time, the FIRST time one is baptized is when it counts… after that it’s moot.
‘Protestants’ only believe in one baptism. The point is the evangelical sects re-baptise because of a sincerely held belief that the infant and/or sprinkling baptism wasn’t valid. Credit them with some logic.
The Bible say, there is only one Baptism. Let Protestant rebaptize because they believe infant baptism is invalid. Give me a break.
In Hebrews it talks about re-baptizing Christians who had left the faith and returned, and the author of Hebrews says that you can’t re-baptize because you would be re-crucifying Christ and holding him in contempt.Yes this is true and I have stated that in several different posts of mine.
The opposite however does not hold true. Cradle Catholics demean their first baptism (my bro describes his Catholic baptism as something he can wipe his * * * * with). And when they enter a protestant church (if church baptizes) the church requires that they be baptized again.
That second baptism does absolutely nothing for them, so why even bother? :whacky:
Protestants who re-baptise (beleiver’s baptism) would use verses such as Mk 16:16. He who believes AND is baptised will be saved.
Yes I am aware of this. My pro bro thinks this verse pertains to the Mass and says that everytime a Mass is held that we are recrucifying Jesus. I told him we do not. I told him that we enter into the one and only crucifixion and we make it present to us. We are there at Calvary when it happened only once. I explained to him that God is transcendent and out of our time limitations and such and therefore the Passion at Calvary is always present to God the Father. He just didn’t want to see it that way.
Sorry can’t do that when in the bible it says there is only one baptism.
Invalid only when one is converting into the Catholic Church. I guess there could be a possibility that a priest could give an invalid baptism in the Catholic Church but I find that highly unlikely.
I guess you have a point here but they are all Protestants anyway, whether they like it or not.
Ask him if he came to that opinion on his own, or did he read it somewhere, or was he taught it.
It is true that they are all Protestants; however all the Protestants I know (Methodists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians) baptize infants. I don’t know any Baptists or Pentacostals personally.
That does not hold water (no pun intended, well maybe it was intended considering the subject of this thread).
I go back to the centurion and his servant on that one. Not to mention households that were being baptized.
What? Do you mean that the authority of the Church cannot settle sola scriptura?
I hope that’s not what you meant.:yup: I put some passages in my previous post.Whole households were reported to be baptized in the bible yet this is overlooked, why?
I will answer later this week, I am not ignoring you, I have had personal issues last week that have kept me away from the computer.
1 Pet 3:19-21 (NASB)
19 in which also He went and made
proclamation to the spirits now in
prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when
the patience of God kept waiting in the
days of Noah, during the construction
of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight
persons, were brought safely through
the water.
21 Corresponding to that, baptism
now saves you–not the removal
of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to
God for a good conscience–through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ
I guess rbarcia either left or he/she does not have an answer for my original question.
Do you have an answer for me rbarcia?
How many households were referenced, and what was the composition of the household(s)?Whole households were reported to be baptized in the bible yet this is overlooked, why?
My theory is that if household size and composition were mentioned in something other than the NT (i.e., Early Church Father writings such as the Didache), some would dismiss it as not inspired therefore an unsatisfactory answer and explanation. For me, “household” would be parents and their children with possibily extended family members. maybe multiple households got together from neighboring homes.
Without knowing the composition it may not be a good idea to build a doctrine around it. I don’t know their compositions but here are a couple of verses I found when I did a search for “household” (I am posting without having read any context):
Build a doctrine around it?
