Baptism of babies & infants

[hosemonkey]

Your posts are hard to read, Kevin. It behooves us all here to help one another. Are you so arrogant that you are not able to accept feedback from others that might result in an improvement?

Of course we push our beliefs! The name of the site is 'Catholic Answers".

No, this is not hard to understand. Yes, there are many religions, however, Jesus only started One Church, and your beliefs, though you have a right to them, represent a departure from what Jesus taught to His Apostles.

Accepting that you have embraced heresies does not mean that we can agree with, or approve what you have done. We accept that you have the right to embrace beliefs that are different from the Church founded by Christ. God loves everyone enough to allow them to walk away from Him.

Of course the Teachings of the Apostles are not the “only way” that one can believe. They are, however, the beliefs that we are commanded to embrace and to show to others.

Yes, I see your problem. You have fallen victim to the error of Sola Scriptura. You are in the grip of the modern innovation that everything you need to know is in the Bible. You have declared a lack of confidence in God to preserve the Word that He committed to the Church.

Entire post is great! Bravo!
What I have seen in this entire thread is true Catholic scholarship on the one hand and protestant wrong-headedness on the other. Of course, that is why they are called “protestants”. protestants cling to Sola Scriptura as drowning men to a scrap of wood. I believe that they are impelled, at the end, by fear. Fear that their private interpretations might just be wrong. I think that if I were a protestant, I would be scared too.

 

[guanophore]

I say this very respectfully, it seems to me that every time a Catholic sees the words “water or washing” to them, it always means water baptism which is far from the truth.  That’s exactly what you are doing in Titus 3:5. Contrary to what you have been taught, no one is regenerated by water baptism. The Bible DOES NOT teach that and either does the first pope Peter.

That is because the Apostles taught that there is One Baptism. Therefore, we see all expressions about baptism related to the One, of which they are all a part or reflection.

We are regenerated in the waters of baptism, by the HS, who circumcises our heart without human hands. Peter did teach and practice just this. We know this because that is what his disciples learned from him, and that is what has been preserved in the Church. HS baptism was not separated from water until 1500 years later, as an innovation of the Reformers.

 This is what he states in 1Pet 1:23 “For you have been “Born Again” ----through the living and enduring WORD of God.”  (That’s not water baptism.)  Here’s your problem. You quote 1Pet 3:21 ”Baptism now saves you“  But there’s more to that verse. It continues, “not the removal of dirt from your body but the PLEDGE OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARDS GOD”  That’s what repentance means, the turning to God.

Yes. The Apostles taught that there is no way to have a clear conscience toward God unless one is washed in the Blood of Christ. That is why the baptized are said to be “clothed with Christ”, and why the Church has always dressed them in white robes. Their robes have been washed in the blood of the lamb, when they were joined with Him in His death.

1Pet 3:21 very clearly means baptism by water is of repentance, otherwise Peter would be contradicting himself in 1:23.

Yes. In the rite of baptism, the candidate makes a profession of faith, confessing with the mouth and believing in the heart, calling upon the name of the Lord, as there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

You quote Acts 22:16, “Be baptized and wash away your sins” You are making the same error again. There’s more to that verse. It continues with “calling on His (Jesus) name. It’s the calling of His name that saves and washes away the sins. Joel 2:32 “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” as well as Rom 10:13, John 3:16 and many more verses,

Yes. That is why the confession of faith is always made prior to baptism. It is part of the baptismal rite. Read it sometime. It is a rejection of satan and all his empty works, and callign upon the name of the Lord. It is an ancient rite.

The jailor in Acts 16:31 got saved by belief in the Lord Jesus. He then got baptized to show repentance. If there’s a Christian Baptism, as you say, that saves and the Holy Spirit is also received, then Jesus didn’t know about it.

This is the baptism He commanded during the Great Commisssion

Acts 1:5, Jesus states, ”For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." How then can the Holy Spirit be in John’s baptism too? ----- Please note that I haven’t replied to the above John 3:5. That’s the verse that caused all the baptism problems. I’ll deal with it later. ED O.

Actually, what caused “all the baptism problems” was anti-sacramental sentiment during the Reformation and the anti-Catholicism that followed.

 

[rinnie]

Guan, :coolinoff: Talking about being on a roll! I have read many many posts you have written, but this time:extrahappy::dancing: You OUT-DID YOURSELF!

 

[guanophore]

The process may start at infant baptism, but it says in the CCC that it’s not complete until confirmation.

The saving grace of baptism is complete and entire instantly. While a person is a child, their parents are responsible for their religious formation. At confirmation, the person takes responsiblity for their own spiritual development.

I am not sure what you mean by “it’s not complete”. The sacraments of initiation in the Latin Rite are not completed all at once, but the saving grace of baptism certainly is complete.

 

[guanophore]

 It's not either/or and it NEVER has been.  It's the blood of Jesus that washes away sins (forgives/atones).  The water in baptism can not do that.

You say it is not “either/or”, then you deny that both happen at the same time. The Apostles taught that when we go into the water, we are joined with HIm in HIs death.

 Yes baptism is necessary, it signifies repentance, turning to God. If one does not repent, the blood of Jesus is ineffective. Catholics believe water baptism saves, washes away sins, and the Holy Spirit is received, and the person is born again.

The Apostles taught that baptism, along with the other sacraments, effect what they signifiy. The Catholic Church does not baptize a person who did not repent, and make a profession of faith.

  That's NOT what the Bible teaches. According to the Bible, baptism is a sign of REPENTANCE the turning to God.

Yes, this is one aspect of baptism.

  Paul said so, John also said so, he ought to know why God sent him. Paul who started most of the churches said he wasn't sent to baptize 1Cor 1:17. He was concerned about people getting saved by the gospel which is not baptism.

No, Ed. I think if you look at the context of this statement, it will be clear that he was concerned about factions. He was clear in the passage that baptism brings a person “INTO” the one baptizing them. They were confused, and becoming factious. They were all baptized INTO Christ, as He is the baptizer. They were not baptized into whatever person did the dunking.

Paul was a champion of baptism, and everyone who accepted the Gospel he preached was baptized. He did not have time to baptize them all, so he left that duty to his cadre.

He states in Gal 1:8,"Let’s God’s curses fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other way to be saved than the one we told you about; yes, if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. In plain English, Paul never preached that one gets saved by water baptism.

Paul preached exactly what he was given, that baptism washes away sins. That is why everyone to whom he preached who received the message of grace was baptized. The Apostles did not separate the water from the Spirit.

 In Mat 3:7-8, John would not baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees until they would first show some signs of repentance. That's also why Simon in Acts 8:13 didn't get saved even though he was baptized.  Baptism is ALWAYS associated with REPENTANCE.

Yes, of course.

If baptism was the way to get saved, "born again", Paul would have said so and he would have been doing it---------.  When you refer to Mat 25:31-46 to indicate good works, you better read it again because it doesn't apply to you unless you'll be among the nations assembled before Jesus at the judgement of nations.

Your assertion that we will not be judged by our works is part of dispensational theology, also unfamiliar to the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

( Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1Peter 3:21). If 1Pet 3:21 means water baptism by which one get saved,(born again) then  pope Peter didn't know about it because he says in 1Pet 1:23, "For you have been "BORN AGAIN" -----through the living and enduring WORD of God." That's not water baptism!

Ah, but it IS! Ed, When we are baptized, we are baptized INTO Christ. He is the Word, and He bathes us in His regenerative Spirit, making us a circumcision without hands. It is through Him, He is the One who saves through the water.

You asked, Is repentance without baptism enough? According to John in Mat 3:11, baptism IS repentance an outward sign of turning to God. I already said that you misquote Acts 2:38 “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” but verse 44 is what you fail to quote. Sin is committed against God, He does the forgiving not baptism.-----

Both things are true. Jesus forgives us, and washes us in baptism. He is the baptizer.

The Catholic Church does not baptize without repentance from sin, and an act of faith.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not in a cage of either/or. I don’t inferred that here and I previously told you that I didn’t. Besides Jesus commands us to be baptized but not for the reason you think. In 1Pet 3:21 He states “that baptism now saves you”.(born again) according to you. In 1Pet 1:23, he states, “you have been born again through the living and enduring WORD of God.” Which is it that saves you, the “born again” in baptism or the “born again” by the Word of God?

You claim you are not in the either/or cage, yet you continue to demonstrate that you are. One need not choose one here, as BOTH are true. They are not separated from one another. It is only your either/or thinking that separates them (with a little help from heresy)

 If you can’t see the contradiction here, you may be trapped in thinking that baptism does something which it does not do.

There is no contradiction here, except in your mind and heart. Baptism does everything that is written in the NT.

  Not my interpretation, it’s in the Bible read it.s,

Yes, it is your interpretation here that is the problem.

 Paul states ”John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance”  Wasn’t Christian baptism already then.  No Holy Spirit here yet! Until Paul laid hands on them.

Many of those who had John’s baptism did not recieve a Christian baptism, as it had not yet been instituted.

God was demonstrating that the HS is given by the authority of theApostles.

Peter has a hard time making things clear as evidenced above and now watch this. In Acts 2:38, he says, “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins” He has you thinking that in baptism sins are forgiven. Right? In Acts 26:17-18, Jesus states,” I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive FORGIVENESS of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” Which is it forgiveness of sins in baptism or in Jesus?

It is BOTH, again you are hindered by that either/or thinking. Our sins are forgiven when we are baptized into His death.

 What I’m saying is that baptism is only a sign of repentance turning to God as it clearly states in Scripture

You are making a statement that is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

but you claim that baptism makes one born again and sins are washed away, forgiven etc…

Yes. This is what the Apostles believed and taught.

You arrived at that from the incorrect interpretation of John 3:5

No, Ed. Catholics, unlike our separated brethren, do not extrapolate doctrine from one verse of scripture.

We arrived at this interpretation because this is what was believed and taught by the Apostles. those passages appear in scripture because they reflect what the Apostles believed and taught. Once you are brave enough to explore the history of your faith, you will find that this is what the Church believed and practiced throughout the 3 centuries that there was no Bible, as well as consistently since.

That Scripture does mention water but not baptism. Read from verse 6 on and you’ll see why it isn’t baptism. If it meant baptism, Jesus would have told Nicodemus to go see John and be baptized that’s how you’ll be born again.

Jesus taught the Apostles that we are born above by water and spirit in baptism.

 Concerning the Holy Spirit.  Acts 8:15 Peter and John arrived from Jerusalem  to pray for newly BAPTIZED Christians (Acts 8:12) to receive the Holy Spirit. V16 because the Holy Spirit HAD NOT come unto them yet; they were baptized in the name of Jesus v17 Then Peter and John place their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.  And my guess is that they spoke in tongues because Simon saw some kind of power that he wanted  to buy. When Cornelius’ group received the Holy Spirit they too spoke in tongues as well as did the disciples did in Acts 19:6.  ED O

Yes. God was demonastrating that the HS was given by the authority he gave to the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

You twist what I say. It always has to be the TWO because when a person  repents that's being sorry and asking God for forgiveness (non-physical).

According to what/whose rule does asking for forgiveness have to be “non physical”? Does that mean Publican really didn’t go home justified?

The outward sign of repenting is the physical being baptized.

And the Apostles taught that the sacrament accomplishes what it signifies.

(2) concerning Acts 19:4-6 What you are now saying is in order to receive the Holy Spirit (Christian baptism as you call it) a person has to re-baptized with the laying of hands and in order to know that they did receive the Holy Spirit they speak in tongues.

No, the HS infuses the soul at baptism. The laying on of hands releases the HS in whom the believer has been sealed.

However, in no case is God bound my the sacraments that He gives us. The are channels of His grace, but He can pour out His grace in any way He chooses.

According to you and per Acts 2:38 your sins are forgiven in baptism. In Acts 26:17-18 Jesus says He forgives sins. So where are the sins forgiven in the water at baptism or in the belief in Jesus? Explain it!

It is not "either/o, Ed. In baptism, a prayer of repentance from sin is made, and a profession of faith. The HS saves the soul through the water. All these things go together.

 

[guanophore]

Only the BIBLE is infallible.

No, Ed. The Bible cannot be infallible. The charism of infallibility applies only to persons. In order to be fallible, one must be able to act, to choose, to discern, and to take responsibility. Scritpure, however, Holy, does not posess these characteristics. That is why Jesus built a Church, made of persons. The Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
It is this error or ascribing qualities to Scriptures that it does not posess that has produced so many divisions in the Body.

Pope Gregory XII , Benedict XIII and Alexander V. All three claim to be the real pope at the same time… Each excommunicated each other. All three were later deposed by the Council of Constance. Then later, only Gregory XII of the three reappeared on the official lists as a legitimate pope, yet he was deposed by the Council of Constance.

Ed, none of these people or events at all relate to the charism of infallibility. The fact that you bring them as evidence to that fact demonstrates that you do not understand the doctrien.

The papal infallibility was established at First Vatican Council in 1870.

No, Ed. Papal infallibility was established by Jesus when He promised to send His spirit to lead the Church into all Truth. He kept His promises that the gates of hell would not prevail.

Pledging to turn to God (good conscience repenting) is not pledging to obey all of what God commands us.  He never commands us to turn to Him

Of course He calls upon all to repent and believe. Repent means to turn away from sin and to God. No one can, of themselves, present an appeal of a clean conscience toward God. Only the HS, by the blood of Jesus, can cleanse the heart and conscience.

Doing something in God’s name Mat 28: 19, is not the same as calling on God’s name

In this case it is, Ed. In the Rite of Christian Baptism, the candidate calls upon His name and is then baptized in His name.

Rom 10:13 mentions only the calling of his name You then tell me it’s both calling on His name and baptism.]/quote]

When you explore the ancient rites of baptism, you will see that these have always gone together.
EdOsiecki;5609981:

I can plainly read and understand

Yes, you and millions of other individuals, each coming up with his own ideas. The nature of reading is that we interpret what we read. Catholics read from the point of view of those who penned the books. You do not. That is why we understand it differently.

I would still be saved but you can’t reverse the order and be saved.

No, Ed. God is not bound my the sacraments. He can save whoever He wants, however He likes.

Baptizing a person and doing it in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit is not the calling on the name to be saved. Calling and doing are two different things. ED O.

Both of these are included together in the Rite. The Apostles never separated them.

 

[guanophore]

you tell me which of the three popes were infallible?

The charism of infallibility was given to the Church, not to any individual. It only applies to the successor of Peter when he is acting on behalf of the Church. None of the persons during the scandals were doing so, and therefore, did not enjoy the charism of infallibility.

Furthermore, infallibility does not mean impeccability. The successors of Peter are not prevented from personal errors or sins.

I think you are just throwing this in because you are beginning to realize that what the Catholic Church believes and teaches is, in fact, the same as what the Apostles taught and you are out of arguements. You also tried throwing in a wrench about the identity of the woman in Rev. 12. This is just an effort on your part to derail the thread (an activity which is against the rules, as well as a poor debate technique) because you are losing.

 

[hosemonkey]

The charism of infallibility was given to the Church, not to any individual. It only applies to the successor of Peter when he is acting on behalf of the Church. None of the persons during the scandals were doing so, and therefore, did not enjoy the charism of infallibility.

Furthermore, infallibility does not mean impeccability. The successors of Peter are not prevented from personal errors or sins.

I actually think that Ed lost the debate many posts ago. His attempts at debate are just the last kicks of a dying argument. protestantism is fundamentally flawed. This is why so many protestants who approach Catholic teaching with an open mind wind up Catholic. You still have a chance to come back Ed, lose your arrogance and get back to where you belong, Jesus will forgive for your errors in running after the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[guanophore]

Yes you are correct. Not only Luther but some others (reformers) too. They were still ingrained into Catholicism.

Indeed. To this extent, they continued to hold to the Teaching of the Apostles.

But you have the Scriptures before you. Read John 3:5 and see if you get baptism out of that Scripture. The Catholic church baptized infants for them to become born again based on John 3:5. ED O.

No, Ed, you are in error. The Church did not base any of her teachings or practices on the NT. They were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Only our separated brethren try to extrapolate doctrine from scriptures separated from what the Apostles taught.

Part of the criteria for which books were to be included with the Canon is that their contents was consistent with the Teachings of the Apostles.

 

[Filioque]

The charism of infallibility was given to the Church, not to any individual. It only applies to the successor of Peter when he is acting on behalf of the Church. None of the persons during the scandals were doing so, and therefore, did not enjoy the charism of infallibility.

Furthermore, infallibility does not mean impeccability. The successors of Peter are not prevented from personal errors or sins.

I think you are just throwing this in because you are beginning to realize that what the Catholic Church believes and teaches is, in fact, the same as what the Apostles taught and you are out of arguements. You also tried throwing in a wrench about the identity of the woman in Rev. 12. This is just an effort on your part to derail the thread (an activity which is against the rules, as well as a poor debate technique) because you are losing.

Our Lord spoke of Ed’s in the Scriptures. He has ears but he hears not. The issues surrounding a Validly Elected Pope and concurrent Anti-Popes has been discussed before. He fails to admit that the Catholic Church only recognized one man as Pope, and the other two were not Popes, but anti-Popes, because the Protestant sources which teach in error that there were three Popes all at once, are the traditions of men that he chooses to belive. Just as it has been upheld that the Catholic Teaching on Papal Infallibility is not a personal charism, which is exercised in the day to day life of the Pope.

He even tried to get me to agree with him that his poor education on Judaism was true. If I had not been raised in an Observant Sephardi home, and been held to a higher standard in my religious studies because my Grandfather was one of the Rabbis in the Sephardi Bet Din, I still harbors the, “It may be possible” but does not want to let go of his need to be the only one who knows the truth, over the Apostles and Early Church Fathers or anyone who came before himself.

 

[guanophore]

How else does one find the truth, except through Scriptures.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is alive and well in the Church that He founded, of which He is the Head, and to whom He promised to lead into all Truth. That Church, which produced the Bible, is an equally reliable Source of Truth.

Here you seem to oppose man-made traditions, yet you rely on them for your church doctrine? Doesn’t make sense to me?

No, it would not. You see, Catholic doctrine does not come from humans, but from Christ. The Sacred Traditions are the Word of God that was commited to the Church by the Apostles. They all have their Source in the HS, which is why the NT could be infallibly created from them.

 

[guanophore]

In Mat 16:17-18, Jesus replied, “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. v18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” My question, is Peter the Rock that the Catholic church is being built upon? ED O.

Jesus is THE Rock. He grafted Peter into Himself, renaming him to “Rock”. The statement Peter made is also a reliable “rock” upon which our faith stands. To the extent that Jesus Church is built upon the Apostles and Prophets as the Foundation, yes, Peter is part of that Foundation.

What does this have to do with the topic? I think you are squirting octupus ink.

You agree 100% that Mary needed a Savior.  Then you say, "I believe" that she was given special grace and God kept her a perpetual virgin.  Aren't you adding to Scripture, when you say ,"I believe".

No, not a bit. The entire NT was "added’ by the Catholic Church. It reflects what Catholics believe, but it is not the Source of our faith. Jesus is the Source.

 My question, why do you believe that it was necessary for her to remain a virgin?   Would it make her less holy if she had relations with Joseph?  Why would Joseph then want to marry her without relations?   By allowing Joseph to marry her she would have committed treachery and poured contempt upon the holy covenant of marriage.  ED O.

There is another thread running on this topic. It has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Are you deliberately trying to derail because you were overcome with the Catholic teaching on baptism?

. I’m aware that Pope Formosus was restored. Who ran the church for the twenty years of feuding in this case? Three popes claiming to be the official pope elsewhere, and on and on and elsewhere. Also Peter is not the Rock that the church is built on. ED O

Neither of these has to do with the topic.

 

[guanophore]

For 34 years, I never found any Scripture that supports the infallibility  doctrine of the Catholic church. and I'm sure Jesus' church of the Bible is complete as it is written just as it was in the O.T.

No, Ed. Jesus’ Church is not “of the Bible” in the sense that you believe. Jesus’ Church preceeded the bible by three centuries. The Church was whole and entire, and functioned by the Teachings of the Apostles. The Church did not come from the Bible. It was the other way around! The Bible came from the Church.

The Bible was written, preserved, canonized and promulgated under the charism of inallibility. The HS inspired men to produce that which is without error.

The Pharisees and Sadducees’ man-made rules is what Jesus condemned.

Actually, Jesus had no arguement with man made rules. He only condemned them when they were contrary to God’s intentions. For example, we don’t see altar calls in the NT, but there is nothing wrong with them.

I now see a parallel. The Bible states only two Sacraments, from where did the other five come from?

All the sacraments come from Christ, and all are reflected in Scripture. However, this has nothing to do with the topic either, does it?

Since I could not find anything about the popes being infallible in the Scriptures, I found references to it in other sources. For exp. At the first Vatican Council 1870, of the 1,000 members that were present, 535 voted for and 2 against the infallibility, the others left without voting . Why on such an important doctrine? ED O.

I think you are just avoiding the topic, but if not, feel free to open a new thread on these other topics. I suggest you do so over in Apologetics.

 

[guanophore]

Hi placido, thanks for your reply. Many years ago, I was told that on the Rock of Peter the Catholic church was built. But do you know what? They since changed their mind per Catholic Catechism #424, “On the rock of THIS faith confessed by St.Peter, Christ built His church.” THIS faith was in Jesus the Rock. Yes you are right this thread is about infant baptism. So I’m asking you personaly for what reason is it necessary to baptized infants? Please give me a simple answer other than because the church tells you to do so. ED O.

What other reason would one need? Jesus sent His Apostles, and told them “he who hears you, hears me”. We received this from those whom He sent!

Don’t let that “either/or” stuff mess you up, Ed. It is both (again!).

 

[guanophore]

 What you say may some merit but in making a dogma there HAS to be a Scriptural basis for it, otherwise how would anyone know if it's true?

We know which doctrine is true because we received it from the Apostles, and the HS has preserved it in His Church.

Where in Scripture does it say that the “making of dogma must have a scriptural basis”?

If this were true, the Church would have fallen into error in the first 20 years, when none of the NT had yet been written, and in the centuries after, before the canon was formed.

If what you were claiming were true, then we would have to have the list of books that belongs in the Bible somewhere in the Bible!

Catholic dogma is reflected in the Bible, but it has it’s Source in Christ.

The only way one can be sure of that, is by checking the Scriptures exactly like the Bereans did in Acts 17:11.

This is all that is left to you, since you have rejected the promises made by Christ to His Church. I am sure you are doing the best you can with what you have.

The only way we can know the truth is what the Bible teaches.  ED O.

The Bible doesn’t teach, Ed. People teach. People have taught you that you cannot trust the Church founded by Christ to hold the Truth. People have taught you some errant ideas that are not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[po18guy]

Hi Placido, Thanks for your reply. I say this very respectfully, it seems to me that every time a Catholic sees the words “water or washing” to them, it always means water baptism which is far from the truth. That’s exactly what you are doing in Titus 3:5. Contrary to what you have been taught, no one is regenerated by water baptism. The Bible DOES NOT teach that and either does the first pope Peter. This is what he states in 1Pet 1:23 “For you have been “Born Again” ----through the living and enduring WORD of God.” (That’s not water baptism.) Here’s your problem. You quote 1Pet 3:21 ”Baptism now saves you“ But there’s more to that verse. It continues, “not the removal of dirt from your body but the PLEDGE OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARDS GOD” That’s what repentance means, the turning to God. When you quote only one half of a verse, it’s like my telling you that tomorrow you will get a million dollars. (the next day you would be expecting million dollars ) But when I say tomorrow you will get a million dollars, if you have the winning ticket, that makes a big difference, doesn’t it?. So 1Pet 3:21 very clearly means baptism by water is of repentance, otherwise Peter would be contradicting himself in 1:23. You quote Acts 22:16, “Be baptized and wash away your sins” You are making the same error again. There’s more to that verse. It continues with “calling on His (Jesus) name. It’s the calling of His name that saves and washes away the sins. Joel 2:32 “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” as well as Rom 10:13, John 3:16 and many more verses, The jailor in Acts 16:31 got saved by belief in the Lord Jesus. He then got baptized to show repentance. If there’s a Christian Baptism, as you say, that saves and the Holy Spirit is also received, then Jesus didn’t know about it. Acts 1:5, Jesus states, ”For John baptized with water but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." How then can the Holy Spirit be in John’s baptism too? ----- Please note that I haven’t replied to the above John 3:5. That’s the verse that caused all the baptism problems. I’ll deal with it later. ED O.

You do understand that your no-Baptism belief is a 100% made-in-America invention of the fundamentalist movement of the late 19th century? You do know that it appeared nowhere else in history until 1800s America? Where does the bible prophesy that?

Matthew 7:15
Matthew 24:11
Mark 13:22
2 Peter 2:1
1 John 4:1

 

[onenow1]

Job 14: 1 "Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He comes forth like a flower, and withers; he flees like a shadow, and continues not.
3 And dost thou open thy eyes upon such a one and bring him into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.

I believe emotionalism created the problem of not baptising infants, the above verses clearly point to the need.

Peace and God Bless all
onenow1