Telling children about Jesus is self-fulfilling with the bad news. Doesn’t really need much more explanation than to simply bring them to Sunday school and big church and it won’t be long and they fully understand it.
Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,a but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.b
a. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38. b. Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14.
>Mark 16:15-26
An infant cannot be preached the gospel to. You aren’t Jesus himself. >Acts 8:37-38 KJV
An infant is not a eunuch. >Genesis 17:7
Old Testament is fulfilled spiritually through confession, not birth aka ~~*born Christian*~~. >and 9
Same thing as before, You are not Abraham’s literal genetic child, you are spiritually inherited through Jesus. >Galatians 3:9
This verse actually affirms what I just said previously.
[They] which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. To be of faith you must confess with your mouth. A babe that has not yet conceived to speak cannot do. They are saved by faith, if they should die, if the offspring of believing parents, but no baptism is needed or will change that outcome by a priest. >Colossians 2:11-12 kjv
An Infant is just now coming into the world, at least by intendedness, not dying. An infant is going to be worldly and going to sin, and wanting to learn about the flesh they are just now born into. They aren’t interested in “being dead in Christ and being raised from the dead.” Quite yet. >Acts 2:38-39 kjv
An infant doesn’t know how to repent yet, yet he is in original sin, and doesn’t know that either.
All he can do is cry to his parents. He doesn’t want you the priest, moron. >Romans 4:11-12 kjv
Stuff about circumcision, you can be uncircumcised or circumcised, it doesn’t matter, he’ll get saved later. The pre-saved part of a believer’s life when born unto believing parents is invisible grace like the spiritual circumcision is invisible. No need to mark anyone, Satan. >Matthew 2819 kjv
Again nothing about the invisible world of the unborn infants here in scripture. This is why preaching is ongoing and about being careful to baptise at the right time. >Mark 10:13-16 kjv
These children could walk into Jesus. They weren’t brought by a woman giving suck to her infant still and asking Jesus to baptise it.
Being lifted up by Jesus as a child and told they are blessed is nice.
>Being lifted up by Jesus as a child and told they are blessed is nice.
Yeah but it's not even a baptism. Jesus is just saying I'm giving you a blessing from God's Son himself in the flesh. That means you are in God's hands and your life will be meaningful.
As in, they will still probably go be saved and get baptised later!
No it's just baptism.
Of course, Jesus doesn't do anything unless you believe first.
The children believed so they came to him, and the infants believed because like a blind puppydog the momma brought it to its owner.
2 years ago
Dirk
I'll take that as a yes
Have you considered the possibility that infants may be regenerate prior to faith
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nope, it's not that, it's Baptism.
2 years ago
Dirk
I don't understand what you're trying to say to me
When I ask "do you presuppose an Arminian ordo salutis" are you responding "no it's baptism"? That doesn't make grammatical sense
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Wanna go with 'em, Dirk?:
So that's a yes?
When I ask this it was about your soul.
I don't do theology, I do as the Word says, and if someone wants to touch a baby and bless it, that's fine, if they want to put water on their hands and touch it, that's fine, but it isn't a full dunking of the body, which is how baptism is done, and only after being saved and confessing by mouth.
I do how to get saved, Dirk.
You might want to escape God's Wrath and stop pushing it.
As in, when you get elderly and weak, I'm definitely not washing you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I don't do theology, I do as the Word says
Yikes >a full dunking of the body, which is how baptism is done
The bible literally never says that >You might want to escape God's Wrath and stop pushing it.
Please cope, brother
2 years ago
Anonymous
It does. You are baptised in the likeness of his death. Full dunk.
You are controlled opposition. Get out of the prostitute. >Yikes
Yep, bye now.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Brother please cope and get a grip.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Time to choose.
The antichrist mark makes you not able to die, yet you will want to every day.
>people came in and claimed Infant Baptism or hell.
Who did that?
Catholics first did it in history. Did you forget? >obedience to Christ is: infants are to be baptized.b >Anabaptism is heresy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes the true catholics, specifically the apostles, in accord with the institution of Christ. Do you think that Rome has something to do with it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You deceiver snake go burn in hell Satan I condemn you in Christ Jesus' name to the lake of fire for all eternity.
No the Apostles did not! They did not full dunk baptism. It isn't in the bible, and you lost. We already went through each verse you listed. You can make a new thread and try again with absolute proof if you want in the future.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>try again
Ok, I would cite Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14.
2 years ago
Anonymous
See pic.
Pic.
[...]
Mine.
I said you could try again in the future with a new thread. You were cooked on first try.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wait you just pasted the same verses.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes because the schizo ranting didn't change their meanings
2 years ago
Anonymous
I am saved by Jesus Christ's blood and already baptised in a full dunk baptism (in the likeness of his death) which is based on my salvation.
Your Verses quote no infant baptism doctrine. This isn't ESL, this is just Bible Sunday School in kindergarten to 3rd grade level learning.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The schizos here are Roman Catholics who will burn in hell.
And I cast you into the Fires of Hell with Peter's authorization in Christ Jesus in God.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Meds, who are you to be taking Jesus name in vain, no one but God can condemn a soul, even Michael said the Lord rebuke you to satan
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wrong, Jesus said we can judge and accuse, and I as a Christian just used my right to accuse Satan. have a nice day whiney baby.
God will use this to throw him into hell for being a liar and an accuser.
You didn’t pay the frick attention that Roman Catholics first shed blood over killing those that did not convert to their doctrines of demons, now it is you who suffer with the knowledge of your soul burning in hell before you go there as Real Christians that can actually read the Bible without fear of some sinning demon man wearing a robe claiming nobody else can condemn their soul to hell, along with their following perverts who refuse to get out of their church. God damn any who say nay as well. Go frick your mom the prostitute prostitute of Babylon in hell.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>have a nice day whiney baby
Why are Baptists like this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
That isn’t an argument. Your botnet is cursed.
What happens to kids before that? What happens to the mentally disabled who are unable to communicate this in any way?
Your lack of faith is what moved you to wrote demonic doctrines by having itching ears.
It’s already in the scriptures that believing families are protected by invisible grace. You weren’t allowed to touch the Holy Spirit and focus on it. By doing so you forced it to leave.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It’s already in the scriptures that believing families are protected by invisible grace.
Which book? I'd like to read this.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Roman Catholics already quoted it in the thread and got sent to hell for claiming it commands infant baptism as justification for killing baptists.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Should I trust them? You should have a passage that confirms God grants saving grace to the unbaptized family members of baptized faithful.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, all that is required is that we know it already in the heart. You are lucky to get exact numbers and book citation of which you should be thankful for.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you're unable to cite inspired scripture to support your doctrine, how can I trust it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Jesus couldn’t cite either.
I don’t cite out of refusal to because I don’t like the sound of someone who doesn’t know the scriptures and can;t see it is plainly truth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I just want to learn the truth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The truth is a believer wishes to choose salvation from the Lord, and to choose to get the full dunking of the baptism by their local pastor (bishop), after making a conscious choice when they became awake and a creature able to make this decision theirself. I certainly do not want someone telling ME, hey, you are Jesus’, you can’t change that, you never were not saved.
No, I was a heathen as a child and became as God’s children by being saved by the Lord.
To edit this and say there is no grace, but there is only righteousness, is to remove faith and holiness from the faith of the believers.
2 years ago
Anonymous
May I read the scripture that says this? Do you know which book, chapter, and verse this is at?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Only Jesus Christ was born without a choice, yet he still went to the garden of olive trees and could still make the choice to disobey God if he wanted to.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why aren't you citing scripture to support your doctrines? Are they fabricated for your benefit?
2 years ago
Anonymous
You and the papal authorities aren't Jesus though, not that I'm religious, but still.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes we are, and Peter authorized you to burn in hell.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You know this statement was made by the original church as well. Your institution hasn't been legitimate since Augustine.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The guy here
Yes we are, and Peter authorized you to burn in hell.
isnt catholic, if you follow the chain hes arguing against infant baptism and going on schizo rants about condemning people to Hell
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not condemned only to burn in hell, but to be vaporized to dust by cleansing fire from heaven in even more authority than that of scribes, but of highest commandment from GOD to utterly annihilate murderers and blaspheming Antichrist demons of Satan that have NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE LORD that have COMMITTED THE UNPARDONABLE SIN OF BLASPHEMING THE HOLY SPIRIT.
2 years ago
Anonymous
keep LARPing bro, you are just some random moron on IQfy, go to sleep wake up and go to your mcdonalds burger flipping job and chill
2 years ago
Anonymous
You don’t not know the LORD JESUS CHRIST. You are piece of shit filth. Kneel before God, mutt.
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
God will strangle you to death unmercifully and hatefully. The LORD’S ANGER in Jesus Christ’s name will burn you to utter destruction and cleanse the world that you were ever born.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Calling people pieces of shit and filth isn't very Christian of you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This isn’t the book of job. You don’t get to kill christians and then decide it isn’t Christian when God kills you, Satan.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I have the original church butt homosexual lover. I have peter rock. SO SAYETH THE LORD.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Jesus couldn’t cite either.
??? Jesus probably had all Scripture memorized and quotes vastly from the Old Testament, what are you even talking about you demented schizo.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Imagine being the ones who put that shit in their heart, about murdering infidels who won’t convert to infant baptism. And not even getting it right about salvation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Wrong, Jesus said we can judge and accuse, and I as a Christian just used my right to accuse Satan. have a nice day whiney baby.
Can I get a verse on this one? Also lots of profanity in your posts, not trying to accuse here but scripture says believers are long suffering, patient, kind, peaceful, self control. Any reading your posts sees you for what you are a IQfy schizo that read too mamy Chick tracts
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's nice of you to blow up and judge the antichrists after so much longsuffering, anon. God bless the anon for cursing them to hell, because they are propagating violence towards Biblical Baptism for the sake of their dogmas from the prostitute of Babylon.
Thanks, you can go to hell too anon.
Why aren't you citing scripture to support your doctrines? Are they fabricated for your benefit?
Go frick your mom, the prostitute of babylon, UN botnet.
Actually, I feel quite secure in my condemnations towards you, Satan, and I look forward to asking God for a way of hearing your shrieks in the lake of fire when ever I want to hear it.
You will never see my nakedness in the glory of flesh that Christ Jesus in God has in store for me, and you will never uncover my life that Christ has hid me in God.
I already am saved, it is you who now cannot be saved.
For you sought that which cannot be forgiven, and said I have found it, and I shall pass through whatever cannot be forgiven and is not pardonable with God.
Cleansed is my flesh,
These words, they do heal,
Useless homosexual.
I already am saved, it is you who now cannot be saved.
For you sought that which cannot be forgiven, and said I have found it, and I shall pass through whatever cannot be forgiven and is not pardonable with God.
Cleansed is my flesh,
These words, they do heal,
Useless homosexual.
Not being snarky this time but I just cannot decipher your esl manner of writing
If you don't "do theology" then stop posting on that topic
2 years ago
Anonymous
The topic isn't theology, it's should only adults be baptised, which I answered, and then people came in and claimed Infant Baptism or hell.
You joined in with that and brought weird words nobody cares about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>people came in and claimed Infant Baptism or hell.
Who did that?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wanna go with 'em, Dirk?:
Did you know that you can do nothing to my soul? But my God will to yours.
Mark 16 and Acts 8 were cited as prooftexts for the baptism of "those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ" >Old Testament is fulfilled spiritually through confession
Actually the Old Testament is fulfilled in Jesus, but that doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation here >You are not Abraham’s literal genetic child
Abraham's covenant was with his spiritual children, NOT his physical ones, which is why this is cited alongside Gal. 3 which says that explicitly. See also Galatians 4 >They aren’t interested in “being dead in Christ and being raised from the dead.”
Baptism is not a believer's self-expression but a gracious act of God upon them. >An infant doesn’t know how to repent yet
Repentance before baptism is required only of adult converts. >Stuff about circumcision
Specifically that "stuff" says circumcision was the seal of the righteousness one already had by faith. This is a very accurate description of baptism as well, especially under the Baptist conception where baptism is little more than a mark of pre-existing faith. This text shows the sacramental unity which exists between circumcision and baptism, as well as the fact that baptism's connection to faith in no way disqualifies children from it anymore than they were disqualified from circumcision.
>Again nothing about the invisible world of the unborn infants
I don't know what that supposed to mean, but the object of baptism here is "nations". Whole nations are to be covenanted to God, and that includes children, who are not excluded from the universal command to baptize here. >These children could walk into Jesus.
It says they were brought to Him. Luke makes it clear they were infants anyways, and the point here is about the covenant status of Christian children rather than their specific age anyways.
>Being lifted up by Jesus as a child and told they are blessed is nice.
Yeah but it's not even a baptism. Jesus is just saying I'm giving you a blessing from God's Son himself in the flesh. That means you are in God's hands and your life will be meaningful.
As in, they will still probably go be saved and get baptised later!
You are not in God's hands if you are not in covenant with Him. The promise to Abraham, which is inherited by ourselves, is "I will be a God to you and to your seed after you". This is why we are to suffer the little ones to come to Jesus.
>Luke 18:15 KJV
There we go, an actual infant verse. Thank Jesus that you Catholics should rope yourself. >"That he should touch them."
No baptism! Interesting! >1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV
Yep, but it doesn't say infant baptism.
In conclusion: There is no Doctrine for Infant Baptism in the Bible that means you can slaughter people for not practicing it.
You can take care of babies and clean their baby room and put diapers on them and they are holy already because they are saved.
Likewise when you are elderly, you will need help when you grow weak to stay clean.
>No baptism! >Yep, but it doesn't say infant baptism.
Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. The fact our children are members of this covenant means they must be baptized. Where does scripture say these members of the covenant are to be excluded from its sign?
[...]
Second Conclusion: God Damn you and your souls. Mother Fricker.
Again Catholics threatening everyone else with hellfire because Infant Baptism is the only way to heaven (don't need Jesus Christ, don't need God, just baptism of water for the baby).
And they can't provide a verse which commands this and to kill everyone like Muhammed that doesn't follow it like infidels.
No Baptism of Water proof that saves you.
These are not directions for how to give birth and have a baby and take care of it. This pertains to salvation, which comes by belief first only.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did you know that you can do nothing to my soul? But my God will to yours.
Are you KJVonly by any chance?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Infant Baptism is the only way to heaven
Doesn't literally the very first Baptism recorded in the Bible obliterate this opinion? Oh right, Protestantism happened for a reason, and Catholicism is a common marker for corruption for a reason.
>Mark 16:15-26
An infant cannot be preached the gospel to. You aren’t Jesus himself. >Acts 8:37-38 KJV
An infant is not a eunuch. >Genesis 17:7
Old Testament is fulfilled spiritually through confession, not birth aka ~~*born Christian*~~. >and 9
Same thing as before, You are not Abraham’s literal genetic child, you are spiritually inherited through Jesus. >Galatians 3:9
This verse actually affirms what I just said previously.
[They] which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. To be of faith you must confess with your mouth. A babe that has not yet conceived to speak cannot do. They are saved by faith, if they should die, if the offspring of believing parents, but no baptism is needed or will change that outcome by a priest. >Colossians 2:11-12 kjv
An Infant is just now coming into the world, at least by intendedness, not dying. An infant is going to be worldly and going to sin, and wanting to learn about the flesh they are just now born into. They aren’t interested in “being dead in Christ and being raised from the dead.” Quite yet. >Acts 2:38-39 kjv
An infant doesn’t know how to repent yet, yet he is in original sin, and doesn’t know that either.
All he can do is cry to his parents. He doesn’t want you the priest, moron. >Romans 4:11-12 kjv
Stuff about circumcision, you can be uncircumcised or circumcised, it doesn’t matter, he’ll get saved later. The pre-saved part of a believer’s life when born unto believing parents is invisible grace like the spiritual circumcision is invisible. No need to mark anyone, Satan. >Matthew 2819 kjv
Again nothing about the invisible world of the unborn infants here in scripture. This is why preaching is ongoing and about being careful to baptise at the right time. >Mark 10:13-16 kjv
These children could walk into Jesus. They weren’t brought by a woman giving suck to her infant still and asking Jesus to baptise it.
Being lifted up by Jesus as a child and told they are blessed is nice.
>Luke 18:15 KJV
There we go, an actual infant verse. Thank Jesus that you Catholics should rope yourself. >"That he should touch them."
No baptism! Interesting! >1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV
Yep, but it doesn't say infant baptism.
In conclusion: There is no Doctrine for Infant Baptism in the Bible that means you can slaughter people for not practicing it.
You can take care of babies and clean their baby room and put diapers on them and they are holy already because they are saved.
Likewise when you are elderly, you will need help when you grow weak to stay clean.
The internet is like the walls of babylon.
Which is like the Bible.
Which is like your body and what you choose to mark it with.
By choosing violent doctrines, you all are choosing to edit the Bible and other people's lives by empty threats that you will fail to carry out because God doesn't allow Satan to do so on Christians.
Touching a baby’s head, or saying a prayer is called a blessing, not a baptism. A baptism is a full dunking of the entire body, where you trust the baptizer is going to catch you and bring you back out, which is like God who caught Jesus off the cross and resurrected him unto life.
Putting water or oil on someone else’s head is not a baptism, it is called anointing.
Even women know better than these people, and God also says so in His Word, that women are way wiser. Even they know circumcision is only for men, unless there was a special case where a girl was born with some kind of problem, and that women do not want to cast their baby into a pool of water completely dunked. Hence why baptism is done later, with consent of the saved individual. Meaning baptism follows being already saved. Sometimes they do it together but never before.
If you do the pic related then you are an elite obviously, and obviously need to see a doctor.
They are putting the same chemical that is in chemotherapy that causes people’s organs to glue together and become like it is just one big mass of flesh and can’t tell what anything is anymore into the Monoclonal antibodies and the vaccines.
This argument finds further support in the Paul's discussion of the olive tree in Romans 11. In the Old Testament, a standard figure for Israel was that of an olive tree. But as Paul explains, this is just one tree, one with ancient roots, which *spans* the transition between the older and newer covenants. The olive tree of the covenant is a tree that straddles both old and new covenant. The Roman Christians had been grafted into the same tree that Israel had grown on. We are dealing with just one Abrahamic tree.
Now, God made His covenant with Abraham *and his children* and offspring in Genesis 17.
God then requires Abraham and all the males among his descendants (including servants who are “bought with your money”) to be circumcised as part of the covenant (17:10).
Circumcision is called the “sign of the covenant” between God and Abraham (Genesis 17:11). The covenant God made with Abraham included his children, and this covenant required that Abraham’s male offspring receive the covenant sign of circumcision at eight days old. Those males who were not circumcised “break” the covenant (17:14), showing that males are born into the covenant. Thus, they receive the sign as those who are already in the covenant rather than entering the covenant through the sign.
The New Testament teaches that the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 is fulfilled in Christ and that the new covenant church thus inherits the promises made to Abraham. In Galatians 3:16, Paul says, “the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring.” Paul then identifies this “offspring”—“who is Christ.” So the promises God made to Abraham and his offspring apply to all who are in Christ. Those who believe in Christ, the church, inherit the promises made to Abraham. As Paul says in Galatians 3:7, “It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” And in Galatians 3:29, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” The church inherits the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.
This affirms the great continuity between old covenant Israel and the new covenant church. There has always been only one people of God, known as Israel before Christ came and as the church after His coming. Thus, the church is also known as the new Israel (Galatians 6:16).
This continuity of God’s people is also seen in Romans 11:17-24, where Paul tells us that the Gentiles have been grafted into God’s olive tree. The church and Israel cannot be separated as two peoples of God because the Gentiles were grafted into the true Israel (and unbelieving israelites cut off). Gentiles and israelites have been made “one” (Ephesians 2:14), are “one new man in place of two” (Ephesians 2:15), and are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19).
Circumcision was the sign of entrance into the Abrahamic covenant, yet Christians agree we are not to practice circumcision for religious purposes today. Christians also agree that baptism is the sign of entrance into the new covenant. So what is the relationship between these two signs? The answer seems obvious. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. There is no other possible replacement.
Moreover, circumcision and baptism signify the same thing, as they are outward signs of inward regeneration. Paul speaks of both circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12:
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
“A circumcision made without hands” refers to regeneration. This is seen in the Old Testament when God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their hearts (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4). However, God also promised to do this for His people Israel in Deuteronomy 30:6—“And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” God promised to circumcise the hearts of israelites *and their offspring*. Regeneration is not a new concept to the new covenant church, and it is of note that God promised to do this to the offspring of believers.
In Col 2, Paul links this circumcision of heart (regeneration) with being “buried with him in baptism,” including spiritual death and resurrection. Thus, physical circumcision signifies the same thing baptism does—regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of the inward washing and renewal of the Christian. The spiritual nature of Old Testament circumcision is also seen in Paul’s words in Romans, “For no one is a israelite who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a israelite is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Romans 2:28-29).
The spiritual nature of circumcision is clear. Yet credobaptists still object that baptism cannot be given to children because it is tied with faith. However, this objection misses the point that circumcision was also tied with faith. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 4:11 that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Circumcision was not simply a physical sign tied with the land promise. Rather, circumcision was a spiritual sign that signified the righteousness that Abraham had by faith.
It is essential to note that Abraham received the sign after he had believed, but he was commanded by God to give the sign to his male children—before they could profess faith. Thus, God commanded children to receive the covenant sign even though the children did not yet possess the very thing the sign signified, namely righteousness by faith (or at least the professed faith that credobaptists require). Circumcision was a sign of the righteousness Abraham had by faith, yet it was still given to his children (Romans 4:11). To object to baptism being given to children because it is tied with faith is to object to circumcision being given to Abraham’s children. We must avoid the logic that leads to credo-circumcision.
5/9
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thus we see that the new covenant is a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant and that baptism has replaced circumcision as the entrance into the covenant.
It is therefore only right that one would expect to see a continuation of the inclusion of a believer’s children in the covenant in the New Testament. And this continuation is exactly what we see in the “household” baptisms in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians:
>He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household (Acts 11:14).
>One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us (Acts 16:14-15).
>Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God (Acts 16:30-34).
6/9
2 years ago
Anonymous
(cont.)
>Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8).
>I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else (1 Corinthians 1:16).
None of these passages specifically says that infants were baptized. Acts 11:14 does not even mention baptism. But what is important in these verses is the use of the word “household” [οἶκος, oikos]. This is a clear allusion to the language of Genesis 17 and the covenant of circumcision. Abraham is said to have circumcised the men of his “house” [οἶκος in the LXX] in Genesis 17:23 and 17:27. The book of Acts could have simply named the individuals who believed in Christ. But the language of “household” is purposely used in order to pick up the covenantal language of Genesis 17.
The fact is that none of these passages are explicit as to whether infants were present in the “households” baptized in the book of Acts. But the very fact that the “household” language is used in Acts is evidence that God still deals with families as a unit. This supports the covenantal inclusion of a believer’s children, and this is exactly what one would expect to find in the book of Acts if the children of believers are included in the new covenant.
7/9
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again, Ephesians 6:1-4 is another important passage that shows that children belong in the new covenant community:
>Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Paul addresses “children” broadly. He presumes that children in the church are part of the church and does not make any distinction between those “professing” faith and those who do not. He simply addresses children as those “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1). Paul even cites the Fifth Commandment, showing the continuity between the old covenant and new covenant people of God. The Fifth Commandment was originally given to children in the old covenant, who were members of that covenant. Yet Paul here does not say that new covenant children are no longer members of the covenant until they profess faith. Thus, the principle of the inclusion of children in the covenant continues. God still deals with families as a unit.
Therefore, there is no place in the New Testament that teaches that children are excluded from the new covenant. Though this is assumed by credobaptists, there is no abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant and the inclusion of a believer’s children in the covenant. Moreover, the household baptisms in Acts and Paul’s words in Ephesians 6 presume continuity with the old covenant principle that children of believers are members of the church.
8/9
2 years ago
Anonymous
Conclusion
The church is the continuation of Old Testament Israel. Gentiles have been grafted in, and the church has inherited the promises made to Abraham. The new covenant is a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant. The promise to believers and their children still remains. Children of Christians are members of the new covenant and are to receive the sign of baptism. These children are “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), and Christian parents are to bring up these children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).
Christian children are not included in the church because of professed faith—they are included in the church because God has put them in the church. Christian parents are to therefore raise their children in the church and disciple them as they would other believers.
It is not our job to purify the church more than God has commanded us to. God has put the children of believers in the covenant, and nowhere has he put them out. The visible church consists of believers and their children, and we are to therefore give the new covenant sign of baptism to the children of believers. We must then do our due diligence to raise such children to live according to the way of Christ.
9/9
2 years ago
Anonymous
>renewal of old covenant >hurrhurr let me tell you your religion I’m a gay
I don't know what all the spam is supposed to be about, but children can't make the decision to crucify the old man. They can't be born again. Infants are also born sinless. The idea of them being born with a guilt of sin is something Augustine invented since he was an ex gnostic and they believed sin lived in the flesh. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Infant baptism is just making wet upset babies. It does nothing more
>I don't know what all the spam is supposed to be about
It speaks for itself. None so blind as those who have eyes but do not see.
>hurt hurr I’m a israelite because I’m catholic
>renewal of old covenant >hurrhurr let me tell you your religion I’m a gay
See:
>Wrong, Jesus said we can judge and accuse, and I as a Christian just used my right to accuse Satan. have a nice day whiney baby.
Can I get a verse on this one? Also lots of profanity in your posts, not trying to accuse here but scripture says believers are long suffering, patient, kind, peaceful, self control. Any reading your posts sees you for what you are a IQfy schizo that read too mamy Chick tracts
Well seems to be trying to confuse a matter that's very straightforward. Talking about Paul and unrelated things. It's nonsensical in relation to the topic.
Do you know who wrote most of the epistles in the New Testament? The human author, I mean.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did you know an infant has no idea what's going on so can't repent and be born again like Jesus describes in baptism? I'm not interested in talking about other issues.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The guy cited scripture to back his arguments and you implied you didn't know who Paul is. >Talking about Paul and unrelated things.
As if Paul's inspired writings are somehow unrelated to the faith.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What are you talking about. Nothing was backed up with scripture. It was a whole bunch of scripture talking about nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Wall of texting is not an argument. Have a dialogue or leave.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>have a dialogue >doesnt engage with what the other person posted first and calls it unrelated
youre not very smart are you?
[...]
backs up his point with scripture and exegesis, all you have is "uhh children cant make an assent of faith so therefore shouldnt be baptized"
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've already stated my argument. Jesus specifically says that you must repent and then be born again. An infant can do neither. Just copying and pasting the entire Bible and saying your argument against that is somewhere in there is not an argument.
Do you have a response to my claim? Why is my claim wrong? Go.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Born again of what? Water and Spirit, theres nothing that says they must happen at the same time, it is possible that one can be regenerated by baptism before having reason, what about a mentally handicapped person, should they be refused baptism?
That series of posts explains very well the relation of baptism to the new covenant, you ignoring biblical evidence and only wanting to see baptism thru your pressuposed "believers baptism" idea is wrong, you need to consider the whole Bible in context not merely your point of view
2 years ago
Anonymous
>theres nothing that says they must happen at the same time,
Being born of the water is the first birth. Amniotic fluid. That was a common idiom. Then he talks about being born again which is the spiritual birth. That is when you become baptized. He lists out the prerequisites. You must repent. An infant cannot do that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>amniotic fluid
That interpretation completely butchers the passage as it would give assent to what nicodemus says about going back into the womb >That was a common idiom.
Theres absolutely no evidence from antiquity that this was so
To be born again as John 3:5 says you are born of water AND spirit, both are needed.
>An infant cannot do that.
Neither can some adults due to illnesses or physical incapabilities
>regenerated by baptism
Regeneration is an immediate and spontaneous act of the Holy Spirit, see John 3:8
Baptism is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit yes, its monergistic, the person performing the baptism is merely an instrument, but thats not what John 3:8 is about John 3:8 is about how we cant really understand the work of the Spirit, its purity and freedom it brings.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>To be born again as John 3:5 says you are born of water AND spirit
I would agree that his interpretation, though common, is weird, novel and wrong, but "water" doesn't refer to the sacrament of baptism. That is an interpretation which is both unjustified by the context and perhaps most importantly was inaccessible by the man Jesus was actually speaking to as the sacrament of Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. The most sensible interpretation in my opinion is that "water" here is a figure for holiness, so that the meaning of Christ's words are "You must be made holy by the Holy Spirit", the nature of the new birth being one where a new creation is made to serve God with good works. >Baptism is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit yes
That doesn't mean it causes regeneration, it is intended for those who are already regenerate >the person performing the baptism is merely an instrument, but thats not what John 3:8 is about
I would agree, and that wasn't why I cited it. What John 3:8 says is that like the wind we can't see the Spirit, we don't know where He came from or where He's going, though we can see the signs of His coming. This would not be true if His gracious work of regeneration was tied down to baptism.
Which comes only by believing in the sin of God.
It precedes faith and causes you to believe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>would agree that his interpretation, though common, is weird, novel and wrong, but "water" doesn't refer to the sacrament of baptism. That is an interpretation which is both unjustified by the context
Thats why you need the whole Bible from genesis to revelation to provide context to how the apostles saw baptism, which is why that string of posts pointing to what Paul believed about baptism are important
>That doesn't mean it causes regeneration, it is intended for those who are already regenerate
The Bible clearly teaches and every early christian believes in baptismal regeneration
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Thats why you need the whole Bible from genesis to revelation to provide context to how the apostles saw baptism
This seems to be a simple concession that the citation of John 3 for baptismal regeneration has no actual basis in that text. The Old Testament teaches baptismal regeneration, really? Where does it do that? Maybe some kind of circumcisional regeneration? >string of posts pointing to what Paul believed about baptism
I read those, and there wasn't anything I disagreed with in them. They in fact seem to contradict baptismal regeneration explicitly, by noting that baptism is an outward sign of inward regeneration. >The Bible clearly teaches and every early christian believes in baptismal regeneration
I completely disagree on both points. I think it is clearly unbiblical, and I think the claim that "everyone" in the early Church subscribed to it is very dubious. I do not think it was even a majority view until the middle ages
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I would agree that his interpretation, though common, is weird, novel and wrong, but "water" doesn't refer to the sacrament of baptism.
Different anon here. The early Church Fathers, both East and West, agree that John 3:5 is talking about baptism. This was **unanimous**; no one disagreed. (For proof, see the citations here: https://unsettledchristianity.com/church-fathers-on-john-3-5/
OR here: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/22/early-church-fathers-on-john-35-and-water-baptism/)
Now, these Fathers spoke and wrote in different languages. The only way to explain how they were united in interpreting John 3:5 in the same fashion is that that teaching was handed on from the apostles who founded their churches, with those apostles all teaching the same doctrine: to be "born again of water and Spirit" means water baptism.
>amniotic fluid
That interpretation completely butchers the passage as it would give assent to what nicodemus says about going back into the womb >That was a common idiom.
Theres absolutely no evidence from antiquity that this was so
To be born again as John 3:5 says you are born of water AND spirit, both are needed.
>An infant cannot do that.
Neither can some adults due to illnesses or physical incapabilities
[...]
Baptism is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit yes, its monergistic, the person performing the baptism is merely an instrument, but thats not what John 3:8 is about John 3:8 is about how we cant really understand the work of the Spirit, its purity and freedom it brings.
is correct: the idea that "water" in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid is crazy, and there is no basis either in or outside scripture for making such a tortured and dubious interpretation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This was **unanimous**; no one disagreed
Yeah I don't buy that. >For proof, see the citations here:
Reading lists of quotes on blogs with theological bias is not how one studies church history. >The only way to explain how they were united in interpreting John 3:5 in the same fashion is that that teaching was handed on from the apostles who founded their churches, with those apostles all teaching the same doctrine: to be "born again of water and Spirit" means water baptism.
Ah yes, that essential sacred tradition. Surely, when Paul was leaving Ephesus and encouraged the elders to maintain the faith, surely the last thing he left them with was "John 3:5 is about baptism".
2 years ago
Anonymous
Responding to your last statement, and not that anon, yes, anybody talking about .the early church fathers”, “baptismal regeneration” are lunatic schizos from the mafia snake oil salesmen. Alex Jones doesn’t even do that crap, yet is accused of being a snake oil merchant. Must all be jealousy from the former crowd.
Anyone who comes to Jesus Christ and says “Master! It is good for you to bring healing, I require life from such a good teacher!” Is automatically as Jesus said, a dog. Jesus brings life through faith, and our life we have now is faith that are saved. That is why Satan is so wroth, is because he knows there are some here resurrected from the dead posting, and is fricking seething because he wants those people to be dead still.
Hallelujah, because God should have just killed them then. Because we are not going to let up from Satan’s throat now that we recognize our killer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>regenerated by baptism
Regeneration is an immediate and spontaneous act of the Holy Spirit, see John 3:8
2 years ago
Anonymous
Which comes only by believing in the sin of God.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Son of God
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why was that post deleted?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I made a typo, deleted & reposted the very slightly revised text.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes they write the entire bible and say see it says what I said it says. It says We are taking your manhood away from
Baptism so that you can’t feel like actual men when you grow up and go be with God the Father through Jesus Christ because we pedophile groomed you like homosexual demons when you were an infant. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THIS THREAD IS BEING GROOMED EVERY MOMENT IS ALLOWS THESE PEODPHILES TO SPEAK A WORD that they are not vaporized where they stand by fire from heaven. KILL THEIR BODIES, curse their spirits, and DAMN THEIR SOULS. Amen and Amen.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Keep seething bro, God wont listen to a word you have to say, youre a lonely IQfy schizo, the same rule you use to judge will be used on you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes because you seek the unforgivable sin God will do the same to you. You are binder in the darkness and in hell.
If you think that by stating the truth of Hod that I am bound here, you are only shedding your deception to yourself. You can’t argue only lie lie lie. So you will die die die.
Flood more dragon, flood more. Your anger will be met with your eternal reward in shrieks in hell. God crushes your soul.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Writing insults and threats must really inflate your ego, keep puffing yourself up as a man of God the more you talk the more Satan has you in your grasp
2 years ago
Anonymous
Satan is the one being devoured by hell and locked up. God damn your soul. God damn your soul. God damn your soul.
There is no cross for you here. There is no Jesus Christ dying on th cross for you here. There is no cross of Christ Jesus for you here.
Perophiles burn in hell.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yep preach it brother you know the truth on that point you are repeating about the infant not knowing anything yet, for he is still innocent in knowledge of his sin. God said do not make little ones to know they sinned if they aren’t aware of it, but to preach only the gospel and wait for them to come to be saved.
Whenever as early the child says they confess Jesus Christ as savior you let them be baptised.
Probably also an understanding of sin, and repentance.
Telling children about Jesus is self-fulfilling with the bad news. Doesn’t really need much more explanation than to simply bring them to Sunday school and big church and it won’t be long and they fully understand it.
What happens to kids before that? What happens to the mentally disabled who are unable to communicate this in any way?
I am not the most well-read Christian, so my view can be discarded if you so wish. Yet, I feel that a baptism is more significant when freely chosen.
Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,a but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.b
a. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38. b. Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14.
Amen anon. Anabaptism is heresy.
As in you are a heretic because you calling real christians heretics? Yes!
>let me tell you your religion.jpg
>Mark 16:15-26
An infant cannot be preached the gospel to. You aren’t Jesus himself.
>Acts 8:37-38 KJV
An infant is not a eunuch.
>Genesis 17:7
Old Testament is fulfilled spiritually through confession, not birth aka ~~*born Christian*~~.
>and 9
Same thing as before, You are not Abraham’s literal genetic child, you are spiritually inherited through Jesus.
>Galatians 3:9
This verse actually affirms what I just said previously.
[They] which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. To be of faith you must confess with your mouth. A babe that has not yet conceived to speak cannot do. They are saved by faith, if they should die, if the offspring of believing parents, but no baptism is needed or will change that outcome by a priest.
>Colossians 2:11-12 kjv
An Infant is just now coming into the world, at least by intendedness, not dying. An infant is going to be worldly and going to sin, and wanting to learn about the flesh they are just now born into. They aren’t interested in “being dead in Christ and being raised from the dead.” Quite yet.
>Acts 2:38-39 kjv
An infant doesn’t know how to repent yet, yet he is in original sin, and doesn’t know that either.
All he can do is cry to his parents. He doesn’t want you the priest, moron.
>Romans 4:11-12 kjv
Stuff about circumcision, you can be uncircumcised or circumcised, it doesn’t matter, he’ll get saved later. The pre-saved part of a believer’s life when born unto believing parents is invisible grace like the spiritual circumcision is invisible. No need to mark anyone, Satan.
>Matthew 2819 kjv
Again nothing about the invisible world of the unborn infants here in scripture. This is why preaching is ongoing and about being careful to baptise at the right time.
>Mark 10:13-16 kjv
These children could walk into Jesus. They weren’t brought by a woman giving suck to her infant still and asking Jesus to baptise it.
Being lifted up by Jesus as a child and told they are blessed is nice.
>Being lifted up by Jesus as a child and told they are blessed is nice.
Yeah but it's not even a baptism. Jesus is just saying I'm giving you a blessing from God's Son himself in the flesh. That means you are in God's hands and your life will be meaningful.
As in, they will still probably go be saved and get baptised later!
Does your argument for credobaptism rely on the view that faith precedes regeneration? Ie, Arminian ordo salutis?
No it's just baptism.
Of course, Jesus doesn't do anything unless you believe first.
The children believed so they came to him, and the infants believed because like a blind puppydog the momma brought it to its owner.
I'll take that as a yes
Have you considered the possibility that infants may be regenerate prior to faith
Nope, it's not that, it's Baptism.
I don't understand what you're trying to say to me
When I ask "do you presuppose an Arminian ordo salutis" are you responding "no it's baptism"? That doesn't make grammatical sense
>Wanna go with 'em, Dirk?:
So that's a yes?
When I ask this it was about your soul.
I don't do theology, I do as the Word says, and if someone wants to touch a baby and bless it, that's fine, if they want to put water on their hands and touch it, that's fine, but it isn't a full dunking of the body, which is how baptism is done, and only after being saved and confessing by mouth.
I do how to get saved, Dirk.
You might want to escape God's Wrath and stop pushing it.
As in, when you get elderly and weak, I'm definitely not washing you.
>I don't do theology, I do as the Word says
Yikes
>a full dunking of the body, which is how baptism is done
The bible literally never says that
>You might want to escape God's Wrath and stop pushing it.
Please cope, brother
It does. You are baptised in the likeness of his death. Full dunk.
You are controlled opposition. Get out of the prostitute.
>Yikes
Yep, bye now.
Brother please cope and get a grip.
Time to choose.
The antichrist mark makes you not able to die, yet you will want to every day.
Catholics first did it in history. Did you forget?
>obedience to Christ is: infants are to be baptized.b
>Anabaptism is heresy.
Yes the true catholics, specifically the apostles, in accord with the institution of Christ. Do you think that Rome has something to do with it?
You deceiver snake go burn in hell Satan I condemn you in Christ Jesus' name to the lake of fire for all eternity.
No the Apostles did not! They did not full dunk baptism. It isn't in the bible, and you lost. We already went through each verse you listed. You can make a new thread and try again with absolute proof if you want in the future.
>try again
Ok, I would cite Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14.
See pic.
I said you could try again in the future with a new thread. You were cooked on first try.
Wait you just pasted the same verses.
Yes because the schizo ranting didn't change their meanings
I am saved by Jesus Christ's blood and already baptised in a full dunk baptism (in the likeness of his death) which is based on my salvation.
Your Verses quote no infant baptism doctrine. This isn't ESL, this is just Bible Sunday School in kindergarten to 3rd grade level learning.
The schizos here are Roman Catholics who will burn in hell.
And I cast you into the Fires of Hell with Peter's authorization in Christ Jesus in God.
Meds, who are you to be taking Jesus name in vain, no one but God can condemn a soul, even Michael said the Lord rebuke you to satan
Wrong, Jesus said we can judge and accuse, and I as a Christian just used my right to accuse Satan. have a nice day whiney baby.
God will use this to throw him into hell for being a liar and an accuser.
You didn’t pay the frick attention that Roman Catholics first shed blood over killing those that did not convert to their doctrines of demons, now it is you who suffer with the knowledge of your soul burning in hell before you go there as Real Christians that can actually read the Bible without fear of some sinning demon man wearing a robe claiming nobody else can condemn their soul to hell, along with their following perverts who refuse to get out of their church. God damn any who say nay as well. Go frick your mom the prostitute prostitute of Babylon in hell.
>have a nice day whiney baby
Why are Baptists like this?
That isn’t an argument. Your botnet is cursed.
Your lack of faith is what moved you to wrote demonic doctrines by having itching ears.
It’s already in the scriptures that believing families are protected by invisible grace. You weren’t allowed to touch the Holy Spirit and focus on it. By doing so you forced it to leave.
>It’s already in the scriptures that believing families are protected by invisible grace.
Which book? I'd like to read this.
The Roman Catholics already quoted it in the thread and got sent to hell for claiming it commands infant baptism as justification for killing baptists.
Should I trust them? You should have a passage that confirms God grants saving grace to the unbaptized family members of baptized faithful.
No, all that is required is that we know it already in the heart. You are lucky to get exact numbers and book citation of which you should be thankful for.
If you're unable to cite inspired scripture to support your doctrine, how can I trust it?
Jesus couldn’t cite either.
I don’t cite out of refusal to because I don’t like the sound of someone who doesn’t know the scriptures and can;t see it is plainly truth.
I just want to learn the truth.
The truth is a believer wishes to choose salvation from the Lord, and to choose to get the full dunking of the baptism by their local pastor (bishop), after making a conscious choice when they became awake and a creature able to make this decision theirself. I certainly do not want someone telling ME, hey, you are Jesus’, you can’t change that, you never were not saved.
No, I was a heathen as a child and became as God’s children by being saved by the Lord.
To edit this and say there is no grace, but there is only righteousness, is to remove faith and holiness from the faith of the believers.
May I read the scripture that says this? Do you know which book, chapter, and verse this is at?
Only Jesus Christ was born without a choice, yet he still went to the garden of olive trees and could still make the choice to disobey God if he wanted to.
Why aren't you citing scripture to support your doctrines? Are they fabricated for your benefit?
You and the papal authorities aren't Jesus though, not that I'm religious, but still.
Yes we are, and Peter authorized you to burn in hell.
You know this statement was made by the original church as well. Your institution hasn't been legitimate since Augustine.
The guy here
isnt catholic, if you follow the chain hes arguing against infant baptism and going on schizo rants about condemning people to Hell
Not condemned only to burn in hell, but to be vaporized to dust by cleansing fire from heaven in even more authority than that of scribes, but of highest commandment from GOD to utterly annihilate murderers and blaspheming Antichrist demons of Satan that have NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE LORD that have COMMITTED THE UNPARDONABLE SIN OF BLASPHEMING THE HOLY SPIRIT.
keep LARPing bro, you are just some random moron on IQfy, go to sleep wake up and go to your mcdonalds burger flipping job and chill
You don’t not know the LORD JESUS CHRIST. You are piece of shit filth. Kneel before God, mutt.
God will strangle you to death unmercifully and hatefully. The LORD’S ANGER in Jesus Christ’s name will burn you to utter destruction and cleanse the world that you were ever born.
Calling people pieces of shit and filth isn't very Christian of you.
This isn’t the book of job. You don’t get to kill christians and then decide it isn’t Christian when God kills you, Satan.
I have the original church butt homosexual lover. I have peter rock. SO SAYETH THE LORD.
>Jesus couldn’t cite either.
??? Jesus probably had all Scripture memorized and quotes vastly from the Old Testament, what are you even talking about you demented schizo.
Imagine being the ones who put that shit in their heart, about murdering infidels who won’t convert to infant baptism. And not even getting it right about salvation.
>Wrong, Jesus said we can judge and accuse, and I as a Christian just used my right to accuse Satan. have a nice day whiney baby.
Can I get a verse on this one? Also lots of profanity in your posts, not trying to accuse here but scripture says believers are long suffering, patient, kind, peaceful, self control. Any reading your posts sees you for what you are a IQfy schizo that read too mamy Chick tracts
>It's nice of you to blow up and judge the antichrists after so much longsuffering, anon. God bless the anon for cursing them to hell, because they are propagating violence towards Biblical Baptism for the sake of their dogmas from the prostitute of Babylon.
Thanks, you can go to hell too anon.
Go frick your mom, the prostitute of babylon, UN botnet.
Actually, I feel quite secure in my condemnations towards you, Satan, and I look forward to asking God for a way of hearing your shrieks in the lake of fire when ever I want to hear it.
You will never see my nakedness in the glory of flesh that Christ Jesus in God has in store for me, and you will never uncover my life that Christ has hid me in God.
?t=109
Seek help
https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/what-is-the-unpardonable-sin-what-sin-wont-god-forgive
I already am saved, it is you who now cannot be saved.
For you sought that which cannot be forgiven, and said I have found it, and I shall pass through whatever cannot be forgiven and is not pardonable with God.
Cleansed is my flesh,
These words, they do heal,
Useless homosexual.
Yeah youre mentally ill
Yeah you are a banned bot network in God’s name.
Not being snarky this time but I just cannot decipher your esl manner of writing
If you don't "do theology" then stop posting on that topic
The topic isn't theology, it's should only adults be baptised, which I answered, and then people came in and claimed Infant Baptism or hell.
You joined in with that and brought weird words nobody cares about.
>people came in and claimed Infant Baptism or hell.
Who did that?
Wanna go with 'em, Dirk?:
Ew Calvinism.
Mark 16 and Acts 8 were cited as prooftexts for the baptism of "those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ"
>Old Testament is fulfilled spiritually through confession
Actually the Old Testament is fulfilled in Jesus, but that doesn't have anything to do with the interpretation here
>You are not Abraham’s literal genetic child
Abraham's covenant was with his spiritual children, NOT his physical ones, which is why this is cited alongside Gal. 3 which says that explicitly. See also Galatians 4
>They aren’t interested in “being dead in Christ and being raised from the dead.”
Baptism is not a believer's self-expression but a gracious act of God upon them.
>An infant doesn’t know how to repent yet
Repentance before baptism is required only of adult converts.
>Stuff about circumcision
Specifically that "stuff" says circumcision was the seal of the righteousness one already had by faith. This is a very accurate description of baptism as well, especially under the Baptist conception where baptism is little more than a mark of pre-existing faith. This text shows the sacramental unity which exists between circumcision and baptism, as well as the fact that baptism's connection to faith in no way disqualifies children from it anymore than they were disqualified from circumcision.
>Again nothing about the invisible world of the unborn infants
I don't know what that supposed to mean, but the object of baptism here is "nations". Whole nations are to be covenanted to God, and that includes children, who are not excluded from the universal command to baptize here.
>These children could walk into Jesus.
It says they were brought to Him. Luke makes it clear they were infants anyways, and the point here is about the covenant status of Christian children rather than their specific age anyways.
You are not in God's hands if you are not in covenant with Him. The promise to Abraham, which is inherited by ourselves, is "I will be a God to you and to your seed after you". This is why we are to suffer the little ones to come to Jesus.
>No baptism!
>Yep, but it doesn't say infant baptism.
Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. The fact our children are members of this covenant means they must be baptized. Where does scripture say these members of the covenant are to be excluded from its sign?
Seek help
Again Catholics threatening everyone else with hellfire because Infant Baptism is the only way to heaven (don't need Jesus Christ, don't need God, just baptism of water for the baby).
And they can't provide a verse which commands this and to kill everyone like Muhammed that doesn't follow it like infidels.
No Baptism of Water proof that saves you.
These are not directions for how to give birth and have a baby and take care of it. This pertains to salvation, which comes by belief first only.
Are you KJVonly by any chance?
>Infant Baptism is the only way to heaven
Doesn't literally the very first Baptism recorded in the Bible obliterate this opinion? Oh right, Protestantism happened for a reason, and Catholicism is a common marker for corruption for a reason.
Yes. Thank you.
Did you know that you can do nothing to my soul? But my God will to yours.
Pic.
Mine.
>Luke 18:15 KJV
There we go, an actual infant verse. Thank Jesus that you Catholics should rope yourself.
>"That he should touch them."
No baptism! Interesting!
>1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV
Yep, but it doesn't say infant baptism.
In conclusion: There is no Doctrine for Infant Baptism in the Bible that means you can slaughter people for not practicing it.
You can take care of babies and clean their baby room and put diapers on them and they are holy already because they are saved.
Likewise when you are elderly, you will need help when you grow weak to stay clean.
Second Conclusion: God Damn you and your souls. Mother Fricker.
Obviously not otherwise all children who die would go to hell
Says who?
As in they forgot Elder Baptism. Fricking morons.
Masters thesis topic: the relationship between the fundamental baptist movement and qboomerism
Should look at the connection between independent fundamental Baptists and schizophrenia instead
You won't find it, you will only find death, hell, and (you).
Here is your theology glasses.
learn my language before trying to sputter it out to me please
The internet is like the walls of babylon.
Which is like the Bible.
Which is like your body and what you choose to mark it with.
By choosing violent doctrines, you all are choosing to edit the Bible and other people's lives by empty threats that you will fail to carry out because God doesn't allow Satan to do so on Christians.
Its common practice in low churches. I had a birth baptism
Touching a baby’s head, or saying a prayer is called a blessing, not a baptism. A baptism is a full dunking of the entire body, where you trust the baptizer is going to catch you and bring you back out, which is like God who caught Jesus off the cross and resurrected him unto life.
Putting water or oil on someone else’s head is not a baptism, it is called anointing.
Even women know better than these people, and God also says so in His Word, that women are way wiser. Even they know circumcision is only for men, unless there was a special case where a girl was born with some kind of problem, and that women do not want to cast their baby into a pool of water completely dunked. Hence why baptism is done later, with consent of the saved individual. Meaning baptism follows being already saved. Sometimes they do it together but never before.
If you do the pic related then you are an elite obviously, and obviously need to see a doctor.
I think you're the one who needs to see a doctor Anon
That is not an argument.
And kicking your ass is warrant for a reward.
They are putting the same chemical that is in chemotherapy that causes people’s organs to glue together and become like it is just one big mass of flesh and can’t tell what anything is anymore into the Monoclonal antibodies and the vaccines.
Doesn't matter, only thing that matters is your faith.
it's shit like baptism autism that makes me believe it's all fake
This argument finds further support in the Paul's discussion of the olive tree in Romans 11. In the Old Testament, a standard figure for Israel was that of an olive tree. But as Paul explains, this is just one tree, one with ancient roots, which *spans* the transition between the older and newer covenants. The olive tree of the covenant is a tree that straddles both old and new covenant. The Roman Christians had been grafted into the same tree that Israel had grown on. We are dealing with just one Abrahamic tree.
Now, God made His covenant with Abraham *and his children* and offspring in Genesis 17.
God then requires Abraham and all the males among his descendants (including servants who are “bought with your money”) to be circumcised as part of the covenant (17:10).
Circumcision is called the “sign of the covenant” between God and Abraham (Genesis 17:11). The covenant God made with Abraham included his children, and this covenant required that Abraham’s male offspring receive the covenant sign of circumcision at eight days old. Those males who were not circumcised “break” the covenant (17:14), showing that males are born into the covenant. Thus, they receive the sign as those who are already in the covenant rather than entering the covenant through the sign.
2/9
The New Testament teaches that the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 is fulfilled in Christ and that the new covenant church thus inherits the promises made to Abraham. In Galatians 3:16, Paul says, “the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring.” Paul then identifies this “offspring”—“who is Christ.” So the promises God made to Abraham and his offspring apply to all who are in Christ. Those who believe in Christ, the church, inherit the promises made to Abraham. As Paul says in Galatians 3:7, “It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” And in Galatians 3:29, “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” The church inherits the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.
This affirms the great continuity between old covenant Israel and the new covenant church. There has always been only one people of God, known as Israel before Christ came and as the church after His coming. Thus, the church is also known as the new Israel (Galatians 6:16).
This continuity of God’s people is also seen in Romans 11:17-24, where Paul tells us that the Gentiles have been grafted into God’s olive tree. The church and Israel cannot be separated as two peoples of God because the Gentiles were grafted into the true Israel (and unbelieving israelites cut off). Gentiles and israelites have been made “one” (Ephesians 2:14), are “one new man in place of two” (Ephesians 2:15), and are “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19).
3/9
Circumcision was the sign of entrance into the Abrahamic covenant, yet Christians agree we are not to practice circumcision for religious purposes today. Christians also agree that baptism is the sign of entrance into the new covenant. So what is the relationship between these two signs? The answer seems obvious. Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. There is no other possible replacement.
Moreover, circumcision and baptism signify the same thing, as they are outward signs of inward regeneration. Paul speaks of both circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12:
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
“A circumcision made without hands” refers to regeneration. This is seen in the Old Testament when God commanded the Israelites to circumcise their hearts (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4). However, God also promised to do this for His people Israel in Deuteronomy 30:6—“And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.” God promised to circumcise the hearts of israelites *and their offspring*. Regeneration is not a new concept to the new covenant church, and it is of note that God promised to do this to the offspring of believers.
4/9
In Col 2, Paul links this circumcision of heart (regeneration) with being “buried with him in baptism,” including spiritual death and resurrection. Thus, physical circumcision signifies the same thing baptism does—regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of the inward washing and renewal of the Christian. The spiritual nature of Old Testament circumcision is also seen in Paul’s words in Romans, “For no one is a israelite who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a israelite is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Romans 2:28-29).
The spiritual nature of circumcision is clear. Yet credobaptists still object that baptism cannot be given to children because it is tied with faith. However, this objection misses the point that circumcision was also tied with faith. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 4:11 that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Circumcision was not simply a physical sign tied with the land promise. Rather, circumcision was a spiritual sign that signified the righteousness that Abraham had by faith.
It is essential to note that Abraham received the sign after he had believed, but he was commanded by God to give the sign to his male children—before they could profess faith. Thus, God commanded children to receive the covenant sign even though the children did not yet possess the very thing the sign signified, namely righteousness by faith (or at least the professed faith that credobaptists require). Circumcision was a sign of the righteousness Abraham had by faith, yet it was still given to his children (Romans 4:11). To object to baptism being given to children because it is tied with faith is to object to circumcision being given to Abraham’s children. We must avoid the logic that leads to credo-circumcision.
5/9
Thus we see that the new covenant is a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant and that baptism has replaced circumcision as the entrance into the covenant.
It is therefore only right that one would expect to see a continuation of the inclusion of a believer’s children in the covenant in the New Testament. And this continuation is exactly what we see in the “household” baptisms in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians:
>He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household (Acts 11:14).
>One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us (Acts 16:14-15).
>Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God (Acts 16:30-34).
6/9
(cont.)
>Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8).
>I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else (1 Corinthians 1:16).
None of these passages specifically says that infants were baptized. Acts 11:14 does not even mention baptism. But what is important in these verses is the use of the word “household” [οἶκος, oikos]. This is a clear allusion to the language of Genesis 17 and the covenant of circumcision. Abraham is said to have circumcised the men of his “house” [οἶκος in the LXX] in Genesis 17:23 and 17:27. The book of Acts could have simply named the individuals who believed in Christ. But the language of “household” is purposely used in order to pick up the covenantal language of Genesis 17.
The fact is that none of these passages are explicit as to whether infants were present in the “households” baptized in the book of Acts. But the very fact that the “household” language is used in Acts is evidence that God still deals with families as a unit. This supports the covenantal inclusion of a believer’s children, and this is exactly what one would expect to find in the book of Acts if the children of believers are included in the new covenant.
7/9
Again, Ephesians 6:1-4 is another important passage that shows that children belong in the new covenant community:
>Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Paul addresses “children” broadly. He presumes that children in the church are part of the church and does not make any distinction between those “professing” faith and those who do not. He simply addresses children as those “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1). Paul even cites the Fifth Commandment, showing the continuity between the old covenant and new covenant people of God. The Fifth Commandment was originally given to children in the old covenant, who were members of that covenant. Yet Paul here does not say that new covenant children are no longer members of the covenant until they profess faith. Thus, the principle of the inclusion of children in the covenant continues. God still deals with families as a unit.
Therefore, there is no place in the New Testament that teaches that children are excluded from the new covenant. Though this is assumed by credobaptists, there is no abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant and the inclusion of a believer’s children in the covenant. Moreover, the household baptisms in Acts and Paul’s words in Ephesians 6 presume continuity with the old covenant principle that children of believers are members of the church.
8/9
Conclusion
The church is the continuation of Old Testament Israel. Gentiles have been grafted in, and the church has inherited the promises made to Abraham. The new covenant is a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant. The promise to believers and their children still remains. Children of Christians are members of the new covenant and are to receive the sign of baptism. These children are “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), and Christian parents are to bring up these children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).
Christian children are not included in the church because of professed faith—they are included in the church because God has put them in the church. Christian parents are to therefore raise their children in the church and disciple them as they would other believers.
It is not our job to purify the church more than God has commanded us to. God has put the children of believers in the covenant, and nowhere has he put them out. The visible church consists of believers and their children, and we are to therefore give the new covenant sign of baptism to the children of believers. We must then do our due diligence to raise such children to live according to the way of Christ.
9/9
>renewal of old covenant
>hurrhurr let me tell you your religion I’m a gay
>hurt hurr I’m a israelite because I’m catholic
>still no infant baptism
have a nice day and burn in hell.
Yes only an adult can crucify the old man and become born again. Infants have no idea what's going on so it is a meaningless ritual.
I don't know what all the spam is supposed to be about, but children can't make the decision to crucify the old man. They can't be born again. Infants are also born sinless. The idea of them being born with a guilt of sin is something Augustine invented since he was an ex gnostic and they believed sin lived in the flesh. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Infant baptism is just making wet upset babies. It does nothing more
>I don't know what all the spam is supposed to be about
It speaks for itself. None so blind as those who have eyes but do not see.
See:
Well seems to be trying to confuse a matter that's very straightforward. Talking about Paul and unrelated things. It's nonsensical in relation to the topic.
Do you know who wrote most of the epistles in the New Testament? The human author, I mean.
Did you know an infant has no idea what's going on so can't repent and be born again like Jesus describes in baptism? I'm not interested in talking about other issues.
The guy cited scripture to back his arguments and you implied you didn't know who Paul is.
>Talking about Paul and unrelated things.
As if Paul's inspired writings are somehow unrelated to the faith.
What are you talking about. Nothing was backed up with scripture. It was a whole bunch of scripture talking about nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Wall of texting is not an argument. Have a dialogue or leave.
>have a dialogue
>doesnt engage with what the other person posted first and calls it unrelated
youre not very smart are you?
backs up his point with scripture and exegesis, all you have is "uhh children cant make an assent of faith so therefore shouldnt be baptized"
I've already stated my argument. Jesus specifically says that you must repent and then be born again. An infant can do neither. Just copying and pasting the entire Bible and saying your argument against that is somewhere in there is not an argument.
Do you have a response to my claim? Why is my claim wrong? Go.
Born again of what? Water and Spirit, theres nothing that says they must happen at the same time, it is possible that one can be regenerated by baptism before having reason, what about a mentally handicapped person, should they be refused baptism?
That series of posts explains very well the relation of baptism to the new covenant, you ignoring biblical evidence and only wanting to see baptism thru your pressuposed "believers baptism" idea is wrong, you need to consider the whole Bible in context not merely your point of view
>theres nothing that says they must happen at the same time,
Being born of the water is the first birth. Amniotic fluid. That was a common idiom. Then he talks about being born again which is the spiritual birth. That is when you become baptized. He lists out the prerequisites. You must repent. An infant cannot do that.
>amniotic fluid
That interpretation completely butchers the passage as it would give assent to what nicodemus says about going back into the womb
>That was a common idiom.
Theres absolutely no evidence from antiquity that this was so
To be born again as John 3:5 says you are born of water AND spirit, both are needed.
>An infant cannot do that.
Neither can some adults due to illnesses or physical incapabilities
Baptism is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit yes, its monergistic, the person performing the baptism is merely an instrument, but thats not what John 3:8 is about John 3:8 is about how we cant really understand the work of the Spirit, its purity and freedom it brings.
>To be born again as John 3:5 says you are born of water AND spirit
I would agree that his interpretation, though common, is weird, novel and wrong, but "water" doesn't refer to the sacrament of baptism. That is an interpretation which is both unjustified by the context and perhaps most importantly was inaccessible by the man Jesus was actually speaking to as the sacrament of Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. The most sensible interpretation in my opinion is that "water" here is a figure for holiness, so that the meaning of Christ's words are "You must be made holy by the Holy Spirit", the nature of the new birth being one where a new creation is made to serve God with good works.
>Baptism is entirely a work of the Holy Spirit yes
That doesn't mean it causes regeneration, it is intended for those who are already regenerate
>the person performing the baptism is merely an instrument, but thats not what John 3:8 is about
I would agree, and that wasn't why I cited it. What John 3:8 says is that like the wind we can't see the Spirit, we don't know where He came from or where He's going, though we can see the signs of His coming. This would not be true if His gracious work of regeneration was tied down to baptism.
It precedes faith and causes you to believe.
>would agree that his interpretation, though common, is weird, novel and wrong, but "water" doesn't refer to the sacrament of baptism. That is an interpretation which is both unjustified by the context
Thats why you need the whole Bible from genesis to revelation to provide context to how the apostles saw baptism, which is why that string of posts pointing to what Paul believed about baptism are important
>That doesn't mean it causes regeneration, it is intended for those who are already regenerate
The Bible clearly teaches and every early christian believes in baptismal regeneration
>Thats why you need the whole Bible from genesis to revelation to provide context to how the apostles saw baptism
This seems to be a simple concession that the citation of John 3 for baptismal regeneration has no actual basis in that text. The Old Testament teaches baptismal regeneration, really? Where does it do that? Maybe some kind of circumcisional regeneration?
>string of posts pointing to what Paul believed about baptism
I read those, and there wasn't anything I disagreed with in them. They in fact seem to contradict baptismal regeneration explicitly, by noting that baptism is an outward sign of inward regeneration.
>The Bible clearly teaches and every early christian believes in baptismal regeneration
I completely disagree on both points. I think it is clearly unbiblical, and I think the claim that "everyone" in the early Church subscribed to it is very dubious. I do not think it was even a majority view until the middle ages
>I would agree that his interpretation, though common, is weird, novel and wrong, but "water" doesn't refer to the sacrament of baptism.
Different anon here. The early Church Fathers, both East and West, agree that John 3:5 is talking about baptism. This was **unanimous**; no one disagreed. (For proof, see the citations here: https://unsettledchristianity.com/church-fathers-on-john-3-5/
OR here: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2020/10/22/early-church-fathers-on-john-35-and-water-baptism/)
Now, these Fathers spoke and wrote in different languages. The only way to explain how they were united in interpreting John 3:5 in the same fashion is that that teaching was handed on from the apostles who founded their churches, with those apostles all teaching the same doctrine: to be "born again of water and Spirit" means water baptism.
is correct: the idea that "water" in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid is crazy, and there is no basis either in or outside scripture for making such a tortured and dubious interpretation.
>This was **unanimous**; no one disagreed
Yeah I don't buy that.
>For proof, see the citations here:
Reading lists of quotes on blogs with theological bias is not how one studies church history.
>The only way to explain how they were united in interpreting John 3:5 in the same fashion is that that teaching was handed on from the apostles who founded their churches, with those apostles all teaching the same doctrine: to be "born again of water and Spirit" means water baptism.
Ah yes, that essential sacred tradition. Surely, when Paul was leaving Ephesus and encouraged the elders to maintain the faith, surely the last thing he left them with was "John 3:5 is about baptism".
Responding to your last statement, and not that anon, yes, anybody talking about .the early church fathers”, “baptismal regeneration” are lunatic schizos from the mafia snake oil salesmen. Alex Jones doesn’t even do that crap, yet is accused of being a snake oil merchant. Must all be jealousy from the former crowd.
Anyone who comes to Jesus Christ and says “Master! It is good for you to bring healing, I require life from such a good teacher!” Is automatically as Jesus said, a dog. Jesus brings life through faith, and our life we have now is faith that are saved. That is why Satan is so wroth, is because he knows there are some here resurrected from the dead posting, and is fricking seething because he wants those people to be dead still.
Hallelujah, because God should have just killed them then. Because we are not going to let up from Satan’s throat now that we recognize our killer.
>regenerated by baptism
Regeneration is an immediate and spontaneous act of the Holy Spirit, see John 3:8
Which comes only by believing in the sin of God.
Son of God
Why was that post deleted?
I made a typo, deleted & reposted the very slightly revised text.
Yes they write the entire bible and say see it says what I said it says. It says We are taking your manhood away from
Baptism so that you can’t feel like actual men when you grow up and go be with God the Father through Jesus Christ because we pedophile groomed you like homosexual demons when you were an infant. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THIS THREAD IS BEING GROOMED EVERY MOMENT IS ALLOWS THESE PEODPHILES TO SPEAK A WORD that they are not vaporized where they stand by fire from heaven. KILL THEIR BODIES, curse their spirits, and DAMN THEIR SOULS. Amen and Amen.
Keep seething bro, God wont listen to a word you have to say, youre a lonely IQfy schizo, the same rule you use to judge will be used on you.
Yes because you seek the unforgivable sin God will do the same to you. You are binder in the darkness and in hell.
If you think that by stating the truth of Hod that I am bound here, you are only shedding your deception to yourself. You can’t argue only lie lie lie. So you will die die die.
Flood more dragon, flood more. Your anger will be met with your eternal reward in shrieks in hell. God crushes your soul.
Writing insults and threats must really inflate your ego, keep puffing yourself up as a man of God the more you talk the more Satan has you in your grasp
Satan is the one being devoured by hell and locked up. God damn your soul. God damn your soul. God damn your soul.
There is no cross for you here. There is no Jesus Christ dying on th cross for you here. There is no cross of Christ Jesus for you here.
Perophiles burn in hell.
Yep preach it brother you know the truth on that point you are repeating about the infant not knowing anything yet, for he is still innocent in knowledge of his sin. God said do not make little ones to know they sinned if they aren’t aware of it, but to preach only the gospel and wait for them to come to be saved.
Already have verse debates from earlier and you failed. SHUT UP IN JESUS CHRISTS NAME I FORBID YOY TO SPEAK GOD SAID THE LORD.
What is it about Anabaptism that is so attractive to schizophrenics?
only if you baptize them in the name of satan and not that scaly israelite deity yahweh
Yes.
No.