Should I be rebaptised?

[Marymog]

Your post is typical of the juvenile insults & mocking that comes from the followers of the Roman religion even down to the bolding. Lol

Thank you tzcho.

When you decide you want to have a mature conversation using facts, scripture and logic, let me know.

I feel sad for you that you can't defend your theory. I don't understand why you choose to be petty and go on bizarre rants with needless snipes. I suspect you have your reasons. Lack of confidence and evidence in what you believe I suspect is the reason.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Exactly farouk. Baptism must be a choice not a ritual. It is an outward and public sign of our commitment to Jesus. When my parent took me to be baptised/christened at six weeks old it was just a 'thing' respectable families did. They were not believers, they were not church goers and neither were my Godparents. This still goes on. I quite like the idea of a blessing or naming ceremony as it brings non-believers into the sphere of the church but to call it baptism is in my view wrong.

Where does scripture say that baptism is a "public sign of our commitment to Jesus"?

Bible study Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

The arrogance, pride & dupicity of the RCC once again.

Explain HOW this comment is "arrogant", "prideful" or "duplicitous"?
Do you even know what those words mean??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Once again the hypocrite! Your calling @ LadyCrosstalk post MORONIC is substance??

So, her post, filled with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories ISN'T moronic??

ANY time you guys come up with this kind of steaming manure - it IS moronic because you can't back it up with any facts. Didn't your mothers ever teach you not to lie??

 

[Enoch111]

Where does scripture say that baptism is a "public sign of our commitment to Jesus"?

Everything does not have to be stated explicitly. Many things in the Bible are implied. It is implied in this passage (Rom 10:9,10): That if thou shalt confess* with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession* is made unto salvation.

Strong's Concordance
*homologeó: to speak the same, to agree
Original Word: ὁμολογέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: homologeó
Phonetic Spelling: (hom-ol-og-eh'-o)
Definition: to speak the same, to agree
Usage: (a) I promise, agree, (b) I confess, (c) I publicly declare, (d) a Hebraism, I praise, celebrate.

Just as John's baptism was a public expression of repentance, Christian baptism is a public testimony to salvation. Those who are baptized as believers make a public declaration of their faith in Christ while other Christians are witnesses to that testimony. Indeed they are asked to testify before they are baptized, just as Philip asked that Ethiopian to testify to his faith in Christ.

 

[farouk]

A note for those who think that Jesus was speaking of water baptism when He spoke to Nicodemus about being "born of the water and the Spirit".

In the times of the prophets, baptism for the outward step, signifying an inner turning from sin and back to God, was taught as well as a pouring out of one's heart in confession of sin. Lamentations 2:19 speaks of "pour out your heart like water" and 1 Samuel 7:6 pictures the Israelites drawing and pouring of water in a ceremony of repentance.

But, in Jesus' day, it was common to speak of "being born of the water" to indicate natural birth. It was not speaking of water baptism as an indication that one had turned away from sin and turned toward God.

Since Jesus was seeking national repentance for Israel (He said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel) He was likely speaking of John the Baptist's "being born of water". The ancient sages pictured that mitzvah as taking one back to a purity like that of a baby or young child. Relatively few Jews, in Jesus' day, had knowledge of this outward step of faith, let alone having done it. Nicodemus apparently mistook Jesus as indicating natural birth.

Being baptized by the Spirit of God for the indwelling of His Holy Spirit was something new, about which, John the Baptist prophesied. For that, the Blood of Jesus is needed. It cleanses and refines with fire. Even the history of the earth gives testimony to this truth. The earth was cleansed by water in the Flood--but the ancients knew that this was only temporary. Next and last, the earth will be cleansed of evil through fire. The fire of the Holy Spirit is permanent.

Ephesians speaks of the 'washing of water by the word', which isn't believer's baptism, but rather refers to the cleansing effect of the Word of God applied by the Spirit.

 

[Marymog]

Everything does not have to be stated explicitly. Many things in the Bible are implied. It is implied in this passage (Rom 10:9,10): That if thou shalt confess* with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession* is made unto salvation.

Strong's Concordance
*homologeó: to speak the same, to agree
Original Word: ὁμολογέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: homologeó
Phonetic Spelling: (hom-ol-og-eh'-o)
Definition: to speak the same, to agree
Usage: (a) I promise, agree, (b) I confess, (c) I publicly declare, (d) a Hebraism, I praise, celebrate.

Just as John's baptism was a public expression of repentance, Christian baptism is a public testimony to salvation. Those who are baptized as believers make a public declaration of their faith in Christ while other Christians are witnesses to that testimony. Indeed they are asked to testify before they are baptized, just as Philip asked that Ethiopian to testify to his faith in Christ.

Than you Enoch.

I am glad that you and I are in agreement that it does not state in the bible that baptism is a public sign of our commitment to Jesus. Hopefully @Pearl will see it our way. Whether baptized in public or in private if it is a Trinitarian baptism it is valid. It does NOT have to be done in public to be valid.

The Romans 10 reference you gave has NOTHING to do with baptism; it has to do with a confession made with your mouth. Water baptism is not made with the mouth. Sooooo Romans 10 is not implied evidence to support your public baptism theory.

LATE EDIT: In the Philip and Ethiopian scenario you gave Scripture says that Philip and the Ethiopian (only two people) went down to the water. Not in public. No mention of other Christians standing around witnessing his testimony. Just the baptizer and the baptize....... sooooo you should pick another story from Scripture to fit your "public declaration" belief because the one you picked teaches opposite of what you believe.


Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Everything does not have to be stated explicitly. Many things in the Bible are implied. It is implied in this passage (Rom 10:9,10): That if thou shalt confess* with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession* is made unto salvation.

Strong's Concordance
*homologeó: to speak the same, to agree
Original Word: ὁμολογέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: homologeó
Phonetic Spelling: (hom-ol-og-eh'-o)
Definition: to speak the same, to agree
Usage: (a) I promise, agree, (b) I confess, (c) I publicly declare, (d) a Hebraism, I praise, celebrate.

Just as John's baptism was a public expression of repentance, Christian baptism is a public testimony to salvation. Those who are baptized as believers make a public declaration of their faith in Christ while other Christians are witnesses to that testimony. Indeed they are asked to testify before they are baptized, just as Philip asked that Ethiopian to testify to his faith in Christ.

Uh-huh
It is ALSO implied that the ENTIRE households of Cornelius, Stephanas and the Philippian Jailer that were baptized included people of ALL ages - even babies.

Not ONE of you has answered the question:
What motive would the Early Church have for LYING about Infant Baptism being a practice that was handed down to them by the Apostles??

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The APOSTOLIC Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"The Church received from the APOSTLES the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Augustine
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except APOSTOLIC" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[Pearl]

Thanks.

I am a bit confused at what you are saying.

You were baptized as an infant and you firmly believed that you did not need to be re-Baptized. Then God himself showed you that you were wrong in your belief that, in fact, you did need to be re-Baptized. How did God show you that you needed to be re-Baptized?

The Anglicans (along with many Protestant Churches) teach that infant baptism is valid. Also, infant baptism has been practiced by Christians for 2,000 years. They use scripture to affirm that practice/belief.

Since God showed you that your baptism as an infant was not valid WHY did He mislead all those other Christian Churches into believing that infant baptism was valid?

Mary

Hi Mary. Firstly, God's word supersedes that of any church and secondly I don't believe God misled the churches regarding infant baptism, they did that themselves.

As I said I dug my heels in and refused to budge on the subject, choosing to believe the church's teaching. And then one day a scripture jumped off the page and into my spirit and I absolutely knew I had to baptised in obedience to what God showed me.

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

You may well disagree with my explanation that this verse spoke to me, but you are entitled to your thoughts in the subject. Ultimately though we all have to act in obedience in accordance to what we feel God is saying to us. For me getting baptised by full immersion at the age of forty two, which was seven years after I was born again was just that, an act of obedience.

 

[Pearl]

Where does scripture say that baptism is a "public sign of our commitment to Jesus"?

Bible study Mary

"In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized."

This and much more regarding questions about baptism can be found at: What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

So, her post, filled with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories ISN'T moronic??

ANY time you guys come up with this kind of steaming manure - it IS moronic because you can't back it up with any facts. Didn't your mothers ever teach you not to lie??

Did you read the linked material, BoL? What is "moronic" is that you apparently think that you can announce that it is "manure" and that is the end of it. You are full of unmitigated arrogance--not surprising in one so devoted to the extremely arrogant organization at the top of the RCC. There was sworn testimony of a former priest in that link. We know from Lincoln's writings that he was mistrustful of Jesuit plots hatched in Europe. He named them specifically as his "enemies". He made an often-repeated remark that, between the Confederate Army in front of him and the Jesuit army of plotters behind him, the Jesuits were far more dangerous. I haven't taken you off "ignore" but I do sometimes tune in if the responses of others interest me in looking at what you've written. You really shouldn't sling YOUR manure at others--very stinky of you.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary. Firstly, God's word supersedes that of any church and secondly I don't believe God misled the churches regarding infant baptism, they did that themselves.

As I said I dug my heels in and refused to budge on the subject, choosing to believe the church's teaching. And then one day a scripture jumped off the page and into my spirit and I absolutely knew I had to baptised in obedience to what God showed me.

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

You may well disagree with my explanation that this verse spoke to me, but you are entitled to your thoughts in the subject. Ultimately though we all have to act in obedience in accordance to what we feel God is saying to us. For me getting baptised by full immersion at the age of forty two, which was seven years after I was born again was just that, an act of obedience.

Thank you.

Fascinating that you believe that the men of the Churches misled themselves on infant baptism and they had NO guidance from the Holy Spirit or Scripture in this matter. But for you personally Scripture jumped off the page and into your spirit and God showed YOU that you had to be re-Baptized. I am willing to bet the men of those churches would attest to the same thing you are attesting to: Scripture jumped off the page and God showed them what they believe also.

How can you be sure you are not misleading yourself and that all those other men were wrong and you are right?

Using your logic that we all have to act in obedience in accordance to what we FEEL God is saying to us has led us to gay marriage in some "Christian" churches and "Christian" pastors at abortion clinics praying for the doctors performing the abortions and supporting the women getting the abortions.

Do you agree with those people/practices?

Mary

 

[Pearl]

Thank you.

Fascinating that you believe that the men of the Churches misled themselves on infant baptism and they had NO guidance from the Holy Spirit or Scripture in this matter. But for you personally Scripture jumped off the page and into your spirit and God showed YOU that you had to be re-Baptized. I am willing to bet the men of those churches would attest to the same thing you are attesting to: Scripture jumped off the page and God showed them what they believe also.

How can you be sure you are not misleading yourself and that all those other men were wrong and you are right?

Using your logic that we all have to act in obedience in accordance to what we FEEL God is saying to us has led us to gay marriage in some "Christian" churches and "Christian" pastors at abortion clinics praying for the doctors performing the abortions and supporting the women getting the abortions.

Do you agree with those people/practices?

Mary

Read the articles on the link I posted Mary. There is no instance of infant baptism in the bible. All the baptisms are of believers. Follow the teaching of God not just the church which is fallible in many areas.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did you read the linked material, BoL? What is "moronic" is that you apparently think that you can announce that it is "manure" and that is the end of it. You are full of unmitigated arrogance--not surprising in one so devoted to the extremely arrogant organization at the top of the RCC. There was sworn testimony of a former priest in that link. We know from Lincoln's writings that he was mistrustful of Jesuit plots hatched in Europe. He named them specifically as his "enemies". He made an often-repeated remark that, between the Confederate Army in front of him and the Jesuit army of plotters behind him, the Jesuits were far more dangerous. I haven't taken you off "ignore" but I do sometimes tune in if the responses of others interest me in looking at what you've written. You really shouldn't sling YOUR manure at others--very stinky of you.

Gee - I thought you had me on "Ignore" . . .

The whole "Lincoln Assassination was a Jesuit Plot" nonsense is a Jack Chick invention. You should be embarrassed for even bringing up this garbage. If you knew ANYTHING about Lincoln's assassination, you would know it had more to do with extreme Confederate Nationalism - not "Evil Jesuits".
NONE of the conspirators were priests - and the Jesuits are a PRIESTLY order.

In case your wondering - Jack Chick ALSO claims that the Catholic Church was behind the the Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, World War I and the Kennedy Assassination. He was a sick man with a twisted mind - but he made millions off of people like YOU.

Among the asinine claims YOU made was that the Jesuit Father General was "THE most powerful man in the world". The ONLY authority he wields is over the Jesuit order of priests - NOT including the Pope, who his order - and ALL other orders answer to. The Pope's not even the "most powerful" man - so how could THIS guy be??

THIS is why I correctly referred to your post as "manure" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Read the articles on the link I posted Mary. There is no instance of infant baptism in the bible. All the baptisms are of believers. Follow the teaching of God not just the church which is fallible in many areas.

A psycho with a machine gun bursts into your house and screams that he is going to kill your ENTIRE household.
Do you think he just means the "adults"??

Paul baptized the ENTIRE households of Stephanas and the Philippian jailer - based on THEIR faith.
Peter did the same with Cornelius. It is IMPLIED. This is what we call implicit teaching. It is not explicitly mentioned.

Can you find me the verse that talks about "Infant Dedications"??

How about . . .
"Altar Calls"??
"Limited Atonement"??
"Scripture Alone"??
"Faith Alone"??
"OSAS"??
a Pre-Trib "Rapture"??
"Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior"??

NONE of those are even IMPLICITLY taught in the context of Scripture - yet you Protestants teach them as doctrines . . .

 

[Stranger]

Dear dear Stranger......YOU are the one who suggested that the Church "is composed of all born-again believers". I simply want to know what YOU believe "born again" means. Instead you want to be sarcastic and condescending. I am not sure what form of Christianity you are following but I don't recognize it. Especially when you hold up a pro-slavery killer as a hero instead of an Apostle or church saint. That is deeply concerning if of itself.

I asked you to give a definition of "born again" since there are multiple definitions of "born again". You failed to do that. End of story.


My prayers are with you....Mary

That's fine. Personally I wasn't aware there were several definitions of being born-again. If you don't want to explain, no problem.

A pro-slavery killer? You mean George Washington? Ulysses Grant? Who do you mean?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

WRONG.

I showed you the language that he used and he is talking about HIMSELF as a kind of spiritual father - in the same way that Abraham is the "Father" to the Jews - or a "Godfather" is to a newly baptized person.
He said, "I became your Father IN CHRIST" - not their actual Father.

As to your question - you've asked me this before - and I've answered you.
I was born again at Baptism, with Water and Spirit - just like Jesus prescribed (John 3:5).

This time, try to remember so you won't have to ask me this again . . .

No. Paul is not the 'spiritual father' to the Corinthians or any other believers. He is instrumental as the one presenting them the Gospel by which they were born again. Making God their Father...only. If I witness to one and he believes, that does not make me his 'father'. It makes God his Father.

Oh, you mean not like Paul preached? Why do you make a fuss over Paul's being a 'Father', yet you do not come to Christ the same way? When were you born again? As an infant? Or did you come to Christ as your Lord and Saviour?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Ummmmmm, NOT sure where you're getting your point of reference.

I was responding to a moronic post by @Lady Crosstalk that didn't have any pictures - just asinine conspiracy theories . . .

I was just pointing out that Jack Chick uses pictures in his presentations of his tracts. And you like to do the same posting many pictures to prove some point of yours.

I know you disagree and hate Jack Chick tracts, but they have been very instrumental in bringing many into the kingdom. Do you disagree? He was not a Romanist for sure. But that doesn't make his tracts useless. When I argue with you or others, I don't use his tracts. But, I like his tracts to pass out to others when witnessing for Christ.

Stranger

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Gee - I thought you had me on "Ignore" . . .

The whole "Lincoln Assassination was a Jesuit Plot" nonsense is a Jack Chick invention. You should be embarrassed for even bringing up this garbage. If you knew ANYTHING about Lincoln's assassination, you would know it had more to do with extreme Confederate Nationalism - not "Evil Jesuits".
NONE of the conspirators were priests - and the Jesuits are a PRIESTLY order.

In case your wondering - Jack Chick ALSO claims that the Catholic Church was behind the the Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, World War I and the Kennedy Assassination. He was a sick man with a twisted mind - but he made millions off of people like YOU.

Among the asinine claims YOU made was that the Jesuit Father General was "THE most powerful man in the world". The ONLY authority he wields is over the Jesuit order of priests - NOT including the Pope, who his order - and ALL other orders answer to. The Pope's not even the "most powerful" man - so how could THIS guy be??

THIS is why I correctly referred to your post as "manure" . . .

There are a great many sources of the information I presented. Apparently "Jack Chick" is someone you hate and despise--I'll have to check him out--never heard of him til now. I didn't say that those who killed Lincoln were Jesuits but it is precisely true that 4 out of 5 of the assassination conspirators were RC. Seems odd since there were proportionally few RCs in the country, at the time. If you would do some actual reading of history instead of what you are force-fed by the Romanist hierarchy, you might know more. You know little about the organization which you serve.

 

[Taken]

Thank you tzcho.

When you decide you want to have a mature conversation using facts, scripture and logic, let me know.

I feel sad for you that you can't defend your theory. I don't understand why you choose to be petty and go on bizarre rants with needless snipes. I suspect you have your reasons. Lack of confidence and evidence in what you believe I suspect is the reason.

Mary

LOL ~ This is priceless coming from you.

Glory to God,
Taken