What is the purpose of infant baptism?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

JohnDB

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2010
5,260
3,477
113
TN
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There is nothing wrong with a celebration of life. But that is not the biblical purpose of baptism. There is nothing in scripture, specifically the NT, that says that we should poor cold water on a baby's head as a celebration of life. On the other hand, it does say what the purpose of baptism is. It is for the forgiveness of sins and to give the gift, the indwelling, of the Holy Spirit to the penitent believer. That does not include infants in any sense of the word. First the infant is not a believer; he has no capacity for that. Second is is not a sinner, he has committed no sins that need forgiveness.
It's not really a baptism and no denomination treats it as such....not even Catholics. They have "confirmation" at a much later age that the individual must complete on their own.

Someone above mentioned it as a "christening"....and that might be a better term than Baptism for you....but we seek to offer grace for the poor word choices and you seem to want to crucify others for it.

These things (including Baptism) are just rituals performed for the individuals....they really don't do anything in themselves...but the faith that they inspire in the individuals (and others) is usually the best benefit.

So....that's why! It's like that nasty cracker and sip of grape juice symbolizing an entire meal for "Communion". It's not a meal....it has no saving power or even healing properties. We don't even get to have a conversation during the ceremony....

But people like the ordinance. So we do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Baptism, in and of itself, has absolutely no impact. It does not "work" to accomplish anything, It is simplly the occasion, the time in the life of the penitent believer that God forgives the believers sins and gives him the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism itself accomplishes nothing.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Read full chapter
John 3:5 in all English translations
In baptism, we go down in the water and die with Christ and rise up with Him. Some are better at dying with Christ than others. Washing away and regeneration is nothing to be afraid of. If you remove the Spirit from the water, it's just wet water. Baptism flows from the Incarnation Principle, which doesn't come from man.

There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.
I try to avoid posting walls of text that few read, please click on the above link before getting out the whips, or ignore the article and let it get buried.
 
Last edited:

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
FAULT LINES

Original sin is the term we use to describe mankind’s first transgression – Adam’s fall. It is also the term we use to describe the consequences or effects of that fall. For Adam, original sin was a personal, actual sin. For us, it’s an impersonal sin, not an actual sin. But here we distinguish; we do not separate, because it’s all of a piece. There is a bond that unites sin in all its forms.

When teachers discuss the mystery of original sin, they often use the metaphor of a “stain on the soul”. But that’s only a metaphor. Sin isn’t essentially a stain; it isn’t a spiritual substance. It isn’t a thing at all. It is, rather, the lack of something, the absence of something, namely sanctifying grace. The indwelling life of the Trinity was evacuated from human nature by Adam’s sin. That’s what original sin is. We have to get at it by explaining what it isn’t. It’s the absence of something necessary for human beings to reach their divinely appointed end. The absence of sanctifying grace certainly does plunge us into darkness and blindness and death.

But it’s critically important for us to recognize that original sin is not something that’s transmitted biologically or psychologically. Yet at the same time we can speak of original sin as being something hereditary. Pope Pius XI wrote that “Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants

Even that word choice - fault – might lead you to believe that original sin is something that renders us guilty. But it isn’t. Think of fault here in the sense of the San Andreas Fault, the fracture in the earth’s crust that renders California vulnerable to devastating earthquakes. It isn’t my fault, but it’s like a fault line that runs my soul and inclines me to be separate from God.

Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants: One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom 5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, in a sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him, based upon two realities:
  1. biologically, we’re his descendants; and
  2. theologically, he’s our covenant head.
As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences. Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.

In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and, therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, and people in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternal life is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. God alone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when we speak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very being and communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed; and we contract original sin without consent. That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent, as He does with newborn babies on their baptismal day.

The same thing can be said for actual sin. Actual sin can only be committed through informed consent. And so it can only be removed through informed consent. That’s why we need confession.

THE LAW OF (MORAL) GRAVITY

It can be helpful to keep in mind that sin is like a terminal – but curable – illness, one that afflicts all of the organs of the body. Only in this case, it affects the eternal life of the soul.

Are people better off not knowing that they are sick? Or how accessible (though difficult) the cure is? Are they any happier not being told how serious – but also how treatable – their condition is? For me, the key is remembering that sin is more than breaking laws, it is breaking lives – our own and others’.
Likewise, our spiritual life is far more precious – and fragile – than physical life. And far more fulfilling, eternally speaking.

Just because people don’t recognize all (or any) of God’s laws, and how they reflect His loving concern for our spiritual and physical health, doesn’t change the fact that it’s all still true. If an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to abolish the law of gravity, and so both houses of congress voted to repeal it, and the president signed it into law – what would happen if the president and all the congressman decided to celebrate their “liberation” by jumping off the White House roof? They wouldn’t break the law of gravity, of course; their fall would demonstrate gravity, and that law would break them and whatever bones hit first.

What people often forget is that the moral laws of God are just as firmly fixed as the physical laws – it’s just that the results of sin are not as visible or immediately painful as broken bones.

That’s why the church has to get the word out – both the bad news of sin’s deadly effect, and the Good News of Christ as the only total cure. And again, that’s why we need confession.

“Lord, Have Mercy” The Healing Power of Confession by Scott Hahn, Doubleday, April 2003, pg. 72-75

Dr. Scott Hahn: (former Presbyterian minister and Bible college professor)
 

RedFan

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2022
2,871
1,258
113
70
New Hampshire
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.
Not true. I think I get where you are coming from, but legally speaking, this is a poor analogy. My creditors can't pursue my heirs if I declare bankruptcy.
 

JBO

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
1,848
415
83
86
Prescott, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Read full chapter
John 3:5 in all English translations
In baptism, we go down in the water and die with Christ and rise up with Him. Some are better at dying with Christ than others. Washing away and regeneration is nothing to be afraid of. If you remove the Spirit from the water, it's just wet water. Baptism flows from the Incarnation Principle, which doesn't come from man.

There is, in the Catholic vision of reality, a profound understanding of the impenetration of matter by grace which we call the Incarnational principle. The Incarnation of God the Son as Jesus Christ is the bedrock which underlies the Christian vision of the relationship between God and man. In assuming a human nature, God demonstrates at once that creation, including human nature, is not only good but is capable of being further elevated through the impenetration of the Divine life.
I try to avoid posting walls of text that few read, please click on the above link before getting out the whips, or ignore the article and let it get buried.
I am not sure what either you or that article on the incarnation Principle is trying to say. It does, however, point out some errors in the Non-Catholic theology. It also, probably unintentionally, point out some errors in the Catholic theology.

When I get time, I will try to address your reply #43 on Original Sin showing the error in the doctrine. As I noted, above, the doctrine of Original Sin is one of the most heinous of all the heretical doctrines that persist is so much of Christendom. It is heretical because it makes God the originator of the personal spirit dead in trespasses and sin.
 

JBO

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
1,848
415
83
86
Prescott, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's not really a baptism and no denomination treats it as such....not even Catholics. They have "confirmation" at a much later age that the individual must complete on their own.
Where in the teachings of any of the various denominations, Catholic or Protestant, that practice "infant baptism" do we ever find the need for Christian baptism "at a much later age" that the individual must complete on their won. Where do we read in the NT that it is in "confirmation" that sins are forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit is received?
 

JohnDB

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2010
5,260
3,477
113
TN
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where in the teachings of any of the various denominations, Catholic or Protestant, that practice "infant baptism" do we ever find the need for Christian baptism "at a much later age" that the individual must complete on their won. Where do we read in the NT that it is in "confirmation" that sins are forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit is received?
Polycarp was baptized as a baby and became the Bishop of Smyrna mentioned in Revelations by John who had made him the Bishop....

Take your issues up with John and Polycarp.

I'm done. I've explained as best as I can.

One Lord
One Faith
One Baptism
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Where in the teachings of any of the various denominations, Catholic or Protestant, that practice "infant baptism" do we ever find the need for Christian baptism "at a much later age" that the individual must complete on their won.
Catholics baptize adults too, after a period of instruction, just like the early church. During this period of instruction, they are called catechumens. If they are martyred for the faith before baptism, its called the Baptism of Blood. If a person desires baptism but dies too soon, its called the Baptism of Desire, like the Thief on the Cross. Examined closely, its still ONE baptism.
The Catholic Church accepts most non-Catholic baptisms as valid, there is no need for re-baptism for converts.
Where do we read in the NT that it is in "confirmation" that sins are forgiven and the gift of the Holy Spirit is received?
I love sincere questions!

The Sacrament of Confirmation is not a Catholic invention. It's straight from the Bible, and it's not a "work".

The citations are followed by a brief exegesis of the text, not an interpretation. Feel free to offer your plausible alternative exegesis or interpretation.

Acts 8:14-17 – the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

Eph. 1:13 – Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.

Eph. 4:30 – Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 – Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 – this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments – baptism, confirmation, death and judgment – which apply to all people.

John 6:27 – Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation.

Rev. 9:4 – the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.


1717992725485.png
 
Last edited:

JBO

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
1,848
415
83
86
Prescott, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Polycarp was baptized as a baby and became the Bishop of Smyrna mentioned in Revelations by John who had made him the Bishop....

Take your issues up with John and Polycarp.

I'm done. I've explained as best as I can.

One Lord
One Faith
One Baptism
Why would I take it up with Polycarp? And John didn't support infant baptism in any of his writings so there is nothing to take up with John.
 

Fred J

Active Member
Nov 26, 2023
877
205
43
57
W.P.
Faith
Christian
Country
Malaysia
Mt 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Mt 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

I have given you plenty of scripture... I was infant baptized and had my sons baptized and raised them to believe in Messiah Jesus.

Give me scripture forbidding it?
Where is it written about infant baptism and the ceremony beginning with the book of Acts and onward?

For every spiritually new born again of water and of the Holy Ghost new creation believer are, 'babes in Christ', or 'lambs of GOD'.

To my witnessing, only the catholic church have infant baptism as their tradition.
 

JBO

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
1,848
415
83
86
Prescott, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Catholics baptize adults too, after a period of instruction, just like the early church. During this period of instruction, they are called catechumens. If they are martyred for the faith before baptism, its called the Baptism of Blood. If a person desires baptism but dies too soon, its called the Baptism of Desire, like the Thief on the Cross. Examined closely, its still ONE baptism.
The Catholic Church accepts most non-Catholic baptisms as valid, there is no need for re-baptism for converts.

I love sincere questions!

The Sacrament of Confirmation is not a Catholic invention. It's straight from the Bible, and it's not a "work".

The citations are followed by a brief exegesis of the text, not an interpretation. Feel free to offer your plausible alternative exegesis or interpretation.

Acts 8:14-17 – the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders.
They like all repentant believers who are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ received forgiveness and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. What the didn't received until the apostles journeyed to Samaria and laid hands on them was the power by the Holy Spirit to work miracles. That power has not one thing to do with baptism.
Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.
I don't believe that for a second.
Acts 19:5-6 – the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.
Again the power to work miracles received by the laying on of the hands of the apostles has nothing to with baptism
Eph. 1:13 – Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.
That sealing is in fact the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. There is nothing there about any "confirmation".
Eph. 4:30 – Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 – Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 – this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments – baptism, confirmation, death and judgment – which apply to all people.

John 6:27 – Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of confirmation.

Rev. 9:4 – the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.
I personally reject the Catholic concept of sacraments. They have nothing to do with baptism
Given the extreme political leftism of the current Catholic pope, I have no regard for even his own personal theological views.
 

Cyd

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2023
396
270
63
73
Kentucky
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where is it written about infant baptism and the ceremony beginning with the book of Acts and onward?

For every spiritually new born again of water and of the Holy Ghost new creation believer are, 'babes in Christ', or 'lambs of GOD'.

To my witnessing, only the catholic church have infant baptism as their tradition.I
I already posted my scriptures, give me some that condemn it. Infants are sucklings.. but here in Luke the word infant is used. Look at it as a way parents are asking the Lord to touch their infant.
Luke 18:15
And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them.....

Not just the catholic church but I was raised Lutheran and they also kept this custom of baptizing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Spyder

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2024
629
615
93
Holt
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We have a really difficult time understanding life in a Patriarchal society.

If the Patriarch of a house decided to believe in Yeshua and be baptized, it would seem normal to baptize everyone in the house. After all, when the Old Covenant was initiated, Yahweh required all males in the house to be circumcized, even the male servants.

In the New Covenant, patriarchy did not affect everyone in the household. Then, accepting the terms of the New Covenant became an individual decision, and the individual accepted the terms by submission to baptism.

However, since the scripture speaks in a few places of converts being baptized (he and his whole house), infant baptism became a doctrine. History shows that those who finally came to understand "believer's baptism" were even killed when they became known as "re-baptizers" by those who were baptized as infants.
 

Jude Thaddeus

Active Member
Apr 27, 2024
637
222
43
73
ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Why would I take it up with Polycarp?
You ask because you have nothing to do with the early Church and have been trained to reject The Early Church
Fathers. My guess it's out of fear. Polycarp was baptized as a baby and became the Bishop of Smyrna mentioned in Revelations by John who had made him the Bishop. @JohnDB makes a rock solid argument that you can't handle.
And John didn't support infant baptism in any of his writings
Baptism is not a writing, it's an action.
so there is nothing to take up with John.
But you don't explain why John the Apostle baptized Polycarp as an infant, and later made him bishop of Smyrna so you run from the facts because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived notions. You have nothing to do with 2nd century Christianity because your prejudice won't allow it. That's why there is nothing for you to take up with John.

“Polycarp declared, ‘Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?”​
Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156)

Logically, ‘Eighty and six years' means he served Him from infancy, when he was baptized by John.

Here's more:

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…”​
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

“And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins.”​
Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”​
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

“I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord.”​
Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

“And they shall baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”​
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

“[T]herefore children are also baptized.”​
Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.”​
Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”​
Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…”
Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen and Cyprian give witness to the authentic practice of infant baptism. Calvin and Luther agreed with these great men, and baptized infants. (Calvin denied baptismal regeneration, Luther did not) What I have demonstrated, using the facts of history, is denial of infant baptism is a post-reformist tradition of men.


1718045252852.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnDB

JBO

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
1,848
415
83
86
Prescott, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You ask because you have nothing to do with the early Church and have been trained to reject The Early Church
Fathers. My guess it's out of fear. Polycarp was baptized as a baby and became the Bishop of Smyrna mentioned in Revelations by John who had made him the Bishop. @JohnDB makes a rock solid argument that you can't handle.
Paul was a persecutor of the Christians before he converted. Do you think we should follow that example also?

Perhaps you do. After all, the Catholic Church did indeed persecute those they thought were not a "Catholic Christian".

Also while Smyrna is indeed mentioned in Revelation, there is no mention that I found about any Bishop of Smyrna mentioned there. It does speak of the angel of the church in Smyrna, but the idea that was Polycarp is pure conjecture.
 
Last edited:

GRACE ambassador

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Mar 1, 2021
2,531
1,764
113
72
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
op: purpose of infant baptism?

Precious friends, studied this particular tradition while attending a Reformed denomination, from their
booklet, and could not find it in Scripture. When the next 'ceremony' occurred God Made me feel so
horrible inside, I stopped attending.

Then attended/listened to the immersion 'tradition', but years later, after more prayerful and Careful study of
God's Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided, found out there is no water at all, Today, Under Grace - Simply just:

One [ Spiritual ] Baptism!

Amen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jude Thaddeus

JBO

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2023
1,848
415
83
86
Prescott, AZ
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
op: purpose of infant baptism?

Precious friends, studied this particular tradition while attending a Reformed denomination, from their
booklet, and could not find it in Scripture. When the next 'ceremony' occurred God Made me feel so
horrible inside, I stopped attending.

Then attended/listened to the immersion 'tradition', but years later, after more prayerful and Careful study of
God's Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided, found out there is no water at all, Today, Under Grace - Simply just:

One [ Spiritual ] Baptism!

Amen.
It was issued as a command. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ...." Tell me, what did you do to respond to that command? Just curious.

Paul also told us about the twelve Ephesians. He said, "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus". How was that accomplished?

Also Paul told us, that Ananias also issued a similar command: "Rise and be baptized..." How did Paul respond?

And Peter told us that the water of baptism is the anti-type to the type of the water of Noah's flood.

I think you have definitely missed something in your prayerful and careful study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spyder

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
7,013
3,838
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
years later, after more prayerful and Careful study of God's Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided, found out there is no water at all, Today, Under Grace - Simply just:

One [ Spiritual ] Baptism!
Um......I cannot understand how anyone can dismiss the validity of Christian water baptism, because of what it symbolises? Did not Jesus himself submit to it as a necessary part of accepting his role of Messiah from that day forward? Only after his water baptism did he receive the holy spirit and gain the ability to perform miracles.
The command was to “be baptised”, as a public witness of one’s acceptance of Christ as their Lord and savior. It marks the first day of the rest of your spiritual life......
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassandra

Stash

Member
Mar 26, 2024
234
88
28
71
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think it’s a wonderful thing to do for a christian family to show God that this family is going to attempt to raise a Christian child. When the child becomes of age of accountability, then he/she will have to get baptized again I believe the first one is more symbolic.

I see nothing wrong with it