What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Fred J]

Christianity was illegal in the first 3 centuries, so having a building would have invited the pagan Romans gunning for them.

View attachment 46727
Fred has no bishop, an office clearly found in the NT.

Apparently, not in your 'counterfeit' and 'imposter' catholic denomination who are murders of my fathers. Who held on to the word to word scripture they've handed to me, until they were persecuted by papacy. It is not surprising you Jesuits deceitfully making a come back to take over what you desperately lost.

May GOD the FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ forgive and help you, before you find yourselves in a ditch one day.

 

[Randy Kluth]

We are not commanded in Scripture to be "Re-Baptized".

Of course not, and I did not suggest that. When one is re-baptized it is because he feels that the 1st baptism may not have been a legitimate baptism.

In fact, infant baptism is not an actual baptism. The infant does not know what he or she is doing. Real baptism involves repentance and a confession of Christ as Lord and Savior. An infant cannot do that.

So I was "baptized" as an infant in accordance with Lutheran terminology. But I feel it was really a parent dedication of the child to Christ, as a promise to raise the child up in Christ.

I don't believe I needed to get baptized as an adolescent. But I did anyway--didn't hurt me. It's just a confession, and not a legal requirement for Salvation.

Eph. 4:5-6
One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Water Baptism represents a single religion, Christianity. John's Baptism was pre-Christian and was not what Paul was talking about. He was talking about Christian Baptism.

Nor is it necessary to distinguish between Christian Water Baptism and Christian Spirit Baptism. They both represent the same Baptism in which we identify with Christ and are united with him by the Spirit of God. Water Baptism is the external act representing the internal reality produced by God's Spirit.

Baptism replaces circumcision as the "circumcision of the heart" (Rom. 2:25-29), as Paul called it.

No, Circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham before the Age of Grace. And it became part of the Law of Moses.

We, as Christians, are no longer under the Law, and Gentiles never were under the Law. So none of us are under the law of Circumcision or under the Law of Baptism, which is not really a "law" at all. It is a recommended procedure that Christ commanded his apostles to make available to those who wished to demonstrate their desire to be united with Christ in Spirit.

Acts 2:3839
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you qin the name of Jesus Christ rfor the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive sthe gift of the Holy Spirit. For tthe promise is for you and ufor your children and for all vwho are far off, EVERYONE

The very SAME is promised for ALL who are Baptized.

As I've said many times, raising your hand, going forward to the altar, and praying the sinner's prayer can be said to get you saved. But they are not really requirements for Salvation. When I say believing in Jesus and going forward will "save you," it is just adding outward actions to the inward faith that really saves you.

Water Baptism doesn't save anybody. It is the inward faith that saves. Baptism replicates water salvation in the way Noah's Flood represented his own Salvation from God's Wrath.

It was a picture of God's mercy bestowed upon those who do not live in debauchery like the wicked world. It is a performance to demonstrate what is in the heart such that it is really what goes on in the heart that saves, and not the external act.

 

[Fred J]

The Gospel is very clear, after John the Baptist, Jesus and His disciple were still baptizing grown ups who repent and came to be baptized with water. And this too continued in the book of Acts, in the churches until today, whether completely not documented.

Next, He personally conducted the washing of His disciple's feet, as He set an example, they do it to one another. Even this is not documented after Him, but wisdom teaches us they did for one another as the Lord will.

"Infant baptism' is a tradition added by man, as other ancient pagan added traditions, even of Roman's and of Greek's in their denomination. Islam scholars also can quote our scriptures to authenticate their revelation is the final revelation from ours? Even ironically to claim our Prophets and Jesus were muslims, and even muhammed is mentioned using our scriptures?

And Christians even pastors have become muslims, so where do we draw the line, or just go with the flow? Through out the New Testament the foundation of the Kingdom in these last days for all born again church. There's no mention since the beginning with Jesus, the Apostle and the churches, to the letter, 'infant baptism'.

Mark 10:13-16, Jesus did not conduct washing of infants, for He was touching and blessing, not only infants but also children. So, the elders in my church, as parents bring their infants and children to them. Whom were not touched and bless by them, hence they touch and bless them saying;

"In the name of Lord Jesus Christ, for such is the Kingdom of GOD."

Does not that tradition go hand in hand with the scripture, as 'doers' and 'abiders' accordingly? (2Timothy3:16&17)

 

[BreadOfLife]

When you judge others, you condemn yourself because you do the very same things like ranting and so, you accuse others do.

I get to the point quickly.

The long-winded rants that YOU post are a common tactic by those who have nothing of substance to say

Am not Judas but am called to live by the every word that proceeded out of the mouth of GOD. So, i don't witness word to word in Mark 10:13-16, or other verses you quote, that does support your added man made traditions.

I didn’t say that you were Judas.

I said that you behave like him when you condemn others for giving their very best to God,

i perceive by the Spirit to spirit, where you and your denomination proud in your traditions stand, with the Lord's reply;

"Thus have ye made the commandment of GOD of none effect by your tradition."

"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

Time for another Bible Lesson . . .

Jesus didn’t condemn tradition (Mark 7:8). He condemned the traditions of the Pharisees that nullified the Word of God because they placed their traditions ABOVE His Word.

Jesus and the Apostles respected and relied on Tradition . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exod. 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course not, and I did not suggest that. When one is re-baptized it is because he feels that the 1st baptism may not have been a legitimate baptism.

In fact, infant baptism is not an actual baptism. The infant does not know what he or she is doing. Real baptism involves repentance and a confession of Christ as Lord and Savior. An infant cannot do that.

So I was "baptized" as an infant in accordance with Lutheran terminology. But I feel it was really a parent dedication of the child to Christ, as a promise to raise the child up in Christ.

I don't believe I needed to get baptized as an adolescent. But I did anyway--didn't hurt me. It's just a confession, and not a legal requirement for Salvation.

WRONG.

As I pointed out before – Acts 2:39 states that the promises of Baptism are for EVERYONE whom the Lord calls.

Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your CHILDREN and for all who are far off, EVERYONE whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

In your 2md “baptism” – you merely got wet . . .

Water Baptism represents a single religion, Christianity. John's Baptism was pre-Christian and was not what Paul was talking about. He was talking about Christian Baptism.

Nor is it necessary to distinguish between Christian Water Baptism and Christian Spirit Baptism. They both represent the same Baptism in which we identify with Christ and are united with him by the Spirit of God. Water Baptism is the external act representing the internal reality produced by God's Spirit.

The Scripture tell us that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a RESULT of Baptism (Ezek. 36:25-28, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-39).

No, Circumcision was a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham before the Age of Grace. And it became part of the Law of Moses.

We, as Christians, are no longer under the Law, and Gentiles never were under the Law. So none of us are under the law of Circumcision or under the Law of Baptism, which is not really a "law" at all. It is a recommended procedure that Christ commanded his apostles to make available to those who wished to demonstrate their desire to be united with Christ in Spirit.

Circumcision is how one entered into the Covenant with God.
We are no longer bound by this first Covenant.

HOWEVER, we are part of the NEW COVENANT, which requires Baptism for the remission of sin, the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and salvation (Mark 13:13).

As I've said many times, raising your hand, going forward to the altar, and praying the sinner's prayer can be said to get you saved. But they are not really requirements for Salvation. When I say believing in Jesus and going forward will "save you," it is just adding outward actions to the inward faith that really saves you.

Can you show me where the BIBLE makes this claim??
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

As for an “Altar” – you don’t have ALTARS IN Protestant buildings.
An “Altar” is a place of sacrifice.

WE Catholics celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That's why WE have an altar . . .

Water Baptism doesn't save anybody. It is the inward faith that saves. Baptism replicates water salvation in the way Noah's Flood represented his own Salvation from God's Wrath.

It was a picture of God's mercy bestowed upon those who do not live in debauchery like the wicked world. It is a performance to demonstrate what is in the heart such that it is really what goes on in the heart that saves, and not the external act.

WRONG.

Mark 16:16
Whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

1 Pet. 3:20-21
… to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and THIS WATER SYMBOLIZES BAPTISM THAT NOW SAVES YOU also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

WRONG.

As I pointed out before – Acts 2:39 states that the promises of Baptism are for EVERYONE whom the Lord calls.

What are you hoping to prove by referring to Acts 2.39?

Acts 2.38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

This verse is a promise for those who do these things. It is not a list of essential items to do in order to get the promise! As I've said before, God may promise someone who attends an evangelistic service, who responds to the evangelist by raising his hand, who goes down the aisle to receive Jesus as Lord, and who then falls down under the power of God.

Then God may promise, through the evangelist, who discerns the sincerity of the penitent, that he will be saved. Does this mean that everybody, in order to be saved, must lift their hand, go down an aisle, and fall under the power of God? Even if everybody is promised Salvation who may do these things this way, it does not mean that everybody *must* get saved in this way!

You have to be naive to think you have to get water baptized to be saved when you know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized and yet was saved, that Paul made water baptism to be lower down on his priority list that ministering the word of God? Those who emphasize Baptism for Salvation or Regeneration are using select examples to prove a universal doctrine--one that is not supported by Scriptures. The Scriptures show baptism to be a response to those who have already been saved. It is a picture of salvation that is internal and spiritual, as Peter said.

1 Pet 3.21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Shame on you for pushing legalism! Paul was strongly insistent that legalists were a hindrance to true Christian Salvation

The Scripture tell us that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a RESULT of Baptism (Ezek. 36:25-28, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-39).

Water Baptism is *not* in the book of Ezekiel! ;) John 3.5 does *not* teach that the gift of the Spirit follows Water Baptism!

Acts 2.38 does teach that the gift of the Spirit can follow the water baptism of repentance, as presented by John the Baptist. It shows that OT baptism was meant to lead to NT Spirit Baptism. In the case of Cornelius, the Spirit came *before* water baptism!

Acts 10.44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Circumcision is how one entered into the Covenant with God.
We are no longer bound by this first Covenant.

Circumcision belongs to the Old Covenant--not the New Covenant.

HOWEVER, we are part of the NEW COVENANT, which requires Baptism for the remission of sin, the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) and salvation (Mark 13:13).

See above. NT Water Baptism is not the equivalent of OT Circumcision. Circumcision was required for membership in the Old Covenant. Water Baptism is *not* required for membership in the Body of Christ.

Can you show me where the BIBLE makes this claim??
Chapter and Verse, please . . .

As for an “Altar” – you don’t have ALTARS IN Protestant buildings.
An “Altar” is a place of sacrifice.

Only in the Old Covenant is an altar for animal sacrifice. In churches, it is a place for worshiping God. Our offering is the offering of ourselves in service to God.

WE Catholics celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That's why WE have an altar . . .

We all originated from one Church, and we should not divide the various denominations. The exception would be churches who deviate from the creeds, or from basic Christian morality.

 

[Fred J]

Ironically, 'infant baptism', besides using water and other things included in the ceremony as tradition in some denominations today. And as one denomination tend to conduct better than the other since, is not mentioned in the entire Holy Bible.

Apparently as history tend to repeat itself, it's like the Pharisees in their given oral traditions made simple. They have added for themselves further laws to go with the traditions, also by definition, giving their very best to GOD.

But what happened when Christ came, wasn't there contention and hostility between the blind Pharisees and Jews sons of the devil and the Son of GOD??

What more evidence do we need, in vain we too contend back and forth with the likewise fallacy generation of today? When clearly from Mark 10:13-16 oral tradition among others, made simple to do and abide as the church. There are certain church denomination Pharisees since have added laws among laws to these biblical traditions. As here for example, added laws resulting to 'infant baptism and ceremonies', also claiming giving their very best to GOD.

Now, what will happen when Christ comes back again like a thief in the night?? When in repetition of the scripture is understood that by their traditions and added laws they hold onto tightly until today. As a result history repeated itself, they've made the commandment of GOD of none effect, period

 

[quietthinker]

What is the purpose of infant baptism?​

To make certain adults feel good and to add to the coffers of the church.

 

[thelord's_pearl]

TonyChanYT, your honesty is refreshing. However, there are dangers here that we need to be aware of.

Without getting into the history of the Jewish ritual of water baptism, it always involved one who is accountable. And certainly an 8-day-old is not accountable.

So what is the spiritual agenda behind those who would push for sprinkling such young ones? Well, it's similar to telling yours about Santa Claus.

At some point, they will discover that Santa is a lie, and so "maybe my dad also lied to me about Jesus." Every time we are dishonest to those we are in authority over (e.g. attempting to instill a belief on another in lieu of their understanding and acceptance), there is a searing of the conscience that takes place. Sprinkling an underling who has no comprehension of the ritual or its purpose leaves that person defenseless to the spirit behind it. You can see the utility that Satan would get from this (e.g. Ex. 20:5).

We must remain in the truth at all times, and not condescend to traditions of men, no matter how "right" they may appear.

I agree, children are vulnerable because things that they see you do, they will not know better until they get to know God and Christ and things that they hear, they will be affected in how they see society, and the upbringing of a child to adulthood is very important in the nurturing process/stages in how they will develop and see the world and how they will trust others.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What are you hoping to prove by referring to Acts 2.39?

Acts 2.38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

This verse is a promise for those who do these things. It is not a list of essential items to do in order to get the promise! As I've said before, God may promise someone who attends an evangelistic service, who responds to the evangelist by raising his hand, who goes down the aisle to receive Jesus as Lord, and who then falls down under the power of God.

Then God may promise, through the evangelist, who discerns the sincerity of the penitent, that he will be saved. Does this mean that everybody, in order to be saved, must lift their hand, go down an aisle, and fall under the power of God? Even if everybody is promised Salvation who may do these things this way, it does not mean that everybody *must* get saved in this way!

You have to be naive to think you have to get water baptized to be saved when you know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized and yet was saved, that Paul made water baptism to be lower down on his priority list that ministering the word of God? Those who emphasize Baptism for Salvation or Regeneration are using select examples to prove a universal doctrine--one that is not supported by Scriptures. The Scriptures show baptism to be a response to those who have already been saved. It is a picture of salvation that is internal and spiritual, as Peter said.

1 Pet 3.21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.

Shame on you for pushing legalism! Paul was strongly insistent that legalists were a hindrance to true Christian Salvation

The Bible says that we MUST be Baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38-39, 1 Pet. 3:21). You are making the cardinal error of from the exception instead of the norm.

Baptism is the norm.

The Thief on the cross was an exception. He would have been baptized had he lived. However, he didn’t come to Christ until he was dying.

There are other examples of exceptions in Scripture . . .

Heb. 9:27 says that it is appointed for man to die ONCE. Apparently, Enoch and Elijah, didn’t get the memo.
Ummm, didn’t Lazarus die TWICE??
How about the Jairus’s daughter (Matt. 9:18-36) that Jesus raised up?

God makes exceptions wherever and whenever He wills . . .

Water Baptism is *not* in the book of Ezekiel! ;) John 3.5 does *not* teach that the gift of the Spirit follows Water Baptism!

Your denial of these Scriptural facts doesn’t make the “untrue”.
It just magnifies YOUR Biblical ignorance.

Acts 2.38 does teach that the gift of the Spirit can follow the water baptism of repentance, as presented by John the Baptist. It shows that OT baptism was meant to lead to NT Spirit Baptism. In the case of Cornelius, the Spirit came *before* water baptism!

Acts 10.44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

AGAIN, you are arguing from the point of the exception instead of the NORM.

And Cornelius’s ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD was Baptized along with him.
1st century households usually included spouses, servants and children of ALL ages.

Paul Baptized the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS of Philippian Jailer (Acts 16:23-33) and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16).

Circumcision belongs to the Old Covenant--not the New Covenant.

WRONG.

Circumcision of the flesh is how one entered the Old Covenant.
Circumcision of the heart (Baptism) is how we enter the NEW Covenant.

See above. NT Water Baptism is not the equivalent of OT Circumcision. Circumcision was required for membership in the Old Covenant. Water Baptism is *not* required for membership in the Body of Christ.

It is absolutely required (John 3:5, Mark 16:16).
Your denials don’t “nullify” Scripture.

Just as Jewish parents circumcised their baby sons and raised them in the faith – Christian parents Baptize their children and raise them in the faith.

Only in the Old Covenant is an altar for animal sacrifice. In churches, it is a place for worshiping God. Our offering is the offering of ourselves in service to God.

The altar is the place of the ULTIMATE sacrifice – that of the Body and Blood of Christ. You might have a podium or a table in your meeting hall -but you don’t have an altar . . .

We all originated from one Church, and we should not divide the various denominations. The exception would be churches who deviate from the creeds, or from basic Christian morality.

That was the doing of your Protestant Fathers in the 16th century.

The Catholic Church remains ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What is the purpose of infant baptism?​

To make certain adults feel good and to add to the coffers of the church.

A feebleminded and half-witted post, to be sure.

Maybe you should leave the serious topics to the Bible students around here . . .

 

[quietthinker]

A feebleminded and half-witted post, to be sure.

Maybe you should leave the serious topics to the Bible students around here . . .

hmmmm, is this your best shot?

 

[Fred J]

What is the purpose of infant baptism?​

To make certain adults feel good and to add to the coffers of the church.

Well said in simple words, thank you.

Matthew chapter 23, is a clear resemblance of them mentioned above, 'hypocrites' and 'brood of vipers', as history tend to repeat itself generation. A lesson we should've learned from the Israelite's mistakes by the New Testament, GOD given and made Covenant with us.

For the record, at the end of the day GOD favor HIS children compared to the dogs who's given a chance to eat the crumbs that fell from their table. Jesus said, learn from the Pharisees but do not do what they do, for they say one thing and do another.

We're built in the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and oral tradition in the New Testament. And we add nothing to the letter nor remove any thing from the letter, for it is unto workers of lawlessness or iniquity. On the other hand, we are to outdo each other in charity, as Jesus said, even to the least followers of mine you did, you've done to Me.

That's why the Holy Ghost again and again want me to testify to these proud and heart-hardened scribes and Pharisees of today in the making.

For it is written;

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the Law, judgement, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisees, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. And say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the Prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you Prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the Temple and the alter. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

For in Revelation chapter 17;

And I saw a woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, i wondered with great admiration.

Finally;

And a man's foe shall be they of his own household.

 

[JBO]

What are you hoping to prove by referring to Acts 2.39?

Acts 2.38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

This verse is a promise for those who do these things. It is not a list of essential items to do in order to get the promise! As I've said before, God may promise someone who attends an evangelistic service, who responds to the evangelist by raising his hand, who goes down the aisle to receive Jesus as Lord, and who then falls down under the power of God.

Well, that is true; however; where do you find any other such promise? You can't find it because it isn't there.

Then God may promise, through the evangelist, who discerns the sincerity of the penitent, that he will be saved. Does this mean that everybody, in order to be saved, must lift their hand, go down an aisle, and fall under the power of God? Even if everybody is promised Salvation who may do these things this way, it does not mean that everybody *must* get saved in this way!

That evangelist has no such authority. And run as if your life depended on it as fast as you can from any who would claim such authority.

You have to be naive to think you have to get water baptized to be saved when you know the thief on the cross wasn't baptized and yet was saved

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ did not exist for the thief on the cross; it is a New Covenant directive. That whole thief-on-the-cross argument against baptism is really just an ignorant argument against baptism.

Acts 2.38 does teach that the gift of the Spirit can follow the water baptism of repentance, as presented by John the Baptist.....

It doesn't teach that the gift of the Spirit can follow water baptism, it teaches that it does

 

[BreadOfLife]

hmmmm, is this your best shot?

Nope.

But, snarky and sophomoric remarks don't require my best.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, that is true; however; where do you find any other such promise? You can't find it because it isn't there.

That evangelist has no such authority. And run as if your life depended on it as fast as you can from any who would claim such authority.

I know what you mean, but in reality, Christ has bestowed authority on his representatives to "bind" and to "loose." That means to me that if you, as a Christian, are ministering to someone who is lost and is seeking forgiveness you can, as a Christian, authoritatively confer on him or her the assurance of God's forgiveness when the conditions warrant it. You can exercise spiritual discernment to know if God is really doing that, and then God can use you to assure the person in a way that they can experience it.

Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ did not exist for the thief on the cross; it is a New Covenant directive. That whole thief-on-the-cross argument against baptism is really just an ignorant argument against baptism.

Remember that Jesus' disciples were baptizing *before* the Cross! But okay...

It doesn't teach that the gift of the Spirit can follow water baptism, it teaches that it does

As I've said, saying that something happens on a particular occasion is not to be confused with a doctrine that *requires* those particular circumstances. Someone who believes and is baptized may be saved, but it does not mean that the person had to do any more than *believe* to be saved. Baptism just followed the belief as an expression of the belief.

In my view, Faith saves--not Water Baptism. Water Baptism "saves" only as a symbol of the same, which is internal and spiritual--not external and ritual. Baptism is a *symbol* of Salvation, which preexists the ritual.

 

[quietthinker]

Nope.

But, snarky and sophomoric remarks don't require my best.

I'm surprised you don't see the futility and its associated construction re infant baptism.....but I am not surprised at your attempt to diminish my comments on the matter or make a personal attack.

 

[JBO]

In my view, Faith saves--not Water Baptism. Water Baptism "saves" only as a symbol of the same, which is internal and spiritual--not external and ritual. Baptism is a *symbol* of Salvation, which preexists the ritual.

That may be your view, but it is not God's view. It is not what God has said in the Bible. Baptism is no more a "symbol" of salvation than is believing in God.

Jesus declared in the Great Commision of Matthew 28:19-20 that disciples are made by baptizing and teaching.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm surprised you don't see the futility and its associated construction re infant baptism.....but I am not surprised at your attempt to diminish my comments on the matter or make a personal attack.

Because your response was nonsense.

If you want to have a real conversation - then refute the Scriptural evidence I've presented add make a solid case for your position.
This is Debating 101 . . .

 

[Randy Kluth]

That may be your view, but it is not God's view. It is not what God has said in the Bible. Baptism is no more a "symbol" of salvation than is believing in God.

Jesus declared in the Great Commision of Matthew 28:19-20 that disciples are made by baptizing and teaching.

False.
Peter did say the water in Water Baptism is symbolic of internal, spiritual Salvation. In other words, the water itself doesn't save. The ritual "saves" only in the sense that it represents the internal reality that *preceded* the ritual.

It is non sequitur because it does not follow that getting baptism is part of the formula that produces the Salvation. If it is only the Faith that is producing the Salvation. Water Baptism is just an add-on ritual, confirming that Salvation has already taken place.