What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Fred J]

Modernists assume Paul gave up somehow on baptism because he did not mention it in every verse.

He did not mention because water baptism is before him, and is ongoing. So there's nothing more about it for him to minister, since he have his given ministry to fulfill for Christ.

That is how weird anti-baptismalists are.

There's a saying, 'You can bring the horse to the water but you cannot force it to drink.'

Since we already testify even scripturally, next, we can only pray for them that GOD because of Jesus Christ, remove the 'veil' from them.

 

[Truther]

Question for all, is the name of the father and of the son of the Holy Ghost… Jesus?


Or is the name of the father, Yahweh the name of the son, Jesus and the name of the Holy Ghost, unknown to this day?

Something like that?

 

[Truther]

He did not mention because water baptism is before him, and is ongoing. So there's nothing more about it for him to minister, since he have his given ministry to fulfill for Christ.

There's a saying, 'You can bring the horse to the water but you cannot force it to drink.'

Since we already testify even scripturally, next, we can only pray for them that GOD because of Jesus Christ, remove the 'veil' from them.

Excellent post

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Of course I reject to idea of development of doctrine. I hold to the Faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. I’m not the one demanding one hold to nonsense doctrines.

Either Rome is the church standing in the mist of time or she is something else. You can’t have it both ways. And that is why I reject Rome’s claims. Rome cannot demonstrate consistency across time so she resorts to the “Magic Bag” of development of doctrine and/ or tradition. Or as I said before it’s the “flextape” of theology. No papaliast can tell me what that tradition consists of just that Rome believes it now. And so you are forced to read later developments back into the historical record because you are told that’s what you must find. Spoiler alert, the ECF say all sorts of things. Yet the only thing you will find, in my reading, there is only a consensus regarding baptismal regeneration and communion in both kinds. Which the historical record shows that proponents of the same were burned at the stake for advocating.

Whose historical record? The Seventh Day Adventists?

So let’s get down to brass tacks. Would any of the bishops at Nicea I, have any idea of what you’re talking about? Lol, Or any of the apostles? In there lies your problem. And it’s not with me, rather it’s with history. And before pull out the Jurgens volumes be aware I have entire shelves of ECF writings.

That you read with tainted lenses. Have you ever heard of general consensus of the ECF? Or is that another magic bag?

P.s. I agree that infants should be baptized.

Lovely. You turn the Faith once delivered to the Saints into a frozen statue. Jesus used metaphors to describe His Church: seeds and bodies, that grow and expand. You rob them of their meaning. What makes schismatics like you so dangerous is that such rebellion destroys faith.

Congratulations to all who do this! They have succeeded in setting up a new religion, just as Luther did. But they have not chosen to base it on a Divine certainty. They have forgotten a wise observation made by a most unlikely critic of the Church. When a young admirer came to Voltaire in great excitement about starting a new religion, Voltaire brought him up short: “If you want to start a new religion,” he said, “begin by getting yourself killed, and then rise again on the third day.”

You go from being an ex-Catholic to an anti-Catholic to a radical traditionalist to a schismatic to a self appointed patristic scholar looking for loopholes. Your on a roll.

goodbye.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

*

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

That must be short for –

“I don’t have an intelligent response to your rock-solid Scriptural evidence about intercession of the Body of Christ” . . .

I see Truther is still littering the landscape with a man made tradition that started in 1915 out of the holy land of California, and still cannot name the phantom Jesus allegedly baptized in Acts 2:38.

 

[Taken]

“I don’t have an intelligent response

Aww…

 

[Taken]

Asking a saint in heaven to pray for us

I get it, you pray TO spirits of dead people.

no more interferes with the unique mediation of Christ than does asking a person on earth to pray for us.

MOOT. No one claimed an interference.

 

[Fred J]

1. As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21.
2. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14.

There's nothing parallel here to conclude infant baptism is a just tradition. Nowhere in the New Testament foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets for Jesus Christ, you can find it.

'GOD is truth and men are liars.'

Later after their passing and the church were left on their own, infiltrated in various teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. With that furthermore came added on laws and traditions until to date.

GOD is truth, saying, 'By your add on traditions besides the foundation, thou have made the commandment of GOD of none effect.' For HE stands by HIS commandment expecting rather 'doers' and 'abiders', and hence 'bear much good fruits' believers . And against distracting and taking away focus of believers from, to men made added laws and traditions

Apparently, history tend to repeat itself again and again, 'like dogs go back to lick their vomit'. What added on traditions of men of GOD have been fallacies exposed in the past, is repeated by the future generation of men.

Is written, 'Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of GOD.'

Blind guides repent before you find yourselves in a ditch one day!

 

[Taken]

Question for all, is the name of the father and of the son of the Holy Ghost… Jesus?


Or is the name of the father, Yahweh the name of the son, Jesus and the name of the Holy Ghost, unknown to this day?

Something like that?

The Holy Ghost…was Revealed by Titles and Descriptions…
Examples;
Lord, High Priest, Rabbi, Truth, Life, Messiah, Christ, Holy, Spirit, Power, Wisdom, Way.

The SAME Examples of Titles and Descriptions applied to Jesus.

Jesus asked a QUESTION to His Disciples…
(Of WHO the Disciples thought JESUS was…
The Disciples Answer Jesus by limit of what they understood.

Jesus’ Father IN Heaven…Gave ONE of Jesus’ disciples; SIMON BARJONA, a more complete answer, to which, SIMON BARJONA, orally repeated what Jesu’s Father IN Heaven had told SIMON BARJONA.

Jesus, called SIMON BARJONA blessed for having received the answer from Jesus’ Father IN Heaven.

Answer to your question…
The NAME of the Son of the Father.ISJesus
The NAME of the Holy Ghost………..IS Jesus
The TITLE of the Holy Ghost…………IS Christ
The TITLE of the Son of the Father..IS Christ
The Father & Son & Holy Ghost…….ARE One
……^ God…….^Lord….^Almighty

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Fred J]

We have a Good Shepherd, God Himself, we're lambs and sheep who follow one voice, and stranger's we won't.

Hearing our Good Shepherd's voice in regards infants and children, He welcomed them. He placed His hands on them and bless them, saying, "For such is the Kingdom of GOD."

As lambs and sheep this is the tradition we learn and follow, as this is the voice of our Good Shepherd.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

*

 

[BreadOfLife]

Two questions per the verse that you posted.
Number 1 question.
What is the name of the son per the verse?

Number 2, is it addressing a specific name because it is singular or three names because it is plural?

In other words is “in the name of” singular or plural?

Bonus question, if it is singular, what is that specific name of the father of the son of the Holy Ghost?
And if it is plural, what are the three names of the father of the son of the Holy Ghost?

It’s pretty frightening to be having a conversation with an adult who cannot grasp a simple idiom like “Un the name of”.

If Jesus said to Baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19( – WHY do you suppose Peter said to be Baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38)?

Hint: The answer is in the question . . .

 

[Truther]

The Holy Ghost…was Revealed by Titles and Descriptions…
Examples;
Lord, High Priest, Rabbi, Truth, Life, Messiah, Christ, Holy, Spirit, Power, Wisdom, Way.

The SAME Examples of Titles and Descriptions applied to Jesus.

Jesus asked a QUESTION to His Disciples…
(Of WHO the Disciples thought JESUS was…
The Disciples Answer Jesus by limit of what they understood.

Jesus’ Father IN Heaven…Gave ONE of Jesus’ disciples; SIMON BARJONA, a more complete answer, to which, SIMON BARJONA, orally repeated what Jesu’s Father IN Heaven had told SIMON BARJONA.

Jesus, called SIMON BARJONA blessed for having received the answer from Jesus’ Father IN Heaven.

Answer to your question…
The NAME of the Son of the Father.ISJesus
The NAME of the Holy Ghost………..IS Jesus
The TITLE of the Holy Ghost…………IS Christ
The TITLE of the Son of the Father..IS Christ
The Father & Son & Holy Ghost…….ARE One
……^ God…….^Lord….^Almighty

Glory to God,
Taken

So you think baptism in the name of Jesus is the fulfillment of the command of Matt 28:19, correct?

 

[Truther]

It’s pretty frightening to be having a conversation with an adult who cannot grasp a simple idiom like “Un the name of”.

If Jesus said to Baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19( – WHY do you suppose Peter said to be Baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38)?

Hint: The answer is in the question . . .

Just like a Catholic spin room.

Fact is, the name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus.

That is exactly why everyone that was ever baptized in the NT church was always and only baptized in the name of Jesus.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just like a Catholic spin room.

Fact is, the name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus.

That is exactly why everyone that was ever baptized in the NT church was always and only baptized in the name of Jesus.

You'll have to show me that from Scripture.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Just like a Catholic spin room.

Fact is, the name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost is Jesus.

That is exactly why everyone that was ever baptized in the NT church was always and only baptized in the name of Jesus.

Yea, "everyone" in a splinter Pentecostal group of Modalist heretics in California in 1915.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Modalistic Monarchianism teaches that the unity of God is incompatible with a distinction of Persons within the Godhead. According to modalism, God has variously manifested Himself as the Father (primarily in the Old Testament), as the Son (primarily from Jesus’ conception to His ascension), and as the Holy Spirit (primarily after Jesus’ ascension into heaven). Modalistic Monarchianism has its roots in the false teaching of Noetus of Smyrna around AD 190. Noetus called himself Moses and called his brother Aaron, and he taught that, if Jesus was God, then He must be the same as the Father. Hippolytus of Rome opposed this falsehood in his “Contra Noetum.” An early form of Modalistic Monarchianism was also taught by a priest from Asia Minor named Praxeas, who traveled to Rome and Carthage about AD 206. Tertullian countered the teaching of Praxeas in “Adversus Praxean” around 213. Modalistic Monarchianism and its related heresies were also refuted by Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and the Council of Nicea in 325.

A form of Monarchianism still exists today in Oneness Pentecostalism. In oneness theology, which is anti-Trinitarian, there are no distinctions among the Persons of the Godhead. Jesus is God, but He is also the Father and the Spirit. In a slight deviation from ancient modalism, Oneness Pentecostals teach that God is able to manifest Himself in all three “modes” simultaneously, such as at Jesus’ baptism in Luke 3:22.

Truther is a professed Modalist.

 

[Truther]

You'll have to show me that from Scripture.

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

I’m kind of tired today. Please watch the video. The scriptures are embedded in the second page of the video. Thanks for the four minutes of your time.

 

[Truther]

Yea, "everyone" in a splinter Pentecostal group of Modalist heretics in California in 1915.

I am not a modalist. People that teach that you must obey Peter per Acts 2:38 do not all have to necessarily be a modalist.