The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[JesusistheChrist]

And we have to read that scripture with the glasses of that time and environment. Not with modern anachronistic glasses.."oh, women and children really had a say, they could choose between do and not do". If the head of the family was baptized, guess what: all those in his household followed him.

If such is indeed the case, then why did Paul not only write the following to the church at Corinth, but also ordain the same in all churches:

I Corinthians chapter 7

[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
[16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
[17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

???

Did the unbelieving wife here just "follow the head of the household" in baptism as you'd have us to believe?

Seriously, take this nonsense elsewhere. Better still, just repent of the same.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

So with "conscious" you mean that one has to give some sort of intellectual consent in order to be qualified for baptism? I have used the same argument before when I advocated "believers baptism", however finally I was convinced of its flaws.

Does this answer your question:

I Peter chapter 3

[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

???

What is it about "the answer of a good conscience towards God" that you don't understand?

The word "conscience" literally means "with (con-) knowledge (science)". Can an infant answer to God "with knowledge" in relation to water baptism which signifies being buried with Christ and then being raised up and seated in heavenly places in Him?

What about this:

Romans chapter 6

[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
[7] For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
[10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
[11] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12] Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13] Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
[14] For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
[15] What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
[17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

???

Can an infant "obey from the heart this form of doctrine which is delivered unto it"?

Seriously, just give it a rest.

 

[Eva1218]

The Bible tells us to train up a child. Thus teach them how to walk with GOD and live holy. Infants are not even aware of their sin nature. For one to truly accept baptism one must have a mind to change from the way toward GOD. I have not met such an infant. John the Baptist did not tell those he baptized to bring their infants and children. Also if we truly pay close attention those who have been as babes come as adults seeking to be baptized. GOD has placed that in their heart for a reason.

Blessings!!!!!!!

 

[tribesman]

If such is indeed the case, then why did Paul not only write the following to the church at Corinth, but also ordain the same in all churches:

I Corinthians chapter 7

[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
[16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
[17] But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

???

Did the unbelieving wife here just "follow the head of the household" in baptism as you'd have us to believe?

I don't know what you want to make out of this particular issue discussed in those scripture as if it applied to all households? We must still conclude that baptizing a child in the situation described there, where only one parent is a believer, is acceptable and should be cared for to be done by the believing parent.

Seriously, take this nonsense elsewhere. Better still, just repent of the same.

Repent of saying that household baptism is to be understood with the biblical times perspective in mind? Funny. You say this because I don't happen to agree with you and your pentecostal (?) ideas? Seems quiet controlfreakish to me. But I guess if you're into "I am right cause I feel it" then I am on deaf ears here.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Well Acts 16:14–15,18:8; 1Cor 1:16 are good evidences that small children (of believers) indeed received baptism. And it does matter what one believes about baptism, what it actually is and what it does or contains, when one takes position on this. If one see baptism as merely a "symbol" of one's commitment or something that is done as a work of man, having first met certain criteria and thus qualifying for it by means of mere intellectual consent, then it's hard to see the covenantal principle in baptism (and of course harder even harder to see that children of believers were all qualified to receive such). I see those favoring "believers baptism" making great deal about the word "infant" and being very uncertain/unclear on when the earliest age of child qualifying for baptism actually is, coming up with man-made notions like "the age of accountability" etc. Anyway, I am ready to answer all objections to "infant baptism", with scripture references accordingly.

Really?

Here are the verses which you cited:

Acts chapter 16

[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
[15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

There's not even a mention of Lydia being married, let alone having any infant children. Furthermore, Lydia encountered Paul at Philippi (Acts 16:12) which, to my present understanding, is about 240 miles away from Thyatira and she was apparently travelling for business in that she was "a seller of purple". With such being the case, it's even less probable that there were any infants at Lydia's home, so, again, all that you have as your alleged "good evidence" is your own eisegesis.

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

And...???

What is it about "BELIEVED ON THE LORD WITH ALL HIS HOUSE" that you don't understand?

Can infants "BELIEVE ON THE LORD"?

This is your "good evidence"?

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." (I Corinthians 1:16)

And...???

You do realize that Paul mentioned this same exact "household of Stephanas" later on in this same epistle, don't you?

I Corinthians chapter 16

[15] I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
[16] That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Did these alleged infants in "the house of Stephanas" ADDICT THEMSELVES TO THE MINISTRY OF THE SAINTS?

Did these alleged infants in "the house of Stephanas" receive a commendation from Paul that the saints at Corinth ought to SUBMIT THEMSELVES UNTO SUCH?

Your "good evidences" are figments of your own imagination, friend.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

I don't know what you want to make out of this particular issue discussed in those scripture as if it applied to all households? We must still conclude that baptizing a child in the situation described there, where only one parent is a believer, is acceptable and should be cared for to be done by the believing parent.

YOU are the one who sought to dupe us into believing that certain things "applied to all households", friend, and I merely exposed your error.

Repent of saying that household baptism is to be understood with the biblical times perspective in mind? Funny. You say this because I don't happen to agree with you and your pentecostal (?) ideas? Seems quiet controlfreakish to me. But I guess if you're into "I am right cause I feel it" then I am on deaf ears here.

Again, your alleged "Biblical times perspective" is FALSE...as I just finished documenting for you.

"Controlfreakish"?

Nah.

I just don't suffer heretics and their heresies.

 

[thecreationtutor]

It may not be explicitly spelled out in scripture but the Apostles did teach it according to history.

HAHAHHHAHAAHHHHAHAHAHAHHHHAAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHH

 

[tribesman]

Does this answer your question:

I Peter chapter 3

[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

???

What is it about "the answer of a good conscience towards God" that you don't understand?

The word "conscience" literally means "with (con-) knowledge (science)". Can an infant answer to God "with knowledge" in relation to water baptism which signifies being buried with Christ and then being raised up and seated in heavenly places in Him?

Well, the question might be returned back to you and be: Why could NOT an infant do this? Well, only if you consider faith as something equal to intellectual consent or capacity, then you can say that. But that is rationalism, pure and simple. That is not how faith is described in the Bible. John the baptist had much knowledge there in his mother's womb and he leaped of joy there, when hearing the greeting of Mary. That way God was glorified. Actually knowledge about spiritual things and faith in God are not something that originate from man's own intellect or will. Age and maturity does not qualify one to better receive baptism. So all of these manifestations are God's doing and so is baptism. But the rationalist is only focused on his own performance and capacity. Hence two divergent paths.

What about this:

Romans chapter 6

[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
[7] For he that is dead is freed from sin.
[8] Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
[10] For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
[11] Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[12] Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[13] Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
[14] For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
[15] What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
[16] Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
[17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
[18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

???

Can an infant "obey from the heart this form of doctrine which is delivered unto it"?

Obedience and repentance is primarily about obeying the gospel, by believing in it and count all own efforts of self righteousness as dung. It is a wrong assertion, not found in the Bible, that infants can not believe. An infant may well believe the gospel, just as well a 90+ year old person at their deathbed may believe the gospel. When God chooses to glorify Himself in a person then age, mental and intellectual capacity means absolutely nothing. And when He regenerates and saves that person He also immediately gives that person knowledge about Himself. No age limits.

 

[tribesman]

Really?

Here are the verses which you cited:

Acts chapter 16

[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
[15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

There's not even a mention of Lydia being married, let alone having any infant children. Furthermore, Lydia encountered Paul at Philippi (Acts 16:12) which, to my present understanding, is about 240 miles away from Thyatira and she was apparently travelling for business in that she was "a seller of purple". With such being the case, it's even less probable that there were any infants at Lydia's home, so, again, all that you have as your alleged "good evidence" is your own eisegesis.

"And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18:8)

And...???

What is it about "BELIEVED ON THE LORD WITH ALL HIS HOUSE" that you don't understand?

Can infants "BELIEVE ON THE LORD"?

This is your "good evidence"?

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." (I Corinthians 1:16)

And...???

You do realize that Paul mentioned this same exact "household of Stephanas" later on in this same epistle, don't you?

I Corinthians chapter 16

[15] I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)
[16] That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth.

Did these alleged infants in "the house of Stephanas" ADDICT THEMSELVES TO THE MINISTRY OF THE SAINTS?

Did these alleged infants in "the house of Stephanas" receive a commendation from Paul that the saints at Corinth ought to SUBMIT THEMSELVES UNTO SUCH?

Your "good evidences" are figments of your own imagination, friend.

You are a man very much stuck to your own understanding. Stuck into literalist reading and lacking enough knowledge about the time and environment of the biblical era. Blind to the errors of your many unbiblical conclusions and your own (or someone else's) man made ideas that you want to press into the texts. These examples you are frustratingly trying to comment on with strawmen arguments, are all good examples of household baptisms. Yes. You argue with me saying "can infants believe on the Lord?". Well, you are the one saying that they can not believe. Not me. You call me friend? Have seen no friendliness in you so far.

 

[tribesman]

YOU are the one who sought to dupe us into believing that certain things "applied to all households", friend, and I merely exposed your error.

Again, your alleged "Biblical times perspective" is FALSE...as I just finished documenting for you.

"Controlfreakish"?

Nah.

I just don't suffer heretics and their heresies.

What hypocrisy you show here. I guess you are one of these many heresy-hunters who see every would be "heresy" on earth, save your own heresy.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

You are a man very much stuck to your own understanding. Stuck into literalist reading and lacking enough knowledge about the time and environment of the biblical era. Blind to the errors of your many unbiblical conclusions and your own (or someone else's) man made ideas that you want to press into the texts. These examples you are frustratingly trying to comment on with strawmen arguments, are all good examples of household baptisms. Yes. You argue with me saying "can infants believe on the Lord?". Well, you are the one saying that they can not believe. Not me. You call me friend? Have seen no friendliness in you so far.

Friend, buy yourself a mirror. Seriously, everything that you just falsely accused me of actually applies directly to you. What you call my "lack of knowledge about the time and environment of the Biblical era" has already been shown to actually be error on your part. Deal with it, friend. Projecting your own sins unto others is never going to be of any benefit to you.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

What hypocrisy you show here. I guess you are one of these many heresy-hunters who see every would be "heresy" on earth, save your own heresy.

What you're teaching is heresy and I'm not the only person here to mention the same to you. Incidentally, no heretics have any inheritance in the kingdom of God, so you really ought to repent of the same:

Galatians chapter 5

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[tribesman]

Friend, buy yourself a mirror. Seriously, everything that you just falsely accused me of actually applies directly to you. What you call my "lack of knowledge about the time and environment of the Biblical era" has already been shown to actually be error on your part. Deal with it, friend. Projecting your own sins unto others is never going to be of any benefit to you.

*shaking head* Another emotional "I am right, you are wrong!" fellow, just coming in and heaping accusations and personal attacks and then calling me friend? You think you are so much right, but you aren't. Just full of yourself.

Anyways, all serious users can see that this users attitude leads to nothing than pie throwing. A little pope sitting their throwing "heretic" to those who don't agree with him. Not adding anything of value to the thread.

 

[tribesman]

What you're teaching is heresy and I'm not the only person here to mention the same to you. Incidentally, no heretics have any inheritance in the kingdom of God, so you really ought to repent of the same:

Galatians chapter 5

[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

You are a funny guy. Blind to your own heresies. Bye.

 

[michael56]

What age do you think a person can repent.

I think for the purpose of this debate we should ask. ''When is a child too young to repent''

Is a two or three year old for example able to recognize their sin, then repent of it and ask Jesus into their life as Lord and Saviour. I think definitely not. Therefore, repent, be baptized(Acts 2:38) could not be applicable to them could it.

To address your specific question, I am not one that would set a hard and fast age for everyone. All young people are different, my own personal belief is eight would be the minimum I would be comfortable with, but I do not profess to be an expert on the matter.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Well, the question might be returned back to you and be: Why could NOT an infant do this? Well, only if you consider faith as something equal to intellectual consent or capacity, then you can say that. But that is rationalism, pure and simple. That is not how faith is described in the Bible. John the baptist had much knowledge there in his mother's womb and he leaped of joy there, when hearing the greeting of Mary. That way God was glorified. Actually knowledge about spiritual things and faith in God are not something that originate from man's own intellect or will. Age and maturity does not qualify one to better receive baptism. So all of these manifestations are God's doing and so is baptism. But the rationalist is only focused on his own performance and capacity. Hence two divergent paths.

First of all, John THE BAPTIST not only had Old Testament prophecies given in relation to him (Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1), but his father was also told the following in relation to his birth:

Luke chapter 1

[11] And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
[12] And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
[13] But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
[14] And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
[15] For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
[16] And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
[17] And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

John the Baptist's birth was far from the norm in that he was "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb", so that had everything to do with him leaping for joy at Mary's salutation.

Secondly, are you prepared to show any of us from scripture where John THE BAPTIST was baptized as an infant? If not, then what's your point? That an infant with the Holy Ghost inside of him can rejoice? And...??? What does any of this have to do with infant baptism? Again, was John THE BAPTIST baptized as an infant? Good luck with that.

Thirdly, John THE BAPTIST was just that:

A BAPTIZER.

Would you care to show any of us from scripture where John THE BAPTIST ever baptized an infant?

Wait!

Maybe he baptized Jesus as an infant?

Nah, that happened when Jesus was an adult as Jesus was never baptized as an infant either.

Here's what John THE BAPTIST said to those who came to his baptism:

Matthew chapter 3

[1] In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
[2] And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
[3] For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
[4] And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
[6] And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
[8] Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
[9] And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
[10] And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
[11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
[12] Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

"Repent"?

"Confess your sins"?

Yeah, we both know that infants can do the same, right?!?

Like I said, give it a rest.

Obedience and repentance is primarily about obeying the gospel, by believing in it and count all own efforts of self righteousness as dung. It is a wrong assertion, not found in the Bible, that infants can not believe. An infant may well believe the gospel, just as well a 90+ year old person at their deathbed may believe the gospel. When God chooses to glorify Himself in a person then age, mental and intellectual capacity means absolutely nothing. And when He regenerates and saves that person He also immediately gives that person knowledge about Himself. No age limits.

You say that it's "a wrong assertion" and yet you've only offered the John THE BAPTIST, somebody who was filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb and somebody who was never baptized as an infant himself or who never baptized infants, as your alleged "proof" of the same. You'll need to do a lot better than that, friend. Better still, you'll need to show some Biblical examples of infants who were actually baptized and we both know that no such instances are recorded anywhere in the Bible BECAUSE THEY NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Just a friendly reality check.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

You are a funny guy. Blind to your own heresies. Bye.

I'm not here to be "funny", friend...and don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

*shaking head* Another emotional "I am right, you are wrong!" fellow, just coming in and heaping accusations and personal attacks and then calling me friend? You think you are so much right, but you aren't. Just full of yourself.

Anyways, all serious users can see that this users attitude leads to nothing than pie throwing. A little pope sitting their throwing "heretic" to those who don't agree with him. Not adding anything of value to the thread.

You are wrong. Again, you made an assertion about how everybody within a household followed the head of the household in Biblical times and I showed you to be in error. If you're too proud to repent, then you're too proud to repent.

P.S.

"Emotional"?

You're the crybaby here, friend, who doesn't like your error being challenged.

 

[Lynx]

Only 13 hours old and already four pages into the insults, accusations and questioning of the salvation of others. A Bible Discussions thread sure does grow up fast.

 

[tribesman]

You are wrong. Again, you made an assertion about how everybody within a household followed the head of the household in Biblical times and I showed you to be in error. If you're too proud to repent, then you're too proud to repent.

Nothing showed. You are denying that infant baptism took place in biblical times, being unable to show it (and you can not). Yet you want to forcefully have people agree with you and your views. You are not seeing your own pride, from where your contention comes. You are blind to it. This is the huge sin of hypocrisy that you live in. You like to sit there like a little pope and want to lord it over others what they should think and believe. Meaningless to continue any discusssion with you.