Is Christening biblical? Where is it in the Bible?

When I read the title, I was thinking of smacking a bow of a ship, guess that’s not it.

Don't feel bad. I did too.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

That’s what confirmation is all about; you’re confirming your infant baptism. Quit pigeonholing the grace of God.

Infant baptism (sprinkling) is......

a. Not valid
b. Does nothing for anyone
c. Is contrary to scripture
d. Results in nothing but the kid getting wet with water
e. Not even the biblical for of baptism

wrong from A to E

Christening IMO is more of a Catholic thing. In my church we have Dedication Ceremonies for newborn babies. It is very much the same, except we do not confuse it with Holy Spirit Baptism (which is the baptism unto salvation). Dedication Ceremonies are where the parents of the child promise BEFORE God, and TO the Congregation that they will raise the child up in the Word of God. (Proverbs 22:6) It is also common for Godparents to be named at the Ceremony, and the Godparents promise BEFORE God, and TO the Congregation that, should something happen to the parents, they will step in and assume the duties of raising the child.

Has ZERO to do with salvation............has ZERO to do with baptism........water OR Holy Spirit

It is not in the Bible per se but we do find instances in the Bible when Christians received special names, particularly Saul became Paul after he as converted. Simon son of Jonah became Simon Peter.

Giving a child a Christian name is fine, but once it is connected with infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, it is very misleading.

Baptism, wedding ceremonies, and funerals were all invented by religions to make money. Recall seeing a two hour documentary on tv here exposing it all. It has been going on for centuries. The start of the corporate church goes a long way back

I disagree. Everyone in my family was infant baptized and as adults proclaim their deep faith in Christ. I decided to receive full immersion baptism 25 years ago but that does not put me in some different category of grace or salvation. It goes back to the simplicity of Christ and having faith in Him.

Disagree all you want....

a. Show me one child or infant immersed in scripture
b. Show me one infant or child that can make a conscience decision based upon knowledge of sin to trust JESUS for salvation
c. Immersion, which is the ONLY accepted mode of baptism is a picture of what has taken place inwardly by faith
d. THOSE sprinkled were never baptized and those immersed before salvation got wet and were not baptized

Baptism was invented by religions to make money, and you learned that from a TV documentary?

To make a polite suggestion...
you might want to consider grounding both your historical and theological views in more scholarly sources.

It is entirely possible that information in a TV documentary is incorrect.
..

Jesus is the perfect example (man).....

Infant baptism. It gave power to the churches as well as money.

John 3:16-17 and Romans 10:9-10 speak on my behalf regarding salvation. The simplicity of Christ.

I never said I doubt your salvation at all and we agree on many things migo...........I biblically disagree with your view on infant sprinkling.....

The conclusion does not logically follow:

So, if perhaps one church used an ordinance in a bad way, then that means all ordinances by all churches were always and only used in bad ways?

That does not logically follow.

It does not logically follow.
And it also won't hold up to any historical research.


TV Documentaries:

A TV documentary does not constitute historical research.

A. TV documentaries are not scholarly works, they aren't peer reviewed, they aren't even fact checked, and they're generally written and created by producers not historians.
B. TV documentaries are generally just undocumented nonsense with the producer injecting his own bias.
C. If you don't understand TV production, it works like this. Documentaries are cheap to produce, and they make producers some quick money. They don't have to be accurate, or factual. No one cares. The producer sells it to a network, and the network doesn't care. Nobody cares if it's accurate. They only care if the final product looks nice visually, and if it's salacious or controversial... so it will get views.

The LAST place we should look for good historical research is a TV documentary.


All ceremonies invented just for...

You said previously that ALL church ceremonies "were invented" just for scamming people out of money.

This is historically inaccurate, provably false, and your only evidence is a TV show.

To be honest, although this is disproven by the most basic historical research, research isn't even needed!
This argument falls due to basic logic errors.

How?
To show some examples of a bad church using ceremonies to scam people, and then jumping to the conclusion that this proves all ceremonies were INVENTED for the sole purpose of scamming people... well, it's a simple logic error.

The premise has nothing to do with the conclusion.


Conclusion:

If you want to dislike all churches, or dislike all ceremonies and ordinances, that's fine.
It is rational to have a personal, subjective dislike for whatever you want.

But you cannot defend your original statement as being either logical, or factually accurate.
You said ALL CEREMONIES by ALL CHURCHES were "INVENTED" for the sole purpose of taking people's money.

That won't hold up to any scrutiny of any kind.
And your only evidence is a tv show... a tv show for which you cannot even remember the name.

....

lol, nice try. This was actually very well researched, and fact checked, including bible references. As a christian, I have never taken tv shows at face value, and always check, particularly when it comes to the falsity and deception of organised religion.

http://www.plainbibleteaching.com/2...weddings-and-funerals-in-the-church-building/ your welcome. It does mention baptism too

You're making quite a fuss about the veracity of a tv documentary and you can't even cite the documentary?

?????