Au contraire but they do.
Even denying the Biblical teachings and commandments to be baptised by full immersion.
Water baptism has been Christian doctrine and practice from the beginning and yet somehow in the USA
"Christians" have reinvented doctrine, and now a sinner's prayer has replaced the spiritual significance of water baptism.
Where is that in the scriptures?
2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves
teachers to suit their own passions,
4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
2Timothy 4: (ESV)
myth = give your heart to Jesus -
truth = … “Brothers, what shall we do?”
And Peter said to them, “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." Acts 2:38 (the word of God)
Pictures of Tubs
Waggles, I'm not arguing with you ABOUT your particular beliefs.
I'm just pointing out, in a friendly way, that showing those pictures doesn't support your case.
1. A picture of a baptismal font only proves that some people in the early church had baptismal fonts, and so those particular people were baptizing by immersion.
2. A picture of a baptismal font does not prove very many PARTICULAR beliefs they had ABOUT baptism.
A. It does not prove they thought baptism was an actual condition for salvation.
B. It does not prove they believed in the "Jesus/oneness" movement, or that they held any particular views about the host of various doctrines associated with the Jesus/oneness movement.
C. ALL it proves is that they had baptismal fonts, and they practiced baptism by immersion.
3. As far as I know, most protestants (and thus most members of this forum), believe in water baptism, and in baptism by immersion... so pictures of fonts does nothing to persuade people who already believe in baptism, and it does nothing to support the case of whether baptism is a condition of salvation.
The issue is: whether or not baptism is an actual condition for salvation.
The pictures of fonts have nothing to do with this critical issue you raised... whether or not baptism is a condition for salvation.
In this particular thread I'm NOT arguing with your beliefs;
I'm only pointing out that showing pictures of baptismal fonts is a non sequitur...
it just has nothing to do with whether or not baptism (which we all believe in) is an actual condition for salvation.
* A tub where people dunk themselves, in itself, gives no explanation for "why" they were dunking themselves, exactly how they felt about dunking themselves, or how they felt about lots of other issues. A tub is just a tub.
Waggles, I think you're a nice guy, and I also think you're a very sincere Christian.
I appreciate that.
And in this particular thread, I'm not arguing with you about your beliefs.
I'm only pointing out that pictures of fonts are a non sequitur... they don't have anything to do with your conclusion that baptism is a necessary condition for salvation.
Therefore, you just need to use some better evidence.
I'm making a bit of a fuss on this because a non sequitur isn't a weak evidence, it's a "non evidence."
Since we all have to deal with really harsh people at times, like angry atheists, it's good for all of us if we make a practice of using good, sound evidences.
Hope you've been doing well.
God Bless.
..
1
