sola scriptura is the way of protestant christians who also deny infant baptism because it was not explicitly written down in the bible.

another day another controversy, if every detail of everything was written in the bible, it will be has big as anythn

Really? Paul Baptised Lydia and her household in Philippi. It's in Act

rezzy:
Really? Paul Baptised Lydia and her household in Philippi. It's in Act

I click this thread to type this. Thank you for the reply.

rezzy:
Really? Paul Baptised Lydia and her household in Philippi. It's in Act

Infants included.

lomprico:

Infants included.

Proof

nairalandbuzz:


Proof

No, you disprove it. Or are children not part of the household?

lacum:
sola scriptura is the way of protestant christians who also deny infant baptism because it was not explicitly written down in the bible.

Am not sure you know your bible very well. Check this out.

Acts 8:12King James Version (KJV)


12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and [size=18pt]women[/size].

Baptism is for those who believe, an infant does not have the capacity to doubt or believe.

paulGrundy:


Am not sure you know your bible very well. Check this out.

Acts 8:12King James Version (KJV)


12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and [size=18pt]women[/size].

Baptism is for those who believe, an infant does not have the capacity to doubt or believe.

Chai!

If I may add, we have a good grasp of Christian history to know that infant baptism is a late invention, 4th century to be precise and hitherto unknown. Christians would do well to study Christian history. If they did, they'd appreciate the fact that most of what they dearly cling to are traditions of men

lomprico:
Infants included.

The Bible says household. We do not know for certainty whether there're children in the household or not. So we cannot say.

The Op is a Catholic. He is looking for something to justify their Satanic worship in Catholicism. Try as you may. what is written is written.

He wants to justify child baptism. The folk don't even know the spiritual significance of water Baptism. if I ask him now, he'll tell me, its to fulfil all righteousness.

I was where you are now, defending heresy back and forth. when its time, Christ by Himself will pull u out. savor it now while it lasts.

guy, you no dey ask ur self question? Bible talk im own, church tok im own, which one good to take? God go use Bible judge you, I hope u know so

charlsecy:
The Bible says household. We do not know for certainty whether there're children in the household or not. So we cannot say.

There are good reasons children are ruled out;
1. Baptism is administered to believers and it is not reasonable to deem children(infants) who can't understand the gospel as believers

2. There are elaborate records of baptisms in history outside the scriptures and these omit infants. In fact, infant baptism started over 400 years after Pentecost. So we can trust that whatever may have been omitted in the scriptures most certainly could not have escaped these believers some of whom were the apostles' contemporaries or they met them

3. In Judaism baptism was practiced long before Christ, and even then, it was for adults not for infants. See this entry on Jewish Encyclopaedia

Infant baptism is just like Christmas; a late invention. The difference between them is infant baptism is given more weight and made a standard indispensable doctrine

yes i wanted somebody to mention that passage in Acts 8:12. Philip preached to the people of samaria and baptised. nobody will questn weda he also preached to d children but baptism. jesus said let d children come to me

vooks:

Chai!

If I may add, we have a good grasp of Christian history to know that infant baptism is a late invention, 4th century to be precise and hitherto unknown. Christians would do well to study Christian history. If they did, they'd appreciate the fact that most of what they dearly cling to are traditions of men

No,christians like to be spoon-fed. That's one of the reasons for the spread of the thorns.

More like the days latin was read to the people.

rezzy:
Really? Paul Baptised Lydia and her household in Philippi. It's in Act

Thank you!

Thread closed then

lol@ KingEbukasblog.

analice107:
lol@ KingEbukasblog.

vooks:

Chai!

If I may add, we have a good grasp of Christian history to know that infant baptism is a late invention, 4th century to be precise and hitherto unknown. Christians would do well to study Christian history. If they did, they'd appreciate the fact that most of what they dearly cling to are traditions of men

THIS IS A LIE. christian history show infant baptism b4 the 4th cent.
below is Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.
Therefore he passed through every age,
becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying
infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative
age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Ubenedictus:
THIS IS A LIE. christian history show infant baptism b4 the 4th cent.
below is Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.
Therefore he passed through every age,
becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying
infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative
age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus "Baptize first the children, and if they can
speak for themselves let them do so.
Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives
speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Ubenedictus:
Hippolytus "Baptize first the children, and if they can
speak for themselves let them do so.
Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives
speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by
the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the
Church, baptism is given for the remission of
sins, and, according to the usage of the
Church, baptism is given even to infants. If
there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them
pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism
would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). "The Church received from the apostles the
tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The
apostles, to whom were committed the secrets
of the divine sacraments, knew there are in
everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which
must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

vooks:

Chai!

If I may add, we have a good grasp of Christian history to know that infant baptism is a late invention, 4th century to be precise and hitherto unknown. Christians would do well to study Christian history. If they did, they'd appreciate the fact that most of what they dearly cling to are traditions of men

From the standpoint of church history infant
baptism was an ancient practice accepted by
the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and
Oriental Orthodox churches. It was even
accepted by the mainstream Protestant
churches: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. But it was rejected by the radical Anabaptists
then by the Baptists. In time it became popular
among many Protestants, especially
Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Thus, the strict
credobaptist position which rejects
paedobaptism is a doctrinal novelty that originated in the 1500s and marks a major
departure from the historic Christian faith

rezzy:
Really? Paul Baptised Lydia and her household in Philippi. It's in Act

^ op.

Ubenedictus:
From the standpoint of church history infant
baptism was an ancient practice accepted by
the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and
Oriental Orthodox churches. It was even
accepted by the mainstream Protestant
churches: Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican. But it was rejected by the radical Anabaptists
then by the Baptists. In time it became popular
among many Protestants, especially
Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Thus, the strict
credobaptist position which rejects
paedobaptism is a doctrinal novelty that originated in the 1500s and marks a major
departure from the historic Christian faith

None of this changes the fact that it was INVENTED in the fifth century. Why couldn't God save the infants born to Christians for the first 450yrs of Christianity?

It's like you think, 'everyone once did it so it's cool'. God is not a democracy my broda

vooks:


None of this changes the fact that it was INVENTED in the fifth century. Why couldn't God save the infants born to Christians for the first 450yrs of Christianity?

It's like you think, 'everyone once did it so it's cool'. God is not a democracy my broda

pls be reasonable in ur arguement. ur repetition of 450yrs is uncalled for when Uben hv shown u d tots on church men who lived around the first century.

lacum:

pls be reasonable in ur arguement. ur repetition of 450yrs is uncalled for when Uben hv shown u d tots on church men who lived around the first century.

Reasonable?
Facts are stubborn Negro!
No infant baptism took place for the first 450 years of Christianity. If you think this is false, adduce evidence to the contrary

vooks:


Reasonable?
Facts are stubborn Negro!
No infant baptism took place for the first 450 years of Christianity. If you think this is false, adduce evidence to the contrary

here is evidence to the contrary. The early christian bear witness that infant baptism is an apostolic practice.
This was written in 215 AD


Hippolytus "Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so.
Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives
speak for them" (The
Apostolic Tradition 21:16
[A.D. 215]).

vooks:


None of this changes the fact that it was INVENTED in the fifth century. Why couldn't God save the infants born to Christians for the first 450yrs of Christianity?

It's like you think, 'everyone once did it so it's cool'. God is not a democracy my broda

why do u like lying? I have already provided clear proof from the early xtians dat infant baptism was practised b4 the 5th century, but in ur pride and dishonesty u jumped them and still make ur dishonest claim.

What will honesty cost u vooks? Will u allow ur hatred for catholicism make u a liar, d child of d father of lies and a candidate for hell?

Incase u claim u didnt see my provious post, here is st Hippolytus who wrote in 215 AD telling us what obtains in the early centuries.


Hippolytus "Baptize first the
children, and if they can
speak for themselves let
them do so.
Otherwise, let their parents
or other relatives
speak for them" (The
Apostolic Tradition 21:16
[A.D. 215]).

Even goat sef dey preach

Ubenedictus:


why do u like lying? I have already provided clear proof from the early xtians dat infant baptism was practised b4 the 5th century, but in ur pride and dishonesty u jumped them and still make ur dishonest claim.

What will honesty cost u vooks? Will u allow ur hatred for catholicism make u a liar, d child of d father of lies and a candidate for hell?

Incase u claim u didnt see my provious post, here is st Hippolytus who wrote in 215 AD telling us what obtains in the early centuries.


Hippolytus "Baptize first the
children, and if they can
speak for themselves let
them do so.
Otherwise, let their parents
or other relatives
speak for them" (The
Apostolic Tradition 21:16
[A.D. 215]).

Negro,
If scholarship is regurgitating Catholicism mantras , you are a genius!

This Scholarly work gives you excellent reasons why it is m0ronic to cite Hippolytus


If you are going to defend your rituals and mantras such as pedobaptism, stand advised that their historicity is an argument agains them

http://triablogue..nl/2006/03/justin-martyr-and-early-absence-of.html

lacum:
sola scriptura is the way of protestant christians who also deny infant baptism because it was not explicitly written down in the bible.

Not only was it never mention, there are very strong arguments against it namely, absence of the same for the first few centuries of Christianity and also the fact that baptism is for the repenting meaning thinking and comprehending humans which infants are not.

Sola Scriptura is what has steered the body of Christ from Satanism and paganism rot that is the h@rlot of Babylon aka Catholicism

vooks:


Negro,
If scholarship is regurgitating Catholicism mantras , you are a genius!

This Scholarly work gives you excellent reasons why it is m0ronic to cite Hippolytus


If you are going to defend your rituals and mantras such as pedobaptism, stand advised that their historicity is an argument agains them

http://triablogue..nl/2006/03/justin-martyr-and-early-absence-of.html

and this too is moronic right? Dat is d worst excuse i've heard in a long time.

Origen "Every soul that is born
into flesh is soiled by
the filth of wickedness and sin. . .
. In the
Church, baptism is given for the
remission of
sins, and, according to the usage
of the
Church, baptism is given even to
infants. If
there were nothing in infants
which required the remission of
sins and nothing in them
pertinent to forgiveness, the
grace of baptism
would seem
superfluous" (Homilies on
Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).