Infant Baptism is not given in scripture.

[donadams]

Script does explicitly support infant baptism acts 2:38-39 refer to ez 36:25-27 “the promise” made to your children “infants”!

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Thanks

 

[atpollard]

Script does explicitly support infant baptism acts 2:38-39 refer to ez 36:25-27 “the promise” made to your children “infants”!

Even you cannot believe that exegesis of that verse or else my children and grandchildren would be saved when I repented and accepted Jesus … NOBODY (including Catholics) believe that.

 

[donadams]

Even you cannot believe that exegesis of that verse or else my children and grandchildren would be saved when I repented and accepted Jesus … NOBODY (including Catholics) believe that.

The “promise” of salvation
They need baptism cos of original sin and they are devoid of God’s grace (life)
Jn 3:5 cannot enter without baptismal regeneration

 

[Mikeuk]

Even you cannot believe that exegesis of that verse or else my children and grandchildren would be saved when I repented and accepted Jesus … NOBODY (including Catholics) believe that.

That verse does support what he says.

The “promise” 38 is “be baptised , and receive Holy Spirit. “ Made to those being spoken to

39 is extending the promise ( of the gift of spirit , if baptised ) is available to all , including children , not just those being spoken to.

Pollards exegesis he objects to is “ everyone ( ie descendants) receives holy spirit if “just” you are baptised.
The word “ just” is needed for pollards view to apply.

You are quite safe all accept there is no EXPLICIT endorsement, although plenty enough implicit ( including above) for
catholic, orthodox and all main reformers backed it!

We can see what early church did and handed down , before there was a New Testament defined ( aka traditin )
cyprian was debating whether 2 days or 8 should be used!

it must be lonely, in Your tiny minority believing something else.

There is no bar to adult baptism in catholic Either!

 

[CrowCross]

Some say infant baptism represents circumcision

 

[atpollard]

Some say infant baptism represents circumcision

Like Presbyterians.

 

[Rella]

Some say infant baptism represents circumcision

From reply #19 here.

Okay... here is an interesting read.... as I start my studies... (please see the link for the full article)

https://faith.edu/faith-news/colossians-211-12-circumcision-infant-baptism-analogy/​

Colossians 2:11-12 and the Circumcision-Infant Baptism Analogy​

Most Baptists have heard of Reformed and Presbyterian churches who baptize babies, because “the practice of circumcision in the Old Testament (OT) is replaced by infant baptism in the New.” Verses cited in support of this analogy include Gen. 17:7–8; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11–12; Acts 2:38–39; Rom. 4:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Matt. 28:19; Mark 10:13–16; and Luke 18:15.1 The challenge for those who use this analogy is that these passages either mention circumcision (Gen. 17:7–8; Rom. 4:11–12) or baptism (Acts 2:38–39; Matt. 28:19) or neither circumcision nor baptism (Gal. 3:9, 14; 1 Cor. 7:14; Mark 10:13–16; and Luke 18:15). What is required for this analogy to work is a link between circumcision and baptism.

There is only one text in the Bible that mentions both. That passage is Col. 2:11–12. Is this the missing link that connects circumcision to baptism and therefore justifies infant baptism? Before addressing this, it remains of vital importance to understand that the analogy has always been and can only be between physical circumcision (involving a literal cutting of the flesh) and water baptism. Those who use this analogy connect it to Abraham’s participation in God’s covenant with physical circumcision as the sign of this covenant (Gen. 17:1–16).

 

[Hobie]

As you can see there is nothing given, and its a not even supported by any of the texts, the truth is there but many still go against it.

 

[David1701]

Aww, what the heck …

FIRST: [Disclaimer: I am a Particular Baptist and, like all Baptists, a “Credobaptist” … meaning that I believe that only those that claim “I believe” should be baptized. I do not practice infant baptism.]

SECOND: I am a huge fan of scripture and accepting what it says without making claims about what it does not say. (Exegesis, not esigesis if we want fancy schmancy terms). Therefore, it is correct to state that “infant baptism is not given in scripture”. Scripture is largely silent on infants (only a few verses) and completely silent on their immersion (whelming or ‘baptizo’). However, scripture is not silent on ”household baptism” and does record the baptism of at least three “entire households”. To say definitively that there were or were not infants in any of those households is eisegesis (reading into scripture what is not there). The text is silent on infants, but not households.

THIRD: From this second point, my Presbyterian brothers and sisters (among others) follow their consciences and honor God by baptizing entire households into the New Covenant Community (as circumcision welcomed a Jewish infant into the People of God to be raised in the blessing of the Old Covenant.). At the same time, we Baptists follow our conscience and honor God by only baptizing those that profess “I believe” into the Body of Christ. Paul deals with this in Romans 14 [go ahead and read it for yourself] … it applies to more than just “food”. So I will not share in their “meal”, but I will gladly rejoice for and with them [that we might BOTH do it to the honor of God].

However...

Scripture is also not silent on the need for hearing the gospel, repentance and a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, in order to be baptised.

Acts 2:27-39 (LITV)
37 And hearing, they were stabbed in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men, brothers, What shall we do?
38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Acts 8:12 (LITV) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:35-38 (LITV)
35 And opening his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, Philip announced the gospel to him, Jesus.
36 And as they were going along the highway they came on some water. And the eunuch said, Behold, water! What prevents me from being baptized?
37 And Philip said, If you believe from all the heart, it is lawful. And answering he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Acts 16:31-33 (LITV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.
32 And they spoke the Word of the Lord to him, and to all those in his house.
33 And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed from their stripes. And he and all those belonging to him were baptized at once.

The order is:

1) The gospel preached

2) Repentance/faith in Jesus Christ

3) Baptism in water

Notice that the household baptism, in Acts 16:33, followed the gospel being preached to "all those in his house" (with the clear implication that they could all understand it and were, therefore, not infants).

 

[atpollard]

However...

Scripture is also not silent on the need for hearing the gospel, repentance and a profession of faith in Jesus Christ, in order to be baptised.

That would depend in part on what one believes WATER "baptism" accomplishes and what one think "baptism not by human hands" accomplishes. Baptists and Presbyterians disagree on the answer to that question (both from Scripture).

How literal is the "new covenant" emphasis on "covenant" and how literal is the emphasis on "new"? Where is the divide between INDIVIDUAL and CORPORATE? These are real Biblical questions whose answers draw denominational lines and shape understandings of "baptism".

Acts 2:27-39 (LITV)
37 And hearing, they were stabbed in the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men, brothers, What shall we do?
38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, each of you on the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Acts 8:12 (LITV) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:35-38 (LITV)
35 And opening his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, Philip announced the gospel to him, Jesus.
36 And as they were going along the highway they came on some water. And the eunuch said, Behold, water! What prevents me from being baptized?
37 And Philip said, If you believe from all the heart, it is lawful. And answering he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Acts 16:31-33 (LITV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.
32 And they spoke the Word of the Lord to him, and to all those in his house.
33 And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed from their stripes. And he and all those belonging to him were baptized at once.

The order is:

1) The gospel preached

2) Repentance/faith in Jesus Christ

3) Baptism in water

Notice that the household baptism, in Acts 16:33, followed the gospel being preached to "all those in his house" (with the clear implication that they could all understand it and were, therefore, not infants).

What about Lydia's household?

Act 16:11-15 [NASB20]​

11 So after setting sail from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the following day to Neapolis; 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were spending some days in this city. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were thinking that there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 A woman named Lydia was listening; she was a seller of purple fabrics from the city of Thyatira, and a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 Now when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.​

It seems silent on the question of infants to me.
I am a CREDOBAPTIST, so I agree with the need to believe ... but that is not a license for eisegesis.

We CAN point to [1 Corinthians 16] and note that the "household of Stephanas" was baptized and that the "household of Stephanas" devoted themselves to ministry to the saints ... making them either NOT INFANTS or VERY TALENTED TODDLERS!

 

[David1701]

That would depend in part on what one believes WATER "baptism" accomplishes and what one think "baptism not by human hands" accomplishes. Baptists and Presbyterians disagree on the answer to that question (both from Scripture).

How literal is the "new covenant" emphasis on "covenant" and how literal is the emphasis on "new"? Where is the divide between INDIVIDUAL and CORPORATE? These are real Biblical questions whose answers draw denominational lines and shape understandings of "baptism".


What about Lydia's household?

Act 16:11-15 [NASB20]​

11 So after setting sail from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the following day to Neapolis; 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were spending some days in this city. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were thinking that there was a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 A woman named Lydia was listening; she was a seller of purple fabrics from the city of Thyatira, and a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 Now when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.​

It seems silent on the question of infants to me.
I am a CREDOBAPTIST, so I agree with the need to believe ... but that is not a license for eisegesis.

We CAN point to [1 Corinthians 16] and note that the "household of Stephanas" was baptized and that the "household of Stephanas" devoted themselves to ministry to the saints ... making them either NOT INFANTS or VERY TALENTED TODDLERS!

The point I was making is that there is ample Scriptural evidence (proof, in fact) for believer's baptism ... and precisely none for infant sprinkling. Infant sprinklers wanting something to be true is not a valid reason for reading "infants present" into households being baptised, especially since the reason why a whole household was baptised, was because they had all believed.

I know that you don't support infant sprinkling, but I really think that Christians should be firm about this and not say that it's just a matter of conscience, because it isn't. It's a matter of truth versus error.

 

[atpollard]

The point I was making is that there is ample Scriptural evidence (proof, in fact) for believer's baptism ... and precisely none for infant sprinkling. Infant sprinklers wanting something to be true is not a valid reason for reading "infants present" into households being baptised, especially since the reason why a whole household was baptised, was because they had all believed.

I know that you don't support infant sprinkling, but I really think that Christians should be firm about this and not say that it's just a matter of conscience, because it isn't. It's a matter of truth versus error.

How certain are you that the New Covenant does not extend to providing non-salvific covenant blessings on the children of Christian parents? Are you 100% certain that our children are under ZERO covenant blessings?

I am less than 100% certain, so I have a hard time condemning sprinkling babies into a covenant community (while recognizing that only the “circumcision not by human hands” can actually save anyone.)

 

[David1701]

How certain are you that the New Covenant does not extend to providing non-salvific covenant blessings on the children of Christian parents? Are you 100% certain that our children are under ZERO covenant blessings?

I am less than 100% certain, so I have a hard time condemning sprinkling babies into a covenant community (while recognizing that only the “circumcision not by human hands” can actually save anyone.)

Entry to the New Covenant is only through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus has no grandchildren.

I am 100% certain about that.

Do children of Christian parents have some advantages that others do not have? Yes: they get taught the gospel and are brought up in a good moral household (I'm generalising); however, these blessing are because their parents are in the New Covenant, not because they are (they're not, until or unless they believe in Jesus Christ).

 

[jeremiah1five]

Covenantal Significance: Both circumcision and baptism are seen as external signs or symbols representing a person's inclusion in a covenant relationship with God. Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 17:10-14), and water baptism is associated with the New Covenant with the House of Israel, signifying the born-again believer's identification with the death and resurrection of Israel's Messiah [Greek: Christ] (Romans 6:3-4).

Initiation into the Covenant People: Circumcision was a rite of initiation into the covenant of God in the Old Testament. Similarly, baptism is often considered a rite of initiation into the Jewish Christian faith, signifying a person's identification with Messiah/Christ and the body of believers.

Symbolism of Cleansing and Renewal: Both circumcision and baptism carry symbolism related to purification, cleansing, and spiritual renewal. Circumcision was associated with the removal of the flesh, symbolizing consecration and commitment to God. Baptism, as a symbolic washing with water, is linked to the forgiveness of sins and spiritual cleansing (Acts 22:16, Ephesians 5:26).

Fulfillment in Christ: Jesus' participation in both circumcision and water baptism while under the Law is often highlighted in Christian theology. His circumcision is seen as a demonstration of His submission to the Law (Luke 2:21), and His baptism by John is described as fulfilling all righteousness (Matthew 3:13-17), setting an example for believers.
While there are parallels between circumcision and baptism, it's essential to recognize that the New Testament also emphasizes a shift in focus from external rituals to the inward transformation of the heart (Romans 2:28-29). Saul, in particular, emphasizes the spiritual dimension of circumcision and the importance of faith in Messiah (Galatians 5:6).

While circumcision and baptism share certain symbolic elements, they are distinct practices associated with different covenants. The significance of each is understood within the context of its respective covenant, and it was after the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the bringing in of Gentiles to salvation that Gentiles borrowed and continued the rite of water baptism to the form it is today excising its parallel to circumcision which can be seen as two sides of the same coin.

Household Baptisms: In the New Testament, there are instances of entire households being baptized. These households likely included children and infants. Examples include the baptisms of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14-15), the Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:29-34), and Crispus and his household (Acts 18:8). While these passages mention households being baptized, they do not explicitly state the inclusion of infants. It can only be implied.

Circumcision as a Precedent: Infant baptism is a continuation of the Old Testament practice of circumcision. In the Old Testament, male infants were circumcised as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant with God (Genesis 17:10-14). In the New Covenant, infant baptism serves as a parallel sign of inclusion with Messiah.

Jesus' Blessing of Children: In the Gospels, Jesus blessed children and said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:14.) This indicates a positive disposition toward children, including them in the community of faith.

 

[Mr GLee]

Script does explicitly support infant baptism acts 2:38-39 refer to ez 36:25-27 “the promise” made to your children “infants”!

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Thanks

Yes he calls us his children. As many as (not one more or less) he has faithfully called and given born again power to be children of God .

The laws of the fathers, a succession of dying mankind made a mockery of all things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura) they became childish and sang another gospel another christ as the teaching master other that the one as it is writen in the law and proohets

Matthew 11:17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

Luke 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

 

[Hobie]

Very true.. I came over even more on Infant Baptism, and as you can see there is really no scriptural evidence sanctioning or for the authorization of Infant Baptism, Christ says nothing about Infant Baptism. The Apostles say nothing about Infant Baptism. The early Church did not have Infant Baptism so whats its origin.

The sudden rise of Infant Baptism is not hard to account for if we look for a moment the mystic rites of the mystery religions. In the mystery religions of antiquity in Egypt, Chaldea and Babylon, we learn that the power of the priests was claimed so great that they held the eternal destiny of human souls in their grasp. Infants who died without the mystic rites of the mystery religions having been performed over them, were denied entrance into the "Elysian Fields," the paradise of the Pagans. The system of infant baptism from the earliest time was an initiation ceremony of the mystery religions and cults and interestingly, infants in paganism have Original Sin..

The Elysian Fields (Ancient Greek: lýsion pedíon) was a conception of the afterlife that evolved and maintained by certain Greek religious and philosophical sects and cults. In mythology, Aeneas, like Heracles and Odysseus before him, travels to the underworld and we read of the visit of Aeneas to the infernal regions. There he found the unhappy souls of infants who had died without receiving the rites of paganism, 'before the gates the cries of babes new-born, whom fate had from their tender mothers torn, assault his ears'...cambridgecitycoc.org.uk/OriginalSin.doc;

Here is a another description...

"Infant Baptism is an issue that has divided the Christian community for centuries. Surprisingly this was never an issue in the early church; it is only an issue of churches in more recent history.
During the first three centuries, the church was in an evangelistic mode and we see only adult baptism being administered only upon a persons conversion. There was also the concept that baptism washed away all pre-baptismal sins. It has been in more recent history that infant baptism has been practiced by the church to wash away 'original sin.' Another practice followed this of even postponing baptism until a persons deathbed in order not to commit post-baptismal sins which would have to be dealt with through penance.

As the church absorbed the pagan world, infant baptism became a common practice. In part, this was based on the fact that even in the ancient church there was the idea that baptism was the initiation rite into the community of faith, and infants are born into that community so they are baptized. Another contributing factor was the rise of the understanding of original sin and the belief that baptism washed away the stain of original sin.

The earliest mention of infant baptism was by Tertullian around A.D. 220. Tertullian mentions the practice in conjunction with sponsors who would aid in the childs spiritual training (as Godparents today). But overwhelmingly, the doctrine of baptism during the first three centuries of the church was adult believers baptism only. Infants simply cannot comply: infants cannot be converted, infants cannot repent and believe and in reality, do not need repentance, having not yet committed any actual transgression....Infant baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine. It is not found anywhere in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby ever being baptized and its origins are largely pagan." http://www.wisconsinchristiannews.com/view.php?sid=4125

 

[Hobie]

Here we have a good explanation by Professor Walter Veith...
Baptism is a symbol of our willingness to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a conscious decision and proclamation.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16).
Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose of the ceremony. Also, infant baptism is never taught in the Scriptures.

The doctrine of infant baptism is of pagan origin and was brought into the Church by Roman Catholicism. As with most Catholic doctrines, infant baptism has its origins in the Babylonian mysteries....In Babylon, new birth was conferred by baptism of infants. European pagans sprinkled their newborns or immersed them, and to this day the "holy water" used for baptism in some circles is still prepared according to the pagan custom of plunging a torch from the altar into the water. Having introduced infant baptism, the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to adults being baptized and even issued the following decree: "Let him be accursed who says adults must be baptized."i

In Acts 8, the King James Version gives a full description of the baptism of the eunuch. The eunuch was a high official from Ethiopia (Acts 8:27) and had come to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading the book of Isaiah when Philip was sent to him and explained to him the passages pertaining to the Messiah.
When he had grasped their significance and recognized Jesus Christ in these verses, he was ready to be baptized (Acts 8:27-35). The KJV continues with the following verses:
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. And the eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?' And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him (Acts 8:36-38).
The question of the eunuch, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" is answered by Phillip in verse 37:
If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest.

Modern translations leave out verse 37, and the eunuch is thus denied his answer. It is stated in these translations that certain manuscripts do no contain this verse, and therefore the verse should not be included.
However, these modern translations do not do justice to the chiastic structure of the passage in question. The passage is written in question-answer chiasm and leaving out verse 37 would destroy this literary structure.

Omission of the verse is however convenient for those who propagate infant baptism, because the condition for baptism mentioned in this verse 'believing with ones whole heart' cannot be met by infants. Both infant baptism and baptism by pouring have been introduced by Roman Catholicism into the Church, but they find no support in the Scriptures..."http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-infant-baptism-believer

 

[Mr GLee]

Here we have a good explanation by Professor Walter Veith...
Baptism is a symbol of our willingness to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a conscious decision and proclamation.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned (Mark 16:16).
Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose of the ceremony. Also, infant baptism is never taught in the Scriptures.

The doctrine of infant baptism is of pagan origin and was brought into the Church by Roman Catholicism. As with most Catholic doctrines, infant baptism has its origins in the Babylonian mysteries....In Babylon, new birth was conferred by baptism of infants. European pagans sprinkled their newborns or immersed them, and to this day the "holy water" used for baptism in some circles is still prepared according to the pagan custom of plunging a torch from the altar into the water. Having introduced infant baptism, the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to adults being baptized and even issued the following decree: "Let him be accursed who says adults must be baptized."i

In Acts 8, the King James Version gives a full description of the baptism of the eunuch. The eunuch was a high official from Ethiopia (Acts 8:27) and had come to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading the book of Isaiah when Philip was sent to him and explained to him the passages pertaining to the Messiah.
When he had grasped their significance and recognized Jesus Christ in these verses, he was ready to be baptized (Acts 8:27-35). The KJV continues with the following verses:
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. And the eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?' And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him (Acts 8:36-38).
The question of the eunuch, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" is answered by Phillip in verse 37:
If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest.

Modern translations leave out verse 37, and the eunuch is thus denied his answer. It is stated in these translations that certain manuscripts do no contain this verse, and therefore the verse should not be included.
However, these modern translations do not do justice to the chiastic structure of the passage in question. The passage is written in question-answer chiasm and leaving out verse 37 would destroy this literary structure.

Omission of the verse is however convenient for those who propagate infant baptism, because the condition for baptism mentioned in this verse 'believing with ones whole heart' cannot be met by infants. Both infant baptism and baptism by pouring have been introduced by Roman Catholicism into the Church, but they find no support in the Scriptures..."http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-infant-baptism-believer

H20 at the most can get a person wet. Not a fountain Holy Water bringing born again youth (Catholic doctrine)they must call baptism born again.

I would suggest baptism a symbol of the unseen works of the Holy Spirit used in parables.It is a outward sign to the world that a person has a desire to join the priesthood of believers.Not a sign to their own selves

Again it has nothing to do with edifying the dying flesh of mankind . the use water signifies he work of the Holy Spirit . . . .. His Faith as a labor of Love working in dying mankind to both reveal His will and empower those dead in there trespass do His will ,to His good pleasure .

The rest of the ceremonial shadows that pointed ahead of the sufferings of Christ beforehand were fulfilled at the time of reformation (1st century)

The water baptism as a kingdom of priest continues under the tribe of Judah our high priest Christ working in the Son of man jesus , previously Levite . And one new ceremonial law was is given (1 Corinthians 11) hair covering represent Gods glory and the bread and blood of grapes as shadow looking ahead to the wedding supper in the new heavens and earth

When Aarons two sons on opening day added strange fire as self edification they were consumed by fire not a hint of smoke on thier priestly garments . No sign gifts. . I did it. . .it proves it .

Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord
I
Numbers 3:4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord, when they offered strange fire before the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father.

I would suggest get wet hundred of gallons but no claim to fasle fame, I did it, it proves it . They have here reward (death)

 

[Hobie]

H20 at the most can get a person wet. Not a fountain Holy Water bringing born again youth (Catholic doctrine)they must call baptism born again.

I would suggest baptism a symbol of the unseen works of the Holy Spirit used in parables.It is a outward sign to the world that a person has a desire to join the priesthood of believers.Not a sign to their own selves

Again it has nothing to do with edifying the dying flesh of mankind . the use water signifies he work of the Holy Spirit . . . .. His Faith as a labor of Love working in dying mankind to both reveal His will and empower those dead in there trespass do His will ,to His good pleasure .

The rest of the ceremonial shadows that pointed ahead of the sufferings of Christ beforehand were fulfilled at the time of reformation (1st century)

The water baptism as a kingdom of priest continues under the tribe of Judah our high priest Christ working in the Son of man jesus , previously Levite . And one new ceremonial law was is given (1 Corinthians 11) hair covering represent Gods glory and the bread and blood of grapes as shadow looking ahead to the wedding supper in the new heavens and earth

When Aarons two sons on opening day added strange fire as self edification they were consumed by fire not a hint of smoke on thier priestly garments . No sign gifts. . I did it. . .it proves it .

Leviticus 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord
I
Numbers 3:4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord, when they offered strange fire before the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father.

I would suggest get wet hundred of gallons but no claim to fasle fame, I did it, it proves it . They have here reward (death)

Need to see and comprehend what Christ said...
Matthew 3:15
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

 

[Carbon]

Baptism in the Bible is by full immersion

It is? Where?

and it baptism knowing consent and moral responsibility, which a infant does not posses.

Where do you get this from? Scripture? Where?

One must know and understand what it entails in ones self as baptism is a public statement to commit one's life to Jesus and it demonstrates that the person has repented of sin and wishes to live a life in Christ.

It is? Where in scripture does it teach baptism is a public statement, and thats what it's all about?

Now infant baptism crept in from another origin and it wasnt from Gods Word,

Ok, from where then? Please give the answer.

and it wasnt as some claim for evangelism, as how can a infant understand the gospel truths, he cannot.

Who said an infant can? Why does an infant have to?

Now, as the Papal Church spread this across the remnants of the empire, the false doctrine came to be accepted, but God led many to resist it, and the Anabaptists were one of them. So lets dig down and see what Anabaptist beliefs and doctrines were.

Before you go any further, you have a lot of work to do to back up your (as far as I am concerned) false accusations. Show the evidence.

What I found was the Anabaptists were distinct at that time because of their assertion of the necessity of adult baptism, rejecting the infant baptism practiced by the Roman Catholic Church. They believed that true baptism required a public confession of both sin and faith, which could only be accomplished as an adult exercise of free will. Anabaptists also held to the belief in the separation of church and state, and the concept that the church represents the community of saved. Some of their doctrines can be seen in light of the times with the other Reformers changing the long held beliefs coming from the Catholic Church, as they struggled to understand the light being given.

So, that is what "you" have found and obviously accepted and now agree with? So, it's basically your opinion.

The original beliefs that they had at the start were the following:
..They had three unique beliefs, unique from the established churches but very biblical:
(1) Believer's Baptism The Anabaptists held that a person must first believe the gospel before he could be accepted into the Church with the sign of water baptism. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who placed believing ahead of baptism (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16).
(2) Pacifism The Anabaptists held that one could not obtain or protect his rights by the use of force. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who commanded his followers not to resist an evil man (Mt 5:39 and John 18:36).
(3) Community of Goods The Anabaptists held that one could not have private property but must share all his goods in common with Christ's brothers and sisters. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who said that no one could be his followers unless they gave up all of their possessions (Luke 14:33, also Mt 6:19-34, Mt 19:21, Luke 12:33, John 13:34-35, Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:32-5:11).
Today most Anabaptists do not hold to item 3 above, community of goods, but it was part of the original Anabaptists belief.
Anabaptists Today

Still no proof.

Are you an anabaptist?