Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yawn I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing argument

---

Forgot to add this ------

Did you miss the fascinating connection between the Catholic Church declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception followed by the infallible teaching that human life/personhood begins at conception because of Mary?

The one followed the other and led to the current debate over abortion. Easy enough to connect the dots and see how the current debate on abortion stems directly from that infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Amen, sayeth the Preacher.

Another problem with your side is that you don't know the difference between a foetus and a baby. That's pretty basic stuff. More facts that prove your position is a religious one, not a scientific one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even if we assume that is true, I still don't know why you believe in baptizing dead infants. Strange. You really should explain that. And maybe you don't, but then you need to explain why you would think we would baptize miscarried fetuses.

---

My pastor dad was on call by the local hospital and his parishioners to rush to the hospital when a woman miscarried in order to minister to her and to baptize the fetus if it was still alive.

To minister to the mom is a wonderful thing, though you might tell her that, after all, it was just a clump of cells and of no value at all, at least according to the pro-abortion crowd. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but that's another question. The bottom line is that I don't suggest we baptize miscarried children, who are usually dead anyway, because I don't advocate baptizing infants to begin with. And I have no idea how any of that would justify the killing of unborn children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but that's another question.

---

And I thought you were a Christian.

I'm a Biblical Christian. I follow the direction of the Bible. So, as Luther said, if you can convince me of my supposed error from the Bible, then I will agree with you. Otherwise, I stand my ground. I don't care what your father believed, or for that matter what Luther believed, though I admire him greatly. The Bible is my standard.

I encourage you to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm a Biblical Christian. I follow the direction of the Bible.

---

Matthew 28:19. Infants and children are part of "all nations".

Also, Matthew 19:14.

Your text clearly says that first you make a person a disciple, and then you baptize them. How do you make an infant a disciple?

How does your understanding of that text mesh with Acts 2:38 where we are told to repent and then be baptized?

Can you find a single NT specific reference to an infant being baptized? Matthew 19:14 makes no reference at all to baptism, and no children were baptized at that time, so why did you include that text???

For someone so sensitive to "cherry picking", it's amazing you can't see it when you do it. Why shouldn't this be considered a textbook example of first making up your mind, and then looking for support for your preconceived notion? Didn't you come up with two verses, one of which never mentioned baptism, and the other which never mentioned children or infants? Did either one of them even reference "infant baptism" at all? Isn't that pretty weak?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Your text clearly says that first you make a person a disciple, and then you baptize them. How do you make an infant a disciple?

---

Two separate activities. Baptize all nations including babies and children, then teach them.

Are you a JW or a Christian Scientist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Matthew 19:14 makes no reference at all to baptism, and no children were baptized at that time, so why did you include that text???

---

Jesus loves babies and children. Baptize them so the Spirit can begin working in their hearts through the love and attention of parents and other adults and until they are old enough to begin to understand God's love and Jesus' teachings.

Well, you have nothing in the Bible to support the idea that babies should be baptized, and there is nothing to show that baptism somehow allows the Spirit to do these thngs in children. It's just all your own conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, you have nothing in the Bible to support the idea that babies should be baptized, and there is nothing to show that baptism somehow allows the Spirit to do these thngs in children. It's just all your own conjecture.

---

And is part of most Christian denominations' teachings. (I notice you refused to reply to my question about which denomination you belong to.)

I don't belong to a denomination. I'm not a fan of denominations. Besides, you didn't ask me what denomination I belonged to. You asked, "Are you a JW or a Christian Scientist?" I consider both of those to be cults. Why? Because, like your belief about infant baptism, they are not in step with Biblical teaching. So obviously I would not be part of either one.

Quote:

---

And is part of most Christian denominations' teachings.

---

I doubt that. Still, your effort to show any Biblical underpinnings for your idea came up with a zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't belong to a denomination. I'm not a fan of denominations.

---

So what are you?

I'm a Christian. Or as I like to put it more recently, I'm a follower of Jesus.