this is a very bad development by pastors.

It is true that boy babies were circumcised in
Israel when eight days old (Gen. 17:12). But
baptism and circumcision are two entirely
different matters. Circumcision was for boys and
men only, while baptism is for both sexes alike.
Circumcision was for every boy or man of Hebrew
blood, while baptism is only for saved people.
Circumcision and baptism mean entirely different
things. Circumcision meant that this child was an
Israelite, one of the chosen race by natural birth.
Baptism means that the one baptized is born
again and one of God's children by a birth from
Heaven. One has no right to be baptized until he
is born as God's child. The Bible does not mention nor talked about baptism of babies. it is just one of those catholic traditions which have no bearing with the scriptures. man made traditions.

btoks:
are u aware that the Lutherans(1st sola scriptura adherents) and other protestant denominations believe babies do have original sin.
do you see how it's impossible to justify sola scriptura when you all believe different things.

me i dnt believe. u can tell me why u believed it. babies have no original sin. prove it here and let ask u questions.

btoks:
Please do some research into christian history and because you don't see how something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You could also try to explain what Paul meant in Col 2:11▶.

i know u want to switch to tradition now. one thing the catholic likes doing.

let me make it clearer with niv version. starting from verse 10 down to 12.


and you have been given fullness in Christ,
who is the head over every power and
authority. In him you were also
circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful
nature, not with a circumcision done by the
hands of men but with the circumcision
done by Christ, having been buried with
him in baptism and raised with him
through your faith in the power of God,
who raised him from the dead . - NIV, Col
2:10-12


I know u will want to claim that the words ''having
been'' places the baptism at equal time with
the circumcision, thereby proving that one
answers to the other but it is not.

i am convinced that no one would have ever
seen such thing in this text had they been
reading it through unsoiled glasses. your
argument is manifestly erroneous at several
points:


1) Even if the circumcision and baptism in
this text were contemporaneous, this would
not prove they are the same. If baptism
replaced circumcision, then why are they
both still of force in this text?

2) An examination of the full context shows
that the timing of the circumcision and
baptism are relative to the words, And ye
are complete in him . That is, they were
circumcised and baptized as of the time
they were complete in him, but they were
not circumcised and baptized at the same
time.

3) The NIV weakens the argument for infant
baptism when it says, ... raised with him
through your faith in the power of God,
because one cannot prove that an infant has
faith in God. an infants cannot reason who Christ is.


4) The practice of sprinkling the infant is
clearly condemned by this scripture because
it speaks of being buried with Him in
baptism, thereby demanding immersion.


5) If baptism replaced circumcision, then
why baptize women?

6) The circumcision of this text is made
without hands , yet a baptism involves
human hands to the same extent as a
fleshly circumcision. The circumcision here
clearly represents regeneration or the new
birth. It is a circumcision of the heart and is
performed by the Spirit (Rom 2:29). 7) This
circumcision puts off the body of the sins of
the flesh.


pls try another thing, since this cannot work.

pls u have not answered my questions.

1. how can u sprinkle water on a baby and call it baptism?

2. do u baptised those who have not heard the gospel and believe?

3. can a baby have faith in God?

4. why do u baptise someone who has not known how to commit sin .

Pavore9:
And proudly one! No one has the right to subject my faith to his/her views neither do l with others, learn to accommodate divergent belief as long it is not a risk to ur wellbeing!

na u know sha. dnt say u were not told.

johnydon22:


what if i tell u the whole christianity stuff is a big delusion.. christians chai smh... confused people shaa

christians are not deluded and confused people. it is only those that are not led of the spirit that are.

vest:
Quesion Answerukuts Style

u people are in gross delusion. the painful thing is that, u people dnt even know.

Pavore9:
Na today?...I wonder how people go about as if their salvation is dependent on Catholics renouncing their faith, abeg make una dey go una "heaven" make we see road. PRAISE BE TO JESUS, HONOUR TO MARY!

typical of the catholic.

vest:
imagin this na ba bye

i know u dnt have any clue about it. abeg bye. u people always does what is unscriptural. following traditions u dnt know anything about.

btoks:
this is why one requires guidance in determining christian doctrines.In the OT,babies were circumcised into the Jewish faith. What do you think replaced Circumcision in the NT? Please see Col 2:11-12.Paul knows something via tradition here.

circumcision and baptism are two different thing. dnt muddled them up. i dnt see hw baptism replaced circumcision. it is ur own twisted view.

vest:
you could have ask if baptism save's na!

baptism alone does not save. if u hv nt repented and believe in the lord Jesus, u are just going to the river to bath.

why do u people even sprinkle water on someone and call it baptism?

i just laugh. pls come to that thread let's talk. i want to laugh today.

purplekayc:
Wat of emu?

what is that?

btoks:
But why the bible?

do u think that ur useless traditions is the bible?

how can one sprinkle water on someone and call it baptism?

the catholic always gives me reasons to laugh.

@vest.

like i said before, there is nothing like original sin or fake sin or whatever.

before baptism, there must be repentance and believe on the lord Jesus. how can an infant repent of sin he or she has not committed? does an infant have the capacity to believe?

peteregwu:
The Vatican does things contrary to the bible, so they are not Christians. They worship the 'THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN', who they refer also as "holy mary", which the bible described as the devil. And anyone that dies as a catholic without becoming born again and renouncing those practises will end up in hell fire.

Jeremiah 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

i cant say more.

italo:
Catholics aren't Christians. We are antiChrists. That is why we compiled the Holy Bible in the fourth century to fool you. That is why we changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday...and you foolishly follow us.

Only Penterascals are Christians...and they believe the Bible which antiChrists compiled...and worship on the day that antiChrists chose.

FOOOOOOOOOLS!

this is the nonsense i hate. u claim that u people compiled the bible yet u people go against its teaching the most.

seankafor:
how does this concerm me that has no girlfriend

u will have someday.

how can u baptised someone who dnt know or believe Jesus yet?

Cholls:
My brother Who Told Says You've Heard Us All

what do u want me to say?

Hiswordxray:


Peter and Jude both read the book of Enoch where Enoch narrate the story of how angels sin against God and was punished. Jude 14 is a direct quotation of the book of Enoch 1:9. This book was not included in the Bible but it was a book the Jewish people read even Jesus. If you read the book you will understand the story properly.

it may nt necessarily means that they read the book of Enoch. they were inspired by God to put it down. they must have got it through revelation.

SisterMe:


You are implying they occured sequentially (one immediately after the other). The Bible did not say so. Its you seeing it as so. I dont see it as you are seeing it. I am being sincere here, i dont. see ir.

exactly. they happened sequentially. Jude and peter were refering to those events as they happened basically due to disobedience and rebellion. citing those examples to all the false prophets he(peter) was talking about in verse 1 to 3 of 2peter 2. telling them that God will deal with them just like he did to those angels and people's of Noah's time and sodom and gomorrah who are rebellious and disobedient.

SisterMe:


There is no link between 2nd Peter 2:4 and 2nd Peter 2:5. They happened in different times. That was not a tme sequential narration there.

did i say they happened simultaneously? after the event of the sons of God, what happened next, was it not the flood? pls be sincere in this. Jude 6 and 2peter2:4 are both referring to that incidence.

Nigeria don't want 2 host it due to the election next year. that is the reason.

Many pastors today perform miracles(many staged) and announce it everywhere. Jesus didn't even allow people he healed in his time to broadcast the miracles. He wants them to be silent about it. But many pastors today takes the glory themselves. They even boast that they can do miracles.