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.

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

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▶.

Ukutsgp:
i dnt believe baptism saves and remove original sins. infants does not have original sins.

i said it is wrong to do so cos no infants was baptised in the bible. someone must reach the age of accountability before he or she will be baptised.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

u hv nt answered my questions.

Baptism serves to prevent sin from having dominion over us,and there are 2 kinds of sins original & actual.original sin is the one we inherited from our first father adam and everyone by reason of being born of a woman is guilty of this read rom 5:19,ps 51:5.so to remove this sin comes in water baptism and so the church baptises infant to remove that original sin as soon as possible.
Now it is when you have attained the age of reason when you can be said to commit actual sin that holy spirit baptism is needed to strengthen you.in john 3:5 jesus say you can't enter heaven without being born of water to remove original sin & spirit to take care of the actual sin.so we baptise infants with water(and not with spirit) because the earlier the better.shalom

Burmak:
Baptism serves to prevent sin from having dominion over us,and there are 2 kinds of sins original & actual.original sin is the one we inherited from our first father adam and everyone by reason of being born of a woman is guilty of this read rom 5:19,ps 51:5.so to remove this sin comes in water baptism and so the church baptises infant to remove that original sin as soon as possible.
Now it is when you have attained the age of reason when you can be said to commit actual sin that holy spirit baptism is needed to strengthen you.in john 3:5 jesus say you can't enter heaven without being born of water to remove original sin & spirit to take care of the actual sin.so we baptise infants with water(and not with spirit) because the earlier the better.shalom

u cant baptise an infant because an infant doesn't believe. the capacity to believe the gospel is not there. infants have no original sin. even if they have, the blood of Jesus covers them. but they did not have sin. an infants who dies will go to heaven because he or she has not committed sin. children cannot inherit the sins of their father. it is the soul that sin that shall die. not another who did not. baptism doesn't wash away sin. it is only the blood of Jesus.

i will give u more details later.

the bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for,
and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only
believers who had placed their faith in Christ were
baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and
identification with Him ( Acts 2:38 ; Romans
6:3-4 ). Water baptism by immersion is a step of
obedience after faith in Christ. It is a
proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of
submission to Him, and an identification with His
death, burial, and resurrection.


With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical
practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in
Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious
decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot
understand what water baptism symbolizes. The
Bible does not record any infants being baptized.
Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and
pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and
unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even
the method of infant baptism fails to agree with
the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling
illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of
Jesus Christ?



Many Christians who practice infant baptism do
so because they understand infant baptism as the
new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this
view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the
Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism
joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation
through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The
New Testament nowhere describes baptism as
the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant
circumcision. The New Testament nowhere
describes baptism as a sign of the New
Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables
a person to enjoy the blessings of the New
Covenant ( 1 Corinthians 11:25 ; 2 Corinthians 3:6 ;
Hebrews 9:15 ).



Baptism does not save a person. It does not
matter if you were baptized by immersion,
pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first
trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter
the method) is meaningless and useless. Water
baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to
be done after salvation as a public profession of
faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant
baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of
baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If
Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to
Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely
appropriate. However, even if infants are
dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they
will still have to make a personal decision to
believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.


courtesy: gotquestions.org

Where did they baptised infants in the bible? Show me.