High Demand Religions?

[Josh]

And they were called out. For 1500 years Believers had their infants baptized with no opposition until the Reformation. Yet other heresies were called out and addressed. Apostles taught infant baptism. They were not false teachers.

There is zero evidence the apostles taught infant baptism.

The scriptures make it clear how baptism works: Repent, and be baptised.

"And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. "

A baby can't repent, and you can't make a disciple of a baby nor teach a baby to obey Jesus' commandments. The idea of baptising babies is categorically absurd. What does it accomplish? It is not found in scripture at all, despite fantasies that a Bible verse where Jesus says "let the children come unto me" somehow means we should baptise infants.

More to the point, we do know why infant baptism got entrenched - Augustine came up with his doctrine of original sin, and he then taught that babies could be cleansed of original sin by baptism. (Rather oddly, Augustine taught that babies that aren't baptised have to go to purgatory, as if a newborn baby that dies has somehow done something wrong.)

The idea babies need a ritual baptism to cleanse them from sin is ridiculous. Babies are born without sin, because they can't make any decisions yet to do something right or wrong.

[ken_sylvania]

For 1500 years Believers had their infants baptized with no opposition until the Reformation.

That is an absolutely false. There were numerous groups prior to the 16th century who rejected infant baptism and the unbiblical practices of the RC church and who were hunted down and killed by the Popish devils.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teac. hings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

Yes, the New Testament does say that there were false teachings being circulated orally even during the time of the apostles.

And they were called out. For 1500 years Believers had their infants baptized with no opposition until the Reformation. Yet other heresies were called out and addressed. Apostles taught infant baptism. They were not false teachers.

Historically that is not correct. There were groups that rejected Augustinian doctrine almost from the 4th century forwards. Your interpretational method is simply Eisegesis, plain and simple. You have a predetermined position, and twist the text to suit it. A plain reading of the text will lead one to the conclusion that there was no evidence of infant baptism found there, full stop. Your Eisegesis consists of forcing the text to teach what it does not. Throw away your EO secret decoder ring, and you will be better able to understand the truth.

[Judas Maccabeus]

It was not taught by the apostles. zero evidence for that

I didn't realize you're old enough to have been there! I will agree with those that said they did teach it. You think they wrote everything down, but you're truly incorrect about that.

The absence of any clear examples is sufficient evidence.

[RZehr]

I think not is really instructive to consider the Jewish purification rituals as Christianity’s baptisms.
And I don’t think that the Jews practiced infant baptism. Did they?

[ohio jones]

I didn't realize you're old enough to have been there! I will agree with those that said they did teach it. You think they wrote everything down, but you're truly incorrect about that.

Our record of the doctrines we are to follow is the New Testament. Anything else is simply men’s teachings, which may have value, but are not absolute.

More to the point, you keep claiming all these oral traditions are somehow authoritative… are they written down anywhere?

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teachings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

They've had nearly 2000 years to write them down. Why haven't they done so?

[RZehr]

I think not it is really instructive to consider the Jewish purification rituals as Christianity’s baptisms.
And I don’t think that the Jews practiced infant baptism. Did they?

[Valerie]

Our record of the doctrines we are to follow is the New Testament. Anything else is simply men’s teachings, which may have value, but are not absolute.

More to the point, you keep claiming all these oral traditions are somehow authoritative… are they written down anywhere?

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teachings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

They've had nearly 2000 years to write them down. Why haven't they done so?

I imagine they have-

[Valerie]

For 1500 years Believers had their infants baptized with no opposition until the Reformation.

That is an absolutely false. There were numerous groups prior to the 16th century who rejected infant baptism and the unbiblical practices of the RC church and who were hunted down and killed by the Popish devils.

Oh brother- you're focus is on one part of the world and ignoring that everywhere the Apostles took the Gospel & started Churches there was the practice of Believers baptizing their children-
So both "Believer's" baptism and as children were born to them, they took were baptized. This was not a "Roman Catholicism or Papist practice started centuries later.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teachings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

They've had nearly 2000 years to write them down. Why haven't they done so?

I imagine they have-

Got a copy?