Have Christians thought about Heaven and Hell being very crowded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have Christians thought-

Let me stop you right there. The answer is no.

eh of course they have. They've thought and made up tons of garbage since early days. Besides the detailed description of hell (and there are levels! And here's what happens in each one!) made up by ... I'm not sure what they were on... good medieval drugs? Creative writing points all around right there.

There's also the made up types of angels and angel names. This cracks me up every time. It's what you'd do with your friends in your clubhouse as a kid, making up "lore" and "canon" for some fantasy world:

1 Chayot Ha Kodesh/Chayot[6] See Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10
2 5 2 9 2 Ophanim See Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10
3 2 10 1 5 Erelim See Isaiah 33:7
4 6 7 5 7 Hashmallim See Ezekiel 1:4
5 3 1 10 3 Seraphim See Isaiah 6
6 1 8 4 9 Malakhim/Malakim Messengers, angels
7 8 N/A N/A N/A Elohim "Godly beings", Divine beings who were not the Supreme God
8 9 9 3 N/A Bene Elohim "Sons of God"
9 N/A 3 8 4 Cherubim See Hagigah 13b
10 10 6 2 10 Ishim "manlike beings" see Genesis 18:2 Daniel 10:5
N/A 7 N/A N/A 8 Elim 2 Corinthians 13:3
N/A N/A 4 7 N/A Shinanim 3 Enoch
N/A N/A 5 6 6 Tarshishim

Those are just the ones from Judaism. Christiany borrowed from that and other religions and sects too I'm sure. It's silly.

Did you just say Christianity borrowed Judaism? That might be the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard about religion in my life. I’m dying with laughter! Thanks!

It gets funnier. The Creation story might be a Babylonian creation myth with a water dragon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/flqtze/the_bible_stoleborrowed_the_babylonian_creation/#:~:text=Tiamat%20%3D%20The%20primordial%20chaos%20in,deep'%20or%20'darkness'.

I enjoyed telling that to a fundie in my college accounting class who tried to proselytize me because I said a swear word when I dropped something.

If you believe the part of Genesis where Abram was a Chaldean (a group intertwined with the Babylonians) is it really so confusing that the cultures would have intertwined stories?

Or, stay with me here, the Babylonian creation myth might have been someone remembering a common story that was told because it was based on what really happened. If you're going to believe parts of Genesis, just go whole hog here.

Yes, exactly. A Christian creation story being similar to other ancient stories shows the opposite of what PP was implying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

[Anonymous]

Heaven is not crowded but hell is very crowded.

[Anonymous]

We are all going to hell

[Anonymous]

Hell is separation from God. Heaven is being close to God.

It doesn't matter how much space there is for people. The more important constraint is: can everyone in heaven be close to God? Is heaven a high-dimensional space?

[Anonymous]

My friend has cancer.

We are both believers.

We don’t have time for questions like these.

[Anonymous]

Abortion is good, because it sends a fetus to God without sin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

Being indwelt with the Holy Spirit (as you note in the fetus John) is the very definition of being a Christian. You make my point for me.

Also, infant baptism is NOT "one of Protestantism's major issues with Catholicism". Certainly, I disagree with the Roman church that infant baptism is regenerational ex opere operato. But you should remember that all the major Protestant Reformers practiced infant baptism. Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc. all practice the baptism of adult converts AND the baptism of the children of believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

So, guess what? Eastern Catholics, like their Orthodox brethren, do full immersion baptism. And confirm at the same time.

But they do it for infants, as well as adult converts.

Considering Catholics and Orthodox trace their practices back to the earliest church, it is fair to say that the practice of infant baptism was pretty entrenched from the beginning of Christianity. I really don't understand why this is a major issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

So, guess what? Eastern Catholics, like their Orthodox brethren, do full immersion baptism. And confirm at the same time.

But they do it for infants, as well as adult converts.

Considering Catholics and Orthodox trace their practices back to the earliest church, it is fair to say that the practice of infant baptism was pretty entrenched from the beginning of Christianity. I really don't understand why this is a major issue.

Amen.

The Anabaptists were the bonkers end of the Protestant Reformation, and their descendants to this day (Mennonites, etc.) will say they are NOT Protestant. I used to wonder why they said this, but I now know that, historically, they are correct. They indeed were not Protesting the abuses in the medieval Roman church. Instead, it was a rebellious invention of an essentially new religion. Baptist and Quakers in the British Isles, similar vibes.

Combine these origins with the lowest level of Bible literacy and education among all Christian sects, and you're gonna have a 21st Century Baptist Time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have Christians thought-

Let me stop you right there. The answer is no.

eh of course they have. They've thought and made up tons of garbage since early days. Besides the detailed description of hell (and there are levels! And here's what happens in each one!) made up by ... I'm not sure what they were on... good medieval drugs? Creative writing points all around right there.

There's also the made up types of angels and angel names. This cracks me up every time. It's what you'd do with your friends in your clubhouse as a kid, making up "lore" and "canon" for some fantasy world:

1 Chayot Ha Kodesh/Chayot[6] See Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10
2 5 2 9 2 Ophanim See Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10
3 2 10 1 5 Erelim See Isaiah 33:7
4 6 7 5 7 Hashmallim See Ezekiel 1:4
5 3 1 10 3 Seraphim See Isaiah 6
6 1 8 4 9 Malakhim/Malakim Messengers, angels
7 8 N/A N/A N/A Elohim "Godly beings", Divine beings who were not the Supreme God
8 9 9 3 N/A Bene Elohim "Sons of God"
9 N/A 3 8 4 Cherubim See Hagigah 13b
10 10 6 2 10 Ishim "manlike beings" see Genesis 18:2 Daniel 10:5
N/A 7 N/A N/A 8 Elim 2 Corinthians 13:3
N/A N/A 4 7 N/A Shinanim 3 Enoch
N/A N/A 5 6 6 Tarshishim

Those are just the ones from Judaism. Christiany borrowed from that and other religions and sects too I'm sure. It's silly.

Did you just say Christianity borrowed Judaism? That might be the most idiotic thing I’ve ever heard about religion in my life. I’m dying with laughter! Thanks!

It gets funnier. The Creation story might be a Babylonian creation myth with a water dragon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/flqtze/the_bible_stoleborrowed_the_babylonian_creation/#:~:text=Tiamat%20%3D%20The%20primordial%20chaos%20in,deep'%20or%20'darkness'.

I enjoyed telling that to a fundie in my college accounting class who tried to proselytize me because I said a swear word when I dropped something.

If you believe the part of Genesis where Abram was a Chaldean (a group intertwined with the Babylonians) is it really so confusing that the cultures would have intertwined stories?

Or, stay with me here, the Babylonian creation myth might have been someone remembering a common story that was told because it was based on what really happened. If you're going to believe parts of Genesis, just go whole hog here.

Yes, exactly. A Christian creation story being similar to other ancient stories shows the opposite of what PP was implying.

Can you get the all powerful Babylonian water dragon on speakerphone to agree with you?

Also please read the Reddit link.

Of course the most obvious thing is to posit that the story is true because two groups share it. But the Babylonian version is way crazier and pantheistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

Being indwelt with the Holy Spirit (as you note in the fetus John) is the very definition of being a Christian. You make my point for me.

Also, infant baptism is NOT "one of Protestantism's major issues with Catholicism". Certainly, I disagree with the Roman church that infant baptism is regenerational ex opere operato. But you should remember that all the major Protestant Reformers practiced infant baptism. Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc. all practice the baptism of adult converts AND the baptism of the children of believers.

I do not belong to a Protestant denomination. I attend a Bible church, so my knowledge of Lutherans etc. is limited.

You are more learned on this subject than I am.

ex opere operato —infant baptism as regeneration, being born again, is the issue with infant baptism. This is a ceremonial rite, which is fine, but one should, after stating belief in Jesus the Christ, become baptized in the name of Jesus the Christ.

John was a special case. No baby is a Christian in the womb. However, it is my opinion that a baby does not sin because it does not know right from wrong. It is born with a sin nature which will manifest itself eventually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

Being indwelt with the Holy Spirit (as you note in the fetus John) is the very definition of being a Christian. You make my point for me.

Also, infant baptism is NOT "one of Protestantism's major issues with Catholicism". Certainly, I disagree with the Roman church that infant baptism is regenerational ex opere operato. But you should remember that all the major Protestant Reformers practiced infant baptism. Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc. all practice the baptism of adult converts AND the baptism of the children of believers.

I do not belong to a Protestant denomination. I attend a Bible church, so my knowledge of Lutherans etc. is limited.

You are more learned on this subject than I am.

ex opere operato —infant baptism as regeneration, being born again, is the issue with infant baptism. This is a ceremonial rite, which is fine, but one should, after stating belief in Jesus the Christ, become baptized in the name of Jesus the Christ.

John was a special case. No baby is a Christian in the womb. However, it is my opinion that a baby does not sin because it does not know right from wrong. It is born with a sin nature which will manifest itself eventually.

So for the first 1500 years or so after Christ's death Christians were doing it all wrong by baptizing their infants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;—Rev. 7:9

Note (to racists) the part of “all kindreds”: every race and color of humans shall be there.

I like to think of heaven as similar to the Tardis in Doctor Who. There will be plenty of room, the more the merrier!

You can be there too:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.—Mark 16:15

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized. Being baptized as a baby does not count because a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age.

Notice you believe first THEN you are baptized This is true only for adult converts. But for the dependents of adult converts, Peter baptized the whole household, with the reasonable presumption that that included the children. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, similar to how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant (Col. 2:11-12). Under the old covenant, circumcision was applied after profession of faith in converting adults, but then they in turn applied it to their (male) babies. Romans 4:10-11 discusses this with regard to Abraham: He believed first, then afterward received circumcision as a "sign" and "seal" of the righteous he had by faith while still uncircumcised. Nevertheless, he applied this sign to his children. In fact, applying the covenant sign to your children was to be done on pain of death, apparently, as Moses was nearly struck dead for neglecting to circumcise his children, but was saved by the intervention of his wife Zipporah.

a baby cannot confess Jesus and is unable to believe at such a young age Not true. John the Baptist leapt in the womb at being in the near presence of Christ (Luke 1). Paul further clarifies that the children of believers are "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

You make logical fallacies. Baptism is not circumcism. There is no law that we are to baptize children.

Your presumption that Peter baptized babies is just that: presumption.

The Holy Spirit in the fetus John caused this reaction. This is also why abortion is evil: the fetus can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

I have no problem with infant baptism as a ceremonial rite but to say it drives out the evil spirits in the baby or that it fulfills the requirement of a believer’s baptism is wrong.

If the Catholic church would simply baptize —full immersion under water, not this lazy, silly sprinkling nonsense, baptizing Catholics who become confirmed after publicly confessing their belief in Jesus, then this would not be a problem.

The solution to take off the table one of Protestantism’s major issues with Catholicism is to incorporate baptism as part of the confirmation process.

Being indwelt with the Holy Spirit (as you note in the fetus John) is the very definition of being a Christian. You make my point for me.

Also, infant baptism is NOT "one of Protestantism's major issues with Catholicism". Certainly, I disagree with the Roman church that infant baptism is regenerational ex opere operato. But you should remember that all the major Protestant Reformers practiced infant baptism. Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc. all practice the baptism of adult converts AND the baptism of the children of believers.

I do not belong to a Protestant denomination. I attend a Bible church, so my knowledge of Lutherans etc. is limited.

You are more learned on this subject than I am.

ex opere operato —infant baptism as regeneration, being born again, is the issue with infant baptism. This is a ceremonial rite, which is fine, but one should, after stating belief in Jesus the Christ, become baptized in the name of Jesus the Christ.

John was a special case. No baby is a Christian in the womb. However, it is my opinion that a baby does not sin because it does not know right from wrong. It is born with a sin nature which will manifest itself eventually.

John was not a special case. His leaping in the womb was evidence of the ordinary case: the children of believers are holy. Furthermore, the assertion that a baby does not sin is without warrant in scripture. Think of how young a baby is when it strikes its mother when angry, etc. This is volitional sin. But the traditional Christian assertion is that this baby is nevertheless redeemed as a child of God's covenant people. This is God's promise, as in Acts 2: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Abortion is good, because it sends a fetus to God without sin.

It’s also good because it sends the murderer mother to hell.