The Lord called Phillip to go a certain direction, knowing he would come by a certain man trying to understand the Scripture, yet he could not. Look what Phillip did as he explained the Scripture to the man:
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
After the man heard The Gospel preached he believed and wanted to be baptized, yet wasn't sure if he was able:
Act 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?"
Phillips repsonse seems to make it clear that there is just one thing keeping him and anyone from being baptized. That one thing is, if they do not believe in Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
We can logically connect the dots that until you believe that Jesus is Lord and He has been raised from the dead (Roman 10:9) you shall not be baptized. Thus, infant baptism is a futile, religous exercise. First we must believe and then be baptized.
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi Steve
ReplyDeleteI decided to respond to your video here because then I am not bothered by the 500 character limit. On youtube I go by the user name MrVisions. Now that is out of the way I shall continue.
On the subject of Infant baptism, I would tend to disagree with your conclusion. Now not because I disagree with your interpretation of the scripture, but the way you conclude that: Therefore "infant baptism must be a doctrine of demons" It is a tradition of faith, just like any other of a multitude of variations in the Christian faith with regards to the ritual of baptism.
Actually in reality a Catholic could read these very passages of scripture, and equally co-align it with the catholic rite of passage:
[Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:]
Ordained men of God going to those born into sin
(The Infant)
[Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.]
At this time the child is claimed as one of God's, and welcomed into the family of Christ. Not unlike in the Jewish faith when a child is circumcised on the eighth day.
Now if we skip over the Simon in Acts 8:18, not that I am trying to twist this to fit my argument, but simply because the article ends in 17 and Simon is a new article. If we skip down to Acts 8:29-31 We now find that same child now at 'the age of reason' ready to accept his/her confirmation into the faith. as will be the case with the eunuch when they reach the river in Acts 8:36.
[Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?]
Then the Priest will ask the child.
[Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.]
At this time the rites of the confirmation will occur (What ever the ritual is, I do not know I am not Catholic)
[Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.]
Now you may argue that there is no second water immersion in Catholicism, that to me is just semantics, like I initially stated The act of the method of baptism is purely ritual dependent on the church you belong to.
The real baptism come with the acceptance.
As always that is just my opinion.