I attended a reformed church, for a month! They rely on the Belgic Confession as their statement of faith. You have to understand their theology of covenants to get why they do this. This church also refused communion to anyone not a member of their church or a church likeminded. The reason is that they hold firmly to the concept of congregants being in a covenant relationship to their church, and to God thru that. If parents are members, they believe their covenant relationship automatically includes their children. There are scriptures that suggest this too. I don't buy it, but they are very strict in their rules here. The pastor also preached that children under the age of accountability do no necessarily go to heaven if they die at that early age. Unless they were baptized. Very exclusive. I sure liked their use of real hymns, but could not hold to their doctrine, something written 500 years ago and not biblical, from what I could see.
Anabaptists were severely persecuted, even unto death ! So, the Reformers, like Luther, just kept following Roman Catholicism in ignorance ?! So, what *is* The Name [singular] (Ha Shem) of The FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT [they are titles] then ?? The dear leader, John, likes to hear himself endlessly talk, until he finally comes back to the subject !
*Let's summarize the fallible Church of John Mac compared to Scripture:* 1. John Mac can not cite a bible verse that says baptism of infants should be delayed to the age of reason. 2. John Mac can not cite a bible verse that says baptism is a symbolic only act. 3. John Mac can not find a bible verse that excludes infants and small children from "whole households" that were baptized. 4. John Mac can not cite anyone in the first 1000 plus years of Christianity who interpreted scripture as he does - Not in North Africa - Not in Judea - Not in Turkey - Not in Italy - Not in any European Country - Not in any Asian country. - Not anywhere - Not once - The history of silence is not John Mac's friend. - John Mac disagrees not only with history, Catholics included, but the Orthodox AND many a protestant denominations as well. - When one does find someone first teach the Church of John Mac, it is an interpretation only 500 years ago (100% a new gospel warned about in Gal 1). - John Mac makes Jesus Christ out to be undependable and a liar: He failed, and failed immediately and universally, to lead his Church to ALL TRUTH (Jn 16; 13). *Why would ANYONE follow the fallible Church of John Mac?* _we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming_ (Eph 4) _Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings_ (Heb 13) _But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies_ (2 Pet 2)
@@Balboa-fi6si "Having Infant baptism delayed to the age of reason is found nowhere in Scripture, absolutely nowhere. NOR did anyone ever teach such a thing, anywhere in the world for over 1500 years."
@@TruthHasSpoken “From about the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm in the Christian church. The Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change that, so in that sense, it was an incomplete Reformation…infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates or records any such thing as the baptism of an infant. It is, therefore, impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible. It is not in the Bible. There’s not an incident of it, there’s not a mandate, there’s not a call for it, there’s not a description of it - it doesn’t appear. In fact, if you go back in history you will find that historians have affirmed this fact.” John MacArthur, Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Sermon, September 18, 2011
@@TruthHasSpoken “From about the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm in the Christian church. The Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change that, so in that sense, it was an incomplete Reformation…infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates or records any such thing as the baptism of an infant. It is, therefore, impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible. It is not in the Bible. There’s not an incident of it, there’s not a mandate, there’s not a call for it, there’s not a description of it - it doesn’t appear. In fact, if you go back in history (and I’m going to do that a little bit with you), you will find that historians have affirmed this fact.” John MacArthur, Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Sermon, September 18, 2001
I attended a reformed church, for a month! They rely on the Belgic Confession as their statement of faith. You have to understand their theology of covenants to get why they do this. This church also refused communion to anyone not a member of their church or a church likeminded. The reason is that they hold firmly to the concept of congregants being in a covenant relationship to their church, and to God thru that. If parents are members, they believe their covenant relationship automatically includes their children. There are scriptures that suggest this too. I don't buy it, but they are very strict in their rules here. The pastor also preached that children under the age of accountability do no necessarily go to heaven if they die at that early age. Unless they were baptized. Very exclusive. I sure liked their use of real hymns, but could not hold to their doctrine, something written 500 years ago and not biblical, from what I could see.
This is very simple and very easy to answer this question the answer is no infants do not understand what baptism is
There are a lot of things that infants do not understand, so, your argument is really pointless.
Anabaptists were severely persecuted, even unto death !
So, the Reformers, like Luther, just kept following Roman Catholicism in ignorance ?!
So, what *is* The Name [singular] (Ha Shem) of The FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT [they are titles] then ??
The dear leader, John, likes to hear himself endlessly talk, until he finally comes back to the subject !
Are you new to English?
NO!!!
NO !
Absolutely not!
*Let's summarize the fallible Church of John Mac compared to Scripture:*
1. John Mac can not cite a bible verse that says baptism of infants should be delayed to the age of reason.
2. John Mac can not cite a bible verse that says baptism is a symbolic only act.
3. John Mac can not find a bible verse that excludes infants and small children from "whole households" that were baptized.
4. John Mac can not cite anyone in the first 1000 plus years of Christianity who interpreted scripture as he does
- Not in North Africa
- Not in Judea
- Not in Turkey
- Not in Italy
- Not in any European Country
- Not in any Asian country.
- Not anywhere
- Not once
- The history of silence is not John Mac's friend.
- John Mac disagrees not only with history, Catholics included, but the Orthodox AND many a protestant denominations as well.
- When one does find someone first teach the Church of John Mac, it is an interpretation only 500 years ago (100% a new gospel warned about in Gal 1).
- John Mac makes Jesus Christ out to be undependable and a liar: He failed, and failed immediately and universally, to lead his Church to ALL TRUTH (Jn 16; 13).
*Why would ANYONE follow the fallible Church of John Mac?*
_we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming_ (Eph 4)
_Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings_ (Heb 13)
_But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies_ (2 Pet 2)
It says the whole households BELIEVED. Infants cannot believe.
@@Balboa-fi6si "Having Infant baptism delayed to the age of reason is found nowhere in Scripture, absolutely nowhere. NOR did anyone ever teach such a thing, anywhere in the world for over 1500 years."
@@TruthHasSpoken “From about the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm in the Christian church. The Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change that, so in that sense, it was an incomplete Reformation…infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates or records any such thing as the baptism of an infant. It is, therefore, impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible. It is not in the Bible. There’s not an incident of it, there’s not a mandate, there’s not a call for it, there’s not a description of it - it doesn’t appear. In fact, if you go back in history you will find that historians have affirmed this fact.” John MacArthur, Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Sermon, September 18, 2011
@@TruthHasSpoken “From about the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm in the Christian church. The Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change that, so in that sense, it was an incomplete Reformation…infant baptism is not in the Scripture. Scripture nowhere advocates or records any such thing as the baptism of an infant. It is, therefore, impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible. It is not in the Bible. There’s not an incident of it, there’s not a mandate, there’s not a call for it, there’s not a description of it - it doesn’t appear. In fact, if you go back in history (and I’m going to do that a little bit with you), you will find that historians have affirmed this fact.”
John MacArthur, Is Infant Baptism Biblical? Sermon, September 18, 2001
@@TruthHasSpoken Infant baptism is useless.
Infants who are born of the christian/baptized mother do not need to be baptized!😂