Love this. Especially the last 3 minutes. As fathers we have a responsibility far greater than many realize.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for watching and appreciating the message! God has given fathers a tremendous responsibility.

I was baptized as a baby! Praise God!

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Amen!

@user-fq9ij4we4r

3 ай бұрын

When you were baptized as a baby, do you remember why you were baptized ? As a baby, did you have any idea what baptism meant.

@luzclara3855

3 ай бұрын

​​​@@user-fq9ij4we4r You didn't watch the video, did you? When God, in the Old Testament, ordered the People of Israel to seal their covenant with Him through the circumcision of all of their babies, did the babies know what the circumcision meant? (Jesus Himself was circumcised when He was 7 days old). In the New Testament, Baptism became the new way to seal the New Covenant with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. I too was baptized when I was few days old... Hallelujah!

@user-fq9ij4we4r

3 ай бұрын

@@luzclara3855 What age was Jesus when John the Baptist baptized Jesus.

@luzclara3855

3 ай бұрын

​​​​​@@user-fq9ij4we4r Jesus necessarily had to be an adult when baptized because He Himself instituted Baptism for all of His followers... He couldn't institute it as a baby! Also, how could He get baptized as a baby if His cousin, St. John the Baptist, was also still a baby. Nobody was baptizing yet until John started doing it during his own adulthood. Much ❤ my friend.

Congratulations on your new baby son! You are so right, and a Man is priest, prophet, and king - of his own household. Good job of fulfilling your responsibilities!

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

I am trying and often failing, but God is good! Please pray for me and my family!

To your first point: "We are saved by grace THROUGH faith" I would argue an infant cannot have faith. I have not finished your video. I will share my thoughts through comments as I continue the video.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Please do :) Do you think that a baby can contract original sin without willing it?

@srich7503

3 ай бұрын

Equally i would argue many adults that have “professed their faith as adults” and since lost it, deconstructed, apparently didnt either, which shows the straw man fallacy of the Catholic position of Baptism.

@garyr.8116

3 ай бұрын

@OneWhoSees "I would argue an infant cannot have faith" - perhaps your definition of faith is faulty, after all, it was Jesus himself who said "unless you become like one of these [little children] you WILL NOT enter the kingdom of heaven" !

@mjjules6873

3 ай бұрын

Catholic parents or any parents have authorities over their children, so babies must be baptised. And if we were born with the original sin, to whom we do belong to? Catholic priests said to the D. So it’s a MUST to baptise as soon as Catholic babies are born. ✝️

@scottmoore7588

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Original sin is a bs concept religious people made up to try and trick people into turning to religion. "You're broken because god (and by god I mean me) said so, and now you need god (again I mean me) to fix you." And unfortunately that bs works for many people.

Water baptism is not a requirement for salvation, the circumcision made without hands is receiving the Holy Ghost who separates our spirit cutting it from the body flesh, we become sealed in the Holy Spirit to the day of redemption, this happens without water baptism. Paul's main message throughout his letters is salvation by grace alone without works. Works includes any act or deed that we do on our part to become acceptable to God, water baptism is a dead work of the flesh, according to the bible in the church age, the sinner on the cross received salvation 'today you will be with me in paradise'. He did not get down from his cross and have a water baptism before Jesus was able to receive him. God makes it very very plain trust in him alone for our salvation and stop trusting in our works because Jesus paid our price in full. Every single letter that Paul wrote makes it clear salvation is not by works. Also the bible tells us that where there is no law there is no imputed sin, a baby is incapable of understanding right from wrong and thus there is no law there, for there is no knowledge of the law in them so God extends his mercy, grace salvation to babies who are incapable of committing sin. Babies don't require us to baptise them in order for God to receive them. This is why the good news is the good news, because Jesus is the one who saves us and by him alone, when we start to believe our own actions and ordinances get us into heaven we will be judged by our actions in which case we have all failed at many points and we must pay the due price which would be eternal damnation, however when we point to Jesus and his completed works for us, God takes all of the credit as he was without failing in any single area of the law and he passes that perfect righteousness by imputing it to those who have believed on him for salvation and we are accepted by his free gift.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

How do you interpret John 3? Jesus says one needs to be baptized with water and the Spirit.

@mickjames7962

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRieckerthe penetant thief on the cross was not baptised, didn’t pray, or do any other things. He simply repented and believed and Jesus said “Today*** you will be with me in paradise”.

@83mliz

3 ай бұрын

​@CameronRiecker please respond to @mickjames5962. I'm interested in your response.

@Doreen910

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker It says "born" of water and the Spirit. Meaning starting a new life, an eternal life. Does not say baptized.

@etherealuniverse19

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker This was before Jesus had died and resurrected therefore the helper (the holy spirit) was not openly available to be received at that time. (Born of water is talking about the natural physical birth) Jesus told his disciples that it was good for him to go so he could send the holy spirit to be received. I'd take it a step further than this also to point out that during this time Jesus was still preaching his kingdom message hoping for the Jews to accept him as the Messiah so there was a lot of Jewish doctrine still being taught at that time which included doing good works for salvation. Remember Paul said the gospel that he preached was revealed specifically to him, though it had been in the scriptures all along but hadn't been revealed and so Paul went to preach the gospel to the gentiles, so as gentiles it is important that we pay attention to Pauls gospel specifically. You might recall some conflict between Peter and Paul where Paul challenged Peter as to why he was preaching Jewish doctrines to the Gentiles and he points out that Peter had been telling gentiles what foods to eat and not eat and all these ordinances and baptism is an ordinance, these are works. So as gentiles when we read from Romans through to Philemon Paul does not instruct the gentiles to get baptised to receive salvation. When we do come across baptism we see that every single time it is belief in Christ followed by baptism, not that the baptism saves them, their belief in Christ has saved them already therefore they can be baptised as a public declaration (believe on your heart and confess the Lord) it's simply an expression of confessing Jesus as your Lord and saviour after you have already been saved through your belief on Christ for it. But nowhere does Paul ever teach us to be baptised in order to receive salvation.

I'm glad you mentioned that households could have more than just the family. I heard another youtuber compare a modern household to a household back in those days, which is not correct.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Yes a household used to include a lot of people :)

Congrats my man! Love the name Jude👍🏻 God bless you and your family🙏

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Appreciate you! Jude is a great Saint!

it's really because it's in church tradition. The fact that you can pull together some kind of biblical case isn't the point. The bible makes an equally if not stronger case to not.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Good point! However, Protestants need to see the arguments in the Scriptures in order to be convinced.

@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker of course, that's what it means to be a protestant.

“John baptized with water. But ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 11)

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Well said!

When Jesus told his disciples of his near departure, He promised them another Counselor to prevent any spiritual void. The Counselor is the Holy Spirit and the gift of receiving the Holy Spirit is Baptism, and consequently to prevent the spiritual void. The spiritual void is basically a sign of evil and a gate to let the evil spirits fill that void instead of the Holy Spirit.. Hope the rest is very understood..

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

God is good! Thanks for the comment!

Congratulations on being a decent head of your family. Wow! I'm really impressed!

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

I'm doing my best! Lots of room for growth :)

Great video, 👍 I really loved it and deeply appreciated it. And also CONGRATULATIONS 🎉 on the birth of your baby!!! It is easy to see that you are an amazing head of your family. God bless and guide you, your wife and your children, ❤ and may our Lady cover you all and protect you with her mantle. 🙏

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for the kindness and prayers! It's been the best week of my life :)

Very well said my man , congratulations on the birth of your Son . May the Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord shew his face to thee,and have mercy on thee.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

I appreciate you! I've got one girl and one boy now. God is so good!

In Acts 2:38, it also includes "repent... Each and every one of you" Dont forget the first part of the verse. Can an infant also repent?

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Infants have original sin and the will of their parents and of the Church substitutes for their own. Similarly, if a baby was sick with a disease, the parents and a doctor would give the baby medicine even though the baby cannot ask for it himself.

@isaacmarshmallow8751

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker So are you saying that Parents can Repent for their children? Are you also suggesting that the act of Baptism alone has some ability to cure original sin? How would you reconcile this with passages like Acts 19:3-5? Or 1 Peter 3:21 which emphasise the proper meaning of Baptism over the physical act itself (which only washes away physical filth of the flesh)? The meaning being a good conscience. If a child is not aware of the meaning, does the act even have meaning to them? What then if the child grows up and never accepts the faith? Never believes? Did the "cure" fail?

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

@@isaacmarshmallow8751you ever met a child that was taught about the Easter bunny, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy that didn’t believe? Children that are raised by Christians believe in God immediately. They believe whatever their parents teach them.

@geoffjs

25 күн бұрын

@@isaacmarshmallow8751Babies haven’t sinned so repentance is not necessary!

@isaacmarshmallow8751

25 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs That's not what Psalms 51:5 says on the matter.

Here is an instance "from the Bible" of people receiving the Holy Spirit without being baptized first. Praying for you brother. New American Bible (Revised Edition), Acts 10:42-53 reads:"And he ordered us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name."While Peter was still speaking these things, the holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word. The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the holy Spirit should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter responded, 'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?' He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.Then they invited him to stay for a few days."

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Of course the Spirit is the one who moves men to be baptized :) But the Spirit can be had more or less perfectly. The Apostles receive the Sprit in John 20 and at Pentecost! Thank you for the prayers!

Simple and clear. Great apologetic. Thanks!

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the positive comment! I appreciate you!

A lot of “reading into the text” that the Apostles undoubtedly baptized infants … also, where in the text are we told that baptism is the removal of original sin?

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Good question! I see the cleansing that is accomplished in baptism as cleansing from all sin, including original sin.

@johnmarshall240

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker I’m curious what text you see that in? Also you drew the parallel of Old Testament circumcision to baptism, so would you then say that circumcision was also a means of removing original sin?

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

@@johnmarshall240 Circumcision enrolls one in the Covenant with God. Original sin isn’t removed from human nature until Christ!

@johnmarshall240

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker so then what was the means by which OT believers had their original sin removed?

@chrismaloney7562

3 ай бұрын

Jesus’s death paid for all past sins back to Adam and all future sins.

I say however one gets to God matters less than actually getting there. I view baby baptism as more for the parents, who are trying to save the soul of their baby. Adult or later in life baptism I see as more about the individual’s conscious decision to accept Christ and give oneself to God, thereby saving your own soul. So one way or the other, or some different symbolic way, I believe God is pleased with our yearning for HIS grace and mercy. However we get there. Amen.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) It is true that the means are less important than the end. However, if the means are necessary in order to attain the end, they cannot be dispensed with. Baptism is birth into God's grace. Without birth there is no life. Babies need baptism in order to receive God's grace.

Thank you. May God bless you, family and work past, present and future ❤✝️

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the kind comment :) Fatherhood is very rewarding!

Physical death is sleep. Spiritual death is death.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

True! Very true.

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, including the baby that was born yesterday. Salvation then comes through faith - Ephesians 2:8-9. The issue you may want to consider is the purpose of baptism. If water baptism does not save, then it is inconsequential for the non-believer and the one without capacity to attest to their belief. There is no work-around to salvation through Jesus Christ.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

John 3 makes Jesus stance on baptism very clear :)

@KMisty1

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Thank you. The latter part of John 3 mentions Jesus Christ baptising, it does not mention his stance on it. Maybe you can be more specific for clarity.

I think that parents are obligated by scripture to raise their children in the ways of Christ. I often read and reread Deuteronomy 6 whenever i have questions on how to raise my two boys. I'm no Catholic, (I think the eseem of the Apocrypha has led the Catholic church astray) but its clear we MUST take heed to gift our children what God gave us. In vs. 20 "When your son asks...", to me, implies that they have some understanding. I still see no argument in Scripture where we are explicitly directed to baptize infants. Is it bad or wrong? I don't think so. But maybe inconsequential. I would still advise someone who turns their life to Christ to get baptized. Even if they were as an infant.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

In John 3 we see that one needs to be born of water and Spirit to be saved. It does not say that it excludes babies. Also, Augustine and Origen say that the Apostles taught infant baptism.

@OneWhoSees

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Hmm... Though it looks like Jesus is telling Nicodemus to be baptized, we ,for certain, do not know what it meant To be "Born of water". All we know is that Nicodemus knew what Jesus was saying. I herge you to look up other resources for this language of " being born of water and being born of the spirit" could mean. Apparently it's not so cut and dry. I would also urge you not to esteem Augustine and Origen as equal authorities to scripture. Though they are wise and are great benefit to understanding biblical history, they themselves and their testimonies are not equal to scripture.

@OneWhoSees

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker I'm a truck driver on the road right now. I'm using, speak and spell Sorry for all the misspelled words. 😅

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

@@OneWhoSees no worries! Your grammar is honestly better than half of the comments I get! lol

@OneWhoSees

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Thanks! 😄

Please listen to the first 10 episodes of Michael Heisers Bible podcast (

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Maybe I'll take a look at that! But, if the Apostles baptized babies like Augustine and Origen teach, then I'm sure it's not a bad thing to do.

Here's something to think about. In the gospel of Matthew he says during Jesus crucifixion and resurrection many rose from the dead, walked around Jerusalem and met with the living. Yet we only find this amazing story in the gospel of Matthew and not in any of the other gospels. This would have been an amazing event and we would expect multiple independent writings of this amazing story but there are none except in the Gospel of Matthew. Yeah, anyone that is honest should not believe this story but people want to believe this because they want to believe. Just because you want to believe something is true doesn't make it true.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Admittedly, that is a difficult passage to interpret. If I were Matthew and I were trying to write a false narrative about a man who died and rose from the dead, I would be sure only to include events that were believable or necessary to the narrative. The fact that that detail is in Matthew's Gospel and no where else, may just be an indication that the Gospel is a reliable eye witness account.

@SalemK-ty4ti

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker 1st of all please don't write like it was a guy named Matthew talking. We don't know who wrote the gospels. The earliest known copies of the Gospels didn't have name. These names were assigned to the gospels centuries later by the Church. You should know this, so please go do your research and you will see I am not lying and so you will know not to make this mistake again in the future. One of the rules historians use when studying the past is to not take seriously any claims that 1. There's one particular rule and historical method that often gets overlooked even though it conspicuously stands out above and beyond all others. Namely any narratives that appear to completely violate the known laws of physics are the least reliable of all. Again this is hardly a controversial requirement since by definition such violations cannot be reliably demonstrated under any known conditions. In contrast human accounts across all cultures are notorious for their capacity to imagine while the fantasies in total disregard the known physical laws. This is how we know that stories like the Iliad or the Odyssey are totally unreliable in their historicity. They talked at length about all sorts of magical enchantments and superhuman feats while the gods of Olympus constantly intervene in the flow of events. Things that make no sense from objective historical references but are perfectly fitting in a mythological story. The exact same thing is true for the New Testament narratives. We're talking about a guy who is allegedly birthed by a virgin woman, who walked on water, who exorcised demons and who came back to life after three days of lying dead in a tomb. Events which have no physical basis in all human experience. We know that women don't make babies without first having sex, we know that people who stand on water will generally tend to sink, we know that mental diseases are not caused by evil demon possessions and most important of all we know that dead people have a persistent tendency to stay dead. So when confronted with a story about some guy bleeding out on a cross only to rise again after three entire days. Which should we assume is more likely? That the very laws of physics and biology were specially suspended in this one case or that just maybe somebody is telling an extravagant work of fiction.

@SalemK-ty4ti

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Historical methods is a simple guideline that says first-hand information is more credible than secondhand which is more credible than third hand and so on. This is simply an application of the famous telephone problem where information is inevitably corrupted as it hops from one individual to another. It's also the reason why nearly all forms of hearsay are utterly inadmissible in any modern court of law you just can't trust it. So if the gospel narratives are supposed to be credible then it sure would be awfully nice if they were written by the actual people who were actually there but of course they weren't and often times are openly proud of it. For example absolutely nothing in the entire New Testament was actually written by Jesus himself but was instead written by other people who merely claimed to be recording Jesus' words after the fact. Even in the Book of Luke we find an implicit admission that he didn't actually see any of this stuff for himself but rather that he's simply compiling second-hand accounts from various anonymous eyewitnesses. Then the Apostle Paul admits in his own epistles that no one actually told him anything about the Christ narrative but that he instead received his entire message by pure revelation alone. Many events such as the Nativity occur long before Christ ever met any of his disciples and therefore cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts under any conditions. Even the very authors of the Gospels themselves are completely anonymous because all we have to go on is religious tradition to tell us who these guys actually were. We don't even have any original copies of the Gospels but simply scattered fragments of copies of copies written centuries after the fact we even have multiple competing versions of the Gospels with wild variations and all sorts of crucial details with nothing more than religious tradition to tell us which are officially Scripture and which are just fallible human concoction. We therefore have no idea how much of the New Testament is a reliable transmission of factual events as opposed to natural historical corruption.

@SalemK-ty4ti

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Moving right along our next rule in historical methods that the more time that transpires before recording an event then the less reliable the account becomes. This should be pretty obvious given that human memory is notorious for omitting, substituting and even inventing major factual details a situation that is well known to get even worse when social pressure is added to the mix. Heck, why do you think human beings even bother writing stuff down in the first place? Because memories unavoidably change over time. Which is why the sooner a narrative gets recorded the more reliable it becomes while the later a narrative gets recorded the more natural corruption there will inevitably tend to be. So if the gospel writings are going to have any validity to them at all then the least we should expect is for them to be contemporary with the actual events as they transpired. Sadly this is not at all the case. For example consider the Gospel of Mark which scholars generally agree is the earliest official record of the Christ narrative. No one actually knows exactly when this document first appeared but there is at least a general consensus among scholars that it could not have been recorded any earlier than 30 years after the death of Christ. That means multiple decades of raw unrestricted word-of-mouth compilations before we even get our very first official gospel and that's our absolute best case available because the other three Gospels were all definitely written even more decades after that. Compound this with the obvious political and social bias inherent to any religiously motivated allegation not to mention the superstitious illiterate culture from which it grew and it becomes psychologically inevitable that legendary elements would corrupt the narrative beyond repair at this point.

@SalemK-ty4ti

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker The case for the historical resurrection of Jesus is already decisively settled beyond any rational dispute yet Christians are amazing when it comes to cramming as much failure into a single argument as they possibly can. For instance one of the most important rules and all of historical method is the requirement that multiple independent accounts should all converge onto the same message in order for that infirm to be credible. This is another obvious rule based on simple probability and all it means is that it's far more difficult for several people to collectively miss remember an event the same way than it is for only one person. This is how we know that Abraham Lincoln really was shot in Ford's Theatre on April 14th 1865. We have genuine eyewitness accounts from the crowd of people in the room as it happened. We have testimonials from the Confederate conspirators themselves admitting to the plot and carrying it out. We have the autopsy report from the guy who examined Lincoln's corpse after the fact and we even have the actual pistol used by Booth himself to fire the shot. It's a huge variety of independent sources all cross confirming each other in each and every detail with hardly any errors or inconsistencies between them. Now contrast this with the Gospel accounts which often borrow so heavily from each other that they cannot even be considered as truly independent narratives. Than in other sections though vary wildly in all sorts of fantastic details that cannot be corroborated by a single outside source. For example after Jesus is crucified the Gospels describe a series of very extraordinary events including massive earthquakes and even three hours of darkness covering the land. You would think that if something like this really happened then maybe a few local historians might have recorded it or that maybe the local astronomers would have noticed the Sun blotting out for three entire hours but strangely enough no such records exist leaving us entirely with the Bible's abject say so that any of this stuff really happened. But what's even more extravagant is how the book of Matthew also describes dead people rising from their graves and roaming the streets. Surely it's reasonable to expect at least a few locals to mention a sudden zombie apocalypse somewhere in their memoirs. If that isn't bad enough not even the other three Gospels are kind enough to confirm or deny any of this stuff. And these are supposed to be reliable narratives of the exact same events.

Congratulations for the newborn and the choice to Baptize him, i've seem that you really have a giant protestant community here considering the comments.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

I'm not sure if that's the case or if we just have a very vocal minority. Either way, I'm happy when they comment and I'm happy when my fellow Catholics comment :)

Receiving everlasting life through Christ Jesus is a choice that needs to be made by every individual. Infants, babies, are unable to make that personal choice. This is why there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. Everybody will have a chance to make a personal informed decision as to whether they will accept Jesus' sacrifice or not.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

How do you respond to the fact that Origen and Augustine both say the Apostles baptized babies?

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

Babies that are baptized have a choice when they are adults, the choice to leave. So, baptizing babies doesn’t actually take away any choice.

So do all the babies stay catholic when they grow up? oh right catholics are church over bible. As just a regular christian we believe in the relationship with God. We don't see how a baby would understand what is going on. Also is it the same if you're forced to do something or chose to do it of your own free will? Like I wasn't baptised as a baby and grew up athiest then later became christian and got baptised. Do you think I'm an abomination because of what my parents did? They both were never married.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Parents have authority to make certain choices for their children. Adult baptism is valid too :)

@BensWorkshop

3 ай бұрын

You are not responsible for the sins of your parents. You could also try engaging with the content in the video and the references provided in the notes.

@39knights

3 ай бұрын

What I find really amazing is that we catholics are always accused of being a 'works based ' salvation. Yet our stance on infant baptism is the exact opposite of that; for as you said what work can a baby do? Yet you assert you must be an adult because you MUST DO something in order to be saved!!! Interesting. That means your salvation was based on something YOU DID and not on Jesus. So again; explain to me how if there is absolutely NOTHING we can do to earn or force God to save us; then why can't a child or mentally disabled adult be saved? Or are they already saved and don't really need a saviour?

@OneWhoSees

3 ай бұрын

​@@39knightsThat is where I would say hope is needed. If there is a mentally challenged adult who maybe does not (or maybe perceive to not) understand. Our hope is that God in his sovereignty has made a path for that adult.

@TuxBurrito

3 ай бұрын

@@39knights Having a change of heart is work? Making your own choice is work to you? Work has nothing to do with what I said. I said can you make a free will choice to love God as a baby? Look most children grow up to become adults the bible says we are all sinners especially as we become adults. I believe God is just and understands that a baby is innocent same with someone with a disability. The work would be batism of that baby before the baby even can understand what is going on. The baby is not working. The one doing the baptism is. Repenting is not work. Work is like cain and able. Cain grew a farm to please God while able just made a quick sacrafice and the faith was sufficient. Don't twist what people said. No one said anything about work. Now you just soud lazy if you think repentance is work. Anyways the baptism is a public showing of what side you are on. The real baptism is of the holy spirit. The bible says your work will not get you into heaven but by your faith it will produce work. Ok answer this why is it that people who are raised catholic get babtized as babies then later grow up to become satanists or athiests? Because as a baby their heart was never in it. Jesus Christ is about the intent of the heart not about ritual.

Very Good Young man

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the support! Lots of negative comments come in so its good to hear some positivity!

We no longer need to show outward faith such as circumcision. No more works of the law. But what the Jews did on the 8th day is no longer necessary. But now we use an 8 sided baptismal font to circumcise our spirit on the8th day.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

That's an interesting perspective on faith and tradition. Thanks for the comment!

@marcusdenning1649

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker it’s not as much a perspective, it’s what’s taught by the church. 8sided font. 8th day baptism. Ideally babies were baptized on the8th day instead of circumcision.

In an 8 sided baptismal font…

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

ha! Ideally yes :)

he who BELIEVES and is baptized. the only prerequisite for baptism is belief. the gospel is the power of God to save those who believe. a baby cannot understand the gospel, and cannot be accountable for unbelief. we are saved by grace, thru faith. colossians---risen with him thru FAITH in the working of God. the scripture does not teach that baptism replaces circumcision. one is bloody flesh/one is faith in jesus, of the Spirit. circumcision was he law, and only for men, baptism is of the Spirit for men and women. the truth is in the scriptures, and they do not teach infant baptism. no babies in scripture were baptized, only those who hear the gospel, and comprehend it. peter said "repent", not "do penance". a baby is not able to repent. he does not know right from wrong. repenting is a change of the heart and mind, not an act of penance, or a penalty. "the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, as many as the lord our God shall call" meaning--the promise is to those present, and to all in the future who are called. we are called by the gospel. a child, old enough to understand that jesus is the son of God, who died for our sins, and rose from the dead, is a candidate for baptism. "make disciples, baptizing them"....households>---those who believed were baptized. the apostles never taught anything like what iranaeus said. regarding salvation--no one speaks on your behalf. teaching the traditions of men as if they were the commandments of God. the so called church fathers disagreed on many things. they were not apostles baptism is an act of faith, having heard the gospel and believed, and obeying jesus command. "without faith it is impossible to please God" faith comes by hearing the word of God. what a spin, spinning a lie to sound true. as an infant, my mother let a priest pour water over my head, baptizing me "catholic". when i was about 29 years old, understanding the gospel, being in need of salvation, i was baptized in jesus name, according to the teaching of christ and his apostles, having read all the new testament scriptures, and believing them. a good an wholesome practice for new parents, with every new infant, is to dedicate them to God, meaning, that you, the parents will dedicate your life to raise your children in the way of christ, teaching them to observe all that jesus taught. at the earliest age of reason, having been taught the gospel, they may be baptized. acts 8:36, 37 what prevents me from being baptized? if you believe with all your heart.....amen

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

The best argument I have from the video is that the Apostles used to baptize babies :) If they did it, I'm sure it was for a good reason.

I’m only going to respond to your arguments from scripture. 9:54 “and your children” is referring to the people’s descendants not infants. 10:44 “household being baptized” in every example of a household being baptized infants are not included… because the entire households also repented of their sin, praised God, witnessed, and sometimes spoke in tongues. Infants are obviously not included.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Origen and Augustine both teach that the Apostles baptized infants. If they did it, I think we should too!

@vaderkurt7848

3 ай бұрын

Where does it say infants are not included or is that you asserting your own headcanon onto scripture?

@babygiraffe53

3 ай бұрын

@@vaderkurt7848 if I buy a bag of chips where does it say there’s no plutonium in it? You see that question is stupid. But I’ll give you another example from scripture that uses the same language. When Jesus was going to be crucified what did the people say to Pilate… “Let his blood be on us and on our children.” This language is obviously referring to descendants and not infants. This is basic language here, it’s not complicated at all. If infants were to be baptized than it would have been taught in scripture, people wouldn’t have to try to attach infants to the phrase “and our children” or “household.”

@vaderkurt7848

3 ай бұрын

@babygiraffe53 False equlivance as they are talking about something else under a different context. This is not the same as baptizing infants. You find the question stupid because you can not prove it. There are also a bunch of concepts that are not in the Bible that you yourself believe due to some of it being fully defined in the council of Nicea which is outside of scripture. Even scripture it's self states that not everything is in scripture. Relying on your private interpretation is dangerous The historical practices of the Early Christians all seem to contradict you, including the instructions by the apostles in didache.

@vaderkurt7848

3 ай бұрын

@babygiraffe53 That is a false equlivance as it is talking about something different under a different context that isn't about baptism. Second off you your self are interpreting and asserting your own beliefs onto scripture which it is not at all what it is saying. Because it cannot be proven within scripture. Also Scripture states that not everything is found in scripture and having your own interpretations of it is dangerous. Even the average beliefs that the Christians them selves believe are fully defined by the Council of Nicea you know something that's outside of scripture. Also the historical practices of the early Christians including the apostles all disprove and contradict what you are saying unless you want to say Christianity has been doing it wrong till either your denomination or interpretation of scripture showed up decades or centuries ago.

I don't recall Jesus teaching that in the Bible. The Bible says: Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. " (Acts 2:38) Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). This requires the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Baptism requires the actions of and capacity or life experience to understand and make this deep spiritual commitment. Babies can't do that. Regards.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

If babies can be spiritually harmed by Adam without willing it, how much more can they be cured by Christ without willing it. If a baby is sick you cure him even without his consent :)

@robertjackson7718

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Babies aren't born sinners, the wrath they are born under is "Death", which was God's wrath on mankind after Adam sinned originally.

@Alma-ge6qo

3 ай бұрын

Remember that Jesus established his visible church for 2 thousand years. The Church has always Baptist children, household means every member of the Family

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

Truth & Life App 1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 RSV-CE Infants baptized into Moses 38 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." Acts 2:38-39 The promise is to the repentant sinner and his or her children just like the promises given to Abraham were to him and his children, infants included I looked for a clear prohibition on infant baptism in scripture and guess what, it’s not biblical.

👍🙏

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :)

@Lya3588

3 ай бұрын

​@@CameronRieckerkeep going We need catholic apologist From 🇨🇵

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

I appreciate the feedback :) Pray for my channel! God bless you!

Hi. Shalom from malaysia.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Shalom from Phoenix, AZ! :)

Protestants skip over cvast amounts of scriptures: .... INFANT BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE: ● The apostles baptized ENTIRE FAMILIES (ALL family members means children too) ● ACTS 16:33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he AND ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD were baptized. ● Also Acts 16:15 & also 1 Cor 1:16. ● 1 Peter 3:20,21,8 souls were saved by WATER. 21 unto even Baptist doth also now SAVE us. ● Acts 2:38-39 38 Peter replied, (this one is n the Catholic Bible) "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. ● 39 👉THIS PROMISE IS FOR YOU, AND YOUR CHILDREN 👈 and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Well said. I agree! The Apostles baptized babies.

lol Scripture say that you must REPENT and be baptized. Explain how a baby can first REPENT

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

The parents have authority to make certain decisions on their child's behalf :) The strongest point I have is that Augustine and Origen both teach that the Apostles baptized babies.

@slickbill9488

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker sorry pal but a parent CAN NOT repent for a child. Neither Augustine nor Origen lived in the days of the Apostles therefore they are not eye witnesses to anything.

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

@@slickbill9488please show me an example of a child of baptized parents, coming to a certain age and then getting baptized in scripture, I’ll wait. There is an account of a controversy over infant baptism in the third century. They weren’t arguing over whether or not to baptize babies. They were arguing about whether or not it needed to be done at eight days old or should remain as it was, as early as possible. If there was a push to change from credobaptism to pedobaptism at some point in history, we would have record of it, but we don’t because the apostles baptized babies and it was the practice of the Church and always has been. You cannot just slip infant baptism in under the radar. It’s to public.

If the urgency of baptizing infants doesn’t lay bare the insanity of your theology, you need to step back and take a breather.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

So, you agree that babies should be baptized?

@drzaius844

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker no one needs to be baptized.

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

@@drzaius844the Bible certainly doesn’t teach that

@drzaius844

3 ай бұрын

@@frekigeri4317 doesn’t teach what?

It’s hard for me to listen to a Christian who is teaching me what the Bible says but right away has carven images and idols on his shelf proudly displayed.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

That's Saint Joseph behind me! One of my favorite Saints. Ever since I started praying to him regularly I have become a completely different man. I am a better father and husband for it :) Praise God for such glorious Saints!

@markwildt5728

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker The Bible specifically condemns praying to the Saints. This is what I don't understand about Catholics. They claim they don't "pray to the Saints" but merely ask them for intersession, but then they always have these Freudian Slips where you admit to praying to them. Let's just be honest, there's no difference in praying to the Saints and asking them for intersession. It's just petty semantics at that point. Just like when we point out that the Bible condemns communicating with the dead period, Catholics argue that the saints are alive in Heaven. Again, just petty semantics, not to mention absolutely zero proof or evidence that the Saints are alive in Heaven. According to Scripture, no man ascends to Heaven except for Yeshua. Also, who are the Saints anyways? Because the way the Bible uses the term, Saints is simply the term used for believers or followers of Chrst. We are all the Saints of the Ecclesia. Calling someone a Saint would be like calling someone a Christian today. In fact, the term Christian in the Bible is only used 3 times, and all 3 times were from non believers calling the Saints Christians as a derogatory slur. So why are you lifting up these mere mortal men to deity status and worshiping them? I'm sure you have become a different man since opening yourself up to that kind of spiritual warfare. You just haven't seen the full results yet. Not to sound completely conspiratorial, because I back most of what I say by Scripture, but there's actually sufficient evidence that all these Catholic "Saints" are actually just repurposed pagan gods. When the Roman Catholic Church started, there were mysteriously dozens of extremely extravagant and beautiful Catholic Cathedrals that seemingly popped up over night all throughout Europe with Statues of Saints that should have taken years if not decades to build. Well the theory is, that they were actually just old Pagan Temples that had been there for years, and just got repurposed as Catholic Cathedrals once the Roman Catholic Church took over. They just renamed all the god to Saints, and made all the traditions Christ centered. This is why there's so much pagan tradition, imagery and idolatry completely infested throughout the Catholic Church. But modern day Catholics just flat out refuse to see it, and literally have an excuse or an explanation for everything no matter how nonsensical or contradictory it sounds. Just like your justification for baptizing babies. It's literally a pagan practice, and nowhere in Scripture does it say anything about doing so. You're making assumptions and jumping to conclusions based on your own false interpretation. The only possible argument that can be made about needing to baptize children, (which I've seen you make over and over in the replies) is that we inherit the sins of Adam and are born into sin. But as I explained in my other comment, that is rectified by the fact that our children are sanctified through us... You're adding in the extra biblical caveat that the children also need to get baptized but that's not what Scripture says. As far as what the early Church did, to me doesn't much matter, because they started adopting in Pagan practices and traditions since day one. In fact, that was their strategy to convert more people, and make Catholicism the one Roman religion. In fact, that's what Catholic means, "the Universal Church." They were literally trying to build a one world government/religious system. That's why the Vatican is considered it's own country to this day. The Sun Never Set on the Roman Empire. It just became the Catholic Church.

@vaderkurt7848

3 ай бұрын

​@markwildt5728 The Bible doesn't condemn saints. When saints have been shown to take prayers to God from earth Are aware of what's going on in earth And are able to hear everything. Third off the earliest Christians had graffiti praying to said saints unless you want to claim they were wrong until your heretical denomination was founded a couple centuries ago.

@vaderkurt7848

3 ай бұрын

​@markwildt5728 "false inferpretation" Base on whose interpretation tho? How do you know you or the others have the right interpretation.

@mickjames7962

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker pray to Jesus alone. Revelation revealed the angel who rebukes John and explains that even angels are not to be worshipped or prayed to. John would have gone to hell except for the Lords unmerited gift of salvation.

Infant baptism is not in the Bible, for the original baptism ritual in 1st century Judea was for prolonging chastity.

@Alma-ge6qo

3 ай бұрын

Remember that in the Council of Rome year 382 pope Damasus I, gave us the Canon of Scripture with 73 books, in 1885 the American Bible Society mutilated the world of God leaving Protesters with 66 books, the Bible is Not a Protestant Book, outside the Catholic church nobody has authority to interpret our book Our Bible absolutely Nobody

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Augustine and Origen both teach that the Apostles baptized infants.

@gohan9625

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Flavius Josephus, a 1st century Judean historian, whom also had baptism ritual, wrote that it was for prolonging chastity.

@gohan9625

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Josephus, Vita 2.11 bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

@@gohan9625that’s not baptism, you are baptized once and only once, in Christianity

You gave no scripture instructions to baptize babies. When household and children are mentioned, it never says babies. Infant baptism has sent millions to hell, as people rely on it without being true followers of Jesus

@hectoribanez5954

3 ай бұрын

John 3: Jesus clearly states- Noone will enter the kingdom of heaven without being born by water and of spirit……noone means nobody.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Good point!

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Augustine and Origen both say that the Apostles taught infant baptism.

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 Paul uses the term baptism here, not into Christ but into Moses. Now if you want to argue babies weren’t included in the crossing of the Red Sea, be my guest.

there is no evidence that the apostles baptized babies. you merely assume so. what various church fathers say is of no account. the bible is sufficient.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

What Bible verse tells you not to observe what the Apostles did? :)

@windyday8598

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker what bible verse says that the apostles baptized infants? or that they taught that infants should/could be baptized? in fact---there is none. to include infants in the "household" accounts is a far stretch of the imagination, to support your narrative, not the truth.

@WillCenteno1

3 ай бұрын

​@@windyday8598so God didn't give us parents the authority over our childs spirituality? Your Butchering the Bible might as well become a Muslim.. what got me was im in charge of my childrens soul on this earth and i want to follow what JESUS laid out for us to follow.

@windyday8598

3 ай бұрын

@@WillCenteno1 what scripture says "you are in charge of your children's SOUL on this earth?" "the soul who sins will die" >ezekiel 18:20,21 children's responsibility> ephesians 6:1-3, proverbs 22:6. the bible teaches belief before baptism, clearly. no one can make that decision for anyone else. one mediator between God and man, christ jesus. so what did "jesus lay out for us to follow" ? if you cannot site a scripture, your words are of no authority.

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

The Bible doesn’t say, don’t baptize babies, sorry, it’s not there.

Have you ever wonder WHY baptizing infants isnt in the bible? Because its not biblical. Everytime in the bible baptism is performed AFTER a perfession of faith. When the ethiopian eunuch wants to be baptized what is philips answer? Acts 8:36-37 "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? 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. And this is why origin who admits to corrupting the vaticanus and minority text have removed acts 837 because the original manuscripts the textus receptus teaches against infant baptism. The roman catholic church removes this verse from the bibles they use. And catholics will always point to the jailor when the bible says thay his "whole house" was baltized. But first look at the verse before it peter says believe first. Also no where in those verses does it say that there were infants. Run from the catbolic church' it teaches a works based salvation! Which contradicts the word of God in ephesian 2:8-9 Romans 320 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Galatians 2 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Stop trusting in your works and your baptism and your rituals to earn your way into heaven its ONLY by the blood of christ. Repent. Turn from this false teacher and turn to jesus you catholics

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Augustine and Origen teach that the Apostles baptized babies. I believe them.

@charleswood3575

3 ай бұрын

@CameronRiecker right irigine admits to changing scripture and Augustin got all his teachings from pagans. They may teach it. But it's notnin the bi ble. Isiah 820 if they speak not according to this word its because there is no light in them. You believe men and rest your soul on it. I'll believe God. But just understand you'll stand before God because od your false teaching and your punishment will be greater

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

You ever wonder why no one specifically states that baptism of babies is prohibited? You know like when the requirement for circumcision was lifted or like when the prohibition on shellfish was lifted. Because it’s not biblical to not baptize babies.

@charleswood3575

3 ай бұрын

@@frekigeri4317 have you ever reaad the bible? it says that youmust beleive in order to be baoptized. so baoptizing babies who cant believe is unbilical look at the laior and the etheopian eunuch

@charleswood3575

3 ай бұрын

@@frekigeri4317 and really this is a huge problem in Catholicism. youre not reading the bible. youre saying things lik e"its not in the bible therefore we do it" instead of getting your doctrine form the bible.. I honestly don't even understand how people can do that. they say theya re christians but theyve never read or just plainly dont follow the teaching of the bible. all error comes from this. not knowing scripture. Baptism ALWAYS comes after beleife in the bible, there is not ONE example of it before, and there is not one example of a child being baptized. therefore, we follow the bible, not men

"Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins" What's a baby repenting from? Also, they don't "baptize" them, they sprinkle them with water. The symbolism of Baptism is going UNDER water and therefore into the grave and rising again a new man. When you are baptized, your old man is DEAD, and are come out of the water a new creature. Babies don't have an "old man" to get rid of. I can list a few more things here. Your "slam dunk" is only applicable to baby boys, not everyone. They didn't "baptize babies" they only circumcised boy babies. Also, there are no new Apostles, the Apostles laid the foundation for the Church. The Bible makes it VERY CLEAR in Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." The foundation has been laid, no need to ADD or SUBTRACT from what God has already ordained. The catholic church oftentimes exalts themselves above God and thinks that they are the ones ought to be worshipped, and not Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. (This is also true in many megachurches, and even smaller churches where they are teaching their followers rubbish to suit their beliefs and ideologies, rather than what Christ brought and taught the world). Much Peace and Love to you man, good luck in your studies and growth..

@user-tt7ul4iu3h

3 ай бұрын

He's just going off of his own interpretation of scripture. He doesnt truly know the Lord to be obedient and understand what he truly asks of his children.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the comment, brother! Babies do not need to repent from any personal sin, however, the sin of Adam is in them from birth. This is why Paul says we are "children of wrath by nature" and David says in Psalm 51 "a sinner was I conceived."

@serge488

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Awesome that you responded!! Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." We are all sinful, always sinful, and we should ask for forgiveness daily because our minds and hearts sin and decieve daily BY NATURE. However, true repentance only comes one time, once we understand what it is we need to repent from. That is why John the Baptist said "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand", he didn't go and baptize just anybody... but those who came to him seeking repentance of their sins. Even Paul said in Romans 7: 24-25 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." So even though he was baptized filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues performing miracles, he was STILL struggling with his sinful flesh. But he carried his cross daily and was a faithful Son of God until the end. A baby cannot understand any of this (obviously). Simply, baptizing a child as a baby when they have no conception of right and wrong (sin), takes away from the significance of repentance and the true commitment and understanding behind it.

@robertjackson7718

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker He was born into sin, not as a sinner.

@frekigeri4317

3 ай бұрын

Keep reading 38 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 shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." Acts 2:38-39 The promise is to the repentant sinner and his or her children, babies are children. Btw, the first recorded debate about infant baptism was about whether or not babies could be baptized right after birth or when they are eight days old. Infants being baptized was not being questioned. As for your bs about baby boys, I’ll let Paul sort you out. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither MALE NOT FEMALE; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27-29

This is ridiculous. If your baby doesn’t get water put on its head then that baby will be thrown into Hell. How can people actually believe such nonsense.

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! I understand why it seems odd. But Jesus told us to do it and He rose from the dead, so I tend to listen to Him!

@SalemK-ty4ti

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker You & I both don't know what Jesus said or did. I am being honest here why can't you? 1. Jesus never wrote anything down. 2. These stories were written decades later after the death of Jesus from oral Aramaic language tradition stories in Ancient Greek. In other words hearsay stories translated from one language to another. The Gospels are not eyewitness stories but anonymous authors from 2nd or 3rd hand or more stories. Who really knows how many times these stories changed from person to person. Who knows how many times these stories changed from translation problems from Aramaic to Ancient Greek? We don't even have any original copies of the gospels. Just copies of copies of copies. Who know how many copying errors occurred either accidently or intentional. This is not good evidence for one to base his beliefs on. 3. We have no contemporary writings about Jesus during his life and death. Not even by his own followers, let alone independent writings. Now you have the right to believe in something for with no GOOD EVIDENCE but do you even have just one good piece of evidence that would justify belief?

😂 superstious fools...

@CameronRiecker

3 ай бұрын

The Apostles baptized babies according to Origen and Augustine :) I don't think they were superstitious. They weren't even a little-stitious.

@matswessling6600

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker maybe not. they might been part of the scam.

@OneWhoSees

3 ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Origen & Augustine and their testimonies are not scripture. We as lovers of God should hold scripture with the same authority Jesus did.