Salvation - Part 2

[Romanos]

Lamm, your Lutheran bias is showing.

I'm interested to hear on how she is being biased.

 

[MennoSota]

I'm interested to hear on how she is being biased.

Note her editing of the person who has shown infant baptism is not in the Bible and cannot be proved from biblical text.
No edits of persons who doggedly argue for a biblically unsupported position of infant baptism...but one held by Lutherans.
I accept that there is a bias that is inherent. I am simply stating a fact. Nothing disparaging regarding her person. Just an obvious fact.

 

[Lamb]

Note her editing of the person who has shown infant baptism is not in the Bible and cannot be proved from biblical text.
No edits of persons who doggedly argue for a biblically unsupported position of infant baptism...but one held by Lutherans.
I accept that there is a bias that is inherent. I am simply stating a fact. Nothing disparaging regarding her person. Just an obvious fact.

My Staff Edits were not done to remove theological discussion but instead the flaming that was made personal. If you need to see the differences in flaming of what's acceptable and not acceptable, please click on the link here: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?2988-Examples-of-Flaming&p=124378#post124378

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


Our esteemed friend has been perfectly parroting the above since he came here a year ago.... insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible, but all he has done is perfectly parrot Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots. This is obvious to all.


Let's see if the "break" gave him a change to find the verses he INSISTS exists.... the ones that teach the four points above; the Anabaptist tradition he has been echoing over and over and over and over, in thread after thread.




.

 

[NewCreation435]

MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


Our esteemed friend has been perfectly parroting the above since he came here a year ago.... insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible, but all he has done is perfectly parrot Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots. This is obvious to all.


Let's see if the "break" gave him a change to find the verses he INSISTS exists.... the ones that teach the four points above; the Anabaptist tradition he has been echoing over and over and over and over, in thread after thread.




.

Looks like your picking a fight to me. Why not stick with what you think instead of what others think?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Looks like your picking a fight to me. Why not stick with what you think instead of what others think?

I agree with you. It seems better to stick with what one knows and believes rather than telling others what they allegedly believe.

 

[Arsenios]

MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


Our esteemed friend has been perfectly parroting the above since he came here a year ago.... insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible, but all he has done is perfectly parrot Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots. This is obvious to all.


Let's see if the "break" gave him a change to find the verses he INSISTS exists.... the ones that teach the four points above; the Anabaptist tradition he has been echoing over and over and over and over, in thread after thread.




.

Telling other people what THEY think is not exactly your strong suit, Josiah...
Nor is its persuasiveness, for that matter...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Lamm, your Lutheran bias is showing.

No it isn't...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


Our esteemed friend has been perfectly parroting the above since he came here a year ago.... insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible, but all he has done is perfectly parrot Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots. This is obvious to all.


Let's see if the "break" gave him a change to find the verses he INSISTS exists.... the ones that teach the four points above; the Anabaptist tradition he has been echoing over and over and over and over, in thread after thread.




.

Nope. That's what you think I am saying, but I am not.
I am saying that there is no observable evidence in scripture that any infants were ever baptized. I am saying that there is no observable evidence in scripture that unregenerate person's were ever baptized.
I provided over 30 verses as evidence to observe and make my point.

 

[psalms 91]

Nope. That's what you think I am saying, but I am not.
I am saying that there is no observable evidence in scripture that any infants were ever baptized. I am saying that there is no observable evidence in scripture that unregenerate person's were ever baptized.
I provided over 30 verses as evidence to observe and make my point.

I will tell you this for sure, if you try to baptize someone who is unsaved into the spirit of God you will get a demon manifestation like you wouldnt believe. Want to argue? Then go try it for yourself and see what happens.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No it isn't...

Arsenios

Everybody has biases. That is why each of us here in CH is associated with one group or another. We choose our religion. How we do that depends on many things including one's theological predisposition and most importantly for the elect it depends on the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lamb]

Everybody has biases. That is why each of us here in CH is associated with one group or another. We choose our religion. How we do that depends on many things including one's theological predisposition and most importantly for the elect it depends on the working of the Holy Spirit.

My staff edits were not done to remove any theological conversation which is why Arsenios agreed with me that I wasn't showing bias. I only removed the flaming portions of posts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My staff edits were not done to remove any theological conversation which is why Arsenios agreed with me that I wasn't showing bias. I only removed the flaming portions of posts.

My post is not about staff edits. It is about the accusation that Lutheran bias was "showing". I presumed it was alleged to be showing in a post. But maybe it was about something else - I have a confession to make, I do not read every post in the threads I create and so I didn't especially notice the edits nor what was in the posts prior to editing. I write this only to explain that my post is not about staff edits. It's just about the existence of biases evident in what CH members post; Lutheran bias being but one kind of bias seen in CH posts.

 

[Arsenios]

Everybody has biases. That is why each of us here in CH is associated with one group or another. We choose our religion. How we do that depends on many things including one's theological predisposition and most importantly for the elect it depends on the working of the Holy Spirit.

Her Lutheran frame of reference was not in evidence in her removal of inflammatory language...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

My post is not about staff edits. It is about the accusation that Lutheran bias was "showing". I presumed it was alleged to be showing in a post. But maybe it was about something else - I have a confession to make, I do not read every post in the threads I create and so I didn't especially notice the edits nor what was in the posts prior to editing. I write this only to explain that my post is not about staff edits. It's just about the existence of biases evident in what CH members post; Lutheran bias being but one kind of bias seen in CH posts.

He was alleging that this "bias" was showing in her edits of the posts...

It was not...

Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion ONLY dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination first invented in the 16th Century.


Our esteemed friend has been perfectly parroting the above since he came here a year ago.... insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible, but all he has done is perfectly parrot Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots. This is obvious to all.


Let's see if the "break" gave him a change to find the verses he INSISTS exists.... the ones that teach the four points above; the Anabaptist tradition he has been echoing over and over and over and over, in thread after thread.


.

Looks like your picking a fight to me.

It's called discussion.... this IS a discussion forum.... indeed, it's a debate forum.


A member has made very bold dogmatic claims...... over and over and over and over and over..... even in threads not about baptism......for a year. I didn't bring up any of these Anabaptist traditions but a couple of posters have (probably 90% of the time by the same poster).


This member INSISTS that all tradition be fully ignored (although all he does is perfectly echo the denominational tradition of the Anabaptists) and we must go only and exclusively by the words in the Bible - those words must clearly confirm the claim. Okay. Not sure I fully agree with that rubric, but there's his mandate and that's what we all must do (or he won't discuss this). So, is it appropriate to ask, "Where are the Scriptures for the Dogmas you proclaim - endlessly, in thread after thread, even in threads not about baptism?" Is that inappropriate?


Or does truth not matter? Does it the reality that new Dogmas that divides Christians not matter because truth doesn't matter and division doesn't matter? Is your view what Pilate said sarcastically, "What is truth?" Well.... then it applies to ALL and you'd be just as rebuking of the Anabaptists who claim they are proclaiming truth.


No, friend, I'm not "picking a fight." I'm simply holding our friend to his own standard, his own mandate; not buying his double-standard, his doing the very thing he ridicules and rejects in all others... I'm simply asking for the very thing he demands (over and over and over and voer and over) from everyone else.




.

 

[Arsenios]

MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed...

It's called discussion....

A member has made...

This member INSISTS...

No, friend, I'm not "picking a fight.

Perhaps IF you were to tone down the rhetoric ABOUT Menno...
And actually talk WITH and TO Menno...
And care about him in your words TO him...
THEN perhaps you might avoid the charge...

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

Perhaps IF you were to tone down the rhetoric ABOUT Menno...
And actually talk WITH and TO Menno...
And care about him in your words TO him...
THEN perhaps you might avoid the charge...

Arsenios

Been there.

Tried that.

But so what? This thread is all about "I'm right; you're wrong" isn't it?

 

[Josiah]

Arsenios,


This is a DISCUSSION and debate forum...... Some think that truth actually matters and that dogmas that divide Christians matter..... I realize, some don't agree on either point...


MennoSota has dogmatically proclaimed the following, in this thread and in countless others, over and over and over, since coming here a year ago....


1. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet attained the age of X. This is the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination it invented in the 16th Century.


2. The Bible forbids baptism to any who have not yet chose Jesus as their personal Savior. This is the Credobaptism dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination it invented in the 16th Century.


3. The Bible forbids anyone to do anything unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the NT. This is his foundational apologetic, and thus his constant point about "Where in the Bible do we see anyone posting on the interne!!?"


4. The Bible forbids anyone to be baptized unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water. This is the Immersion ONLY dogma he perfectly parrots, it's the tradition of the Anabaptist denomination it invented in the 16th Century.



It is HE (not I) who keeps bringing up these dogmas.... endlessly.... even in threads not about baptism..... He at times brings them up as alternatives to historic views of Baptism, but it is he who keeps bringing them up (well, a couple of others too but mostly him).


It is HE (not I) who insisting we reject any denominational tradition and "going" exclusively and solely by the words of the Bible Okay.... then eliminate ALL denominational tradition (including that of the Anabaptists) and go by what the words of the text say. But will he himself do that? Obviously, all he has done is perfectly, verbatim, parrot the Anabaptist tradition here and he has yet to offer even one Scripture for even one of the new, unique Anabaptist dogmas he perfectly parrots. He claims he has posted 30 verses - and I believe him - but none of those state any of the new, unique baptism dogmas of the Anabaptist denomination that he persistently parrots.


Friend, I'm just playing by HIS rules..... and addressing things HE insists are DOGMAS. HE keeps bringing up these 4 things - over and over and over and over - HE keeps insisting tradition be disregarded and we only go by the words in the Bible - HE has established the topic and the the rules he demands for the discussion. I'm attempting to discuss the dogmas HE keeps bringing up, with HIS mandates. I don't consider that unfair or disrespectful. It's HIS dogmas.... HIS mandates. I don't feel I'm being fundamentally disrespectful or rude to him. I disagree with these Anabaptist traditions - and have stated why - I'm just waiting for him to support them while doing what he insists - eliminating all tradition and supporting the DOGMAS with the teaching words found in the Bible.... playing by HIS rules for discussion. I disagree that I'm thus being "rude." I've giving him an opportunity to do what he demands others do (or to consider his dogmas and/or mandates).




- Josiah




.

 

[psalms 91]

Been there.

Tried that.

But so what? This thread is all about "I'm right; you're wrong" isn't it?

It seems to be even with all the long posts and repeat phrases