Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

atpollard said:

The question was specifically about "people with disabilities". [see post #251]

Click to expand...

I was responding to just what you wrote...it made no reference to a prior post.

Do Padeobaptists have ANY restrictions on children with disabilities that they do not have on any other children?

Click to expand...

Not that I can think of. Why would they?

Anyway, the statement below is still incorrect.

Credobaptist answer: If they can believe, then they can be baptized.
Padeobaptist answer: Anyone can be baptized.

Click to expand...

and the word is Paedobaptists. Look it up.

Albion said:

I was responding to just what you wrote...it made no reference to a prior post.

Click to expand...

Liar, liar, pants on fire.
I quoted the post I was responding to in my response ... [see posts #251 and #252]

atpollard said:

Liar, liar, pants on fire.
I quoted the post I was responding to in my response ... [see posts #251 and #252]

Click to expand...

I cannot think of anything that rhymes with what I would really like to say, but you are dead wrong about this. More to the point, however, you were wrong about baptism as practiced by Paedobaptists and there should be nothing more that needs to be said about it.

meluckycharms wrote:
I cannot speak for all paedobaptists. However, as a former Catholic, a confession of faith is still required.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Of course.

Let's hope this puts an end to the mischaracterizing of the Paedobaptist position.


And, by the way, I could have chosen Lutheran or Christian Reformed or some other church/pastor for my illustration--one that treats the process of conversion differently from the way you outlined--and there still would have been no chance of baptisms being performed.

Click to expand...

How does an infant make a confession of faith? Refresh me on how you assess this confession from an infant.

MennoSota said:

How does an infant make a confession of faith?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Until you can quote the Scripture that states, "... BUT thou canst NOT allow any to be baptized unless and until they hath FIRST made a verbal and verifiable confession of their choiceth of Jesus as their Savior." When you prove that such a confession is a PREREQUISITE to baptism, you'll have a point (perhaps). Until then, it's irrelevant.

Now, can a person who has been baptized make a confession? Often - although it may not be chronologically BEFORE the baptism; it may happen just not in some exact chronological order that some individual dude in 1523 first thought up.

Josiah said:

Early on, in another thread on the topic of Baptism, one of our Anabaptist (on this) friends stressed that there is a difference in whether we see various things as CO-requisites or PRE-requisites. I noted then that that was very insightful (he's since entirely abandoned all that).


Both "sides" note a number of things God wants to happen, it's just the (sole) view from 63 AD at the latest until 1523 (and by far the majority view today) is that they are simply all requisites (he'd say CO-requisites): Things God wants, commands, can and does use.... "they shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I purpose". Not until a German individual in 1523 did anyone see in the Bible or just assume that there is a very exact, "Step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...." a divinely mandates chronological sequence to all this (that the Bible just forgot to note) that if we don't DO all this in that precise chronological sequence, God is rendered impotent. Why did that Anabaptist invent that (and also the "Age of Accountability)? Because they were required by his very radical synergism. The orthodox/historic view sees all these as a "set" - all tools in the hands of the Carpenter - impotent in themselves but used for miracles in the hands of the Miracle Worker, the Author and Lord and Giver of Life.


I think the reason why we can historically trace infant baptism to around 63 AD.... the reason why we see whole families being baptized in the Bible... the reason why no one thought of anti-paedobaptism and credobaptism until one dude in 1523.... is because we saw all these as a "set" and tools in the hands of a LOVING, giving, blessing, God who is love and who is the Author and GIVER of Life. The orthodox/historical view sees all this together.... and we view it in the context of community and family. And the VAST majority of Christians still do. But of course, radical individualism and synergism have infected Christianity and the impact of that can be seen.



.

Click to expand...

A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah




.

MennoSota said:

How does an infant make a confession of faith? Refresh me on how you assess this confession from an infant.

Click to expand...

The infant doesn't make a confession of faith, the parents make a confession of faith and vow to bring the child up in a Christian home and teach the child to be a Christian. Later, the child's faith is confirmed at confirmation. So there you go, whether as an infant by the parents, or when the child is older during confirmation, a public confession of faith is given.

meluckycharms said:

The infant doesn't make a confession of faith, the parents make a confession of faith and vow to bring the child up in a Christian home and teach the child to be a Christian. Later, the child's faith is confirmed at confirmation. So there you go, whether as an infant by the parents, or when the child is older during confirmation, a public confession of faith is given.

Click to expand...

The Anabaptists don't care at all if there is confession or repentance or anything else.... it's all about the invention of that individual guy in 1523 and his insistence that God can only bless if we do things is a very prescribed chronological order and sequence, one the Bible never mentions but his radical synergism required. So the issue is NOT if one should confess, repent, learn, or whatever.... the sole issue is this: what chronological STEP is it in the mandated sequence.

See post 265 including the post quoted in it.

meluckycharms said:

The infant doesn't make a confession of faith, the parents make a confession of faith and vow to bring the child up in a Christian home and teach the child to be a Christian. Later, the child's faith is confirmed at confirmation. So there you go, whether as an infant by the parents, or when the child is older during confirmation, a public confession of faith is given.

Click to expand...

Correct. Which is why infant baptism is irrelevant and also why Lutherans have an established age of X.

MennoSota said:

Correct. Which is why infant baptism is irrelevant and also why Lutherans have an established age of X.

Click to expand...

Lutherans have no established age of X in baptism (or anything else) because God is not rendered impotent according to age (John the Baptist was given faith before he was even born, so the age of X would have to be before birth if it existed, but no - God is not rendered impotent by anyone at any age).


Your point continues to be rrelevant. Until you can quote the Scripture that states, "... BUT thou canst NOT allow any to be baptized unless and until they hath FIRST attainedth their Xth birthday and hath FIRST made a verbal and verifiable confession of their choiceth of Jesus as their Savior, only after all that art completed and finished art the prohibition to baptize lifted." When you prove that such a confession is a PREREQUISITE to baptism, you'll have a point (perhaps). Until then, it's irrelevant.


Now, can a person who has been baptized make a confession? Sure - although it may not be chronologically BEFORE the baptism; it may happen but perhaps not in some exact chronological order that some individual dude in 1523 first thought up.

Josiah said:

Early on, in another thread on the topic of Baptism, one of our Anabaptist (on this) friends stressed that there is a difference in whether we see various things as CO-requisites or PRE-requisites. I noted then that that was very insightful (he's since entirely abandoned all that).


Both "sides" note a number of things God wants to happen, it's just the (sole) view from 63 AD at the latest until 1523 (and by far the majority view today) is that they are simply all requisites (he'd say CO-requisites): Things God wants, commands, can and does use.... "they shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I purpose". Not until a German individual in 1523 did anyone see in the Bible or just assume that there is a very exact, "Step 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...." a divinely mandates chronological sequence to all this (that the Bible just forgot to note) that if we don't DO all this in that precise chronological sequence, God is rendered impotent. Why did that Anabaptist invent that (and also the "Age of Accountability)? Because they were required by his very radical synergism. The orthodox/historic view sees all these as a "set" - all tools in the hands of the Carpenter - impotent in themselves but used for miracles in the hands of the Miracle Worker, the Author and Lord and Giver of Life.


I think the reason why we can historically trace infant baptism to around 63 AD.... the reason why we see whole families being baptized in the Bible... the reason why no one thought of anti-paedobaptism and credobaptism until one dude in 1523.... is because we saw all these as a "set" and tools in the hands of a LOVING, giving, blessing, God who is love and who is the Author and GIVER of Life. The orthodox/historical view sees all this together.... and we view it in the context of community and family. And the VAST majority of Christians still do. But of course, radical individualism and synergism have infected Christianity and the impact of that can be seen.




.

Click to expand...

.

Josiah said:

The Anabaptists don't care at all if there is confession or repentance or anything else.... it's all about the invention of that individual guy in 1523 and his insistence that God can only bless if we do things is a very prescribed chronological order and sequence, one the Bible never mentions but his radical synergism required. So the issue is NOT if one should confess, repent, learn, or whatever.... the sole issue is this: what chronological STEP is it in the mandated sequence.

See post 265 including the post quoted in it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as to say Anabaptists aren't interested. It seems that they have a vested interest in those very things, sometimes passionately so; but, as you said, it's in a very prescribed order.

MennoSota said:

...and also why Lutherans have an established age of X.

Click to expand...

This has been suggested by another poster, but I don't see where you (or said poster) has established the point

ImaginaryDay2 said:

This has been suggested by another poster, but I don't see where you (or said poster) has established the point

Click to expand...

It's self-obvious.
Infant baptism is for no other purpose than for parents to covenant to raise their children up in Christian community.
Confirmation at the age of X determines if the child is in fact in community.

MennoSota said:

It's self-obvious.

Click to expand...

There is no age for anything stated in the Lutheran Confessions.
Nor is Confirmation mandated. For anyone. Of any age.


Lutherans (like the Bible itself) have no established age of X in baptism (or anything else) because God is not rendered impotent according to age (John the Baptist was given faith before he was even born).


Your point continues to be rrelevant. Until you can quote the Scripture that states, "... BUT thou canst NOT allow any to be baptized unless and until they hath FIRST attainedth their Xth birthday and hath FIRST madeth a verbal, public and verifiable confession of their choiceth of Jesus as their Savior, only after all that art completed and finished is the prohibition against baptism lifted." When you prove that all that x,y,z is a PREREQUISITE to baptism, you'll have a point (perhaps). Until then, it's just irrelevant.


Now, can a person who has been baptized make a confession? Sure - although it may not be chronologically BEFORE the baptism; it may happen but perhaps not in some exact chronological order that some individual dude in 1523 first thought up.

Pedrito said:

The need for baptised babies to one day become self-accountable for their own salvation, was admitted in Post #141 and Post #207. That accountability was associated with “confirmation” and access to “Holy Communion”. Therefore an age of accountability is inherently concreted in the doctrine sets of Baby Baptisers.

Click to expand...

Albion in Post #240: What is the age, then?

Why ask me?

Click to expand...

Because although there is no age of accountability in the case of baptisms performed in churches that baptize young children, you keep insisting that such an age of accountability exists.

So I ask you to tell us what that age is! You see something that we do not think exists, so tell us where you see any such age of accountability. What age is it???

Albion himself (along with other baby baptism supporters) has admitted that a baptised baby has to make a personal declaration of faith later in life.

Click to expand...

Yes, but there is no age appointed for that. It is not at age 8 or 15 or 21 or any other specified age. And, in addition, that doesn't have anything to do with Baptism anyway, since the person has already been baptized. So, there is no age of accountability involved with baptisms performed in all the churches that baptize infants along with people of every other age--just as we have explained several times before.

Pedrito said:

Albion himself (along with other baby baptism supporters) has admitted that a baptised baby has to make a personal declaration of faith later in life.

Click to expand...

I didn't. I know of no verse that says, "It is a divine mandate that a person MUST first chooseth Jesus as one's personal Savior and THEN give an adequate and public declaration of such." I DO think that confession is a commandment, but I know of no age requirement and I know of no mandated chronological sequence that, if not done in that order, renders God impotent and/or the person unable to be saved. There are MANY things we are called to do... MANY things God can use.... I just don't force God into a chronological box.

Therefore, there must be, for each individual, a time (age) beyond which if they do not make that sincere personal profession, they end up in hot water.

Click to expand...

If they don't have faith by the time they die, yeah.... probably.

There is no stated age for anything in the Lutheran Confessions or the the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles. But yes, I think it can be reasonably assumed that ministry is to happen prior to death (although I would not MANDATE to God that He is forbidden to do anything after that).

How are they to define what that age is

Click to expand...

Unless they commit suicide or are scheduled for execution, typically we don't know the exact time of our death. Good to apply the means of grace before that, then, IMO. I don't think there's a lot of debate on this point.





.

ImaginaryDay2 said:

This has been suggested by another poster, but I don't see where you (or said poster) has established the point

Click to expand...

Do Lutherans have confirmation and a ceremony for those who pass confirmation?
That is an age of X.

MennoSota said:

Do Lutherans have confirmation and a ceremony for those who pass confirmation?
That is an age of X.

Click to expand...

AGAIN.....


Yes, Lutherans think that Bible study is important. We actually WELCOME people of all ages to study the Bible and forbid NONE.

No, Confirmation instruction is NOT required. For anyone. At any age.

No. There is not one age requirement in the Lutheran Confessions (or in the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles). For anyone. For anything. In act, there is no age mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions AT ALL. Not once. Not ever.


It is the Anabaptists who invented their new dogmas of Anti-Paedobaptism and Credobaptism, invented out of the blue in 1523, not because the inventors noticed any Scriptures but because it seemed a necessity of their radical synergism. It is the Anabaptist new dogma of Anti-PAEDObaptism that dogmaticly demands that Baptism is forbidden to any under a certain age - these Anabaptists just refuse to say what age that is (thus necessitating speaking of it as "X" - that being the designation for any factor that is unknown). Anti-Paedobaptism is entirely about AGE, but an age they refuse to disclose.


A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah



.

.

The issue of original sin has been interjected several times in this thread..... While it's a hijack here, it may be discussed here: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5117-Sin-and-the-Law




.