Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

MennoSota said:

Sadly, atpollard, presenting people with what God says just won't change the mind of people who bow to denominational dogma above what God says.

Click to expand...

See post 190.


Sadly, either atpollard destroyed your whole premise on Baptism or destroyed the Calvinist view of soteriology.

Josiah said:

See post 190.
Sadly, either atpollard destroyed your whole premise on Baptism or destroyed the Calvinist view of soteriology.

Click to expand...

Only if ‘kai’ means ‘or’. Then you are correct that people should obey Jesus by EITHER getting baptized while they are clueless infants OR they can repent as confirmed adults ... but not both at the same time.

I’ll stick with AND means AND and keep ‘repent and be baptized’ together.

atpollard said:

Only if ‘kai’ means ‘or’. Then you are correct that people should obey Jesus by EITHER getting baptized while they are clueless infants OR they can repent as confirmed adults ... but not both at the same time.

I’ll stick with AND means AND and keep ‘repent and be baptized’ together.

Click to expand...

Josiah's argument reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses who claim the article in John 1 means "the Word was a god" rather than "the Word was God." Of course the JW's do that because their dogma requires that Jesus cannot be God.
The argument Josiah is making is weak and essentially designed to maintain dogma rather than honestly address the text.

Pedrito said:

The age of accountability requirement does exist within churches that practice ritual baby baptism after all.

Click to expand...

By definition, it does not.

It cannot, if everyone of any age is eligible for baptism, which is the case with all the traditional churches. Only those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition have imposed a kind of 'age of accountability' prerequisite--and that prerequisite is not effectively defined anyway since it varies from congregation to congregation.'

atpollard said:

Acts 2:37-39 NASB
37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Click to expand...

Let's honestly read the text....


1. The koine Greek word "kai" is THE most general, generic connecting word in that language; it simply and only and exclusively associates things. It in no way whatsoever requires or indicates or remotely implies order. You are performing a radical eisegsis, FORCING a view into a verse that in no way remotely teaches such a thing. Note, you forcing sequence into this also means that you must hold that the Holy Spirit can only come AFTER baptism has been completed, and since you believe that faith can only come via the Holy Spirit, how does the person come to faith BEFORE the Holy Spirit comes to them? Your enormous grammatical mistake (it doesn't even work in English, it's quite absurd) just causes your whole soteriology to fall... By substituting the words "and then after that" for "and" you've actually destroyed Calvinistic soteriology.



2. It's a historical report. I disagree with your entire apologetic, which is that in ONE ISSUE - only, exclusively, uniquely one issue, baptism, and NO OTHER - we are to disregard the teaching of the Bible and rather use SOME of the examples that we see that happen to be recorded in the Bible. Problem is:

A. This doesn't say that "It is a divine prerequisite that FIRST you repent, then AFTER THAT IS COMPLETELY you may be baptized and then AFTER THAT IS COMPLETELY at some future date, you will receive the Holy Spirit. This isn't in the group of SOME of the examples you like.

B. The very fact that you repudiate this rubric in ALL AND EVERY OTHER situation and with any other topic SHOULD convey to you that it is flawed. You don't say, "We are forbidden to use the internet because there are NO examples of that being done in the Bible.... we are forbidden to have youth pastors and youth groups because there are no examples of that in the Bible.... etc., etc. You aren't even consistent with it with the ONE permitted issue - Baptism. You don't insist we are forbidden to baptize people in a tank in a church because there are no examples of that in the Bible, we are forbidden to have a Gentile perform the baptism because there are no examples of that in the Bible.



3. You seem to waver back and forth between what you call CO-requisites (things associated) - a point where you seem to agree with the traditional view and not Baptists, and PRErequisites. It's important you make up your mind because that IS the issue here. Your premise that "and" means "only after that is completed" you've created a mandated sequence and prerequisites (thus disagreeing with your "CO-requisite"point), but you also destroy your point since you insist that the Holy Spriit can't come to us under AFTER baptism has been completed and without the Holy Spirit, there can be no faith (you and I both insist, as does the Bible)

atpollard said:

"the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Click to expand...

That's the position you are repudiating.... Odd you'd quote a verse that destroys your apologetic. YES, this is not just for adult believers but also "for your children." Ah, all those examples of whole households bring baptized..... "this is for you and your children."


So the promise is to them PLUS their children.


It does NOT say, ".... to those over the age of X who have FIRST repented of their sins, THEN after that is completed, were baptized, and THEN after that is completely, the Holy Spirit began His salvic work, and THEN after that is completed, the Lord will call them to Himself." Boy, what does your do to the Calvinist view of soteriology ?!?!?! Adcording to your spin, the Holy Spirit can't come until after we perform a lot of prerequisites, do a lot of qualifying tasks (including baptism) THEN after those things are completed by us, only THEN can the Holy Spirit is able to come to the person and give them faith and only after that is completed can God elect them (that's your spin on this verse; what a STRANGE thing for a Calvinist to insist upon!!!!!). But you are simply using a HUGE grammatical error as your whole premise. Try just reading the verse (it's really quite beautiful - and FULLY in keeping with Calvinist soteriology).



- Josiah




.

Albion said:

By definition, it does not.

It cannot, if everyone of any age is eligible for baptism, which is the case with all the traditional churches. Only those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition have imposed a kind of 'age of accountability' prerequisite--and that prerequisite is not effectively defined anyway since it varies from congregation to congregation.'

Click to expand...

You are correct. For those who practice infant baptism, there cannot be an age of accountability for baptism. However, the requirement to confess your faith and repent is still scripturally there. This is where confirmation comes in.

meluckycharms said:

You are correct. For those who practice infant baptism, there cannot be an age of accountability for baptism. However, the requirement to confess your faith and repent is still scripturally there. This is where confirmation comes in.

Click to expand...

But there isn't such a Scriptural requirement if you mean by that a requirement for receiving Baptism.

In addition, confirmation is a church ordinance, not a sacrament--except in the case of Catholics. They are supposed to be confirmed at some time or other, usually later than both their Baptisms and First Communions, but there is no prescribed age for it and many Catholics in good standing have never been confirmed.





.

Albion said:

But there isn't such a Scriptural requirement if you mean by that a requirement for receiving Baptism.

Click to expand...

Correct. No requirement to receive water baptism. Confirmation is separate from baptism. In most cases, every denomination has some event that happens for the infant and another when the infant matures. Either it is:

1. Infant baptism then confirmation.

2. Infant dedication/christening then baptism.

Josiah said:

Let's honestly read the text....

Click to expand...

sure.

1. The koine Greek word "kai" is THE most general, generic connecting word in that language; it simply and only and exclusively associates things.

Click to expand...

Then why are you disassociating "repent" and "believe" from "be baptized"?
Why are you associating "you" with "your children" but disassociating both from "all who are far off"?

2. It's a historical report. I disagree with your entire apologetic, which is that in ONE ISSUE - only, exclusively, uniquely one issue, baptism, and NO OTHER - we are to disregard the teaching of the Bible and rather use SOME of the examples that we see that happen to be recorded in the Bible.

Click to expand...

What teaching are we disregarding? Where is the "baptize unbelieving baby" teaching? I only find commands to "believe and be baptized".

A. This doesn't say that "It is a divine prerequisite that FIRST you repent, then AFTER THAT IS COMPLETELY you may be baptized and then AFTER THAT IS COMPLETELY at some future date, you will receive the Holy Spirit. This isn't in the group of SOME of the examples you like.

Click to expand...

The scholars who translated Greek into English disagree with you, they inserted comas to indicate a sequence of clauses. What it does not say is "get baptized, and then in a decade or two ... if you feel that it is right for you ... repent and by then God will have long ago given you the Holy Spirit."

B. The very fact that you repudiate this rubric in ALL AND EVERY OTHER situation and with any other topic SHOULD convey to you that it is flawed. You don't say, "We are forbidden to use the internet because there are NO examples of that being done in the Bible.... we are forbidden to have youth pastors and youth groups because there are no examples of that in the Bible.... etc., etc. You aren't even consistent with it with the ONE permitted issue - Baptism. You don't insist we are forbidden to baptize people in a tank in a church because there are no examples of that in the Bible, we are forbidden to have a Gentile perform the baptism because there are no examples of that in the Bible.

Click to expand...

This is not a reading of the text, honest or otherwise. This is a personal attack.
It is also a straw man because I have stated repeatedly that MY objection to baptizing the unsaved is not that it is doing something that the Bible does not illustrate ... I am not Amish ... rather my objection is that baptizing without believing and repenting either first or at the same time is a violation of the direct scriptural commands of both Jesus and the Apostles. However every time I present where these commands are given, you launch into a diatribe about the 16th century.

3. You seem to waver back and forth between what you call CO-requisites (things associated) - a point where you seem to agree with the traditional view and not Baptists, and PRErequisites. It's important you make up your mind because that IS the issue here. Your premise that "and" means "only after that is completed" you've created a mandated sequence and prerequisites (thus disagreeing with your "CO-requisite"point), but you also destroy your point since you insist that the Holy Spirit can't come to us under AFTER baptism has been completed and without the Holy Spirit, there can be no faith (you and I both insist, as does the Bible)

Click to expand...

Human beings have no control of the Holy Spirit, so any arguments about the Holy Spirit are a red herring. Co-requisite means at the same time. If i register for a college course that has a co-requisite, they will not allow me to wait and take the co-requisite a few semesters later. If "repent" and "believe" and "baptism" are co-requisites, then they should be happening at about the same time. Someone with a PhD should understand the concept of a co-requisite. Lutheran infant Baptism and adult Confirmation are not co-requisite events. You have clearly removed "repent" and "believe" as a requirement for baptism (either before, during or after).

That's the position you are repudiating.... Odd you'd quote a verse that destroys your apologetic. YES, this is not just for adult believers but also "for your children." Ah, all those examples of whole households bring baptized..... "this is for you and your children."

So the promise is to them PLUS their children.

Click to expand...

The promise is ... "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
You have the promise that you can "Repent, be baptized (forgive your sins) and receive the Holy Spirit."
Your children have the promise that they can "Repent, be baptized (forgive their sins) and receive the Holy Spirit."
Those far off have the promise that they can "Repent, be baptized (forgive their sins) and receive the Holy Spirit."

Why do you refuse to obey by ignoring the command to REPENT, and jump right to baptizing a passive participant and claiming the gift of the Holy Spirit for them?

This is not a reading of the text, honest or otherwise. This is a personal attack...
Why do you refuse to obey by ignoring the command to REPENT...?

Click to expand...

There ISN'T such a command, and it is getting more than tiresome to read complaints about someone supposedly attacking Anabaptists while, at the same time, we read endless accusations like the above that are directed at traditional Christians...and I am not referring to any one member.

Here is a question for the Baptist. If baptism is not a sacrament and has nothing to do with salvation (meaning no baptismal regeneration) does it really matter if a denomination practices infant baptism? Why should we be concerned about it?

meluckycharms said:

Here is a question for the Baptist. If baptism is not a sacrament and has nothing to do with salvation (meaning no baptismal regeneration) does it really matter if a denomination practices infant baptism? Why should we be concerned about it?

Click to expand...

I am not concerned at all about it. I am concerned about people claiming that we are commanded to baptize children when I perceive that teaching to be contradicted by scripture. In a topic in a "Christian Theology" section of a board, I feel the teaching of scripture should be defended against false accusations.

Should we care that the bible commands people to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and some are advocating "baptism without repentance"? Is the Gospel being distorted?

[However, I admit I often take it too personal.]

Albion said:

There ISN'T such a command, and it is getting more than tiresome to read complaints about someone supposedly attacking Anabaptists while, at the same time, we read endless accusations like the above that are directed at traditional Christians...and I am not referring to any one member.

Click to expand...

"There ISN'T such a command" (Acts 2:38)

"supposedly attacking Anabaptists" [Just for the record, this was not about Anabaptists. He asked to discuss the text and that particular point was all about ME and not about the verse.] ... 'attack' may have been too strong of a term, but it was more 'personal commentary' than 'scriptural commentary'.

"endless accusations like the above" ... I apologize for that particular statement. It was inappropriate.

atpollard said:

I am concerned about people claiming that we are commanded to baptize children

Click to expand...

1. The issue is that the Anabaptists FORBID it. The point of Anabaptists (and any others who echo their radical new invention concerning Baptism) is that it is FORBIDDEN to give baptism to children. The proverbial "ball" is in their court to prove this (and many other prohibitions, limitations, denials, mandates) that one man suddenly, out-of-the-blue DEMANDED in the 16th Century. If a person from Alabama in 1848 suddenly and dogmatically insisted, "The Bible says we are forbidden to baptize and teach Blacks!" Wouldn't you say, "where?"


2. I don't know of any who say we are commanded to go... baptize.... teach CHILDREN. Or Blondes. Or Americans. Or females. Yeah, I think we agree Jesus was speaking about homo-sapiens (rather than rabbits), I think we're all on the same page there, but no, I agree, He didn't specifically state, "And this includes infants and children and guys with blonde hair and blue eyes." BUT I do think that if...... after 1500 years of UNIVERSAL understanding..... in direct CONFLICT with the practice of the First, Second, Third Century Christians (including one who was a student of St. John and states he was baptized as a baby)...... SuDDENLY insists, "we are FORBIDDEN by Jesus to baptize blonde dudes" well, I think it not unreasonable to ask "where?" I think the "burden of proof" is on this radical, sudden, "out-of-the-blue" invention of this German man in the 16th Century (and now those who echo it).

atpollard said:

Should we care that the bible commands people to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and some are advocating "baptism without repentance"? Is the Gospel being distorted?

Click to expand...

1. The verse says "and". It does not say, "Then after that is completed." You are basing the whole premise on WRONG GRAMMAR. And you know this since you very clearly make complete 180 when the topic changes to ANYTHING else (indeed, you have to denounce monergism and Calvinism if you retain your premise anywhere else).


2. EVERYONE holds that normally, a whole bunch of things are associated with the new life. Repentance is NOT optional!!! But is it a prerequiste to baptism? This verse does NOT in any way state that.


3. NO ONE ON THE PLANET is saying that baptism replaces repentance.





- Josiah

Josiah said:

2. I don't know of any who say we are commanded to go... baptize.... teach CHILDREN. Or Blondes. Or Americans. Or females. Yeah, I think we agree Jesus was speaking about homo-sapiens (rather than rabbits), I think we're all on the same page there, but no, I agree, He didn't specifically state, "And this includes infants and children and guys with blonde hair and blue eyes." BUT I do think that if...... after 1500 years of UNIVERSAL understanding..... in direct CONFLICT with the practice of the First, Second, Third Century Christians (including one who was a student of St. John and states he was baptized as a baby)...... SuDDENLY insists, "we are FORBIDDEN by Jesus to baptize blonde dudes" well, I think it not unreasonable to ask "where?" I think the "burden of proof" is on this radical, sudden, "out-of-the-blue" invention of this German man in the 16th Century (and now those who echo it).

Click to expand...

The command is "Go and make disciples", see:
Matthew 28:19 NASB “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

... you keep posting "go... baptize.... teach" but leave out "make disciples".

Now here again, the words are written in an order which I think is deliberate, but which you will claim is irrelevant.
So there is nothing to do but agree to disagree on the importance of word order.
You should just really quote the verse correctly (even in a paraphrase).

atpollard said:

"There ISN'T such a command" (Acts 2:38)

Click to expand...

Like other verses in the NT, that is what was spoken to those listeners and it referred to their situation(s). It cannot be taken as a command applicable to all people.

Albion said:

Like other verses in the NT, that is what was spoken to those listeners and it referred to their situation(s). It cannot be taken as a command applicable to all people.

Click to expand...

Would that include the rest of what Peter said to those people about the promise being for their children and those far off?
Are there ANY commands that were not spoken to people? Is anything commanded of us?

I think your interpretation creates problems.

atpollard said:

Would that include the rest of what Peter said to those people about the promise being for their children and those far off?
Are there ANY commands that were not spoken to people? Is anything commanded of us?

I think your interpretation creates problems.

Click to expand...

Let's put it another way. There are plenty of passages in which what is said in an advisory way is intended for those people who are there, listening. For example, there is the one about holding fast to the traditions that 'you' had received. Are the rest of us supposed to become Hebrews and, if so, we don't remember being given any of those traditions. Jesus, you know, was asked how to pray and he answered with the Lord's Prayer. Are all other prayers ruled out, therefore? Are we to pray with him for no more or less than 60 minutes, since he said to his Apostles, "Can you not pray one hour with me?"

Unfortunately, this is exactly how we got a lot of our cults--believers taking Bible wording and admonitions as universals when they were not meant that way.





.

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

atpollard said:

... you keep posting "go... baptize.... teach" but leave out "make disciples".

Now here again, the words are written in an order which I think is deliberate, but which you will claim is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Arthur, consider the following..... please LOOK AT THE WORDS you keep quoting...


And, lets see how this works, this "kai" means "after that" and mandates sequence...


Let's look at the verse you already brought up in order to prove that FIRST one must repent of their sins and AFTER THAT we are no longer forbidden to baptize them (it's the point you were making at the time). You used the same "kai" = AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED meaning....

Acts 2:38 "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."

Your whole premise then and now, in this verse and any in reference to Baptism, is that the mandated meaning of "kai" is 'AFTER THAT' and it's purpose is to require sequence, chronological order. You (and all Anabaptists on this point) use this to prove that repentance must come before baptism - and since those under the age of X cannot repent, they cannot be baptized.

Let's examine your hermaneutic there. So, this verse is proving a certain SEQUENCE, a CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER that must happen this way and must be forbidden to happen otherwise:

The DEAD person (Peter says this to unbelievers) must
1. Repent (including turning to God in faith for mercy and forgiveness) THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE...
2. Be baptized (passive receiver) THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE, NEVER BEFORE...
3. Receive forgiveness THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE, NEVER BEFORE...
4. The Holy Spirit comes to do his regenerative work.

So, what does that do to your Calvinist and Monergist view of soteriology (I;ve brought this up with two other Scriptures you keep quoting and requiring this identical "kai-requires-sequence" apologetic but you've always skipped it). It means that the DEAD person must perform the good work of repenting - which includes turning to God in faith for mercy and forgiveness - this coming from a DEAD person! THEN, only that step is completed and done and finished, only then, next he is no longer forbidden to be baptized and indeed should be (a second good work done by a DEAD person). THEN, only when that step is completed and one and finished, he (this DEAD man) will receive forgiveness (because the dead man did two good works), and THEN after that step is done and completed and finished, the Holy Spirit will do His work of giving life and faith.

If you read that, yeah- your spin helps your baptism argument but it destroys the Christian Gospel! Maybe your whole apologetic here is.... well..... not correct?





Now, you always switch verses, so okay... Matthew 28:19.


Yes, several things are connected here (it's ALL the word "kai" does, it just says "ALSO" or "PLUS")


NOTICE, Jesus wants them to go to unbelievers ("all nations"). This directive is not "Already believers" because not "all nations" were (or are) believers. Indeed, Jesus elsewhere suggests that believers will always be a minority, so "all nations" CANNOT mean "Only those who are already believers" because it would be errant to call only believers "all nations" unless "all nations" were Christians already at the time Jesus spoke this. He wants them to go to ALL NATIONS and accomplish something that was not the case as He said these words, make disciples. All nations were NOT disciples at the time, He wants them to be, thus..... the Great Commission.


It seems Jesus is saying Christians are to DO things here for all nations, with the goal of making disciples. And there are several parts:

1. Go (So human activity - ministry - MUST be acceptable and usable to God in all the specifics that follow or the directive is meaningless; there's no need to GO if it can't accomplish anything; if it's worthless to the objective)

2. To all nations (not "Just believers" See above)

3. Make Disciples

4. Baptizing

5. Teaching

Remember, "kai" only means "also" it in no way indicates sequence. So this imperative to GO (because God can use what he will go on the specify for His purposes) applies to all that follows. And while sequence COULD be implied, it RARELY is with this word and Jesus could have used several other words if sequence was His point rather than choosing to use a word that NEVER mandates that and RARELY means that (You have to have Jesus choosing very bad verbage at best).

What is the subject of this? All nations to make disciples.

What are they to do that Jesus evidently can do something with for this purpose?

+ Baptize
+ Teach



Odd that Jesus would say to baptize them BEFORE we teach them - and you insist, the sequence of the words MANDATES the chronological order..... So, according to your premise, no one can be taught before they are baptized.
Odd that Jesus would spell out something they should do for the accomplishment He has in mind (Baptism) if it's useless to Him and can't do what He desires.

You are requiring a mandated chronological sequence (which means you can't teach until you've baptized!) when there's none stated, indeed Jesus uses the most general and generic connector available and DOES NOT use any of the words that would indicate sequence (making Him very poor in His choice of words, at the very least, if your premise is true). But even you aren't following that because you teach BEFORE you baptize. All but the very tiny minority of Protestants who accept the Anabaptist invention on Baptism take this as a whole ("kai" means "also"); Jesus wants all Christians to GO to all nations..... why? To make disciples! The He spells out WHAT we are to do (it sure seems with the object just stated - all nations - and the goal - make disciple - in mind): baptize, teach.


HOW God uses these... HOW God performs His miracle of life.... WHAT precise sequence He is ordered to do it all in.... we leave that to God; the Great Commission is not what we tell God to do but what He is telling us to do. Now, does He say that AS A RESULT every single person will be made into a disciple? Nope - and traditionalists aren't saying that. MUST God make disciples using these? No, and no one is saying that. God says, "My word shall not return to Me void but shall accomplish all that I purpose" In another place, ".... all for which I sent it." Actually, who sends it? Matthew 28:19 - Christians are to. But He didn't command us ONLY to teach but ALSO to baptize. Who? All nations.



A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah




.