Josiah, I have provided over 30 verses for you.
I missed them. Do this:
1. Quote for us all the verses that state: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until the receiver hath FIRST celebrated their Xth birthday." List all the verses that mandate a mininum age so as to support the Anabaptist invented tradition you promote of
"Anti-Paedobaptism (none under the age of X) List quote all the verse you've given that state that.
2. Quote for us all the verses that states: "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of that." Quote where that prerequisite is stated, to support the Anabaptist denomination tradition you promote of
Credobaptism (baptism is prohibited except for believers).
3. Quote for us all the verses that states: "Thou canst do NOTHING unless it is clearly documented as having been done in the Bible." Just quote those verses. Thus to support your mandate and rubric, your constant claim that there were no baptisms of those under the age of X or of those who did not first chant the sinner's prayer in the Bible - and THEREFORE, we are prohibited from doing so. And document for us how 1 Corinthians 16:15 fand Acts 1:16 prove that none under the age of X and no unbelievers were ever baptized. Just quote for us the verses that state your rubric.
4. Quote for us all the verses that state, "If a group of humans is not specifically INCLUDED in something, they ergo are dogmatically excluded" this to substantiat4e your point that while baptize is generally commanded, this cannot include those under the age of X because it doesn't say ".... and this includes those under the age of X."
Friend, you may have quoted random verses but NONE of them REMOTELY indicated what you have been promoting on this topic since you came here.... all you've done is (perfectly, I admit) parrot verbatim the baptism tradition of the Anabaptist denomination. What you should realize is that those wacky Anabaptists had no Scriptures to support their new dogmas (and didn't even claim to!) - it was simply an extension of their radical synergism (which you occasionally parrot to but claim to actually reject).
Friend, you demand that OTHERS be silent about historic, orthodox, ecumenical tradition that goes back to 63 AD but all you do is parrot verbatim the new, wacky tradition of your denomination (albeit, perfectly, I admit). You demand others PROV#E with SCRIPTURE ALONE that children (and blonds and Americans and fat people) ARE permitted while you offer NOTHING that dogmatically states they are prohibited (and yes, the two anabaptist inventions are both are prohibiting two groups: those under the age of X and those who have not first chose Jesus as their personal Savior). Your foundational apologetic is two things YOU YOURSELF REJECT and NEVER FOLLOW - that we can only do what is stated as done in the Bible and if a group of persons is not mentioned as INCLUDED they thus are dogmatically excluded. And you've not stopped with those two SILLY apologetics, you've added that parents are subject to the authority of their infants and children.... and that all households must be void of children and unbelievers becauses YOURS is.
Friend, here's why you have NOTHING to support the denomination tradition you parrot endlessly: The inventors of it never even claimed to have any Scriptural support, it simply was the implication of their radical synergism - and since you are a monergist, you have nothing. The SILLY things you dig up are just.... silly, especially since you yourself don't believe or apply or accept them. IMO, IF you would step back a bit - and READ what you actually are parroting - and THINK - you'd realize how wacky these Anabaptists were on this (and SO many other issues). You might not accept Baptism as a means of grace, but you won't accept the wacky denominational tradition of the Anabaptists either - you might end up with the common Reformed position (which rejects the synergistic foundation and silliness of the Anabaptists on this as much as everyone else does), which doesn't dogmatically accept Baptism as a means of grace but also doesn't accept the wacky, unfounded idea that baptist is prohibited for all under the age of X and who have not first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. And of course, no one accepts the wacky rubrics you promote - not even you.
MennoSota said:
baptism, is a glorious symbol of what the Spirit of God has already done.If you cannot see this...
Friend the reason why NOT ONE HUMAN BEING on the Planet Earth for over 1500 years ever "saw" that is that it's not there.
It's obvious. It's undeniable. Your inability to provide it proves it.
The
first to "see" this invisible, never-stated dogma were some wackededoodle German radical synergists in the 16th Century (ask yourself why they were the FIRST EVER to "see" what you claim is so clearly stated!).... and they didn't claim the Bible actually stated it.... they admitted this was a NEW teaching.... they simply stated that the orthodox, ecumenical tradition going back to 63 AD was contrary to their radical synergism and thus must be wrong. Now, IF you were a radical synergist, you'd have a point - imposing your synergism everywhere, including were it doens't exist - but you aren't (you claim- although you like the parrot the Anabaptist point about how those under the age of X can't do their part in the salvation of themselves).
See post 144
.
