Credobaptism

[MennoSota]

I don't invent dogmatic PROHIBITIONS against Americans or Negroids or Asians or tall people or big-footed people or Calvinist people or blonde-haired people or blue-eyed people simply because not every example of Baptism in Genesis - Revelation obviously includes them.

I don't dogmatically exempt African -Americans or children from the Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" either. Simply because some group suddenly doesn't invents a DOGMA to exclude THEM.

Do you know the infants already have faith? Do you willingly baptize unfaithful person's? Do you ever see unfaithful person's baptized in the Bible?
Again, it strikes me that you support a dogma never found in the Bible, while you reject baptizing only the faithful, which is always expressed in the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

Do you know the infants already have faith?

You CERTAINLY feel the need to dodge the dogma under discussion, don't you?


The issue is NOT whether God is impotent to give faith to infants, this denial of the soverignty of God and irresistably of Grace that you deny. The issue is the topic of the thread. One of the 3 DOGMAS that are the defining of Baptists. The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical. Try not to RUN from the dogma you parrot.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.

No faithless person is ever recorded as being baptized in the Bible.

.

No Americans are either. Not even one.

And since you reject the rule that we MUST do exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation, and are FORBIDDEN to other than as exactly was always done in the Bible, whatever dogma you'd invent about dogmatically prohibiting Americans from baptism would be silly; you don't accept the rule you keep demanding others accept.

It surprises me that you don't accept or follow what the Bible clearly records

1. Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

2. Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

3. Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

4. Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

5. Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

6. Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.



.

 

[MennoSota]

You CERTAINLY feel the need to dodge the dogma under discussion, don't you?


The issue is NOT whether God is impotent to give faith to infants, this denial of the soverignty of God and irresistably of Grace that you deny. The issue is the topic of the thread. One of the 3 DOGMAS that are the defining of Baptists. The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical. Try not to RUN from the dogma you parrot.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.







No Americans are either. Not even one.

And since you reject the rule that we MUST do exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation, and are FORBIDDEN to other than as exactly was always done in the Bible, whatever dogma you'd invent about dogmatically prohibiting Americans from baptism would be silly; you don't accept the rule you keep demanding others accept.








1. Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

2. Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

3. Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

4. Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

5. Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

6. Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.



.

I have shown the practice of believers baptism throughout scripture. The doctrine is confirmed.
Why you reject what the Bible very clearly reveals is the mystery in this conversation. Why you teach a practice that has no evidence anywhere in the Bible is the mystery in this conversation. Why you reject the Bible and insert a dogma not found in the Bible is quite interesting to me.
You certainly don't practice Sola scriptura, nor do you practice monergism.

 

[atpollard]

You are incorrect. This passage does not mention repentance. (Acts 22:16) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Paul repented in Acts 22:8 and 22:10 ... once again, repentance came before baptism but the sins were not forgiven until Paul had BOTH repented AND been baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

Do Padeobaptist infants obey Acts 22:16 and wash away their sin with baptism while CALLING ON HIS NAME? Once again, that is all Credobaptists advocate: doing what scripture says to do, like baptizing those who have called on the name of Jesus (because Jesus first chose them).

 

[Josiah]

repentance came before baptism

Wrong thread, wrong dogma.


There is no dogma of METANObaptism. You seem to feel a need to evade the subject of this thread and this distinctive, defining Dogma of Baptists - CREDObaptism

Credobaptism is the dogma invented by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (overturning and reversing 1500 years of universal Christian faith and practice) that it is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath previously - in our chronological time - verbally and publicly proven that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and repudiates all other baptisms as forbidden and invalid. THAT'S the dogma. THAT'S the sole topic here. You yourself had forbidden anyone to discuss anything else in these Anabaptists Baptism dogmas, and that includes the non-existent view of METANObaptism.

the sins were not forgiven until Paul had BOTH repented AND been baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

Amazing how you so limit God, so restrict Him, so undermine His soverignty and so repudiate irresistable grace. But your comment is simply a diversion, trying to get us to discuss a Baptism dogma that doesn't exist, anywhere at any time. There is no dogma of "Repentance First Baptism." The dogma here is CREDObaptism and the definition of that never so much as even mentions the word "repentance" - for anything, about anything.

Arthur, do as you demand everyone else does: stick to the topic, this one of the 3 distinctive, defining Dogmas of Baptists: Credobaptism.

If you have it, quote the Scripture(s) that state we are prohibited to baptize before the recipient publicly and verbally has proven they first have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that all other baptism (including mine and John Calvins and most here at CH and all before this Anabaptist invented this dogma and most since) are forbidden, invalid and heretical. Where is that stated? And if you have nothing in Scripture, do you at least have something solid from 1500 years of universal Christian faith and practice? No one denies that MOST of the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible had this, but everyone here rejects that we are dogmatically forbidden to do ANYTHING that is not done exactly as always done in Genesis - Revelation and MUST to everything exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation, so since no one here (or on Earth) agrees with that rule, it's not one on which to entirely found a DOGMA. If it were, we could not be posting on the net (it would be heresy!), could not use a Gentile to administer Baptism, could not use baptismal tanks. could not baptize people of Negroid or Oriental races.... In Communion, we could not use white bread or grape juice or plastic cups and could not give Communion to women or kids. But no one on the planet believes that what happens to have been done in SOME cases is normative for us, so it's absurd to entirely found a dogma on a norm no one accepts as normative.





.

 

[Josiah]

I have shown the practice of believers baptism throughout scripture

1. No. You have steadfastly REFUSED to show your claim is true (even if it mattered). You have been asked to prove that everyone baptized in the households of Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 had FIRST in our chronological time had verbally and publicly proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE the claimed prohibition to baptize was lifted, and that in every case, where the person had not FIRST in our time proven that, baptism was denied. You have quoted the two verses.... and proven you can't show your claim is true.


2. Worse, you found everything - entirely - on the absurd premise THAT YOU YOURSELF REJECT AND DON'T FOLLOW - that we must do EVERYTHING exactly as was always done in that matter in Genesis - Revelation and are dogmatically PROHIBITED to do anything other than exactly as it was always done in that matter in Genesis - Revelation. Your entire apologetic is founded on that rubric - WHICH YOU YOURSELF REJECT AND DON'T FOLLOW.

Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.


So..... everything rests on a claim you cannot show is true, normed by a Rule you reject and don't follow. Amazing. Absurd.





.

 

[MennoSota]

1. No. You have steadfastly REFUSED to show your claim is true (even if it mattered). You have been asked to prove that everyone baptized in the households of Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 had FIRST in our chronological time had verbally and publicly proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE the claimed prohibition to baptize was lifted, and that in every case, where the person had not FIRST in our time proven that, baptism was denied. You have quoted the two verses.... and proven you can't show your claim is true.


2. Worse, you found everything - entirely - on the absurd premise THAT YOU YOURSELF REJECT AND DON'T FOLLOW - that we must do EVERYTHING exactly as was always done in that matter in Genesis - Revelation and are dogmatically PROHIBITED to do anything other than exactly as it was always done in that matter in Genesis - Revelation. Your entire apologetic is founded on that rubric - WHICH YOU YOURSELF REJECT AND DON'T FOLLOW.

Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.


So..... everything rests on a claim you cannot show is true, normed by a Rule you reject and don't follow. Amazing. Absurd.





.

The claim is proven in scripture.
You reject what the Bible very clearly shows. Your stubborn refusal is the problem. I cannot move you. You choose to hold on to a dogma that cannot be found in the Bible, while rejecting the form of baptism that is repeatedly and clearly shown in the Bible.
May God have mercy on your soul for your rejection of truth and replacement with fantasy.

Finally, it is shocking that you are equating baptism to ethnicity when baptism is always about affirming faith. You have taken to making baptism absurd in your effort to deperately cling to a heresy. This is shocking.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Paul repented in Acts 22:8 and 22:10 ... once again, repentance came before baptism but the sins were not forgiven until Paul had BOTH repented AND been baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

Do Padeobaptist infants obey Acts 22:16 and wash away their sin with baptism while CALLING ON HIS NAME? Once again, that is all Credobaptists advocate: doing what scripture says to do, like baptizing those who have called on the name of Jesus (because Jesus first chose them).

Acts 22:8,10 do not mention repentance but you may want to read it into the passage and I would not object to the idea that saint Paul did repent but I will object to your claim that it is in verse 8 and 10 when it is not nor is it in Acts 22:16. It is one thing to presume repentance but quite another to have it explicitly stated in a passage and since your claim was that the holy scriptures do not speak of baptism without first mentioning repentance Acts 22:16 does in fact provide the counterexample needed to refute your claim.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 22:8,10 do not mention repentance but you may want to read it into the passage and I would not object to the idea that saint Paul did repent but I will object to your claim that it is in verse 8 and 10 when it is not nor is it in Acts 22:16. It is one thing to presume repentance but quite another to have it explicitly stated in a passage and since your claim was that the holy scriptures do not speak of baptism without first mentioning repentance Acts 22:16 does in fact provide the counterexample needed to refute your claim.

Can you call Jesus Lord without faith bringing you to repentance?

 

[atpollard]

Wrong thread, wrong dogma.


There is no dogma of METANObaptism. You seem to feel a need to evade the subject of this thread and this distinctive, defining Dogma of Baptists - CREDObaptism

Credobaptism is the dogma invented by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (overturning and reversing 1500 years of universal Christian faith and practice) that it is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath previously - in our chronological time - verbally and publicly proven that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and repudiates all other baptisms as forbidden and invalid. THAT'S the dogma. THAT'S the sole topic here. You yourself had forbidden anyone to discuss anything else in these Anabaptists Baptism dogmas, and that includes the non-existent view of METANObaptism.







Amazing how you so limit God, so restrict Him, so undermine His soverignty and so repudiate irresistable grace. But your comment is simply a diversion, trying to get us to discuss a Baptism dogma that doesn't exist, anywhere at any time. There is no dogma of "Repentance First Baptism." The dogma here is CREDObaptism and the definition of that never so much as even mentions the word "repentance" - for anything, about anything.

Arthur, do as you demand everyone else does: stick to the topic, this one of the 3 distinctive, defining Dogmas of Baptists: Credobaptism.

If you have it, quote the Scripture(s) that state we are prohibited to baptize before the recipient publicly and verbally has proven they first have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that all other baptism (including mine and John Calvins and most here at CH and all before this Anabaptist invented this dogma and most since) are forbidden, invalid and heretical. Where is that stated? And if you have nothing in Scripture, do you at least have something solid from 1500 years of universal Christian faith and practice? No one denies that MOST of the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Bible had this, but everyone here rejects that we are dogmatically forbidden to do ANYTHING that is not done exactly as always done in Genesis - Revelation and MUST to everything exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation, so since no one here (or on Earth) agrees with that rule, it's not one on which to entirely found a DOGMA. If it were, we could not be posting on the net (it would be heresy!), could not use a Gentile to administer Baptism, could not use baptismal tanks. could not baptize people of Negroid or Oriental races.... In Communion, we could not use white bread or grape juice or plastic cups and could not give Communion to women or kids. But no one on the planet believes that what happens to have been done in SOME cases is normative for us, so it's absurd to entirely found a dogma on a norm no one accepts as normative.





.

Dude, take a Valium ... I just answered a question asked directly to me.

Your question was already answered, but you have ears that refuse to hear the answer and THAT is something that I cannot fix.

 

[atpollard]

Acts 22:8,10 do not mention repentance but you may want to read it into the passage and I would not object to the idea that saint Paul did repent but I will object to your claim that it is in verse 8 and 10 when it is not nor is it in Acts 22:16. It is one thing to presume repentance but quite another to have it explicitly stated in a passage and since your claim was that the holy scriptures do not speak of baptism without first mentioning repentance Acts 22:16 does in fact provide the counterexample needed to refute your claim.

Just as a clarification, I was not advocating that the Bible always explicitly stated that people repented before baptism (I believe that they did, but would not make a volatile claim like the Bible always says so). I was advocating that the forgiveness of sins (as in ‘be baptized for the forgiveness of sin’) without repentance is never advocated in scripture. To word it another way, the Bible does not claim that you don’t need to be sorry for your sins to get God to forgive them ... that would be a version of “say a Sinners Prayer and go back to sinning and God will still forgive you.” That is anathema to the message of both the Church and the Bible.

With respect to Acts 22:8 ... Why did Paul call Jesus ‘LORD’ if he had not had a change of heart (that is what repentance is, is it not?)
With respect to Acts 22:10 ... Why was Paul prepared to do whatever Jesus said to do if he had not had a change of heart?

 

[Josiah]

Just as a clarification, I was not advocating that the Bible always explicitly stated that people repented before baptism (I believe that they did, but would not make a volatile claim like the Bible always says so). I was advocating that the forgiveness of sins (as in ‘be baptized for the forgiveness of sin’) without repentance is never advocated in scripture.

... and I think everyone agrees with that. As I conveyed to you many times, I acknowledge the "and" (MANY things are associated with soteriology) just not the replacement of the word "and" with a dogmatic "AFTER THAT."




Now, back to the distinctive baptist Dogma which is the sole and only topic of this thread: Credobaptism. It is the Dogma invented by radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (reversing 1500 years of Christian faith and practice) that it is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until the recipient has in our chronological time FIRST proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED and performed, AFTER THAT the supposed prohibition to baptism is lifted and that one may be baptized; all other baptisms are invalid, prohibited and wrong (virtually every baptism before 1600 and most since - including mine, my son's, and most here at CH).



It is NOT (repeat, NOT) simply a denominational polity. It is NOT a case of "Well, in our denomination, we think it BEST to do _______________ and so that is our polity,but we are NOT saying it is required outside our denomination or that other practices are invalid or wrong, just not done in our denomination." Nope. Every church and denomination has the ability to agree on certain practices and ministries, by custom or by requirement, but this is not dogma or doctrine or official teaching - it's just the polity of that church or denomination. So opinion, "it seems to me" etc. is irrelevant in dogma. Let me give an example: In the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church, there is a polity that only unmarried men are ordained. It has been their polity for almost 1000 years. But the RCC is NOT at all saying this is dogma or doctrine or teaching or even opinion, it is simply their chosen polity and custom, it does NOT say this comes from Revelation or Tradition, it does NOT say others are wrong to do contrary (it even will made rare exceptions itself), it's jsut what that denomination concludes is best. In Baptist denominations, Credobaptism is dogma. Whole other enchilada.


It should be noted too that the other participant, MennoSota, has repeatedly DEMANDED that all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) be "scraped" and "forgotten" but rather we are to go solely by the words of Scripture.




.


.

 

[MennoSota]

... and I think everyone agrees with that. As I conveyed to you many times, I acknowledge the "and" (MANY things are associated with soteriology) just not the replacement of the word "and" with a dogmatic "AFTER THAT."

So...everyone agrees that the Bible only reveals those who express their faith being baptized.
This begs the question as to why you choose to baptize those who are still dead in their trespasses and sins.

It should be noted too that the other participant, MennoSota, has repeatedly DEMANDED that all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) be "scraped" and "forgotten" but rather we are to go solely by the words of Scripture.

First, you are not speaking the truth or you are confused as to what I have said. I choose to think you are confused.
I have stated that we should throw out all traditions that are not biblically supported. For instance, the tradition of indulgence to pay for person's to be released from purgatory is not biblically supported. Therefore, toss that teaching/tradition out. Also, the tradition of baptizing infant sinners, who cannot and do not express any faith in God as persons who are dead in their trespasses and sins, is not biblically supported. Therefore, toss that teaching/tradition out.
So...you are confused...or deliberately lying about what I stated regarding traditions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just as a clarification, I was not advocating that the Bible always explicitly stated that people repented before baptism (I believe that they did, but would not make a volatile claim like the Bible always says so). I was advocating that the forgiveness of sins (as in ‘be baptized for the forgiveness of sin’) without repentance is never advocated in scripture. To word it another way, the Bible does not claim that you don’t need to be sorry for your sins to get God to forgive them ... that would be a version of “say a Sinners Prayer and go back to sinning and God will still forgive you.” That is anathema to the message of both the Church and the Bible.

I accept your statement of intent. I note that holy scripture does not always state that repentance is a necessary precondition for baptism. I also note that baptism of households does not mention individual faith or repentance for the household members apart from the head of the house. One more note - baptism is God's work and means by which grace, rebirth, and ultimately eternal life in communion (union) with Christ is obtained and that being so preconditions need not apply even if they are common in cases of individual adult baptisms.

With respect to Acts 22:8 ... Why did Paul call Jesus ‘LORD’ if he had not had a change of heart (that is what repentance is, is it not?)

Very likely as a mark of fearful respect for an obviously superior person.

With respect to Acts 22:10 ... Why was Paul prepared to do whatever Jesus said to do if he had not had a change of heart?

Very likely out of fearful respect for an obviously superior person.

 

[Josiah]

I note that holy scripture does not always state that repentance is a necessary precondition for baptism

It never states that it is (thus, there is dogma of METANObaptism in any denomination). Interesting that it typically is a part of the baptismal liturgy but it's not a dogmatic precondition.

I accept that atpollard was not intentionally diverting the discussion away from CREDObaptism.

I also note that baptism of households does not mention individual faith or repentance for the household members

Correct. Although MennoSota keeps insisting that ALL baptisms, EVERY baptism in the Bible was of one who had attained the age of X and had previously proven - verbally and publicly - that in our chronological time, they had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. He just won't show this is true.... or why it would matter IF (big word!) it were true since he doesn't hold that exactly what is or is not done in the Bible is at all normative. A claim he can't show is true, normed by a rule he rejects as false.




.

 

[Arsenios]

With respect to Acts 22:8 ... Why did Paul call Jesus ‘LORD’ if he had not had a change of heart (that is what repentance is, is it not?)
With respect to Acts 22:10 ... Why was Paul prepared to do whatever Jesus said to do if he had not had a change of heart?

He was on a killing mission to persecute Christians who were causing so much trouble in Judea...

He was a true-believing zealot of the Pharisees...

And he has just been blinded and knocked to the ground by the Risen Christ...

He had just been Called by God...

Granted, in a not exactly reasonable and ordinary way...

I personally suspect that Stephen had prayed specifically for him at his martyrdom...

The Call of God is and can be an awesome thing to behold...

Made helpless and blind, he was taken to a place in Damascus...

He entered into prayer and fasting for three days...

He knew what had happened and Who had called him...

He had a total change of heart...

His zealotry flipped without hardly missing a beat...

For those prepared, repentance can be quick...

For those not prepared, it can be prolonged and messy...

And Ananias gave him his sight...

And as well, gave him the Holy Spirit, Baptizing him...

Paul was an all or nothing kind of guy...

Most Orthodox monastics are of the same cloth...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

I was advocating that the forgiveness of sins without repentance is never advocated in scripture.

I think everyone agrees with that

So...everyone agrees that the Bible only reveals those who express their faith being baptized.

Friend, you need to sharpen your reading skills, lol



Now, back to the distinctive baptist Dogma which is the sole and only topic of this thread: Credobaptism. It is the Dogma invented by radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (reversing 1500 years of Christian faith and practice) that it is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until the recipient has in our chronological time FIRST proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED and performed, AFTER THAT the supposed prohibition to baptism is lifted and that one may be baptized; all other baptisms are invalid, prohibited and wrong (virtually every baptism before 1600 and most since - including mine, my son's, and most here at CH).




.

 

[MennoSota]

Friend, you need to sharpen your reading skills, lol



Now, back to the distinctive baptist Dogma which is the sole and only topic of this thread: Credobaptism. It is the Dogma invented by radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century (reversing 1500 years of Christian faith and practice) that it is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until the recipient has in our chronological time FIRST proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED and performed, AFTER THAT the supposed prohibition to baptism is lifted and that one may be baptized; all other baptisms are invalid, prohibited and wrong (virtually every baptism before 1600 and most since - including mine, my son's, and most here at CH).




.

Friend my reading skills are fine and you never addressed what I said. You simply parroted your foolishness once again.