Credobaptism

[Josiah]

The title merely says that we practice believers baptism

The DOGMA is that there is a prohibition to baptize any who hath not previously in our time shown - publicly and verbally - that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; all other such acts are invalid and prohibited (some Baptist add also heretical, a mockery, and as atpollard argued, causes people to be impenitent).

"Believer ONLY Baptism" is one of the 3 defining dogmas of Baptists (what makes one a Baptist), the others being Immersion ONLY Baptism (restriction on all other modes) and Anti-Paedobaptism (a restriction on any under the age of X).



Now, prove your claim true in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.

Then prove that you think it matters (if you can show your claim is true) since you yourself do LOTS of things in ways NOT just like what is exampled in Genesis - Revelation and no NOTHING that is NOT exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation.


And remember: YOUR demand is that we "scrap" what persons and churches think or how they understand things (including you and Baptists) and go ONLY by what the Bible states. Your claim is that the Bible (not you, not Baptists) states all are prohibited from baptism until they hath previously in our chronological time FIRST proven - verbally and publicly - that they had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. And that all other baptisms are prohibited, invalid, wrong. You claim the Bible states that. It's just we've been waiting for where the Bible states that; all we've gotten is a wide range of things YOU say and a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff that has nothing to do with the topic here. All you do - and it's obvious - is the EXACT THING you demand not be done..... never give a Scripture that states what you do but go on and and on and on, for months, like a broken record, chanting Baptist tradition. EXACTLY what you yourself ridicule. It's all we get.



.

 

[MennoSota]

The DOGMA is that there is a prohibition to baptize any who hath not previously in our time shown - publicly and verbally - that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; all other such acts are invalid and prohibited (some Baptist add also heretical, a mockery, and as atpollard argued, causes people to be impenitent).

"Believer ONLY Baptism" is one of the 3 defining dogmas of Baptists (what makes one a Baptist), the others being Immersion ONLY Baptism (restriction on all other modes) and Anti-Paedobaptism (a restriction on any under the age of X).



Now, prove your claim true in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.

Then prove that you think it matters (if you can show your claim is true) since you yourself do LOTS of things in ways NOT just like what is exampled in Genesis - Revelation and no NOTHING that is NOT exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation.


And remember: YOUR demand is that we "scrap" what persons and churches think or how they understand things (including you and Baptists) and go ONLY by what the Bible states. Your claim is that the Bible (not you, not Baptists) states all are prohibited from baptism until they hath previously in our chronological time FIRST proven - verbally and publicly - that they had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. And that all other baptisms are prohibited, invalid, wrong. You claim the Bible states that. It's just we've been waiting for where the Bible states that; all we've gotten is a wide range of things YOU say and a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff that has nothing to do with the topic here. All you do - and it's obvious - is the EXACT THING you demand not be done..... never give a Scripture that states what you do but go on and and on and on, for months, like a broken record, chanting Baptist tradition. EXACTLY what you yourself ridicule. It's all we get.



.

I don't consider the teaching of God in His word to be church dogma.
God teaches believers baptism. I have shown it. The End.
If you wish to show the teaching of infant baptism in scripture, you are welcome to it. I can't find it, but maybe the angel Moroni has given you a golden tablet.

 

[Josiah]

God teaches believers baptism. I have shown it.

Nope. You've DODGED it. For many months. Again - several times - just today just in this thread. As all can see.

All can see how you dodge Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example.

All can see the absurdity of your whole argument that we cannot do ANYTHING unless it's done exactly as is sometimes done in Genesis - Revelation and MUST do EVERYTHING exactly as sometimes done in Genesis - Revelation. You posting on the internet alone proves you don't accept your own apologetic. How absurd to demand we accept some rule you so obviously reject.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope. You've DODGED it. For many months. Again - several times - just today just in this thread. As all can see.

All can see how you dodge Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for example.

All can see the absurdity of your whole argument that we cannot do ANYTHING unless it's done exactly as is sometimes done in Genesis - Revelation and MUST do EVERYTHING exactly as sometimes done in Genesis - Revelation. You posting on the internet alone proves you don't accept your own apologetic. How absurd to demand we accept some rule you so obviously reject.




.

No dodging. I have shown every verse on baptism in the book of Acts to you. They all show believers being baptized.
And zero of them show infants being baptized.
You really need to take it up with God as to why believers baptism is always shown while infant baptism is never shown.
The evidence is there. Now whether you accept or reject the evidence is another thing completely.

 

[MennoSota]

What I notice is how Josiah cannot prove paedobaptism ever happened in the Bible, yet he ignores all the believers baptism and the fact that I have directly addressed the non existence of infant baptism and only believers baptism in Acts 16. Only those who worship their denomination over God would teach infant baptism from Acts 16. It really is a sad thing to see such stubborn insistance on a phantom teaching.

 

[Josiah]

No dodging.

Then document that everyone that was baptized in the households mentioned in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, all of them FIRST proved - verbally and publicly - that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and those who could not were forbidden Baptism.

Then prove why we should accept your foundational rule when you don't; why should we "buy" your whole argument that we MUST do everything exactly as it was done in every case in the Bible and are dogmatically FORBIDDEN to do anything other than exactly as it was done in every case in the Bible when you don't. Why must we accept your foundational argument when it seems obvious you yourself reject, repudiate and don't follow it (note you posting on the internet, for example).

Or just continue your over one-year-long big dodge.

What I notice is how Josiah cannot prove paedobaptism ever happened in the Bible

1. Wrong thread.

2. I never claimed ANY infant was EVER baptized in the Bible.

3. I also can't show that any fat people were baptized in the Bible (even once) or any over six feet tall or any with blonde hair or any born in the USA or any with a shoe size over 11 or any of the Negroid or Oriental races. Not even ONE, much less "every" "all." Can you?

4. I AGREE with you that your whole argument that we MUST do everything exactly as was done in the Bible and are dogmatically PROHIBITED to do anything not done exactly as in the Bible is just silly and stupid (which is why I can post on the Internet). You don't believe your whole point, I don't either, no one does. It's just silly.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Then document that everyone that was baptized in the households mentioned in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, all of them FIRST proved - verbally and publicly - that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and those who could not were forbidden Baptism.

Then prove why we should accept your foundational rule when you don't; why should we "buy" your whole argument that we MUST do everything exactly as it was done in every case in the Bible and are dogmatically FORBIDDEN to do anything other than exactly as it was done in every case in the Bible when you don't. Why must we accept your foundational argument when it seems obvious you yourself reject, repudiate and don't follow it (note you posting on the internet, for example).

Or just continue your over one-year-long big dodge.








1. Wrong thread.

2. I never claimed ANY infant was EVER baptized in the Bible.

3. I also can't show that any fat people were baptized in the Bible (even once) or any over six feet tall or any with blonde hair or any born in the USA or any with a shoe size over 11 or any of the Negroid or Oriental races. Not even ONE, much less "every" "all." Can you?

4. I AGREE with you that your whole argument that we MUST do everything exactly as was done in the Bible and are dogmatically PROHIBITED to do anything not done exactly as in the Bible is just silly and stupid (which is why I can post on the Internet). You don't believe your whole point, I don't either, no one does. It's just silly.





.

Why do you need documentation about a non-existent child, Josiah? How can anyone prove a non-existent child was baptized, Josiah?
What is proven is that every baptism in Acts is given to a confessing believer.
Do you reject that everyone mentioned was a confessing believer? On what grounds do you reject their confession of belief?
Josiah, I think even God is shaking his head at your Thomas like behavior.
At least Thomas eventually believed. You, I have my doubts.

 

[atpollard]

and as atpollard argued, causes people to be impenitent)

That is NOT what atpollard argued, that is simply your steadfast misunderstanding of what atpollard stated.

Small wonder there are over 200 posts and so little communication.

 

[Josiah]

We're just waiting for where Scripture states the PROHIBITION this IS the dogma....

 

[Josiah]

Why do you need documentation about a non-existent child, Josiah?

1. Wrong thread.


2. Your claim is that "everyone baptized in the Bible" "ALL that the Apostles baptized" "EVERY ONE of the baptisms mentioned in the Bible" are of those who FIRST in our chronological time PROVED - verbally and publicly - that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that every case where that could not be proven the baptism was prohibited. And that somehow it MATTERS that we do EVERYTHING exactly like it was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation and to do ANYTHING that is not exactly as was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation is wrong, prohibited, invalid. You just refuse to show that every baptism was of one who FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus and the rubric you have is one you reject, repudiate and don't follow yourself.

How can anyone prove a non-existent child was baptized, Josiah?

1. Wrong thread. Wrong dogma.


2. No one claimed that all the Apostles baptized every baby. Or even one apostle even one baby. This is about YOUR dogma!! Quit running!


3. Your claim is that "everyone baptized in the Bible" "ALL that the Apostles baptized" "EVERY ONE of the baptisms mentioned in the Bible" are of those who FIRST in our chronological time PROVED - verbally and publicly - that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that every case where that could not be proven the baptism was dogmatically prohibited. And that somehow it MATTERS that we do EVERYTHING exactly like it was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation and to do ANYTHING that is not exactly as was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation is wrong, prohibited, invalid. You just refuse to show that every baptism was of one who FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus and the rubric you have is one you reject, repudiate and don't follow yourself.

What is proven is that every baptism in Acts is given to a confessing believer.

No, you have persistently DODGED that VERY point. For about a year-and-a-half. Prove that for every member of the household that was baptized in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for starters.


THEN prove why we MUST accept a rubric YOU YOURSELF reject and never follow. You obviously don't give a rip what was done and not done in the Bible; your posting on the internet is all the evidence we need. And if we visited your church, I'm sure we'd be hard pressed to see ANYTHING done exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and more hard press to see that NOTHING you and your church does is variant from what was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation. Since you yourself reject your ENTIRE APOLOGETIC, how silly, how absurd, how laughable to DEMAND everyone ELSE accept it.... dogmatically.

 

[MennoSota]

Deflection and cowardice are not good traits.
The scripture confirms credobaptism.

 

[MennoSota]

1. Wrong thread.


2. Your claim is that "everyone baptized in the Bible" "ALL that the Apostles baptized" "EVERY ONE of the baptisms mentioned in the Bible" are of those who FIRST in our chronological time PROVED - verbally and publicly - that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that every case where that could not be proven the baptism was prohibited. And that somehow it MATTERS that we do EVERYTHING exactly like it was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation and to do ANYTHING that is not exactly as was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation is wrong, prohibited, invalid. You just refuse to show that every baptism was of one who FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus and the rubric you have is one you reject, repudiate and don't follow yourself.






1. Wrong thread. Wrong dogma.


2. No one claimed that all the Apostles baptized every baby. Or even one apostle even one baby. This is about YOUR dogma!! Quit running!


3. Your claim is that "everyone baptized in the Bible" "ALL that the Apostles baptized" "EVERY ONE of the baptisms mentioned in the Bible" are of those who FIRST in our chronological time PROVED - verbally and publicly - that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that every case where that could not be proven the baptism was dogmatically prohibited. And that somehow it MATTERS that we do EVERYTHING exactly like it was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation and to do ANYTHING that is not exactly as was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation is wrong, prohibited, invalid. You just refuse to show that every baptism was of one who FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus and the rubric you have is one you reject, repudiate and don't follow yourself.








No, you have persistently DODGED that VERY point. For about a year-and-a-half. Prove that for every member of the household that was baptized in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for starters.


THEN prove why we MUST accept a rubric YOU YOURSELF reject and never follow. You obviously don't give a rip what was done and not done in the Bible; your posting on the internet is all the evidence we need. And if we visited your church, I'm sure we'd be hard pressed to see ANYTHING done exactly as was done in Genesis - Revelation and more hard press to see that NOTHING you and your church does is variant from what was done in every case in Genesis - Revelation. Since you yourself reject your ENTIRE APOLOGETIC, how silly, how absurd, how laughable to DEMAND everyone ELSE accept it.... dogmatically.

A person cannot dodge what is not there. A person cannot avoid what is there.
What is there is believers baptism. What isn't there is infant baptism. Therefore I believe what is there, not what isn't there.

 

[Andrew]

A person cannot dodge what is not there. A person cannot avoid what is there.
What is there is believers baptism. What isn't there is infant baptism. Therefore I believe what is there, not what isn't there.

Yep. Believers baptism is true baptism.
There is nothing in scripture that supports baptising those who have never heard or understood the message of Christ.
If anyone feels so strongly about baptising everyone may they baptise everyone and not just those who can't think of anything else but milk and sleep

 

[atpollard]

We're just waiting for where Scripture states the PROHIBITION this IS the dogma....

I just checked and Acts 2:38 still says “Repent AND be baptized ... for the forgiveness of your sins”. I thought for a moment that Peter might have changed his mind and commanded us to “Be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, and if God someday grants you faith, then go ahead and repent” ... but he didn’t. It still says “Repent AND be baptized ... for the forgiveness of your sins”, which is Romans 10:9-10 at work and what Credobaptism is all about.

Technically, the words “PROHIBITION” and/or “dogma” appear nowhere in the NASB Translation that I use. Does that mean NOTHING is prohibited and there is no dogma? (Since we are waiting for the scripture that states those words).

 

[Josiah]

I just checked and Acts 2:38 still says “Repent AND be baptized ... for the forgiveness of your sins”.

Yup, it does. What it does NOT say is, "it is prohibited to baptize any until they hath in our chronological time previously verbally and publicly proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical." What it entirely missing is the RESTRICTION that IS the Dogma, the dogma invented by that radical synergistic Anabaptist over 400 years ago, the Dogma this thread is about.


And of course, we've already agreed on what is undeniable, the koine Greek word "kai" does not imply or mean (much less dogmatically MANDATE) chronological sequence. There are words in koine Greek that imply and even precisely mean sequence and chronological order,but NONE of those are found in ANY verse in which the word "baptize" also appears. What you WANT to do is delete the word "and" and replace it with "after that" because the Holy Spirit goofed, but we both know the word is "and" not "after that."

There is nothing in scripture that supports baptising those who have never heard or understood the message of Christ.

Wrong thread, my friend. This one is about a Dogma invented by an Anabaptist in the late 16th century that it is MANDATED to RESTRICT baptism ONLY to those who previously had proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that all other baptisms (EVERY baptism for over 1500 years and ALL in his own time) are prohibited, invalid, wrong and heretical. THAT'S the dogma, that's the topic here.


The undeniable reality is that there is nothing in Scripture that dogmatically forbids the baptizing of those who had not previously in chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. No such restriction is ANYWHERE stated. Just as we find no such stated restriction on fat people or blonde-haired people or those of Negroid or Oriental races or those born in the USA.

A person cannot dodge what is not there.

Ah, the first time you've admitted your claim is wrong. It's NOT true! It's NOT there! What did that take you, um, nearly two years to admit? It is NOT true that every baptism in the Bible is of one who had first celebrated their Xth birthday, previously proved - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, and had every cell of their body entirely submerged under water. Your claim that "ALL" "EVERY" "WITHOUT EXCEPTION" is just wrong, isn't it?


Now we know why you keep dodging Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. You now admit it. They prove you wrong. There goes your whole apologetic, the entire claim on which your apologetic is based.


Now admit that your rule is also stupid and one you yourself reject, YOU don't accept that we MUST do everything exactly as was always done in Genesis - Revelation and are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than exactly as done in Genesis - Revelation, so your whole point that "Every baptism in the Bible was of believers (which you now admit is wrong) is MANDATED because we must do EVERYTHING exactly as was always done in the Bible and are forbidden to do anything other than exactly as done in the Bible" - you yourself reject that and don't follow it.


So, your claim is false .... AND ..... your entire apologetic is false.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Yup, it does. What it does NOT say is, "it is prohibited to baptize any until they hath in our chronological time previously verbally and publicly proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical." What it entirely missing is the RESTRICTION that IS the Dogma, the dogma invented by that radical synergistic Anabaptist over 400 years ago, the Dogma this thread is about.


And of course, we've already agreed on what is undeniable, the koine Greek word "kai" does not imply or mean (much less dogmatically MANDATE) chronological sequence. There are words in koine Greek that imply and even precisely mean sequence and chronological order,but NONE of those are found in ANY verse in which the word "baptize" also appears. What you WANT to do is delete the word "and" and replace it with "after that" because the Holy Spirit goofed, but we both know the word is "and" not "after that."







Wrong thread, my friend. This one is about a Dogma invented by an Anabaptist in the late 16th century that it is MANDATED to RESTRICT baptism ONLY to those who previously had proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and that all other baptisms (EVERY baptism for over 1500 years and ALL in his own time) are prohibited, invalid, wrong and heretical. THAT'S the dogma, that's the topic here.


The undeniable reality is that there is nothing in Scripture that dogmatically forbids the baptizing of those who had not previously in chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. No such restriction is ANYWHERE stated. Just as we find no such stated restriction on fat people or blonde-haired people or those of Negroid or Oriental races or those born in the USA.







Ah, the first time you've admitted your claim is wrong. It's NOT true! It's NOT there! What did that take you, um, nearly two years to admit? It is NOT true that every baptism in the Bible is of one who had first celebrated their Xth birthday, previously proved - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, and had every cell of their body entirely submerged under water. Your claim that "ALL" "EVERY" "WITHOUT EXCEPTION" is just wrong, isn't it?


Now we know why you keep dodging Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. You now admit it. They prove you wrong. There goes your whole apologetic, the entire claim on which your apologetic is based.


Now admit that your rule is also stupid and one you yourself reject, YOU don't accept that we MUST do everything exactly as was always done in Genesis - Revelation and are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than exactly as done in Genesis - Revelation, so your whole point that "Every baptism in the Bible was of believers (which you now admit is wrong) is MANDATED because we must do EVERYTHING exactly as was always done in the Bible and are forbidden to do anything other than exactly as done in the Bible" - you yourself reject that and don't follow it.


So, your claim is false .... AND ..... your entire apologetic is false.





.

There are many other forms of baptism. There is only one believers baptism.
You are correct that God doesn't tell pagans they cannot baptize. Nor does God restrict Christians from having a "Welcome to the church foyer" baptism. Of course that baptism has nothing to do with being a Christian or being marked as a believer. It only marks you as a person who has entered the church foyer.
THAT, is essentially what infant baptism represents. "Welcome To The Church Foyer" little infants!
As to a baptism that signifies a union in the body of Christ...infant baptism doesn't do that.
So...feel free to have your "Welcome to the Church Foyer" baptism of infants, Josiah. Just don't teach the heresy that the baptism gives the infants faith and the Holy Spirit.

 

[atpollard]

And of course, we've already agreed on what is undeniable, the koine Greek word "kai" does not imply or mean (much less dogmatically MANDATE) chronological sequence. There are words in koine Greek that imply and even precisely mean sequence and chronological order,but NONE of those are found in ANY verse in which the word "baptize" also appears. What you WANT to do is delete the word "and" and replace it with "after that" because the Holy Spirit goofed, but we both know the word is "and" not "after that."

This is a silly argument that you keep making, but it is simply not true.

Padeobaptists are baptizing people that have not repented BEFORE they were baptized.
Padeobaptists are baptizing people that are incapable of repenting DURING their baptism.
Padeobaptists are baptizing people that are incapable of repenting AFTER their baptism.

Padeobaptists are baptizing someone who has not repented BEFORE or DURING or AFTER their baptism ... in no sense is that obedience to the command to “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.”

Credobaptism ‘requires’ repentance before baptism because repenting DURING immersion is difficult and rushed, and repentance AFTER baptism is fortune-telling. Besides, Peter did place repentance BEFORE baptism in his speech, so he clearly did not MANDATE (a word some are fond of) that baptism MUST come first.

Credobaptists object to baptism WITHOUT repentance.
Not “AFTER THAT”, as the quote states, but “AND” as scripture states in Acts 2:38.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

And of course, we've already agreed on what is undeniable, the koine Greek word "kai" does not imply or mean (much less dogmatically MANDATE) chronological sequence. There are words in koine Greek that imply and even precisely mean sequence and chronological order,but NONE of those are found in ANY verse in which the word "baptize" also appears. What you WANT to do is delete the word "and" and replace it with "after that" because the Holy Spirit goofed, but we both know the word is "and" not "after that."


.

This is a silly argument that you keep making, but it is simply not true.

It IS true (we've already agreed on this) The koine Greek word "kai" in the verse you perpetually note simply means "and". It is the most general, generic, npn-specific connecting word in koine Greek (it also happens to be the most common word in koine Greek and in the NT). It does NOT imply or mean and certainly does not dogmatically mandate chronological order or sequence (which is why no translation relates it as "AFTER THAT" because the word doesn't mean that). There ARE Greek words that mean sequence, that are translated as "after" but none of those words appear in any verse that also contains the word "Baptism."

I can appreciate why you wish the word was not "and" but instead, "then after that" but it's not what Acts 2:38 says, as you keep proving.

Not “AFTER THAT”, as the quote states, but “AND” as scripture states in Acts 2:38.

EXACTLY! Think about that.... t does NOT say, "it is forbidden to baptize any unless and until they hath first in our chronological time publicly and verbally proven that they hath previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savoir, AFTER THAT TIME, THEN the prohibition to baptism is lifted and you may thereafter baptize them."


BTW, your dogma is CREDObaptism not METANObaptism. The dogma is not that one must previously repent BUT that one must previously in our chronological time, verbally and publicly prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and have faith - only AFTER THAT is accomplished, is the prohibition to baptize (which you've never even attrempted to prove exists) is removed and that one may thereafter be baptized. This dogma is called CREDObaptism because that's what it is, it's not called METANObaptism because that's not what it is.




.

 

[atpollard]

BTW, your dogma is CREDObaptism not METANObaptism. The dogma is not that one must previously repent BUT that one must previously in our chronological time, verbally and publicly prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and have faith - only AFTER THAT is accomplished, is the prohibition to baptize (which you've never even attrempted to prove exists) is removed and that one may thereafter be baptized. This dogma is called CREDObaptism because that's what it is, it's not called METANObaptism because that's not what it is.

A monergist should know that God chooses you, you do not choose God.
A “natural man” would not repent, only one who was first “made alive” by God is be capable of repentance.
Therein lies the flaw in padeobaptism, without God’s monergistic call, there is no faith and without faith it is impossible to please God ... so bringing people to God that God has not called to faith for a repentance they are incapable of to be baptized for the forgive sins that are not forgiven except by the monergistic first work of God in bringing the dead to life (Eph 2:1-10) is a mockery of monergism and smacks of Voodoo Christianity (a secret ritual to control the spirit world).