Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[atpollard]

A lot of Baptists seem determined to think that way. Many are determined to believe that they are apostolic in some way. The Landmarker Baptists, as you know, argue that there is an Apostolic Succession of Baptists through history, even though there is absolutely no evidence of that. And many Baptists insist that they are not Protestants, even though everyone else does and it's patently obvious that they are. Then we have your contention that they are self-starting and are not an English transplant from Anabaptists in the Low Countries. But of course that is where the Baptists' distinctive doctrines come from, and that's simply a fact of history.

The General Baptists lived in the Low countries and interacted with Mennonites (who are related to the Anabaptists), from which they adopted both 'believers baptism' and synergysm. Particular Baptists started out in London, never lived in the Low Countries and were influenced by the writings of John Calvin and a general revolt against the RCC. They reached 'believers baptism' from a literal interpretation of scripture and a rejection of tradition in an effort to move the church closer to its First Century roots. Monergism and eternal security are significant departures from the questions that Josiah is asking and the General Baptists believed. The Anglican Church labeled two very different groups both as 'baptists' because of the practice of public immersion, but the core theology is radically different and the origins of the General and Particular Baptist beliefs are also very different. That is why Josiah keeps asking Anabaptist questions and I keep repeating that my church doesn't teach that. He wants to argue about General Baptist teachings when most Southern Baptists and Evangelicals are closer to Particular Baptists.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

As a modern Particular Baptist ... I do not trace my theology to Anabaptist roots.

The piece you've quoted clearly shows the 'founders' of the "Particular Baptist" movement to have conferred with the Anabaptists on the immersion issue. Also John Smythe was baptized again by the Anabaptists, having concluded that his self-baptism was not valid.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah.... Josiah ....

See posts 164 and 179.



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

I think it's possible to say we cannot DOGMATICALLY state that obedience to His Great Commission ("Go.... Baptize.... Teach.....") means that ALWAYS the receiver will gain every divine blessing (including justification/faith/life).

No church I ever attended prohibited the Great Commission, but "go and baptize unbelievers" is not the Great Commission.

But I find it silly to argue THEREFORE we should withhold it wherever Jesus SHOULD have said to do so (but didn't).

No church I have attended ever said to withhold what Jesus said to do. Jesus never said "go and baptize unbelievers" and Jesus never said "go and baptize babies". Jesus did say those who "believe and are baptized" (package deal) will be saved, and the Apostles commanded everyone to "repent and be baptized", so we should not ignore Jesus and the Apostles commands to "believe" and "repent" and just baptize unrepentant unbelievers.

I just can't find all these enormous Divine limitations and prohibitions and all the shouts about what God CANNOT do .... all the "BUT NOT....

those under X,
those under the IQ of X,
those who have not attained the educational level of X,
those who have not chanted the Sinner's Prayer."

I just don't see the verses that say,
"God CANNOT bless X."
"God is rendered impotent by X."

I have attended the Church of God, Evangelical Free Church, Southern Baptist Church and Pentecostal Church ... NONE of them have ever said any of the things you are objecting to. So we are in complete agreement. All of them have read the bible and chosen to obey the Apostolic command to repent and be baptized and believe and be baptized. Thus baptism is not offered to any unrepentant unbelievers (of any age, IQ or education level), although God is still completely free to do whatever He wants without any need to consult with us. We are just obeying Apostolic teaching.

I CAN understand those who say, "We do this - even though we aren't sure anything will result."

I never heard anyone say that. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention.

I have a much, much harder time with those who insist, "We won't do this because God is impotent to bless the recipient."

I never heard that either, but I would have trouble with someone saying that, too.

I have a problem too with those - posting on the internet - shouting "We can't do anything unless we see it specifically practiced in the examples of the Bible."

I have seldom heard that, but I have never heard a church forbid something because the bible did not command it. Fortunately, in the churches I have attended that has never been a reason to prohibit something. Violating a specific command like "repent and be baptized" is a more serious matter.

And ironically, those filled with all these prohibitions, all these limitations, all these things God CANNOT do - often come from people who SAY much about the Sovereignty of God and that God does whatever He chooses to. I find people who pride themselves on being monergist who turn 180 degrees on ONE topic: Baptism.

Synergists (like General Baptists and Anabaptists) MIGHT speak about what God cannot do, although the Church of God it thoroughly Wesleyan Arminian in its roots and I never heard anyone there speak about what God cannot do. They would speak about what God might choose not to do and they often spoke about what God commanded people to do, but Divine Inability was never the issue.

For a Particular Baptist and a Monergist, it is not about what God cannot do, but rather what God has commanded us to do. The Great Commission is to 'make disciples' by 'telling people about Jesus' and 'calling them to repent', so that the disciples will believe and be baptized (as Jesus commanded). Then we are called to teach everything that Jesus taught to these new members of the Body of Christ. It is the opposite of what God cannot do, it is all about what God has commanded and empowered us to do, and about what God will do.

Any infant that can 'repent, believe and be baptized', should repent, believe and be baptized. Any handicapped person that can 'repent, believe and be baptized', should repent, believe and be baptized. Anyone who can obey God's command, should.
Any person that cannot 'repent and believe', should not be baptized ... the apostles commanded it as a package deal.

I can't make it clearer than that.

 

[atpollard]

deteted.

 

[meluckycharms]

EXACTLY!!!


For 1500 years, EVERY Christian had the same view... THEN, suddenly, out-of-the-blue, one guy in the 16th Century invented a bunch of limitations, prohibitions and mandates that are all ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY missing in Scripture.


In this thread, we've had one with this new Anabaptist list of limitations and mandates echoing all of them verbatim and with NOTHING in Scripture to support them.... just echoing the denominational line.... That's it. That's ALL.


Now, they MAY (wrongly) say that the universal, ecumenical view that had existed for 1500 years before that one dude came up with this long list of limitations, prohibitions and requirements is also without CLEAR Scriptural statements... but even if that were true, it simply means that the Anabaptist just did the very thing they condemned (two wrongs don't make a right), Jesus' "Log/Speck" point would apply to the new, tiny minority of Anabaptists most of all.








.... they'll never tell us what this magical age of "X" is (for a good reason, Scripture knows NOTHING of ANY min. age requirement)

... they'll never tell us what this min. IQ is, this min. educational level, exactly how one has to document/prove their faith in Jesus... these new unbiblical requirements (for good reason, Scripture knows NOTHING of these mandates and limitations).








EXACTLY!!!!


Those under the never-disclosed, mysterious age of X aren't "all nations"...... but are Japanese? Are Swedes? Are English? After all, we don't have ANY examples of any of those being baptized in the Bible that THAT'S the rule: We can't do anything unless that's what was done in every example that happens to be recorded in the NT. It's why they are obsessed with who was and was not baptized in the few examples we have in the NT. "NO BABIES!" They shout (without any biblical support). Well.... no Germans either. No native Americans either. No Irish either. No blondes. No Blacks. Do they look at every applicant for Baptism and see if they "match" all the examples of baptism in the Bible? Nope. And of course, every baptism in the Bible appears to have been conducted by a HEBREW male (not one case we can document where a Gentile baptized anyone in the NT), so do they forbid and prohibit Gentiles from baptizing? No. SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS, so much really bad logic.








EXACTLY!


All the obsession for the HOW while entirely ignoring the WHY... An absolute obsession over the HOW - it's ALL important - in this rite they claim has no benefit, accomplishes absolutely nothing, cannot be used by God for anything.... Talk about an obsession over meaningless, powerless, useless rites.


All this obsession over the HOW in Baptism from the very same people who celebrate Communion 4 times a year by passing around a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and tiny plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice to any in the pews who are hungry..... the very same people who insist that the HOW never matters in anything else and who take enormous liberties with the other sacrament/ordinance, who never give a rip about doing anything else exactly how it was in the examples recorded in the Bible.... (I doubt the Apostles had white bread or grape juice or plastic cups, lol... or passed it around in pews while the praise band plays Kumbyah). Why the absolute obsession over the HOW in something they INSIST is useless to God, accomplishes nothing, does nothing?




- Josiah




.

Is water baptism truly required for salvation? The thief on the cross wasn't water baptized.

Also:

And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Mark 1:7*-‬8 NIV

So is it water baptism that saves, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves?

 

[Josiah]

I have attended the Church of God, Evangelical Free Church, Southern Baptist Church and Pentecostal Church ... NONE of them have ever said any of the things you are objecting to. So we are in complete agreement.

I see. So they all baptize babies. NONE of them require that FIRST the receiver be past infancy, NONE of the require that first the person chose Jesus and make adequate testimony of that, NONE of them to FIRST repent of their sins.... No Pentecostal or Southern Baptist Church has any of those prerequisites?

baptism is not offered to any unrepentant unbelievers

I see. But they have none of the prerequisites we're addressing in this thread....

And this is because SOME of the very tiny number of the examples of baptisms in the Bibles seem to suggest that the person was not unrepentant? Do they also refuse to baptize blonde haired people because ALL of the very tiny number of baptisms in the Bible seem to suggest that the person was not blonde? Do they also refuse to use little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and tiny plastic cups with Welches' Grape Juice passed around the church 4 times a year because NONE of the very tiny number of examples of Communion in the Bible suggest such was used? Do all the churches of all those denominations refuse to have women pastors or youth pastors or ladies groups or websites or seminaries because NONE of the examples in the Bible are of such?

Why would you ASSUME, from this tiny number of examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible, that Jesus excludes from His love and blessings any under a certain age? That He doesn't want ministry to those who do not yet believe?

We are just obeying Apostolic teaching

Could you name which Apostles stated we are prohibited from baptizing those who have not first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and made adequate public proof of that?

Why did NO ONE until some individual in the 16th Century know that? NONE of the church fathers did (at least one studied under St. John but said he was baptized as a baby)? What did this individual in the 16th Century know about the teachings of the Apostles that no one prior to him know?

the apostles commanded it as a package deal

Perhaps.... but your whole point is NOT that there's a package here (co-requisite as you like to call it - essentially a Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican position) but that one or two or three or more of these are PRErequisites - a point you've not even attempted to show as true.

 

[Josiah]

Is water baptism truly required for salvation?

No. Example: John the Baptist believed before he was born.

And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Mark 1:7*-‬8 NIV

Good point. And of course the Bible specifically states that now there is ONE baptism. So you have three (and only three) choices:
1. This one baptism involves water but not the Holy Spirit.
2. This one baptism involves the Holy Spirit but not water.
3. This one baptism now involves water and the Holy Spirit.


But let's return to the issue we're discussing: Where did Jesus state, "Go.... baptize.... teach.. BUT do NOT do so to any who has not FIRST attained the age of X and who has not FIRST attained the educational level of X and who has not FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public testimony of such and has FIRST wept buckets of tears in repentance."

So is it water baptism that saves, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves?

Well..... the Bible says "baptism now saves you" but I don't believe it's the WATER per se but that it's very likely a "Means of Grace", a tool God may use for His purposes. The Holy Spirit doesn't save either (no verse could be so spun either) BUT the Holy Spirit is the "Author and GIVER of faith" which connects them to Jesus - who alone is the Savior.

But let's get back to the subject at hand: Where did Jesus state that the are divinely mandated prohibitions and prerequisites for Baptism - namely, must FIRST attain the age of X, the IQ of X, choose Jesus as their personal Savior, give adequate public proof of that and weep buckets of tears in repentance? Where exactly did Jesus say that specifically as divine prerequisites to Baptism? (Some have changed it to actually Jesus didn't but that the APOSTLES did - okay, where?)




.

 

[atpollard]

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.”



1. "when they heard"
2. "Peter said"
3. the promise: “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."
4. "the promise is for you" ... "and your children" ... "and for all who are far off"
5. "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

 

[Josiah]

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.”

AGAIN ...


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...


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.

"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.”

That's the position you are repudiating....

And remember, "kai" doesn't imply sequence. So the promise is to them PLUS their children. It doesn't say, ".... to those over the age of X who have FIRST repented of their sins, THEN after that is completed, were baptized, and when that was completely, the Holy Spirit began His salvic work, and when that was completed, the Lord will call them to Himself." Boy, what does THAT do to the Calvinist view of soteriology?! 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

 

[meluckycharms]

No. Example: John the Baptist believed before he was born.








Good point. And of course the Bible specifically states that now there is ONE baptism. So you have three (and only three) choices:
1. This one baptism involves water but not the Holy Spirit.
2. This one baptism involves the Holy Spirit but not water.
3. This one baptism now involves water and the Holy Spirit.


But let's return to the issue we're discussing: Where did Jesus state, "Go.... baptize.... teach.. BUT do NOT do so to any who has not FIRST attained the age of X and who has not FIRST attained the educational level of X and who has not FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and given adequate public testimony of such and has FIRST wept buckets of tears in repentance."





Well..... the Bible says "baptism now saves you" but I don't believe it's the WATER per se but that it's very likely a "Means of Grace", a tool God may use for His purposes. The Holy Spirit doesn't save either (no verse could be so spun either) BUT the Holy Spirit is the "Author and GIVER of faith" which connects them to Jesus - who alone is the Savior.

But let's get back to the subject at hand: Where did Jesus state that the are divinely mandated prohibitions and prerequisites for Baptism - namely, must FIRST attain the age of X, the IQ of X, choose Jesus as their personal Savior, give adequate public proof of that and weep buckets of tears in repentance? Where exactly did Jesus say that specifically as divine prerequisites to Baptism? (Some have changed it to actually Jesus didn't but that the APOSTLES did - okay, where?)




.

I don't think there is any biblical criteria for baptism. Then again, a believe the Pentocostal view on baptism. Baptism by fire of the Spirit is separate and distinct from water baptism. The baptism by fire is performed at the moment you are saved and you are filled with the spirit. Baptism of water is an act of obedience after you are saved. Hence it's an "ordinance" not a sacrament.

 

[Josiah]

Baptism by fire of the Spirit is separate and distinct from water baptism.

I didn't give that as an option because it contradicts Ephesians 4:5. If there are two separate and distinct baptisms, then Ephesians 4:5 is wrong.

IF Ephesians 4:5 is correct, then there is one baptism. And again, you have 3 (and only 3) possibilities:

1. The one baptism involves water but not the Holy Spirit.
2. The one baptism involves the Holy Spirit but not water.
3. The one baptism involves water and the Holy Spirit.

I think the verse that says we are saved "by water AND the spirit" might be a clue, but I accept that any of the 3 above options are available. But yes, that's predicated on the assumption that Ephesians 4:5 says what it means and is correct.

 

[meluckycharms]

I didn't give that as an option because it contradicts Ephesians 4:5. If there are two separate and distinct baptisms, then Ephesians 4:5 is wrong.

IF Ephesians 4:5 is correct, then there is one baptism. And again, you have 3 (and only 3) possibilities:

1. The one baptism involves water but not the Holy Spirit.
2. The one baptism involves the Holy Spirit but not water.
3. The one baptism involves water and the Holy Spirit.

I think the verse that says we are saved "by water AND the spirit" might be a clue, but I accept that any of the 3 above options are available. But yes, that's predicated on the assumption that Ephesians 4:5 says what it means and is correct.

In that case, option two is what I go with. Because water baptism something we do because we are commanded to. It's is a sign of obedience, not salvation.

 

[Albion]

In that case, option two is what I go with. Because water baptism something we do because we are commanded to. It's is a sign of obedience, not salvation.

Actually, it's neither. At least not according to almost every branch of Christianity except for Baptists and their offshoots.

 

[meluckycharms]

Actually, it's neither. At least not according to almost every branch of Christianity except for Baptists and their offshoots.

Are you saying that baptism doesn't involve water or the Holy spirit?

 

[Albion]

Are you saying that baptism doesn't involve water or the Holy spirit?

Sorry. I highlighted the relevant words in your statement, but if my purpose in doing that wasn't clear...

Baptism is not merely a sign of obedience, nor is it a guarantee of salvation.

 

[Josiah]

I didn't give that as an option because it contradicts Ephesians 4:5. If there are two separate and distinct baptisms, then Ephesians 4:5 is wrong.

IF Ephesians 4:5 is correct, then there is one baptism. And again, you have 3 (and only 3) possibilities:

1. The one baptism involves water but not the Holy Spirit.
2. The one baptism involves the Holy Spirit but not water.
3. The one baptism involves water and the Holy Spirit.

I think the verse that says we are saved "by water AND the spirit" might be a clue, but I accept that any of the 3 above options are available. But yes, that's predicated on the assumption that Ephesians 4:5 says what it means and is correct.


.

option two is what I go with. Because water baptism something we do because we are commanded to.

Interesting... why do something that doesn't exist?

But you aren't the only one. My brothers HUGE mega church doesn't do water baptism, not because like you they don't think it is baptism AT ALL or exists anymore, but because they've accepted the Anabaptist view that it's pretty much worthless - and just no reason to do it. So they don't. IF someone insists on it and wants to waste their time, they send them over to the Methodist church across the street.

 

[meluckycharms]

Sorry. I highlighted the relevant words in your statement, but if my purpose in doing that wasn't clear...

Baptism is not merely a sign of obedience, nor is it a guarantee of salvation.

Oh..gotcha.

 

[meluckycharms]

but because they've accepted the Anabaptist view that it's pretty much worthless - and just no reason to do it. So they don't.

Now I don't agree with this statement. Meaning, I agree with you, I don't agree that water baptism is worthless.

 

[MennoSota]

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.”



1. "when they heard"
2. "Peter said"
3. the promise: “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."
4. "the promise is for you" ... "and your children" ... "and for all who are far off"
5. "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

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. It's the equivalent of giving pearls to swine. [emoji22]