Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[Albion]

Perhaps we should consider this:

Don't the ritual baptisers of babies also propose an undefined and unscriptural Age of "X" within their doctrine?[/u]

No. I don't see anyway to conclude that they do.

Do they not say[/u] (one way or another) that when a baptised infant reaches the "age of understanding" or the "age of reason". that that now-grown infant must take personal responsibility for their own ultimate salvation? (Unless it is sometimes said if convenient, that the rite of baptism confers a once-saved-always-saved status.)

Well, "they" do not say anything about a 'once saved always saved' provision being part of baptism. That notion, wherever it might have come from, is simply untrue. And as for the age of accountability, that is something that was historically associated with the reception of Holy Communion, not Baptism.

That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly. I don't see any issue in that fact, regardless of whether one subscribes to the idea of Believers Baptism OR the traditional view. Do you?

 

[MennoSota]

Arthur,





Correct.

While this is a VERY common apologetic of anabaptists, it too is entirely, wholly, completely missing from Scripture (and the teaching of Christians until the Anabaptist movement of the 16th Century)








Synergists will expand on that to insist that since those under the age of X and the IQ of X can't do their own part to save themselves, thus going/baptizing/teaching them is at the very least a total waste of time.

Monergists (like you) will find this point entirely irrelevant since God doesn't need our help in justification and the Bible specially says that "NO ONE" is even "capable" of understanding God - NO ONE, not the 46 year old with 5 Ph.D.'s and not John the Baptist still in his mother's womb; not the one with an IQ of 200 and not the one with an IQ of 20..... NO ONE IS CAPABLE. The Holy Spirit is the Author and Giver of life (as the ancient Creed, the Ecumenical Council of Orange and the Bible says) so age and IQ has nothin' to do with anything. For Monergists, the issue is not how capable the receiver is but how capable God is.



So we return to the issue: Suddenly, out-of-the-blue, in the 16th Century, a man invented a whole bunch of prohibitions and limitations on the Great Command to "GO.... BAPTIZE... TEACH....." Gotta first attain the age of X. Gotta first attain the IQ of X. Gotta first reach the educational level of X. Gotta first weep buckets of tears in repentance. Gotta chant the Sinner's Prayer, do the Altar Call thing, choose Jesus as one's personal Savior..... Gotta first give public proof of one's choosing Jesus.... all the prerequisites, all the mandates BEFORE we can "Go.... Baptize... Teach....." Where are these verses? Where are these limitations? Why did NOT ONE Christian in over 1500 years notice these Scriptures?



Thank you.



- Josiah




.

Josiah, you are the only one returning to the 16th century. atpollard and myself are addressing what the Bible says. We are not adding to it. We are not extrapolating a dogma from what it doesn't say. We are observing what the Bible tells us and shows us.
You are clinging to tradition over scripture, which means on this issue you do not follow Sola Scriptura.

 

[Josiah]

myself are addressing what the Bible says. We are not adding to it.

Then it's easy.... just quote the verses that EVERY Christians for FIFTEEN HUNDRED years never noticed but suddenly, out-of-the-blue, a man in the 16th Century saw: "But thou canst NOT baptize any until they FIRST attaineth the age of X." (the anti-paedobaptism Anabaptists) "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless they FIRST chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and give adequate public proof of that!" (The credobaptism Anabaptists). "But thou canst NOT baptize any until they FIRST weepeth buckets of tears in repentance." Where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and prerequisites stated in Scripture? You say you are just noting what Scripture SAYS - then quote where it says these things.



.

 

[atpollard]

A bold, dogmatic statement. Where does Scripture say that? Where does any Ecumenical Council, any Church Father, ANY CHRISTIAN in over FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS say that? And why just the "baptize" part of the Great Commission? Why not the "GO" and the "TEACH" part? I realize, many (but not all) of the examples in the NT seem to be, appear to be of at least older children.... but we agree that's not normative and it's not always the case. IF we go by examples, then baptisms can't be administered by a Gentile since it seems none in the NT were.... Some Anabaptists will ask, "WHERE does the Bible specifically state we can baptize babies and Germans and Native Americans?" It's a point from SILENCE.

OK, let's address this question of where scripture says that baptism is for believers head on:

[Mat 3:6 NASB] 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.
[Mar 1:5 NASB] 5 And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.

Confession of sins happened at roughly the same time as their baptism. Many people were confessing and being baptized. Is it reasonable to think that people confessing their sins and being baptized "believe" that they are sinners in need of forgiveness and should be baptized?
Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes"? Do the infants "confess" as they are being baptized?

[Mar 16:16 NASB] 16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

The requirement from the lips of Jesus for assurance of being saved are "believed and been baptized", and those who "disbelieved" shall be condemned. Did Jesus not just link baptism and belief (even if you reject the order Jesus spoke the words in, which I do not)? Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes"? How many infants that "disbelieve" (and shall be condemned according to Jesus) are being baptized by the Lutheran Church? Why?

[Act 2:38, 41 NASB] 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. ... 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.

Again ignoring the word order in which the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to speak for your sake (which I personally do not), Peter and the Holy Spirit clearly link "repent", "be baptized" and "receive the Holy Spirit" together as being related. Can one repent without belief? It seems a foolish question, so again we have scripture that links "belief" with "baptism". Why do you embrace part of what the Holy Spirit commanded, while rejecting most of what goes with it?
Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes"? How many infants "repent"? How many infants "receive the Holy Spirit"? Why are you baptizing people who do not obey the co-requisite command?

[Act 8:12-13 NASB] 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. 13 Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

When they BELIEVED, they were baptized. Here is an unambiguous link between "belief" and "baptism". Men and women alike ... but they specifically made no mention of children. They could easily have said 'men, women and children', but they did not. What they DID say, was those who BELIEVED were baptized. Simon made it clear that his belief came before his baptism. There is no doubt about the order in his case.
Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes"? What makes the Lutherans greater than Phillip? Why do you contradict his Apostolic example?

[Act 18:8 NASB] 8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

Crispus is one of those famous "households" that we speculate on whether they had any children or not. This does not answer that question, however take note that the ENTIRE household of Crispus BELIEVED ... so however old or young the members of Crispus household were, they all believed. Many were BELIEVING and being baptized. (Again you are free to ignore the word order that Luke presented it in and simply note that believe and baptism are AGAIN linked in scripture, but I see a constant pattern in the word order.)
Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes"? Why do you who are so fond of the early church, contradict the Corinthian Church's example?

[Act 19:4-5 NASB] 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Here are the first Ana-baptists. They were already baptized before they ever heard of Jesus. When they heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, they believed (as John commanded) and were re-baptized in the name of Jesus. They gave the example of Hear, Believe, get Baptized.
Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes" at their baptism? Why do you not follow the example of Scripture presented here and once the babies can hear and believe, why do you not rebaptize them?

[Act 22:16 NASB] 16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'

Here scripture links getting baptized with calling on his name.
Is there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church calls on his name? Why do you reject half of this biblical instruction?


What I do not see is any scripture that clearly places getting baptized as an event preceding believing.
Perhaps you could point out the person who was baptized in the name of Jesus and later came to believe in Jesus.
(that lack of scriptural support prevents me from accepting paedobaptism, since there are otherwise many things that I like, scripturally, about Family Covenant Theology.)

 

[Albion]

You addressed Josiah, I know, but no one is disputing the idea that believers ought to be baptized. That has never been the issue.

And, BTW, there is no support for re-baptizing in the verses referring to the baptism of John. That baptism was merely the Jewish purification rite that was replaced by Christian baptism. They are not the same, as Scripture explains, so even to use the word re-baptized is questionable.

 

[atpollard]

You addressed Josiah, I know, but no one is disputing the idea that believers ought to be baptized. That has never been the issue.

For me, the issue is that the Church is actively baptizing unbelievers ... I see no scriptural call for that.

And, BTW, there is no support for re-baptizing in the verses referring to the baptism of John.

You seem to have trouble identifying emoji.
The fact is, they WERE baptized by John and they WERE baptized again by Paul.
The 'ana-baptist' comment was just a joke (because anabaptist means 're-baptizer').

That baptism was merely the Jewish purification rite that was replaced by Christian baptism. They are not the same, as Scripture explains, so even to use the word re-baptized is questionable.

I think you over-estimate the difference in the messages:

John the Baptist's Message:
[Mat 3:2 NASB] 2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Jesus Christ's Message:
[Mat 4:17 NASB] 17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
[Mat 11:20 NASB] 20 Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
[Mar 1:15 NASB] 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

The Apostle's Message:
[Mar 6:12 NASB] 12 They went out and preached that men should repent.
[Act 2:38 NASB] 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.
[Act 3:19 NASB] 19 "Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
[Act 8:22 NASB] 22 "Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
[Act 17:30 NASB] 30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
[Act 26:20 NASB] 20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.

 

[Albion]

For me, the issue is that the Church is actively baptizing unbelievers ... I see no scriptural call for that.

I know, but the fact that the church does baptize believers doesn't impact the practice of infant baptism in any way. We all agree on baptizing believers.

The fact is, they WERE baptized by John and they WERE baptized again by Paul.

But not with the same kind of baptism. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

Other religions have practiced a water purification rite. I doubt that someone converting to Christianity and being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son, etc. would be considered by you to be undergoing a "RE-baptism" ... or am I wrong about that? It's definitely not what Baptists mean when they receive someone who has been baptized with a Christian baptism as a small child and now are required by the new church to do it again.

The baptism of John was NOT a Christian baptism, not related to Christ's message, and everything in the NT makes that clear. His work was a prelude to the coming of the Messiah. If John's baptism was a real baptism, in the Christian sense, with all that Christian baptism means, then the Lord's Supper ought to be seen as just another Passover meal. Obviously, it is not.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Then it's easy.... just quote the verses that EVERY Christians for FIFTEEN HUNDRED years never noticed but suddenly, out-of-the-blue, a man in the 16th Century saw: "But thou canst NOT baptize any until they FIRST attaineth the age of X." (the anti-paedobaptism Anabaptists) "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless they FIRST chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and give adequate public proof of that!" (The credobaptism Anabaptists). "But thou canst NOT baptize any until they FIRST weepeth buckets of tears in repentance." Where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and prerequisites stated in Scripture? You say you are just noting what Scripture SAYS - then quote where it says these things.



.

Can you honestly say no one ever noticed Bible verses? Or is it better to say that the Roman church enforced its dogma for 1100 years and before the Roman church enforced its iron fist, we cannot state how Christians interpreted the verses.
Now that I have corrected you statements, when, if ever, do you intend to address what the Bible actually states?

 

[Josiah]

myself are addressing what the Bible says. We are not adding to it.

Then it's easy.... just quote the verses that EVERY Christians for FIFTEEN HUNDRED years never noticed but suddenly, out-of-the-blue, a man in the 16th Century saw: "But thou canst NOT baptize any until they FIRST attaineth the age of X." (the anti-paedobaptism Anabaptists) "But thou canst NOT baptize any unless they FIRST chooseth Jesus as their personal Savior and give adequate public proof of that!" (The credobaptism Anabaptists). "But thou canst NOT baptize any until they FIRST weepeth buckets of tears in repentance." Where are these prohibitions, limitations, restrictions and prerequisites stated in Scripture? You say you are just noting what Scripture SAYS - then quote where it says these things.

.

when, if ever, do you intend to address what the Bible actually states?

As soon as you quote the verses. You insist you aren't adding anything, just saying what Scripture says so it could not be easier: Just quote the verses that declare all the Anabaptist prohibitions, denials, limitations, restrictions and prerequisites.




.

 

[Josiah]

Confession of sins happened at roughly the same time as their baptism.

Nothing here about: But you are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X or IQ of X. Nothing about FIRST the person must choose Jesus as their personal Savior and publicly and adequately document that.

Yes, we have a tiny few examples of baptisms in the Bible. In a small percentage of them, it's possible that FIRST they confessed something. So what? Where does it state, "ERGO it is a prerequisite for any to whom you might GO... BAPTIZE.... TEACH that they FIRST confess the same things. It doesn't say that, does it?

Again, the verses are simply ASSOCIATING things, not stating any prohibitions, limitations, denials, restrictions or prerequisites. They are just association things. If I say that my soup contains meat and vegies, that doesn't universally mandate the ERGO when making soup, FIRST the meat must be put in and only AFTER THAT may vegies be added, it doesn't even mandate that that's what I did.

s there any indication that any/every infant in a Lutheran Church "believes"? Do the infants "confess" as they are being baptized?

You haven't quoted where confessing their sins before or during baptism is a prerequisites. You simply noted two examples out of the billions of baptisms taht have happened.

And of course, assuming full immersion as you do, this would mandate that to have a baptism, the person must confess their sins while fully immersed in water, lol. Come on, friend.

It's possible.... John the Baptist beleived before he was born (God not being impotent in such a case).

Did Jesus not just link baptism and belief (even if you reject the order Jesus spoke the words in, which I do not)?

As I've already stressed very many times, Jesus does ALL the saving. NO ONE believes without God GIVING them faith, and no one is saved apart from that gift. But I do not accept that God is rendered impotent of any means is involved, that if any actually fulfills the Great Commission ERGO by that action God is thus impotent to give the gift of faith.... that God ONLY can give the gift of faith, forgiven and bless IF it's totally by fiat, of some person on some island in total isolation where no one will do anything.

Again, "Evangelicals" already surrender this point; they will make a HUGE deal that God IS able to use the proclaimation of the Gospel for His purposes, indeed to give faith. They'll even quote the verse that states, "My word shall not return void but shall accomplish all that I purpose." Ah.... God using a "Means of Grace". "Tools in the hands of the Carpenter" as Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and some Reformed call them. I realize some Calvinists have a real problem with this (thus the controversy in their circle over why to evangelize, teach, send missionaries) but most Christians have no problem believing that Jesus gave the Great Commission NOT because this renders God impotent to bless, save or give faith but because these do not return to Him void. Most don't think that Jesus so stressed going and teaching and baptizing NOT because these are worthless, God cannot use such, indeed they render God impotent but likely because He can use them.

As I've posted several times, NO ONE CLAIMS that a it of H20 or some drops of ink on a page or some sound waves made by a voice box SAVES anyone .... The Means of Grace are just inanimate THINGS.... but place a hammer in the hands of a carpenter and miracles can happen! Place a mudball, a spit ball in the hands of the Carpenter and a miracle happened!!! Does Jesus NEED a spit ball? A dot of ink on a page? A sound wave in the air? A bit of H20? Of course not! But that doesn't make it WRONG for Him to use them as He purposes.... it doesn't makes Jesus IMPOTENT to bless, forgive, save.... it doesn't make Jesus wrong to command us to GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH.

How many infants that "disbelieve" (and shall be condemned according to Jesus) are being baptized by the Lutheran Church? Why?

How many under the age of X that were in your Reformed church last Sunday disbelieved? Or believed? How do you know (remember: John the Baptist believed before he was born, while still in his mother's womb)? Do you forbid them to hear the Gospel? Do you forbid any Sunday School teachers to teach them? If we are not to "GO.... BAPTIZE,,,, TEACH....." any who have not first publicly and adaquately PROVEN their choice of Jesus as their Savior, do you forbid going and teaching them? Or do you believe that God is able to use the "teaching" part of the Great Commission to bless them - even save them? Perhaps the "weeping buckets of tears" might come YEARS after Sally Mc Doggle teaches little Johnny. Was Sally Mc Doggle prohibited to teach simply because the weeping part didn't happen all during the 45 minute Sunday School lesson? Come on, friend! You need to decide: are we speaking of things that are associated (co-reqresists) which I'm fine with (and of course is stressed in the baptism service) or are you supporting the Anabaptist point that they are all prerequisites for baptism?

Peter and the Holy Spirit clearly link "repent", "be baptized" and "receive the Holy Spirit" together as being related.

Once again, no one on this side is isolating baptism from anything. I think that's what the Anabaptist insist on doing. I'm simply saying the obvious (and I think you don't disagree) just because things are associated doesn't mean that some of them are ERGO prerequisites of others. It means they are associated.....

Why do you embrace part of what the Holy Spirit commanded, while rejecting most of what goes with it?

Again, the rejecting, the forbidding, the probibiting, the limited - that's all on your end of the discussion....

Again, the baptism ceremony itself stressing the things you are talking about. It doesn't deny their importance, it specifically affirms them.

How many infants "receive the Holy Spirit"?

How many forty year olds? My answer: As many as God purposes. NO ONE - of any age, IQ, education or emotional distress can do ANYTHING whatsoever to bring about faith, justification or the Holy Spirit. NO ONE. It doesn't matter if they are still in the womb (like John the Baptist) or if they are 92 years old. It doesn't matter if they have an IQ of 20 or 200. It doesn't matter if they have 6 Ph.D. or can't read and write. NO ONE can contribute anything, not anything whatsoever. Those who have faith have it for ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY and SOLELY one reason: God gave it to them. You can insist God is rendered impotent if we "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH.....". But I disagree.

Why are you baptizing people who do not obey the co-requisite command?

The issue is prerequisites

Why do you teach people who AT THE SAME TIME are not giving adequate and public proof of their choice of Jesus as their personal Savior and are not weeping buckets of tears? Where does it say ALL these things have to happen AT THE SAME TIME, while the person is fully immersed under water? Yes, there are MANY things involved.... but nothing that says ALL of them must happen AT THE SAME MOMENT each time! And nothing about any of them being prerequisites of other things. Nothing about God being rendered impotent by a lack of ALL things things happening TOGETHER each time.

When they BELIEVED, they were baptized

Again, you have chosen to toss out what Jesus commanded and instead use a TINY number of examples that happen to be recorded in the NT as the rule/norm (ignoring that not all the Scriptures agree with the Anabaptists denials, prohibitions, limitations and prerequisites ). I don't agree with your premise that we can only do what is exampled in the Bible (well, in SOME of the examples) and CANNOT do otherwise. I could not be posting on the internet if I believed that. And your church could not have Sunday School and youth groups and youth pastors and ladies groups and websites and powerpoint and electric guitars.... and certainly you would not have communion 4 times a year by passing around a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice. The bible is FULL of examples of all kinds of things.... it just seems silly that we MUST copy/paste every one of them EXACTLY as we see it (sometimes) in biblical narrative and cannot do otherwise. I just find your whole rubric here illogical and unbiblical (and frankly, it just doesn't make any sense to me, friend).




.

 

[atpollard]

I just find your whole rubric here illogical and unbiblical (and frankly, it just doesn't make any sense to me, friend).

I can accept that, however you should at least stop asking where the Bible talks about a requirement for “belief” before baptism. You can reject my arguments, but you should stop asking where it says what ‘believers baptism’ advocates claim ... I have provided that information and you have raised every rejection except refuting the claim that scripture links belief and baptism.

There is no point rearguing things like minimum age, or sinners prayer or prerequisites for teaching. I never made any of THOSE claims.

 

[Albion]

I can accept that, however you should at least stop asking where the Bible talks about a requirement for “belief” before baptism. You can reject my arguments, but you should stop asking where it says what ‘believers baptism’ advocates claim ... I have provided that information and you have raised every rejection except refuting the claim that scripture links belief and baptism.

Humor me, then. Where has belief been made a requirement for any person to be baptized? That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

We know that people who professed faith were baptized, of course, but that's not the same thing. In your own words, the two are "linked" (meaning both happened) in some Bible examples, but I'm asking where the one is shown to be a requirement for the other (or else a baptism could not be validly administered).





.

 

[MennoSota]

As soon as you quote the verses. You insist you aren't adding anything, just saying what Scripture says so it could not be easier: Just quote the verses that declare all the Anabaptist prohibitions, denials, limitations, restrictions and prerequisites.




.

LOL, you must be Anabaptist because you are the one adding restrictions.
What does the Bible share? Does it share "Sprinkle babies and tell them the water may be a means of grace unto salvation"? Does the Bible say, "At age 12 or so, you must give those kids who were sprinkled at infancy a series of lectures upon which they will be tested and if they pass the test they will be declared 'justified by faith' and God's grace will be confirmed"?
I will await all the Bible verses that teach this means of assuring salvation so that the kids can then abandon all efforts to ever go to church, except on Christmas and Easter.
Thanks for sharing these proofs that your dogma is biblical.

 

[MennoSota]

Nothing here about: But you are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X or IQ of X. Nothing about FIRST the person must choose Jesus as their personal Savior and publicly and adequately document that.

Yes, we have a tiny few examples of baptisms in the Bible. In a small percentage of them, it's possible that FIRST they confessed something. So what? Where does it state, "ERGO it is a prerequisite for any to whom you might GO... BAPTIZE.... TEACH that they FIRST confess the same things. It doesn't say that, does it?

Again, the verses are simply ASSOCIATING things, not stating any prohibitions, limitations, denials, restrictions or prerequisites. They are just association things. If I say that my soup contains meat and vegies, that doesn't universally mandate the ERGO when making soup, FIRST the meat must be put in and only AFTER THAT may vegies be added, it doesn't even mandate that that's what I did.





You haven't quoted where confessing their sins before or during baptism is a prerequisites. You simply noted two examples out of the billions of baptisms taht have happened.

And of course, assuming full immersion as you do, this would mandate that to have a baptism, the person must confess their sins while fully immersed in water, lol. Come on, friend.

It's possible.... John the Baptist beleived before he was born (God not being impotent in such a case).







As I've already stressed very many times, Jesus does ALL the saving. NO ONE believes without God GIVING them faith, and no one is saved apart from that gift. But I do not accept that God is rendered impotent of any means is involved, that if any actually fulfills the Great Commission ERGO by that action God is thus impotent to give the gift of faith.... that God ONLY can give the gift of faith, forgiven and bless IF it's totally by fiat, of some person on some island in total isolation where no one will do anything.

Again, "Evangelicals" already surrender this point; they will make a HUGE deal that God IS able to use the proclaimation of the Gospel for His purposes, indeed to give faith. They'll even quote the verse that states, "My word shall not return void but shall accomplish all that I purpose." Ah.... God using a "Means of Grace". "Tools in the hands of the Carpenter" as Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and some Reformed call them. I realize some Calvinists have a real problem with this (thus the controversy in their circle over why to evangelize, teach, send missionaries) but most Christians have no problem believing that Jesus gave the Great Commission NOT because this renders God impotent to bless, save or give faith but because these do not return to Him void. Most don't think that Jesus so stressed going and teaching and baptizing NOT because these are worthless, God cannot use such, indeed they render God impotent but likely because He can use them.

As I've posted several times, NO ONE CLAIMS that a it of H20 or some drops of ink on a page or some sound waves made by a voice box SAVES anyone .... The Means of Grace are just inanimate THINGS.... but place a hammer in the hands of a carpenter and miracles can happen! Place a mudball, a spit ball in the hands of the Carpenter and a miracle happened!!! Does Jesus NEED a spit ball? A dot of ink on a page? A sound wave in the air? A bit of H20? Of course not! But that doesn't make it WRONG for Him to use them as He purposes.... it doesn't makes Jesus IMPOTENT to bless, forgive, save.... it doesn't make Jesus wrong to command us to GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH.






How many under the age of X that were in your Reformed church last Sunday disbelieved? Or believed? How do you know (remember: John the Baptist believed before he was born, while still in his mother's womb)? Do you forbid them to hear the Gospel? Do you forbid any Sunday School teachers to teach them? If we are not to "GO.... BAPTIZE,,,, TEACH....." any who have not first publicly and adaquately PROVEN their choice of Jesus as their Savior, do you forbid going and teaching them? Or do you believe that God is able to use the "teaching" part of the Great Commission to bless them - even save them? Perhaps the "weeping buckets of tears" might come YEARS after Sally Mc Doggle teaches little Johnny. Was Sally Mc Doggle prohibited to teach simply because the weeping part didn't happen all during the 45 minute Sunday School lesson? Come on, friend! You need to decide: are we speaking of things that are associated (co-reqresists) which I'm fine with (and of course is stressed in the baptism service) or are you supporting the Anabaptist point that they are all prerequisites for baptism?







Once again, no one on this side is isolating baptism from anything. I think that's what the Anabaptist insist on doing. I'm simply saying the obvious (and I think you don't disagree) just because things are associated doesn't mean that some of them are ERGO prerequisites of others. It means they are associated.....






Again, the rejecting, the forbidding, the probibiting, the limited - that's all on your end of the discussion....

Again, the baptism ceremony itself stressing the things you are talking about. It doesn't deny their importance, it specifically affirms them.






How many forty year olds? My answer: As many as God purposes. NO ONE - of any age, IQ, education or emotional distress can do ANYTHING whatsoever to bring about faith, justification or the Holy Spirit. NO ONE. It doesn't matter if they are still in the womb (like John the Baptist) or if they are 92 years old. It doesn't matter if they have an IQ of 20 or 200. It doesn't matter if they have 6 Ph.D. or can't read and write. NO ONE can contribute anything, not anything whatsoever. Those who have faith have it for ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY and SOLELY one reason: God gave it to them. You can insist God is rendered impotent if we "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH.....". But I disagree.





The issue is prerequisites

Why do you teach people who AT THE SAME TIME are not giving adequate and public proof of their choice of Jesus as their personal Savior and are not weeping buckets of tears? Where does it say ALL these things have to happen AT THE SAME TIME, while the person is fully immersed under water? Yes, there are MANY things involved.... but nothing that says ALL of them must happen AT THE SAME MOMENT each time! And nothing about any of them being prerequisites of other things. Nothing about God being rendered impotent by a lack of ALL things things happening TOGETHER each time.




Again, you have chosen to toss out what Jesus commanded and instead use a TINY number of examples that happen to be recorded in the NT as the rule/norm (ignoring that not all the Scriptures agree with the Anabaptists denials, prohibitions, limitations and prerequisites ). I don't agree with your premise that we can only do what is exampled in the Bible (well, in SOME of the examples) and CANNOT do otherwise. I could not be posting on the internet if I believed that. And your church could not have Sunday School and youth groups and youth pastors and ladies groups and websites and powerpoint and electric guitars.... and certainly you would not have communion 4 times a year by passing around a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice. The bible is FULL of examples of all kinds of things.... it just seems silly that we MUST copy/paste every one of them EXACTLY as we see it (sometimes) in biblical narrative and cannot do otherwise. I just find your whole rubric here illogical and unbiblical (and frankly, it just doesn't make any sense to me, friend).




.

Clang goes the gong and symbols.

 

[MennoSota]

I can accept that, however you should at least stop asking where the Bible talks about a requirement for “belief” before baptism. You can reject my arguments, but you should stop asking where it says what ‘believers baptism’ advocates claim ... I have provided that information and you have raised every rejection except refuting the claim that scripture links belief and baptism.

There is no point rearguing things like minimum age, or sinners prayer or prerequisites for teaching. I never made any of THOSE claims.

That is the way that Josiah buffers himself from actually reading what the Bible says rather than his church dogma found in the concord.

 

[MennoSota]

Humor me, then. Where has belief been made a requirement for any person to be baptized?

Are you advocating for John the Baptist's baptism of repentance rather than Christian baptism?

 

[atpollard]

Humor me, then. Where has belief been made a requirement for any person to be baptized? That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

We know that people who professed faith were baptized, of course, but that's not the same thing. In your own words, the two are "linked" (meaning both happened) in some Bible examples, but I'm asking where the one is shown to be a requirement for the other (or else a baptism could not be validly administered).

I have presented scripture that describes literally THOUSANDS of people "believing and being baptized". I have presented claims from Jesus that those who "believe and are baptized" (spoken in that order) will be saved and those who do not believe will be lost. I have presented multiple Apostolic commands to crowds and the masses to "repent and be baptized" (an action that makes no sense without belief).

And now you want a verse that states that belief is a requirement for baptism?

Where is a verse that states even a single unbeliever was baptized? Where is a verse that states that unbelievers should be baptize? Where is the Apostolic command to baptize unbelievers? THERE ARE NONE!
Belief and Baptism were not linked in "some Bible examples" as you claim, they were linked in ALL Bible examples and Apostolic commands and to salvation by Jesus himself.

Feel free to counter my previous verses with even a singe reference to baptism of an unbeliever.
We follow the example of scripture and obey the command of the Apostles and Jesus to believe/repent and be baptized.
You are free to do as you please.

 

[atpollard]

Are you advocating for John the Baptist's baptism of repentance rather than Christian baptism?

Even that will not work for him, how can you repent if you do not believe that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness.

 

[Josiah]

I can accept that, however you should at least stop asking where the Bible talks about a requirement for “belief” before baptism. You can reject my arguments, but you should stop asking where it says what ‘believers baptism’ advocates claim ... I have provided that information and you have raised every rejection except refuting the claim that scripture links belief and baptism.

See post # 150....


The issue before us us the plethora of prohibitions, limitations, denials, mandates and prerequisites which suddenly in the 16th Century a man applied to the baptism part of "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH...."


Friend, it has been stated over and over and over that we are to entirely ignore what any denomination (such as the Anabaptists) CLAIM or how they SPIN things, but we are to focus on Scripture Only and consider only that, the words we all can see on the page. Okay. In the 16th Century, quite suddenly, very out-of-the-blue, in direct conflict with every Christian for 1500 years, there came an individual who dogmatically insisted that there is a long list of prerequisites that are mandated for baptism and that we are forbidden and prohibited from giving baptism to any that do not FIRST meet all those criteria. It is thus quite appropriate to ask "Where did Jesus state those prerequisites?"


Yes, it is very likely that most Christian baptisms recorded in the Bible probably were of those at least of some age when they could speak, we don't know that ALL were (the constant claim that EVERY baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT is of such - that we've well established is a falsehood) but yeah, probably most. We also have reason to believe they likely were mostly Hebrews, the administrator was likely a Hebrew, likely all occurred in the Near East, modern day Turkey or modern day Greece, that none were baptized in a church or a tank... but I don't agree with the rubric of Anabaptists, that in ONE and ONLY ONE issue (Baptism) we are to toss out what the Bible SAYS and in place of that, substitute the EXAMPLES of things illustrated in some of the NT recorded events (but ONLY in the singular case of Baptism - this principle is not only abandoned but repudiated in ALL other matters). When the Bible records something, there is no mandate for us to go and do likewise and no prohibition for us to do otherwise. That IS a rubric you are assuming and demanding (but ONLY for Baptism) - as do all Anabaptists - but I find it unbiblical and frankly absurd. We could not be posting on the internet if the rubric was correct (Yeah, I know - Anabaptists denounce the rule in EVERY OTHER case and demand on it ONLY when speaking of the singular, exclusive issue of baptism).

There is no point rearguing things like minimum age, or sinners prayer or prerequisites for teaching. I never made any of THOSE claims.

I'm attempting to address many of the demands, prohibitions, limitations, denials and prerequisites that Anabaptists have been shouting since the 16th Century. I realize Anabaptists are far from united on this (we see that in this thread). Anabaptists tend to be anti-paedobaptism (and thus constantly bring up the magical age of X, these tend to be radical synergists) and they tend also to be credobaptism (and thus constantly bring up the issue of FIRST choosing Jesus and publicly/adequately making proof of that). Some kind of switch back and forth. Some add the repentance thing (must first weep buckets of tears). Some add that it must be by full immersion. Some add that we must confess our sins, prove our choice of Jesus and be fully immerged AT THE SAME TIME. Some add that there needs to be a min. educational level. I realize that no one Anabaptist may hold to all of the Anabaptist's points on this.


But the point is the same: The dogmatic insistence of the Anabaptist denomination that there are these issues that the Bible states are mandated divine prerequisites for "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." (or at least the second part). For 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet found no verses that made repentance, confession, proof of faith, a min. age and a min. IQ, etc., etc., etc., etc. as divinely mandated prerequisites; no one noticed any of those for 1500 years, but suddenly there was this German in the 16th Century that saw them and added them, insisting that we are forbidden to give baptism to any who has not FIRST met the biblically required prerequisites (and I realize, not all Anabaptists agree on the OBVIOUS prerequisites the Bible clearly states). It seems to ME that occasionally, you want to change the issue to "co-requisites" (a new word for me, lol) but that's not the issue (it's we on the other side of this that speak of co-requisites, none of that is even mentioned at Anabaptists baptisms).




A blessed Lenten season to all...




- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

See post # 150....


The issue before us us the plethora of prohibitions, limitations, denials, mandates and prerequisites which suddenly in the 16th Century a man applied to the baptism part of "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH...."


Friend, it has been stated over and over and over that we are to entirely ignore what any denomination (such as the Anabaptists) CLAIM or how they SPIN things, but we are to focus on Scripture Only and consider only that, the words we all can see on the page. Okay. In the 16th Century, quite suddenly, very out-of-the-blue, in direct conflict with every Christian for 1500 years, there came an individual who dogmatically insisted that there is a long list of prerequisites that are mandated for baptism and that we are forbidden and prohibited from giving baptism to any that do not FIRST meet all those criteria. It is thus quite appropriate to ask "Where did Jesus state those prerequisites?"


Yes, it is very likely that most Christian baptisms recorded in the Bible probably were of those at least of some age when they could speak, we don't know that ALL were (the constant claim that EVERY baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT is of such - that we've well established is a falsehood) but yeah, probably most. We also have reason to believe they likely were mostly Hebrews, the administrator was likely a Hebrew, likely all occurred in the Near East, modern day Turkey or modern day Greece, that none were baptized in a church or a tank... but I don't agree with the rubric of Anabaptists, that in ONE and ONLY ONE issue (Baptism) we are to toss out what the Bible SAYS and in place of that, substitute the EXAMPLES of things illustrated in some of the NT recorded events (but ONLY in the singular case of Baptism - this principle is not only abandoned but repudiated in ALL other matters). When the Bible records something, there is no mandate for us to go and do likewise and no prohibition for us to do otherwise. That IS a rubric you are assuming and demanding (but ONLY for Baptism) - as do all Anabaptists - but I find it unbiblical and frankly absurd. We could not be posting on the internet if the rubric was correct (Yeah, I know - Anabaptists denounce the rule in EVERY OTHER case and demand on it ONLY when speaking of the singular, exclusive issue of baptism).






I'm attempting to address many of the demands, prohibitions, limitations, denials and prerequisites that Anabaptists have been shouting since the 16th Century. I realize Anabaptists are far from united on this (we see that in this thread). Anabaptists tend to be anti-paedobaptism (and thus constantly bring up the magical age of X, these tend to be radical synergists) and they tend also to be credobaptism (and thus constantly bring up the issue of FIRST choosing Jesus and publicly/adequately making proof of that). Some kind of switch back and forth. Some add the repentance thing (must first weep buckets of tears). Some add that it must be by full immersion. Some add that we must confess our sins, prove our choice of Jesus and be fully immerged AT THE SAME TIME. Some add that there needs to be a min. educational level. I realize that no one Anabaptist may hold to all of the Anabaptist's points on this.

But the central point is the same: There are these issues that the Bible states are mandated divine prerequisites for "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." (or at least the second part). For 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet found no verses that made repentance, confession, proof of faith, a min. age and a min. IQ and a min., no one noticed that, but suddenly there was this German in the 16th Century that saw them and added them, insisting that we are forbidden to give baptism to any who has not FIRST met the biblically required prerequisites (and I realize, not all Anabaptists agree on the OBVIOUS prerequisites the Bible clearly states).




- Josiah

Josiah, what is the purpose of baptism?
If the purpose is not as an outward expression to both the saved and unsaved that God has chosen, via unmerited favor, to redeem the person, then what is the purpose?
atpollard has provided all the verses in the Bible that address baptism. It is from these verses alone (God's word) that we determine the purpose of baptism. Why do you insist on external sources (such as the concord) to build your purpose for baptism?
Also, you have not addressed the "Age of X" problem your church has created with regard to confirmation. It seems to me that your denomination is more rigid and legalistic in requiring classes and tests by which a panel of judges declares that God has given the gift of grace to those who complete the class. How convoluted is that!?
So, the issue of prerequisites is firmly in your court. You create them and build them up without any regard to the Bible. Once again, you disdain Sola Scriptura and replace it with secondary source church dogma.
Please address the problems within your own argument.