The undisclosed age of “X”

[atpollard]

... NOOOOO! Not another wall of text with NINE points for me to respond to. :banghead:

1. You are assuming chronology, infusing it via eisegsis - dogmatically. You are dogmatically FORCING God to abide by a chronological sequence that "makes sense to me." Amazing coming from one who claims to hold to the Soverignty of God.

Now I feel POWERFUL ... able to FORCE God ... I am awesome!
Just explain to this poor fool how being forgiven without repenting makes sense, because I just don't get it at all. Peter says to "Repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sins." which makes sense and Josiah says I am forcing "repent" into the "baptism for forgiveness". :huh:

2. You are assuming that one baptized is - by that act - made such so that God cannot give them faith or contrition. I know you think baptism CAUSES people to be unrepentant (or at least you "fear" that) but you have ZERO confirmation of that in Scripture or life or anywhere.

Baptism does not CAUSE people to be unrepentant. Baptizing babies causes them to violate the command of Acts 2:38 if they never repent. That is self-evident. Peter commands "Repent and be baptized", they were "baptized" as a baby, so if they never "repent" then they have violated the command to "repent AND be baptized".

3. You already agreed that the koine Greek word "kai" (and) does not imply or mean (and CERTAINLY not dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence, so I don't know why you keep making a point you've already said isn't true.

"Kai" does mean "and" while it does not MANDATE chronological order, neither does it FORBID chronological order.
Someone would not repent if they believed they were sinless, so a person must BELIEVE they are sinless BEFORE they will repent of their sin. The order is determined by the nature of the actions, not by the conjunctions used.
Someone does not have their sins forgiven by baptism in the hope that they will someday feel like repenting for their sins. That is foolishness. Repent AND be baptized mean both are required and Repentance is required for the forgiveness of sin, so one must repent of their sin before they get baptized to wash away those sins. Jesus did not forgive the unrepentant Pharisees.

4. Okay. Something doesn't "make sense to YOU." How does that prove that the Dogma invented by that Anabaptist in the late 16th Century is dogmatically true? The Trinity doesn't make sense to me, does that PROVE the Trinity is "false, invalid, prohibited, heretical?" Come on.... is THAT valid apologetics for a DOGMA? One that says ALL baptisms for nearly 1600 years were heretical, invalid, prohibited (and to add your point, CAUSES impenitance)? Someone says, "Hey, predestination doesn't make sense to me," would you accept that as a valid point to show predestination is heretical, invalid, wrong? Come on, my friend.

There is a difference between "not making sense" and refusing to obey scripture.
Acts 2:38 says Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Lutherans baptize without repentance, so you are not obeying Acts 2:38.
Fact, not opinion.

Now, you don't hold to the Infallibility of the Papacy as dogma (I assume). Now, you have no Scripture that says that's wrong but that's irrelevant, the issue is if they have something that holds it's TRUE to the level claimed. And they give you the usual verses... and say, "it makes sense to me that some authoritative and when essential infallible head exists, why would God leave us without a visible shepherd - THUS this MUST be DOGMATICALLY true!!!" Would YOU accept that as valid epistemology and insist, "SURE, gotta be!" I'm guessing not. Evaluate, if you will, everything you've said here - but replace "No Baptisms Before the Xth Birthday!" dogma with say the Infallibility of the Pope. And see how that appears to you. Try it.

And I have witnessed a constant narrowing by you.... moving further and further away from all this dogma is... and from it as dogma.... and that's GOOD! Maybe you are evaluating things! But freind, don't miss the point: this is ENTIRELY, SOLELY, ONLY about a particular minimum AGE. And it is all about repudiating, condemning, invalidating EVERY baptism before taht Anabaptist invented this idea and the great majority since, his whole point was every baptism ever done was heretical, invalid, repuslive to God (and you carry some of that ... MennoSota much more so). You now want to "soften" that by pretending this is just a church polity like whether to have worship at 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning, but no, it's DOGMA and it's all about proclaiming baptism as either HERETICAL (a Mockery to use your language) forbidden, invalid (and you've added causing people to be impeniant and implied it makes God impotent to grant them faith and repentance).

I understand some things personally "make sense" to you (and to a Catholic and to a Mormon and to a Lutheran). And that's fine. And I realize you LOVE to ask questions as if that has anything to do with apologetics or substantiation (but note all my question are ignored by you and MennoSota). Fine. People feel stuff. People have questions. But is the Dogma of Purgatory DOGMATIC FACT because a Catholic feels stuff and asks questions? And of course that dogma isn't repudiating or condemning ANYONE - yours is. That dogma isn't dividing Christianity, yours is. That dogma isn't saying to anyone, 'you have caused your precious son to be one God can't give faith or repentance to." Are you reading this? Are you getting ANY of this? Consider the epistemology being employed here. I see a LOT of double-standards, a LOT of arguments that you'd NEVER accept from me or a Catholic or a Mormon or even a Reformed Christian. Now I get the Calvinist view on Baptism.... I don't fully agree, but I think it's "clean" and honest (I just disagree on a couple of points). The Anabaptist one - not at all.


AGAIN, if (it's a very big word) IF the pov was this: There seems to be a pattern in the Bible that all Christians for 16 centuries totally missed but it seems powerful and relevant to ME: That generally, baptism only happened AFTER one got to a can't define exactly what age; age seems to have mattered for what seems to me to be reasons x,y,z. SO, our praxis in our church is to follow that. We're NOT declaring it's the only permitted way and we are NOT declaring others to be sinning for mocking God or rendering God impotent, it's just OUR understanding." IF you and MennoSota and those Anabaptists had said THAT, we'd not be having this conversation. Maybe we'd have different praxis but no one is declaring any dogmas or heresies, no one is declaring what is good FOR OTHERS. But... when you tell me... DOGMATICALLY.... my baptism mocked God, it was a heresy, it is prohibited right there in black and white in the BIBLE, and it caused you to not be repentant and made God impotent to give you faith and humility.... and all the other things said (or strongly implied these last few days), then, well, that's a whole other enchilada.


I'm frustrated by all the changing rules you two make, the ever-changing playing field. By the constant diversions into OTHER issues (especially when you get angry if I don't STICK very, very much to ONE issue in ONE thread defined EXACTLY as you do). The constant irrelevant questions that just derail and confuse and blurr. The unwillingness to address the issue - to the level claimed. And to not "own up" to the issue that I'm being told - dogmatically - the baptism of me, my wife and my son are a mockery, an insult to God, heresy, forbidden, causes us to not be repentant, causes God to not be able to give us faith and repentance. You need to own up to that. And no, much of that has come from you two (especially MennoSota) by implication or outright statements.

Well, no one is still reading....

Wall of text ... too much to read. Ask me little questions in short posts so I can read and respond. :stress:

 

[Josiah]

Just explain to this poor fool how being forgiven without repenting makes sense

More chasing down rabbit holes, more "shell game". It's SO frustrating..... More "it's dogma if it makes sense to me and heresy if it doesn't." The Trinity doesn't make sense to me, ergo according to you, it's heresy and I should declare you a heretic for accepting it. Come on. Come on.

You are going have to quote me where I posted God forgives before repentance. Of corse, you COULD quote me - over and over and over and over, that there is MUCH, LOTS , a whole bunch of "ands" of things in soteriology. And we just disagree that you may order God to follow a certain chronology as He does his work because you forbid him to do otherwise.

Peter says to "Repent and be baptized for forgiveness of sins."

... as we've both agreed over and over again. I've totally and completely agreed with EVERY WORD in every verse you've referenced or quoted. Every one. And yes, you already agreed that "and" does not imply, mean (or to the sole point here) dogmatically mandate chronological sequence for God or for us. As your yourself stressed, it does NOT say "AFTER THAT" but rather "and.' There are words in koine Greek that mean sequence, words that typically are translated "after" but none of those words appear in any text that also includes the word "baptize." You keep parroting points you've already noted aren't true.

Peter commands "Repent and be baptized"

You keep using points you've stated aren't true. The word is "AND" (which as you stated, does NOT imply, mean, or (to the sole point here) chronologically MANDATE order. You are telling God He can't give repentance to someone if he's first baptized them. The verse doesn't say that.

As you yourself noted, the word is NOT "AFTER THAT" it's and. It's silly to build an entirely DOGMA on a point any Greek dictionary would show is false and that you yourself has admitted isn't true.

"Kai" does mean "and" while it does not MANDATE chronological order, neither does it FORBID chronological order.

True.... it doesn't make your invention IMPOSSIBLE. But that's odd apologetic. And even If that meant your dogma as the POSSIBILITY of being dogmatic truth, that of course has zero relevance to it being true. There could be 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on Mars. That doesn't mean it is a dogmatic fact that there are - and one is mocking God if you don't swallow that whole. Your sounding like a Mormon... come up, you are a capable man.

Someone does not have their sins forgiven by baptism in the hope that they will someday feel like repenting for their sins.

Again, you are the one imposing a lot of eisegesis. You are the one pumping your chronological restrictions on God and the text, not me. You are the one telling God that if he Baptizes someone, ergo He's rendered Himself impotent to do other things. You are the one implying that baptism causes God to not give repentance. PETER is not telling God what He can and can't do. PETER is speaking to a given audience on a given occasion - and as he speaks to them, uses the word and. He could have used gthe word "then" or "after that" - and you insist the Holy Spirit should have done that, but he did not. YOU are imposing the chronological sequence, YOU are imposing that if baptism comes first repentance thus becomes forbidden, YOU are the one telling God what He can and can't do and exactly WHEN He can and can't do it. It's YOU separating all these things rather than accepting the word "AND" that connects them.

Repent AND be baptized mean both are required and Repentance is required for the forgiveness of sin

We've been over this - time and time again, over and over again, several times just in the last two days. OMG.

It's YOU missing the 'and" not me. It's MY position these things go together. I'm supporting the "AND." You say "and" cannot happen because you have bound God to bless in a certain chronological sequence, He MUST (in chronological time - OUR time yet !!!!) do things as 1...2....3...4..5... or God becomes impotent and messes up, He dogmatically is bound to YOUR sense of human/earthy chronology cuz you tell him so. Friend, the word is AND not "AFTER THAT. See the AND. It's there. It really is. Stop so binding God to YOUR sense of time, YOUR sense of how He alone is allow to act and bless. If you were some radical Arminian, I'd understand this obsession you have on a limited God BOUND to how we set up the hoops and jump through them, but a monergist? A Calvinist?

one must repent of their sin before they get baptized

... and the verse that states that is...

... and why do you think NOT ONE CHRISTIAN in some 1500 years ever even noticed that verse you will quote? For 1500 years, God was impotent to bless because folks did things in the order He prohibited?


I KNOW you don't read much of what is posted to you. Frustrating. BIG reason why you just keep posting same things requiring I post same thing you never bothered to read before.... then have you rebuke ME for that. Insist how you are ignoring me. It's frustrating.

 

[MennoSota]

More chasing down rabbit holes, more "shell game". It's SO frustrating..... More "it's dogma if it makes sense to me and heresy if it doesn't." The Trinity doesn't make sense to me, ergo according to you, it's heresy and I should declare you a heretic for accepting it. Come on. Come on.

You are going have to quote me where I posted God forgives before repentance. Of corse, you COULD quote me - over and over and over and over, that there is MUCH, LOTS , a whole bunch of "ands" of things in soteriology. And we just disagree that you may order God to follow a certain chronology as He does his work because you forbid him to do otherwise.





... as we've both agreed over and over again. I've totally and completely agreed with EVERY WORD in every verse you've referenced or quoted. Every one. And yes, you already agreed that "and" does not imply, mean (or to the sole point here) dogmatically mandate chronological sequence for God or for us. As your yourself stressed, it does NOT say "AFTER THAT" but rather "and.' There are words in koine Greek that mean sequence, words that typically are translated "after" but none of those words appear in any text that also includes the word "baptize." You keep parroting points you've already noted aren't true.





You keep using points you've stated aren't true. The word is "AND" (which as you stated, does NOT imply, mean, or (to the sole point here) chronologically MANDATE order. You are telling God He can't give repentance to someone if he's first baptized them. The verse doesn't say that.

As you yourself noted, the word is NOT "AFTER THAT" it's and. It's silly to build an entirely DOGMA on a point any Greek dictionary would show is false and that you yourself has admitted isn't true.





True.... it doesn't make your invention IMPOSSIBLE. But that's odd apologetic. And even If that meant your dogma as the POSSIBILITY of being dogmatic truth, that of course has zero relevance to it being true. There could be 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on Mars. That doesn't mean it is a dogmatic fact that there are - and one is mocking God if you don't swallow that whole. Your sounding like a Mormon... come up, you are a capable man.






Again, you are the one imposing a lot of eisegesis. You are the one pumping your chronological restrictions on God and the text, not me. You are the one telling God that if he Baptizes someone, ergo He's rendered Himself impotent to do other things. You are the one implying that baptism causes God to not give repentance. PETER is not telling God what He can and can't do. PETER is speaking to a given audience on a given occasion - and as he speaks to them, uses the word and. He could have used gthe word "then" or "after that" - and you insist the Holy Spirit should have done that, but he did not. YOU are imposing the chronological sequence, YOU are imposing that if baptism comes first repentance thus becomes forbidden, YOU are the one telling God what He can and can't do and exactly WHEN He can and can't do it. It's YOU separating all these things rather than accepting the word "AND" that connects them.






We've been over this - time and time again, over and over again, several times just in the last two days. OMG.

It's YOU missing the 'and" not me. It's MY position these things go together. I'm supporting the "AND." You say "and" cannot happen because you have bound God to bless in a certain chronological sequence, He MUST (in chronological time - OUR time yet !!!!) do things as 1...2....3...4..5... or God becomes impotent and messes up, He dogmatically is bound to YOUR sense of human/earthy chronology cuz you tell him so. Friend, the word is AND not "AFTER THAT. See the AND. It's there. It really is. Stop so binding God to YOUR sense of time, YOUR sense of how He alone is allow to act and bless. If you were some radical Arminian, I'd understand this obsession you have on a limited God BOUND to how we set up the hoops and jump through them, but a monergist? A Calvinist?






... and the verse that states that is...

... and why do you think NOT ONE CHRISTIAN in some 1500 years ever even noticed that verse you will quote? For 1500 years, God was impotent to bless because folks did things in the order He prohibited?


I KNOW you don't read much of what is posted to you. Frustrating. BIG reason why you just keep posting same things requiring I post same thing you never bothered to read before.... then have you rebuke ME for that. Insist how you are ignoring me. It's frustrating.

Simple question. Please answer only the question.

How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?

 

[Andrew]

Off topic, I know, but there is no way God could send anyone that cute straight to hell. There must be a Purgatory where they can grow up into snotty know-it-all teens first!

In this case I'm a bit Catholic, which their stand on unbaptised babies that pass away -is that God gives loving mercy unto them I support this 100%
"I will give mercy on whom I will give mercy"

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

Simple question. Please answer only the question.How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?

How does your question address what you claim is the Dogma of a REQUIRED MINIMUM AGE? That's the issue here: this supposed verse that requires a certain age.]


I (passionately) reject your premise that Dogma and Heresy are determined by what happens to "make sense" to Josiah at this moment; I just lack the incredible ego for that, the believe that God takes orders from me, that my ways are greater than His ways, that God MUST listen to me if He's going to be right and do right. Every heresy that has ever existed "made sense" to the one who invented it. Ever chatted with a Mormon or an Agnostic? If so, perhaps you'll see why your question is... well.....not one I think is appropriate or has anything to do with apologetics, with substantiating anything to the level of Dogma/Heresy according to what "makes sense" to this bloat, this dude with a puny, fallen brain. Or to you and yours.


But again (I honestlly WISH you would read my posts..... we would avoid 99% of this), again, I'm the one affirming the "AND" in that verse that you've narrowed everything down to in the thread were it applies (not this one). You are the one fighting to separate things for God, to demand that God does thing according to earthly/physical chronological time as you determine it, one thing at a time, in ways you can verify (or He can't do it), that the Holy Spriit should have inspired "AFTER THAT" instead of AND. SO weird reading your stuff and trying to remember you are a monergist, a Calvinist. But I've posted ALL about this, over and and over and over again. SO many times.


I would not argue the 'AND" point (that's your thing). Yeah, okay, forgiveness requires that God has given us spiritual life..... humility.... and a repentant heart and maybe more - I don't know. Is God limited in which order to do them? Limited to doing them one at a time, as you direct? Must God prove to YOU that He has? I see nothing that so states that. But yes, there is no promise for forgiveness apart from life, faith, the Holy Spirit, a repentant heart - all pure gifts from God. As I've posted perhaps 10 or 12 times before, the ONLY thing I'd say must be place.... is love/grace. Nothing else can happen without that. But that's not a chronological thing (from a physics/human perspective - how WE experience and sense time) but simply because God is Love. It is His nature. That was before time was. But how that love works - and it ALL, ALL His work - is HIS stuff and mystery. Sorry, I'm JUST NOT going to subject God to me - and my sense of things and what makes sense to me and how I interface with "time/space", I'm just not going to join you in ordering God in how and when and in what sequence (as we sense time) he MUST do things or He's wrong. I'm pretty sure you aren't reading this (you haven't the last dozen or so times) but YES, the "and" applies (it's you saying it's the wrong word God used in that verse). LOTS is involved in soteriology. And God does it. Soli Deo Gloria. You can tell Him that if He baptizes, then you insist He becomes impotent in soteriology and has violated YOUR sense of chronology and YOUR mandated sequense. But I'm not joining you. Theology prof of mine: "Heresy is never born out of saying too little but saying too much." It's never the result of humility but pride in insisting what self thinks and feels and what makes sense to self is what God is subject to. And again (what is this, the 15th time?) exactly HOW God does what HE does is mostly mystery because it is HIS doing. And His ways are not our ways. Freind, you've narrowed everything to one verse: but you are changing a word in it and PUMPING it with a LOT of YOUR stuff. And in so doing, proving nothing to support the dogma: just why YOU personally FEEL something (entirely irrelevant to dogma/heresy)

Seems to ME if it was a dogmatic mandate that one particular subject of humanity is DOGMATICALLY PROHIBITED from being baptized - cuz it so messes up God and renders Him so impotent and causes people to not repent and to mock God - perhaps He would have said something (and you would have found that by now)? Seems SOMEONE in 1500 years - SOME Christian - might have seen the verse you're looking for in 1500 years... before this Anabaptist suddenly did in the late 16th Century (and he never claimed this was taught int Bible, he claimed his radical synergism was taught in the Bible and so reinvented Baptist to fit with his synergism)


You say we must "scrap" tradition (how any person or church understands and interprets things - that includes you and me, that includes Baptists) and go "only by the words of Scripture." Okay. Understood. So where is the verse that states, "No baptisms allowed before the age of _____?"


But I'm wasting my time, aren't I?



.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]





How does your question address what you claim is the Dogma of a REQUIRED MINIMUM AGE? That's the issue here: this supposed verse that requires a certain age.]


I (passionately) reject your premise that Dogma and Heresy are determined by what happens to "make sense" to Josiah at this moment; I just lack the incredible ego for that, the believe that God takes orders from me, that my ways are greater than His ways, that God MUST listen to me if He's going to be right and do right. Every heresy that has ever existed "made sense" to the one who invented it. Ever chatted with a Mormon or an Agnostic? If so, perhaps you'll see why your question is... well.....not one I think is appropriate or has anything to do with apologetics, with substantiating anything to the level of Dogma/Heresy according to what "makes sense" to this bloat, this dude with a puny, fallen brain. Or to you and yours.


But again (I honestlly WISH you would read my posts..... we would avoid 99% of this), again, I'm the one affirming the "AND" in that verse that you've narrowed everything down to in the thread were it applies (not this one). You are the one fighting to separate things for God, to demand that God does thing according to earthly/physical chronological time as you determine it, one thing at a time, in ways you can verify (or He can't do it), that the Holy Spriit should have inspired "AFTER THAT" instead of AND. SO weird reading your stuff and trying to remember you are a monergist, a Calvinist. But I've posted ALL about this, over and and over and over again. SO many times.


I would not argue the 'AND" point (that's your thing). Yeah, okay, forgiveness requires that God has given us spiritual life..... humility.... and a repentant heart and maybe more - I don't know. Is God limited in which order to do them? Limited to doing them one at a time, as you direct? Must God prove to YOU that He has? I see nothing that so states that. But yes, there is no promise for forgiveness apart from life, faith, the Holy Spirit, a repentant heart - all pure gifts from God. As I've posted perhaps 10 or 12 times before, the ONLY thing I'd say must be place.... is love/grace. Nothing else can happen without that. But that's not a chronological thing (from a physics/human perspective - how WE experience and sense time) but simply because God is Love. It is His nature. That was before time was. But how that love works - and it ALL, ALL His work - is HIS stuff and mystery. Sorry, I'm JUST NOT going to subject God to me - and my sense of things and what makes sense to me and how I interface with "time/space", I'm just not going to join you in ordering God in how and when and in what sequence (as we sense time) he MUST do things or He's wrong. I'm pretty sure you aren't reading this (you haven't the last dozen or so times) but YES, the "and" applies (it's you saying it's the wrong word God used in that verse). LOTS is involved in soteriology. And God does it. Soli Deo Gloria. You can tell Him that if He baptizes, then you insist He becomes impotent in soteriology and has violated YOUR sense of chronology and YOUR mandated sequense. But I'm not joining you. Theology prof of mine: "Heresy is never born out of saying too little but saying too much." It's never the result of humility but pride in insisting what self thinks and feels and what makes sense to self is what God is subject to. And again (what is this, the 15th time?) exactly HOW God does what HE does is mostly mystery because it is HIS doing. And His ways are not our ways. Freind, you've narrowed everything to one verse: but you are changing a word in it and PUMPING it with a LOT of YOUR stuff. And in so doing, proving nothing to support the dogma: just why YOU personally FEEL something (entirely irrelevant to dogma/heresy)

Seems to ME if it was a dogmatic mandate that one particular subject of humanity is DOGMATICALLY PROHIBITED from being baptized - cuz it so messes up God and renders Him so impotent and causes people to not repent and to mock God - perhaps He would have said something (and you would have found that by now)? Seems SOMEONE in 1500 years - SOME Christian - might have seen the verse you're looking for in 1500 years... before this Anabaptist suddenly did in the late 16th Century (and he never claimed this was taught int Bible, he claimed his radical synergism was taught in the Bible and so reinvented Baptist to fit with his synergism)


You say we must "scrap" tradition (how any person or church understands and interprets things - that includes you and me, that includes Baptists) and go "only by the words of Scripture." Okay. Understood. So where is the verse that states, "No baptisms allowed before the age of _____?"


But I'm wasting my time, aren't I?



.

Simple question. Please answer only the question.How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?

 

[atpollard]

In this case I'm a bit Catholic, which their stand on unbaptised babies that pass away -is that God gives loving mercy unto them I support this 100%
"I will give mercy on whom I will give mercy"

Careful, that logic implies that Abortion Doctors lead more souls to heaven than anyone else.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION] [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]
But I'm wasting my time, aren't I?

If that was your answer to “How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?”, then yes.
I couldn’t follow how that came close to answering the question you were asked.

 

[Andrew]

Careful, that logic implies that Abortion Doctors lead more souls to heaven than anyone else.

Doh!

 

[Josiah]

Simple question. Please answer only the question.How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?

How does your question address what you claim is the Dogma of a REQUIRED MINIMUM AGE? That's the issue here, that's the sole and only issue here, this dogma invented by a radical synergist in the late 16th Century that there is a certain MINIMUM AGE requirement for baptisms, all done before that are heretical, prohibited, invalid and wrong. Address the issue. And questions are not substantiation for ANYTHING, EVER. Proving you can write a sentence as a question only proves you can write a sense in the form of a question (Useful if you are on Jeprody but useless and irrelevant in apologetics)


I (passionately) reject your whole premise that Dogma and Heresy are determined by what happens to "make sense " to some bloat at that moment - that'ss also horrible apologetics that you yourself reject and never accept. EVERY heresy "makes sense" to the inventor and those who just swallow it. You and atpollard talk a lot about what "makes sense" to YOU, -personally, today. So what? You prove constantly that you can write a sentence in the form of a question, but this is not the TV show Jeopardy. Do you realize that?


But again, again, I'm the one affirming the "AND". You are the one fighting to separate things for God, you are the one ordering that God does things according to earthly/physical chronological time as you determine it and order Him to abide by, you are the one thing at a time, in ways you can verify (or He can't do it), that the Holy Spriit should have inspired "AFTER THAT" instead of AND. SO weird reading your stuff and trying to remember you are a monergist, a Calvinist. But I've posted ALL about this, over and and over and over again. SO many times. I would not argue the 'AND" point (that's your thing). Yeah, okay, forgiveness requires that God has given us spiritual life..... humility.... and a repentant heart and maybe more - I don't know. Is God limited in which order to do them? Limited to doing them one at a time, as you direct? Must God prove to YOU that He has? I see nothing that so states that. But yes, there is no promise for forgiveness apart from life, faith, the Holy Spirit, a repentant heart - all pure gifts from God. As I've posted perhaps 10 or 12 times before, the ONLY thing I'd say must be place.... is love/grace. Nothing else can happen without that. But that's not a chronological thing (from a physics/human perspective - how WE experience and sense time) but simply because God is Love. It is His nature. That was before time was. But how that love works - and it ALL, ALL His work - is HIS stuff and mystery. Sorry, I'm JUST NOT going to subject God to me - and my sense of things and what makes sense to me and how I interface with "time/space", I'm just not going to join you in ordering God in how and when and in what sequence (as we sense time) he MUST do things or He's wrong. I'm pretty sure you aren't reading this (you haven't the last dozen or so times) but YES, the "and" applies (it's you saying it's the wrong word God used in that verse). LOTS is involved in soteriology. And God does it. Soli Deo Gloria. You can tell Him that if He baptizes, then you insist He becomes impotent in soteriology and has violated YOUR sense of chronology and YOUR mandated sequense. But I'm not joining you. Theology prof of mine: "Heresy is never born out of saying too little but saying too much." It's never the result of humility but pride in insisting what self thinks and feels and what makes sense to self is what God is subject to. And again (what is this, the 15th time?) exactly HOW God does what HE does is mostly mystery because it is HIS doing. And His ways are not our ways. Freind, you've narrowed everything to one verse: but you are changing a word in it and PUMPING it with a LOT of YOUR stuff. And in so doing, proving nothing to support the dogma: just why YOU personally FEEL something (entirely irrelevant to dogma/heresy)


Seems to ME if it was a dogmatic mandate that one particular subject of humanity is DOGMATICALLY PROHIBITED from being baptized - cuz it so messes up God and renders Him so impotent and causes people to not repent and to mock God - perhaps He would have said something (and you would have found that by now)? Seems SOMEONE in 1500 years - SOME Christian - might have seen the verse you're looking for in 1500 years... before this Anabaptist suddenly did in the late 16th Century (and he never claimed this was taught int Bible, he claimed his radical synergism was taught in the Bible and so reinvented Baptist to fit with his synergism)


You say we must "scrap" tradition (how any person or church understands and interprets things - that includes you and me, that includes Baptists) and go "only by the words of Scripture." Okay. Understood. So where is the verse that states, "No baptisms allowed before the age of _____?" You simply are doing the EXACT thing you repudiate and disallow all to do. And now your rubric "If I can ask a question that proves I'm right" is another violation of the demand you make.






.

 

[MennoSota]

How does your question address what you claim is the Dogma of a REQUIRED MINIMUM AGE? That's the issue here, that's the sole and only issue here, this dogma invented by a radical synergist in the late 16th Century that there is a certain MINIMUM AGE requirement for baptisms, all done before that are heretical, prohibited, invalid and wrong. Address the issue. And questions are not substantiation for ANYTHING, EVER. Proving you can write a sentence as a question only proves you can write a sense in the form of a question (Useful if you are on Jeprody but useless and irrelevant in apologetics)


I (passionately) reject your whole premise that Dogma and Heresy are determined by what happens to "make sense " to some bloat at that moment - that'ss also horrible apologetics that you yourself reject and never accept. EVERY heresy "makes sense" to the inventor and those who just swallow it. You and atpollard talk a lot about what "makes sense" to YOU, -personally, today. So what? You prove constantly that you can write a sentence in the form of a question, but this is not the TV show Jeopardy. Do you realize that?


But again, again, I'm the one affirming the "AND". You are the one fighting to separate things for God, you are the one ordering that God does things according to earthly/physical chronological time as you determine it and order Him to abide by, you are the one thing at a time, in ways you can verify (or He can't do it), that the Holy Spriit should have inspired "AFTER THAT" instead of AND. SO weird reading your stuff and trying to remember you are a monergist, a Calvinist. But I've posted ALL about this, over and and over and over again. SO many times. I would not argue the 'AND" point (that's your thing). Yeah, okay, forgiveness requires that God has given us spiritual life..... humility.... and a repentant heart and maybe more - I don't know. Is God limited in which order to do them? Limited to doing them one at a time, as you direct? Must God prove to YOU that He has? I see nothing that so states that. But yes, there is no promise for forgiveness apart from life, faith, the Holy Spirit, a repentant heart - all pure gifts from God. As I've posted perhaps 10 or 12 times before, the ONLY thing I'd say must be place.... is love/grace. Nothing else can happen without that. But that's not a chronological thing (from a physics/human perspective - how WE experience and sense time) but simply because God is Love. It is His nature. That was before time was. But how that love works - and it ALL, ALL His work - is HIS stuff and mystery. Sorry, I'm JUST NOT going to subject God to me - and my sense of things and what makes sense to me and how I interface with "time/space", I'm just not going to join you in ordering God in how and when and in what sequence (as we sense time) he MUST do things or He's wrong. I'm pretty sure you aren't reading this (you haven't the last dozen or so times) but YES, the "and" applies (it's you saying it's the wrong word God used in that verse). LOTS is involved in soteriology. And God does it. Soli Deo Gloria. You can tell Him that if He baptizes, then you insist He becomes impotent in soteriology and has violated YOUR sense of chronology and YOUR mandated sequense. But I'm not joining you. Theology prof of mine: "Heresy is never born out of saying too little but saying too much." It's never the result of humility but pride in insisting what self thinks and feels and what makes sense to self is what God is subject to. And again (what is this, the 15th time?) exactly HOW God does what HE does is mostly mystery because it is HIS doing. And His ways are not our ways. Freind, you've narrowed everything to one verse: but you are changing a word in it and PUMPING it with a LOT of YOUR stuff. And in so doing, proving nothing to support the dogma: just why YOU personally FEEL something (entirely irrelevant to dogma/heresy)


Seems to ME if it was a dogmatic mandate that one particular subject of humanity is DOGMATICALLY PROHIBITED from being baptized - cuz it so messes up God and renders Him so impotent and causes people to not repent and to mock God - perhaps He would have said something (and you would have found that by now)? Seems SOMEONE in 1500 years - SOME Christian - might have seen the verse you're looking for in 1500 years... before this Anabaptist suddenly did in the late 16th Century (and he never claimed this was taught int Bible, he claimed his radical synergism was taught in the Bible and so reinvented Baptist to fit with his synergism)


You say we must "scrap" tradition (how any person or church understands and interprets things - that includes you and me, that includes Baptists) and go "only by the words of Scripture." Okay. Understood. So where is the verse that states, "No baptisms allowed before the age of _____?" You simply are doing the EXACT thing you repudiate and disallow all to do. And now your rubric "If I can ask a question that proves I'm right" is another violation of the demand you make.






.

Simple question. Please answer only the question.How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?

 

[Josiah]

Simple question. Please answer only the question.How does being forgiven without repenting make sense?

I don't care what personally "makes sense" to some bloat. Every heresy and stupid thought in existence made sense to the one who invented it and those who accept it. Do Nyou accept that the Assumption of Mary MUST be dogmatically correct because it "makes sense" to some folks?


And this is not the TV game show, Jeopardy. Honestly, it's not. You proving you can state a sentence in the form of a question confirms only one thing, you can state a sentence in the form of a question. It means and proves and does NOTHING in apologetics (although it's useful on Jeopardy).


And I reject your pride, your self-given power, to demand God submits to your orders about sequence of how He may and may not do things. I embrace the Soverignty of God and monergism. I won't tell God what He cannot do.


How does your question address what you claim is the Dogma of a REQUIRED MINIMUM AGE? That's the issue here, that's the sole and only issue here, this dogma invented by a radical synergist in the late 16th Century that there is a certain MINIMUM AGE requirement for baptisms, all done before that are heretical, prohibited, invalid and wrong. Address the issue. Quote the verse(s) that state this minimum mandated AGE requirement, before which baptism is heretical, invalid, prohibited, a mockery and renders God impotent to bless


You are the one fighting to separate things for God, you are the one ordering that God does things according to earthly/physical chronological time as you determine it and order Him to abide by, you are the one thing at a time, in ways you can verify (or He can't do it), that the Holy Spriit should have inspired "AFTER THAT" instead of AND. SO weird reading your stuff and trying to remember you are a monergist, a Calvinist. But I've posted ALL about this, over and and over and over again. SO many times. I would not argue the 'AND" point (that's your thing). Yeah, okay, forgiveness requires that God has given us spiritual life..... humility.... and a repentant heart and maybe more - I don't know. Is God limited in which order to do them? Limited to doing them one at a time, as you direct? Must God prove to YOU that He has? I see nothing that so states that. But yes, there is no promise for forgiveness apart from life, faith, the Holy Spirit, a repentant heart - all pure gifts from God. As I've posted perhaps 10 or 12 times before, the ONLY thing I'd say must be place.... is love/grace. Nothing else can happen without that. But that's not a chronological thing (from a physics/human perspective - how WE experience and sense time) but simply because God is Love. It is His nature. That was before time was. But how that love works - and it ALL, ALL His work - is HIS stuff and mystery. Sorry, I'm JUST NOT going to subject God to me - and my sense of things and what makes sense to me and how I interface with "time/space", I'm just not going to join you in ordering God in how and when and in what sequence (as we sense time) he MUST do things or He's wrong. I'm pretty sure you aren't reading this (you haven't the last dozen or so times) but YES, the "and" applies (it's you saying it's the wrong word God used in that verse). LOTS is involved in soteriology. And God does it. Soli Deo Gloria. You can tell Him that if He baptizes, then you insist He becomes impotent in soteriology and has violated YOUR sense of chronology and YOUR mandated sequense. But I'm not joining you. Theology prof of mine: "Heresy is never born out of saying too little but saying too much." It's never the result of humility but pride in insisting what self thinks and feels and what makes sense to self is what God is subject to. And again (what is this, the 15th time?) exactly HOW God does what HE does is mostly mystery because it is HIS doing. And His ways are not our ways. Freind, you've narrowed everything to one verse: but you are changing a word in it and PUMPING it with a LOT of YOUR stuff. And in so doing, proving nothing to support the dogma: just why YOU personally FEEL something (entirely irrelevant to dogma/heresy)


Seems to ME if it was a dogmatic mandate that one particular subject of humanity is DOGMATICALLY PROHIBITED from being baptized - cuz it so messes up God and renders Him so impotent and causes people to not repent and to mock God - perhaps He would have said something (and you would have found that by now)? Seems SOMEONE in 1500 years - SOME Christian - might have seen the verse you're looking for in 1500 years... before this Anabaptist suddenly did in the late 16th Century (and he never claimed this was taught int Bible, he claimed his radical synergism was taught in the Bible and so reinvented Baptist to fit with his synergism)


You say we must "scrap" tradition (how any person or church understands and interprets things - that includes you and me, that includes Baptists) and go "only by the words of Scripture." Okay. Understood. So where is the verse that states, "No baptisms allowed before the age of _____?" You simply are doing the EXACT thing you repudiate and disallow all to do. And now your rubric "If I can ask a question that proves I'm right" is another violation of the demand you make.




.

 

[Andrew]

If I walk around town with a water gun and start spraying everyone while saying "I baptise you in the name of..."
Will it count?
If not why not? We do it to babies all the time

 

[Albion]

We do NOT do it to babies. :thumbsdown:<_<

 

[Andrew]

We do NOT do it to babies. :thumbsdown:<_<

Well maybe not with a squirt gun but with a spoon... at least I was

 

[Albion]

Well maybe not with a squirt gun but with a spoon... at least I was

I have no idea what church that might have been, but there is a lot more to baptism than just water. Unfortunately, I was not able to get Menno to recognize that, even for the sake of discussing it. That is one reason the discussions with him never got off square one--he insisted upon everyone else saying yea or nay to his own version of Baptism but never allowed himself even to learn what the concept is to Christians who belong to the historic churches.

 

[Andrew]

I have no idea what church that might have been, but there is a lot more to baptism than just water. Unfortunately, I was not able to get Menno to recognize that, even for the sake of discussing it. That is one reason the discussions with him never got off square one--he insisted upon everyone else saying yea or nay to his own version of Baptism but never allowed himself even to learn what the concept is to Christians who belong to the historic churches.

The Catholic Church sprinkled some water on me and I got a piece of paper to prove it lol.
I see nothing wrong with the ritual of baptism, but the deeper meaning for me regarding baptism is that we should at least be aware of the Word of God first. If I were aware I must not have agreed with the Word because I was probably crying and fidgeting like most of the babies who get baptised do.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church sprinkled some water on me and I got a piece of paper to prove it lol.
I see nothing wrong with the ritual of baptism, but the deeper meaning for me regarding baptism is that we should at least be aware of the Word of God first. If I were aware I must not have agreed with the Word because I was probably crying and fidgeting like most of the babies who get baptised do.

So, you're a Baptist. I don't mind.

 

[Andrew]

So, you're a Baptist. I don't mind.

I guess, i've only been to one baptist church in my life... I do believe in "believers baptism" tho, I just call that "Christian"

 

[Josiah]

I don't even care if there is no restriction in the Bible.

Then why invent in the late 16th Century a DOGMA that mandates the restriction that one MUST first attain a certain age (which you refuse to state which one it is,) before the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted, otherwise it is forbidden, prohibited, invalid, heresy a mockery?

Or is your whole point that you don't give a rip what the Bible says and doesen't say..... YOU can just invent RESTRICTIONS... as DOGMA...and God and everyone has to obey YOU?