Water Baptism

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).
You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.
You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).

I responded to YOUR post #451:

Hard to prove a negative, but okay....
1. I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people under a not disclosed age (which is why no one can produce such a Scripture), nor is there any mandate that one must attain a certain unknown age before they can be baptized (which is why no one can produce a Scripture so stating.) I reject late 16th century invention of Anti-Paedobaptism in part because it is not taught in Scripture. I admit that LIKELY MOST of those baptized in the Bible were older than the never-disclosed age of X (but it's impossible to know) - certainly not children - but we don't know if that was always the case. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point. Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any under a certain age.... or that state we are mandated to only baptize after a certain age, then present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.

in post # 460:

Let’s review what I asked for:

“Why don't YOU:
1. make A statement
2. list A verse of your choosing either supporting or countering that statement
3. offer some sort of brief commentary (exegesis) on that verse related to that statement.”

You don’t have to prove a negative, you have chosen to prove a negative. I left the choice of what statement concerning water baptism you wanted to prove or disprove 100% up to you. For future posts, feel free to choose any ONE point that you want to address. I just didn’t want to keep getting hit with a wall of text that is too broad for a meaningful discussion.

Technically, you seem to have attempted to make TWO points, so to keep this manageable, I will just respond to the first statement and ignore the second statement. You are welcome to bring up “chronological order” as the next thing to be discussed once we have finished talking about “prohibitions based on age”.

I notice that you have provided no scripture and you have, therefore, offered no discussion of how those scriptures support your position. That makes it harder for me to respond to your interpretation of specific scripture. However, IG2 has suggested that I should ignore what bothers me and attempt to focus on your basic point. Since you HAVE complied with my request to not use “that word that must not be mentioned” , I am more than happy to attempt to actually ‘talk’ ...

... You can see post #460 for the rest of what I posted and either respond or not as you please. I have kept my word and I did not ignore you. I asked for ONE point to discuss and you posted 3 things for me to respond to (two points in post #451 and a new point in post #452) and I only responded to one point ... the first point you made, the point about a minimum age for baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes! We have been over this dozens of times already.

Please provide the specific verses showing a person having faith for another and the result being the non-believer is baptized. I confess I must have missed those verses that show baptism of a non-believer because a believer had faith for the non-believer.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would hope you feel that way. Otherwise you should become a Particular Baptist and that would mean a lot of bother with finding a new church to attend and membership classes and deciding if you need to be baptized again. It is much easier for you if you disagree with me and continue to hold your own beliefs.

Well, maybe a Baptist but not a particular one

I shall take your advice and continue to disagree with you, I would not want to make life too confusing for you.

The question of ‘literal’ vs ‘spiritual’ vs ‘symbolic’ is one that Baptists will disagree among themselves on. There are indeed some that view it as 100% symbolic and some that do not. I can sympathize with the confusion. Let’s go through your verses and discuss it.

..

Absolutely. I would point out that even in Acts 2, Peter told them to be baptized and they WILL RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT! If that doesn’t agree with Jesus about being born of water and the spirit …

It does comport with John 3:5.

[Just a quick edit to keep Meno’s head from exploding at the thought that I have gone over to salvation by baptism. “water and the spirit” has two common traditional interpretations. One is Baptism and the Holy Spirit ... which meshes well with the events of Acts 2. The second is natural birth (placental water) and the Holy Spirit ... which meshes well with the verse in John 3 about Spirit giving birth to Spirit. So I am acknowledging that your position is not contradictory to many theologians, but it is not the only way to view the verse.]

It is kind of you to look after Mennosota's potentially explosive head.

[1Pe 3:21-22 NASB] 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.​

I would argue that in the case of THIS PARTICULAR verse, the baptism in the water (the physical act) is what is referenced as “not the removal of dirt from the flesh”, so it is more a claim that the “spiritual baptism” which is our becoming “IN CHRIST” that saves us.

The flood saved Noah and his family so too baptism saves the baptised. That is the point made by saint Peter in the passage. Thus "baptism now saves you" just a the flood saved Noah and his family. The contrast between "washing away the dirt of the body" and "the answer of a good conscience before God" is between the normal washing that water achieves and the washing of regeneration that is baptism. Saint Peter is not contrasting water in baptism with something spiritual and separated from baptism or something attached to the physical but not part of it. So I will, as you suggested, disagree with your perspective and at the same time feel confident that what you see in the passage is not what is present in the passage.

[Tit 3:4-7 NASB] 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and [His] love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to [the] hope of eternal life.​

Any thoughts on the difference between “regeneration” and “renewing”?

Regeneration is about being born again, anew, from above and renewing is about starting anew, a new life, refreshing, so it is very like regeneration and may be part of the Hebraic habit repeating the same idea with slightly differing adjectives to describe it. Latin has a similar habit of piling on adjectives to add emphasis and importance to the concept being described.

I shall pause my reply here and return to the other passages later if you want me to. I do not want to write excessively long posts right now. I just finished my dinner and feel far too comfortable to write a lot more.

Could the baptism be a washing of repentance like what John the Baptist and Jesus preached while they walked the earth?
I am really just asking. I don’t have an answer off the top of my head.



Here is where we get into the exact same ‘literal’/‘spiritual’/‘symbolic’ debate as communion. Let’s face it, unless you practice total immersion and really hold them under a LONG time, the person’s death is not literal. So there must be some deeper meaning going on. We could discuss it, and even debate it, and we might even reach agreement ... but I doubt that I could get all of the other Credobaptist to agree with me and I suspect that you would also have trouble getting agreement from all Padeobaptists. So the best thing is to probably admit that different folks will disagree on this verse.



Maybe. I honestly can’t tell if it means those who have once been “baptized” or one been “saved”. For the sake of argument, let’s assume it means baptized.

[Heb 6:4-6 NASB] 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and [then] have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.​

I still think that Hebrews is speaking of a hypothetical case here and describing something that cannot actually happen (I know you disagree with Perseverance of the saints, but I still believe that He who began a good work in me will see it to completion).
In any event, does the Catholic Church forbid an adult that was baptized as an infant and fell deep into apostasy, to renew his faith and be baptized at Easter with the other new believers?

I am sure that someone who repented could find a person willing to baptize them, so the verse cannot mean that it is physically impossible to be (immersed/poured/sprinkled) twice? I agree it is wrong and unnecessary, but it is not a physical impossibility.



Good conclusion. Now let me throw a fly in your ointment. Both Baptists and Catholics acknowledge that a person can be saved, by God, WITHOUT water baptism. The obvious example from scripture is the Thief on the cross. The only person in the NT that we know for CERTAIN is in Heaven, was saved while dying on a cross and had no opportunity to get immersed or sprinkled. Beyond that, those on their death bed and unable to be baptized are still saved under Catholic teaching (and I only know this because it happens enough that you even gave it a name that I can’t remember). Baptists that I know would agree 100%.

I have seen a lot of verses that seem to link “believe” with “baptize”, but not so many verse that link “saved” with “baptized”. “Saved” seems to be linked more with “Faith” and “believe”. My personal favorite verse on getting saved ...

[Rom 10:8-10 NASB] 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.​

No mandatory baptism in water mentioned.

 

[Josiah]

You are right. There is no law against water baptizing anyone

Correct.


Nor any mandate that we must ONLY baptize those who have first in chronological time given statement that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.


Thus, Credobaptism is not found in the Bible. Nor in history. Nor in Tradiiton. Nor in the Councils. Nor in the Rule of Faith, nor ANYWHERE.... until the late 16th Century when some Anabaptist dreamed it up; it is an Anabaptist tradion (and that's all it is).


You have insisted repeatedly (it is your constant mantra, lol) that we MUST reject ANY and ALL views not stated in Scripture and ALL denomination tradition (that includes Baptist tradition). So, since you now agree this Dogma is not found in Scripture.... and is pure Baptist Tradition, what should we do with this Dogma of Credobaptism?


Atpollard has insisted we discuss the words of the Bible, and I agreed to that. He rejects many dogmas (such as the Assumption of Mary) because the proponents have not shown the Bible states it (noting he does not have to show it wrong with words of Scripture, they need to show it is right with words of Scripture; never in epistomology is it the task of others to prove a position wrong, it's the proponents task to prove it right), So, we are doing as he does. I'm doing as he has demanded: Limit all discussion to just one of the Baptist dogmas (and just one aspect of that), Credobaptism. And I agreed. Let's see what Scripture(s) he presents. Or perhaps his refusal to discuss continues. No matter what.





,

 

[Josiah]

@atpollard;


You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).

Let's try one more time:




I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nor is there a biblical mandate that one must show they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior in chronological time BEFORE the prohibition of baptism is for them lifted. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.


Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.


Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.

I asked for ONE point to discuss

Yes. After so many times insisting you would not discuss this, you said you would IF I obeyed your mandate that the discussion is limited to Scripture and to just ONE of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting and promoting, that of Credobaptism (and a narrow definition of that) - no other issues permitted. And I agreed. You further demanded - in order for you to discuss - that I start by giving my position on this dogma. And I did. 33 posts ago.

But you are still ignoring. I suppose we are all left to our own thoughts as to why. But I have (again) obeyed your mandates.




A blessed Easter Season to all...



- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

Yes. After so many times insisting you would not discuss this, you said you would IF I obeyed your mandate that the discussion is limited to Scripture and to just ONE of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting and promoting, that of Credobaptism (and a narrow definition of that) - no other issues permitted. And I agreed. You further demanded - in order for you to discuss - that I start by giving my position on this dogma. And I did. 33 posts ago.

But you are still ignoring. I suppose we are all left to our own thoughts as to why. But I have (again) obeyed your mandates.

I responded to YOUR post #451 in post # 460 and you can read post #460 to see what I posted. I asked for ONE point to discuss and you posted 3 things for me to respond to (two points in post #451 and a new point in post #452) and I only responded to one point ... the first point you made, the point about a minimum age for baptism.
You can either respond to post #460 or not as you please, but I have kept my word and I did not ignore you.

A blessed Easter Season to all...

It is hard when faced with so many false accusations.

 

[Josiah]

Post 452

You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).

Let's try one more time:


I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nor is there a biblical mandate that one must show they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior in chronological time BEFORE the prohibition of baptism is for them lifted. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.


Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.


Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.


.

Waiting.....


You DID decide to respond to ONE small part of this in your thread about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which you entitled about the Assumption of Mary), specifically referencing this post in this thread, but your reply had NOTHING to do with Credobaptism or any discussion of it, only comments about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

 

[atpollard]

I will note that you, like all of us, tend to add interpretation to our observation.
All I ask is for serious observation at this point. (Arsenios calls this "tedious.") The skill of inductive Bible study is the ability to observe, observe, observe. I had a professor give an assignment. He stated: "For the next class, I want 50 observations from John 3:16." It was one of the hardest assignments to try find 50 observations. I was reduced to observing a word, a preposition, a noun, etc. But, the process revealed that in order to really know something, you have to dig deep in observation. Any biologist knows this. If you want to know the inner workings of a muscle, you have to observe at many different levels before you can say you understand how the muscle functions. Macro down to micro. My quest is to have us work through that process.
Thank you for the initial observations. I will not respond to your interpretation, though others might.

I think I agree with Arsenios about this being "tedious"

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.​

Observation: Christ also suffered once for sins
Observation: the righteous for the unrighteous
Observation: that he might bring us to God
Observation: being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit
Observation: proclaimed to the spirits in prison
Observation: because they formerly did not obey
Observation: God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared
Observation: in which a few, that is, eight persons
Observation: brought safely through water
Observation: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you
Observation: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you
Observation: not as a removal of dirt from the body
Observation: as an appeal to God for a good conscience
Observation: through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Observation: who has gone
Observation: into heaven and is at the right hand of God
Observation: angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

 

[atpollard]

Post 452
Waiting.....

You DID decide to respond to ONE small part of this in your thread about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary (which you entitled about the Assumption of Mary), specifically referencing this post in this thread, but your reply had NOTHING to do with Credobaptism or any discussion of it, only comments about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

I asked for ONE point to discuss and you posted 3 things for me to respond to (two points in post #451 and a new point in post #452) and I only responded to one point ... the first point you made, the point about a minimum age for baptism.
I responded to YOUR post #451 in post # 460 and you can read post #460 to see what I posted.

You can either respond to post #460 or not as you please, but I have kept my word and I did not ignore you.

You can keep waiting, or you can respond to my post #460 which responded to your post #451. That's how conversations work. Back and forth, not "Answer THIS", "Now answer THIS", Now answer THIS".

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,


Your demand is that we must limit the discussion to just ONE of the baptist dogmas that you have been parroting and defending, and that ONLY as YOU define it: that of Credobaptism.

I did EVERYTHING you demanded of me in post 452.

You show how you will not respond.

We are left to wondering why.


Here is post 452 of this thread:

You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again, still again).



Let's try one more time:


I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nor is there a biblical mandate that one must show they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior in chronological time BEFORE the prohibition of baptism is for them lifted. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.


Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT
appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.


Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC
has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.



.

.

 

[MennoSota]

I think I agree with Arsenios about this being "tedious"

1 Peter 3:18-22 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.​

Observation: Christ also suffered once for sins
Observation: the righteous for the unrighteous
Observation: that he might bring us to God
Observation: being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit
Observation: proclaimed to the spirits in prison
Observation: because they formerly did not obey
Observation: God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared
Observation: in which a few, that is, eight persons
Observation: brought safely through water
Observation: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you
Observation: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you
Observation: not as a removal of dirt from the body
Observation: as an appeal to God for a good conscience
Observation: through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Observation: who has gone
Observation: into heaven and is at the right hand of God
Observation: angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Great. Once we have made observation after observation, we can then start asking questions about the observations we made. These questions can go on to be answered (This becomes our interpretation.). Once we answer those questions, we can then look at others who commented on that verse and see if they answered similarly or not. The saints can give us guidance and confirm or cause is to question our answers. Once we have done all that, we can make application.
When we use this process we can be confident in our position. If we choose to immediately interpret and apply, we risk a dangerous heresy and false teaching being presented, which may point people toward hell. Such a teaching is something God will hold us accountable for and that is a great responsibility.
May we be faithful and diligent to rightly divide the word of God.
(And yes, it is tedious. I believe John Calvin was a tedious man. [emoji41])

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], I notice you neglected to answer:

Josiah, is it good to teach parents and little children that they are saved by the water baptism they received as infants so that they have no change of life from the atheist or pagan living around them?
Would you go up to your neighbor and preach the gospel of "I will water baptize you and have faith for you. You don't need to have faith until you go through a church class on confirmation over the next decade. Until then, my faith that you are going to heaven, shown by my baptizing you, will be enough."???
Would you do that?
Josiah, there is no law that says you cannot do such a thing.
By what arbitrary measurement do you determine you can believe for one human but not for others? Do you just make it up in church counsel and determine that at the age of X the person can no longer be baptized unto salvation by another person having faith for them? What is that arbitrary age in your church? At what age must the person confess their own faith before you will baptize them? Is it 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, etc,? Or is a person baptized without expression of faith, by the faith of another person, at any age?
There is no law against it, Josiah? What arbitrary dogma have you created from outside of scripture?

Now, sticking with scripture, do you observe any pattern in baptism displayed in the Bible? Do you see any instance where another person having faith for someone else lead the Apostles to baptize the faithless person? I dare you to answer this last question with a yes or no. If yes, show scripture. If no, then explain how you came up with the arbitrary system that has no biblical evidence.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I see another wall of Josiah & Josiah replies

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, I notice you neglected to answer:

Quote me. I'm not sure what I posted that you are referring to. Just quote a post of mine or at least give the post number.

Atpollard has demanded that I stick exclusively to just ONE of the Baptists dogmas you guys are parroting and promoting, and I agreed to that (in this thread, anyway, lol), the dogma of Credobaptism.

See post 452 and also 484 for the other things on your list.




.

 

[Albion]

Please provide the specific verses showing a person having faith for another and the result being the non-believer is baptized. I confess I must have missed those verses that show baptism of a non-believer because a believer had faith for the non-believer.

Make your request be about the topic we were discussing, and I will respond.

 

[MennoSota]

Make your request be about the topic we were discussing, and I will respond.

Deflection.
I take your response as a cowardly attempt to avoid your weak position.
You are free to leave the thread.

 

[MennoSota]

Quote me. I'm not sure what I posted that you are referring to. Just quote a post of mine or at least give the post number.

Atpollard has demanded that I stick exclusively to just ONE of the Baptists dogmas you guys are parroting and promoting, and I agreed to that (in this thread, anyway, lol), the dogma of Credobaptism.

See post 452 and also 484 for the other things on your list.




.

Are you incapable of answering the question?
Josiah, is it good to teach parents and little children that they are saved by the water baptism they received as infants so that they have no change of life from the atheist or pagan living around them?
Would you go up to your neighbor and preach the gospel of "I will water baptize you and have faith for you. You don't need to have faith until you go through a church class on confirmation over the next decade. Until then, my faith that you are going to heaven, shown by my baptizing you, will be enough."???
Would you do that?
Josiah, there is no law that says you cannot do such a thing.
By what arbitrary measurement do you determine you can believe for one human but not for others? Do you just make it up in church counsel and determine that at the age of X the person can no longer be baptized unto salvation by another person having faith for them? What is that arbitrary age in your church? At what age must the person confess their own faith before you will baptize them? Is it 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, etc,? Or is a person baptized without expression of faith, by the faith of another person, at any age?
There is no law against it, Josiah? What arbitrary dogma have you created from outside of scripture?

Now, sticking with scripture, do you observe any pattern in baptism displayed in the Bible? Do you see any instance where another person having faith for someone else lead the Apostles to baptize the faithless person? I dare you to answer this last question with a yes or no. If yes, show scripture. If no, then explain how you came up with the arbitrary system that has no biblical evidence.

 

[atpollard]

I see another wall of Josiah & Josiah replies

My fault.
You were correct ... don't feed the trolls.

 

[atpollard]

You show how you will not respond.
We are left to wondering why
Here is post 452 of this thread:

Your answer about Credobaptism is IN post #460 :hand:
(you can stop wondering)

 

[Albion]

Deflection.
I take your response as a cowardly attempt to avoid your weak position.

I am sure that you do. It is predictable that you will say something unchristian every time you lose a debate.