1. That synergistic argument only works for Anabaptists, not for those who don't forbid children from recieving baptism and teaching. Your argument only works for those who believe that baptism is something a person must do to contribute their part and who deny that God simply blesses by grace.
2. Friend, baptism is PASSIVE - the one blessed doesn't do anything (heck, I wasn't even breathing) - the very point that bothers the "must be over X years old" crowd is that the receiver doesn't DO anything for God. Well.... you can't have it both ways, you can't claim that the little baby who is sleeping through the whole thing is contributing to their salvation AND is not able to contribute to their own salvation.
3. No one says that a person must RECEIVE baptism in order for God to save them.
4. True, the one administering the baptism is doing something. But then that's true for teaching, too. So are you forbidding any to teach those under the age of "X" because the teacher has to DO something in order to teach? Friend, synergism says the RECEIVER must do stuff to contribute to their own salvation, that salvation is not by grace but by their own works such as deciding or saying the "sinner's prayer" or responding to an altar call or loving or giving God the steering wheel of their life - friend THOSE are the folks who are going to reject infant baptism because, as they shout endlessly and constantly, "How can a baby DO _______?" The theology is the receiver has to DO something in order for God to save and bless them. It's called synergism in theology.
He is. As He did with John the Baptist still in the womb of Elizabeth. But God never commanded believers to just trust that He'd save folks without ministry, He commanded us to GO and BAPTIZE and TEACH.
If you believe that God can grant faith apart from baptizing and teaching, then why deny that He can grant faith via Baptism? It's seem illogical to argue God is all soverign and powerful but is rendered impotent by any under the age of "X".
Well, that's an opinion..... one in direct conflict with the faith of nearly every Christian for over 1500 years.
I just wonder why Baptism would be placed equally with teaching in the Great Commission, that two things were put into the Great Commission (BAPTISM and teaching), that Baptism was SO very, very important in the NTand until Anabaptist came along, if it's a waste of time and water, doing nothing, having no value (except getting someone a little bit wet). And that verse, "Baptism now saves you" being thus misleading. Odd, I think. Beyond curious. But textually POSSIBLE, I guess, it could be that Jesus and the everyone in the Bible put SO much emphasis on something of "no value" (according to you).
Then by your argument, the Great Commission is "heretical" (to use your word) since it's directed to Christians to DO things for others.....
No, as you well know, synergism is about the RECEIVER, about what the one who isn't saved must do to be saved. It has nothing to do with what God does to bless them or what OTHERS do as commanded by God and as agents of God. See points 2 and 4 in what I posted to you.
The fundamental argument from the "You are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X" crowd is: "The baby can't do _________." Thus their premise, that the RECEIVER has to do things in order for God to bless them; it's not grace but works they insist and since the baby can't work they can't be the objects of the Great Commission.
Then you reject the work of Christ on the Cross since work HE did blesses us. You just renounced the very basis of Christianity, my friend. I'm sure you don't believe that!!!!
You also just made the Great Commission wrong, because Jesus tells Christians to "GO" (that means we are to do things for others).... TEACH (that's active on our part)...... BAPTIZE (that's active on our part). All verbs that Jesus commands believers to do for others. Yes, as with Christ, God often blesses people through what OTHERS do (consider Jesus...... we'd have no salvation without what He did FOR us). Now, the Great Commission is NOT, "the receiver must dunk himself in water and teach himself about Christianity." Come on, friend.
But you're twisting synergism upside down. As you well know, synergism says the RECEIVER must do x,y,z in order for God to save them. You've reversed it. Monergism says that GOD does it, and yes it does involve things done by people (Jesus, for example). By your argument, it would be wrong to preach Christ, to teach Christianity; indeed Jesus was wrong for dying FOR us. Reconsider that, my brother and friend....
So what?
1. I don't accept the rubric that the teaching of the Bible is irrelevant, only the traditions/examples found in the Bible. Thus, with all due respect, your question is irrelevant. You think so too, I strongly suspect. Can you find even one example in the Bible of posting at a website on the internet? Yet you are doing so. Can you find even one case of a church using electricity or powerpoint? Even one example of a youth group? Even one example of people passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little cups of Welch's Grape Juice? Friend, probably 99% of what your congregation does is not seen anywhere in the Bible. And can you find even one example in the Bible of an African-American or Hispanic or Korean being baptized? One example of a Gentile administering baptism? Did the congregation in Corinth have a website, a parking lot? Did they have a youth group and Sunday School? Did they use electricity? Did the preacher wear jeans and a Ahola shirt and use a mic? Did he hold a floppy, leather cover KJV Bible while he preached? Did it pass around grape juice and white bread for Communion? I'm being foolish but I'm SURE you see my point. With all due respect, I think you too reject your rubric; I don't think you believe your own premise.
2. We have a FEW examples of baptisms in the Bible. Probably fewer than 0.00000001% of the ones done in the First Century (a pretty small sample). And yes, it seems MOST of the very, very, very few examples of Baptism that happen to be recorded in the NT
do seem to be of those past the never-disclosed age of "X." But not all of them. In some cases, it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the age of those being baptized. For example, we're told that "all in her household" were baptized - with no hint as to the respective ages of each and whether each had celebrated their "X" birthday. True, I can't point to an example that states, "And this person had not yet celebrated their "X" birthday." But then you can't find an example of a Korean or Native American or Italian or German being baptized but that doesn't stop you. And you can't show that even the tiny number of examples in the Bible were all over the age of X.
3. Remember: I'm not the one adding a RESTRICTION on the Great Commission that everyone realizes isn't there. I'm not the one trying to defend adding a restriction to Jesus' command to go... baptize.... teach. What's missing in Scripture is "but you are forbidden from going, baptizing, teaching those under the age of X."
Pax Christi
- Josiah
.
) who are trusting in their infant baptism and confirmation classes as their certificate of salvation when their life displays no such adoption or reconciliation with Christ. They have substituted their works as the means for salvation and have never known God's grace.
) who are trusting in their infant baptism and confirmation classes as their certificate of salvation when their life displays no such adoption or reconciliation with Christ. They have substituted their works as the means for salvation and have never known God's grace.