the meaning of Baptism

[MennoSota]

Absurd. Come on, you don't believe that.

We should not say no to the Commands of God simply because we can't GUARENTEE that as a result someone is going to heaven. That's just absurd.

You seem to accept the inseparable and equal other part of The Great Commission, to teach. But is EVERY PERSON who has ever heard the Gospel promised to go to heaven? Of course not. Therefore, by your apologetic, we are forbidden to teach people. Come on! That's just absurd and you don't believe that. You seem to accept The Great Commandment, to love, but is every person who is loved THEREFORE PROMISED to go the heaven? Of course not. Your whole premise is absurd and something you don't believe.


You continue to ignore and simply bypass the obvious. You all insist those under the age of X can't believe, can't have the Holy Spirit and yet we've given you Luke 1:15 and Luke 1:41 but you just dismiss it. You insist that you all just accept Matthew 28:19-20 "AS IS" with "NOTHING added or deleted" and then prove (dramatically!) in black and white, that to support your view you have to ADD a bunch of stuff, in fact you have to ADD every single point of yours because it's not what Jesus said. But you just evade this and bypass the obvious.

You continue to insist we shouldn't go beyond what Scripture STATES but when asked where Scripture STATES your points, you ignore it - every time - for over 80 pages now. Where is the verse, "But thou shalt NOT baptize and teach those under the age of X!" "Those under the age of X cannot be given faith or the Holy Spirit!" "The Great Commission is a waste of time and can't accomplish anything!" You keep saying you only go by what the Bible states.... okay..... but you persistently refuse to give the references to Scriptures that state what you do. And you have to hugely change what the Bible does say to support your limitations.




.

Josiah, your conclusions on my position are entirely wrong and illogical. I cannot help you get this straightened out.
Matthew 28:19-20 is clear and simple. Why are you trying to force it to say something it doesn't say?

 

[Josiah]

Absurd. Come on, you don't believe that.

We should not say no to the Commands of God simply because we can't GUARENTEE that as a result someone is going to heaven. That's just absurd.

You seem to accept the inseparable and equal other part of The Great Commission, to teach. But is EVERY PERSON who has ever heard the Gospel promised to go to heaven? Of course not. Therefore, by your apologetic, we are forbidden to teach people. Come on! That's just absurd and you don't believe that. You seem to accept The Great Commandment, to love, but is every person who is loved THEREFORE PROMISED to go the heaven? Of course not. Your whole premise is absurd and something you don't believe.


You continue to ignore and simply bypass the obvious. You all insist those under the age of X can't believe, can't have the Holy Spirit and yet we've given you Luke 1:15 and Luke 1:41 but you just dismiss it. You insist that you all just accept Matthew 28:19-20 "AS IS" with "NOTHING added or deleted" and then prove (dramatically!) in black and white, that to support your view you have to ADD a bunch of stuff, in fact you have to ADD every single point of yours because it's not what Jesus said. But you just evade this and bypass the obvious.

You continue to insist we shouldn't go beyond what Scripture STATES but when asked where Scripture STATES your points, you ignore it - every time - for over 80 pages now. Where is the verse, "But thou shalt NOT baptize and teach those under the age of X!" "Those under the age of X cannot be given faith or the Holy Spirit!" "The Great Commission is a waste of time and can't accomplish anything!" You keep saying you only go by what the Bible states.... okay..... but you persistently refuse to give the references to Scriptures that state what you do. And you have to hugely change what the Bible does say to support your limitations.



.

Matthew 28:19-20 is clear and simple. Why are you trying to force it to say something it doesn't say?

Yes, you RADICALLY change the command, as you yourself dramatically proved. See post 774. All we need to do is put our curser over the reference... and note that all your dogmatic prohibitions and limitations are missing.... and all the things you persistently INSIST are there are.... well...... not, you all ADDED them. All of them. You proved it. You documented it. In black and white. You just keep ignoring and evading it. See post 774




And to your point that we are forbidden to do things unless there is some biblical promise someone will go to heaven as a result, well.... here too, you just ignored and evaded the replies.... Your point is bsurd. Come on, you don't believe that. See post 819

We should not say no to the Commands of God simply because we can't GUARENTEE that as a result someone is going to heaven. That's just absurd.

You seem to accept the inseparable and equal other part of The Great Commission, to teach. But is EVERY PERSON who has ever heard the Gospel promised to go to heaven? Of course not. Therefore, by your apologetic, we are forbidden to teach people. Come on! That's just absurd and you don't believe that. You seem to accept The Great Commandment, to love, but is every person who is loved THEREFORE PROMISED to go the heaven? Of course not. Your whole premise is absurd and something you don't believe.

You want to insist we can't apply the Great Commission to those under the age of X because there's no PROMISE that as a direct result, ALL who receive this are PROMISED to end up in heaven. That's absurd. You don't believe that with ANY other command (not even with the other parts of this command) because it's absurd.

So...No...we don't just baptize liberally with no concern for whether God has chosen to save them. If that is what you think, then go to your pool, start splashing and crying out, In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You, by your reading of the text would be fulfilling the great commission. (But, I don't think you'll do that. Why? You don't really believe your view?)

You insist we can only state what Scripture does.... okay....where is the verse "Thou canst go... baptize.... teach ONLY those who are the Elect of God!" Where does Scripture state that?

How do you know that God only elects people past the age of X? How do you KNOW who is and is not elect? Did Jesus and Paul ONLY minister to the Elect, did Jesus say to the multitudes, "Any non-elect people must now leave for I'm forbidden to minister to you!" True - the Means of Grace may not be effectual in the case of the non-elect (I know that's an uber-Calvinist position I'd never make - and something we can't discuss in this thread without hijacking it) but even uber-Calvinists don't insist what you do - that we are forbidden to minister to people unless they can first prove they are among the Elect. Calvinist missionaries went to Hawaii and preached to ALL (and baptized their babies!) never once demanding that all who could not prove their Elect status leave so as to not recieve their ministry. Come on, my esteemed friend. Your apologetic is not only nonsense, it's not Calvinist either. Because it's absurd.




Thank you.


- Josiah


.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, you RADICALLY change the command, as you yourself dramatically proved. See post 774. All we need to do is put our curser over the reference... and note that all your dogmatic prohibitions and limitations are missing.... and all the things you persistently INSIST are there are.... well...... not, you all ADDED them. All of them. You proved it. You documented it. In black and white. You just keep ignoring and evading it. See post 774




And to your point that we are forbidden to do things unless there is some biblical promise someone will go to heaven as a result, well.... here too, you just ignored and evaded the replies.... Your point is bsurd. Come on, you don't believe that. See post 819

We should not say no to the Commands of God simply because we can't GUARENTEE that as a result someone is going to heaven. That's just absurd.

You seem to accept the inseparable and equal other part of The Great Commission, to teach. But is EVERY PERSON who has ever heard the Gospel promised to go to heaven? Of course not. Therefore, by your apologetic, we are forbidden to teach people. Come on! That's just absurd and you don't believe that. You seem to accept The Great Commandment, to love, but is every person who is loved THEREFORE PROMISED to go the heaven? Of course not. Your whole premise is absurd and something you don't believe.

You want to insist we can't apply the Great Commission to those under the age of X because there's no PROMISE that as a direct result, ALL who receive this are PROMISED to end up in heaven. That's absurd. You don't believe that with ANY other command (not even with the other parts of this command) because it's absurd.







You insist we can only state what Scripture does.... okay....where is the verse "Thou canst go... baptize.... teach ONLY those who are the Elect of God!" Where does Scripture state that?

How do you know that God only elects people past the age of X? How do you KNOW who is and is not elect? Did Jesus and Paul ONLY minister to the Elect, did Jesus say to the multitudes, "Any non-elect people must now leave for I'm forbidden to minister to you!" True - the Means of Grace may not be effectual in the case of the non-elect (I know that's an uber-Calvinist position I'd never make - and something we can't discuss in this thread without hijacking it) but even uber-Calvinists don't insist what you do - that we are forbidden to minister to people unless they can first prove they are among the Elect. Calvinist missionaries went to Hawaii and preached to ALL (and baptized their babies!) never once demanding that all who could not prove their Elect status leave so as to not recieve their ministry. Come on, my esteemed friend. Your apologetic is not only nonsense, it's not Calvinist either. Because it's absurd.




Thank you.


- Josiah


.

Josiah I don't change the command at all. I let the text say what it says.
You delete "make disciples" from the text.
Everything else you repeat, ad naseum, is just something you have made up in your own mind and no one else says. You are stating what no one else states. Do you think repeating the same error on your part will eventually make it a true statement?

 

[user1234]

What's forbidden? Who's forbidding it? Names please.
You wanna get wet? Go ahead. You want your baby to get wet? Go ahead.
No one's stopping you. Jump in, splash around, have a ball.

Ppl do all kinds of things. Ppl teach all kinds of things. Ppl love their religion.
Some ppl are spending so much time trying to figure out how to get wet
in the waters of their religion, they forgot theyre supposed to drink it.

Sometimes it seems that when it comes to salvation,
some ppl are all wet, while others are dying of thirst.

:bishop2::rabbi::1zhelp::bishop1:reach:

 

[Josiah]

Josiah I don't change the command at all. I let the text say what it says.

No. Read post #774.

You RADICALLY changed it by ADDING several of your points, ADDING them because as you proved, as you yourself boldly documented, Jesus never said what you all do.

See post 774.


And again, you just ignored and evaded nearly all that was said to you....

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION]

What's forbidden? Who's forbidding it?

Several in this thread are saying we cannot baptize those under the age of X. Yes, SOME are saying we can - but then dogmatically insisting it's entirely ineffectual (and cannot be otherwise) BUT they do it anyway (as a matter of course) in response to God's command. They see it as an ordinance only (something we do because it's commanded).

I'm disagreeing primarily with the first group. And their persistent, dogmatic insistence that the Great Commission doesn't apply to those under X (and all their various reasons - which they INSIST persistently are all stated in Scripture but in 80+ pages haven't been able to find even one)


Yes, there are some who go... baptize.... teach and don't exclude those under the age of X BUT also insist such actually does nothing; they DO it (as a matter of course) in part because that IS the command of God... BUT see it as pretty much a waste of time. But that position has largely been absent in this very long thread. The persistent argument here is that we aren't to do that, it's not biblical, its wrong. We HAVE to exclude those under the age of X. Perhaps because those under that age are already justified, perhaps because those under that age render God impotent to bless, perhaps because those under that age CANNOT be given faith or the Spirit, perhaps because we cannot do anything to anyone unless there is proof they will be saved as a direct result of it, perhaps because water baptism doesn't exist anyone for anyone of any age, perhaps because the Bible forbids us to do anything unless the receiver proves he is among the Elect - all those (and more) reasons have been given in this thread. But the # 1 reason is: "The Bible does not specifically, verbatim STATE, "And this applies to those under the age of X and thus they are forbidden" (the last reason is the one I've especially addressed).

But I agree, there are two different issues: Whether we must exclude those under the age of X from baptism AND whether baptism is usable to God or not. They are two different issues. But I've particularly responded to those in the first group, who insist we shouldn't or cannot do it (and their reasons). The main participants are NOT those who regularly practice infant baptism (NOT excluding them) but perhaps see it as purely cultural, no, most of the active posters in this thread are people who don't do it and argue it shouldn't be done.

Follow me?



I HOPE that helps, my friend!


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

Here is the text.
Matthew 28:19-20
[19]Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[20]Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Here are the points:
1) Go
2 ) Make disciples
3 ) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
4) Teach the new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
5) I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Tell me...what have I radically changed?

 

[MennoSota]

Several in this thread are saying we cannot baptize those under the age of X.

Yes, SOME are saying we can - but then dogmatically insisting that the Bible states it's a waste of time, God cannot use it or do anything with it, its a command that's bad stewardship of time, but not expressly FORBIDDEN.

I'm disagreeing primarily with the first group. And their persistent, dogmatic insistence that the Great Commission doesn't apply to those under X (and all their various reasons - which they INSIST persistently are all stated in Scripture but in 80+ pages haven't been able to find even one)

Yes, there are some who go... baptize.... teach and don't exclude those under the age of X BUT also insist such actually does nothing; they DO it (as a matter of course) in part because that IS the command of God... BUT see it as pretty much a waste of time. But that position has largely been absent in this very long thread. The persistent argument here is that we aren't to do that, it's not biblical, its wrong. We HAVE to exclude those under the age of X. Perhaps because those under that age are already justified, perhaps because those under that age render God impotent to bless, perhaps because those under that age CANNOT be given faith or the Spirit, perhaps because we cannot do anything to anyone unless there is proof they will be saved as a direct result of it, perhaps because water baptism doesn't exist anyone for anyone of any age - all those (and more) reasons have been given in this thread. But the # 1 reason is: "The Bible does not specifically, verbatim STATE, "And this applies to those under the age of X" (the last reason is the one I've especially addressed).

But I agree, there are two different issues: Whether we must exclude those under the age of X from baptism AND whether baptism is usable to God or not. They are two different issues. But I've particularly responded to those in the first group, who insist we shouldn't or cannot do it (and their reasons). The main participants are NOT those who as course practice infant baptism (but perhaps see it as purely cultural), they are people who don't do it.



Thank you.


- Josiah

You have created a phantom X, Josiah.

 

[user1234]

Several? Whos the several?
Groups? How many? What groups.

You only re-quoted a small portion of my post.
If you want to get baptised in water or baptise your children, go ahead.
No one here is stopping you. :cheer:

 

[Josiah]

You have created a phantom X, Josiah.

Then you deny that "you all" stated any of these things in this thread? Can I conclude that you hold to NONE of those positions?

let me ask this: Does your church, as a matter of course, baptize babies? Perhaps consider this a worthless act on the part of the church, but you do it? Or it is not allowed? If a member of your church wanted their baby baptized, would they have to go to some other church for that?

 

[Josiah]

[Post 774]


[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


Let's see, you insist Jesus stated (adding nothing.... deleting nothing) Matthew 28:19-20: When we have made disciples, we baptize them in the name of the triune God. We then teach the disciples all that is in the scriptures You insist, "That's what we read in Matthew 28:19-20 because we ADD NOTHING." You stress we can't ADD or DELETE anything to the words Scripture states. And that "you all" don't add or subract ANYTHING.


But you PROVE you add MUCH.... while insisting, foundationally, you add nothing. All we need do is put our curser over Matthew 28:19-20 and read what Jesus actually said (doing as you insist - we ADD nothing at all, we SUBTRACT nothing at all) then compare it to what you claim He said "you all" read there: When we have made disciples, we baptize them in the name of the triune God. We then teach the disciples all that is in the scriptures" Did you add anything? Delete anything? Change anything?


You insist we ADD nothing at all. Then...

Remove the "then" you added.

Remove the "when" you added.

Remove the "new disciples" you added.


And for points "you all" made earlier in this thread by several....

Remove the "but thou canst NOT go... baptize.... teach.... if they are not yet X years old and have not previously documented and proven their born again status and justification... and if you do this you are denying God's grace, that Jesus ALONE saves and the soverignty of God."

Remove the "but don't use water or the word just immerse them under the Holy Spirit."

Remove the "God cannot use our going or baptizing or teaching."

Remove the "Those under the age of X don't need justification or forgiveness for they have no sin."

Remove the "We can't do anything unless the receivers prove they are among the Elect."


It seems to me you just proved you added a LOT (and subtracted plenty). I think all can see if you all have added or deleted anything, if your foundational argument - we must not ADD or DELETE anything is true or no, something "you all" do or not.




You asked, "Is there anything in the passage about infants?"

I didn't say there was, I also didn't say there's anything in it about gender or nationality or race or language or eye color or hair color or weight or IQ or education or citizenship; I'm not the one inserting a prohibition; I'm not the one inserting all these magical, invisible, dogmatic limitations, I'm not the one saying, "But thou canst NOT go... baptize... teach X".

Is there anything about infants? No, so where is your dogmatic insistence, "But thou canst NOT apply this to infants?" I'm putting my curser on Matthew 28:19-20 and I don't see those words. Maybe ADDED that.... YOU insisting on that, Jesus saying NO SUCH THING?

You hound MC for quoting MANY Scriptures and interpreting them in the historic, orthodox (and until the Anabaptist in the 16th Century) universal way, shouting "but does the verse ACTUALLY STATE THAT IN VERBATIM WORDS?" Well, I see a bit of Jesus' log/speck thing at work here.


Friend, one of the (few) other commands of Jesus to the Church is "The Great Commandment" Love, even as I first loved you. Now, to follow your apologetic, we are forbidden to love African Americans or Republicans or Canadians or women or dog owners because nowhere does the verse say we are to, it just says "love." Or the command to forgive the penitent, your apologetic would be "but not if they have blue eyes because it says nothing about folks with blue eyes!" Friend, IMO, it would be you adding and deleting from the text. I think your premise, your apologetic is faulty.... in fact, it's the identical thing you are accusing MC of doing.



You asked, "Is there anything about regeneration via baptism?"

It does connect making believers, going, baptizing and teaching...... And of course Scripture tells us "Baptism now saves you." But you all have tried to change the issue to whether the means of grace ALWAYS results in receiving faith and justification - a point I've never made.

Is there anything about what "you all" have insisted? "Going... baptizing... teaching.... is a waste of time, of no spiritual value.... these cannot be used by God and cannot have any benefit from God.... doing as commanded denies the Grace of God and the teaching that Christ alone saves and the soverignty of God" and all the other things "you all" have stated in this thread and elsewhere?

Is there anything about "but thou canst go, baptize and teach unless and until said recipient is over the age of X and has attained X level of eduation and has documented his/her born again status and justification? You know, as has been argued in this thread?




You posted: Just stick with what is being said by Jesus.

I'm okay with that. But with what he said, not the many radical additions you insist on inserting and all the limitations and prohibitions and exclusions "you all" insist on making.

Let's see where Jesus said, "Baptism does nothing for those under that age of X." Lets' see where Jesus said, "Thou canst JOT apply the Great Commission to those under the age of X." Let's see where Jesus said, "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone who hasn't proven to be among the Elect." "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it promises the receiver will go to heaven." You know, what you've been insisting.




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

 

[user1234]

Then you deny that "you all" stated any of these things in this thread? Can I conclude that you hold to NONE of those positions?

let me ask this: Does your church, as a matter of course, baptize babies? Perhaps consider this a worthless act on the part of the church, but you do it? Or it is not allowed? If a member of your church wanted their baby baptized, would they have to go to some other church for that?

Can we get ppl here to specify WATER-baptism when that's what they mean?
If a question gets asked about 'baptized' it would help to know what is meant to avoid someone being accused of going against the bible.

Meanwhile, if in your Q you mean Water, I would answer by asking the person 'Why do you want to baptize your baby in water?'

I attend at least 2 diff churches on a regulat basis, and they are very diff in both doctrine and practice. One baptizes babies (it's not clear to me why).
The other does not, but for saved believers that want to dedicate a child, they do that.
Not because it saves the child, but as a public testimony that they intend to raise their child as the bible teaches, as folks who believe in Jesus.

 

[MennoSota]

Then you deny that "you all" stated any of these things in this thread? Can I conclude that you hold to NONE of those positions?

let me ask this: Does your church, as a matter of course, baptize babies? Perhaps consider this a worthless act on the part of the church, but you do it? Or it is not allowed? If a member of your church wanted their baby baptized, would they have to go to some other church for that?

There is a phantom you all as well. I really don't know what the you all is referring to. You can keep saying go back to #774 or whatever, but I don't know what you are talking about.
Please address where I change the text in Matthew 28:19-20.

 

[user1234]

I keep seeing the words groups, many, several, yet when asked who all these groups, many, several are, there's no specific answer. And I keep seeing the words 'you all' but its only being addressed to the same one person. (Who's up for a 'mini-vacation'?)
Who are the 'you all' ? Who are the several?

 

[MennoSota]

[Post 774]


[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]


Let's see, you insist Jesus stated (adding nothing.... deleting nothing) Matthew 28:19-20: When we have made disciples, we baptize them in the name of the triune God. We then teach the disciples all that is in the scriptures You insist, "That's what we read in Matthew 28:19-20 because we ADD NOTHING." You stress we can't ADD or DELETE anything to the words Scripture states. And that "you all" don't add or subract ANYTHING.


But you PROVE you add MUCH.... while insisting, foundationally, you add nothing. All we need do is put our curser over Matthew 28:19-20 and read what Jesus actually said (doing as you insist - we ADD nothing at all, we SUBTRACT nothing at all) then compare it to what you claim He said "you all" read there: When we have made disciples, we baptize them in the name of the triune God. We then teach the disciples all that is in the scriptures" Did you add anything? Delete anything? Change anything?


You insist we ADD nothing at all. Then...

Remove the "then" you added.

Remove the "when" you added.

Remove the "new disciples" you added.


And for points "you all" made earlier in this thread by several....

Remove the "but thou canst NOT go... baptize.... teach.... if they are not yet X years old and have not previously documented and proven their born again status and justification... and if you do this you are denying God's grace, that Jesus ALONE saves and the soverignty of God."

Remove the "but don't use water or the word just immerse them under the Holy Spirit."

Remove the "God cannot use our going or baptizing or teaching."

Remove the "Those under the age of X don't need justification or forgiveness for they have no sin."

Remove the "We can't do anything unless the receivers prove they are among the Elect."


It seems to me you just proved you added a LOT (and subtracted plenty). I think all can see if you all have added or deleted anything, if your foundational argument - we must not ADD or DELETE anything is true or no, something "you all" do or not.




You asked, "Is there anything in the passage about infants?"

I didn't say there was, I also didn't say there's anything in it about gender or nationality or race or language or eye color or hair color or weight or IQ or education or citizenship; I'm not the one inserting a prohibition; I'm not the one inserting all these magical, invisible, dogmatic limitations, I'm not the one saying, "But thou canst NOT go... baptize... teach X".

Is there anything about infants? No, so where is your dogmatic insistence, "But thou canst NOT apply this to infants?" I'm putting my curser on Matthew 28:19-20 and I don't see those words. Maybe ADDED that.... YOU insisting on that, Jesus saying NO SUCH THING?

You hound MC for quoting MANY Scriptures and interpreting them in the historic, orthodox (and until the Anabaptist in the 16th Century) universal way, shouting "but does the verse ACTUALLY STATE THAT IN VERBATIM WORDS?" Well, I see a bit of Jesus' log/speck thing at work here.


Friend, one of the (few) other commands of Jesus to the Church is "The Great Commandment" Love, even as I first loved you. Now, to follow your apologetic, we are forbidden to love African Americans or Republicans or Canadians or women or dog owners because nowhere does the verse say we are to, it just says "love." Or the command to forgive the penitent, your apologetic would be "but not if they have blue eyes because it says nothing about folks with blue eyes!" Friend, IMO, it would be you adding and deleting from the text. I think your premise, your apologetic is faulty.... in fact, it's the identical thing you are accusing MC of doing.



You asked, "Is there anything about regeneration via baptism?"

It does connect making believers, going, baptizing and teaching...... And of course Scripture tells us "Baptism now saves you." But you all have tried to change the issue to whether the means of grace ALWAYS results in receiving faith and justification - a point I've never made.

Is there anything about what "you all" have insisted? "Going... baptizing... teaching.... is a waste of time, of no spiritual value.... these cannot be used by God and cannot have any benefit from God.... doing as commanded denies the Grace of God and the teaching that Christ alone saves and the soverignty of God" and all the other things "you all" have stated in this thread and elsewhere?

Is there anything about "but thou canst go, baptize and teach unless and until said recipient is over the age of X and has attained X level of eduation and has documented his/her born again status and justification? You know, as has been argued in this thread?




You posted: Just stick with what is being said by Jesus.

I'm okay with that. But with what he said, not the many radical additions you insist on inserting and all the limitations and prohibitions and exclusions "you all" insist on making.

Let's see where Jesus said, "Baptism does nothing for those under that age of X." Lets' see where Jesus said, "Thou canst JOT apply the Great Commission to those under the age of X." Let's see where Jesus said, "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone who hasn't proven to be among the Elect." "Thou canst NOT do anything unless it promises the receiver will go to heaven." You know, what you've been insisting.




Thank you.


- Josiah




.

LOL, you mean your contention is that I interpret a specific phrase?!
Please break down how my statement changes the entirety of Matthew 28:19-20. I am looking forward to how I change what Jesus meant.

 

[MennoSota]

Bump

Here is the text.
Matthew 28:19-20
[19]Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
[20]Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Here are the points:
1) Go
2 ) Make disciples
3 ) Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
4) Teach the new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.
5) I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Tell me...what have I radically changed?

@ Josiah, please show me where I add or subtract from the text so that I change the meaning Jesus is conveying.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

Also, for [MENTION=333]Snerfle[/MENTION] just to convey my perspective on the "discussion" with MennoSota in hopes she better understands such... and [MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION] whom I reference and who has had the wisdom to depart this thread.....

Please address where I change the text in Matthew 28:19-20.

Put your curser over Matthew 28:19-20. Read the verbatim words.

Now read what you posted it says, "adding nothing, deleting nothing, just accepting the words as stated and nothing more or less" : When we have made disciples, we baptize them in the name of the triune God. We then teach the disciples all that is in the scriptures Did you add anything? Delete anything? Change anything?

Copy/paste the words of Matthew 28:19-20. Then (without adding or deleting ANYTHING) please embolden and underline each of the following words: Then, When, New.

And for points made earlier in this thread by several, please also underline and embolden these phrases in the quote, all points made in this thread:

"but thou canst NOT go... baptize.... teach.... if they are not yet X years old and have not previously documented and proven their born again status and justification... and if you do this you are denying God's grace, that Jesus ALONE saves and the soverignty of God."

"but don't use water or the word just immerse them under the Holy Spirit."

"God cannot use our going or baptizing or teaching if the receiver is under the age of X"

"Those under the age of X don't need anything from God because they have no sin."

"We can't do anything unless the receivers prove they are among the Elect."

"But this is meaningless unless we have promise that the receiver will as a direct result go to heaven"

Let's see if anything has been added to what Jesus said...... if "you all" are adding or deleting anything.


You hounded (IMO) MoreCoffee because he shared MANY Scriptures (far more than you) and said interpretation is needed - and went on to accurately share in each case the orthodox, traditional (and until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century) universal interpretation. Which you dismissed because "Where did Jesus SPECIFICALLY state that?" Seems to me, reading your posts (and some of others) that a strong illustration of Jesus' Log/Speck thing is being made.

But what is frustrating is that, esteemed friend, you seem to think this is your private blog, you ADMIT to not reading posts to you (to refusing conversation and discussion, to dismissing other's views). You indicated I have to convey EVERYTHING in 2 bullet points because you don't want to read more than that from me (I've gotten the impression you don't even read that). And I feel that you're playing "the shell game" - every time something you said is addressed, you evade it and change the subject (then seem to forget you even said those things earlier in the thread).


Friend, this is not anyone's private blog. It's a DISCUSSION forum, for CONVERSATIONS. And if you state something quite dogmatic (as you have MANY things in this thread) - you need to accept there may be disagreements, challenges, questions. And if YOU YOURSELF set up a limitation for any discussions with you (such as your "I only go by the WORDS on the page - NOTHING added or deleted") then you can't rebuke people by holding you to what you demanded.


I realize I've gone beyond my allowed "two bullet points" with you... but IMO you raised a VERY valid and good point: People have ADDED (and often deleted) a whole bunch to what is actually said in this regard. You've (sometimes rudely) accused MoreCoffee of that - and you're not altogether wrong. But what you fail to acknowledge, what you fail to "see" is that you do it at least as much as anyone else. And your PASSION for this has not only resulted in a "closed mind" here but in some very uncharacteristic poor treatment of others. I WISH, my esteemed friend, you would back off enough to see that. I like you. I respect you. I usually really agree with you, lol. I think you bring a LOT of insight to this forum and I like the zeal and passion and concern you bring! I just think on THIS issue, you need to back up and get some perspective...... And I think you need to embrace that this is a discussion forum, for conversations...... if you cannot/will not read what others say (unless they do so in two bullet points or less - and will be ignored anyway)...then we're not having a discussion. I've repeatedly suggested you take a leave from THIS thread - find some others to engage in.


Blessings to you, friend...


- Josiah




.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's a slew of verses where the English word baptism is used. Must all these verses be referencing water as the one and only baptism God ever uses? Must we force water upon every use of the word baptism?
How might we know when water is being used and when it is not mentioned?
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-baptism/

 

[MennoSota]

There is no conceptual change. There are changes in my words. Have you ever heard of the Amplified Version of the Bible?
Again, how do I change the meaning of Matthew 28:19-20?
I don't think you can find anything where I "radically" change anything that Jesus says.
What I have rightly pointed out is that you purposefully remove "make disciples" from the text when you quote it. THAT is a radical change by the way.

 

[MennoSota]

Put your curser over Matthew 28:19-20. Read the verbatim words.

Now read what you posted it says, "adding nothing, deleting nothing, just accepting the words as stated and nothing more or less" : When we have made disciples, we baptize them in the name of the triune God. We then teach the disciples all that is in the scriptures Did you add anything? Delete anything? Change anything?

Copy/paste the words of Matthew 28:19-20. Then (without adding or deleting ANYTHING) please embolden and underline each of the following words: Then, When, New.

And for points made earlier in this thread by several, please also underline and embolden these phrases in the quote:

"but thou canst NOT go... baptize.... teach.... if they are not yet X years old and have not previously documented and proven their born again status and justification... and if you do this you are denying God's grace, that Jesus ALONE saves and the soverignty of God."

"but don't use water or the word just immerse them under the Holy Spirit."

"God cannot use our going or baptizing or teaching if the receiver is under the age of X"

"Those under the age of X don't need anything from God because they have no sin."

"We can't do anything unless the receivers prove they are among the Elect."

"But this is meaningless unless we have promise that the receiver will as a direct result go to heaven"

Let's see if anything has been added to what Jesus said...... if "you all" are adding or deleting anything.


You hounded (IMO) MoreCoffee because he shared MANY Scriptures (far more than you) and said interpretation is needed - and went on to accurately share in each case the orthodox, traditional (and until the Anabaptist denomination was invented in the 16th Century) universal interpretation. Which you dismissed because "Where did Jesus SPECIFICALLY state that?" Seems to me, reading your posts (and some of others) that a strong illustration of Jesus' Log/Speck thing is being made.

But what is frustrating is that, esteemed friend, you seem to think this is your private blog, you ADMIT to not reading posts to you (to refusing conversation and discussion, to dismissing other's views). You indicated I have to convey EVERYTHING in 2 bullet points because you don't want to read more than that from me (I've gotten the impression you don't even read that). And I feel that you're playing "the shell game" - every time something you said is addressed, you evade it and change the subject (then seem to forget you even said those things earlier in the thread).


Friend, this is not anyone's private blog. It's a DISCUSSION forum, for CONVERSATIONS. And if you state something quite dogmatic (as you have MANY things in this thread) - you need to accept there may be disagreements, challenges, questions. And if YOU YOURSELF set up a limitation for any discussions with you (such as your "I only go by the WORDS on the page - NOTHING added or deleted") then you can't rebuke people by holding you to what you demanded.


I realize I've gone beyond my allowed "two bullet points" with you... but IMO you raised a VERY valid and good point: People have ADDED (and often deleted) a whole bunch to what is actually said in this regard. You've (sometimes rudely) accused MoreCoffee of that - and you're not altogether wrong. But what you fail to acknowledge, what you fail to "see" is that you do it at least as much as anyone else. And your PASSION for this has not only resulted in a "closed mind" here but in some very uncharacteristic poor treatment of others. I WISH, my esteemed friend, you would back off enough to see that. I like you. I respect you. I usually really agree with you, lol. I think you bring a LOT of insight to this forum and I like the zeal and passion and concern you bring! I just think on THIS issue, you need to back up and get some perspective...... And I think you need to embrace that this is a discussion forum, for conversations...... if you cannot/will not read what others say (unless they do so in two bullet points or less - and will be ignored anyway)...then we're not having a discussion. I've repeatedly suggested you take a leave from THIS thread - find some others to engage in.


- Josiah



.

Josiah I am addressing baptism. You are attacking me. Who do think should take a break?