the meaning of Baptism

[MennoSota]

True, but they were both circumcised according to the Law. Their parents were obedient to the Commandment

Where is the Covenant commandment for Christians to baptize their infants.
(Please, no argument from silence. I get enough of that from atheists, I don't need Christians using the same tactic.)

 

[MennoSota]

Is it that it's not clear to you why, or that you disagree as to why it's done? I think it's been well explained in many threads why certain churches perform infant baptism.

It has not been explained biblically. The argument is from silence and then the person says that silence equals God's approval.

 

[MennoSota]

Both Jesus and John were circumcised as infants. Circumcision made them part of the people of Israel. Without it they would have been cut off from the people (it is a play on words).

They would not have been cut off from God, however.
Where is the Covenant command to baptize infants?

 

[MennoSota]

Baptism does what circumcision use to do.

There is NO scripture for this statement, however.
Just saying something does not make it true. If it did then atheist who claim the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a solid argument.

 

[MennoSota]

Baptism does what circumcision use to do.



Baptism also does more than circumcision used to do.

Except you have no biblical support.

 

[MennoSota]

It's baptism. It is with water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It saves (1Peter 3:21). It washes away sins (Acts 22:16). It regenerates and renews in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). It unites to Christ and brings about death to sin and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:3-9). These are the things baptism does. The holy scriptures say so.

No matter how many times you misuse those Bible verses, it doesn't make your assertion true.

 

[MennoSota]

Only God's works. None that are human. Yet human beings do things do they not? Anyway Baptism is with water and the Spirit (John 3:5). It saves (1Peter 3:21). It washes away sins (Acts 22:16). It regenerates and renews in the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). It unites to Christ and brings about death to sin and resurrection with Christ (Romans 6:3-9). These are the things baptism does. The holy scriptures say so.

Nope. Misused scripture as a prooftext does not make your assertion true.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=378]Imalive[/MENTION]





Friend.... respectfully.....


No one baptizes themself.

Can God do this? Is God rendered impotent in the case of those under the age of X? Why is God incapable to bless a child, why is God unable to do that?

The Great Commission to "go.... baptize.....teach......" was given to CHRISTIANS, to living, regenerate, born-again, believers. The Commission is not given to babies to go to and baptize and teach themselves. Or to 45 year olds. WE are to baptize. Don't loose sense of who is active and who is passive in this.






John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and faith before he was even born..... God was able to give him faith and the Holy Spirit, God was not impotent by youth there. Why would God be impotent regarding children now?






1. Remember, the Greek word "kai" (and) - just like the English word "and" - simply is a connector, it connects things. It is NO WAY WHATSOEVER mandates or even implies order or sequence. "I have a mother and a father" doesn't mean my mother is older or I got a mother before I got a father. It is wrong to delete the word in the text ("and") then replace it with an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning (such as "then"). That's not permitted in hermaneutics.


2. John the Baptist could be given faith and the Holy Spirit..... while still in the womb. Why didn't John (not yet born) render God impotent to bless?


3. "Repent" is an act of faith. Repent comes AFTER being given faith and the Holy Spirit because it's an act of faith moved by the Spirit. "Repent" is not the same thing as remorse. Remorse is NOT spiritual (even your pet feels remorse!), remorse is a psychological thing that has NOTHING to do with God or faith or the Spirit or Christ or religion. The verse you note isn't calling for remorse but for repentance. Repent means 1) Embracing God's Law and the Authority of such, there's an acknowledgement that self has "missed the mark, fallen short of God's standard" (which is the literal meaning of "sin" - to miss the mark, fall short of the target). 2) Stopping this behavior because it violates God's will. 3) Turning to God's mercy and grace, seeking in such forgiveness. 4) Embracing the power of the Holy Spirit, walking in a new way. Unbelieving, unregenerate, atheist, DEAD people can't and won't do that, not because they are too young but because they are DEAD, they are unbelieving, unregenerate, atheists who reject God's existence, mercy, grace, forgiveness, authority, Spirit and Law.


4. The "and" here is doing the only thing the word can do, it's connecting things. There are LOTS of things God desires, LOTS of thing God calls people (generally LIVING people to do) - and the word "kai" connects these. The word is "AND" which cannot be deleted and replaced with "then." This verse by no means is saying DEAD people must repent and THEN, after that's all done, THEN they may be blessed by God, THEN God is no longer rendered impotent to bless.


5. The Bible says, NO ONE is capable of even saying "Jesus is Lord" (as a statement of faith) unless the Holy Spirit causes such. NO ONE. Is even CAPABLE. It doesn't say, "Those under the age of X render God impotent to bless." "Those under the age of X make the Holy Spirit incapable of giving them faith." It says NO ONE. NONE. That means not John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb) AND it also means a 45 year old with an IQ of 200 and 6 doctorate degrees who has memorized every word in the Bible. NO ONE. The Holy Spirit enlivens. The physically DEAD don't give themselves physical life.... the spiritually DEAD don't give themselves spiritual life. The DEAD can't do a whole lot (well, good anyway, lol). So, while I agree that John the Baptist still in the womb couldn't give himself faith, spiritual life and regeneration.... the Bible says NO ONE can.



Thank you!


- Josiah




.

God can choose to reveal his elect at any time in life. No human can force God to elect them by virtue of their infant baptism. Thus, the infant baptism is worthless to the child and merely a placebo to the adults in attendance.

 

[MennoSota]

I'd like to see a show of hands of who all believes that the Word of God has the capability to penetrate an adult and give him faith but not a little infant who has yet to have that fight within him that a grown man has because here's the deal on all this baptism and when you get down to it it's about if you are believing God can work through His Word or not. If God's Word is all powerful then wow you know He could easily give faith to a baby and there wouldn't be any arguments against infant baptism but hey if you are the kind of person who has a weak viewpoint on what God's Word is capable of then you don't trust it to effect a cause within anyone because an infant would be sooooooooo much easier than some experienced sinful adult. Show of hands now as I request who believes that God's Word can penetrate an adult but not an infant or is it you're just needing proof of faith being given because you don't trust His Word is allive and active and effects what it says it can do? yo

God says that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. Does anyone really think they can sneak someone in that isn't on the list by baptizing them at any age?

 

[Imalive]

No matter how many times you misuse those Bible verses, it doesn't make your assertion true.

I think it does, but not the literal water, God is the water, fountain that cleanses us.

Zechariah 13:1
1 “In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity.

This imply that this fountain will be used for the purification of sin and impurity. The Hebrew word “maqor” is used here, meaning a source:

5227 מָקוֹר (mā·qôr): n.masc.; ≡ Str 4726; TWOT 2004a— 1. LN 47.1–47.7 flow, i.e., that which is a movement of a mass of liquid or fluid (Lev 12:7+); 2. LN 80.5–80.7 source, i.e., that which is the spatial beginning of a direction or path (Lev 20:18+); 3. LN 68.1–68.10 source, formally, fountain, i.e., that which is the origin or beginning of a state or time (Ps 36:10[EB 9]; Pr 10:11; 13:14; 14:27; 16:22; 18:4+); 4. LN 1.69–1.78 well, spring, fountain, i.e., a relatively small body of water on the surface or just below ground, with the associative meanings of life and cleansing associated with clean water (Pr 5:18; 25:26; Jer 2:13; 17:13; 51:36; Hos 13:15; Zec 13:1+); 5. LN 11.12–11.54 assembly, formally, fountain, i.e., a socio-religious group, as a figurative extension of a pool of fresh water (Ps 68:27[EB 26]+); 6. LN 59.11–59.22 much, formally, fountain, i.e., a relatively great quantity of a mass as a figurative extension of a fountain as a body of water (Jer 8:23[EB 9:1]+1
Wait a minute, we see here that this fountain is the source, and this source of living water is for taking away impurity AND sin. This is more profound than you probably realize… is this really a physical fountain?

YHVH, our hope, the source of living water

Let us just go a few steps back. Where in Scripture do we get other references about a fountain? YHVH calls Himself the fountain of living waters. Nahal David_small

Jeremiah 2:13
13 “For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water.

YHVH is the fountain, the source of living water. He cleanses us from our sin; we are not cleansed by our works. Wait, there is even more…

Jeremiah 17:13
13 O YHVH, the hope of Israel, All who forsake You will be put to shame. Those who turn away on earth will be written down, Because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even YHVH.

Do you see this? Do you know which Hebrew word was translated as “hope?” It is “miqwah!” YHVH is the hope (miqwah in Hebrew); He is also the fountain (source) of living water. So every time we immerse ourselves in water, it is symbolic of how YHVH purifies us. This is indeed very profound! YHVH is our mikvah! He cleanses and purifies us! It is not our act of immersing ourselves that cleanses us, this act is only symbolic of YHVH cleansing us!

http://www.setapartpeople.com/mikvah...tual-cleansing

 

[Josiah]

Our friends MoreCoffee and MennoSota on this topic....


I think that MoreCoffee has accurately quoted and referenced MANY relevant Scriptures. He has admitted interpretation is appropriate and has applied the classic, traditional, and until the Anabaptist Denomination came along in the 16th Century, universal interpretation (and still that of the overwhelming majority of Christians) in this matter. It could be said that MoreCoffee is sharing the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. perspective - and he is. People of course may disagree but that doesn't mean he is NOT in looking to Scripture.

I think that MennoSota has accurately quoted and reference Scriptures (fewer than MC but that's irrelevant). He has often insisted all (including himself) not ADD or SUBTRACT a word that Scripture specifically states but has consistently done just that (in what actually IS exactly what MoreCoffee is doing - interpreting the words, identical thing MC is doing). One can say MennoSota is giving the new Anabaptist perspective - and he is . People may disagree the view he is presented but that doesn't mean he is NOT looking to Scripture.


In my opinon - they are doing the identical same thing. One (MoreCoffee) is simply being honest and admitting there's interpretation going on, whereas our friend MennoSota CLAIMS he is just echoing the words in the Bible adding or subtracting nothing - but he's doing at least as much interpreting as MC is. MoreCoffee is giving the historic, traditional, orthodox (and until the 16th Century) universal view/perspective (still the majority one) which obviously could be right and could be wrong. MenneSota is giving the new view of the Anabaptists (which on this point has been embraced by some modern "Evangelicals") which obviously could be right and could be wrong. Both are interpreting. Both are accurately conveying the perspective of different denominations, both echoing that quite accurately. Neither is being insincere, neither is neglecting or ignoring Scripture.

They are very much the same. But with different views being passionately presented.

It seems to me that MoreCoffee realizes this - and is simply disagreeing with MennoSota. But that's not mutual.


My perspective....


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

God says that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. Does anyone really think they can sneak someone in that isn't on the list by baptizing them at any age?

No one has.


On the other hand, since NO ONE can know if an unbeliever is among the elect or not, on what basis do you decide whom you will love, reach out to, present the Gospel to? And which you are forbidden to apply the Great Commanded to? As your minister looks down from the pulpit, realizing SOME may not believe, how does he determine whom he must excluse from the church so that he doesn't apply the Great Commission to and who is okay for him to preach the Gospel?


I don't claim to know all the interworkings of God in this, but I just see God as very ABLE to cause His Means of Grace to do as He intends. The Bible says, "My Word shall not return to me empty but shall accomplish what I intend." Ah, God is able to handle this, friend. The verse does not say, "IF anyone goes or baptizes or teaches an unbeliever, I therefore accept their order and mandate that I therefore MUST give to them the Spirit, faith and justification - the poor weakling and obedient servant I am." No friend. The Great Commission is a mandate to US - not to God (please don't reverse all the commandments so taht they are man ordering God what to do). We are to love .... reach out...... baptize.... teach..... make disciples. I agree with one of the uber-Calvinists I met at another website who said "WE are to view ALL unbelievers as the Elect and do as God commands and our hearts direct, but God is not." The Great Commission is a command to US, not to God. Don't reverse all the Commands so taht they are from man to God. Don't worry that the Means of Grace will work His will against His will. But don't use that POSSIBILITY as an excuse to violate our Calling. Calvinist missionaries when to Hawaii.... preached to ALL.... baptized all their babies..... taught everyone..... they didn't worry about who was or wasn't Elect. God used what they did for His purposes.



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

I think that MoreCoffee has accurately quoted and referenced MANY relevant Scriptures. He has admitted interpretation is appropriate and has applied the classic, traditional, and until the Anabaptist Denomination came along in the 16th Century, universal interpretation (and still that of the overwhelming majority of Christians) in this matter. It could be said that MoreCoffee is sharing the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. perspective - and he is. People of course may disagree but that doesn't mean he is NOT in looking to Scripture.

I think that MennoSota has accurately quoted and reference Scriptures (fewer than MC but that's irrelevant). He has often insisted all (including himself) not ADD or SUBTRACT as word to what Scripture specifically states but has consistently done just that (in what actually IS exactly what MoreCoffee is doing - interpreting the words). MennoSota is sharing a new view from the Anabaptist. People may disagree the view he is presented but that doesn't mean he is NOT looking to Scripture.

In my opinon - they are doing the identical same thing. One (MoreCoffee) is simply being honest and admitting there's interpretation going on, whereas our friend MennoSota CLAIMS he is just echoing the words in the Bible adding or subtracting nothing - but he's doing at least as much interpreting as MC is. MoreCoffee is giving the historic, traditional, orthodox (and until the 16th Century) universal view/perspective (still the majority one) which obviously could be right and could be wrong. MenneSota is giving the new view of the Anabaptists (which on this point has been embraced by some modern "Evangelicals") which obviously could be right and could be wrong. Both are interpreting. Both are accurately conveying the perspective of different denominations, both echoing that quite accurately. Neither is being insincere, neither is neglecting or ignoring Scripture.

They are very much the same. But with different views being passionately presented.

It seems to me that MoreCoffee realizes this - and is simply disagreeing with MennoSota. But that's not mutual.




.

16th century, it was already in the O.T. It's Jewish. And it was always full immersion in a bath.

 

[Imalive]

Titus 3:5New King James Version (NKJV)

5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

 

[MennoSota]

Our friends MoreCoffee and MennoSota on this topic....


I think that MoreCoffee has accurately quoted and referenced MANY relevant Scriptures. He has admitted interpretation is appropriate and has applied the classic, traditional, and until the Anabaptist Denomination came along in the 16th Century, universal interpretation (and still that of the overwhelming majority of Christians) in this matter. It could be said that MoreCoffee is sharing the Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc. perspective - and he is. People of course may disagree but that doesn't mean he is NOT in looking to Scripture.

I think that MennoSota has accurately quoted and reference Scriptures (fewer than MC but that's irrelevant). He has often insisted all (including himself) not ADD or SUBTRACT a word that Scripture specifically states but has consistently done just that (in what actually IS exactly what MoreCoffee is doing - interpreting the words, identical thing MC is doing). One can say MennoSota is giving the new Anabaptist perspective - and he is . People may disagree the view he is presented but that doesn't mean he is NOT looking to Scripture.


In my opinon - they are doing the identical same thing. One (MoreCoffee) is simply being honest and admitting there's interpretation going on, whereas our friend MennoSota CLAIMS he is just echoing the words in the Bible adding or subtracting nothing - but he's doing at least as much interpreting as MC is. MoreCoffee is giving the historic, traditional, orthodox (and until the 16th Century) universal view/perspective (still the majority one) which obviously could be right and could be wrong. MenneSota is giving the new view of the Anabaptists (which on this point has been embraced by some modern "Evangelicals") which obviously could be right and could be wrong. Both are interpreting. Both are accurately conveying the perspective of different denominations, both echoing that quite accurately. Neither is being insincere, neither is neglecting or ignoring Scripture.

They are very much the same. But with different views being passionately presented.

It seems to me that MoreCoffee realizes this - and is simply disagreeing with MennoSota. But that's not mutual.


My perspective....


- Josiah



.

LOL, your comparison of verses is funny.
When a verse that is actually about infant baptism is shared, let us all know. So far that number is zero.

The issue really is whether God makes the Sovereign choice in saving people or whether humans by their free-will make the choice and then God gives the big thumbs up.
I believe the Bible teaches the Sovereign choice of God from before the foundation of the world. No act of humans, whether good or bad, can change the will of God.
Since there is zero command to baptize infants as a means of salvation the baptism has zero spiritual power to effect anything. If a person wants to sprinkle or immerse anyone (even with the thought that it is obeying God's command) at any age, they can. But that water baptism does nothing to cause God to save someone. You don't have that kind of power to force your will on the God of Creation.
Therefore, just as going to the temple and circumcising a child and/or offering sacrifices never removed the sins of the participant, so water baptism does nothing to remove the sins of the participant. Water baptism is thus no more than a ceremonial obedience to God's command.
Whether you have the capability to accept what I tell you is irrelevant to me. God will one day open your eyes so you can read the Bible without adding or subtracting your own wishes into the text. It took me many years to read without my childhood bias pushing me to ignore what God actually was saying. It may take you years to get to the same point as well. I don't begrudge anyone as they travel the path as long as the covenant with God to be honest with His word.

 

[Imalive]

They didn't use it for babies. Interesting stuff I find on ze internet.

https://community.babycenter.com/po...and_the_mikvah_-_are_they_the_same_or_related

Ah. Now it all makes sense. They were totally used to what John did. Then he says: Jesus baptizes with the Holy Ghost: baptized in living water.

And it was done by self immersion and before bar mitswa.

 

[Imalive]

Finally found the text. We didnt make it up:

Acts 1:5New King James Version (NKJV)

5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”


Stan Cheathem Tulsa Job Corps
Mikveh was a Jewish form of baptism that symbolized the same thing that Christian water baptism does, a ritual clensing. John the Baptist made it clear that the only baptism the would actually cleanse man's soul is the baptism of The Holy Ghost. This was the transition from earthly to heavenly. This is what the water baptism were pointing towards, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mikveh can occur without true repentence, but the baptism of The Holy Spirit will never be administered exept that true repentence is birth in the heart

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism


1 Corinthians 12:13New King James Version (NKJV)

13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into[a] one Spirit.

 

[Josiah]

Finally found the text. We didnt make it up:

Acts 1:5New King James Version (NKJV)

5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”


Stan Cheathem Tulsa Job Corps
Mikveh was a Jewish form of baptism that symbolized the same thing that Christian water baptism does, a ritual clensing. John the Baptist made it clear that the only baptism the would actually cleanse man's soul is the baptism of The Holy Ghost. This was the transition from earthly to heavenly. This is what the water baptism were pointing towards, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Mikveh can occur without true repentence, but the baptism of The Holy Spirit will never be administered exept that true repentence is birth in the heart

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism


1 Corinthians 12:13New King James Version (NKJV)

13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into[a] one Spirit.

Just some thoughts.....


1. As I understand it, in the "intertestamental period", the Jews began to practice baptism (ceremonies like this being found all over the ancient world). If I recall, they had at least 3 different baptisms, all very common, one of which was called "The baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." It was that last that John was doing in the wilderness, and the one Jesus received. It's important to remember this was NOT what we're talking about in this thread - the CHRISTIAN Baptism, the one instituted by JESUS. These were JEWISH rites, of the JEWISH religion. And no one (including the Jews) believed these had anything more than a symbolic importance. Some of the involved little basins, some larger almost bathtub size vehicles, some where done in streams..... Some included whole families (including babies). But there were the customs of a different religion.


2. There is some curious (and IMO difficult) verses in the NT relating to Baptism... it MAY be some alive then had received the JEWISH, old covenant baptism (of some form) but never the Christian one. It MAY be the Jewish one in no way involved the Holy Spirit but was ONLY water. The CHRISTIAN one involved both - the key being the Christian one had the Spirit. Thus, sometimes we see a contrast between just water baptism (the Jewish one) and the that involved the Spirit (the Christian one). Some who had received the Jewish one when they were Jews now were called to receive the Christian one. For a time (a few decades) we saw TWO baptisms around - the Jewish one and the Christian one. It seems Jews stopped baptizing after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD (I have no idea why).


3. We need to remember that the Bible flatly and verbatim states, "There is one baptism." It doesn't say "there are TWO - one which is just water but no Holy Spirit and one which is just Holy Spirit but no water." The Bible verbatim, boldly says, "There is ONE baptism." So, they're can't be two - one with and one without the Holy Spirit. There are only 3 POSSIBLE realities: 1) The one baptism is just water but no Spirit. 2) The one baptism is just the Spirit but no water. 3) The one baptism involves both water and the Spirit. I think MoreCoffee has done some reasonable, credible work to show it's very likely #3.



- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

Just some thoughts.....


1. As I understand it, in the "intertestamental period", the Jews began to practice baptism (ceremonies like this being found all over the ancient world). If I recall, they had at least 3 different baptisms, all very common, one of which was called "The baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." It was that last that John was doing in the wilderness, and the one Jesus received. It's important to remember this was NOT what we're talking about in this thread - the CHRISTIAN Baptism, the one instituted by JESUS. These were JEWISH rites, of the JEWISH religion. And no one (including the Jews) believed these had anything more than a symbolic importance. Some of the involved little basins, some larger almost bathtub size vehicles, some where done in streams..... Some included whole families (including babies). But there were the customs of a different religion.


2. There is some curious (and IMO difficult) verses in the NT relating to Baptism... it MAY be some alive then had received the JEWISH, old covenant baptism (of some form) but never the Christian one. It MAY be the Jewish one in no way involved the Holy Spirit but was ONLY water. The CHRISTIAN one involved both - the key being the Christian one had the Spirit. Thus, sometimes we see a contrast between just water baptism (the Jewish one) and the that involved the Spirit (the Christian one). Some who had received the Jewish one when they were Jews now were called to receive the Christian one. For a time (a few decades) we saw TWO baptisms around - the Jewish one and the Christian one. It seems Jews stopped baptizing after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD (I have no idea why).


3. We need to remember that the Bible flatly and verbatim states, "There is one baptism." It doesn't say "there are TWO - one which is just water but no Holy Spirit and one which is just Holy Spirit but no water." The Bible verbatim, boldly says, "There is ONE baptism." So, they're can't be two - one with and one without the Holy Spirit. There are only 3 POSSIBLE realities: 1) The one baptism is just water but no Spirit. 2) The one baptism is just the Spirit but no water. 3) The one baptism involves both water and the Spirit. I think MoreCoffee has done some reasonable, credible work to show it's very likely #3.



- Josiah

Not the customs of a different religion. It's in the O.T. too.
Now Judaism is a different religion.

 

[MennoSota]

No one has.


On the other hand, since NO ONE can know if an unbeliever is among the elect or not, on what basis do you decide whom you will love, reach out to, present the Gospel to? And which you are forbidden to apply the Great Commanded to? As your minister looks down from the pulpit, realizing SOME may not believe, how does he determine whom he must excluse from the church so that he doesn't apply the Great Commission to and who is okay for him to preach the Gospel?

You may not see it, but you have made a good argument for the insignificance of water baptism other than to say to the community that we hope God elects to save our children. Since we cannot know God's mind, we cannot say anything more about the effects of water baptism.

I don't claim to know all the interworkings of God in this, but I just see God as very ABLE to cause His Means of Grace to do as He intends.

Of course he is. God is also under no obligation to extend grace to anyone regardless of whether we water baptize them as infants. It is arrogant to imagine water baptizing will force God to do something He has never promised he would do.

The Bible says, "My Word shall not return to me empty but shall accomplish what I intend."

Of course. God also says he can create vessels doomed to destruction (Romans 9). Who are we to demand that our children be vessels of His glory? We can only raise them as God wills. God must save them.

Ah, God is able to handle this, friend. The verse does not say, "IF anyone goes or baptizes or teaches an unbeliever, I therefore accept their order and mandate that I therefore MUST give to them the Spirit, faith and justification - the poor weakling and obedient servant I am." No friend. The Great Commission is a mandate to US - not to God (please don't reverse all the commandments so taht they are man ordering God what to do). We are to love .... reach out...... baptize.... teach..... make disciples.

Yes, it is a command to us.
1) Go
2) Make disciples
3) Baptize
4) Teach
This is the command to you and me.

I agree with one of the uber-Calvinists I met at another website who said "WE are to view ALL unbelievers as the Elect and do as God commands and our hearts direct, but God is not."

No, we are to recognize that we are all thoroughly corrupt and there is nothing good in us apart from Christ. If we view all as elect, it gives you a ready excuse to ignore God's commission.
We must preach reconciliation to the world and pray that God might use our preaching to save the elect of His choosing.

The Great Commission is a command to US, not to God. Don't reverse all the Commands so taht they are from man to God. Don't worry that the Means of Grace will work His will against His will. But don't use that POSSIBILITY as an excuse to violate our Calling. Calvinist missionaries when to Hawaii.... preached to ALL.... baptized all their babies..... taught everyone..... they didn't worry about who was or wasn't Elect. God used what they did for His purposes.

- Josiah

No one is reversing the Great Commission, Josiah. That is a faulty claim on your part.