Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[Albion]

Personally I find non denom a lot more biblical than many denoms

You make it sound as though 'non-denominational' connotes some particular set of beliefs that you can bank on. It doesn't.

 

[Albion]

I do believe that Johns baptism stated repent and be baptised

If the person in question were an adult, that would of course be the process. I don't see that this resolves anything.

all that I remember they were saved and then baptized. Please correct me if my memory is faulty

Have we agreed that baptism guarantees salvation? I remember that opponents of infant baptism have levelled the incorrect charge that those of us who baptize young children somehow think that this makes them saved for good. However, we do not believe that.

 

[psalms 91]

If the person in question were an adult, that would of course be the process. I don't see that this resolves anything.


Have we agreed that baptism guarantees salvation? I remember that opponents of infant baptism have levelled the incorrect charge that those of us who baptize young children somehow think that this makes them saved for good. However, we do not believe that.

No I dont agree that it gaurantees salvation but I do see a correlation of being saved and then baptized.

 

[Albion]

I think you may see that apparent correlation only through EXAMPLES given in Scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

If the person in question were an adult, that would of course be the process. I don't see that this resolves anything.


Have we agreed that baptism guarantees salvation? I remember that opponents of infant baptism have levelled the incorrect charge that those of us who baptize young children somehow think that this makes them saved for good. However, we do not believe that.

Do you admit that water baptism does not save anyone at all?

 

[MennoSota]

I think you may see that apparent correlation only through EXAMPLES given in Scripture.

Is it a bad thing that the Bible, God's inspired word, gives us examples?

 

[psalms 91]

I think you may see that apparent correlation only through EXAMPLES given in Scripture.

Since it is Gods Word I guess that is good enough for me, not you? I hit like by mistake and cant undo it

 

[Albion]

Since it is Gods Word I guess that is good enough for me, not you? I hit like by mistake and cant undo it

That's really not the point.

If it is found in Scripture, it is correct; but at the same time, the reader cannot simply make something from the Bible "fit."

That's what I think credobaptists do with the verses they cite on this particular issue. For instance, if they find, in the NT, an adult being successfully converted to Christ--and then baptized--they extrapolate from this account that ONLY adults may be baptized. Well, that's not what the verse shows us.

 

[psalms 91]

Nope, but when you have multiple examples with no other source then the conclusion is probably right.

 

[Albion]

Nope, but when you have multiple examples with no other source then the conclusion is probably right.

If the examples pile up and there is nothing else to refer to, then that's probably right. However, we know that 'whole households' were baptized, so it doesn't appear that confessing adults were the only persons baptized. The examples of adults are only examples and not conclusive.

At one time I studied this issue extensively and came to the conclusion, along with theologians, that on the Scriptural evidence the issue is a toss-up. I choose to go with the logic of infant baptism and with the consensus reached by the historic church. If someone else goes the other way, I can call that reasonable--but only so long as that person also recognizes that the issue is a toss-up and does not start telling me that his POV is the ONLY possible way to see the issue and baptizing children is just man's doing or "denominational," that it is an argument from silence or speculation, or any of the other canned excuses that are not true.

 

[MennoSota]

If the examples pile up and there is nothing else to refer to, then that's probably right. However, we know that 'whole households' were baptized, so it doesn't appear that confessing adults were the only persons baptized. The examples of adults are only examples and not conclusive.

At one time I studied this issue extensively and came to the conclusion that, on the Scriptural evidence, the issue is a toss-up. I choose to go with the logic of infant baptism and with the consensus reached by the historic church. If someone else goes the other way, I can call that reasonable--but only so long as he extends the same understanding to me and does not start telling me that his POV is the ONLY possible way to see the issue and baptizing children is just man's doing or "denominational" or contrary to the word of God.

The context around whole household, in conjunction with all the other examples, make it nearly certain that infants were not baptized.
Your argument is entirely made up of silence and speculation. This is hardly a wise method by which one creates a doctrine of regeneration.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION]

I do believe that Johns baptism stated repent and be baptised

The problem, Bill, is there is no "then." Your entire premise rests on a word that's not there, it's entirely absent. Yes, you can find a verse that says "repent and be baptized" which means baptism and repentance are connected. But there's no "THEN." It doens't say, "repent THEN, AND ONLY THEN, AFTER THAT'S COMPLETED, BAPTISM MAY BE GIVEN." Friend, the koine Greek word "kai" is THE most generic, general word of association in the language, it ONLY associates or connects thing, it by NO MEANS mandates or remotely implies order. Yes, the verse could have said, "and then" but it doesn't. One has to change the verse, alter the verse in order to make the point you do.

I cant think of an instance where in the New Testament anyone was baptised before being saved all that I remember they were saved and then baptized. Please correct me if my memory is faulty

Actually, there are at least 4 cases where it does not say those baptized were already saved. True, it doesn't say they were NOT but it doens't say they WERE. Thus, when MennoSota and some other Anabpatists constantly state, "EVERY baptism in the Bible is of those already saved" is, well to be blunt, flatly wrong.

And Bill, why would that matter? Since when are we to toss what Jesus SAID ("GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH....." for example) and rather go by the few examples of things we have illustrated in the NT? This rubric of some Anabaptists - that we can only do what we see exampled in the Bible and can't do what is not - is silly since NONE of them abide by that rule (for example, they may state that on the internet! Where is posting on the internet exampled in the Bible??? They may have churches that have electricity, computers, powerpoint, websites, youth pastors, youth groups, womens' groups, VBS, bulletins, they may pass around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welchs' Grape Juice, etc., etc. - ALL NOT ONCE exampled in the NT. In other words, since they entirely disbelieve that we can only do what is exampled in the Bible and don't abide by that, why should they bind all OTHERS to that rule?




- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

make it nearly certain that infants were not baptized.

Truth is: these texts say NOTHING.... NOTHING AT ALL.... about "every person baptized in the Bible had FIRST documented their faith in Jesus." They say NOTHING about their ages at all. Sure - YOU can just tell the Holy Spirit that none of the were under the age of X, that all of them had chanted the Sinner's Prayer, that all of them had first wept buckets of tears in repentance.... but that would be YOU telling the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit telling us, NOT what the Bible states. You keep saying what matters is what the Bible STATES. Well..... it does NOT say that every person baptized was first a believer or first celebrated their X birthday. YOU say it but Scripture does not.

Your argument is entirely made up of silence and speculation.

Friend, you have it backwards....

YOU are the one making your entire case wholly on SILENCE.... on NOT being told that all were first believers, NOT being told all were over the age of X, NOT being told all first wept buckets of tears in repentance... You are the one hanging on verses such as ".... but thou art FORBIDDEN to give baptism to any who hath not first celebrated their X birthday - DON'T YOU DO IT!!!!" "... but thou art PROHIBITED from going or baptizing or teaching any who hath not first decided for Jesus and adequately hath given public testimony of that, you are foridden to do that!" "Baptism is SO stressed and is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching because it is a total waste of time and doth do nothing, you really should be better stewards of your time and ministry." But we all know, the reason you don't quote any Scripture that states what you do is because .... Scripture never states it. All these new limitations and prohibitions invented by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century are all from SILENCE.

You speculate that no one in these households was under the age of X.... you speculate that no one in these househouses was not already a believer..... you have to speculate because the verses don't say.




- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Truth is: these texts say NOTHING.... NOTHING AT ALL.... about "every person baptized in the Bible had FIRST documented their faith in Jesus." They say NOTHING about their ages at all. Sure - YOU can just tell the Holy Spirit that none of the were under the age of X, that all of them had chanted the Sinner's Prayer, that all of them had first wept buckets of tears in repentance.... but that would be YOU telling the Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit telling us, NOT what the Bible states. You keep saying what matters is what the Bible STATES. Well..... it does NOT say that every person baptized was first a believer or first celebrated their X birthday. YOU say it but Scripture does not.






Friend, you have it backwards....

YOU are the one making your entire case wholly on SILENCE.... on NOT being told that all were first believers, NOT being told all were over the age of X, NOT being told all first wept buckets of tears in repentance... You are the one hanging on verses such as ".... but thou art FORBIDDEN to give baptism to any who hath not first celebrated their X birthday - DON'T YOU DO IT!!!!" "... but thou art PROHIBITED from going or baptizing or teaching any who hath not first decided for Jesus and adequately hath given public testimony of that, you are foridden to do that!" "Baptism is SO stressed and is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching because it is a total waste of time and doth do nothing, you really should be better stewards of your time and ministry." But we all know, the reason you don't quote any Scripture that states what you do is because .... Scripture never states it. All these new limitations and prohibitions invented by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century are all from SILENCE.

You speculate that no one in these households was under the age of X.... you speculate that no one in these househouses was not already a believer..... you have to speculate because the verses don't say.




- Josiah

We don't need universal information on every baptism, Josiah. God chose to share specific situations. Why?
We can observe what God provides. We cannot create a doctrine from silence. That is what has been done with the teaching of regeneration via infant baptism.
Since we cannot create a doctrine from silence, we must not teach it as God's ordained will. We must state that it is not doctrine, but instead it is church, denominational dogma manufactured by the denomination with no biblical legitimacy. At best it is a poorly supported dogma. At worst it is a heresy teaching a false gospel.

 

[Josiah]

We don't need universal information on every baptism, Josiah.

Then there goes your whole premise: "EVERY baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST were believers over the age of X and ERGO we are forbidden to give baptism to any who is not FIRST a believer and under the age of X."


Your whole premise is destroyed because...
1. You finally admit it's wrong ("not universal" cannot mean "EVERY ONE")
2. You don't accept your own insistence that we can ONLY do what is exampled in the NT and CANNOT do otherwise (You prove that by posting on the internet, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.)

We cannot create a doctrine from silence

Thus, you condemn yourself.

ALL the prohibitions, limitations, restrictions invented suddenly out of the blue by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century are TOTALLY from silence; they have NOTHING, not a word in Scripture that states all their limitations, restrictions, denials, limitations.... NOTHING..... their invented rules have NOT A WORD in Scripture but are entirely from silence.

And thus there goes your insistence, "Baptism does nothing." You can find NOTHING in Scripture, not a word, that states that..... it's a dogma created out the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists out of absolute SILENCE. They just stated, out of the blue, for the first time in over 1500 years, that Baptism is SO stressed in the NT, is SO important in Scripture, is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching - because it's a total waste of time, does nothing, CANNOT be used by God for anything, and the verse that states, Baptism now saves you, actually is 180 degrees wrong because Baptism does NOTHING at all because God CANNOT use it." It's a radically new dogma created purely out of silence because NO Scripture remotely states that.

denominational dogma manufactured by the denomination with no biblical legitimacy. At best it is a poorly supported dogma. At worst it is a heresy

Your proving that you have NOTHING that states your prohibitions, limitations and denials..... NOTHING that remotely supports your dogma that "Baptism does nothing" then yes, it was manufactured by the Anabaptist denomination out of blue, entirely from SILENCE and has ZERO Scripture that states it. As you point out, yours is simply the verbatim echo of a denomination's new invention. One created out of the blue, entirely from silence.



Your argument is entirely made up of silence and speculation. This is hardly a wise method by which one suddenly invents a doctrine. And you are simply echoing verbatim the new invented denials, limitations, prohibitions of the Anabaptist denomination and prove you have NOTHING in Scripture that states these new denials, limitations and prohibitions.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Then there goes your whole premise: "EVERY baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST were believers over the age of X and ERGO we are forbidden to give baptism to any who is not FIRST a believer and under the age of X."


Your whole premise is destroyed because...
1. You finally admit it's wrong ("not universal" cannot mean "EVERY ONE")
2. You don't accept your own insistence that we can ONLY do what is exampled in the NT and CANNOT do otherwise (You prove that by posting on the internet, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.)







Thus, you condemn yourself.

ALL the prohibitions, limitations, restrictions invented suddenly out of the blue by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century are TOTALLY from silence; they have NOTHING, not a word in Scripture that states all their limitations, restrictions, denials, limitations.... NOTHING..... their invented rules have NOT A WORD in Scripture but are entirely from silence.

And thus there goes your insistence, "Baptism does nothing." You can find NOTHING in Scripture, not a word, that states that..... it's a dogma created out the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists out of absolute SILENCE. They just stated, out of the blue, for the first time in over 1500 years, that Baptism is SO stressed in the NT, is SO important in Scripture, is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching - because it's a total waste of time, does nothing, CANNOT be used by God for anything, and the verse that states, Baptism now saves you, actually is 180 degrees wrong because Baptism does NOTHING at all because God CANNOT use it." It's a radically new dogma created purely out of silence because NO Scripture remotely states that.





Your proving that you have NOTHING that states your prohibitions, limitations and denials..... NOTHING that remotely supports your dogma that "Baptism does nothing" then yes, it was manufactured by the Anabaptist denomination out of blue, entirely from SILENCE and has ZERO Scripture that states it. As you point out, yours is simply the verbatim echo of a denomination's new invention. One created out of the blue, entirely from silence.



Your argument is entirely made up of silence and speculation. This is hardly a wise method by which one suddenly invents a doctrine. And you are simply echoing verbatim the new invented denials, limitations, prohibitions of the Anabaptist denomination and prove you have NOTHING in Scripture that states these new denials, limitations and prohibitions.



- Josiah




.

Please observe each passage you wanted me to read and by observation, present where an infant was baptized.
You cannot do that. Instead you go to irrelevant talking points that have nothing to do with God's word. Are we going to follow Sola Scriptura or not?
Your argument is boiled down to this: "The Bible doesn't tell me we can't, so we will...and then we'll say 'God said.'"

 

[Josiah]

Then there goes your whole premise: "EVERY baptism that just happens to be recorded in the NT is of those who FIRST were believers over the age of X and ERGO we are forbidden to give baptism to any who is not FIRST a believer and under the age of X."


Your whole premise is destroyed because...

1. You finally admit it's wrong ("not universal" cannot mean "EVERY ONE")
2. You don't accept your own insistence that we can ONLY do what is exampled in the NT and CANNOT do otherwise (You prove that by posting on the internet, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.)





Thus, you condemn yourself. ALL the prohibitions, limitations, restrictions invented suddenly out of the blue by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century are TOTALLY from silence; they have NOTHING, not a word in Scripture that states all their limitations, restrictions, denials, limitations.... NOTHING..... their invented rules have NOT A WORD in Scripture but are entirely from silence.

And thus there goes your insistence, "Baptism does nothing." You can find NOTHING in Scripture, not a word, that states that..... it's a dogma created out the blue in the 16th Century by the Anabaptists out of absolute SILENCE. They just stated, out of the blue, for the first time in over 1500 years, that Baptism is SO stressed in the NT, is SO important in Scripture, is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching - because it's a total waste of time, does nothing, CANNOT be used by God for anything, and the verse that states, Baptism now saves you, actually is 180 degrees wrong because Baptism does NOTHING at all because God CANNOT use it." It's a radically new dogma created purely out of silence because NO Scripture remotely states that.





Your proving that you have NOTHING that states your prohibitions, limitations and denials..... NOTHING that remotely supports your dogma that "Baptism does nothing" then yes, it was manufactured by the Anabaptist denomination out of blue, entirely from SILENCE and has ZERO Scripture that states it. As you point out, yours is simply the verbatim echo of a denomination's new invention. One created out of the blue, entirely from silence.



Your argument is entirely made up of silence and speculation. This is hardly a wise method by which one suddenly invents a doctrine. And you are simply echoing verbatim the new invented denials, limitations, prohibitions of the Anabaptist denomination and prove you have NOTHING in Scripture that states these new denials, limitations and prohibitions.



.

Please observe each passage you wanted me to read and by observation, present where an infant was baptized.

Please observe that you could not show that every person in these examples of people being baptized was over the age of X or was already a Christian.

Read the post quoted here.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Please observe that you could not show that every person in these examples of people being baptized was over the age of X or was already a Christian.

Read the post quoted here.




.

Your requirement is a straw man.
Either observe what the text declares or admit you have no biblical position.

 

[atpollard]

Please observe that you could not show that every person in these examples of people being baptized was over the age of X or was already a Christian.

Read the post quoted here.

.

... but if they obeyed the Apostles and Jesus, then they were BELIEVERS (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12-13; Acts 18:8). You are baptizing where there is not even a hint of belief. Why? (An honest question, not an accusation. I thought it was because of belief in baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, but have been told that applies to Presbyterians, but not Anglicans and Lutherans and others ... So I am unsure why you baptize infants some of whom will grow up to believe and others who will grow up to disbelieve.)

P.S. 1 Corinthians 1:15 may be silent on the age of the members of the ‘household of Stephanas’, but 1 Corinthians 16:15-18 offers some hints ...

15 Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), 16 that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors. 17 I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part. 18 For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men.

... the ‘household of Stephanas’ was baptized by Paul and devoted themselves for ministry to the saints. Very impressive infants!
(Just maybe, they were all old enough to comprehend the Gospel and believe.)

 

[Albion]

... but if they obeyed the Apostles and Jesus, then they were BELIEVERS. You are baptizing where there is not even a hint of belief. Why?

Because the Bible does not confine baptism to believers and does indicate that whole households--which almost certainly must have included children--were baptized without controversy. Obviously, an adult would be addressed by a missionary on the basis of belief, because no one would baptize a person who did not believe in Christ. Why, indeed would such a person even consent to Christian baptism?? But this doesn't deal with children one way or the other.

"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," Paul said to the jail keeper in Philippi.