Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[atpollard]

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.

Does that mean that all of the children of every believer ‘will be saved’ ... as in “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:39)?

You seem to be equating baptism of these children of the jailer with assurance of their salvation in the quote you have selected. Could you explain why you are baptizing a child who cannot yet believe (since I assume that you do not believe that all children of believers grow up to be believers).

There are few enough “households” actually mentioned in scripture that we could argue until Jesus returns about whether there were any children too young to hear the gospel, understand the message and believe on their own. There are reports of adults claiming to have understood the basics of the gospel and had a true relation with Jesus since 4-5 years old, so we are talking about a VERY small window of ages in which we can be certain that the children could not have believed (John the Baptist and God’s fiat aside). So I would prefer not to waste too much effort arguing over what is ultimately unknowable. Could there have been children in those half dozen households, yes. Could there have been no infants in those half dozen households, also yes. Can we know for certain if there were infants or not, no. So let’s focus on what is knowable ... Why we believe what we believe and do what we do and how scripture fits with our beliefs.

 

[Albion]

Does that mean that all of the children of every believer ‘will be saved’ ...as in “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:39)?

No. We are not speaking here of any guarantee of salvation or of the Elect, but of baptism..

You seem to be equating baptism of these children of the jailer with assurance of their salvation in the quote you have selected.

No, that isn't the meaning, but the verse does show that the rest of the household was included.

Could you explain why you are baptizing a child who cannot yet believe (since I assume that you do not believe that all children of believers grow up to be believers

Because it is God's sacrament, not our handiwork. Because it makes one a member of the church. Because it confers grace and forgives sin. Because it is commanded in several places in Scripture. Because the New Testament testifies to the appropriateness of baptizing young children. Because there is no particular age given in Scripture when anyone is to be baptized..

There are few enough “households” actually mentioned in scripture that we could argue until Jesus returns about whether there were any children too young to hear the gospel, understand the message and believe on their own.

And there are few enough actual baptisms recorded in the NT.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

You answer your own question.
No one...would baptize a person who did not believe.
What measurable test can be done to ensure that an infant is a believer? If you know of one, can you share it?

 

[MennoSota]

No. We are not speaking here of any guarantee of salvation or of the Elect, but of baptism..

So the baptism isn't a believers baptism and it isn't a John the Baptist repentance baptism. What is the purpose of the baptism if it symbolizes nothing?

No, that isn't the meaning, but the verse does show that the rest of the household was included.

We have no idea if it is the universal household (pets included). You are arguing from silence.

Because it is God's sacrament, not our handiwork.

For what purpose? Certainly not for salvation.

Because it makes one a member of the church.

That is your church dogma, not biblical doctrine.

Because it confers grace and forgives sin.

No, it doesn't. You have stated a heresy not taught in the Bible. It is your church dogma, manufactured by your church, not taught by God.

Because it is commanded in several places in Scripture.

No one denies this. What we argue is what function it plays. We reject your false teaching that baptism confers grace and forgives sin.

Because the New Testament testifies to the appropriateness of baptizing young children.

No it doesn't. Where do we read of young children being baptized? We don't. You must infer it into a passage.

Because there is no particular age given in Scripture when anyone is to be baptized..

We agree. There is no particular age. But, in every case we see people asking to be baptized after they are brought to faith. Not once do we read of a non-believer being baptized on the hope that God will one day grant them faith. It just doesn't happen in the Bible...ever.

And there are few enough actual baptisms recorded in the NT.

Who ordained that the baptisms be recorded for us so we could observe the process? Are you saying that God failed to provide enough detail and therefore your denomination has license to make something up and call it a God ordained practice?

 

[Josiah]

Your requirement is a straw man.

You are the one who has stated that "every baptism in the NT was to one who first was a believer." But that's not the case, as you've essentially admitted. Thus, your premise is wrong, it's simply false. It's just a strawman.

And your premise depends on on your rubric that we can do ONLY what is exampled in the NT and we cannot do otherwise. Without that rubric, your constant point about "EVERY baptism in the NT was to a believer" would be entirely irrelevant, but you've made it central... why? Because you assume that we can't do what isn't exampled in the NT (you insist by posting on the internet, something never exampled in the NT).

Either observe what the text declares or admit you have no biblical position.

I have.

There is NO text that declares, "You canst NOT do anything that is not clearly illustrated as done in the NT."
You have not given any Scripture that remotely states your position.
And of course, you don't believe or follow your own apologetic.

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be withheld and denied to any who hath not first attainedth the age of X"

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be forbidden from any who hath not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer and publicly documented their faith in Jesus."

There are NO verses that remotely state ANY of your positions on baptism.

This you have documented and essentially admitted.

You have no biblical position.

You are verbatim echoing the new invented position of the Anabaptist denomination. That's all.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

You are the one who has stated that "every baptism in the NT was to one who first was a believer." But that's not the case, as you've essentially admitted. Thus, your premise is wrong, it's simply false. It's just a strawman.

And your premise depends on on your rubric that we can do ONLY what is exampled in the NT and we cannot do otherwise. Without that rubric, your constant point about "EVERY baptism in the NT was to a believer" would be entirely irrelevant, but you've made it central... why? Because you assume that we can't do what isn't exampled in the NT (you insist by posting on the internet, something never exampled in the NT).






I have.

There is NO text that declares, "You canst NOT do anything that is not clearly illustrated as done in the NT."
You have not given any Scripture that remotely states your position.
And of course, you don't believe or follow your own apologetic.

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be withheld and denied to any who hath not first attainedth the age of X"

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be forbidden from any who hath not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer and publicly documented their faith in Jesus."

There are NO verses that remotely state ANY of your positions on baptism.

This you have documented and essentially admitted.

You have no biblical position.

You are verbatim echoing the new invented position of the Anabaptist denomination. That's all.



- Josiah

Please show us a baptism in the early church given to a pagan, non-believer.

 

[Josiah]

Please show us a baptism in the early church given to a pagan, non-believer.

I'M not the one with the absurd, silly, unbiblical rubric that we can only do what we see illustrated in the Bible. I could not be posting on the internet if I accepted your rubric.

YOU are the one who has made your whole premise that "EVERY baptism in the Bible was to one who already was a believer." Problem is, it's not true (as you've admitted when you posted, "well, it's not universal"). 1 Corinthians 1:16, etc., etc., etc.

Your premise, your rubric, your whole apologetic is unbiblical.


There is NO text that declares, "You canst NOT do anything that is not clearly illustrated as done in the NT."
You have not given any Scripture that remotely states your position.
And of course, you don't believe or follow your own apologetic.

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be withheld and denied to any who hath not first attainedth the age of X"

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be forbidden from any who hath not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer and publicly documented their faith in Jesus."

There are NO verses that remotely state ANY of your positions on baptism.

This you have documented and essentially admitted.

You have no biblical position.

You are verbatim echoing the new invented position of the Anabaptist denomination. That's all.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

I'M not the one with the absurd, silly, unbiblical rubric that we can only do what we see illustrated in the Bible. I could not be posting on the internet if I accepted your rubric.

YOU are the one who has made your whole premise that "EVERY baptism in the Bible was to one who already was a believer." Problem is, it's not true (as you've admitted when you posted, "well, it's not universal"). 1 Corinthians 1:16, etc., etc., etc.

Your premise, your rubric, your whole apologetic is unbiblical.


There is NO text that declares, "You canst NOT do anything that is not clearly illustrated as done in the NT."
You have not given any Scripture that remotely states your position.
And of course, you don't believe or follow your own apologetic.

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be withheld and denied to any who hath not first attainedth the age of X"

There is NO verse that declares, "Baptism must be forbidden from any who hath not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer and publicly documented their faith in Jesus."

There are NO verses that remotely state ANY of your positions on baptism.

This you have documented and essentially admitted.

You have no biblical position.

You are verbatim echoing the new invented position of the Anabaptist denomination. That's all.



- Josiah

You cannot show us one situation where a pagan unbeliever is baptized. You have created a strawman in order to promote your denominational dogma, which has no biblical support. This has been proven, yet you cling to the dogma anyway.

 

[atpollard]

No. We are not speaking here of any guarantee of salvation or of the Elect, but of baptism..
No, that isn't the meaning, but the verse does show that the rest of the household was included.

The quote you presented shows the rest of the household was included in SALVATION ...

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

So I think you are going to need to explain what it does mean in a little more detail than simply claiming that it requires children to be baptized, but does not promise they will be saved. I do not see how you draw that conclusion from what you chose to quote from Paul to the jailer in Philippi.

Because it is God's sacrament, not our handiwork.

Could you explain what YOU mean by “God’s sacrament”. I suspect that it is a term that means different things to different people and I wanted to be clear about what it means to you.

Because it makes one a member of the church.

See, this confuses me because this was the reason that I thought all churches baptized babies (that do baptize babies), but I am almost certain that it was you who told me that Presbyterians believed this, but others - like Lutherans and Anglicans - did not. Now you list it as a reason for baptizing babies.

Because it confers grace and forgives sin.

I think this needs a bit of clarification. Does baptism confer salvation on a child whether they believe or not? ‘Baby baptizers’ have been accused of believing that and have steadfastly claimed that is not true. I THINK I have an idea what you mean and it is related to your definition of a sacrament, but I will simply request that you clarify for yourself.

Because it is commanded in several places in Scripture.

Could you point out where? (My point being do any of those places that command baptism not include other commands like “repent” or “believe” that are being ignored.)

Because the New Testament testifies to the appropriateness of baptizing young children. Because there is no particular age given in Scripture when anyone is to be baptized.

Where does the NT testify to the “appropriateness of baptizing young children”?
I will concede that there is no direct verse that testifies to the “inappropriateness” of baptizing young children, that must be inferred from other commands that accompany baptism, but you claim biblical support (which seems to come from assumptions about households that can never be proven or disproven by either side.)

 

[Albion]

The quote you presented shows the rest of the household was included in SALVATION ...

I believe you are reading it incorrectly, but what if you are right? If that is the case, then children must be baptized in order to guarantee their salvation and the argument for 'adults only' baptisms goes right out the window.

Could you explain what YOU mean by “God’s sacrament”. I suspect that it is a term that means different things to different people and I wanted to be clear about what it means to you.

You asked why an infant would be baptized. I gave a number of reasons for doing so. One of them was that Christ created the sacrament, not man. IF that is so, it is wrong to constantly talk as though some men or churches started up some ritual for their own purposes. It is God, i.e. Christ, who commanded that we observe this ordinance (normally called a "sacrament"), so this is one reason among many for us to baptize.

See, this confuses me because this was the reason that I thought all churches baptized babies (that do baptize babies), but I am almost certain that it was you who told me that Presbyterians believed this, but others - like Lutherans and Anglicans - did not. Now you list it as a reason for baptizing babies.

I cannot account for that impression. Perhaps there was something written that was misleading. I couldn't say, but all these churches, plus Catholics and most others, believe that baptism marks the recipient as a member of the church of Christ. It is an initiation ceremony among other things.

I think this needs a bit of clarification. Does baptism confer salvation on a child whether they believe or not?

For the umpteenth time, baptism does not confer salvation upon anyone.

Could you point out where?

Yes.

Where does the NT testify to the “appropriateness of baptizing young children”?

There are five different places where it says that whole households were baptized because the head of the household became a believer. There is virtually no possibility that there weren't any children in any of those households; and in none of these instances is there any mention of the children having made a confession of faith. They were baptized because they were members of the family of the adult who had converted. See, for example, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1 Cor. 1:16.






.

 

[MennoSota]

There are five different places where it says that whole households were baptized because the head of the household became a believer. There is virtually no possibility that there weren't any children in any of those households; and in none of these instances is there any mention of the children having made a confession of faith. They were baptized simply because they were members of the family of the adult who had converted.

Entirely speculative with no shred of evidence.
What you have is a denominational dogma created and upheld by speculation.
Your case has no substance and is illegitimate.
Believe it if you wish, but don't imagine you have biblical support.

 

[Josiah]

Entirely speculative with no shred of evidence.

Of course, you are just speculating....


Yes, your insistence that EVERY member of that household had FIRST attained the age of X, wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer, chose Jesus as their Savior, and supplied adequate public textimony of such is PURE speculation on your part.... Nothin' but pure, absolute, complete speculation.

There goes your apologetic: That EVERY baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT was of an adult believer and ERGO (always the fav word of Calvinists) we are forbidden, prohibited from baptizing those under that age and who had not adquately provided proof of their faith because we can't do anything unless it is exampled in the NT (and you stated that, ironically, by posting on the internet). Your whole premise is wrong (based PURELY on your personal guessing and speculation) and your rubric is wrong.

What you have is a denominational dogma created and upheld by speculation.

Yes, you do.

You have NOTHING that states...
"Thou canst NOT give baptism to any who hath not first attainedth their X birthday!"
"Thou canst NOT give baptism to any who hath not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer, chose Jesus, and given adequate public proof of such!"
"Thou canst NOT give baptism to any who hath not first wept buckets of tears in repentance!"
"Baptism is SO stressed in the NT and is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching because it does absolutely nothing whatsoever and is a waste of time and you really should be better stewards 0f your time and ministry."
"Thou canst do NOTHING which art not first exampled in the NT and if thou state otherwise by posting such on the interest, thou goes directly to the Bad Place."


What you've been doing is echoing verbatim the new invention of the Anabaptist denomination. That's it. That's all.

Your case has no substance and is illegitimate.




- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

Of course, you are just speculating....


Yes, your insistence that EVERY member of that household had FIRST attained the age of X, wept buckets of tears in repentance, chanted the Sinner's Prayer, chose Jesus as their Savior, and supplied adequate public textimony of such is PURE speculation on your part.... Nothin' but pure, absolute, complete speculation.

I don't insist on this. You are the one continually saying this. How long do you intend to lie?

There goes your apologetic: That EVERY baptism that happens to be recorded in the NT was of an adult believer and ERGO (always the fav word of Calvinists) we are forbidden, prohibited from baptizing those under that age and who had not adquately provided proof of their faith because we can't do anything unless it is exampled in the NT (and you stated that, ironically, by posting on the internet). Your whole premise is wrong (based PURELY on your personal guessing and speculation) and your rubric is wrong.

Again, you make a false statement.
What I state is that in every case we read that the people baptized were cognizant of what they were doing. What I am doing is observing the passage. You struggle mightily with observation.

Yes, you do.

You have NOTHING that states...
"Thou canst NOT give baptism to any who hath not first attainedth their X birthday!"
"Thou canst NOT give baptism to any who hath not first chanted the Sinner's Prayer, chose Jesus, and given adequate public proof of such!"
"Thou canst NOT give baptism to any who hath not first wept buckets of tears in repentance!"
"Baptism is SO stressed in the NT and is a part of the Great Commission equal to teaching because it does absolutely nothing whatsoever and is a waste of time and you really should be better stewards 0f your time and ministry."
"Thou canst do NOTHING which art not first exampled in the NT and if thou state otherwise by posting such on the interest, thou goes directly to the Bad Place."

Notice that you are saying what I have never said. Why do you falsely accuse? Consider repenting on this because you are lying.
What do we observe in scripture, Josiah? Why are you so reticent to observe the text? Sola Scriptura?!

What you've been doing is echoing verbatim the new invention of the Anabaptist denomination. That's it. That's all.

Which Anabaptist denomination? Can you find documentation to lineup what I have said and compare it to their document? Have I plagiarized as you are now claiming?

Your case has no substance and is illegitimate.

- Josiah

My position is based upon observing what is provided in the text. I do not argue from silence. I took the time to look at each passage you wrote down and I shared my observation of those verses.
Sharing my observation is not illegitimate. Claiming a dogma from silence (what you must do to teach baptismal regeneration of infants) is illegitimate. There is no substance upon which to make a case.
atpollard has asked you for similar data. You have refused to produce any documentation. Indeed, you cannot produce any documentation, which is likely why you resort to parroting false testimony over and over again. State a lie long enough and loud enough and perhaps people will believe the lie. Please end your false testimony.

 

[atpollard]

If that is the case, then children must be baptized in order to guarantee their salvation and the argument for 'adults only' baptisms goes right out the window.

Just for the record, Baptists do not advocate an ‘adults only’ baptism, we advocate a ‘believers baptism’, so only you are making it about age. We just require candidates for baptism to be able to obey the other commands to ‘repent’ and ‘believe’ that accompany the commands to be baptized.

[The ‘church’ to you is made of believers and their households. The ‘church’ to a baptist is made of only believers.]
I don’t ask you to accept my beliefs, just represent them fairly.

 

[Albion]

Just for the record, Baptists do not advocate an ‘adults only’ baptism, we advocate a ‘believers baptism’, so only you are making it about age.

I know. They also baptize 8 year olds and pretend that they can make a mature and meaningful confession of Faith in Christ the same as an adult. That way they can keep "Believers Baptism" alive in theory while actually doing what they criticize in the churches that practice infant baptism.

The ‘church’ to you is made of believers and their households.

No. Nor did I say that.

 

[MennoSota]

I know. They also baptize 8 year olds and pretend that they can make a mature and meaningful confession of Faith in Christ the same as an adult. That way they can keep "Believers Baptism" alive in theory while actually doing what they criticize in the churches that practice infant baptism.

An 8 year old can't express faith in Jesus sacrifice for his/her sins? Perhaps when God brought me to my knees at the thought of my sin when I was five years old I was just faking it? No...God gave me the gift of faith and began his good work of sanctification from that moment.
However, I chose not to be baptized at that time. It wasn't until I was 22 that I was baptized. From 5-22 I was saved, but baptism was something I needed to follow in obedience and it took awhile.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

An 8 year old can't express faith in Jesus sacrifice for his/her sins? Perhaps when God brought me to my knees at the thought of my sin when I was five years old I was just faking it? No...God gave me the gift of faith and began his good work of sanctification from that moment.
However, I chose not to be baptized at that time. It wasn't until I was 22 that I was baptized. From 5-22 I was saved, but baptism was something I needed to follow in obedience and it took awhile.

Then you refused to follow the first Apostolic command - which isn't from silence at all:

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

For what reason didn't you follow the command so simply and clearly laid out? If you didn't understand it as a five-year-old (I'm speculating), why not when you did understand the command?

Isn't scripture wonderful?

 

[Pedrito]

From Post #1:

Credobaptists believe in a believers baptism and are against infants being baptized. What about the people with severe disabilities? They never receive baptism that Jesus told the disciples to go out and baptize all nations?

And Post #8:

Is God's word so ineffective in working faith that the severely disabled are limited from receiving baptism because they cannot make a profession of faith? How does that coincide with Jesus telling disciples to baptize all nations?

Those people are a special case. They have no light to throw on the ritual baptism of infants.


Is that herring I see, coloured red?

 

[MennoSota]

Then you refused to follow the first Apostolic command - which isn't from silence at all:

"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do? Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

For what reason didn't you follow the command so simply and clearly laid out? If you didn't understand it as a five-year-old (I'm speculating), why not when you did understand the command?

Isn't scripture wonderful?

Certainly, I held off. My not being baptized immediately upon salvation was not a mortal sin and did not affect my being adopted by God.
Baptism isn't some magical sacrament that gives me more grace. Water Baptism expresses outwardly to other humans what God has already done in redeeming us.

 

[Albion]

Those people are a special case. They have no light to throw on the ritual baptism of infants.

Actually, they do. That's because they show us one more inconsistency in the Anabaptist argument. While all the traditional churches--and historic Christianity--baptize without prejudice, the "Believers Baptism" denominations' argument is rent with holes. In their case, no one can say for sure at what age a person is old enough to be baptized. In the South, for example, it's apparently much younger than in other parts of the country.

And no one can explain how we know who is smart enough and who is not smart enough, or who else is NOT to be considered part of "all nations." In addition, that religious POV makes a big issue over the mode of baptism, calling this application of water invalid but that other one necessary...only to then claim that the sacrament doesn't mean anything much and doesn't do anything, either!