Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[meluckycharms]

I am not concerned at all about it. I am concerned about people claiming that we are commanded to baptize children when I perceive that teaching to be contradicted by scripture. In a topic in a "Christian Theology" section of a board, I feel the teaching of scripture should be defended against false accusations.

Should we care that the bible commands people to "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and some are advocating "baptism without repentance"? Is the Gospel being distorted?

[However, I admit I often take it too personal.]

So it is not necessarily the practice of infant baptism that troubles you. It's when people tell you your wrong for not practicing it?

 

[atpollard]

Well, lets see how this works, this "kai" means "after that" and mandates sequence...

Let's look at the verse you already brought up in order to prove that FIRST one must repent of their sins and AFTER THAT we are no longer forbidden to baptize them (it's the point you were making at the time). You used the same "kai" = AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED meaning....

Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Your whole premise then and now, in this verse and any in reference to Baptism, is that the mandated meaning of "kai" is 'AFTER THAT' and it's purpose is to require sequence, chronological order. You (and all Anabaptists on this point) use this to prove that repentance must come before baptism - and since those under the age of X cannot repent, they cannot be baptized.

Let's examine your hermaneutic there. So, this verse is proving a certain SEQUENCE, a CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER that must happen this way and must be forbidden to happen otherwise:

The DEAD person (Peter says this to unbelievers) must
1. Repent (including turning to God in faith for mercy and forgiveness) THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE...
2. Be baptized (passive receiver) THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE, NEVER BEFORE...
3. Receive forgiveness THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE, NEVER BEFORE...
4. The Holy Spirit comes THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETED AND DONE, NEVER BEFORE....

So, what does that do to your Calvinist and Monergist view of soteriology (I;ve brought this up with two other Scriptures you keep quoting and requiring this identical "kai-requires-sequence" apologetic but you've always skipped it). It means that the DEAD person must perform the good work of repenting - which includes turning to God in faith for mercy and forgiveness - this coming from a DEAD person! THEN, only that step is completed and done and finished, only then, next he is no longer forbidden to be baptized and indeed should be (a second good work done by a DEAD person). THEN, only when that step is completed and one and finished, he (this DEAD man) will receive forgiveness (because the dead man did two good works), and THEN after that step is done and completed and finished, the Holy Spirit will do His work of giving life and faith.

If you read that, yeah- your spin helps your baptism argument but it destroys the Christian Gospel! Maybe your whole apologetic here is.... well..... not correct?

Read the verses before it, they matter (God had already done his part.)

 

[meluckycharms]

The command is "Go and make disciples",

Now here again, the words are written in an order which I think is deliberate, but which you will claim is irrelevant.

I think we can find many different examples of baptism in scripture. However, I don't think any are necessarily "The Way" but rather "A Way". Just like polity. There are many different examples for church government. However, just because we find one example, it doesnt necessarily mean that that one example is normative for all.

 

[atpollard]

So it is not necessarily the practice of infant baptism that troubles you. It's when people tell you your wrong for not practicing it?

Yup. [Or that I can't be a monergist if I don't believe that God intended baptism to be for infants like every CHRISTIAN has unanimously believed for 1500 years until one Anabaptist made up his own rules.]

 

[MennoSota]

Like other verses in the NT, that is what was spoken to those listeners and it referred to their situation(s). It cannot be taken as a command applicable to all people.

Wow! That is a dangerous comment. You have made yourself the arbitrator of what is inspired by God for all humans and what is only culturally relevant to the initial readers. By so doing, you make God's word relative to whatever you fancy as important. Everything else, you can throw away.
That's really dangerous. Please tell me you misspoke.

 

[Albion]

Yup.

How does the following square with that answer, then??

"Why do you refuse to obey by ignoring the command to REPENT, and jump right to baptizing a passive participant and claiming the gift of the Holy Spirit for them? "

 

[atpollard]

I think we can find many different examples of baptism in scripture. However, I don't think any are necessarily "The Way" but rather "A Way". Just like polity. There are many different examples for church government. However, just because we find one example, it doesnt necessarily mean that that one example is normative for all.

He was quoting that verse and leaving out one of the actions, making it sound like that verse commanded us to go and baptize, when it actually commanded us to go and make disciples. I just thought that scripture should be quoted to preserve the original meaning, not distort it.

 

[meluckycharms]

. I just thought that scripture should be quoted to preserve the original meaning, not distort it.

It's always important to preserve original meaning. Another one of my pet peeves is going to a bible study where a scripture passage is read and people are asked "what does this scripture mean to you?" I always answer "It means exactly what the author intended it to mean to whom he was writing it to!"

 

[meluckycharms]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

259. What is required of one who is to be baptised?

Everyone who is to be baptised is required to make a profession of faith. This is done personally in the case of an adult or by the parents and by the Church in the case of infants. Also the godfather or the godmother and the whole ecclesial community share the responsibility for baptismal preparation (catechumenate) as well as for the development and safeguarding of the faith and grace given at baptism.

 

[Josiah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwxHzo0QVYY

 

[MennoSota]

I will share links to a debate/discussion between RC Sproul and John MacArthur regarding the subject of this topic. I read the material in inverse order, meaning I read Sprouls argument first, even though he spoke last. Sproul attempts to argue a covenant reason for infant baptism. I share a quote and the link.

In a word, the sacrament of Baptism is a dramatic object lesson, a visible sign of the spoken promise. We proclaim the Word of God in the presence of infants. They maybe don’t understand the Word, and they don’t understand the sign either until it’s explained to them, that’s why the it’s the responsibility is for the parents and the church to say to this child, “You received a sign of the promise of God, you received the sign of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And let me tell you what that sign means.” And you tell them what the sign means and you tell them, “If you trust in this promise of Christ, you will be saved.” And as Calvin pointed out, that which a sign signifies in the Bible may be given before or after the sign is present, exhibit A, the sign that was given to Abraham after he had faith and Isaac before he has faith. And if you want to raise the principal objection about giving a sign that includes, among other thing, a sign of faith to people who are incapable of exercising faith at that time, if you want to raise that objection in principle, don’t hesitate to object against God Himself because that’s exactly what He did in the Old Testament.

https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A361/case-for-infant-baptism-the-historic-paedobaptist-position

 

[MennoSota]

MacArthur:

is also true that Scripture nowhere forbids infant baptism. That is obviously true, since it doesn’t discuss it at all, it neither affirms it or forbids it. That fact obviously provides no basis for acceptance of or mandate for infant baptism as the ubiquitous ordinance that it has become. There are many who would argue that because the Bible doesn’t forbid it, God somehow condones it. But to justify that sprinkling of babies because it is not forbidden in Scripture is therefore the divine will, is to standardize and imprint with divine authority other ceremonies which are not in the Bible. And where does that end and open the way to any ritual, any ceremony or any dogma or any teaching also not forbidden specifically in the Scripture? Not just to the point where you would allow it or tolerate it, buy where you would standardize it and infuse it with grace and efficacy. That’s a large leap in my judgment.

Actually, it was such traditions concocted beyond the pages of Scripture and without scriptural support and warrant that Luther had in mind when he himself drew the line in the sand and said this, and I quote, familiar quote, “The church needs to rid itself of all false glories that torture Scripture by inserting personal conceits into the Scripture which lend it to their own sense. No...he said...Scripture, Scripture, Scripture for me constrain, press, compel me with God’s Word,” end quote.

 

[MennoSota]

MacArthur:

A third point, infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. Now we’re getting in to the nitty-gritty here. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. Simply Scripture never makes such a connection. You cannot find such a connection in Scripture. Nowhere does the New Testament ever say infant baptism replaces circumcision. No such connection is ever made. Pedobaptists(?), nonetheless without any specific statements of Scripture claim some inferential evidence connected to circumcision also without any specific statement of Scripture. And the argument simplified sort of goes like this, “Circumcision was the Old Covenant sign of faith while baptism is the New Covenant sign of faith.” Since the Old Covenant sign of faith was applicable not only to adults, but and primarily and eventually exclusively to children, the same should be true of the New Covenant sign.

Now I understand that reasoning but I think it’s simplistic. I think it way understates the issue. The fact that the Abrahamic Covenant serves as a foundation of faith in which all who are in Christ participate, I will not dispute. I am a spiritual son of Abraham by faith, though I am not an Israelite. I’m not a Jew. But I am a son of Abraham in the sense that I follow his faith. But that circumcision was a sign of personal faith, I reject. I do not see circumcision in the Old Testament as a sign of personal faith. I believe it was something else. I believe it was a symbol of the need for cleansing. There were people who were circumcised as adults who had faith and there were people who were circumcised as adult proselytes, probably Gentiles, who came into Israel who never really had faith in God. They were joining the nation of Israel for whatever reasons. We don’t know the genuineness or not of their heart. But circumcision is certainly not to be defined in itself as a sign of faith. I believe that if you look at circumcision honestly, it is more a sign of the desperate depravity of man and the need for God’s salvation.

https://www.gty.org/library/Articles/A360

 

[MennoSota]

MacArthur and Sproul make their points, somewhat similar to the points made here in this thread. MacArthur points to much scripture while Sproul appeals to a covenant connection using inference. What I appreciate from both is that they outright reject the notion that any form of baptism is the means of a person receiving grace.
What I also appreciate is that Sproul never makes the foolish and moronic claim regarding the "Age of X" in his argument for infant baptism. He realizes that MacArthur and indeed no Reformed Baptist makes such a pathetic argument and thus he never falsely accuses MacArthur of a position that MacArthur never holds.
Instead, Sproul tries to make his covenant connection.
On this issue I side with MacArthur and find Sprouls argument scripturally lacking, though I understand his reasoning.
What no one argues is a mythical "Age of X" position. So, let us put that foolish notion to bed...shall we.

 

[Josiah]

The sudden, out-of-the-blue, invention of the Anabaptist in 1523 centers in two things:

Anti-Paedobaptism.
"Paedo" = children.
The whole point is AGE.
It's anti-infant/child baptism.
It's "Those under the age of X are FORBIDDEN to be baptized."
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to give baptism to those under the age of X"
We must use "X" because the Anabaptist "anti-paedobaptism" folks will never say what age "X" is, which means the whole prohibition is meaningless since no one knows at what age the prohibition expires.


Credobaptism.
"Credo" = I believe.
The whole point is what they believe and that they give adequate, public proof of such.
Those who don't believe right or who have not adequately given public proof of their choices here are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to baptize any who hath not first chosen Jesus and adequately and publicly proven that."



Some Anbaptists add other things too to the ever-growing list of prohibitions, limitations, mandates and prerequistes. Among these are....

"Must FIRST repent of their sins - and give adequate public proof of this." They disagree on HOW repentant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ. But some place ENORMOUS emphasis that this is a prerequiest to baptism and that it must be PROHIBITED to any who has not first achieved and performed this.

"Must FIRST attained an adequate level of biblical and theological training." They disagree on HOW much training and knowledge and education MUST be in place, or how it is to be proven, but many will place ENORMOUS emphasis that the reciever MUST be knowledgable and not ignorant. They disagree on HOW educated and non-ignorant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ, but they STRESS that those who are biblically ignorant are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.


Where is the support for these sudden inventions of this German Anabaptist in 1523? These are applications of his radical synergism in reaction to the claims of Catholicism that Baptism is a "Means of Grace." His point was God CANNOT bless or give faith to one who is not FIRST able to contribute his part to the salvation process; babies and children CANNOT do what they need to do to gain salvation; they are too young to choose Jesus and too young to repent and too young to do good works - thus too young to be saved. What is too young? He'd never say. What about these too young? He invented the idea that children have no sin or at least aren't held accountable (thus the "Age of Accountability" notion often found among radical synergists).


There is nothing in Scripture that states these prohibitions, limitations and requirements. And so no one until 1523 ever thought of them or applied them.



- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

How does the following square with that answer, then??

"Why do you refuse to obey by ignoring the command to REPENT, and jump right to baptizing a passive participant and claiming the gift of the Holy Spirit for them? "

I received an accusation:

That's the position you are repudiating.... Odd you'd quote a verse that destroys your apologetic. YES, this is not just for adult believers but also "for your children." Ah, all those examples of whole households bring baptized..... "this is for you and your children."

So the promise is to them PLUS their children.

I responded with an analysis of the actual verse:

The promise is ... "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
You have the promise that you can "Repent, be baptized (forgive your sins) and receive the Holy Spirit."
Your children have the promise that they can "Repent, be baptized (forgive their sins) and receive the Holy Spirit."
Those far off have the promise that they can "Repent, be baptized (forgive their sins) and receive the Holy Spirit."

I then countered with a question about why part of the verse (which was a command from Peter and the Holy Spirit) was being emphasized while another part of the verse/command was being ignored:

Why do you refuse to obey by ignoring the command to REPENT, and jump right to baptizing a passive participant and claiming the gift of the Holy Spirit for them?

You and anyone else is free to obey any commands any way you feel is correct, however, if you claim that I am misunderstanding a verse, it is not unreasonable to expect the accuser to defend their position against comparable accusations of misunderstanding.

 

[Josiah]

why part of the verse was being emphasized while another part of the verse/command was being ignored

Arthur,


No one on this side is ignoring anything..... I've already stated - a great many times - that MANY things are associated, and that ALL are important.


Where we disagree is that you are placing them into a MANDATED chronological sequence and insisting the Bible STATES these must be in a certain chronological sequence (or at times, that each time they happen simultaneously), one thing as a mandated prerequisite of the next; the whole point of this new, out-of-the-blue invention of that man in 1523 is that some things are PREREQUISITES for other things. That man came up with this exclusively as an implication of his radical synergism. But SOME modern Anabaptists also add because 1) "Kai" mandates sequence, it means "after that in chronological sequence" and 2) We must follow SOME of the examples of practices we find that happen to be recorded in the Bible and we MUST do all things ONLY as they did in some of the examples we find in the Bible and are forbidden to do otherwise. I disagree with all those points. That's what I've been posting in the plethora of places where MennoSota and you have been stressing this 1523 invention of the Anabaptist on this point. THAT, my friend, is our disagreement.... THAT, my friend, is what I have been disagreeing with.



- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

What no one argues is a mythical "Age of X" position. So, let us put that foolish notion to bed...shall we.

.... only if you repudiate the Anabaptist position on baptism. I'll highlight the key point in what I posted earlier:

The sudden, out-of-the-blue, invention of the Anabaptist in 1523 centers in two things:

Anti-Paedobaptism.
"Paedo" = children.
The whole point is AGE.
It's anti-infant/child baptism.
It's "Those under the age of X are FORBIDDEN to be baptized."
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to give baptism to those under the age of X"
We must use "X" because the Anabaptist "anti-paedobaptism" folks will never say what age "X" is, which means the whole prohibition is meaningless since no one knows at what age the prohibition expires.


Credobaptism.
"Credo" = I believe.
The whole point is what they believe and that they give adequate, public proof of such.
Those who don't believe right or who have not adequately given public proof of their choices here are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to baptize any who hath not first chosen Jesus and adequately and publicly proven that."



Some Anbaptists add other things too to the ever-growing list of prohibitions, limitations, mandates and prerequistes. Among these are....

"Must FIRST repent of their sins - and give adequate public proof of this." They disagree on HOW repentant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ. But some place ENORMOUS emphasis that this is a prerequiest to baptism and that it must be PROHIBITED to any who has not first achieved and performed this.

"Must FIRST attained an adequate level of biblical and theological training." They disagree on HOW much training and knowledge and education MUST be in place, or how it is to be proven, but many will place ENORMOUS emphasis that the reciever MUST be knowledgable and not ignorant. They disagree on HOW educated and non-ignorant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ, but they STRESS that those who are biblically ignorant are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.


Where is the support for these sudden inventions of this German Anabaptist in 1523? These are applications of his radical synergism in reaction to the claims of Catholicism that Baptism is a "Means of Grace." His point was God CANNOT bless or give faith to one who is not FIRST able to contribute his part to the salvation process; babies and children CANNOT do what they need to do to gain salvation; they are too young to choose Jesus and too young to repent and too young to do good works - thus too young to be saved. What is too young? He'd never say. What about these too young? He invented the idea that children have no sin or at least aren't held accountable (thus the "Age of Accountability" notion often found among radical synergists).


There is nothing in Scripture that states these prohibitions, limitations and requirements. And so no one until 1523 ever thought of them or applied them.



.

Since the Anabaptist position here is anti-paedobaptism, and the entire issue of that is AGE, and since that AGE mandate is never stated, we have no choice to give the age as "X" ("X" being an unknown or undisclosed). While I met (on line) one Baptist who said in her church, EIGHT-YEARS-OLD is the magic number, she stressed that that's just the polity of her parish. Usually Anti-Paedobaptists will go to great length to NOT state an age. But since nearly all Anabaptists I've discussed this with are synergists (Anabaptism was born out of a radical synergism, and the Baptist view of it was simply an implication of that radical synergism), their point is usually something like, "When they are old enough to chose Jesus as their personal Savior." But age usually is the key issue - and is THE issue for the vast majority of Anabaptists who of course are Anti-Paedobaptists.



- Josiah




.

 

[Pedrito]

What a difference a little twist of terminology can make.

==============================================================================================

Albion in Post #141: And as for the age of accountability, that is something that was historically associated with the reception of Holy Communion, not Baptism.

Me in Post #204: I think I can rest my case.

The age of accountability requirement does exist within churches that practice ritual baby baptism after all.

However it might be disguised.

Albion in Post #205: By definition, it does not.

It cannot, if everyone of any age is eligible for baptism, which is the case with all the traditional churches. Only those Christians of the Anabaptist tradition have imposed a kind of 'age of accountability' prerequisite--and that prerequisite is not effectively defined anyway since it varies from congregation to congregation.'

meluckycharms in Post #207, regarding Post #205: You are correct. For those who practice infant baptism, there cannot be an age of accountability for baptism. However, the requirement to confess your faith and repent is still scripturally there. This is where confirmation comes in.

==============================================================================================

Readers note:

I was referring to the totally unscriptural, yet self confessed (by the baby baptisers) doctrine of the “age of accountability” (however expressed). The need for baptised babies to one day become self-accountable for their own salvation, was admitted in Post #141 and Post #207. That accountability was associated with “confirmation” and access to “Holy Communion”. Therefore an age of accountability is inherently concreted in the doctrine sets of Baby Baptisers. Nothing could be clearer. They said it themselves.

But that revelation appears to be unpalatable.

The Baby Baptisers have been choosing to replace the general age of accountability concept being referred to, with a specific age of accountability concept relating to the rite of baptism. Readers will note the terminology used to achieve that.

==============================================================================================

The “Age of Accountability” is foreign to the Apostolic Gospel. It was never there. The Apostles did not teach it. Nor did Jesus Himself.

Is it not true therefore, that any church teaching it, or practicing it (overtly or covertly), stands in direct opposition to God? (Whether baby baptisers or not?)

 

[Albion]

Readers note:

I was referring to the totally unscriptural, yet self confessed (by the baby baptisers) doctrine of the “age of accountability” (however expressed).

There is no such 'age of accountability' in the churches which baptize children.

The need for baptised babies to one day become self-accountable for their own salvation, was admitted in Post #141 and Post #207. That accountability was associated with “confirmation” and access to “Holy Communion”. Therefore an age of accountability is inherently concreted in the doctrine sets of Baby Baptisers.

What is the age, then?

The Baby Baptisers have been choosing to replace the general age of accountability concept being referred to, with a specific age of accountability concept relating to the rite of baptism. Readers will note the terminology used to achieve that.

There is no way that not having an age of accountabilty amounts to having an age of accountability. Not even if you repeat yourself another time and throw in your own favorite slur ("Baby Baptizers") several more times.