Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

[Josiah]

Here are MARTIN LUTHER'S views (not necessarily those of Lutheranism):


Errors Personally Rejected by Luther:

That infants and children before the age of reason cannot have saving faith.
That children are saved by the faith of the sponsors.
That children are saved by the faith of the church.
That children are saved by the power of the sacrament.
That in baptism children are brought to the Gospel and the church but are not saved because they cannot have faith.
That there are two kinds of baptism, one for adults and another for children.
That the words of Christ to "Suffer the little children to come unto me" mean spiritual children who are small in humility.
That adult "reason" is necessary for faith.


Truths Personally Affirmed by Luther

That Christ commanded us to bring the children to Him.
That infants acquire faith as a gift of God.
That this faith is for salvation (not one of intellectual understanding, comprehension or facts, but the gift of God, Ephesians 2;8-9).
That the Lord's standard is not that of adult intellectual faith, but that adults must become as little children.
That this faith appropriates the blessings of Baptism.
That this baptism is the same baptism for children and adults.
That there is no salvation apart from faith in Christ, even with baptism. Faith is the hand that reaches into the waters of baptism and retrieves the pearl of salvation.


[Note: Luther teaches that true baptism is water connected with the Word of God. When properly administered in connection with the Word it is always a Godly baptism, even if the candidate lacks faith. The lack of faith, however, means the benefits of baptism are not appropriated to him. When that person genuinely believes, the benefits of baptism are applied to him, it is not necessary to be rebaptized. Luther is NOT suggesting to baptize someone whom we know to be without faith, he is saying only that the problem is not in the Baptism, but in the lack of faith. How can we know if an infant has faith? We cannot know with certainty, just as as we cannot know whether an adult profession is genuine. With an adult we look at his life and hear his confession, his testimony and on that basis we believe he has faith. With an infant we look at the parents and sponsors, as Luther puts it the "alien faith" and trust God's promises that He receives the children brought to Him and brings them into the Kingdom Of God as He promised.]


.

Just the oft quoted command from the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Peter: "Peter said to them, “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." (Acts 2:38) and the command of Jesus: "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16).

Your apologetic is founded exclusively on a mandate that the koine Greek word "kai" must prescribe chronological sequence. It has been shown over and over that this is wrong. Even Baptists and Calvinists do not agree with you and never made this point (except perhaps to insist on it when speaking of baptist and repudiate the same point when speaking of anything else).

Yes, the traditional/orthodox/historic view embraces many things as co-requisites, even incorporating that point in the traditional usual ceremony.... it's Baptists who isolate Baptism and never mention any of these corequisites when baptizing. The new dogma of the radical synergistic Anabaptists was that there is a divinely mandated step-by-step chronological sequence to all these things (so as to jibe with their radical synergism). So, the issue is this PRErequisites for baptism that is your entire point. Where does Scripture mandate a certain, prescribed, divinely mandates chronological sequence that we must obey in order to remove the prohibition to baptism? No Anabaptist/Baptist will say..... Some (like you) insist that the word "kai" MANDATES sequence and then they tell God what sequence this must be.... yet they have NOTHING in Greek grammar that indicates that "kai" mandates sequence. And they have SOME of the examples where it does seem in SOME illustrations that all the receivers were at least not babies.... but they can't tell us why this matters; on the one hand they tell us that we are forbidden to do what is not illustrated (sometimes) in the NT but then that we can but then that we can't but we can - all this perhaps while posting on the internet (which is never illustrated in the NT).

BAD (really bad) grammar..... Even worse epistemology.... And Anabaptists NEVER employ EITHER of these anywhere else (that alone should give pause....)

"GO.... BAPTIZE... TEACH" is actually Matthew 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Yup. No divine prohibition on either baptizing or teaching....

Nothing about "BUT..... know this..... thou canst NOT do any of this unless and until the person hath first attainedth their X birthday and hath first choseth Jesus as their personal savior and hath first repented passionately and adequately and publicly then, after all that is finished, the divine prohibition on baptism wilt be lifted."

When Anabaptist apply the Great Commission, do they remember their whole dogma that the word "kai" mandates chronological sequence? So FIRST they to to all 7.5 billion people..... when that done and finished.. they baptize all of them.... and when that has been completed, then they teach all of them? After all, the word "kai" MUST mandate chronological sequence, that's the dogma they insist on. It would be an interesting exercise, going through the NT, seeing if Baptist actually believe their own dogma....

to start with

Friend, you are trying to defend your obvious grammatical error with "kai" by trying to transfer it to me. I NEVER said that "kai" mandates a divinely prescribed chronological sequence (or God is rendered impotent). All of us on the traditional/orthodox/historic side have been arguing against that.

If not, then why the double standard?

Yeah. Why the Anabaptist dogma that "kai" mandates sequence but they don't first go and when that's finished THEN baptize and when that's been done THEN teach. I've quoted a number of Scriptures to you dealing with justification and applied your point - the whole issue here - that "kai" mandates chronological sequence - and showed how if we accept this position (which was invented by radical synergists, remember) it blows all your monergism and Calvinist teachings right out the window. You always ignored that.

Originally, it was you that brought up that God has called for a GREAT many things.... and you called them "CO-requisites." I like that. I've taken up that word. But as soon as I agreed with you.... as soon as I noted that that's the traditional/orthodox/historic view that the Anabaptists ridiculed and replaced with their "Everything has a bunch of PRErequisties that MUST be done in that exact order or God is impotent" well..... then you stopped mentioning co-requisites. Friend, the issue here is whether Greek grammar means that "kai" creates a chain of chronological mandates sequence that must be followed. Baptists say "yes" when it comes to SOME verses about baptism.... but they say "no" when it comes to everything else, anything else.

The chief apologetic of the Particular Baptists of 1630 is to obey the command to baptize those who confess and believe

As we all know, no such command exist.


Because Anabaptists/Baptists have no verse whatsoever, they go to two apologetics:


1. The koine Greek word "kai" mandates a chronological sequence in time, a step-one-then-step-two chronology. Trouble is, that's entirely wrong.... And baptists themselves almost never accept their own dogma on that, as we've seen, not even when it comes to Baptism.


2. Just ignore what Scripture says and instead make SOME of the examples of things illustrated as done in the Bible as our norm. Trouble is, this Catholic rubric is false and wrong; the implication is that we can only do what is illustrated in the Bible as done (which means we're violating that now by posting on the internet). And baptists themselves almost never accept their own dogma here, not even when it comes to Baptism. For example, where in the Bible is a person dunked in a big spa behind a curtain in the church by a Gentile wearing an Ahola shirt in the USA? And they don't follow this anywhere else... for example, where in the Bible is communion celebrated 4 times a year by passing around to everyone a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and trays of little plastic cups with a bit of Welchs' grape juice in them? Baptists don't even accept their own dogma here.

it is about following an explicit command (repeated several times).

.... and yet in 500 years, no one has found that verse. Hum..... And of course, no one for 1500 years before that found it either. As you know, from at least 63 AD, children were baptized.



- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

Anyone preaching that baptism is a means of grace is actually saying baptism saves.

Absurd.

NO ONE on the planet has EVER - in some 2000 years - have EVER suggested such an absurd idea.


JESUS is the Savior. There is no other. You should know this. Salvation is found in no one and nothing else. However, that's conveyed to an individual by faith, thus God must give the person faith to apprehend that salvation.


Where some disagree with you, is that the traditional/orthodox/historic view (also embraced by Calvinists) is that while God CAN work by "Fiat" (some dude all alone on a desert island who is blind and deaf may still be given faith by God) but this seems very rare; God typically works via means. In traditional/orthodox/historic Christianity (I think including Calvinism), these are called "means of grace". Vehicles of grace, "tools in the hands of the Carpenter" is the way Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and beyond refer to them.


You keep making this point that God can ONLY work in absolute isolation and that if any physical thing or any physical person is involved - God is rendered impotent by that. I disagree. Several have disagreed with you on this point. I suspect your own pastor would disagree with your point. Like the Anabaptists, it seems to me your anger and distain for classic/orthodox/traditional/historic Christianity on this point, your extreme radicalism, has lead you to the absurd. Yes, everyone agrees, God CAN give faith and bless by fiat, in total isolation of everything, we aren't the ones telling God what He can't do and what renders Him impotent.... but is that the ONLY way He can work? Do you tell everyone to say far away from your church because if they enter they will hear the Word and thus some means and human effort will be involved and God rendered impotent? No. I think you have taken something to a radical and extreme absurdity in your desire to repudiate orthodox/classic/historic/traditional Christianity, which does NOT rebuke anyone for going and teaching and loving and sharing and baptizing and doing all Jesus has called on us to do. No, NONE of those things saves (Jesus alone does that) but it sure seems Jesus CAN use them (it's you insisting what God can't do).



A blessed Lenten season to all...


- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

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?

I realized that we had gotten pretty far from the original topic and thought it might be fun to take a look at it. Setting aside infants to focus on the question about disabled, let’s start with SALVATION according to the Credobaptist “Baptist Faith and Message 2000”.


IV. Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
As we examine the requirements for salvation, I believe that we will find that no one is excluded from the possibility of salvation.


A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
As a work of the Holy Spirit, it is in the hand of God and not man to grant regeneration, repentance and faith.


B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.
Justification is based completely upon the work of Christ on the Cross. No disability can prevent justification.


C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.
Growth in grace through the power of the Holy Spirit seems like another area where no disability can stand in the way or any outside work of man is required.


D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.
God will glorify all whom He chooses. No person has any control over the will of God.


VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
As an act of obedience, baptism is not required for salvation. So the eternal destiny of the disabled person is not at stake.
A ‘hard arse’ Credobaptist Church might decide that only immersion will do and the severely disabled (unable to be immersed) could not be baptized and would not be allowed to participate in communion. No Credobaptist church that I ever attended would have taken that position. If someone was physically incapable of immersion, then they would have poured or sprinkled. If no water was possible, then they would have admitted them to the church without baptism. No one would be denied communion for a physical disability.

Now if you had mental disabilities in mind, I suppose the answer depends on how disabled they are. I would be reluctant to make any decisions about someone in a coma and their faith, belief, repentance or desire to be baptized.

 

[Pedrito]

Albion in Post #141:

That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly. I don't see any issue in that fact, regardless of whether one subscribes to the idea of Believers Baptism OR the traditional view. Do you?

I agree that to be a member of the Body of Christ, one definitely must have faith in Christ. And, I would suggest, somewhat more than a wishy-washy one.

But I wonder if Albion realises that he has just excluded babies (whether baptised or not) from being saved.

And maybe he has included a significant number of people with disabilities – past, present and future – as well.

 

[Albion]

I agree that to be a member of the Body of Christ, one definitely must have faith in Christ.

Pedrito may be agreeing to something there, but it isn't what Albion wrote.

But I wonder if Albion realises that he has just excluded babies (whether baptised or not) from being saved.

He did not exclude babies. You merely reworded what he had written in order to make it fit your own theology.

 

[Josiah]

Related topic: Is God rendered impotent to give faith to those under a certain age?

http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5140-Can-Babies-Believe

 

[Pedrito]

Albion is totally correct in his first statement in Post #345: Pedrito may be agreeing to something there, but it isn't what Albion wrote.

[Start of recap]

Albion in Post #141: That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly. I don't see any issue in that fact, regardless of whether one subscribes to the idea of Believers Baptism OR the traditional view. Do you?

Me in Post #344: I agree that to be a member of the Body of Christ, one definitely must have faith in Christ. And, I would suggest, somewhat more than a wishy-washy one.

But I wonder if Albion realises that he has just excluded babies (whether baptised or not) from being saved.

And maybe he has included a significant number of people with disabilities – past, present and future – as well.

[End of recap]

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

In my first statement in Post #344, I purposefully replaced "to be saved" with "to be a member of the Body of Christ". Albion seems to be indicating that there is a practical difference between the two.

Therefore I seriously ask for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how a person can be a member of the Body of Christ without being "saved", and/or vice versa.

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

Albion's second statement in Post #345, (regarding my second and third statements in Post #344 concerning the exclusion of babies and some people with disabilities), was: He did not exclude babies. You merely reworded what he had written in order to make it fit your own theology.

I therefore once again seriously ask for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how babies and those disabled in the manner meant by the topic heading, can be saved as in: "That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly."

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

Both my questions are serious ones, asked in an uncombative manner, in the hope of obtaining a clear, unequivocal understanding of each situation above.

Precise explanations are requested (even if it could be said that answers lie in various places in previous Posts).

Seeing the answers expressed concisely and together, would be extremely helpful.

 

[Albion]

But I wonder if Albion realises that he has just excluded babies (whether baptised or not) from being saved.

I did not.

And I am wondering why you constantly read things into my statements that are not there. Just read the lines over that you quoted, and it should be evident that you did not respond to what I said but to something you were looking for instead. That...or else you have a different idea of what these theological concepts mean and it's throwing you off every time you read what I've written.

In my first statement in Post #344, I purposefully replaced "to be saved" with "to be a member of the Body of Christ". Albion seems to be indicating that there is a practical difference between the two.

Absolutely.

Therefore I seriously ask for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how a person can be a member of the Body of Christ without being "saved", and/or vice versa.

Why don't you ask him, then?

 

[Josiah]

A related topic: http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5155-The-Passover-Parents-Children-Salvation

 

[Pedrito]

Has anyone read the book "Games People Play" by Eric Berne? It was a ground-breaking exposé of the psychological games people play with others, and with themselves. If anyone has, they will have recognised particular goings-on in some threads of CH.

I rarely recommend things (apart from the identifying of the original Apostolic Gospel and working forward from there), but I do recommmend that prople read that book – read it as a self-defence mechanism to combat manipulative tactics they are being subject to. It is available on E-Bay.

Having read the book some years ago, I recognise the techniques. I have fun fencing with them to make them all the more obvious. And at times I let it seem that I have been successfully manipulated, to permit me to cut through the manipulation even more effectively.

Getting down to business...

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

In Post # 347 on Page 35, I asked: Therefore I seriously ask for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how a person can be a member of the Body of Christ without being "saved", and/or vice versa.
and
I therefore once again seriously ask for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how babies and those disabled in the manner meant by the topic heading, can be saved as in: "That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly.".

Albion responded: Why don't you ask him, then?

So, I will oblige. In two ways, to cover multiple bases.

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

I seriously ask Albion for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how a person can be a member of the Body of Christ without being "saved", and/or vice versa.

I also seriously ask Albion for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how babies and those disabled in the manner meant by the topic heading, can be saved as in: "That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly.".

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

Hello Albion,

1. I seriously ask you for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how a person can be a member of the Body of Christ without being "saved", and/or vice versa.

2. I also seriously ask you for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how babies and those disabled in the manner meant by the topic heading, can be saved as in: "That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly.".

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

Both (or all four) questions are serious ones, asked of Albion (of you) in an uncombative manner, in the hope of obtaining a clear, unequivocal understanding of each situation above.

Precise explanations are requested of Albion (of you) (even if it could be said that answers lie in various places in previous Posts).

Seeing the answers expressed concisely and together, would be extremely helpful.

I thank Albion (you) in advance.

 

[Albion]

Hello Albion,

1. I seriously ask you for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how a person can be a member of the Body of Christ without being "saved", and/or vice versa.

Hello. When we say that someone becomes a member of the Body of Christ, it is meant that he joins the visible church and attests to that membership. He may be saved in the end, or he may fall away and not be saved, but he is not uninvolved with the fellowship and the work of the church on Earth, receiving the sacraments, etc. in the meanwhile.

2. I also seriously ask you for clarification (from Holy Scripture) regarding how babies and those disabled in the manner meant by the topic heading, can be saved as in: "That said, does a person, regardless of when he's baptized, have to be a believer, have faith in Christ, in order to be saved? Yes. Certainly.".

You are asking if a person is assured of salvation by the fact of having been baptized. I have no idea where you would get the notion that this is the case. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding somewhere.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION]


See the below....

Here are MARTIN LUTHER'S views (not necessarily those of Lutheranism). Luther's views here are pretty much universal among the vast majority of Christians with the conservative/orthodox/historic Baptism view:


Errors Personally Rejected by Luther:

That infants and children before the age of reason cannot have saving faith.
That children are saved by the faith of the sponsors.
That children are saved by the faith of the church.
That children are saved by the power of the sacrament.
That in baptism children are brought to the Gospel and the church but are not saved because they cannot have faith.
That there are two kinds of baptism, one for adults and another for children.
That the words of Christ to "Suffer the little children to come unto me" mean spiritual children who are small in humility.
That adult "reason" is necessary for faith.


Truths Personally Affirmed by Luther

That Christ commanded us to bring the children to Him.
That infants acquire faith as a gift of God.
That this faith is for salvation (not one of intellectual understanding, comprehension or facts, but the gift of God, Ephesians 2;8-9).
That the Lord's standard is not that of adult intellectual faith, but that adults must become as little children.
That this faith appropriates the blessings of Baptism.
That this baptism is the same baptism for children and adults.
That there is no salvation apart from faith in Christ, even with baptism. Faith is the hand that reaches into the waters of baptism and retrieves the pearl of salvation.


[Note: Luther teaches that true baptism is water connected with the Word of God. When properly administered in connection with the Word it is always a Godly baptism, even if the candidate lacks faith. The lack of faith, however, means the benefits of baptism are not appropriated to him. When that person genuinely believes, the benefits of baptism are applied to him, it is not necessary to be rebaptized. Luther is NOT suggesting to baptize someone whom we know to be without faith, he is saying only that the problem is not in the Baptism, but in the lack of faith. How can we know if an infant has faith? We cannot know with certainty, just as as we cannot know whether an adult profession is genuine. With an adult we look at his life and hear his confession, his testimony and on that basis we believe he has faith. With an infant we look at the parents and sponsors, as Luther puts it the "alien faith" and trust God's promises that He receives the children brought to Him and brings them into the Kingdom Of God as He promised.]



.

Also read these two opening posts (very much related to the issues here).....


Can Babies have Faith? http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5140-Can-Babies-Believe

Can God use the faith of parents to save their children? http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5155-The-Passover-Parents-Children-Salvation






Thank you.


A blessed Lenten season to all....


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Hello. When we say that someone becomes a member of the Body of Christ, it is meant that he joins the visible church and attests to that membership. He may be saved in the end, or he may fall away and not be saved, but he is not uninvolved with the fellowship and the work of the church on Earth, receiving the sacraments, etc. in the meanwhile.



You are asking if a person is assured of salvation by the fact of having been baptized. I have no idea where you would get the notion that this is the case. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding somewhere.

So...it's just the physical...man-made denominational church...not the actual body of Christ that makes up the church?
Basically, you have a denominational dogma created to add members to your church denomination, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with recognizing someone as an adopted and redeemed child of God.
Is this correct?

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=142]Pedrito[/MENTION]


See the below....







Also read these two opening posts (very much related to the issues here).....


Can Babies have Faith? http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5140-Can-Babies-Believe

Can God use the faith of parents to save their children? http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?5155-The-Passover-Parents-Children-Salvation






Thank you.


A blessed Lenten season to all....


- Josiah




.

Was Luther ever wrong?

 

[Lamb]

Was Luther ever wrong?

Luther changed his mind on many things throughout his life. Lutherans don't follow Luther though so why does it matter if he was wrong on some things? It's the right things that matter such as pointing to Jesus as Savior (by grace through faith we are saved).

 

[MennoSota]

Luther changed his mind on many things throughout his life. Lutherans don't follow Luther though so why does it matter if he was wrong on some things? It's the right things that matter such as pointing to Jesus as Savior (by grace through faith we are saved).

What does Josiah have to say? I am addressing his reliance on Luther for his argument.
Is it possible that quoting Luther or relying on his interpretation might result in a wrong interpretation of scripture?

 

[Pedrito]

I thank Albion (Thank you, Albion) for his (your) succinct replies in Post #351.

I do now have a couple of follow-up questions for clarification purposes, but I will defer them so that nobody can misinterpret their intention as being anything but that.

Thanks once again.

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

With respect to Scripture references in the links posted in Josiah’s Post #352:

In Luke 1:41, the Holy Spirit made the baby leap in Elizabeth’s womb as a sign to her. The action had nothing to do with personal faith within the fetus’ developing brain.

In Psalm 22:9-10, the word translated in the vein of “causing me to trust” can also be translated “making me secure” and the like. The Holman Christian Standard Bible so translates it, for instance. That translation fits in with the rest of Scripture, and therefore (naturally) with the original apostolic Gospel.

And do Matthew 18:1-6, Luke 18:15-17 and Mark 10:13-16 really have anything to do with children having saving faith? Especially in the context of the Jewish culture within which Jesus was expressing His ideas? The context of the Luke passage portrays Jesus’ intent well. People needed to be like the publican, humble and without affectation, just like children, as opposed to having assumed self-worth like the Pharisees. That also fits in with the rest of Scripture, and therefore with the original apostolic Gospel.

Yet again, what does the historic passing over of the firstborn as in Exodus 11:1 – 12:36 and Exodus 12:21-23 have to do with the continuing ritual of baptising babies? Absolutely nothing. Any attempted association lacks merit. For instance, it was a one-off, nonrepeated, specialised, genetically-specific event.

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

And with respect to the often employed “Could God...”, I float the point that it is not a matter of what God could do, or what God could have done, but rather what He has revealed that He has done in the past, is doing in the present, and intends to do in the future.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Is it possible that quoting Luther or relying on his interpretation might result in a wrong interpretation of scripture?

Very much so. But so is relying on a hyper-Calvinist pov (but claiming bible-only) a "denominational dogma created to add members to your church denomination". You may deny this, but it's the very essence of what makes one Calvinist.

 

[MennoSota]

Very much so. But so is relying on a hyper-Calvinist pov (but claiming bible-only) a "denominational dogma created to add members to your church denomination". You may deny this, but it's the very essence of what makes one Calvinist.

There is much that I disagree with Calvin's Bible interpretations. His tendency to allegory in regard to the prophetic books causes him to make some wild comments. He is a product of his era.
Calvin was very solid in understanding God's Sovereignty and grace in salvation.
None of that has anything to do with credobaptism, however.

 

[Josiah]

Was Luther ever wrong?

Sure. But I think even more wrong are those who indicate what the traditional/orthodox/historic view is on baptism. Anabaptist seem fond of radically, absurdly mischaracterizing the historic/orthodox view. I replied to a member who obviously has a very wrong idea of what the orthodox position is.



You have insisted that we all disregard any denominational spin (including that of the Anabaptists) and just go by the words we all can read on the pages of Scriptures. Okay. But so far, in thread after thread on this topic, you've just parroted verbatim the exact Anabaptist spin... and not once even given any Scripture that states all these new, bold, prohibitions, limitations and prerequisites that are the new dogma of the Anabaptists. Could be Anabaptists be wrong in their radical, new invention?