Water Baptism

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

I read that you must believe to be saved and after such belief, baptism takes place.

Where? What passage states that?

Have you seen a 6 month old express belief?

According to the Bible, John the Baptist did before he was even born, it would have been at least minus 3 months.

Jesus says "tiny ones" (midron - a word used for unborn children through toddler) can (and at least some) do believe. Matthew 18:6. There is no verse, "The Holy Spirit is rendered impotent to give faith if the recipient is under the age of X and you won't be told what age at is."

But let's discuss when you quote the passage, "Thou canst NOT baptize unless and until the recipient hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and proven that."




.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


Since the late 16th Century, some Baptists try to make the case you parrot that the very word "baptize" means and mandated "full immersion under water." It simply isn't true.


And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC
typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years. Why haven't the Greek speaking Greeks EVER known the word mandates immersion? BUT these German Anabaptists in the late 16th Century knew this?


The Didache, as you've admitted, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. To your apologetic, your insistence that the word "baptize" means and mandates full immersion, that Didache states,"POUR out water ..." POUR. He quotes a Scripture about baptism and states we are permitted to POUR. It's okay to POUR. He doesn't say, "Because we all know the very word means and mandates to fully immerse entirely under water we cannot pour water or dip in water but it is mandated we fully immerse the body under water". Nope. He says we can POUR. He spoke Greek. He knew Greek. He wrote this just decades after Jesus instituted Baptism. He wrote it to people who spoke and read and knew Greek. How do you explain he doesn't know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else on the planet knew this for 1500 years, these German speakers suddenly know the meaning of the word? Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OT equal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century). Can you explain to me how these few Germans (who didn't know Greek) in the late 16th Century were the first ones to know the Greek word means and mandates "to fully immerse?" Why don't Greek speaking people for 2000 years not know that? Why didn't the author of the Didache (around 100 AD) know that? Why didn't anyone know that until a tiny few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century suddenly learn that? Can you explain that to me?

Crispus believed and was baptized. Do Lutheran infants believe?

God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him. See Matthew 18:6, Note the word "mikron" ("Little ones" ESV) literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the undisclosed age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, whose invented dogma on this you parrot.


But of course, this verse about Crispus doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. It gives one example. If I posted that I purchased my first car when I was 22, that would not dogmatically mandate that all are forbidden to buy a car prior to celebrating their 22nd birthday, it would simply state that I did not. Come on.

Do all the members of Lutheran households believe?

We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything about all households..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.

Have Lutheran infants BELIEVED and gotten Baptized?

You are simply presupposing the Anabaptist invention is true rather than substantiating it.

Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."





Now, where are these prohibitions, denials and mandates that are the dogma you echo stated in Scripture?

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath reached their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

"Thou must baptize and Baptism is so important and stressed in the Bible because it doth nothing?"

Where are those in the Bible? Where is this invention of these Anabaptists in the late 16th Century?





.

 

[MennoSota]

Where? What passage states that?





According to the Bible, John the Baptist did before he was even born, it would have been at least minus 3 months.

Jesus says "tiny ones" (midron - a word used for unborn children through toddler) can (and at least some) do believe. Matthew 18:6. There is no verse, "The Holy Spirit is rendered impotent to give faith if the recipient is under the age of X and you won't be told what age at is."

But let's discuss when you quote the passage, "Thou canst NOT baptize unless and until the recipient hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and proven that."




.

Acts 16:30-31 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

There is the verse. What does it say, Josiah?
Does it say "Be baptized to be saved so that you might believe"?

Let's look at Luke 1.
Luke 1:41,44
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Where do we read that the child in the womb had faith?
Was the baby filled with the Spirit or was Elizabeth?
All we know is that the baby lept in the womb at sound of Mary's voice. There is zero indication to definitively declare that the child had faith. None. Zip. Nada.
Josiah, you are projecting into the verse something that the verse does not say.
So...once again...we know that a person must believe to be saved. The verse is provided. What we don't know is whether a 6 month, 12 month, 18 month, 24 month child can express and confess belief. Your claim of John the Baptist, in the womb, having faith is not expressed in the verses provided. You are left entirely with speculation and silence as the basis of your argument.
I am left with scripture, "You must believe to be saved," and every baptism in the book of Acts being performed after a person expressed belief.
Others can review this and determine which argument has more biblical merit.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

Acts 16:30-31 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” There is the verse. What does it say, Josiah?

Easy. It says that he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

It does not say, "..... prove that you have celebrated your Xth birthday (and we won't tell you what birthday that is), then after that, prove that you are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that, prove that you have chosen Jesus as your personal Savior, then after all these, you are released from the prohibitions to baptism and must be fully immersed under water. Oh, and if your family jumps through all these hoops in this chronological order, they too may be baptized."

Let's look at Luke 1:41,44 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,
For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Where do we read that the child in the womb had faith?

So having joy upon Christ is a sign of unbelief? Atheists and Hindus and Muslims always leap for joy at Jesus because they don't believe him? Christians are grim and sorrowful when Christ is present because they have faith?


Matthew 18:6. "Little ones WHO BELIEVE IN HIM." Mikron. "Tiny ones" A term typically used in Koine Greek for people unborn through toddler or so. The term does NOT mean "one who is over the age of X but you won't be told what age that is." Tiny ones who.. what? What does Jesus say? "Who BELIEVE in me."

every baptism in the book of Acts being performed after a person expressed belief

Substantiate that statement.

Start with every member of the following households....

Acts 16:15.

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.


Acts 16:33

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.


1 Corinthians 1:16

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.



THEN prove that you don't do anything (such as posting on the internet) unless it is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible.




.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


Since the late 16th Century, some Baptists try to make the case you parrot that the very word "baptize" means and mandated "full immersion under water." It simply isn't true.


And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC
typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years. Why haven't the Greek speaking Greeks EVER known the word mandates immersion? BUT these German Anabaptists in the late 16th Century knew this?


The Didache, as you've admitted, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. To your apologetic, your insistence that the word "baptize" means and mandates full immersion, that Didache states,"POUR out water ..." POUR. He quotes a Scripture about baptism and states we are permitted to POUR. It's okay to POUR. He doesn't say, "Because we all know the very word means and mandates to fully immerse entirely under water we cannot pour water or dip in water but it is mandated we fully immerse the body under water". Nope. He says we can POUR. He spoke Greek. He knew Greek. He wrote this just decades after Jesus instituted Baptism. He wrote it to people who spoke and read and knew Greek. How do you explain he doesn't know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else on the planet knew this for 1500 years, these German speakers suddenly know the meaning of the word? Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OT equal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century). Can you explain to me how these few Germans (who didn't know Greek) in the late 16th Century were the first ones to know the Greek word means and mandates "to fully immerse?" Why don't Greek speaking people for 2000 years not know that? Why didn't the author of the Didache (around 100 AD) know that? Why didn't anyone know that until a tiny few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century suddenly learn that? Can you explain that to me?







God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him. See Matthew 18:6, Note the word "mikron" ("Little ones" ESV) literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the undisclosed age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, whose invented dogma on this you parrot.


But of course, this verse about Crispus doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. It gives one example. If I posted that I purchased my first car when I was 22, that would not dogmatically mandate that all are forbidden to buy a car prior to celebrating their 22nd birthday, it would simply state that I did not. Come on.








We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything about all households..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.









You are simply presupposing the Anabaptist invention is true rather than substantiating it.

Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."





Now, where are these prohibitions, denials and mandates that are the dogma you echo stated in Scripture?

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath reached their Xth birthday (and you won't be told what birthday that is)?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?"

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

"Thou must baptize and Baptism is so important and stressed in the Bible because it doth nothing?"

Where are those in the Bible? Where is this invention of these Anabaptists in the late 16th Century?





.

Sorry butch, you have repeatedly failed to engage even a single verse presented to you and have instead chosen to parrot your demand for yet more verses.
You can’t even bother to acknowledge the meaning of the Greek word “baptizo” yet you are more than willing to attempt to argue about the insignificance of the Greek word for “and”.
Back to troll status..
:taz:

 

[Josiah]

S
You can’t even bother to acknowledge the meaning of the Greek word “baptizo”

Your apologetic for the "IMMERSION ONLY" invention of the Anabaptists in the late 16th century is that the word itself means and mandates full immersion under water.

You have ignored all the following and will not engage in it.

Since the late 16th Century, some Baptists try to make the case you parrot that the very word "baptize" means and mandated "full immersion under water." It simply isn't true.


And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years. Why haven't the Greek speaking Greeks EVER known the word mandates immersion? BUT these German Anabaptists in the late 16th Century knew this?


The Didache, as you've admitted, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. To your apologetic, your insistence that the word "baptize" means and mandates full immersion, that Didache states,"POUR out water ..." POUR. He quotes a Scripture about baptism and states we are permitted to POUR. It's okay to POUR. He doesn't say, "Because we all know the very word means and mandates to fully immerse entirely under water we cannot pour water or dip in water but it is mandated we fully immerse the body under water". Nope. He says we can POUR. He spoke Greek. He knew Greek. His readers knew Greek. He wrote this just decades after Jesus instituted Baptism. He wrote it to people who spoke and read and knew Greek. How do you explain he doesn't know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else on the planet knew this for 1500 years, these German speakers suddenly know the meaning of the word? Can you explain that?


Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OTequal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean and mandate, "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century). Can you explain to me how these few Germans in the late 16th Century were the first ones on the planet to know the Greek word means and mandates "to fully immerse under water?" Why don't Greek speaking people for 2000 years not know that? Why didn't the author of the Didache (around 100 AD) know that? Why didn't anyone know that until a tiny few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century suddenly learn that? Can you explain that to me?



,

The rest you ignored....

Crispus believed and was baptized. Do Lutheran infants believe?

Lutherans believe that God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him. See Matthew 18:6, Note the word "mikron" ("Little ones" ESV) literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the undisclosed age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, whose invented dogma on this you parrot.


But of course, this verse about Crispus doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. It gives one example. If I posted that I purchased my first car when I was 22, that would not dogmatically mandate that all are forbidden to buy a car prior to celebrating their 22nd birthday, it would simply state that I did not. Come on.

Do all the members of Lutheran households believe?

We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything about all households..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.

Have Lutheran infants BELIEVED and gotten Baptized?

You are simply presupposing the Anabaptist invention is true rather than substantiating it.

Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. "Kai" simply means "and." It does not mean "then after that." I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."



.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
Since the late 16th Century, some Baptists try to make the case you parrot that the very word "baptize" means and mandated "full immersion under water." It simply isn't true.

I am not a 16th century anabaptist, so I don’t care about them. The Particular Baptists, whose views are closer to my own, only go back to the 17th Century, but I am not a 17th Century Particular Baptist either. This straw man ad-hominem attack has never won you any friends, but it has marked you as an unreasonable adversary.

And it doesn't even require you know Greek to realize this. In Greece, where they have been speaking Greek since before Baptism was instituted, they have never baptized by full immersion. If the Greek word itself mandated full immersion, don't you think the Greeks would know this? Don't you think ANYONE - anyone at all, even one person - -prior to these wackedoddle Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion? Now, it's true, the EOC
typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion. Never has been. Not by anyone who knows and speaks Greek. Not in 2000 years. Why haven't the Greek speaking Greeks EVER known the word mandates immersion? BUT these German Anabaptists in the late 16th Century knew this?

Please, are you really attempting to argue that the meaning of a Greek word has no bearing on the meaning of that Greek word because Church Tradition knows better? They why are you criticizing the RCC for opposing Sola Scriptura?
That argument does not pass the laugh test. The word means to plunge or whelm ... that IS what the word means. Instructions for making a pickle say to “bapto” (means to dip) the cucumber in boiling water, and then “baptizo” (means to immerse) the cucumber in vinegar. Will “sprinkling” vinegar or “pouring” vinegar on a cucumber transform it into a pickle?

The Didache, as you've admitted, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. To your apologetic, your insistence that the word "baptize" means and mandates full immersion, that Didache states,"POUR out water ..." POUR. He quotes a Scripture about baptism and states we are permitted to POUR. It's okay to POUR. He doesn't say, "Because we all know the very word means and mandates to fully immerse entirely under water we cannot pour water or dip in water but it is mandated we fully immerse the body under water". Nope. He says we can POUR. He spoke Greek. He knew Greek. He wrote this just decades after Jesus instituted Baptism. He wrote it to people who spoke and read and knew Greek. How do you explain he doesn't know that the word MANDATES the exclusive mode of fully immersion, but some German Anabaptists, 1500 years later, who didn't know or speak Greek, suddenly, after no one else on the planet knew this for 1500 years, these German speakers suddenly know the meaning of the word? Consider too Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4, Ezekiel 36:25-27 (OT equal) and many more; obviously the term does not mean "to fully immerse in and under water." Surely Mark and Luke and Matthew knew the meaning of the word (probably better than the German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century). Can you explain to me how these few Germans (who didn't know Greek) in the late 16th Century were the first ones to know the Greek word means and mandates "to fully immerse?" Why don't Greek speaking people for 2000 years not know that? Why didn't the author of the Didache (around 100 AD) know that? Why didn't anyone know that until a tiny few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th Century suddenly learn that? Can you explain that to me?

More misplaced anabaptist ad-hominem attacks by association, I see.
No response to any of the questions that I raised, I see.
You conveniently ignored everything the Didache said about baptism except the one cherry picked phrase that supported your diatribe, I see.
What possible reason could I have to bother reading any of the verses you posted or responding to any of the questions you asked?

God is able to give them faith. Jesus said so and I believe Him.

Show me the verse where Jesus says that baptizing infants gives them faith, otherwise this is just your empty opinion.

See Matthew 18:6

No.
Until you demonstrate the courtesy to read a scripture presented to you and respond to that scripture and what it says, I am finished showing you a consideration that you are unwilling to show anyone else.

But of course, this verse about Crispus doesn't say that we are forbidden to baptize under the nondisclosed age of X, or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior or that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.

No, it states that Crispus believed. It states that Crispus household believed. It states that all of the Corinthians that were getting baptized believed. It states that everyone mentioned of the many, many people that were getting baptized all believed. We Baptists claim that people of any age that get baptized should believe. Why do you not believe me when I tell you that it is not about a “biblical prohibition” but it is about a “biblical mandate”?

It gives one example.

One example of a church leader, his family and many, many citizens in a very large city. It is one Church, not one person.

If I posted that I purchased my first car when I was 22, that would not dogmatically mandate that all are forbidden to buy a car prior to celebrating their 22nd birthday, it would simply state that I did not. Come on.

It is not about age. If I posted that everyone in our church believed in Jesus when they were baptized, then it does indicate that believing in Jesus is dogmatically indicated in my church. Paul founded the Church at Corinth, so if everyone in the Church at Corinth believed and was baptized that Paul probably dogmatically mandated that believing in Jesus is required for baptism.

We don't believe that we must ASSUME anything about all households.....

Yes you do. You ASSUME that all household members do not have to believe to be baptized. You ASSUME that one person can believe for another.

that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X.

Neither do Baptists. We just ask the person to be baptized if they believe in Jesus and take them at their word.

You are simply presupposing the Anabaptist invention is true rather than substantiating it.

More attempted ad-hominem guilt by association to the 16th Century.
I simply presuppose that when scripture says they believed and were baptized that it means that they both believed and were baptized, rather than the Lutheran interpretation that “and” really means “or” so the “believed as adults OR were just baptized as small children”.

Remember: the koine Greek word "and" is the most general connective word there is. "Kai" does not mandate chronological sequence than the word "and" does in English. I got up this morning and went to the bathroom and made a pot of coffee. Absolutely true, but I didn't do them in that chronological order. It would be silly to invent a dogma that we are forbidden to make coffee before we go to the bathroom based on that sentence

Apparently “kai” is such a small connective word that it implies no connection between “belief” and “baptism” at all ... is that your point?

Oh and my son heard long before he was born, just for your knowledge. Babies in the womb can hear. He went to church with us. We sang "Jesus songs" to him. God gave faith to John the Baptist before he was born.... I reject that God is too weak, too limited, too inept to give faith to whom He chooses; Lutherans accept the sovereignty of God and reject inventions that deny that.

Yes, the Credobaptism dogma was invented by these radically synergistic Anabaptists NOT because they quoted any Scripture but because their foundational belief was that each must CHOOSE Jesus as their personal Savior and this creates faith in themselves; each must DO big things before God can do anything for them; so you echo their doctrine: "Babies can't....." Monergists look at this differently, "God can..."

And on that unfriendly note, I leave you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A little nudge, a slight reminder, a minuscule repeat! ...



=====

Respectfully, the verse was from my post which you quoted and states that Crispus believed and his entire household believed. Thus scripture states that ALL who were baptized from the house of Crispus also believed. What the verse does not say, is the age of the members of Crispus household.

What you wrote added no additional scriptures.

Why do you want additional scriptures when you've asked for scriptures and the one in your post illustrates the inclusion of a household in belief & baptism as expressed by one member (Crispus in this case) what is deficient about that passage as an example for faith and baptism for everyone in the house at whatever level is appropriate for the persons in the house at whatever age they were.

The idea that wife, son, daughter, servant, adult and infant alike all were baptised because all believed with Crispus is the point isn't it? That is what the passage implies is it not?

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles. And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptised. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people. And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things. And he drove them from the tribunal.
(Acts 18:1-16)​

Each person believed with faith appropriate to their understanding. If there were infants in the house they believed because the passage teaches that the whole house believed.

Is it not the case that you are assuming that infants in particular cannot believe? Isn't that the core of your argument; specifically that infants below some age at which they can give what is alleged to be a credible profession of faith are, in your opinion, incapable of believing the gospel? My response to that thought is

"why? why assume that infants cannot believe with faith appropriate to their age when we all accept that children who express faith at very tender years are expressing real faith and if at some later stage in life that faith matures into a lively Christian walk with God then we all rejoice and if it does not then we all pray that, God willing, it shall some day." ​

There are other passages that mention household faith/baptism as well as this one so why assume that children were not there? Catholics do not assume that anyone baptised automatically becomes irreversibly committed to Christ and irreversibly saved. Catholics accept that everyone who is baptised becomes a Christian by baptism and at every stage of life thereafter they may choose to accept or reject what they received in baptism.

“Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe” is your opinion, not evidence or proof. [sorry]
What Albion noted reinforces my point, it is about the scripture linking “believe” to “baptism” and not about age.

.

What I would really like is a scripture that clearly indicates an infant being baptized

I do not want to be unfair but I cannot help but think that you're asking for the same thing in principle that Josiah wanted. You ask for a verse that you know is not there just like he asks for verses that he knows do not exist - verses commanding that infants not be baptised or that only people at or above some specific age may be baptised. You and I know, and God willing have the honesty to admit, that no such verses exist and therefore the matter is a matter decided by other factors. For you the factors appear to be belief that some level of cognitive maturity is needed to believe and for me the factors are that baptism and belief always go together and that belief is always expressed in ways appropriate to the abilities of the person who is baptised and believes.

I think of baptism as being rightly given to all who apply for it either on their own behalf or on behalf of the children. I think that children are rightly included in the new covenant just as they were in the old covenant. I receive baptism as appropriate for adult believers and their seed (their children) because that is how God deals with people in the old covenant and how saint Peter talks about the new covenant in the sermon that he preached on Pentecost day. But you see it differently.

I do not expect you to change your mind nor to accept my beliefs. You ought not to expect that I will change my mind and accept your beliefs. If all we can do is debate about the matter by talking past each other then we have no right to expect any change of any kind because we would not be communicating. So let's make an attempt to talk to and with one another. Even if we never change our minds we can at least try to understand why the other believes as they do.

, so the inspired word of God could absolutely settle the issue one and for all time that infants should be baptized and God grants “belief” to baptized infants. I have never been able to locate such a verse myself. What I will settle for is some scriptural evidence that an infant can hear the word of God and believe it (which seems to be the general guidelines for baptism). Even scientific evidence suggesting cognitive development in early childhood development would be more that “personal opinions”.

What I got was a LOT of personal opinions.
Which is not really “Christian Theology”.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]





Easy. It says that he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

It does not say, "..... prove that you have celebrated your Xth birthday (and we won't tell you what birthday that is), then after that, prove that you are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that, prove that you have chosen Jesus as your personal Savior, then after all these, you are released from the prohibitions to baptism and must be fully immersed under water. Oh, and if your family jumps through all these hoops in this chronological order, they too may be baptized."







So having joy upon Christ is a sign of unbelief? Atheists and Hindus and Muslims always leap for joy at Jesus because they don't believe him? Christians are grim and sorrowful when Christ is present because they have faith?


Matthew 18:6. "Little ones WHO BELIEVE IN HIM." Mikron. "Tiny ones" A term typically used in Koine Greek for people unborn through toddler or so. The term does NOT mean "one who is over the age of X but you won't be told what age that is." Tiny ones who.. what? What does Jesus say? "Who BELIEVE in me."








Substantiate that statement.

Start with every member of the following households....

Acts 16:15.

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.


Acts 16:33

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.


1 Corinthians 1:16

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.



THEN prove that you don't do anything (such as posting on the internet) unless it is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible.




.

Josiah, you have argued from silence. I have simply shown what the text actually says. I don't add to it, nor do I subtract from it.
You are arguing from speculation. It is your parogative to do so. I will let others decide if they accept your speculation or they accept what is actually stated regarding belief and baptism as well as the meeting between Mary and Martha.
I think your argument shows a really poor grasp of what scripture actually tells us while creating a speculative theory with no actual substance. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

See Matthew 18:6.

.

No.

I understand


Matthew 18:6 speaks to your enteral question of whether infants can believe, whether God is impotent to give faith to those under the age of X. I simply answer that with a verbatim quote from Jesus, but at best you ignored it (perhaps even mocked it ???). Note the word "mikron" ("Little ones" ESV) literally means "tiny ones" and is used in Greek to refer to unborn children through toddlers. The word does not mean "one over the undisclosed age of X." Of course, God gave faith to John the Baptists while he was still in his mother's womb. God can do that. Lutherans hold to a big and capable and soverign God, not to the big limitations of those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, whose invented dogma on this you promote.

are you really attempting to argue that the meaning of a Greek word has no bearing on the meaning of that Greek word because Church Tradition knows better?

No.


I'm arguing that the Greeks who speak/spoke Greek probably know the meaning better than some German speaking 16th Century Anabaptists who corrected them.


I noted (and you agreed) that the the Didache (from about 100 AD) written in Greek by someone who spoke Greek to people who knew Greek STATES it's okay to baptize by POURING. You acknowledged that reality. And I asked (but you ignored), how is it that this Greek author, writing only a few decades after Jesus established Baptism, didn't know that the word means and mandates FULL IMMERSION IN WATER? In fact, no Greek (to this day) seems to know that; the Greek Orthodox Church has never fully immersed people in baptism. How did this German speaking Anabaptist know what NO ONE in 15 centuries knew, including those (who unlike them) speak Greek? You ignored it. As you did Matthew 18:6.

And I gave you several Scriptures where the word is used and yet OBVIOUSLY does not mean and mandate "To fully immerse under water." You ignored that, as well. And I gave you an OT verse where the LXX translates the word by "baptizo" and it is "sprinkle." But you ignored that.

No, it states that Crispus believed. It states that Crispus household believed. It states that all of the Corinthians that were getting baptized believed. It states that everyone mentioned of the many, many people that were getting baptized all believed.

Yeah. There is that Baptist CLAIM that "every baptism in the Bible was of......." Help me. Please embolden for me (perhaps also underline) in each of the following records of baptisms Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 that.,,,

1. Each baptized had attained their Xth birthday.
2. Each in the household had first proven they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Each in the household had first proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.
4. Each in the household was fully immersed under water.


Note that 1 Corinthians 1:16 doesn't mention Chrispus, I don't know why you keep refusing to discuss all those baptisms in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1 Corinthians 1:16 but instead insist on discussing 1 Corinthians 1:14 instead. The claim is that "EVERY baptism was to those over the age of X who first proved that Jesus died for them and that they had chosen Jesus as their Savior." I've only asked where does it state that all those in these households had met those "mandates" that the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century? (BTW, they didn't even CLAIM the Bible taught these things.... they came up with this because they were radical synergists and their whole point was that God doesn't give faith, we choose it; their whole faith was that those under a mysterious age can't do their part, "How can a baby......?"

Why do you not believe me when I tell you that it is not about a “biblical prohibition” but it is about a “biblical mandate”?

Okay. You claim the mandates the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century are all in the Bible. Okay. Quote the Scriptures that MANDATE:

"Thou art to baptize only those who hath attained their Xth year (and we won't tell you what age that is)?" The Anti-Paedobaptism MANDATE of the Anabaptists that you echo. "Over the Age of X ONLY - not under X"

"Thou art to baptize only those who hath first proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior?" The Credobaptism MANDATE of the Anabaptists that you echo.

"Thou art to baptize only those who hath first proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?"

"Thou art to baptize only by fully immersing the entire body under water." The "immersion only" MANDATE the Anabaptists invented that you echo.

You ASSUME that all household members do not have to believe to be baptized. You ASSUME that one person can believe for another.

No. I never posting such an absurd thing. You know that.


As you know, here's what I actually said: "We do NOT believe that we must ASSUME anything whatsoever about all households..... that all members of all households are over the never-disclosed age of X, that all members of all households have proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, that all members of all households have proven that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. We don't assume that (dogmatically or otherwise). In fact, I know it to be false. In my household, we have a one-year-old, and I suspect (but cannot know) that he is under the never-disclosed age of X. When Baptists insist, "all the baptisms in the Bible are of those over that age of X who first proved they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died and first gave proof that they chose Jesus as their personal Savior" they are assuming a LOT about the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16. I stated that I am NOT assuming ANYTHING about them, the list of assumptions (all baseless) are on the part of the Baptists.


I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 were over or under the age of X (Anabaptists do).

I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 had previously proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior (Anabaptist dogmatically INSIST that is the case)

I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 had previously proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. (Anabaptists do)

I don't ASSUME everyone in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16 were fully immersed under water (Anabaptists do.)

I simply note that the claim - repeated over and over and over and over and over again in this thread and by Baptists - that "every baptism recorded in the Bible was of one over the age of X who first had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." The claim is wrong. False.


And I have noted it's an absurd point. The same people echoing that false claim are the ones who show we are not restricted to doing what is illustrated as done in the Bible (you and MennoSota prove it by posting on the internet; I'm guessing if I came to your church on a Sunday morning, the vast majority of what I'd see is never illustrated as having been done in the Bible). It's a SILLY, REJECTED apologetic - and it's not even true.

I simply presuppose that when scripture says they believed and were baptized that it means that they both believed and were baptized

Me, too. Everyone does.


But it doesn't state what you do: that FIRST the person must show that Jesus died for them and that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior - THEN, AFTER THAT, IN CHRONOLOGY sequence, THEN they are released from the biblical prohibition and may be baptized (but only by full immersion). I reject the Baptist apologetic that the Greek word "kai" MANDATES CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE, but only and exclusively if we are talking about Baptism (and nowhere else). I reject that, used to try to prove the "Credobaptism" invention of the Anabaptists. It's false. The word simply connects. It means "and" it does not mean "AND AFTER THAT...."







.

 

[MennoSota]

A little nudge, a slight reminder, a minuscule repeat! ...



=====
Why do you want additional scriptures when you've asked for scriptures and the one in your post illustrates the inclusion of a household in belief & baptism as expressed by one member (Crispus in this case) what is deficient about that passage as an example for faith and baptism for everyone in the house at whatever level is appropriate for the persons in the house at whatever age they were.

The idea that wife, son, daughter, servant, adult and infant alike all were baptised because all believed with Crispus is the point isn't it? That is what the passage implies is it not?

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles. And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptised. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people. And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things. And he drove them from the tribunal.
(Acts 18:1-16)​

Each person believed with faith appropriate to their understanding. If there were infants in the house they believed because the passage teaches that the whole house believed.

Is it not the case that you are assuming that infants in particular cannot believe? Isn't that the core of your argument; specifically that infants below some age at which they can give what is alleged to be a credible profession of faith are, in your opinion, incapable of believing the gospel? My response to that thought is

"why? why assume that infants cannot believe with faith appropriate to their age when we all accept that children who express faith at very tender years are expressing real faith and if at some later stage in life that faith matures into a lively Christian walk with God then we all rejoice and if it does not then we all pray that, God willing, it shall some day." ​

There are other passages that mention household faith/baptism as well as this one so why assume that children were not there? Catholics do not assume that anyone baptised automatically becomes irreversibly committed to Christ and irreversibly saved. Catholics accept that everyone who is baptised becomes a Christian by baptism and at every stage of life thereafter they may choose to accept or reject what they received in baptism.

.

I do not want to be unfair but I cannot help but think that you're asking for the same thing in principle that Josiah wanted. You ask for a verse that you know is not there just like he asks for verses that he knows do not exist - verses commanding that infants not be baptised or that only people at or above some specific age may be baptised. You and I know, and God willing have the honesty to admit, that no such verses exist and therefore the matter is a matter decided by other factors. For you the factors appear to be belief that some level of cognitive maturity is needed to believe and for me the factors are that baptism and belief always go together and that belief is always expressed in ways appropriate to the abilities of the person who is baptised and believes.

I think of baptism as being rightly given to all who apply for it either on their own behalf or on behalf of the children. I think that children are rightly included in the new covenant just as they were in the old covenant. I receive baptism as appropriate for adult believers and their seed (their children) because that is how God deals with people in the old covenant and how saint Peter talks about the new covenant in the sermon that he preached on Pentecost day. But you see it differently.

I do not expect you to change your mind nor to accept my beliefs. You ought not to expect that I will change my mind and accept your beliefs. If all we can do is debate about the matter by talking past each other then we have no right to expect any change of any kind because we would not be communicating. So let's make an attempt to talk to and with one another. Even if we never change our minds we can at least try to understand why the other believes as they do.

So, where do you find people applying for baptism on behalf of their children in scripture?
I have never read such a verse or an experience like that in the Bible.
I already quoted both passages about a household believing. There is nothing about infants believing. In fact, you had to write "If there were infants..." as a speculation.
I simply choose not to build a doctrine of baptism on speculation of what we don't read with the hopes that such speculation is correct.
Follow the very clear pattern established in the book of Acts. People believed, then they were baptized.
I ask you the same question I asked Josiah. Have you had a 6 month, 12 month, 18 month or 24 month old child confess belief that supports their call for baptism? I have never met such a child who has done so. Perhaps I live in a small bubble.

 

[Josiah]

Easy. It says that he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.

It does not say, "..... prove that you have celebrated your Xth birthday (and we won't tell you what birthday that is), then after that, prove that you are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that, prove that you have chosen Jesus as your personal Savior, then after all these, you are released from the prohibitions to baptism and must be fully immersed under water. Oh, and if your family jumps through all these hoops in this chronological order, they too may be baptized."







So having joy upon Christ is a sign of unbelief? Atheists and Hindus and Muslims always leap for joy at Jesus because they don't believe him? Christians are grim and sorrowful when Christ is present because they have faith?


Matthew 18:6. "Little ones WHO BELIEVE IN HIM." Mikron. "Tiny ones" A term typically used in Koine Greek for people unborn through toddler or so. The term does NOT mean "one who is over the age of X but you won't be told what age that is." Tiny ones who.. what? What does Jesus say? "Who BELIEVE in me."








Substantiate that statement.

Start with every member of the following households....

Acts 16:15.

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.


Acts 16:33

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.


1 Corinthians 1:16

Prove that every person in that household who was baptized was:
1. Over the age of X
2. Had proven that they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died.
3. Had proven that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,
4. Were fully immersed under water.



THEN prove that you don't do anything (such as posting on the internet) unless it is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible.


.

I have simply shown what the text actually says.

And I FULLY and COMPLETELY agreed with every single word in it. Nothing added, nothing changed, nothing deleted. I also note it doesn't mention Baptism.


Your whole argument is entirely from silence. You have NOTHING, not one verse, NOTHING to support to prohibitions and mandates of the Anabaptists that you echo....

And you make claims that you know simply aren't true and so you dodge them, such as "All the baptisms recorded in the Bible are of those over the age of X who first chose Jesus as their Savior." It's just not true. And it's an apologetic you reject (you prove it by posting on the internet).

And then pile on more and more silly agruments, such as "having joy at Jesus is what atheist have, believers don't have joy about Jesus" and God can't give faith to little ones (in spite of Matthew 18:6).


The Bible says to baptize. We all agree (unless you are Salvation Army). Now, where are the verses to support your dogmas? The Anti-Paedobaptism ("One must be over the age of X to be baptized, not permitted for those under the age of X"). Where is that verse? Where is the verse, "One must first prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?" The Credobaptism ("One must first give proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior!")? Where is that verse? The Immersion Only dogma ("Thou canst baptize ONLY if the recipient's entire body is immersed and covered in water!"). Seems to me the entire dogma is founded in silence..... not one Scripture.... just repudiating 2000 years of Christianity and echoing the tradition of the Anabaptists.

You are arguing from speculation.

YOU are speculating that Jesus MEANT to say (but forgot), "...BUT don't baptize any under the age of X, and for heaven's sake don't baptize any if I'm not going to die for them, and obviously don't baptize any who has not first chosen me as their personal Savior, and make sure you immerse every cell of their body under water."

YOU are speculating that no one prior to a few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th century knew that the word "baptizo" means and mandates "to immerse" and that pouring, dipping, etc are forbidden.

YOU are speculating that all the persons in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 were all over the age of X, were all persons for whom Jesus died, had all proven they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and were all fully immersed under water.

YOU are speculating that in Matthew 18:6, Jesus MEANT to say "... all those over the age of X who believe in me."

YOU are speculating that Christians don't have joy in meeting Jesus but only unbelievers so Luke 1:41 proves that John the Baptist was too young for God to give him faith.

I ask you the same question I asked Josiah. Have you had a 6 month, 12 month, 18 month or 24 month old child confess belief that supports their call for baptism?

Out of pure silence, you are simply speculating that such a person must confess belief and call for baptism. A silly question that simply speculates things the Bible never once says..... NO ONE said ... until a few wackedoddle German radically synergistic Anabaptists invented the dogmas you echo on this. Pure silence. Pure speculation. And, I might add, I reject your premise that God is impotent to bless UNLESS and UNTIL a person does x,y,x to earn it and liberate God from His impotence.






.

 

[MennoSota]

And I FULLY and COMPLETELY agreed with every single word in it. Nothing added, nothing changed, nothing deleted. I also note it doesn't mention Baptism.


Your whole argument is entirely from silence. You have NOTHING, not one verse, NOTHING to support to prohibitions and mandates of the Anabaptists that you echo....

And you make claims that you know simply aren't true and so you dodge them, such as "All the baptisms recorded in the Bible are of those over the age of X who first chose Jesus as their Savior." It's just not true. And it's an apologetic you reject (you prove it by posting on the internet).

And then pile on more and more silly agruments, such as "having joy at Jesus is what atheist have, believers don't have joy about Jesus" and God can't give faith to little ones (in spite of Matthew 18:6).


The Bible says to baptize. We all agree (unless you are Salvation Army). Now, where are the verses to support your dogmas? The Anti-Paedobaptism ("One must be over the age of X to be baptized, not permitted for those under the age of X"). Where is that verse? Where is the verse, "One must first prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?" The Credobaptism ("One must first give proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior!")? Where is that verse? The Immersion Only dogma ("Thou canst baptize ONLY if the recipient's entire body is immersed and covered in water!"). Seems to me the entire dogma is founded in silence..... not one Scripture.... just repudiating 2000 years of Christianity and echoing the tradition of the Anabaptists.







YOU are speculating that Jesus MEANT to say (but forgot), "...BUT don't baptize any under the age of X, and for heaven's sake don't baptize any if I'm not going to die for them, and obviously don't baptize any who has not first chosen me as their personal Savior, and make sure you immerse every cell of their body under water."

YOU are speculating that no one prior to a few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th century knew that the word "baptizo" means and mandates "to immerse" and that pouring, dipping, etc are forbidden.

YOU are speculating that all the persons in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 were all over the age of X, were all persons for whom Jesus died, had all proven they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and were all fully immersed under water.

YOU are speculating that in Matthew 18:6, Jesus MEANT to say "... all those over the age of X who believe in me."

YOU are speculating that Christians don't have joy in meeting Jesus but only unbelievers so Luke 1:41 proves that John the Baptist was too young for God to give him faith.






.

Again, you are the only person arguing for age of X, Josiah.
Let us stick with what scripture speaks, not what you imagine others are arguing.
Now, I see you have not actually met an infant who expressed belief first so that s/he could be baptized. If you had, you would mention them and the thrill you had in listening to their confession of faith.
I would be thrilled as well. I would join in witnessing the baptism of a new saint whom God earmarked for a lifetime of faithful service.
I haven't met such a child who could express their faith at such an early age. Age 4, yes, I know a man who was granted faith. No one at age 6 months, 12 months, 18 months or 24 months have I met. Perhaps I live in a small bubble.
Since we see belief first, followed by baptism, I follow the pattern God established through the Apostles and early deacons.
See...no age of X, just biblical observation, Josiah. Is that so hard and so egregious?
Now please, no more age of X foolishness from you. No one believes you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, where do you find people applying for baptism on behalf of their children in scripture?
I have never read such a verse or an experience like that in the Bible.
I already quoted both passages about a household believing. There is nothing about infants believing. In fact, you had to write "If there were infants..." as a speculation.
I simply choose not to build a doctrine of baptism on speculation of what we don't read with the hopes that such speculation is correct.
Follow the very clear pattern established in the book of Acts. People believed, then they were baptized.
I ask you the same question I asked Josiah. Have you had a 6 month, 12 month, 18 month or 24 month old child confess belief that supports their call for baptism? I have never met such a child who has done so. Perhaps I live in a small bubble.

Let me restate my nudge because it didn't involve Mennosota

A little nudge, a slight reminder, a minuscule repeat! ...



=====

Respectfully, the verse was from my post which you quoted and states that Crispus believed and his entire household believed. Thus scripture states that ALL who were baptized from the house of Crispus also believed. What the verse does not say, is the age of the members of Crispus household.

What you wrote added no additional scriptures.

Why do you want additional scriptures when you've asked for scriptures and the one in your post illustrates the inclusion of a household in belief & baptism as expressed by one member (Crispus in this case) what is deficient about that passage as an example for faith and baptism for everyone in the house at whatever level is appropriate for the persons in the house at whatever age they were.

The idea that wife, son, daughter, servant, adult and infant alike all were baptised because all believed with Crispus is the point isn't it? That is what the passage implies is it not?

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles. And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptised. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people. And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things. And he drove them from the tribunal.
(Acts 18:1-16)​

Each person believed with faith appropriate to their understanding. If there were infants in the house they believed because the passage teaches that the whole house believed.

Is it not the case that you are assuming that infants in particular cannot believe? Isn't that the core of your argument; specifically that infants below some age at which they can give what is alleged to be a credible profession of faith are, in your opinion, incapable of believing the gospel? My response to that thought is

"why? why assume that infants cannot believe with faith appropriate to their age when we all accept that children who express faith at very tender years are expressing real faith and if at some later stage in life that faith matures into a lively Christian walk with God then we all rejoice and if it does not then we all pray that, God willing, it shall some day." ​

There are other passages that mention household faith/baptism as well as this one so why assume that children were not there? Catholics do not assume that anyone baptised automatically becomes irreversibly committed to Christ and irreversibly saved. Catholics accept that everyone who is baptised becomes a Christian by baptism and at every stage of life thereafter they may choose to accept or reject what they received in baptism.

“Baptised Catholic infants hear and believe” is your opinion, not evidence or proof. [sorry]
What Albion noted reinforces my point, it is about the scripture linking “believe” to “baptism” and not about age.

.

What I would really like is a scripture that clearly indicates an infant being baptized

I do not want to be unfair but I cannot help but think that you're asking for the same thing in principle that Josiah wanted. You ask for a verse that you know is not there just like he asks for verses that he knows do not exist - verses commanding that infants not be baptised or that only people at or above some specific age may be baptised. You and I know, and God willing have the honesty to admit, that no such verses exist and therefore the matter is a matter decided by other factors. For you the factors appear to be belief that some level of cognitive maturity is needed to believe and for me the factors are that baptism and belief always go together and that belief is always expressed in ways appropriate to the abilities of the person who is baptised and believes.

I think of baptism as being rightly given to all who apply for it either on their own behalf or on behalf of the children. I think that children are rightly included in the new covenant just as they were in the old covenant. I receive baptism as appropriate for adult believers and their seed (their children) because that is how God deals with people in the old covenant and how saint Peter talks about the new covenant in the sermon that he preached on Pentecost day. But you see it differently.

I do not expect you to change your mind nor to accept my beliefs. You ought not to expect that I will change my mind and accept your beliefs. If all we can do is debate about the matter by talking past each other then we have no right to expect any change of any kind because we would not be communicating. So let's make an attempt to talk to and with one another. Even if we never change our minds we can at least try to understand why the other believes as they do.

, so the inspired word of God could absolutely settle the issue one and for all time that infants should be baptized and God grants “belief” to baptized infants. I have never been able to locate such a verse myself. What I will settle for is some scriptural evidence that an infant can hear the word of God and believe it (which seems to be the general guidelines for baptism). Even scientific evidence suggesting cognitive development in early childhood development would be more that “personal opinions”.

What I got was a LOT of personal opinions.
Which is not really “Christian Theology”.

:disgonbegood:

:cheer:

 

[MennoSota]

Let me restate my nudge because it didn't involve Mennosota

A little nudge, a slight reminder, a minuscule repeat! ...



=====
Why do you want additional scriptures when you've asked for scriptures and the one in your post illustrates the inclusion of a household in belief & baptism as expressed by one member (Crispus in this case) what is deficient about that passage as an example for faith and baptism for everyone in the house at whatever level is appropriate for the persons in the house at whatever age they were.

The idea that wife, son, daughter, servant, adult and infant alike all were baptised because all believed with Crispus is the point isn't it? That is what the passage implies is it not?

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks. When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles. And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptised. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people. And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law. But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things. And he drove them from the tribunal.
(Acts 18:1-16)​

Each person believed with faith appropriate to their understanding. If there were infants in the house they believed because the passage teaches that the whole house believed.

Is it not the case that you are assuming that infants in particular cannot believe? Isn't that the core of your argument; specifically that infants below some age at which they can give what is alleged to be a credible profession of faith are, in your opinion, incapable of believing the gospel? My response to that thought is

"why? why assume that infants cannot believe with faith appropriate to their age when we all accept that children who express faith at very tender years are expressing real faith and if at some later stage in life that faith matures into a lively Christian walk with God then we all rejoice and if it does not then we all pray that, God willing, it shall some day." ​

There are other passages that mention household faith/baptism as well as this one so why assume that children were not there? Catholics do not assume that anyone baptised automatically becomes irreversibly committed to Christ and irreversibly saved. Catholics accept that everyone who is baptised becomes a Christian by baptism and at every stage of life thereafter they may choose to accept or reject what they received in baptism.

.

I do not want to be unfair but I cannot help but think that you're asking for the same thing in principle that Josiah wanted. You ask for a verse that you know is not there just like he asks for verses that he knows do not exist - verses commanding that infants not be baptised or that only people at or above some specific age may be baptised. You and I know, and God willing have the honesty to admit, that no such verses exist and therefore the matter is a matter decided by other factors. For you the factors appear to be belief that some level of cognitive maturity is needed to believe and for me the factors are that baptism and belief always go together and that belief is always expressed in ways appropriate to the abilities of the person who is baptised and believes.

I think of baptism as being rightly given to all who apply for it either on their own behalf or on behalf of the children. I think that children are rightly included in the new covenant just as they were in the old covenant. I receive baptism as appropriate for adult believers and their seed (their children) because that is how God deals with people in the old covenant and how saint Peter talks about the new covenant in the sermon that he preached on Pentecost day. But you see it differently.

I do not expect you to change your mind nor to accept my beliefs. You ought not to expect that I will change my mind and accept your beliefs. If all we can do is debate about the matter by talking past each other then we have no right to expect any change of any kind because we would not be communicating. So let's make an attempt to talk to and with one another. Even if we never change our minds we can at least try to understand why the other believes as they do.

​

:disgonbegood:

:cheer:

Let me restate my nudge because it involves the passage and thus involves MC.
So, where do you find people applying for baptism on behalf of their children in scripture?
I have never read such a verse or an experience like that in the Bible.
I already quoted both passages about a household believing. There is nothing about infants believing. In fact, you had to write "If there were infants..." as a speculation.
I simply choose not to build a doctrine of baptism on speculation of what we don't read with the hopes that such speculation is correct.
Follow the very clear pattern established in the book of Acts. People believed, then they were baptized.
I ask you the same question I asked Josiah. Have you had a 6 month, 12 month, 18 month or 24 month old child confess belief that supports their call for baptism? I have never met such a child who has done so. Perhaps I live in a small bubble.

 

[atpollard]

A little nudge, a slight reminder, a minuscule repeat! ...

Sorry, I was busy being insulted by Josiah and shouting back at him. :argue:
It was exhausting. :stress:

Is this also the topic where I had promised my response to why there are more "infant baptizers" than "non-baptizers"?

I will respond to your post later today ... thanks for the remind.

 

[Arsenios]

Have you had a 6 month, 12 month, 18 month or 24 month old child
confess belief that supports their call for baptism?
I have never met such a child who has done so.
Perhaps I live in a small bubble.

I have most certainly seen 3 year olds embracing the Faith in which they participated from Baptism at 40 days...
Are you arguing that children should be kept out of the Faith until they reach the "Age of Reason"??
I mean, why would you want to raise your children outside the Faith Christ discipled...
"Suffer the children to come unto Me..."

Mark 10:14 - KJV –
But when Jesus saw (5631) it, he was much displeased (5656),
and said (5627) unto them, "Suffer (5628) the little children to come (5738) unto me,
and forbid (5720) them not:
for of such is (5748) the kingdom of God.

The disciples were keeping the LITTLE children children away from Christ Who IS the Kingdom of Heaven...
Just as you are doing...
And He was VERY displeased with them...
And He instructed them by REBUKING them...

He who has ears to hear, let him here...


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

And I FULLY and COMPLETELY agreed with every single word in the Scripture you quoted. Nothing added, nothing changed, nothing deleted. I also note it doesn't mention Baptism.


Your whole argument is entirely from silence. You have NOTHING, not one verse, NOTHING to support to prohibitions and mandates of the Anabaptists that you echo....

And you make claims that you know simply aren't true and so you dodge them, such as "All the baptisms recorded in the Bible are of those over the age of X who first chose Jesus as their Savior." It's just not true. And it's an apologetic you reject (you prove it by posting on the internet).

And then pile on more and more silly agruments, such as "having joy at Jesus is what atheist have, believers don't have joy about Jesus" and God can't give faith to little ones (in spite of Matthew 18:6).


The Bible says to baptize. We all agree (unless you are Salvation Army). Now, where are the verses to support your dogmas? The Anti-Paedobaptism ("One must be over the age of X to be baptized, not permitted for those under the age of X"). Where is that verse? Where is the verse, "One must first prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died?" The Credobaptism ("One must first give proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior!")? Where is that verse? The Immersion Only dogma ("Thou canst baptize ONLY if the recipient's entire body is immersed and covered in water!"). Seems to me the entire dogma is founded in silence..... not one Scripture.... just repudiating 2000 years of Christianity and echoing the tradition of the Anabaptists.





YOU are speculating that Jesus MEANT to say (but forgot), "...BUT don't baptize any under the age of X, and for heaven's sake don't baptize any if I'm not going to die for them, and obviously don't baptize any who has not first chosen me as their personal Savior, and make sure you immerse every cell of their body under water."

YOU are speculating that no one prior to a few German speaking Anabaptists in the late 16th century knew that the word "baptizo" means and mandates "to immerse" and that pouring, dipping, etc are forbidden.

YOU are speculating that all the persons in the households of Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16 were all over the age of X, were all persons for whom Jesus died, had all proven they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and were all fully immersed under water.

YOU are speculating that in Matthew 18:6, Jesus MEANT to say "... all those over the age of X who believe in me." But He goofed and said "mikron" (tiny ones; a term for the unborn through toddlers) who BELIEVE in me."

YOU are speculating that Christians don't have joy in meeting Jesus but only unbelievers so Luke 1:41 proves that John the Baptist was too young for God to give him faith.


And you have yet proved not one verse to support your claim that we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of X, forbidden to baptize any who have not proven they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, forbidden to baptize any who have not previously proven they've chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, forbidden to administer the water in any other way than by fully immersion under water. Nothing. Just silence. Just speculation.


.

you are the only person arguing for age of X, Josiah.

Nope.


So you have abandoned the Baptist postion, the Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism, and have joined with historic, biblical (and typically Calvinist) Christianity in embracing infant baptism? GOOD! Good for you!

See...no age of X.

GREAT! Glad you've now rejected the Anabaptist invention you have been echoing since you came to this site! I agree, it is silly to insist on one attaining the age of X and then insisting that age not be disclosed. I agree, the Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of the Baptists (you have been parroting until today) is based on pure synergistic imputation, pure speculation, pure silence. Impossible to implement anyway since the Baptists won't tell you what age must be attained before their long list of prohibitions can be lifted, their restrictions on what God can do are removed.





.