Water Baptism

[MennoSota]

It does not pertain to the topic under discussion, however.

Sure it does.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

It does not pertain to the topic under discussion, however.

MennoSota took one snippet out of post 397 (best to circumvent the rest, it seems). Here's what atpollard stated (which MennoSota doesn't correct) "MennoSota just said "every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized." atpollard was very careful to note HE didn't say that (although I think he did; perhaps not) but that MennoSota did (as he has - very often)


Here's how I responded in post 397

I DO notice he's now careful to limit it to Acts so as to avoid 1 Corinthians 1:16 (I'm sure you noted that, too). But we still have Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. He has yet to prove that everyone who a part of the "oikos" and was baptized FIRST attained the never-disclosed age of X, then after that, proved they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then after that the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were baptized. For his claim to be true, he does need to show that or his claim is simply not true. Now, I agree we can't prove all of them had blonde hair or were over 6 feet tall but then we don't have any dogma requirements about such things.

And then he needs to show us why a rubric HE doesn't accept or follow (he REJECTS it and does NOT follow it) is nonetheless not only valid but one all must follow.


.

It is relevant because that's one of the Anabaptist defenses for this new invention of theirs:

Here's how that defense goes:

1. We MUST do whatever is illustrated as done in the Bible.

2. We are FORBIDDEN to do whatever is not illustrated in the Bible.

3. EVERY baptism in the Bible is of one over the age of X, who first documented that Jesus died for THEM, who then proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that was fully immersed under water.

4. ERGO we must do the same (in the same chronological order) and are forbidden to do otherwise.

THAT is their apologetic for the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century. Our two baptists friends here pretty much echo that.


There are two chief and obvious problems:

1. It's not true. NONE of point # 3 can actually be shown to be the case. As 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, and Acts 16:33 undeniably prove. So they just ignore them.


2. The entire rationale, the whole apologetic is one they themselves reject. Points 1 and 2 are not accepted or followed by ANY of them, including our two Baptists friends here (they prove it by posting on the internet!). Since they themselves repudiate and disavow and don't follow the rubric of points 1 and 2, they forfeit any ability to demand others accept and follow it. Their apologetic is built on a point they themselves hold as false.



Additionally...


The other Anabaptist defense is that God is unable to give faith to those under the (never-disclosed) age of X (or at least never does). When Matthew 18:6 is noted, it is ignored or (as we got in this thread, "I won't discuss that.") And when Luke 1:44 is noted, the response is: joy at the presence of Jesus is what pagan unbelievers have; no Christian would ever have such joy, it proves John did NOT have faith since he was under the age of X and thus unable to be given faith. This dogmatic mandate that God cannot (or at least does not) give faith to anyone under the age of X is typically the main apologetic.



Of course, through it all, they won't give even one verse that actually states ANYTHING they do. This is the part that amazes me most. There is a SHOUT that we must "scrap" anything and everything not stated in the Bible and any denomination tradition (that's THEIR insistence and requirement), then all they do is parrot verbatim the Anabaptist tradition and share not one Scripture that states that they do (in fact, when they do quote Scripture, it proves their claims aren't in the Bible; they tend to shoot themselves in the foot on this). This surprises me.



Blessings on your Easter Season...


- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

Well, of course you have added an age qualification, no matter how much you protest. Otherwise there would not have been so much complaining and denouncing OF infant baptism. And we know what infant means. It is not age neutral LOL

Baptists uphold a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone that would be a part of the Body of Christ ... did the "infants" hear and believe and repent and get baptize, or did you just jump to "get baptized"?
We reject the claim that a parent can hear and believe for their child.

Second, you say that there is no age qualification. Let us test your fidelity to that concept.

We may ask about people in a gathering. Twenty year olds? Fourteen year olds? Ten year olds? Five year olds? For you to hold to your belief, you would have to baptize all of them since, as you said, no age qualification--just so long as they said that they were sorry and did accept Jesus as their Lord, which is it possible all of them would say. They certainly could say that.

Somehow, though, I think that you would NOT actually baptize all of them. Am I right?

You would be wrong. Not only WOULD I baptize a 5 year old and a 20 year old that claimed to believe in Jesus and want to be baptized, I HAVE participated as a church Elder in the baptism of a 7 year old and a 60 year old in the same service. I would not turn away a 4 year old that claimed faith and wanted to be baptized.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One more time, and for the record:

Peter said "Repent, and each of you be baptized" [Act 2:38] so I say that each person to be baptized should also repent and there should be no baptism of people who have not repented. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Most excellent, repent and be baptised; infants repent through their parents and are baptised. They reject Satan and all his devices. They accept the saving sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. And they do it all in ways appropriate to their state in life.

Jesus said "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" [Mar 16:16] so I say that belief and baptism should go together. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Amen. Infants believe and have been baptised hence they are saved. It is not irrevocable belief but the fact of baptism remains like the fact of birth remains regardless of any acts which may end life.

Luke records that "when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized" [Act 8:12] so I say that being baptized comes after believing. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

Any infant children there also believed according to their capacity.

Luke also records that many of the Corinthians "when they heard were believing and being baptized" [Act 18:8] so I believe that since they all heard and believed as the cause of their getting baptized, that all who are baptized should hear and believe. [NO MENTION OF ANY AGE!]

..

You are the ones with two sets of standards: For an adult (whatever age that is) you expect them to believe for themselves, and for a child (whatever age that is) you allow the parents to believe for them.

I cannot speak for Albion, Josiah, and any Protestant regarding their theology because it is strange to me - being in numerous ways in error and in some ways heretical from my perspective.

But for myself and for Catholic teaching I can say there is one standard; namely that baptism is God's doing through his ministers in his Church and nothing is asked that depends on age though the ones who answer may vary according to the capacity of the one who is to be baptised. Capacity is not an age it is a state. An infant may speak or not according to its capacity and so too an adult may speak or not according to their capacity. Repentance and belief are not tied to any specific non-zero positive age.

Baptists have no age, we see and uphold a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone that would be a part of the Body of Christ.

Very good. So an infant child may say "I do" in answer to a question like "do you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your saviour?" and that would be a profession of faith. And that infant may say "I do" to a question like "Do you reject Satan, all his ways, and repent of your sins?" and thus repent of their sins. Age being irrelevant in Baptist teaching as you appear to be saying. So when a four year old infant or maybe a 2 year old answers thus according to its capacity it is to be baptised. Right?

Please, accept my remark above with a tiny bit of humour because I am fairly confident that you do not mean to open up Baptist baptism to 2 and 4 year old children nor to adults whose intellectual capacity is not regarded as a whole lot greater than that of a 4 year old child for various reasons that you may see that relate to credibility and cognitive capacity.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
The Scripture - as you prove - does NOT say what you do. Just read what you posted! I invite you to READ the Scriptures you quote
It is SO ironic to me that both you and MennoSota quote Scripture that flat-out show your claims are baseless and NOT what Scripture says. Like shooting yourself in the foot.

Exegete, don't pontificate.

Correct. There goes the centerpiece of the Anabaptist dogma of ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISM (the word means: "Against Child Baptisms" - entirely about CHILDREN, the singular focus is CHILDREN, humans under a certain age,age is the issue in "paedo"

The word is Credobaptism
Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe") is the practice of baptizing only those who are able to make a profession of faith. Credobaptism is also called Believer's Baptism.
It is NOT about age, it is about professing "I believe". [You really should stop telling me what I believe, especially when you are SO COMPLETELY WRONG.]

Now, I realize those radical synergistic Anabaptists insisted that little ones CANNOT believe (and modern Baptists echo this) but I tried to just quote Jesus in Matthew 18:6 but you posted you didn't want to discuss that verse and MennoSota just ignored it, but again, it's an AGE issue. We have the Baptists on one side and it seems Jesus on the other in Matthew 18:6. I chose to not give an opinion but just quote Jesus. I tried to quote Luke 1:44 where John the Baptist (still in his mother's womb, yet unborn, so I'm GUESSING under the age of X) "leaped for joy" at the presence of Jesus but MennoSato argued that joy at the presence of Jesus is something unbelievers have and not believers and thus shows John had no faith.

I would be delighted to discuss both of these, just as soon as you start LISTENING to what I am saying, rather than just waiting for a chance to TALK that ignores everything I said and just presumes to tell me what I believe.

But I invite to actually READ what you posted. READ the verse you yourself reference. It doesn't say what you do, it doesn't state, "FIRST one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom I will die then after that all must prove that first they have chosen me as their personal Savior, then after that, after all that has been accomplished, then the prohibition of baptism is lifted and they may be baptized." READ the verse. It by no means says that you do.

And remember, the koine Greek word "kai" means "and" It is the most general, non-specific connective word in the language. It does not mean "then after in chronological sequence" must less dogmatically mandate that.

Show me any scriptural reason to believe that one person can believe for another.
Show me any scriptural reason to believe baptism ever preceded belief.
Then why should I believe that I SHOULD baptize anyone that has not professed belief on the faith of their parent?
That is Credobaptism.

Okay, so we have an example of one who first believed. But try actually READING the verse, my friend, I invite you to read the verse you reference. Obviously, undeniably, it doesn't say what you do. It doesn't say, "FIRST one must prove that they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died and after that they must prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and then after all that has been done, the prohibition of baptism is lifted and you may baptize them." It just gives an example of someone who believed and then was baptized. If I posted, "I purchased a house when I was 28 years old." that would not dogmatically mandate that it is forbidden to buy a house before or after that age (or at all) it simply would be what happened in my case.

And again, I reject the rubric that we must do what is exampled in the Bible (like women bathing on roofs while nieghbors watch) and equally we cannot do what is not exampled in the Bible (like posting on the internet). You reject this rubric, too. You don't follow this rubric yourself. So since you REJECT it. you can't use it (at least with any credibility)

The bible also doesn't forbid me from preaching to unrepentant sinners God loves them and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, so they can go back to sinning because Paul said that Jesus died to forgive sinners, but it isn't true to what the Bible says they SHOULD do, so I will not say that even if it is not forbidden by a specific scripture.

We are told over and over that the people in the Bible believed and were baptized, so I will continue to advise people to believe and be baptized. You can tell people to baptize children and they will believe, it is not forbidden, I just see no indication that it is true.

 

[Albion]

Baptists uphold a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone that would be a part of the Body of Christ

. did the "infants" hear and believe and repent and get baptize, or did you just jump to "get baptized"?

I have explained this so many times that by now it is getting clear that you just do not want to hear of it or else have no answer for it.

AN EXAMPLE that is given does not constitute A RULE.

Not only WOULD I baptize a 5 year old and a 20 year old that claimed to believe in Jesus and want to be baptized, I HAVE participated as a church Elder in the baptism of a 7 year old and a 60 year old in the same service. I would not turn away a 4 year old that claimed faith and wanted to be baptized.

Oh, my! You don't have ANYTHING to stand on now!

If you will baptize a 4 year old who has no idea what a conversion experience means, or believing or repenting, but will not baptize an infant who is in the same condition, you have no argument at all. Not the historic Christian one nor the Anabaptist one, and certainly not the one you have been pushing--"a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone"









.

 

[atpollard]

But for myself and for Catholic teaching I can say there is one standard; namely that baptism is God's doing through his ministers in his Church and nothing is asked that depends on age though the ones who answer may vary according to the capacity of the one who is to be baptised. Capacity is not an age it is a state. An infant may speak or not according to its capacity and so too an adult may speak or not according to their capacity. Repentance and belief are not tied to any specific non-zero positive age.

Just curious, if baptism is all about the Priest ministering it ... would you baptize a reluctant, unrepentant 30 year old who was there because their wealthy grandmother had threatened to cut off their living allowance if they didn't get baptized into the Catholic Faith?

Very good. So an infant child may say "I do" in answer to a question like "do you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your saviour?" and that would be a profession of faith. And that infant may say "I do" to a question like "Do you reject Satan, all his ways, and repent of your sins?" and thus repent of their sins. Age being irrelevant in Baptist teaching as you appear to be saying. So when a four year old infant or maybe a 2 year old answers thus according to its capacity it is to be baptised. Right?

Please, accept my remark above with a tiny bit of humour because I am fairly confident that you do not mean to open up Baptist baptism to 2 and 4 year old children nor to adults whose intellectual capacity is not regarded as a whole lot greater than that of a 4 year old child for various reasons that you may see that relate to credibility and cognitive capacity.

Wow, this makes twice that people have asked if I really mean what I said about age.

Preface:
The Baptist Tent is a very large tent with lots of room for all sorts of wackadoos to call themselves "Baptists" Every local church (the cute little building) is an independent organization that answers to no higher authority except God. Things like the Souther Baptist Convention are just a loose "club" of independent churches that work together to do things that a small church could not afford all alone (like a Seminary or overseas missionary program). So the only universal to all Baptists is they practice Credobaptism. There are other things that are common, but that is the only universal trait.

That said, my particular church uses the "credible profession of faith" test. Talking with the person, does it seem like they really do understand the basics of who Jesus is and do they have faith in Him as their savior? If they do then, whatever the age, they get baptized. Now, for me personally, I would be hesitant to baptize under the age of 4. However, my reluctance has less to do with faith and God's ability to save and everything to do with the development of human memory. Prior to age 5, most memories of specific events are not coded and retained by most human brains. I believe that your profession of faith and baptism into the body of Christ is such an important event, that it is in the interest of the recipient to be able to remember it. So I would advocate to the parents and child that they wait until the 5th birthday and have it done sometime after that. If the child and parents (who after all God has placed over that child) still desire to have the baptism sooner, then I would support that decision.

Here is an example that hit closer to home. My daughter has a sensory and anxiety disorder, so things like the seams on a pair of socks feel like a razor blade across her toes. She absorbed both faith and theology like a sponge (truth be told, mostly from following my wife around on shopping errands) and by the age of 7 or 8, she was intellectually ready to be baptized. In the other hand, just the thought of any water on her head or face terrified her. She watched other baptisms like a hawk. We suggested that she could be baptized by just a little pouring rather than immersion if she wanted, but she just as strongly wanted to be baptized by immersion (like everyone else) as she was terrified of getting her face wet. She had me "practice" with her for years, every time we stayed at a hotel and visited a swimming pool. When she turned 11 years old, she just asked one day, out of the blue, to be baptized. The Pastor scheduled a baptism ceremony and a handful of other people, children and adult, chose to be baptized that day.

So I really have thought about baptism and people with special needs. The only real "requirement" that I personally have, is the person being baptized has to want to be baptized. What kind of a ceremony forces a person into the Body of Christ?

 

[atpollard]

AN EXAMPLE that is given does not constitute A RULE.

Does an example that is not given (like "baptizing first and faith later") constitute A RULE?

 

[Albion]

Does an example that is not given (like "baptizing first and faith later") constitute A RULE?

There is no such thing as an example that is not given. But an example stands as a model of something to be followed or avoided, however it is not necessarily all-inclusive. A tornado is an example of a natural disaster, but that does not mean that hurricanes or forest fires are not disasters as well. Get it?

While a Bible passage such as the one about Peter you cited shows us valid baptisms and how they were to be accomplished under what conditions, that does not rule out all other ones. It might have been the case that a firm instruction about the limits, etc. of baptisms would have been given to us, but with all of these passages that describe individuals who came to be baptized, that element is missing.

 

[Josiah]

It is relevant because that's one of the Anabaptist defenses for this new invention of theirs:

Here's how that defense goes:

1. We MUST do whatever is illustrated as done in the Bible.

2. We are FORBIDDEN to do whatever is not illustrated in the Bible.

3. EVERY baptism in the Bible is of one over the age of X, who first documented that Jesus died for THEM, who then proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that was fully immersed under water.

4. ERGO we must do the same (in the same chronological order) and are forbidden to do otherwise.

THAT is their apologetic for the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century. Our two baptists friends here pretty much echo that.


There are two chief and obvious problems:


1. It's not true. NONE of point # 3 can actually be shown to be the case. As 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, and Acts 16:33 undeniably prove. So they just ignore them.


2. The entire rationale, the whole apologetic is one they themselves reject. Points 1 and 2 are not accepted or followed by ANY of them, including our two Baptists friends here (they prove it by posting on the internet!). Since they themselves repudiate and disavow and don't follow the rubric of points 1 and 2, they forfeit any ability to demand others accept and follow it. Their apologetic is built on a point they themselves hold as false.



Additionally...


The other Anabaptist defense is that God is unable to give faith to those under the (never-disclosed) age of X (or at least never does). When Matthew 18:6 is noted, it is ignored or (as we got in this thread, "I won't discuss that.") And when Luke 1:44 is noted, the response is: joy at the presence of Jesus is what pagan unbelievers have; no Christian would ever have such joy, it proves John did NOT have faith since he was under the age of X and thus unable to be given faith. This dogmatic mandate that God cannot (or at least does not) give faith to anyone under the age of X is typically the main apologetic.



Of course, through it all, they won't give even one verse that actually states ANYTHING they do. This is the part that amazes me most. There is a SHOUT that we must "scrap" anything and everything not stated in the Bible and any denomination tradition (that's THEIR insistence and requirement), then all they do is parrot verbatim the Anabaptist tradition and share not one Scripture that states that they do (in fact, when they do quote Scripture, it proves their claims aren't in the Bible; they tend to shoot themselves in the foot on this). This surprises me.

The word is Credobaptism

There are several baptismal dogmas invented by those synergistic Anabaptists that you and MennoSota have been parroting.


Anti-Paedobaptism is the dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century that we are not to baptize those under the age of X. Paedo is Latin for CHILD. Anti-CHILD baptism. The issue is age. This is sometimes conveyed as "No Infant Baptism!" Infant refers to an uncertain age range.


Credobaptism is yet another dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century. It is that we are forbidden to baptize any who have not previously given proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Some, like MennoSota, add that they also have to previously prove they are among the unnamed few that Jesus died for. Yes, for the radically synergistic Anabaptists, these two dogmas are inseparable since they argued those under a certain never-disclosed age are incapable of choosing Jesus and giving themselves faith but they are two different baptismal dogmas invented by the Anabaptists. We've had threads about "No Infant Baptism!" (age) and "Must Choose Jesus First" they are not the same dogma.


"Immersion Only" is yet another baptism dogma first invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century. It is that the recipient cannot receive water in any other manner rather than full immersion under water.

Show me any scriptural reason to believe baptism ever preceded belief

Nice try, but under you....

It is YOUR claim that every baptism in the Bible was to one who first attained their Xth birthday, then after that proved they are among the unnamed few Jesus died for, then after that proved that they chose Jesus as their personal Savior... it's YOUR claim, not mine. I don't have to prove your claim wrong (although I have), you have to prove it right.

Then you need to show why the conclusion based on a premise you yourself reject is nonetheless true.

MennoSota just said "every instance in the book of Acts the person first believes and then is baptized."

I DO notice he's now careful to limit it to Acts so as to avoid 1 Corinthians 1:16. But we still have Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.

You and he have yet to prove (or even attempt to prove) that everyone baptized who a part of these households " FIRST in chronologiocal sequence attained the never-disclosed age of X, then after that, proved they were among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were baptized by being fully and completely immersed under water. For this apologetic to be valid, it does need to show that IS the case or the claim is simply not true. Now, I agree we can't prove all of them had blonde hair or were over 6 feet tall but then we don't have any dogma requirements about such things.

And then he needs to show us why a rubric HE doesn't accept or follow is nonetheless not only valid but one all must follow. He needs to show why an argument based entirely on a false and repudiated premise is nonetheless dogmatic fact.





.

 

[atpollard]

Oh, my! You don't have ANYTHING to stand on now!

If you will baptize a 4 year old who has no idea what a conversion experience means, or believing or repenting, but will not baptize an infant who is in the same condition, you have no argument at all. Not the historic Christian one nor the Anabaptist one, and certainly not the one you have been pushing--"a biblical model of hear - believe - repent - baptize that applies to everyone"

I would not baptize anyone of any age that has no understanding. I would not baptize a 30 year old in a vegetative coma, but it has nothing to do with age and everything to do with believing. I would baptize a 10 year old quadriplegic who could only blink his eyes if they could communicate they believed in Jesus and wanted to be baptized.

You have assumed that a 4 year old is incapable of having a saving faith in Jesus. The testimony of several adult Christians indicates that this assumption is false. R. C. Sproul, for example, claims he was saved before age 4 and has no memories of ever not being aware of the presence of God in his life.

"The Christian life is surrendering everything you know about you to everything you know about God. Tomorrow, you will know more about you and more about God and have to do it all over again."

If someone was severely retarded and "Jesus is my friend" was all they were capable of understanding, then that understanding would qualify as 'surrendering everything they know about them to everything they know about God' and that simple statement is a "credible statement of faith". If they wanted to be baptized, I would support it 100%.

Why is it so hard for you to believe me when I tell you that I view "baptism" as an issue of having faith and not about age?

 

[atpollard]

There are several baptismal dogmas invented by those synergistic Anabaptists that you and MennoSota have been parroting.

Anti-Paedobaptism is the dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century that we are not to baptize those under the age of X. Paedo is Latin for CHILD. Anti-CHILD baptism. The issue is age. This is sometimes conveyed as "No Infant Baptism!" Infant refers to an uncertain age range.

Credobaptism is yet another dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century. It is that we are forbidden to baptize any who have not previously given proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Some, like MennoSota, add that they also have to previously prove they are among the unnamed few that Jesus died for. Yes, for the radically synergistic Anabaptists, these two dogmas are inseparable since they argued those under a certain never-disclosed age are incapable of choosing Jesus and giving themselves faith but they are two different baptismal dogmas invented by the Anabaptists. We've had threads about "No Infant Baptism!" (age) and "Must Choose Jesus First" they are not the same dogma.

"Immersion Only" is yet another baptism dogma first invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century. It is that the recipient cannot receive water in any other manner rather than full immersion under water.


You'll need to quote me, I am unaware of what post of mine you are referring to. Just quote my statement and perhaps give the post number.


Nice try, but under you....

It is YOUR claim that every baptism in the Bible was to one who first attained their Xth birthday, then after that proved they are among the unnamed few Jesus died for, then after that proved that they chose Jesus as their personal Savior... it's YOUR claim, not mine. I don't have to prove your claim wrong (although I have), you have to prove it right.

Then you need to show that you yourself accept the premise your entire apologetic depends upon: That we cannot do what is not illustrated as done in the Bible and must do what is.

:taz: ... Waiting to talk.

 

[atpollard]

There is no such thing as an example that is not given. But an example stands as a model of something to be followed or avoided, however it is not necessarily all-inclusive. A tornado is an example of a natural disaster, but that does not mean that hurricanes or forest fires are not disasters as well. Get it?

While a Bible passage such as the one about Peter you cited shows us valid baptisms and how they were to be accomplished under what conditions, that does not rule out all other ones. It might have been the case that a firm instruction about the limits, etc. of baptisms would have been given to us, but with all of these passages that describe individuals who came to be baptized, that element is missing.

So I will just continue to follow the examples that were given (the people who believed, got baptized), and you can continue to follow the examples not given of what was not forbidden (parents might have believed for infants that might have been in households and that Apostles might have baptized, if they existed).

 

[Josiah]

Here's how that defense goes:

1. We MUST do whatever is illustrated as done in the Bible.

2. We are FORBIDDEN to do whatever is not illustrated in the Bible.

3. Every baptism in the Bible is of one over the age of X, who first documented that Jesus died for THEM, who then proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that was fully immersed under water.

4. ERGO we are mandated do the same (in the same chronological order) and are forbidden to do otherwise.

THAT is their apologetic for the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century. Our two baptists friends here pretty much echo that.


There are two chief and obvious problems:


1. It's not true. NONE of point # 3 can actually be shown to be the case. As 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, and Acts 16:33 undeniably prove. So they just ignore them.


2. The apologetic is built entirely a point they themselves hold as false. The entire rationale, the whole apologetic is one they themselves reject. Points 1 and 2 are not accepted or followed by ANY of them, including our two Baptists friends here (they prove it by posting on the internet!). Since they themselves repudiate and disavow and don't follow the rubric of points 1 and 2, they forfeit any ability to demand others accept and follow it.



"Those Under the Age of X Cannot Believe"


The other Anabaptist defense is that God is unable to give faith to those under the (never-disclosed) age of X (or at least never does). When Matthew 18:6 is noted, it is ignored or (as we got in this thread, "I won't discuss that.") And when Luke 1:44 is noted, the response is: joy at the presence of Jesus is what pagan unbelievers have; no Christian would ever have such joy, it proves John did NOT have faith since he was under the age of X and thus unable to be given faith. This dogmatic mandate that God cannot (or at least does not) give faith to anyone under the age of X is typically the main apologetic.



Of course, through it all, they won't give even one verse that actually states ANYTHING they do. This is the part that amazes me most. There is a SHOUT that we must "scrap" anything and everything not stated in the Bible and any denomination tradition (that's THEIR insistence and requirement), then all they do is parrot verbatim the Anabaptist tradition and share not one Scripture that states that they do (in fact, when they do quote Scripture, it proves their claims aren't in the Bible; they tend to shoot themselves in the foot on this). This surprises me.


.

... Waiting to talk.

We're on page 42.... in yet another Baptism Dogmas of the Anabaptists...... but okay, perhaps now?


1. "Every baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST had attained their Xth birthday, then after that proved they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that chose Jesus as their personal Savior, then was immersed entirely under water." Okay. Start by showing that for every person baptized in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. Is the apologetic true or false? Is the premise, that we must do as we see illustrated in the bible and cannot to as not illustrated a premise you accept, and if not (and you would not be posting on the internet if you did), how can a dogmatic conclusion based entirely on a false premise be thus true? Let's discuss if the claim is true.... and if it even mattered if the premise is not.


2. "Children under the age of X cannot have faith." Okay, start by discussing Jesus' statement in Matthew 18:6. He uses a word that in koine Greek means "tiny one" and typically refers to an unborn human through toddler. "One of these tiny ones who believe in Me." And what about Luke 1:44? Do you agree with MennoSota that leaping for joy is only something unbelievers do and proves John did not have faith? Is the point of that verse that obviously John the Baptist was too young to have faith and that he was sad to encounter Jesus? Where is your biblical support for those under the age of X rendering God impotent to give faith? Where is the biblical support that the Holy Spirit doesn't give faith unless we have first celebrated a certain birthday? I CAN understand how the radical synergists (who invented this dogma) can (wrongly) say that, but a monergist like yourself? Where is this severe limitation on God stated in the Bible?



Let's talk about these claims and these verses: 1 Corinthians, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:55 - do they support the claim? Let's talk about Matthew 18:6 and Luke 1:44 for starters - do they support the claim? Then let's talk.... if you reject and repudiate a premise, how can a dogma founded entirely upon that premise nonetheless be dogmatic fact?

I will just continue to follow the examples that were given

Well, at best, SOME. But quote for me the verse about tanks back behind a curtain behind the pulpit. The verse about Gentiles administering baptism. And while you are at it, quote for me the verse about passing around Communion 4 times a year with a try of little plastic cups containing Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread to women and kids. And where there are women pastors and the pastor wears an Ahola Shirt. Does your church just follow the examples that are given - not doing what is not exampled, always doing what is exampled?

Let's see if you believe and/or do as you claim. We actually have only one example of Communion being celebrated. It's Jesus in the Upper Room. In your parish, do you do this in an upper room, at the end of the Passover meal, with a common cup with wine and a large matza loaf, to only adult men, all Hebrews? Where is the command, where is the example to give communion to women and kids and gentiles? Where is the example and command to use Welch's Grape Juice and Weber's White Bread? Maybe it's not as you claim.... Maybe you don't accept your own premise?





.

 

[atpollard]

Time to go on the offensive:

Peter said "Repent, and each of you be baptized" [Act 2:38] so I say that each person to be baptized should also repent and there should be no baptism of people who have not repented.

The Scripture - as you prove - does NOT say what you do. Just read what you posted! I invite you to READ the Scriptures you quote
It is SO ironic to me that both you and MennoSota quote Scripture that flat-out show your claims are baseless and NOT what Scripture says. Like shooting yourself in the foot.

Time to break out the BS Meter ...

Josiah says "The Scripture ... does NOT say what you do."
Act 2:38 says "Repent"
Arthur said "repent"

Josiah says "The Scripture ... does NOT say what you do."
Act 2:38 says "each of you"
Arthur said "each person"

Josiah says "The Scripture ... does NOT say what you do."
Act 2:38 says "be baptized"
Arthur said "be baptized"

Josiah says "The Scripture ... does NOT say what you do."
Act 2:38 says "Repent, and each of you be baptized"
Arthur said "I say that each person to be baptized should also repent"
Arthur said "there should be no baptism of people who have not repented"

Is Josiah making the claim that Peter was just commanding one person to repent and everyone else could skip repentance and just go and get baptized?
If he is not making that claim, then the statement "The Scripture ... does NOT say what you do." is B.S. since scripture states "Repent, and each of you be baptized" and I said "each person to be baptized should also repent" which convey the same meaning.

Is Josiah making the claim that Peter is calling unrepentant people to be baptized?
If he is not making that claim, then the statement "The Scripture ... does NOT say what you do." is B.S. since scripture states "Repent, and each of you be baptized" and I said "there should be no baptism of people who have not repented".

Since Josiah has never before argued for salvation without repentance, the verdict is that this was a 100% B.S. attempt to obfuscate the issue and simply TROLL :taz: for a response.

 

[atpollard]

We're on page 42.... in yet another Baptism Dogmas of the Anabaptists...... but okay, perhaps now?


1. "Every baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST had attained their Xth birthday, then after that proved they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that chose Jesus as their personal Savior, then was immersed entirely under water." Okay. Start by showing that for every person baptized in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. Is the apologetic true or false? Is the premise, that we must do as we see illustrated in the bible and cannot to as not illustrated a premise you accept, and if not (and you would not be posting on the internet if you did.... you'd not be adminstering Communion with grape juice in little plastic cups and bowl of cut up pieces of Weber's White bread including to women and kids if you did), how can a dogmatic conclusion based entirely on a false premise be thus true?


2. "Children under the age of X cannot have faith." Okay, start by discussing Jesus' statement in Matthew 18:6. He uses a word that in koine Greek means "tiny one" and typically refers to an unborn human through toddler. "On of these tiny ones who believe in Me." And what about Luke 1:44? Do you agree with MennoSota that leaping for joy is only something unbelievers do and proves John did not have faith? Where is your biblical support for those under the age of X rendering God impotent to give faith? Where is the biblical support that the Holy Spirit doesn't give faith unless we have first celebrated a certain birthday? I CAN understand how the radical synergists (who invented this dogma) can (wrongly) say that, but a monergist like yourself? Where is this severe limitation on God stated in the Bible?



Let's talk about these claims and these verses: 1 Corinthians, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:55 - do they support the claim? Let's talk about Matthew 18:6 and Luke 1:44 for starters - do they support the claim? Then let's talk.... if you reject and repudiate a premise, how can a dogma founded entirely upon that premise nonetheless be dogmatic fact?
.

"Waiting to talk" was a reference to an earlier plea that I made and you ignored ..

I would be delighted to discuss both of these, just as soon as you start LISTENING to what I am saying, rather than just waiting for a chance to TALK that ignores everything I said and just presumes to tell me what I believe.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Here's how that defense goes:

1. We MUST do whatever is illustrated as done in the Bible.

2. We are FORBIDDEN to do whatever is not illustrated in the Bible.

3. Every baptism in the Bible is of one over the age of X, who first documented that Jesus died for THEM, who then proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that was fully immersed under water.

4. ERGO we are mandated do the same (in the same chronological order) and are forbidden to do otherwise.

THAT is their apologetic for the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century. Our two baptists friends here pretty much echo that.



There are two chief and obvious problems:


1. It's not true. NONE of point # 3 can actually be shown to be the case. As 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, and Acts 16:33 undeniably prove. So they just ignore them.


2. The apologetic is built entirely a point they themselves hold as false. The entire rationale, the whole apologetic is one they themselves reject. Points 1 and 2 are not accepted or followed by ANY of them, including our two Baptists friends here (they prove it by posting on the internet!). Since they themselves repudiate and disavow and don't follow the rubric of points 1 and 2, they forfeit any ability to demand others accept and follow it.



"Those Under the Age of X Cannot Believe"


The other Anabaptist defense is that God is unable to give faith to those under the (never-disclosed) age of X (or at least never does). When Matthew 18:6 is noted, it is ignored or (as we got in this thread, "I won't discuss that.") And when Luke 1:44 is noted, the response is: joy at the presence of Jesus is what pagan unbelievers have; no Christian would ever have such joy, it proves John did NOT have faith since he was under the age of X and thus unable to be given faith. This dogmatic mandate that God cannot (or at least does not) give faith to anyone under the age of X is typically the main apologetic.



Of course, through it all, they won't give even one verse that actually states ANYTHING they do. This is the part that amazes me most. There is a SHOUT that we must "scrap" anything and everything not stated in the Bible and any denomination tradition (that's THEIR insistence and requirement), then all they do is parrot verbatim the Anabaptist tradition and share not one Scripture that states that they do (in fact, when they do quote Scripture, it proves their claims aren't in the Bible; they tend to shoot themselves in the foot on this). This surprises me.



+++++++++++++++++++++++


We're on page 42.... in yet another Baptism Dogmas of the Anabaptists...... but okay, perhaps now you say you are willing to talk? Okay.

Let's see if you'll talk...


1. "Every baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST had attained their Xth birthday, then after that proved they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that chose Jesus as their personal Savior, then was immersed entirely under water." Okay. Start by showing that for every person baptized in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. Is the apologetic true or false? Is the premise, that we must do as we see illustrated in the bible and cannot to as not illustrated a premise you accept, and if not (and you would not be posting on the internet if you did), how can a dogmatic conclusion based entirely on a false premise be thus true? Let's discuss if the claim is true.... and if it even mattered if the premise is not.


2. "Children under the age of X cannot have faith." Okay, start by discussing Jesus' statement in Matthew 18:6. He uses a word that in koine Greek means "tiny one" and typically refers to an unborn human through toddler. "One of these tiny ones who believe in Me." And what about Luke 1:44? Do you agree with MennoSota that leaping for joy is only something unbelievers do and proves John did not have faith? Is the point of that verse that obviously John the Baptist was too young to have faith and that he was sad to encounter Jesus? Where is your biblical support for those under the age of X rendering God impotent to give faith? Where is the biblical support that the Holy Spirit doesn't give faith unless we have first celebrated a certain birthday? I CAN understand how the radical synergists (who invented this dogma) can (wrongly) say that, but a monergist like yourself? Where is this severe limitation on God stated in the Bible?



Let's talk about these claims and these verses: 1 Corinthians, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:55 - do they support the claim that "every baptism in the bible was of those over the age of X who first attained the age of X after that proved they were among the few Jesus died for and after that proved they chose Jesus as their personal savior and after that repented and after that their entire body was fully immersed under water? Let's talk that.

Let's talk about whether those under the age of X can believe (the question you perpetually ask). Let's talk about Matthew 18:6 and Luke 1:44 for starters - do they support the claim that God can't or doesn't give faith to those under the age of X? Then let's talk about that. Where does the Bible so state?

Let's talk about your entire apologetic: if you reject and repudiate a premise, how can a dogma founded entirely upon that premise nonetheless be dogmatic fact?




.

I said "each person to be baptized should also repent".

And I fully agreed, didn't I? What I disagreed with was your immediate point that ERGO, one one FIRST repent. And no, that's NOT what the verse states.

BTW, I have fully and completely agreed with every single verbatim word in every verse you and MennoSota have offered. I just don't agree with you in all the invisible, unstated things you insist are there - mandating and forbidding a bunch of stuff (in apologetics YOU reject)


Here's the mistake the Anabaptist make (that you repeat): The Anabaptist claim is that the word "kai" ("and") in koine Greek specifically means and also mandates chronological sequence (but only and exclusively if we are addressing Baptism, nowhere else), so the word actually means and mandates "then after that." Our Baptist friend is simply assuming that and then (without substantiating that) states, Peter says repent and believe" and (not noticing the verse doesn't even MENTION baptism - at all) insists the invention of the Anabapatists in the 16th Century that FIRST the recipient must had celebrated their Xth birthday, THEN AFTER THAT, must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, THEN AFTER THAT, must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, THEN AFTER THAT be baptized by fully immersing their entire body under water. No. That's not what the verse states.






.

 

[MennoSota]

And I fully agreed, didn't I? What I disagreed with was your immediate point that ERGO, one one FIRST repent. And no, that's NOT what the verse states.

BTW, I have fully and completely agreed with every single verbatim word in every verse you and MennoSota have offered. I just don't agree with you in all the invisible, unstated things you insist are there - mandating and forbidding a bunch of stuff (in apologetics YOU reject)


Here's the mistake the Anabaptist make (that you repeat): The Anabaptist claim is that the word "kai" ("and") in koine Greek specifically means and also mandates chronological sequence (but only and exclusively if we are addressing Baptism, nowhere else), so the word actually means and mandates "then after that." Our Baptist friend is simply assuming that and then (without substantiating that) states, Peter says repent and believe" and (not noticing the verse doesn't even MENTION baptism - at all) insists the invention of the Anabapatists in the 16th Century that FIRST the recipient must had celebrated their Xth birthday, THEN AFTER THAT, must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, THEN AFTER THAT, must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, THEN AFTER THAT be baptized by fully immersing their entire body under water. No. That's not what the verse states.






.

The difference between atpollard and myself versus you is that we take what the Bible says and we apply it to baptism. Meanwhile, you take what the Bible does not say and you apply it to baptism.
I think your process of development is borderline insane and certainly an attempt to control God and force Him to do what you wish He would do.
My process of development is to accept what God actually has said and not attempt to force God to save anyone by any means.
I find your argument to be worthless and illegitimate. It gives no glory to God and it attempts to manipulate the Sovereign King.
In short, your teaching on water baptism is anathema and God will judge you for your abusive use of baptism to harmfully send people to hell unaware of their destination. You have to live with that knowledge and your trickery.
May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Josiah]

we take what the Bible says

Okay.

Where does the Bible state:

"Thou canst not baptize any under the age of X" Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Baptists that you parrot.

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." Credobaptism dogma of the Anabaptists that you parrot.

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they first prove they are repentant of their sins."

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they are fully immersed under water." The Immersion Only dogma of the Anabaptists that you parrot.


Then....

"Those under the age of X cannot be given faith and thus can't have faith" apologetic of the anabaptists.

"We cannot do anything not clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible and are mandated to do everything that is illustrated in the Bible" apologetic of the anabaptists that you parrot.

My process of development is to accept what God actually has said

I see. Were did God "ACTUALLY HAS SAID" "One must be over the the age of X, then after that must prove they are among the few for whom Jesus died then after that must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and then after that must repent and then after that the prohibition to baptize is lifted and the person may be baptized but only by being fully and entirely immersion under water."


I think it is obvious: you take what the Bible does not say, what actually God did NOT say, then you apply that to baptism. Which is no doubt why NOT ONE CHRISTIAN in nearly 1600 years saw the Scriptures you can't find either, and why nearly all Christians (including nearly all Reformed) reject them.

Here's how that defense goes:

1. We MUST do whatever is illustrated as done in the Bible.

2. We are FORBIDDEN to do whatever is not illustrated in the Bible.

3. Every baptism in the Bible is of one over the age of X, who first documented that Jesus died for THEM, who then proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that was fully immersed under water.

4. ERGO we are mandated do the same (in the same chronological order) and are forbidden to do otherwise.

THAT is their apologetic for the Credobaptism dogma the Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century. Our two baptists friends here pretty much echo that.



There are two chief and obvious problems:


1. It's not true. NONE of point # 3 can actually be shown to be the case. As 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, and Acts 16:33 undeniably prove. So they just ignore them.


2. The Anabaptists reject their own premise. The apologetic is built entirely a point they themselves hold as false. The entire rationale, the whole apologetic is one they themselves reject. Points 1 and 2 are not accepted or followed by ANY of them, including our two Baptists friends here (they prove it by posting on the internet!). Since they themselves repudiate and disavow and don't follow the rubric of points 1 and 2, they forfeit any ability to demand others accept and follow it.



"Those Under the Age of X Cannot Believe"


The other Anabaptist defense is that God is unable to give faith to those under the (never-disclosed) age of X (or at least never does). When Matthew 18:6 is noted, it is ignored or (as we got in this thread, "I won't discuss that.") And when Luke 1:44 is noted, the response is: joy at the presence of Jesus is what pagan unbelievers have; no Christian would ever have such joy, it proves John did NOT have faith since he was under the age of X and thus unable to be given faith. This dogmatic mandate that God cannot (or at least does not) give faith to anyone under the age of X is typically the main apologetic.



Of course, through it all, they won't give even one verse that actually states ANYTHING they do. This is the part that amazes me most. There is a SHOUT that we must "scrap" anything and everything not stated in the Bible and any denomination tradition (that's THEIR insistence and requirement), then all they do is parrot verbatim the Anabaptist tradition and share not one Scripture that states that they do (in fact, when they do quote Scripture, it proves their claims aren't in the Bible; they tend to shoot themselves in the foot on this). This surprises me.



+++++++++++++++++++++++


Let's see if you'll talk...


1. "Every baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST had attained their Xth birthday, then after that proved they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that chose Jesus as their personal Savior, then was immersed entirely under water." Okay. Start by showing that for every person baptized in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 and 1 Corinthians 1:16. Is the apologetic true or false? Is the premise, that we must do as we see illustrated in the bible and cannot to as not illustrated a premise you accept, and if not (and you would not be posting on the internet if you did), how can a dogmatic conclusion based entirely on a false premise be thus true? Let's discuss if the claim is true.... and if it even mattered if the premise is not.


2. "Children under the age of X cannot have faith." Okay, start by discussing Jesus' statement in Matthew 18:6. He uses a word that in koine Greek means "tiny one" and typically refers to an unborn human through toddler. "One of these tiny ones who believe in Me." And what about Luke 1:44? Do you agree with MennoSota that leaping for joy is only something unbelievers do and proves John did not have faith? Is the point of that verse that obviously John the Baptist was too young to have faith and that he was sad to encounter Jesus? Where is your biblical support for those under the age of X rendering God impotent to give faith? Where is the biblical support that the Holy Spirit doesn't give faith unless we have first celebrated a certain birthday? I CAN understand how the radical synergists (who invented this dogma) can (wrongly) say that, but a monergist like yourself? Where is this severe limitation on God stated in the Bible?



Let's talk about these claims and these verses: 1 Corinthians, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:55 - do they support the claim that "every baptism in the bible was of those over the age of X who first attained the age of X after that proved they were among the few Jesus died for and after that proved they chose Jesus as their personal savior and after that repented and after that their entire body was fully immersed under water? Let's talk that.

Let's talk about whether those under the age of X can believe (the question you perpetually ask). Let's talk about Matthew 18:6 and Luke 1:44 for starters - do they support the claim that God can't or doesn't give faith to those under the age of X? Then let's talk about that. Where does the Bible so state?

Let's talk about your entire apologetic: if you reject and repudiate a premise, how can a dogma founded entirely upon that premise nonetheless be dogmatic fact?



.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay.

Where does the Bible state:

"Thou canst not baptize any under the age of X" Anti-Paedobaptism dogma of Baptists that you parrot.

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they first prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died."

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." Credobaptism dogma of the Anabaptists that you parrot.

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they first prove they are repentant of their sins."

"Thou canst not baptize any unless they are fully immersed under water." The Immersion Only dogma of the Anabaptists that you parrot.


Then....

"Those under the age of X cannot be given faith and thus can't have faith" apologetic of the anabaptists.

"We cannot do anything not clearly illustrated as having been done in the Bible and are mandated to do everything that is illustrated in the Bible" apologetic of the anabaptists that you parrot.




I see.

Were did God "ACTUALLY SAY" "One must be over the the age of X, then after that must prove they are among the few for whom Jesus died then after that must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and then after that must repent and then after that the prohibition to baptize is lifted and the person may be baptized but only by being fully and entirely immersion under water."


I think it is obvious: you take what the Bible does not say and you apply it to baptism. Which is no doubt why NOT ONE CHRISTIAN in nearly 1600 years saw the Scriptures you can't find either, and why these Anabaptist inventions in the late 16th Century were unheard of before, and likely why nearly all Christians (including nearly all Reformed) reject them.




.

Josiah, you have your ears closed. You must give account for attempting to force God to do what he never said.