Water Baptism

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

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.

... 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.

PS. I am not an Anabaptist. I am a Particular Baptist, an offshoot of the Reformed Theology movement and not of the Arminian Theology movement.

 

[Josiah]

You must give account for attempting to force God to do what he never said.

Like "no babies are permitted to be baptized?"

Like "no babies have faith?"

Like "must first choose Jesus as your personal Savior then after that the prohibition of baptism is lifted?"

Like "water in baptism must be administered by full and completely immersing the person under water?"

Like "We can only do what is specifically exampled in the Bible and forbidden to do what is not?"

You claim you only support 'WHAT GOD ACTUALLY SAID." But you can't find where God actually said ANY of these baptism inventions of the Anabaptists in the last 16th Century. Not one verse. Not for even one of their baptism invention.

You claim we must scrap any teaching not stated in the Bible and all denomination tradition, but you can't find even one Scipture that teaches even one of the Baptism dogmas you echo and all you do is echo the Anabaptist tradition.




.

 

[atpollard]

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.

I said “also” and you changed that to “FIRST”.
“Also” does not mean the same as “first”.
However, just provide some Biblical evidence for baptism preceding repentance and I will completely yield the point.
‘kai’ may not mean “first”, but it does not mean “or” and it does not mean “without”.

Peter did not command the crowd to “repent or be baptized” and Peter did not command the crowd to “be baptized without repenting”, he commanded the crowd to “repent and be baptized”.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,


See posts 402, 410, 414, 417.

I think it is OBVIOUS I'm willing.... I think it's obvious you're hesitant.

But if you do want to talk, there's a lot of material there.

I am not an Anabaptist. I am a Particular Baptist.

I never commented on what denomination you belong to. But here you have parroted the Anabaptist inventions and seem to want to defend them. You may like to call the inventions, "Particular Baptismal Dogmas" but since they are the same, I'm not sure what your point is. So far, you've not stated that you disagree with anything concerning baptism that I have noted from the Anabaptists.


Again, see at least Posts 402, 410, 415, 417. All ignored. There's much there to talk about.


Let me add, if I may.... IF you had separated yourself from Baptist dogmas on this, separated yourself from what MennoSota has posted (instead of defending and quoting it), IF you had simply said, "IMO, there is insufficient biblical reason to accept that Baptism plays a role in soteriology (or at least in justification).... perhaps even to agree with Calvin and the Reformed in saying "This is a Sacrament that is to be given to infants and children for it receives them into the covenant" (and that whole Reformed spin - which, BTW, I largely agree with).... then you would be Reformed, not Baptist. IF you had said, "IMO, baptism is best administered by full immersion in water and should be done that way when possible" then you would hold a strong position and you'd have a lot of Catholics, Orthodox and Luther himself in your camp. But no..... we get all these MANDATES that you can't find ANYWHERE in the Bible, in history, in the Rule of Faith.... and since you are't a radical synergists, the whole rationale to them is lost and you are left with nothing: Nothing in Scripture, nothing in theology, nothing in the church or history, nothing. Just this: I choose to OCCASIONALLY follow the examples of what I see SOMETIMES done in the Bible - and insist ergo it is dogmatic mandates.

I know the Calvin and then Reformed position on it. And while I disagree on some of it, I can respect it and even regard it as possible view, just not mine. But all this: Bible says can't be a "paedo" because "mikrons" cannot be given faith" ..... all this "the Bible states one must first choose Jesus as your personal Savior before the prohibition is lifted" ... all this "the Bible states any mode of baptism other than by full immersion under water is specially prohibited and invalid".... It's false. And my reasons are identical to the Reformed's reasons. It's BASELESS at best, really problematic or heretical more likely.

“Also” does not mean the same as “first”.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!! Now it's starting to dawn on you, my good friend, lol. The verse you quote has NOTHING, NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with defending that FIRST one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, FIRST they have to repent, FIRST they have to show Jesus died for them, then AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize is lifted and they may be permitted to receive it (but only if they are fully immersed).

Yup. We need to repent and believe. No one here debates or denies that. I specifically told you (a few times now) that I fully, completely, passionately accept that (I've accept - fully - every single word of every single verse you've referenced). It's not the bible I have any debate it, it's these baptism inventions of the Anabaptists that you defend and promote.


See posts 402, 410, 414, 417




.

 

[atpollard]

Like "no babies are permitted to be baptized?"

“No babies” is not a Credobaptist teaching, but "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” [Act 2:38] is a Credobaptist teaching. So is "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” [Mar 16:15-16]

Like "no babies have faith?"

We do not claim that babies have no faith. We do reject the argument that someone else can have faith for a baby (since there is no scripture to indicate that anyone can have faith for another person). We also like people to be able to articulate their faith as a sign that they have faith.

Like "must first choose Jesus as your personal Savior then after that the prohibition of baptism is lifted?"

But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. [Rom 10:8-10]
Why is it you want to baptize the unsaved?

Like "water in baptism must be administered by full and completely immersing the person under water?"

βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

Like "We can only do what is specifically exampled in the Bible and forbidden to do what is not?"

This is not a Credobaptist rule, however, scripture does say ... "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others [to do] the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Mat 5:19] ... so we prefer to do what the Bible says to do when given the choice.




.

 

[atpollard]

Yup. We need to repent and believe. No one here debates or denies that. I specifically told you (a few times now) that I fully, completely, passionately accept that (I've accept - fully - every single word of every single verse you've referenced).

Yet you baptize people that have never repented and show no sign of believing.

How is that different from spraying strangers on the street with a squirt gun?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yet you baptize people that have never repented and show no sign of believing.

How is that different from spraying strangers on the street with a squirt gun?

Beware the distractions of Josiah's posts.

Take the better path ...

Nudge

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]

Beware the distractions of Josiah's posts.

Take the better path ...

Nudge

For the record, I did respond ... it just got buried in the wall of posts with Josiah.

I had no comments on your interpretation of the scriptures. Obviously you see it the way you described and I see it the way I described. For the rest, here goes ...

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 Southern 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. On 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?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

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.

Sadly, that's not biblically supported. We are saved by grace, not our 'belief', yet the person in a coma is denied the grace of God active in baptism.

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.

Good. That's biblical, but under what criteria - saving belief or saving grace?

(Some) 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.

An appeal to anecdotal evidence is biblical how?

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.

Perhaps R.C. Sproul was given the gift of faith as an infant? Also, what do any of us recall before age four? I recall a little, but as time goes on, memory lapses. If Mr. Sproul genuinely recalls that, see my first point.

If someone was (living with cognitive challenges) 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%.

"Many are called, but few are qualified..."?

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?

That's been the whole point!

*All edits to quotes made by ID2

 

[Albion]

Yet you baptize people that have never repented and show no sign of believing.

It might help if you would decide whether you want to talk about 1) the historic churches baptizing people who have repented…Or if you would rather talk about 2) baptizing young children, just as you yourself say you do.


The constant switching back and forth between the particular issues here is making the discussion unnecessarily contentious IMO. However, on these two issues, it appears that we have now arrived at the point where there is no practical difference between your view of both matters and Josiah's (or my) view of them. At least not so far as the postings state.

We all favor baptizing believers who have repented and also favor baptizing children who are too young to know what all of that means.

 

[MennoSota]

It might help if you would decide whether you want to talk about 1) the historic churches baptizing people who have repented…Or if you would rather talk about 2) baptizing young children, just as you yourself say you do.


The constant switching back and forth between the particular issues here is making the discussion unnecessarily contentious IMO. However, on these two issues, it appears that we have now arrived at the point where there is no practical difference between your view of both matters and Josiah's (or my) view of them. At least not so far as the postings state.

We all favor baptizing believers who have repented and also favor baptizing children who are too young to know what all of that means.

We are talking about God's word and what it reveals about baptism.
Does God ever reveal baptism of infants? Does God ever reveal that infants confessed their belief in God so that they were baptized?
You are conflating the discussion by tossing in irrelevant denominational traditions that have no weight in this conversation.
Let us talk about what God has revealed in scripture and make our argument.
This entire pointing at denominational church tradition is an example of how idols have been introduced into the church that have no biblical support. If one cannot support the tradition with verifiable evidence in scripture, then that tradition must be questioned and ultimately tossed out when it represents a heresy and an idol created by the denomination.
Infant baptism is an idol in many churches when it preaches infant baptism as a means of grace and salvation. There is simply no legitimate argument for the practice. Not one legitimate argument.
Turn away from your idol.

 

[Albion]

We are talking about God's word and what it reveals about baptism.
Does God ever reveal baptism of infants?

Yes.

Let us talk about what God has revealed in scripture and make our argument.

OK. Lets.

This entire pointing at denominational church tradition is an example of how idols have been introduced into the church that have no biblical support. If one cannot support the tradition with verifiable evidence in scripture, then that tradition must be questioned and ultimately tossed out when it represents a heresy and an idol created by the denomination.

?? didn't you just ask or suggest that we talk about what God has revealed in Scripture?? Why aren't you doing that?

 

[atpollard]

Sadly, that's not biblically supported. We are saved by grace, not our 'belief', yet the person in a coma is denied the grace of God active in baptism.

Good. That's biblical, but under what criteria - saving belief or saving grace?

An appeal to anecdotal evidence is biblical how?

Perhaps R.C. Sproul was given the gift of faith as an infant? Also, what do any of us recall before age four? I recall a little, but as time goes on, memory lapses. If Mr. Sproul genuinely recalls that, see my first point.

"Many are called, but few are qualified..."?

That's been the whole point!

Since you are a new player, I’ll waste a minimum of time on your comments.

So much pontification and so little exegesis.
Don’t tell me I am wrong, show me from Scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes.

Show proof. Just one infant actually being baptized will do. I reject any attempt at speculation as evidence.

OK. Lets.

Bring it on. I have already posted scripture and you have been silent. I dare you to provide scripture that shows infants actually being baptizef

?? didn't you just ask or suggest that we talk about what God has revealed in Scripture?? Why aren't you doing that?

I have done so on many occasions. Go back and actually engage those specific verses. The responsibility is on you to stop being lazy.

 

[atpollard]

We all favor baptizing believers who have repented

These are people who have “heard - believed - repented” and want to be baptized.

and also favor baptizing children who are too young to know what all of that means.

I am perfectly willing to baptize any child (who are also people) that has “heard - believed - repented” and wants to be baptized.
You are willing to baptize people (who in this case happen to be children) that show no indication of believing, repenting or wanting to be baptized ... you baptize them because their parents want them baptized.

Our positions are not really the same at all. I am still a Credobaptist who baptizes people who claim to believe, and you are still a Padeobaptist who baptizes infants because their parents want them baptized. The issue is just not about some magic age of ‘X’, the issue is personal belief vs parental consent.

 

[Albion]

These are people who have “heard - believed - repented” and want to be baptized.

Of course. No problem there.

I am perfectly willing to baptize any child (who are also people) that has “heard - believed - repented” and wants to be baptized.

You've already admitted that you will baptize children who are not old enough to comprehend any or all of that, so lets not go through it again for no gain.

You are willing to baptize people (who in this case happen to be children) that show no indication of believing, repenting or wanting to be baptized

So are you, so this is not getting us anywhere new.

Our positions are not really the same at all. I am still a Credobaptist who baptizes people who claim to believe

You are one in name only.

By baptizing people who are merely repeating words back to you that you put into their mouths, words that they cannot understand and which do not amount to a genuine profession of faith -- or that their parents have done this -- you are not accomplishing anything more than the parents who bring their minor children for baptism in my church. (and that's putting it mildly, considering that we consider it to be a sacrament and you see it as only a gesture)

 

[MoreCoffee]

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?

Baptism is all about God and what God does on behalf of his people so the priest is instrumental but not central to baptism. The truth is that a priest is not necessary for baptism. Any Catholic person may baptise though the usual way is for the parish priest to baptise.

In the case that you mention about a reluctant 30 year old who is unrepentant the answer is that if the state of that person is known to be reluctant and unrepentant then no baptism will occur. If the person hides their unrepentant and reluctant state then they may receive baptism if their deception is successful. But it is useful to know that Catholic baptism usually happens at the Easter Vigil mass on Saturday evening of Easter week. A candidate for baptism typically goes through 9 to 12 months of instruction and discussion before they are received as ready for baptism so unless the person is very expert at hiding their inner state they will very likely reveal it and not proceed to baptism.

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?

Infants are not forced against their will to be baptised. Infants are usually quite cheerful before baptism and many are still cheerful after baptism if the water is warm but if it is cold many will cry because of the coldness of the water.

 

[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. Since they themselves repudiate and disavow and don't follow the rubric of points 1 and 2, it's absurd and laughable to argue something is true if it conforms to what is false.



.

"Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” [Act 2:38] is a Credobaptist teaching.

Mine, too. Everyone agrees with that. I've accepted every single literal word in every single Scripture you and MennoSota have quoted or referenced - fully and completely.

But of course, the verse you quote has nothing to do with the Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism. It's a nice verse we all agree on (and thus a good diversion) but it does not state, "FIRST in chronological time, one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that in time must give public proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that has all been done, then one is to repent, and after that (and only then) is the prohibition to baptize is lifted and the person may receive baptism (but only if by full and complete immersion under water). It doesn't say that, does it? It doesn't substantiate this Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism. It has nothing to do with it.

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” [Mar 16:15-16]

Again, I agree.


Again, it has nothing to do with the Anabaptist invention of the Anabaptists that you echo and defend. Nice verse, attempted diversion to something we agree on, but nothing to do with the Anabaptist dogma you echo. Obviously, the verse does not state, "FIRST in chronological time, one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that in time must give public proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that has all been done, then (and only then) is the prohibition to baptize is lifted and the person may receive baptism (but only if by full and complete immersion under water).

[Rom 10:8-10]

I agree. Everyone does. And perhaps you didn't notice, it doesn't even mention Baptism....nor is that the context.


Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism you echo. Nice verse, I fully agree with it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with your dogma. So it's just a diversion. Obviously, as everyone including you knows, it does not state, "FIRST in chronological time, one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that in time must give public proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that has all been done, then (and only then) is the prohibition to baptize is lifted and the person may receive baptism (but only if by full and complete immersion under water)."

This is not a Credobaptist rule, however, scripture does say ... "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others [to do] the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” [Mat 5:19] ... so we prefer to do what the Bible says to do when given the choice.

So, where does the Bible state, "FIRST in chronological time, one must prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died, then after that in time must give public proof that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that has all been done, then (and only then) is the prohibition to baptize is lifted and the person may receive baptism (but only if by full and complete immersion under water)?" Did these radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century invent a commandment and demand all keep it, making them least in the kngdom of God, and now you continue this?

These are people who have “heard - believed - repented” and want to be baptized.

Ah, but it doesn't state, "FIRST in chronological time all must hear and cognatively fully understand, then after that is accomplished, then after that they must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after that is done, repent, and when all that is accomplished, then the prohibition to baptize is lifted and they may be baptized (but only if every cell of their body is entirely covered and immersed in water." The verse is great but obviously it doesn't say what you do. Not at all.


Prove for us that that precise chronological sequence happened for every person in the households below that were baptized:

Acts 16:15

Acts 16:33

1 Corinthians 1:16

βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet)

Since the late 16th Century when the Anabaptists invented the dogma you parrot, some Baptists try to make the case 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 Anabaptists (none of whom knew Greek or spoke Greek) would have known the word itself mandates full immersion?


If the word means and mandates full immersion under water, how come no one in the Greek speaking Greek Orthodox Church for 2000 years knows that? Now, it's true, the EOC typically dip the BABY but there is no full immersion under water. 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? Can you explain why no Greek speaking person has ever known that the word means and mandates full immersion?


The Didache, as you've admitted, written around 100 AD in Greek by an author who know and spoke Greek to readers who knew Greek, states that we can baptize by pouring. He specifically states it's okay to POUR in Baptism. Why didn't he know that that's forbidden by the word itself? Why didn't anyone know that until some German (who didn't know Greek) discovered that 1500 years later? Will you explain that?


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. The readers he writes to know Greek and speak 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 means and 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 "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 Matthew and Mark and Paul (all of whom knew Greek and spoke Greek and lived in the First Century) didn't know that the very word MEANS and MANDATES full immersion under water? But there was German speaking (non-Greek speaking) German almost 1600 years later who suddenly revealed this? Will you explain that?





.

 

[atpollard]

Baptism is all about God and what God does on behalf of his people so the priest is instrumental but not central to baptism. The truth is that a priest is not necessary for baptism. Any Catholic person may baptise though the usual way is for the parish priest to baptise.

In the case that you mention about a reluctant 30 year old who is unrepentant the answer is that if the state of that person is known to be reluctant and unrepentant then no baptism will occur. If the person hides their unrepentant and reluctant state then they may receive baptism if their deception is successful. But it is useful to know that Catholic baptism usually happens at the Easter Vigil mass on Saturday evening of Easter week. A candidate for baptism typically goes through 9 to 12 months of instruction and discussion before they are received as ready for baptism so unless the person is very expert at hiding their inner state they will very likely reveal it and not proceed to baptism.

:cheer:
That's the Catholic Church I remembered from the Catholic Charismatic Fellowship that mandated that everything be done in order and first shared the gospel with THIS atheist sinner. [... but for an unconvincing explanation of the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and the Marian veneration that made me uncomfortable as a 'newborn in Christ', I might have been one of those Baptized at Easter. However, I realized that my conscience would never allow me to affirm a belief in the Catechism for Inquirers and I would not lie about it.]

Infants are not forced against their will to be baptised. Infants are usually quite cheerful before baptism and many are still cheerful after baptism if the water is warm but if it is cold many will cry because of the coldness of the water.

It is your assumption that they want to be baptized and my assumption that they do not. The infants have not communicated their desires to either of us and God has chosen not to provide us with a clear scripture either commanding or forbidding infant baptism.
So you will continue to emphasize "households" and baptize all the members of a household (as scripture says was done), and I will continue to emphasize "believed and baptized" and baptize all that claim to believe (as scripture says was done).

In truth, it reminds me most of this ...

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day [alike.] Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. [Rom 14:4-6 NASB]

Menno will argue that some infant baptisms are giving people a false sense that they are saved when they are not ... and Menno would be correct. It is also just as true that some "sinner's prayers" are giving people a false sense that they are saved when they are not. In either case (infant or adult baptism) salvation is of God, by God and for the glory of God and it is not the wheat and tares that start to grow together and look similar when young that are the Bride of Christ, it is those that PERSEVERE and finish the race, revealing to all that they were the wheat ... They are the Children of God and the Bride of Christ.

 

[atpollard]

You've already admitted that you will baptize children who are not old enough to comprehend any or all of that, so lets not go through it again for no gain.

I have admitted that I will baptize PEOPLE that believe, even if they are children so young that YOU CLAIM they cannot comprehend. There are adults that claim to have believed since 4 years old. Why should I assume that no 4 year old can believe when some people tell me they believed at that age?

You keep misstating what I believe, so I am forced to keep correcting you. Credobaptists baptize people who believe.