Water Baptism

[atpollard]

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.







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).







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)."








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?







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








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?

.

:yawning: ... more pontification.

How about 1 thought and 1 verse and a short exegesis of that verse?
(preferably not telling me what I believe)

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

How about 1 thought and 1 verse

EXACTLY as I've been suggesting and requesting since you chose to defend the Anabaptist inventions..... MennoSota too who keep stressing we need to "scrap" all tradition (Anabaptist thoughts and spins, etc.) and ONLY consider "what Scripture ACTUALLY STATES" but he not yet done that, he's done EXACTLY what he insists cannot be done.


So, friend, it seems you now want to distance yourself from all the Anabaptists dogmatic inventions on Baptism (most of which you have parroted, all of which and more that MennoSota has parroted) except one: That one must FIRST in chronological time prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior THEN AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize is lifted. Let's start with that since that seems to be your leading point, where is this BEFORE stated (perhaps mandated since the whole point of the Anabaptist dogma is that its mandated), where is this "prohibition" stated. What did every Christian on the planet entirely miss until a German Anabaptist noticed it in the late 16th Century?


See posts 402, 410, 414 417, 424 - all pretty much circumvented, with a refusal to discuss. And every time I bring up a verse (such as Matthew 18:6, Luke 1:44, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16) asking how these support your claim, I typically get ignored, when I ask you a question or ask for an explanation, I get ignored, when I ask you to discuss a verse, you've posted "no." All framed by "I want to talk!"



Some points....


1. MANY times you have said you want to "talk." And every time, you don't and won't. Many times you have posted this is big, oversized, embolden words - and then I work hard and long on a post, ask questions, ask for clarification, ask for explanations, ask you to look at a verse, etc. and EVERY BIT of it is ignored.


2. You and (more so) MennoSota have a very odd propensity to quote or reference Scriptures that either aren't about Baptism at all (the word doesn't appear in the whole chapter!!!) or PROVES that what you are saying is absent in the verse. IMO, it seems you are willingly, knowingly, shooting yourself in the foot, actually trying to make MY point that these inventions are not in the Bible. Or history. Or Rule of faith. They are just pure Anabaptist tradition. It really is amazing, especially from you because often you are a very outstanding and thoughtful apologist. And even more from MennoSota who has this mantra: "ONLY what the Bible ACTUALLY STATES - no Tradition allowed!"


3. For obvious reasons, I won't do what you would never allow: accept foundational premises that you yourself reject. It won't be helpful if you CONTINUE to insist, "we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible, and we CAN'T do whatever not exampled in the Bible" (making that your premise - stated or assumed) when we all know (come on, you DO) that you don't accept that premise and don't follow it. A point confirmed by something false doesn't make it true (especially when it actually ISN'T so confirmed!)


4. For obvious reasons, I won't do what you never allow: Make sweeping claims in spite of knowing it isn't true. You like to say "The baptisms in the Bible all are of folks who first chose Jesus as their personal Savior." Then when I ask for substantiation, you ..... well, total silence. When I bring up several Scriptures that ARE about Baptism, that IS the stated issue, the word DOES appear, and ask for substantiation of your claim.... well, more silence, total silence. Friend, in SO many posts (that I worked long and hard on) what I typically get is silence. Not talk.


Okay. Start with what seems to be your most charished of the Anabaptist inventions: One must first prove they've accepted Jesus as their personal Savior before they may be baptized (the narrowest definition of Credobaptism). But MY SUGGESTION would be
A) Don't quote Scripture that proves my point: Your dogma isn't there. It's self defeating for you.
B) Don't use premises you yourself reject (a dogma jibing with something false doesn't make it therefore right).
C) If you make a foundational claim, be prepared to show it is true (and don't ignore it when I give many Scriptures that need to thus be addressed, Scriptures about Baptism)


That would - at long, long last - be a start. You've always stated you want to talk but you have yet to do it. I admit, it's frustrating to work long and hard on many posts to you, almost never anything in it is actually engaged. Rather, lots of diversions and evasions. And then echos of the Anabaptist inventions.



I'll share again: IF you were Reformed on this point, we would have some disagreements BUT I would accept your position as valid and reasonable. I'm very familiar with Calvin's views and then the reinvention of those in what became Reformed Theology on this point. In fact, to the extent that it goes, I quite agree with it and rather like the "adopting" view, the coming into the Covenant view (Luther speaks very similarly). Reformed Christians either reject or simply leave alone whether Baptism is a Means of Grace (but still call it a Sacrament) - and I get that - but still hold it in great esteem and value what it does. And of course, Baptize infants (rarely by full bodily immersion). But these Anabaptist inventions (rejected by 100% of Christians for 1600 years and maybe 75% for the last 400 years) - all flowing from their radical synergism (they never claimed from Scripture) - are at best baseless. And the apologetics for them frankly are much worse than the dogmas themselves (as is generally the case with radical synergists). What I see - honesty - is WORSE (much worse) eisegsis than anything I've noted in Catholicism. It's stunning coming from a thoughtful monergist like you.





.

 

[Albion]

I have admitted that I will baptize PEOPLE that believe

I must stop you there. What you said is that you will baptize people who say the appointed words. A 4 year old does not comprehend faith, conversion, remorse for sin, Christ as savior, or any of that.

There are adults that claim to have believed since 4 years old.

As I said, if YOU want to believe that fantasy...if you want to baptize such a person...then you have no complaint against baptizing infants who are in the same situation.

Credobaptists baptize people who believe.

I know what a Credobaptist is. You are not one.

 

[atpollard]

More ignoring....

I will continue to ignore for as long as you continue to ...
1. Tell me what I believe.
2. Call me an "Anabaptist".

EXACTLY as I've been suggesting and requesting since you chose to defend the Anabaptist inventions..... MennoSota too who keep stressing we need to "scrap" all tradition (Anabaptist thoughts and spins, etc.) and ONLY consider "what Scripture ACTUALLY STATES" but he not yet done that, he's done EXACTLY what he insists cannot be done.

So, friend, start with a verse that states any of the mandates or prohibitions of these Anabaptist inventions: That in baptism, one must prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE the prohibition to baptism is lifted. Let's start with that since that seems to be your leading point, where is this BEFORE stated (perhaps mandated since the whole point of the Anabaptist dogma is that its mandated).

We tried that, it was an epic fail.

You make a statement, list a verse of your choosing either supporting or countering that statement, and offer some sort of brief commentary on that verse related to that statement. As long as the statement and exegesis do not include the word "anabaptist", I will respond to your statement, verse and exegesis with something other than 'ignoring'.

If you are absolutely intent on refuting MY beliefs, then I am a CREDOBAPTIST, from the Latin word "credo" meaning 'creed' or 'I believe' and the whole point of the Credobaptist argument is that one must 'communicate' "I believe" before they are baptized. If you are determined to refute that, then feel free. I'll start it for you ...

"Credobaptists say one must believe before they are baptized, but I say ... (briefly state your opinion)" [insert verse and follow with exegesis].

 

[atpollard]

I must stop you there. What you said is that you will baptize people who say the appointed words. A 4 year old does not comprehend faith, conversion, remorse for sin, Christ as savior, or any of that.

You keep stating opinion not facts. :sadwavey:

FYI: The Southern Baptist Convention states that its member churches baptize approximately 4,000 children under the age of 6 per year ... so the ENTIRE SBC must not be Credobaptist, either.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

EXACTLY as I've been suggesting and requesting since you chose to defend the Anabaptist inventions..... MennoSota too who keep stressing we need to "scrap" all tradition (Anabaptist thoughts and spins, etc.) and ONLY consider "what Scripture ACTUALLY STATES" but he not yet done that, he's done EXACTLY what he insists cannot be done.


So, friend, it seems you now want to distance yourself from all the Anabaptists dogmatic inventions on Baptism (most of which you have parroted, all of which and more that MennoSota has parroted) except one: That one must FIRST in chronological time prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior THEN AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize is lifted. Okay. That's great. Let's start with that since that seems to be your leading point, where is this BEFORE stated (perhaps mandated since the whole point of the Anabaptist dogma is that its mandated), where is this "prohibition" stated. What did every Christian on the planet entirely miss until a German Anabaptist noticed it in the late 16th Century?


See posts 402, 410, 414 417, 424 - all pretty much circumvented, with a refusal to discuss. And every time I bring up a verse (such as Matthew 18:6, Luke 1:44, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16) asking how these support your claim, I typically get ignored, when I ask you a question or ask for an explanation, I get ignored, when I ask you to discuss a verse, you've posted "no." All framed by "I want to talk!"



Some points....


1. MANY times you have said you want to "talk." And every time, you don't and won't. Many times you have posted this is big, oversized, embolden words - and then I work hard and long on a post, ask questions, ask for clarification, ask for explanations, ask you to look at a verse, etc. and EVERY BIT of it is ignored.


2. You and (more so) MennoSota have a very odd propensity to quote or reference Scriptures that either aren't about Baptism at all (the word doesn't appear in the whole chapter!!!) or PROVES that what you are saying is absent in the verse. IMO, it seems you are willingly, knowingly, shooting yourself in the foot, actually trying to make MY point that these inventions are not in the Bible. Or history. Or Rule of faith. They are just pure Anabaptist tradition. It really is amazing, especially from you because often you are a very outstanding and thoughtful apologist. And even more from MennoSota who has this mantra: "ONLY what the Bible ACTUALLY STATES - no Tradition allowed!"


3. For obvious reasons, I won't do what you would never allow: accept foundational premises that you yourself reject. It won't be helpful if you CONTINUE to insist, "we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible, and we CAN'T do whatever not exampled in the Bible" (making that your premise - stated or assumed) when we all know (come on, you DO) that you don't accept that premise and don't follow it. A point confirmed by something false doesn't make it true (especially when it actually ISN'T so confirmed!)


4. For obvious reasons, I won't do what you never allow: Make sweeping claims in spite of knowing it isn't true. You like to say "The baptisms in the Bible all are of folks who first chose Jesus as their personal Savior." Then when I ask for substantiation, you ..... well, total silence. When I bring up several Scriptures that ARE about Baptism, that IS the stated issue, the word DOES appear, and ask for substantiation of your claim.... well, more silence, total silence. Friend, in SO many posts (that I worked long and hard on) what I typically get is silence. Not talk.


Okay. Start with what seems to be your most charished of the Anabaptist inventions: One must first prove they've accepted Jesus as their personal Savior before they may be baptized (the narrowest definition of Credobaptism). But MY SUGGESTION would be
A) Don't quote Scripture that proves my point: Your dogma isn't there. It's self defeating for you.
B) Don't use premises you yourself reject (a dogma jibing with something false doesn't make it therefore right).
C) If you make a foundational claim, be prepared to show it is true (and don't ignore it when I give many Scriptures that need to thus be addressed, Scriptures about Baptism)


That would - at long, long last - be a start. You've always stated you want to talk but you have yet to do it. I admit, it's frustrating to work long and hard on many posts to you, almost never anything in it is actually engaged. Rather, lots of diversions and evasions. And then echos of the Anabaptist inventions.



I'll share again: IF you were Reformed on this point, we would have some disagreements BUT I would accept your position as valid and reasonable. I'm very familiar with Calvin's views and then the reinvention of those in what became Reformed Theology on this point. In fact, to the extent that it goes, I quite agree with it and rather like the "adopting" view, the coming into the Covenant view (Luther speaks very similarly). Reformed Christians either reject or simply leave alone whether Baptism is a Means of Grace (but still call it a Sacrament) - and I get that - but still hold it in great esteem and value what it does. And of course, Baptize infants (rarely by full bodily immersion). But these Anabaptist inventions (rejected by 100% of Christians for 1600 years and maybe 75% for the last 400 years) - all flowing from their radical synergism (they never claimed from Scripture) - are at best baseless. And the apologetics for them frankly are much worse than the dogmas themselves (as is generally the case with radical synergists). What I see - honesty - is WORSE (much worse) eisegsis than anything I've noted in Catholicism. It's stunning coming from a thoughtful monergist like you.





.

I will continue to ignore for as long as you continue to ...
1. Tell me what I believe.
2. Call me an "Anabaptist".

1. As I noted.... you keep CLAIMING you want to talk but you keep admitting you will not. We're left wondering why (well, probably not wondering)


2. I stated I WELCOME limiting the discussion now to just one of the dogmas you've been promoting. I AGREED to this (several times). You want to only talk about Credobaptism (the mandated chronological sequence that the statement of faith MUST chronologically happen before one is permitted to baptize or be baptized). I didn't tell you what you believe, I simply agreed to discuss that one subject as you agreed it is. But now you indicate you will ignore. Again.


3. You keep making up silly excuses. this time, "Because you keep calling me an Anabaptist" which of course everyone here knows I've never done (nor has anyone else here). I've said what is undeniable: the dogmas you are echoing are inventions of the Anabaptists. I never said you are (you know that, everyone here does - what an incredible excuse!) , I never even said you agree with the Anabaptists on ANYTHING else. And you have called yourself Baptist (in the USA, the "ana" was dropped - along with several Anabaptist dogmatic inventions, but not their dogmas on baptism)

I am a CREDOBAPTIST, from the Latin word "credo" meaning 'creed' or 'I believe' and the whole point of the Credobaptist argument is that one must 'communicate' "I believe" before they are baptized.

And after affirming a number of other Anabaptists dogmas on Baptism, you now want to limit discussion to just one: Credobaptism (in the narrowest sense). I've agreed to do that MANY times, always ignored. Again now. In my post above, I agreed to do that, and I defined it much the same as you: that FIRST in chronological time, the receiver is domatically mandated to confirm their faith in Jesus BEFORE (in time) one is permitted to baptize. But when I did exactly as you demand, you replied with "I'll ignore it." Of course you will. As you repeatedly have done. You've done that since you first entered this discussion; I suspect we're all reached our conclusion as to why. Sad. Beneath you.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

: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.]

It is better that you chose to discontinue and keep your integrity. Had you been baptised and then later left because of the doubts that you already had prior to baptism you would have spoken untruthfully when asked if you received the teaching of the Catholic Church as true.

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.

I don't assume that the baby wants anything specifically I just happily acknowledge that the infant's parents speak for their infant. As parents they will also choose where the infant will live, what schools it will eventually attend, and what food it will have to eat. So choosing what Church the infant will be baptised in and what faith they will teach the child is up to them too.

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.

Catholic teaching about salvation does not promote "once saved always saved" values so I know no Catholics who think that they are "home and hosed" with God. But that is part of another topic which has been discussed a hundred time before and never reaches an agreed conclusion.

 

[MennoSota]

As I noted.... you keep CLAIMING you want to talk but you keep admitting you will not. We're left wondering why (well, probably not wondering)

And you keep making up silly excuses. this time, "Because you keep calling me an Anabaptist" which of course everyone here knows I've never done (nor has anyone else here). I've said what is undeniable: the dogmas you are echoing are inventions of the Anabaptists. I never said you are (you know that, everyone here does - what an incredible excuse!) , I never even said you agree with the Anabaptists on ANYTHING else. And you have called yourself Baptist (in the USA, the "ana" was dropped - along with several Anabaptist dogmatic inventions, but not their dogmas on baptism)







And after affirming a number of other Anabaptists dogmas on Baptism, you now want to limit discussion to just one: Credobaptism (in the narrowest sense). I've agreed to do that MANY times, always ignored. In my post above, I agreed to do that, and I defined it much the same as you: that FIRST in chronological time, the receiver is domatically mandated to confirm their faith in Jesus. But when I did exactly as you demand, you replied with "I'll ignore it." Of course. As you repeatedly have done. You've done that since you first entered this discussion; I suspect we're all reached our conclusion as to why. Sad. Beneath you.




.

How did you get the entire dialogue so twisted, Josiah? It's as if you have been reading an entirely different thread.

 

[atpollard]

Catholic teaching about salvation does not promote "once saved always saved" values so I know no Catholics who think that they are "home and hosed" with God. But that is part of another topic which has been discussed a hundred time before and never reaches an agreed conclusion.

The ironic part is that "I" know that, but a lot of infrequent flyers at the Roman Catholic Church are placing a lot of their eggs in the "Member of the Catholic Church" and "Light a candle for those in Purgatory" baskets. [Speaking of Italian-American Catholic relatives that I know.] The church in AU might do a better job of Catechism than the church in the USA, or you just know more than average because you were not born into the RCC to just take it all for granted ... you had to actually learn what they believe to become a member.


Back to "baptizin dem babbies" ...
I have heard it said that the core difference comes down to the definition of the Church (By "CHURCH" I refer to the Church of Christ, his body on the Earth).

If the Church contains people (infants and adults) that are currently really and actually part of the Church and under the New Covenant, but will eventually fall away and never reach Heaven (not among those that God will Glorify), then the baptism of infants into the New Covenant makes perfect sense. That is the Presbyterian Padeobaptist view of baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of the Covenant and why they baptize infants into the Covenant Family.

If the Church (the Body of Christ) is only comprised of those who will finish the race, enter Heaven and be glorified by God, then the Church should test the spirit of a man to keep the goats and the wolves in sheep clothing from joining the people of God. In this case, baptism is best viewed as the admission to the Body of Christ and not merely into the covenant. Our children are born into the covenant, but Faith in Jesus and Salvation are gifts from God. Baptism is for repentance, which only comes when God has done something in our heart to remove our blindness, and marks the start of the race of from the washing of our sins to spending eternity as the Bride of Christ.

I think that distinction has merit (for both sides).

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
1. As I noted.... you keep CLAIMING you want to talk but you keep admitting you will not. We're left wondering why (well, probably not wondering)
2. I stated I WELCOME limiting the discussion now to just one of the dogmas you've been promoting. I AGREED to this (several times). You want to only talk about Credobaptism (the mandated chronological sequence that the statement of faith MUST chronologically happen before one is permitted to baptize or be baptized). I didn't tell you what you believe, I simply agreed to discuss that one subject as you agreed it is. But now you indicate you will ignore. Again.
3. You keep making up silly excuses. this time, "Because you keep calling me an Anabaptist" which of course everyone here knows I've never done (nor has anyone else here). I've said what is undeniable: the dogmas you are echoing are inventions of the Anabaptists. I never said you are (you know that, everyone here does - what an incredible excuse!) , I never even said you agree with the Anabaptists on ANYTHING else. And you have called yourself Baptist (in the USA, the "ana" was dropped - along with several Anabaptist dogmatic inventions, but not their dogmas on baptism)

And after affirming a number of other Anabaptists dogmas on Baptism, you now want to limit discussion to just one: Credobaptism (in the narrowest sense). I've agreed to do that MANY times, always ignored. Again now. In my post above, I agreed to do that, and I defined it much the same as you: that FIRST in chronological time, the receiver is domatically mandated to confirm their faith in Jesus BEFORE (in time) one is permitted to baptize. But when I did exactly as you demand, you replied with "I'll ignore it." Of course. As you repeatedly have done. You've done that since you first entered this discussion; I suspect we're all reached our conclusion as to why. Sad. Beneath you.

Perhaps I was unclear in my expectations ...

Why don't YOU:
1. make A statement
2. list A verse of your choosing either supporting or countering that statement
3. offer some sort of brief commentary (exegesis) on that verse related to that statement.

In exchange:
IF the statement and exegesis do not include the word "Anabaptist"
THEN I will respond to your statement, verse and exegesis.

 

[Josiah]

Perhaps I was unclear in my expectations ...

Why don't YOU:
1. make A statement
2. list A verse of your choosing either supporting or countering that statement
3. offer some sort of brief commentary (exegesis) on that verse related to that statement.

In exchange:
IF the statement and exegesis do not include the word "Anabaptist"
THEN I will respond to your statement, verse and exegesis.

Hard to prove a negative, but okay....


1. I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people under a not disclosed age (which is why no one can produce such a Scripture), nor is there any mandate that one must attain a certain unknown age before they can be baptized (which is why no one can produce a Scripture so stating.) I reject late 16th century invention of Anti-Paedobaptism in part because it is not taught in Scripture. I admit that LIKELY MOST of those baptized in the Bible were older than the never-disclosed age of X (but it's impossible to know) - certainly not children - but we don't know if that was always the case. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point. Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any under a certain age.... or that state we are mandated to only baptize after a certain age, then present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.


2. I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they a) prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died; b) prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; c) have revealed their repentance of sins; d) have requested to be baptize. Nor is there any mandate that we must baptize people who previously in chronological time a) prove they are among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died; b) prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; c) have revealed their repentance of sins; d) have requested to be baptize. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures. Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear to fit at least 1 and at times more than 1 of those, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point. Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement to all these things, or that we are mandated to require all those things, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it true (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma and that it's late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture (and they don't claim it is).




.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


SORRY! You want to limit the discussion to just Credobaptism. And I agreed.



Hard to prove a negative, but okay....

I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.

Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.

Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it true (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma and that it's late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture (and they don't claim it is).




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

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.

I'm hardly a "new player". I've asked some pointed questions. Let's start with Mr. Sproul. If he genuinely can't recall a time that he didn't know the Lord, or was not growing in faith, when did he receive such faith? I know of Mr. Sproul and I'm accused of pontification...

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You make a statement, list a verse of your choosing either supporting or countering that statement, and offer some sort of brief commentary on that verse related to that statement. As long as the statement and exegesis do not include the word "anabaptist", I will respond to your statement, verse and exegesis with something other than 'ignoring'.

I know this was for Josiah, but how can one continue a discussion with yoou if the parameters are "verse and exegesis" but changes to "verse and exegesis with conditions". At least state plainly what you want. "New players" often shadow threads and see patterns. Josiah has been up front with his verses and exegesis in multiple threads. If nothing else he is utterly consistent.

 

[atpollard]

I'm hardly a "new player". I've asked some pointed questions. Let's start with Mr. Sproul. If he genuinely can't recall a time that he didn't know the Lord, or was not growing in faith, when did he receive such faith? I know of Mr. Sproul and I'm accused of pontification...

CLARIFICATION: You are a new player to the Josiah - Albion game of telling me that I am wrong while providing no scripture or exegesis of that scripture to back up your opinions. I did not mean to imply that you are new to the board.

RESPONSE: You have still offered no scripture or exegesis to support any opinions that I am wrong, so I have nothing “Theological” to respond to. :dunno:

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

CLARIFICATION: You are a new player to the Josiah - Albion game of telling me that I am wrong while providing no scripture or exegesis of that scripture to back up your opinions. I did not mean to imply that you are new to the board.

RESPONSE: You have still offered no scripture or exegesis to support any opinions that I am wrong, so I have nothing “Theological” to respond to. :dunno:

I've said nothing about you being wrong. I asked some questions. I guess I was also a bit miffed by the characterization of those with cognitive challenges as being "retarded". I apologize.

 

[atpollard]

I know this was for Josiah, but how can one continue a discussion with yoou if the parameters are "verse and exegesis" but changes to "verse and exegesis with conditions". At least state plainly what you want. "New players" often shadow threads and see patterns. Josiah has been up front with his verses and exegesis in multiple threads. If nothing else he is utterly consistent.

Is “don’t use the word Anabaptist”really such a hard request to oblige?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Is “don’t use the word Anabaptist”really such a hard request to oblige?

No, but I'm not Josiah. A tactic might be to ignore what seems like 'extra' and address the essence of the post. Ftr, 'Credobaptist' makes sense and I understand that as your worldview

 

[atpollard]

I've said nothing about you being wrong. I asked some questions. I guess I was also a bit miffed by the characterization of those with cognitive challenges as being "retarded". I apologize.

This seemed like a claim that I was wrong without any scripture to support it:

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 could have defended my position both from scripture and exegesis, but why should I bother if all I am going to get in response is opinions without any support.

 

[atpollard]

No, but I'm not Josiah. A tactic might be to ignore what seems like 'extra' and address the essence of the post. Ftr, 'Credobaptist' makes sense and I understand that as your worldview

I’ll try, but here is the problem ...

Let’s review what I asked for:

“Why don't YOU:
1. make A statement
2. list A verse of your choosing either supporting or countering that statement
3. offer some sort of brief commentary (exegesis) on that verse related to that statement.”

Hard to prove a negative, but okay....

You don’t have to prove a negative, you have chosen to prove a negative. I left the choice of what statement concerning water baptism you wanted to prove or disprove 100% up to you. For future posts, feel free to choose any ONE point that you want to address. I just didn’t want to keep getting hit with a wall of text that is too broad for a meaningful discussion.

1. I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people under a not disclosed age (which is why no one can produce such a Scripture), nor is there any mandate that one must attain a certain unknown age before they can be baptized (which is why no one can produce a Scripture so stating.) I reject late 16th century invention of Anti-Paedobaptism in part because it is not taught in Scripture. I admit that LIKELY MOST of those baptized in the Bible were older than the never-disclosed age of X (but it's impossible to know) - certainly not children - but we don't know if that was always the case. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point. Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any under a certain age.... or that state we are mandated to only baptize after a certain age, then present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.

Technically, you seem to have attempted to make TWO points, so to keep this manageable, I will just respond to the first statement and ignore the second statement. You are welcome to bring up “chronological order” as the next thing to be discussed once we have finished talking about “prohibitions based on age”.

I notice that you have provided no scripture and you have, therefore, offered no discussion of how those scriptures support your position. That makes it harder for me to respond to your interpretation of specific scripture. However, IG2 has suggested that I should ignore what bothers me and attempt to focus on your basic point. Since you HAVE complied with my request to not use “that word that must not be mentioned” , I am more than happy to attempt to actually ‘talk’.

You have claimed “there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people under a not disclosed age”. To which I reply: “I agree.” There is no recorded minimum age for baptism. I make no claim that anyone is forbidden baptism because of their age.

However, baptism is not like dipping cattle in a pool of insecticide. One does not simple round up the entire community and drive them through the water for a “just in case” baptism of sheep, goats, and wolves. Baptism is for those under the New Covenant, and not for atheists and pagans and others who belong to the world and reject Christ. It is not the case that scripture has presented no guidelines on baptism, so let us start at the first Christian Baptism (after Jesus’ assention).

[Act 2:36-39]
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."
37 Now when they heard [this,] they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
38 Peter [said] to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."​

The Apostle Peter was speaking under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, so we can assume that he got a few things right about evangelism and repentance and baptism. In Acts 2:36 we see Peter starting out informing people who Jesus is. In Acts 2:37 we see the people “pierced to the heart”. In Acts 2:38 Peter instructs them to “repent”. I am not an expert on Greek grammar, but the translators who are such experts chose to insert a coma after the word ‘repent’ setting it off as a command distinct from the following instructions to “get baptized”. (I have made and am making no claims about order, I am simply observing that there is a distinct instruction to repent and a distinct instruction to be baptized, so please save the order discussion for another time when we can focus exclusively of that without distracting from this discussion on age.) These double commands to repent and be baptized come with the assurance of receipt of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:39 speaks of “the promise” being for “you” and “your children” and “all who are far off”. So what is THE PROMISE? The promise cannot be simply ‘salvation’ because experience tells us that one person repenting and being baptized and gaining the Holy Spirit does not mean that all of their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are born already saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. The PROMISE, in my opinion, is the availability of the grace that Peter just related to these people. Their children and grandchildren and future unborn generation, plus the people living in Europe and the Americas and Africa and Asia and even Australia that would someday be born would have the same opportunity as they did to HEAR about Jesus the Christ, and be offered a chance to REPENT of their sins, and be commanded to BE BAPTIZED so that they too could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

If Peter was operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the Promise Of Salvation as presented in Acts 2 is indeed for them, their children and ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF, then it is more than a “one time” example, it is a promise for us. We are part of ALL who are far off. So, too, our children are part of ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF and the promise of God delivered by Peter is for us and them. So what was that promise, what example did Peter set ... teach them who Jesus is, call them to repent and be baptized.

I fear that padeobaptism is not doing as Peter has taught us. I fear that some are being baptized without first learning who Jesus is, without repenting, and without receiving the promised Holy Spirit. I am working hard to not make this about the ORDER, but about doing ALL that Peter commanded and not just some of what was commanded.

I welcome an explanation of how I have misunderstood the verses I quoted in Acts 2, or the presentation and explanation of another verse that indicates that baptism stands alone or anything else to correct my understanding.