The undisclosed age of “X”

[Josiah]

Josiah, every verse on baptism supports belief before baptism.

You keep parroting this.... even though you refuse to show your statement has any truth to it (is truth irrelevant?).


Prove your statement true for each of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33. Until you do, your constant echoing of this claim remains just words with NOTHING to support them as true and with your complete disregard for whether what you say is true.


Prove that you yourself accept your premise: that we can only do what is illustrated in the Bible and can't do what is not illustrated in the Bible (like posting on the 'net). EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM WERE TRUE (and you have yet do show such or even to indicate that truth matters at all to you), EVEN THEN, why would it matter unless your yourself don't do anything that is not illustrated in the Bible? You keep ignoring that.




.

 

[MennoSota]

You keep parroting this.... even though you refuse to show your statement has any truth to it (is truth irrelevant?).


Prove your statement true for each of the following: 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33. Until you do, your constant echoing of this claim remains just words with NOTHING to support them as true and with your complete disregard for whether what you say is true.


Prove that you yourself accept your premise: that we can only do what is illustrated in the Bible and can't do what is not illustrated in the Bible (like posting on the 'net). EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM WERE TRUE (and you have yet do show such or even to indicate that truth matters at all to you), EVEN THEN, why would it matter unless your yourself don't do anything that is not illustrated in the Bible? You keep ignoring that.




.

Here are the verses:
1 Corinthians 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Acts 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

We know that Lydia believed. We know the Phillippian jailer believed.
We know that Paul baptized the household of Stephanas.
We know that every time there was a baptism it was because someone believed. This is evidenced in all situations in scripture.
Now...
You prove from the same scriptures that unbelieving atheists or pagans who know nothing of God and do not believe were baptized simply because they were a part of the household.

You see, Josiah, the evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor as we observe belief before baptism.

You are free to live by the mantra "God has not told me I can't, therefore I will."
I expect you to walk into pagan meetings, meetings of atheists, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists and start baptizing them without any of them declaring faith in Jesus atonement. It is right that you stay consistent with your modus operandi for baptism.

 

[Josiah]

Here are the verses:
1 Corinthians 1:16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

Acts 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

We know that Lydia believed. We know the Phillippian jailer believed.
We know that Paul baptized the household of Stephanas.

True

Where does it say that everyone in their households who were baptized were over the age of X? Where do the verses state what you do, "While the Apostles were alive, all under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized?"

We know that every time there was a baptism it was because someone believed. This is evidenced in all situations in scripture.

Then prove it from 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for starters.

Unless truth is irrelevant to you....

You keep repeating the mantra- over and over and over and over - while being completely, entirely uninterested in whether what you claim is even true.

And you keep evading why it would matter IF it was true (and so far, you haven't given a ounce of evidence you even care if it's true). If we can only do what is illustrated in the Bible, why are you posting on the 'net? Why does most of what your church do is not illustrated in the Bible? See, you reject your own premise.... you have this silly idea that IF something "jibes" with a falsehood you reject, ergo it is dogmatically true (entirely unconcerned if it even does jibe)




.

 

[MennoSota]

True

Where does it say that everyone in their households who were baptized were over the age of X? Where do the verses state what you do, "While the Apostles were alive, all under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized?"







Then prove it from 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for starters.

Unless truth is irrelevant to you....

You keep repeating the mantra- over and over and over and over - while being completely, entirely uninterested in whether what you claim is even true.

And you keep evading why it would matter IF it was true (and so far, you haven't given a ounce of evidence you even care if it's true). If we can only do what is illustrated in the Bible, why are you posting on the 'net? Why does most of what your church does not illustrated in the Bible? See, you reject your own premise.... you have this silly idea that IF something "jibes" with a falsehood you reject, ergo it is dogmatically true (entirely unconcerned if it even does jibe)




.

Why would there need to be anything said. The modis operandi is to baptize believers. Lydia believed, then baptism. The jailer believed, then baptism. God simply chose not to answer your question, likely because it is hermaneutically obvious that baptism follows belief in every instance.
Should your demand that your projection of non-believing infants being baptized be considered legitimate just because you imagine that's what happened?
Again, please be consistent and baptize all non-believing people, regardless of age, because...no one said you cannot.
But, you refuse to do that, don't you, Josiah. You will not baptize non-believers as adults. It seems you practice hypocrisy in your church.

 

[Josiah]

Where do these verses state that everyone in their households who were baptized were over the age of X? Where do the verses state what you do, "While the Apostles were alive, all under the age of X were forbidden to be baptized?"




Then prove it from 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 for starters. Unless truth is irrelevant to you....

You keep repeating the mantra - over and over and over and over, for months and months - while being completely, entirely uninterested in whether what you claim is even true. NEVER showing what you say is the reality, not even indicating if you CARE, if you give-a-rip if what you claim is true.

And you keep evading why it would matter IF it was true (and so far, you haven't given a ounce of evidence you even care if it's true). If we can only do what is illustrated in the Bible, why are you posting on the 'net? Why does most of what your church does not illustrated in the Bible? See, you reject your own premise.... you have this silly idea that IF something "jibes" with a falsehood you reject, ergo it is dogmatically true (entirely unconcerned if it even does jibe)



.

Why would there need to be anything said.

You claim things... like a broken record.... over and over and over.... NEVER bothering to indicate that it's true. Is this because truth is irrelevant to you?

The modis operandi is to baptize believers.

1. Your claim is that every, all baptisms that just happen to be recorded in the Bible are of those over the age of X who had previously in time stated that they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. But you have yet to show this claim is true. You have been asked to PLEASE show this to be true in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 but you refuse. You REFUSE to show your claim is true. You don't even indicate that you CARE if your claim is true.


2. Your premise is that we are to do only what is illustrated as done in the examples we find in the Bible (and cannot do what is not). That's the entire premise of your apologetic. And yet, you don't accept it, you don't follow it. So you have this silly apologetic that if something "jibes" with a FALSEHOOD, it ergo is dogmatically correct (DO YOU REALIZE HOW ABSURD THIS IS?????). And of course, even with this absurd premise (that you yourself reject!), you will not show that your position DOES "jibe" with your premise, you won't show that all baptisms were of those over the age of X who previously stated they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. So the unavoidable reality is this: You have failed to show that this position holds, even if your SILLY, absurd apologetic were something you yourself accept.




.

 

[MennoSota]

You claim things... like a broken record.... over and over and over.... NEVER bothering to indicate that it's true. Is this because truth is irrelevant to you?






1. Your claim is that every, all baptisms that just happen to be recorded in the Bible are of those over the age of X who had previously in time stated that they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior. But you have yet to show this claim is true. You have been asked to PLEASE show this to be true in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 but you refuse. You REFUSE to show your claim is true. You don't even indicate that you CARE if your claim is true.


2. Your premise is that we are to do only what is illustrated as done in the examples we find in the Bible (and cannot do what is not). That's the entire premise of your apologetic. And yet, you don't accept it, you don't follow it. So you have this silly apologetic that if something "jibes" with a FALSEHOOD, it ergo is dogmatically correct (DO YOU REALIZE HOW ABSURD THIS IS?????). And of course, even with this absurd premise (that you yourself reject!), you will not show that your position DOES "jibe" with your premise, you won't show that all baptisms were of those over the age of X who previously stated they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. So the unavoidable reality is this: You have failed to show that this position holds, even if your SILLY, absurd apologetic were something you yourself accept.




.

Nope. I don't claim that all baptism are over the age of X. X has no number. I claim that all baptisms happen after a person believes. Can you refute that with scripture? If you cannot, then you have no argument.

 

[Josiah]

I claim that all baptisms happen after a person believes.

OBVIOUSLY, it's your constant mantra. You just don't seem to give-a-rip if that's true or not. And every time you are asked to show it's true, you just run.

Prove it's true. 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 all speak of a number of baptism. Prove for us your claim is true, show that everyone baptized in these 3 households FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

Then show us why we should accept a premise you yourself reject: that we can only do what is illustrated as done in examples recorded in the Bible and can't do otherwise.

For your apologetic to hold, you need to do BOTH: Prove that all baptisms in the Bible were of those who FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior.... and that we cannot do otherwise. But don't do it by posting on the internet because then you'd be showing you don't accept your own premise.





.

 

[MennoSota]

OBVIOUSLY, it's your constant mantra. You just don't seem to give-a-rip if that's true or not. And every time you are asked to show it's true, you just run.

Prove it's true. 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 all speak of a number of baptism. Prove for us your claim is true, show that everyone baptized in these 3 households FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

Then show us why we should accept a premise you yourself reject: that we can only do what is illustrated as done in examples recorded in the Bible and can't do otherwise.

For your apologetic to hold, you need to do BOTH: Prove that all baptisms in the Bible were of those who FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior.... and that we cannot do otherwise. But don't do it by posting on the internet because then you'd be showing you don't accept your own premise.
.

It's my mantra because the Bible shows it over and over again. People believe, then they are baptized.

Your fight is with whether the Bible is true or not.
I addressed your three verses. 1 Corinthians is simply Paul attempting to remember who, if anyone, he baptized. It's not a recording of the process he used in baptizing. The two accounts of the household baptisms are preceded by Lydia and the jailer believing.
I find it amazing that you drape an entire dogma upon the word "household" and the idea that God never explicitly forbade baptizing non-believers.
You have two verses with the word "household" and silence as your basis for paedobaptism. Somehow, you think that's a powerful argument. Wow!

 

[Josiah]

I claim that all baptisms happen after a person believes.


.

OBVIOUSLY, it's your constant mantra. You just don't seem to give-a-rip if that's true or not. And every time you are asked to show it's true, you just run.


Prove it's true. 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 all speak of a number of baptism. Prove for us your claim is true, show that everyone baptized in these 3 households FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.


Then show us why we should accept a premise you yourself reject: that we can only do what is illustrated as done in examples recorded in the Bible and can't do otherwise.


For your apologetic to hold, you need to do BOTH: Prove that all baptisms in the Bible were of those who FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior.... and that we cannot do otherwise (but don't do it by posting on the internet because then you'd be showing you don't accept your own premise).


.

It's my mantra

OBVIOUSLY, it's your constant mantra. You just don't seem to give-a-rip if that's true or not. And every time you are asked to show it's true, you just run.

Prove it's true. 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 all speak of a number of baptism. Prove for us your claim is true, show that everyone baptized in these 3 households FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

Then show us why we should accept a premise you yourself reject: that we can only do what is illustrated as done in examples recorded in the Bible and can't do otherwise.

For your apologetic to hold, you need to do BOTH: Prove that all baptisms in the Bible were of those who FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior.... and that we cannot do otherwise than the examples of things done in the Bible.

Your fight is with whether the Bible is true or not.

No. I have FULLY, COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY agreed with EVERY WORD in EVERY verse you have quoted or referenced.

You just don't admit that none of those verses state what you do.

You haven't shown that all the baptisms in the Bible were to those over the age of X who were ABLE to make any profession and who had previously stated that they accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.... you've not even shown that you give a rip as to whether your claim is true, you just keep parroting it, over and over and over, like a broken record, NEVER even considering if what you are saying is actually true, not even indicating if you care if it's true....and when you are asked to show it true, you run... asy you just did again.

And you have this SILLY, absurd idea - it is the whole of your apologetic - that we an do only what is illustrated as done in examples in the Bible and cannot do otherwise (this you insist by posting it on the internet, go figure). It's a silly idea that you yourself reject but your entire apologetic rests on what you yourself reject, so you have this idea that IF something 'jibes" with a FALSEHOOD, it thus is dogmatically true (someone needs to show you how silly you are being because you don't get it). THEN you show you can't even meet your own silly premise YOU YOURSELF reject, because you can't show that all the baptisms in the Bible were done in a certain way.... and since you don't accept we can only do things the way it was in the Bible, it wouldn't matter ANYWAY, even if you could prove that everyone in those households were had previously proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Friend, have someone read this for you.

I addressed your three verses

... by noting they don't affirm your claim.

Even if your claim mattered, which you don't believe it does.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Josiah wrote: OBVIOUSLY, it's your constant mantra. You just don't seem to give-a-rip if that's true or not.

You don't seem to give-a-rip that I have shown it true...even with your three verses.
Will you keep pretzeling or accept the truth?

 

[Josiah]

You don't seem to give-a-rip that I have shown it true...even with your three verses.

Amazing.....


No, you documented that you CANNOT show that everyone baptized in the households referenced (1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 ) had FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. You indicated that ONE PERSON associated with that household was (perhaps) but you did not show your claim to be true - that all were. You didn't even try to. You've never shared even one verse that states your position. You've noted a few Scriptures - and I've fully and completely agreed with every single word in every single one of the Scriptures - you've just not noted any that say what you do.


Your whole premise is that we cannot do what is not illustrated as done in all the cases of the bible and must do as those examples illustrate.
I don't agree with your whole premise (AND NEITHER DO YOU).
I don't agree that we can only do what happens to be exampled in the Bible and can't do otherwise (AND NEITHER DO YOU).
The entire basis of your apologetic is silly and one you yourself reject (you prove it in part every time you post on the internet).


You insist (your "mantra" you call it) that all Baptisms in the Bible are of those who FIRST attained the necessary required "age" then after that in chronological time proved they all had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,and only AFTER all that was accomplished, only THEN is the prohibition to baptize (which you've never indicated exists) is lifted. It's just that you don't care if that's actually true and when you are asked to show that it's true, you RUN like a rabbit, and when you are asked to show that's the case in several baptisms - 1 Corinthians 1:16m Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 for example - you have to ignore it. IF you cared, IF you thought truth relevant, you'd see you claim simply isn't true.

So your whole point is: A position (that you can't show is true), if it is normed by a rule (you yourself reject), then it dogmatically is true. How amazingly, incredibly silly. You need to THINK about your whole apologetic.


And.... Since you came here, you have DEMANDED that EVERYONE (does that include you?) MUST "scrap" all tradition (how various churches, denominations, persons understand and interpret things) and rather "go" ONLY by what the Bible states. Okay. But what we all witness is that ALL you do is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. You have never quoted a single Scripture that states ANY of the baptism dogmas you parrot, and ALL YOU DO is echo (verbatim) the tradition of the Anabaptists/Baptist on this point. ALL YOU DO is what you yourself insist is not to be done.



- Josiah




.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Amazing.....


No, you documented that you CANNOT show that everyone baptized in the households referenced (1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 ) had FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. You indicated that ONE PERSON associated with that household was (perhaps) but you did not show your claim to be true - that all were. You didn't even try to. You've never shared even one verse that states your position. You've noted a few Scriptures - and I've fully and completely agreed with every single word in every single one of the Scriptures - you've just not noted any that say what you do.


Your whole premise is that we cannot do what is not illustrated as done in all the cases of the bible and must do as those examples illustrate.
I don't agree with your whole premise (AND NEITHER DO YOU).
I don't agree that we can only do what happens to be exampled in the Bible and can't do otherwise (AND NEITHER DO YOU).
The entire basis of your apologetic is silly and one you yourself reject (you prove it in part every time you post on the internet).


You insist (your "mantra" you call it) that all Baptisms in the Bible are of those who FIRST attained the necessary required "age" then after that in chronological time proved they all had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,and only AFTER all that was accomplished, only THEN is the prohibition to baptize (which you've never indicated exists) is lifted. It's just that you don't care if that's actually true and when you are asked to show that it's true, you RUN like a rabbit, and when you are asked to show that's the case in several baptisms - 1 Corinthians 1:16m Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 for example - you have to ignore it. IF you cared, IF you thought truth relevant, you'd see you claim simply isn't true.

So your whole point is: A position (that you can't show is true), if it is normed by a rule (you yourself reject), then it dogmatically is true. How amazingly, incredibly silly. You need to THINK about your whole apologetic.


And.... Since you came here, you have DEMANDED that EVERYONE (does that include you?) MUST "scrap" all tradition (how various churches, denominations, persons understand and interpret things) and rather "go" ONLY by what the Bible states. Okay. But what we all witness is that ALL you do is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. You have never quoted a single Scripture that states ANY of the baptism dogmas you parrot, and ALL YOU DO is echo (verbatim) the tradition of the Anabaptists/Baptist on this point. ALL YOU DO is what you yourself insist is not to be done.



- Josiah




.




.

I don't have to document it. But, since you demand documentation of restriction, you therefore must accept all actions by all humans that is not explicitly restricted by God. Therefore, you must applaud Joseph Smith using a seer stone to read the golden tablets provided by the angel Moroni. After all...God did not forbid it. Are you a Mormon Lutheran, Josiah?

 

[Josiah]

No, you documented that you CANNOT show that everyone baptized in the households referenced (1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 ) had FIRST in chronological time proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. You indicated that ONE PERSON associated with that household was (perhaps) but you did not show your claim to be true - that all were. You didn't even try to. You've never shared even one verse that states your position. You've noted a few Scriptures - and I've fully and completely agreed with every single word in every single one of the Scriptures - you've just not noted any that say what you do.


Your whole premise is that we cannot do what is not illustrated as done in all the cases of the bible and must do as those examples illustrate.
I don't agree with your whole premise (AND NEITHER DO YOU).
I don't agree that we can only do what happens to be exampled in the Bible and can't do otherwise (AND NEITHER DO YOU).
The entire basis of your apologetic is silly and one you yourself reject (you prove it in part every time you post on the internet).


You insist (your "mantra" you call it) that all Baptisms in the Bible are of those who FIRST attained the necessary required "age" then after that in chronological time proved they all had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior,and only AFTER all that was accomplished, only THEN is the prohibition to baptize (which you've never indicated exists) is lifted. It's just that you don't care if that's actually true and when you are asked to show that it's true, you RUN like a rabbit, and when you are asked to show that's the case in several baptisms - 1 Corinthians 1:16m Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 for example - you have to ignore it. IF you cared, IF you thought truth relevant, you'd see you claim simply isn't true.


So your whole point is: A position (that you can't show is true), if it is normed by a rule (you yourself reject), then it dogmatically is true. How amazingly, incredibly silly. You need to THINK about your whole apologetic.


And.... Since you came here, you have DEMANDED that EVERYONE (does that include you?) MUST "scrap" all tradition (how various churches, denominations, persons understand and interpret things) and rather "go" ONLY by what the Bible states. Okay. But what we all witness is that ALL you do is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that. You have never quoted a single Scripture that states ANY of the baptism dogmas you parrot, and ALL YOU DO is echo (verbatim) the tradition of the Anabaptists/Baptist on this point. ALL YOU DO is what you yourself insist is not to be done.



- Josiah



.

I don't have to.

So truth doesn't matter? Or is your mandate that you can claim anything and it's to just to be swallowed whole cuz you say it?

Why do all others need to show what they dogmatically teach is true but in your sole case, if you say it - well, it's just to be swallowed whole? Are you promoting the Mormon epistemology?


You have this position, this dogma, this "mantra" that you now claim YOU don't need to show is true (you've certainly never tried to show it so)
You have this whole premise that clearly you don't hold is true.
And you "prove" your position (that you indicate doesn't need to be shown true) that you claim "jibes" with a premise you hold to be false - and claim thus it's true. Amazing. Friend, this just gets more and more and more absurd all the time.

 

[MennoSota]

So truth doesn't matter? Or is your mandate that you can claim anything and it's to just to be swallowed whole cuz you say it?

Why do all others need to show what they dogmatically teach is true but in your sole case, if you say it - well, it's just to be swallowed whole? Are you promoting the Mormon epistemology?

What does scripture share about all those who are baptized? In every instance a person believes and then baptism takes place. This is the truth, Josiah. No matter how hard you try to obfuscate...this is the truth. Now you can deny that truth, twist that truth, or whatever else you wish in order to not accept it, but the TRUTH is that belief always precedes baptism in the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

What does scripture share about all those who are baptized? In every instance a person believes and then baptism takes place.... belief always precedes baptism in the Bible.

Show that in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33. If you can't show it's true for all who where baptized in those households, then your statement is FALSE. And your claim, your whole premise, is wrong.


Now, EVEN IF your claim where true (and above you indicate that you exempt you from any need to substantiate your dogmas and claims - which explains a lot), but let's pretend it is true (even though you don't care if it is). So what? Your premise that we can't do what is not exampled in the Bible and can do only what is, that's a premise you don't only haven't tried to show is true - but you DOCUMENT you don't accept. So..... we have your claim (which you have not shown is true and have stated you don't need to show is true cuz you claim it).... which you claim is normed by a rule you repudiate and hold is false.... and then you insist therefore is true. HELLO. Put on your thinking cap, my friend. Ask a friend or family member or a child to explain this to you because you're either evading it or simply don't get it. Have someone help you. Because you are just getting more and more and more absurd.


And remember YOUR demand for our discussions. ALL tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) must be "scraped" and in stead we must go ONLY by what the Bible states. Friend, all you do is exactly what you forbid. You NEVER give any Scripture that states what you do (you've even exempted yourself from any need in post 112), and all you do is perfectly parrot the Anabaptist tradition on this point. Think about that, too.




.

 

[Albion]

What does scripture share about all those who are baptized? In every instance a person believes and then baptism takes place. This is the truth, Josiah.

I see that Josiah has beat me to the reply, which is certainly appropriate since you were speaking to him, but the instant I read your post I knew that you were talking through your hat.

The Bible clearly identifies, in a number of places, baptisms which took place in the absence of any indication that those people had made a confession of faith.

 

[MennoSota]

Show that in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33. If you can't show it's true for all who where baptized in those households, then your statement is FALSE. And your claim, your whole premise, is wrong.


Now, EVEN IF your claim where true (and above you indicate that you exempt you from any need to substantiate your dogmas and claims - which explains a lot), but let's pretend it is true (even though you don't care if it is). So what? Your premise that we can't do what is not exampled in the Bible and can do only what is, that's a premise you don't only haven't tried to show is true - but you DOCUMENT you don't accept. So..... we have your claim (which you have not shown is true and have stated you don't need to show is true cuz you claim it).... which you claim is normed by a rule you repudiate and hold is false.... and then you insist therefore is true. HELLO. Put on your thinking cap, my friend. Ask a friend or family member or a child to explain this to you because you're either evading it or simply don't get it. Have someone help you. Because you are just getting more and more and more absurd.


And remember YOUR demand for our discussions. ALL tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things) must be "scraped" and in stead we must go ONLY by what the Bible states. Friend, all you do is exactly what you forbid. You NEVER give any Scripture that states what you do (you've even exempted yourself from any need in post 112), and all you do is perfectly parrot the Anabaptist tradition on this point. Think about that, too.




.

Josiah, I have shown you more than enough. Clearly, you would argue with Jesus himself in order to baptize infant atheists.
What is clear is that you have your own age of X. You will baptize infant atheists, but not adult atheists.

 

[MennoSota]

I see that Josiah has beat me to the reply, which is certainly appropriate since you were speaking to him, but the instant I read your post I knew that you were talking through your hat.

The Bible clearly identifies, in a number of places, baptisms which took place in the absence of any indication that those people had made a confession of faith.

You are reading into the text that their is no belief.
Lydia believed...then baptism. Had Lydia not believed, would baptism have taken place?
The jailer believed...then baptism. Had the jailer not believed, would baptism have taken place?
Why didn't Paul and Silas baptize all the inmates in the jail? Why not all the people down at the water Lydia's household? If having no faith is not important to baptism, then why are you refusing to baptize your entire town, state, country and world population?

 

[Josiah]

Lydia believed...then baptism.

No one here EVER questioned that.

Your claim is, "In every instance a person believes and then baptism takes place" "Belief always precedes baptism in the Bible." "All the baptisms in the Bible were to those who had stated their faith in Jesus."
It's just you refuse to show your claim is true.
It's just that you've exempted one - just yourself - from needing to show your claim is true.
EVERY attempt by ANYONE to address if your claim is true is met by evasion and name calling.
When, for example, you are asked to show your claim is true in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 you respond by proving you can't show what you claim is true (but never mind, it's true anyway)
But you keep parroting it. Over and over and over. Like a broken record. For over a year now. In thread after thread.


And then you have a rubric, your entire apologetic is founded on this singular point: We are not permitted to do anything not exampled as done in all the cases of it in the Bible, and can only do what is so exampled. Your entire premise is: BECAUSE all the baptisms in the Bible have this happening, ERGO we MUST do the same and cannot do otherwise." Thing is: You can't and won't show that your premise is true. And you don't accept your norm (you instead repudiate it; you claim it FALSE, proving such every time you post on the internet).


And YOU demand of all that we disregard, we "scrap" all tradition (that includes Baptist tradition!!!) and go ONLY by what the Bible states. But for over a year now, in countless posts, you have REFUSED to give even one Scripture that states your dogmas on this... and ALL YOU DO (constantly, as your "mantras") is perfectly parrot Baptist tradition. On this, ALL you do is what you forbid to be done.


You need to think about this. STOP (because you just keep burying yourself deeper and deeper in pure silliness). OBVIOUSLY, you need someone to help you. Ask a child or spouse or friend to read this conversation (and the identical ones in the other threads on the Baptist inventions) maybe they can help you.




.

 

[MennoSota]

No one here EVER questioned that.

Your claim is, "In every instance a person believes and then baptism takes place" "Belief always precedes baptism in the Bible." "All the baptisms in the Bible were to those who had stated their faith in Jesus."
It's just you refuse to show your claim is true.
It's just that you've exempted one - just yourself - from needing to show your claim is true.
EVERY attempt by ANYONE to address if your claim is true is met by evasion and name calling.
When, for example, you are asked to show your claim is true in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 you respond by proving you can't show what you claim is true (but never mind, it's true anyway)
But you keep parroting it. Over and over and over. Like a broken record. For over a year now. In thread after thread.


And then you have a rubric, your entire apologetic is founded on this singular point: We are not permitted to do anything not exampled as done in all the cases of it in the Bible, and can only do what is so exampled. Your entire premise is: BECAUSE all the baptisms in the Bible have this happening, ERGO we MUST do the same and cannot do otherwise." Thing is: You can't and won't show that your premise is true. And you don't accept your norm (you instead repudiate it; you claim it FALSE, proving such every time you post on the internet).


And YOU demand of all that we disregard, we "scrap" all tradition (that includes Baptist tradition!!!) and go ONLY by what the Bible states. But for over a year now, in countless posts, you have REFUSED to give even one Scripture that states your dogmas on this... and ALL YOU DO (constantly, as your "mantras") is perfectly parrot Baptist tradition. On this, ALL you do is what you forbid to be done.


You need to think about this. STOP (because you just keep burying yourself deeper and deeper in pure silliness). OBVIOUSLY, you need someone to help you. Ask a child or spouse or friend to read this conversation (and the identical ones in the other threads on the Baptist inventions) maybe they can help you.




.

Josiah, my apologetic is founded on the fact that in every instance of a person being baptized, the person believes first before baptism is given.
Since you cannot refute it, you must attempt to obfuscate and attempt to create doubt where no evidence is provided for your doubt.
Please show us the pictures of all the adult non-believers you are baptizing.