Credobaptism

[MennoSota]

.... nowhere states,

"Thou canst NOT baptize any until they are physically ABLE to make some profession of faith (whether they do or not.); only after they are ABLE is the prohibition of baptism lifted."

"Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they first in chronological time hath proven that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that is completed, THEN they may be baptized."

"Thou canst NOT do anything that is not illustrated as done in the Bible so if you post on the internet you are going to... well... not heaven."

LOL, Please post pictures of you baptizing people as you walk down the streets of your town, Josiah. I want to post pictures on Facebook to show the paedobaptism of non-believers and their reaction to your sprinkling campaign.

 

[Albion]

:boggled:

What is served by asking for someone to play along with a figment of your imagination...and that is ridiculous as well?

You're wasting everyone's time when we could be discussing theological issues.

 

[Josiah]

LOL, Please post pictures of you baptizing people as you walk down the streets of your town, Josiah.

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).
So you demanding to do what neither of us accept is beyond silly.


You insist (your "mantra" you call it) that all Baptisms in the Bible are of those who FIRST in chronological time proved they all had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. 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.
And you insist (the entire basis of your apologetic, the premise on which it entirely stands) is that we can't do what is not illustrated in examples recorded in the Bible and must do only what is so recorded. But it's a premise you yourself reject, repudiate and do not follow.

So your whole point is: A position (that you can't show is true), if it is normed by a norm (you yourself reject), then it dogmatically is true. You need to THINK about your whole apologetic. Unless truth is simply irrelevant to you.


===============


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.



- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

Hmm. R.C. Sproul or MennoSota. Which one to go by???

You don’t need to choose! BOTH have claimed that God called them to faith prior to their 5th Birthday.

But just imagine the stature of the people I could refer to in support of my position! And 2000 years of Christian history to choose from.

Have at it. I welcome your expert testimony that it is impossible for a child to “believe” prior to their 5th Birthday. Nothing would surprise me more than such a declaration by an ECF (since you mention 2000 years to choose from).

Well, how about this--you give a coherent defense against what you don't care for in my statement?

No problem. You claim that Children cannot believe prior to their 5th Birthday (the age of 4), and I have pointed out that people have testified (both famous people and people that you are familiar with) who have every reason to oppose anything that supports padeobaptism, that they personally, believed prior to their 5th Birthday.

I do not care for the fact that you offer no evidence that children cannot believe before their 5th Birthday, that you reject the testimony of people who claim to have believed before their 5th Birthday, and that you then treat it as an established fact that people cannot believe prior to their 5th Birthday. You then use this myth that you call a fact to accuse me of not being a real Credobaptist.

That is what I do not care for in your statement.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

.... so whether they DO or do NOT is irrelevant. A 32 year old Muslim may be baptized because he is ABLE to make a profession of faith, he just didn't (at least not in Jesus).

This is nonsense and you know it.

So quote the verse, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they are OLD ENOUGH to make a profession of faith, whether that be in Satan or Muhammed or kristna or the one they see in the mirror, doesn't matter, even if they profess faith in NOTHING but if they are ABLE to, then after that, they may be baptized."

There is already a topic on age restrictions on baptism in which I have already addressed the question of age.
This thread is about CREDO ... “I believe”.
See post #2 where I present the scripture you keep requesting, but have disobeyed for 400 years.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

See post #2 where I present the scripture you keep requesting, but have disobeyed for 400 years.

Let's look at the corpus of Scriptures you note to substantiate this dogma again:


Acts 2:36-39, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”



Thank you. I appreciate seeing your documentation again. Some questions:


1. Where do ANY of the verses you note state that before the prohibition to baptize is lifted, one must FIRST in chronological time prove they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where is this mandate/limitation?


2. You have stated (more than once) that you DISAGREE that the word "and" (Kai in koine Greek) means (much less mandates) chronological sequence. That's solid and true, it does not. Keeping that in mind, where is the chronological mandate that is your dogma, where is the dogmatic mandate of a sequence in time?


I may have more once you answer the above....



- Josiah



PS Interesting to see how your position has been ...well.... narrowed, and to see how you seem to disagree with MennoSota but avoid telling him so. Okay, no problem at all, just interesting.




.

 

[MennoSota]

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).
So you demanding to do what neither of us accept is beyond silly.


You insist (your "mantra" you call it) that all Baptisms in the Bible are of those who FIRST in chronological time proved they all had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. 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.
And you insist (the entire basis of your apologetic, the premise on which it entirely stands) is that we can't do what is not illustrated in examples recorded in the Bible and must do only what is so recorded. But it's a premise you yourself reject, repudiate and do not follow.

So your whole point is: A position (that you can't show is true), if it is normed by a norm (you yourself reject), then it dogmatically is true. You need to THINK about your whole apologetic. Unless truth is simply irrelevant to you.


===============


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.



- Josiah




.

So, you believe in making it up and declaring it to be so?
You pick and choose on a whim and claim baptizing baby atheists is good and right, but you won't baptize adult atheists. You know what...YOU have your own age of X!!! You will only baptize baby atheists, but at some "age of X" you refuse to baptize the non-believer. Wow! You walk the hypocrite's path.

 

[Albion]

another 'So...you' post in lieu of anything of substance.

 

[Albion]

You don’t need to choose! BOTH have claimed that God called them to faith prior to their 5th Birthday.

Whoopee. Sproul and MennoSota say this, while 2000 years of Christianity says something else. You obviously missed the joke to have taken my comment as you did.

That aside, if two guys say that a 4 year old can make a profession of faith, have a conversion of experience, or anything like that, THEY MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT A one-week old can do so ALSO. There is no practical difference--no more than would exist between a 3 year old and a 4 year old or between a two year old an a 1 year old.

Further, if your argument has switched again, now to claim that God has called someone who has no knowledge of conversion or repentance, etc.--and that this allegation is all that is needed for us to baptize him--you have no grounds on which to deny baptism to an infant, either!!


:birgits_giggle:

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]

What passages in holy scripture teach that baptism signifies union with Christ ...

[Galatians 3:26-27 NLT] 26 For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.

... and testifies and announces entry into the realities of the new covenant?

[Galatians 3:26-27 NLT] 26 For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.


[Romans 6:2-11 NIV] 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.


One of the consequences of this ...
[Acts 2:38 NIV] 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And this ...
[1Corinthians 12:12-14 NIV] 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body--whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

 

[atpollard]

Whoopee. Sproul and MennoSota say this, while 2000 years of Christianity says something else. You obviously missed the joke to have taken my comment as you did.

That aside, if two guys say that a 4 year old can make a profession of faith, have a conversion of experience, or anything like that, THEY MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT A one-week old can do so ALSO. There is no practical difference--no more than would exist between a 3 year old and a 4 year old or between a two year old an a 1 year old.

Further, if your argument has switched again, now to claim that God has called someone who has no knowledge of conversion or repentance, etc.--and that this allegation is all that is needed for us to baptize him--you have no grounds on which to deny baptism to an infant, either!!


:birgits_giggle:

You are not responding honestly to what I am posting. It is not very flattering on you personally.
Those two witnesses did not say a 4 year old “can have a conversion experience”, they testified that THEY had a conversion experience as a 4 year old. The first is an empty claim, identical to those that you are making about the impossibility of such an event, and the second is a FACT under the biblical definition of a fact ...

[Deu 17:6 NIV] 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

[Deu 19:15 NIV] 15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

[Mat 18:16 NIV] 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

[2Co 13:1 NIV] 1 This will be my third visit to you. "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

[1Ti 5:19 NIV] 19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.

[Heb 10:28 NIV] 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

I have provided two witnesses and invited you to provide your witnesses, you have responded with insulting snark and irrelevant comments about infant baptism. If you have nothing to say about this topic, there ARE many other topics on the board for you to choose to post on.

I will waste no more time on your deliberate nonsense. You challenged me to provide evidence. I have provided evidence. You have ignored the evidence and made more empty claims and false accusation.

Talk to the hand. :hand:

 

[atpollard]

Good. I was confident you'd reject that definition offered.... I have agreed to abide by the definition you offered (which is identical to the one other Calvinists have given and the books I've read on this). So ability has nothing to do with anything, and "able" thus has nothing to do with THIS dogma (it has everything to do with Anti-Paedobaptism but that's another dogma for another thread).

I am not the anointed spokesperson for all Credobaptists world wide ... not the Pope of Particular Baptist Churches. I state that only to reinforce that I am responsible for MY beliefs and not for the beliefs of anyone else, therefore my response to the above statement shall be construed as my personal beliefs alone (since you have touched on what I believe as distinct from Credobaptist dogma).

I believe that baptism is a sacrament reserved for those able to communicate their belief in the resurrection of Jesus and their affirmation of his Lordship over their lives. My personal opinion is derived from “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 10:9-10 NASB]

“Able to” is not a call for physical ability with respect to speech. I would not baptize a Muslim or deny baptism to a mute. It refers to an ability based on faith, as in “ For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;” [Eph 2:8 NASB]. It is the “gift from God” that I am convinced that one requires to be truthfully able to claim that they “believe” Jesus rose from the dead and “confess” that Jesus is Lord ... by which they are saved.

If a 40 day old infant was able to communicate that they “believed” and “confessed” what Paul claims leads to salvation, then I would Baptize a 40 day old. If a 90 year old man in a coma was unable to communicate at all, then I would not baptize him. It has nothing to do with age and EVERYTHING to do with Romans 10:9-10 and Ephesians 2:8. They either can and do believe and confess, or they do not, so based on that, they are either baptized, or they are not.


[I am not ignoring the rest, just responding to one part at a time.]

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]

[Galatians 3:26-27 NLT] 26 For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.

The passage that is quoted says that one is united with Christ in baptism rather than that baptism signified union with Christ. The difference is significant. In the former baptism effects the union. In the latter baptism would only be a symbol of it.

[Galatians 3:26-27 NLT] 26 For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.

The passage that is quoted says that one is united with Christ in baptism and also describes the union that baptism effects as being like putting on new cloths. I cannot endorse the NLT for serious study purposes but this passage like the previous one makes baptism the effecting agency of the union of the baptised with Christ.

[Romans 6:2-11 NIV] 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

In Romans 6:3-5 and the following verses baptism effects the death and resurrection that is under discussion. Baptism is not presented as symbolic of death and resurrection as those things are discussed in the passage. That is why the passage says

(Romans 6:3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death?​

The question that I raised was about passages teaching that baptism signifies rather than effects the things described.

One of the consequences of this ...
[Acts 2:38 NIV] 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And this ...
[1Corinthians 12:12-14 NIV] 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body--whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 both present the effects of baptism. Both passages tell of what baptism effects in the baptised. There is no indication in these passages that baptism signifies or symbolises these things.

 

[MennoSota]

The passage that is quoted says that one is united with Christ in baptism rather than that baptism signified union with Christ. The difference is significant. In the former baptism effects the union. In the latter baptism would only be a symbol of it.

The passage that is quoted says that one is united with Christ in baptism and also describes the union that baptism effects as being like putting on new cloths. I cannot endorse the NLT for serious study purposes but this passage like the previous one makes baptism the effecting agency of the union of the baptised with Christ.

In Romans 6:3-5 and the following verses baptism effects the death and resurrection that is under discussion. Baptism is not presented as symbolic of death and resurrection as those things are discussed in the passage. That is why the passage says

(Romans 6:3) Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death?​

The question that I raised was about passages teaching that baptism signifies rather than effects the things described.




Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 both present the effects of baptism. Both passages tell of what baptism effects in the baptised. There is no indication in these passages that baptism signifies or symbolises these things.

What is not found in the Galatians passage or Romans passage is...water. This means that immersion into Christ is not effected by water but, as always, by the immersive work of God the Holy Spirit into Christ Jesus.
Thus, water baptism, when water is clearly being used, is always a symbol of what the Spirit has done.
God uses symbolism. He used it in the celebration of the Passover meal (seder), in the communion meal (which is a changing of the seder meal) and in water baptism.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

Acts 2:36-39, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

1. Where do ANY of the verses you note state that before the prohibition to baptize is lifted, one must FIRST in chronological time prove they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where is this mandate/limitation?

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins“

The Apostolic instruction recorded in Acts so future generations would know how and why to call people to Christ, begins with two co-joined commands. “Repent” AND “be baptized”. That means that we should not “repent and refuse baptism”. That means that we should not “be baptized and refuse repentance”. The verse goes on to clarify the purpose for our repenting and being baptized ... “for the forgiveness of sins”. Does it make sense for baptism to wash unrepentant sins away? Does it make sense for someone to be genuinely repentant, but refuse to be obedient to getting baptized? Repentance and baptism (together) for the forgiveness of sins is the example given from the start of the Gospels. John the Baptist called the people to “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near” and people came to the prophet in droves to repent and be baptized ... both together, not one or the other. Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near” and his disciples baptized those who listed ... who came and repented.

Your question about “FIRST” is a red herring. Is there any unrepentant person who can believe that God raised Jesus from the dead and proclaim that Jesus is Lord? Yet the promise of this commanded repentance and baptism is the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. All scriptures on SALVATION must be true. The forgiveness of sins and indwelling of the Holy Spirit IS salvation. All of the things that God says go with salvation (faith, belief repentance, Lordship, and baptism) must be equally true, equally present and equally necessary.

Padeobaptism does not involve the ‘pierced to the heart’ of Acts 2 or the ‘repentance’ commanded in Acts 2, it only employs one item, the Baptism commanded in Acts 2 ... yet it still claims the full results of forgiveness of sin and indwelling of the Holy Spirit that Acts 2 describes as the the promise to those DRAWN by God in Acts 2, who had a transformed heart in Acts 2 and obeyed the command to repent given in Acts 2, as well as were baptized as commanded in Acts 2.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What is not found in the Galatians passage or Romans passage is...water.

Water is not present in the great commission. Water is rarely mentioned with baptism. Do you take that to imply that one ought to be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit without water?

This means that immersion into Christ is not effected by water but, as always, by the immersive work of God the Holy Spirit into Christ Jesus.
Thus, water baptism, when water is clearly being used, is always a symbol of what the Spirit has done.
God uses symbolism. He used it in the celebration of the Passover meal (seder), in the communion meal (which is a changing of the seder meal) and in water baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Water is not present in the great commission. Water is rarely mentioned with baptism. Do you take that to imply that one ought to be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit without water?

Was Jesus talking to the Holy Spirit or his disciples when he gave them the commission?
Were those being baptized already disciples or were they unbelieving pagans when they were to be baptized?
Go
Make disciples.
Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Do you interpret the baptism to be that which saved the disciples or that which symbolized the very fact that they actually are disciples of Jesus?

 

[Albion]

You are not responding honestly to what I am posting. It is not very flattering on you personally.

Oh, oh. When ’the other guy’ resorts to character assassination on a Christian discussion board...

I know he has nothing more of substance to offer to the discussion and should be taking a time out. Therefore, it’s ’bye bye’ time to you for awhile.








.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

2. You have stated (more than once) that you DISAGREE that the word "and" (Kai in koine Greek) means (much less mandates) chronological sequence. That's solid and true, it does not. Keeping that in mind, where is the chronological mandate that is your dogma, where is the dogmatic mandate of a sequence in time?

This is half accurate. I may have stated what you claim (you would have to show me the post), or I may not have stated exactly what you “heard”. Most of the time I have simply chosen to not argue that “kai” means “before” because that is probably not a literal translation (otherwise translations like the NASB would have used “before” instead of “and”). However, there are contexts in which a list of “and” events are obviously in chronological order. So “kai” does not negate the possibility of one event preceding another just because they are linked with “kai”. Mostly I have just focused on the simple English that “and” means “and” so the two things ARE somehow linked together.

Setting that aside, let me attempt to answer your question head on. MANDATE is too strong a term. I am not personally comfortable claiming that the Bible irrefutably FORBIDS Baptism except under the strictest of Legally Defined circumstances (like the details on offering a sacrifice in the Old Testament). However, it goes too far the other direction to claim that Scripture has nothing to say about Baptism and all of the examples mean nothing.

MANDATES:
Baptism is never commanded alone. I can find no verse that just says “Go baptize” or “Get baptized” without linking it to something else. “Believe and are baptized” or “repent and be baptized” or “teaching and baptizing”. So to argue that baptism never happens alone seems to have Biblical support. This is not about FIRST, this is about AND.

BAPTISM SECOND:
Directly from scripture, our claim that “kai/and” does not mean “after”. Perhaps, but have you noticed that in the lists of “AND baptism” that Baptism is NEVER, EVER listed first? Not even once? I cannot help but wonder if that is for a reason.
Beyond that, some commands carry a natural order. “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near” makes no sense for people to get baptized just in case they might later believe the message and want to repent. Clearly the crowds that came to John the Baptist must have Repented before they were Baptized for the forgiveness of the thing they repented of. I see John the Baptist and Jesus’ early ministry with the same call as a foreshadowing typology for the Christian Baptism beginning in Acts 2. Repent and then get baptized for the forgiveness of the thing that you have repented of. Reversing the order makes no sense ... show that you are forgiven and then see if you feel sorry?

PS Interesting to see how your position has been ...well.... narrowed, and to see how you seem to disagree with MennoSota but avoid telling him so. Okay, no problem at all, just interesting.

Hard to say from so little information. My position may only have appeared to narrow because I am doing what I have wanted all along ... to discuss each of your three Anabaptist dogmas separate from the others. I have already addressed the “age restriction” dogma and I have steadfastly claimed that I and my fellow Southern Baptist Credobaptists and the Church of God Credobaptists and the Pentecostal Credobaptists do not have an age restriction, the restriction is all about belief and faith in Jesus. I was ignorant of the Mennonite Credobaptist policies so I was incorrect that no one had anything about age, but I could make an argument that the Mennonite position is only indirectly about age and more about what they view as the purpose of baptism. A Mennonite baptism falls closer to what a small Baptist Church would regard as the qualifications for an Usher in a Church Service. Old enough to be responsible and to work. One would not make a 7 year old an usher, but it is not about a mandated minimum age, it is about how few 7 year old adults one meets.

In this topic I am focusing exclusively on Credobaptism and the requirement for those baptized to already believe. I do not remember your third dogma off the top of my head, but I will eventually post a topic and response to it as well.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Acts 2:36-39, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

1. Where do ANY of the verses you note state that before the prohibition to baptize is lifted, one must FIRST in chronological time prove they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where is this mandate/limitation?

.

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins“

1. Where does that verse you note state that before the prohibition to baptize is lifted, one must FIRST in chronological time prove they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where is this mandate/limitation?

2. Since you have specificallty stated that you reject the word "and" (kai in koine Greek) means (much less mandates) chronological sequence, how does this verse mandate chronological sequence, which as you have noted, IS the definition of Credobaptism?

That means that we should not “be baptized and refuse repentance”.

Not so sure of that, but if so, how does that substantiate the dogma, "One must FIRST in chronological state state that one has chosen Jesus as their personal Savior THEN after that, the prohibition to baptism is lifted and one may be baptized?"


Who has suggested that Baptism BY DEFINITION excludes repentance? The issue here is the dogma that one MUST in chronological time prove one has chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE the prohibition to baptize is lifted and one may administer Baptism.

The verse goes on to clarify the purpose for our repenting and being baptized ... “for the forgiveness of sins”.

How does that substantiate that one MUST in chronological time prove that they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior THEN AFTER THAT is accomplished, the prohibition of baptism is lifted and that one may be baptized?

Repentance and baptism (together) for the forgiveness of sins is the example given from the start of the Gospels.

Well, I agree that faith - repentance - forgiveness all go together. But how does that substantiate that the Bible states that one must in chronological time first prove that they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior and once they have performed that, once that is wholly accomplished, then after that, the prohibition to baptism (which you have yet to show even exists) is lifted and that one may be baptized?

John the Baptist called the people to “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near” and people came to the prophet in droves to repent and be baptized ... both together, not one or the other.

I won't argue that point (although that was a Jewish baptism), but how does substantiate and prove the Bible states that FIRST in chronological time one must prove they FIRST have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER THAT has been
accomplished, THEN the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to show even exists) is lifted and that person may afterword be baptized?

Jesus began His ministry by proclaiming Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near” and his disciples baptized those who listed ... who came and repented.

I won't argue that point, but where did Jesus state, "FIRST you must document that you have chosen Me as your personal Savior and after you have performed that, after that the prohibition to baptism is lifted and that person may afterward be baptized?"

Keep in mind, we're in full agreement that the word "and" does not mean (much less mandate) chronological sequence.

All of the things that God says go with salvation (faith, belief repentance, Lordship, and baptism) must be equally true, equally present and equally necessary.

I won't argue that point, I'm just left wondering how does that document that Scriptures states that FIRST in chronological time one must document that they have chosen Jesus as their personal savior, the AFTER THAT in time, AFTER that has been accomplished, THEN the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to show even exists) is lifted and the person may THEN after that be baptized?




Since you too are now asking questions..... I don't regard questions as normative of anything, but okay..... do you have a theory as to why it seems not one Christian for over 1500 years ever noticed what you stated is stated in Scripture, that it is dogmatic fact that the Bible says that FIRST in chronological time one MUST prove that FIRST they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, then after they have accomplished that and performed that, then AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (which also no one saw for 1500 years) is lifted and THAT one may then be baptized? We know that AT LEAST by 140 AD, even infants were being baptized. And this seems universal by the year 200. And NOT ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET (known to me, stated in any article or book or post I've seen) ever noticed, "WAIT A MINUTE, the Bible says the FIRST one must prove they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior and only AFTER they have accomplished that mandate, only AFTER THAT in chronological time, only THEN is the prohibtion to baptize lifted!" Why did not one person see that for 1500+ years? Why didn't John Calvin? Ah.... but I agree with you, questions are not apologetics AT ALL and substantiate NOTHING but one's ability to construct a sentence as a question.




.