Here's the issue:
1. The topic is the dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century establishing a not-disclosed min. age - before which baptism is forbidden. This invention is known as Anti (against) Paedo (a human under 20 or perhaps 13) Baptism. -. The OP tried to argue such a dogma doesn't exist, MennoSota proved him wrong with an official statement and the opening poster finally admitted he was wrong.
2. MennoSota's claim is (and I verbatim quote), "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." This he has claimed over and over and over, for many months, like a broken record, parroting the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition. It's just he refuses to show the position/claim is true. It's just that he's exempted one - just himself - from needing to show the positint and claim is true. EVERY attempt by ANYONE to address if the claim is true is met by evasion and name calling. When, for example, he (or any Baptists in these threads) are asked to show this foundational claim is true in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33 they respond by proving they can't show what the claim is true (but never mind, it's true anyway) But MennoSota (and others) keep parroting it. Over and over and over. Like a broken record. For over a year now. In thread after thread.
3. The 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. The 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: MennoSota (etc.) can't and won't show their premise (All baptisms were of those over the never-disclosed age of X) is true. And they don't accept their own foundational norm (We must do what is illustrated in the Bible and cannot do otherwise) instead they repudiate it; they claim it FALSE, proving such every time they post on the internet; indeed likely 90% plus of what their church does is not illustrated as done in the Bible. THUS: the apologetic is that IF a claim is normed by a rule they reject as false, it ergo is a dogmatic fact; if something "jibes" with a FALSEHOOD, it ergo is true. That's their whole apologetic; But of course, they don't show that their position jibes with the falsehood! Amazingly silly, amazingly absurd. Probably the worse apologetics I've witnessed.
4. And of course, there is the additional irony that since he came here, MennoSota has demanded of all that everyone disregard and "scrap" all tradition (that includes Baptist tradition) and go ONLY by what the Bible states. But for over a year now, in countless posts, he has persistently, stubbornly REFUSED to give even one Scripture that states the dogmas on this... and ALL he does (constantly, as his "mantra") is perfectly parrot Baptist TRADITION. On this, ALL he does is precisely, exactly what he forbids to be done.
I realize he (and perhaps others also supporting these Anabaptist inventions) will not examine their dogma, will not regard them as accountable, and will not change their minds. And I'm fine with that; they have elevated these inventions to dogmas that are exempt from accountability. Okay. But I think it's helpful for them to see the error of their apologetic, the less-than-truthful things being repeated ENDLESSLY, as well as all the name calling and evasions and "shell game." Come clean. If one chooses to believe and/or practice something, FINE! But to shroud all it in false claims, absurd apologetics even they reject, doing the EXACT THING they themselves insist can't be done, name calling, diversions and evasions....that I object to.
ONE of the advantages of coming to a site like this is that our positions and apologetics can be examined. And we can LEARN. But only if there is at least a tiny bit of humility and a willingness to learn. I'm one of those who discovered some things I held dear were, well, not right. Enough so that I left a denomination I loved and a parish I charished and changed denominations. But that's because I was willing to examine things, think, consider I may have been wrong, and admit when I was. Luther said, "Humility is th foundation of all sound theology." Now, I understand MennoSota's epistemology very well, it is the Catholic one. And I "get it." But Catholics have the honesty to admit how they approach things.
All the rest in this thread is just a game of diversion, anything to get THEM off the hook. A game (not well played).
What an amazingly ODD thing for a Calvinist Monergist to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you accept Total Depravity? Friend, AGE has NOTHING to do with ones inability to save themselves, with their inability to understand. Spiritually, ALL people (whether 1 day old or 1 year old or 100 years old) are DEAD. D.E.A.D. And totally unable to do or think or understand anything spiritual. NO ONE is able to even say 'Jesus is Lord' unless God GIVES them that ability/faith/life - they are passive, God is active. Don't you claim at least to be a monergist and a TULIP Calvinist? Insisting that God is impotent when one is under the age of X is not only a total repudiation of monergism, Calvinism and Scripture, but renders the Sovereignty of God as moot. But all you do is parrot the synergistic mantras of the Anabaptists. Radical synertists invented these baptism dogma you parrot.... and you seem to parrot their apologetics.
