The undisclosed age of “X”

[MennoSota]

We do not baptize atheists. You said that we do.

Those infants have no belief. They are atheists. You baptize them.
Yet, you refuse baptism to adult atheists who have no faith.
At what "age of X" do you stop baptizing atheists?

 

[Albion]

Those infants have no belief.

Then they cannot be atheists.


atheism (ˈeiθiizəm) noun

the belief that there is no God. ateísmo

 

[MennoSota]

Then they cannot be atheists.


atheism (ˈeiθiizəm) noun

the belief that there is no God. ateísmo

Atheist: No belief in God.
Infants have no belief. They are atheists by definition.
Now, at what "age of X" do you and Josiah recommend no longer baptizing atheists who have no belief in God?

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

 

[Andrew]

Why do you ask?

I mean, don't we repent before the baptism? What does a baby need to repent of?

 

[Albion]

Atheist: No belief in God.

That's the Menno definition, I assume. The dictionary definition was given above.

 

[MennoSota]

That's the Menno definition, I assume. The dictionary definition was given above.

That's the atheist definition.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/
Now, at what "age of X" do you and Josiah recommend no longer baptizing atheists who have no belief in God?

 

[Albion]

That's the atheist definition.

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

At last you have something correct. The atheist organizations have recently put on a public relations campaign in which they have tried to re-define atheism to mean agnosticism.

But like Socialists calling themselves Progressives and pro-abortion people calling themselves pro-choice...we ought not help them out by going along with their ruse.





.

 

[MennoSota]

At last you have something correct. The atheist organizations have recently put on a public relations campaign in which they have tried to re-define atheism as meaning agnosticism.

But like Socialists calling themselves Progressives and pro-abortion people calling themselves pro-choice...we ought not help them out by going along with them ruse.

At what "age of X" do you and Josiah recommend no longer baptizing atheists who have no belief in God?

 

[atpollard]

I am curious about something and would like to ask in a more positive manor.

It is obvious that a parent makes the decision to have an infant baptized (no one would argue that the Infant requested baptism him/her self).
So the question is ... At what age is that no longer appropriate?

If a parent converts and wants a 2 year old baptized, but the toddler starts to cry, do you baptize them or not?

If a parent converts and wants a teenager baptized, but the teen refuses, do you baptize them or not?

If a parent converts and wants a 30 year old son still living in the basement baptized, but the bum doesn’t want to give up Sunday Nintendo to come into Church, do you baptize them or not?

My question is how does your church decide where to draw that line between the infant and the 30 year old.
(I acknowledge that it is a mostly hypothetical question since most baptisms in Padeobatist churches probably involve the infants of members rather than the children of converts. However, it is an honest question and I provided an honest answer on what age I would baptize at and why.)

 

[Albion]

I mean, don't we repent before the baptism?

Andrew, you are asking the 80% of the Christian world -- those who baptize in the way the church has baptized ever since antiquity -- to justify their administration of the sacrament using the rules created several centuries ago by a splinter group that even the rest of the Protestants considered to be extremist. Why should we be held to THEIR standard? What sense is there in that?

In fact, no one can answer a question that includes a poison pill of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety. For that matter, neither should we be expected to answer to any trick question here on Christianity Haven.

 

[MennoSota]

Andrew, you are asking the 80% of the Christian world -- those who baptize in the way the church has baptized ever since antiquity -- to justify their administration of the sacrament using the rules created several centuries ago by a splinter group that even the rest of the Protestants considered to be extremist. Why should we be held to THEIR standard? What sense is there in that?

In fact, no one can answer a question that includes a poison pill of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety. For that matter, neither should we be expected to answer to any trick question here on Christianity Haven.

When 80% is wrong does it therefore make it right?
The argument from tradition is what the Sadducees and Pharisees used. Jesus shot their tradition down with ease yet they kept holding on anyway. Do you wish to hold tight to a poor argument that has no biblical support but has tradition?

 

[Albion]

The argument from tradition is what the Sadducees and Pharisees used.

Yeh well, we don't.

Our practice is supported by the Bible or else we wouldn't do it as we do.

 

[MennoSota]

Yeh well, we don't.

Our practice is supported by the Bible or else we wouldn't do it as we do.

Yet, you have no verses where infant baptism is practiced. You only have two verses with the word "household" and from that you deduce that it is okay to baptize non-believing atheists.
Face it, the Apostles never did what your church does. In fact it was made-up a century after the Apostles.
Even more, you practice the "age of X" by denying older atheists the same privilege you afford to the infant atheists.

 

[Andrew]

I would say the age of x to be 13
Jesus wants us to become as a child, I wonder why... how old was that kid Jesus used as an example? 12?
The bible never mentions if he was baptised or not, I assume he wasn't, Jesus was 30 when he finally got baptised... just sayin

 

[atpollard]

I would say the age of x to be 13
Jesus wants us to become as a child, I wonder why... how old was that kid Jesus used as an example? 12?
The bible never mentions if he was baptised or not, I assume he wasn't, Jesus was 30 when he finally got baptised... just sayin

That is funny, but to be fair, the command when Jesus was born was for a baby boy to be circumcised at 7 or 8 days old (I forget the exact number). Since Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly, he was likely circumcised right on schedule.
However, you are correct that Jesus did wait until he was an ADULT to get Baptized.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] [MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]




Some points.... if I may....



1. John the Baptist was of the OLD COVENANT. The least Christian is thus greater than he. And what he was doing was one of the 3 popular Jewish rites of baptism, the Bible itself states that when it calls what this Jewish Prophet was doing as, "The baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." I disagree that exactly what was done there is NORMATIVE for Christians (at all); if it was, then we'd need to circumcize all boys when they are one week old because that's what was done for Jesus in the Jewish milieu in which He grew up. We'd have to celebrate the Passover. We'd have to offer two birds in the Temple 40 days after the birth of our first born son. And a LONG LIST of other things. Just because the JEWS under the OLD COVEANT did some stuff.... and Jesus (and His parents) still lived under that Law (before Good Friday/Easter) does not provide a NORM for us. A very wrong epistemology.


2. I think there is a FUNDAMENTAL and FOUNDATIONAL premise in all these "what was done and not done in the Bible" arguments. This whole point: We can do only what is exampled in books between Genesis and Revelation as having been done, and are forbidden to do otherwise. That ASSUMPTION , that premise, is being IMPOSED. Oddly, no one accepts this as true (they could not be posting on the internet if they did) AND YET seem to impose it and make this point foundational (if unstated) in their points. Okay. Jesus likely celebrated something of a proto bar mitzah at the age of 12.... how does that reality MANDATE all now must do the same, also at 12? Yes, Jesus publicly worship on Saturday morning (after family worship on what to to us is Friday night) does that mandate all today must do the same? Because there is NOT ONE EXAMPLE in the Bible of a gentile ever administering Baptism, must we mandate that only Hebrews can do that? Because we have NOT ONE example of a woman receiving Communion in the Bible, must we dogmatically forbid women from Communion? It seems we have no examples of Christian pastors who were not at least half Hebrew, does that mean it is forbidden to have a pastor who is not at least half Hebrew by race? The rubic is simply false. EVERYONE accepts that it's false....but it is foundational and fundamental to their entire apologetic, an assumption THEY THEMSELVES REJECT imposed upon the issue.





To the point of the thread:

1. The opening poster made a very bold claim. Then it was proven (by a Baptist, in fact) that the claim is false - officially false. And he had the humility and honesty to admit his error (he get's points from me for that, lol). We're actually done with this thread. And have been for quite a while.

2. It is OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE that no Anabaptist/Baptist can find even one verse that teaches an AGE requirement or prohibition. The Anti (against) Paedo (child under 13 or 20 generally) Baptism Dogma invented by the Anabaptists simply and undeniably is not taught in the Bible. Yes, SOME of the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the Bible are of people at least old enough to talk but that's not normative.





.

 

[Albion]

Yet, you have no verses where infant baptism is practiced.

As I recall, such verses have been brought to your attention a number of times already.

 

[MennoSota]

As I recall, such verses have been brought to your attention a number of times already.

Your recollection is very poor.
At present you have two verses in Acts 16 where the word "household" is used and upon which the entire concept of paedobaptism is built.
The entire concept is developed off a presupposition that cannot be confirmed, yet it is taught as a confirmed dogma.
It matters not how long a tradition has been around. It matters if the tradition is speaking truth. In this matter, paedobaptism is speaking from silence in the Bible.
Instead, the Bible very clearly records that the Apostles baptized only after a confession of faith was given and there was no objection to the recipients being baptized. If you fail to see this pattern it is only because you are failing to read the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

Some points.... if I may....



1. John the Baptist was of the OLD COVENANT. The least Christian is thus greater than he. And what he was doing was one of the 3 popular Jewish rites of baptism, the Bible itself states that when it calls what this Jewish Prophet was doing as, "The baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." I disagree that exactly what was done there is NORMATIVE for Christians (at all); if it was, then we'd need to circumcize all boys when they are one week old because that's what was done for Jesus in the Jewish milieu in which He grew up. We'd have to celebrate the Passover. We'd have to offer two birds in the Temple 40 days after the birth of our first born son. And a LONG LIST of other things. Just because the JEWS under the OLD COVEANT did some stuff.... and Jesus (and His parents) still lived under that Law (before Good Friday/Easter) does not provide a NORM for us. A very wrong epistemology.


2. I think there is a FUNDAMENTAL and FOUNDATIONAL premise in all these "what was done and not done in the Bible" arguments. This whole point: We can do only what is exampled in books between Genesis and Revelation as having been done, and are forbidden to do otherwise. That ASSUMPTION , that premise, is being IMPOSED. Oddly, no one accepts this as true (they could not be posting on the internet if they did) AND YET seem to impose it and make this point foundational (if unstated) in their points. Okay. Jesus likely celebrated something of a proto bar mitzah at the age of 12.... how does that reality MANDATE all now must do the same, also at 12? Yes, Jesus publicly worship on Saturday morning (after family worship on what to to us is Friday night) does that mandate all today must do the same? Because there is NOT ONE EXAMPLE in the Bible of a gentile ever administering Baptism, must we mandate that only Hebrews can do that? Because we have NOT ONE example of a woman receiving Communion in the Bible, must we dogmatically forbid women from Communion? It seems we have no examples of Christian pastors who were not at least half Hebrew, does that mean it is forbidden to have a pastor who is not at least half Hebrew by race? The rubic is simply false. EVERYONE accepts that it's false....but it is foundational and fundamental to their entire apologetic, an assumption THEY THEMSELVES REJECT imposed upon the issue.





To the point of the thread:

1. The opening poster made a very bold claim. Then it was proven (by a Baptist, in fact) that the claim is false - officially false. And he had the humility and honesty to admit his error (he get's points from me for that, lol). We're actually done with this thread. And have been for quite a while.

2. It is OBVIOUS and UNDENIABLE that no Anabaptist/Baptist can find even one verse that teaches an AGE requirement or prohibition. The Anti (against) Paedo (child under 13 or 20 generally) Baptism Dogma invented by the Anabaptists simply and undeniably is not taught in the Bible. Yes, SOME of the examples of baptism that happen to be recorded in the Bible are of people at least old enough to talk but that's not normative.



.

At present you have two verses in Acts 16 where the word "household" is used and upon which the entire concept of paedobaptism is built.

No.


The Anti-Paedobaptism dogma invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century that you parrot is built on the claim that: Every baptism that happens to be recorded in the Bible is of those over the Age of Accountability. Problem is, you reject any accountability for the whole foundation on which it is built, you exempt yourself from any "need" for you to support that indeed every baptism in the Bible is of those over the Age of Accountability. And when others respectfully ask you to show that that's true in 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, well 90% of the time you pretend you didn't see that request and 10% of the time you go on to prove that you cannot show your claim is true, you cannot show the whole foundation of your dogma is true.


And of course, your whole apologetic is based on a rubic YOU REJECT: that we can only do what we see illustrated as done in the bible and cannot do otherwise. You don't hold that that's true, you don't follow it or accept it or abide by it yourself, but insist others do whaty you don't.


The entire foundation on which your dogma is built is NOT something you can show is true. And your whole apologetic for it is one you yourself reject as false.




Those who reject the Anabaptist dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism do so because you can't and won't produce ANYTHING that indicates it's true (much less dogma). NOTHING from the Bible. NOTHING from history or tradition or the Councils or Fathers or the
Rule of Faith. NOTHING from anywhere.








.

 

[Albion]

Your recollection is very poor.

I knew very well that you were given the information. This case is closed unless you are willing to admit to the Scriptural evidence and show a willingness to discuss it, just as we have evaluated and explained the significance of your favorite verses and how you have misused them.