Credobaptism

[atpollard]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]
I misunderstood your request. In many ways, what you ask is far easier.

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.

This is unanswerable by either you or I. It calls for an explanation of how God is God and does only those things that God can do. If any human being could correctly answer this question (about the effective transformation), then we would be closer to the Mormons being correct that godhood was within our possible grasp.

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.

When you baptize an infant or adult in a Catholic Church, does the person literally and clinically die during baptism, spend three days dead, and spontaneously miraculously come back to life visible transformed and no longer bound by the laws of physics?

Naw, it doesn’t happen at Protestant baptisms either.

I guess that the Scripture wasn’t speaking about a literal and physical union with His death and resurrection. That places it in the Spiritual realm and the same place as explaining the other things that only God can do.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

I don’t know how to better explain it than I already did. You seem to have followed NONE of the argument that I crafted in defense of my belief and attempting to answer your question. I tried. :dunno:

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=60]MoreCoffee[/MENTION]
I misunderstood your request. In many ways, what you ask is far easier.

I understand; it is very easy to misunderstand a written question. No blame is attributable for that. But now, I hope, the question is understood and we can progress from here.

This is unanswerable by either you or I. It calls for an explanation of how God is God and does only those things that God can do. If any human being could correctly answer this question (about the effective transformation), then we would be closer to the Mormons being correct that godhood was within our possible grasp.

I think that the question is answerable; it is a request for passages in holy scripture that teach that baptism signifies the things that the definition given in your earlier post (link here) says that it signifies. I do not ask you to step into God's shoes (so to speak) and reply on behalf of God, at least not in any way that is not already revealed in the holy scriptures.

When you baptize an infant or adult in a Catholic Church, does the person literally and clinically die during baptism, spend three days dead, and spontaneously miraculously come back to life visible transformed and no longer bound by the laws of physics?

Here I think there may be another misunderstanding. I was careful not to say physical death and physical resurrection of the baptised person but rather death and resurrection as it is discussed in the scope of the passage - Romans 6:1-11. It is union with Christ in his death and in his resurrection that is discussed and that, it seems to me, is different from the first resurrection that is effected on the last day when the last judgement occurs.

Naw, it doesn’t happen at Protestant baptisms either.

I guess that the Scripture wasn’t speaking about a literal and physical union with His death and resurrection. That places it in the Spiritual realm and the same place as explaining the other things that only God can do.

I do not see the passage (Romans 6:1-11) discussing spiritual rather than real death and resurrection what I do see is the real death and the real resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as the subject discussed and the union of Christians with Christ in his death and resurrection being effected by baptism. Catholic teaching does not spiritualise what a passage says. The Catholic approach is to accept what the passage says about the subject it is discussing.

(Romans 6:3-11) Do you not know that those of us who have been baptised in Christ Jesus have been baptised into his death? For through baptism we have been buried with him into death, so that, in the manner that Christ rose from the dead, by the glory of the Father, so may we also walk in the newness of life. For if we have been planted together, in the likeness of his death, so shall we also be, in the likeness of his resurrection. For we know this: that our former selves have been crucified together with him, so that the body which is of sin may be destroyed, and moreover, so that we may no longer serve sin. For he who has died has been justified from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ. For we know that Christ, in rising up from the dead, can no longer die: death no longer has dominion over him. For in as much as he died for sin, he died once. But in as much as he lives, he lives for God. And so, you should consider yourselves to be certainly dead to sin, and to be living for God in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Catholic teaching see the union effected with Christ in baptism as real. It is not a symbol nor is it spiritual in opposition to real and physical it is as real and physical as the water and the actions and the words used in the rite of baptism and God effects the union that baptism shows with the result that the baptised is truly dead with Christ and raised with Christ in his death and resurrection. These things which the Christ experienced his body also experienced and since the Church is the body of Christ the Church too died with Christ and rose with Him. We await the consummation of these things in the last day at the last judgement when the faithful will rise (or be transformed if they have not died) in the first resurrection which is the resurrection of the Just (Christ himself being Just and Good and Holy). If this is unclear to you or if the ideas are too foreign to your current mode of thinking about the meaning of baptism in this passage as it is understood by Catholics we can discuss it further in the hope of making it clear enough to be rightly understood. I do not expect you to accept Catholic teaching but understanding it may help to avoid lengthy and confusing discussions where we could be talking at cross purposes.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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?

Let's not go down that garden path Mennosota. My question is about what the passages say; specifically, (Matthew 28:19-20) Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have ever commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age.” Water is not mentioned here yet it is understood that baptism involves water. The other passages also imply water is used when baptism occurs unless there is a very specific reason to say "no, this is baptism without water" and I know of no passage discussing the meaning of baptism that gives a very specific reason to deny that baptism involves water.

 

[MennoSota]

Let's not go down that garden path Mennosota. My question is about what the passages say; specifically, (Matthew 28:19-20) Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have ever commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the age.” Water is not mentioned here yet it is understood that baptism involves water. The other passages also imply water is used when baptism occurs unless there is a very specific reason to say "no, this is baptism without water" and I know of no passage discussing the meaning of baptism that gives a very specific reason to deny that baptism involves water.

Here we disagree. The context is not water in Romans or Galatians. The context is immersion into Christ. Understand that baptizo was a common word used to describe dipping or immersion into many things. In both Romans and Galatians that immersion is not into water, but into Christ Jesus.
Note that water is never some magical conduit. It is always a symbol of dipping an object into it. It is the substance in which something remains immersed. It can only be symbolic of the real immersion that the Holy Spirit does when he immerses us into Christ. Water cannot immerse us into Christ. In water baptism we immerse into the water and then remove ourselves again. The water symbolizes the pureness of Christ with no stain. When the Spirit baptized us, we were immersed into Christ and remain forever in Christ.

 

[atpollard]

I understand; it is very easy to misunderstand a written question. No blame is attributable for that. But now, I hope, the question is understood and we can progress from here.

I think that the question is answerable; it is a request for passages in holy scripture that teach that baptism signifies the things that the definition given in your earlier post (link here) says that it signifies. I do not ask you to step into God's shoes (so to speak) and reply on behalf of God, at least not in any way that is not already revealed in the holy scriptures.

Here I think there may be another misunderstanding. I was careful not to say physical death and physical resurrection of the baptised person but rather death and resurrection as it is discussed in the scope of the passage - Romans 6:1-11. It is union with Christ in his death and in his resurrection that is discussed and that, it seems to me, is different from the first resurrection that is effected on the last day when the last judgement occurs.



I do not see the passage (Romans 6:1-11) discussing spiritual rather than real death and resurrection what I do see is the real death and the real resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as the subject discussed and the union of Christians with Christ in his death and resurrection being effected by baptism. Catholic teaching does not spiritualise what a passage says. The Catholic approach is to accept what the passage says about the subject it is discussing.

(Romans 6:3-11) Do you not know that those of us who have been baptised in Christ Jesus have been baptised into his death? For through baptism we have been buried with him into death, so that, in the manner that Christ rose from the dead, by the glory of the Father, so may we also walk in the newness of life. For if we have been planted together, in the likeness of his death, so shall we also be, in the likeness of his resurrection. For we know this: that our former selves have been crucified together with him, so that the body which is of sin may be destroyed, and moreover, so that we may no longer serve sin. For he who has died has been justified from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ. For we know that Christ, in rising up from the dead, can no longer die: death no longer has dominion over him. For in as much as he died for sin, he died once. But in as much as he lives, he lives for God. And so, you should consider yourselves to be certainly dead to sin, and to be living for God in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Catholic teaching see the union effected with Christ in baptism as real. It is not a symbol nor is it spiritual in opposition to real and physical it is as real and physical as the water and the actions and the words used in the rite of baptism and God effects the union that baptism shows with the result that the baptised is truly dead with Christ and raised with Christ in his death and resurrection. These things which the Christ experienced his body also experienced and since the Church is the body of Christ the Church too died with Christ and rose with Him. We await the consummation of these things in the last day at the last judgement when the faithful will rise (or be transformed if they have not died) in the first resurrection which is the resurrection of the Just (Christ himself being Just and Good and Holy). If this is unclear to you or if the ideas are too foreign to your current mode of thinking about the meaning of baptism in this passage as it is understood by Catholics we can discuss it further in the hope of making it clear enough to be rightly understood. I do not expect you to accept Catholic teaching but understanding it may help to avoid lengthy and confusing discussions where we could be talking at cross purposes.

The very scriptures that the Catholic Church sees as affirming the REAL union of the believer with Christ through Baptism, are the exact same scriptures that I would point to and say that the person did not LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY die, so the union is SPIRITUAL. However we would both agree that the water was PHYSICAL. So the difference between our views of those same scriptures comes down to whether or not God actually uses the water literally or symbolically to SPIRITUALLY unite a Believer with Christ.

Who but GOD is qualified to answer that distinction?
All we know for certain is that it is a Spiritual process and not a Literal Physical death and resurrection of the believer.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Both R.C. Sproul and MennoSota have refuted you with their personal testimony. It now falls to you to explain why two people who oppose padeobaptism would lie and make such a false claim.

I recall asking in another thread, but I don't recall an answer. leaving Menno aside (no offense! ), at what point did Mr. Sproul receive faith? If it was "before his fifth birthday" as is your claim, and (as I recall) his claim that he has been growing in faith since before age four:

1) When was it, and

2) Would he have been a candidate (based on making a statement of faith) for baptism prior to age four (even though he admittedly doesn't recall a time he was without faith).

If the foregoing is true about Mr. Sproul, for what reason would he not have been accepted for baptism as an infant, given that the timing of the gift of faith in his case cannot be identified

 

[MoreCoffee]

The very scriptures that the Catholic Church sees as affirming the REAL union of the believer with Christ through Baptism, are the exact same scriptures that I would point to and say that the person did not LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY die, so the union is SPIRITUAL. However we would both agree that the water was PHYSICAL. So the difference between our views of those same scriptures comes down to whether or not God actually uses the water literally or symbolically to SPIRITUALLY unite a Believer with Christ.

Who but GOD is qualified to answer that distinction?
All we know for certain is that it is a Spiritual process and not a Literal Physical death and resurrection of the believer.

I think you've said what you said before. But here is a comment from the notes in the New American Bible Revised Edition.

Romans 1-11] To defend the gospel against the charge that it promotes moral laxity (cf ⇒ Romans 3:5-8), Paul expresses himself in the typical style of spirited diatribe. God's display of generosity or grace is not evoked by sin but, as stated in ⇒ Romans 5:8 is the expression of God's love, and this love pledges eternal life to all believers (⇒ Romans 5:21). Paul views the present conduct of the believers from the perspective of God's completed salvation when the body is resurrected and directed totally by the holy Spirit. Through baptism believers share the death of Christ and thereby escape from the grip of sin. Through the resurrection of Christ the power to live anew becomes reality for them, but the fullness of participation in Christ's resurrection still lies in the future. But life that is lived in dedication to God now is part and parcel of that future. Hence anyone who sincerely claims to be interested in that future will scarcely be able to say, "Let us sin so that grace may prosper" (cf ⇒ Romans 6:1).​

I am not sure if further explanation from me - further than that given in my previous post will advance the discussion but I am confident that you will let me know. Perhaps what I wrote was not sufficiently clear. You can tell me if you want to.

 

[atpollard]

I recall asking in another thread, but I don't recall an answer. leaving Menno aside (no offense! ), at what point did Mr. Sproul receive faith? If it was "before his fifth birthday" as is your claim, and (as I recall) his claim that he has been growing in faith since before age four:

1) When was it, and

2) Would he have been a candidate (based on making a statement of faith) for baptism prior to age four (even though he admittedly doesn't recall a time he was without faith).

If the foregoing is true about Mr. Sproul, for what reason would he not have been accepted for baptism as an infant, given that the timing of the gift of faith in his case cannot be identified

For me, the guiding verse for salvation is: "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] and Credobaptism (as I believe) means that baptism is for the already saved, not for those who may be saved. So as soon as ANYONE of ANY AGE does what Romans 10 requires, they are welcome to be baptized. If a 4 year old can articulate that they have believed and do confess, then I would baptize them. If a 40 day infant articulated the same thing ... I would be utterly shocked ... and I would baptize them. With that belief and confession and baptism, I would view that person as also receiving the Holy Spirit (as promised in Acts 2) and a full member of the Body of Christ. If God has granted them the gift of Faith that leads to Salvation, then who am I to judge them less.

If Mr Sproul had the gift of FAITH from BIRTH (just for the sake of argument, since prior to his memory, we cannot know when God chose to grant Mr. Sproul a saving faith), then the Elders of his church could not have known of God's Gift prior to Mr. Sproul's ability to articulate it. Since Credobaptists view baptism as admission into the Body of Christ (rather than merely the covenant as a child to later decide to follow Christ or reject Him), Baptism is to be guarded, like Communion, from those outside the Body of Christ. Thus Baptism and Communion are not given to those who make no claim of believing and confessing that which results in righteousness and salvation.

 

[Josiah]

For me, the guiding verse for salvation is: "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] and Credobaptism (as I believe) means that baptism is for the already saved, not for those who may be saved. So as soon as ANYONE of ANY AGE does what Romans 10 requires, they are welcome to be baptized. If a 4 year old can articulate that they have believed and do confess, then I would baptize them. If a 40 day infant articulated the same thing ... I would be utterly shocked ... and I would baptize them. With that belief and confession and baptism, I would view that person as also receiving the Holy Spirit (as promised in Acts 2) and a full member of the Body of Christ. If God has granted them the gift of Faith that leads to Salvation, then who am I to judge them less.

If Mr Sproul had the gift of FAITH from BIRTH (just for the sake of argument, since prior to his memory, we cannot know when God chose to grant Mr. Sproul a saving faith), then the Elders of his church could not have known of God's Gift prior to Mr. Sproul's ability to articulate it. Since Credobaptists view baptism as admission into the Body of Christ (rather than merely the covenant as a child to later decide to follow Christ or reject Him), Baptism is to be guarded, like Communion, from those outside the Body of Christ. Thus Baptism and Communion are not given to those who make no claim of believing and confessing that which results in righteousness and salvation.

Specifically to atpollard


IMO, I think the foundational issue is your imposition of chronology upon God. You insist that "kai" ("and") does NOT mean or imply and certainly does not mandate chronological order, but you seem to impose it everywhere.

Yes, LOTS of things are associated. Repentance....humility..... spiritual life.... Holy Spirit.... the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, Pentecost.... love..... morality..... service..... making disciples..... teaching/learning..... and much more. These things are inseparable. But I disagree with you that God is held captive to our chronology [ASIDE: As a student of physics, TIME only applies to the physical universe, it is simply a property of matter/energy ...and God is not matter/energy; time by definition does not apply to God, much less hold Him captive and restrict Him....end of aside] I recall that John the Baptist believed before He was born. .

Now, as a fellow Monergist, I DO place grace first. Not so much as a function of TIME as simply God's nature; ALL good that God does flows FROM His grace. John 3:16 IMO is conveying a foundational agape that is operative "always" and from which all blessings flow, but again, I don't understand that in terms of chronology so much as a function of God's nature because God IS love; consider that reality the "de fault" reality more than a matter o chronology; God was love before mass/energy came into existence 13.8 billion years ago. So even there, I'm not imposing chronology in the sense you seem to. And odd to me.... my esteemed Reformed brothers talk so much of God's sovereignty (I have a really hard time spelling that word, lol) but we find Calvinist Baptists who seem to powerfully deny that; Reformed are SO strong that God GIVES His grace "irresistably" and yet Calvinist/Baptists denounce that so powerfully, all these conditions and constrants and limitations are placed on God and His grace. Just seems odd to me. But I digress.


I've shared before; IF (big word, lol) you and MennoSota were simply saying, "We see a GENERAL pattern in a PRAXIS and think that PRAXIS is best" then you would have gotten no argument here. In fact, I would have quoted Luther himself agreeing with you at least on one of the Baptist dogmas, "Immersion Only Baptism." But this is dogma. And it is always been and still is formed as a rebuke of 1500+ years of faith and practice, it is "ANTI" and a repudiation. When Luther said things that even SEEMED to go against the rule of faith (what virtually everyone always believed) he accepted he had a HUGE burden of proof - indeed, he INSISTED he had a huge burden of proof. But what I seem to get from you is, "Well.... it seems to ME..... most of the time.... maybe....." Is that basis for DOGMA? For rebuking every baptism of virtually every Christian for 1500+ years and maybe 80% of them now? Of dogmatically shouting, "that's forbidden?" And as I stated before, IF you were holding to Calvin's baptism position.... or even the later reinvention of that that is today the Reformed position .... I'd disagree with you BUT I'd respect the view and not rebuke it. As you know, they practice infant baptism (Calvin called Baptism a SACRAMENT - a sacred act of GOD), they have a well developed concept of being embraced in the covenant (a view nearly identical to traditional Christianity's view of being adopted by God into His family), and see it all as God's blessing, having to do with God's grace. They tend to reject the salvic aspect of the Sacrament (and there would be MY disagreement) but I CAN (and do) understand that. They don't deny God CAN give a baby faith - or even that He DOES!!!! Just that BAPTISM per se is associated with that. I "get" that - I can respect that - I just disagree with that. But the Anabaptist inventions.... I find those positions, all invented within the milieu of radical synergism and to "fit" within that.... all invented out of their strong, passionate ANTI attitude, their strong ANTI Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican hatred.... (read MennoSota's posts - he parrots Anabaptist tradition perfectly) THAT I find entirely baseless at best.


But again, IMO, the fundamental 'Problem" you are having is limiting God to a chronological order, limiting Him to a sequence that you feel He MUST abide by. [Another side bar: My wife's whole side of the family is passionately Reformed, going back 400 years (She's Scottish) including LOTS of ministers. As we were discussing the baptism of our son with relatives, one said "God already has saved your son, long before time ever existed; his baptism simply tells the world that Gospel." Hum..... Okay, not SURE I exactly affirm that, but I "get" it and it seems quite in line with TULIP although I know that's not exactly the Reformed view] I can respect the Reformed view.... especially since I've NEVER met a true Calvinist who repudiated my wife and I for what asked for our son and our faith in that, Reformed theology seems entirely void of the extreme "ANTI" aspect of Baptist theology on this point, the DOGMATIC PROHIBITIONS, the divine LIMITATIONS. That said, you SEEMS to have become increasingly "softer" and more focused on this - just as MennoSota has become more absurd and angry and frustrated and "anti."


BTW, I'm sad you gave up. JUST as I thought maybe we were making some break throughs. But that's okay. I respect that.



- Josiah




.

 

[atpollard]

"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]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

Yes, LOTS of things are associated. Repentance....humility..... spiritual life.... Holy Spirit.... the Incarnation, the Cross, the Resurrection, Pentecost.... love..... morality..... service..... making disciples..... teaching/learning..... and much more. These things are inseparable. But I disagree with you that God is held captive to our chronology [ASIDE: As a student of physics, TIME only applies to the physical universe, it is simply a property of matter/energy ...and God is not matter/energy; time by definition does not apply to God, much less hold Him captive and restrict Him....end of aside] I recall that John the Baptist believed before He was born.

As a Physicist, does the concept of TIME without SPACE make sense? Paul says that SALVATION is comprised of "believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead" and that belief results "in righteousness" AND "confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord" and that confession results "in salvation". Does it make sense to advocate Believing to gain Righteousness, without Confessing to gain Salvation? Does it make sense to advocate Confessing to gain Salvation. without Believing to gain Righteousness? Are "confess-believe" linked like Time-Space and are "Righteousness-Salvation" inseparable like matter-energy?

God baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Nothing that I do or fail to do will either force or tie God's hand to baptize with His Holy Spirit.
Men baptize with water. Men can and must exercise control over who and what and when and how they baptize ... however many or few restrictions they place on it

Baptism, Marriage and the Eucharist are three critical Sacraments given to the Church by God. Each local body turns to scripture and decides when, how and to whom the Sacraments are given.

All churches do not perform a wedding ceremony for anyone who asks. Most churches would not wed a same gender couple. Many churches will not wed couples that are not of their faith/denomination. Some churches only perform weddings for members of that assembly. Their reasons vary and are unimportant. The point is that God commanded the church to marry people and all of these churches perform the Marriage Sacrament, but they all have different requirements intended to guard the sacrament and keep it Holy. The goal of the strictest church and the most permissive church alike is to be obedient to and honor God as they believe it should be done. Nothing that any Church does or refuses to do will either force God or prevent God from joining a couple that God has chosen to unite.

The Eucharist is a sacred Sacrament for the church, for all denominations that I am aware of. There is no denomination that believes that the Body and Blood of Christ is to be shared by everyone, believer and unbeliever alike. Various churches take different precautions to keep the Table Holy. Some ban children from taking it. Some ban all non-members from taking it. Some welcome anyone who claims Jesus as their Savior to join in the Table. All have the same goal, men restricting access to that which is Holy to preserve its Holiness as they believe God wants them to do it. Nothing that any Church does or refuses to do will either force God or prevent God from making someone a part of His Body with or without the Table.

Baptism is a sacred Sacrament for the Church, given by God, and administered by the hands of men using real physical water. When someone is baptized, how someone is baptized and exactly what people believe that baptism is for varies from one body of believers to another. However all churches that I am aware of perform baptisms and most have some restrictions on who, when and how baptisms are performed. This could involve membership for the parents of infants, or special services scheduled for the event, or even extensive questioning of the candidate to confirm they understand what it is they are doing. Whatever the restrictions (many or few), they are implemented to keep the Sacrament Holy to the best of the knowledge and ability of those performing the Sacrament. Nothing that any Church does or refuses to do with water will either force God or prevent God from presenting the gifts of faith, salvation and the Holy Spirit to someone that God had foreknown, predestined, called, justified, sanctified and glorified all IN CHRIST.



So what exactly do you think happens when a baby is baptized?
(Once I understand your view, I can point out where my view is similar and where it is different. Hopefully then it will make sense why you SHOULD baptize a baby and why I SHOULD NOT baptize a baby if we are to both protect the Holiness of the Sacrament as we understand it.)

 

[Josiah]

"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]

I agree with the verse.

And I agree with you that the word "and" (Kai in Greek) does not imply, mean or mandate chronological sequence.

And I agree that soteriology has MUCH associated with it.

But where does this verse state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they FIRST in chrological time publically state that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, only AFTER THAT is accomplished by the person, is the prohibition to baptized lifted and such a person may then be baptized."

God baptizes with the Holy Spirit. Nothing that I do or fail to do will either force or tie God's hand to baptize with His Holy Spirit.

1. The Bible states that there is "one baptism" and I accept that. True, I think the word can apply to something other than water baptism (proof by the way that the word does not mean immersion) but there is only one Baptism - and obviously it involves water.

2. I agree, God CAN give faith/life/justification to any, however He chooses. Which is just one reason why I reject the whole baptist apologetic that baptism is forbidden to those under the age of X because they are unable to do their part, the part that releasss God from His impotence and frees God to be able to bless.

3. No, in Baptizing, I'm not demanding anything of God. God is commanding me. When I teach my son (he's 15 months), can I order God to use my words to do all the things I order God to do? No. Does that mean I am prohibited from teaching my son because he's not yet publicly declared, "I have previously chosen Jesus as my personal Savior?" No.

4. Yes, God can grant all His blessings even where baptism never happened. No one claims otherwise. Witness John the Baptist before he was born, the thief on the cross, everyone prior to Jesus establishing Baptism. Does that mean God forbids baptism? IMO, no. John the Baptist believed before he was taught anything, does that mean it is forbidden to teach everyone? Not in my view. But I find this whole train of thought - about what God CAN and CANNOT do, what the dead can and cannot do - odd for a monergist.

Nothing that any Church does or refuses to do with water will either force God or prevent God from presenting the gifts of faith, salvation and the Holy Spirit to someone that God had foreknown, predestined, called, justified, sanctified and glorified all IN CHRIST.

.... so you may dogmatically forbid any baptism to happen for any who has not previously in chronological time publicly professed that they have chosen as their personal Savior because God will bless them as He chooses NO MATTER whether they are baptized or not? And interesting spin (but not altogether inconsistent with Calvinism; and an accusation often made to Calvinists that they actually teach/hold). But it does not substantiate that we are dogmatically forbidden to baptize any who has not previously and publicly professed Jesus as their personal Savior. Of course, your whole argument is often used against Calvinists for why then do evangelism, outreach, mission work and Christian Education - in other words ANY ministry at all - since God CAN bless even without it? As you know, Calvinists are asked that, Calvinists who suggests what you seem to be. But like most Calvinists, while I accept the premise that God CAN (another reason for rejecting all the "God CANNOT" apologetics Baptists use for these dogmas), that doesn't cancel out that God typically DOES work through means and God DOES tell us to do certain things. Do I control God by doing them? No. Is God restrained by what I do as if my performance of a ministry orders Him about? No. But I'd address your agrument the same way Calvinists against this. We are to do ministry. Just because God is not LIMITED by it doesn't mean the ministry is forbidden or even optional.


Since AT LEAST 140 AD.... without known exception... until an Anabaptist determined otherwise (NOT because of any Scripture but because he wanted baptism to fit into his radical synergism).... this mandate of yours was unheard of and never applied. Not by anyone. At any time. In fact, the universal faith and teaching of the church was the exact opposite. So, what do you have (perhaps that not one Christian in over 1500 years NEVER saw) that indicates that there is a chronological mandate specific to BAPTISM, one that forbids, rejects, repudiates all baptism unless and until FIRST in chronological time the recipient has publicly proclaimed that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT is accomplished by the recipient, AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to show even exists) is lifted? What verse says that? Or if you have nothing, can you at least point to tradition and history and the Rule of Faith? Or some Council? Or EVEN just a handful of Early Church Fathers?


See post # 40



Blessings, my friend.


- Josiah



.



.

 

[atpollard]

I agree with the verse.

And I agree with you that the word "and" (Kai in Greek) does not imply, mean or mandate chronological sequence.

And I agree that soteriology has MUCH associated with it.

But where does this verse state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they FIRST in chrological time publically state that they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, only AFTER THAT is accomplished by the person, is the prohibition to baptized lifted and such a person may then be baptized."






1. The Bible states that there is "one baptism" and I accept that. True, I think the word can apply to something other than water baptism (proof by the way that the word does not mean immersion) but there is only one Baptism - and obviously it involves water.

2. I agree, God CAN give faith/life/justification to any, however He chooses. Which is just one reason why I reject the whole baptist apologetic that baptism is forbidden to those under the age of X because they are unable to do their part, the part that releasss God from His impotence and frees God to be able to bless.

3. No, in Baptizing, I'm not demanding anything of God. God is commanding me. When I teach my son (he's 15 months), can I order God to use my words to do all the things I order God to do? No. Does that mean I am prohibited from teaching my son because he's not yet publicly declared, "I have previously chosen Jesus as my personal Savior?" No.

4. Yes, God can grant all His blessings even where baptism never happened. No one claims otherwise. Witness John the Baptist before he was born, the thief on the cross, everyone prior to Jesus establishing Baptism. Does that mean God forbids baptism? IMO, no. John the Baptist believed before he was taught anything, does that mean it is forbidden to teach everyone? Not in my view. But I find this whole train of thought - about what God CAN and CANNOT do, what the dead can and cannot do - odd for a monergist.







.... so you may dogmatically forbid any baptism to happen for any who has not previously in chronological time publicly professed that they have chosen as their personal Savior because God will bless them as He chooses NO MATTER whether they are baptized or not? And interesting spin (but not altogether inconsistent with Calvinism; and an accusation often made to Calvinists that they actually teach/hold). But it does not substantiate that we are dogmatically forbidden to baptize any who has not previously and publicly professed Jesus as their personal Savior. Of course, your whole argument is often used against Calvinists for why then do evangelism, outreach, mission work and Christian Education - in other words ANY ministry at all - since God CAN bless even without it? As you know, Calvinists are asked that, Calvinists who suggests what you seem to be. But like most Calvinists, while I accept the premise that God CAN (another reason for rejecting all the "God CANNOT" apologetics Baptists use for these dogmas), that doesn't cancel out that God typically DOES work through means and God DOES tell us to do certain things. Do I control God by doing them? No. Is God restrained by what I do as if my performance of a ministry orders Him about? No. But I'd address your agrument the same way Calvinists against this. We are to do ministry. Just because God is not LIMITED by it doesn't mean the ministry is forbidden or even optional.


Since AT LEAST 140 AD.... without exception until an Anabaptist determined otherwise (NOT because of any Scripture but because he wanted baptism to fit into his radical synergism).... this mandate of yours was unheard of and never applied. Not by anyone. At any time. In fact, the universal faith and teaching of the church was the exact opposite. So, what do you have (perhaps that not one Christian in over 1500 years NEVER saw) that indicates that there is a chronological mandate specific to BAPTISM, one that forbids, rejects, repudiates all baptism unless and until FIRST in chronological time the recipient has publicly proclaimed that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT is accomplished by the recipient, AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to show even exists) is lifted? What verse says that? Or if you have nothing, can you at least point to tradition and history and the Rule of Faith? Or some Council? Or EVEN just a handful of Early Church Fathers?


See post 40



Blessings, my friend.


- Josiah



.



.

You expressed disappointment that I had given up, but when I read this response, I do not walk away feeling like you have either disagreed with what I posted or refuted what I posted ... I feel like you have completely ignored what I posted except to select two lines as a jumping off point for your own post unrelated to what I just posted. And your posts always demand that I prove something that we were not already discussing.

Don’t you know what YOU believe about baptism?
Is that why you avoided answering the one question that would have helped me to understand your belief and respond appropriately.

I have to ask myself ... “Why bother responding if Josiah isn’t even going to read it anyway?”
How can I overcome the overwhelming feeling that you are not really listening, you are just waiting to talk?
I just don’t want to keep feeling like this. It is neither informative nor edifying for me.

 

[Josiah]

You expressed disappointment that I had given up, but when I read this response, I do not walk away feeling like you have either disagreed with what I posted or refuted what I posted ... I feel like you have completely ignored what I posted except to select two lines as a jumping off point for your own post unrelated to what I just posted. And your posts always demand that I prove something that we were not already discussing.

By your insistence, we are discussing ONE thing: A dogma invented in the late 16th Century, entirely contradicting the faith, practice and belief of every known Christian before that - a dogma (not simply church polity) that it is dogmatically mandated that before the prohibition to baptism is lifted, the recipient must publicly state that FIRST in chronological time, they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. That's the dogma. That's the topic (and you demand we not speak of any other). That's in conformity with the definition you give.

I'm waiting for some Scripture that states that. Or if you have no Scripture, that you provide something else that shows that Christians believed for 1500 years was heretical and wrong and that all baptisms not conforming are invalid, prohibited, forbidden. SOMETHING from Scripture that states such specific to Baptism.....or if you have nothing there, something from History or tradition or some Council or at least a couple of Church Fathers,in fact ANYTHING AT ALL.


I'll express what I find frustrating, my esteemed friend (and that's sincere). I honestly feel 90% of what I post to you isn't even read, much less considered. I read all the words of all your posts, but they don't seem to confirm that the Bible (or anything!) states what you do. You occasionally quote Scripture, and I ALWAYS agree with every single word of every single one of them, but ask, "how does this state what he does?" And frankly, I see lots of side trips (some call these diversions or rabbit holes, but I don't think you are intentionally doing that, you just seem to not be focusing on the issue before us). Nonetheless, typically I address them and you never reply.


Let me say yet again, still again, one more time. I do NOT accept your Dogma of Credobaptism (all baptisms are invalid, prohibited, forbidden, contrary to Scripture) UNLESS and UNTIL the recipient in chronological time FIRST has documented that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, THEN AFTER THAT in time, by the performance of that deed by the recipient, the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and said application may be baptized because no one has shown that to be true - much less Dogma. They've presented no Scripture that states that.... Nothing from Christian history or tradition or the Rule of Faith, not even one sentence from even one Church Father....the proponents seem to KNOW the dogma is the exact opposite of Christian belief, faith and practice until a certain Anabaptist reversed it and they seem to go to lengths to prove Scripture never teaches it, but never substantiates the teaching as true - much less dogma (defining dogma at that).

There is this CLAIM that "every baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST proved he had previously in time documented he had chosen Jesus as his personal Savior" needs to be shown that it's true if it is to serve as the premise. AND one would need to document that the premise has relevance, that we can only do what we can document was always done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. You and MennoSota have failed to do the first and don't even believe the second. Your attempt - well we can't show our premise true but the polity is something we DO follow with the Sacraments" obviously isn't true either, and incredibly arbitrary. THEN you tried to limit this to the Sacraments (a concept Baptist gnerally don't even accept) but when I pointed out you yourself don't follow your mandate EVEN THERE, you just ignored it.

And friend, I'M not telling you YOUR baptism is invalid, wrong, heretical, prohibited, forbidden, unbiblical .... YOUR dogma is telling ME that. Keep that ever in mind.

And friend, remember, I don't have the task of showing you are wrong, you have the task of showing you are right - to the level claimed.

I'm still listening.... in part because I want to know WHY my baptism was heretical, forbidden, prohibited, invalid - as a point of dogma?




.

 

[MennoSota]

By your insistence, we are discussing ONE thing: A dogma invented in the late 16th Century, entirely contradicting the faith, practice and belief of every known Christian before that - a dogma (not simply church polity) that it is dogmatically mandated that before the prohibition to baptism is lifted, the recipient must publicly state that FIRST in chronological time, they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. That's the dogma. That's the topic (and you demand we not speak of any other). That's in conformity with the definition you give.

I'm waiting for some Scripture that states that. Or if you have no Scripture, that you provide something else that shows that Christians believed for 1500 years was heretical and wrong and that all baptisms not conforming are invalid, prohibited, forbidden. SOMETHING from Scripture that states such specific to Baptism.....or if you have nothing there, something from History or tradition or some Council or at least a couple of Church Fathers,in fact ANYTHING AT ALL.


I'll express what I find frustrating, my esteemed friend (and that's sincere). I honestly feel 90% of what I post to you isn't even read, much less considered. I read all the words of all your posts, but they don't seem to confirm that the Bible (or anything!) states what you do. You occasionally quote Scripture, and I ALWAYS agree with every single word of every single one of them, but ask, "how does this state what he does?" And frankly, I see lots of side trips (some call these diversions or rabbit holes, but I don't think you are intentionally doing that, you just seem to not be focusing on the issue before us). Nonetheless, typically I address them and you never reply.


Let me say yet again, still again, one more time. I do NOT accept your Dogma of Credobaptism (all baptisms are invalid, prohibited, forbidden, contrary to Scripture) UNLESS and UNTIL the recipient in chronological time FIRST has documented that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, THEN AFTER THAT in time, by the performance of that deed by the recipient, the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and said application may be baptized because no one has shown that to be true - much less Dogma. They've presented no Scripture that states that.... Nothing from Christian history or tradition or the Rule of Faith, not even one sentence from even one Church Father....the proponents seem to KNOW the dogma is the exact opposite of Christian belief, faith and practice until a certain Anabaptist reversed it and they seem to go to lengths to prove Scripture never teaches it, but never substantiates the teaching as true - much less dogma (defining dogma at that).

There is this CLAIM that "every baptism in the Bible is of one who FIRST proved he had previously in time documented he had chosen Jesus as his personal Savior" needs to be shown that it's true if it is to serve as the premise. AND one would need to document that the premise has relevance, that we can only do what we can document was always done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. You and MennoSota have failed to do the first and don't even believe the second. Your attempt - well we can't show our premise true but the polity is something we DO follow with the Sacraments" obviously isn't true either, and incredibly arbitrary. THEN you tried to limit this to the Sacraments (a concept Baptist gnerally don't even accept) but when I pointed out you yourself don't follow your mandate EVEN THERE, you just ignored it.

And friend, I'M not telling you YOUR baptism is invalid, wrong, heretical, prohibited, forbidden, unbiblical .... YOUR dogma is telling ME that. Keep that ever in mind.

And friend, remember, I don't have the task of showing you are wrong, you have the task of showing you are right - to the level claimed.

I'm still listening.... in part because I want to know WHY my baptism was heretical, forbidden, prohibited, invalid - as a point of dogma?




.

The Apostles practiced credobaptism. Thus, credobaptism is older than paedobaptism. You lose the "we're the oldest" chant. Sorry. The Bible shows credobaptism, not paedobaptism. Too bad for you.

 

[Josiah]

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

The Apostles practiced credobaptism.

I reject your epistemology that if YOU state something, it's unaccountable and a dogmatic fact. (A Catholic epistemology.... and EXACTLY the epistemology you repudiate and insist NONE including yourself can do).

If you can prove that every baptism performed by every Apostle was of one who FIRST in chronological time proved they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and prohibited the baptism of any who did not, then you'll have a point. Until then, you are just making noise, doing EXACTLY what you demand cannot be done, and simply evading accountability.


THEN you need to prove it matters; that we can do ONLY what you can prove the Apostles always did and cannot do anything they did not do, and that you NEVER do anything they did not do and ALWAYS do only what they did. Otherwise, you are just either being irrelevant or a hypocrite.



.

 

[atpollard]

By your insistence, we are discussing ONE thing: A dogma invented in the late 16th Century, entirely contradicting the faith, practice and belief of every known Christian before that

You just described the Protestant Reformation.

a dogma (not simply church polity) that it is dogmatically mandated that before the prohibition to baptism is lifted, the recipient must publicly state that FIRST in chronological time, they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. That's the dogma. That's the topic (and you demand we not speak of any other). That's in conformity with the definition you give.

Acts 2:38 ... Peter commanded repentance with baptism.

I'm waiting for some Scripture that states that.

Acts 2:38 ... Peter commanded repentance with baptism.

Or if you have no Scripture, that you provide something else that shows that Christians believed for 1500 years was heretical and wrong and that all baptisms not conforming are invalid, prohibited, forbidden. SOMETHING from Scripture that states such specific to Baptism.....or if you have nothing there, something from History or tradition or some Council or at least a couple of Church Fathers,in fact ANYTHING AT ALL.

Marin Luther taught that even old Church traditions can be wrong and Scripture trumps tradition.
Acts 2:38 ... Peter commanded repentance with baptism.

I'll express what I find frustrating, my esteemed friend (and that's sincere). I honestly feel 90% of what I post to you isn't even read, much less considered. I read all the words of all your posts, but they don't seem to confirm that the Bible (or anything!) states what you do. You occasionally quote Scripture, and I ALWAYS agree with every single word of every single one of them, but ask, "how does this state what he does?" And frankly, I see lots of side trips (some call these diversions or rabbit holes, but I don't think you are intentionally doing that, you just seem to not be focusing on the issue before us). Nonetheless, typically I address them and you never reply.

Mutual frustration acknowledged.

Let me say yet again, still again, one more time. I do NOT accept your Dogma of Credobaptism (all baptisms are invalid, prohibited, forbidden, contrary to Scripture) UNLESS and UNTIL the recipient in chronological time FIRST has documented that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, THEN AFTER THAT in time, by the performance of that deed by the recipient, the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and said application may be baptized because no one has shown that to be true - much less Dogma. They've presented no Scripture that states that.... Nothing from Christian history or tradition or the Rule of Faith, not even one sentence from even one Church Father....the proponents seem to KNOW the dogma is the exact opposite of Christian belief, faith and practice until a certain Anabaptist reversed it and they seem to go to lengths to prove Scripture never teaches it, but never substantiates the teaching as true - much less dogma (defining dogma at that).

SBFM2000

VI. The Church

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Matthew 16:15-19;
Matthew 18:15-20;
Acts 2:41-42,
Acts 2:47;
Acts 5:11-14;
Acts 6:3-6;
Acts 13:1-3;
Acts 14:23,27;
Acts 15:1-30;
Acts 16:5;
Acts 20:28;
Romans 1:7;
1 Corinthians 1:2;
1 Corinthians 3:16;
1 Corinthians 5:4-5;
1 Corinthians 7:17;
1 Corinthians 9:12;
1 Corinthians 9:13-14;
Ephesians 1:22-23;
Ephesians 2:19-22;
Ephesians 3:8-11,
Ephesians 3:21;
Ephesians 5:22-32;
Philippians 1:1;
Colossians 1:18;
1 Timothy 2:9-14;
1 Timothy 3:1-15;
1 Timothy 4:14;
Hebrews 11:39-40;
1 Peter 5:1-4;
Revelation 2-3;
Revelation 21:2-3.

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17;
Matthew 26:26-30;
Matthew 28:19-20;
Mark 1:9-11;
Mark 14:22-26;
Luke 3:21-22;
Luke 22:19-20;
John 3:23;
Acts 2:41-42;
Acts 8:35-39;
Acts 16:30-33;
Acts 20:7;
Romans 6:3-5;
1 Corinthians 10:16,
1 Corinthians 10:21;
1 Corinthians 11:23-29;
Colossians 2:12.

[sorry, I am just too tired to respond to the rest.]

 

[MennoSota]

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





I reject your epistemology that if YOU state something, it's unaccountable and a dogmatic fact. (A Catholic epistemology.... and EXACTLY the epistemology you repudiate and insist NONE including yourself can do).

If you can prove that every baptism performed by every Apostle was of one who FIRST in chronological time proved they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and prohibited the baptism of any who did not, then you'll have a point. Until then, you are just making noise, doing EXACTLY what you demand cannot be done, and simply evading accountability.


THEN you need to prove it matters; that we can do ONLY what you can prove the Apostles always did and cannot do anything they did not do, and that you NEVER do anything they did not do and ALWAYS do only what they did. Otherwise, you are just either being irrelevant or a hypocrite.



.

You reject that the Bible shows the Apostles only baptizing those who confess they are believers? You reject the creed shared by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, which is the reason by which the Apostles baptized people?
Please show us one instance where a person the Apostles baptized did not first believe.
If you can do that, you can also justify baptizing adult non-believers. But...you actually have an "age of X" where you decide you cannot baptize a non-believer.
Somehow you have this strange idea that if you baptize an infant before they can object...then it means you saved them...but if you don't get to them before they object...well then... you're out of luck and they have reached the age of X and you become too chicken to baptize them...cause...

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

If you can prove that every baptism performed by every Apostle was of one who FIRST in chronological time proved they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and prohibited the baptism of any who did not, then you'll have a point. Until then, you are just making noise, doing EXACTLY what you demand cannot be done, and simply evading accountability.

That speaks volumes.
Since every baptism is not even recorded (nor are even SOME of the actions of EVERY Apostle) you have confirmed that you are not here to talk or listen. You are only here to accuse and to shout. The fact that NONE of the baptisms by ANYONE recorded in ANY book of the Bible mention even a single child mean nothing. You demand we prove the impossible and will accept nothing less as evidence.

I am done wasting time with you.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

That speaks volumes.

READ post 55 and 56.


I did NOTHING but hold the poster to the EXACT position he claimed.

You are only here to accuse and to shout. The fact that NONE of the baptisms by ANYONE recorded in ANY book of the Bible mention even a single child mean nothing.

Where did I say it did? I'm abiding by YOUR demand that NO other position can be discussed here but Credobaptism and that ONLY by the narrow and precise defintion YOU gave. And I'm abiding.

Read post 55. Read what it says. Remember your demand of me.


Remember, I'm not claiming that YOUR baptism is invalid or forbidden or prohibited or heretical or contrary to what the Bible states. You are the one with the DOGMA (defining, definitive dogma at that). I'm responding to the claim. And the insistence that we cannot do what is not illustrated as done by the 13 Apostles and must do exactly what those 13 men did. It's not MY claim. It's not MY rubric.




.