The undisclosed age of “X”

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

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.

Just a few small points of disagreement with your exact wording, if I may be a bit pedantic:

"SOME of the examples of baptism" is actually ALL "examples" of Baptism (of which there are VERY few). How many actual Baptisms do you find recorded as opposed to the vast numbers that are simply mentioned by reference or implied. The Ethiopian asks to be baptized and his baptism is recorded, but most are simply referenced as "many in Corinth believed and were baptized" or as "and his household". These general references are not really EXAMPLES of Baptism recorded, they are just references to baptism recorded that tell us no details about the person being baptized.

"that happen to be recorded in the Bible" is a terrible expression. Is anything in the Bible there by random chance. This event "just happened" to be recorded and other events "just happened" to be left out. Was there no real thought behind what was written? Was it just a handful of loose unrelated notes that were thrown together? I think not. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." [2Timothy 3:16-17] All scripture includes the decision on what to include and what to exclude from the Bible.

"but that's not normative." Why is that not normative? Who decides what scripture is normative and what examples are safe to ignore? If you say 1500 years of Church Tradition, then we need to apologize to the Pope and return to the traditions of the RCC.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard -


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.



.

Just a few small points of disagreement with your exact wording, if I may be a bit pedantic: "SOME of the examples of baptism" is actually ALL "examples" of Baptism (of which there are VERY few).

Then show that "ALL" those baptized in the households of 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, please document from the verses that "ALL" of them FIRST had attained the (never disclosed) Age of Accountability and thus the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to document even exists) was lifted. See the whole of the post to which you replied.

Friend, nowhere in the whole of the Bible is the AGE given of ANYONE who recieved a Christian baptism. And only ONCE for someone receiving a Jewish Baptism (Jesus was "about 30"). And does your denomination mandate that all MUST have celebrated their 30th birthday since that's the ONLY age EVER stated in this connection?

"but that's not normative." Why is that not normative?

Let me ask you, if it is, then why are you posting on the internet? Can you give me even one Scripture where that is illustrated as done in the Bible? Why don't you worship on Saturday? Why don't you demand all parents offer up two birds in the Temple 40 days after their first-born child is born? Why do you allow women to recieve communion? Gentiles to serve as pastors and to administer Baptism? Why do you celebrate Communion (rarely!) by passing around trays with little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl of little cup up pieces of Weber's White to men and women, boys and girls? Come on.... I suspect that if I visited your church on a Sunday, I would be HARD PRESSED to find much that is exactly what is illustrated as done in the Bible but would have a long, long, long list of things done never illustrated as done in the Bible. You know this. Come on. IF you actually accepted that we are to do only what is exampled as done in the Bible and not otherwise - IF that were a rubric you yourself accepted and followed, we could discuss it. But since neither of us (in fact, NONE here at CH) accept it as a valid rubric, it seems silly to waste our time. We all agree: examples aren't normative. And we can even post that on the internet!




.

 

[MennoSota]

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.








.

You fail to address the lack of scripture for paedobaptism. Please address this failure.
So far you have provided 3 verses.
On top of this, you have your own "age of X" that you are avoiding.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

Albion, I know well the three measly verses Josiah used as his entire hermaneutic for paedobaptism. I know it provides ZERO evidence of paedobaptism by the Apostles.
You can continue to avoid and run from your failed argument, but don't keep lying and saying you have provided anything beyond three measly verses that don't even support paedobaptism.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

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.



.

So far you have provided 3 verses.

So far, you have ignored these Scriptures 90% of the time (again in the above post) or documented that you claim is not true. You won't show that your foundational claim is true in these Scriptures.


No. Those that reject the Anabaptist invented dogma of Anti-Paedobaptims (NO baptisms permitted for those under the age of X) do not do so only because verses like 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 show the Baptist foundational claim is incorrect, but because these radical synergists never could find ANY Scripture that teaches this limitation and prohibition. Nothing from Scripture. Nothing from anywhere. Yeah, it "jibes" with their radical synergism (which is all they claimed and why they invented it) but it's not taught in Scripture. It's just their invented dogma. To fit with their radical synergism. It's tradition of that one denomination. And you parrot it perfectly. Always showing you have not one verse that teaches it. Just you chant this tradition perfect and show you have not one Scripture that teaches it. All while you DEMAND that all must "scrap" all tradition and ONLY go by what the Bible states. Go figure. ALL, ONLY you do on this is EXACTLY what you insist cannot be done.



MennoSota..... yet again..... your are IMPOSING a disallowed debate technique, to TRY to make others DISPROVE your claim. I've TRIED to remind you of this repeatedly. Friend, if Bob has a position (say, dogmatically) that "There are twelve flying purple people eaters hiding on the planet Mars" You may NOT accept that position (especially to the level claimed) BUT (please think about this, friend) it is NOT, repeat NOT, up to YOU to prove that is WRONG (for example by proving now there are only 11 still livin or that only 8 are actually intentionally hiding), NO, friend, you could simply reject it as Truth simply because Bob hasn't shown it to be true. Because you don't have anything to show YOUR claim is true, you do all you can do when one's hand is empty, try get the other to prove you wrong. It's a debate technique even middle schoolers would be embarrassed to use. But I suspect you just aren't STOPPING and considering, but impulsively responding. IF Bob's position is that we are forbidden to baptize all women over 6 feet tall, it is NOT your job to quote a verse that says, "You are to baptize women who are over six feet tall" It's BOB"S function to show that it's forbidden. I've conveyed this to you many times over many months. You keep falling back into it.



- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]





So far, you have ignored these Scriptures 90% of the time (again in the above post) or documented that you claim is not true. You won't show that your foundational claim is true in these Scriptures.


No. Those that reject the Anabaptist invented dogma of Anti-Paedobaptims (NO baptisms permitted for those under the age of X) do not do so only because verses like 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 show the Baptist foundational claim is incorrect, but because these radical synergists never could find ANY Scripture that teaches this limitation and prohibition. Nothing from Scripture. Nothing from anywhere. Yeah, it "jibes" with their radical synergism (which is all they claimed and why they invented it) but it's not taught in Scripture. It's just their invented dogma. To fit with their radical synergism. It's tradition of that one denomination. And you parrot it perfectly. Always showing you have not one verse that teaches it. Just you chant this tradition perfect and show you have not one Scripture that teaches it. All while you DEMAND that all must "scrap" all tradition and ONLY go by what the Bible states. Go figure. ALL, ONLY you do on this is EXACTLY what you insist cannot be done.



MennoSota..... yet again..... your are IMPOSING a disallowed debate technique, to TRY to make others DISPROVE your claim. I've TRIED to remind you of this repeatedly. Friend, if Bob has a position (say, dogmatically) that "There are twelve flying purple people eaters hiding on the planet Mars" You may NOT accept that position (especially to the level claimed) BUT (please think about this, friend) it is NOT, repeat NOT, up to YOU to prove that is WRONG (for example by proving now there are only 11 still livin or that only 8 are actually intentionally hiding), NO, friend, you could simply reject it as Truth simply because Bob hasn't shown it to be true. Because you don't have anything to show YOUR claim is true, you do all you can do when one's hand is empty, try get the other to prove you wrong. It's a debate technique even middle schoolers would be embarrassed to use. But I suspect you just aren't STOPPING and considering, but impulsively responding. IF Bob's position is that we are forbidden to baptize all women over 6 feet tall, it is NOT your job to quote a verse that says, "You are to baptize women who are over six feet tall" It's BOB"S function to show that it's forbidden. I've conveyed this to you many times over many months. You keep falling back into it.



- Josiah



.

Josiah, I explicitly addressed your three verses that do nothing to support paedobaptism.
Second, monergism fits perfectly into credobaptism. I do not follow why you are attempting an argument about synergism, especially when Lutherans are synergists like Catholics, EOCs and Episcopalians. This is especially true in paedobaptism where people argue that infant baptism is needed for salvation.
So, once again you refuse to recognize the utter failure of your argument and attempt foolish diversions. As long as you attempt your foolishness, I will keep pointing out your failure to address scripture.

 

[atpollard]

Then show that "ALL" those baptized in the households of 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, please document from the verses that "ALL" of them FIRST had attained the (never disclosed) Age of Accountability and thus the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to document even exists) was lifted. See the whole of the post to which you replied.

Friend, nowhere in the whole of the Bible is the AGE given of ANYONE who received a Christian baptism. And only ONCE for someone receiving a Jewish Baptism (Jesus was "about 30"). And does your denomination mandate that all MUST have celebrated their 30th birthday since that's the ONLY age EVER stated in this connection?

Could you define the word EXAMPLE, because we must have VERY different definitions?

Here is an EXAMPLE of a baptism:

"35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. 36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] 38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing." [Act 8:35-39 NASB]​

Note that the example tells who was baptized and records the actual baptism as an event.

Here is a REFERENCE to a baptism:

"12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike." [Act 8:12 NASB]​

There are no specific individuals spoken of or details to make it an EXAMPLE, it is a simple reference to the fact that "they" (a group of men and women of unknown size) were being baptized (whenever, wherever and however it was being done).

There are also verses that contain both an EXAMPLE and a REFERENCE in the same verse:

"8 Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized." [Act 18:8 NASB]​

Crispus is mentioned by name and his baptism is implied by the context, so that could be viewed as an EXAMPLE that is light on detail. Crispus' household would either be an EXAMPLE with almost no detail, or more likely a simple REFERENCE to some baptism (unidentified number of people at an unidentified time and location). The "Many of the Corinthians" is clearly just a REFERENCE to baptisms with no details provided.

I was not claiming any of the things in my post that you have demanded I respond to. I simply point out that all of the tiny handful of baptism that the Bible gives us actual detailed EXAMPLES of (rather than just general REFERENCES to) happen to involve adults. You said "some examples" when it is "all examples" and "some references".

Let me ask you, if it is, then why are you posting on the internet? Can you give me even one Scripture where that is illustrated as done in the Bible? Why don't you worship on Saturday? Why don't you demand all parents offer up two birds in the Temple 40 days after their first-born child is born? Why do you allow women to recieve communion? Gentiles to serve as pastors and to administer Baptism? Why do you celebrate Communion (rarely!) by passing around trays with little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice and a bowl of little cup up pieces of Weber's White to men and women, boys and girls? Come on.... I suspect that if I visited your church on a Sunday, I would be HARD PRESSED to find much that is exactly what is illustrated as done in the Bible but would have a long, long, long list of things done never illustrated as done in the Bible. You know this. Come on. IF you actually accepted that we are to do only what is exampled as done in the Bible and not otherwise - IF that were a rubric you yourself accepted and followed, we could discuss it. But since neither of us (in fact, NONE here at CH) accept it as a valid rubric, it seems silly to waste our time. We all agree: examples aren't normative. And we can even post that on the internet!

"NOT posting on the Internet" is not a Church Sacrament. Baptism is usually considered a Church Sacrament. I look to Scripture for the "normative" examples of those things that are done as Sacraments or in obedience to direct commands from Jesus. For things not covered in scripture, like driving a car, I use my best judgement.

Of course, that does not answer my question about how we can tell the difference between "normative" scripture and "non-normative" scripture. I was under the impression that all scripture was normative and need correcting.

Then show that "ALL" those baptized in the households of 1 Corinthians 1:16 and Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33, please document from the verses that "ALL" of them FIRST had attained the (never disclosed) Age of Accountability

Do I need to show it to be "absolutely certain", or will evidence that it is "more likely than not" be sufficient. The closer I look at those households in the Bible, the weaker the case for the Apostles baptizing infants in that household becomes.
[And I still don't think there is any age restriction ... anyone that can believe and confess can be righteous and saved and deserves to be baptized.]

 

[Albion]

Albion, I know well the three measly verses Josiah used as his entire hermaneutic for paedobaptism. I know it provides ZERO evidence of paedobaptism by the Apostles.

Well, I offered to discuss if you were willing. Since you are not, there is not much more I can do.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, I offered to discuss if you were willing. Since you are not, there is not much more I can do.

Albion, that's false.
You have not provided any scripture to support paedobaptism. It would help if you stopped being untruthful.
You have not explained why you have an "age of X" in paedobaptism.

 

[Josiah]

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.


.

Josiah, I explicitly addressed your three verses

Yes, you showed that they do not support your claim. It took months before you stopped pretending you couldn't see the references, but you FINALLY noted they don't indicate that everyone baptized in those households FIRST attained the mandated min. age of accountability.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, you showed that they do not support your claim. It took months before you stopped pretending you couldn't see the references, but you FINALLY noted they don't indicate that everyone baptized in those households FIRST attained the mandated min. age of accountability.

Again, why do YOU have an age of X since you openly baptize atheists as infants, but refuse to do so at a certain age of X?

 

[Albion]

Yes, you showed that they do not support your claim. It took months before you stopped pretending you couldn't see the references, but you FINALLY noted they don't indicate that everyone baptized in those households FIRST attained the mandated min. age of accountability.

That's true. The only way to discount these verses is to say that something that would be theoretically possible but extremely unlikely is what happened. That is Menno's approach--dogmatize on the basis of a one in a thousand chance.

That is what claiming that there absolutely were no youngsters in the households mentioned, even without any evidence to that effect, amounts to.

 

[Josiah]

Baptism is usually considered a Church Sacrament. I look to Scripture for the "normative" examples of those things that are done as Sacraments or in obedience to direct commands from Jesus. For things not covered in scripture, like driving a car, I use my best judgement.

Hum. You seemed to be reversing yourself on the normative principle of: We can only do what is illustrated in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." And so I decided to not discuss a rubric you seemed to have decided to abandon. Now it seems back.

I'm confused as to your Sacrament vs. Non-Sacrament distinction, especially since Baptists don't have any Sacraments at all. So are you trying to say that what can be proven was done ONLY applies to what you regard as a "Sacrament" and not otherwise? Where does the Bible list these "Sacraments?" Calvin spoke of 2, which he referred to as "SACRED ACTS OF GOD" Something GOD wholly does (even if a baby sleeps through the whole thing).

But CLEARLY you employ this rubric NO WHERE ELSE. And I don't think you use it in Baptism or Communion, either. BAPTISM: Where does the Bible illustrate Gentiles administering baptism? Where does the Bible illustrate dunking people in a spa hidden behind a curtain at the front of a church? Where does it illustrate people of oriental or negroid races being baptized? Are you DOING exactly what is illustrated as done in the Bible and forbidding what you don't see illustrated in the Bible? Or let's take COMMUNION: Where do you see a Gentile administering it? Where do you see it given to women or children? Can you give the Scripture that shows - even once - it being given by passing around a tray of little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squirted in there and a bowl with a bunch of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread in there? Do you DO exactly what is illustrated as DONE in the Bible and forbid (and repudiate) anything that is NOT illustrated as done in the Bible there, either? And then we could discuss other ministry: Women pastors, pastors who are not at least 50% Hebrews by race, youth pastors... shall I go on and on or, friend, do you get my point? See.... if YOU accepted your rubric, I'd be more apt to at least follow your line of thought. But you don't. Which is why it seemed to me you abandoned the entire argument.

And I guess I need to venture into the dogma vs. polity point because you raised it a couple of times. Sincerely, I think it is a diversion (although you may not so intend). My congregation confirms children at the age of 13-14 or so (end of the 8th grade). We think that practice BEST. It is our polity. BUT if a neighboring church does it at 18 or 10, we don't dogmatically declare that such is unbiblical, invalid, prohibited, disallowed. We just have different polities. And yes, in Communion, we have a POLITY that people are to examine ourselves before participating and that we are to recognize the Body of the Lord here, but those specifically, verbatim stated in the words of Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:28-29) AND they have 2000 years of universal faith and practice behind them. But it's not dogma. When Arsenios and I posted about the EOC custom of giving Communion to babies, I specifically stated that I could not and would not declare that forbidden or invalid, but that it is not our polity. Friend, the whole point of the 3 main Baptism Dogmas you are promoting is to repudiate and forbid and declare invalid the baptisms of everyone who lived before that Anabaptist invented those restrictions and limitations; the point was to declare that Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans and Calvinists and Anglicans have forbidden, invalid baptisms; they did what is prohibited. I realize (and appreciate) you are more evangelical on this than is typical (see MennoSota's posts) but it is still your position, I think, that MY baptism was in violation of Scripture (um, part of the definition of "heresy") and invalid and wrong (MennoSota says much more than that). As I wrote you a few times now, IF you had stated, "I see a GENERAL pattern in Scripture typically followed.... and this makes sense to me and has become the polity of my particular denomination) then we likely would have had a discussion of not more than 3 posts (I even would have jumped on a bit with the "Immersion" polity with quotes from Luther). But these are DOGMAS. In fact, THE dogmas that unite a whole faith community generally known as 'baptist' ( a Protestant community that has virtually nothing ELSE in common); not ONLY Dogmas but the DISTINCTIVE, DEFINING ones. Come on..... we're NOT simply talking about polity - as if discussing if our Sunday worship will be at 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning. Please.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Hum. You seemed to be reversing yourself on the normative principle of: We can only do what is illustrated in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." And so I decided to not discuss a rubric you seemed to have decided to abandon. Now it seems back.

I'm confused as to your Sacrament vs. Non-Sacrament distinction, especially since Baptists don't have any Sacraments at all. So are you trying to say that what can be proven was done ONLY applies to what you regard as a "Sacrament" and not otherwise? Where does the Bible list these "Sacraments?" Calvin spoke of 2, which he referred to as "SACRED ACTS OF GOD" Something GOD wholly does (even if a baby sleeps through the whole thing).

But CLEARLY you employ this rubric NO WHERE ELSE. And I don't think you use it in Baptism or Communion, either. BAPTISM: Where does the Bible illustrate Gentiles administering baptism? Where does the Bible illustrate dunking people in a spa hidden behind a curtain at the front of a church? Where does it illustrate people of oriental or negroid races being baptized? Are you DOING exactly what is illustrated as done in the Bible and forbidding what you don't see illustrated in the Bible? Or let's take COMMUNION: Where do you see a Gentile administering it? Where do you see it given to women or children? Can you give the Scripture that shows - even once - it being given by passing around a tray of little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squirted in there and a bowl with a bunch of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread in there? Do you DO exactly what is illustrated as DONE in the Bible and forbid (and repudiate) anything that is NOT illustrated as done in the Bible there, either? And then we could discuss other ministry: Women pastors, pastors who are not at least 50% Hebrews by race, youth pastors... shall I go on and on or, friend, do you get my point? See.... if YOU accepted your rubric, I'd be more apt to at least follow your line of thought. But you don't. Which is why it seemed to me you abandoned the entire argument.

And I guess I need to venture into the dogma vs. polity point because you raised it a couple of times. Sincerely, I think it is a diversion (although you may not so intend). My congregation confirms children at the age of 13-14 or so (end of the 8th grade). We think that practice BEST. It is our polity. BUT if a neighboring church does it at 18 or 10, we don't dogmatically declare that such is unbiblical, invalid, prohibited, disallowed. We just have different polities. And yes, in Communion, we have a POLITY that people are to examine ourselves before participating and that we are to recognize the Body of the Lord here, but those specifically, verbatim stated in the words of Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:28-29) AND they have 2000 years of universal faith and practice behind them. But it's not dogma. When Arsenios and I posted about the EOC custom of giving Communion to babies, I specifically stated that I could not and would not declare that forbidden or invalid, but that it is not our polity. Friend, the whole point of the 3 main Baptism Dogmas you are promoting is to repudiate and forbid and declare invalid the baptisms of everyone who lived before that Anabaptist invented those restrictions and limitations; the point was to declare that Catholics and Orthodox and Lutherans and Calvinists and Anglicans have forbidden, invalid baptisms; they did what is prohibited. I realize (and appreciate) you are more evangelical on this than is typical (see MennoSota's posts) but it is still your position, I think, that MY baptism was in violation of Scripture (um, part of the definition of "heresy") and invalid and wrong (MennoSota says much more than that). As I wrote you a few times now, IF you had stated, "I see a GENERAL pattern in Scripture typically followed.... and this makes sense to me and has become the polity of my particular denomination) then we likely would have had a discussion of not more than 3 posts (I even would have jumped on a bit with the "Immersion" polity with quotes from Luther). But these are DOGMAS. In fact, THE dogmas that unite a whole faith community generally known as 'baptist' ( a Protestant community that has virtually nothing ELSE in common); not ONLY Dogmas but the DISTINCTIVE, DEFINING ones. Come on..... we're NOT simply talking about polity - as if discussing if our Sunday worship will be at 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning. Please.





.

Ordinance is a more correct word and Baptist recognize communion and baptism as God's ordinance, just as Israel recognized the symbolic remembrance of Passover as an ordinance of God.
Josiah, it is humorous to watch you dance.

 

[atpollard]

Hum. You seemed to be reversing yourself on the normative principle of: We can only do what is illustrated in the Bible and cannot do otherwise." And so I decided to not discuss a rubric you seemed to have decided to abandon. Now it seems back.

Before we continue, you might as well show me where I have reversed myself so we can resolve first things first.

I get lost in these long posts, so let’s try asking and answering one thing at a time to keep it brief.

 

[atpollard]

That is what claiming that there absolutely were no youngsters in the households mentioned, even without any evidence to that effect, amounts to.

What does it “amount to” when one claims there were youngsters in the households mentioned, even without any evidence to that effect?

Oh that’s right, you can baptize people that have not repented even though Peter commanded everyone to “repent and be baptized” ... but Peter didn’t really understand that doesn’t apply to children under the undisclosed age of “X” like Padepbaptists and Judaisers do.

 

[Josiah]

What does it “amount to” when one claims there were youngsters in the households mentioned, even without any evidence to that effect?

What does it "amount to" when one claims that every one in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 MUST have been over the age of X because some Anabaptist 1500 years later CLAIMED that's a dogmatic mandate and thus the Apostles obeyed him?

What does it "amount to" when the claim - chanted over and over and over, like a broken record, as a constant mantra, as THE defining premise - that "every baptism in the Bible was one one over the age of X" and then they REFUSE to show that's even true... and then state it doesn't even matter?




.

 

[MennoSota]

What does it "amount to" when one claims that every one in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 MUST have been over the age of X because some Anabaptists 1500 years later CLAIMED that's a dogmatic mandate?

What does it "amount to" when the claim - chanted over and over and over, like a broken record, as a constant mantra, as THE defining premise - that "every baptism in the Bible was one one over the age of X" and then they REFUSE to show that's even true... and then state it doesn't even matter?




.

That's not the claim.
The claim is that everyone who is baptized confesses their faith.
Now, show me how those atheist babies confess their faith, Josiah.
If you cannot then you also have an "age of X" where you refuse to baptize non-confessing people because you refuse to baptize non-confessing adults, yet you choose to baptize non-confessing infants. You have an age of X, Josiah.

 

[atpollard]

What does it "amount to" when one claims that every one in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 MUST have been over the age of X because some Anabaptist 1500 years later CLAIMED that's a dogmatic mandate and thus the Apostles obeyed him?

I already told you that I CAN demonstrate from scripture that the three households mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 were “very likely” comprised of members that were old enough to believe (over the age of X) and I even offered to do so. However YOU ignored my offer, so I didn’t bother to present the scriptural proof.

It was your “yes man” that likes to post snark but never really has anything to say that the comment was addressed to. You are tedious, but at least you post actual, annoying comments rather than 100% snark.

 

[atpollard]

What does it "amount to" when the claim - chanted over and over and over, like a broken record, as a constant mantra, as THE defining premise - that "every baptism in the Bible was one one over the age of X" and then they REFUSE to show that's even true... and then state it doesn't even matter?

So why is it you can baptize people that have not repented even though Peter commanded everyone to “repent and be baptized” ... did Peter not really understand that doesn’t apply to children under the undisclosed age of “X” like Padepbaptists do?