The undisclosed age of “X”

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
You missed this ...

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.

I am still waiting for a response.

 

[Josiah]

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.

I'm not sure "very likely" is dogmatic proof. And again, the claim is: "Every one baptized in the Bible FIRST in chronological time publicly documented that FIRST they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and THEN after that in time, after that was accomplished by the applicant, THEN the prohibition to baptism was removed and they were baptized." If you can document the claim as true.... something every Christian for 1500 years totally missed ... go for it. That you find it "likely" ...is that basis for DOGMA (especially for defining, definitive dogma), for insisting MY baptism is invalid, heretical, specifically forbidden in Scripture, prohibited in Scripture? That EVERY Christian on the planet in EVERY denomiantion when that Anabaptist first invented this new dogma was dogmatically wrong, heretical?

But then we have the second part: that it dogmatically proves something, that (even with what YOU regard as "Sacraments") we cannot do as not done in the Bible and MUST do exactly what is... if you can show you yourself accept this, then we would make progress.

I have been waiting for.


"Tedious." Well, sometimes such discussions can't be reduced to slogans and two second sound bites. I realize many don't have an attention span longer than that, but sometimes that's required. I HAVE felt that you have not considered what I've taken the time and energy to-post. In fact, before you proceed, I'm REALLY appreciate if you reviewed the thread. I've tried to abide by your demands and to keep things focused and clean as you request/demand. But it SEEMS TO ME you keep saying "I'm going to ignore that" or that's what you do. If we are going to avoid rehashing, what has been said needs to be all taken in ("tedious" or not). A LOT of the same points are in the Anti-Paedobaptism thread, too (two different dogmas discussed separately because you have demanded it - but the same points on both "sides").



.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[atpollard]

And again, the claim is: "Every one baptized in the Bible FIRST in chronological time publicly documented that FIRST they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and THEN after that in time, after that was accomplished by the applicant, THEN the prohibition to baptism was removed and they were baptized."

That is your claim. It has NEVER been mine, but you refuse to listen.
Acts 2:38
FINIS.

:hand:

 

[Josiah]

That is your claim.

No. It is a verbatim quote of the apologetic MennoSota has offered. It is the basis for this dogma, but if you have avoided it, good for you.

Acts 2:38

Yup. No mention of a mandated min. age requirement for baptism (the sole issue you permit to be discussed in this thread), nothing about "FIRST in chronological time, one must prove they have attained the age of accountability then AFTER THAT has been proven, then the prohibition to baptize (which you have yet to show even exists!) is lifted and such one may be baptized."

So far, every verse you have quoted I have agreed with. Every single word of it. I'm just curious to see the one that says there is a dogmatic mandate for a certain chronological age to first be attainded/proven before some ban is lifted. If you don't have a verse (or anything from history or tradition or the Fathers or a Council or anything) - then you don't. If you reject this dogma (which you FINALLY admitted DOES exist), then state your rejection (and if you post, post in disagreement with MennoSota)

It's Baptists with the Dogma declaring MY baptism as a child to be heretical, invalid, forbidden, prohibited, a direct violation of what the words of Scripture violate. That's the Dogma here. I'm not saying that to you. Keep that ever in mind. But if you repudiate this Baptist dogma, then why are you arguing against me rather than MennoSota?



.

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
You missed this ...

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 am still waiting for a response.

 

[Josiah]

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?

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 You are presenting DOGMA, not simply church polity.

Show me where I reversed myself

I emboldened the point you are referencing....


As I stated, it seemed to me that you had abandon the apologetic that we can do only what is illustrated in the Bible and cannot do otherwise, and therefore I accepted that change and so stopped applying it to you. But then it seemed you changed that (or perhaps never did abandon that) so we're back to that.


You indicated some distinction: In baptist theology, this rubric only applies to the Sacraments (odd since Baptists generally don't have Sacraments) but anyway, that was curious. But I asked you to show support for that strong distinction.... and I noted that it sure seems you don't believe or accept or follow that yourself, nothing how typical Baptist praxis on two of the Baptist Ordinances displays doing ONLY what is illustrated in the Bible and NEVER what is not. My point: Silly to INSIST on a rubric you yourself don't believe or accept or follow.


Yup, we have those two points. This Dogma: that there is a min. mandated stated AGE which must be attained before the prohibition to baptize is lifted, where is that taught in Scripture? And the claim, namely,"Every baptism ever done in the Bible was to those over that mandated min. age" where is the proof of that? And that all under that age were forbidden? And the rubric: That matters because we are forbidden to do anything that is not illustrated as done in Bible and are required to do exactly what is illustrated in the Bible," where is that taught? And does the Baptist even agree with their OWN apologetic point, their OWN rule? Do Baptists (or even your congregation) ONLY do what is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible and forbid anything that is no so illustated?







.

 

[atpollard]

I emboldened the point you are referencing....


As I stated, it seemed to me that you had abandon the apologetic that we can do only what is illustrated in the Bible and cannot do otherwise, and therefore I accepted that change and so stopped applying it to you. But then it seemed you changed that (or perhaps never did abandon that) so we're back to that.


You indicated some distinction: In baptist theology, this rubric only applies to the Sacraments (odd since Baptists generally don't have Sacraments) but anyway, that was curious. But I asked you to show support for that strong distinction.... and I noted that it sure seems you don't believe or accept or follow that yourself, nothing how typical Baptist praxis on two of the Baptist Ordinances displays doing ONLY what is illustrated in the Bible and NEVER what is not. My point: Silly to INSIST on a rubric you yourself don't believe or accept or follow.


Yup, we have those two points. This Dogma: that there is a min. mandated stated AGE which must be attained before the prohibition to baptize is lifted, where is that taught in Scripture? And the claim, namely,"Every baptism ever done in the Bible was to those over that mandated min. age" where is the proof of that? And that all under that age were forbidden? And the rubric: That matters because we are forbidden to do anything that is not illustrated as done in Bible and are required to do exactly what is illustrated in the Bible," where is that taught? And does the Baptist even agree with their OWN apologetic point, their OWN rule? Do Baptists (or even your congregation) ONLY do what is clearly illustrated as done in the Bible and forbid anything that is no so illustated?
.

Actually, this question was asked, answered and ignored already, so there is no need to repeat the answer.
I will make a correction: I misspoke with Sacraments and meant Ordinances. However, the terminology of “Sacrament” vs “Ordinance” changes nothing in the explanation that I made and you have ignored to harp on the term Sacrament instead.

There is a difference between following Biblical examples of things commanded in scripture (like the Eucharist) and doing things that scripture never addresses (like driving a car).

One could pass around slices of pizza and wash it down with a cold bottle of beer for the body and blood of Christ since that is not FORBIDDEN. So why don’t churches do that?

 

[Josiah]

There is a difference between following Biblical examples of things commanded in scripture (like the Eucharist) and doing things that scripture never addresses (like driving a car).

Alright, so your rublic (as dogma) that the Bible says we MUST do thing just as they were done in the Bible and we are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than the way it's done in the Bible applies to just TWO things, the TWO things you label as "Ordinances." Doesnt apply to anything else or any other action or ministry. Okay. I have a LOT of questions about that, but let's move on...

Do you do that? Even exclusively in the exactly TWO things you label "Ordinances?" Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? In Baptism and in Communion, does your church do everything just like it is done in the Bible and forbid doing anything that is not how it was done din the Bible?

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? Does your church forbid baptismal tanks? Gentile administrators? Asians or Negroids? And since we're told the age of only one person who was Baptized (and that not a Christian one) and that was "about 30" does your church forbid and declare heretical and forbidden any baptism under "about 30?" Do you do exactly as was done in the Bible and forbid what was not? Dogmatically? EVEN in one of the 'two" things you label "ordinances?"

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 (RARELY) 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?

Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? Even for the "two" things you number as exactly "ordinances?" IF you do - you at least accept and follow your mandate at least for those two things (if nothing else). Otherwise....



The sole issue in this thread is the dogma (you originally denied exists and then admitted does) that those under the age of X are forbidden to be baptized, any such baptism is invalid and wrong. We're waiting for the evidence that this is true to the level claimed (dogma).



.

 

[atpollard]

Alright, so your rublic (as dogma) that the Bible says we MUST do thing just as they were done in the Bible and we are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than the way it's done in the Bible applies to just TWO things, the TWO things you label as "Ordinances." Doesnt apply to anything else or any other action or ministry. Okay. I have a LOT of questions about that, but let's move on...

Do you do that? Even exclusively in the exactly TWO things you label "Ordinances?" Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? In Baptism and in Communion, does your church do everything just like it is done in the Bible and forbid doing anything that is not how it was done din the Bible?

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? Does your church forbid baptismal tanks? Gentile administrators? Asians or Negroids? And since we're told the age of only one person who was Baptized (and that not a Christian one) and that was "about 30" does your church forbid and declare heretical and forbidden any baptism under "about 30?" Do you do exactly as was done in the Bible and forbid what was not? Dogmatically? EVEN in one of the 'two" things you label "ordinances?"

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 (RARELY) 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?

Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? Even for the "two" things you number as exactly "ordinances?" IF you do - you at least accept and follow your mandate at least for those two things (if nothing else). Otherwise....

The sole issue in this thread is the dogma (you originally denied exists and then admitted does) that those under the age of X are forbidden to be baptized, any such baptism is invalid and wrong. We're waiting for the evidence that this is true to the level claimed (dogma).
.

There are no Gentiles in the Church. IN CHRIST we are all Children of Abraham through faith and the True Israel through our connection to the Vine.

We do not invite Wiccans to come and administer Communion.

Why do churches not use slices of Pizza and bottles of beer for communion, since it is not forbidden?

 

[Josiah]

Alright, so your rublic (as dogma) that the Bible says we MUST do thing just as they were done in the Bible and we are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than the way it's done in the Bible applies to just TWO things, the TWO things you label as "Ordinances." Doesnt apply to anything else or any other action or ministry. Okay. I have a LOT of questions about that, but let's move on...

Do you do that? Even exclusively in the exactly TWO things you label "Ordinances?" Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? In Baptism and in Communion, does your church do everything just like it is done in the Bible and forbid doing anything that is not how it was done din the Bible?

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? Does your church forbid baptismal tanks? Gentile administrators? Asians or Negroids? And since we're told the age of only one person who was Baptized (and that not a Christian one) and that was "about 30" does your church forbid and declare heretical and forbidden any baptism under "about 30?" Do you do exactly as was done in the Bible and forbid what was not? Dogmatically? EVEN in one of the 'two" things you label "ordinances?"

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 (RARELY) 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?

Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? Even for the "two" things you number as exactly "ordinances?" IF you do - you at least accept and follow your mandate at least for those two things (if nothing else). Otherwise....



The sole issue in this thread is the dogma (you originally denied exists and then admitted does) that those under the age of X are forbidden to be baptized, any such baptism is invalid and wrong. We're waiting for the evidence that this is true to the level claimed (dogma).



.

You haven't shown that your church ONLY does just as was done in the Bible and NEVER does what was not done in the Bible.

Even for just the "two" things you choose to label as "Ordinances."

If you don't accept and follow your own foundational point, EVEN in these very limited cases, why should anyone believe you that we all must do it?

 

[atpollard]

You haven't shown that your church ONLY does just as was done in the Bible and NEVER does what was not done in the Bible.

Even for just the "two" things you choose to label as "Ordinances."

If you don't accept and follow your own foundational point, EVEN in these very limited cases, why should anyone believe you that we all must do it?

You should follow the teaching of Peter in Acts 2:38 and Repent AND be baptized, not just be baptized with no repentance.
Or you can follow the example of all of the saints in the book of Acts who BELIEVED AND WERE BAPTIZED rather than just getting Baptized without worrying about belief.

But if you ignore God’s word, why the heck would you listen to me?

 

[atpollard]

Alright, so your rublic (as dogma) that the Bible says we MUST do thing just as they were done in the Bible and we are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than the way it's done in the Bible applies to just TWO things, the TWO things you label as "Ordinances." Doesnt apply to anything else or any other action or ministry. Okay. I have a LOT of questions about that, but let's move on...

Not my rubric.

Do you do that? Even exclusively in the exactly TWO things you label "Ordinances?" Do you accept your own dogmatic mandate? In Baptism and in Communion, does your church do everything just like it is done in the Bible and forbid doing anything that is not how it was done din the Bible?

No, because it is not my rubric.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]

Not my rubric. No, because it is not my rubric.

Good. So now you are back to that. So, let's not speak again of what you feel was or was not done in the Bible. Okay. You don't accept that normative, it's not your rubric. I'm sure MennoSota won't yield that but now you have.


Okay, "done and not done" is off the table. We're back to what the Bible states and doesn't state. So, where is the verse that states your dogma, that is it mandated that in chronological time, FIRST one MUST achieve the minimum age of X then AFTER THAT has been attained, the prohibition to baptize is lifted and THEN that one may be baptized. Where is that verse? That's the issue of the dogma, that's the issue of this thread.

Does your rejection of the "done/not done" apologetic also apply to Credobaptism or just Anti-Paedobaptism (the issue here)?

You should follow the teaching of Peter in Acts 2:38 and Repent AND be baptized, not just be baptized with no repentance.

Wrong thread. You won't allow the discussion of Credobaptism here or mixed with Anti-Paedobaptism.


We've both agreed with word is "and" and not "after that." We've agreed that the word does not mean (much less dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence. And I agreed (so very many times! How many times must I agree?) that MANY things are associated in soteriology, "and" is VERY appropriate in LOTS of things. But "and" isn't the issue, is it? AFTER THAT is the issue. The sole and only issue. The DOGMA.


I never remotely stated that there cannot be repentance if there is baptism. It's YOU who said that if one is baptized prior to giving public proof that they have chosen Jesus, this "CAUSES" them to never repent. YOUR point, not mine.


I simply said this verse says "AND" and not "AFTER THAT." You agreed. The "AFTER THAT" is the entirely of the dogma of Credobaptism, and you agreed this verse doesn't say 'after that' (which is obvious and undeniable). I'm not separating anything from anything, nor is that an issue. The issue is this: Does the Bible state that FIRST in chronological time one must previously give adequate public evidence that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior before the prohibition of baptism is lifted and after that the person may be baptized - all other cases are invalid, heretical, prohibited and wrong." The issue is the dogma. THAT"S the issue in the other thread, the issue you won't allow to be discussed in this thread.




.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[atpollard]

Good. So now you are back to that. So, let's not speak again of what you feel was or was not done in the Bible. Okay. You don't accept that normative, it's not your rubric. I'm sure MennoSota won't yield that but now you have.

Sorry, no. I just do not agree to your redefining my rubric into something that I have not claimed.

the Bible says we MUST do thing just as they were done in the Bible and we are FORBIDDEN to do anything other than the way it's done in the Bible

... is not what I claim or believe.

So, where is the verse that states your dogma, that is it mandated that in chronological time, FIRST one MUST achieve the minimum age of X then AFTER THAT has been attained, the prohibition to baptize is lifted and THEN that one may be baptized. Where is that verse? That's the issue of the dogma, that's the issue of this thread.

Acts 2:38

 

[Josiah]

Sorry, no. I just do not agree to your redefining my rubric into something that I have not claimed.

You verbatim stated (twice) "that's not my rubric" Now you want it back. Okay. I keep adjusting to the ever-changing playing field (but it's hard to keep up, lol). Fine.

Okay, prove that every baptism done in the Bible was to one who had FIRST celebrated his or her's Xth Birthday. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33. Then show us that your point matters by showing that your church does NOTHING WHATSOEVER that isn't done in exactly the same way in the Bible and does EVERTHING exactly how it was done in the Bible - or your whole point is irrelevant; you don't believe or follow your own point.

Acts 2:38

Nothing about anyone having attained the age of X. Remember, this thread is about one and only one issue: One MUST attain a certain AGE, there is an AGE requirement. And remember, you will ONLY permit us to discuss Anti-Paedobaptism (MINIMUM AGE MANDATE) here and ONLY discuss Credobaptism (MUST VERBALLY AND PUBLICLY PROVE FIRST CHOSE JESUS AS SAVIOR in that thread.

And remember: you agreed that "and" doesn't mandate chronological sequence (as any Greek dictionary and grammar books will confirm). There are koine Greek word for "after that" and "then" but none of those appear in any verse taht also contains the word "baptism." This thread is about a MINIMUM required AGE, a specific and dogmatic AGE prereequisite. IF you want to argue that God cannot give faith to those under that specific AGE, that's kind of a different issue (and an odd one for a monergist to make, and for a Calvinist who believes in Irresistable Grace to make) - irrelevant and by you disallowed here.



.

 

[atpollard]

your church does NOTHING WHATSOEVER that isn't done in exactly the same way in the Bible and does EVERTHING exactly how it was done in the Bible

Not my rubric. I never claimed this. YOU keep claiming this about me.

Since you REJECT "my (alleged) Rubric", why do Lutherans do NOTHING WHATSOEVER the way it was done in the Bible and do EVERYTHING different from how it was done in the Bible?

 

[atpollard]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

Nothing about anyone having attained the age of X. Remember, this thread is about one and only one issue: One MUST attain a certain AGE, there is an AGE requirement.

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter's command applies to "every one of you", which is later clarified to mean the people hearing Peter, the children of the people hearing Peter and all who are far off. (Our babies are part of "all who are far off".)
Peter identifies the purpose of his command as "the forgiveness of your sins". (This includes the forgiveness of the sins of 'all who are far off' which includes our babies.)
Peter identifies the result of obeying this command as "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". (This includes the gift of the Holy Spirit to 'all who are far off' which includes our babies.)
Peter describes this command as "Repent and be baptized".
It makes no sense to baptize for the forgiveness of sins when the person has not repented. This runs contrary to every typology given in the OT and the call of John the Baptist and the earthly ministry of Jesus.
It is inconceivable that one could receive the Holy Spirit, identified elsewhere as the Seal and Deposit which guarantees the inheritance of those who are God's possession, to the unsaved.
Romans 10 is clear that one must both confess and believe to be saved.
Therefore, the only thing that allows all scripture to remain in harmony is for Repentance to come before baptism so the forgiveness of sins will meet the conditions established by OT typology and the NT examples of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Then the baptism can result in the gift of the Holy Spirit just as Romans 10 claims it should.

The "undisclosed age of X" is the age at which the person baptized can obey the commands of Peter and Paul and Jesus ... believe that Jesus rose from the grave, confess Jesus as Lord, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Attempting baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the holy spirit without belief and confession and repentance will violate either Acts 2 or Romans 10. Violating scripture is what makes it "forbidden", not the Anabaptist dogma or the Southern Baptist dogma or the Mennonite dogma.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]


Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Peter's command applies to "every one of you", which is later clarified to mean the people hearing Peter, the children of the people hearing Peter and all who are far off. (Our babies are part of "all who are far off".)
Peter identifies the purpose of his command as "the forgiveness of your sins". (This includes the forgiveness of the sins of 'all who are far off' which includes our babies.)
Peter identifies the result of obeying this command as "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". (This includes the gift of the Holy Spirit to 'all who are far off' which includes our babies.)
Peter describes this command as "Repent and be baptized".
It makes no sense to baptize for the forgiveness of sins when the person has not repented. This runs contrary to every typology given in the OT and the call of John the Baptist and the earthly ministry of Jesus.
It is inconceivable that one could receive the Holy Spirit, identified elsewhere as the Seal and Deposit which guarantees the inheritance of those who are God's possession, to the unsaved.
Romans 10 is clear that one must both confess and believe to be saved.
Therefore, the only thing that allows all scripture to remain in harmony is for Repentance to come before baptism so the forgiveness of sins will meet the conditions established by OT typology and the NT examples of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Then the baptism can result in the gift of the Holy Spirit just as Romans 10 claims it should.

The "undisclosed age of X" is the age at which the person baptized can obey the commands of Peter and Paul and Jesus ... believe that Jesus rose from the grave, confess Jesus as Lord, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Attempting baptism for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the holy spirit without belief and confession and repentance will violate either Acts 2 or Romans 10. Violating scripture is what makes it "forbidden", not the Anabaptist dogma or the Southern Baptist dogma or the Mennonite dogma.

1. You are assuming chronology, infusing it via eisegsis - dogmatically. You are dogmatically FORCING God to abide by a chronological sequence that "makes sense to me." Amazing coming from one who claims to hold to the Soverignty of God.


2. You are assuming that one baptized is - by that act - made such so that God cannot give them faith or contrition. I know you think baptism CAUSES people to be unrepentant (or at least you "fear" that) but you have ZERO confirmation of that in Scripture or life or anywhere.


3. You already agreed that the koine Greek word "kai" (and) does not imply or mean (and CERTAINLY not dogmatically mandate) chronological sequence, so I don't know why you keep making a point you've already said isn't true.


4. Okay. Something doesn't "make sense to YOU." How does that prove that the Dogma invented by that Anabaptist in the late 16th Century is dogmatically true? The Trinity doesn't make sense to me, does that PROVE the Trinity is "false, invalid, prohibited, heretical?" Come on.... is THAT valid apologetics for a DOGMA? One that says ALL baptisms for nearly 1600 years were heretical, invalid, prohibited (and to add your point, CAUSES impenitance)? Someone says, "Hey, predestination doesn't make sense to me," would you accept that as a valid point to show predestination is heretical, invalid, wrong? Come on, my friend.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Now, you don't hold to the Infallibility of the Papacy as dogma (I assume). Now, you have no Scripture that says that's wrong but that's irrelevant, the issue is if they have something that holds it's TRUE to the level claimed. And they give you the usual verses... and say, "it makes sense to me that some authoritative and when essential infallible head exists, why would God leave us without a visible shepherd - THUS this MUST be DOGMATICALLY true!!!" Would YOU accept that as valid epistemology and insist, "SURE, gotta be!" I'm guessing not. Evaluate, if you will, everything you've said here - but replace "No Baptisms Before the Xth Birthday!" dogma with say the Infallibility of the Pope. And see how that appears to you. Try it.

And I have witnessed a constant narrowing by you.... moving further and further away from all this dogma is... and from it as dogma.... and that's GOOD! Maybe you are evaluating things! But freind, don't miss the point: this is ENTIRELY, SOLELY, ONLY about a particular minimum AGE. And it is all about repudiating, condemning, invalidating EVERY baptism before taht Anabaptist invented this idea and the great majority since, his whole point was every baptism ever done was heretical, invalid, repuslive to God (and you carry some of that ... MennoSota much more so). You now want to "soften" that by pretending this is just a church polity like whether to have worship at 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning, but no, it's DOGMA and it's all about proclaiming baptism as either HERETICAL (a Mockery to use your language) forbidden, invalid (and you've added causing people to be impeniant and implied it makes God impotent to grant them faith and repentance).

I understand some things personally "make sense" to you (and to a Catholic and to a Mormon and to a Lutheran). And that's fine. And I realize you LOVE to ask questions as if that has anything to do with apologetics or substantiation (but note all my question are ignored by you and MennoSota). Fine. People feel stuff. People have questions. But is the Dogma of Purgatory DOGMATIC FACT because a Catholic feels stuff and asks questions? And of course that dogma isn't repudiating or condemning ANYONE - yours is. That dogma isn't dividing Christianity, yours is. That dogma isn't saying to anyone, 'you have caused your precious son to be one God can't give faith or repentance to." Are you reading this? Are you getting ANY of this? Consider the epistemology being employed here. I see a LOT of double-standards, a LOT of arguments that you'd NEVER accept from me or a Catholic or a Mormon or even a Reformed Christian. Now I get the Calvinist view on Baptism.... I don't fully agree, but I think it's "clean" and honest (I just disagree on a couple of points). The Anabaptist one - not at all.


AGAIN, if (it's a very big word) IF the pov was this: There seems to be a pattern in the Bible that all Christians for 16 centuries totally missed but it seems powerful and relevant to ME: That generally, baptism only happened AFTER one got to a can't define exactly what age; age seems to have mattered for what seems to me to be reasons x,y,z. SO, our praxis in our church is to follow that. We're NOT declaring it's the only permitted way and we are NOT declaring others to be sinning for mocking God or rendering God impotent, it's just OUR understanding." IF you and MennoSota and those Anabaptists had said THAT, we'd not be having this conversation. Maybe we'd have different praxis but no one is declaring any dogmas or heresies, no one is declaring what is good FOR OTHERS. But... when you tell me... DOGMATICALLY.... my baptism mocked God, it was a heresy, it is prohibited right there in black and white in the BIBLE, and it caused you to not be repentant and made God impotent to give you faith and humility.... and all the other things said (or strongly implied these last few days), then, well, that's a whole other enchilada.


I'm frustrated by all the changing rules you two make, the ever-changing playing field. By the constant diversions into OTHER issues (especially when you get angry if I don't STICK very, very much to ONE issue in ONE thread defined EXACTLY as you do). The constant irrelevant questions that just derail and confuse and blurr. The unwillingness to address the issue - to the level claimed. And to not "own up" to the issue that I'm being told - dogmatically - the baptism of me, my wife and my son are a mockery, an insult to God, heresy, forbidden, causes us to not be repentant, causes God to not be able to give us faith and repentance. You need to own up to that. And no, much of that has come from you two (especially MennoSota) by implication or outright statements.

Well, no one is still reading....



.

 

[atpollard]

.

Off topic, I know, but there is no way God could send anyone that cute straight to hell. There must be a Purgatory where they can grow up into snotty know-it-all teens first!