Credobaptism

[Josiah]

It's your task

Okay. Fine. That's your rubric now. But I WILL hold you to it! In every thread and on every topic.


Your rubric is that everything is a dogmatic fact UNLESS one can prove it is false. Gotcha. Understood.
It's the task of those who aren't convinced to prove it wrong, NOT the task of the proponent to show it's true. Gotcha. Understood.
Since that is now your insistence, I WILL hold you to it.


So, one posts, "There are 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on Mars" your insistance is that IS a dogmatic fact, unless someone can prove otherwise (say by going to Mars and finding all 12 and thus the statement is wrong because they aren't hiding.... or maybe finds 13 such flying purple people eaters). The Assumption of Mary is dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it false (say by finding her bones and a DNA check shows that MUST be the bones of Mary and CANNOT be of any other). Okay. Understood. I will hold you to that rubric. It is your insistence. All views are dogmatically true - and the proponents of that have no role in showing that's the case cuz everything is dogma; it's the task ONLY of the unconvinced to prove it false. Which is why you demand that I show that NOT every baptism in the First Century was to those who FIRST verbally and publicly proved they had FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and they dogmatically forbade any baptisms where that was not the case - your rubric demands that I PROVE your claim false because ALL claims are automatically dogmatic fact UNTIL someone proves it is not. Got it. I'll just insist YOU abide by your OWN rule. I'm sure that's what you want.


So I'll keep this in mind. For all your posts. Always.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay. Fine. That's your rubric now. But I WILL hold you to it! In every thread and on every topic.


Your rubric is that everything is a dogmatic fact UNLESS one can prove it is false. Gotcha. Understood.
It's the task of those who aren't convinced to prove it wrong, NOT the task of the proponent to show it's true. Gotcha. Understood.
Since that is now your insistence, I WILL hold you to it.


So, one posts, "There are 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on Mars" your insistance is that IS a dogmatic fact, unless someone can prove otherwise (say by going to Mars and finding all 12 and thus the statement is wrong because they aren't hiding.... or maybe finds 13 such flying purple people eaters). The Assumption of Mary is dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it false (say by finding her bones and a DNA check shows that MUST be the bones of Mary and CANNOT be of any other). Okay. Understood. I will hold you to that rubric. It is your insistence. All views are dogmatically true - and the proponents of that have no role in showing that's the case cuz everything is dogma; it's the task ONLY of the unconvinced to prove it false.


I'll keep this in mind. For all your posts.

Where does the Bible say there are 12 flying purple people eaters on Mars?
This isn't hard, Josiah. Just use scripture to prove your point.
So far, you have provided 3 verses as your claim that paedobaptism existed at the time of the Apostles.
Here are the verses I found on baptism. Is there one verse where a non-redeemed person is baptized before being gifted faith?

Bible search results

Matthew 3:13

[*The*Baptism*of Jesus*] Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John.

Matthew 3:16

After his*baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him.

Mark 1:9

[*The*Baptism*and Temptation of Jesus] One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River.

Mark 10:38

But Jesus said to them, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of suffering I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the*baptism*of suffering I must be baptized with?”

Mark 10:39

“Oh yes,” they replied, “we are able!” Then Jesus told them, “You will indeed drink from my bitter cup and be baptized with my*baptism*of suffering.

Luke 3:7

When the crowds came to John for*baptism, he said, “You brood of snakes! Who warned you to flee the coming wrath?

Luke 3:21

[*The*Baptism*of Jesus*] One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened,

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and experts in religious law rejected God’s plan for them, for they had refused John’s*baptism.

Luke 12:50

I have a terrible*baptism*of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished.

John 3:23

At this time John the Baptist was baptizing at Aenon, near Salim, because there was plenty of water there; and people kept coming to him for*baptism.

Acts 10:37

You know what happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee, after John began preaching his message of*baptism.

Acts 18:25

He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s*baptism.

Acts 19:3

“Then what*baptism*did you experience?” he asked. And they replied, “The*baptism*of John.”

Acts 19:4

Paul said, “John’s*baptism*called for repentance from sin. But John himself told the people to believe in the one who would come later, meaning Jesus.”

Romans 6:3

Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in*baptism, we joined him in his death?

Romans 6:4

For we died and were buried with Christ by*baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Galatians 3:27

And all who have been united with Christ in*baptism*have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.

Ephesians 4:5

There is one Lord, one faith, one*baptism,

Hebrews 6:2

You don’t need further instruction about*baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

1 Peter 3:21

And that water is a picture of*baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 John 5:6

And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his*baptism*in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony.

 

[Josiah]

Okay. Fine. That's your rubric now. But I WILL hold you to it! In every thread and on every topic.


Your rubric is that everything is a dogmatic fact UNLESS one can prove it is false. Gotcha. Understood.

Your rubric it is the is the task of those who are NOT convinced to prove it wrong, it is NOT the task of the proponent to show it's true. Gotcha. Understood.

Since that is now your insistence, I WILL hold you to it.


So, one posts, "There are 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on Mars" your insistance is that IS a dogmatic fact, unless someone can prove otherwise (say by going to Mars and finding all 12 and thus the statement is wrong because they aren't hiding.... or maybe finds 13 such flying purple people eaters). The Assumption of Mary is dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it false (say by finding her bones and a DNA check shows that MUST be the bones of Mary and CANNOT be of any other). Okay. Understood. I will hold you to that rubric. It is your insistence. All views are dogmatically true - and the proponents of that have no role in showing that's the case cuz everything is dogma; it's the task ONLY of the unconvinced to prove it false. Which is why you demand that I show that NOT every baptism in the First Century was to those who FIRST verbally and publicly proved they had FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and they dogmatically forbade any baptisms where that was not the case - your rubric demands that I PROVE your claim false because ALL claims are automatically dogmatic fact UNTIL someone proves it is not. Got it. I'll just insist YOU abide by your OWN rule. I'm sure that's what you want.


So I'll keep this in mind. For all your posts. Always.


.

Where does the Bible say there are 12 flying purple people eaters on Mars?

The same place where it says, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly and verbally stated that FIRST in chronological time they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and after that, they may be baptized. All other baptisms are heretical, invalid and disallowed."


But you evaded your ENTIRE point!!!! Your insistence is that everything claimed is a dogmatic fact UNLESS and UNTIL someone proves it is false. Your insistence that the one making the claim has no role in whether it is true, it is those unconvinced that MUST prove it false - or it remains a dogmatic fact. Which is why you insist it's "NOT MY TASK" to show your claims are true, your apologetic valid... but as you keep stressing, "YOU PROVE IT WRONG!"

This isn't hard, Josiah. Just use scripture to prove your point.

It's not my point! It's YOUR point! I am NOT promoting the Anabaptist DOGMA of "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly and verbally stated that FIRST in chronological time they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and after that, they may be baptized. All other baptisms are heretical, invalid and disallowed." YOU ARE!!!

So just use Scripture to prove your point. Prove your dogma TRUE to the level claimed. Prove your claims to the TRUE using just Scripture. Just as you demand.

But it's SILLY that I have to prove or disprove it FOR YOU. It's not my point. It's YOUR dogma! It's YOUR claim that every baptism the 13 Apostles ever did was to those who FIRST had verbally and publicly proved they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and they forbade any other baptism. That's your point: it's easy, just prove it with Scripture. It's your point that the Bible tells us that we are mandated to do things exactly as they were done in the Bible and forbidden to do any other way, that's your point, so it's easy, just prove that from the Bible, quote the verse that states that. But I know, you now hold that WHATEVER ANYONE says is just automatically dogma UNLESS it can be proven wrong, which is why you won't show your point is true, I have the sole burden of proof to show it's wrong (or else everything IS dogmatic fact; you can say ANYTHING and cuz it's said, it's true (as dogma) unless someone can prove it false. That's now your demand. And it applies to YOU too.

Oh, thanks for the long list of Scriptures. Now, could you quote the one(s) that state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly and verbally stated that FIRST in chronological time they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and after that, they may be baptized. All other baptisms are heretical, invalid and disallowed." REMEMBER: it is YOUR demand that we "scrap" all tradition (how persons, churches, denominations understand and interpret things - that includes Baptist tradition and you) and ONLY go by what the words of Scripture state. You demanded that and I long ago agreed to abide by that in our discussions and so did you.




.

 

[MennoSota]

The same place where it says, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath publicly and verbally stated that FIRST in chronological time they hath chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and after that, they may be baptized. All other baptisms are heretical, invalid and disallowed."


But you evaded your ENTIRE point!!!! Your insistence is that everything claimed is a dogmatic fact UNLESS and UNTIL someone proves it is false. Your insistence that the one making the claim has no role in whether it is true, it is those unconvinced that MUST prove it false - or it remains a dogmatic fact. Which is why you insist it's "NOT MY TASK" to show your claims are true, your apologetic valid... but as you keep stressing, "YOU PROVE IT WRONG!"
This isn't hard, Josiah. Just use scripture to prove your point.
So far, you have provided 3 verses as your claim that paedobaptism existed at the time of the Apostles.
Here are the verses I found on baptism. Is there one verse where a non-redeemed person is baptized before being gifted faith?

Bible search results

Matthew 3:13

[*The*Baptism*of Jesus*] Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John.

Matthew 3:16

After his*baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him.

Mark 1:9

[*The*Baptism*and Temptation of Jesus] One day Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River.

Mark 10:38

But Jesus said to them, “You don’t know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of suffering I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the*baptism*of suffering I must be baptized with?”

Mark 10:39

“Oh yes,” they replied, “we are able!” Then Jesus told them, “You will indeed drink from my bitter cup and be baptized with my*baptism*of suffering.

Luke 3:7

When the crowds came to John for*baptism, he said, “You brood of snakes! Who warned you to flee the coming wrath?

Luke 3:21

[*The*Baptism*of Jesus*] One day when the crowds were being baptized, Jesus himself was baptized. As he was praying, the heavens opened,

Luke 7:30

But the Pharisees and experts in religious law rejected God’s plan for them, for they had refused John’s*baptism.

Luke 12:50

I have a terrible*baptism*of suffering ahead of me, and I am under a heavy burden until it is accomplished.

John 3:23

At this time John the Baptist was baptizing at Aenon, near Salim, because there was plenty of water there; and people kept coming to him for*baptism.

Acts 10:37

You know what happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee, after John began preaching his message of*baptism.

Acts 18:25

He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s*baptism.

Acts 19:3

“Then what*baptism*did you experience?” he asked. And they replied, “The*baptism*of John.”

Acts 19:4

Paul said, “John’s*baptism*called for repentance from sin. But John himself told the people to believe in the one who would come later, meaning Jesus.”

Romans 6:3

Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in*baptism, we joined him in his death?

Romans 6:4

For we died and were buried with Christ by*baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

Galatians 3:27

And all who have been united with Christ in*baptism*have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.

Ephesians 4:5

There is one Lord, one faith, one*baptism,

Hebrews 6:2

You don’t need further instruction about*baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

1 Peter 3:21

And that water is a picture of*baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 John 5:6

And Jesus Christ was revealed as God’s Son by his*baptism*in water and by shedding his blood on the cross—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit, who is truth, confirms it with his testimony.

So...do you advocate baptizing anyone with no discernment about their faith?

 

[atpollard]

1. Show us where that verse states, "FIRST in chronological time, one must publicly and adequately show they PREVIOUSLY have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize (which you've never shown even exists) is lifted and AFTER THAT one may be baptized.

Its still there in Acts 2:38.

Come on...

Your inability to accurately quote what you read is not my fault.

 

[atpollard]

Okay. Fine. That's your rubric now. But I WILL hold you to it! In every thread and on every topic.

Your rubric is that everything is a dogmatic fact UNLESS one can prove it is false. Gotcha. Understood.
It's the task of those who aren't convinced to prove it wrong, NOT the task of the proponent to show it's true. Gotcha. Understood.
Since that is now your insistence, I WILL hold you to it.

So, one posts, "There are 12 flying purple people eaters hiding on Mars" your insistance is that IS a dogmatic fact, unless someone can prove otherwise (say by going to Mars and finding all 12 and thus the statement is wrong because they aren't hiding.... or maybe finds 13 such flying purple people eaters). The Assumption of Mary is dogmatic fact unless someone can prove it false (say by finding her bones and a DNA check shows that MUST be the bones of Mary and CANNOT be of any other). Okay. Understood. I will hold you to that rubric. It is your insistence. All views are dogmatically true - and the proponents of that have no role in showing that's the case cuz everything is dogma; it's the task ONLY of the unconvinced to prove it false. Which is why you demand that I show that NOT every baptism in the First Century was to those who FIRST verbally and publicly proved they had FIRST chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and they dogmatically forbade any baptisms where that was not the case - your rubric demands that I PROVE your claim false because ALL claims are automatically dogmatic fact UNTIL someone proves it is not. Got it. I'll just insist YOU abide by your OWN rule. I'm sure that's what you want.

So I'll keep this in mind. For all your posts. Always.

It is already what you are asking.

There are no infant baptisms mentioned in Scripture and you want us to document every baptism ever performed by all 13 Apostles.
At least searching Mars does not require Time Travel.

 

[Josiah]

you want us to document every baptism ever performed by all 13 Apostles.

It was stated that none of the apostles ever baptized anyone who had not first publicly and verbally stated they had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. No, I do NOT accept that it is MY responsibility to prove that false, as MennoSota insisted and you are supporting/defending.

And while it could be said that WHEN the point of whether someone believed or not is specifically mentioned, it seems to have been the case. But it is not true that "Everyone baptized in the Bible was had first in chronological time verbally and publicly stated they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior."

There have been an incredible number of "chasing rabbit holes" and playing "the shell game" in this thread (and the others promoting the Anabaptist views).... There is only one issue: Where is it stated that all are forbidden to baptize any unless and until they have first in chronological time verbally and publicly demonstrated that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior - and that any baptism outside of that is heresy, prohibited and invalid. THAT's the dogma. THAT'S the thread. THAT's the whole discussion. And MennoSota demands that no one (including him) can bring up tradition (how a person or church understands or interprets things) we MUST "scrap" all that, and we can only go by what the words in the Bible state. And you have demanded that we cannot discuss anything but Credobaptism in this thread and nothing but Minimum Age Baptism in another. You've also declared that what was or wasn't done in the Bible is now "off the table" and not to be discussed because it's "not my rubric." And I'm doing as you wish. You and MennoSota have VERY different epistemologies and rules for our discussings, I TRY to keep them straight and remember who I am responding to.

It would be good if you two could begin to address the issue. Show the dogma to be such, show the claims to be true. Please present the documentation and confirmation in Scripture to this dogmatic mandate, this proclaimation that my baptism was heretical, invalid, disallowed, forbidden (and perhaps your point that it CAUSED me to not repent) for the precise reason that I did not supply public and verbal evidence that FIRST in chronlogical time I had chosen Jesus as my personal Savior. Please address the DOGMA this Anabaptist invented. And for MennoSota, that it comes exclusively from words we see in the Bible (you seem to hold that your feelings and what SEEMS LIKELY to YOU are also dogmatic substantiations and basis for declaring what was given to me was heretical, invalid, prohibited and causes me to not be repentant; MennoSota doesn't allow for any of that).


Here's the thing...

I think all the "rabbit chasing" has only frustrated everyone. Just address the issue: Where is it TAUGHT that it is a dogmatic fact that before the prohibition to baptize can be lifted (btw, you STILL haven't address that such even exists), one MUST FIRST in chronological time, verbally and publicly, give adequate evidence that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER THAT is accomplished by the recipient, only AFTER THAT may they be baptized; otherwise baptism is invalid, prohibited, heretical. THAT'S the dogma. THAT's the issue. Where does the Bible teach that? Remember: you hold that "and" does NOT prove order and that "what was done or not done" is not your rubric. And keep in mind this is NOT just church polity for a denomination, it is DOGMA and includes a dogmatic repudiation of all non conforming baptisms done for 2000 years.


.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Heretical is your word, not mine. Given the age and popularity of padeobaptism, it is probably "orthodox" with credobaptism being "heterodox" and neither being expressly contradicted by clear biblical teaching that would threaten salvation and render the view "heretical". Some may disagree with me, but that is my reading of scripture.

 

[Josiah]

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.

AGAIN, yet again....


1. No where in this verse does it state your dogma: That FIRST in chronological time, one must give adequate verbal and public testimony that previously in time, they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; AFTER THAT in time, once the person has performed that, THEN the prohibition to baptism is lifted and the person may be baptized." Sorry, friend, it's not there. No matter how often you keep referencing it.


2. You already stated that the word "and'" does not imply or means and certainly does not dogmatically MANDATE a certain chronological limitation on God and/or us. So I don't understand why you keep pinning everything on a point you've already admitted isn't true.


3. There's absolutely NOTHING in the text that remotely supports your "feeling" that if one is baptized, ergo God cannot (at some point anyway) give that person faith and repentance. You are imposing a wild idea into this text that is nowhere there. In part because you are demanding that God can only work with a certain chronology that you've placed on Him. (I must admit, this very fundamental constricting God seems most odd coming from a Monergist and from one who insists on Irresistable Grace and the Soverignty of God)


4. You can "feel" whatever you like. Everyone does; doesn't make anything dogmatically correct. And okay, there are things that PERSONALLY don't "make sense" to YOU. Fine. True for everyone; doesn't make anything dogmatically correct. How one feels and what one thinks makes sense to me is not substantiation of a dogma. Spoken to a Catholic? To a Mormon? To an Agnostic? The Trinity doesn't make sense to me, does that make it a heresy? Some would say that Predestination and Irresistable Grace don't make sense, does that mean they are therefore heresies? A Catholic thinks Purgatory makes sense, does that make that dogmatically true?


5. You are noting a point in history. One occasion. Peter addressing a certain audience. And from that drawing a WHOLE LOT of assumptions that you are imposing upon everyone. You know, it's likely every person he was speaking to was a Hebrew. So, is it a dogmatic fact that non-Hebrews cannot repent or be baptized? Come on.... a LOT of eisegesis, a LOT of assumptions, a LOT of generalizations.



It's easy, MennoSota says. Just quote the verse that states it is forbidden, invalid, heretical, wrong to baptize anyone in chronological time before they have verbally and publicly shown they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Since you don't accept how any Catholic or Lutheran personally feels as dogmatic substantiation and grounds for declaring you to be mocking God and being heretical, should you? Since you don't allow a Methodist to say "Irresistable grace doesn't make sense to me personally" as valid grounds to prove that dogma wrong and you a heresy, why.... well.... you get my point.

 

[atpollard]

It's easy, MennoSota says. Just quote the verse that states it is forbidden, invalid, heretical, wrong to baptize anyone in chronological time before they have verbally and publicly shown they previously have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Since you don't accept how any Catholic or Lutheran personally feels as dogmatic substantiation and grounds for declaring you to be mocking God and being heretical, should you? Since you don't allow a Methodist to say "Irresistable grace doesn't make sense to me personally" as valid grounds to prove that dogma wrong and you a heresy, why.... well.... you get my point.

1. Quote the verse that says God is a Trinity.

2. It is dishonest to compare my exegesis (which DID reference what the text actually said, the historical context from the Gospels and clarifications from the Apostolic writings) with "how any Catholic or Lutheran personally feels".

3. Any point you have ignores what I actually posted. For example the accusation of heresy.
:sadwavey:

 

[Josiah]

atpollard, you didn't read post 89, did you. It's okay, you've admitted you sometimes don't.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard, you didn't read post 89, did you. It's okay, you've admitted you sometimes don't.

You stress how you personally "feel." And what personally "makes sense" to you. I simply and only pointed out that's not very convincing apologetics for a dogma... and not one you accept from others.

My point about the Trinity is that it doesn't make sense to me, so according to your rubric, that's a sound basis to reject and condemn it as heresy. I simply disagreed. And I noted that a Methodist may not personally feel that Irresistable Grace "makes sense" to him - and that you likely would not consider that valid apologetics for declaring it false, heresy.

I accept that you "feel" and some things "make sense" and not to everyone. But truth has remarkably little to do with personal feelings. And God Himself said that His ways are not our ways, so just because Bob has a hard time today wrapping his brain about Irresistable Grace would likely NOT be seen as proof to you that the dogma is wrong. Conversely, a Catholic saying that Purgatory does make sense to them and it personally feels right would not likely be seen by you as proof of it as a dogmatic fact.

You got all in a twist because I simply pointing out your whole "I feel" "it makes sense to me" is not an apologetic YOU YOURSELF accept. Don't know why it bothered you so.

 

[MennoSota]

atpollard, you didn't read post 89, did you. It's okay, you've admitted you sometimes don't.

You stress how you personally "feel." And what personally "makes sense" to you. I simply and only pointed out that's not very convincing apologetics for a dogma... and not one you accept from others.

My point about the Trinity is that it doesn't make sense to me, so according to your rubric, that's a sound basis to reject and condemn it as heresy. I simply disagreed. And I noted that a Methodist may not personally feel that Irresistable Grace "makes sense" to him - and that you likely would not consider that valid apologetics for declaring it false, heresy.

I accept that you "feel" and some things "make sense" and not to everyone. But truth has remarkably little to do with personal feelings. And God Himself said that His ways are not our ways, so just because Bob has a hard time today wrapping his brain about Irresistable Grace would likely NOT be seen as proof to you that the dogma is wrong. Conversely, a Catholic saying that Purgatory does make sense to them and it personally feels right would not likely be seen by you as proof of it as a dogmatic fact.

You got all in a twist because I simply pointing out your whole "I feel" "it makes sense to me" is not an apologetic YOU YOURSELF accept. Don't know why it bothered you so.

Indeed, truth has little to do with feelings.
True or false, the Bible shows infants being baptized to receive faith.

 

[Josiah]

Indeed, truth has little to do with feelings.

... or what personally "makes sense" My point to atpollard. He was quite offended (which was not my intent)

True or false, the Bible shows infants being baptized.

Wrong thread.


Like you, I reject that truth and error are determined by whether something is is done or not done exactly as it seems to have been in the Bible (neither of us would be posting on the internet if we accept that premise!) But the dogma is not: "There is no proof in the Baptist Bible that anyone was baptized BEFORE they verbally and publicly proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The dogma you are promoting and parroting is: It is a DOGMA that thou canst NOT baptize any in chronological time before they hath verbally and publicly and adequately proven they hath FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize is lifted and one may be baptized; anything other is heresy, invalid, and prohibited." (I could add your "mockery" and atpollard's "mandates God cannot give them repentance") THAT's the dogma. THAT's the sole issue before us. You say we must "scrap" all tradition prove things true by the words of Scripture - okay - we're all waiting for the verse with that mandate. You can't accuse us of being impatient!


True or false: The Bible shows Gentiles administering baptism.
True or false: The Bible shows baptisms in a tank behind a curtain back of the pulpit.
True or false: The Bible shows an Asian being baptized.
True or false: The Bible shows a person not at least 50% of the Hebrew race as a pastor.
True or false; The Bible shows Communion being given to a woman. And to children.
True or false: The Bible shows Communion being distributed by passing around the pews a tray of little plastic cups with some Welch's Grape Juice squirted in there and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread.
True or false: if they are true, that makes it DOGMA - a MANDATE to do it EXACTLY like that and heresy, forbidden, condemnable to in ANY other way.



.

 

[MennoSota]

... or what personally "makes sense" My point to atpollard. He was quite offended (which was not my intent)






Wrong thread.


Like you, I reject that truth and error are determined by whether something is is done or not done exactly as it seems to have been in the Bible (neither of us would be posting on the internet if we accept that premise!) But the dogma is not: "There is no proof in the Baptist Bible that anyone was baptized BEFORE they verbally and publicly proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The dogma you are promoting and parroting is: It is a DOGMA that thou canst NOT baptize any in chronological time before they hath verbally and publicly and adequately proven they hath FIRST chose Jesus as their personal Savior then AFTER THAT the prohibition to baptize is lifted and one may be baptized; anything other is heresy, invalid, and prohibited." (I could add your "mockery" and atpollard's "mandates God cannot give them repentance") THAT's the dogma. THAT's the sole issue before us. You say we must "scrap" all tradition prove things true by the words of Scripture - okay - we're all waiting for the verse with that mandate. You can't accuse us of being impatient!


True or false: The Bible shows Gentiles administering baptism.
True or false: The Bible shows baptisms in a tank behind a curtain back of the pulpit.
True or false: The Bible shows an Asian being baptized.
True or false: The Bible shows a person not at least 50% of the Hebrew race as a pastor.
True or false; The Bible shows Communion being given to a woman. And to children.
True or false: The Bible shows Communion being distributed by passing around the pews a tray of little plastic cups with some Welch's Grape Juice squirted in there and a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread.
True or false: if they are true, that makes it DOGMA - a MANDATE to do it EXACTLY like that and heresy, forbidden, condemnable to in ANY other maner?



.

I knew you would dodge.

 

[Josiah]

I knew you would dodge.

I simply agreed with you that your question is absurd. All based on what you reject. All based on some theory of yours that if you ask a question, and someone answers it in accord with your position, ergo the dogma has been substahtiated. Silly. Absurd. And I proved it with the the post, which is why you ignored it.

 

[MennoSota]

I simply agreed with you that your question is absurd. All based on what you reject. All based on some theory of yours that if you ask a question, and someone answers it in accord with your position, ergo the dogma has been substahtiated. Silly. Absurd. And I proved it with the the post, which is why you ignored it.

True or false, the Bible shows infants being baptized.

 

[atpollard]

atpollard, you didn't read post 89, did you. It's okay, you've admitted you sometimes don't.

I did.
The issue is you are demanding a very specific wording and discarding all exegesis that proves the concept valid simply because it lacks the wording you demand. If I can illustrate, here is the opening of the Athanasian Creed:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.​

There is no verse in scripture that states any of this. “we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity” appears nowhere. “Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance” appears nowhere. “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith” appears nowhere.

That does not make the Athanasian Creed incorrect. That does not mean that scripture does not teach what the Athanasian Creed teaches. That does not mean that if I go to scripture to show where scripture teaches these truths that I am guilty of eisegesis.

Yet when I attempt to show from scripture that “faith” or “repentance” or “belief” is required before baptism, I am responded to with blanket accusations of eisegesis and demands for an exact wording that does not exist. When I attempt to point out that truth does not require an exact wording (like the truth of the Trinity), then I am either ignored or told that is not what this topic is about and I should just produce the exact wording that we both know does not exist.

If the exact wording is required to prove truth, then we have no proof that baptism requires belief or that God is a Trinity or that salvation is monergistic. There is no verse that states “thou shall not baptize anyone before the age of X” and there is no verse that states “we worship one God in Trinity” and there is no verse that states “God saves monergisticly”.

I have no desire to waste more time on lengthy miscommunication.
At this point I am just tired of it.

 

[Lamb]

True or false, the Bible shows infants being baptized.

Could be true I say because whole households were baptized and they didn't have birth control. It would be very odd for a household to NOT have infants or toddlers running around.

 

[MennoSota]

True or false, the Bible shows infants being baptized.

Could be true I say because whole households were baptized and they didn't have birth control. It would be very odd for a household to NOT have infants or toddlers running around.

Speculation is neither true nor false. There could have been pets in the household.

Notice that the word "all" is not used before household.

Acts 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well,

With the jailer it says all his family, but not all his household. His entire household rejoiced.
Now, we can speculate that the jailer was a young man with babies, but he may have been an older veteran with older people in his family. Really, it's just speculation. However, if there were infants baptized, how did they rejoice with everyone since it says that everyone rejoiced.

Acts 16:33-34 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Ultimately, speculation does not answer the question.

True or false, the Bible shows infants being baptized.
The answer is false. The Bible does not show infants being baptized.
The Bible does show households baptized in Phillipi, but it gives no indication of the ages of each person baptized. So, the Bible doesn't show infants being baptized, but one can speculate they were. (as well as perhaps the family pets ).