Credobaptism

[Lamb]

Menno, where do you find in the bible that Jesus authorized any one other than human beings to be baptized? And I don't mean "to wash" as in tables. I mean Christian baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Menno, where do you find in the bible that Jesus authorized any one other than human beings to be baptized? And I don't mean "to wash" as in tables. I mean Christian baptism.

Where do you find authorization for infant baptism when repentance is a requirement for baptism?
I'm glad you asked the question because it points to a significant difference between Josiah and myself. Josiah advocates that as long as the Bible does not say "no" then it is permissible. Thus, by Josiah's argument, infant baptism is permitted (not because we observe it in the Bible, but because God never declared that infants couldn't be baptized). By that logic, animals can also be baptized because there is no scripture that says a person cannot baptize a pet. Pets are often a part of the household so it is possible that Paul and Silas baptized pets in Lydia and the Jailers household.
Do you see how speculation works?
Is it wise to build an entire doctrine/dogma based off speculation?

 

[Albion]

Where do you find authorization for infant baptism when repentance is a requirement for baptism? Is it wise to build an entire doctrine/dogma based off speculation?

Well, that is a critical point in all these discussions about baptism.

There IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT like that in Scripture. Your entire argument hangs on the premise that there is one. It cannot stand unless there is one. However, we have shown why that is fallacious thinking only to have it brushed off as though we never brought it to your attention.

 

[Josiah]

Where do you find authorization for infant baptism

Wrong thread. This is not the thread about that Anabaptists invented dogma of a MINIMUM AGE requirement, under which all baptisms are heretical, prohibited and invalid.

Where do you find authorization ....

The same place where you find authorization to baptize those over 6'3", the same place where you find authorization to baptize a negroid woman, the same place where you find authorization to baptize one with a shoe size of 10. The command is given. And it doesn't state, "BUT thou MUST NOT baptize any who art taller than 6 feet, 3 inches or you are mocking God and rendering Him impotent to bless and save that person!"

Do you see how speculation works?

Yes, I DO see how that works, do you?

It means one can invent a dogma that it is prohibited to love Blacks, that it is dogmatically forbidden to forgive the sins of anyone over the age of 30, that it is heresy to teach blue-eyed people, that we mock God if we ordain a Gentile. 1500 years after Jesus, dude can/should reverse 1500 years of universal Christian faith and practice and out of the blue invent a new DOGMA that it is heretical, forbidden, invalid and a mockery to God to baptize Americans. Or that Jews, Blacks and babies under 5 months old are excluded from the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Is it wise to build an entire doctrine/dogma based off speculation?

No, which is one more reason this dogma of yours is to be rejected.

Your speculation that God MEANT to say but forgot to say, "BUT thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday (bur I won't tell you what birthday that is) or before one hath previously in your chronological time given verbal and public proof that they hath previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, all other baptisms are heretical and a mockery and render God impotent regarding that person." Your point that God MEANT to put that in the Bible but forgot, so some Anabatptist can add it with invisible words only baptists can see."




.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, that is a critical point in all these discussions about baptism.

There IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT like that in Scripture. Your entire argument hangs on the premise that there is one. It cannot stand unless there is one. However, we have shown why that is fallacious thinking only to have it brushed off as though we never brought it to your attention.

Acts 2:38 says otherwise.
You see, God gives us faith and the effect of faith is repentance. When we repent, we may receive baptism. We see it in scripture.
What we don't see in scripture is any instance of an infant actually being baptized.

 

[MennoSota]

Wrong thread. This is not the thread about that Anabaptists invented dogma of a MINIMUM AGE requirement, under which all baptisms are heretical, prohibited and invalid.








The same place where you find authorization to baptize those over 6'3", the same place where you find authorization to baptize a negroid woman, the same place where you find authorization to baptize one with a shoe size of 10. The command is given. And it doesn't state, "BUT thou MUST NOT baptize any who art taller than 6 feet, 3 inches or you are mocking God and rendering Him impotent to bless and save that person!"







Yes, I DO see how that works, do you?

It means one can invent a dogma that it is prohibited to love Blacks, that it is dogmatically forbidden to forgive the sins of anyone over the age of 30, that it is heresy to teach blue-eyed people, that we mock God if we ordain a Gentile. 1500 years after Jesus, dude can/should reverse 1500 years of universal Christian faith and practice and out of the blue invent a new DOGMA that it is heretical, forbidden, invalid and a mockery to God to baptize Americans. Or that Jews, Blacks and babies under 5 months old are excluded from the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill."







No, which is one more reason this dogma of yours is to be rejected.

Your speculation that God MEANT to say but forgot to say, "BUT thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their Xth birthday (bur I won't tell you what birthday that is) or before one hath previously in your chronological time given verbal and public proof that they hath previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, all other baptisms are heretical and a mockery and render God impotent regarding that person." Your point that God MEANT to put that in the Bible but forgot, so some Anabatptist can add it with invisible words only baptists can see."




.

So, wrong thread.
Since we see credo baptism with Peter baptizing in Acts 2 and Cornelius, it is clear the Bible very much teaches credobaptism.

 

[Josiah]

Acts 2:38 says otherwise.When we repent, we may receive baptism. We see it in scripture.

Something wrong with your eyes. That verse says NOTHING about it being heretical and forbidden to baptize any who has not in our chronological time FIRST verbally and publicly proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

There is no "AFTER THAT" in the verse. There are words in koine Greek that at least imply sequence and time, words that specifically mean and mandate that, but Peter didn't use any of them. In fact, NONE of them occur in ANY verse that also includes the word "baptism" in any form"

You don't "see" it. And for reasons you can't explain, NOT ONE CHRISTIAN in over 1500 years had eyes that could see those letters (including John Calvin). No. You IMPOSE it via pure eisegesis in the identical way that you mock some Catholics for doing with some of their dogmas. Same/same. We all remember your mantra, your demand, your loud insistance: that ALL (that includes you) MUST "scrap" all tradition (how persons or churches understand and interpret things - including Baptists) and go "ONLY" by the words of the Bible. Friend, the words of the Bible are not invisible ones, and not ones YOU placed into the text after deleting what is in the text. ALL YOU DO is the EXACT thing you repudiate doing, you mock doing, you demand NOT be done.

 

[Albion]

Acts 2:38 says otherwise.

No, it doesn't.

You are doing what you always do, which is try to make one example into a universal command.

 

[Lamb]

Acts 2:38 says otherwise.
You see, God gives us faith and the effect of faith is repentance. When we repent, we may receive baptism. We see it in scripture.
What we don't see in scripture is any instance of an infant actually being baptized.

Repent AND...not repent THEN. Read it again.

 

[MennoSota]

Something wrong with your eyes. That verse says NOTHING about it being heretical and forbidden to baptize any who has not in our chronological time FIRST verbally and publicly proven that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

There is no "AFTER THAT" in the verse. There are words in koine Greek that at least imply sequence and time, words that specifically mean and mandate that, but Peter didn't use any of them. In fact, NONE of them occur in ANY verse that also includes the word "baptism" in any form"

You don't "see" it. And for reasons you can't explain, NOT ONE CHRISTIAN in over 1500 years had eyes that could see those letters (including John Calvin). No. You IMPOSE it via pure eisegesis in the identical way that you mock some Catholics for doing with some of their dogmas. Same/same. We all remember your mantra, your demand, your loud insistance: that ALL (that includes you) MUST "scrap" all tradition (how persons or churches understand and interpret things - including Baptists) and go "ONLY" by the words of the Bible. Friend, the words of the Bible are not invisible ones, and not ones YOU placed into the text after deleting what is in the text. ALL YOU DO is the EXACT thing you repudiate doing, you mock doing, you demand NOT be done.

Something wrong with your eyes? That verse has Peter telling the believers what they must do for him to baptize them.

 

[atpollard]

Repent AND...not repent THEN. Read it again.

Repent AND not Repent OR.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Acts 2:38 says otherwise.
You see, God gives us faith and the effect of faith is repentance. When we repent, we may receive baptism. We see it in scripture.
What we don't see in scripture is any instance of an infant actually being baptized.

Perhaps a musical reference will help. When John Lennon sang "Well shake it up baby, now! Twist and shout!", what was required first in the formula? Why? Could one shout, then twist and shake it up? Or are the instructions to be understood as chronological so that one must shake it up, twist, and shout in that order? That is what he said, correct? (*reference to "baby" in the foregoing lyrical quote coincidental only)

 

[MennoSota]

Perhaps a musical reference will help. When John Lennon sang "Well shake it up baby, now! Twist and shout!", what was required first in the formula? Why? Could one shout, then twist and shake it up? Or are the instructions to be understood as chronological so that one must shake it up, twist, and shout in that order? That is what he said, correct? (*reference to "baby" in the foregoing lyrical quote coincidental only)

Can babies do either? In observing my children when they were little infants, they could neither express faith nor repent.
Do you preach that water baptism gives a person faith and the Holy Spirit? If so, where does that place God's Sovereignty and unmerited favor in salvation?
Ultimately, your music analogy makes zero sense.

 

[Albion]

Something wrong with your eyes? That verse has Peter telling the believers what they must do for him to baptize them.

Just like you when you insist that children are not to be baptized, even though there is no such statement in scripture and the evidence that they were baptized is right in front of you?? LOL

Peter tells THOSE people. He is not telling everyone else anything in that verse. That is undeniable.

 

[MennoSota]

Just like you when you insist that children are not to be baptized, even though there is no such statement in scripture and the evidence that they were baptized is right in front of you?? LOL

Peter tells THOSE people. He is not telling everyone else anything in that verse. That is undeniable.

Where do I insist that children cannot be baptized when they confess faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice for their sins?
Do you not even care that people aren't confessing faith in Christ before you baptize them? Is baptism so cheap to you that you don't care about one's faith when you baptize them???

 

[Albion]

Where do I insist that children cannot be baptized when they confess faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice for their sins?
Do you not even care that people aren't confessing faith in Christ before you baptize them? Is baptism so cheap to you that you don't care about one's faith when you baptize them???

Ask serious questions and you might get a reply.

You're wasting everyone's time making up stuff like the above, pretending that one of us actually asked you something that never was said...and posting phony viewpoints that no one here has ever expressed.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Can babies do either? In observing my children when they were little infants, they could neither express faith nor repent.
Do you preach that water baptism gives a person faith and the Holy Spirit? If so, where does that place God's Sovereignty and unmerited favor in salvation?
Ultimately, your music analogy makes zero sense.

You referenced Acts 2:38 implying chronological order by use of the conjunction "and". So, does "Twist and Shout" imply the same order as "repent and be baptized"? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Where do I insist that children cannot be baptized when they confess faith in Christ's atoning sacrifice for their sins?
Do you not even care that people aren't confessing faith in Christ before you baptize them? Is baptism so cheap to you that you don't care about one's faith when you baptize them???

Well, if baptism is a symbol that does nothing spiritual because water is not magic and baptism does not save or wash away sins and if baptism has nothing to do with being born from above then why complain when people don't take seriously your view of this merely symbolic empty ritual?

 

[Lamb]

Repent AND not Repent OR.

Who here said OR?

 

[Lamb]

Can babies do either? In observing my children when they were little infants, they could neither express faith nor repent.

So now baptism is dependent on YOU deciding whether they can first meet your standards before baptism is allowed? How much repentance are you looking for? What signs of faith must be shown to you for you to be satisfied?