Credobaptism

[Josiah]

There is no need to do as you request. It is a fools request.

What I find "foolish" (or at least unacceptable) is to make a dogmatic, foundational claim - over and over and over, for many months - and refuse to show it's true, insisting "I have no need to."

Then to point out - this claim (which you've never shown is true) must be normed by a rule you insist is false, one you reject and repudiate and don't follow.

That's what I regard as foolish. I find that laughable.

show a factual infant being factually baptized in the Bible

Quote me where I said I could prove there are any infants or fat people or those of Oriental or Negroid races, or blondes, or those over 6 feet tall or with IQ's under 120 or shoe sizes over 11 specifically being baptized in the Bible, much less that such is ALWAYS the case? But then I'm not the one with any dogmatic mandates or prohibitions. YOU ARE.

Quote me where I said the norma normans for determining Dogma is whether something can be shown to have been done in the Bible and that heresy is determined by whether something is not done exactly as illustrated in the Bible. Remember, I'M the one saying it's OKAY to baptize fat people and even to post on the internet! NOT heresy but okay.




.

 

[MennoSota]

What I find "foolish" (or at least unacceptable) is to make a dogmatic, foundational claim - over and over and over, for many months - and refuse to show it's true, insisting "I have no need to."

Then to point out - this claim (which you've never shown is true) must be normed by a rule you insist is false, one you reject and repudiate and don't follow.

That's what I regard as foolish. I find that laughable.





Quote me where I said I could prove there are any infants or fat people or those of Oriental or Negroid races, or blondes, or those over 6 feet tall or with IQ's under 120 or shoe sizes over 11 specifically being baptized in the Bible, much less that such is ALWAYS the case? But then I'm not the one with any dogmatic mandates or prohibitions. YOU ARE.

Quote me where I said the norma normans for determining Dogma is whether something can be shown to have been done in the Bible and that heresy is determined by whether something is not done exactly as illustrated in the Bible. Remember, I'M the one saying it's OKAY to baptize fat people and even to post on the internet! NOT heresy but okay.




.

So why do you hold and advocate an unsupported dogma from your church that has no foundation?
The Bible supports confession and subsequent baptism. You must be blind if you don't see it.

 

[Josiah]

So why do you hold and advocate an unsupported dogma from your church that has no foundation?

There is no dogma of "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone who hath previously stated they hath first chosen Jesus as the personal Savior" No one forbids that. It's YOU with the dogma that forbids some.

Some are not convinced - especially as Dogma - that the Bible states that it is mandated that the recipient FIRST in our chronological time MUST prove - verbally, publicly - that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. When you find the verse that mandates that, let us know. But so far, in over 1900 years, no one has found that. And when you can find the verse that states that if one IS baptized before they verbally and publicly PROVE they have chosen Jesus as their Savior, they are heretics and mocking God, when you find that, let us know. But in 1900 years, no one yet has.

Infants are not forbidden for the same reason that fat people and tall people and Africian Americans and Koreans and German people are not forbidden: the Bible never tells us to. We don't exclude children from this anymore than we exclude Blacks from the Command, "Thou Shall Not Kill" just because we can't find the verse, "Oh, and this INCLUDES children" or "Oh, that this INCLUDES Blacks!"

Is there even ONE verse in the Bible that clearly shows a woman receiving Communion? Is there even one verse that states, "Woman may receive Communion?' So, where is your dogma, "It is MANDATED that only men may receive Communion and to permit a woman to receive it is a heresy, it is probidden and a mockery to God and causes the woman to not be repentant and makes God impotent to bless that woman." See... you don't accept your own apologetic, you think it bad and absurd and laughable and wrong. But you keep using it anyway.

 

[MennoSota]

There is no dogma of "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone who hath previously stated they hath first chosen Jesus as the personal Savior" No one forbids that. It's YOU with the dogma that forbids some.

Some are not convinced - especially as Dogma - that the Bible states that it is mandated that the recipient FIRST in our chronological time MUST prove - verbally, publicly - that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. When you find the verse that mandates that, let us know. But so far, in over 1900 years, no one has found that. And when you can find the verse that states that if one IS baptized before they verbally and publicly PROVE they have chosen Jesus as their Savior, they are heretics and mocking God, when you find that, let us know. But in 1900 years, no one yet has.

Infants are not forbidden for the same reason that fat people and tall people and Africian Americans and Koreans and German people are not forbidden: the Bible never tells us to. We don't exclude children from this anymore than we exclude Blacks from the Command, "Thou Shall Not Kill" just because we can't find the verse, "Oh, and this INCLUDES children" or "Oh, that this INCLUDES Blacks!"

Is there even ONE verse in the Bible that clearly shows a woman receiving Communion? Is there even one verse that states, "Woman may receive Communion?' So, where is your dogma, "It is MANDATED that only men may receive Communion and to permit a woman to receive it is a heresy, it is probidden and a mockery to God and causes the woman to not be repentant and makes God impotent to bless that woman." See... you don't accept your own apologetic, you think it bad and absurd and laughable and wrong. But you keep using it anyway.

There is no case, precedence, in scripture for infant baptism. No scripture indicates it. No scripture expresses baptizing persons who do not confess faith and are still dead in their trespasses and sins.
Our difference is that I do not advocate baptizing unrepentant sinners while you wholeheartedly embrace baptizing unrepentant sinners (but only a select age).

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The Bible supports confession and subsequent baptism. You must be blind if you don't see it.

You've yet to demonstrate that the conjunction "and" NECESSARILY supports chronological order. If i have bacon and eggs for breakfast, did I eat them in that order, or did I have both for the same meal?

 

[atpollard]

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?

“Get up and go to work.” ... Is there an implied order or can one go to work FIRST and get up LATER?

Can one be “baptized for the repentance of sins”, if one is not repentant of those sins?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

“Get up and go to work.” ... Is there an implied order or can one go to work FIRST and get up LATER?

This is true. Conjunctions in the English language can mean many things in different contexts. Here, the order is implied

Can one be “baptized for the repentance of sins”, if one is not repentant of those sins?

I'm assuming you intended "remission" of sins. That's a fair question, and one that lies at the heart of Credobaptism, imo. Only God and the repentant person can know the heart. The one baptizing accepts the profession of faith as one of honest repentance. And I do understand the issue involved with the baptism of babies and young children in this issue, as they cannot/may not be capable of professing faith of their own. But I digress as far as this thread may be concerned

 

[MennoSota]

There is no dogma of "Thou canst NOT baptize anyone who hath previously stated they hath first chosen Jesus as the personal Savior" No one forbids that. It's YOU with the dogma that forbids some.

Some are not convinced - especially as Dogma - that the Bible states that it is mandated that the recipient FIRST in our chronological time MUST prove - verbally, publicly - that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. When you find the verse that mandates that, let us know. But so far, in over 1900 years, no one has found that. And when you can find the verse that states that if one IS baptized before they verbally and publicly PROVE they have chosen Jesus as their Savior, they are heretics and mocking God, when you find that, let us know. But in 1900 years, no one yet has.

Infants are not forbidden for the same reason that fat people and tall people and Africian Americans and Koreans and German people are not forbidden: the Bible never tells us to. We don't exclude children from this anymore than we exclude Blacks from the Command, "Thou Shall Not Kill" just because we can't find the verse, "Oh, and this INCLUDES children" or "Oh, that this INCLUDES Blacks!"

Is there even ONE verse in the Bible that clearly shows a woman receiving Communion? Is there even one verse that states, "Woman may receive Communion?' So, where is your dogma, "It is MANDATED that only men may receive Communion and to permit a woman to receive it is a heresy, it is probidden and a mockery to God and causes the woman to not be repentant and makes God impotent to bless that woman." See... you don't accept your own apologetic, you think it bad and absurd and laughable and wrong. But you keep using it anyway.

So...why do you baptize people who are rebels against God and have no intention to stop being rebellious?
Why do you stop baptizing rebellious, unrepentant sinners at a certain age of X?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

So...why do you baptize people who are rebels against God and have no intention to stop being rebellious?

Again, what standard do we have to know? I notice this was ignored when I asked last time. The standard that one has as a Credobaptist is a profession of faith and (I would hope) an examination of the person's sincerity in making that profession. The one ,aking such a profession could have no intention to change in their heart - which is ultimately discerned only by God and that person

 

[MennoSota]

Again, what standard do we have to know? I notice this was ignored when I asked last time. The standard that one has as a Credobaptist is a profession of faith and (I would hope) an examination of the person's sincerity in making that profession. The one ,aking such a profession could have no intention to change in their heart - which is ultimately discerned only by God and that person

Do you baptize as the Apostles showed us in scripture? There is no baptism of an infant recorded in the Bible so I can state that I practice baptism as the Apostles showed us. You cannot. Instead, your only statement is that God has not forbidden our method of baptism that was never established in the Bible.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Again, what standard do we have to know? I notice this was ignored when I asked last time. The standard that one has as a Credobaptist is a profession of faith and (I would hope) an examination of the person's sincerity in making that profession. The one making such a profession could have no intention to change in their heart - which is ultimately discerned only by God and that person

Do you baptize as the Apostles showed us in scripture? There is no baptism of an infant recorded in the Bible so I can state that I practice baptism as the Apostles showed us. You cannot. Instead, your only statement is that God has not forbidden our method of baptism that was never established in the Bible.

Menno, I am adhering to the OP of this thread. It is not about the baptism of infants. It is on the subject of Credobaptism. Please respond to the post as written

 

[Josiah]

I don't even care if there is no restriction in the Bible.

Then why invent in the late 16th Century a DOGMA that one subset of humanity is RESTRICTED? Why invent a dogma that "Thou canst NOT baptize any who hath not in your chronological time FIRST, previously, verbally and publicly proven that they had ALREADY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior before the prohibition to baptize (?) is lifted and such may be baptize but otherwise it is forbidden, dogmatically prohibited, invalid, a mockery to not restrict baptisms!!!"

Or is your whole point that you don't give a rip what the Bible says and doesen't say..... YOU can just invent RESTRICTIONS... as DOGMA...and God and everyone has to obey YOU?

 

[MennoSota]

Menno, I am adhering to the OP of this thread. It is not about the baptism of infants. It is on the subject of Credobaptism. Please respond to the post as written

I have provided a myriad of scripture showing the Apostles and early church members practicing Credobaptism. It is not my fault if you deny they baptized after a person confessed faith...just as the Bible has recorded.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Again, what standard do we have to know? I notice this was ignored when I asked last time. The standard that one has as a Credobaptist is a profession of faith and (I would hope) an examination of the person's sincerity in making that profession. The one making such a profession could have no intention to change in their heart - which is ultimately discerned only by God and that person

I have provided a myriad of scripture showing the Apostles and early church members practicing Credobaptism. It is not my fault if you deny they baptized after a person confessed faith...just as the Bible has recorded.

I am honestly trying to engage in a civil discussion and address the OP. If you are unable or unwilling to answer my post, please say so. There is also context for my post that I quoted. If you need to read the previous posts to see the context, please do so.

 

[Josiah]

I don't even care if there are no restrictions in the Bible

Every person who does not confess faith is restricted from baptism.

So, YOU can just invent a restriction (as dogma) - and God and everyone else is mandated to agree with YOU.

 

[MennoSota]

I am honestly trying to engage in a civil discussion and address the OP. If you are unable or unwilling to answer my post, please say so. There is also context for my post that I quoted. If you need to read the previous posts to see the context, please do so.

Is the Bible and what God shares with us not the standard by which we understand theology and practice?
If we don't see the practice of paedobaptism in scripture, should we promote it? If we see the practice of credobaptism in scripture should we promote it?
Credobaptism in the book of Acts is obvious. The Apostles practiced it. Paedobaptism in the book of Acts is absent. We have no evidence that anyone practiced it.
So, if the Bible is our standard for practicing baptism, which form of baptism is actually shown being practiced?
Honestly, your unwillingness to accept credobaptism when the standard of measurement, the Bible, shows it being practiced, while the standard of measurement, the Bible, does not show paedobaptism being practiced is fascinating. I watch you deny a factual reality in order to hold a speculative unknown. That's just amazing to me.

 

[MennoSota]

So, YOU can just invent a restriction (as dogma) - and God and everyone else is mandated to agree with YOU.

Peter asked for discernment regarding whether Cornelius should be restricted from baptism. There is clear precedence in the Bible. There is literally ZERO precedence in the Bible for infant baptism.
Take up the restrictive nature of baptism with the Apostle Peter.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Is the Bible and what God shares with us not the standard by which we understand theology and practice?
If we don't see the practice of paedobaptism in scripture, should we promote it? If we see the practice of credobaptism in scripture should we promote it?
Credobaptism in the book of Acts is obvious. The Apostles practiced it. Paedobaptism in the book of Acts is absent. We have no evidence that anyone practiced it.
So, if the Bible is our standard for practicing baptism, which form of baptism is actually shown being practiced?
Honestly, your unwillingness to accept credobaptism when the standard of measurement, the Bible, shows it being practiced, while the standard of measurement, the Bible, does not show paedobaptism being practiced is fascinating. I watch you deny a factual reality in order to hold a speculative unknown. That's just amazing to me.

I fully accept at this point your unwillingness to engage with me in a discussion on the OP. Your incessant focus on a topic not under consideration in this thread is noted - hopefully by others as well

 

[MennoSota]

I fully accept at this point your unwillingness to engage with me in a discussion on the OP. Your incessant focus on a topic not under consideration in this thread is noted - hopefully by others as well

I addressed you question about standard of measurement regarding both credo and paedo baptism. It is very clear to all that you refuse to accept what the Bible reveals to us
Credobaptism is revealed in the Bible. Paedobaptism is not revealed in the Bible. Simple fact.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I addressed you question about standard of measurement regarding both credo and paedo baptism.

Can you refer me to where I asked this?

Recall, also, that my recent posts asking for clarification on how one knows that a person has truly repented, with only the person's profession of faith as a standard for acceptance to the baptism rite, has gone unanswered.