Credobaptism

[Josiah]

The dogma of Credobaptism, invented by some radical synergists in the late 16th Century NOT because of any Scripture but so that baptism "jibes" with radical synergism, is this: It is DOGMATICALLY PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until the recipient first in chronological time prove - verbally and publicly - that they previously chose Jesus as their personal Savior, only AFTER THAT in our time is the prohibition to baptize (?) lifted and that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, heretical and invalid. That's the Dogma. That's the entire issue, the entire issue, the only issue: this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.



You yourself posted: "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.


The entirety of this dogma invented by those radical synertistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century is that those who have not previously proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior are restricted from baptism. That's the dogma, that's the whole enchilada. You are defending this not with any Scripture or history, but with the statement that you don't give a rip if there is any such restriction, it's Anabaptist dogma so the restriction exists.


YOU have demanded that everyone here (including you) "scrap" (your verbatim word) all tradition (how individual churches/denominations understand and interpret things - that includes the Baptists) and "go ONLY BY THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE." But you've not posted one Scripture that states this restriction and you admit you don't give a rip if Scripture does or doesn't. All you do is parrot Anabaptist tradition..... as dogma.... just echo endlessly Anabaptist tradition. All you to is the EXACT THING, the VERY THING you insist none can do, the very thing you repudiate. It's all you do on this topic. It's obvious. You've proven it to everyone here perhaps except one (yourself)



- Josiah


.

what credobaptism is

Credobaptism is one of the three DEFINING dogmas of Baptists.
It is a dogma invented by some radical synergists in the late 16th century (reversing some 1500 years of UNIVERSAL Christian practice).
The dogma is just this: It is prohibited to baptize any unless and until they have FIRST in our chronological time proven - verbally and publicly - that they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT is accomplished, the prohibition to baptize is lifted and that one may afterwards be baptize; all other baptisms are forbidden and invalid.


Your quote from John MacArthur never even so much as even MENTIONED baptism or mandated or prohibited or verbal or proving or after or choosing or stating or anything whatsoever having to do with the Dogma you intend to defend. And of course, he never mentioned even one Scripture, no even one. Defining the dogma or anything else for that matter.




.

 

[MennoSota]

It is one of the three DEFINING dogmas of Baptists. It is a dogma invented by some radical synergists in the late 16th century (reversing some 1500 years of UNIVERSAL Christian practice). The dogma is just this: It is prohibited to baptize any unless and until they have FIRST in our chronological time proven - verbally and publicly - that they had preciously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, AFTER THAT is accomplished, the prohibition to baptize is lifted and that one may afterwards be baptize; all other baptisms are forbidden and invalid.


Your quote from John MacArthur never even so much as MENTIONED baptism or mandated or prohibited or verbal or proving or after or choosing or stating or anything whatsoever having to do with the Dogma you intend to defend. And of course, he never mentioned even one Scripture, no even one.

You reject all the credobaptisms in the book of Acts anyway, so why use scripture with you? Josiah, the term credobaptism may have been created later, but the actual function of credobaptism is shown in every instance in the book of Acts.
Funny enough, there is never any paedobaptism shown in the entire Bible, let alone the book of Acts.
Therefore, credobaptism clearly was practiced before paedobaptism ever was introduced, over 100 years after the Apostles.
The choice is yours. You can reject the credobaptism displayed in the book of Acts or you can accept it.
For you to keep repeating a false statement that it didn't exist until the 16th century is for you to repeat false statements over and over again. However, I recognize you have many crutches you lean on in order to uphold your Lutheran traditions.

 

[Josiah]

the actual function of credobaptism is shown in every instance in the book of Acts.

Prove it. Prove that every baptism in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 was of one who PREVIOUSLY had proven - verbally and publicly - that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

Then prove that this matters because you and your church do NOTHING that is not just like what is done in examples found in the Bible and EVERYTHING you and your church does is exactly like what is done in Genesis - Revelation. Otherwise, you reject your whole premise and thus even if you could prove every baptism in the Bible was of those who previously had publicly and verbally proven they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior would be irrelevant to YOU (and thus laughable for you to demand others accept what you yourself reject).





.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Prove it. Prove that every baptism in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 was of one who PREVIOUSLY had proven - verbally and publicly - that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.

Then prove that this matters because you and your church do NOTHING that is not just like what is done in examples found in the Bible and EVERYTHING you and your church does is exactly like what is done in Genesis - Revelation. Otherwise, you reject your whole premise and thus even if you could prove every baptism in the Bible was of those who previously had publicly and verbally proven they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior would be irrelevant to YOU (and thus laughable for you to demand others accept what you yourself reject).





.



.

We have gone over and over this. Just because you claim the household had infants does not therefore make the claim true. Since no infants are indicated and you claim they were baptized...YOU prove it!
What is proved is that in every instance of baptism described in the book of Acts we see confession of faith before baptism. In other words, we see credobaptism. That's the proof, Josiah. You must either accept what scripture says or you must invent what scripture does not say. You choose the latter. I choose the former.

 

[Josiah]

Just because you claim the household had infants does not therefore make the claim true.

YOU are the one making a foundational claim about all these baptisms in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.
I have NEVER made ANY claims about ANY baptisms in the Bible.
You have founded the entire dogma here on your claim that "every baptism in the Bible was one of who PREVIOUSLY in our chronological time had verbally and publicly proven that FIRST they chosen Jesus as their personal Savior AFTER they had performed that, THEN the prohibition to baptize was lifted and every was baptized."
YOUR claim is that the Apostles prohibited any baptisms of those who had not verbally and publicly proven they had FIRST chosen JEsus as their personal Savior.
That's YOUR claim, not mine.
Frankly, I don't know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about those people baptized in those households..
But YOU know - dogmatically!!!!
YOUR claim. You just refuse to show it's true.
In fact, you posted YOU don't NEED to show it's true.
YOU have the claim. Your entire argument rests on it. You just refuse to show it's true.


Then show why it matters. Prove that you and your church do NOTHING that is not exactly done exactly that way in the Bible and that you and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as is done in the Bible - thus you think it is normative to do things as done in the Bible and not do as not done in the Bible. Until you show that you yourself accept your apologetic, it's just nonsense and absurd to ask us to accept what you don't.




.

 

[MennoSota]

YOU are the one making a foundational claim about all these baptisms in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.
I have NEVER made ANY claims about ANY baptisms in the Bible.
You have founded the entire dogma here on your claim that "every baptism in the Bible was one of who PREVIOUSLY in our chronological time had verbally and publicly proven that FIRST they chosen Jesus as their personal Savior AFTER they had performed that, THEN the prohibition to baptize was lifted and every was baptized."
YOUR claim is that the Apostles prohibited any baptisms of those who had not verbally and publicly proven they had FIRST chosen JEsus as their personal Savior.
That's YOUR claim, not mine.
Frankly, I don't know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about those people baptized in those households..
But YOU know - dogmatically!!!!
YOUR claim. You just refuse to show it's true.
In fact, you posted YOU don't NEED to show it's true.
YOU have the claim. Your entire argument rests on it. You just refuse to show it's true.


Then show why it matters. Prove that you and your church do NOTHING that is not exactly done exactly that way in the Bible and that you and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as is done in the Bible - thus you think it is normative to do things as done in the Bible and not do as not done in the Bible. Until you show that you yourself accept your apologetic, it's just nonsense and absurd to ask us to accept what you don't.




.

You are the one claiming babies were baptized by the Apostles. Prove it.
What I claim is that every instance of baptism shown in the book of Acts is after a person confesses faith. I quoted every passage. I proved my point. If you refuse the proof of the Bible...then there is no more proof I can provide. You are rejecting God's word and rejecting Sola scriptura. There is nothing more I can do for you, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

This ENTIRE DOGMA is about a supposed, a claimed PROHIBITION, a claimed RESTRICTION.


You yourself posted: "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.


The entirety of this dogma invented by those radical synertistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century is that those who have not previously proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior are restricted from baptism. That's the dogma, that's the whole enchilada. You are defending this not with any Scripture or history, but with the statement that you don't give a rip if there is any such restriction, it's Anabaptist dogma so the restriction exists.


YOU have demanded that everyone here (including you) "scrap" (your verbatim word) all tradition (how individual churches/denominations understand and interpret things - that includes the Baptists) and "go ONLY BY THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE." But you've not posted one Scripture that states this restriction and you admit you don't give a rip if Scripture does or doesn't. All you do is parrot Anabaptist tradition..... as dogma.... just echo endlessly Anabaptist tradition. All you to is the EXACT THING, the VERY THING you insist none can do, the very thing you repudiate. It's all you do on this topic. It's obvious. You've proven it to everyone here perhaps except one (yourself)


.

You are the one claiming babies were baptized by the Apostles. Prove it.

As everyone knows....

I have NEVER claimed ANYTHING about what the Apostles did and didn't do concerning Baptism.

YOU have
YOUR foundational claim.
YOUR entire apologetic depends on this.
YOU claim the Apostles dogmatically prohibited anyone to be baptized who had not previously proven verbally and publicly that they had chosen Jesus as their Savior.
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim that YOU "don't need to"
YOU claim that everyone the Apostles and anyone else who baptized mandated that FIRST the recipient had to prove verbally and publicly that they had chosen Jesus.
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim you don't need to show it's true.
YOU are the one insisting that 'every baptism in the Bible was of one who previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior."
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim YOU don't need to show it's true.

Consider everyone baptized in the households in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.
PROVE every one of them had first proven that they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.
PROVE that those who had not were forbidden to be baptized.

Then prove why this whole claim of your even matters! Prove that you and your church do NOTHING that is not exactly done exactly that way in the Bible and that you and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as is done in the Bible - thus you think it is normative to do things as done in the Bible and not do as not done in the Bible. Until you show that you yourself accept your apologetic, it's just nonsense and absurd to ask us to accept what you don't.




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

John MacArthur said it well.

Well, If John McArthur can't even understand the Mainline Protestant position, I'm not surprised that some here struggle. And yet, Mainline Protestants can parrot the Evangelical line while standing on their heads in the corner stacking greased b-b's...

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not know of any Christian group that refuses credobaptism when it is asked for and no previous valid baptism was applied to the one asking.

 

[MennoSota]

As everyone knows....

I have NEVER claimed ANYTHING about what the Apostles did and didn't do concerning Baptism.

YOU have
YOUR foundational claim.
YOUR entire apologetic depends on this.
YOU claim the Apostles dogmatically prohibited anyone to be baptized who had not previously proven verbally and publicly that they had chosen Jesus as their Savior.
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim that YOU "don't need to"
YOU claim that everyone the Apostles and anyone else who baptized mandated that FIRST the recipient had to prove verbally and publicly that they had chosen Jesus.
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim you don't need to show it's true.
YOU are the one insisting that 'every baptism in the Bible was of one who previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior."
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim YOU don't need to show it's true.

Consider everyone baptized in the households in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.
PROVE every one of them had first proven that they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.
PROVE that those who had not were forbidden to be baptized.

Then prove why this whole claim of your even matters! Prove that you and your church do NOTHING that is not exactly done exactly that way in the Bible and that you and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as is done in the Bible - thus you think it is normative to do things as done in the Bible and not do as not done in the Bible. Until you show that you yourself accept your apologetic, it's just nonsense and absurd to ask us to accept what you don't.




.

The proof is in the scripture. I cannot help it if you pull something from outside of scripture and then refuse to prove it.
What I can do is show you what scripture shows us and you can either accept it or reject it.
Since scripture repeatedly shows us credobaptism you can choose to accept what scripture shows us or reject it. I accept credobaptism because the Bible shows us credobaptism. It's as simple as that, Josiah.
Now, on the flip side, the Bible never shows us paedobaptism...ever. Therefore, I reject it. It's as simple as that, Josiah.
You can run your dog and pony show with someone who cares about your bogus argument.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, If John McArthur can't even understand the Mainline Protestant position, I'm not surprised that some here struggle. And yet, Mainline Protestants can parrot the Evangelical line while standing on their heads in the corner stacking greased b-b's...

He did just fine. I cannot, however, make you comprehend it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Dr. McArthur is a very strict Calvinist. His views are quite in the same vein as yours so I'm not surprised at his out-of-context comment about making one's "calling and election sure". If one is "called" and "elect" in a very strict Calvinist view, then there's nothing that can change that fact -they are "saved" for good and for ever, and that's his perspective. What he's done in saying one must wait until able to make a profession of faith to be baptized is to take the very view he is against - namely that the "calling and election of God" is not sure at all - the response of the individual becomes the act that saves, not the act of God. And to state that the one who is called and elected must then go through some rite of passage (baptism) is to place another requirement alongside the act of God. What some are "failing to comprehend" is that whether Mainline Protestants baptize an infant or an adult (we actually do that, too...) the saving is entirely an act of God, completely without merit of the individual - including the baptism rite.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Dr. McArthur is a very strict Calvinist. His views are quite in the same vein as yours so I'm not surprised at his out-of-context comment about making one's "calling and election sure". If one is "called" and "elect" in a very strict Calvinist view, then there's nothing that can change that fact -they are "saved" for good and for ever, and that's his perspective. What he's done in saying one must wait until able to make a profession of faith to be baptized is to take the very view he is against - namely that the "calling and election of God" is not sure at all - the response of the individual becomes the act that saves, not the act of God. And to state that the one who is called and elected must then go through some rite of passage (baptism) is to place another requirement alongside the act of God. What some are "failing to comprehend" is that whether Mainline Protestants baptize an infant or an adult (we actually do that, too...) the saving is entirely an act of God, completely without merit of the individual - including the baptism rite.

Baptism is God's selected means for applying the saving work of Jesus Christ to the faithful. Because it is God's work it has very little to do with the works of the one baptised except insofar as the church will decline to baptise a person who denies Christ, flagrantly denies the teaching of Christ, or lives in such open and scandalous sin that it would be mockery to baptise such a person. Naturally those exception conditions apply to people who are capable of doing the things noted. Infant children are not capable of doing those things. Their parents may be and in the case of parents who do such things the Church would be hard pressed to get them (the parents) to sincerely promise the things that they must sincerely promise to have their child baptised.

Make your calling and election sure is not a work of God apart from the one advised to make their calling and election sure. That is a task for the faithful to perform through their lifetime. As the passage itself makes clear:

(II Peter 1:3-15) *3* His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, *4* by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. *5* For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, *6* and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, *7* and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. *8* For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. *9* For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. *10* Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. *11* For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

*12* Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. *13* I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, *14* since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. *15* And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.​

Saint Peter is not a theologian concerned to create a system of beliefs that a Lawyer would be proud to present as a PhD thesis. His work was to pastor and guide the faithful so that their labours would not be in vain and so that they would receive the promises of Christ given in the gospel wherein Christ gave assurance that the faithful would receive grace and eternal life if they remained in him (See John 15).

Some worry themselves about falling from the faith and losing salvation and then they seek assurance from words and passages in the holy scriptures that nothing they do can separate them from the love of God. But that is not the matter that saint Peter is concerned with. His concern is to give pastoral advice to the faithful and encourage them to live the kind of life that Christ called them to live and to be among the elect who live godly in this world because they have hope of receiving eternal life in the next world.

 

[MennoSota]

Baptism is God's selected means for applying the saving work of Jesus Christ to the faithful. Because it is God's work it has very little to do with the works of the one baptised except insofar as the church will decline to baptise a person who denies Christ, flagrantly denies the teaching of Christ, or lives in such open and scandalous sin that it would be mockery to baptise such a person. Naturally those exception conditions apply to people who are capable of doing the things noted. Infant children are not capable of doing those things. Their parents may be and in the case of parents who do such things the Church would be hard pressed to get them (the parents) to sincerely promise the things that they must sincerely promise to have their child baptised.

Make your calling and election sure is not a work of God apart from the one advised to make their calling and election sure. That is a task for the faithful to perform through their lifetime. As the passage itself makes clear:

(II Peter 1:3-15) *3* His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, *4* by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. *5* For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, *6* and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, *7* and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. *8* For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. *9* For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. *10* Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. *11* For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

*12* Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. *13* I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, *14* since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. *15* And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.​

Saint Peter is not a theologian concerned to create a system of beliefs that a Lawyer would be proud to present as a PhD thesis. His work was to pastor and guide the faithful so that their labours would not be in vain and so that they would receive the promises of Christ given in the gospel wherein Christ gave assurance that the faithful would receive grace and eternal life if they remained in him (See John 15).

Some worry themselves about falling from the faith and losing salvation and then they seek assurance from words and passages in the holy scriptures that nothing they do can separate them from the love of God. But that is not the matter that saint Peter is concerned with. His concern is to give pastoral advice to the faithful and encourage them to live the kind of life that Christ called them to live and to be among the elect who live godly in this world because they have hope of receiving eternal life in the next world.

Thanks MC. It seems you support credobaptism and encourage child dedication, meaning the parents dedicate themselves to raise the child up in path of faith.
I know a few churches that embrace child dedication, making sure to view it as a covenant of the community with no assurance that the ceremony will grant faith or the Holy Spirit to that child.

 

[Josiah]

This ENTIRE DOGMA is about a supposed, a claimed RESTRICTION.


You yourself posted: "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.


The entirety of this dogma invented by those radical synertistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century is that those who have not previously proven they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior are restricted from baptism. That's the dogma, that's the whole enchilada. You are defending this not with any Scripture or history, but with the statement that you don't give a rip if there is any such restriction, it's Anabaptist dogma so the restriction exists.



YOU have demanded that everyone here (including you) "scrap" (your verbatim word) all tradition (how individual churches/denominations understand and interpret things - that includes the Baptists) and "go ONLY BY THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE." But you've not posted one Scripture that states this restriction and you admit you don't give a rip if Scripture does or doesn't. All you do is parrot Anabaptist tradition..... as dogma.... just echo endlessly Anabaptist tradition. All you to is the EXACT THING, the VERY THING you insist none can do, the very thing you repudiate. It's all you do on this topic. It's obvious. You've proven it to everyone here perhaps except one (yourself)


.

As everyone knows....

I have NEVER claimed ANYTHING about what the Apostles did and didn't do concerning Baptism.

YOU have
YOUR foundational claim.
YOUR entire apologetic depends on this.
YOU claim the Apostles dogmatically prohibited anyone to be baptized who had not previously proven verbally and publicly that they had chosen Jesus as their Savior.
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim that YOU "don't need to"
YOU claim that everyone the Apostles and anyone else who baptized mandated that FIRST the recipient had to prove verbally and publicly that they had chosen Jesus.
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim you don't need to show it's true.
YOU are the one insisting that 'every baptism in the Bible was of one who previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior."
YOU just won't show it's true. You claim YOU don't need to show it's true.

Consider everyone baptized in the households in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.
PROVE every one of them had first proven that they had accepted Jesus as their personal Savior.
PROVE that those who had not were forbidden to be baptized.

Then prove why this whole claim of your even matters! Prove that you and your church do NOTHING that is not exactly done exactly that way in the Bible and that you and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as is done in the Bible - thus you think it is normative to do things as done in the Bible and not do as not done in the Bible. Until you show that you yourself accept your apologetic, it's just nonsense and absurd to ask us to accept what you don't.


.

The proof is in the scripture.

Then it's EASY (and I wonder why you won't show it?)

Quote verbatim Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and perhaps put into bold print for us all where it states, "And everyone in the household who was baptized had first in our chronological time proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; those who could not were denied baptism, it being forbidden in that case." Just embolden or underline that part of those two verses since you state it's proven in the verses. IF your claim is true and Scripture states it, then just quote it. Easy. Simple. Why have you not yet done it?


Then, finally, show us that you give a rip whether your claim (which you have yet to show is true) matters to you. Prove that YOU and your church do NOTHING that is not done exactly how it is always done in Genesis - Revelation and YOU and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation. In other words, that you accept and follow your own point. Because I see NOTHING that shows that you do, that you accept your own norm. So since it seems you REJECT and DO NOT FOLLOW your own norm, how silly and absurd of you to demand everyone else do what you don't do. Your entire apologetic is absurd, silly. You YOURSELF reject it. We're just agreeing with you - your whole point is wrong. Even if you would finally quote the verse you insist exists but so far have refused to quote.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Then it's EASY (and I wonder why you won't show it?)

Quote verbatim Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and perhaps put into bold print for us all where it states, "And everyone in the household who was baptized had first in our chronological time proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; those who could not were denied baptism, it being forbidden in that case." Just embolden or underline that part of those two verses since you state it's proven in the verses. IF your claim is true and Scripture states it, then just quote it. Easy. Simple. Why have you not yet done it?


Then, finally, show us that you give a rip whether your claim (which you have yet to show is true) matters to you. Prove that YOU and your church do NOTHING that is not done exactly how it is always done in Genesis - Revelation and YOU and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation. In other words, that you accept and follow your own point. Because I see NOTHING that shows that you do, that you accept your own norm. So since it seems you REJECT and DO NOT FOLLOW your own norm, how silly and absurd of you to demand everyone else do what you don't do. Your entire apologetic is absurd, silly. You YOURSELF reject it. We're just agreeing with you - your whole point is wrong. Even if you would finally quote the verse you insist exists but so far have refused to quote.



- Josiah




.

I have quoted the verses multiple times. I will do so again. Where do you see infants baptized? They aren't there. No mention at all.
Instead, I see confession of faith, then baptism.
Acts 16:14-15 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:30-34 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 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.

Josiah, there is the evidence. God never says infants were baptized. If you find the baptizing of infants, please show it to me. There is zero mention of infants in either passage in my Bible translation (ESV). Does the Greek say "infants" and the translators just failed?

The proof is in the text. Why are you FORCING infants into the text where no infants are ever mentioned?
Observation shows zero infants being mentioned. That's the proof. You can reject what the text actually says and add something not expressed into the text if you dare. I will not force God to say something He has not said and never said anywhere in the Bible.
Do you think God was negligent and failed to actually say what he meant? Did God make a mistake and neglect to say infants were baptized? I don't think God made a mistake. God never said infants were baptized. The proof is in what God actually says...not what you desperately want God to say.
What God says is that they believed and then were baptized. Proof.

 

[Josiah]

T
This ENTIRE DOGMA is about a supposed, a claimed RESTRICTION.


You yourself posted: "I don't even care if there are no restrictions in the Bible." "Every person who does not first 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.


.

Then it's EASY...

Quote verbatim Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 and perhaps put into bold print for us all where it states, "And everyone in the household who was baptized had first in our chronological time proven - verbally and publicly - that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior; those who could not were denied baptism, it being forbidden in that case." Just embolden or underline that part of those two verses since you state it's proven in the verses. IF your claim is true and Scripture states it, then just quote it. Easy. Simple. Why have you not yet done it?


.

Acts 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us."

they believed and then were baptized.

Where does it say, "they believed and then they were baptized?" Where does it state, "They FIRST publicly and verbally proved they first had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and thus the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were allowed to be baptized."


The DOGMA we're discussing is that there is a RESTRICTION, a prohibition, the invalidation, on any baptism where the receiver has not previously proven - verbally and publicly - that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The Dogma is that RESTRICTION. THAT is the dogma. The entirely of it. Invented by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, declaring that all baptisms for 1500 years before that were thus invalid and forbidden.

You have stated that that RESTRICTION is stated in the Bible. That the Bible "says" it. Then that you don't care if it's stated in the Bible. Then that it is stated in the Bible.

And you have demanded that we "scrap" any and all tradition (how individual persons and churches understand things - including Baptists and you) and we can only go by what the Bible STATES. And you insist it states this RESTRICTION but then you don't care it the Bible states it or not, Baptists state it.

You stated it says that everyone baptized in those households FIRST in our chronological time, proved - verbally and publicly - that they have previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does Acts 16:15 show you are right?

Acts 16:33 "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."

they believed and then were baptized.

Where does it say, "they believed and then they were baptized?" Where does it state, "They FIRST publicly and verbally proved they first had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and thus the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were allowed to be baptized."


The DOGMA we're discussing is that there is a RESTRICTION, a prohibition, on any baptism where the receiver has not previously proven - verbally and publicly - that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The Dogma is that RESTRICTION. THAT is the dogma. The entirely of it. Invited by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, declaring that all baptisms for 1500 years before that were thus invalid and heretical.

You have stated that that RESTRICTION is stated in the Bible. That the Bible "says" it. Then that you don't care if it's stated in the Bible.

And you have demanded that we "scrap" any and all tradition (how individual persons and churches understand things - including Baptists and you) and we can only go by what the Bible STATES. And you insist it states this RESTRICTION but then you don't care it the Bible states it or not, Baptists state it.

You stated it says that everyone baptized in those households FIRST in our chronological time, proved - verbally and publicly - that they have previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does Acts 16:33 show you are right?




More importantly....

Then, finally, show us that you give a rip whether your claim (which you have yet to show is true) matters to you. Prove that YOU and your church do NOTHING that is not done exactly how it is always done in Genesis - Revelation and YOU and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation. In other words, that you accept and follow your own point. Because I see NOTHING that shows that you do, that you accept your own norm. So since it seems you REJECT and DO NOT FOLLOW your own norm, how silly and absurd of you to demand everyone else do what you don't do. Your entire apologetic is absurd, silly. You YOURSELF reject it. We're just agreeing with you - your whole point is wrong. Even if you would finally quote the verse you insist exists but so far have refused to quote.



.

.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay.

The DOGMA we're discussing is that there is a RESTRICTION, a prohibition, the invalidation, on any baptism where the receiver has not previously proven - verbally and publicly - that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The Dogma is that RESTRICTION. THAT is the dogma. The entirely of it. Invented by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, declaring that all baptisms for 1500 years before that were thus invalid and forbidden.

You have stated that that RESTRICTION is stated in the Bible. That the Bible "says" it. Then that you don't care if it's stated in the Bible. Then that it is stated in the Bible.

And you have demanded that we "scrap" any and all tradition (how individual persons and churches understand things - including Baptists and you) and we can only go by what the Bible STATES. And you insist it states this RESTRICTION but then you don't care it the Bible states it or not, Baptists state it.

You stated it says that everyone baptized in those households FIRST in our chronological time, proved - verbally and publicly - that they have previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does Acts 16:15 show you are right?






Okay.

The DOGMA we're discussing is that there is a RESTRICTION, a prohibition, on any baptism where the receiver has not previously proven - verbally and publicly - that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The Dogma is that RESTRICTION. THAT is the dogma. The entirely of it. Invited by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, declaring that all baptisms for 1500 years before that were thus invalid and heretical.

You have stated that that RESTRICTION is stated in the Bible. That the Bible "says" it. Then that you don't care if it's stated in the Bible.

And you have demanded that we "scrap" any and all tradition (how individual persons and churches understand things - including Baptists and you) and we can only go by what the Bible STATES. And you insist it states this RESTRICTION but then you don't care it the Bible states it or not, Baptists state it.

You stated it says that everyone baptized in those households FIRST in our chronological time, proved - verbally and publicly - that they have previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does Acts 16:33 show you are right?




More importantly....








.

What dogma?
We're talking what the Bible reveals. Call it believers baptism if you wish. The scriptures reveal a person expressing faith and then being baptized. Scripture never reveals infants being baptized. Scripture never reveals faithless people being baptized. Scripture reveals a person being given the gift of faith, expressing that faith and then being baptized as a result of that faith. That is what God recorded for us.
Either you accept that truth or you don't. Either you make up your own methods of baptism, without biblical representation, or you stay with what the Bible actually, truly, reveals.
You and I are not arguing dogma. You and I are arguing whether you have the freedom to make up a form of baptism that the Bible never portrays.
You say that you have the freedom to make it up without biblical support. I see your choice as poor and dangerous just like Aaron's two sons choosing to create their own incense.

 

[Josiah]

You posted:
Acts 16:15 "And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us."

You added, "they believed and then were baptized."


Where does Acts 16:15 say, "they believed and then they were baptized?" Where does it state, "They FIRST publicly and verbally proved they first had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and thus the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were allowed to be baptized."


The DOGMA we're discussing is that there is a RESTRICTION, a prohibition, the invalidation, on any baptism where the receiver has not previously proven - verbally and publicly - that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The Dogma is that RESTRICTION. THAT is the dogma. The entirely of it. Invented by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, declaring that all baptisms for 1500 years before that were thus invalid and forbidden.

You have stated that that this dogmatic RESTRICTION is stated in the Bible. That the Bible "says" it. Then that you don't care if it's stated in the Bible. Then that it is stated in the Bible.

And you have demanded that we "scrap" any and all tradition (how individual persons and churches understand things - including Baptists and you) and we can only go by what the Bible STATES. And you insist it states this RESTRICTION but then you don't care it the Bible states it or not, Baptists state it.

You stated it says that everyone baptized in those households FIRST in our chronological time, proved - verbally and publicly - that they have previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does Acts 16:15 show you are right?



You stated:
Acts 16:33 "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."

YOU stated, "they believed and then were baptized."


Where does Acts 16:33 say, "they believed and then they were baptized?" Where does it state, "They FIRST publicly and verbally proved they first had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and thus the prohibition to baptize was lifted and they were allowed to be baptized."


The DOGMA we're discussing is that there is a RESTRICTION, a prohibition, on any baptism where the receiver has not previously proven - verbally and publicly - that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. The Dogma is that dogmatic RESTRICTION. THAT is the dogma. The entirely of it. Invited by some radical synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, declaring that all baptisms for 1500 years before that were thus invalid and heretical.

You have stated that that RESTRICTION is stated in the Bible. That the Bible "says" it. Then that you don't care if it's stated in the Bible.

And you have demanded that we "scrap" any and all tradition (how individual persons and churches understand things - including Baptists and you) and we can only go by what the Bible STATES. And you insist it states this RESTRICTION but then you don't care it the Bible states it or not, Baptists state it.

You stated it says that everyone baptized in those households FIRST in our chronological time, proved - verbally and publicly - that they have previously had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Where does Acts 16:33 show you are right?


.

What dogma?

Read the title of the thread. It's one of the DEFINING dogmas of Baptists. And one you have been defending since you came to this site.

The scriptures reveal a person expressing faith and then being baptized.

If truth matters AT ALL to you, prove it. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.


Then, finally, show us that you give a rip whether your claim (which you have yet to show is true) matters to you. Prove that YOU and your church do NOTHING that is not done exactly how it is always done in Genesis - Revelation and YOU and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation. In other words, that you accept and follow your own point. Because I see NOTHING that shows that you do, that you accept your own norm. So since it seems you REJECT and DO NOT FOLLOW your own norm, how silly and absurd of you to demand everyone else do what you don't do. Your entire apologetic is absurd, silly. You YOURSELF reject it. We're just agreeing with you - your whole point is wrong. Even if you would finally quote the verse you insist exists but so far have refused to quote.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Read the title of the thread. It's one of the DEFINING dogmas of Baptists. And one you have been defending since you came to this site.







If truth matters AT ALL to you, prove it. Start with Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33.


Then, finally, show us that you give a rip whether your claim (which you have yet to show is true) matters to you. Prove that YOU and your church do NOTHING that is not done exactly how it is always done in Genesis - Revelation and YOU and your church do EVERYTHING exactly as it was done in Genesis - Revelation. In other words, that you accept and follow your own point. Because I see NOTHING that shows that you do, that you accept your own norm. So since it seems you REJECT and DO NOT FOLLOW your own norm, how silly and absurd of you to demand everyone else do what you don't do. Your entire apologetic is absurd, silly. You YOURSELF reject it. We're just agreeing with you - your whole point is wrong. Even if you would finally quote the verse you insist exists but so far have refused to quote.




.

The title merely says that we practice believers baptism rather than non-believers baptism, which is what you do.
You're stuck on something that is worthless simply because you cannot view baptism in scripture alone. (Just another instance showing that you do not practice Sola scriptura.)