Credobaptism

[MennoSota]

A monergist should know that God chooses you, you do not choose God.
A “natural man” would not repent, only one who was first “made alive” by God is be capable of repentance.
Therein lies the flaw in padeobaptism, without God’s monergistic call, there is no faith and without faith it is impossible to please God ... so bringing people to God that God has not called to faith for a repentance they are incapable of to be baptized for the forgive sins that are not forgiven except by the monergistic first work of God in bringing the dead to life (Eph 2:1-10) is a mockery of monergism and smacks of Voodoo Christianity (a secret ritual to control the spirit world).

Well said, which is why our brother is neither a monergist nor one who holds to sola scriptura. Despite his objection, the Lutheran Church, Roman Church, Orthodox Church and Episcopal Church are all synergists who support tradition above the Bible.

 

[atpollard]

EXACTLY! Think about that.... t does NOT say, "it is forbidden to baptize any unless and until they hath first in our chronological time publicly and verbally proven that they hath previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savoir, AFTER THAT TIME, THEN the prohibition to baptism is lifted and you may thereafter baptize them."

It says “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Nowhere does scripture call for “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” WITHOUT repentance. If Peter says that repentance AND baptism yields forgiveness of sin, then baptism WITHOUT repentance will not yield forgiveness (otherwise Peter would have had no reason for “Repent and” in the command). “Kai” means “and”, so where there is no repentance, there is no forgiveness.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It says “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Nowhere does scripture call for “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” WITHOUT repentance. If Peter says that repentance AND baptism yields forgiveness of sin, then baptism WITHOUT repentance will not yield forgiveness (otherwise Peter would have had no reason for “Repent and” in the command). “Kai” means “and”, so where there is no repentance, there is no forgiveness.

You are incorrect. This passage does not mention repentance. (Acts 22:16) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

 

[MennoSota]

You are incorrect. This passage does not mention repentance. (Acts 22:16) And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.

Paul is summarizing what happened to him on the Road to Damascus. Acts 9 fills in the details, as does Galatians 1. Paul ascribes his conversion to God alone. Baptism came afterward.

Acts 9:4-19 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus.
Galatians 1:14-16 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;

 

[MoreCoffee]

Paul is summarizing what happened to him on the Road to Damascus.

You are incorrect. The passage is written by saint Luke not saint Paul and the words recorded are the words of Ananias so while it is saint Paul recounting the story it is not saint Paul who said "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name. " but rather it was Ananias who said it. And saint Ananias was not on the road with saint Paul but he did receive a message from God saying "(Acts 9:11-12, 15-16) [11] Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, [12] and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight. ... [15] Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. [16] For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." thus saint Ananias knew nothing of saint Paul's encounter before he was sent to baptise him and saint Ananias makes no mention of repentance before baptism in Acts 22:16 nor in Acts 9.

The story as told presents a case of baptism without any command to repent which is what atpollard said did not exist and which your post can't change.

 

[Josiah]

It says “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.”

EXACTLY! .... Think about that....


The sole verse you keep referencing does NOT state the dogma you desire to defend, it does NOT say,...

"Thou canst NOT baptize anyone unless and until such hath previously in our chronological time verbally and publicly prove they had previously chose Jesus as their personal Savior, only after that is accomplished is the prohibition to baptize lifted and that one may be baptized; otherwise it is forbidden, invalid, heretical (or to add your point, causes the person to be impenitent and causes God to be impotent in His desire for that person). Nope. Doesn't say that.

Or

"First repent then after that be baptrzed." As you have proven, the word "kai" doesn't imply or mean and certainly does not dogmatically mandate chronological sequence; as you've admitted, it does NOT mean "after that." Nope. Doesn't say that, does it? There are Greek words that mean that but none of them are found in any verse about baptism.




All the distinctive Baptist dogmas on baptism are PROHIBITIONS invented by some radical synergists in the late 16th Century.
Credobaptism: The dogmatic PROHIBITION to baptize before the recipient has verbally and publicly proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior
Anti-Paedobaptism: The dogmatic PROHIBITION to baptize anyone until they have attained a certain never-disclosed age.
Immersion-ONLY Baptism: The dogmatic PROHIBITION to baptize anyone unless every cell of their body is entirely submerged under water.
The Anabaptists offered not one Scripture to support any of these dogmas they invented - because there are none (as our Baptists here have proven)
But they remain the distinctive, defining dogmas of the Baptist denominations (whether "Baptist" appears in the legal moniker of the denomination or not)
They are mandated. Every other baptism is proclaimed as prohibited, invalid. EVERY baptism before the Anabaptists invented these 3 dogmas, and the vast majority since.




Your need to evade Credobaptism and replace it instead with a dogma that doesn't even exist, METANObaptism, is silly. And your admission that "kai" does NOT imply or mean and certainly does not MANDATE chronological sequence (as your apologetic requires) simply is an admission that the verse you keep quoting doesn't teach the dogma of Credobaptism. It wouldn't defend the non-exixtent Dogma of METANObaptism, either.

A monergist should know that God chooses you, you do not choose God.

Wrong thread.

What I find incredible is for a monergist - who also accepts irresistable grace - seems to hold that violating the RESTRICTIONS some radical synergistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century somehow renders God impotent. But you are just trying all the diversions you can think of, it seems. The topic here is singular: the DOGMATIC RESTRICTION these synergists invented - NOT because they had even one verse (they didn't) but because historic, ecumenical Christianity for 1500 years on this point offended their synergism; they held that God CANNOT bless one unless that one FIRST does their part - and obviously those under an age they didn't want to disclose cannot adequately do their own part. You echo their apologetic: "Children cannot.... children cannot... children cannot.... children cannot...."

But stick to the issue. Where does Scripture or history substantiate that every Christian for 1500 years (and most since) are clearly violating the words of the Bible and doing something DOGMATICALLY prohibited and invalid (and have been since AT LEAST 90 AD at the latest)? Where does this dogmatic PROHIBITION on baptizing one who has not previously in our chronological time proven - verbally and publicly - that they had already chosen Jesus as their personal Savior? Where is the verse that states that my baptism was invalid and heretical, that John Calvin and Martin Luther's baptism was invalid and heretical, that my son's baptism was invalid and heretical - prohibited in the Bible? And if not in the Bible, do you AT LEAST have solid Christian ecumenical history on your side?




.




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Paul is summarizing what happened to him on the Road to Damascus. Acts 9 fills in the details, as does Galatians 1. Paul ascribes his conversion to God alone. Baptism came afterward.

Acts 9:4-19 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank. Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight.” But Ananias answered, “Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus.
Galatians 1:14-16 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;

In what part does Saul/Paul make a declaration of faith PRIOR TO his being baptized in those passages? I don't see it. He acknowledges being "set apart" and "called", but I see no evident, verbal act of repentance, nor admission of having made one. The baptism that Ananias gave was ordered by God, not a result of anything Saul did - quite opposite of the Credobaptist requirements. So are you now saying the requirement is some nebulous "conversion to God", rather than an examination of a person's sincerity, with a verbal act of contrition/accepting Christ (e.g. the previous view)?

 

[MennoSota]

You are incorrect. The passage is written by saint Luke not saint Paul and the words recorded are the words of Ananias so while it is saint Paul recounting the story it is not saint Paul who said "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptised and wash away your sins, calling on his name. " but rather it was Ananias who said it. And saint Ananias was not on the road with saint Paul but he did receive a message from God saying "(Acts 9:11-12, 15-16) [11] Rise and go to the street called Straight, and at the house of Judas look for a man of Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, [12] and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight. ... [15] Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. [16] For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." thus saint Ananias knew nothing of saint Paul's encounter before he was sent to baptise him and saint Ananias makes no mention of repentance before baptism in Acts 22:16 nor in Acts 9.

The story as told presents a case of baptism without any command to repent which is what atpollard said did not exist and which your post can't change.

No, dude. Luke records Paul in summary with your quote.
Notice that Paul calls Jesus "Lord" on the Damascus road. He was praying fervently because he was repenting. The baptism comes afterward.
Peter called on repentance before baptism. Paul followed that same pattern. In every account of Paul's conversion we see this is what happened.

Acts 22:6-16 “As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

 

[Josiah]

In what part does Saul/Paul make a declaration of faith PRIOR TO his being baptized in those passages? I don't see it.

No one does.... because it's not there.


Worse, MennoSota is imposing a rubric he himself rejects, repudiates and doesn't follow (so far, I can't see that he EVER, in ANYTHING follows it)..

He dogmatically insists that something he CANNOT show is true (every baptism that happened in the Bible was of one who FIRST proved they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior).... dogmatically MANDATES a PROHIBITION on baptisms that don't meet that because we MUST do everything exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation and are PROHIBITED to do anything that is not done exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation. This he dogmatically mandates by posting on the internet (LOL)....

It's a claim he admits he can't show is true.... normed by a rule he shows he doesn't accept.

He acknowledges being "set apart" and "called", but I see no evident, verbal act of repentance, nor admission of having made one. The baptism that Ananias gave was ordered by God, not a result of anything Saul did - quite opposite of the Credobaptist requirements. So are you now saying the requirement is some nebulous "conversion to God", rather than an examination of a person's sincerity, with a verbal act of contrition/accepting Christ (e.g. the previous view)?

Yup.




.

 

[MennoSota]

In what part does Saul/Paul make a declaration of faith PRIOR TO his being baptized in those passages? I don't see it. He acknowledges being "set apart" and "called", but I see no evident, verbal act of repentance, nor admission of having made one. The baptism that Ananias gave was ordered by God, not a result of anything Saul did - quite opposite of the Credobaptist requirements. So are you now saying the requirement is some nebulous "conversion to God", rather than an examination of a person's sincerity, with a verbal act of contrition/accepting Christ (e.g. the previous view)?

In each situation, Paul is repenting by acknowledging Jesus as Lord.
Acts 9:4-5 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
Acts 22:7-8,10,16 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Galatians 1:13-16 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;

Notice in Galatians, Paul doesn't even mention baptism. He just says
"when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me."
Nowhere in the Bible do we ever see an unrepentant, faithless, person being given believers baptism. This is fact. You need to accept it.

 

[MennoSota]

No one does.... because it's not there.


Worse, MennoSota is imposing a rubric he himself rejects, repudiates and doesn't follow (so far, I can't see that he EVER, in ANYTHING follows it)..

He dogmatically insists that something he CANNOT show is true (every baptism that happened in the Bible was of one who FIRST proved they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior).... dogmatically MANDATES a PROHIBITION on baptisms that don't meet that because we MUST do everything exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation and are PROHIBITED to do anything that is not done exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation. This he dogmatically mandates by posting on the internet (LOL)....

It's a claim he admits he can't show is true.... normed by a rule he shows he doesn't accept.







Yup.




.

It's ironic that you preach the abuse of grace, Josiah.
Do you think Paul was an unrepentant person upon being baptized?

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, dude. Luke records Paul in summary with your quote.
Notice that Paul calls Jesus "Lord" on the Damascus road. He was praying fervently because he was repenting. The baptism comes afterward.

You are incorrect. atpollard claimed "It says “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Nowhere does scripture call for “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” WITHOUT repentance." Acts 22:16 says exactly what atpollard says is nowhere in scripture. You ought to deal with the claim and its refutation rather than imposing your own agenda on the discussion point.

 

[MennoSota]

You are incorrect. atpollard claimed "It says “Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” Nowhere does scripture call for “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” WITHOUT repentance." Acts 22:16 says exactly what atpollard says is nowhere in scripture. You ought to deal with the claim and its refutation rather than imposing your own agenda on the discussion point.

I have shared scripture. You can reject it if you desire.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have shared scripture. You can reject it if you desire.

You strayed from the current topic, it does not matter how many verses you post it still was off the current topic. But you can debate your new topic with someone who is interested in debating it with you. I am not.

 

[MennoSota]

You strayed from the current topic, it does not matter how many verses you post it still was off the current topic. But you can debate your new topic with someone who is interested in debating it with you. I am not.

It's directly on topic. Your insistance that Paul did not repent before baptism has been refuted.

 

[Josiah]

It's directly on topic. Your insistance that Paul did not repent before baptism has been refuted.

Exactly, try to stay on topic.


The Dogma is not "Previous Repentance Required" but "Previous Conversion Required." Quit trying to evade defending the dogma by trying to switch to one that doesn't exist.


The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Exactly, try to stay on topic.


The Dogma is not "Previous Repentance Required" but "Previous Conversion Required." Quit trying to evade defending the dogma by trying to switch to one that doesn't exist.


The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.




.

Without being adopted and gifted faith there is no repentance. Faith repents of sin.
No faithless person is ever recorded as being baptized in the Bible.
It surprises me that you don't accept or follow what the Bible clearly records, yet you accept and follow what the Bible NEVER records. How do you justify such a position?

 

[Josiah]

Without being adopted and gifted faith there is no repentance. Faith repents of sin.

There is no dogma of "Repentance Only Baptism."


The Dogma is not "Previous Repentance Required" but "Previous Conversion Required." Quit trying to evade defending the dogma by trying to switch to one that doesn't exist.


The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.

No faithless person is ever recorded as being baptized in the Bible.

No Americans are either. Not even one.

And since you reject the rule that we MUST do exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation, and are FORBIDDEN to other than as exactly was always done in the Bible, whatever dogma you'd invent about dogmatically prohibiting Americans from baptism would be silly; you don't accept the rule you keep demanding others accept.

It surprises me that you don't accept or follow what the Bible clearly records

1. Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

2. Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

3. Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

4. Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

5. Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

6. Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.




.

 

[MennoSota]

There is no dogma of "Repentance Only Baptism."


The Dogma is not "Previous Repentance Required" but "Previous Conversion Required." Quit trying to evade defending the dogma by trying to switch to one that doesn't exist.


The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.





No Americans are either. Not even one.

And since you reject the rule that we MUST do exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation, and are FORBIDDEN to other than as exactly was always done in the Bible, whatever dogma you'd invent about dogmatically prohibiting Americans from baptism would be silly; you don't accept the rule you keep demanding others accept.






1. Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

2. Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

3. Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

4. Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

5. Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

6. Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.




.


, yet you accept and follow what the Bible NEVER records. How do you justify such a position?

[/QUOTE]Josiah, are the infants in your church already filled with faith and expressing it before you baptize them...or do you just not care who gets baptized?

 

[Josiah]

There is no dogma of "Repentance Only Baptism." Stop trying to divert to a dogma that doesn't exist simply because you can't substantiate the Baptist dogma that does exist (the sole topic of this thread)


The Dogma is not "Previous Repentance Required" but "Previous Conversion Required." Quit trying to evade defending the dogma by trying to switch to one that doesn't exist.


The Dogma those radical synergtistic Anabaptists invented in the late 16th Century never mentioned repentance (before, during or after anything), the Dogma is: "It is dogmatically PROHIBITED to baptize any unless and until they hath FIRST in our chronological time verbally and publicly proven that they had PREVIOUSLY chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, after that has been accomplished, AFTER THAT that person may be baptized; all other baptisms are forbidden, invalid and heretical.


Now, prove that is true. You INSIST that can ONLY be done with the words of Scripture, so ... well..... we're still waiting... have been for over 400 years.... if you've finally found the Scripture(s), now might be the time to quote it.


And NO, you have not. You've not quoted even one verse that I don't fully and passionately and completely AGREE with every single word in it. But so far, nothing teaching this DOGMATIC PROHIBITION.... nothing teaching this dogmatic prerequisite... nothing.... nothing at all. ALL you have done is proved your claim is something you won't and can't show is true... and your apologetic is one you don't accept or follow.





No Americans are either. Not even one.

And since you reject the rule that we MUST do exactly as it was always done in Genesis - Revelation, and are FORBIDDEN to other than as exactly was always done in the Bible, whatever dogma you'd invent about dogmatically prohibiting Americans from baptism would be silly; you don't accept the rule you keep demanding others accept.






1. Do you baptize Americans or persons of the Negroid or Oriental races? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

2. Do you allow Gentiles to administer Baptism? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

3. Do you baptize in a tank back behind a curtain behind the pulpit? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

4. Do you permit women to receive Communion? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

5. Do you celebrate communion by passing around a tray will little plastic cups with a bit of Welch's Grape Juice squired in them? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.

6. Do you post on the internet? NOT ONE example of that is recorded in the Bible.


.

Josiah, are the infants in your church already filled with faith and expressing it before you baptize them...or do you just not care who gets baptized?

I don't invent dogmatic PROHIBITIONS against Americans or Negroids or Asians or tall people or big-footed people or Calvinist people or blonde-haired people or blue-eyed people simply because not every example of Baptism in Genesis - Revelation obviously includes them.

I don't dogmatically exempt African -Americans or children from the Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" either. Simply because some group suddenly doesn't invents a DOGMA to exclude THEM.