If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

You CONSTANTLY rant about how INFANT baptism is wrong. INFANTS are not to be baptized. You may sincerely be unaware of this, but infancy is an AGE. An range of AGES.

You are CONSTANTLY ranting against baptism for those under a certain age (typically you define the age as "INFANT")..... you have for nearly 2 years.... in thread after thread.... on and on, constantly about how infants are not to be baptized. How absurd, how silly, how laughable to now argue that "infant" has nothing to do with age. IF your beef is with hair color or shoe size or gender - then don't rant against INFANT baptism.

I state that infant baptism is never presented, ever, in the Bible. Never do we read of any unregenerate person, who does not confess any faith, being baptized in the Bible. Not once.
Yet, here you are promoting a practice that is not presented in scripture as though it is an important part of Christianity. It's not. It does nothing for the infant and it merely makes family and friends feel good about a nonfunctional ceremony. At best, it provides a dedication ceremony for parents to raise their child in a Godly home. At worst, it falsely causes parents to think their child is redeemed when their child is not.

 

[MennoSota]

Could you do me a favor and point out where Lydia's household were taught first? Scripture only tells us that Lydia was taught and the Lord opened her heart and then her household was baptized. It's Acts 16:14-15

Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Do you think Paul and Silas were silent with her household before baptizing? If so, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

 

[Lamb]

Do you think Paul and Silas were silent with her household before baptizing? If so, I have ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

Read the scripture quote again. Now tell me where they taught the household. Or are you inferring something in there that isn't written? Here it is again

Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

 

[MennoSota]

Read the scripture quote again. Now tell me where they taught the household. Or are you inferring something in there that isn't written? Here it is again

Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Do you think Paul and Silas were silent when in the presence of Lydia's household?
Honestly, it amazes me to what lengths people will go to hold on to a cherished dogma from tradition.

 

[Lamb]

Do you think Paul and Silas were silent when in the presence of Lydia's household?
Honestly, it amazes me to what lengths people will go to hold on to a cherished dogma from tradition.

Well, honestly, you could read the rest of the scripture in context and then point out to me where it says that the rest of the household heard? Please tell me since you keep insisting that scriptures prove what you've been claiming. It's not there though.

Acts 16: 13-15 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, honestly, you could read the rest of the scripture in context and then point out to me where it says that the rest of the household heard? Please tell me since you keep insisting that scriptures prove what you've been claiming. It's not there though.

Acts 16: 13-15 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that Lydia's household never heard the gospel because the text doesn't explicitly tell us that they heard the gospel before they were baptized. Is that correct?
You are building your entire doctrine of baptize first, preach the gospel second based upon the idea that Acts 16 doesn't explicitly say that Paul and Silas first shared the gospel with Lydia's household, like they did with Lydia. Is that correct?
Can you show one instance in the Bible where an unregenerate, unrepentant person is baptized?

 

[Lamb]

Let me get this straight. You are arguing that Lydia's household never heard the gospel because the text doesn't explicitly tell us that they heard the gospel before they were baptized. Is that correct?
You are building your entire doctrine of baptize first, preach the gospel second based upon the idea that Acts 16 doesn't explicitly say that Paul and Silas first shared the gospel with Lydia's household, like they did with Lydia. Is that correct?
Can you show one instance in the Bible where an unregenerate, unrepentant person is baptized?

You can't prove that anyone else but Lydia heard the gospel. Can you? Here is why I bring this up, you argue repeatedly that households don't specifically include children in the text so infants should not be baptized. Right? But here is a text that shows that only Lydia heard the message and then had her household baptized. YOU have read into the text the same way you accuse us of reading about households. It's just you don't want to admit it.

 

[MennoSota]

You can't prove that anyone else but Lydia heard the gospel. Can you? Here is why I bring this up, you argue repeatedly that households don't specifically include children in the text so infants should not be baptized. Right? But here is a text that shows that only Lydia heard the message and then had her household baptized. YOU have read into the text the same way you accuse us of reading about households. It's just you don't want to admit it.

I don't need to prove it. You are creating a strawman.
I read the context and all of Acts. Paul is always evangelizing.
But, you want him to be silent in order to prop up a biblically unsupported dogma.

 

[Lamb]

I don't need to prove it. You are creating a strawman.
I read the context and all of Acts. Paul is always evangelizing.
But, you want him to be silent in order to prop up a biblically unsupported dogma.

It's not in the text. Admit it.

 

[MennoSota]

It's not in the text. Admit it.

Lammchen, I can readily admit that the words "preached to the household" is not in the text. That does not mean, therefore, that Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household. It only means that God didn't feel it was necessary to state something that is so blatently obvious.
You are creating an entire dogma upon a flimsy argument that perhaps Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household and therefore baptized unregenerate, unrepentant babies.
Can you see how flimsy that presupposition i

 

[Josiah]

Lammchen, I can readily admit that the words "preached to the household" is not in the text.

WOW!!!!!


A new dawn may have arrived!!!!!!!!!!!!



Now, I wonder if the day will EVER come when you admit that the Bible does not show that every baptism was of 1) One over the age of X (or at least, NEVER an infant).... 2) One who first publicly proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.... 3) First shed buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) were entirely dunked under water. You know, your claim that EVERY baptism noted in the Bible had these 4 aspects and every time it states, "And thou canst NOT do otherwise." Will the day EVER come when you admit actually, that's just not true.... every baptism does not show those 4 things.... every baptism does not say "and thou canst not do otherwise.?" Will you EVER look at even just these "household" baptisms and realize how wrong you have been? IMO, it's not impossible for that to dawn on you.


You are creating an entire dogma upon a flimsy argument that you now admit the Bible nowhere says. If you stop talking for a moment.... consider your own words.... your eureka moment might spread....






Now, I sincerely doubt you have read to this point.... but LET YOUR POINT SINK IN..... to yourself...... we actually know NOTHING about these baptisms, except that they happened. So when you post, "Every baptism did....." you now realize, that's a falsehood, you now admit we don't know about every baptism in the Bible. Now, I know of NO ONE who says, "The Bible states that infants were in these households" (they may find that LIKELY but they don't state it's dogmatically the case, as you argue it's dogmatically not the case). But friend, it also doesn't say there were any Americans among them.... anyone over 6 feet tall.... anyone with blonde hair... any Baptists in the households. Let that soak in, if you dare. Your whole Dogma hinges on something you now admit doesn't exist..... you can no more prove everyone in these households met your 4 mandates than one can prove there were any 6 foot tall, blonde haired, American Baptists in those households - you suddenly realize, we know NOTHING about them.

Your biblical argument thus destroyed by yourself, now perhaps you can realize that your rubic is absurd. This insistence of yours that we can only do what is always exampled in the Bible and are dogmatically forbidden to do otherwise. It's your whole argument. IF you dare, consider then why you are posting on the internet? Why your church has electricity and powerpoint and websites and youth groups? Why you celebrate Communion with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice passed around pews to everyone? ah, I'm asking for too much.





.

 

[Lamb]

Lammchen, I can readily admit that the words "preached to the household" is not in the text. That does not mean, therefore, that Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household. It only means that God didn't feel it was necessary to state something that is so blatently obvious.
You are creating an entire dogma upon a flimsy argument that perhaps Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household and therefore baptized unregenerate, unrepentant babies.
Can you see how flimsy that presupposition i

Since the text does not say who was in the household, then YOU also cannot insist that your doctrine is the right one. The text does not say and you are also applying your own doctrine to try to force it to fit.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Since the text does not say who was in the household, then YOU also cannot insist that your doctrine is the right one. The text does not say and you are also applying your own doctrine to try to force it to fit.

Lambie, for me Acts 2:38 & 39 settles this whole argument. God said the promise is for you and your children. Are infants not considered children? Of course they're children. The amount of denial that the Protestants show when it comes to any Sacrament is astounding.

 

[MennoSota]

WOW!!!!!


A new dawn may have arrived!!!!!!!!!!!!



Now, I wonder if the day will EVER come when you admit that the Bible does not show that every baptism was of 1) One over the age of X (or at least, NEVER an infant).... 2) One who first publicly proved that they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior.... 3) First shed buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) were entirely dunked under water. You know, your claim that EVERY baptism noted in the Bible had these 4 aspects and every time it states, "And thou canst NOT do otherwise." Will the day EVER come when you admit actually, that's just not true.... every baptism does not show those 4 things.... every baptism does not say "and thou canst not do otherwise.?" Will you EVER look at even just these "household" baptisms and realize how wrong you have been? IMO, it's not impossible for that to dawn on you.


You are creating an entire dogma upon a flimsy argument that you now admit the Bible nowhere says. If you stop talking for a moment.... consider your own words.... your eureka moment might spread....






Now, I sincerely doubt you have read to this point.... but LET YOUR POINT SINK IN..... to yourself...... we actually know NOTHING about these baptisms, except that they happened. So when you post, "Every baptism did....." you now realize, that's a falsehood, you now admit we don't know about every baptism in the Bible. Now, I know of NO ONE who says, "The Bible states that infants were in these households" (they may find that LIKELY but they don't state it's dogmatically the case, as you argue it's dogmatically not the case). But friend, it also doesn't say there were any Americans among them.... anyone over 6 feet tall.... anyone with blonde hair... any Baptists in the households. Let that soak in, if you dare. Your whole Dogma hinges on something you now admit doesn't exist..... you can no more prove everyone in these households met your 4 mandates than one can prove there were any 6 foot tall, blonde haired, American Baptists in those households - you suddenly realize, we know NOTHING about them.

Your biblical argument thus destroyed by yourself, now perhaps you can realize that your rubic is absurd. This insistence of yours that we can only do what is always exampled in the Bible and are dogmatically forbidden to do otherwise. It's your whole argument. IF you dare, consider then why you are posting on the internet? Why your church has electricity and powerpoint and websites and youth groups? Why you celebrate Communion with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice passed around pews to everyone? ah, I'm asking for too much.





.

Sorry, I don't read all your rants.
It would be nice if you didn't create dogma from what the Bible doesn't tell us.

 

[MennoSota]

Since the text does not say who was in the household, then YOU also cannot insist that your doctrine is the right one. The text does not say and you are also applying your own doctrine to try to force it to fit.

I can insist that we never see an unregenerate, unrepentant person baptized in scripture...because we don't. I can insist that we never see an infant baptized in scripture...because we don't. I can unequivocally state that infant baptism is a practice that is post Apostolic because there is no Apostolic evidence in scripture.

 

[Josiah]

It would be nice if you didn't create dogma from what the Bible doesn't tell us.

.... as in, "The Bible forbids infants from being baptized." "The Bible says it is forbidden to baptize any unless they first publicly prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." "The Bible says we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first in chronological time have wept oceans of tears in repentance." "The Bible says it is forbidden to baptize unless every cell of the recipient is immersed entirely under water." You know, all your Baptism dogmas.

.... as in, "The Bible says that everyone baptized in those households was over the age of X, had proven they first accepted Jesus as their personal Savior, wept buckets, and were fully immersed under water."

... as in, "The Bbile says we cannot to anything unless it is what was done in that way in the Bible, and that includes posting on the internet, having youth pastors and women's groups, and passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Broad and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to anyone who wants to take it."





.

 

[MennoSota]

.... as in, "The Bible forbids infants from being baptized." "The Bible says it is forbidden to baptize any unless they first publicly prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior." "The Bible says we are forbidden to baptize any unless they first in chronological time have wept oceans of tears in repentance." "The Bible says it is forbidden to baptize unless every cell of the recipient is immersed entirely under water." You know, all your Baptism dogmas.

.... as in, "The Bible says that everyone baptized in those households was over the age of X, had proven they first accepted Jesus as their personal Savior, wept buckets, and were fully immersed under water."

... as in, "The Bbile says we cannot to anything unless it is what was done in that way in the Bible, and that includes posting on the internet, having youth pastors and women's groups, and passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Broad and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to anyone who wants to take it."





.

Nope.
As in the Bible never shows an unregenerate, unrepentant person being baptized. It doesn't matter the age. It matters that the person came to faith and repented of their sins.
Why do you insist on baptizing spiritually dead sinners whom God has not made alive in Christ?

 

[Josiah]

As in the Bible never shows an unregenerate, unrepentant person being baptized.

Then prove every person who was baptized in those households FIRST proved they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior and FIRST had wept oceans of tears in repentance.... and that those who did not were forbidden to be baptized for that specific for that reason.



As for the application, you prove every day that you don't give a rip whether some practice is ever or never or always illustrated in the Bible. So since you so powerfully and consistently regard your point as irrelevant and meaningless, why should we so passionately disagree with you?

Where does the Bible say that ANYONE EVER posted on the internet - but here you are.

Where does the Bible say ANYTHING about churches having youth pastors, youth groups, women's groups?

Where does the Bible show that ALWAYS Christians celebrated Communion rarely and by passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch;s Grape Juice to all who want them?

Where does the Bible ever show a woman receiving Communion? Or a child?

Where does the Bible EVER show a Gentile administering baptism?

Where does the Bible EVER show a blonde/blue eyed, American Baptist being baptized in the Bible?

Where does the Bible EVER show ANYONE being baptized in a plastic tank hid behind a curtain in the front of a church?

I'm guessing if I visited your church, virtually NOTHING that happens would be done exactly like that in the Bible, in fact, I'd probably have a hard time finding even ONE example of it - in the Bible or for 1000 years of Christianity.

So, you don't give a rip whether some practice was illustrated as done like that in the Bible.

I think you are on to something. You are just being hypocritical and contradictory. Not only documenting that Scripture NEVER says what you do.... but that you don't do what you yourself insist upon.





.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Nope.
As in the Bible never shows an unregenerate, unrepentant person being baptized. It doesn't matter the age. It matters that the person came to faith and repented of their sins.
Why do you insist on baptizing spiritually dead sinners whom God has not made alive in Christ?

Why do you Baptize anyone? Is it symbolic or a Sacrament? Part of the problem you're having is that you see baptism as something you do for God, as opposed to the proper understanding of baptism, where God does something for you and to you.

 

[Lamb]

I can insist that we never see an unregenerate, unrepentant person baptized in scripture...because we don't. I can insist that we never see an infant baptized in scripture...because we don't. I can unequivocally state that infant baptism is a practice that is post Apostolic because there is no Apostolic evidence in scripture.

Lydia's household proves that you are ASSUMING something because you want it to fit your doctrine. You agreed that it isn't in scripture that not everyone in the household was preached to.