If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

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.





.

I don't have to. I can simply point to scripture and say what God has recorded and what God has not recorded. You are free to promote a non-biblical baptism if you wish.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

We baptize the elect because God commanded us to. It symbolizes what the Holy Spirit has already done in the person's life by immersing them into Christ.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

You are trying to force Paul and Silas into being silent and using no discernment.

 

[Josiah]

I can simply point to scripture and say what God has recorded and what God has not recorded.

....and note that nearly everything you and your church does is NOT ONCE illustrated as done in the Bible. So it's pretty hypocritical to form a dogma out of something you almost never do yourself.

... and prove that NO Scripture mandates the prohibitions that you do on Baptism. And prove the Bible doesn't state all these mandates and prohibitions that you dogmatically do.




.

 

[MennoSota]

....and note that nearly everything you and your church does is NOT ONCE illustrated as done in the Bible. So it's pretty hypocritical to form a dogma out of something you almost never do yourself.

... and prove that NO Scripture mandates the prohibitions that you do on Baptism. And prove the Bible doesn't state all these mandates and prohibitions that you dogmatically do.




.

Sure it is.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

We baptize the elect because God commanded us to. It symbolizes what the Holy Spirit has already done in the person's life by immersing them into Christ.

Why are you limiting baptism to the elect? We are not told in Matthew 28:19-20, to go into all the nations baptizing and preaching to only the elect. Can you provide the Scripture that says Baptism is only symbolic? Because I could never find it when I used to believe as you do.

 

[Lamb]

You are trying to force Paul and Silas into being silent and using no discernment.

No, I'm trying to show you that YOU are the one forcing your doctrine into the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures state what they say. Such as in Acts like Zec brought up.

 

[MennoSota]

Why are you limiting baptism to the elect? We are not told in Matthew 28:19-20, to go into all the nations baptizing and preaching to only the elect. Can you provide the Scripture that says Baptism is only symbolic? Because I could never find it when I used to believe as you do.

Make disciples. Only those who have faith are elect. They are the disciples who receive baptism.
If you believe the unregenerate, unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins person should be baptized, why don't you walk down the street baptizing everyone you meet?

 

[MennoSota]

No, I'm trying to show you that YOU are the one forcing your doctrine into the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures state what they say. Such as in Acts like Zec brought up.

Not at all. I don't force the baptizing of regenerate person's who confess their sins. The Bible, in every instance of baptism shows this practice. There is nothing to force.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=127]zecryphon_nomdiv[/MENTION]

Why are you limiting baptism to the elect? We are not told in Matthew 28:19-20, to go into all the nations baptizing and preaching to only the elect. Can you provide the Scripture that says Baptism is only symbolic? Because I could never find it when I used to believe as you do.

I wonder how Baptists know exactly who is and is not the elect..... Yes, they can know who SAYS they believe and ASSUME they actually do and they therefore must be among the elect, but that seems to be a whole other enchilada.


Our friend seems to assume there's a default prohibition on baptism that requires certainly things to unlock this. Never quoted any Scriptures about that.

Our friend demands the whole mass of Anabaptist prohibitions (NO one under some never-disclosed-age..... MUST prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior..... MUST weap buckets of tears in repentance.... MUST have every cell of the recipients body immersed in water) - hoops - but never once gives any Scripture that states ANY of these prohibitions and mandates.

Our friend seems to know all this was unheard of for nearly 1600 years.... he proves he doesn't have a single Scripture that states any of these......

Our friend SHOUTS (constantly!) "NO TRADITION ALLOWED!!!!!" But all he does is parrot the Anabaptist Tradition (perfectly, I must confess, including the silly talking points)

Our friend SHOUTS (endlessly) "ONLY SCRIPTURE!!!!" But then won't give even one Scripture that states ANY of these prohibitions and mandates.

All he has is this: MOST of the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT seem to "fit" one or more of these things; for example, it does SEEM several (BUT NOT ALL) are at least old enough to talk. But this appeal to "examples" is beyond absurd. Especially since he himself rarely ever abides by it. IF he actually believed this point, he could not post on the internet, could he? He could not give Communion to women or children, could he? He could not pass around Communion with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, could he? He could not have youth pastors or women pastors or youth groups or women's groups.... or church websites or powerpoint.... or preachers wearing Aloha shirts and jeans.... OBVOUSLY the rubric he demands.... the rubric he basis EVERYTHING on ("can't do what is not always done in the Bible") is one he rejects... yet dogmatically demands of everyone else. Ironic, huh? But friend, don't even try to point this out to him. WE've been trying for nearly two years.


The point of our friend that I think is instructional: He SHOUTS against Tradition but uses it more than anyone else at this website (including our resident Catholic now too often absent) - he just REFUSES to acknowledge this. I don't think that's uncommon. AND he SHOUTS that his Tradition is "what the Bible clearly states" then shoots himself in the foot (every time) by PROVING (right there is undeniable black and white) that it does not- he PROVES it to all but himself (I'm honestly not sure he reads the verses he quotes). Frankly, I think that too happens a lot. Our friend just does these SO often, SO undeniably as to make it obvious. And that's good. IF people see the flaw in this...... well, learning can happen. Even if never for MennoSota. The absurdity he SO OFTEN does is just an extreme example of what MANY do. IF we can look in the mirror.....well......


BTW, at his demand, I did a whole thread on paedobaptism. He ignored it. And I've also more recently uploaded a thread on Tradition/Bible. He ignored that, too. Might want to check those out.




.

 

[MennoSota]

It can be hard to know if a person has faith or is just mimicking. This calls for discerning elders.

 

[Josiah]

The Bible, in every instance of baptism shows this practice.

Easy then. Just prove that every person baptized in every one of those households was among the Elect and who had first cried oceans of tears in repentance. If they all did...and the Bible states that.... it's easy. But maybe what you said is ... well....

Then prove that you never do anything that is not always done in the Bible. Such as, you never post on the internet.

 

[MennoSota]

Easy then. Just prove that every person baptized in every one of those households was among the Elect and who had first cried oceans of tears in repentance. If they all did...and the Bible states that.... it's easy. But maybe what you said is ... well....

Then prove that you never do anything that is not always done in the Bible. Such as, you never post on the internet.

No need.
Paul and Silas baptized.
Did Paul and Silas baptize with discretion or did they use no discretion when baptizing?

 

[Josiah]

No need.

You always exempt yourself from any accountability.... from any need for substantiation.

Paul and Silas baptized

Yup. No one challenges that.

Now prove they REFUSED to baptize any who had not yet attained the age of X, who had not yet wept buckets of tears in repentance, who had not yet proved they were among the Elect, and that they prohibited any baptism that did not immerse every cell entirely under water. You know, the prohibitions of your dogma.

PROVE that every baptism of everyone in those households met those 4 mandates of your 16th Century Tradition and that any and all requests that did not meet those were refused BECAUSE they were not met.

The PROVE you do nothing that is not documented as always done in the Bible, so that you yourself affirm and believe your own point.




.

 

[MennoSota]

I noticed that you never answered.

Did Paul and Silas baptize with discretion or did they use no discretion when baptizing?

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Make disciples. Only those who have faith are elect. They are the disciples who receive baptism.
If you believe the unregenerate, unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins person should be baptized, why don't you walk down the street baptizing everyone you meet?

Because that's assault. Baptism is a gift from God to the person dead in their sins. It forgives sins and delivers saving faith. Remember the healthy don't need a doctor and God doesn't need your symbolic ceremony to show Him what He did for you in the waters of Baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Because that's assault. Baptism is a gift from God to the person dead in their sins. It forgives sins and delivers saving faith. Remember the healthy don't need a doctor and God doesn't need your symbolic ceremony to show Him what He did for you in the waters of Baptism.

No it doesn't. You are making baptism into magic.
Baptism is much like the Passover. It symbolizes a work that God has done when he gifted the adopted child, faith.
But, if you truly believe what you have said, why are you negligent in baptizing all humans you meet? Baptize everyone and watch the water forgive sins and give saving faith. Go out every day for 8 to 12 hours per day and baptize everyone you meet.
You won't do that, will you?
Zec, you have made an idol of baptism.

 

[Josiah]

Did Paul and Silas baptize with discretion or did they use no discretion when baptizing?

As you prove, there is NOTHING .... Absolutely NOTHING... N.O.T.H.I.N.G. in Scripture... that states that Paul or Silas required that all recipents of Baptism had to 1) Prove they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.

As you prove, there is NOTHING that states that Paul or Silas refused to baptize any who had not 1) Proven they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.

As you prove, there is NOTHING that indicates that all those baptized in those households had 1) Proven they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.


And as you prove, you don't give a rip what is or is not illustrated as done in the Bible. You don't care if what you do is so illustrated. You PROVE it every time you post on the internet.

 

[MennoSota]

As you prove, there is NOTHING .... Absolutely NOTHING... N.O.T.H.I.N.G. in Scripture... that states that Paul or Silas required that all recipents of Baptism had to 1) Prove they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.

As you prove, there is NOTHING that states that Paul or Silas refused to baptize any who had not 1) Proven they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.

As you prove, there is NOTHING that indicates that all those baptized in those households had 1) Proven they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.


And as you prove, you don't give a rip what is or is not illustrated as done in the Bible. You don't care if what you do is so illustrated. You PROVE it every time you post on the internet.

Again, I don't have to prove that.
I can just point at each baptism in scripture and see that those who were expressing faith were baptized.
Those who expressed no faith were not baptized.
Simple observation shows this, Josiah. Why does it bother you that unrepentant, unredeemed sinners were never baptized?

 

[Josiah]

As you prove, there is NOTHING .... Absolutely NOTHING... N.O.T.H.I.N.G. in Scripture... that states that Paul or Silas required that all recipents of Baptism had to 1) Prove they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.

As you prove, there is NOTHING that states that Paul or Silas refused to baptize any who had not 1) Proven they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.

As you prove, there is NOTHING that indicates that all those baptized in those households had 1) Proven they had celebrated their Xth Birthday... 2) Had proven they are among the Elect.... 3) Had wept buckets of tears in repentance.... 4) would have every cell of their body fully immersed under water. You know, all the mandates you echo from those late 16th Century wackidoddle Anabaptists.


And as you prove, you don't give a rip what is or is not illustrated as done in the Bible. You don't care if what you do is so illustrated. You PROVE it every time you post on the internet.


.

MennoSota,

You already have proven your dogmatic prohibition are missing - entirely missing - in Scripture.

You already have shown you exempt yourself (alone) from any accountabilitty, YOU insist YOU need to substantiate nothing.

I'm not "bothered" any anything in Scripture, only by your empty claims that you yourself prove are entirely absent in Scripture, just you spinning and then exempting yourself from the issue of truth, from any accountability.