If paedobaptism were taught...

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Menno,

"No it doesn't. You are making baptism into magic."

I am not making Baptism into anything other than what it already is. I don't know why you insist on dealing with God on YOUR terms and not His. Why do Christians invoke the Trinity and connect God to the waters of Baptism, if not to forgive sins, which Scripture says it does in Acts 2:38?

"Baptism is much like the Passover. It symbolizes a work that God has done when he gifted the adopted child, faith."

Wrong. Baptism forgives sins as God states in Acts 2. Are you really calling God a liar?

"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."

I could never baptize ALL humans. My company won't give me that much time off.

"You won't do that, will you?"

No, because this is a Sacrament of the Christian Church, to be used by those called to administer this Sacrament to people. I also don't walk the streets giving the body and blood of Christ to people.

"Zec, you have made an idol of baptism."

Ah, the false charge of idolatry because you have nothing from Scripture that refutes what God has said and the early church, all the way up to the Anabaptists, taught. Face it, your problem is you do not understand Baptism, who is to receive it or what it does. That's YOUR problem and it's not going to be fixed tonight, on this forum, by me or anyone else you choose to engage with. Only God can change your heart and mind on this and remove the scales from your eyes so that you may see the truth of His revealed word.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

[MENTION=127]zecryphon_nomdiv[/MENTION]





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.




.

Yeah, there's a great app for learning what the early Church Fathers taught regarding every Scripture in the Bible. It's called Catena and it's free. I have it and when looking at verses about Baptism, you can see that they believed and taught about Baptism everything our friend denies.

When I was going to that Baptist-based Non-Denom church I used to attend, they actually said to new members that if they had not made the conscious choice to be baptized of their own free will, they considered those people to have "unfinished business with Jesus." It's horrific what the modern-day church has done to the Sacraments.

 

[Andrew]

"It's the Word that cleanses us"
https://youtu.be/Maqfo52Ho6M

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

"It's the Word that cleanses us"
https://youtu.be/Maqfo52Ho6M

That's true, the word does cleanse us and the word is combined with the water in Baptism. Go read Acts 2. It is written there that Baptism forgives sins. I don't understand why people push back against this teaching so vehemently. It's taught in the Bible!

Martin Luther also taught what the Bible teaches. From The Small Catechism:

. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
First.
What is Baptism?--Answer.
Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.
Which is that word of God?--Answer.
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew:*Go ye into all the world and teach all nations,*baptizing them in the name of the Father,*and of the Son,*and of the Holy Ghost.
Secondly.
What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.
It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are such words and promises of God?*Answer.
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark:*He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Thirdly.
How can water do such great things?--Answer.
It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three:*By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,*which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ,*our Savior,*that,*being justified by His grace,*we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.


Fourthly.

What does such baptizing with water signify?--Answer.
It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.
Where is this written?--Answer.
St. Paul says*Romans, chapter 6:*We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death,*that,*like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,*even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

[Lamb]

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?

I proved that you did not prove that at all.

 

[Josiah]

I proved that you did not prove that at all.

He has this amazing practice..... he likes to quote Scripture to prove what is says is not in Scripture. He does that in virtually all the dogmas he promotes; this amazing propensity to prove his position is absent in Scripture. Shoots himself in the foot. Originally I wondered if he actually READ the verses he quoted (sometimes people largely copy/paste from other sites that give a reference, then people copy that and actually quote the reference, not realizing the reference doesn't actually state the position at all). Now my theory is he doesn't think Scripture is words at all.... he pays no attention to the words whatsoever... the words of Scripture are irrelevant (explaining why he'll never discuss them); it's what he personally feels the words SHOULD be, what they MEAN to him. I recognize this because this is EXACTLY how it works in radical Catholicism. I was told that "the Catholic Church holds in its Tradition the MEANING of Scripture." The WORDS are moot in Catholicism, it's what they MEAN - and only the RCC knows that. I've come to the conclusion MennoSota works with this Catholic approach to Scripture, so that to him, quoting a verse where the words don't at all confirm his position is irrelevant because he carries in his own Tradition what the words MEAN.




.

 

[MennoSota]

I proved that you did not prove that at all.

LOL, all you did was make a technical point that the Bible doesn't say Paul and Silas talked with the household.
That is really meaningless to this thread.
What has never been shown is an actual infant baptism.

 

[Josiah]

What has never been shown is an actual infant baptism.

Never denied.... What is challenged is your point. The rubric that IS your apologetic. That no one today can do anything unless that very thing was always done in the NT. It's your WHOLE POINT. Yet you refuse to discuss it (IMO because you KNOW how absolutely absurd it is, everyone KNOWS you don't believe your own point. Everyone realize this is the height of pure hypocrisy). Since virtually nothing you do is shown to be exactly the same in the NT, clearly you yourself hold that your entire apologetic is wrong.


IF your apologetic was something EVEN YOU held to be credible, you would not be posting on the internet, would you? IF your church thought your apologetic had ANY merit whatsoever, there would be no youth or women pastors, no websites or powerpoint, no pastors wearing Aloha shirts and jeans, Communion would not be given to women or kids, Communion would not be celebrated by passing around little bits of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, you would have no -plastic tank hidden behind a curtain, no Gentile would ever administer Baptism. Indeed, if I visited your church on a Sunday, I doubt that much at all would be the same as always done in the Bible. YOU YOURSELF reject your WHOLE PREMISE.


True.... no verse that specifically states, "Oh, that this includes those under the age of X." But there's also no verse that says, "Oh, and this includes Americans..... fat people.... Baptists..... old folks..... those with blonde hair..... folks with a shoe size over 11" and we have NO clear examples of any of those ever being Baptized in the Bible. Your rubic is beyond silly. It is like taking the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and saying, "But I can kill my wife because the verse doesn't say "Oh, and this includes wives." What YOU YOURSELF PROVE (no need for others to do it, you repeatedly do it) all those mandates and prohibitions invented out of thin air by those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century are entirely MISSING in the Bible. You've PROVEN it. Over and over and over and over again.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Never denied.... What is challenged is your point. The rubric that IS your apologetic. That no one today can do anything unless that very thing was always done in the NT. It's your WHOLE POINT. Yet you refuse to discuss it (IMO because you KNOW how absolutely absurd it is, everyone KNOWS you don't believe your own point. Everyone realize this is the height of pure hypocrisy). Since virtually nothing you do is shown to be exactly the same in the NT, clearly you yourself hold that your entire apologetic is wrong.


IF your apologetic was something EVEN YOU held to be credible, you would not be posting on the internet, would you? IF your church thought your apologetic had ANY merit whatsoever, there would be no youth or women pastors, no websites or powerpoint, no pastors wearing Aloha shirts and jeans, Communion would not be given to women or kids, Communion would not be celebrated by passing around little bits of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, you would have no -plastic tank hidden behind a curtain, no Gentile would ever administer Baptism. Indeed, if I visited your church on a Sunday, I doubt that much at all would be the same as always done in the Bible. YOU YOURSELF reject your WHOLE PREMISE.


True.... no verse that specifically states, "Oh, that this includes those under the age of X." But there's also no verse that says, "Oh, and this includes Americans..... fat people.... Baptists..... old folks..... those with blonde hair..... folks with a shoe size over 11" and we have NO clear examples of any of those ever being Baptized in the Bible. Your rubic is beyond silly. It is like taking the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and saying, "But I can kill my wife because the verse doesn't say "Oh, and this includes wives." What YOU YOURSELF PROVE (no need for others to do it, you repeatedly do it) all those mandates and prohibitions invented out of thin air by those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century are entirely MISSING in the Bible. You've PROVEN it. Over and over and over and over again.




.

Your point is an extremely small thread from which your entire dogma dangles. You must make this HUGE assumption that Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household and therefore baptized unregenerate, unrepentant sinners with zero discernment. Upon that assumption your entire concept of baptizing dead in their trespasses and sins people rests. What a precarious thread you dangle from. And YOU are accountable before God for your actions in being non-discerning in who you baptize. May God have mercy on your soul.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Oh and you're not accountable to God for your actions? Drop the empty threats, they do nothing but hurt your already weak position. Remember these words of Christ from Mark?

Mark 10:13-14,*And they were bringing children to Him that He mighth\ touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them,*“Let the children come to Me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

Jesus said not to keep the children away from Him. Yet, that is exactly what you and your kind do when you deny them the saving and regenerative waters of Baptism.

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2019/01/09/do-not-hinder-the-children

 

[MennoSota]

Oh and you're not accountable to God for your actions? Drop the empty threats, they do nothing but hurt your already weak position. Remember these words of Christ from Mark?

Mark 10:13-14,*And they were bringing children to Him that He mighth\ touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, He was indignant and said to them,*“Let the children come to Me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”

Jesus said not to keep the children away from Him. Yet, that is exactly what you and your kind do when you deny them the saving and regenerative waters of Baptism.

https://thelutherancolumn.com/2019/01/09/do-not-hinder-the-children

I am absolutely accountable to God. This is why I don't give people a false hope that their infant baptism and confirmation class saved them. It is why I study the scriptures and seek to follow what God teaches us. It is why I repent when I have falsely represented God.
I was once a semi-pelagian, Arminian who imagined that I had the ability to choose God. I read the Bible and saw how wrong I was. I no longer teach free-will salvation because the Bible doesn't teach it.
My point: The Bible informs our actions, not the church denomination in which we worship. When our denomination teaches something false, we must call the denomination out for their false teaching. Why? Because we are accountable to God for what we teach others.
As for children, we never point children away from God. We dedicate ourselves to raise them in God's word and point them toward their need for reconciliation. What we don't do is tell them lies about baptism.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Scripture teaches that Baptism saves, so no you don't believe what the Scriptures teach and yes you do lie to the children about Baptism. It saves, God said this in Acts 2:38-39 and other places in Scripture.

For you Baptism is a symbol, there is no forgiveness of sins attached with it, even though Scripture clearly teaches there is. To say that what God and Scripture teach regarding Baptism, is lies, makes me seriously question if you're even a Christian. No Christian I've ever met or talked to, ever considered teaching what the Scriptures say, to be lies. This is very disturbing.

 

[Lamb]

Baptism is authorized by Jesus. It's what God wants His people to have done (it's passive in the original language which means that something is happening TO that person not that the person is doing something for his own baptism).

Where scripture says Baptism saves... in your head replace the word "baptism" with "God" since baptism comes from and is authorized by God and you'll see that "God saves". Baptism was never meant to be void of any action by God as man began to insist in Luther's day.

 

[Josiah]

This is why I don't give people a false hope that their infant baptism and confirmation class saved them.

1. There is a debate technique. It's rarely used because it's so obvious, but really bad debates do employ it. It is sometimes called "The Shall Game." When one feels "trapped" - a good point they cannot counter, or perhaps something exposed that they cannot answer - the technique is to change the subject, say something that is HOPED the other will respond to, getting you out of the difficult spot. Usually, the chosen diversion into something where the debater feels much stronger. Friend, as you know (everyone here at CH knows), this is a favorite of yours. The topic here is one of the new Dogmas invented by the Anabaptists, one you constantly and passionately defend and parrot, that there is a biblical prohibition on baptism to those under a never disclosed age (often "INFANT" is mentioned, but they call the dogma "Anti- Paedobaptim, 'Paedo" being FAR more non-specific as to age). But rather than quoting where Scripture states this supposed prohibition stated in the Bible, you like to change the subject. Interesting.... because several here have been more than willing to discuss the issues you keep diverting to but you never will, you just play the Shell Game again and try to divert things to yet another of the Anabaptist inventions. I find your game frustration but I admit, it often works for you....



2. Again, IF (big word there!) IF you agreed with some later-day Calvinists (not Calvin himself)... some Methodist, Unitarians, Universalists, Mormons.... that baptism doesn't actually DO anything (of significance anyway; it's symbolic mostly), then I could understand your point. I'd disagree with you, but you would have a certain minority of contemporary Evangelical Protestants on your side. Your point being that Jesus and the Apostles STRESSED Baptism SO very much.... it was SO important in the Book of Acts...the Early Church Fathers stressed it SO very much.... because it's mostly a waste of time. And "now saves you" is ... well.... one example of how the Bible misspeaks when it comes to the Sacraments. OK. But that would have NOTHING to do with ANY of these 4 Anabaptist inventions you defend (NONE of which are accepted by Calvinists, Methodists, Unitarians, Universalists or Methodists that share your "Baptism Does Not Much" view.); you seem to believe that BECAUSE you hold that Jesus commanded us to do something mostly a waste of time THEREFORE we are forbidden to baptize any one those under the age of X, are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously wept buckets of tears in repentance, forbidden to baptize any who has not PROVEN they are among the Elect, forbidden to baptism any unless every cell of their body is immersed in water. Friend, your "logic" is wholly missing; actually, the OPPOSITE of your point would be FAR more reasonable: if Baptism DOES nothing, then the logical application would be it doesn't much matter to whom it's applied; your belief actually undermines your long list of dogmatic prohibitions your Anabaptist fathers invented. Friend, here's what alludes you: The dogmas you parrot were NOT invented because of ANY Scripture (which is exactly why you can't find them) - and the Anabaptists ADMITTED THIS (they being honest, you not-so-much), but because they were radical synergists, the prohibitions were all invention to protect their radical synergism and eliminate ANY sense that God actually does something and to make everything depend on the individual person.



3. What is challenged is your point. The rubric that IS your apologetic. That no one today can do anything unless that very thing was always done in the NT. It's your WHOLE POINT. Yet you refuse to discuss it (IMO because you KNOW how absolutely absurd it is, everyone KNOWS you don't believe your own point. Everyone realize this is the height of pure hypocrisy). Since virtually nothing you do is shown to be exactly the same in the NT, clearly you yourself hold that your entire apologetic is wrong. IF your apologetic was something EVEN YOU held to be credible, you would not be posting on the internet, would you? IF your church thought your apologetic had ANY merit whatsoever, there would be no youth or women pastors, no websites or powerpoint, no pastors wearing Aloha shirts and jeans, Communion would not be given to women or kids, Communion would not be celebrated by passing around little bits of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, you would have no -plastic tank hidden behind a curtain, no Gentile would ever administer Baptism. Indeed, if I visited your church on a Sunday, I doubt that much at all would be the same as always done in the Bible. YOU YOURSELF reject your WHOLE PREMISE. True.... no verse that specifically states, "Oh, that this includes those under the age of X." But there's also no verse that says, "Oh, and this includes Americans..... fat people.... Baptists..... old folks..... those with blonde hair..... folks with a shoe size over 11" and we have NO clear examples of any of those ever being Baptized in the Bible. Your rubic is beyond silly. It is like taking the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and saying, "But I can kill my wife because the verse doesn't say "Oh, and this includes wives." What YOU YOURSELF PROVE (no need for others to do it, you repeatedly do it) all those mandates and prohibitions invented out of thin air by those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century are entirely MISSING in the Bible. You've PROVEN it. Over and over and over and over again.

It is why I study the scriptures and seek to follow what God teaches us.

Good. But what you PROVE - over and over and over, endlessly - is that there is no Scripture that states what you do. NO ONE HERE need do a thing because you've done all the word, quoting Scriptures (accurately) and PROVING (right there in black-and-white words, right there in an undeniable and obvious manner) PROVE that what you say is not what Scripture does. It amazes me. And everyone.

You parrot (verbatim) the Anabaptist Traditions on Baptist; their invented dogmas. You do this fairly and very accurately (complete with talking points), and that's fine. You just are dishonest in not calling it "Anabaptist Tradition" but anyway. The stunning thing is the lengths you go to to PROVE Scripture does not teach this Anabaptist Tradition. I've given up trying to figure out why you do that.

My point: The Bible informs our actions, not the church denomination in which we worship.

I sincerely believe you think that. But you WILL NOT (maybe cannot permit) look into the mirror to see how you do this most of all. You just PARROT (perfectly) the new Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism. What your denomination says, the actions (and non-actions) your denomination's Tradition says. And you PROVE (very consistently) that the Bible says no such thing. It is this VERY STUNNING, very obvious, contradiction between what it seems you sincerely believe SHOULD be done and what you actually do. The hypocrisy is stunning. I use to HOPE you'd stop echoing Tradition long enough... step back a bit.... maybe pay some attention to what the Bible actually says (the words there) and equally what it does NOT say... and realize how you are doing EXACTLY what you sincerely hold must not be done. I don't think you will permit yourself to do this. You have some treasured opinions you fear might be undermined if you actually did that.

MennoSota, you DO (occasionally, rarely) bring up some valid points. You note something I'm actually quite aware of - Tradition is embraced FAR more than most realize and admit. Unfortunately, no one can discuss any of the valid points with you because of your hypocrisy, because of your unwillingness to see what YOU do (most of all), because of your insistence that the words of Scripture THERE and NOT THERE are irrelevant because your Anabaptist Tradition knows what the Holy Spirit SHOULD have written there but goofed. No discussion can happen (even on your valid points) because of the PROFOUND double -standard, lack of honesty regarding Scripture, rule that YOU can impose unaccountable Tradition but no one else can even mention their Tradition. The profound lack of humility and honesty. The radical double-standard you insist upon.



I realize you don't consider (and often don't read) what is conveyed to you. The most meaning stuff anyone gets from you is "Blah.... blah.... blab..... " But you give people an opportunity to think and to see from all what is wrong in theology, why false teachings get invented and parroted. I see in you - OFTEN - exactly why I left the RCC.... BUT you also remind me that what the RCC does is actually very common outside that denomination, too - often FAR worse.




.

 

[MennoSota]

1. There is a debate technique. It's rarely used because it's so obvious, but really bad debates do employ it. It is sometimes called "The Shall Game." When one feels "trapped" - a good point they cannot counter, or perhaps something exposed that they cannot answer - the technique is to change the subject, say something that is HOPED the other will respond to, getting you out of the difficult spot. Usually, the chosen diversion into something where the debater feels much stronger. Friend, as you know (everyone here at CH knows), this is a favorite of yours. The topic here is one of the new Dogmas invented by the Anabaptists, one you constantly and passionately defend and parrot, that there is a biblical prohibition on baptism to those under a never disclosed age (often "INFANT" is mentioned, but they call the dogma "Anti- Paedobaptim, 'Paedo" being FAR more non-specific as to age). But rather than quoting where Scripture states this supposed prohibition stated in the Bible, you like to change the subject. Interesting.... because several here have been more than willing to discuss the issues you keep diverting to but you never will, you just play the Shell Game again and try to divert things to yet another of the Anabaptist inventions. I find your game frustration but I admit, it often works for you....



2. Again, IF (big word there!) IF you agreed with some later-day Calvinists (not Calvin himself)... some Methodist, Unitarians, Universalists, Mormons.... that baptism doesn't actually DO anything (of significance anyway; it's symbolic mostly), then I could understand your point. I'd disagree with you, but you would have a certain minority of contemporary Evangelical Protestants on your side. Your point being that Jesus and the Apostles STRESSED Baptism SO very much.... it was SO important in the Book of Acts...the Early Church Fathers stressed it SO very much.... because it's mostly a waste of time. And "now saves you" is ... well.... one example of how the Bible misspeaks when it comes to the Sacraments. OK. But that would have NOTHING to do with ANY of these 4 Anabaptist inventions you defend (NONE of which are accepted by Calvinists, Methodists, Unitarians, Universalists or Methodists that share your "Baptism Does Not Much" view.); you seem to believe that BECAUSE you hold that Jesus commanded us to do something mostly a waste of time THEREFORE we are forbidden to baptize any one those under the age of X, are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously wept buckets of tears in repentance, forbidden to baptize any who has not PROVEN they are among the Elect, forbidden to baptism any unless every cell of their body is immersed in water. Friend, your "logic" is wholly missing; actually, the OPPOSITE of your point would be FAR more reasonable: if Baptism DOES nothing, then the logical application would be it doesn't much matter to whom it's applied; your belief actually undermines your long list of dogmatic prohibitions your Anabaptist fathers invented. Friend, here's what alludes you: The dogmas you parrot were NOT invented because of ANY Scripture (which is exactly why you can't find them) - and the Anabaptists ADMITTED THIS (they being honest, you not-so-much), but because they were radical synergists, the prohibitions were all invention to protect their radical synergism and eliminate ANY sense that God actually does something and to make everything depend on the individual person.



3. What is challenged is your point. The rubric that IS your apologetic. That no one today can do anything unless that very thing was always done in the NT. It's your WHOLE POINT. Yet you refuse to discuss it (IMO because you KNOW how absolutely absurd it is, everyone KNOWS you don't believe your own point. Everyone realize this is the height of pure hypocrisy). Since virtually nothing you do is shown to be exactly the same in the NT, clearly you yourself hold that your entire apologetic is wrong. IF your apologetic was something EVEN YOU held to be credible, you would not be posting on the internet, would you? IF your church thought your apologetic had ANY merit whatsoever, there would be no youth or women pastors, no websites or powerpoint, no pastors wearing Aloha shirts and jeans, Communion would not be given to women or kids, Communion would not be celebrated by passing around little bits of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, you would have no -plastic tank hidden behind a curtain, no Gentile would ever administer Baptism. Indeed, if I visited your church on a Sunday, I doubt that much at all would be the same as always done in the Bible. YOU YOURSELF reject your WHOLE PREMISE. True.... no verse that specifically states, "Oh, that this includes those under the age of X." But there's also no verse that says, "Oh, and this includes Americans..... fat people.... Baptists..... old folks..... those with blonde hair..... folks with a shoe size over 11" and we have NO clear examples of any of those ever being Baptized in the Bible. Your rubic is beyond silly. It is like taking the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" and saying, "But I can kill my wife because the verse doesn't say "Oh, and this includes wives." What YOU YOURSELF PROVE (no need for others to do it, you repeatedly do it) all those mandates and prohibitions invented out of thin air by those radically synergistic Anabaptists in the late 16th Century are entirely MISSING in the Bible. You've PROVEN it. Over and over and over and over again.







Good. But what you PROVE - over and over and over, endlessly - is that there is no Scripture that states what you do. NO ONE HERE need do a thing because you've done all the word, quoting Scriptures (accurately) and PROVING (right there in black-and-white words, right there in an undeniable and obvious manner) PROVE that what you say is not what Scripture does. It amazes me. And everyone.

You parrot (verbatim) the Anabaptist Traditions on Baptist; their invented dogmas. You do this fairly and very accurately (complete with talking points), and that's fine. You just are dishonest in not calling it "Anabaptist Tradition" but anyway. The stunning thing is the lengths you go to to PROVE Scripture does not teach this Anabaptist Tradition. I've given up trying to figure out why you do that.







I sincerely believe you think that. But you WILL NOT (maybe cannot permit) look into the mirror to see how you do this most of all. You just PARROT (perfectly) the new Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism. What your denomination says, the actions (and non-actions) your denomination's Tradition says. And you PROVE (very consistently) that the Bible says no such thing. It is this VERY STUNNING, very obvious, contradiction between what it seems you sincerely believe SHOULD be done and what you actually do. The hypocrisy is stunning. I use to HOPE you'd stop echoing Tradition long enough... step back a bit.... maybe pay some attention to what the Bible actually says (the words there) and equally what it does NOT say... and realize how you are doing EXACTLY what you sincerely hold must not be done. I don't think you will permit yourself to do this. You have some treasured opinions you fear might be undermined if you actually did that.

MennoSota, you DO (occasionally, rarely) bring up some valid points. You note something I'm actually quite aware of - Tradition is embraced FAR more than most realize and admit. Unfortunately, no one can discuss any of the valid points with you because of your hypocrisy, because of your unwillingness to see what YOU do (most of all), because of your insistence that the words of Scripture THERE and NOT THERE are irrelevant because your Anabaptist Tradition knows what the Holy Spirit SHOULD have written there but goofed. No discussion can happen (even on your valid points) because of the PROFOUND double -standard, lack of honesty regarding Scripture, rule that YOU can impose unaccountable Tradition but no one else can even mention their Tradition. The profound lack of humility and honesty. The radical double-standard you insist upon.



I realize you don't consider (and often don't read) what is conveyed to you. The most meaning stuff anyone gets from you is "Blah.... blah.... blab..... " But you give people an opportunity to think and to see from all what is wrong in theology, why false teachings get invented and parroted. I see in you - OFTEN - exactly why I left the RCC.... BUT you also remind me that what the RCC does is actually very common outside that denomination, too - often FAR worse.




.

So... you're employing the "shall game" then. Got it.
You see, Josiah, you are trapped. You cannot prove paedobaptism from scripture, so you divert and twist. You create mythical arguments and avoid the fact that paedobaptism is not biblically supportable. This entire thread has shown just how non-biblical paedobaptism is. Yet...your tradition demands you uphold the crutch despite having nothing solid to support it.
You and others are free to go on believing in a non-biblical denominational tradition. If many, many members of your denomination die in their sins, you can explain to God why you falsely taught them that their infant baptism saved them. That's on you and your non-biblical teaching. You can confess that to God.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

So... you're employing the "shall game" then. Got it.
You see, Josiah, you are trapped. You cannot prove paedobaptism from scripture, so you divert and twist. You create mythical arguments and avoid the fact that paedobaptism is not biblically supportable. This entire thread has shown just how non-biblical paedobaptism is. Yet...your tradition demands you uphold the crutch despite having nothing solid to support it.
You and others are free to go on believing in a non-biblical denominational tradition. If many, many members of your denomination die in their sins, you can explain to God why you falsely taught them that their infant baptism saved them. That's on you and your non-biblical teaching. You can confess that to God.

It is YOU who can not support his position from Scripture. We have proven from Scripture that Baptism does forgive sins, you deny Scripture teaches this. We have proven from Scripture that Baptism does not have an age requirement, you insist it does. You force your beliefs INTO Scripture, whereas our beliefs come FROM Scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

It is YOU who can not support his position from Scripture. We have proven from Scripture that Baptism does forgive sins, you deny Scripture teaches this. We have proven from Scripture that Baptism does not have an age requirement, you insist it does. You force your beliefs INTO Scripture, whereas our beliefs come FROM Scripture.

You have not. You push your dogma that baptism is a magical forgiver of sins (even though only God can forgive sins). You provide arguments with zero biblical support. You take verses wildly out of context to support your pretext.
Second, only Josiah teaches an age of X. So, you are arguing against Josiah's fictional concept.
Third, we never see an unrepentant, unredeemed, dead in their trespasses person, who has not been made alive in Christ, baptized in the Bible. Never. Your theories on Lydia and her household are laughably silly as Paul and Silas would never be so undiscerning as you attempt to make them be.
It amazes me when I see Christians attempt to take God down from His Supreme place in order to hold desperately to their denominational dogma. I see it when Josiah forces Joseph to be a polygamist in order to make Mary a perpetual virgin. Now I see it when you make God less supreme by declaring that the ceremony of water baptism forgives sins, even though you should know that only God can forgive sins.
It is, frankly, shameful that you reduce the glory of God and His Sovereign Supremacy with your teaching.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Menno,

"You have not. You push your dogma that baptism is a magical forgiver of sins (even though only God can forgive sins). You provide arguments with zero biblical support. You take verses wildly out of context to support your pretext."

So Acts 2:38-39 isn't Biblical support? You're seriously going to assert that? Do you expect to have any credibility after seriously making that assertion?

"Second, only Josiah teaches an age of X. So, you are arguing against Josiah's fictional concept."

Nope, he doesn't. What Josiah is referring to when he says "age of X" is the Age of Accountability doctrine that is taught in many churches that view Baptism as a meaningless symbol that doesn't forgive sins and is just a show put on by the Christian being baptized for other Christians to marvel at how good he or she is now that they have made the free-will decision to make a symbolic declaration to God that they have been saved by God. So no, I'm not contradicting or teaching anything contrary to what Josiah says.

"Third, we never see an unrepentant, unredeemed, dead in their trespasses person, who has not been made alive in Christ, baptized in the Bible. Never. Your theories on Lydia and her household are laughably silly as Paul and Silas would never be so undiscerning as you attempt to make them be."

Will you please keep straight whom you are talking with? I have never brought up Lydia and her household with you. That is a discussion you're having with Lämmchen, not me. How is the forgiveness of sins delivered to the Christian? We believe it is delivered through the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which Scripture itself says forgives sins. You're the one that denies what Scripture clearly teaches.

"It amazes me when I see Christians attempt to take God down from His Supreme place in order to hold desperately to their denominational dogma. I see it when Josiah forces Joseph to be a polygamist in order to make Mary a perpetual virgin. Now I see it when you make God less supreme by declaring that the ceremony of water baptism forgives sins, even though you should know that only God can forgive sins."

You don't see anything that is plainly taught in Scripture. It is not "bringing God down" to grasp by faith what He has said He does through the waters of Baptism. You bring God down when you deny He does what He has said He does in Baptism. You limit His grace and mercy because you can't understand how He can deliver forgiveness of sins through physical means.

"It is, frankly, shameful that you reduce the glory of God and His Sovereign Supremacy with your teaching."

No, shameful is saying that Scripture teaches lies about Baptism, which you did in your previous post. In fact, it's beyond shameful. It's apostasy. What I and others teach is in line with Scripture and supported by Scripture. The things you say are not supported by Scripture which is evidenced by the complete absence of Scripture that supports anything you say.

 

[Josiah]

Menno,

"Second, only Josiah teaches an age of X. So, you are arguing against Josiah's fictional concept."

Nope, he doesn't. What Josiah is referring to when he says "age of X" is the Age of Accountability doctrine that is taught in many churches that view Baptism as a meaningless symbol that doesn't forgive sins and is just a show put on by the Christian being baptized for other Christians to marvel at how good he or she is now that they have made the free-will decision to make a symbolic declaration to God that they have been saved by God. So no, I'm not contradicting or teaching anything contrary to what Josiah says.

Our friend and brother, MennoSota, isn't that advanced.

He parrots all the Anabaptist invented Traditions here at CH. And (to give him due credit), he does so perfectly and verbatim. He can't admit it IS Tradition, but of course, everyone (including him) knows that's only what it is - new, rare, largely rejected Tradition. And (this is a real oddity) feels compelled to PROVE (in black and white, indisputable ways) that Scripture nowhere states these Anabaptist invented Traditions (the Anabaptists had the honesty to admit that, our Anabaptist friend does not).

ONE of those Anabaptist traditions is Anti-Peadobaptism. Of course, "paedo" is the most generic, general word for a younger person, it CAN apply to any under 20 or so but USUALLY refers to someone under puberty. But in practice, Baptists usually edit the Anabaptist Tradition they echo to make this "Anti-INFANT Baptism" (In ENGLISH, 'infant" typically refers to one under the age of one year). By doing so, they ALREADY are distancing themselves from the Anabaptist Tradition they parrot.

What MennoSota (and Baptists in general) don't seem to realize is that "INFANT" is an age. They think it refers to hair color or shoe size or native language... so they insist, "When I rant on and on about how WRONG it is to allow an infant to be baptized, this has NOTHING to do with age!!!!!" Sometimes..... well....... MennoSota goes on and on with his RANT against baptizing infants..... and insists his view has NOTHING to do with one's age. Sometimes I wonder: Do people actually READ what they post, do they LISTEN to their words? When any suggests MennoSota THINKS about the Tradition he echos, well.....

My friend, this has been going on here at CH for some two years with our brother. Good to have you join the effort but .... good luck. But take comfort in this: All the other "adult only" Baptists here have long ago abandoned him.

"Third, we never see an unrepentant, unredeemed, dead in their trespasses person, who has not been made alive in Christ, baptized in the Bible. Never. Your theories on Lydia and her household are laughably silly as Paul and Silas would never be so undiscerning as you attempt to make them be."

Will you please keep straight whom you are talking with? I have never brought up Lydia and her household with you. That is a discussion you're having with Lämmchen, not me. How is the forgiveness of sins delivered to the Christian? We believe it is delivered through the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which Scripture itself says forgives sins. You're the one that denies what Scripture clearly teaches.

MennoSota has a very fundamental problem that he will not acknowledge. His Baptist theology is radically synertistic. Anabaptists where radically synergistic. They invented all these new Baptist dogmas NOT because of ANY Scripture about Baptism (as they admitted - give THEM credit for honesy) but because the historic/orthodox view wasn't radically synergistic. Okay. When discussing all this with a synergistic Baptists, we see the "logic." But MennoSota is a Calvinistic monergist. They are contradictory views. When I was at CF, I was friends with a Reformed Baptist pastor (with a doctorate) and I never could remotely understand how one can be REFORMED and BAPTIST.... it's like being a Man Girl. MennoSota shows this conflict well.


But there's a bigger problem: Since he himself (REPEATEDLY) proves Scripture nowhere says what he does, that Scripture does not teach these new (largely rejected) Anabaptist inventions (as the Anabaptists admitted), he must look elsewhere for his apoloetic. He looks to what seems to him to have mostly been DONE in the Bible (one way to define Tradition, btw - LOL).

His premise: We are to do what we see illustrated as done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. It's perhaps the most absurd, silly apologetic I've ever encountered - but popular among Evangelicals. HIS WHOLE APOLOGETIC is this: All the examples of people in the Bible are of those who proved they were over some a never-disclosed age, people who had publicly proven they were among the Elect, people who had wept buckets of tears in repentance, and had every cell of their body entirely immersed under water. THEREFORE, we must do the same and cannot do otherwise. Of course, he PROVES that's not true... he cannot show that was always the case but that seems to not matter to him, he just insists we must do what was ALWAYS illustrated in the Bible and CANNOT do otherwise.



Here's what makes his entire apologetic beyond absurd:


1. He can't show that was always the case. We have those "household" baptisms, for example.


2. He ignores other things. We have nothing to show that every baptism was administered by a Gentile (non Hebraic person), yet where is the "ANTI-GENTILEBAPTISM" dogma? for example (there are many more). Why just THESE specific aspects are mandated?


3. He cannot show that ANYONE (prior to the late 16th Century) was denied Baptism (prohibited, forbidden) BECAUSE they had not yet celebrated their Xth birthday, had not adequately proven they were among the Elect, had not wept sufficiently in Repentance. Actually, he admits that from from the Third to late Sixteenth Centuries, no one was denied for any of those reasons. And he admits he can't show even one person so denied prior to the Third Century for ANY of his mandates.


4. He himself repudiates his whole apologetic. He doesn't give a rip about what was and was not done in the NT cases. He does NOT limit what he does to what was done in the NT. He himself not only PROVES Scripture does not state these specific prohibitions and requirements, but that HE HIMSELF rejects the premise that we must do as was done in the NT and cannot do otherwise. He proves this every time he posts on the internet. Did every case of Communion in the NT involve some Gentile administring it and passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to women and kids and anyone else feeling hungry? Do we see even one case of an American Baptist being baptized by a Gentile in a plastic tank hid behind a curtain? Do we see even one youth pastor? Do we see even one preacher wearing an Aloha shirt and jeans using powerpoint? Does our friend GIVE A RIP about what is and is not always illustrated as done in the NT? Nope. He shoots himself in the foot by PROVING Scripture doesn't state any of the prohibitions and mandates that the Anabaptist dreamed up.... and he PROVES that his whole apologeitc is one he himself rejects, repudiates and doesn't apply.



.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Our friend and brother, MennoSota, isn't that advanced.

He parrots all the Anabaptist invented Traditions here at CH. And (to give him due credit), he does so perfectly and verbatim. He can't admit it IS Tradition, but of course, everyone (including him) knows that's only what it is - new, rare, largely rejected Tradition. And (this is a real oddity) feels compelled to PROVE (in black and white, indisputable ways) that Scripture nowhere states these Anabaptist invented Traditions (the Anabaptists had the honesty to admit that, our Anabaptist friend does not).

ONE of those Anabaptist traditions is Anti-Peadobaptism. Of course, "paedo" is the most generic, general word for a younger person, it CAN apply to any under 20 or so but USUALLY refers to someone under puberty. But in practice, Baptists usually edit the Anabaptist Tradition they echo to make this "Anti-INFANT Baptism" (In ENGLISH, 'infant" typically refers to one under the age of one year). By doing so, they ALREADY are distancing themselves from the Anabaptist Tradition they parrot.

What MennoSota (and Baptists in general) don't seem to realize is that "INFANT" is an age. They think it refers to hair color or shoe size or native language... so they insist, "When I rant on and on about how WRONG it is to allow an infant to be baptized, this has NOTHING to do with age!!!!!" Sometimes..... well....... MennoSota goes on and on with his RANT against baptizing infants..... and insists his view has NOTHING to do with one's age. Sometimes I wonder: Do people actually READ what they post, do they LISTEN to their words? When any suggests MennoSota THINKS about the Tradition he echos, well.....

My friend, this has been going on here at CH for some two years with our brother. Good to have you join the effort but .... good luck. But take comfort in this: All the other "adult only" Baptists here have long ago abandoned him.







MennoSota has a very fundamental problem that he will not acknowledge. His Baptist theology is radically synertistic. Anabaptists where radically synergistic. They invented all these new Baptist dogmas NOT because of ANY Scripture about Baptism (as they admitted - give THEM credit for honesy) but because the historic/orthodox view wasn't radically synergistic. Okay. When discussing all this with a synergistic Baptists, we see the "logic." But MennoSota is a Calvinistic monergist. They are contradictory views. When I was at CF, I was friends with a Reformed Baptist pastor (with a doctorate) and I never could remotely understand how one can be REFORMED and BAPTIST.... it's like being a Man Girl. MennoSota shows this conflict well.


But there's a bigger problem: Since he himself (REPEATEDLY) proves Scripture nowhere says what he does, that Scripture does not teach these new (largely rejected) Anabaptist inventions (as the Anabaptists admitted), he must look elsewhere for his apoloetic. He looks to what seems to him to have mostly been DONE in the Bible (one way to define Tradition, btw - LOL).

His premise: We are to do what we see illustrated as done in the Bible and cannot do otherwise. It's perhaps the most absurd, silly apologetic I've ever encountered - but popular among Evangelicals. HIS WHOLE APOLOGETIC is this: All the examples of people in the Bible are of those who proved they were over some a never-disclosed age, people who had publicly proven they were among the Elect, people who had wept buckets of tears in repentance, and had every cell of their body entirely immersed under water. THEREFORE, we must do the same and cannot do otherwise. Of course, he PROVES that's not true... he cannot show that was always the case but that seems to not matter to him, he just insists we must do what was ALWAYS illustrated in the Bible and CANNOT do otherwise.



Here's what makes his entire apologetic beyond absurd:


1. He can't show that was always the case. We have those "household" baptisms, for example.


2. He ignores other things. We have nothing to show that every baptism was administered by a Gentile (non Hebraic person), yet where is the "ANTI-GENTILEBAPTISM" dogma? for example (there are many more). Why just THESE specific aspects are mandated?


3. He cannot show that ANYONE (prior to the late 16th Century) was denied Baptism (prohibited, forbidden) BECAUSE they had not yet celebrated their Xth birthday, had not adequately proven they were among the Elect, had not wept sufficiently in Repentance. Actually, he admits that from from the Third to late Sixteenth Centuries, no one was denied for any of those reasons. And he admits he can't show even one person so denied prior to the Third Century for ANY of his mandates.


4. He himself repudiates his whole apologetic. He doesn't give a rip about what was and was not done in the NT cases. He does NOT limit what he does to what was done in the NT. He himself not only PROVES Scripture does not state these specific prohibitions and requirements, but that HE HIMSELF rejects the premise that we must do as was done in the NT and cannot do otherwise. He proves this every time he posts on the internet. Did every case of Communion in the NT involve some Gentile administring it and passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice to women and kids and anyone else feeling hungry? Do we see even one case of an American Baptist being baptized by a Gentile in a plastic tank hid behind a curtain? Do we see even one youth pastor? Do we see even one preacher wearing an Aloha shirt and jeans using powerpoint? Does our friend GIVE A RIP about what is and is not always illustrated as done in the NT? Nope. He shoots himself in the foot by PROVING Scripture doesn't state any of the prohibitions and mandates that the Anabaptist dreamed up.... and he PROVES that his whole apologeitc is one he himself rejects, repudiates and doesn't apply.



.

He discusses like an Atheist. His whole argument can be reduced to a "nuh-uh" reponse, because he has zero proof from Scripture for anything he says regarding Baptism. Also, like an Atheist, he has claimed what Scripture does teach about Baptism is lies.