If paedobaptism were taught...

[Josiah]

[MENTION=127]zecryphon_nomdiv[/MENTION]

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.

Our brother is no Atheist.... he is just like many: He has vested into a particular Tradition (well, corpus of them) taken from the Anabaptists. He embraces them (passionately but as you note, without much examination). Since he holds this Tradition to be TRUE.... and since he tolds the Bible to be TRUE, ergo the Bible MUST teach his chosen Tradition even though he PROVES the actual words do NO SUCH THING.

So, there are two things going on here - neither does he acknowledge (it's POSSIBLE he doesn't realize it but I find that extremely unlikely): 1) He's just swallowed a Tradition (series of Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism) but largely unexamined; he echos (very well, of course) the whole argument without realizing it conflicts with his theology (He's a Calvinist monergist) and without realizing he completely rejects every bit of it, and PROVES that. You COULD help him examine thing - but we've been trying for 2 years; he does not regard it as accountable. 2) Scripture agrees with him NOT because the words do but because the Bible would be wrong if it didn't. His Tradition IS true so the Bible MUST teach it, even if in words that are invisible, even if the words THERE suggest just the opposite. This is WHY he can PROVE (right there in black and white!!!!) Scripture doesn't teach what he does and yet insist that it does.


Friend, I don't know your background, but I was once Catholic. A good Catholic boy. Altar boy.... sang in the children's choir.... the whole nine yards. And by the time I was 12, I realized something critical. ONE of the ways this dawned on me was this: We were discussing some Catholic dogma (don't remember which) and I simply asked, "Does the Bible teach this?" And this is VERBATIM what the teacher said: "Josiah, what the Church teaches is true.... what the Bible teaches is true.... so OF COURSE the Bible teaches it, although perhaps not in words YOU CAN SEE." Ah.... that soaked in. An epiphany. This is actually TAUGHT in the Catechism and in official Catholic teaching. I have a current thread here that concerns this called "Tradition and the Bible."


What I soon discovered is that this very flawed epistemology exists outside of Catholicism often MORE than inside. There is a deep and profound and very operative egoism and individualism at word in the church.... like a cancer..... and one way it reveals itself is by this embrace of some Tradition (it may be ecumenical and historic, or very individualistic and new) that is just embraced. Now Catholics and Orthodox are MORE apt to just be honest and admit this is not really found in Scripture but they yet hold it as true. I give 'em a little bit of credit for honesty. But among radical Protestants, this presents a problem (especially for those who SAY Tradition is bad and who have made that part of their Tradition). They'll do EXACTLY what the Catholic does - but lack the honesty and humility to admit it, and (just to shoot themselves in the foot) go on to PROVE that their Tradition isn't in the Bible. But we get the SAME THING: My chosen Tradition is true.... the Bible is true.... so the Bible MUST say what I do but you can't see it."

Check out my "Bible and Tradition" thread.... it's just one of my latest on all this. Also, by MennoSota's demand, I put up one on infant baptism (I actually addressed all his Anabaptist Traditions there, not just Anti-Paedobaptism) but he pretty much evaded it (it's longer and more complex than he deals with).

BUT, friend, our brother is a good guy. SOLID on the issue of monergism and justification. Solidly Christian. He just (so well) reveals a flaw - and he does it more obviously than anyone I know. And not JUST when it comes to his Anabaptist stuff. It's pretty extreme in Evangelicalism (the modern American brand), and just like our brother, most of them don't even realize it.

Side note: When I was an undergrad, about to graduate, I suddenly discovered I lacked a core course needed to graduate. I could fill it with a history class, and I like history, but I just didn't want to take World History or American History AGAIN. But there was an upper division class called "Revolution." I got the profs okay and registered for that. We studied the history of Revolutions - in ancient times and right up to present day. Many you'd never heard of, and some pretty well known (Including the American Revolution). One of many things I learned is that TYPICALLY, they go full circle, they tend to end up pretty much where they started - just the names have changed. The Russian Revolution overthrew the Czar and replaced him with Lenin and Stalin, arguably worse. Just one example. I came to see a connection here.... Luther was a REFORMER (no revolutionary).... one can say similarly about Calvin and Henry (at least theologically). But soon REVOLUTIONARIES entered the picture (Zwingli, Anabaptists at first) ... and IMO, I think we can see how they took things right back to Rome in a lot of ways, and in some ways, worse.


It's GOOD to have you in the community! GREAT to see you getting involved in the threads, as time permits. Thank you.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=127]zecryphon_nomdiv[/MENTION]

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.

Our brother is no Atheist.... he is just like many: He has vested into a particular Tradition (well, corpus of them) taken from the Anabaptists. He embraces them (passionately but as you note, without much examination). Since he holds this Tradition to be TRUE.... and since he tolds the Bible to be TRUE, ergo the Bible MUST teach his chosen Tradition even though he PROVES the actual words do NO SUCH THING.

So, there are two things going on here - neither does he acknowledge (it's POSSIBLE he doesn't realize it but I find that extremely unlikely): 1) He's just swallowed a Tradition (series of Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism) but largely unexamined; he echos (very well, of course) the whole argument without realizing it conflicts with his theology (He's a Calvinist monergist) and without realizing he completely rejects every bit of it, and PROVES that. You COULD help him examine thing - but we've been trying for 2 years; he does not regard it as accountable. 2) Scripture agrees with him NOT because the words do but because the Bible would be wrong if it didn't. His Tradition IS true so the Bible MUST teach it, even if in words that are invisible, even if the words THERE suggest just the opposite. This is WHY he can PROVE (right there in black and white!!!!) Scripture doesn't teach what he does and yet insist that it does.


Friend, I don't know your background, but I was once Catholic. A good Catholic boy. Altar boy.... sang in the children's choir.... the whole nine yards. And by the time I was 12, I realized something critical. ONE of the ways this dawned on me was this: We were discussing some Catholic dogma (don't remember which) and I simply asked, "Does the Bible teach this?" And this is VERBATIM what the teacher said: "Josiah, what the Church teaches is true.... what the Bible teaches is true.... so OF COURSE the Bible teaches it, although perhaps not in words YOU CAN SEE." Ah.... that soaked in. An epiphany. This is actually TAUGHT in the Catechism and in official Catholic teaching. I have a current thread here that concerns this called "Tradition and the Bible."


What I soon discovered is that this very flawed epistemology exists outside of Catholicism often MORE than inside. There is a deep and profound and very operative egoism and individualism at word in the church.... like a cancer..... and one way it reveals itself is by this embrace of some Tradition (it may be ecumenical and historic, or very individualistic and new) that is just embraced. Now Catholics and Orthodox are MORE apt to just be honest and admit this is not really found in Scripture but they yet hold it as true. I give 'em a little bit of credit for honesty. But among radical Protestants, this presents a problem (especially for those who SAY Tradition is bad and who have made that part of their Tradition). They'll do EXACTLY what the Catholic does - but lack the honesty and humility to admit it, and (just to shoot themselves in the foot) go on to PROVE that their Tradition isn't in the Bible. But we get the SAME THING: My chosen Tradition is true.... the Bible is true.... so the Bible MUST say what I do but you can't see it."

Over the past 20 years or so, I've had countless discussions with Catholics and Evangelicals.... I find those with Catholics to generally be better, in part because they tend to be honest about what they are doing - and generally permit others to do likewise. I find those with some Evangelicals to be almost impossible because they either ignorant or dishonest about what they are doing, the "rules" they play by - and even ridicule what they do if they sense it in others. Perhaps your experience is different.

Check out my "Bible and Tradition" thread.... it's just one of my latest on all this. Also, by MennoSota's demand, I put up one on infant baptism (I actually addressed all his Anabaptist Traditions there, not just Anti-Paedobaptism) but he pretty much evaded it (it's longer and more complex than he deals with).


BUT, friend, our brother is a good guy. SOLID on the issue of monergism and justification. Solidly Christian. He just (so well) reveals a flaw - and he does it more obviously than anyone I know. And not JUST when it comes to his Anabaptist stuff. It's pretty extreme in Evangelicalism (the modern American brand), and just like our brother, they may be ignorant or dishonest (or a bit a both) about what they do.... and at times hypocritical about rebuking others for what they do even more. An epiphany is needed. Be patient.


Side note: When I was an undergrad, about to graduate, I suddenly discovered I lacked a core course needed to graduate. I could fill it with a history class, and I like history, but I just didn't want to take World History or American History AGAIN. But there was an upper division class called "Revolution." I got the profs okay and registered for that. We studied the history of Revolutions - in ancient times and right up to present day. Many you'd never heard of, and some pretty well known (Including the American Revolution). One of many things I learned is that TYPICALLY, they go full circle, they tend to end up pretty much where they started - just the names have changed. The Russian Revolution overthrew the Czar and replaced him with Lenin and Stalin, arguably worse. Just one example. I came to see a connection here.... Luther was a REFORMER (no revolutionary).... one can say similarly about Calvin and Henry (at least theologically). But soon REVOLUTIONARIES entered the picture (Zwingli, Anabaptists at first) ... and IMO, I think we can see how they took things right back to Rome in a lot of ways, and in some ways, worse.


It's GOOD to have you in the community! GREAT to see you getting involved in the threads, as time permits. Thank you.



- Josiah

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=127]zecryphon_nomdiv[/MENTION]





Our brother is no Atheist.... he is just like many: He has vested into a particular Tradition (well, corpus of them) taken from the Anabaptists. He embraces them (passionately but as you note, without much examination). Since he holds this Tradition to be TRUE.... and since he tolds the Bible to be TRUE, ergo the Bible MUST teach his chosen Tradition even though he PROVES the actual words do NO SUCH THING.

So, there are two things going on here - neither does he acknowledge (it's POSSIBLE he doesn't realize it but I find that extremely unlikely): 1) He's just swallowed a Tradition (series of Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism) but largely unexamined; he echos (very well, of course) the whole argument without realizing it conflicts with his theology (He's a Calvinist monergist) and without realizing he completely rejects every bit of it, and PROVES that. You COULD help him examine thing - but we've been trying for 2 years; he does not regard it as accountable. 2) Scripture agrees with him NOT because the words do but because the Bible would be wrong if it didn't. His Tradition IS true so the Bible MUST teach it, even if in words that are invisible, even if the words THERE suggest just the opposite. This is WHY he can PROVE (right there in black and white!!!!) Scripture doesn't teach what he does and yet insist that it does.


Friend, I don't know your background, but I was once Catholic. A good Catholic boy. Altar boy.... sang in the children's choir.... the whole nine yards. And by the time I was 12, I realized something critical. ONE of the ways this dawned on me was this: We were discussing some Catholic dogma (don't remember which) and I simply asked, "Does the Bible teach this?" And this is VERBATIM what the teacher said: "Josiah, what the Church teaches is true.... what the Bible teaches is true.... so OF COURSE the Bible teaches it, although perhaps not in words YOU CAN SEE." Ah.... that soaked in. An epiphany. This is actually TAUGHT in the Catechism and in official Catholic teaching. I have a current thread here that concerns this called "Tradition and the Bible."


What I soon discovered is that this very flawed epistemology exists outside of Catholicism often MORE than inside. There is a deep and profound and very operative egoism and individualism at word in the church.... like a cancer..... and one way it reveals itself is by this embrace of some Tradition (it may be ecumenical and historic, or very individualistic and new) that is just embraced. Now Catholics and Orthodox are MORE apt to just be honest and admit this is not really found in Scripture but they yet hold it as true. I give 'em a little bit of credit for honesty. But among radical Protestants, this presents a problem (especially for those who SAY Tradition is bad and who have made that part of their Tradition). They'll do EXACTLY what the Catholic does - but lack the honesty and humility to admit it, and (just to shoot themselves in the foot) go on to PROVE that their Tradition isn't in the Bible. But we get the SAME THING: My chosen Tradition is true.... the Bible is true.... so the Bible MUST say what I do but you can't see it."

Check out my "Bible and Tradition" thread.... it's just one of my latest on all this. Also, by MennoSota's demand, I put up one on infant baptism (I actually addressed all his Anabaptist Traditions there, not just Anti-Paedobaptism) but he pretty much evaded it (it's longer and more complex than he deals with).

BUT, friend, our brother is a good guy. SOLID on the issue of monergism and justification. Solidly Christian. He just (so well) reveals a flaw - and he does it more obviously than anyone I know. And not JUST when it comes to his Anabaptist stuff. It's pretty extreme in Evangelicalism (the modern American brand), and just like our brother, most of them don't even realize it.

Side note: When I was an undergrad, about to graduate, I suddenly discovered I lacked a core course needed to graduate. I could fill it with a history class, and I like history, but I just didn't want to take World History or American History AGAIN. But there was an upper division class called "Revolution." I got the profs okay and registered for that. We studied the history of Revolutions - in ancient times and right up to present day. Many you'd never heard of, and some pretty well known (Including the American Revolution). One of many things I learned is that TYPICALLY, they go full circle, they tend to end up pretty much where they started - just the names have changed. The Russian Revolution overthrew the Czar and replaced him with Lenin and Stalin, arguably worse. Just one example. I came to see a connection here.... Luther was a REFORMER (no revolutionary).... one can say similarly about Calvin and Henry (at least theologically). But soon REVOLUTIONARIES entered the picture (Zwingli, Anabaptists at first) ... and IMO, I think we can see how they took things right back to Rome in a lot of ways, and in some ways, worse.


It's GOOD to have you in the community! GREAT to see you getting involved in the threads, as time permits. Thank you.



- Josiah

You are a broken record. I am vested in what scripture says. Unlike you, I don't choose to read a myth into the text (aka Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household and therefore baptized unregenerate, unrepentant sinners who were still dead to Christ). The Bible is quite clear, which is why you fall on tradition rather than scripture for your appeal.

 

[Josiah]

I don't choose to read a myth into the text (aka Paul and Silas were silent with Lydia's household and therefore baptized unregenerate, unrepentant sinners who were still dead to Christ).

AS EVERYONE KNOWS....

I never remotely said that Paul and/or Silas baptized babies or unrepentant persons or Americans or fat people or English speakers. YOU said they were all 1) over some non-disclosed age, 2) proved they were among the Elect, 3) wept oceans of tears in repentance, 4) had every cell of their bodies totally immersed in water. YOUR WHOLE POINT is the "every baptism" had those mandates met. You just proved you can't show that to be true. YOUR APOLOGETIC is that we can't do what is not illustrated as always done in the Bible (and you do that by posting on the internet).

IF you had the Scripture that teaches any of your 4 invented prohibitions/mandates, you would have quoted them by now. INSTEAD, you have gone to considerable lengths to PROVE (right there is undeniable, indisputable, black and white words all can read) that Scripture never says what you do.

 

[MennoSota]

AS EVERYONE KNOWS....

I never remotely said that Paul and/or Silas baptized babies or unrepentant persons or Americans or fat people or English speakers. YOU said they were all 1) over some non-disclosed age, 2) proved they were among the Elect, 3) wept oceans of tears in repentance, 4) had every cell of their bodies totally immersed in water. YOUR WHOLE POINT is the "every baptism" had those mandates met. You just proved you can't show that to be true. YOUR APOLOGETIC is that we can't do what is not illustrated as always done in the Bible (and you do that by posting on the internet).

IF you had the Scripture that teaches any of your 4 invented prohibitions/mandates, you would have quoted them by now. INSTEAD, you have gone to considerable lengths to PROVE (right there is undeniable, indisputable, black and white words all can read) that Scripture never says what you do.

Josiah, you invent them. Not me.
I state what scripture provides. Since scripture doesn't baptize infants...I don't baptize infants. Since scripture shows redeemed, repentant believers being baptized...I baptize redeemed, repentant believers.
It's that simple. No tradition needed, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

Since scripture doesn't baptize infants...I don't baptize infants.

Your WHOLE APOLOGETIC is laughable, absurd, beyond silly..... so much so I'm stunned you could even parrot it.



Since NO Scripture shows anyone posting on the internet, so to you it is DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet...

Since NO Scripture shows any Gentile baptizing anyone, so to you it's DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet...

Since NO Scripture shows any American or tall person or fat person or blonde-haired person or Baptists ever being Baptized, so to you it's DOGMA that it's prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture shows anyone ever being baptized in a plastic tank behind a curtain in the front of a chruch, so to ou it's DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture shows anyone ever been baptized outside of Asia, so to you it's DOGMA that it's prohibited. And yet...

Since NO Scripture ever shows Communion being given to women or kids, so to you it's DOGMA that it's prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture ever shows Communion being celebrated with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, so to you it's DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture ever shows a woman pastor or youth pastor or youth group, so to you it's DOGMA those things are all prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture ever shows a church using powerpoint or the internet or pastors wearing an Aloha shirt and jeans, so to your it's DOGMA that's prohibited. And yet....


Stop. THINK. It's absurd to proclaim an apologetic YOU YOURSELF reject and OBVIOUSLY don't apply yourself. Just as it is to go to so much work to quote (verbatim) Scriptures to PROVE that your position is never taught in Scripture.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Your WHOLE APOLOGETIC is laughable, absurd, beyond silly..... so much so I'm stunned you could even parrot it.



Since NO Scripture shows anyone posting on the internet, so to you it is DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet...

Since NO Scripture shows any Gentile baptizing anyone, so to you it's DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet...

Since NO Scripture shows any American or tall person or fat person or blonde-haired person or Baptists ever being Baptized, so to you it's DOGMA that it's prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture shows anyone ever being baptized in a plastic tank behind a curtain in the front of a chruch, so to ou it's DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture shows anyone ever been baptized outside of Asia, so to you it's DOGMA that it's prohibited. And yet...

Since NO Scripture ever shows Communion being given to women or kids, so to you it's DOGMA that it's prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture ever shows Communion being celebrated with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice, so to you it's DOGMA that this is prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture ever shows a woman pastor or youth pastor or youth group, so to you it's DOGMA those things are all prohibited. And yet....

Since NO Scripture ever shows a church using powerpoint or the internet or pastors wearing an Aloha shirt and jeans, so to your it's DOGMA that's prohibited. And yet....

Stop. THINK. It's absurd to proclaim an apologetic YOU YOURSELF reject and OBVIOUSLY don't apply yourself. Just as it is to go to so much work to quote (verbatim) Scriptures to PROVE that your position is never taught in Scripture.




.

No scripture shows infant baptism. This is the thread. You and your friends have shown there is no text to support it.
My apologetic is the evidence of the Bible. That you laugh at it speaks more about you than anything I can say.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

[MENTION=127]zecryphon_nomdiv[/MENTION]





Our brother is no Atheist.... he is just like many: He has vested into a particular Tradition (well, corpus of them) taken from the Anabaptists. He embraces them (passionately but as you note, without much examination). Since he holds this Tradition to be TRUE.... and since he tolds the Bible to be TRUE, ergo the Bible MUST teach his chosen Tradition even though he PROVES the actual words do NO SUCH THING.

So, there are two things going on here - neither does he acknowledge (it's POSSIBLE he doesn't realize it but I find that extremely unlikely): 1) He's just swallowed a Tradition (series of Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism) but largely unexamined; he echos (very well, of course) the whole argument without realizing it conflicts with his theology (He's a Calvinist monergist) and without realizing he completely rejects every bit of it, and PROVES that. You COULD help him examine thing - but we've been trying for 2 years; he does not regard it as accountable. 2) Scripture agrees with him NOT because the words do but because the Bible would be wrong if it didn't. His Tradition IS true so the Bible MUST teach it, even if in words that are invisible, even if the words THERE suggest just the opposite. This is WHY he can PROVE (right there in black and white!!!!) Scripture doesn't teach what he does and yet insist that it does.


Friend, I don't know your background, but I was once Catholic. A good Catholic boy. Altar boy.... sang in the children's choir.... the whole nine yards. And by the time I was 12, I realized something critical. ONE of the ways this dawned on me was this: We were discussing some Catholic dogma (don't remember which) and I simply asked, "Does the Bible teach this?" And this is VERBATIM what the teacher said: "Josiah, what the Church teaches is true.... what the Bible teaches is true.... so OF COURSE the Bible teaches it, although perhaps not in words YOU CAN SEE." Ah.... that soaked in. An epiphany. This is actually TAUGHT in the Catechism and in official Catholic teaching. I have a current thread here that concerns this called "Tradition and the Bible."


What I soon discovered is that this very flawed epistemology exists outside of Catholicism often MORE than inside. There is a deep and profound and very operative egoism and individualism at word in the church.... like a cancer..... and one way it reveals itself is by this embrace of some Tradition (it may be ecumenical and historic, or very individualistic and new) that is just embraced. Now Catholics and Orthodox are MORE apt to just be honest and admit this is not really found in Scripture but they yet hold it as true. I give 'em a little bit of credit for honesty. But among radical Protestants, this presents a problem (especially for those who SAY Tradition is bad and who have made that part of their Tradition). They'll do EXACTLY what the Catholic does - but lack the honesty and humility to admit it, and (just to shoot themselves in the foot) go on to PROVE that their Tradition isn't in the Bible. But we get the SAME THING: My chosen Tradition is true.... the Bible is true.... so the Bible MUST say what I do but you can't see it."

Check out my "Bible and Tradition" thread.... it's just one of my latest on all this. Also, by MennoSota's demand, I put up one on infant baptism (I actually addressed all his Anabaptist Traditions there, not just Anti-Paedobaptism) but he pretty much evaded it (it's longer and more complex than he deals with).

BUT, friend, our brother is a good guy. SOLID on the issue of monergism and justification. Solidly Christian. He just (so well) reveals a flaw - and he does it more obviously than anyone I know. And not JUST when it comes to his Anabaptist stuff. It's pretty extreme in Evangelicalism (the modern American brand), and just like our brother, most of them don't even realize it.

Side note: When I was an undergrad, about to graduate, I suddenly discovered I lacked a core course needed to graduate. I could fill it with a history class, and I like history, but I just didn't want to take World History or American History AGAIN. But there was an upper division class called "Revolution." I got the profs okay and registered for that. We studied the history of Revolutions - in ancient times and right up to present day. Many you'd never heard of, and some pretty well known (Including the American Revolution). One of many things I learned is that TYPICALLY, they go full circle, they tend to end up pretty much where they started - just the names have changed. The Russian Revolution overthrew the Czar and replaced him with Lenin and Stalin, arguably worse. Just one example. I came to see a connection here.... Luther was a REFORMER (no revolutionary).... one can say similarly about Calvin and Henry (at least theologically). But soon REVOLUTIONARIES entered the picture (Zwingli, Anabaptists at first) ... and IMO, I think we can see how they took things right back to Rome in a lot of ways, and in some ways, worse.


It's GOOD to have you in the community! GREAT to see you getting involved in the threads, as time permits. Thank you.



- Josiah

I didn't say he actually was an Atheist, just that he employs the same tactics they do when "discussing" a topic.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

No scripture shows infant baptism. This is the thread. You and your friends have shown there is no text to support it.
My apologetic is the evidence of the Bible. That you laugh at it speaks more about you than anything I can say.

I've shown you from the Bible where it says Baptism forgives sins and that the promise is for you and your children. So stop saying you believe what the Bible teaches regarding Baptism. Anyone with eyes to see knows you don't believe what Scripture teaches.

 

[MennoSota]

I've shown you from the Bible where it says Baptism forgives sins and that the promise is for you and your children. So stop saying you believe what the Bible teaches regarding Baptism. Anyone with eyes to see knows you don't believe what Scripture teaches.

No. You claim water baptism forgives sins. You never gave a specific passage.
Second, you refuse to answer as to why you don't spend your days on the street baptizing people, since you believe baptism forgives people's sins.
So...provide the specific text and we can exegete the passage.

 

[Josiah]

No. You claim water baptism forgives sins. You never gave a specific passage.

When someone is "caught" and can't respond - and so tries to change the topic - that's called "The Shell Game." This thread is not about whether God is able to forgive sins or not, it's not even whether infants are morally perfect and absolutely holy or not, it's about whether the Bible states that we are forbidden to baptize any "Paedo" TRY to stay on topic.

NO ONE has EVER said that the Bible states, "....and this includes paedos." It's just that NO ONE (not one Christian) could find the verse the states, "... but paedos are forbidden to be baptized" and you've PROVEN such doesn't exist, but you claim the Bible "says" it nonetheless, but obviously with invisible words. Most also conclude there is no verse that states, ".... and this includes old people... and this includes fat people, and this includes American Baptists,....and thisi includes people with blonde hair.... and this includes those with a shoe size under 10...." Most can't find the verse that says, "but Americans are forbidden!" but we do admit there is not one example of an American being baptized in the the Bible.And not ONE example of a Baptist. But most agree with you, we are not limited to doing what we can prove was done in the Bible (which is why we can post on the internet).



.

 

[MennoSota]

When someone is "caught" and can't respond - and so tries to change the topic - that's called "The Shell Game." This thread is not about whether God is able to forgive sins or not, it's not even whether infants are morally perfect and absolutely holy or not, it's about whether the Bible states that we are forbidden to baptize any "Paedo" TRY to stay on topic.

NO ONE has EVER said that the Bible states, "....and this includes paedos." It's just that NO ONE (not one Christian) could find the verse the states, "... but paedos are forbidden to be baptized" and you've PROVEN such doesn't exist, but you claim the Bible "says" it nonetheless, but obviously with invisible words. Most also conclude there is no verse that states, ".... and this includes old people... and this includes fat people, and this includes American Baptists,....and thisi includes people with blonde hair.... and this includes those with a shoe size under 10...." Most can't find the verse that says, "but Americans are forbidden!" but we do admit there is not one example of an American being baptized in the the Bible.And not ONE example of a Baptist. But most agree with you, we are not limited to doing what we can prove was done in the Bible (which is why we can post on the internet).



.

Do you feel caught, Josiah? So far, no proof of paedobaptism from you. I would feel caught if I were you.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

No. You claim water baptism forgives sins. You never gave a specific passage.
Second, you refuse to answer as to why you don't spend your days on the street baptizing people, since you believe baptism forgives people's sins.
So...provide the specific text and we can exegete the passage.

In post # 158 I asked you about Acts 2:38-39. So, yeah, I did give a specific passage. Here it is again, so you can't ever lie about me like that again.

Acts 2:38-39*New American Standard Bible (NASB)

38) Peter said.to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39) For*the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

I already answered your question as to why I don't baptize people. Maybe if you actually read what people wrote to you, you'd know the answers to your ridiculous questions.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 2:38-39. Here it is again, so you can't ever lie like that again.

Acts 2:38-39*New American Standard Bible (NASB)

38*Peter*said*to them, “Repent, and each of you be*baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.*39*For*the promise is for you and your children and for all who are*far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

I already answered your question as to why I don't baptize people. Maybe if you actually read what people wrote to you, you'd know the answers to your ridiculous questions.

Zec, I already exegeted this passage, showing you your wrong interpretation. You reject what I have stated.
Remember what comes before this...or do you conveniently forget?
Acts 2:37.*Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart
There is your salvation, zec. There is your adoption. There is your grace. There is your faith.
None of that comes from a water dunking.
Water Baptism is a response to God's saving grace as it declares to everyone witnessing that the person has gone from death to life. From utter condemnation to full pardon.
It was not the repentance or the baptism that saved them or forgave them. It was the God who graciously chose to cut them to the heart and pardon them...forgive them. Perhaps you can listen to Voddie Baucham on forgiveness and see what God has done...without water needed.
https://youtu.be/hpICVJCV3pY

 

[MennoSota]

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

No.Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:

First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15*and Romans 4that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22,*24,*25,*26,*28,*30;*4:5;*Galatians 2:16;*Ephesians 2:8-9;*Philippians 3:9, etc.).

If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to*baptism,*but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?

Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In*1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In*1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.

Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood water baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.

Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation*are*those who were saved apart from baptism.*The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), the publican (Luke 18:13-14), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43)*all experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. For that matter, we have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them).

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In*Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the*analogiascriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.

Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.

With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.

In*Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are several plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition*eis--"because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in*Matthew 3:11;*12:41; and*Luke 11:32.

It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf.*Luke 24:47;*John 3:18;*Acts 5:31;*10:43;*13:38;*26:18;*Ephesians 5:26).

A third possibility exists, as Wallace explains in*Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:

It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas--the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit..." (10:47).

The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain*Acts 2:38(viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.

I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that*vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al.,*A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen,*The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in*1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word*baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf.*Matthew 3:11;*Mark 1:8;*7:4;*10:38-39;*Luke 3:16;*11:38;*12:50;*John 1:33;*Acts 1:5;*11:16;*1 Corinthians 10:2;*12:13).

So Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. Again, it is not the outward act that saves, but the internal reality of the Spirit's regenerating work (cf.*Titus 3:4-8).

I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6*or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf.*1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the transcripts my sermons on Galatians 3*and Romans 6.

In*Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle*epikalesamenos*("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.

Water baptism is certainly*important,and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.

https://www.gty.org/library/questions/QA79/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Zec, I already exegeted this passage, showing you your wrong interpretation. You reject what I have stated.
Remember what comes before this...or do you conveniently forget?
Acts 2:37.*Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart
There is your salvation, zec. There is your adoption. There is your grace. There is your faith.
None of that comes from a water dunking.
Water Baptism is a response to God's saving grace as it declares to everyone witnessing that the person has gone from death to life. From utter condemnation to full pardon.
It was not the repentance or the baptism that saved them or forgave them. It was the God who graciously chose to cut them to the heart and pardon them...forgive them. Perhaps you can listen to Voddie Baucham on forgiveness and see what God has done...without water needed.
https://youtu.be/hpICVJCV3pY

Pricking of the heart is NOT salvation. That is a response to the Holy Spirit revealing to you your sin and your need for a savoir who is Christ Jesus.

You completely ignore what is clearly written in verses 38 & 39 because they clearly state something YOU can't understand and that is how God uses physical elements to deliver forgiveness of sins through Baptism as stated by Peter and God. But you've already stated that these Scriptural truths are "lies that you will not teach children." That says it all.

 

[Josiah]

Do you feel caught, Josiah?

It's you who keeps changing the subject. The ONLY issue here is your AGE prohibition, you dogmatically insisting "NO INFANT BAPTISM" (although I realize you want to insist that "infant" has NOTHING to do with any age range; perhaps it has to do with hair color or shoe size since you claim it has nothing to do with age?).

So far, no proof of paedobaptism from you.

My "proof" that there is no prohibition due to age has been given by you. You can't find any such prohibition. NO ONE can. Why? Because it doens't exist. Just as there is no prohibition due to hair color or weight or country of birth or native language. Your prohibition because of AGE doesn't exist anywhere in Scripture as you yourself have worked so hard to prove.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Pricking of the heart is NOT salvation. That is a response to the Holy Spirit revealing to you your sin and your need for a savoir who is Christ Jesus.

You completely ignore what is clearly written in verses 38 & 39 because they clearly state something YOU can't understand and that is how God uses physical elements to deliver forgiveness of sins through Baptism as stated by Peter and God. But you've already stated that these Scriptural truths are "lies that you will not teach children." That says it all.

Not ignoring. Just showing you that God chooses who will believe. Baptism doesn't cause anyone to have faith.
We have numerous examples of people coming to faith and being forgiven without any water baptism at all. If water baptism were necessary for forgiveness of sins then all the people before water baptism died in unforgiven sin. You, zec, have a significant dilemma on your hands. It seems you will choose to ignore your theological dilemma rather than meet it head on.
In any case, this thread is about the lack of any evidence in scripture regarding paedobaptism. This thread has run its course and any observer can easily see that the Bible doesn't support infant baptism. I'm fine with the moderators closing this thread.

 

[MennoSota]

It's you who keeps changing the subject. The ONLY issue here is your AGE prohibition, you dogmatically insisting "NO INFANT BAPTISM" (although I realize you want to insist that "infant" has NOTHING to do with any age range; perhaps it has to do with hair color or shoe size since you claim it has nothing to do with age?).






My "proof" that there is no prohibition due to age has been given by you. You can't find any such prohibition. NO ONE can. Why? Because it doens't exist. Just as there is no prohibition due to hair color or weight or country of birth or native language. Your prohibition because of AGE doesn't exist anywhere in Scripture as you yourself have worked so hard to prove.





.

The only issue of this thread was for you to show paedobaptism in scripture. You can't. Close the thread, moderators.

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota.

The thread you started has a silly, absurd premise: If no one can prove that everyone in the "household baptisms" was an AMERICAN, then it's dogmatically prohibited to baptize Americans. You substituted infants but same/same. The REALITY is NO ONE knows ANYTHING about those baptized in those households. And NO ONE but YOU made any dogmatic claims about that, no one but YOU formed any dogma out of that. YOU insist there were no infants but you offered NOTHING to support that dogmatic insistence.

No. You're right. NO ONE can prove that included in those "household" baptisms were any Americans, Baptists, Blondes, fat people, English speakers, Calvinists, intelligent folks or those with a shoe size over 10. OKAY. I admit it. But how does that prove that ERGO it is dogmatically mandated in Scripture that we can only baptize those who 1) Have attained some age you refuse to disclose other than it's over the age of one. 2) Have proven they are among the Elect. 3) Have wept buckets of tears in repentance. 4) Have every cell of their body immersed entirely under water? You won't answer that because the whole premise is just ABSURD. And you know it. Everyone does.


It's silly. It's absurd. Everyone knows it.