[MENTION=11]Lämmchen[/MENTION]
In the past, I have gone through every statement on baptism and shared what the Bible says
True. Never denied. In fact, I have stressed that you have done this.
What is not true is your claim about what it states. At every point, you have proven it does NOT say what you state it does; what you quote the Scripture to say only shows that what Scripture says is not what you say.
MennoSota said:
God did not write a policy on baptism
AMAZING you now admit this!
There goes your new Tradition, the dogmatic prohibitions and mandates you've been insisting Scripture states.
There goes TWO SOLID YEARS of you insisting "The Bible states...." the 4 mandates/prohibitions you keep insisting it does - and then proving it does not.
MennoSota said:
However, God did write about the process the Apostles used.
So there goes all the "the Bible says...." statements you've insisted upon for two solid years. GOOD. Maybe you DID read post 46?
NO ONE HERE has EVER denied - at all, not for a second - that SOME of the "patterns" you speak about ARE what appears to have often (but we can't say always) done in the NT. In fact, I have OFTEN - repeatedly - stated the very same thing.
What I challenged is your perpetual insistence that it was ALWAYS the case when you yourself proved you could not show that to be true. And noted you are considering only PARTS of the pattern, ignoring others.
And I challenged that your point is one you yourself care about. I reject your premise that we can ONLY do what was SOMETIMES done in the NT and cannot do otherwise.
You have not once engaged in EITHER discussion, not ever, just the constant repeating: This is what was ALWAYS done..... We MUST do the same and CANNOT do otherwise than what happens to be exampled sometimes in the Bible. I have showed how you yourself don't follow that rubric, how you yourself reject it. I've noted I can't find ONE subject (including Baptism) where you actually accept your whole premise. IF it were true that we must do what is at times (but not always) done in the NT and cannot do otherwise, then why are you posting on the internet? I've asked you that many times over these two years; you've always ignored it.
MennoSota said:
It is disingenuous to create something from silence
EXACTLY!!!! I could not agree more;
EXACTLY my point! Exactly what I've been saying to you for two years that you have been mocking, rejecting, arguing against.
So you too agree the following is "disingenuous:" "I can post on the internet because the Bible is silent about that and there's not even one example that.... A Gentile can baptize American Baptists in a plastic tank behind a curtain because the Bible is silent about that and there's not one example of that..... A Gentile can administer Communion to women and kids with little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice because the Bible never mentions ANY of that and there's not one example of any of that in the Bible." Ah, now consider your premise: "We cannot baptize any under the mysterious age of X because it seems to me that was not what was always done in the Bible."
Consider that.
Ah. But you don't accept your own premise, do you? Ever? Why demand that everyone ELSE does?
NOW....
IF you could show an infant or fat person or blonde-haired person or American being DENIED Baptism BECAUSE they were an infant or fat or blonde or American, then you'd have a valid point to say we should deny such, too. But you don't. All you have is SILENCE about your late, selective prohibitions and mandates. No denials. No stated mandates. No stated prohibitions. Just SILENCE, as you now seem to admit. And you insist we cannot create new stuff from silence.
Can you consider what you yourself have stated?
MennoSota said:
...and declare that we are free to create a tradition from silence and declare it as God ordained when there is nothing in the Bible.
That's EXACTLY what the Anabaptists did as they created the Baptists Traditions you echo and promote. They didn't even CLAIM the Bible taught them... they didn't even claim anyone before them imposed these prohibitions and mandates. They CREATED a Tradition (the one you now echo)..... from SILENCE .... admitting no such thing is taught in Scripture. You parrot their invented Tradition, but you don't share their admissions.
MennoSota said:
More so, pride in whoever claims the earliest tradition becomes more important than what the Bible actually says.
What I've noted is that you are sharing a Tradition. That you don't seem aware of it's history is irrelevant, it's still a Tradition.
And as you have proven, NONE of it is stated in the Bible. In fact, you now admit there is no policy about this in the Bible - thus SILENCE about all these prohibitions and mandates you impose and promote and demand.
What you show is NOT that anyone prior to these Anabaptists had this Tradition or policy.... the Bible is "silent" about policies on all this... BUT that it seems that MOST of the cases of Baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT appear to you to follow this pattern. Cool. No one disputes that. But that does not dogma make - unless you want to be consistent and actually AGREE with your premise - which would mean no Gentile administers, no tanks, no Americans, no Blondes, no baptisms outside what was once the Roman Empire, etc. AND that you don't limit this ONLY to Baptism - if this is a mandated rubric, then it's a universal one, and it means NO Gentiles administering Communion, no women or kids receiving Communion, no white bread, no plastic cups, no grape juice. BUT you don't accept your own premise, do you? Do you? All you have.... is something you regard as invalid, not limiting, something you don't accept or do. Ever.
Here's the thing:
1. For two solid years, in thread after thread (including ones not even about Baptism) you have dogmatically insisted, "the Bible states....." (then proving it does not). NOW you admit, the Bible is SILENT about your issues and that we should not do what you do, create dogmatic mandates and prohibitions. I've simply said what you insist the Bible states.... well..... isn't factual. You keep saying, "This verse states...." when, well anyone who can read knows the reality. You are simply inserting your Tradition, you know, what you mock, ridicule and disallow of everyone else.
2. For two years, your whole premise concerning Baptism... your entire argument, the totality of your apologetic.... is that we CANNOT do anything unless it was always done in the Bible, we CANNOT do anything unless we find examples of that specific practice in the Bible; we can do only what was done in the Bible. "WHERE is an example of a baby being Baptized?" you've asked too many times to count; "NEVER was anyone baptize who had not first proved they were among the Elect!" Your premise is clear and consistent on this. I've simply pointed out: You can't show your dogmatic mandates/prohibitions were always done in the Bible (and in some cases, EVER done), and
you don't accept your own premise, your own argument, your own apoiogetic. Not in Baptism, not in
anything I can tell So since you yourself reject your premise, it's absurd to demand others to do so, ridiculing them if they don't in your opinion.
3. You are echoing a Tradition. The Baptism Traditions created by the Anabaptists in the 16th Century. I have NO PROBLEM with that (I've clearly stated everyone has their Traditions on things; everyone "wears glasses"). The older, ecumenical Tradition (dating from the First Century) was repudiated by those Anabaptists. You echo the Anabaptist Tradition (and I have complimented you repeatedly for doing so accurately - something fairly rare). That's fine. I encourage the sharing of Traditions. What I find dismaying is A) You refuse to admit you have any Tradition, B) You demand that Tradition be entirely disregarded when OTHERS share a Tradition but not when you do. I find that rather hypocritical. IF you demand to proceed ONLY by the words of the Bible - FINE, but you insist on very boldly inserting and imposing your chosen Tradition into it, then ridiculing when you sense others are doing the same thing (just far less radically than you do). Insisting on two VERY different playing fields, two opposite rule books, is simply a way to make discussion and accountability IMPOSSIBLE (and waste everyone's time). IF you can insert your Tradition (as you do - VERY boldly and radically) then you should allow others to do the same. To discuss, things need to be fair, honest and clean - with a level playing field. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
MennoSota said:
Nothing imaginary about this:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1 Corinthians 1:17
CORRECT!
The imaginary part is:
This states that baptism is not important
This states that baptism is not as important as teaching/preaching
This states that teaching must come before baptizing.
You know, all your points. All your claims about what this verse states.
THAT'S the imaginary part.
I'm not saying your Tradition is imaginary (it's very real;there are millions who echo it just as you do), but the claim that the words of the text state what you claim,
THAT'S imaginary.
But yeah, we've been all over this
COUNTLESS times over the past two years.... always to no avail.
- Josiah
.
