Atpollard,
Pretty extreme hyperbole there, my friend :ewink:
That is the point, it was NOT hyperbole. That is why I posted the entire conversation in post #31. Read it for yourself.
Look, it's not those with the historic view gong ON AND ON, very dogmatically, for two solid years, about what Christians are forbidden to do... what the Bible specifically mandates.... I haven't seen any posts from those with the historic view accusing others of invalid or worthless baptisms, have you?
Your use of the term “historic view” is part of a pattern of steadfast failure to treat Credobaptism as if it were anything other than some fanatic new age cult alongside the Book of Mormon and Scientology. It may be merely descriptive in your mind, but that is not how it is used in your posts. You are the “true church” with the “historic view” and we are the ones with the “16th Century wackadoodle” theology. You do not accuse us of invalid baptisms, just “wackadoodle” theology and hypocrisy.
For two solid years, you have insisted that the discussion is NOT about what is at the core of the issue. It has never been about what is forbidden, it has always been about what Credobaptists believe God REQUIRES. It is in the name ... CREDO (I Believe). God commands “repent and be baptized” and God commands “make disciples and baptize” and God provides example after example of people hearing and believing and repenting and being baptized. We believe, based on scripture and our conscience before God, that one must believe before being baptized. Infant baptisms are viewed as “invalid” not because of a prohibition on dunking infants, but because infants cannot show that they meet God’s CONDITIONS of “repent/make disciples” that must accompany BAPTISM.
I have not noticed any Baptist disagreeing with anything MennoSota has posted. Their perpetual silence suggests to me approval.
I cannot speak for any Baptists on this board except me. My silence indicates different things at different times. Sometimes I am silent because I agree with what MennoSota said. Sometimes I am silent because I have no desire to wade into a ******* contest that no one will win. Sometimes I am silent because I simply don’t care enough about the bickering and anti-Credobaptist rhetoric to bother logging in here for a few months.
With respect to the silence of other Baptists, it would be interesting to know if there are any. That could be one reason why none argue against MennoSota. If they are here, then they each have their own reason for not posting.
Yes, friend, I am FULLY AWARE that there are those who embrace certain new practices - NOT dogmaticsally and NOT for the reasons the Anabaptist gave (and MennoSota parrots - with no objection or even comment from any Baptist of any kind). There are those who condemn and repudiate NOTHING but simply conclude that the better PRAXIS is to have the recipient speak for themselves and be immersed. They may say, "We see a PATTERN.... we aren't saying it was universal, we aren't saying tit was manditory, we aren't saying it's required, but we think it's a good and sound pattern we choose to embrace." Well, then, we have a whole other enchilada, don't we? And those with that view would have the identical problems with MennoSota that those of us with the historic view have (identical!) - but they've been persistently silent, thus condoning his view and apologetic? I'd reference the RCC's view on unmarried priests. The Latin Rite has that Tradition. It's kinda known for it. It has for about 1000 years now. It IS the embraces praxis of that church. BUT n0where does it proclaim it as dogma.... nowhere does it claim the Bible specifically teaches this.... nowhere does it lie and clam that has always been the practice (they ADMIT it never previously was the practice- truth is so refreshing)... but it believes there are things in the Bible that hint as to advantages to being unmarried that the Latin Rite Catholic Church thinks apply here. The RCC does NOT say that ordinations of those married are invalid or in any sense less.... it does NOT teach that if the ordain get's married that IN ANY WAY impacts their ordination. They even hold there can be unusal circumstances where it might be permitted. Nothing dogmatic.... nothing condemning.... just the embrace of a pattern they see .... the applications of some Scriptures they now hold are relevant to this....the decision that henceforth, in their own denomination, they'll embrace a certain PRAXIS. Ah. Whole other enchilada, lol. Now compare that to what Baptists generally state.... compare it to the theology of MennoSota that no Baptist here has challenged but instead suggested agreement. Friend, a brother an tell me, "We don't use a liturgical service, we prefer a simple contemporary service- we don't say you are heretical or unbiblical or invalid - we just embrace a different praxis we think is better." Can you see the difference between that and, "prove to me anyone used a liturgy in the NT!!!! What you do is heretical, false, UNbiblical, apostate, and invalid!"
- Josiah
There are some churches that have embraced the praxis of married female transgender “priestesses” performing same sex weddings in the name of Jesus Christ. Why is it wrong to condemn their praxis? It agrees with their theology and after a generation it will agree with their traditions. Does scripture specifically state “thou shall not have a transgender priestess” or “thou shall not marry two men or two women”?
Do we refuse to drive a car because the Bible shows no examples of driving a car? Then why criticize transgender priestesses?
The answer is that scripture does not use those exact words, but it clearly (to us if not to them) teaches against homosexuality and sexually aberrant lifestyles. So on the basis of OUR UNDERSTANDING of scripture, we claim that their “priestess” and “same sex marriages” are heretical, false, UNbiblical, apostate, and invalid.
With respect to baptizing those that have not “repented”, like infants, I am not responsible for what other people think. I can honestly say that from my Credobaptist perspective the practice is unbiblical and the baptism is probably invalid (God makes the official call on that), however it is DEFINITELY NOT heretical (it is actually orthodox with Credobaptism being heterodox), and NOT apostate. I left out “false” only because I can’t figure out how the word applies to the subject; only God decides what is a true and false baptism and that has more to do with God and the heart of the recipient than any human ceremony.
