If paedobaptism were taught...

[Josiah]

Credobaptists believe that one enters the Church, the Body of Christ, in exactly the same way as those 8 people entered the Ark.

Wrong thread, my freind.

And no one is saying that any are saved apart from the divine gift of faith.

 

[MennoSota]

Here's the position that you claim to reject and not believe, because, you claim, it's not taught in the Bible. HERE IT IS: "There is no stated prohibition to baptism specifically because of the AGE of the recipient." You claim thqt's NOT the case, so your position is that there IS a apecific stat4ed prohibition on baptism because of the AGE of the recipeint. Okay. Everyone understands But in over TWO YEARS, in only God knows in how many posts and threads (even threads having NOTHING to do with Baptism) you have not gotten around to quoting the verse where the Bible states, "Thou canst NOT baptize any who hath not yet attained the chronological age of X." So, this makes everyone wonder: why you do obsessively disagree with the historic position, that there is no verse that states that? How do you avoid that? By perpetually changing the topic and by just repeating your Anabaption Tradition - on and on and on and on.... over and over and voer and over.;... month after month.... in thread after thread (even if the thread has nothing to do with Baptism).


Again: The position you reject is this: There is no s0ecific teaching in the Bible that prohibits baptism because of AGE. You reject that. Then please do what MANY have been asking you do to for TWO SOLID YEARS, just quote the verse that teaches we ARE forbidden to baptize any who have not yet attained the age of (you won't say). Don't change the topic..... Don't pretend you don't understand or haven't read the question.







Again.... yet again.... still one MORE time (Staff, please,- please forgive me for the spamming).... as has been pointed out to you far too many times for any human to count..... to post AGAIN, there is no dogma of "Thou art mandated to baptize all before they attaineth the age of (we won't tell you)." That position doesn't exist. Anywhere. In any denomination. It never has. Anywhere. By anyone. The position is this: The Bible nowhere specifically teaches that we are forbidden to baptize anyone who has not yet attained a certain chronological age." THAT'S the position. I think you have done an excellent job of showing that to be the case. What you'd NOT done (yet anyway, not yet in two years) is present the verse where the Bible DOES state such a prohibition based on age;.


Sorry, staff. Please forgive me. I KNOW many, many have said this to MennoSota for over TWO SOLID YEARS now , so many times everyone has lost tract, in every way POSSIBLE. Everyone knows that.




.

The position I reject is baptizing people who are dead in their trespasses and sins, of which infants are dead in their trespasses and sins so it becomes improper to baptize them. Why? Because never is a person who is dead in their trespasses and sins baptized in scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

In 1 Peter 3, Peter goes out of his way to explain that he is not saying baptism regenerates and saves a person who is dead in his trespasses and sins. He recognizes that what he is saying is going to be misinterpreted by people who don't or can't understand his point.
The entire passage is about the judgment at the day of the Lord.

 

[atpollard]

.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

1 Peter 3:18-22 (English Standard Version)

18) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19) in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20) because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21) Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22) who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.


Which of those 8 people saved from the Flood did not believe God?
Which of those 8 people saved from the Flood did not climb aboard the Ark for themselves?
Which of those 8 people saved from the Flood was an infant saved because their parent believed God and carried them aboard the Ark?

Credobaptists believe that one enters the Church, the Body of Christ, in exactly the same way as those 8 people entered the Ark.
Are you sure that you do?

I've posted what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. I know what I believe and why.

 

[MennoSota]

I've posted what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. I know what I believe and why.

Of course you have.
Of course you do.
What you have not done is show any proof of paedobaptism in scripture. The reason is because that task is impossible. You must attempt to read paedobaptism into verses that do not specifically or even vaguely speak of paedobaptism.
I have responded to the verses you use in an attempt to make paedobaptism legitimate. I have shown how your interpretation of these verses is wildly off the mark as far as good hermeneutics is concerned.
I do not imagine you will change your belief. I do hope, however that others will recognize the lack of biblical support for paedobaptism and thus critically think through its implications for preaching the gospel.

 

[Lamb]

Of course you have.
Of course you do.
What you have not done is show any proof of paedobaptism in scripture. The reason is because that task is impossible. You must attempt to read paedobaptism into verses that do not specifically or even vaguely speak of paedobaptism.
I have responded to the verses you use in an attempt to make paedobaptism legitimate. I have shown how your interpretation of these verses is wildly off the mark as far as good hermeneutics is concerned.
I do not imagine you will change your belief. I do hope, however that others will recognize the lack of biblical support for paedobaptism and thus critically think through its implications for preaching the gospel.

Do you have anything new to add to the conversation? You've said the same thing repeatedly now in this thread to members without contributing anything new.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

Of course you have.
Of course you do.
What you have not done is show any proof of paedobaptism in scripture. The reason is because that task is impossible. You must attempt to read paedobaptism into verses that do not specifically or even vaguely speak of paedobaptism.
I have responded to the verses you use in an attempt to make paedobaptism legitimate. I have shown how your interpretation of these verses is wildly off the mark as far as good hermeneutics is concerned.
I do not imagine you will change your belief. I do hope, however that others will recognize the lack of biblical support for paedobaptism and thus critically think through its implications for preaching the gospel.

"What you have not done is show any proof of paedobaptism in scripture. The reason is because that task is impossible. You must attempt to read paedobaptism into verses that do not specifically or even vaguely speak of paedobaptism."

No, what must be done is to read Scripture as it is actually written. Acts 2:38-39 says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. You deny this is taught in Scripture. 1 Peter 3:21 also says Baptism forgives sins. Baptism is so important that Christ told his apostles in Matthew 28:19-20, to go to all the nations and baptize and teach the nations all He had taught the apostles. Are infants found in other nations? When Scripture speaks of the promise being for you and for your children, are infants considered children?

You seem to have this idea that when Lutherans baptize infants, that we then don't teach them the faith and that simply is not true. Infants hear the Law and Gospel of Christ proclaimed in the divine service, just like everyone else, because Lutherans don't separate children from their parents during the divine service to send them off to Sunday School or Teen Ministry. In our churches we learn as one united church body.

"I have responded to the verses you use in an attempt to make paedobaptism legitimate. I have shown how your interpretation of these verses is wildly off the mark as far as good hermeneutics is concerned."

God makes Baptism legitimate, not me. I am quoting His Word which says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit and I've shown you where it says this.

"I do not imagine you will change your belief. I do hope, however that others will recognize the lack of biblical support for paedobaptism and thus critically think through its implications for preaching the gospel."

The lack of Biblical support is on you and your position that Baptism is to be withheld from people who have not reached "the age of accountability", whenever that is, because on that point, Scripture is absolutely silent. Which you prove when you are asked to show Scriptural proof of this age, and you always say "no need," which really translates into, "I can't show Scriptural proof for any of the prohibitions I say are there, because Scripture doesn't support my position or actually say, what I say it does." Now if you would like to show us all where these prohibitions are in Scripture, I'm all eyes. Or will we all just read... "No need"?

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

.

 

[MennoSota]

Do you have anything new to add to the conversation? You've said the same thing repeatedly now in this thread to members without contributing anything new.

Lamm, do you or zec have any biblical support for paedobaptism that isn't you trying to force a square peg into a round hole?
Please admit that there is no biblical support for the practice and we can move on.

 

[Lamb]

Lamm, do you or zec have any biblical support for paedobaptism that isn't you trying to force a square peg into a round hole?
Please admit that there is no biblical support for the practice and we can move on.

Does this mean you are out of things to say now and you've used up all that you wanted to add to the thread? I've posted what I wanted to say in the earlier pages of the thread. You reject what is posted. It's not like I wish to keep going over what's been said repeatedly with you.

Do you have anything new to add?

 

[MennoSota]

"What you have not done is show any proof of paedobaptism in scripture. The reason is because that task is impossible. You must attempt to read paedobaptism into verses that do not specifically or even vaguely speak of paedobaptism."

No, what must be done is to read Scripture as it is actually written. Acts 2:38-39 says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. You deny this is taught in Scripture. 1 Peter 3:21 also says Baptism forgives sins. Baptism is so important that Christ told his apostles in Matthew 28:19-20, to go to all the nations and baptize and teach the nations all He had taught the apostles. Are infants found in other nations? When Scripture speaks of the promise being for you and for your children, are infants considered children?

You seem to have this idea that when Lutherans baptize infants, that we then don't teach them the faith and that simply is not true. Infants hear the Law and Gospel of Christ proclaimed in the divine service, just like everyone else, because Lutherans don't separate children from their parents during the divine service to send them off to Sunday School or Teen Ministry. In our churches we learn as one united church body.

"I have responded to the verses you use in an attempt to make paedobaptism legitimate. I have shown how your interpretation of these verses is wildly off the mark as far as good hermeneutics is concerned."

God makes Baptism legitimate, not me. I am quoting His Word which says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit and I've shown you where it says this.

"I do not imagine you will change your belief. I do hope, however that others will recognize the lack of biblical support for paedobaptism and thus critically think through its implications for preaching the gospel."

The lack of Biblical support is on you and your position that Baptism is to be withheld from people who have not reached "the age of accountability", whenever that is, because on that point, Scripture is absolutely silent. Which you prove when you are asked to show Scriptural proof of this age, and you always say "no need," which really translates into, "I can't show Scriptural proof for any of the prohibitions I say are there, because Scripture doesn't support my position or actually say, what I say it does." Now if you would like to show us all where these prohibitions are in Scripture, I'm all eyes. Or will we all just read... "No need"?

In all of your verses there is never one statement about infant baptism. Not in Acts 2, not in 2 Peter 3, not in any passage in the Bible. You are not interpreting the passage, you are interpolating the passage.
What does interpolate mean?
To insert (something of a different nature) into something else.
When you try to force infant baptism into the texts you cite, you interpolate your dogma into the text.
As long as you insist on this method of hermeneutics, we will not find agreement.

 

[MennoSota]

Does this mean you are out of things to say now and you've used up all that you wanted to add to the thread? I've posted what I wanted to say in the earlier pages of the thread. You reject what is posted. It's not like I wish to keep going over what's been said repeatedly with you.

Do you have anything new to add?

Does this mean you are admitting there is no biblical support for paedobaptism?

 

[Lamb]

In all of your verses there is never one statement about infant baptism. Not in Acts 2, not in 2 Peter 3, not in any passage in the Bible. You are not interpreting the passage, you are interpolating the passage.
What does interpolate mean?
To insert (something of a different nature) into something else.
When you try to force infant baptism into the texts you cite, you interpolate your dogma into the text.
As long as you insist on this method of hermeneutics, we will not find agreement.

You've already rejected the verses we've given to you. Do YOU have anything more to add?

 

[Lamb]

Does this mean you are admitting there is no biblical support for paedobaptism?

No, did you see me say something like that? I'm just thinking that maybe the conversation has come at an impasse since you reject what is provided and you have nothing new to add.

 

[zecryphon_nomdiv]

In all of your verses there is never one statement about infant baptism. Not in Acts 2, not in 2 Peter 3, not in any passage in the Bible. You are not interpreting the passage, you are interpolating the passage.
What does interpolate mean?
To insert (something of a different nature) into something else.
When you try to force infant baptism into the texts you cite, you interpolate your dogma into the text.
As long as you insist on this method of hermeneutics, we will not find agreement.

Infants are children. When God says that the promise is for you and your children, infants are included in that. Also, there is nothing to interpret in the verses I have cited where God says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit, because those statements are not metaphors or symbols. Yes, I know we will never agree, I knew that from your first post. So now that you know we will never agree on this, I hope we can stop the back and forth or does the thread need to be closed?

 

[MennoSota]

You've already rejected the verses we've given to you. Do YOU have anything more to add?

I don't reject the verses. I reject the interpolation you use to make the verse apply to infant baptism.
I have presented you with my interpretation of Acts 2:38 and 2 Peter 3. I have shown that the Greek does not connect baptism to forgiveness of sin in Acts 2. Peter instead connects repentance to forgiveness of sin...just as John does in 1 John 1:9.
I have shown that Peter is talking about the Day of the Lord and judgment in 2 Peter 3. He goes out of his way to correct the very error you are having.
John3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism. You just force it in by interpolating that water and spirit must mean baptism...which it doesn't.
So...no rejection of the verses. Just rejection of interpolation as a valid means of argument.

 

[MennoSota]

No, did you see me say something like that? I'm just thinking that maybe the conversation has come at an impasse since you reject what is provided and you have nothing new to add.

The conversation is at an impasse because you won't accept the poor job you are doing in providing biblical support. Stop interpolating scripture and accept you have no text to support infant baptism.

 

[MennoSota]

Infants are children. When God says that the promise is for you and your children, infants are included in that. Also, there is nothing to interpret in the verses I have cited where God says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit, because those statements are not metaphors or symbols. Yes, I know we will never agree, I knew that from your first post. So now that you know we will never agree on this, I hope we can stop the back and forth or does the thread need to be closed?

Again, you are forcing a text, out of context, to create your argument. That is interpolation.
Your argument is a man-made argument with no biblical support.

 

[MennoSota]

Infants are children. When God says that the promise is for you and your children, infants are included in that. Also, there is nothing to interpret in the verses I have cited where God says Baptism forgives sins and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit, because those statements are not metaphors or symbols. Yes, I know we will never agree, I knew that from your first post. So now that you know we will never agree on this, I hope we can stop the back and forth or does the thread need to be closed?

Infants are children, this is true. They are born with a corrupt nature that is in rebellion against God.
The promise is for the elect. Unless you can guarantee that the infant is elect, you cannot apply the promise to dead people.
The verse on repentance and baptism specifically has a Greek clause that connects repentance with forgiveness of sins, not baptism. This has been shown. So, no metaphors or symbols are needed. All that is needed is to rightly divide the word of God. Second, in no other passage is baptism even remotely connected to forgiveness of sins. When you find no other connection to your interpretation, it should be a huge red flag regarding your interpretation.
I knew you wouldn't agree when you first posted.