If paedobaptism were taught...

[Josiah]

Infants are children, this is true.

THUS I find it absurd that you insist that Anti-Paedobaptism has "nothing to do with age." Your dogmatic position that "We cannot baptize infants" "has nothing to do with AGE." Sometimes I read your claims - and wonder why you state things you clearly don't believe is true.f If we wait, you yourself admit it.

Unless you can guarantee that the infant is elect, you cannot apply the promise to dead people.

Wrong thread. This one is about AGE. Try to stay on topic, my friend.


There is no way to prove someone is among the Elect. It cannot be done. ONLY GOD ever knows who is and is not the Elect.


IF you yourself held that we are limited to ministering to the Elect, then you'd also dogmatically forbid evangelism and all mission work, you'd have a security area outside your church so that no one who couldn't prove they were Elect could enter and thus be expose to the Gospel.


IF you argued, "We are not forbidden to baptize without knowing if the recipient is among the Elect, but it likely would have no consequence if the recipient is not" (similar to the uber-Calvinist position on teaching and mission work), I'd disagree with that, but your position would not be absurd and silly. But you don't make that argument; you just parrot the Anabaptist argument (they rejected the whole idea of the Elect). But I suspect you don't really hold to your own argument, because it woud imply Baptism DOES something, at least for the Elect. Why LIMIT it to the Elect if it does no more for them than for the non-elect?



.

 

[MennoSota]

THUS I find it absurd that you insist that Anti-Paedobaptism has "nothing to do with age." Your dogmatic position that "We cannot baptize infants" "has nothing to do with AGE." Sometimes I read your claims - and wonder why you state things you clearly don't believe is true.f If we wait, you yourself admit it.







Wrong thread. This one is about AGE. Try to stay on topic, my friend.


There is no way to prove someone is among the Elect. It cannot be done. ONLY GOD ever knows who is and is not the Elect.


IF you yourself held that we are limited to ministering to the Elect, then you'd also dogmatically forbid evangelism and all mission work, you'd have a security area outside your church so that no one who couldn't prove they were Elect could enter and thus be expose to the Gospel.


IF you argued, "We are not forbidden to baptize without knowing if the recipient is among the Elect, but it likely would have no consequence if the recipient is not" (similar to the uber-Calvinist position on teaching and mission work), I'd disagree with that, but your position would not be absurd and silly. But you don't make that argument; you just parrot the Anabaptist argument (they rejected the whole idea of the Elect). But I suspect you don't really hold to your own argument, because it woud imply Baptism DOES something, at least for the Elect. Why LIMIT it to the Elect if it does no more for them than for the non-elect?



.

Josiah, this is about paedobaptism and biblical evidence. It is you who won't address the topic.
So far there are three or four verses quoted of which none address paedobaptism. Do you have any verses beyond this?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, this is about paedobaptism and biblical evidence.

Right. Thus, the subject should not be hijacked to another Anabaptist Tradition, Credobaptism.


There are two camps:

Historic view: There are no stated prohibitions or mandates in the Bible (or anywhere else) regarding a specific chronological AGE vis-a-vis Baptism.
Anabaptist view: We are forbidden to baptize any under a never-specified AGE.



So far, no one has offered one verse that states this supposed dogmatic prohibition. Nor anything from anywhere until those Anabaptists invented that Tradition.

 

[MennoSota]

Right. Thus, the subject should not be hijacked to another Anabaptist Tradition, Credobaptism.


There are two camps:

Historic view: There are no stated prohibitions or mandates in the Bible (or anywhere else) regarding a specific chronological AGE vis-a-vis Baptism.
Anabaptist view: We are forbidden to baptize any under a never-specified AGE.



So far, no one has offered one verse that states this supposed dogmatic prohibition. Nor anything from anywhere until those Anabaptists invented that Tradition.

What scripture do you offer? No scripture... you're off topic.

 

[MennoSota]

Let's face the fact:
Paedobaptism is a tradition with no biblical basis. It is relies upon interpolation of scripture to establish a prooftext, out of context that props up a pretext.
If there were legitimate scripture all Christianity would support it.

 

[Josiah]

Let's face the factaedobaptism is a tradition with no biblical basis.

Not only is this false, but YOU YOURSELF have gone to enormous lengths for two solid years to prove so.

You can't find any verse that states mandates or prohibitions on baptism due to age, thus you prove the historic view correct: there are no Scriptures that mandate or prohibit baptism due to age.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Not only is this false, but YOU YOURSELF have gone to enormous lengths for two solid years to prove so.

You can't find any verse that states mandates or prohibitions on baptism due to age, thus you prove the historic view correct: there are no Scriptures that mandate or prohibit baptism due to age.



.

You say it is false, yet you have zero biblical evidence to support your claim.
Josiah, zero means not one. It is empty. It is void. Zero is the totality of verses showing paedobaptism.
Thus, since the Bible is completely silent on the practice, it must be asserted that the practice is extra-biblical, not intra-biblical. In other words, somebody, after the writing of the canon of scripture, started the practice. Someone, after the writing of the canon of scripture started the story that baptism is a means of salvation and attaining grace.
You can choose to believe in infant baptism. You just can't support its practice with the Bible.

 

[MennoSota]

Not only is this false, but YOU YOURSELF have gone to enormous lengths for two solid years to prove so.

You can't find any verse that states mandates or prohibitions on baptism due to age, thus you prove the historic view correct: there are no Scriptures that mandate or prohibit baptism due to age.



.

There is no need to find a prohibition on age. Since only people who repented were ever baptized, we see that the Apostles never once baptized unrepentant person's. This is fact, not fiction.
The argument that the Apostles baptized with no discernment and therefore baptized unrepentant sinners is pure speculation by proponents of paedobaptism.

 

[atpollard]

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

What leads you to believe that any of the infants you are baptizing have the divine gift of faith?

 

[Josiah]

What leads you to believe that any of the infants you are baptizing have the divine gift of faith?

Wrong thread.

 

[MennoSota]

Wrong thread.

Correct thread.

 

[Lamb]

What leads you to believe that any of the infants you are baptizing have the divine gift of faith?

Acts 2:38 states that those baptized receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Josiah]

Correct thread.

Obviously, you forgot the topic of the thread you started. It's about one, exclusive, singular, unique, focused topic: Whether the Bible teaches some prohibition on baptism due to AGE; is there a stated AGE restriction or requirement.

What I find you do is that when you have nothing to bring, you change the topic. In debate, this is called "The Shell Game." Got nothing? CHANGE THE TOPIC... got nothing on that either, CHANGE THE TOPIC.

Now, I realize, you have this ABSURD idea that "INFANT" has nothing to do with the age of a human, you've offered NOTHING to show that's true, but you do have that assumption. It's wrong. The word paedo in your parroted Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism refers to an AGE range of humans (sometimes anything under 20, at other times anything under 13 or so). PAEDO has nothing whatsoever to do with race, color, creed, nationality, hair color, shoe size, weight, language, words spoken, IQ, education, geography, or any of the other things you feel the need to discuss in stead of the singular topic you created this thread to talk about. Ah. When everyone (including you) realize you have NOTHING, you play "The Shall Game.




There are two positions:

HISTORIC: There is no stated prohibition or mandate in the Bible regarding Baptism specifically concerning AGE.
ANABAPTIST: We are dogmatically forbidden to baptize any under the never-disclosed age of X.

For two solid years, in thread after thread (even ones that have nothing to do with this issue), you have repeatedly proven the historic position to be correct.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Obviously, you forgot the topic of the thread you started. It's about one, exclusive, singular, unique, focused topic: Whether the Bible teaches some prohibition on baptism due to AGE; is there a stated AGE restriction or requirement.

What I find you do is that when you have nothing to bring, you change the topic. In debate, this is called "The Shell Game." Got nothing? CHANGE THE TOPIC... got nothing on that either, CHANGE THE TOPIC.

Now, I realize, you have this ABSURD idea that "INFANT" has nothing to do with the age of a human, you've offered NOTHING to show that's true, but you do have that assumption. It's wrong. The word paedo in your parroted Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism refers to an AGE range of humans (sometimes anything under 20, at other times anything under 13 or so). PAEDO has nothing whatsoever to do with race, color, creed, nationality, hair color, shoe size, weight, language, words spoken, IQ, education, geography, or any of the other things you feel the need to discuss in stead of the singular topic you created this thread to talk about. Ah. When everyone (including you) realize you have NOTHING, you play "The Shall Game.




There are two positions:

HISTORIC: There is no stated prohibition or mandate in the Bible regarding Baptism specifically concerning AGE.
ANABAPTIST: We are dogmatically forbidden to baptize any under the never-disclosed age of X.

For two solid years, in thread after thread (even ones that have nothing to do with this issue), you have repeatedly proven the historic position to be correct.





.

Josiah, wrong topic.
You need to show biblical evidence or stop derailing this thread. It is you who is not on topic.

 

[Josiah]

There are two positions:

HISTORIC: There is no stated prohibition or mandate in the Bible regarding Baptism specifically concerning AGE.
ANABAPTIST: We are dogmatically forbidden to baptize any under the never-disclosed age of X.

For two solid years, in thread after thread (even ones that have nothing to do with this issue), you have repeatedly proven the historic position to be correct.


.

You need to show biblical evidence

For two solid years, in thread after thread (even ones that have nothing to do with this issue), you have repeatedly proven the historic position to be correct.



.

 

[MennoSota]

For two solid years, in thread after thread (even ones that have nothing to do with this issue), you have repeatedly proven the historic position to be correct.



.

So...no biblical support? Thank you for admitting such...if that is actually what you are admitting.

 

[atpollard]

Wrong thread.

This is the Paedobaptism thread.
YOU posted:

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

So it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask:

What leads you to believe that any of the infants you are baptizing have the divine gift of faith?

Since you are adamant that you are not baptizing the “dead in their trespasses and sins” (as MennoSota likes to call them).
This is a Paedobaptism question. It has NOTHING to do with anti-paedobaptism (age restrictions) or Credobaptism (repenting before baptism).
Can you answer it or not?

 

[atpollard]

Acts 2:38 states that those baptized receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Does it really?
Would you please quote the WHOLE verse, because I seem to remember that there is a bit more to it than that.

However, setting that aside for the moment, let me ask for clarification on something. We Baptists believe that when someone receives the Holy Spirit, that means that they are saved and have moved from the “sinner” column to the “Saint” column. Do Lutherans believe the same?

If so, then are the babies saved when you baptize them and they receive the Holy Spirit?

 

[Lamb]

Does it really?
Would you please quote the WHOLE verse, because I seem to remember that there is a bit more to it than that.

However, setting that aside for the moment, let me ask for clarification on something. We Baptists believe that when someone receives the Holy Spirit, that means that they are saved and have moved from the “sinner” column to the “Saint” column. Do Lutherans believe the same?

If so, then are the babies saved when you baptize them and they receive the Holy Spirit?

You know the verse. How about the next one that says this promise is for you and your children?

Salvation is by grace through faith. Always. If someone receives the Holy Spirit he receives faith. Lutherans to not believe in once saved always saved because even those baptized at any age and receiving faith can turn away from God and damn themselves.

 

[MennoSota]

God chooses those who are the children of the promise.
Isaac could have baptized both kids as infants. God's choice in saving Jacob would still have happened and His rejection of Esau would still have happened.

Romans 9:6-13 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Acts 2:39 is then defined by the last part of the verse.

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
Salvation is not accomplished through water baptism. Saving grace is not meted out by water baptism. God's mind is not swayed by water baptism.

God supremely chooses. God supremely calls whom He chooses. God supremely saves whom He chooses. This is Peter's message in Acts 2 and it is Paul's message in Romans 9.
Let us keep the ordinance of water baptism in its proper place, below the supremacy of God, who does as He wills apart from any actions we do, either good or bad (by human standards of good and bad).