.
1. This thread is about one of the Anbaptists Traditions: That there is an AGE mandate/prohibition stated in Scripture about baptism. The historic view is NO, such does not exist. The Baptist Tradition is: Yes, there is.
2. There are
OTHER Anabaptist Traditions, other dogmas they invented that are at times found in modern Baptists (of various kinds). These include Credobaptism (there is a stated mandate that the recipient must first prove they are among the elect and/or have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior), Repentant Baptism (there is a stated mandate that first in chronological time the recipient must prove they are adequately repentant), Immersion Only Baptism (there is a stated mandate that the entirety of the recipients body must be immersed under water). They are DIFFERENT views, DIFFERENT dogmas, DIFFERENT Traditions - albeit from the same Anabaptists. Switching back and forth generally only serves to mean no one issue is ever resolved or even actually discussed, it only insures that we chew up MANY pages of posts accomplishing nothing.
3. Several of us have shared the historic view. My last attempt was here:
https://christianityhaven.com/showth...ive-on-Baptism I have done similarly before and at other websites. Never is there any discussion of such, rarely does any holding to some or all of the Anabaptists Traditions ever engaged in any discussion of this.
4. IMO, the only one of these Anabaptists Traditions that is a "slam dunk" is
this one, the one of this thread. This AGE mandate Tradition has been largely abandoned by modern Baptists because it is clearly, undeniably wrong. As Mennosota himself have proven - over and over and over again, for over two years now. But why won't any say "Actually, this AGE prohibition is not found in Scripture?" Because then they'd admit the Tradition they have been ranting about for years, in thread after thread (even in ones not about Baptism) is..... well.... wrong. And that would end the discussion (and the thread). This Tradition goes on (endlessly!!!!) because some won't say what they themselves have undeniably proven: it's not true. IF they said that, would we be on page 31? What has driven this to over 30 pages? Why the perpetual shifting of subjects? Why the constant, "I want to talk about some OTHER Tradition instead of this one... for a second, then it will be a different one...."
5. The
OTHER Anabaptist Traditions (the ones this thread is
not about) are issues not clearly "slam dunk" on
EITHER side. IF we accept Sola Scriptura.... IF we accept that historic, ecumenical consensus in hermeneutics of those Scriptures plays a role.... IF we proceed from a monergistic foundation - the historic view seems almost unavoidable and quite obvious - even if the words we find in the Bible don't 100% undeniably confirm such. IF we proceed with an individualistic approach to Scripture.... IF we proceed from a synergist foundation to theology.... if historic consensus is simply disregarded... the Anabaptist Traditions seem to become almost obvious, although IMO honest Baptists will admit the Bible never actually says what they do and no one for 1500 years held to their view. And of course, we have the whole issue of whether we are mandated to do only what we see practiced in the Bible, that rubric too comes into play. MUCH talking past each other happens because we bring very different "stuff" to the table.... and because, IMO, there is a lot of unexamined rhetoric that is just parroted endlessly. Until we have a clean and honest discussion.... deal with our various epistemologies, and put our "assumptions" on the table - nothing will be accomplished. Need proof? What page are we on here?
.
